Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

DOCUMENTS (Contfnued) Mr. Mai sm to Gen. Armstrong. Department of State, , July 21, 1808. Sir Herewith you Mill re* ceive a copy of the papers rela tir»p, to one of the veffeU which were dr ft roved at fe* by the French friga'es, returning from the V\ elt Imho, I oblerve that, in your letter to Mr. Champag ny, of the zd of April, you have incidentally noticed this occurrence. li ample repara tion (hot)ld not have be*n made to the lurtncts, the Prefidem •hit ks it proper that, as their c.de.s become authenticated you fhntild present th*rn in term* which may awaken the French government to the nature of the injury and the demands of juf* tu-e. The burning of neutral Vv.ffel.s detained on the high leas, i. the rnoft diitrcfTmg of all the modes by which belligerents ex ert force contrary to tight; 61c, in proportion as it isdefiiluteof apology, ought at lead to be the promptitude and amplitude of the redress. If it be conten ded that the deflation, in these cases, proceeded loldy from the danger that other wife itvelligrncc might reach a pur. suing or hovering force, it may be anfwercd, that if such a plea were of greater avail, it would only dtiprove a hoftiiity of in tention, without Uiminifhing the obligation to indemnify, on the rr> >!t liberal (calc, the injured in dividuals. Ii may be added, that if the out age on the individuals was not meant as a hoftiiity to. wards their nation, the latter might justly expccT a tender of such explanations as would leave no doubt on this lubj 'd. JAM KS MADISON. Gen, Anulirong. Mr. Madison to Gen. Armstrong. Depurtm. W of State, July 22, 1808. <c Your difpatchej by lieus. Lewis were delivered on the Bth iuft. “ It is rrgretted that the in. terval between his arrival and the date of your letter to \lr. Champagny, during which, I prgluine, feme verbal intcr.com munotation mult have taken place, had produced no indica. tion of a favorable change in ihc views of the French govern ment witli iclped to its decrees ; and (till more, that inltcad of an early and favorable anlwcr to your letter, it should have been followed by such a decree as is reported to have been iUucdon the asd of April, at Bayonne. The decree has not yet reached the U. S. and therefore, its pre cise import cannot he afeertain* cd. But il it should he, as it is rcprefenied, a (weeping flrokc at ail American ve.'iels on the high fear., u will not only extend our dern mds of lepaiation, but is rendeted the more ominous with refped to the temper and views of the emperor towards the U. S. by the date of the meaftne. “ The arrival of Mr. Baker with my letter of May 2d, of which a copy is hetewith lent, v ill have enabled you to resume the fubjed of the decrees wi>h tire faucll opportunity that could be given to the French govern. ment for a change of the unjust and unwise course which has be~n putfued : ard I a flu re my* fell that you will not have fail ed to turn the communications with which you aie fumifhed to the led account. It France does not wilh to throw the U. S. into the war agaiuft her, (or which it is impofiible to had a rational,or piaulit/lc inducement, she ought not to hefitafe a mo ment in revoking at leaf! so much of her decrees as violate the rights of the fca, and furnifh to her adverfarv the pretext for his retaliating meaftire. If would seem as if the imperial cabinet had never paid fufTicient attcu. tion to.the smallness of the fa* crifice which a repeal of that portion of its system would in. volve, if an aft of justice is to be called a facrifice. “ The information hv the return of the Osage from Fng. land is not more fatisfadory than that from France. Noth, ing was said on the fubjebt of the Chcfapeake, nor any thing done or promised, as to the or ders in council. It is probable that further accounts from the U. S. were watted for, and that t l e arrival of the St. Michael will have led to a manifeflation of the real views of that govern ment on thofc and other sub. jests. In the mean time it can not be doubted, that hopes were cherished there of some events in this country favorable to the policy of the orders, and par ticularly, that the oflfenfive lan. guage £ proceedings of Fiance would bring on a hostile refin ance Prom the U. States; in which case the .British govern, ment would be able to mould every thing to its fatisfaHion. There is much rcafon to believe that if the British government should not concur in a mutual abolition of the ordeis and of the embargo, it will result from an unwillingncfs to set an exam, pie which might be followed, and might confequemly put an end to the irritating career of her enemy, on which the calcu lation is built. Might not use be made of this view of the mat ter in those frank and friendly convei fations which sometimes best admit topics of a delicate nature, and in which pride and pf CJ VlvliW Call (>• l» •li •%-* «r> « <1 without descending from the ne. ceffary level ? In evety view it is evidently proper, as far as refpett to the national honor will allow, to avoid a flyle of procedure which might co.ope rate with the policy of the Bri tish government, by stimulating the pafhons of the French. (DUPLICATE.) Gen. Armstrong to Mr. Madison. Paris, November 12, tun. SIR —lt was not till yester day that I received from Mr. Skipwith a copy of the ricctce of the council of prizes in the case of the Horizon. This is the fu(l unfriendly decision of that body, under the atrete of the 21 ft of Nov. 1806. In this case, and on the petition of the defendant the touit has recoin, mended the restitution of the whole cargo. 1 did not however think proper to join in asking as a favor, what I believe my fell entitled to as a right. I iub join a copy of iny note to the minister of foieign affairs. JOHN ARMSTRONG. .V ote of General Armstrong —“ In the former copy nearly a page of this letter was omitted by the copter.” 1 iie sane Id Mr. Champagny . I Paris, Nov. 12, 180". Slß—The document to which these observations are prefixed, will inform your excellency that an American ship, trading under the pr otection of the laws of nations, and of particular treaties, and suf fering ship wreck on the coast of France, has recently been seized by his majesty’s officers, and ad judged by his council of prizes as follows, \ 12. “ Our council puts at liberty the American vessel the Horizon | ship wrecked the JOtli ol May l^st, near Morlai x, and consequently orders, that U«* amount arising from the Kale legally made of the* wreck of the said vessel, together with the merchandize of the cargo, which, according to at) estimate made in the presence of the over seers of the administration* of ma rine and custom house, shall have been acknowledged not to have proceeded from EngiUh nianutac* tore*, nor from English territory, shall be restored to Captain IVJac lure, without deducting anv oth*r cxpeuccs than those relative to the sale. “ And with regard to the other merchandize of the cargo, which, from the result of the said estimate shail be icknow ledgeu to tome from nianufattorcs or English territory, by v)rt»e of the st'n article of the decree of the |*t November. 1806, they slall be conhscated for the me of .hat state ; the whole to b.* sold by the form* prescribed in the regulations: and tie- application of the product to be made in confor mity t* the arrangement# of the *aid deeree, deduction being made for the expences of saving the goods & that o the support oi the crew, until the day the captain shall re ceive thenotificutiou of the present decision** The rtnson* upon which this de cision is ounded, are at once so new and alarming to the present (riendlv -eiations of the two pow ers, that I cannot but discuss them with a freidom in some degree pro portioned to my sense of their nov elty and inpnrtance. “ Consdering” says the council, “ Ist. tint the neutrality of the ship and cargo were sufficiently established the whole ought to he restored 'agreeably to the provi sions of tie convention of the 30th of Sent. 1800) provided no mer chandize of English origin had been foutd in her* and, ot course, •hat she lad not been brought with in the Units of the imperial decree of the £'st of Nov. 18oft ” Here V an open and unqualified admission that the ships was found within tin rules prescribed by the ronrentin! of 1800; that, accor ding to time rules, her cargo and herself ougittohave been restored, and that sich would have been the fact, but hr the operation of the decree of ue 21st Nov. 1806. In tr*; Jtu*> j *—* >* ■** -* me the lonor to write to me on the 7th Oct. la«t, you thought it “ easy to reconcile the obligations of this decree wi,h the preservation of those arishg from treaties.” It was not (>r me to examine the means by which this reconcili ation coidl he effected ; they no doubt fu!y exist and yet exist In his majesi’s good pleasure ; and taking fo‘ granted this fact, I saw in the op hi on nothing but proofs, oflriendlj dispositions and pledges that tlies; were not to be either wantonly destroyed or diminished. How iiidtspicious, however, to ils authority, and this consolations de rived frop it, is this recent act of the council of prizes ? an act which explicitly acknowledges the oppo site characters and conflicting con junctions of these two instruments, and whici of course draws after it consider<tions the most serious to the goveiimeut of the U. States. The second reason of the coun cil is, “ that the decree declaring (British) merchandize good prize, had prnpipallv in view captures made oivthe high seas ; but that the whether shipwrecked goods ought to be restored or con fiscated, having always been judg. ed under the 14th arMcle i * the re. gulaton of the 26th of July, 1773, and according to their character (whici might have rendered lawful, or ha>e even commended, their seizur; at sea) there is no room to introduce in this case any new dis tinctim, whicli, however phiian throphic it may appear, has not as yet been adopted as a rule by any maritime natron.” The doctrine resisted in this pas sage, and whtcli inculcates the da te of extending protection to the unfortunate, is not new to his ma jesty’s council of prizes. They hive themselves consecrated it by their decision of the sth of March, 1800. Bv that decision they re stoted an enemy’s ship (the Diana) oh tiit- j’i nglc reason, that >lie hail been “ compelled to enter a French port by stress oj weather." I siiouid I equally fail,” says the attorney ge | n«ral,“ in respect to myself, «nd i to the council, before I have the honor to repre*-nt the govern mcn' .were I not to maintain a prin - cip'e, consecrated by our laws, and by those of all nations■ In all cir cutmtances, let the totally of the french government serve as the basis of your decisions. Prove yourselves at once generous and lust ; your enemies will know, and respect yonr magnanimity .” Such was the principle adopted by the council in the year 1300, and in the case of an enemy’s ship ; yet, we are now told, that this very prin Ctple, so honorable to the court, to the nation, and to human nature, is utterly unknown to all maritime people, and on what occasion do we hear this ? When an ent-iny’s ship is again thrown on ,he French coast ? No: it ba# been reserved for the wreck of a neutral & friend 'y vessel! for a ship of the United States • It is riot denied, ihat hid this ship escaped the rocks & made •he port of Morlaix, the only in hospitality to which she would have been exposed (under the most ri gorous interpretation of the law in question) would have Ween that of being ordered again to sea. Has, then,’the misfortune of shipwreck, s<* <ar altered her condition, as to expose her to the in jury of confisca tion also? and is this among the principles which the defender of maritime rights means to conse crate by his power and his wisdom ? It is impossible. The third reason of the coun cil is, “ that the application of rhe sth article aforesaid, is ns fat as it concerns the American and other nations, is the result both of the general expressions of that very article, and of the communication recently made by his excellency, the grand judge, concerning the primitive intention of the sove reign.” This reason will he found to be substantially answered in my re ply to reason No. 5, of the council. It will lie seen that th« opinion given here, that “ the application of article 5, of the imperial decree to American commerce, is the re sult of the general expressions of that very article,” was not the opi nion of the council on the sth March last, when they judged the case of the Hibernian ; they then declared, on the convention of 18<j0,” be. tween the U. States & France. 1 he fourth reason of the council is, “ that the expedition in question having entirely been made with full knowledge of the said decree, no objection can be drawn, with any propriety, from the general rules forbid ling a retrospective action, nor even, in this particular case, from tiie posterior date of the act in which the sovereign decides the question, since that act sprung from Ins supreme wisdom, not as an in terpretation of a doubtfult point, but as a declaration of an anterior and positive disposition.” A distinction is here attempted to be taken between the interpre tation of a doubiful point, and the declaration of an anterior and po sitive rule. This distinction can ryot be maintained ; for if the rule had been positive, there would have been no occasion for the de claration. Neither the minister of marine, nor the council of prizes, could have had any doubts on the subject ; the execution of the de cree would have been prompt and peremptory ; nor would a second art on the part of his majesty, after the lapse of twelve months, have been necessary to give operation to tiie first. Need I appeal to yout excellency’s memory for the facts on which these remarks turn ? You know that doubts did exist. You know that there was, under them, much hesitation in pronouncing— You know as late as the 9th of Au gust, 1 sought an explanation of the decree in questmn, and that even then, \ our excellency (who was surely a competent and legitimate organ of his majesty) did not think yourself prepared to give it. The conclusion is inevitable : his nia jest Us answer, transmitted to the court of prizes on the 18th of Sept, last, thro’ the medium of the grand judge, was in the nature of an in terpretation, and being so, could not, without possessing a retro-av tive quality, apply to events many months anterior in date to itself. r I he filth reason of the council, and the Just which enter* into my present view of the *nl,j ect „ “ thru though one of the pnncipj agents of his majeMv had "ireu 4 contrary opinion, of which cil hud at no period pur taken opinion being that of an individual could not, (whatever consideration its author na iv merit) balance the formal declaration given in ti»e name of his nuj-fty, and that, if the com. munication of this opinion had, as ia alb Hg. ed, given room to, and fenred as a bafii f or many Ameiican fliipmeno, and particularly of the one in queflion, this eirctunftanc* which may call far the indulgence of his majesty, in a case m which the confifeation is entirely to the advantage of the flare, does not prevent a council rigid in its duty, to pronounce in conformity to the decree of thsaift of riov. and of the declaration which followed it.” It would appear from this paragraph, that not finding it easy to untie the knot, the council had determined to cut it. Pref Ted by the fatfl, that an interpretation of the decree had been given by a miniver cf hit nujrfty, specially charged'with its execution, they would now escape from this faA, and from the conelufions to which it evidently leads, hy all edging, id. that at n..t lliic had the council partaken of :be cpinion given hy the minifler: and t»d, that this opinion, being that of an individual, could cot po fiefs either she force ®r authority of one truly minifteriaL h appears to me, as I think it appears to your Fxcellencv, that the council have, in these state ments, been less correct than is ti<»ual to them on similar occasions. It, as they now assert, thev have never pirtaken of the minister’s opinion ; if they have n*-ver even hrfuated on the queflion, whether the decree of November did or did not derogate from the treaty of 1800, why I *(k, fuipend the American cafe* generally ? or why decide as they did in the case of the Hibernia ? If f mistake not, we find in this case the recogni tion of the very principle laid down by the minifler of marine. That offier fays “ia my opinion the November decree does not work any change in the rules at present ob served wi.h refpedt to neutral eommrce, and confrquently n*ne in the convention of the Bth Vendemaire, year 9” And what fays the council ? “ Admitting that this part of the cargo (the rum and ginger) was of Britijl origin thcdifpofition of the November decree ( ynbitb contain nothing vnttb regard to tbeir turn influence over the convention of tit ill Fen dtmmirt, year 9 ) evidently caunot be applied to a (hip leaving America on the fifth of the fame month of November: and of course cannot have authorised her capture in the moment flic was ertering the neu tral port of her detonation.’ We have here three distinct grounds of exemption from the eflisdl of the November decree, 1' The entirejiitnee of that decree with regard to itsown influence over the conven tion of 18o« : *d. Theear/y/urinJ at which the Aip left tbs U. S. and Tile neutral ebarnfter of the pert to which (lie, was deflined. that the interptttsua,, m c*i— ueiu.t tion given on the *4th December, IBc6 wa# private not fabl e —or in other worlds, that it was the interpretation of the •<>*, not that of the minifler — and as such, cannot outweigh the more recent declaration coining diredkly from his majesty himfelf. On the comparative weightof thefedeclar ations 1 (hall fay nothing, nor of the insinua tion (that the mmifler'e declaration meat that only of the individuals J—then to submit to your ex crllency my letter of the soth of Dec. 18o® claming from that minifler an official inter pretation of the decree in queflion, and his answer of the 24th of the fame month, giving to me the interpretation demanded. To your excellency, who a* late aa tbs lift of August last, considered the miniftere of marine as the natural organ of his majefty’* will in whatever regarded the decree aforefaid and who adtualy applied to him for informa tion relating to it, this allegation of the coun cil of prizes and reasoning founded upon it, cannot but appear very extraordinary, and will juftify me in requesting that his majesty may be moved to set aside the derision in queflion, on the ground of error in the cpin-i ion of the council. If in support of this coneluflon I have drawn no arguments from the treaty of 1800, nor from the laws of nations, your excellency will not be at a loss to afiigu to thisomifiion its true eaufe. ft would surely have been an ufcleft formality to appeal to authorities,, not only practically,but even profefiedlv ei tindt In the letter of the minister of jnftice of the 18th of Sept, we are told by his ma jtftf himfelf, that since be had not judged proper to make any exception in the letter of his decree, there was no room to make any in its execution," and in the report of your excellency’s predecefior, of the aoth of November, 18c6, we have these memora ble words: “ England has declared those plaice* blockaded, before which (he had;not a Cngle (hip of war ” *• She has done more, for flic has declared in a date of blockade, places which all her aflembled forces were incapable of blocka ding—immcnce coasts and vast empire. ” “ Afterwards drawing from a chemerical right and from an ailumed fact the confce -1 quencc that (he might justly make her prey ! of every thing going to the places laid un der interdiction hy a simple declaration of the liritito admiralty, and of every thing ariiiiif therefrom, and carrying this doctrine into efietft, (he has alarmed neutral naviga tors. and driven them to a diflance front ports whither their interests attracted them, | and which the law of nations authorised I them to frequent. 1“ Thus it is that (lie has turned Spn own profit, and to the detriment of Euroj but more particularly of France, the ty with which Jbc mocks at all right and in full. even reafou itfel). “ Against a power which forgets to such a pitch all ideas of j' dice, & all human feo timeutl, trial can it dene but to forget them ffir an infant one c ftljf" JOhN ARMSTRONG, . Hit Excellency the Minister cf Foreign Affairs*