Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-07-18

this Is the usual course The cove, nrneut
puts ITS own sentiments INTO the hands of its
minister, and leaves to his discretion the
manner and the occasion proper for using
them.
Article 7. Letter TO Gen. 7'RucQu. We
cannot but think that Mr.. Smith is unl,ickv
in the choice of materials out of which lie has
framed his book. Surely, in the course of his
two great years he has done letter business
than write or " lreharc" such unguarded let
ters as this. BY laying this letter before us
now, he recalls to our recollection the mis-
Chief it has done in furnishing the British go
veIninent preteXt for persiSting in its or
ders IN Council. That il had this effect in a
great degree we all know from the clamor of
the British partizans in America and from
the court papers III London and he as Sec
rotary ct State must have been informed of
this mischief thro' a mure authentic channel.
with what propriety could Mr.. Smith de
clare tlat substitution of municipal prchi-
bltions tor the Berlin and Milan DEGREES was
achauge OF the mode only and net the mea-
sure; when the municipal prohibitions relat-
cd simply to our trade with Frgnce, and was
misuse Of kcr oyyn sovereignty, while the
DEGREES related to our trade with c. Britain
and with ali the world and was violation of
oar sovereignty. The DEGREES we're an insuf-
terabie invasion Of our neutral rights, an ac-
quescence IN which would justly expose US
to the animadvers;Ons of other beliigeTents TO
whom they we're injurious; the municipal pro-
hibitions, tho ugh unfriendly to us, and 20 be
repeiIed by negotiation or otherwise. as we
should think ht, regarded us alone, having
nothing to do with Great Britain; they there
tore could not become a pretext for continu-
ing her orders in council.
Mar. smith informs us that the President
would not suffer this letter to pass till he in
serted some Clauses with view to obvate
the mIschievous tendency above mentioned.
we can easily point cut the passages thus in
serted by Mr.. Madison. We emily regret he
mad not written 1t all cr suppressed it ALL
The Ex-Secretary complains that he was Of
ten opposed, reiRed in and geaded on by the
President. An animal with longer ears than
Mr.. Smiths or cars, could he speak to his
master as he once did, would utter the same
Complaint.
Article 9. TIE fy jecisG letter TO Mr.. Sc
TL@777ei; 1T is true, the expectation of inteIli-
gence from this new minister excited solicit
ude on his arrival. But it was soon found that
he had been so long on his way (near.y four
months from Paris) we could hope to learn
but little from him; in fact we had already
received later accounts than he could bring.
What was the object of Mr.. Smiths inter
rogatories intended to be put to him 1t was
10 learn. /. Whether the obnoxious docress
were revoked 2. what were the municipal
regulations as 60 our trade with France 8.
Hhetherhewas instructed to give assurances
or explanations as to the conhsrg tons under
the Rambouillet decree.
He speaks of conference having taken
place between him and the minister; but
does not suggest that any thing lad past
therein contradicting the revocation !; it may
be inferred therefore, that MIR. Serrurier did
not contradict it. Mr.. Smith states in ano-
Their place, as follows from the nforma-
{ ton received by Mr.. Madison prior to the
date of the non-interCourse law, it was at
6 the time of passing it evident TO my mind
that the Berlin and Milan DEGREES had not
| been revoked, as had been declared by the
proclamation"
This law passed the Cd of March, on the
eve of the adjournment Of Congress. Why
does not AIR. Smith tell us what the informa-
ton was, from what authority and when re-
ceiyedl He would have done well also to
let us know 70 7vhoSe mind 6esides his o7yu it
was evident that the DEGREES were not revo-
ked; at least so far as they entered into
the question between the United States and
Great Britain.
The next object of the catechism to Scr
rurier was the rsate of the municipal regu-
latioR of trade. Here also he is silent Is to
what past in the conference, although in his
I letter to Turresu these regulations were the
! test Of onr obligation to put in force tic non
! importation against Great Britain. All that
Turreau could say On Tie subject was alrca-
7 dy known to Congress and there was no
reason to suppose that Serrurier knew more
| than Turreau.
The last object was TO learn If Mr.. Ser
rurier was instructed By his government to
say whether the Rambouillet decree spolia-
tons would be restored Smith afirms
tliat the French government did officially
and formally communicate through Mr.. Ser
rnrier its fxt determination not TO restore.
| What! Officially ard formally Who SAYS
so9 1r. Smith. Bit Mr.. SefTu,f ? satis
no; NJ coMMUNIcATED no sueH THING
| We will however let Mr.. Smith of this once
| by supposing very charitably that he might
| have misunderstood the French Minister; as
| they were strangers 20 each others language
and conversed through an interpreter But
| even it this supposed communication had
| past ia conversation, which according 70 our
understanding of diplomatic rules is always
! considered as informal and Vn,Nftioi, Shy
| does Mr.. Smith, in the grave tone cf prin-
/ ted book which he takes three months "a
write, endeavor 20 palm Il on the public as a
thing that had Tic stamp q a public docu-
mcnt, a written diplomatic note, signed sent,
received and fled IN tho department of state
| ANY ryergou yyho chcrfd hr.4r curh An aqcrr-