The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

We lately noticed in the Gazette of the United States the bold and unqualified assertion of a falsehood, calculated to fix an odium on the administration and to relieve Spain from the reproach of violated faith. The allegation of a specific fact was repelled by a pointed denial, and reference made to irrefutable evidence. Instead of a candid acknowledgement of error, the only mode of reparation left to the Editor of that print, we find, while he evades further notice of the point in question, his columns filled with acrimonious reproaches against the Executive for other alledged omissions of duty. Among the numerous articles of this hue, we select the following as a specimen of the rest, which we do not hesitate to declare replete with falsehoods, so clumsily veiled as to be even ill-fitted to impose upon the most torpid credulity.

"We were the other day," says the Editor, "forcibly struck with the singularity of an application from several of our subscribers for a copy of the statute of 44th George III. C. 90, upon which the British consul founded an address to our merchants. The editors of newspapers have for so long a time been the only personages from whom any information as to public affairs could be obtained, that we now seem to be looked to as standing in the place of ambassadors abroad, and cabinet counsellors at home; and if the measures of foreign courts are to be explained, and our newspapers do not afford the explanation, the object is given up as hopeless. As to any information from our government it is not now a day so much as thought of, much less expected. In former times when the administration used to be so abused for its secrecy, the public were accustomed to receive official information of the acts of foreign governments affecting our interests. If new impositions or unusual restrictions were imposed by foreign nations upon our commerce, the intelligence was communicated by our ministers abroad, and the acts themselves, together with the necessary explanations, were promulgated officially for the information of those concerned. At present that sort of drudgery is left to be performed by the editors of newspapers and by foreign consuls. Under existing circumstances we ought to be greatly obliged to Mr. Bond, and other officers of foreign governments resident among us, for informing our merchants of the respective regulations to which they are to conform. We ought, indeed to go farther and to pay them each the 9,000 dollars per annum which now go to our foreign ministers. There can surely be no good reason for giving these sums to Mr. Monroe in London, Mr. Armstrong in Paris, Mr. Pinckney in Madrid, &c. &c. if we are at last to depend upon consuls here for information relative to the proceedings of foreign courts. It is true that in other countries it is not thought very decorous for foreign agents to dictate laws and regulations to the people among whom they reside. It is more customary to communicate the instructions of their respective governments immediately to the court. If the same course were pursued here, our secretary of state would be first informed of such restrictions as foreign governments choose to impose upon our commerce. and he would tell us officially whether those restrictions were conformable to existing treaties and the laws of nations, and consequently whether or not they were obligatory upon our citizens. As it is, we seem to be under the necessity of paying implicit obedience to whatever is promulgated as law by foreign consuls, whether it be to regulate our trade or the amount of their own fees.

"The conclusion of the whole matter appears to be, that our republican administration, who ought to have no secrets, have nothing but secrets: and foreign governments, to cut off our merchants from the plea of ignorance, in consequence of the silence of our own, are graciously pleased to instruct us themselves."

In reply to this farrago we say,

1. It is not true, that under federal administrations it was usual, in the case of new impositions or unusual restrictions imposed upon our commerce, for the acts themselves, together with the necessary explanations to be officially promulgated for the information of the concerned, while those impositions or restrictions were the object of negotiation or explanation. Nor was it usual in cases where there arose no negotiation or explanation. It may have been done in a few instances: but the thing was extremely rare.

2. It is not true that such official communications are published, as a matter of course, by foreign governments. In Europe, it is supposed that a merchant will, in the pursuit of his vocation, take the means of obtaining all useful information, and those in public stations rarely officially announce the existence of new duties. or restrictions imposed by foreign nations. These are acts, which if proper they submit to, and which, if improper, they take fit measures, either explanatory or coercive, of removing.

3. It is not true that the secretary of state, were he to pursue the same course adopted in Europe, would, in the case of restrictions, tell us officially whether they were conformable to existing treaties and the laws of nations, and consequently whether or not they were obligatory upon our citizens.
ties and the laws of nations, and consequently (perilous conception!) whether or not they were obligatory upon our citizens.

4. It is not true that the present administration have more secrets than their predecessors. On the contrary it is incontrovertible that they have in all cases, where the public good did not forbid, made a full disclosure of the information possessed by them. In attestation of this fact, we appeal to the records of Congress, and to the public prints for five years past, a great portion of which have been filled with official documents.

Nothing can be more awkward than this attempt of federalists to impress the idea that they are the exclusive friends to the publicity of official transactions, and the enemies to state secrets! Do they remember the darkness that shrouded the memorable Algerine treaty, not merely during its passage, but long afterwards; that fatal treaty which, not contented with opening the coffers of the nation to the insatiable avarice of pirates, gratified their pride, and embellished their triumphs with a frigate, built by our own citizens, now the boast of her navy and the most efficient instrument of outrage? Do they remember the profound obscurity in which it was intended to keep the British treaty, which the patriotism of a Mason dragged into day-light; and which bad as it was in the form in which it passed, might have been ten times worse but for the light shed upon its fatal provisions by public discussion? Do they recollect the current creed of federalism that the people did not, nay could not judge correctly of our foreign relations; that the administration alone possessed the means of forming accurate opinions, thereby pointedly begging the question now at issue? Do they recollect the veto passed by general Washington on the call for papers made by the House of Representatives, the contents of which they, the direct representatives of the people, considered essential to enlighten their path and point out their duties?

Let them recollect these, and many other like cases, and talk as loudly as they please of the disrespect of the present administration to the people. Our answer to all these philippics is, "the people are a well informed people, and they know their friends from their enemies."

While on this topic, it may not be unamusing to contrast an instance of the correct and comprehensive information which the enlightened Editor of the Gazette of the United States ascribes among other federal Editors to himself, and that possessed by a brother Editor at Norfolk.

"On the subject of Spanish captures, (says the Editor of the Gazette,) we learn that many of them are owing to the want of proper papers, such as are required by the treaty which exists between the two governments. That treaty (in the 27th article we believe, but not having it before us we cannot be positive as to the article) requires that our vessels should be furnished with passports of a particular description, not the consular passports which our merchants are in the habit of obtaining and relying upon, and the want of such as are described in the treaty is alleged as the reason why so many of our vessels have been captured and carried into Algiers.

"We are confidently assured that the government of Spain, so far from authorizing the capture of American vessels have recently issued circular orders to all their officers to treat the American flag with particular respect.

"As this information may be relied upon, we hope soon to find our commerce relieved from one of the embarrassments under which it has so long been laboring."

On this article the Editor of the Public Ledger remarks:

"Our readers will notice an article which we copy from the Gazette of the United States. It would, from that appear, that letters have been received from Europe, which assign a cause for the capture of our ships by Spain. We have examined the treaty with Spain, and find the 17th article in conformity to that published, but we do not find any form of a passport annexed to the treaty, as stated in that article. From the best information which we can collect, we are disposed to think that no form was ever annexed to it, and that it was omitted as in the case of the "Role d'Equipage" in our treaty with France. We cannot, however, think that Spain is justified in taking the advantage of an omission, in form only. It is our opinion that the spirit of this article is satisfied by the passport or sea-letter, with which our vessels are usually furnished. As other forms have not been adopted, it is presumed that the present has been deemed sufficient. Indeed such a conclusion must be drawn, because Spain has been at war during every administration, and no other document has been required on the part of that country. If Spain attempts to justify her conduct under such miserable pretexts, it will be an addition of meanness to insolence and rapaciousness."

What says the Gazette of the United States to this? "If Spain attempts to justify her conduct under such miserable pretexts, it will be an addition of meanness to insolence and rapaciousness."

If such be the merited reproach of Spain, who has her own interests to pursue, who cannot be expected to be guided by any regard to our interests, what shall we say to the American, who thus attempts to justify her conduct, what of the blood that runs through his veins, but that the rage of malignant passion has estranged him from himself, and in his petty hatred of those in power, has betrayed him into sentiments even worse than those ascribed to the meanness, the insolence and rapacity of foreign powers.