Daily National Intelligencer

MR. WRIGHT'S MOTION

Of yesterday was, we rather think, ill-timed, if not unnecessary in any event. We have so much confidence in the patriotism and general intelligence of this gentleman, that we feel some diffidence in placing our opinion in opposition to his. But, as a power was given to the Executive, in the last section of the law laying an Embargo, to suspend its operation on a cessation of hostilities, or in any other event which should, in his opinion, render a termination of the embargo compatible with the public interest, we cannot conceive that such a motion was at all necessary, even if we had the same confidence as Mr. Wright appears to have in the sincerity of the government of Britain. But we have very little confidence in the sincerity of its professions, until fortified by acts, and therefore have a stronger objection to the agitation of such a motion, than the mere absence of necessity for it. If the embargo was a wise measure in December, we have seen nothing to change its character in March; our actual relation to the enemy and the tendency of our measures have not changed in any respect since that day; unless, indeed, it be, that every preparation has been made for a more vigorous prosecution of the war. We know, it is true, that, since the passage of the embargo law, a proposition by the British ministry for negociation has been accepted by our government; yet the government has not in any respect changed its policy in consequence of that incident. So far from it, the President, in his message communicating it to Congress, expressly enforced the necessity of vigorous preparations to prosecute the war, notwithstanding the accepted proposal of the British government until an actual cessation of hostilities. Therefore, until the President shall deem the measure compatible with the public interest, we conceive it would be highly inexpedient even to discuss a proposition for removing the embargo.

It is perhaps proper to state that the vote for consideration is not conclusive evidence of partiality to the motion on the part of those who so voted; and that the vote against consideration even would have been much larger, but that several committees were sitting when the question was put, and the members engaged thereon had not an opportunity of voting.