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

Hiote partCuiaIv oloSe M Novcu.uSr, eH-
'1oi:tiy prove that ,l,ev da not.
IT rs frne, as tho Report of the I~sisla-
'ure ct MASSACHUSETTS, ayers, thu q. earit
a. May 1902. it .yas known IL the ". States,
that the French privateers, in the w. Indies.
had n virtne of he cdics Of November, 1905,
committed dehrcd1.ions OH the American
commerce." (6) but it is equally true, that
these were the acts of iawless priva,eers, in
pursuit OF their booty-tnat these acts were
neither previously directed nor subsequently
sanctioned by their governnent-aud thai
all these depredations ceased, wheu the de-
cisions 1t the Admiralty Courts had esta-
pushed the Interpretation of the Decree OF
Berlin. 1t is surety neither the inserestofG
britain nor nj any OF her Essex minions, to
coniound the uuauthorised acts of her csui-
GERS, with those of her government. If thsre
De any nation in the world that sh ould official
~ protest against this identity, it mast be
tnat OF u. Britain-Besides these depreaa-
ucns In the West-lndies, there NAV have
oeen soruG cases ct condemnation in the ports
OF France herself. But these were vessels
arrested for having introduced articles of
English grc:yth or manufacture (; and among
them some which being actually from Eng
land, and iaden with English colonial pro-
duce, had entered with forged papers, as if
comin- from the u. s." These condemna-
t,ois were no in!raction- of the rights of the
U. States. They did not AFFECT our rights of
navigation nhon the high secs /: they were
merely intended, to enforce those m,anicifai
regulations which France had a right to a
dept. 1t these, therefore, are the cases of
aggression to Which Mir. Erskine has alluded
III ms letter communicating the orders of ia
nuary, 1896, to our government, these cases
were no real encroachments cn our rights.
Ii these were not the cases, 70 what other "ia-
stances" can he have alluded ?
IL rs also true, as this Report AYERS, that
there was Z" another article" in the Berlin
decree, which declares q" all merchandise
belonging to England, or coming from its
manufactures, or colonies, though belong
ing to neutrals, liable to scizure"-' in tie
horts Of France" True, also, this part of
the decree was carried into execution. But
what is our establishment, what our contempt.
when We are gravely tod by this Report,
that this was "in direct contravcntion to the
stipulations of All existing treaty between
the u. States and the Emperor of France ="
Arc we to ascribe this slaring misrepresen-
tation to the credulity of fools or the hypo-
icrisy of knaves! The only article OF the
French Convention, which can fer one no
ment be Suffosed to touch this decree, is The
18th article, which merely provides for the
unlimited freedom of trade (contraband goods
NNOSDNSdJ J''W MY POll hdlG NSI, ~ any
port, of the enemy of the other" But this
case is most evidently oUt of the term. of
the Berlin Decree because this merely res
tricts the trade of the u. ST. es, "fronl an
enemy's pert,"-not to an eneDly'S pert
but to a french portals to the c~onfiscation
oil neutral property in the ports of France,
it certainly Cannot be regarded as an in
fraction either of our neutral or convention
al rights" (c) Within the municipal limits
q France, the French government has a
right to regulate its own trade-and ifthese
municipal regulations are invaded, to enforce
its own penalties.
In q vvora-if the general 6iockading part
OF the French decree was immC Iiately end
continually fut into execution against the
US. why have not the particular cases been
cited J.? Why are not the names Of The pes-
SelS--the dates of condcmnatinn--and the
admiralty %courts, been particularly specifi-
ed: The reason is obvious. No such cases
can be cited because none such had occur
red. The most eager researches of the
most corrupt advocates Of 6. T.. nave been
incompetent to hunt cut a solitary case of
condemnation, frepionS to. that OF the Hori-
zon, referred to in this Repcrs. This case
did not take place before the 10th of October,
lSO7-and was the first instance of French
aggression upon on, riShts.--It is not then
the list Nov. 1906, the date of the Berlin De
cree, that we are to fix OH as the epoch of
french aSgressions upon us--but the 10th OF
October, le0T.-This single fact overthrows
the whole reasoning of the Essex Junto in ia
vor or the British government. For what
has that government done
Let tho history of those orders, which thew
nave lately issued against the US. be also ira
cod. On the 31st Dec. 1866. the commission
ers of the British g~overrment, who had Just
concluded d treaty with the ministers OF the
y. States. presented to them a msmorialin
which their king reserves to himself the
right OF retafating in his own defence, and
Issuing orders to his cruizers-ou these two
conditions, however, LIST, that the emperor
or France should carry his threats into exe-
cufiom, and 2dly, that /" neutral nations
should, contrary TO all expectation, acquiesce
i'll such usurpations." After these solemn
assurances, what was the conduct OF the Bri-
fish government ! Was this as faithful a
commentary upon British professions, as was
the conduct of France upon the opinion of
Monsieur DEGREES Very far fron it. With
III only seUeH days afterwards, the British GO
veihmcnt issued its orders e JANUARY, which
directly violated one Of the fundamental
rights Of the u. S. These orders too were
directly i'll the face Of the TWO solemn pledges
which they had so lately given to the Ame-
rican CommissiO1ers.-For not one instance
had occurred, in which the French govern
menthad carried its threats into execution.
And no opportunity had been allowed to the
| III. Stafps rf 1ectI;nr ,ybatIc. IL .---t \