Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-06-05

aoth Of May following. 4 per;od o. ! N,;'
months and twenty days. a frenen m
mister resides at the seat Of our goveiame1s.
Immediately after Its passing, the law WA
tnown 70 him. Immediately alter Ito pass
inc. he transmitted an account OF It TO the
Jealous, wasehful, prying administration oy
which he 10 appointed" 1t was known IN
France long before the ao.h Of May, aud
the people Of France wers FORE
ryarned of the danger which would ensue
from sending their vessels here It is NOT
known tina. any did'eome,s except such as
brought dispatches or were in real distress,
or simulated the appearance OF 1t. - 1t IS
not knowE' that any were seized and combs
Gated by the United States tor a breach OF
this law.
'::On the other hand, the unsuspeesing riti.
zens of our oppressed aad deluded country,
rush with rich: cargoes into the harbors OF
France and those subjeetto her power, com.
prising the greatest part OF the coast OF Eu-
rope ON the Atlantic and Mediterranean,
and are seized without moments uoticc,
under an ejicsth they did not know OF
until it was enforced.
The pretext 10 as false in fact, 40 it IS
outrageous 10 the manner Of its execution.
American vessels, says this duke de Ca
dere, were seized in the ports OF Holland,
Italy and Naples, because Americans had
E seized French vessels. He mentions no
French vessels that zvere seized. Ills not
believed that any were seized, although 1t
Il known that several French priva.eers en-
tered eur harbors& during the continuance
OF the embargo, without any reasonable
cause to warrant them in doing so, after
they had insulted aud plundered our limo;
cert rountrymen on the ocean and we're
permitted 70 60 away stored with provisions
and every comfort that, our country could
afford.
Again, when the American vessels were
shut out of the ports Of France and her. de.
Tendencies, if they had been on an innocent
voyage ,o a British port, or had been
searched or visited against their will By a
British cruiz-r,we considered it a.nunicipal
regulation. I'VE did not seize French Yes
sells although they seized aud conhsea'ed
ours under their infamous decress OF Der
lin and Milan. Bae the moment zoe make
a municipal regulation to prevent: French
vessels from entering our ports, although
we gave them fair anc regular notice OF it,
they consider tia breach oftheir rights: as
operating (unjustly) against the commerce
Of France and the states leagued with her,
&c. aud seize without momenrs notice,
every vessel belonging to Us within their
grasp.
Unjust as Grea, Britain may have esen to
US IN some instances, she did not act in this
way, although her power to iniure US is IN;
fnitelv greater, andal,hough her flag was
equally excluded from our ports by the
SAME law.
I. is adding Insult to injury to say, as
Champagny's letter does say, " that the u.
States comprised France in her exclusion,
without MAxINc ANY COMPLAINT or
FRANCE" Are not the journals Vt both
houses Of our legislature, our public laws,
and the remon,trances of our minister for
years past, full 81 LOUD COMPLAINTS a.
sainst tbs tyranny and asrocisy OF French
edicts!