Gazette Of The United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser

For the Gazette of the United States. No. III.

The British treaty and the President's speech, as we have seen, are the avowed reasons for which pacification is impeded, and for which warlike depredations are committed. Writers on the law of nations discriminate between the reasons given, and the real motives for hostilities. Every nation going to war, offers some justificatory plea; but the motives are often very different. The treaty and the speech are the justificatory excuses of France; but I cannot conjecture any reasonable motive they can have. Is it reasonable that any nation would lavish her treasure when she is poor already? that she would spill the blood of her soldiers when she has lost a million in six years by fighting; and all this, to obtain satisfaction for a treaty which does not affect her; or for a speech which was a just exposition of her conduct? This last, especially, cannot be a valid cause of quarrel, for their unfriendly disposition was manifested before the promulgation of the speech.

To render any offensive acts of hostility equitable, the justification and the motive should both appear "decent and commendable." How commendable is the justification of France? Why, as much so, as those of Alexander to Darius—or of the Romans for the second Punic war. Like their model the Roman republic, the French motives are unjust—like them, the latter are the plunderers of the world; like them, conquest, false glory, ambition and dominion, are their desiderata magna. Their justification dwindles into a pretext for the gratification of these unlawful motives.

Supposing for argument only, that France had a reasonable cause: their motive could not be good, in commencing war, for no real advantage could be gained by it. If a quarrel should always succeed a right to quarrel, we should have been involved long ago. How then can France be defended, when both a commendable plea, and a just, or even a politic motive are wanting?

Having hitherto spoken of the French as being at war with America, on their part, it will be necessary to prove the fact. "War" (says Vattel page 437.) "is that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." This definition is general; and we may suppose that a nation prosecuting any thing wrong, by force, is war. Again, (Vatt. p. 439) "He (speaking of a sovereign) who takes up arms and attacks a nation that lived in peace with him makes an offensive war." Nothing is necessary to prove that France has done this.

Excuses are often given, that the offending individuals are unauthorized to commit these depredations. But if application is made to that nation, whose citizens have violated our tranquility, and no order for recompense or restitution can be procured, the nation takes the burden of the crime from the citizen. The calm and delightful scene of peace is shoved by, and that of war introduced.

At this moment, our commissioners are soliciting an audience of the French Republic: unprecedented preliminary conditions to a hearing are required: the captures still sanctioned, and new laws enacted for the destruction of more vessels. And we may expect that decree upon decree, will eventually produce the annihilation of our commerce.

This war game is played dexterously; for while their minister assures ours, of the affection