The Wheeling repository — Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.], 1808-04-28 00:00:00, page 5

poses to raise 6579 men which, with our
present peace establishment, will in
crease the regular force of the United
States to ten thousand men, exclusive of
the navy and the marines. The discus
sion has been very extensive and taken
a wide range, involving the absolute and
relative situation of the country, and
the state and views of the two great
belligerent powers, of Europe. The ad
vocates ot the army contend that in the
present strange and convulsed situation
of the world, some additional military
iorce is requisite, as a measure of pre
caution ; that our long line ot sea coast,
and our extensive frontiers need protec
tion ; and our fortihations and milicia
ry ports to he garrisoned ; that the Bri
tish may invade us from the North;
the I' reach and Spanish from the South ;
and the Indians from the West. A
kochlort squadron may steal out and j
attack our citizens, or land a force in
Florida or Lousiania. The British
may attack us, as they did the Danes at
Copenhagen, and the Turks at Constan
tinople.
The opponents of the bill could per
ceive no occasion for this military force,
it was incredible that this country would
be invaded ; and if so, the militia were
a competent defence. It was ridiculous
to suppose that this force if distributed
on our coast and frontiers would be of
any real service. The quota assigned
to each point would he too small for a
ny use. 1 hey could not protect us a
gainst invasion or a naval attack on our j
cities. As our treasury was almost
drained, and our commerce nearly dcs
troycd, the expense of tins force was
much insisted upon. It was also con
tended that the embargo had been laid
as a substitute for war, and that the
war system and the embargo syseir. !
were incompatible. Mr. Quincv and j
some others weie in favour of the bill '
because they conceived seme addition
lo our peace establishment necessary ;
and though they conceived the addi
tion proposed somewhat too large, they '
chose to vote for it, in preference to
having no increase of our regular force.
The members who in ’98 voted against
an army, and who now have wheeled a
bout and for what they then so loudly
< o id< mn< d, felt quite sore at the m li
founded charge of inconsistency why h
was reiterated in their ears by Mr. Stan
ford. This gentleman had v_» v ir.dus
tri msly collected a large number of d>»
cuinenu>, journals oi the house, reports
of debates &cc. showing the language of
Gallatin, Jefferson, and other repubfaan
standards, as he called them, against
standing armies. d he members who
formerly were vociferous against ar
mies, and are now convinced of their
errors, are among others, Messrs.
Dawson, Macon, Blount, Clopton, Smi
lie, and Nicholas, -do refute the argu
ments urged against the federal admini
stration, as to the army of ’98, we may
refer to the present and late debates of
congress and the requisition of the pre
sident. % Indeed, some of the good de
mocrats go so far as to say they can per
ceive no difference in the two adminis
trations. Armies, navies, patronage,
the renunciation of speciffck appropria
tions, appear, say they, as much encou
raged and patronized as ever.
W H E E L IN G,
Thursday, 28th April, 1808.
The Special Embassy.
The great length of the letters which
passed between Messrs. Madison and
Hose, induces us to decline their inser
tion :n the Repository. The subject
which occasioned the embassy, has ex
cited much sensibility in the public
mind. Considerable interest was con
sequently telt, respecting the course pur
sued in relation to the mission, and re
specting its issue. For the satisfaction
oi our readers, we here give a summary
ol the correspondence, sufficiently com
prenensive* we believe, to afford a view
of tne ground taken by each, to which
they so tenaciously adhered. The ar
guments illustrating and supporting
these grounds, we omit, lor the reason j
mentioned above.
Atu-r the arrival ol Mr. Rose, the
discussion of what he made u prelimi
nary point, commenced in a conference
between him and Mr. Madison. This
discussion was continued in a note from
Mr. Ko.se, dated the 2(>th of January,
1808, and in a h tter from Mr. Madison,
m rtpi;, dated the 5th of March—this
repi. would fill five page s of this paper.
The discussion was closed by a note,
m arl.' as long as M *. Madison's, deli
vered by Mr. Rose on the 17th of March.
Mr. Rose stated that lie was expressly
precluded, by his instructions, from en
t rii g into anv discussion for the ad
justment of the afiurof th«- Chesapeake,
so long as the President’s proclamation,
interdicting the entrance of British arm
ed vessels into the .United States, was -
continued in force. He represented,
that the interdiction was productive of
considerable prejudice to the interests
°? Great-Britain, in relation to her mi
litary- and naval service, the honour of
her flag, and the privileges of her diplo
matic agents : He contended, that in its
effects it amounted to retaliation and
self-assumed redress ; and that after the
1 epeated disavowals of the conduct of
the officers in the case of the Chesa
peake, and assurances of a disposition
to make reparation, the continuance of
the proclamation wouVl evince a spirit*
of hostility incompatible with negocia
tion.
Mr. Madison, in reply to Mr. Rose
pronounced his demand inadmissible.
He enumerated a series of aggressions
previous to the attack on the Chesa
peake: He stated that redress had been
claimed lor these irregularities, without
effect; and that these repeated, uncon
trouled excesses of British command
ers, as well as the outrage on the Ches
apeake, rendered the interdiction neces
sary as a measure of precaution. He
contended, that reparation should be
made for the injuries which preceded
the proclamation, before a demand for
rescinding it could be entitled to con
sideration. He also contended, that e
ven if it were admitted that the attack
on the Chesapeake was the sole cause
ot the proclamation, and that the dis
continuance and disavowal of that ag
gression, furnished just ground for ex
pecting a revocation of the interdiction;
yet as taking some of the crew from the
Chesapeake formed part of the offence,
and the men taken were still detained,
the aggression was still continued—and
consequently, on this score, the claim
was not supported by the fact. He pro
posed that the subject of the Chesa
peake should he discussed ; and inti
mated, that if the reparation Mr. Rose
v is authorised to offer, should be deem
< d satisfactory, it would be received as
a pledge of the disposition of his Britan
nic majesty to redress and prevent a re
currence of the evils upon which the
proclamation was founded, and against
which it was intended to guard. He
al-o intimated, that if this ‘course was
adopted, the act making reparation, and
the act revoking the interdiction, might
bear date on the same day. v.
Mr. Hose, in his final note, repeated
that his instructions did not permit him
tj enter upon the discussion of the case