The constitutionalist — Exeter, N.H., 1810-07-02 00:00:00, page 1

* This mode will have the advantage
of trying the sincerity of the overtures
made by him, and perhaps of drawing
from him the precise terms on which
his master will accommodate. - If these
be such as we ought to accept, weshall
have a treaty, in which neither our
rights nor our wrongs will be forgot
ten ; if otherwise, there will be enough,
both of time and occasion, to do justice
to their policy and ^r own, by a free
z examination of each. I have the hon
or to se, Sir, with very great respect,
your most obedient and very humble
servant.
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG.
$ Jlon. Robert Smith.
Extract of a letter to the same from
the same.
March 10. I have at length re
ceived a verbal message in answer to
my note of the 21st ult. It was from
the Minister of foreign relations, and
in the following words ; " His Majes
ty has decided to sell the American
property seized in Spain, but the money
arising therefrom, shall remain in de
pot." This message has given occa
sion to a letter from me marked No. 22.
No. 22. Paris, 10th March, 1810.
Sin—l had yesterday the honor of
'' receiving a verbal message from your
excellency, stating that "his majesty
had decided, that the American proper
ty seized in the ports of Spain, should
be sold, but that the money arising
therefrom should remain in depot,"
- On receiving this information, two
questions suggested themselves—
-Ist. Whether this decision was; or
was not, extended to ships as well as
to cargoes ? and
2d. Whether the money arising from
the sales which might be piade under
it, would or would not, be subject to
the issue of the pending negotiation ?
The gentleman charged with the de
'„ Jivery of your message not having been
instructed to answer these questions, it
becomes my duty to present them to
your excellency, and to request a soiu
tijiicf them, less a duty,
Official Correspondence.
f^ c ^ ^^n ^^7o^- rf adr^s.^
[B° The despatches from Mr. Pinck
ney are of very little consequence,
relating merely to some explana
tions respecting the blockade prior
to the date of the French Berlin
decree.] Cent.
DESPATCHES from Mr. ARMSTRONG.
Gen. Armstrong to the Duke,of Cadore.
Paris, list Feb. 1810.
" The Minister Plenipotentiary of
the U. States has the honor to submit
to His Excellency the Dulce of Cadore
the copy of a letter this instant receiv
ed from Bayonne, and begs from him
an explanation of the circumstances
mentioned in it.
“ The Ministerial despatch udder
date of the sth instant, is Arrived at St.
Sebastian, bearing an order for the
immediate transportation, in small ves
sels, of all the sequestered American
cargoes, to Bayonne, to be placed in
the Custom-House there. This news
is public at St. Sebastian; but what is
not so as yet, is, that the same-order
says
" Ist. That these cargoes are to be
sent to Bayonne, whether the com
modities of which they are composed
may come from English commerce or
from the produce of the soil of the
U. States.
" 2dly. That they should be sent to
the Custom-house of that place to be
sold there.", -
" The Minister Plenipotentiary of
fers to His Excellency the assurances of
his high considerations
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG."
Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Smith.
Paris, Sth Feb. 1810.
Sir—l wrote a few lines to you yes
terday announcing the receipt and
transmission of a copy of,the Duke of
Cadore's note to me of the 14th inst.
After much serious reflection I have
thought it best to forbear all notice at
present of the errors, as well of fact as
of argument, which may be found in
the introductory part of that note ; to
take the Minister at his word ; to en
ter at once upon the proposed negoci
ation, and, for this purpose, to offer
to him a project for renewing the con
vention of 1800.
THE CONSTITUTIONALIST.
——————— —=^^
AGAINST THE INSIDIOUS WILES OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE, THE JEALOUSY OF A FREE PEOPLE, OUGHT TO BE CONSTANTLY AWAKE Washington.
Vol. I.] EXETER, (N.H,) MONDAY, JULY 2, 1810. . ' ~ [No. 7. *
==^—=——==————====== ~======t== B= M^ttmraßttaraßnimmCTtttm=ratßirat=fo=====—Z====Z =^=^*^fe =±————— —- ; A
on my part, to examine the ground on
which his majesty has been pleased to
taVc%f%^M % which ruddersiahd'
to be that of reprisal, suggested for
the first time in the note you did me
the honor to write to me on the 14'a
ult, In the4th paragraph of this note,
it is said, that " his majesty could not
have calculated on the measures taken
by the United States, who, having no
grounds of complaint against France,
having comprised her in their act, of
exclusion, and since the month of May
last have prohibited the entry into their
ports of French vessels, by subjecting
them to confiscation."
It is true that the United States have
since the 20th of May last forbidden
the entry of French vessels into their
harbours —and it is also true that the
penalty of confiscation attaches to the
violation of this law. But in what re
spect does this offend France? Will
she refuse to us the right of regulating
commerce within our own ports ? Or
will she deny that the law in question
is a regulation merely municipal? Ex
amine it botSas to object and means ;
what does it more than forbid Ameri
can ships from going into the ports of
France, and French ships from com
ing into those of the United States ?
And why this prohibition? To avoid
injury and insult ; to escape that law
lessness which, is declared to be " a
forced consequence of the decrees of
the British council." If then its Ob
ject be purely defensive, what are its
means? Simply a law, previously and
generally promulgated, operating sole
ly within the territory of the U. States,
and punishing alike the infractors of it,
whether citizens of the said States, or
others. And what is this but the ex
ercise of a right, common to all nations,
of excluding at their will foreign com
merce, and of enforcing that exclusion ?
Can this be deemed a wrong to France ?
Can this be regarded as a legitimate
cause of reprisal on the part of a pow
er who makes it the first duty of na
tions to defend their sovereignty, and
who even denationalizes the ships of
of those who will not subscribe to the
opinion.
But it has been said that the " U.
States had nothing to complain of a
gainst France."
Was the capture and condemnation
of a ship, driven on the shores of France
by stress of Weather and the perils of
the sea—nothing ? Was the seizure and
sequestration of many cargoes brought
to France in ships violating no law
and admitted to regular entry at the
imperial custom house—nothing ? Was
the violation of our maritime rights,
consecrated as they have been by the
solemn forms of a public treaty —noth-
ing ? In a word, was it nothing that
our ships were burnt on the high seas,
without other offence than that of be
longing to the United States ; or other
apology than was to be found in the
enhanced safety of the perpetrator?
Surely if it be the duty of the United
States to resent the theoretical usurpa
tion of the British orders of No
vember, 1807, it cannot be less their
duty to Complain of the daily outrages
on the part of France! It is indeed
true, that were the people of the U.
States destitute of policy, of honor,
and of energy (as has been insinuated)
they might have adopted a system of
discrimination between the two great
belligerents ; they ,might have drawn
imaginary lines between the first and
second aggressor, they might have re
sented in the one a conduct to which
they tamely submitted in the other,
and in this way havepatched up a com
promise between honor and interest,
equally weak and disgraceful. But
such was not the course they pursued,
and it is, perhaps, a necessary conse
quence of the justice of their measures,
that they are at this day an independent
nation.' But I will not press this part
of my subject ; it would be affrontful
to your Excellency (knowing as you
do Uiat there are not less than one
hundred American ships within his Ma
jesty's possession, or that of his allies)
to multiply proofs that the U. S. have
grounds of complaint against France.
My attention is necessarily called to
another part of the same paragraph,
which immediately follows the quota
tion already made. “As soon (sags
your Excellency) as his Majesty was
informed of this measure (the non-in
terqourse law) it became his duty to
retaliate upon the American vessels,
not only within bis own territories,
but also within the countries under his
influence. In the ports of Holland,
Spain, Italy and Naples, the Amerh
can vessels havtyi&^e+zed, because
% Americans ' rsle^ed French'
'vessels."
These remarks divide themselves in
to the following heads :—
Ist. The right of his Majesty to seize
and confiscate American vessels within
his own territories.
2d. The right to do so Within the
territories of his allies ; and,
3d. The reason of that riglft, viz.—
"because Americans had seized
French vessels."
The first of these subjects has been
already examined, and the second must
be decided like the first, since his Ma
jesty's right within the limits of his
ally cannot be greater than within his
own. If then it has been shewn that
the non-intercourse law was merely
defensive in its object; that it was but
intended to guard against that state of
violence which unhappily prevailed ;
that it was restricted in its operation
to the territory of the United States,
and that it was duly promulgated there
and in Europe before execution.—-It
will be almost unnecessary to repeat,
that a law of such description cannot
authorise a measure of reprisal, equal
ly sudden and silent in its enactment
and application, founded on no previ
ous wrong, productive of no previous
complaint, and operating beyond the
limits of his majesty's territories, and
within those of sovereigns, who had
even invited the commerce of the U.
States to their ports.
It is therefore, the third subject on
yl, the reason of the right, which re
mains to be examined; and with re
gard to it I may observe, that if the
alledged fact which forms this reason
be unfounded^ the reason itself fails
and the right with it. In this view Os
the business I may be permitted to in
quire, when and where any seizure of
a French vessel has taken place under
the non-intercourse law? and at the
same time to express my firm persua
tion that no such seizure has been made;
a persuasion founded alike on the si
lence of the.government, and of the
journals of the country, and still more
on the positive declaratidn of several
well informed and respectable persons,
who have left America as late as the
26th of December last. My conclu
sio'u, therefore, is, that no French ves
sel having violated the law, no seizure
of such vessel has occurred, and that
the report which has reached Paris, is
probably founded on a circumstance
altogether unconnected with the non
intercourse law or its operation.
Though far from wishing to prolong
this letter, I cannot close it without re
marking the great and sudden change
wrought in his Majesty's sentiments
with regard to the defensive system a
dopted by the United States. The law,
which is now believed to furnish ground
for reprisal, was first communicated to
his Majesty in June or July last, and
certainly did not then excite suspicion
or feeling unfriendly to the American
government. Far from this, its com
munication was immediately followed
by overtures of accommodation, which,
though productive of no positive ar
rangement, did not make matters worse
than they found them.
On the 22d of August last, I was
honored withi full exposition of the
views and principles which hadgovern
cd, and which would continue to gov
ern his Majesty's policy in relation to •
the United Spates, and in this we do
not find the slightest trace of complaipt
against the provisions of the law in
question.
At a period later than the 22( lof
August, an American ship destined to
a port in Spain, was captured by a
French privateer. An appeal was
made to his. Majesty's minister of war,
who, having submitted the case, receiv
ed orders to liberate all American ves
sels destined to Spanish ports which
had not violated the imperial decrees.
Another American ship, at a point
of time still later than the capture of
the precedeing, was brought into the
port of Bayonne, but&fo,g violated
no Jaw of his Majesty, was acquit
ted by his council of prizes ; and
lastly—
In the long conversation I had ,the
honor of holding with your Excellency
on the 25th of January, no idea of
reprisal was maintained by you nor
suspected by me; baton the contrary,
in speaking of the seizure of American
property in Spain, you expressly de
clared, that it was not a confiscation.
Can proofs be more conclusive, that
fromMhe first promulgation of the lawl
down to the 25th of January last noth
Paris, 7th April, 1810.
" The Emperor left Paris two days
ago for St. Cloud, whence he goes to
Compeigne, where he will remain till
Easter. It is not probable that I shall
have an answer to my propositions till
he returns to Paris. The day before
he set out he gave me a ship to carry
myself and family to the United States.
The minister recommended that Tshbuld
not pin myself down to a day as to de
parture, as circumstances might make
it proper for me to stay somewhat
longer than I now intended.
The treaty between France and Hol
land was ratified the 30th March, and
will be published this day in Holland.
I am assured that it contains the fol
lowing article :±
'' Toutes les merchandises renues
sur les batimens Americains entres
dans les ports de la Hollande depuis
le ler Janvier, 180^ seront mis sous le
sequestre et appartriendront ado
France pour en disposer selon les cir
constances et les relations politiques
avec les Etats Unis.'* You will see
by the copy inclosed of a decree of
the King of Naples, that he has put
his gains beyond the reach of negotia
tion. The ports of Prussia are opened
to our commerce; Avoid both Prussia
and Denmark till you have further as
surances."
* " All the merchandizes conveyed
into the ports of Holland, on board
American vessels, since the first day
of January, 1809, shall be put under
sequestration, subject to the disposi
tion of France, according to circum
stances, and the political relations
with the. United States."
Naples, March 12, ,1810.
Joachim Napoleon, King of the Two
Sicilies, has decreed and does decree
that which follows .•—
Art. 1. In conformity to the orders
which we have given from Paris the
21st of December, 1809, we declare
confiscated the American vessels whose
names are subjoined ; that isto say,
The Augustus, Hercules, Zephyr,
Sopfe, Romp, Two Betseys, Kite,
Sukqy and Betsey, Mary, Captain
Derby, Syren, Emily, Capt. Water
man, Francis, Hound, Pe^ce, Victory,
Dove, Urania, Fortune, William,,
Nancy, Maria, Hamilton, Phoenix,
Ousitonack, Rose and Mary, Orozin)-
bo, Amherst, Mary-Ann, Louisiana,
and the John. ; #
Art. 2. Such of the cargoes of the
ing in the thro of reprisal ^ ascou-
Umptited by his Majesty?'
What circumstance may have since
occurred to produce a change in his
opinion, I know not; but the confi
dence I feel in the operand loyal pol
icy of his Majesty, altogether excludes
the idea, that the rule was merely found
for the occasion, and made to justify
seizures, not otherwise justifiable.
I pray your Excellency to accept, &c.
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG.
His Excellency the Duke of Cadore,
Minister of Exterior Relations.
Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Smith.
Paris, 4th April, 1810.
After seven weeks detention in Eng
land, the John Adams has at length
got back to France. She arrived in
the Roads of Havre on the 28th ult.
I informed Mr, Champagny, Ist.
that Mr. Pinkney had not been able
to send by this conveyance the result
of his application to the British gov
ernment concerning the blockades of
France prior to the Berlin decree, but#
that he hoped to be able to send it in
a few days by another conveyance ;
and 2d, thaf if he (Mr. Champagny)
had any thing to communicate which
would have the effect of changing the
present relations of the two countries,
and which he wished to be early
known to the government of the United
States, he would do well to let me
know it within 24 hours, as the mes
senger would leave Paris within that
time. To this message I received from
him the following answer : That " for
some days past nothing in the nature of
business and unconnected With the mar
riage of the Emperor could be transact
ed; and that for some days to come the
same cause of delay would continue to
operate ; that my letters were still be
fore the Emperor, and that he would 1
seize the first moment to get some de
cision in relation to them." Thus you
see every thing is yet in air.
Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Smith.
Gen. Armstrong to the Duke ofCadore-
Paris, March 20, 1810.
Sir—The United States, wishing to
fulfil their engagement to the holders;
of their public debt in Holland, but
unable from the present state of com
merce to do so by the ordinary mode
of remitting bills of exchange, found it
necessary to enter into contracts with
certain merchants of the said states, to
make a remittance in tobacco. A car
go of this article was accordingly put
on board of the American ship Hero,
and dispatched for the port Tonnin—
geo in Denmark, with Orders that
the net proceeds should be placed in that
hands of the American bankers in Am
sterdam, for the purpose above men
tioned. The passage having been un
commonly stormy, the ship much dam
aged, and the crew quite exhausted,
the captain believing it to be his duty,
on the principles of self preservation,
to enter the first port he could make.
He accordingly entered that of tha
Texelj and, after having taken, on
board two pilots, and being within the
fourth buoy; was captured by a boat
belonging to a French privateer. Be
sides the Customary papers, all off
which are in rule, the Hero sailed un
der a certificate, granted by the gov
ernment, that the voyage was under,
taken for the purpose of effecting a
national remittance.
I have thought, sir, thatthe peculi
arity of these circumstances made, it
proper for me to ask a special decision
of his majesty on this case, and with '
this view I hate the honour of offering
to your Excellency the present repre
, sentation.
Accept, sir, &c.
(Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG-
His Excellency the Duke of Cadore.
Paris, March al, 1810.^
Sir—J had yesterday the honor of
stating to your Excellency the case of
the American ship Hero & requesting
thereon his majesty's decision. I have .
now that of informing you /hatanum
ber of American ships coming directly
from the United States to /be ports of
Naples under a promise of protection
from his majesty the king; have not
withstanding been seized and their ci
goes sold "for the benefit of the fisc?
Nor does the i#jury stop here. Th@h
%^^
said vt^s as b^^n^t b,^ s ch?, a4
well as the ships, are hereby directed
to be disposed of at public sale by tha
minister administrator general of tha
indirect unties, and under the inspec
tion of our minister of finances, or
may be otherwise sold at private s^le,
by the said minister, as he shall judge
most conducive to our interests.
Art. 3. Ihe proceeds of these sales
shall be deposited in a particular bank
to be hereafter employed as*we shall
judge convenient.
Art. 4. If any of the captors o^
the aforesaid vessels have claims upon
them which they may think proper toil
advance, they are authorised to pre
sent and explain their pretensions in
relation to the same, and we shall de
cide thereupon in pursuance of the re
port which we shall cause to be made
to us by our minister of the finances:
and the minister of the marine and of
war, after having taken the opinion of
a commission composed of one of the
administrator generals of indirect du
ties, one member of the council of
maritime prizes, and of one officer of
the marine.
Our ministers of thefinances of war,
and of the marine, are charged, as far
as it concerns them respectively, with
the execution of the present decree.
(Signed) Joachim Napoleon.
Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Smith.
Paris, 16th April, 1810.
Sir—The John Adams being yet
detained, I am able to inform you that
on the 1 Ith inst. the Emperor direct
ed the sale of all the American vessels
taken in the ports of Spain, and that
the money arising therefrom should bo
placed in his caisse privee. He has
also refused to give up the Hero, and
has ordered that the case be brought
before the council of prizes, where con
demnation necessarily awaits it. £
send a copy of a note upon which this
last order was taken and another re
lative to your business in Naples, and
am, sir, with very high consideration.
Your most obedient, and very hum
ble servant,
JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Hon. R. Smith, &c.