The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-04-08
With respect to the u. States, there Is no

With respect to the U. States. there is no
comparison in the treatment, which they
have received from the beiligerents. Bona
parte has become the defender of the liberties
OF the ocean; and John Bull, the tyrant. To a
| certain point, Bonaparte's cause isthe same as
ours.-There is no patriotic American, who
does not wish him success i'm every effort,
which he may exert for depressing the usur-
pations of England and establishing the Ii
berty OF the seas-let those efforts only fall
short OF the destruction of England.-His
general conduct has been as favorable to the
U. 5. as the department of his adversary has
been naughty & hostile. He has been some
times our friend, & England always our enc
my-France has never murdered our sea-far-
ing countrymen; nor trampled upon our
rights OF jurisdiction nor impressed three
thousand of our seamen; nor insulted the So
vereignty OF the American government, by an
absurd attack upon national vessel These
insulting usurpations were reserved for the
friendship and justice of G.. B.
The dispatches, which the p. u s. has
lately laid before Congress will bear us out
In all these conclusions. They do not give a
Colour Of truth, to the vile and 6isgraceful
SANDERS which have come from the pen of
the honorable Timothy Pickering, and the
mouths of Messrs. GARDENER and Rowan
All their SANDERS have vanished into " thin
air." Where is tie slightest proof that Bo-
npparte has ever issued his mandatory me-
naces against the government of the United
states, or that this government has ever been
controlled by French influence ?-On the con-
trary, MIR. Champagny's letter to gen. Arm
strong of Jan. 18th, +" is the first decided in
timation on the part of the French Empc-
ror, OF Toish to plunge the United States
into the mad vortex of European politics."
With these general impressions, let us re-
turn to the letter of M. Champagny. But it
is hrst necessary to ascend to the original
cause whence this letter flows the late En-
ghsh and French blockading DEGREES. Which
OF these nations is the most to blame
The French DEGREES and the British Or
ders OF Nov. are both violations of the Laws
OF Nations. Some apology has been attemp-
ted to be found in the principle ofretaliation
Hence each government has labored to cast
the odium of commencing the first step, up
| on its adversary.
| aggressor Who will admit her pretended
plea, that her blockading orders of Novem-
Der, were but countervailing measures for
| the French Decree of Berlina
We have proved in our paper of 4th of Dec.
Doth from the laws of nations and repeated
acts OF the French government, that every
nation is presumed to be the best INTERFERE
ter OF its o7cn laws that neither in the in
terhretatiom nor execution of the decree
OF Berlin, has the French government pre-
sumed to intercept the vessel of a neutral ON
me nigh seas, bound to or from her enemy's
ports; and that it merely extended to such
vessels, touching at an enemy's ports and af-
forwards entering her own. The recent
case OF the Horizon was the first seeming de-
Walton from this interpretations ire
s.ssiole inference from these circumstances
was, that the Decree of Berlin was only a
munfcifial regulation, which violated no ma
tional law, and against (which, no neutral
had right 10 Protest.
hat we are not singular IN this interpre-
tation, the reader will at once perceive from
the following paragraph of a violent minis
ferlal London print, extracted from series
OF the most abusive structures on the subse-
quent Decree of Milan:
"The sum of the fresh enactments CON
sists in this, that ncutrals having touched at
British port, are IN .fu.urc to be liable to
capture on the high seas by French cruizers.
hey were before subject to seizure and con-
denanation, on entering the encmy's horts !:
and as we are convinced that the Gallo DOW
er OF oppression does not extend very far
from the coasts of France and Holland, we
consider this denunciation as at once a proof
OF the imbecility and injustice of the power
Aioiii "bSISC IL Issues.
The right Of retaliation would therefore
nave justified G. b. in selling and condemn
ing neutrals who having touched at an enc
my's fort, had afterwards entered her ozyn
but surely not in capturing them on the
nigh Seas.-The British blockading orders
OF Nov are therefore as little justified bv the
relative laws of retaliation, as by the gene
raj laws ofnations.. This palliating plea on
iy belongs to the French Decree of Milan
which was intended to courtervail the British
orders of November.--The truth is, however
that this principle furnishes little palIia,
ton IN the present instance. However JUS
Unable one enemy may be in retortinp the
measures OF its adversary, the act of retail
atlng the injustice of its enemy upon the
head OF an innocent and impartial indiyidu-
al, admits of no possible Justification
he expression indeed as great a solecism
III words, as the act is in morals-Who
suffers most by these British orders The
u. States-not France
And now what is the real purport of Mr.
Champagny's letter, In our Judgment it is
by no means calculated to Justify those e,
frdUdgGHt comments which have been rais-
ed upon 1T.
That Bonaparte wishes the U. States to
declare war against G.. Britain, there cannot
be doubt That he insinuates this wish in
smooth and very plausible shape. there
can be as little doubt. That he even wish
es to temht us to associate with the cause
OF all the powers who have to defend
themselves against England; :" no man can
doubt.-To what lengths he NAV here
after proceed for the accom,,1;oI.. r