Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-07-08
"a dollars per annum.J

hension that either France or Great Britain
might thereby DC exhibited TO the world in
an odioas point of view. Tie following
drauSht ota letter to general Armstrong was
| accordingly prepared by me immediately af4
| ter INC letter. OF the duke OF Galore, to
Whlch 1t refers, had been received. 1t was
IN the usual form laid before the president
lor MS appreciation. He, however, objected
70 the sending Gift And as there is reason
TO believe that this very letter constituted part
OF the ground Of the hostility of Mr.. Madison
90 me, 1t IS cut proper to give it publicity.
Cory efthe draugbt- If the ictter tlrohosee,
10 oe Sc71f 20 srea. armstrong.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, June =, 1910.
Ger .li,nStyong---Yo letters Of the -,
VITA ths,rrcsPectiye enclosures, were recei~
we'd On tic s1st of Nav.
In the note Of rhe duke of Galore nothing.
can be perceived to justly the seizure ofthe
American property in the ports Of France
aud IN those other allies The facts as well
as the arguments which it has assumed, are,
contuted by events known TO the world, and
particularly by that moderation of temper.
which has invariably distinguished the con-
dnct on this government towards the beliige-
rent nations. After forbeafance equal
iei only by our steady observance of the laws
u neutrality and Of the immnrable principles
OF justice, Ii is with no little surprze that the
president discefns III the French government
4 disposition to represent the United States
rs the original aggresscr. An act of violence,
which under existing circumstances, is
scarcely less than an act of war, necessarily
required aaexpianation, which would satisfy
not only the United States but the world. Rnt
the note Of the duke of Cadore, instead { a
Just.ncatlon, has not furnished even piau-
sible palliation or a reasonable apology for
the SEIZURE OF the American property.
mere has never been a period Of time
when the United States have ceased TO pro-
test against the British orders in council
with regard to the resistance which the u,
States may have deemed it proper to oppose
70 such unlawful restrictions, Il obviously be-
iongsdto the American, government alone to
prescribe the mode. Is system of e1clusi-
on OF the vessels and merchandise ofthe BEL
iigerent powers from our ports, has been
preferred TO war, If municipal prohibition
has been resorted to instead of invasive reta-
iiatien, with what propiiety can the cmpe-
ror OF the French pretend to see in that ne
thod ct proceeding any thing else than a law
iui exercise OF sovereign power To constrpe
the exercise OF this power into Cause Of
waflke IeprIsai is a species of dictaton,
winch could 1t be admitted, would have a
tendency to subvert the sovereignty Of the
France mas converted our law Of exclusi-
oil INTO pretext for the seizure OF the pro-
perry OF the citizens of the United States
This STATUE was also in force against the ves-
sells OF Great Britain. IF its operation had
, been considered b. the French government
MS cfsuiEcient efficacy 70 Justify this pretend
ed rePrlsd, tlat every operation, as it would
nave been more severely felt by q. Britain,
| Ought also TO have been considered as consti-
tuting resistance TO her orders the non-exis-
teuce OF which resistance has been stated by
the duke ofCadore asthe pretext the act Of
violence exercised on The American proper
| ty The u. States having resisted the Bri-
t.sh orders, the real ground of complaint
| would seem to. be, not 50 much that the As
mercan government has not resisted taxon
| their navigation, as that it has likewise re-
sisted the French DEGREES, which had
| assumed q plescrpJIye power over The policy
| Of the u. y as reprehensible as the attempt Of
the British governmental evy contribtionson
cur trade was obHoxious. Placed in situ1
alton where a taxwas proclaimed On the one
hand, and rule of action prescribed on the
| other, the Y. States owed II 20 their own no.
| nor to resist with corresponding measures the
! cupidity Of the one, and the presumption cf
| the other. When the American govern
ment sees in the provisions OF the British or
| ders, an assumption Of maritime power in
contradiction Of the law Of NATIONS, h,w can
it fail also to perceiveitf the French DEGREES
the adoption Of a principle equally deFogato-
~ and injurious 10 the neutral character Of
the u. States. ~ 7t
| The pretension, of sGbiecting American ma
yigation to tax, as advanced by the British
order Of Nov. 1907, was in reality Withdrawn
By order the of the Goth April, 1909. Yet
tenmonths subsequent to the rccalof thatpro-