Western Sun, Volume 2, Number 6, Vincennes, Knox County, 31 December 1808 — Page 2

Hiufe entitle an aft to amend an aft yitrtled an aft concerning frrvants and fir Other purpoiVs and then he withdrew. The Houfe then proceeded to confidrr the amendments made by the Legiftative Council to the aft making provifi.n for compenfation to the witnefses who attend, ed the trial i,f the impeachment of Robert Morriron and for other purpofet and on hP B.i-ftion being taken whether the

Houfe arree to the faid amendments, it

pafled in the negative- Ordered that the Clerk of this Houfe do inform the

Letriflative Council thereof.

A meffatre from the Lerifl stive Council

by Mr. Hurl their Clerk, Mr. Speaker 1 am directed by the Legiftative Council to

inform this Houfe that they havep-ITed an ift to amend an aft entitled an aft refpec ting crimes and ptinifhments to which they de(ire the concurrence of this Houfe and then he withdrew. Mr. Joneifrom the committee of enrolled bills reported that they have compare" the engroffed with the following enrolled bills 1st. an aft concernig the Attorney General and for other purpofes, 2nd an aft to alter and amend an aft entitled an aft organizing Courts of Common Plea and for other purpofet 3rd. an aft in'addition

to an aft entitled an aft regulating the Praftice of the General Court and Courts

of Common Pleat and for other pnrpofes 4th and an ft regulating the admiflion and

Praftice of Attorneys and Ceuncrllors at law : which faid afts originated io this Houfe and find the fame truly enrolled (whereapon) Mr. Speaker figned the faici enrolled bills Ordered that the Clerk do inform the Legiflative Council thereof.

mm:: mm From the Skcrf.tart or .State to Mr. Eeskine. Department $ te,(Afarck 25, 1808.) Sir -Hat l no laid before the prefident your letter of the 23d of February, explaining the character of certain Britifh orders of eouncil iflued in November I aft, I proceed to communicate the observations and representations which manifaft to your government the fentiments of the prefident on fo deep a violation af the commerce and rights of the United States. Thkfe orders interdift to neutral nations or rather to the United States now the only commercial nation in a (late of neutral ity, all commerce with the enemies of G. Britain, now nearly the whole commercial world, with certain exceptions only, ant4 under certain regulations, but two evidently faftiioned to the commercial, the manufic turing and the fifcal policy of Grr .it-Britain ; and on that account the mre derogatory from the honor and independence of neutral nations. The oruVrs are the more calculated to rxrite furprise. in the TJ. .States as they have difregardrd the remo.iftrances ronvrvrd ir

mv letters o: thr 20th and 59th March,

1807, againft anotiirr order of council itsued on a fimilar plea, in the month of Tanmry, 1807. To thofe juft ronton-

ftrances, no anfwer w s indeed ever given whilft thr order has been continued, in it pernicious operation agaiufl the lawfu

coamerce of the United States, and wr

now find added to it others, inftituring ftili

more ruinous depredations, without ever

the addition of any new pretext : and

when moreover it is notorious that the or

der of January was of a nature prratly to

overbalance in its elFefts any injuries to

9 J Great-Britain that could be apprehended from the illegal operation of the French decree on which the order wag to retaliate,

had that decree in its lllrjral operation brri

Anally applied to the U. States, -nd been

oca ti-frrd in by them.

The laft orders, like that of January,

proceed on th molt uniuMtantial found a tion. Th-y 'fTtimr for fift an a rallies cence of the U uted States, in an inhwfu application tota-mof the Frem h decrer and thy lluinc for principle tint th right of ret?hation Recording: to one bl!t gerent agtinft a neutral, through whoo -I II!

n ininrv ndnne it anotnr nriiijrrent. i.

r-t to hav fr its meafure that of the in jtuv received, hut my nr exercif-d in am extent, and undr -y modific atinns, whirr

mv fuit nl-furc or the Doli' v of th-

Comol 4inin p'"y. lh- f-ft. fn, s unq I'vocally d:fiwnrd. I ii not rj- tht ttr United States nme arquf'H i v 4n ill- op-rtion of tSrr!. K tt.r nr IS H-M trU' t!l! - th- tr,f th- K.r.ilh nrden nf Nov. II, a fi apple ari.tri oftht de, ree to thcom nrrte nf th- U-utrd S ain on thr hiii ft s m He prfum-d to IhtC beer, known to the aOt itifla government.

The French decree in qneftion has two

diftinft afpefti, one clearly importing an

intruded operation on the high las

Under the firft afpeft the decree, howe

ver otherwife objeftionaWIe, cannot be faid

to have violated the neutrality of the

United States. If the governing powers

on the continent of Europe choofe to ex

elude from their ports hritifh property or

britifh produftions, or neutral veflels pro

tradifted by any overt aft had been gWen!gar.!th- cmm-rce cfihe Unite! Stntes

to our mimfler at Pari?, which jultihrs that'on the theatre ot their neutral rights, bo, a reliance that the French devree would fr from it, that thr order (tat. ds fslf connot be put in force agmnft the U. States demied .s a mefure of rrulu-.ion, by exand that the communication was rrpeatrd pirsOy Hating that the fleets ol Fiance and to the Britilh government, immediately ler allit s, inUead of being able to enforce

on the nub iction ot thnie orueii. the hlo. kde ol tr?e liritilli ill- ?. were

i

What more could have been required

on the part of the U. S. to obviate ictali

th nilrlvcs confined to their own pcitsby

tlic entire fuprnonty ot the Brii'lh r.avy :

ating pretenfions ot any fort on thr part of :t onvrrting thus, by thr fti ait K ,,f reafon

ceeding from Britifli ports, it is an aft of G. Britain ? Retaliations are mcafures of . ings, thr ft urity ot Great Bnuin ag.inrt

fovereignty which the United States have

no right to controvert. The fame fovereignty is exercifed by G. Britain at all times, in peace as well as in war, towards

her friends at well as her enemies. Her

ftatute book prefents a thoubud illuftra-

tions. 1

It is only, therefore, tinker the other

afpeft of the decree, that it jean have violated neutral rights, and tlit would have

retuited trom its executtoy on tne nign

fras, whether on the pretext of a nominal blockade, or with a view to enforce a domeftic regulation agairft foreign yeffels,

not within the domeflu precinfts, but un

der the authority and protection of the

law ot nations

Had then the Fench decree been exe-

cuted on the higr feas againft the com

merce of the U. S "With Great Britain,

and have the Unrted States acauiefced in

the unlawful aid injurious proceeding ?

I (late, fir, of undeniable authority that the firft ittftanqin which that decree was

put in force agunft the neutral rights of

the United Sttfes was that of the Horizon, an American iiip bound from Great Britain to Lima, wrecked within the territorial iurifdiftion cf France, but condemned un

der an rxpoution of the decree extending

to the htirhas its operation againft neu

trals. This judicial decifion took place

late at the l&hday of Oftober, 1807, and

was not officially known to the miniftcr

plenipotentiary of the Unitea States at

Paris, till form time in November. At

the date therebre, of the firft order of

Great-Britain, n injury whatever had been

done to her, thriagh an aggreflion on the

commerce of the United States. No pre fumption even had been fufEciently autho

ri2ed that the exprefx ftipuhtion in the

treaty of France with the U. States would not exempt their commerce at leaft from the operation of any edift incompatible

with them. At the date even of the latter

orders of Nov. 1 1, it appears that the only aggreffion which had then occurred, pretty certainly unknown, to the Britifh avernmnt, and could therefore have had 10 Ih 2 re in this alleged retaliation. To this faft that the flip Horizon was thr firft that occurred of ai execution of he French decrees on the high fe.is, I am Mr to add that as lite as the 30th of November, no other cafe las been brought into the French court nf piles. From accounts which havo latel appeared, it is more than probable that nilawful captures y French cruizers, havelince taken plate, !ut it remains to be kniwn whether they i 1 . e . i

nc incrrcu 10 iiic concurrence OI tne French government in the judgment pronounced in the cafe of the Horizon, or not rther to a French decree of the 1 7th Dtcemher laft proftrffingto be a retaliation tin the Britifh orders of November 1 1. I (late with equal confidence, that at no time have the United States acquiefced in viol ations of their neutral rights injurious to Gren. Britain, or any other belligerent nation. So far were they, in particular, from acquiefcing in the French decree of November, 1806, that the moment it was

known to their minifter at Paris, he called for an explanation of its mearing in relation to the United States which were fa

vorbl-t and uncontradicted by the aftual operation of the decree ; thit he fteadil) matched over the procedings tinder it.

vith a readinefs to interpofe gainft anv

unlawful rxtenfion of them to :he commerce

f thr Unitrd States, that no time was loll ttrr the decree came to the knowledge f the government here, in g.virg him pro-

m m- . . J i t rv . a i

" iruiructions on tne luhiect : taat nr

v ,s equally prompt, on recriing the deci

:j n -t tne court in thr cale of the Horizon

n prf-ntin to the French government ;

rmo' lrrance in terms which can never hr

enfnred for n deleft of enrrcry : and tht

fh- fit ft opportunity aftrr that decider

-a hrH thr prrfidrnt the particular inOrurion r-qnired by it were forwarded to th

mitiiuer. nr is tt to he forgotten th'

meiors in ur nnuin orarrt ot ovrmocr.

h'! brn rxplic itly corvmunirated to tf f .itilh ?rrumrnt by the American min

fier, at London, that explanations uncon

rigor m ail caies. Where tiiey operate injuty noni ue rmu ni imu mic through a third and involuntary putyijto commit injury on a reutr;l p-rty. In thev will never be reforted to by a maun i. the Noven.bri oncers alio, wlnllt it is td-

nimous or a juft power ; whioh will always allow to the third party its right to dilculs

the merits of the cafe, and will never permit itfelf to enforce its meafureg. without

affording a reafonable means for fubititut-

ing another remedy. What wculd he the fituation of neutral powrrs, if the firft blow

levelled through them by one brrlligetent a-

g ain ft another, was to leave them no choice

but between the retaliating vengeance of

thelatter and an inftant declaration of w againft the former? Reafon revolts againft

this as the fole alternative The United States could no mare he bound to evade the Britifh orders by an immediate w.r wth France, than they were bound to v tone for the burning of the French (hip of war on the (hore of North Carolina, by an immediate refort to arms againft Great Bsitain. With refpeft to the principle a (Turned by the Britifh orders it is perfectly clear th it it could not juftify them in the extent given to their operation, if the f.ifts erroneously a Turned) could have been fully fuf tained. Retaliation is a fpecific of equivaUnt return of injury for injury received ; and

mitted that thr French dtnrte, could not he bu: impei IV ctly txecuted for want of means, it is atfcrtcd that the intention of the French decrer, and net the injury accruing from its oprratiim through thr c ommerce of the United States, is ihr fclr by which the retaliating injury is to be mealured. Such are the pretexts and fuch thr principles on which one i;K-at brii.ch ol the lawful commerce rf this cruntiy became a vuHim to thr fiift rtnMh ctd r, and on

which the laft oidrrs are nmv fwerpipg Ircm the.octan 1! its mai valuable reinini. Againft fuch an unprecedented lylW-m cf w trfre on neutral rights and national indprndrucr, the common lament and common feelings of mankird mull forever proteft. 1 touth, fir, with reluftance t;e qurftion on whick of the brlligerent fidrs th.e inva-, (ion of neutral rights hd its origin. A the U. States do not acquirfie. in tl elc invalions by either, there could be n plea, for involving them in the controverfy. But as the Britifti orders have m.ide tne decree of France, drcl .ring contrary to the law of nations, the Britifti iflamis ui

where it is to operate through the intrrefts ftate of blockade, thr immedij.tr foui.cU-

of a third party hiving no voluntary parti

cipation in the injury received, the return ought as already obferved, to .be inflifted with the moft forbearing hand. This is the language of common fenfr and the cleared equity. As the light to retaliate refults merely fom the wrong fufleredf it cannot in the naturr of things extend heyond the extent of the fuffrring. There may be often a difficulty in applying this rule with exaftnfi, and a reafonablr latitude may be allowable on that confider ation. But a mauif-ft and extravagant departure from the rule ean find no apolo What then is the extent of the injury experienced by Greft Britain from the meafures of her enemies fo far as the opr. ration of thofe mer.fures through the United states can render them in any fenfe refponfible ? A mere declaration by a heiligefent, without the intentions or the means to carry it into efft ft, againft the rights and obligations of a neutral nation, and thenrr apaipift the interefis of another belligerent could affrd no pietext to the latter to retaliate at the expenfe of the neutrvl. The

declaration might give juft offence to the!

neutral, but it would belong to him alone to decide on the courfe prefcribed by the refpeft he owed to himfelf. No rral damage having accrued to the belligerent, no indemnity could accrue. For the fame reafon, a declaration of a belligerent which he is known to be either not in a fituation, mr not to intend to carrv but partially into execution againft a neutral, to the injury of another hell'gerent, cduld never give more than a right to a commenfurate redrrfs againft the neutral. All remaing unexecuted, and evidently not to he executed, is merely ollenfible, working no injury to any, unlcfs it he in the iifrefpeft to the neutral, to whom alone

it belongs to refent or dilregard it.

tion of their deftiuctive warfare ou ogr

commerce, it be longs to the fubjrft to remind your government of the ihrgal interruptions and fpoliations fufiered, pe nous to that decrre, by the nrutral commerce of the United States under the j roceedings of Britifh cruizers .md court?, and f r the moft part in conf-qnencr of cxprels orders ot the government itfilf. Omitting proofs of h fVrior notr, I rrfer to the rxtenfivc aggieflion on the trde ot ths U.S. founded on thr plea of blockades, never legally cftaMinVd according 'tc recognized drfinitions ; to the ftili rnoie exteniive violations of our commerce vitli prrts of her enrmies, not pretrnded t We in a ftate of hlnc kade ; and to the Britifh otder of council ifiurd near the comnnnccment of the exifting var. This order, befides its general interpolation againft the eft tblifhcd law of Wdtions, is diltinguiflird

by a fp-cial ingredient violating that law as reconizrd by thr ctule of drcifions in the Britifli Courts. It fjhjfts to capture and condeinnHtion all nrutral vrfirls, returr.ing with lawful cargor?, on thr fole confiHcration, th t they hd in thrir i ntward voyage tlepofitrd ontrab.uul of war at a hoftilr port. if tliff (nniwur of -the U S. could thrrrforr in any c ife he i . Ionably made the viftim ai d fport f n'Ottiat charges and reproa hrs betwrrp bcllirrent parties, with rrfp-ft to tbr piioriry c.x thrir aggrrffiotis o-j neir.ral con;mtrcr, Great Britain muft !'ok beyond the epnili

!fle founds her retaliating edifts againft

ourcommrrrr. But the U- S. are given to undctftand tha: the Britifli govermr.ent 1ms, as a proof of its induUrnt ann :micahle dilpt-Iitioti towards them, mitigated the authorized rigor it mi(ht harr given to it- ir.eafures, by cert.un excrptions peculiarly torrtlj!e to the coiuoieicial inteiefts of the United Stales.

I foibear, fir, to exprrfs all the emotions

Bring the cafe hrfore us to this plain andjwith which iu ii l .oguagc. on fuch .!ii oc

quitable trft. The French decree of No

vrmber- 1806, undertook to declare the

cfmn, is CrfltulrfUd to ir.fpire a nation whuh cannot lor a moment he unconf'cic us

Britifti ifles in a ftate of blnck idi, to be f her rights, nor miftake fcr an ll viation enforced if you pleafe againft the neutral 'of wrongs, regulations, to admit t be v;Jid-

commerce ot the United States on the high feai, according to the faculty pofirfl'.-d for thepurpofe. As far as it was actually riiforceil, or an effect refulted from an ap,rehenfion That it could and would be enforced, it was an inj'i'V to Great Britain,

itv rf which, v.ou!d be to dilutee b-d?es

of humiliation never worn bv an irdcpeiident power. The firll of thefe iraulrencies is a commercial intercourle with the clrprndn t if s of G. B. and it is toi.fidrred as ci l. nfcd

hr which let us fupp-ife the United States ; by its being a deviation in I v r f the rre anfwerable. On the other hand, as ' U. States from the i:riVnf and rft -l!ift;ed

.1-

tr as it Wij nor rnforrrd. no injury was vprrienced hy (iret Britain, ar.d no renrdy r uld lie againft the United States. .Vow. fir, it never was pretended that at Ke datr of the fifft Britifti order ifiued in

orinriulc i nf maritime nohihttrp

together fuch an intercourle m time ot war.

Surely, fir, vour govrrnmentin ar.tnving

thi principle i" fuch terms

in relation to

January, 1807, ary inm.y h d accrurd totheU. S. ntull hr forgotten their reprat-

ir was apprrhendrd by (ireat B; i:ai:i !ed and formal protelts gainft it. as thrfe trom an execution of the French decree a-jare to be icui.d in the difcufliun and

a