The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

WASHINGTON CITY

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23.

We have received the official account of the proceedings of the Court of Enquiry in the case of Capt. Bainbridge, which shall appear at length in our next paper. The following is the result of the Enquiry:

"The Court having deliberated on the evidence deduced from the testimony of the witnesses, heard in this case, are decidedly of opinion that Captain WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE acted with fortitude and conduct in the loss of his ship, the U. S. frigate Philadelphia, on the 31st Oct. 1803, and that no degree of censure should attach itself to him from that event."

On Saturday the citizens of Washington gave Capt. Bainbridge an elegant DINNER, in testimony of the sense they entertain of his merits, and of their sympathy in his sufferings. The warm welcome, so universally given our gallant countrymen, will be to them the highest evidence of national gratitude and affection.

IT can scarcely have escaped the notice of our readers, that, notwithstanding the loud and incessant denunciations of the administration for not adequately protecting the commerce of the country, measures have no sooner been taken with this view, than they have met with the ridicule and condemnation of those who were previously the most clamorous for them.

Some time since, it was determined by the administration to make an experiment of the efficacy of Gun Boats. The experience of older nations had shewn them to be of much use, and circumstances peculiarly applicable to the United States seemed to recommend them to us. A small appropriation was accordingly made for this purpose, and a number of gun boats built on approved models.

The professed friends of commerce and avowed enemies of the administration, denounced the measure as weak and ridiculous. They denied the efficacy of gun boats, and ridiculed the plan on which they were built. The administration, on their part, made no boasts. They acknowledged that they were making an experiment, which might disappoint their hopes. This, it might have been expected, would have been felt by their opponents as a generous appeal to their candor. It might have been presumed that before the experiment was made, they would not have impeached the motives in which it originated. It might have been presumed that they would have suspended their decision, or at least have withheld their clamours, for a few months, that a fair opportunity might be afforded to the friends of the measure to disclose their plan. No such forbearance was, however, manifested. Unqualified condemnation and sarcasm overwhelmed the measure and its projectors. The exclusive friends of commerce, jealous, as it were, of receiving any effectual protection from those whom their prejudices had converted into enemies, could see in the measure nothing but a settled hostility to commerce, a deliberate purpose, under the pretext of aiding, to cramp commercial enterprise, and to prevent any effectual protection being given to it.

It so happening, that the Chief Magistrate was a man of philosophic research, and of course less habituated to servile imitation, than to the adoption of whatever appeared on reflection most advisable. the models on which the boats were constructed were represented by those who were supremely ignorant of the common principles of mechanism, as totally inadequate and impracticable. The lowest species of wit, characterised by mean and indecent allusion, was resorted to. Why? Because the approved model did not precisely correspond with that of English gun boats. For it must have been remarked that on most occasions, the professed friends of commerce have allowed all the credit to Great Britain, which they have denied to their own country.

Well, the administration, amidst the incessant fire of the enemy, advanced to their object without returning the charge. They thought that the measure would speak for itself; or, if it did not, nothing which they could prematurely say would justify it. The gun boats were built, and the experiment tried. A number of them have crossed the ocean, and although they have encountered tempestuous weather, they have arrived at their destined stations. In connection with the larger vessels, they have struck terror into the breasts of the enemy, have commanded peace, and have effected the liberation of our citizens. And, what is still more wonderful, such is their construction that even Englishmen are the first to approve and acknowledge them to be models of imitation, as well as greatly superior to their own gun boats. Blush, Americans, at being surpassed in candor to your own government, by a nation, once your enemy and still your rival, by a nation whose arrogance rarely condescends to acknowledge equality, much less superiority in any one.

Here then is the just revenge of our administration, a revenge the more honorable, because unsullied by the indulgence of angry or vindictive feelings. As far as time and occasion have allowed, the triumph is complete.

Of the untoward spirit of the enemies of the administration, we have another not less conspicuous proof. In consequence of the depredations committed on our trade, and the insults and outra
Of the loud complaints of our merchants, several armed vessels have been stationed on the coast. But no sooner has this measure been taken, than they, who most strenuously urged it, are the first to demand its use. What, it is enquired, can this force effect? It is acknowledged that it may prevent the vessels of belligerent powers from actually entering our harbors, and there committing outrage and depredation; but what security does it afford against the capture of our merchant-men a marine league beyond the shore and within sight of our ports? Do either the laws of nations, or our treaty stipulations, authorise our opposing, under these circumstances, resistance to the right of search, or to the sending our vessels into the ports of the belligerent nations for adjudication? Must not this indignity and injustice be submitted to even in the face of a force equal to its prevention? If so, where is the mighty utility of the measure? Such is the language of our chameleon casuists, who, in the extensive wardrobe of party prejudice, can find a covering fit for any purpose; who can, with perfect nonchalance condemn in one character what they approve in another, and be the first to reprobate what they were the first to recommend.

Because this measure was not at once undertaken, the administration was denounced; and now it is adopted, its futility is attempted to be exposed. Will these gentlemen have the goodness to recollect that it was not, perhaps, at first adopted for the very obvious reasons they themselves now urge. Will they recollect that until lately, the administration were in good faith bound to observe the provisions of a treaty made by their political opponents with Great Britain, from whose ships of war we have suffered the most extensive spoliation; and that this treaty provides,

"That in all cases where vessels shall be captured or detained on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contraband of war; the said vessel shall be brought to the nearest or most convenient port; and if any property of an enemy shall be found on board such vessel, that part only which belongs to the enemy shall be made prize, and the vessel shall be at liberty to proceed with the remainder without impediment. And it is agreed, that all proper measures shall be taken to prevent delay, in deciding the cases of ships or cargoes so brought in for adjudication; and in the payment or recovery of any indemnification, adjudged or agreed to be paid to the masters or owners of such ships." Art. 17.

The 18th article, after enumerating such contraband articles as are declared to be just objects of confiscation, proceeds as follows.

"And whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the precise cases in which alone provisions and other articles not generally contraband may be regarded as such, renders it expedient to provide against the inconveniences and misunderstandings which might thence arise. It is further agreed, that whenever any such article so becoming contraband, according to the existing laws of nations, shall for that reason be seized, the same shall not be confiscated, but the owners thereof shall be speedily and completely indemnified; and the captors, or in their default, the government under whose authority they act, shall pay to the masters or owners of such vessels, the full value of all such articles, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, together with the freight, and also the demurrage incident to such detention."

By the 22nd article, "It is expressly stipulated that neither of the said contracting parties will order or authorise any acts of reprisal against the other, on complaint of injuries or damages, until the said party shall first have presented to the other a statement thereof, verified by competent proof and evidence, and demanded justice and satisfaction, and the same shall either have been refused or unreasonably delayed."

The 17th article of our treaty with Spain, ratified in the year 1795, declares that,

"To the end that all manner of dissensions and quarrels may be avoided and prevented on one side and the other, it is agreed, that in case either of the parties hereto should be engaged in a war, the ships and vessels belonging to the subjects or people of the other party must be furnished with sea-letters or passports, expressing the name, property and bulk of the ship, as also the name and place of habitation of the master or commander of the said ship, that it may appear thereby, that the ship really and truly belongs to the subjects of one of the parties, which passport shall be made out and granted according to the form annexed to this treaty. They shall likewise be recalled every year, that is, if the ship happens to return home within the space of a year. It is likewise agreed, that such ships being laden, are to be provided not only with passports as above mentioned, but also with certificates, containing the several particulars of the cargo, the place whence the ship sailed, that so it may be known whether any forbidden or contraband goods be on board the same: which certificates shall be made out by the officers of the place whence the ship sailed in the accustomed form: And if one shall think it fit or advisable to express in the said certificates, the person to whom the goods on board belong, he may freely do so: Without which requisites they may be sent to one of the ports of the other contracting party, and adjudged by the competent tribunal, according to what is above set forth, that all the circumstances of this omission having been well examined, they shall be adjudged to be legal prizes, unless they shall give legal satisfaction of their property by testimony entirely equivalent."

We have not the French treaty at present before us; but its provisions, on the point under consideration, are not materially variant from those already recited.

Here then are three treaties, by two of which the government are still bound, and by one of which they were bound until lately; all of which were negotiated by a federal administration, and ratified by a federal Senate.

If the provisions are injurious or unjust, who are to blame but federalists? However improper, it is the clear duty of the present administration to observe them. That there is great injustice practised in carrying them into effect cannot admit of a doubt. That it is the duty of the government to remonstrate against it is equally clear. That they have remonstrated is extremely probable. Whether their remonstrances will put an end to the evil is uncertain.

Should they fail in doing this, it rests with the legislature to apply the remedy. The demand of justice and its refusal, necessarily, according to the theory of our government, transfers all ulterior powers to the legislature. With them are deposited the revenue and the armed force of the nation, as well as the regulation of trade, and with them it must rest to decide whether the case is of such a nature as to demand an appeal to arms, or a restrained or interdicted intercourse. And should such a case occur, can it be doubted that those, who assume to themselves all the patriotism of the country, should the friends of the administration be remiss in their duty, will fail to bring forward such measures as an injured and insulted nation are called upon to pursue. Then the nation will be able to determine whether the present administration are really averse to the protection of commerce or to the vigorous redress of violated rights.

Should they refuse to take the necessary measures, then, and then only will there be reason to complain.

There are two important considerations which on this as well as other topics, are not duly attended to. The first arises from the abandonment by the federalists of the principle that free ships make free goods, which had been previously adopted in several treaties. While this principle was uniformly asserted by us to be just, and while we refused in any solemn stipulation to surrender it, we stood upon high ground. We were under no obligation to allow our vessels to be searched, or sent to adjudication, under the pretext of having enemy's goods on board. We remained free, in case the hostile principle were asserted, to oppose force to force without violating any moral obligation.

The other consideration arises from confounding the powers and duties of distinct departments of our government. Because the President has high and extensive powers, it is often either ignorantly or perversely inferred that he has all power. But so different is the theory of the government, that the very reason why he is denied some great powers is his being possessed of others. Thus, though it is made his duty to execute all, he is prohibited from making any laws: and though it is his duty to negotiate with foreign nations, he is prohibited from using the national force against them without the express permission of Congress. It is the great, the pre-eminently distinctive feature of our system, that the nation, which is to experience the complicated evils of war, is likewise the sole judge of its propriety.

Suppose then the Executive, by overstepping his constitutional powers, by consulting his own indignant feelings at wrongs committed against the American nation, should, by hasty measures, snatch from Congress their great prerogative of declaring war, would not those, who are now the most clamorous for energetic measures, be the first to institute an impeachment? Would not the cry of usurpation resound through the land?