Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-07-01

by imposes upon US a tribute of million
. of dollars. Did this treaty secure as All
exemption from this duty! It'did not and
J the only consolation that is given, is, tn at
| we do not pay greater duty upon exports,
than is paid by her colonies. Upon the
whole, from this analysts OF the treaty, it
docs not appear, that by il any thing would
have been gained thatYas worth possessing,
and that our most important rights & inter-
ests have either been reserved, postponed or
qualified and limited, in snSh manner,
that our situation was not made worse by
its rejection, in the consideration of our
relations with that country, it ought TO be
Remembered we were; the injured nation
in every instarce; shat there was not sin
igle act of ours of which Great Britain had
a right to complain--thcrew were no set-offs
of that sort against our Just demands. Why
lthen should we have made treaty by
(which we got nothing 1t has been said by
ITS advocates, we should have avoided war
II believe it would have had a contrary ten
ldency, ana l think can demonstrate it.
But is it rational to believe G.. Britain
iwouid have gone to war with us, for iniu.
lrieS that they had themselves committed !;
Tor was 1t necessary to patch mp this ac-
Pronunciation to prevent cur government
from going to war with them If, by this
treaty, it had been stipulated we should
obtain every thing our commissioners
Iwere instructed to demand il Great Bril-
tain had thrown open ali her ports in the
East and w. Indies and in Europe to our
commerce, it ought to have been rejected.
The note of the British commissioners, of
1.-THE 3ist of December, 1905, which appears
Ito have been delivered before the signature
lot the treaty, by those commissioners, puts
1.v, e L.
IG. =. to withhold his ratification of that trea-
|ty, rs it would have been, had there been
a stipulation in the body of the treaty, that
liz should not be binding upon G.. Britain,
unless (these are the words of the note, }
j"the enemy will either have formally a
lbandoned or tacity reiinquished his unjust
lpretensions, CT the govern snent of the u i.
Estates, by its conduct or assurances, will
have given security TO his majesty, that it
Twill not submit TO such innovations, in the
testablished system of maritime law" The
British commissioners "presented this note
ltrom an anxious wish, that it should t,e
lclearIy understood on both sides, that, with
Tout such an abandonne Ht on the part of the
lenemy, or such assurances, or such conduct
lon the part OF the United States, his MAZE
lsty will not consider himself bound by the
Ipresent signature of his commissioners, to
'tratify the treaty or precluded from adopting
isnch measures as may seem necessary for
lcounteracting the designs of his enemy"
This conditional signature of the treaty, did
lemount n substance, to an offer to cur go.
lvernmept, of the alternative between the
treaty, and war with France since, if our
government did not give such assurances,
Tor pursue such conduct as would be salts.
factory to his Britannia majesty, the treaty
would be lost. IF the treaty had contained
,stipulatioEs the most beneficial TO the u. s.
this note would, in my mind, have constitute
led an insuperable bar TO it, unless had been
prepared TO consent to an alliance offensive
! and defensive with Great Britain; for am
convinced, nothing short of actual hostility
lagainSt France, would have satisfied the
British government. In the adjustment OF
1 our differences with G. Britain, it neither
4 comported with our interest nor our dignity.
rs an ndependeDtpower, to make the adjust
ment dependent upon the conduct of our go
ivernment, in dispute with any other ma.
zion. In this case, there was the less pre-
tence for the interference OF the British
, because it is declared III this very note
that the French naval ports and arsenals
are actually blockaded and they are una
. bic to station any naval force whatever,
| before any port Of the United Kingdom
I MISUNDERSTANDING the commence WIFI WHICH
his Britanic majesty appeals TO the woriC
E as to hisuniforrl respect for neutral rights
. and his scrupnlous adherence 20 the law O
4 nations; it is notorious that in his conduc
i. towards the United States, he has neve
e regarded either, and that he was the frs
n power who ever created blockade b.
r proclamations and diplomatic communica
(; tions. Against these nominal blockaIes
o The now protests, and although he declare
= them imperative against him, it forms
. justification in his mind for an attempt 4
force the Unired States INTO acts Of hostil
r. lity against France. The wisdom Of tn
o President, in not accepting the treaty sign
ed upon the condition expressed in the lie;
e ter Of the British commissioners, is now 90
It vious for, altho' we have not by on
n act, sanctioned the British claim to pre-
J. scribe to us n course Of conduct, with res
n pect to France, and notwithstanding, in tha
= nO.e, the right to retaliate any injury th
French DEGREES may do them, is reste
n solely upon the ground ofour "acquiescenc
n IN such usurpatioDs: Yet, ON the 9TH {
- January, 1907, only seven days after the sig
d nature Of this treaty in Lonuon, an order
e council issued, prohibiting our vessels fror
e trading between the ports Of France an
, those of her allies, in violation ofour right
N and of the 18th article of this very treaty
y and more than month before it va
l. known in the United States, that our trad