6G2 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1809. 



enemy. And France had undoubt- 

 edly the same right to exclude from 

 her dominions every species of Bri- 

 tish merchandize, which the United 

 States have exercised in forbidding 

 the importation of certain species. 

 Great Britain might be injured by 

 suchregulations;but America had no 

 more right to complain of that part 

 of thedecree, thanFrancehad toob- 

 ject to the American Non-importa- 

 tion Act. So far indeed as respects 

 the United States, they were placed 

 by the municipal part of thedecree 

 in the same situation, in relation to 

 France, in which they are placed in 

 their intercourse witli Great Britain 

 by the permanentlaws of that coun- 

 try. The French decree forbids 

 American vessels to import British 

 merchandize into France. The Bri- 

 tish Navigation Act forbids Ameri- 

 can vessels to import French mer- 

 chandize into England. But that 

 broad clause of the Berlin decree 

 which declared the British islands in 

 a state of blockade, though not fol- 

 lowed by regulations to that effect, 

 still threatened an intended opera- 

 tion on the high seas. This, if car- 

 ried into effect, would be a flagrant 

 violation of the neutral rights of the 

 United States, and as such they 

 would be bound to oppose it. The 

 minister of the United States at Pa- 

 ris immediatelyapplied for explana- 

 tion on that subject; and the French 

 minister of marine, on the 24th De- 

 cember, 1806, seven days before 

 the date of the above-mentioned 

 note of the British government, 

 stated in answer, that the decree 

 made no alteration in the regula- 

 tions then observed in France with 

 regard to neutral navigation, or to 

 the commercial convention of the 

 United States with France. That 

 the declaration of the British islands 



being in a state of blockade, did 

 not change the existing French laws 

 concerning maritime captures, and 

 that American vessels could not be 

 taken at sea for the mere reason of 

 their being going to or returning 

 from an English port. 



The execution of the decreecom* 

 ported for several months with those 

 explanations: several vesselswerear- 

 rested for having introduced articles 

 of English growth or manufacture, 

 and among them some which being 

 actually from England, and laden 

 with English colonial produce, had 

 entered with forged papers as if 

 coming from the United States. — 

 But no alteration of the first con- 

 struction given by the French go- 

 vernment took place until the month 

 of September, 1S07. The first con- 

 demnation on the principle that the 

 decree subjected neutral vessels to 

 capture on the high seas, was that 

 of the Horizon, on the 10th of Oc- 

 tober following. 



Prior to that time there could have 

 been no acquiescence in a decree 

 infringing the neutral rights of the 

 United States, because till that time 

 it wasexplained, and whatwas more 

 important, executed in such a man- 

 ner as not to infringe those rights, 

 because until then nosuch infraction 

 had taken place. The ministers of 

 the United States at London, at the 

 request of the British minister, com- 

 municated to him on the 18th of 

 October, 1807, the substance of 

 the explanations received, and of 

 the manner in which the decree was 

 executed. For they were at that 

 time ignorant of the change which 

 had taken place. 



It was on the 18th of September, 

 1807, that a new construction of the 

 decree took place ; an instruction 

 having on that day been transmitted 



to 



