The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-06-28

never commended Tor power &c do more than To
impresatheir own people. but in the exercise of
this power, they have, in the course of the war,
impressed many thousand native American oiti-
zens. We neither dispute the right of Great
Britain To command the services of her subjects,
provided she can do it without violation OF c,r
rights, do we wish to employ them in our SER
vice, and this is clearly proved by the offers Of
our government to consent TO regulations, b.
which persons belonging to one country shall be
excluded from the service Of the other. AS far
rs / have been able to inform myself of,he wish
cs OF those who have competent authority on the
part OF the United States, l say confidently, Our
government would cooperate ia any reasonable
regulation, that Great Britain would suggest AND
make reciprocal. Of the disposition Of the exc
cutive, upon this subject, there is full proof in
the Instructions given to our commissioners of
the temper of Congress, there can be room
to doubt. IT Great Brit9n suffers injury from
her subjects leaving Ter service or country, let
her restrain them she has the authority and
the means to do so size can, if she pleases, pre-
vent British subject from leaving either. We
cannot, consistently w,th our honor, duty or in
tsrest, permit her to Indemnify herself for such
loss, by forcing American citizens to fight her
battles
The next most important point the coloni-
al trade-By the 1lth article, that trade is pla-
ced upon footing than it stood before.
The corporation of colonial produce is restrict
ed to European ports, and the supplies of the
colonial market to European goods.
There is no way in which the British had har-
rassed our commerce more, than in the execute
on OF their nominal biockades upon this point
we demanded and had right to expect redress
did the treaty give it to US 1t did not. We
have heavy account against that nation for spo-
iiatons, committed upon our commerce in viola.
ton of the law of nations and of principles re-
cognzed by herself: does the treaty provide for
the payment Of these claims Not cent-they
are postponed-the right to make demand is re-
served. Is our trade to the East and West In
dies put upon better footing than it stood be-
fore: 1t is not the former is confessedly on
worse than cnder Jays treaty. Are our bounda-
RES settled They are not that question is
likewise reserved. Great Britain levies a tax up
on us, her best customers, under an export duty
of four per cent, whichis paid by no other indie
pendent nation, and thereby imposes upon us a
tribute of a million of dollars. Did this treaty
secure us an exemption from this duty II did
not and the only consolation that is given, is,
that we do not pay greater duty upon exports,
than is paid by her co!ones.-Upon the whole,
from this analysis of the treaty, it does not ap-
pear, that by it any thing would have been gained
that was WORTH possessing, and that our most
important rights and interests have either been
reserved, postponed or qualified and limited,
IN such manner, that our situation was not made
worse by its rejection In the consideration of
our relations with that country, it ought to be re-
membered we were the injured nation in every
INSTANCE; that there single act or ours
of which Great-Brit.,in had a right to complain
there were no set-ots of that sort against our
just demands. Why then should we have made
treaty By which we got nothingi 1t has been
SAID by ITS advocates, we should have avoided
war. believe 1t would have had contrary ten
dency, and think can demonstrate it. Bat is
IL rational to believe Great Britain would have
gone to war with MS, for injuries that thev har,
themselves committed or was it necessary to
patch up THIS accommodation to prevent orr go
Vernment from going to war with them #, by
this treaty, it had been stipulated we should OBJ.
tan every thing our comm ss;oners were instruct
ed TO demand if Great Britain had thrown open
all her ports il the East & w Indies and in Europe
TO our commerce, it ought to have been rejected
-Ihe note Oh the British commissioners, of the
3lst OF Decembcr, 1896, which appears 10 have
been delivered before the signature of the treaty.
by those commissioners, puts it as completely in
the power OF the king ofG B. to withhold his rati-
Acahon OF that treaty, as it would have been, had
there been stipulation in the body of the trea-
ty, that 1T should not be binding upon G. Britain,
unless ltheSe are the words of the note,) g the
enemy WI! either have formally; abandoned or to
city relinquished his unjust pretensons, or the
government of the United States, by its conduct
or assurances, wall have given security to his ma
Jesty, that IL will not submit to such Innovations
IN the established system OF maritime law The
British commissioners presented this note from
an aI&lous wish, that 1T should be clearly under
stood on both sides, that, without such an sban-
donment on tie part of the enemy, or such assur-
ances, or such conduct the part Of the United
States, his majesty will not consider himself
bound ny the present signature OF his commissI-
oners, 10 ratlfy the treaty, or precluded from "a
doping such measures as may seem necessary
for counteractmg tile designs of his enemy" This
conditional signature CT the treaty, did amount in
substance, to an offer to our government, of the
alternative between the treaty, and war with
France; since, If orr government did not give
such assurances, or pursue such conduct as would
be satisfactory to his Britannia majesty, the trea-
ty. would be lost. II the treaty had contained
stipulations the most beneficial to the ". States,
this note would, in my mind, have constituted an
msuper&be bar TO it, unless had been prepared
to consent To an alliance offensive and defensive
with Great-Britaiu ; for am vinced, nothing
short Of actual hostility against France, would
have satisfied the British government. In the adj
JustInent OF our differences with Great Britain,
it neither comported with our interest nor our
dignity, as an independent power, to make the adj
justment dependent upon the conduct of our GO
vernment, IN 4 dispute with any other nation In
this case, there was the less pTetence for the in
tettcTcii2c o. the British, because i. is declared
in this very note, that the French naval ports and
arsenals, re actually biockadcd and they are un-
Rble 70 station any naval force whatever, before
my port OF tIe United Kingdom. Netwithstand-
ing the confidence with which his Britannia ma
jesiy appeals TO the world as to his uniform res
ne tp. Il vtg nd ta aJher-