The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-10-09

vor tn Illustrate those endeavors. and to place
the subjcct fairly before the public, are my
motives, Tor requesting you to permit me to
express my sentiments through the medium
OF the Aurora
In discussing these three points, Ipresume,
snail have sufficient scope for expressing
my op,nions
/. l What is the nature of the revocation of
her DEGREES, by france
What VIII Britain ,los
8. What shall We dol 60
In discussing any particular Part of the
Subject OF our differences with the bellige-
rents. itis impossible to avoid consideration
of these truths: 1st that Britain first began
to harraSs neutrais, and had AN interest in
doug so, which France hid not and that
Frauce did not retaha,e. although interested
IN ,he prosperity OF neutrais, until after long
suiie ring and the dcsertion of neural rign,s
by neutrals themselves ; I'd. thai Britain bss
always injured -neulIals, upon the ground o
aliedsed 'lShf and that France has njured
neu'Tats upon the ground If an alleged sa''
crliice by neuirals of their rights and their
use totheir enemy and injury to their friends.
And Sd that although the aggressons from
willingness on one side and from Il retaliato
ny policy on the Other were alike unjnsfifi
able the former were uniformly more gross
~ 'uSiE nature ana extent.
i,-Ihese truths were so well understood in
1907 When the embargo law was enacted.
that ;he penalties or restrictions imposed
upon Brian, were necessarily more severe
than those imposed upon France for in cc.n-
sequence of the daily ,mpressment of our
seamen, the attack upon the Chesapeake,
the murder of Pearce, &c. British armed
vessels were forbidden to enter our ports,
whilst French armed ships were not prohib-
lied, the ships of Fcancc not having violat
ed our ports, not having murdered or impress
sed any of our citizens, nor insulted our ter
ritory or flag
This discrimination was Protested against
By Britain; IN January, 1903 Mr.. Rose
complained Of it. and declared he would
offer no PREPARATION until it was removed !;
but our governmeht3very huslorably and
firmly refused to change this discrimination,
aliedging thar France had not jus fled
so harsh 9 measure as the exclusion of its
SHIPS y
Nothing had been done BY Trance from
17e7, TO Marci. 1909. to warrant any change
IN his resolution Of our government the Elk
ecuuve had determined to ABIDE by the prin
cipies Of exact justice but secret intrigue
AID hai intrigue extending itself into the
executive councils, bafied all hese dignified
and consistent purposes, and the same con
gress, which repeated he emba, g. law, pas
sed an act on the LIS March, 1900, contain
ing this section
s'Sec 3. Ind be II further enucted, That
from and after the 90 n day of May neXt, the
entrance of the haTbOrs and wascrs OF the
u. S and the territories thereof be, and
the same are hereby inierdicted 10 all ships
or vessels sailing under the fig If G Britain
or France, or owned in whole or i'll part by
any CITIZEN OF subject of either We sells hir-
cd chartered or employ ed by the govern
ment OF either countfy for the sole purpose
o. carrying letters or dispatches, as also YES
sells forced in BY distress, or by the dangers
of the sea only excepted. And il any ship or
vessel sailing under ,he flag of G.. Britain or
France, OF owned in whole or in part byta !.
ny citizen or subject of either, and not ex-
c pied as aforesaid shall, after the said Goth
day u May mex, arrive either with or with
out cargo, within the Limits of he y. 5.
or o! the territories thereof, such chip or
vessel, together win he cargo, il any which
may be found on board, shall be forfeited, &
mavbe seized and condemned liz any court of
the u. s Sec."
There can be no doubt. but that the same
ntlSeeu influence which procured the repeal
OF the embargo, obtained the enactment Of the
above law IN fact. it was by the law, of
which the above is the Sd section, that the
embargo was repealed. Nothing had oc.
Cured, on the part OF France, to induce con.
gress 10 resort to this measure nothing had
occurred to weaken the frank but ,enper
ate arguments of Mr.. Madison, in January,
1903, against placing France. who had com.
miued no wrong. aud Britain, Who had ex
ceeded all precedent in OUTRAGE, under an
equal fenaIfy yetIhs law passed, aud as
1t nozD ahhear8, without any previous Motif"
cation to France, that her vessels would be
seized it hey entered our ports
il was in consequence of this law, drafted
by Mr. Gailatin. and the principle Of which
Mr. Madison he'd declared to be un;ustifia
bic, that France resorted TO confiscation ::
her language was this" without giving
any warning you subjected French vessels
entering your ports to condemnation, your
vessels upon the same principles ara now
subjected 70 ssquestrauon, without warning"
Het whilst must reprobate this step taken
by France, | cannot but Condemn the depar
tuTa from the system, so well defended by
MIR Madison IN his correspondence with Mr.
Rose, and by Mr.. Pinkney whoit is 70 be sup
posed implicitly followed the Instructions
which he received from the department
of sFate, IN his correspondence with Mr. G an
ming. y.
Thus affairs remained, condemninp on
both sides, from the 10th ffay, 1909. until
the 1st Nay, 1910, when in the spirit Of va
ciiladon and imbecility, the law Of March
1909 above quoted, was repealed, and an act
passed, Of which the following is the mate
rial section:
&" Sec. 4 Ind bc IL further enacted. That
in case either & Britain or france shall be
tore the third day of March mex, so revoke