The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-01-21

ports of the u. ).
have the honor, to be, &c. &C. &c.
(Sigrcd) AUG. ]. FOSTER.
MR.. MONROE TO MR.. FOSTER.
Dehartment If State, Jan. IA, 1912.
SIR have had the honor to receive your
letter of December II, and embrace the
first moment that l could command to make
the observations which it suggests.
it would have afforded great satisfaction
to the President to have found in the COM
nunication some proof of disposition in
the British government TO put an end to the
differences subsisJing between our Countries.
am sorry to be obliged to state, that itpre-
ents new proof only Of Its determination
adhere to the policy to winch they are
imputable.
mcr letters has been misunderstood in two
sinportant circumstances that you have
been represented to have demanded of the
United States law for the introduction of
British goods into their ports, and that they
should also undertake to force France to re-
ceiye British manufactures into her harbors.
You state, that on the first point it was
,YoIr intention only to demonstrate against
the non-importation act, as partial in it's O.
pcration, and unfriendly to Great Britain,
on which account it's repeal was claimed :;
-. B. would be compelled to retaliate on
the commerce the u. 5. by similar res
trictions on her part. And on the second
point, that you intended only, to urge, that in
consequence OF the extraordinary blockade
OF England, your government mad been o.
biged to blockade France, and to prohibit
all trade in French articles, in return for
the prohibition by France of all trade in
English articles.
1t Is sufficient To renarI, on the first point
that On whatever ground the repeal OF the
non-inportati0n act is required, the United
States are justified in adhering to it, by the
refusal of the British government to repeal
It's orders in council and ifa distinction is
thus produced between Great Britain and
the o,her beligerent, it must be referred to
the difference in the conduct or the two par
ties.
On the second point have to observe, that
the explanation given, cannot be satisfactory +,
because it does not meet the case now eX
listing. France did, il IS true, declare -
blockade of England, against the trade of thc.
United States, and prohibit all trade IN
English articles, Oh the high seas bat thu
blockade and prohibition no longer exist
1T is true also, that part of those DEGREES
did prohibit a trade in English articles wi n
III her territorial jurisdiction but this pro-
hi5tion violates no national right or neutral
commerce Of the United States. Still your
blockade aud prohibition are continued, in
violation of the national and neutral rights
of the United States, on a prctext of retail
alton, which, if ever applicable, could only
be applied to the former, and not 20 the lat
ter interdicts ana it is required that France
shall change her internal reg iIations against
English trade. before England will change
her external regulations ag INST the trade
OF the United States.
Bat you sin insist, that tho French DEGREES
arc un:evokei, an urge, in proof Of il, a
fact drawn from Mr.. Russcl's correspon-
dence, t'ias some American vessels lave
beeu takca since the first OF Move .nber, in
.thcir rou.c to Eagla11. Itis satisfactory
answer to this remark, that It apyc1rs by
.he sane corresDondcace that every r.
merriam vessel which had been taken In
that trade, the seizure Of which rested OF
She Berlin aud Milan DEGREES only, were, as
SOON as that fact was ascertained, delivered
Up t. their owners. Might tbsre.nOs DC o.