The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-07-05

OF the Duke OF Cadore, TO which it refers
had been received. II was in the usual
form laid before the president for his ap
probation. He. h0wever. affected to the
sending OF It. And as there rs reason to
believe, that this very letter constituted part
OF the ground OF the hostility of Mr.. Ma
olson to me, it is but proper to give it pub
licity.
Copy Of the dranght Of the letter proposed TO be
sent 10 Gen. drssronr.
DEPARTMENT. or STATE, June, 1910.
GEN. ARMSTRONG;,
Your letters Of the-with
their respective enclosures were received ON the
2lst day of MAY.
1 In the note Of the Duke Of Galore nothing
can be perceived 10 justify the seizure of the a.
\ merican property IN the ports Of France and in
those OF her allies. The facts as well as the ar.
suments, which it has assumed, are con!uted by
events known 10 the world, and particularly by
that moderation of temper, which has invaria.
| bly, distinguished the conduct of this Govern.
nent towards the belligerent nations. After q
lforbearance equaEed only by our steady obser.
vance of the laws of neutrality and of the immu-
table principles of justice, it is with no little
surprise that the President dscerns in the
] French Government disposition to represent
the u ). as the original aggrcss0r. An act OF
violence, which Under existing circumstances
rs scarcely less than an act of war, necessarily
not only the us. but the world. But the note
ofthe Duke OF Galore, inste ad of iustifica i'm
has not furnished even plausible ps,liaticn ora
reasonable apology for the seizure of the Anne.
rican =. operty. ~
There has never s,een period of time when
tle u b have ceased to protest against the Bri.
t,sh Orders in Council With regard to tic re-
sistance which the u. s. ,nsy nave deemed it
proper to oppose TO such unlawful restrictions,
1t obviously belonged to the American Govern
ment aloae to prescribe the mode. If a system
OF exclusion of the vessels and merchandise of
the Beilgerent powers from our ports has
been preferred to war, if neutrality-suspicious. has
oeen resorted to instead of invasive retaliation,
with what propriety can the Emperor of the
French pretend to see in that method of procee-
ding any thing else than lawful exercise of So.
ereign power To construe the exercise of this
power INTO cause OF warlike reprsai IS species
OF dictation, which, could it be admitted, would
nave tendency to subvert the Sovereignty of
the u. S.
| France has converted our law of exclusion in.
to pretext for the seizure of the property of
ine Y b This statute was also in force against
the vessels OF = b. lifts operation had been
considered by the French Government as of suf.
hcient efficacy to justify this pretended reprisal,
that very operation, as it would have been more
severely felt by G. B. ought also to have been
considered as constituting resistance to her or
aers, the non-existence Of which resistance has
oeen stated by the Duke Of Galore as the pre-
tcxiror the act of violence exercised on tbel
r'can property. The u. S., having resisted the
British Orders, the real ground of complaint
| would seem to be, not SO much that the Anne
rcan government has not resisted tax on their
navigation, as that it has likewise resisted the
French DEGREES, which had assumed prescrip
tive power over the policy of the IT, S. as repre-.
hehsloie as the attempt of the British Govern
ment to levy contributions on our trade was oh
noxlous- Placed IN a situation where tax was
proclaimed on the one hand, and rule of action
prescribed on the other, the u. S. owed it to
their own honor to resist with corresponding
measures the cupidity of the one and the pre-
sumption OF the other. When the American Go.
vernment sees IN the provisions of the British or
ders an assumption ofmaritme power in contra
ventIon of the Law of Nations Tho w can il fail al
! so to perceive in the French DEGREES the adop-
ton of "A principle equally cerogatory and niu
rous TO the neutral character the u. s.
The pretension, of subjecting American navi-
CATION to Ajax, as advanced by the British order
OF Nov 1907, was in reality Withdrawn by the
order fthe 2Sth Of April. 1899. Yet 10 months
subsequent to the REGAL If that pretension, its al
lodged existence is made the basis o. reproach
against the American Government ~ the Empe-
ror of the French. Il would be f-uitlcs, to com
ment upon the disposition to insist upon the pre-
vailing influence of fact which noIongerexist,
which, when it did exist, was uniformly com
baued; * the final extinc ion Of which was the
| manifest consequence of the measures of this
Government.
IL the American Government had seized
french vessels, as enormously asserted in the
note oil the Duke OF Csdore, the occurrence could
only have been attributed to the temerity Of
| their owners or COMMANDERS who, after pre-
Vious notilic ten, from the list of March % the
goth OF May, of the act of exclusion, would have
strangely presumed upon IMMUNITY in the viola
ton OF prohibi'ofy municipal law oftle U. S
lad .,,A..,
ports within the sphere Of her influence and had
| she given warning of equal duration with that
gwen by our law, there would have been no
| cause of complaint on the part Of the u S.
The French Government would not then have
had the opportunity ofexercisng its power, in
manner as contrary to the forms as 10 the spirit
OF justice over the property Of the citizens ofhs
u. s.
1t was, at all times, in the power of France
to suspend with regard to herself, our acts OF
| exclusion, OF which she complains, By simply
| annulllng or modifying her DEGREES Propos
tions to this effect have been made to her Gov
rnment through you. They were not accepted
On the contrary, policy was preferred, which
was calculated to produce any other result than
that of good understanding between the two
countries By the Act of Congress of the last
session an opportunity is again afiorded to his
| relations between the u. S. and France. Let
-
The letter of Feb 14th, 1919, from zOhica the
senowing is an extract.
" His Majesty could nj ace ao reliance m, Al =.