Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

aggressions and outrages of Great Britain, and charging the majority of the representatives of the people, with wantonness, ambition, oppression, and cruelty: while the executive of the United States is steadily pursuing that course of policy, which alone can secure a safe, equitable, honourable, and permanent peace and are actually negotiating to effect it, it is impossible to conceive what good motive could induce the legislature of this state, to vote a remonstrance so unreasonable in its origin, reprehensible in its language, erroneous in its facts and principles, and pernicious in its effects.

Who, that is American, can but feel indignant to hear it stated by the legislature of a state, that we ought to have resisted the French decrees, agreeably to the demand of the British government; that we have seduced her seamen from their allegiance, and that we have invaded the territory of a peacea ble and unoffending neighbour? Where is the man, who values his reputation, who would not indignantly frown at the insinuation, that war was waged from motives of ambition or lust of conquest; that we are leagued with France, to oppose the European nations, and that our government have established a chain of military posts, "to prostrate the civil to the military authority?" And what man, not exclusively British, can, without the deepest mortification, read a remonstrance, which, in time of war and pending negotiation, should take the enemy's ground, support their claims, and justify their aggressions? We assure the congress and people of the United States, that we utterly protest against the statements and principles contained in that humiliating remonstrance. It appears to us too much like the attempt of a disappointed and malignant faction, who, to obtain power, would trample on the rights and liberties of their country. We do not, however, apprehend that any faction in this country have either the power or the nerve to effect a purpose of this sort. We trust and sincerely believe that the people would resist, and effectually suppress, every attempt to sever or weaken our bond of union. We are aware that it is in times of calamity and war that ambitious and designing men will be tempted to stir up the people to opposition and rebellion. But we are assured that a large majority of the people of this state would, at the hazard of their lives and fortunes, resist all opposition to the laws and government of their country. We believe the war to be just and necessary; that the government have invariably maintained strict justice and impartiality towards the belligerents of Europe; that they have submitted to an accumulation of wrongs which no other nation would have endured; they have negotiated until negotiation was vain; that it

is their intention, as it is their duty, to protect the rights of commerce and of sailors, "peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must." That since the pretended repeal of the orders in council, every pacific advance has been made, both by the executive and by congress, which was consistent with the rights and honour of the nation. And that we are willing to endure all the evils and privations of this war, and to expend our property and our blood in its prosecution. We hope the legislature of Massachusetts have better evidence of their consistency, prudence, patriotism, and love of peace, than is contained in their extraordinary remonstrance.

We wish for peace, but we fear that this remonstrance, if it has any effect, will tend to prevent rather than to accomplish it. We hope that the very proper course adopted by the administration to effect a peace, will meet with the success to which it is entitled: but should Great Britain, regardless of the numer ous wrongs she has inflicted on us, and calculating on her power, or encouraged by her friends in America, persist in her hostile pretensions, we have no doubt but the people of this state will cordially, actively, and zealously come forward and lend their aid in the prosecution of the war, until our rights are established on a permanent basis.

(Signed)

BOSTON, June 16, 1813.

John Holmes,
Wm. Moody,

Solomon Aiken,

Joshua Prentiss, jun.
John Hart,
Ambrose Hall.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting information touching the French decree purporting to be a repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees; in pursuance of the resolutions of the House of the twenty-first of June last.

To the House of Representatives of the United States.

I transmit to the house of representatives a report of the secretary of state, containing the information requested by then resolutions of the 21st of June last.

Washington, July 12, 1813.

JAMES MADISON.

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred several resolutions of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, requesting information on certain points relating to the French decree of the 28th April, 1811, has the honour to make to the President the following

REPORT:

In furnishing the information required by the house of representatives, the secretary of state presumes that it might be deemed sufficient for him to state what is now demanded, what part thereof has been heretofore communicated, and to supply the deficiency. He considers it, however, more conformable to the views of the house, to meet, at this time, without regarding what has been already communicated, every inquiry, and to give a distinct answer to each, with the proper explanation relating to

it.

The house of representatives has requested information, when, by whom, and in what manner, the first intelligence was given to this government of the decree of the government of France, bearing date on the 28th April, 1811, and purporting to be a definitive repeal of the decrees of Berlin and Milan; whether Mr. Russell, late charge d'affaires of the United States to the government of France, ever admitted or denied to his government the correctness of the declaration of the duke of Bassano to Mr. Barlow, as stated in Mr. Barlow's letter of the 12th May, 1812, to the secretary of state, that the said decree had been communicated to his, Mr. Barlow's, predecessor there, and to lay before the house any correspondence with Mr. Russell on that subject, which it may not be improper to communicate, and also any correspondence between Mr. Barlow and Mr. Russell, in possession of the department of state; whether the minister of France to the United States ever informed this government of the existence of the said decree, and to lay before the house any correspondence with the said minister relative thereto, not improper to be communicated, with any other information in possession of the executive, which he may not deem it injurious to the public interest to disclose, relative to the said decree, tending to show at what time, by whom, and in what manner, it was first made known to this government, or to any of its representatives or agents; and lastly, to inform the house whether the government of the United States hath ever received from that of France any explanation of the reasons of that decree being concealed from this government and its minister for so long a time after its date, and 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 any remon

strance or expressed any dissatisfaction to the government of France at such concealment ?

These inquiries embrace two distinct objects. The first relates to the conduct of the government of France in regard to this decree; the second, to that of the government of the United States. In satisfying the call of the house on this latter point, it seems to be proper to meet it in a two-fold view; first, as it relates to the conduct of this government in this transaction; secondly, as it relates to its conduct towards both belligerents, in some important circumstances connected with it. The resolutions do not call specially for a report of such extent, but as the measures of the executive, and the acts of congress founded on communications from the executive, which relate to one of the belligerents, have, by necessary consequence, an immediate relation to the other, such a report seems to be obviously comprised within their scope. On this principle the report is prepared, in the expectation that the more full the information given, on every branch of the subject, the more satisfactory will it be to the

house.

The secretary of state has the honour to report, in reply to these inquiries, that the first intelligence which this government received of the French decree of the 28th April, 1811, was communicated by Mr. Barlow, in a letter bearing date on the 12th of May, 1812, which was received by this department on the 13th of July following: that the first intimation to Mr. Barlow of the existence of that decree, as appears by his communications, was given by the duke of Bassano in an informal conference on some day between the 1st and 10th of May, 1812, and that the official communication of it to Mr. Barlow was made on the 10th of that month, at his request: that Mr. Bariow transmitted a copy of that decree, and of the duke of Bassano's letter announcing it, to Mr. Russell, in a letter of May 11, in which he also informed Mr. Russell that the duke of Bassano had stated that the decree had been duly communicated to him : that Mr. Russell replied, in a letter to Mr. Barlow of the 29th of May, that his first knowledge of the decree was derived from his letter; and that he has repeatedly stated the same since to this government. The paper marked (A) is a copy of an extract of Mr. Barlow's letter to the department of state, of May 12, 1812; (B) of the duke of Bassano's letter to Mr. Barlow of the 10th of the same month; (C) of an extract of Mr. Barlow's letter to Mr. Russell, of May 11th; (D) of an extract of Mr. Russell's answer of the 29th May; and (E) of Mr. Russell's letter to the department of state of the 30th.

The secretary of state reports also, that no communication of the decree of the 28th April, 1811, was ever made to this go vernment by the minister of France, or other person, than as above stated, and that no explanation of the cause of its not having been communicated to this government and published, at the time of its date, was ever made to this government, or, so far as it is informed, to the representatives or agents of the United States in Europe. The minister of France has been asked to explain the cause of a proceeding apparently so extraordinary and exceptionable, who replied, that his first intelligence of that decree was received by the Wasp, in a letter from the duke of Bassano of May 10th, 1812, in which he expressed his surprise that a prior letter of May, 1811, in which he had transmitted a copy of the decree, for the information of this government, had not been received. Further explanations were expected from Mr. Barlow, but none were given. The light in which this transaction was viewed by this government, was noticed by the president in his message to congress, and communicated also to Mr. Barlow, in the letter of the 14th July, 1812, with a view to the requisite explanation from the French government. On the 9th of May, 1812, the emperor left Paris for the north, and in two days thereafter the duke of Bassano followed him. A negotiation for the adjustment of injuries, and the arrangement of our commerce, with the government of France, long depending, and said to have been brought nearly to a conclusion at the time of Mr. Barlow's death, was suspended by that event. His successor, lately appointed, is authorized to resume the negotiation, and to conclude it. He is instructed to demand redress of the French government for every injury, and an explanation of its motive for withholding from this government a knowledge of the decree, for so long a time after its adoption.

It appears by the documents referred to, that Mr. Barlow lost no time, after having obtained a knowledge of the existence of the French decree of the 28th April, 1811, in demanding a copy of it, and transmitting it to Mr. Russell, who immediately laid it before the British government, urging, on the ground of this new proof of the repeal of the French decrees, that the British orders in council should be repealed. Mr. Russell's note to lord Castlereagh bears date on the 20th May; lord Castlereagh's reply on the 23d, in which he promised to submit the decree to the consideration of the prince regent. (See papers marked F.) It appears, however, that no encouragement was given, at that time, to hope that the orders in council would be repealed, in consequence of that decree; and, that although it was afterwards made the ground of their repeal, the repeal was, neverthe

« ZurückWeiter »