Virginia Argus — Richmond, Va., 1810-12-18 00:00:00, page 5

VIRGINIA ARGUS-EXTRA.
V ' f * *
BSS=S—J 1 ' ' 11 1 1 '■ 1 ■ Aa -- -- - - - | 11,-1,,-.,, ,n - - —jj - rn
TUESDAY^ December 18, 1810.
WWM—■■ u , m >rnmmmammm m • mm>n n ^ mmmmmmm* ———_ ~» t -0 ^»^V» . f~~rrr ^t*w*»*> %.*<••* ^ - *+<**%.’ Wi* ’.. . * • ...
DOCUMENTS
Accompanying the President's Mcs•*
sage.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Smith* Se.
ctetary of State, to Mr. Kinkaey, Min
in? ^'Plenipotentiary of the United States
at London* dated Department ot State*
January 20th, id 10.
««In my letter to you of the 11th
November, 1809, you were autho
rised to assure the British govern
ment, Chat the United States sin
cerely retained the desire, which
they have constancy professed, to
facilitate a friendly accommodation
of the existing differences between
the two countries, and that nothing
would be move agreeable to them
than to find the successor of Mr.
Jackson invested with all the autho
rities necessary for the accomplish
ing of so desirable an event, and
moreover, that if the attainment ‘of
this object, through your agency,
should be considered more expe
ditious, or otherwise preferable, it
would be a course entirely satisfac
tory to tlie United States.
I am now charged by the Presi
dent to transmit to you the enclosed
letter * authorising you to resume
the negotiations with the British
government, under the full power
that had been given severally and
jointly to you and Mr. Monroe :
And in your discussions therein you
will be regulated by the instructions
heretofore given to Mr. Monroe and
yourself. It is, however, not in
tended, that you should commence
this negotiation until the requisite
satisfaction'shail have been made in
the affair of the Chesapeake : And,
an the adjustment of t is case, you
Will be guided by the instructions
which you have heretofore receivi d
irom this department in relation to
at.
It is, moreover*, desirable, that
preparatory to a treaty upon all the
points of difference between the two
countries, an arrangement should
be made for the revocation of the
.tiers in council. As it is uncer
tain what may be the ultimate mea
sures of Cobgress at the present ses
sion, it cannot be expected that the
President can, at this time, state the
'.precise condition to be annexed to a
repeal of the orders in council: but
in general you may assure the 13 i
tish government of his cordial dis
position to ^ xercise any power with
which he may be invested, to put
an end to acts of Congress wliicli
w ould not be resorted to but for the
► orders in council, and, at the same
time*, of his determination to keej
them in force against France, incase
her decrees should not also be rc<
I [Enclosed in the foregoing letter]
Department of State, Jan. 20,1810
, Sir.,
The President, anxious to ad
just the existing differences lietweei
■ the Unifvd States and Great Britain
V and deeming it expedient to maki
■ another effort for that purpose, ha
^ given it in charge to me to insti ue
I you to renew negociations in Lon
| don, under the commission datet
12th May, 1806, authorising Mr
H Monroe and yourself severally, a
W writ as jointly, “ to treat with th<
* British government, relative to th<
wrongs committed between the par
tic*!; t«n the high ‘cas. or otlwr wa
ters, and for establishing the prin
oiples of navigation and commero
’ between them.”
I have the honor to be, &co.
fSicnc d)
R. SMITH.
Department of State, May 22,161C
Sin,
Your despatch of the 57th c
March, by the British puckc
• ‘1 hi* letter is atm*rrd.
was received on the 17th of this
month.
The President has read, with sur
prise and regret, the answer of lord
Wellesley tb your letter of the 2d
Jan. and also his reply to your note
requiring explanations with respect
to the blockade of France; The
one indicates an apparent indiffer
ence as to the character of the di
plomatic intercourse between the
two countries, and the other evinces
an inflexible determination to perse5
vere in their system of blockade.
The piovision made for the di1*
plomatic agency, which is to suc
ceed that of Mr. Jackson, manifests
a dissatisfaction at the step necessa
rily taken here w ith regard to that
minister, and at the same time a
diminution of the respect hereto
fore attached to the diplomatic re
lations betw-een the two countries.
However persevering the President
may be in the conciliatory disposi
tion which has constantly governed
him, he cannot be inattentive to
such an apparent departure from it
on the other side, nor to the duty
iinnncp/l on him K\r tit** rnl^c of* p*
quality and reciprocity applicable in
such cases. It will be very agreea
ble to him to find that the provision
in question is intended merely to
afford time for a satisfactory choice
of a plenipotentiary successor to
Mr. Jackson, and that the mode of
carrying it into effect may be equal
ly unexceptionable. But whilst
from the language of the Marquis
Wellesley with respect to the desig
nation of a charge d’affairs, and from
the silence as to any other succes
sor to the recalled minister, it is left
to be inferred that the former alone
is in contemplation, it becomes pro
per to ascertain what are the real
views of the British government on
the occasion, and should they be
such as they arc inferred to bfe,
to meet them by a torrespondent
change in the diplomatic establish
ment of the United States at Lon
don. The President relies on your
discretion for Obtaining the requisite
knowledge of this subject, in a man
ner that ill do justice to the friend
ly poiicv which the United States
wish to be reciprocal in every in
stance between ihe two nations.
But in the event of its appearing
that the substitution of a charge
d’affairs for a minister plenipotenti
ary is to be of a continuance not re
quired or explained by the occasi
on, and consequently justifying the
inference drawn from the letter oi
Lord Wellesley* the respect which
, the United Suites owe to themselves
; will require that you return to tlu
vjimeu oiuics, accoruing 10 me per
ir.issibrt hereby given by the Presi.
dCmt, leaving charged with the busi
ness of the legation such person a*
’ you may dee utmost fit for the trust
With this view a commission, a:
j required by i statiitc of the last ses
si on, is herewith enclosed, with ai
’ blank for a secretary of legation
' But this step you will not consitle;
J yourself as instructed to take, it
case you should have commenced
I with a prospect of a satisfactory re
suit,* the negociationa pthofised lu
my letter of the 20th January.
In a letter of the 4th of this month
' I transmitted to you a copy of tin
' act of Congress at .heir last sessioi
concerning the commercial inter
course between the United State:
1 and Great Braitain and Prance
~ You will herewith receive anothc
copy of the same act. In the fourtl
section of this statute you will per
ceive a new modification of the po
licyofthe U.S. and you will let i
>. be understood by tlte British gov
cTnment that this provision will b
>f duly carried into effect on the par
\t of ihe United States.
-. A satisfactory adjustment of th
affair of the Chesapeake is very de
sir able. The views of the President
Upon this delicate subject, you may
collect ndt only frdnt the instructions
heretofore given to yon, but from
the sentiments that bad been mani
fested on the part of this govern^
ment in tne discussion with Mr.
Rose, and from the terms and con
ditions contained in the arrange
ment made with Mr. ErSkine.
And conformably with thccc views,
thus to be collected, you will consi
der yoUrself hereby instructed to ne
gotiate and conclude an arrange
ment with the British government
in relation to the attack on the Fri
gate Chesapeake.
I have the honor to be, StCi
R. SMITH.
bepirtitetnt 6i State, July 1810.
Sir,
Your several letters of the 8th
and 9th April, and 2d and 3d of
May, have been received.
Whilst it was not known, on the
one hand, how far the French go
vernment would adhere to the ap
parent import of the condition, as
first communicated, on which the
Berlin decree would be revoked.
and on the other hand, what explai
nations would be given by the Bri
tish government with respect to its
blockades prior to the decree, the
course deemed proper to be taken,
was that pointed out in my letter to
you, of the 11th 0FN0V. and in that
to Gen. Armstrong, of the first cl
December. The precise and for
mal declaration sin«e made by the
French government, that the condi
tion was limited to the blockades ol
France, or parts of France, of a date
prior to the date of the Berlin de
cree^ and the acknowledgement by
the British government bf the ex
istence of such blockades, particu
larly that bf May 1806, w ith a fai
lbre to revoke it, br even to admi)
the constructive extinguishment oi
it held out in your letter to the
Marquis Wellesley, give to the sub
ject a new aspect and a decided clia
racter.
As the tbitish jgoverhmeftt had
constantly alleged, that the Berlir
decree was the original aggressior
on our neutral commerce ; that hei
orders in council were but a retalia
tion on that decree, and mort over
on that ground, asserted an obliga
tion on the Uhited States to tak<
effectual measures against the de
cree, as a preliminary to a re peal o
the orders, nothing could be ntor<
* reasonable thart to expect, that th<
condition in the shape last presenter
would be readily accepted. Th
i rcsiaciu is me re lore equally disap
pointed nnd dissatisfied at die aboi
tiveness of \oiir correspondence
with lord Wellesley, on ibis impoi
i tant subject. Me entirely approve
, the deterrmn;;ti( n you took to rc
► sume it, with a view to the speck
. and immediate obligation lying o
i the British government to canc<
. the illegal blockades, and joti ai
• instructed, in case the answer 1
i your letter of the 30th April shoul
, not he satisfactory, to represent t
• the British government in term
r tcin{>crate but explicit, that the t
nited States consider themselves <n
, Ihorised, by strict and unquestion;
: ble right, as well as supported fc
i the principles heretofore applied b
. Great Britain to the case, in clairr
i iug and expecting a revocation <
, the illegal blockades of France, <
r a date prior to that of the Berli
1 decree, and preparatory to a furthc
. demand of the revocation ol du
. decree.
t . It ought not to be presumed, th;
• the British government, in reply \
i such a representation, will content
t that a h.ockade like that of Ma
18( 6, from the Kibe to Breast,
s coast of not less than one thousan
• miles, proclaimed fctir a cars sine
without having been at any time
attempted to he duly executed bv
the application of a naval force, is a
blockade conformable to the law of
nations and consistent with neutral
lights, buch a pretext is complete
ly barred, not only by the Unani
mous authorities, both of writers
.and of treaties on this point, hot ex
cepting even British treaties ; but
by the rule of blockade, communi
cated by that government to this,
in the year IS04, in which it is laid
down, that orders had been given
not to consider any blockade of |
those islands, (Martinique and Gau- ]
daloupe) as existing, unless in res
pect of particular ports which may 1
be actually invested, and then not to '
Capture vessels bound to such ports, !
unless they shall previously have \
been warned not to enter them, and ,
that they (the lords of the admiralty) j
had also sent the necessary directi- 1
Ons on the subject to the judges of i
the vice admiralty courts in the
Wr«L-t Tn/lmn no/-l 1 tA.1. * _ i
¥ Mlivi *IUW1I^U« All lino
communication, it is expressly sta- 1
ted, that the rule to the British
courts and cruizers was furnished
in cottseqeunce of the representati ,
ons made by the government of the
U. States,against blockades notun
bke that now in question, and with
the express view of redressing the
grievance complained of. Nor
ought it to be presumed, that thte
British government will finally resort
to the plea, that her naval force, al
though unapplied, is adequate to
the enforcement of the blockade of
May 180i, and that this forms a
legal distinction between that and
the Berlin decree of November fol
lowing. Were it admitted, that
an adequate force existed, and was
applicable to such a purpose, the
absurdity of confounding the pow
er to do a thing, with the actually
doing of it, speaks for itself. Jn
the present Case, the absurdity is
peculiarly striking. A port block
aded by sea, without a ship ucar it,
being a contradiction in terms, as
well as a perversion of law and of
common sense.
» . From the language of lord Wel
i lesley’s two letters, it is possible he
■ may endeavor to evade the mea
• sure required, by subtle comments
, on the posture given to the block
■ ade of May 18vf>, by the succeed
s ing orders of 1807. But even here
■ he is met by the case of the block
f adc of Copenhagen and the other
i ports of Zealand, in the year 1808,
“ at a time when these, with all the
1 Danish ports, were embraced by
5 those very orders of 1807 ; a proof
.i . i « ii. i
- ujbi, uowcvcr uic 01 tiers anu diock
- ades rtiay bo regarded as in some
- rerpects the same, they are regard*
- ed, in others, as having a distinct
s operation, and may consequently co
- exist without being absolutely mer
gcrl in or superseded the one by the
n other.
In the difficulty which the Bri
e tish government must feel in find
° ing a gloss for the extravagant pi in.
(1 ciple of her paper blockades, it may
0 perhaps wish to infer an acquies
5» cence on the part of this govern
merit, from the silence under which
l* they have in some instances, passed.
Siiouid a disposition to draw such
y an infcrerlcc shew itself, you will
)' be able to meet it by an appeal, not
l* only to the successful remonstrance
^in the letter to Mr. * Thornton, a
>f_ _
n * 'ITic following is the letter to Mr,
r Thornton.
lt Mr. Madis n to Mr. Thornton
Charge des Affaires of his Bri
4 tannic Majesty, dated DrpartniCti
° oj State, (Jet. 21 thy 1803.
;sir,
* The letters of which cop*es are en
a closed were received hisr evening, om
d of them is from the British consul f en
eral at New York, the other, a copj
---
bovc cited, but to the answer given
to Mr. Merry, of June 1806, to the
enclosed thorein of a J« tt.r to bun f/oin
commodore Hood, commander in chief
of his Bri a» nic majesty’s ships «*f
war on a West India sta.ion. The
latter bears date of the 55th of July
ta-f, and requests that the Amesioa
government and agents of neutral ns
ions might l>c made acquainted, that
the Islands of Martinique and Guada
loupe are and have been blockaded
Irora the 17«h of June, preceding, by
detachments from the squadron under
lis command, in order ifiat there may
3c no plea for at’empting to enter the
JOfts ot the islands.
It will, without doubt, occur to you,
»i'r, that such a communication would
tare been more properly made through
mother channel, than ditertly from thq
consulate at N#w-Yc.rk. The impot
ence abd ufgency of the subject how*
*v«r supercede the consideration of
.orms, and I lose no time in commu
ticating to you the observations which
he President deems it to require.
It w ill l)Ot f* Jt'fiHM vnur
:hat commodore Hood’s letter is dated
io less than three months before it
:oulti have the cfT<ct of a notification,
and that besides this remarkable delay,
the alleged blockade is computed front
a date more than one month prior to
that of the letter itself. Bat these cir
cumstances, however important it may
ae, do not constitute the maiu objecti
on to the proceeding of the British
commander. His letter, instead of
stating that a particular p rt or ports
were blockaded, by a force actually
before them, declares, generally, two
entire and considerable islands to be in
itate^ of blockade. It can never he
admitted that the trade of a neutral
nation, in articles not contraband, can.
be legally obstructed to any place, not
actually blockaded, or that any notifi
cation or proclamation can be of force,
unless accomparied with all actual
blockade. The law of nations is per
haps more clear on no other point
than that of a siege or blockade, such
as will justify a belligerent nation in
restraining the trade of neutrals. Evfc
ry term us* d in defining the case im
ports the presence and position of a
force renderirg access to the prohibited
place manifestly difficult and danger
ous* Every jurist of reputation, who
treats with precision this bran .h of the
law of nations, refers to an actual
and particular blockade. Not a sin
gle treaty can be found which under_
takes to define a blockade, in which
the definition doe* not exclude a gener
al or nominal blockade, by limiting it
to the case of a sufficient force so dis
posed as »o amount to an actual and
particular blockade. To a number of
such treaties, Great Britain is a par
ty. Not to multiply reftrenctg on
the subject, I confine myself to the 4th
article of the convention of June,
IttOl, between Great Britain and Run-'
sia, which having been entered into
r .1 i
me avuwcu purpose ' oi getulUg
an invariable determination of their
principles upon the rights of neutrali
ty,” must necessarily be considered as
a solemn recognition of an existing &
general principle and right, not as a
stipulation of any new principle or
right limited to the parties themselves.
The article is in the words following i
“That in order to determire what
characterises a blockaded port, that
denomination is giv.n only to a port
where there is, by the dispositions of
the fower which attacks it with ships
stationary or sufficiently near, an evi
dent danger oi entering.” It cannot
be necessary to dwell on the inrot sis
teccy of the kind of blockade declared
by commodore llood, with the prin
i ciple laid down concerning the rights
[ of neutrality ; or on thr consequences
of the principle, on which a block rids
of whole islands by a few ships is foun
ded to the commerce and interests uf
neutral nations. If the I-dands of Mar
tinique & Gaadaloupe, the latter no less
than 250 8c the former nearly 150 milts
i i circumference, 8c ea. h con am ng a
variety of ports, can he blockaded by
detachments from a c< mn.odure’s
( squadron, it is evident that a ve ry in
considerable portion ot the Brkis.b
fleet may blockade all the maritime
countries with which she is at war : In
» a word, such a principle completely *a.
* orifices the rights of neurnrd comnit fee
■ to the pleasure or the policy of the pnr
r ties at war. But it deserves to be