STATE PAPERS. 



CGI 



and that tliese had not always been 

 I syccessful. But ihe measures which 

 fi a neutral nation may be supposed 

 I bound to take against the infractions 

 of its neutrality, must always bear a 

 certain proportion to the extent and 

 nature of the injury received, and 

 to the means of opposition. It can- 

 not certainly be pretended that a 

 hasty resort to war, should in every 

 such instance have become the du- 

 ty of America. Nor can the irre- 

 gularities of England, in declaring 

 in a state of blockade, a certain ex- 

 tent of coast, part of which was not, 

 and the whole of which could not, 

 even by her powerful navy, be ac- 

 tually invested and blockaded, be 

 pleaded in justification of that de- 

 cree, by which France, without an 

 eflScient fleet, pretends to announce 

 the blockade of the dominion of a 

 power which has the incontestible 

 command of the sea, and before no 

 port of which she can station a sin- 

 gle vessel. 



The Milan decree of 1807 can 

 still less rest for its defence on the 

 supposed acquiescence of theUnited 

 States in the British orders of the 

 preceding month, since thoseorders 

 which have not certainly been ac- 

 quiesced in, were not even known in 

 America at the date of the decree. 

 And it is proper here to add, that 

 the French have, particularly by the 

 sequestration of certain vessels in 

 their ports, and by burning our ships 

 on the high seas, gone even beyond 

 the tenor of their own extraordi- 

 nary edicts. 



Theailegationof an acquiescence 

 in the Berlin decree of November, 

 1806, by which alone the British 

 government pretends to justify the 

 orders in council, is equally unfound- 

 ed. In the note on that subject ad- 

 dressed on the 31st December, 



1806, by the British government to 

 the American ministers, after having 

 stated that " they could not believe 

 that the enemy would ever serious, 

 ly attempt to enforce such a sys- 

 tem," the following declaration is 

 expressly made, " If, however, the 

 enemy should carry these threatsin- 

 to execution, and if neutral nations, 

 contrary to all expectation, should 

 acquiesce in such usurpations, his 

 majesty might probably be compel- 

 led, however reluctantly, to retaliate 

 in his just defence, &c." The two 

 requisites necessaryinthe opinion of 

 Great Britain to justify retaliation, 

 are stated to be the execution of the 

 decree, and the acquiescence of neu- 

 tral nations. Yet, within eight days 

 after, and in the face of that decla- 

 ration, withoutwaitingfor ascertain- 

 ing either of those facts, the retali- 

 ating British order of January 7, 



1807, was issued, which, contrary 

 to the acknowledged law of nations, 

 subjected to capture, vessels of the 

 United States sailing from the port 

 of one belligerent to a port of ano- 

 ther belligerent. 



The United States in the mean- 

 while and without delay, had taken 

 the necessary steps to ascertain the 

 manner in which the French go^r 

 vernment intended to execute their 

 decree. 



That decree might be construed 

 merely as a municipal law, forbid- 

 ding theintroduction of British mer- 

 chandize, and the admission of ves- 

 sels coming from England. Under 

 that aspect, and if confined to that 

 object, the neutral rights of Ame- 

 rica were not afl'ected by its opera- 

 tion. 



A belligerent noay, without any 

 infraction of neutral rights, forbid 

 the admission into his ports of any 

 vessel coming from the ports of his 



enemy. 



