The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1810-06-27


mercc within our own ports Or viii she
deny that the law in question is regulation
merely municipal Examine tboth as to
object and mcans--what doss1t more than
forbid American ships from going into the
ports of France, and French ships from COM
ing into those of the United States And
why this prohibition To avoid injury and
insult to escape the lawessness, which is
declared to be forced consequence Of the
DEGREES Of the British Council" If then its
object be purely defensive, what are its
means Simply iaw, previously and gen.
orally promulgated, operating solely within
the territory of the United States, and pun
ishing alike the infractors of it, wcthcr citI-
zens of the said States or others. And what
is this but the, exercise of a right, common
to all nations, of excluding at their viii, for
eign commerce, and of enforcing that exclu-
sion Can this be deemed wrong to
France Can ibis be regarded as lcgiti-
mate cause Of rcprisal on the part of power
who makes it the first duty Of nations to de-
fcnd their sovereignty, and who even dens-
sionalizes the ships of those who will no,
sebscribc to the opinion.
But it has been said that the &C United
States had nothing to complain of against
France"
Was the capture and condemnation of
ship driven on the shores of France by stress
weather and the pcrils of the sea--noth.
ing Was the seizure and scques;rstion OF
many csrgoes brought to France in ships vi
oiating no law, and admitted to regular entry
at the imperial custom houses--nothing p
Was the violation OF our maritime rights.
consecrated as they have been by the solemn
forms of publick treaty--nothing ? In
a word, was it not hing that or ships were
burst on the high seas, without other offence.
than that Of belonging to the United States
or other apology, than was 70 be found in the
enhanced safety of the perpetrator Surely
if j, be the duty of the United States to
resent the Theoretical usurpations Of the Brit
ish Orders of Nov. lso7,it cannot be less their
duty to COMPLAIN of the daily and practical
ontrages on the part OF France II IS in
deed true that were the people Of the United
States, destitute Of policy, Of honour, and of
energy, Gas has besu insinuated) they might
have adopted system OF discrimination be-
tween the two great belIigerents they might
have drawn imaginary lines between the first
and second aggressor; they might have re-
scnted IN the one conduct to which they
tamely submitted in tis, other, and i'm This way
have patched ups compromise between hon.
our and interest, equally weak and Disgrace
iu. But such was not the course they pur-
sued and il Is perhaps necessary consc-
qucncc OF tire justice or their measures tbs,
they are at present All independent nation.
but will not press this part Of my subject
It would be affiontful' 70 your excelicncy
(knowing, as you do, that there are not less
than one hundred American vessels within
his majcsty's possession, or that of his allies)
to multiply proofs that the United States
have grounds Of complaint against France.
My attention is necessarily called to anotA-
er part of the same paragraph, which imme-
dlately follows the quotation already made.
AS soon, says your exceilency, Gas his
majesty was informed Of tins measure, 1.-THE
non-intercourse law it became his duty 10
retaliats upon the American vessels, no, only
within his own territories, but also within
the countries under his influence In the
ports OF Holland, Spain, Italy, and Naples,
the American vessels have been seized, be-
cause the Amercons had seized French pes.
seis." IFl
These remaks divide themselves into the
following heads :-~
lst. The right of his majesty to seize and
conhscate American vessels, within his own
territories. tkg3f
I'd. The right to do so within the terrific.
ries of his allies and -rs@@
Sd The reason Of that right, viz "6eeause
the americans had seized French pesseis"
The first of these subsS.ts has been al
ready examined and the second must be
decided like tho, first, since his majes,y's
rights within the limits of his ally cannot be
greater than within his own. If then it has
been shewn, that the nonsintercoursc law
was merely defensive in its object that il
was but intended to guard against that state
of violence which unhappily prevailed that
II was restrictedin its operation to the terri
tory Of the United States, and that it was
duly promulgated there, and in Europe, be-
fore execution. It will be almost unnecesss-
ry to repeat, that a law of such description
cannot snthorize measure of rcprisal, eqnaA-
ly sudden and silent in its enact rpt and ap