Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-07-18
THURSDAY, July 10, 1911

tncn to c2ptafe vessels bound to such ports,
unless they shall have beenpreviously warn
cd not to enter them
On the same day he communicated q block
aflc at the island OF Cnrracoa, with an assur-
| ance that the blockade would be conducted
conformably to the above instructicns.''
The blockade was net conducted according
TO the rule laid down; and every vessel bound
to Curacao was captured by British cruisers
and condemned by British courts.
| Notwithstanding these extensive depreda-
tons OF Great Britain, aggravated by the con-
slderation that they were thus retrospective
and ensnaring, the arrangement with the
, British minister ErsIsinc was made without
! even bringing them into the negotiation for
! the repeal OF the orders in council, much less
making indemnify fcr them a prerequisite,
which The law would not in fact have autho-
riseG.
In the late arrangement for the repeal Of
the French DEGREES, indemnity fer the retro
spective and insdious speliations in France
was not therefore, made condition; it was
no more than what both law and impartiali-
~ required. In bringing the subject into the
negotiation and pressing it in the manner we
have seen it done, the executive gave the
strongest proof ofZeal & exerton for lhe rights
OF the nation and the interests of the mer-
chants; and 20 make it a charge that more
was not done, more el en- than the law justi-
he'd, is as absurd as it is unjust.
In looking carefully over the extracts of
the two letters Of June S and July TO Gen.
Armstrong (Which we should take forgrant-
ed were written BY the Secretary himself If
Mr.. Smith had not been Secretary we per-
ceive struggle between an anxiety to extori
from the occasion an indemnity for past
xvt 6,
and respect for the law as well as FOR the
rule Of impartiality towards the two bellige-
rents.
Mr. Smith has not given us the eequel Of
these two instructions to Gen. Armstrong.
We may suppose therefore, especially from
the date Of the latter, which seems most 20
sitive in is language, that they were not re-
cciy ed in time to be used before the decara-
ton of the repeal OF the French DEGREES was
made by the Duke of Galore on the 5th Au-
gust. That declaration was understood by
Gen. Armstrong and by our executive to be
a compliance with the conditions Of the act
of Congress and biuding as an arrangement
n'Doth sides; and was it to be set aside be-
cause 1t did net provide fer the case Of those
retrospective spoiiatons? To have done so
would have contravened the Law and the po-
Icy of Congress; it would set up rule III
| the arrangement with France different from
what had been observed in the arrangement
with England and it would have led to the
| embarrassment. of obliging the executive, in
case the British government should be de-
! sirous of opening free trade with the Unit
ed States by repeating its orders, to make it
prerequisite that Great Britain also should
| indemnify for her retrospective spoliations
While MIR. Smith is dealing out his retroS-
! fcctiUe charges and insinuations the questi-
! ON again occurs, did he approve or disap-
| prove himself the proclamation of Nov Cd
which closed the arrangement without any
| provision for indemnity 1t is question
which can only puzzle him in its result; be-
cause, as already minated, whether he SAYS
| yes or no or both, he viii have the merit of
consistency with what he has cften said in
society.
Much credit is claimed for the letter Of
| June 1910, to Gen. Armstrong, as ''f,yet,Qr-
ed' by Mr.. Smith, but rejected by the Pre-
siden., and replaced by a substitute dictated
| by himself. This letter is believed not to
have been written by Mr.. S. butt isneverthe-
| less entitled to the praise of being well writ
| ten, as calm argum sentative communication
| There, are, however, particular passages and
| expressions which may help to account for
its unfavorable reception By Mr. Madison
A
France interdicted to our vessels all the
"ports Within the sphere OF her influence,
"and had she given warning of equal du-
ratGn with that given by our law, there
| twouid have been no cause of complaint
con the part of the United States" What
no cause of complaint! The United States,
| it is true, could not complain of it as a vio-
iation Of their nepfrai rights and national So
| vereignty, obnoxious 70 tie resentment Of die
other be3hgerent: but would it be consistent
with friendship, with liberality, with recipro-
City. with the spirit OF common intercoarse q
mong civilized nations!
! Compare this concession Of Mr.. s. with his
! letter 10 Gen. Turreau (equaHy Erclar~d BIZ
this wonderful statesmanlin which such an ex-
| clusion Of our trade Is complained of as es-
! seHHaHy uniriendly, as equivalent even t.
the two maritime DEGREES, and, il substituted
for them, as being (" a change Of tie node
" only and MT ofthe measure" And It is to
be noted that all the observations in this let
ter were required BY the last paragraph to
| DC presented 70 the French government.
Put the bes, explanation of the non-adop
ton Of this letter by the President is Its de-
fciency IN the expression of that " sensible
" TO shc insults and injuries" to which il re-
latcs, aud which Mr.. Smith says he feels
whenever it suits his purpose to insinuate
that the President does not feel It. The let
ter substitutes prOEX argument for condeu-
| scd and dienihe1 aninadVersion. Tire rea-