Newspapers / The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, … / Dec. 1, 1808, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
I i I J Vol. 13. V RALEIGH, (n. c.) THURSDAY, DECEMBER , SO. ' J . . jNT6,:,(J6i V V jWr. Madison t letter to Mr, Erakinef Concluded, B( ihg the case1 before us tojthis plain aj d equitable test - The French decree "of Nov. 1806, undertook to .declare the British isles. v io a state of blockade, to be enforced if yoiu pltase against the neutral commerce of the! United states on the-high seas, according to the faculty possessed for the purpose. s far as it was actually enforced, or an effect resulted trom an apprehension that it could ar.d would be enforcd, it was an injury to Great Britain, for which let it be supposed the United States. were answerable. On the other hand, asfarasit was not enforced, and evidently either would not er could not be enfoiced, na injury was experienced by Great Britain, and no remedy could lie against the United States. Now, sir," it was pretended that at the date of the first order issued in January, 1807, any injury had accrued to, or was apprehended by Great Britain from an execution of the French decree against the commerce pf the United Stetes, on the thea tre of their neutral rights. So far- from it, that the order stands self-condemaed a3 a mea sure VQf retaliation, by expressly stating that the fleets ofFraiice and her allies, instead of being abU to enforce the blockade ef the Bn. tish isles, were themselves confined to their own ports by the entire superiority cf the British navy: converting thus, by the strang est of reasonings, "the security of Great Bri tain against injury from the French decree, into -a title,, to commit injury on a neutral party. In-the November orders also, whilst it is admitted that the French decree could not be but imperfectly executed for want of means, it is asseried thrt the intention of the French decree ', and rjt the injury accruing from its operation through the commerce of the UnijecTKTates, is the scale by which the retaliating injury against them is to be measured.- Such aire the pretexts and Such the princi ples on which one great branch ot the lawful commerce of this country became a victim to the first British orders, and on w hich the last enl'ers are now sweeping fronythc ocean all its taost valuable remains. Against such an unprecedented system of Warfare on neutral rights and independence, 1 the common judgment and common feelings twmanKind. must torcfrer protest. 1 touch, sir, with reluctance the question en which of the belligerent sides thtinfasion of neutral rights had its origin. As the United Starts do not acquiesce in 'these invasions by tithe r, there could be no plea for involving tacm in the tontroversey. But as the Britisi orders have made the degree of France, dc daring, contraiy to the law of nations, th British islands in a state blockade, the imme diate : foundation of their destructive warfare on our commerce, it belongs to the subject to remindyour government of the illtgal inter rupti'Qns and spoliations suffered, previous to that decree by ' the neutral co'mrrietce of the United States , under the proceedings of Bri tish ciuizers and courts, and - for the most f it in const quence. of express 'orders of the government itself. Omitting proofs of inferior Bfej I refer to the 'extensive aggressions 6n tlie trade of the United -States', four.dv.-d on jhe 4lca of blockades, never legally established according to recognized definitions ; to the still ffiore extensive violations of our cbm .lacrre with ports of her enemies, not pre-, tentted to be in a state 'bf blocke ; and to tiie Biitish order rof couneif issued : near the tommencetnent of the fcxiking Van This crder, besides its general interposition against tiie established law of nations, is distinguish tel by a special ingredient,, violating that law asttxognised dy tht course of decisions in the British courts. , It subjects to capture and tende-.r.nation all neutral Vessels, jretumin g -Vrtli lawfuLcargoes, oti the- sole consiutra t)n, thtt they bad iti (heir outward voyage, fcpfjshcd contraband of war at a hostile per:. IF trve commerceof the United States could tlicrjfofe in any ease be reasona"u!y made the victim and the sport of. niutual charges and 'e;r; ouches between belligerent partus, with Jeec'r to the priority of their atrraessions on Tetitrul comrQefce, Great Britsin must look beyond the epoch she haschosen for illsgal ntr adversary, m support ot the allega which she founds her retaliating edicts iS'a'mit our commerce. -1 But the United States are o-iven to; under stand that the British government has, as a Jruof of it? indulgent and amicable disposition towards them, mitigated the, authorised rigor . It might have given to - its measures, bv certain exceptions peculiarly favorable to the ti-rnroercial interests" of the U. States, I Iorbear,'sir,vito einress all the emotions V.Sw1iich sych a language,' on such an oc casion, is calculated t inspire a nation which onnbtTTor a triomerit be unconscious of its rights, nor mistake for an alleviation'of wrongs tblaUohsrtp4V''fity.'of which ivjuia uc to assume uadges of hummatfons titpr worn hy an mdependeDt power. , fke first cf these induleencics is a com- wtisl intercourse with the dependencies of the ettf-faies of Great Britain, and it is con- ;: :- . ;4- - ; sidered as enhanced by.its being a delation in favor pf the United States' from the ancient and established principle of maritime law pro hibiting altogether "such an intercourse in time of war. 1 '. I -"'"r- . . "urely, ir, your govetnlnent in assuming ihis principle in such .terms in relation to the" U States, must hav forgotten their repeated and formal protests against it. as these are to be found in the; discussions and cornmuni cations of their rninisters at Loudon, as well as in explanations occasionally made on that subject to the British representatrve here But permit me to askrmore particularly, how it could have happenea that the principle i$; characterised as an ancient and established one. I put the qustionthe more freely, be cause it .jiasJneveT been denied that the prin ciple, as assei ted by.' youP government, was for the firsts time tntroduQed duriwg the war of 1756. It is in fact invariably rited and de scribed in all judicial and other fRcial transactions " as the rule of 1756." It can have no .pretension therefore to the title of an ancient rule. , But instead of being an established rule or principle, it is well known that Great Britain is the only nation that has acted upon, or o therwise given a sanction to it. Nay,'it is not even an established principle in the prac tice of Great Britain .herself. When first ap plied in thewor of 1756, the legality of a neutral trade with the enemy's colonies was not contested by it. In certain cases only 6f the colonial trade, the allegation was, that the presumjtive evidence arising from cir cumstances apjuinst the bona fide neutrality of the ownership, justified the condemnation as of eriemy's property. If the rule of con demnation was afterwards during the Nvaiv converted into the principle now' asstrled, it could not possibly' have been in operation in ils new shape more than a very few years. During the succeeding war of 1778, it is admitted by every British -authority that the principle was never brought into, operation. It may be regarded, in fact, as having been silently-abandoned ; "and within the period of war since its commencement in 1793, the manner in which the principle has been alternately ccntracjtedChd extended, explain-, ed, sometimes hf one wuyj sometimes in ano-1 thfer, rested vioij, this ' Inundation, now on that, is no secret to those who have attended to its history and progress in the- British or-' ders of council and the British courts of admi ralty. - ,v -With the exception, thereforeot a period, the last in modern times ffom w.hich authentic precedent of maritime law will be drawn, througheut which the United States; more in terested in the' question that any other nation, have uniformly cfembatted the innovation, the principle has not in the British tribunals been in operation for a longer ttrm than three, four or five years, whilst in no. others ha! it evsr made its appearance but CoTeteivc a decision protesting .against it. ' - . Such is the antiquity and such the aV.h rity of a principle, the deviatieris from which are held -6ut as so many favors consoling the United States" for -the wide spread d-. suuctioh of , theif legitimate corntnerce. Wirat must be said as to the other ex ceptions which seem to have been viewed as claims on the gratkuSe pf the United Siates Itis, an indultnce t them in carrying , on their trade with the Whole continent of Europe, to be ljtid under tin; necessity of going first to a British port, to accept a British license and to pay a tribute .to the. British Exchequer, as if we ha J "been reduced tp the culonial si tuation which once imposed these monpliz ing" restraints ? v ; What again must b; said as to Other fea tures which we See'blended oti. the face of these regulations ? If the policy1, of them be to subject an enemy to privations, why re channels opened fofa British trede with them, uhichare shut ;oT neutratirade ? If in ther cases, the re.;ij object be to adroit a heu: - tral trade with the ene.my, why; is it required that neutral vesselsshaHperform'tite ceremony of. passing through a British port, when it can have no imaginable effect but the known and inevitable one f prohibitjlig the admission of the trade into the port of destination ? . I will not ask: why a primary article of our productions and exports, cotton i wool? isT6 be distinguishett, irrits transit, by heay ,mv post hot imposed oii other articles, because it is fr&nkfy avowed, in your explanatipn of the orders, to'be intended as an encouragement to British manufactures, and a check to the rival ones of France? I suppress also, though without the same reason for.1t, the enquiry, why less rigorous restrictrictions ' arelappjied to the trade of the.Barbary powers ' than are -enforced against that of a nation, sucli as the r United tatesVand in relatipnv suchas have existed between theni and Great Britain I l cannot now ever pass wuuuuu ounce, iu tions purely domestic in both, and strictly analogous i ip principle to the . regulations inu. the commercial ,code of Great-Britain is made a caust of capture on the high seas, and of Condemnation in her maritime courts. . Ip the othar order, the sale of a merchant ship by a belligerent owner to a.neutral, altho a trans action as legal when fair, as a dealing iir any ovner arucie, is conacmnea oy a general rule, without anv.ato.rn of proof or of presumtiori, that the transfer in the particular case is frau dulent, and the property , therefore left in an enemy. v -4 In fine, sir, the President Sees in the edicts communicated by rou, facts'" assumedrwhlch did not exist,-principles asserted which never can be admitted ; andunder the name of re taliation, measures transcendmg the limits reconcileablc with the facts and the principles, as if both' were as correct as they are unfound ed. He sees moreover in tht modifications of this system, regulations violating equally bur neutjral rights Scom; national sovereignty. He persuades himself therefore that your govern, meat, will see in the justice of the observations now made in addition to those I had the honor verbally to state to you in the. first instance, that the United" States are well warranted in looking for a speedy revocation of a system which is every day augmenting the mass of injury for which the United States, have the best of chinas to redress. I have the honor, Sec JAMES MADISON. Hofi. David M, Erskine, WV. Mr. Madison's Letters to Gen ARM STRONG. ' Mr. Ma:'! son, ,Secretarif of S'ate, to General Armstrong, Minister filcTitjiotentiary of the Unttrd States, at faris, (Extract,) Department ef Srjrti. The two last letters received 'from youAyere of December 24, 'tnd Jamtnry 16. T:y . 4i The decree of 'November 2l, communi cated in .the first, had previously reached us, ,and had excited apprehensions which were repressed only by the inarticulate import of its articles, antk the presumption that it ivould be executed in a .sense not inconsistent, with the respect due the treaty between France and the United.. States. The explanations given you by the minister of marine, were seen by the President with much pleasure, and it only remains to learn that they have been confiimed by the express authority of the cmpcMor. We are the more anxious for' this. information, as k will jtbrtify the remort-? strances which luve been presented at Loiidon, against the British order of January 7th. Should it, contrary to expectation, turn out that the French decree-was meant, and is to operate, according to the latitude of Us terms,, your will of coiirse have made the proper re presentations, grounded as vell on the prin ciples til puGlic law, as on the ex pressed stipu lations of the Convention of 1 80 Nb'thing be sides, could be more preposteious, than to blend with an appeal to neutral rights nd neutral nations, a gross infraction on the for mer ancf'oUtrage on the sentiment of the fat ter ; unless it be to invite a species of contest on the high seas, in whichthe- adversary has cyery possible? advantage Baton the more probable supposition, that the.decree will not be unfavorably" expounded, it will be still ne cessjrry-to press en the French government a' dispatch of-iSch orders to their ruizers in every quartet?, as. will prevent a construction of the dree favorable to their cupidity. The moment your letter was received, the answer of the French minister of marine to your note wa communicated to General Turreau, With a call on him'. to transmit it immediately' to the French governors in the Vest Indies. This he.rea'dity engaged to do. But hot with standing this precaution, there are proofs that West Indian privateers have, under color .of th edict, Committed depredations which will constitute just claims of redress from their go vernment. ' u " MrTErving has Torwarded VspanTshrde- cree also, avowey ptu suing the example ami' the views of the rrench eraperor I he terms. of this decree, are even more vague,, or rather. more broad, than those of the prototype ; aTjdT if :not speedily recalled or Corrected,' will vov or enforce a rneaning' Ja c!ccre f o NT9v- 1 fc06,' in relation to the United ;fitates extending1' its purview, btyond the municipil limits, it could not in africtnessbe regarded is an infraction either of bur neutral or ton tentional rights' ; "and consequently . did hot authorise mor?, than a demand; of seasobi)le axplanations of its doubtful Import, or friend ly expostnlations vith respect tQ c ngof and siJdenfies3. of its Innovations. " ' ' ' The case is now ' cs8cntiaU-fr(ian'ir! construction f the' decree is avotired and x ecuted. which violates as-well ' the positive stipulatibnsof the convehtlbhtf Sept. SOlh 1800, as the ihcontestible principles of public law : and the President charges you to super add to whatever representations you' may have previously made, a formal remonstrance in such terms as may be best calculated ei ther to obtain a retal of the illegal nfcasure so far aS it relates to the United States or ,to have the effect' of leaving in fuH orqe all the right's accruing to them frbin a failure, to do so. . : . That the Execution of local laws against foreign nations on the high seas'' is a violation of the rights of the former arid 'the freedom of the latter;; will probably not be, questioned. A contrary , principle would in fact imply, the same exclusive dominion over the entire ocean,' as is enj"yed within the limits of the local sbvereigty, and a degradation of every other nation from its common rights and , qua! rank. v' .' K. If it be contended that the decree, as a re taljation on the other belligerent, at ?he ek- . pence of neutral nations,! jtvstifitd by Scul pisbfe acquiescence in the prior measures' of that belligerent, operating through neutrals, you will be able to deny such acquiescence, and to urge moreover that, On every supposi tion, the retaliating measures conld .not be just ly infofced,, in rtl:4i-icntd neutrals, without al low ing them at leastaeasonable jmef9rL chusing between due mevsures against th4 the two last of the orders. In ens; of them, a certificate. o the local ofigin of a cargo, al tha' perrnif ecr in. the port of departure and Tequired- in the port of destination, by regula- (lohutless extend the scene of spoliations hlrea- dy. begun; m that quarter ; and .of course, thicken tii? cloud that haugs ver the amity of the two nations." . v 1 , : i - Extract of a letter from Mr. Madison to Gen. - :' '. 3 drmstrongi . : ( ." v VDepartment or State, ; ; .)' Ffbfuary 'Bth 1808; : i w Your icttcrt and communications by Df Bullus" were duly djelivered on the -1 4th day of Oecember. The same conveyance brought prior wrbng, and an iacquisescencci in both. J he Copy of the representations to the Bri tish government, through its'ministers here, on .the subject ofitsortlers in January, 1 807" will at oftce disprove an acquiescence on the part of the United States,' an explain the j grounds on which the late extension of the French decree of. November 1 806, is an ob ject of just rtmoTiistraiice. " ' , The conduct of th4 'French government, irl giving this extended operation to its decree' and indeed in isisuing one with' such an appa rent or doubtfuL import against the fight a of the sea, is the more extraordinaryi inasmuch as the inability to enforce it on that elemen; exhibited the measure in the light of an emp ty menace, at the same time that it. afforded pretexts to her enemy for severe retaliations, for w.hich ample meaiis TaFe. found in herna al superiority. .7 ; The accun)u!aterf dangers, to which the il legal proceedings of the belligerent nations have sti1 -jt-cted the commerce and navigation of the United States, htave at length induced Congress ic r.sriit to. an embargo on out'-. own vessels as a measure best fitted for the crisis, being an effectual security for ur mer cantile property and mariners, now. at; home . and daily arriving, and, at the . sp me-time, neither a rrurastlre not 'yist cause of war. Co pies -of this act were soon after itsxpassogej transmittedio Mr. Pinkney, with, an autho rity to assure:. the British government, lhat.it was to e' viewed in this light, and that it was not meant to be the slightest impediment to amicable m-gociations j withToreignf govern ments. He was requested tt avail Jmsfclf oran opportunity of coramunicating to your and Mr Frvingthis view of the subiectL-and - ,1. hope that you will have beeh thence ena bled to pieseut it to the French governmeiit Not relying however, on that indirect oppor tunity, I send by this another vfepy of ihc act, with an instruction from the President, ithat you niake it the subject of such explanations'" ' as will guard against any misconception of the polky which led to it It is strictly a mcaeure of precaution, required by the dan gers incident to External commence, and, be- f ing indbciiminate in its r terms ahd operation miuvaiiis uuuiuiuns, can give no jusi ownceto - aiy. The duration of the aa is not fixed' by itself; and will consequently depend on a. conrinuation or ! cessation of .its causes, in a '" degieir'Aufncient In the judgment of'the le gislature, to induce or forbid its repeal, li may be hoped that the inconveniences felt' from it by the belligerent, nations may lead to a chang ;ofhe conduct which imposed the inconveniewrts of it on ourselves. f France ,hersell willbe 'a sufferer, and 4omt?pfher al lies far more so. . It will be very agreeable -to"7T find in that consideraUon, and sfiU more iu V her sense of justice, a sufficient mctive to t an early manifestation of' theejpecf due fa our commercial ngnis. -i i.c cxasraue wouiq Very unwarrantable i,i novation, contained in j zan, giving a Judicial effect to the$ decree of Nov. 2 1st 18U6, as expounded in the answer of Mr. Cmpagny to your letter of the 12th Wliilit the French government, did not a- a copy oT the sentence pronounced' by the FrencnHpfi'w court In the case of the ' Hori-Hwr worthy of the professions which she makes to the world Sn thissuH- ct. - February i 8. .S'rocelhc abote va? tvrit ten; I hate been .Under a degree of indispb sitloQ "whicli has suspended the propesed toil-; tinuatioaofir, aud whihnow will oblige ret- .1 7?
The Raleigh Minerva (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Dec. 1, 1808, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75