Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-06-29

/ which the TWO COUNTRIES Was pldCSu WdS
+ pretence, and nothing more, for their change
of position. Now let lis examine it for 1
do consider it extremely important that the
fact should be ascertained and established
whether the embargo was such machine
as to produce all those consequences for,
fit was let US never forget that we had it,
and have recourse to it on every future oc-
casion. If it was, sir, let US inscribe IN
golden characters over your head that it
may stare US in the face whenever we rise
to address you. But if the late change be
not ascribable tothat, but to the abandon
ment OF that pernicious system Of which the
embargo formed principal feature; if it
be ascrlbable to the frankness and prompsl-
tude with which the President met the late
oyertures, let us say so. The medicine has
onerated, and it is correct that we should
ascertain by what physician the cure was
REFORMED. That medicine which had like
70 have killed us will never be resorted to
again. -.
The proclamation was another stumbling
block in the consideration OF which |
must again have recourse to the volume of
truth. It will be recolected, sir, that when
the affair of the Chesapeake first became
public at London, it was known to the Bri-
fish minister before it was known to our
ministers. Whilst things were going on
very smoothly in relation to that matter, in
formation was received that the President
of the u. States had issued PROCLAMATION
interdicting the entrance OF our waters to
British vessels, and objection was made to
ton whar ground That the u. States
had no right by the laws Of nations to ex-
clude armed vessels from their waters No,
sir, that was ground which was never
contested. For, in point Of right, foreign
armed vessels can no more claim permission
tocome within our watere than their ar
mes can claim right to encamp on the
terra 6rma Of our country. The right is
enjoyed but by indulgence. But, if the
arnies of France and England were en-
gaped upon our frontiers, and we should
permit the army Of one to receive accom-
mbdation and comfort within our territorial
limits, and were to exclude the other, we
shbuld violate the neutral character by aid
ing one to the depression of the other, ia
king so far as this partially extended, part
inthc war, we should in fact he doing a
hostile act. GA the other hand, if we per-
mltted both to come into our territories and
fight it out, we still keep our neutral cha
racter, impartialty being the essence of
neutrality. When therefore the proclama-
ton interdicting British vessels was issued,
II ...,. a1>->.s I e al q oll11l !:
The total exclusion of all ships of war be-
longing TO one of two belligerent parties,
while the ships of war Of the other power
were protected by the I,arbors of the ne utral
power, would furnish no light ground of
complaint against that neutral, if considered
in any other point of view then as mea-
sure Of retaliation for previous injury and
so considered, it cannot but be necessary to
take into account in the adjustment Of the
original dispute
If the house will give me little atten-
ton, they will see that the objection to the
proclamation did not go on the ground sim
ply that British vessels were prohibited
from entering, but that whilst British yes
sells were prohibited French were admitted.
1t was admitting the army OF one bellige-
rent to occupy your territory, Wills, that of
the other was prevented. Therefore the
giving the use of our waters to one belige-
rent and refusing it to the other was affair
and just cause Of complaint and till both
were admitted or both excluded, Great
Britain refused to treat or make reparation
for the attack Oh the Chesapeake. Mr..
Rose came forward afterwards with long
letter on the same subject, and we find that
he comes to the same conclusion. This
point, wherever the subject is treated, is
not lost Sight of. You find it afterwards in