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


we perceive was sent with the act, and
which must have been at least signed BIZ Mr.
Smith, shall come before rs.
1t is sorrowful truth, says Mr.. Smith.
that the act did not provide for several obvi-
GUS cases wherein our merchants &c. Did
he take any steps to cause such provision
to be introduceds IF his official s1uearnsh-
ness prevented him from even limiting the
case TO any member of Congress, yet, IS he
prutesses to be for open and direct recon-
Tnendation In all cases by the Executive, did
he propose or hint any such provision to the
President which his Office enabled him to do
We must conclude that he did net; because
he mas given sufficient proofs that no official
delicacy would have suppressed the boast Of
it which his vanity would have prompted.
In this as in other instances, he contents him
sell with the merit of iiDdiBg out faults when
too late to amend them, and foreaceiDg erea.s
after they have happened.
Mark his equigocatiouS and evasions on the
French repeal and the Presidents proclama-
ton. IF the revocation did actually take
place as declared b. the proclamation then
itbecame compact" &c. eff however the
emperor of the French did not in fact revoke,
as declared by proclamation, the act Of May
did not become a compact, &c" Why thus
shink from an opinion whether the proclama-
ton was legal and proper or nots No man
would be safer than Robert Smith in expires.
sing one or the ether Of these opinions for he
could certainly find plenty Of persons who
could.witness his having entertained either or
both of them, as the pclitical her.zon varied
and the tide of party set.
Many Of orr merchants and silip-masters
have suffered and sin suffer very unjustly
by French spolations. They cry out that
the Berlin and Milan DEGREES are not revc-
ked and Mar Smith joins them in the clamor,
thereby coifsuutiing the twomaritinle DEGREES
with the municipal decree coniscating A.
mcrican property which arrived in France,
which had not been restored, nor promised
to be restored. This confusion of distinct and
separate facts might be an honest mistake in
them. But Mr. Smith would not thank US
for supposing it so in him, since ne seems quite
as anxious to be thought sagacious as to be
thought honest.
This subject deserves some developement
1t has been the practice Of our government
to distinguish between belligerent maritime
edicts violating oar neutral rights, and edcts
authorizing other deprcdations on the proper
ty Of our citizens. II has even admitted the
distinction, fof the time being, between the
revocation OF them as to the future, and in
demnity for past spoliations committed under
them. They have also kept separate from
these maritime orders and DEGREES, other
wrongs OF various sorts arsing some from in
iIaisols conaseations CT Hand. some from acts
rendered unlawful from their being insidious
aud ex post facto, and others uniting both
characters, being unlawful in themselves as
we'll as insidous and retrospective.
The French decree OF March 1910, which
committed such barbarous and extensive spo-
liations ON our commerce arriving in the ports
OF France, owes its enormity and its tuFpitude
chiefly to its being retrospective and ensnar-
ing. With previous and sufficient notice
the French government had right to modi-
fy or forbid our commerce with France mo
treaty restraining it) as it pleased. We
might repToach the unfriendiiness Of such an
exercise of sovereignty, and we might retail
ate in any way deemed proper within our,
own rights of sovereignty. But we could not
IN strictness arrange such municipal spoliati-
ons under the head Of violations Of our ne,.-
traL rights, nor of consequence regard them
as contemplated BY the act Of Congress de-
fining the acts whose revocation would salts
fy the conditions of that act.
In like MANNER the British government was
chargeablc with various extensive 6eDreda-
tions On American commerce, which, besides
being violations OF cur commercial rights ON
the high seas, were also ex post facto and in
s;dious the more so in some instances as con-
tradictmg previous assurances. What other
character can be given to all the proclama-
ton blockades, as communicated 70 cur MI
msters, to take effect from the day Of such
| communication
SO again in the case Of the immense cap
lures and confiscations in the year 1905, which
kinded such flame through the u. States
and among all our political parties In this
! instance the British government had regular
ly declared to Mr.. King that colonial produce
entering our ports and paying duties nigh;
be safely exported. This information had
| been duly Published for the information Of our
nerchants, and under the faith O. it they pro
ceedcd or foreign voyages. No sooner, how
ever, were they luIIed to security and gene
within the grasp Of British cruisers and courts
! than they became prey to insidious and re-
Prospective orders to the amount Of many mil
| lions.
What n tlis respect was the British order
| Of tie 7th January, 1907? On the clst De
| cember, preceding, cur negociators there
were told that some such measure must take
! place If the United States did not oppose the
/ Berlin decree. Seven days after, out came
/ the orlec forbiddiug to our vessels thc trade
from one port Of Europe to another thus re-
/ respectively and insidio0sly, as yeH as con.
sTaiy to our neatral rights, making prey d
all vessels then out or TO go ont before q know
| ledge Of the order could cross The Atlantic.
| Under this proceeding it is well known thai