Newspapers / The Weekly Raleigh Register … / July 26, 1811, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Weekly Raleigh Register (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 , , I,, j ! 1 j 1 ihiii --- hiii mi" . u-u, ii i , i .. m. Miimmmmmtmmmmmmm- im -i""l u . -"J. 7"" - ' " ' tt Review of Mtl Smuh's Address. (COHTIXttD.) , AriicleVnd 6. -'Ncn intrreourie act cfthe last'tiessionr Mr. Smith Should have said non-import alien ctt He says it was introduced by .preskJcruial influ enct ; another ipse dixit of our random author, which, according. to the rule of evider.ee we hate already established, cannot be admitted Vithouf proof ; and be bas given none. , - x s But no matter f let us .examine the act upon its merits, with its attendant circumstances -This act was certainly a proper one If the French" government ma revcKeu lis cecrcesin airiciconiur rnity to the provisions of the former act pledging the U. States ; or if it tended moTe effectually to attain the object of Congress In that previous act. We know it had been the aim of our " jrovernmtnt for two or three years to divide the belligerents by inducing -one or the other of them to revoke its edicts, so that the example would lead to, a re vocation by the oihcr, or our contest be limited to a single one. And it. should be remarked tkat each of them had pro mised to be the second to revoke, but each ieemc4 unwilling 10 E"1" Accordirgly our law of ,May, 1810, of. ' fered to the power first revoking, a non importation against the other France then revoked, as'br her declaration of the 5th August. . The President's proc lamation in pursuance of the lav, pet the nonimportation in force against the o'her belligerent. Had France forfritcd her claim to this measure when Congress confirmed and enforced it by the act of the last session ? So Urts beleived or ascertained, she bad ruit. Mr. Smi'h knows that nrt evidence existed of a single act of the French go vernment or its courts, showing that the decrees were not repealed, so far a the tt peal was required by the offer or Con gress' and accepted by France. Doubts had indeed arisen as to the time the re pejd would take etTcct; whether the 1st i oi November or tne hrat ot reb y lol "lowing. Although even this was not admitted by France, yet there was room for question and discussion which might have embarrassed the execution of our laws. "Hence the expediency of settle ing the matter by a positive statute ; un less it would have been advisable to risk national honour by breaking a contract t on doubr ful ground, or to hum for a flaw on the other sTde to enable us to annul an arrangement (sought by Congress it self ina former law) producing, though three months later jhan had been first expected, the example of one bclligc rent to wield against to the other. It is said .by. Mr. Smith that the act for enforcing the arrangement departed f.om the arrangement. If it did so, jt was in relation not to the essence of the arrangement, but merely as to the time of its mutual execution. Anil we the public shall better understand the mat ter when the explanation which we per ceive was sent with the act, and which must have been at least signed by Mr. Smith,' shall come before us. It is a sorrowful truth (saysMr. Smitb)vthat the act did not provide for several obvious cases wherein our mer chants,! &c. ; Did he take any steps to cause such provision to be "introduced ? If his official squcamishness prevented him from even hinting the case to any member of Congress, yet, as he profes ses to be for open and direct recommen dation in all cases by the Executive, did he propose or hint any such provision to the Pesidrnti which his office v enabled him todo ( We must conclude that he did not ; because he bas given sufficient proofs that no official delicacy would have suppressed theboast of it which his vanity would have prompted. In this as in other instances, he contents bimselx with the merit of finding out fuiits.tvhen too late to amend them, and forsceing events after they have hap pened. -'' if ' Mark hi equivocations and evasions on the French repeal andthe President's; proclamAion.; If ther revocation did actuillf take place as, declared by. the proclarriatioBi tben itbecaroe a com k pact, Scc. ,cIf h$wever the emperor of the .French did not in fact revoke, as declared by". proclamation, the. act of May did not become axorcpacU" kc Wh thai ahrinkfrom an opinion whe ther the proclamation was legal and pro per or not? tit rain "woo Id :;be' safer, than Robert Smith in expressing one or -.3 - the oth er of these opihicinst fp he could cert linly fin d ' pie n ty of , p erson i yv ho could witness fits having, cwexiamcd ei ther orbplh of them, as the political ho rixon varied and the tide orparty set . Many ofour merchants and ship-mas- term nave tunerea ana.stui suncr very unjustly by French spoliations' -They cry out that: the Berlin and Milan de crees are rjot revoked ; and Mr Smith joins them In the clamor thereby con . founduig-ihe two maritime decrees with the municipal decree confiscating Ame rican prbperty which arrived in Frahce, which had not been . restored' nor pro mised to be restored. .'.This confusion of distinct and separate facts might be an honest mistake in them. - But Mr. Smith would not thank us for supposlngit so in him, since he 5eemVquite as anxious to be thought sagacious as to be thought hchesu i . . This subject deserves some develop? ment. ' . It has been the practice ofour govern ment to distinguish between belligerent maritime edicts viohtin our neutral rights, and edicts authorizing other de predations on the property of our citi zens. It has even admitted the distinc tionfor the time bciDg, between the re vocation of them as to the future, and indemnity for past spoliations commit ted under them. . They have also kept separate from these maiiiime orders and decrees other wrongs of various sorts arising some frominiquitous confisca tions on land some from acts rendered unlawful from their being insidious and ex post facto, and others uniting both charactcrs,be:r.g unlawful in themselves as well as Insidious. and retrospective. ' The French decree of March.; 1810, which committed such barbarous and extensive spoliations on bur commerce arriving in the ports of France, owes iis enormity and its turpitude chiefly to its being retrospective and ensnaring With a previous and sufficient notice the French government had a right Jo modify or forbid our commerce with France (no treaty restraining it) as it pleased. We might reproach the un friendliness of such an exercise of sove reignty. But we. could not in strictness arratiee such municipal spoliations un der the bead of violations ofour neutral rights, nor of consequence regard them as contemplated by the act of Congress defining' the ads whose revocation would satisfy the conditions of that act. In like manner, the British govern ment was chargeable with various ex- tensive depredations on American com? mcirce, which, besides being violations of our commercial rights on the high seas, were also ex post facto and insidi ous ; the more so in some instances as contradicting previous assurances What other character can be given to all the proclamation blockades, as com municated to our rriinisters,to take effect from the day of such communication ? So again in the case of the immense captures and confiscations in the year 1805, which kindled such ji flame thro' the United States and among all our po litical parties. In this instance the Bri tish government had regularly declared to Mr. King that colonial produce en tering our ports and paying duties might be saTely exported. This information had been duly published for the infor mation ofour merchants, and under the faith of it they proceeded on foreign voyages. No sooner, however, were they lulled to security and gone within the grasp ofvBritish cruisers and courts, than they became a prey to insidious and retrospective orders to the amount of many millions. What in this 'respect ; was the British order of the 7th January, 1807 ? On the 31st December preceding, ouf negotia tors there were told that some such mea sure must take place if the U Slates did not oppose the Berlin decree. Seven days after, out came the order forbid ding to our vessels the trade from one port of Europe to another thus retro spectively and insidiously, as well con trary to cur neutral rights, making prey ol aUiVesbels then out, or to go out be before a knowledge of the order could cross 1 he Atlantic- ., . " i Under this . proceeding it is well known thai great numbers were selrrd and sent into British ports. "It is Jrue that before they, were ip be liable condemnation a warning under ihe or der, was to be given ; but lj many ca ses a return 'home was 'equivalent to a total loss; and in all cases the great tho' parUaliosiraVthe; effect of the: rciro-J acuve.ana ensnaring ucaaure Tme olher injltanci may added, - In, Apiil, 1304 the British Minister, Mr. m crry, cpm municateq ip 4; our . govern ment'an . instruction trom his govern ment to the naval commanders and courts in the West Indies,, nottoxon sider anvblockade ol those islands as. existing, unless in respect of particular ports ; which majr be actually jnves(ed, and not then to capture vessels bound to such, ports, unless they shall hare been previously warned' not to enter thjrm.", , t : , r . On the,same day he communicated a blockade of the island uf Curracoa, with an assurance that " the blockade would be conducted cbnfiirmably to the above Instructions." ( The blockade Lwas not conducted according" to the rule laid down ; and every vessel bound to Cur racoa was captured by British cruizers and condemned by British courts Kot withstanding these extensive de predations.ot Great Britain, aggravated by the consideration lhat ihey were thus retrospective and ensnaring, the arrangement wi'h the British , minister Erskine was made without even fring ing them into the negotiation for the. repeal of the orders in council, much lessmaking indemnity for them a pre requisite, which the law would not in fact have authorised. In the late arrangement for the re peal of the French decree's, indemnity for the retrospective and insidious spo liations in France was "not therefore made a condition ; it was no more th?n what both law and impartiality required. In bringing the subject into the negotia tion and pressing it in the manner we have seen it done, the Executive gave the strongest proof of zeal and exertion for the rights of the nation and the in terests of the merchants ; and to make it a charge that more was not done, more even that the law justified is as absurd as it is unjust. In looking carefully over the extracts of the two letters of June 5, and July 5 to Gen. Armstrong (which we should take for granted were written by the Secretary himself if Mr. Smith hd not been Secretary) we perceive a struggle between an anxiety to extort from the occasion an indemnity for past wrongs and a security agair st fature ones, and a respect for the law as well-as for the rule of impartiality towards the iwo bel li gerenjs. Mr. Smith has not given us the se quel of these two inst uctiens to Gen. Armstrong. We may suppose there fore, especially from the date of the lat ter, which seems most poUtive in its language, that they were not received fn time to be used before the declaration of the repeal of the French decrees was made by the Duke of Cadorft on the 5th of August. That declaration was un derstood by Gen. Armstrong arid by out; Exfcutive to be a compliance with th conditions of the act of Congress and" binding as an arrange merit on both sides and was it to be set aside because it did not provide for the case of those rc trospective spoliations ? v To have done so would have contravened the law and thex policy of ongress ; it would setup a rule In the arrangement wither ranee different from what had been observed in the arrangement with England ; and it would have led tothe,embanassmeiu of obhViDg, the Executive, in. case the; British government Should be desirous of opening a free trade with the United! States by repealing; its orders, (o make it a prerequisite that Great Britain, also should indemnify for her retrospective spoliations; V While M-. Smith is dealing out his re trospective charges and insinuations, the question again occursDid he approye or.disapprove himself the proclamation of Nov. 2 which closed the arrangement without any provision for indemnity ? It is a question which can only puzzle.him in its result ; because, as aWeadyintimat ted, whether he tzysyes or or foth, be will have hhe merit of consiaency with what he has often said in society.; Much credit is claimed for the letter of June 1810 to Gen.' Armstrong;' &s irefiared" by Mr. Smithy but rejected by the President add replaced by a sub- J stitute dictated bv himself. This letter Is believed not Jo h'aveVenyritten.by lir OIUtlQ, QUI 11 U UCcuusjM " led tb the praise of being Well written as a calm argurnentaiive communication. There ire, however, particular passages and expressions which'may helpto ac c6iint Ibr its unfavorable; reception bjr Mr. IVfadrson.' : TaVe" for example the fqllowing Had Fiance interdicted to J a our vessels7 all the : Dorts i within the Jl sphere of h'cT Influence, ;anB had sr?e ?t givep a wzrVJng of equal duradon. with 7 iuaVKM: vy our iaw. mere ,wouia have been'n cause of complaint on- no'cituse of complaint ? ;TKe tJStatesj it is" true, couJd" riot-complain, of it a a yiblation of their ei tional sovereignty, obnoxious lb thevre scntirnerit of the other J?elligererit: but1 Jwould it be' consistent with frieridship,. with liberality ,Vith recipe the ?yirn yi common iHiercuurseamong ci vilized nations ' '-7". Compare this concession of Mr. SmitK with his letter to Gen. Turreau f equally prepared by ibis wonderful statesman) Mi wnica aucn an exclusion ot our trace. is complained of as essentially unfriend-, ly, as equivalent even to the two toari jime decrees, ahd M substituted for them as being a- change of the mode. " only and not of the measure " And it jis to be noted lhat all the observations in this letter were required by the last paragraph to be presented to the French government. ' . '"PA. ' But; the best explanation of the non- adoption of this letter by the President is its deficiency in the expression of that sensibility to the insults and injuries.' to which it relates', and which MrSmilh says he feels, whenever it suits his pur pose to insinuate that the President does not feel it. The letter substitutes pro lix argument for condensed arid digni fied ani m ad ve re ion . Th e reader; m u st recollect too that this letter was to fol low the one th3t had just been presented to the French government by General ; Armstrong on the same subject. It was of a character to diluteL the spirit of his strictures ; whereas the substitute. directed by the President, adopted the letter of Armstrong, and postponed far ther animadversions till farther intelli gence, daily expected, might aid in a- dopting f them to the actual state of things.- , rr 4 The last remark of Mr. Smith on this head is too frivolous for grave de- oate : 11 is mat me suosinutea nara- graph was intended for Mnr Armstrong himself. We all know, at least all bf us that are in the habit of reading print ed documents, that this is' the usual course. The government puts its own sentimcntsinto the hands of its minis ter, and leaves to hisjdiscretion.the man ner arid the occasion 'proper, for using them. ' : " Article' 7. Letter to-General Turreau, We cannot but think that Mr. Smith is unlucky in the choice of materials out of which he has framed his book: Sure ly, in the course of his two great y tars, he has done belter business than write or " prfpare'' such unguarded jlelters a this. Bv lavtne this letter before us now, he recals 16. our recollection the mischief it has done in furnishing to the British governrrient a pretext for per-, sistjng irr its orders in council. : That it had this effect in a great degree we all know from the clamor of the British partfzahs in America and from the court papers . in London ; arid he' as Secretary of State roust have been informed of this mischief through a more authentic channel. T' With what propriety cbuld Mr. Smith declare at,. substitution, of. municipal prohibitions for the. Berlin and Mlan de crees was a change of the . mode -only and not the measure ; when the muni iipal prohibitions related, simply to out J fraae mm prance, anq was a misuse 01 her own sovereignty, while? the decrees related to our trade with G. Britain and With all the world and was a violation of our sovereignly. - Ji he decrees Were an insufferable invasion - of our ! neutral rights', an acquiescence in whicb;Would justly: expose,us. to the. animadversions of other belligerents to whom they, Were injurious ; the municipal prohibitions, though , unfriendly to:us,: anatp be. re pelled by.negociation' oj ptherwise, as we should think fiu regarded u$v alone having nothing to do with Gv. Britain ;, they therefore could h6tvbecome'a.pre text for continuing ber orders in council- Mr Smith informs us that the Presi3 dent; would not sufierthis letter .topins: . nil ne inseneu some, clauses who a view to obviate the mischievous tendency a bove mentioned. . We can easily-point; out the passages- thus-inserted . by ;M r, . Madison, r Ve?bnly rtgretthatie had not written it all or sti'pDresWd itvall; The Ex-Secretary : complainsi vthat v he was o&en opposed, reined in and goaded oh by the President., An;amrhalitb1 longer ears: thanMf4 Smithi;btirs could j-be'speaktoi his master as he bndel did Would utter the same cbroplamt; Articfe?.-W)Wf Mri jSefruricr.li trueJtHef'expectatibn bririg;;; Whatstheoptect 0 iliiikit. a ' - bat were5 the tounaV regulations "as t& our tirade ith'Ffariceji 3., Whether hi?; waa'insti'Ucteo tb'giyVas;tinc"ea: or exp'anairoiis as 10 ui& cunuscauons un der the Rambbuillet idecree : v- ' I e spis pf ken piacebttw&eV hi i mjarid thje minis ter ; but dp(t; suggest thM wiyhin had passed thfereiTPtravlictu vocation ; it may be inferred therefore that Mr. Serrurier did" not' contradict it. Mr. rhitn stateai 'inpjriIacjB;' fla frillntuo . 4 frnrn'f ln infnrratrtrt 01 intelligence irom ninewromisTeE s -'VtJpa, f suited sqlicitboharrJvalVBu it J $4 j 1 Parisy'weould bpSjdiii IV from;im iexi fact wenad ah-ehrf in tcrruaf ones - mienoea w : De;; dumo . ; him-rV:IttwaIearpH 6bpxious ' dtc'reerlrerevoked1 2?,fe.fsi cei ved by$r?iiis '.! H the time of pissingvit' evident tcf my " rmnd .hat thel Berlkl; and Milanecrees nad not been revoked, ias had been le " clarebytheiprociamaii6n ) This lapasse - V. the eve of the adjournment of Congress. ; Why does not Mr.rSiili r thlflibrmatioiJ ya?,V ir6nvwhath rityahdwhen received llfe.Quld'KiVei Honeywell also to let us knojf to inoffe tnindtiestdes ornntiiwis evidentjinat; the decrees were riot! re vokecf i at jeast . sdfaras they entered fiiiotKe ustipri; ociwecn me u. oiaies ana vr. xiniain. . -,;; Theext Object, jtSf'mecatech. Serrurierkwas ther state themunici-.. hMMmM $al regulation ;6f trade. Herealso lie, is silent-as to wh at passed in the;confer- ; ence, aithbfjnhiaktter'um re'gulatiOs'e'ltjie tion to put in f force the non-importation against GreafBritatni A thatiTur- reau coulc ay : oh Tthe Isubiect was a! ready Uhdwn toon was'no reason to suppose that Serrffer' knewmofe'than TurreauX ;i;f T' y 'ijtbe last .bject lyas -lolearn ittr'-, Serrurier was instrifcted By his Jover4 ment fo say whether the Kamboutliet decree spoliations "wpufd.. be ,k'stoe'3 Mr5nth anlrrnvtbat theFihcpfglo- verhmef.t t did orTcially and; ibrmally communicate j through JVIr. Serrurjer its fixed detei'mina' ion not to restore '---J WhatT Officially ar fb ays s6'l firmitiiy 'k B'u'trMr Sirftti ' :?f&l fitr'Jays'xa I KEouyi;cA;tdf DKb fcTirta Mf Mir: t V will "hcivnvin ltt MJCH tHIJJG Mr..Smith r & Ithis i once ' by: supbosiner that he. might .bayrhunderato French MiniiterV jas tbeyere strariX ge'rs to eaclf other's vlanguage arid cbn versed through an inteVpreter. But even if ; this su pposed 'iioiucsctiadr'' passed; in eonyersaon tb'oUr'idejrstahdinof is alwaysobsiderdXasir unojicialy tyhy doef ;Mr.f Smit grave tofic or a printed fbooky which' he " v-.'TiM lanes uiicc monms 10 wricej euueavor to palm it phtbe public as a, thjng th'at uiu inc siarnp-oi a puDiic oocument, a wnucii oipiomauc j poie, received andvfiledihtHe ;theJDepannie.n;ofM: State ? Ariy-rsbn slich an assertion 'frph alperson who had-fflledtheLhi ce of Secretary of State, withpQt" knpwBfvbev was; woId naturallyT ahdis conclude thatuchdcbm1rowcaite ',' : zvJ iL' .a1 itk'i-.--'-'-'TW ii teM reauy pass anp pasa iirmis manner. 41- mathatjwa&his;- v-CTlV Uries;;hichbHherei1d tef hiraiseui tain that the French, mhsteri? snsnipr?. ansjwet lie..mieht givi it would be! per- mmea oy yongress o.nieriere;witii me ' n rfW i Jrr.. r,---i-i . S v-t, ''). miejnjigatiist, i Cni tca;tichse$endtw WM: iposti, and asJMrv Smith dpbbtless knev I :M m tli ml won-imDonaiion acriwim wnicnii naa -v v-r; 1 & k -noipu&la Supp4sef MrjSeirier 1faUial ihfc-g?M tibemnit madJ,vwoulov4t jhavecjjeeijr consistent rz,f &$ pactji$-& wla ! :Vt:aye,lns 1. 1 j - HI 1. KW n m i w n h-lTXs --M-l I '1 ' 1 "i w V- ? -ml y V I 1 . (, , ; 1: ; svi 111 I mm mi iP I'll . --mm .1 in f Pi! mm it : ' 'I'sXj v';'t f".
The Weekly Raleigh Register (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 26, 1811, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75