Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-06-27

decree iney signed note in which
said that They proceed to the s;a So.
under the full persuasion that beess o.
treaty shall be returned from Amer
the ratification Of the u. S. the ens, va
either have formally abandoned 1,r';!
relinquished his unjust pretensiopsp "
this an unreasonable expectation "
unreasonable to hope that the system ;,
justice which the first nation in the y
was for the first time practising asa;,,.
should be abandoned! Certainly not o'''
if it was not, what next did she GYM.
desire to have done! Cor Gas the ~ n
commissioners said) that the governns y.
the y. S. by its conductor assurance,
have given security to his maiestr,b. IL
will not submit to such innovations !,
established system of maritime law Y
there any thing wrong in this request I
1t cannot be controverted that uOon !
matter we had common cause with e.
Britain, whether we-chose to make nsl
not. She said, /" do you declare, ei5,I
your conduct or your assurances, thai I
will resist the decree do sometime
looks towards it; we do not require {
5cifc pledge, but as we are SO deepynl
ested in the manner in which you shall 4
duct, it become important to us to M
what we will do about it.'' If such AZ
ances had been given, if steps beconh,E
dignity Of this government had been I
sued, would the British orders in COIL!
have been issued? There never wouldTJ
been occasion for them. But this isnaS
contained in this note; for it contiaursh 4
/" The undersigned have presented thsa
from an anxious wish that it should bedt,
ly understood on both sides, that, WITH
such an abandonment on the part Of 4
enemy, or such assurances or such coal
on the part of the u. S. hismalesty will |
consider himself bound by the presem
nature of his commissioners tc ratf
treaty, or precluded from adopting y
measures as may seem necessary foru3
teracting the designs ofhis enemy N
sir, was not all this fair If We cons
that Great Great Britain has rights as
as we, that one great right was in isopa
in regard to her interest as we'll as ours,
this arrogance? Was it not Reasonable
Having common cause with her, should J
not have made that answer which shru
ed /? But what answer did we make? Il
the government of the United States
tent with being merely silent! No, 4
so far from giving any intlmation TIL
meant to defend itself, she very circunn14s
of this note was made one of the Gauss
the rejection of this treaty, as the prssTS'
Of the u. S. at the subs luent sessions
Congress declared. He declares that tfaa
was one consideration, independent oits
note, which induced him TO reject them
ty, thereby clearly showing that the ann
ion of that note was considered as sooS3
sive as to have induced him to reed#
treaty, if there had been no other caus
it. After this, what, in fairness, coutm
British ministers, bound to assert the TIM
Of their country, do! The United S9Sll
never gave intilnation of the course Es:
they intended to take. In the neNP4
he President had told Congress that
speaking to him was so offensive, tba|
hat account if on no other he should ri
himself warranted III reIeaM
he treaty. Were the British mialst1
expect after this that the President 70
nave recommended resistance OF
French DEGREES No, sir: it would'
,een giving more faith than we gsns''
give to them or they to US. 4
Speech to be- continued. p
WEDNESDAY, June 91. :, 8
n0MECTIC NTJFA GU RE1k|