Portland gazette and Maine advertiser. (Portland, Me.) 1805-1818, 1812-08-24

president to interpose his authority in
this business because, it was said, In
the language of the law, thar the non.
importation act was merged in the De-
claration of War-and our belligerent
attitude had essentially changed our
whole system of relations with respect
to England-The suggestion did not
pass unnoticed-although il was hard
ly contradicted, except by Capt. Por.
ter, who seemed TO feel that things
ought not so 10 be-in torrent of honest
indignation expressed his deep convic-
tor that all was not right at Washing
ton-and could not but think that there
must be some way or other Tor the
merchants TO get in their property
from the storm Of war 6y and through
constitutional meanS-The objection
however was not directly answered-the
committee for preparing the petition
were not particularly instructed upon
that point-and the grievance was not
distinctly laid before the government.
But il is to be remembered, that the
non-importation act has a twofold oper-
alton. 1t not only prohibits the impor-
tation Of English goods in British bot
toms, but it likewise prevents our own
vessels bringing their return scargoes
from Great-Britain-This considera-
ton necessarily creates distinction Be-
tween the tzvo cases with respect to the
question of restrictions--7vhich ought
not to be disregarded-anG the con-
clusion in favor Of the memorial will
be strengthened by refection-It was
publicly notified, it will be recollected,
that the non.importation act would be
repealed upon the revocation of the or
ders in council-and i: is well known
that in consequence of the late revoca-
ton Of those orders large shipments OF
property, that has been accommodating
in England, have been made to Amer
lea by our own merchants upon the
faith Of our governmer that the Presi-
dent would redeem IL pledge of con-
gress & open our ports our own prop
erty by removing the non-importation
law.-ifthe nonimporta on Is not remoy-
ed, the result must that large a.
mount of American property must fall
a sacrifice to the war and go to increase
the resources of the enemy, or, esCa-
ping death in that form, come into the
country 10 be condemned for violation
of the law-If the non.importation act
had been repealed by Congress at the
Declaration of war, as was proposed,
much of our foreign property might
have been rescued from DESTRUCTION
1T it was only removed now, something
valuable might still be saved from sci
Zure, which is nert 10 destruction land
for its removal we have an appeal to
the conscience of the government, who
musr know that Congress has drawn I'M
pOrters into snare unless they are now
extricated from the tolls.-FOr the
non.importation act stands unrepealed,
and our merchants cannot get their
goods home by law, unless the Presi-
dent pleases-until Congress meets
and then it will be all too late That
the nCn-importation act is not repeal
ed is plain enough, because there is no
act repeating it--and no act can be re.
pealed without repeating act, unless il
expire of its own limitatI0n--nor did
any body ever think of such thing IN.
til the notion OF its being merged was
thrown OUT i'll the course of debate Oh
Tuesday-The idea of merging one
law in. another is rather a technical one
and the position was supported by the
most sophistical arguments--If merg-
ing means any thing in this case, it
must mean the same as rcteaAng, and
the non importation act is merged in
the Declaration of war, it must be re-
pealed by 1.-THE non importation act
certainly either is repealed by the de-
Claratlon OF war, or IL is not-If it is re-
pealed, then our vessels arriving since
that period With English goods are not
liable to seizure and sequestration-and
thrice happy should we be to have it so
Right glad would it make us to see
the gentleman prove his words and
shew the non-importation act merged,
as he calls il, in the declaration Of war
Hit is merged in regard to Great Bri-
tain, it is also merged with respect to
us-The idea of It's being merged with
respect to Great Britain solely and sill
being lett to operate as penalty npoR
ourselves is absurd-unless it Is also
rational to suppose-and the inference