Newspaper Page Text
VOL. V.
AUGUSTA—printed 5y DANIEL STARMF<* a? n
Co * w est end of broad-street. SATURDAY Night, July 31, t 3 13.
Oz/r relations with France.
President’s Meftage to Con
gicss.
To the House of Reprefentativei,
of the United States.
I tranfrait to the Houle of
Representatives a report of
the Secretary of State, con_
taining the .information re
queued by their rcfolutions
of the 21 ft of June last.
JAMES MADISON.
Wafliiugton, July i 2, 1813.
The Secretary of State , to
whom was referred several
resolutions of the Tloufe of
Representatives of the 21 jl
ult. requesting information
tn certain points relating to
the French decree of the
2%th of April, 1811, has
the honor to make to the Pre
sident the following report:
In furnifhing the inform
ation required by the Tloufe
of Representatives, the be.
cretary of State pre fumes
that it might be deemed
lufficient for him to state
what is now demanded,
what part thereof has been
heretofore communicated, &
to fupplv the deficiency.
He confiders it however,
more formidable to the views
of the House, to meet at
this time, without regarding
what has been already com
municated, every enquiry,
and to give a diftinfl answer
to each, with the proper ex
planation relating to it.
The House of Reprden
tatives has requested infor
mation, when, by whom,
and in what manner, the
firft intelligence was given
to this government of the
decree of the government of
France, bearing date on the
28th of. April, 1811, and
purporting to be a definitive
repeal of the decrees of Ber
lin and Milan; whether
Mr. Ruffed, late Charge d’-
Affairsofthe UnitedStatcs to
the government of Fiance,
ever admitted or denied to
his government the corrcdt
nefs of the declaration of the
Duke of BalLno, to Mr.
Barlow, as dated in Mr
Barlow’s letter of the 12th
or May, 1812, to the Se
cretary of State, that the
. said decree had been commu
nicated to his, Mr Barlow’s
predecefibr there, and to lay
before the Monte any cor.
refppnJei.ee with Mr. Ruf-
L'li on that 1 abject, which
it may not be improper to
communicate, and also any
correfpondence.betu cen Mr.
4
Barlow and Mr, Russell, in
possession of the Depaitment
cf State; whether the Min
ider of France to the United
States ever informed this go
vernment of the existence of
the said decree, and to lay
before the House any ccr
rc lpondence with the said
MIRROR OF THE TIMES.
Minister relative thereto not j
improper to be communica- !
ted ; with any other commu.
nication in pofeilion of the
Executive, which he may
not deem it injurious to the
public interest to difclole, |
idative to the said decree, j
tending to Ihewat what time,
by whom, and in what man
; ner it was firft made known
to this government or to any S
of its representatives or a I
gents; and lastly to infoim j
the house whether the go- !
vernment of the United !
Sta tes hath ever received j
irom that of France any ex
planation cf the reasons of
that d<icree being concealed
from this government, and
its minister, for so long a
time after its date, & if such
explanation has been asked
by this government, and
has been omitted to be given
by that of France, whether
this government has made a
ny remooftrance or expref.
fed any difiatisfadtion to the
government of France at
such concealment.
Thcfe enquiries embrace
two diftindt object's. -The
firft relates to the condudt of
France, in regard to this de
cree. The second, to that
of the government of the
United States. In fatisfying
the call of the house, on
this latter point, it seems to
be proper to meet it in a
two-fold view ; firft, as it
relates to the condudt of this
government in this transac
tion ; secondly as it relates
to its condudt towards both
belligerents in feme impor
tant circumflance connected
with it. The resolutions do
not call specially fora report
of such extent, but a6 the
measures of the Executive,
and the adta of Congress,
founded on communications
from the Executive which 1
1 relate to one of the bcllige- !
rents, have by necefiarv j
confequcnce an immediate i
relation to the other such a j
report seems to be obviouily
comprifcd within their scope
On this principle the report
is prepared, in the expecu
tion that the more full the
information given, on every
branch of the subject, the
more fatisfadtory will it fee
to the Houle.
The Secretary of State has ;
the honor to report, in re-j
ply to these enquiries, that
the firft intelligence which j
this government received of!
the .Tench decree of the
28th April, 1811, was com
municated by Mr. Barlow, •
in a letter bearing date on ,
the 12th May, 1812, which
was received Dy this depart,
ment on the 131 b July fol
lowing : that the firft inti
mation to Mr. Barlow, ol
the existence of that decree,
as appeals by his communi*
HOLD THE MIRROR UP to nature —Shakespeare.
——-——-———. . » 1
j cations, was given by the
Duke of Baffin o, in *n in
formal conference on tome
day between the llt and 10th
of May, 1812, and that the
official communication of it
to Mr. Barlow, was made
jon the 10th of that month, |
at his request: that Mr. j
Barlow tranfinitted a copy ’
of that denee, and of the 1
Duke of Baffano’s letter an- !
j nouncing it to Mr. Russell, j
j in a letter of May 1 ith, in !
which he also informed Mr,
i Russell, that the Duke of
j Baffano hid stated that the
decree had been duly com
municated to him ; that Mr.
RufielJ, replied in a letter j
to Mr; Barlow of the 29th
May, that his firft know- t
ledge of the decree was de
rived from his letter, and
that he has repeatedly ftkted
the fame since to this >ov- .
eminent. The paper nar
ked A is a copy of an ex
trad: of Mr. Barlow’s letter
to the Department of State, j
of May 12, 1812 ; B, of
the Duke of Baffano’s letter j
to Mr Barlow, of the ioth
of the fame month ; C, of an
extradof Mr. Barlow’s letter !
to Mr. 'Ruffell, of May 11 b ; ;
D, of an extrad of Mr. ,
Russell’s answer of the 29th
of May, and E, of Mr. Ruf- '
fell’s letter to the Depart
ment of State of the 30th.
The Secretary of Stau re- :
ports also that no commu
nication of the decrees of
the 28th of April, ißir,
was ever made to this go- !
vernment by the minister of
France or other oerfon, than
as is above stated, and that
no explanation of the cause ;
cf it not having been com- !
municated to this govern
ment and published at the j
time of its date, was ever
made to this government,
or, so far as it is informed,
! to the representatives or a- ,
; gents of the United States in j
I Europe. The minster of
j France his been ask'H to
explain the cause of a pro
ceeding appaieruly so extra
ordinary and exceptionable,
who replied that his firft in
telligence of that decree was
received by tl*e Wasp, in a
letter from the Duke of Baf
fano of May ii*th, 18:2, ini
; which he expretfed his lur
| prise, excited by Mr. Bar
j tow’s communication, that j
!a prior letter of May 1 3 11, .
in which be hid transmit- J
1 ted a copy of tile decree for j
the information of this go- ;
vernment, had not been rc- j
Reived. Further explinati-,
’ ons were expected from Mr. j
Barlow, but none were giv * j
en. The light in widen j
this tranfudtion was vie wed
by this government was ro- ,
I ticed by tne Frelident in his j
,ne«*ge to CongreL, nndj
communicated aim to Mr,
'< • ~.'o ».? 1
Barlow, in a letter of the I
r4th of July, 181 2, with a '
view to the requisite e.vpla- |
nation from the French go
vernment. On the 9th day'
of May, 1812, the Empe
ror left Paris for the North,
| and in two ijnys thereafter
j the Duke of BatTano follow
!ed him. A negociation for
i the adjustment of injuries,
! and the arrangement of our
commerce, with the govern
| ment of France, long do*
pending, and said to have
j been brought nearly to a
conclusion, at the time of
Mr: Barlow’s death, was
suspended by that event.
; His fucceffbr, lately appoin
ted, is authorifed to resume
the negociation, and to con- 1
I elude it. He is inftrudted I
to demand redress of the
French government fjr eve
i ry injury, and an explana
tion of its motive for with
holding from this govern
ment, a knowledge of the
decree for so long a time af
ter its adoption.
It appears by the docu
ments referred to, that Mr.
Barlow loft no time, after
having obtained a know
ledge of the existence of the
French decree of the 28th ;
of April, 1811, in demand
ing a copy of it, and fanf
mitting it to Mr. Russell,
who immediately laid it be- |
Tore the britiih government,
urging, on the ground of
this new proof of the repeal
of the French decrees, that
the Driiilli orders in coun
cil (liould be repealed. Mr. j
Ruffcll’s note to Lord Castle* j
reagh bears d ;te on the 20th
!of May, Lord Caftlereagh’s
reply on the 23 1, in which
he promifbs to fab nit the
decree to the confidcratiou
of the Prince Regent. It
appears hovever, that no]
encouragement was given at I
j that time to hone that the
! orders in Council would be j
j repealed in consequence of
that decree ; and that al
though it was afterwards
made the ground of their
repeal, the repeal was ne*
verthelcfs to be aferibed to
other causes. Their repeal
did not take efiedt until the
23 dot June, more than a
| moth after the French de
cree had been laid before the
British government j a de
-1 lay indicating in itlelf, at a
: period so momentous and
! critical, not merely neglect
j but dif.cgard. of the French
decree. 'That the repeal of,
i the British orders in coun
cil was not produced by the
' French decree, other proofs
; might be adduced. I will
j state one, vshich in addi
tion to the evidence contain
ed in the letters from Mr.
| Russel, herewith commu
nicated marked G, is deem
ed cofsclwfive. Ir. the com.
I municntion of Mr. Baker to
Mr. Graham, on the 9th
I Augurt, 1812, which wa*
’ founded on i nil rudfio ns from
] his government, of as lato
date as the 17th June, in
which he dated, that an of
| heial declaration would be
sent to this country, propo
ling a conditional repeal of
the orders in council, lb for
as aftedted the United States,
no notice whatever was ta
ken of the French decree. •
One of the conditions then
contemplated was, that the
orders in council ihould be
, revived at the end of eight
months, unlcfs tim conduct
of the French govt, and the
t\folt of the coftnunicati
| o.is with the government of
the United States ihonld be
fucii as in the opinion of the
Brititli government to ren
der their revival unneceila
-1 ry ; a condition which proves
I incontcftibly that the French
decree was not considered
by the Bririfh governnienc
a luflicient ground on which
to repeal the orders in coun
cil- It proves also that on
that day the British govern
ment had refolvcd not to
repeal the orders on the ba
-Ihs that decree; tht pro
j poled repeal was to depend
! not on what the French go
vernment had already done,
I ,out 011 what it might do,
and on arrangements to be
entered into with the Uni
ted .States unconnected with
the French repeal.
1 he French decree of the'
28th April, 1811, was tranf
mitteci to the United States,
by the Wasp, a public vef
lei, which had been long a
-1 waiting, at the potts of°G.
j Btitiin and France, dispat
ches from our ministers re,
latmg to these very import-*
ant concerns with both gov
ernments. It was received
i a t the Department of Stare
|on the 13th July, 1812,
! nearly a month after the de
; citation of war agiind G.
v Britain. Intelligence of the
repeal of theorders in coun
! cil was not received until a
boat the middle of the fol
-1 lowing month. "It was im
poflitde, therefore, that ei
ther of thole a&c in whatever
light they may be viewed,
1 should have been taken into
confederation, or have had
any influence in decidingoa
that important event.
Had the British govern.'
ment been disposed to repeal
: its orders in council, in
■ conformity with the princi- "
pie on which it profcflcd to
have ifTied them, and on
the condi.ion which it had
itfclf prescribed, there was
no reaion to delay the repeal
until such a decree as that of
the 2’J.h April, 1811, lliould
be . reduced. The declara,
1 tbn A t!ia French govern-
No. 250,