Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1835-07-16

Win, that engagement made by Minister
nave not been fulfilled, couched ia respec,
tui terms, can never be deemed offensive
even when expressly directed 10 the narf,
whose infractions are complained Of. AMI
consequently can never give cause for :
de mand Of explanations otherwise II !
evident that no consideration Of nationa
injuries could ever take place. The mes
sage critically examined on this point. con
tains nothing more than such an enume
ration ofthe causes Of complaint. A. /,
It's terms the most fastidious dispos tito,
cannot Iasten on one that could be except
ed 10. The first refusal and subsequen
delay are complained Of, but no INV crth,
motives for either are charged or insinua
ted. On the whole were | commissioner
to explain and defend this part of the mes
sage, should say. with the convection Of
truth, that II is impossible 10 urge a com
! plant IN mlder or more temperate terma
| but afa not so commissioned. am en-.
deavouring 10 show not only that every
proper explanation 10 given in my letter "a
M. DE Rigny, ofthe 29th Of January last
but that IN express terms, il declares that
tho sincerity Of his .Hsjcsty's Government
IN their desire to execute the treaty. was
not doubted. Suffer me 10 draw you,
ExcelIency's attention 10 the passages Al
iuded to. Ia discussing the nature Of Mr..
Serurier's engagement, | say, sit il clear.
therefore, mat more was required than the
expression'of desire on the part Of his
MaJes'y's Ministers TO execute the treaty:
a desire. The sincerity Of ,chich ,ycs nerer
doubted, but achich might be unapailir,g as
It's accomplishment deDe,,dcd on The vofe OF
The Lhanaters." Again in speaking OF the
delay which occurred in the month ofDc-
cember, say, "lt is referred 70, pre-
sumo. in order to show that il was produ.
ced by desire, on the part of his Males.
tvs ministers, the better 10 insure The
passage oil the law. Of this, sir, / never
had doubt, and Immediately 90 advised
my Government, and infor med il AZ a
fact. that perfectly acqaicsced in the de.
lay" lhus, II must be evident, not only
that no offensive charge Of I'LL faith is made
10 the message, but that as expressly sta
ted IN the first extract. full justice was
done at Washington to the intentions of
the French Government While the do-
lay is complained ola wrong, no impro-
per motives are attributed to the Govern
ment in causing H. Again. sir, the whole
tenor Of that part Of my letter which "a.
lates TO the execution OF the promise made
by Mr.. Scrurier, while it asserts tho con.
strucilon put upon il by the President TO
be the true one, and appeals to facts and
circumstances to support that construc.
ton; yet avoids charging the French
Government with any intentional violation
aitribuling their delay to an erroneous
construction only; for. in the letter. II
gain quote literally say +" have enter
ed into this detail with the object Of show.
ing that although the Ministers or the
King, Under the interpretations which
they seem TO have considered themselves
at liberty 10 defer tho presentation OF the
law until the period which they thought
would best secure its success, yet the Pre-.
sldent, interpreting that promise different
~, feeling that in consequence oft he had
forborne TO do what might be strictly cal.
led duty, and seeing that lis performance
had not taken place, could not avoid STA.
ting the whole case clearly and distinctly
to Congress" Thus, sir, the President,
in stating tho acts Of which he thought
his country had right TO complais, does
not make single imputation of improper
motive, and to avoid all misconstruction,
he offers voluntary declaration that none
such were intended.
The part Of the message, which seems
10 have caused the greatest sensation in
France, is that in which, after statement
of the causes OF complaint, il enters into
a consideration OF the measures to obtain
redress. which, in similar cases, are sane.
toned by the laws Of nations. The com
plant seems TO be, that, in discussion Of
the efficacy and convenience Of each, a
preference was given to rcprisals, cons-
dered as remedial, not a. hostile measures
and this has been construed into a me-
mace. IL any explanations were necessary
on this head, they are given in the mes
sage itself. II is there expressly disavow
ed and the power and high character Of
France are appealed to, 10 show that i.
never could be induced by threats TO do
what its sense Of justice denied, III the
measure 10 which have more than once
alluded should be resorted TO, and the hu-
utilization attending with il could be endu-
red, and if il were possible, under such cir
cumstances, to give an explanation, what
more could be required than is contained
in the message itself, that il was not in.
tended as menace? If the measure to
which allude should be adopted, and
submitted TO, what would his majesty
government require The disavowai Of
any intent TO influence the councils of
France by threats? They have il already
II forms part Of the very instrument
which caused the offence, and will not
do them tho injustice TO think that they
could form the offensive idea OF requiring
more. The necessity Of discussing the
nature Of the remedies for the non execu-
ton Of the treaty, the character and spiri.
IN which II was done. are explained in my
litter so often referred 70, and pray your
Excellency to consider the concluding part
OF II, beginning with the quotation last
made. Bot if | wanted any argument 70
show that no explanation OF this part OF
the message was necessary. or could be