The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-06-19

(Signed)
JOHN ARMSTRONG.
Hon. Robert Smith
Extract Of a letter 10 TIE same from she
same.
"10th March. heve at length recsiv-
ed a verbal message in answer to my note oe
the 21st nit. 1t was from the minister of
foreign relations, and in the following words
+" His Majesty has decided to sell the Anne
rican property seized in Spain, but the mo.
ney arising therefrom shall remain in de.
pot" This message has given occasion to
a letter from me marked No. 30
(No. ~ PARIS, 10th March, 1910.
SIR.
had yesterday the honor of receiving
verbal message from your exceile6cy, Sta
ting. that his Majesty bad decided, that the
American property seized in the ports of
Spain shonld be sold. but that the money
arising ,herefrom should remain in depot"
On receiving this information, two ques
tions suggested themselves
LIST Whether this decision was, or was
not, extendedto ships, as wellas to cargoes !;
and
Cd. Whether the money arising from the
sales whith might be made under it, would,
or would not, be subject to the issue of the
pending negotiation
The gentleman charged withthe deliver
of your message not having been instructed
to answer these questions, it becomes my du
ty to present them to your cxceiienCy, and
to request solution Of them. Nor is it less
a duty, on my part, TO examine the ground
on which his majesty has been pleased 10
take this decision, which understand to be
that of refrisQt suggested for the first time
2 ri he yna le To x,>it~
TO me on the 18Th ulsimo In the A.! para
graph OF this note, it is said, that 4" His ma
icsty could not have calculated on the niea
sures taken by the u. States, who. having
no grounds Of Complaint against France,
have comprised her in their acts OF exclu..
SION, and since the month of May last have
prohibited the entry into their ports of
French vessels, by suSjectiDg them to con-
fscation'
1t is true that the u States have since
the 20h of May last forbidden the entry OF
French vessels into their harbors-and il is
also true that the penalty of conhscation at
taches 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 10 question is regu-
lation merely municipal Examine it both
as to the object & 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 U. States ? and
why this prohibition ? To avoid injury and
insult to escape that lawIessness, which is
declared 20 be " a forced consequence of the
DEGREES of the British council" If then its
object be purely defensive, what are it's
mesnst Simply ia7c, previously and gen
orally promulgated. operating solely within
the territory of he u. States, AID punish
ing alike the infractors Of it, whether citi.
sens ofthe said states. or others. And what
is this but the exercise of right, common
to all nations. OF excluding at their will 70
reign commerce, and of enforciRg that ex
clusioD Can this be deemed wrong to
France Can this be regarded as a Ieeiti :
mate cause of reprisal on the part Of pow
err, who makes il The first duty of nations to
defend their sovereignty and who even de-
natiouaiizes The ships Of those who will net
subscribe 10 the opinion?
Bat it has been said that the ~. States
had nothing to complain of against France -
Was the capture and condemnation of
ship driven ON the shores of France by stres,
of weather and the perils Of the sea--no
thing Was the seizure and sequestration
OF many cargoes brought to France in shiDs
violating no law and admitted to regular en-
try at the imperial custom Understanding ?
Was the violation of our maritime rights,
consecrated as they have been by the solemn
forms ct public treaty--nothing In a
word, was 1t nothing that our ships were
burnt ON the high seas, without other offence
than that of belonging to The u. States Or
other apology, than was to be found in the
enhanced safety ofthe perpetrator Surely
if it be the duty Of tiae u. STATES to resent
the theoretical usurpatons of the British or.
ders OF Nov. 1907, it cannot be less their du-
ty to COMPLAIN of the daily and practical
outrages on the part of France 1t is indeed
true that were the people of the u. States
destitute OF policy, of honor and of energy
Gas has been insinuated) they might have a.
dopted system of discrimination between
the two great belligerents they might have
drawn imaginary lines between the first and
second aggressor; they might have resented
IN the one a conduct to which they tamelv
submitted IN the other, and in this way have
patched up compromise between honor
and interest, equally weak and disgracefuI.
But SUCH was not the course they pursued
AID IT is perhapsa necessary consequence of
The justice of their measures that they arc
at this day an independent nation. But
will not press tbs part Of my subject il
would be aiFIontiul to your excellehcy know
ing as yoa Do, tnat there are not less than