The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-07-19


out came the order torbidding to our yes
sells the trade from one port of Europe t.
ahother; thus retrospectively and insidi.
rights, making prey of all vessels then out
or to go out before knowledge, of the or
der could cross the Atlantic.
Under this proceeding it is we'll known,
| that great numbers were seized and sent
INTO British ports. It is true, that before
they were to be liable to condemnation. a
warning under the order was TO be given !;
Out IN many cases, q return home was e.
Equivalent to total loss and i'm. all cases
the great, though partial loss, was the eff
feet OF the retroactive. aud ensnaring mea
sure. -
One otner instance may be added In
April, 1904. the British minister, Mr.. Ner-
[ry.cominnnicated TO our government a IN
strnct'on from his government, to the ma
val commanders and courts in the West
Indies. "not TO consider any blockade of
those Islands as existing, Unless in respect
| af particular ports which may be actca!l,
Invested, and not then to capture vessels
jbound to such ports, unless they shalt have
been previously warned not 10 enter the IN"
pn the same day. he communicated q
blockade OF the Island of CURACAO, with
an assurance, that "the blockade wuuli be
\ .SNSN 'hdDiy 10 ttlS ABOVE luSttUC-
| TONS. The blockade was not conducted
according to the rule laid down; and eve
ry vessel bound to Curracoa was captured
oy British cruisers and condemned by Bvi-
| fish courts. .
Notwithstanding these extensive depre-
oaucns OF Grea, Britain, aggravated by the
conSderatiou, that they were thus .retros
pecnve and ensnaring, the: arrangement
with the British minister Erskine was made
without even bringing them into the neeo-
ciation Tor the repeal of .he Orders in Coun-
Gil, much less making indemnity for them
prerequisite, which the law would not In
tact have authorised
In the late arrangements for the repeal
of the French DEGREES, indemnity for tha
retrospective siaud insidious spoiiations in
france was GOT therefore made condition :
| u was no more than what both law ant, I'm
paruaiity required In bringing the sub
IJeCt into the neg citation and pressing !, in
the manner we have seen it done, the exc
cutive gave the strongest proof of zeal and
eAeruon tor the rights of the nation and the
Interests oil the merchants and to max q
IL Charge that more was not done. more
leVen Than the law justified, is as Absurd az
liz is unjust a.
+ In looking carefully over the extracts Of
the TWO letters OF June and Julv m
Gen Armstrong (Which we should take for
grated, were written by the Secretary
himself, II Mr. Smith mad not been Secre,
eary.} we perceive struggle between an
anxiety ~ extort from the occasion an in
oemhlty for pact wrongs and security a.
Sdihss iuture ones, and respect Tor tb o
law as well as tpr the rule Of impartial;tv
towards the two belligerents.
I WI. omlth has not given us the SEQUEL of
.neSe TWO instructions to Gen. Armstrong.
we may suppose, therefore, especially from
.nc uH.e OF the latter, which seems most
positive in Its language, that they were not
received In time 10 be used before The de-
ciaration of the repeal of the French de-.
crees was made by The Duke of Cadore ON
the oth. august. That, declaration was nm.
aerstooa by General Armstrong and by ON.
CaeCueiVe, 10 be q compliance with tho
cohd'uohs OF the act of Congress. and bind
ing as an arrangement on both sides g. and
was itito be set aside, because it did NOT nro-
vide tor the case Of those retrospectiye enc
ilations! Iohave done so, would have cnn-
traVened the law ana the policy of Con-
sses' "ohla set up rule in the ar
ianSemeht with France, different from what
had peen observed in the arrangement
WIN GhS land and 1t would have led to
.iie embarrassment OF obiiging the Execu
tIve' IN case the British government snonId
De desirous OF opening free trade with he
" states by repeating its orders. r. male
II prerequisite that Great Britain also
should indemnify for her retrospective sDo
iiauons. 'Fo-
While Mr.. Smith is dealing out his re
! 1FoSHec5iOe charges aud insnuations, the
question again occurs, did he approve or dis.
| approve himself the proclamation Of Nov
"a, winch closed the ar angemsnt without
any provision for indemnity 1t is a ones
ton which can only puzzle him in lis re
| suit because, as already minated, whe
ther lie says yes or no or bofh he will have
the merit OF consistency with what he has
often said in society,
Much credit is claimed for the letter OF
June 1910, to Gen. Armstrong, asa hreAcr
ed' by Mr.. Smith, but rejected by the. Pre-
sident, and replaced by a substitute dictated
| by himself, This letter is believed not &c
have been written by MIR. Smith, but il IS
nevertheless entitled to the praise of haine
well written, as a calm argunentative Com
munication. Ibere, are, however. Darti.
cular passage aad expressions which nav
help TO account for its unfavorable recepu.
on by Mr.. Madison. 1ake for examine
the following Had Frarce inlerdicted 70
" or vessels all the ports within the sphere
g OF her influence, and had she given .
warning OF equal duration With that given
"by our law, there would have beer no
4" cause Of complaint on the part of the u
"States" What no cauSe of complaint
The Z D. 1T is true, could not complain Of =