The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-02-24

.'aS Nv u1l t'tlt
they must attempt 10 enlighten the House
by these miserable scraps and fragments OF
information. Would it not lave been as
wise in them to have p~retermitted asubject.
which they say is 4" exclusively vested in
I've nation. government" when OH this
subject they are unable to shed any salts
factory lights /? Is nor this conclusion ir.
rssistible If the Legislature of Massa-
chrsctts have no right at all to revise the
foreign relations of the United Statesmen
Their the Importance of the subject nor the
obscurity of their own ideas can give them
any right of this sort.
but most wofully indeed lave the legisla-
ture OF. Massachusetts dis charged this de-
hcate Office. Never was there a more COM
plete tissue of .mIsinformatfon, ignorance,
or deception, than his celebrated report
When we consider the doc uments, which
have been published by our Executive, and
those facts which areknown to allthc world.
the mind is lost in establishment ut the con.
spiCuous errors unveiled in this report
Ia those parts oft, which go back to the
former Practices Of England and France,
there is a seeming air of plau Utility and
OF truth. But these appearances are delu-
sive. Push your researches but a step fur
tber and the fallacy of these assertions is
apparent: Probe it to the bottom, and the
u Y pOSiAlCuS 10 iNiIlttllSc
ly exposed. To prove these facts, let the
following view of the points which this re-
Port successively embraces, be strictly and
candidly considered.
he first point this Report attempts to es-
tail fsh, is, that OF the DEGREES & Orders. {" in
tended by Mr.. CrowninshieId's resolutions,'
those OF France were the first in the series
OF asgressions upon us. And how is this
proved! Why-we are told that the frs,
attack upon us was in the French Berlin de-
cree CT 2lst November, 1906, the FIRST sec
ton or which declares, in general terms.
the British islands, their colonies I dependen-
cles IN a stare OF B!ockade-but no section
OF which ./arNaaHy declares, as this report
formally asserts. Z" that all vessels, with
their cargoes, sailing to or from Great, Bril-
tain' should be subject to seizure and confis-
Caton. We are told that he British Or
defa are CT a date subsequent to This Decree.
VIC are told that 1t was not until the 3lst
December, 1906, that the British commissi-
oners informed our ministers of his maics-
tvs intention Ito r~etaliate in his own lust
detence, apd to issue orders ~ his Cruizers."
In case the Emperor OF france .si,ouid
carry ms threats into execution, end If neu-
traI nations should, contrary TO all eXpecta-
ton, 'acqulescc III such usurpations." 1t was
not until the month of January, 1907, that
MS Britannia majesty issued his Orders =. for
preventing ali commerce from port to port
OF MS enemies" 1t was not until the llth
OF Nov. 1907, that he issued his Orders for
placing the whole continent OF Europe, ex-
cept Sweden, in a state Of strict blockade.
These dateS are thus formally drawn forth
TO show. that France was the frs: in her
aggirssions upon the rights of the United
States. This conclusion is at least intended
by the heport--though it is not so explicitly
ana formally stated. Is this reasoning fairi
ought we to date the aggressiors upon us,
ny the dates OF certain decrees! SUI pose,
that these DEGREES were not intended to af-
feet he United States-Suppnsc thew were
not originally put into erecution in such a
form, as to violate our eutral rights-must
the Gate Oh the French aggressions be ne
cessal1iy considered as prior to that of the
f~ritisf, because the date of the Berlin de-
cree was prior TO that of the British orders of
January! Common sense revolts at this
absurd conclusion. The first question which
1t puts, IS, 7ohen was this aggression first
,o"hc! When was the Berlin decree put in
force against the United Statesf Was it
before on after the British Orders of Janua-
~ or Novcmberf 1t is not by the dates OF
decrees-but it is by tho dates of ser;ons az
sresslons, thai the question of the first gvroNe.
IS TO be settled. How then stands the sub
ject on thai ground?
Let the history Of the e:ceeution of the
Berlin decree bcFtraced. The mornentt that
oecree was known to our minister at Paris.
lie demanded OF the French minister of ma
fine, whether it was intended To affect the
existing relations between the u. States. as
there was treaty at that time existing be-
tween the two Countries, which was direct
" vioiatedby the b~!ockading section of the
decree, there was every ground of Dresunp-
ton, that this part of the instrument was
not intended TO 80 into effect against the u,
Htates. The answer Of Monsr. Dccres, ex-
actly corresponded with this presumption.-
he assured our minister, sthat an American
vessel could not be taken, at sea, for the
mere reason that she was going to OF COM
Ing from "A port Of England But why did
not our minister comply with M;ensr. Decres'
suggestion, and communicate with the "m;-
MISTER or exterior relations" OH this subject ,
he reason was, because this minister and
ms master were then in Prussia or Poland.
oo,fdr then it appears, that tie date oe
The decree is not the Gate of the French ar
greSsiohs against US. For some time after.
the conduct of the French government cor
responded with the assurances Tor opinion)
of DEGREES. 1T The request Of the secretary
OF statc,tO this answer of their minister Of
marine vas Immediately transmitted by
Gen TcrtCau, to the French governors in
the Wcst-intUes-aS the fHterfretafion Of
his government, End as a gnide for their
conduct. There was no trace of an authori-
zed aggression upon the rights of the u,