The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-08-30
From the National hseWgcn:cr.
CONSIDERATIONS
On Robert Smiths .fddreas 10 The Pccrke.
(coNCLUDED.)

On Robert Smiths .fddreas 10 The Pechie.
(coNcLUDED.)
What are the three distinct facts addu-
cedSy Mr.. Smith against Mr.. Madison, from
which tederalists attempt to substantiate,
what the writer doubtless meant to imply.
subservience to France.
l. That he did not approve a letter
to General Turreau, on the subject of the
restrictions on our trade in the ports of
France
II might be sufficient, on this head, to
observe that this letter coaid not have been
transmitted to Gen. Turreau unless dthro-
ped by the President, and. therefore there
could be no other view in ,ransphnting il
into this address, than that of supplying the
extreme paucity of materials for AR Madi-
sons elimination by any thing upon which
a plausible int,nuation could be botbmed. -
But let US look at the object probably inten
ded by this letter a, the time il waSdrafted
which IS further illustrated by the formal
manner in which its history is introduced
inc his printed book. 1t was evid.itly with
design to confuse and embarrass me pro
ceedings of Congress and to pre,ent the
passage OF the non intercourse of list sess
on, which he knew to be necessaryin order
TO enforce the act Of May. 1910, that Mr..
Smith blended questions OF comm ,cial re-
gulations with that of a revocation of the
DEGREES, in his letter To Gen. Turreau. pro
per In itself as dire cted to France. but very
improper as related 10 England, whose mi
nisIry has not failed since TO take advantage
of il 4; and we much question whdher The
extent of the evil, to which il NAV have
given birth, is yet realised What has al
ready come to our knowledge is enough 20
shew the wisdom If Mr. Madison in that
particular respect in Causing to beinser,ed
the clause intended to guard against such
evils the insertion of which Clause il we
do not inexperienced Mr.. Smith, lis what
! particularly excited his disgust, and has
made that act prominent ingredient in his
address. For cur readers be it to Judge.
what obJec, Mr., Smith had i'm view when ms
ire was excited by an amendment to his
letter which the public good so essentially
required
! Ii. That he did not approve an inten-
ded letter to General Armstrong on the
subject of the Rambouillei coniscations
| This letter, with which Mr. omith was so
much pleased as to insert it at iuI length
IN his address, was, it may be observed only
an argumentative one on a subject which
certainly required no argument for it was
matter OF ieeling more than reason. 1t
contained not a word of the Indignation felt
by our government and pcopie at those con-
fiscaions, nor any instruction to commu
nlcate those feelings to the French govern.
ment. Nor was it particularly necessary
that IL should. Those feelings had already
been communicated by Mr.. Armstrong in
his note # ,he 10th of March, 10 the Duke
of Cad0re. as he following extract from it
will shew;
| 1t IS true, that the u S have, since the
! 2oih May asst, forbidden The entry ct French
vessels into their harbors; and it is also
! fV,,z lott he, { r 4
es to the violation of this law But, in what
respect does this cffend France Win she
refuse TO us the right of regulating COM
merce within our own ports ; Or, will she
oehy, that the law IN question is REGULATE.
on merely municipal Examine il, both
as to object and means. What does it more
than forbid American ships from going into
the ports of France, and French ships from
coming into those of the United States -
| And why this prohibition To Guotd min
~ and insutt ) 10 eSeafe IhGt ia7vLessness.
winch Is declared to be ga 'orc6d Conse.
duence OF the DEGREES of the British coun-
Gil. ~, then. its object be purely defen-
size, what ara its meansf Simply bAw,
previously and generally promulgated, ope
rating solely within the Territory OF the u. .
| b, aud furnishing alike the infractors OF il,
whether citizens of The said states, OF others.
And chat is this, but the exercise of a right.
Common to all nations. OF excluding, at IN cir
"iti, foreign commerce, and OF enforcin =
that exclusion! Can this be deemed a
wrong to France! Can this be regarded
as a legitimate cause of reprisal, on the
part Of a power, who makes /, the first tutv
OF nations to defend their sovereiynty
and VINO even denationalizes the ships of
those who will not Subscribe to the opini
OH
" Bu:, it has been said, that the United
States have nothing to complain of against
France" Was the capture and condemna.
ton Of a ship, driven on the shores Of
France, by stress Of weather and the be.
rlls OF the sea, nothing. Was the seizure
and sequestration of many cargoes brou gh |
to France, IN ships violating no law, and
Admitted To regular entry at the imperial
custom houses notningf Was tie violati-
on OF our maritime rights, consecrated, as
they have been, by the solemn forms of a
| public treaty, nothing In word, was il
nothing, that our ships were burnt on the
high seas, without other offence, than iii Of
belonging 10 the v. 5. or other apology than
was To be found in the enhanced safety OF
the perpetrators Surely, it il be the duty
Of the u s. 10 resent the theoretical usur
patIons Of the British orders of November.
| 1907, 1t cannot he less their duty 20 conf
lblaiH oi the daily and practical outrages on
/ the part 0. France"
I The tone Of Mr. Smiths intended letter,
and the ground it takes, are much weaker
than those OF General Armstrong; note al