Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-06-01

had been abandoned some time since, as a
letter from the duke of Galore, of
to Mr.. Russell gave assurance of it. Should
it however, be still maintained, You will not
fail to bring the subject without delay, be-
fore the French government, and to urge its
immediate abandonment The President
having long since expressed his strongest !
Misrepresentation oft, and requested that he |
consuss would discontinue it, At is probable, |
II they still disregard his Injunction, that he |
may lind it necessary tn revoke their exc |
quators. / mention this, that you may be |
able to explain the motive II such a mea-
sure, should it take place which, with1u
| such explanation, might probably be view
ed in, a mistaken light by the French go
vernment.
| 1t is important. that the rate OF duties i'm.
posed on our commerce, N every article,
should be made as low as possible. If they
are not, they may produce the effect Of a
prohibition they will he sure To- depress
the article and discourage the trade.
You will be able to ascertain the various
other claims which tine u. >. have Oh France.
tor injuries done to their citizens, under de-
crees of a subsequent date to those Of Berlin
and Milan, and you will likewise is- YOUR,
best exertioris to obtain M Indemnity for
II
vernment will be disposed to d. Justice Gov
all-these injuries. In looking to the future.
the past ought TO be fairly and honorably
adjusted. Ii that is not done, much dissa-
tstaction will remain, here, which cannot
fail to produce verysunfavorable effect on
the relations which are IL suosist in future
between the two countries.
The hrst OF these latter DEGREES bears date
at Bayonhe, on the l7;h March, 1908. by
which many American vessels and their car
goes were seized and carried into France.
and others which had entered her ports, in
the fair course of trade. were seized, and
sequestered or conhscated by her govern
| ment. 1t was pretended, in vindication of
TINS measure, that as under our embargo law
no American vessel could navigate the o.
cean, all those who were found on it were
trading on British account and lawfulprizc.
The fact however was otherwise. At the
time the embargo was laid, great number
OF our vessels were at sea, engaged in theic
usual commerce; many of them on distant
voyages. Their absence, especially as no
previous notice could be given to them, was
strictly Justitable under the law and as no
I ooiigation was imposed ON them by the law
to return, they committed no offence by re-
manning abroad. Other vessels, inconsider-
able in nuaber, left the u. States in VIOLATE
on OF the law. The latter committed an Of
fence against their country, but none against
foreign powers They we're not disfranchis-
| ed by the act. They were entitled 10 the pro.
lection OF their government. and it had
| right to inflict on them the, penalty which
| their conduct had exposed them to. The
government of France could withdraw them
from neither of these claims. The absence
none OF these vessels was proof that they
were trading on British account The car
| goes which they carried with them, the va
iue OF which was much enhanced by the en-
Dargo, were alone an ample capital to trade
on. AS the pretext, under which these YES
sells were taken, is no justification of the act,
you will claim an Indemnity to our citizens
for every species of injury arising from it.
| The Rambouillet decree was stu more
unjustifiabie aggression on the rights of the
U. States and invasion of the property of
their citizens. 1t bears date on the 2Sd
March, 1910, and made a sweep of all Ame-
rlcan property within the reach of French
power. 1t was also retrospective. extending
back to the Goth May, 1909. By this decree
| every American vessel and cargo, even those
which had been delivered up to the owners.
| by compromise with the captors, were seiz-
ed and sold. The law of March LIST, 1909.
/! commonly called the non-intercorse law. was
| the pfetext TOR this measure, which was in
| tended as Az act of reprisal. 1t requires n.
reasoning to show the injustice of this pre-
tension. Our law regulated the trade of the
| United States with other powers. particu.
larry with France and G. Britain, and was
| such law as every ration has right 10 a.
! dept. TWAS duly promulgated, and reason
| able notice given of it to other powers. It
was also impartial as related TO the belize
rents. The condemnation of such vessels of
France OF England as came into the ports
| OF the ". states in breach of this law, was
strictly proper, and could afford no cause Of
complaint to either power. The seizure of
SO vast property as was laid hold of under
| elat pretext, by the French government.
places the transaction in very fair lieht.
Ii an indemnity had been sought for on i'm
| Puted injury, the measure of the injury should
nave been ascertained, and the indemnity
| proportioned to it. But in this case no in
jury had been sustained on principle. A tri-
hing loss only had been incurred, and for.
! that loss all the American property which
would be found was seized, involving jri IN
| discriminate ruin innocent merchants who
| had entered the ports of France in the fair
course of trade. tits proper that you should
make 1t distinctly known to the French 90
vernment, that the claim to just reparati-
on for these spoliations cannot be relinouish-
ed, and that delay in making it will pro-
duce a very high dissatisfaction with the 90
Serninent and people Of these states.
1t has been animated that the French
government would be willing to make this
PREPARATION, provided the u. S. would make
one in return for the vessels & property con-
demncc under, and in breach of our non-in-
tercourse law. Although the proposition
was Objectionable, in many views, vet this
government consented to 1t, to save so great