Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

254

on which seizures might be made? Great Britain claims a right to seize for other causes, and all nations admit it in the case of contraband of war. If by the law of nations, one belligerent has a right to seize neutral property in any case, the other belligerent has the same right. Nor ought I to overlook that the practice of counterfeiting American papers in England, which is well known to the continent, has, by impairing the faith due to American documents, done to the United States essential injury. Against this practice the minister of the United States at London, as will appear by reference to his letter to the marquis Wellesley of the 3d of May, 1810, made a formal representation, in pursuance of instructions from his government, with an offer of every information possessed by him, which might contribute to detect and suppress it. It is painful to add that this communication was entirely disregarded. That Great Britain should complain of acts in France, to which by her neglect, she was instrumental, and draw from them proof in support of her orders in council, ought certainly not to have been expected.

You remark also, that the practice of the French government to grant licenses to certain American vessels, engaged in the trade between the United States and France, is an additional proof that the French decrees still operate in their fullest extent. this inference is drawn from that fact it is impossible for On what principle me to conceive. It was not the object of the Berlin and Milan decrees to prohibit the trade between the United States and France. They were meant to prohibit the trade of the United States wtih Great Britain which violated our neutral rights, and to prohibit the trade of Great Britain with the continent, with which the United States have nothing to do. If the object had been to prohibit the trade between the United States and France, Great Britain could never have found in them any pretext for complaint. And if the idea of retaliation, could in any respect have been applicable, it would have been by prohibiting our trade with herself. To prohibit it with France, would not have been a retaliation; but a co-operation. If licensing by France the trade in certain instances, prove any thing, it proves nothing more than that the trade with France, in other instances, is under restraint. It seems impossible to extract from it in any respect, that the Ber

lin and Milan decrees are in force, so far as they prohibit the trade between the United States and England. I might here repeat that the French practice of granting licenses to trade between the United States and France, may have been intended in part, at least, as a security against the simulated papers; the forging of which was not suppressed in England. It is not to be inferred from these remarks, that a trade by license, is one with which the United States are satisfied. They have the strongest objections to it, but these are founded on other principles, than those suggested in your note.

It is a cause of great surprise to the President, that your government has not seen in the correspondence of Mr. Russell, which I had the honour to communicate to you. on the 17th of October last, and which has been lately transmitted to you by your government, sufficient proof of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. Independent of the conclusive evidence of the fact, which that correspondence afforded, it was not to be presumed from the intimation of the marquis of Wellesley, that if it was to be transmitted to you, to be taken into consideration in the depending discussions, that it was of a nature to have no weight in these discussions.

The demand which you now make of a view of the order given by the French government to its cruisers, in consequence of the repeal of the French decrees, is a new proof of its indiposition to repeal the orders in council. The declaration of the French government was, as has been heretofore observed, a solemn and obligatory act, and as such entitled to the notice and respect of other governments. It was incumbent on Great Britain, therefore, in fulfilment of her engagement, to have provided that her orders in council should not have effect, after the time fixed for the cessation of the French decrees. A pretension in Great Britain to keep her orders in force till she received satisfaction of the practical compliance of France, is utterly incompatible with her pledge. A doubt, founded on any single act, however unauthorized, committed by a French privateer, might, on that principle, become a motive for delay and refusal. A suspicion that such acts would be committed might have the same effect; and in like manner her compliance might be withheld as long as the war continued. But let me here remark, that if there was

room for a question, whether the French repeal did or did not take effect, at the date announced by France, and required by the United States, it cannot be alleged that the decrees have not ceased to operate since the 2d of February last, as hitherto observed. And as the actual cessation of the decrees to violate our neutral rights, was the only essential fact in the case, and has long been known to your government, the orders in council, from the date of that knowledge, ought to have ceased, according to its own principles and pledges.

But the question whether and when the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees have took effect in relation to the neutral commerce of the United States, is superceded by the novel and extraordinary claim of Great Britain to a trade in British articles, with her enemy; for supposing the repeal to have taken place, in the fullest extent claimed by the United States, it could according to that claim, have no effect in removing the orders in council.

On a full view of the conduct of the British government in these transactions, it is impossible to see in it any thing short of a spirit of determined hostility to the rights and interests of the United States. It issued the orders in council, on a principle of retaliation on France, at a time when it admitted the French decrees to be ineffectual: it has sustained these orders in full force since, notwithstanding the pretext for them has been removed, and latterly it has added a new condition to their repeal, to be performed by France, to which the United States in their neutral character has no claim, and could not demand, without departing from their neutrality, a condition which, in respect to the commerce of other nations with Great Britain, is repugnant to her own policy, and prohibited by her own laws, and which can never be enforced on any nation without a subversion of its sovereignty and independence.

I have the honour to be, &c.

Aug. J. Foster, Esq. &c. &c.

JAMES MONROE.

1

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CON

GRESS. JAN. 17, 1812.

I LAY before Congress a letter from the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Great Britain to the Secretary of State, with the answer of the latter.

JAMES MADISON.

Mr. Foster to Mr. Monroe. Washington, Dec. 28, 1811.

SIR, I have been informed by Mr. Morier, that so long ago as the 3d of last January, in consequence of a written communication from sir James Craig, his majesty's governour general and commander in chief in Canada, dated the 25th of November, 1810, acquainting him with his suspicions of its being the intention of some of the Indian tribes, from the great fermentation among them, to make an attack upon the United States, and authorizing him to impart his suspicions to the American Secretary of State; he had actually done so verbally to Mr. Smith your predecessor in office, and on searching among the archives of this mission, I have found the letter alluded to of sir James Craig, by which he did authorize Mr. Morier to make the communication in question, as well as a memorandum of its having so been made, as also an express declaration of sir James Craig, that although he doubted there would not be wanting persons who would be ready to attribute the movements of the Indians to the influence of the British government, yet that his department were actually making every exertion in their power to assist in preventing their attempts.

This evidence, sir, of a friendly disposition to put the United States government on their guard against the machinations of the savages, and even to aid in preventing the calamity which has taken place, is so honourable to the governour general of Canada, and so clearly in contradiction to the late unfounded reports which have been spread of a contrary nature, that I cannot resist the im

VOL. VIII.

33

pulse I have to draw your attention towards it, not that I conceive, however, that it was necessary to produce this proof to the United States government of the falsity of such reports, which the character of the British nation, and the manifest inutility of urging the Indians to their destruction, should have rendered improbable, but in order that you may be enabled, in case it shall seem fitting to you, by giving publicity to this letter, to correct the mistaken notions on the subject, which have unfortunately found their way even among persons of the highest respectability, only, as I am convinced, from their having been misinformed.

I have the honour to be, &c.

AUGUSTUS J. FOSTER. The Hon. James Monroe, &c. &c.

Mr. Monroe to Mr. Foster. Department of State, Jan. 9, 1812.

-

SIR, I have had the honour to receive your letter of the 28th ult. disavowing any agency of your government in the hostile measures of the Indian tribes towards the United States. If the Indians desired any encouragement from any persons in those measures of hostility, it is very satisfactory to the President to receive from you an assurance that no authority or countenance was given to them by the British government.

I have the honour to be, &c.

JAMES MONROE.

His Excellency Augustus J. Foster, &c. &c.

MESSAGE

FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CONGRESS. MARCH 9, 1812.

ILAY before Congress copies of certain documents which remain in the department of state. They prove

« ForrigeFortsett »