Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1815-04-06

: NIT. Lewis SOtSu ~ ~ - ssSss'sS
Se defence that the ADMINISTRATION
anrtu. thought necessary; xon the
8 rontrary they expressly say 8 the
measures opposed by Mr.. Lewis were
Generally, either loans designed fer
the preseeution OF the war in Cana
Ja taxes unequal or oppressive In
their operation, i eonscript;on laws,
intended TO force the free citizens OF
the country into the regular military
ssrsice of the government. II It's well
known, that when the war was de-
eIared, the doctrine was attempted TO
be supported. by the satellites of the
administration; that all those zeho
did mol support 'l,e zcar. an the scay
ths,, choose 10 conduct it, were ene-
mics TO their country. To answer
their own purposes. against the in
ierests of their country they rushed
ma into war. and then denied the
right of free people to depreeate the
folly anJ wiskedness oftlle measure.
In pergect coincidence with this doe
trine is Gel. Mason's assertion. that
Mr.. Lewis Was ga enemy 70 the de-
fence of his conntry. because be op-
posed the views of the adminiStra.
ton. in all their wild and oppressive
schemes for carrying Oh the var.
Col. Mason will upon more mature
examination find, that the measures
opposed by Me. Lewis, were exactly
offne character specified above, such
as weat to aid the administration in
the prosecution Of the war By means
appressice and Injurious to the pubic
happiness.
Ii does not appear from the adj
dress, says Col. Mason, S that Mr..
Lewis ever voted to raise a man
since the commencement ofthe war"
-aad whya because Mr.. Lewis
knew that all the msa that were rails
Sed, instead Of defending the country,
ware marched TO Canada, and the
states were left to defend themselves
with their militia. Mr.. Lewis al
ways opposed such schemes, and in
doiag SO, he did evince !" the best
disposition, TO defend the country by
sea and land"
But Col. Mason comes directly TO
the point OF difference between rs,
when he attempts TO justify the liz
yasi0n of Canada, aS the means Of
protecting our O,on shores. He OBJ
serves, /" il is evident. If the whole
fierce Of the enemy, hads6een brought
frem Canada to our sheres tia;
many Of our seaport towns. woHid
have been reduced 20 ashes, and cur
lands laid waste ae thing IS evi-
dent that sending our troops TO Ca
NADIA, aid not prevent this evil; wit
ness the scenes at Washington, and
thOse on the shores OF tie Potomac
end the Chesapeake. But had The
whole force OF the enemy come here
would not those troops (Which all
we're wiling 10 raise for the object OF
defence have driven them away "a
sainl Ii the money wasted, in the
Canada war. had been expended up
% Qualifications, round our sea ports J:
they would have deiied attack !; and
the troops sent thither, had join.
ed the militia in the defence Of our
shores, they would have beea unas-
sailable.
Col. Mason says " the govern
nent is charged with rushing IN.
prepared into a war for the conquest
q Canada" Here is an evidence
'Aat 8 the great hurry in which he
wrote" hat betrayed him into error.
-Had be examined the paper be
comments upon, he would have found
saying $ after rushing into war
neutrality-suspicious., for the conquest
" canada, .torsthe freedom Of the
Sas and The recorery Of property
@sSaity coHdeaneG, Sc" so that the
conquest OF Canada alone; as Col.
Mason would insiauate was not
asserted as the cause of the war.
nut that the conquest of Canada was
'Ae Object. they were justifabie in
asserting, and here is their aathori-
LIT. Eustis then secretary at war.
w W. aasa a l.. IL - = a 80.