The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1811-07-24

rule of imparliality towards the two bolliger-
ents.
Mr.. Smith has not given us the sequel Of
these two instructions to Gen. Armstrong
We may suppose therefore, especially from
the date of tho latter, which seems most po-
sitive in It's language, that they were not re-
ceiyed in time TO be used before the decara-
ton of the repeal of the French decrecs was
made by the Duke of Cadore on the 5th hu-
gust. That declaration was understood by
Gen. Armstrong and by our Executive to be
u compliance with the conditions OF the act
of Congress and binding as an arrangement
on both sides /; and was it to be set aside be-
Z. cause it did not provide for the of those
retrospective spoliations To have done so
would have contravened the law and the poll
cy of Congress it would set up rule in the
arrangement with France different from what
had been observed in the arrangement with
England and it would have led 10 the en-
barrassmcnt OF obliging the executive, in
case the British government should be desi-
rous of opening free trade with the United
States by repeating its orGers, to make it
prerequisite that Great Britain also should
indemnify 70: her retrospective spoiIatlons.
While Mr.. Smith is detailing out his re-
5roshechDe charges and insinuations the ques-
prove himself the proclamation of Nov I'd,
which closed the arrangement without any
provision for indemnify 1t is question
which can only puzzle him ia its result be-
cause, as already intimated, whether he says
7jes or no or both, he will have the merit of
consistency with what nc has often SAID In So
Ciety.
Much credit is claimed for the letter Of
June 1910, TO Gen. Armstrong, as " "hrehar-
cd" by Mr. Smith, but rejected by the Presl-
dent, and replaced by substitute dictated by
himself. This letter is believed not TO have
been written by Mr.. Smith, but IL is never
theicss entitled to the praise OF being well
written, as a calm argumcntatlVe commnnl-
cation. There, are, however, particular pas
sages and expressions which may help 20 ac-
Count for It's uniavourable reception by Mr..
Madison. Take for example the following
&C Had France interdicted To our vessels all
The ports within the sphere OF her influence,
and tad she given a warning OF equal dura-
ton with that given by our law, there would
have been no cause ol complaint on 'hc part
oil the United States" W hat no cause of
complaint 1he United States, ii is true,
could not Complain OF II as violation OF their
nen rat rights and national Sovereignty, OBJ
noXipus 10 me resentment oi The other bell
hgercnt but would 1t be inconsistent with
Friendship, with uDerality, with reciprocity,
win ,he spiut Of common Intercourse among
civilized nations
Compare TINS concession of Mr.. Smith
with his letter to Gen. lurrcau (cqHaH, hrc-
h1red by this wonderful statesman IN which
such an exclusion OF our trade is complained d
OF as essentially uniriendly, as equivalent cv-
On to the two maritime DEGREES, and, ii sub
stitnied for them, us being "a change II the
mode only and not Of the measure" And, it
is to be noted that all the observations in this
letter were required by the last paragraph to
be presented to the French government.
But the hes, explanation OF the non-adop-
ton of this letter by the p. 'iident is its de-
fcicncy in the expression oil tina, &" sensibiIi-
ty to the insults and injuries" to which it re-
lates, and which Mr.. Smith says he feels,
whenever it suits his purpose to insinuatc
that the President does not feel it. The let
ter substitutes proliX argument for condensed
and dignihed anlmadycrsion. The reader
must recoect too that this letter was TO follow
the one that had just been presented TO the
French government by Gen. Armstrong on
the same subject. II was of character to
dilute the spirit of his structures whereas
the substitute, directed by the President, d
dopttd the letter of Armstrong, and postpo-
ned further animadvcrsons till farther intel
hgcnce, daily expected, might aid in adopt
ing them To the actual state of things.
The last remark of Mr. Smith ON this head
is.too frivolous FOR grave debate it is that
the Presidents substituted paragraph was in
tended for Mr.. Armstrong himself. We all
know, at least all of Us that arc in the habit
of reading printed documents, that this is the
usual course. The government puts Its own
sentiments into The hands of its minister, and
leaves to his discretion tho manner and the
occasion proper for using them.
Art. 7.--Letter 10, Gen. 7nrredu. We
cannot but think that Mr.. Smith is unlucky
In Ih, chnlcr Of n.a, e rinls nnt Of ,vhirh he