The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-07-19

there was room for question and discussi.
on, which might have embarrassed the ex-
ecution of our laws. Hence the expediency
OF settling the matter by a positive statute !;
unless it would have been advisable 10 risk
national honor by breaking a contract on
doubtful ground. or to hunt for flaw on the
ether side, to enable us to annul an arrange
ment (sought by Congress itself in a former
law) producing, though three months later
than had been first expected, the example
OF one -belligsrent to weld against the
Their. =;
It is said. by Mr.. Smith. that the &C. for,
enforcing the arrangement departed from
the arrangement. II it dir SOL was in re-
iation not to the essence of the arrange
ment. but merely as to the time .of IT'S nau-
tuai execution. And we, the pcblc, shall
better understand the matter. when theex
PLANTATION. which we perceive was sent with
the act, aud which must have been at least
s'sncd by MIR. smith, shall come before
us. g.
IL is sorrowfuI truth, says Mr., Smith,
that the act did not provide for several Oh
vious cases wherein cur MERCHANTS &c.
Did he lake any steps to cause sach gro
vision to be ,ptroduceds Ifhis official sauea
mishness prevented him from even limiting
the case to any member of Congress, yet,
Recommendation in all cases by the Execu
tive, did he propose or hin, any such prov;-
sion to the President. which his office err.
abled him to do ? We must Conclude that
dld not; because he has given suffice Mt
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 hi,sselt with the me-
rit OF finding out faults when too late to a.
mend them, and foreseeing events after
they have happened
Mark his equivocations and evas;ons on
the French repeal and the Presidents pro-
c'amation. SIT the revocation did actually
take place, as declared by the proclamati.
on, then It became a compact" &c. Iii,
however. the Emperor OF the French did
not in fact revoke, as declared by procJa.
nation. the act of May did no, become a
compact" &c. Why ,hus shrink. from an
opinion. whether the proclamation was lie
gal aud proper or not No man world he,
safer than Robert Smith in expressing onn
or the other of these opinions for he could
certainly find plenty of persons who could
witness his having entertained either or
both OF them.'a the political horizon vari.
ed and the tide OF parry set.
Many OF our merchan,s and ship masters
have suffered and still suffer very uniustly
~ French spoilatiens. SIley cry out. that
the berlin aud Milan decrees are no.! revo-
Seds and MI. Smish JOINS them in The cia :
NOR, thereby Confounding thetwo maritime
DEGREES with the municipal decree combs
eating American 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 il so in
him, since he seems quite as anxious to be
thought sagacious as to be ID ,ught honest.
This subject deserves some develope-
ment:
1t has been the practice of our govern
ment to distinguish between belIigerent
maritime edicis violating our neutral-fights,
and edicts authorizing other depredations ON
the property of our citizens. II has even
admitted the distinction, for the time be-
ing. between the revocation of thera as to
the future, and indemnity for past spoliati.
ons committed under them They have al
SO kept separate from these maritime or
ders and decree, other wrongs of various
sorts, arising some from iniquitous coDhsca-
tons on land, some from acts rendered I'M
lawful from their being insdious and ex post
facto, and thus uniting both characters, be-
ing unlawful in themselves, as well as insi-
dious and retrospective.
Inc french decree OF March. 1910, which
committed such barbarous and extensive spo-
lIations on our. Commerce arriving in the
ports OF France, owes its eAormity and it's
turpitude chiefly to its being retrospective
and ensnariDg With previous and suffi
Gent notice, the French government had
right to modifysor forbid our commerce
with France (no treaty restraining ~ as it
pleased. We might reproach the un.riend-
lfness of such an exercise of sovereignty.
and we might retaliate in any way deemed
proper, within our own rights ofsovereign-
ty. But we could not in strietness arrange
such municipal spolations under the
head OF violations OF our neutral rights,
nor OF consequence regard them as con-
templated by the act of Congress defining
the acts whose revocation would satisfy the
conditions of that act.
In like manner, the British government
was chargeable with VARIOUS extensive de-
predatioDS on American commerce, which,
besides being violations OF ous CONNER
ciai rights on the high seas. were also
e2 post tactic and insidious; the more so
IN some instances. as Coptradctine prev.
ous assurances. What other character can
be given To all the proclamation block AIDES
as communicated to our ministers, to take
effect from the day Of such communicate.
on?
>, again in the case Of the immense cap
lures and conhscatioDs in the year 1906.
which kindlec such fame through the u
States and among all our political parties -