Portland gazette and Maine advertiser., 1810-07-02
Important Destafrhes.


TfoV1 me E7sf0r Gazette.
lste Ns'ional 1ntelligencer. contains
series OF ofhclal letters from our respective
ministers IN England and France. The
most important and Interesting, are those
from Gen Armstrong, which we shall give
entire. Those from Mr.. Pinkney are dated
February and Mirch, and relate, altoge,h.
20. to The communications which lie had
with the British government, on the sub
ject ot the conditions under which Nanole.
on had agreed 70 rcscind the Berlin decree.
1t will be recollected that these conditions
were the revocation ofthe British blockades
ot France, or part tf France, (such as that
from the Elbe to Brest, sc of date ante
'Ter 10 that of the aforesaid Berlin decree.
The result of these communications, (as be.
fore knnwn) is, that the blockadiny system,
adopted IN 1906, is now comprehcnded,
W. certain notifications, in the orders of
: Un II Of Jan 1907, and form part of the
regulations, now in force against France.
4, this way the offer Of France, to rescind
Tue Berlin decree, is set aside
The two first letters from Cen Arm
s'rong, enclose his remoastrances to the
french government respecting the seizures
ct property IL > in, Holland, France, Iia-
IS, and Maple. and his refutation of the
ground Of justification of those confiscations
winch the French government have assu-
red, viz.-1st. &C. The United States hav-
ing no ground of complaint against France,
lave comprised her in t.eir acts Of exclu-
son" 2d. " Not cnlv within his own ter
r'tories, but also within the countries under
fis influence, Napoleon has seized Ameri-
ein vessels, because Aanerc9ns had seized
French vesSe!s +" These points are discuss
ed n: length by Gen. Armstrong with abil-
i'y, and considerable Independence, in his
letter of March 10, 1910, which follows I
Extract efa letter from General armstrong TO
Mr. Smi.h.
l0'h March, have At length receiv.
ed a verbal message IN answer to my note
at the 2lst ult. Il was from the minister
of foreign relations, and IS in the following
words " His Majesty has decided to sell
the Americ an property seized in Spain, but
s'e money arising therefrom shall remain
IN depot"
Paris, 10,h March, 1910.
Sir, had yesterday the honour of receIv-
ing a verbal message from your excellency,
statinR, that his majesty had decided,
that the American property seized in the
ports of 81 ain should be sold, but that the
money arising therefrom should remain in
depot"
On receiving this information, two ques-
tions suggested themselves
1st. Whether this decision was, or was
not, exended to ships, as well as to car
goes as
2d. Whether the money arising from the
sales which ;ght be made under it, would
or would not, be subject TO the issue of the
pending negotiation
The gentleman charged with the delivery
Of your message not having been Instructed
TO answer these questions, il becomes my
daty TO present them 10 your excelency,
ard 70 request solution Of them. Nor is
i less duty. on my part, to examine the
ground on which his majesty, has been
pleased 20 take this decision, which un
cerstand to be that of ,epyisni, suggested
for the first time in the note YOU did me the
honour TO write TO me on the 14th ultimo.
In the 4th paragraph Of your note, it is said,
,hat " his Majesty could not have calcula-
ted on the measures taken by the United
s ates, who having no grounds of complaint
against France, have comprised her in their
acts of exclusion, and since the month of
May last have prohibited the entry into
their ports of French vessels, by subjccting
them to conhscation."
1t is true that the II. States have since
she 20th of May last forbidden tie entry of
French vessels into their harbours-and il is
also true that the penalty of confsca,ion at
iaches to the violation of this law. But in
what respect does this offend France
Will she refuse to us the right of regulating
commerce within our own ports Or will
she deny that the law in question is = regu-
lation merely municipal Examine il both
as to object and means--what does it more
than forbid American ships from going into
the ports of France, and French ships from
coming into those Of the United States
And why this prohibition ? To avoid injury
:nd insult; To escape that lawlessness,
which IS declared TO be (" forced conse-
quence Of the. DEGREES of the British coun-
ch' If fthen its object be purely defensive,
what are its means Simply layy, previ-
ously and generally promulgated. operating
solely within the territory of the u S. and
Furnishing alike the infractors of il, whether
citizens of the said states, or others. And
what is :hls but the exercise of right,
common to all nations, Of excluding at
their viii foreign Commerce, and Of enfor-
cling that exclusion Can this be deemed a
wrong to France Can this be regarded as
slcgitimate cause of reprisal on the part Of
power, who makes il the fest duty Of ma
tions 10 defend their sovereignty and who
even denationalizes the ships of those who
will not subscribe 10 the opinion.
But it has been sad that the " United
S:a;es bad nothing TO complain of against
france"
Was the capture and condemnation of q
ship drivea on the shores OF France by
stress of weather and the perils Of the sea