Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1811-07-12

Iha world and was violation oil our 80.
yere;pnty. The DEGREES were an ihsui
ferabie invasion of our neutral r,sh's' Oh Oh
aconiesccnce in which would Justly eHPoso
ne to the animadyersions Of other beiiise-
rents to whom they were injurious the
mun;c;nal prohibitions, though untiicnd-
" to rs. and to be repealed by negocla-
ton or otherwise, as We should 'h'hh n.y.
regarded us alone, having nothing to 40
with {, reat. Britain they therefore couia
not become a pretext for continuing hef
orders in council.
Mr.. Smith informs us that the lfeei-
dent would not suffer this letter to pass
till he inserted some clauses with we"
to obyiate the mischicvous tendency above
mentioned. We can easily point out the
passages thus inserted by MIR. Madison.
We only regret that he had not written 1t
all or suppressed it all. The Ex-Secre-
tary complains that he was often opposed
reined in, and goaded on by the Presl-
dent. An animal with longer ears than
Mr.. Smiths. or ours, could he speak to
his master as he once did, would utter the
same complaint.
Article 8. The projected letter to .ur.
Serr,lrier. 1t is true, the expectation OF
intelligence from this new mills er excit-
ed solicitude on his arrival. But it was
soon found that he had been so long on
his way (nearIy four months from Paris
we could hope to learn but little from
him in fact we had already received lat
or accounts than he could bring.
What was the object of Mr.. Smiths in
terrogatories intended to be put to him ?
1t was to learn, 4. Whether the Obnox
ious DEGREES were revoked; 2. what were
the municipal regulations as to our trade
with France 8. whether he was in
structed to give assurances or explana-
tons as to the considerations under the
Rambouillet decree.
lie speaks of conference having taken
place between him and the minister; but
does not suggest that any thing had past
therein contradicting the revocation; it
may be inferred therefore that Mr.. Ser
ruricr did not contradict it. Mr.. Smith
states in another place. as follows -
8: from the information received by Mr..
IS Madison prior TO the date Of the nom
90 intercourse law, it was at the time of
" passing it evident to my mind that the
90 Berlin and Milan DEGREES had not been
" revoked, as had been declared by the
IS proclamation"
This law passed the Cd Of March, on
the eve of the adjournment of Congress.
Why does not Mr.. Smith tell us what the
information was, from what authority and
when received? He would have done well
also to let us know to 7chose mind besides
his 07cn it was evident that the DEGREES
were not revoked at least so far as they
entered into the question between the U.
States and Great-Britain.
The next object of the catechism to
Scrrurier was the state of the municipal
regulation Of trade. Here also he is ST.
lent as to what past in the conference, al
though in his letterte Turreau these re-
gulatiOHs were the test of our obligation
to put in force the non-importation against
GreatBritain. All that Turreau could
say on the subject was already known TO
Congress and there was no reason 10
suppose that Serrurier knew more than
Turreau.
The last object was to learn if Mr..
serrurier was instructed by his govern
ment to say whether the Rambouillet
decree spoliations would be restored Mr..
Smith affirms that the French government
did officially and formally communicate
through Mr.. Serrurier its fxt determine
ton net to restore. What : Officially and
formally! Who says so? Mr.. Smith.
But MIR. Serrurier says NO p; he COM
MUNICATED NO SUCH THING ! We will
however let Mr.. Smith off this once by
supposing very charitably that he might
have misunderstood the French Minister:
as they were strangers TO each others
language and conversed through an in
But even il this supposed com
mHnication had past in conversation.
which according to our understanding of
diplomatic rules is ALWAYS considered nc