text: o~ Ll NoS R PN D o R g : - . o o sl P e TT N % § e e ok S g ; s - . ; ” . e PRE R g ST eAU O gl Ie i =5 : R ¢ Lo ; ¥ ¢ g e - W e e T RS S 00, SRR A sy : ; , TS ;j’ % bk. " - -~ Y 3 ! g" v é’% it T Ye, gow iy oor SR &% ﬁ?.‘ Pl ¥ g ;u;_g . y ; e 177 - i g V 7 v : o i eLR ¢ iy rade Tgt s> P SNt e o «"“ﬂ'j'm”':' (e A S ¢ 3 HH ’ 3 P - AR O o sk G ST BN AR 2 eS A s e ~ V' : P N 0y X 3 B g Lo e e AW BRI T e. W S s R % : : SN sk e we L T, § ¥ = ’ BR e gt PR RVgg L, AN 8 . A RS y L% A - N % BT & ] % ' .=% y o v . * 'r’ "ot I\ S »"””“«& eioog 6il £ s F ¥ . ’ . b 3 i o & 23 § - Thoe oy 2 ‘ ¥ eLS oT e ‘ SR g e gt i : ¥ W T G : e 2 5 og v ‘.: :& -t ~d V s< - X 4 <o ",_2,1. @7 A ‘(Sg»."_: " s .:‘i’ﬁw.‘., v 4 R 33;. e - 2 = "3 : R7Ha v - § & P ’; ; : ; ; 4 : % # & «*5 8 . - LAY F R > '{éﬁ*. e 4 s /‘; . 3 ?Y IR 5 _A‘ . : « il - e A * : o ¢ &Tt .’: "u: o ‘““, !” 3 ~,M o4.S¥: );: . ¥ 81 i "i‘? T“ ¢ 4 H ,"f';" ; 4 3 ¢ g ‘ . G - ¥ X * i :. o * T - i s - . ¥ G <R s e 3 ® 5‘ - g £= T E 5. % £,= ey U : oTR B 3 it R Wgel] 5W Lo ,h; e 3 e T s & { "::.5: ; " 4 ~“-‘"‘ ):’ s S . =4 o ,? % < N % :e" ER ES. 3 800 ¥y . ih : T L R y g b el ol A ) g 2“ 3 2 1 ,’l"/ i s £ i ¥ = & 3“‘ ":‘::-"'T‘A-- "’r\irv“ s e & ; }f% i k " 2 ’ i f 4 20 “ e &y v \ z : D 4 ~ % n‘?; ,-:o 28 5 w ”Wm o . 5 3 g ‘s A :b2 Kk ? ; o i RS %, FA - : i : iB, . ee g RIS "Hhaves of gSN 2 » - L 3 Bos ; . 3 £ g 8 5 : 2 % g My g b rerins oA PR YN v o Y i f e * K T A.= ] . . : ; ¥ TR s e iy : | : i T G T . & s e Wke . B i’ . ¢ LR e R e : ¥ 2 : 1 TR WAL . PR e T » ? PERa 4 s = p $-3. In this extraordinary publication, from the late secretary of State, appears in the form of a pamphlet, as well as the mast of the many newspapers in opposition to the government; and perhaps in some form of a different character. It is now several weeks since it was anxiously announced by the federal prints that Mr. Robert Smith was about to publish his attack on Mrs. Mason. We had flattered ourselves that the conductors of these journals had suffered their hopes of discord to deceive them, and that a regard for his own reputation and feelings, if not for the public good, would have withheld the threatened publication from Mr. Smith. The appearance of his address has dissipated hopes rationally entertained, and given birth to feelings painful in their proportion. With great regret, we acknowledge the widespread impact of the publication in question, which has been rightfully represented as a shameful breach of official and personal trust. The document, authored by Robert Smith and addressed to the people of the United States, is a malignantly deceitful attempt to undermine the government and constitution, which he was bound by every bond of honor and honesty to support. We present to our readers the pamphlet in its entirety, allowing them to judge for themselves the falsity and malicious intent behind it. We uphold the principle that the people's right to know must not be compromised, and therefore do not intend to conceal any secrets that may be revealed by the publication. However, we also emphasize that our review is solely focused on the document's inherent character, notice its glaring absurdities, and condemn the nefarious principle it represents. The publication is rife with false and misleading statements, as well as personal attacks on individuals and the government's actions. It is a blatant violation of trust and a clear attempt to incite division and chaos. The author, in his defense, may claim that he is merely exercising his right to free speech, but such a stance fails to recognize the gravity of his actions. By circulating this pamphlet, Robert Smith has shown a flagrant disregard for the laws of the land and the trust placed in him as a public official. His actions are not only unethical but also potentially illegal, as they threaten to destabilize the very foundations of our democracy. It is crucial for the public to understand the dangerous course that Robert Smith has set upon. His actions not only undermine the trust in government but also pose a threat to the security and prosperity of the United States. We, therefore, call upon the people to exercise caution and vigilance against such malicious endeavors. In conclusion, the publication by Robert Smith is a scourge upon our society, and its authors and supporters must be condemned unequivocally. Let us stand united against such breaches of trust and work towards a future where such actions are not only repudiated but also prevented from taking root. Xxes, which have produced my refiguration of the office of Secretary of Commerce. This duty, irksome as it is, now devolves upon me by the irrefutable necessity of obviating the honest misapprehensions of some and the wanton misrepresentation of late, I come forth, in the outset, only to premise that this exposition shall be nothing but a brief authenticated statement of facts, with the superaddition of only such observations as may be necessary to a distinct understanding of the narration. My objective is the vindication of myself; and if in this vindication there should be involved any serious questions as to Mr. Madison, it will only be because such a result is inevitable, due to the storm that I will have to buffet; a form that will be excited by the parasitic power, but I, at the same time, enjoy the consolation of having in view the American system of measures and not mere distinguished characteristics of the independent people of a representative republic. Besides, it is a truth universal to every understanding and confirmed by universal experience, that in all exertions of duty, something must be sacrificed. It is, therefore, with these reflections, that I accept Mr. Madison's offer of the mission to Russia, which he allowed to be "of immense importance to the commerce of the United States and the most favorable that is the gift of our government. ernment,” is ?embnﬂrztin' proof _og - kis confidencein me, as to fidelity and sto eapacity in public affairs, - = . This offer was. accompanied with b:sz@bﬁmmommanpnﬁaceﬁ& pe&fallx.made, as to -the coutrariety of 9ais§a¢ unhappily exist ed betweea him and myfelf withi ref- Pt to eortaint measures ad to certaint &;‘w and in. which he fermed ;q @h nce particularly at: uaebiﬁ{ fouching -our foreign telatiens, that Bad been introduted by Mr. Macon son.intercourfe of the last session: ‘AI wigwmm«& the offer. of g;@ AR Mk asokpstg yeuthers, rere indications of embat- Laftacat and awkwatdoct,that exit -ed in.my minda doubt.as 10 his real ﬂ?ﬁmr»tb- influence of this - - fulpision, rising from my feat, T, with™ L oaiag 6 onr difreat views of .o W i BTROIIR <PR TN R B EREEET ORS A *:w"" 1’ -~z&:£x;%.i FORTSMOUTH s ( Naw-Haursmen) Posuasusp ny @’ « WEEKS.~Painrsg 10 'ATE, aap Paiwrer o tue LAWS &p vus Usrrep/ SraTes. < e & “‘f""""""""“—“ i B‘_ g aditane ioSR B L g Ss S ral SR, R Hay T = idhoe AR R s P V- " i . many fﬂ%*%ﬂfcﬁwumﬁmei formed a determtﬁgg% ‘withdraw. - fcom b adwiniftration ; that 1 had - afigally commanicated to some of my “friends this dererimination ; and to ac - eowplith my purpose I bagd been ‘on.. -y ibe 33%‘”‘1‘3%"”505;‘%, herein it could be elfe@ed without endangeripl ' eondliting gﬁﬂﬁm among our rcé peétive friends, and, ip'_,fgtir%ng from - his room, I’rg&xarke% him, that [ * would duly consider' whether the offer ‘?f :'mimovp_ to. Russia w aiford fach au opportupity. - With inex -lalt_fdion ceredt meaers of Con. Greis had been enabled, in returning to their respective homes, to rate, that this identical offer would be made to me with a view of putting Mr. Monroe in the Department of State. This intelligence I, of course, mentioned with a becoming indignation to Mr. Madison upon his application afterwards to me, for the result of my reflections on the proposed mission. He, immediately, but with evident confusion, proved that he had not in any manner whatever authorized such a report, or even such an idea. I replied that it surely ought not to attribute to a President of the United States a transaction of base character. But as a report of so delicate a character had already gone forth, my sense of honor could not hesitate a moment in rejecting the offer of the man. Nor could I, upon the same principle, allow myself under such circumstances to retain my commission of Secretary of State. I closed the conversation by remarking, with great composure, that there must have been in this affair a most shameful intrigue. And with a very great difficulty, I suppressed the inclination I felt, to tell him, that of this intrigue he had inconsiderately been the dupe. The power of a President of the United States to remove any officer, other than a judge, will not be controverted. Nor will any pretension be set up to an absurd right to an office. It is maintained that this power can. Not consistently with the genius of our government and with the respect due to the Senate; be exercised as an arbitrary despotism, at the mere caprice of the chief; but that in every such exercise of power a President of the United States must necessarily act upon his responsibility to his constituents for the rectitude of his motives. This brings me to the ground to be examined, namely the measures alleged to by Mr. Madison upon which has been founded his conduct towards me on this occasion. Each then, of the several measures, important or unimportant, in which there has been, at any time, difference of opinion between us, I will now unreservedly, in distinct articles, present to the view of the American people, with a hope, perhaps delusive, that they will there in find an apology, if not a justification in my behalf. The following letter was not prepared in virtue of any direction, or even intimation from Mr. Madison. It was written and sent by me when he was at his seat in Virginia. Before his departure from Washington, however, he, however, knew that I had it in contemplation to make such a call upon Mr. Ervine, and, as he had expressed disapprovals, it so course took place. By giving since learned that he was not a little displeased that such an inquiry had been at all stirred. My fellow-citizens in reading the letter and in advertising to the circumstances, will, I trust, have difficulty in effacing the purity of my motives, and in discovering the ground on which Mr. Madison, a man of such proven integrity and such long and faithful service to his country, could deem it necessary to resort to such means to assail a political opponent. Finley a letter, inclosing a printed paper, purported to be a copy of a dispatch to you from Mr. Madison, which, among other things, verifies with Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Smith. The government is prepared, in the event of his high order, to withdraw the objections to the decrees of the council of January and November, 1807, to which Britain, leaving them in force with respect to the powers which adopt or act under those decrees, ensuring the seriousness, during the present war, to the pretension of carrying on trade in time of peace, from which she was excluded during the war. Great Britain, for the purpose of securing the opposition of the blockade, and the DNA's intention of America to prevent her citizens from trading in these ports without security for the observance of the embargo, the raising it nominally with respect to Great Britain alone would not raise it with respect to all the powers. You have the honor to request you to favor us with such explanation as your candor will at once satisfy, in relation to these imputed covert operations. I forbear to express to you, sir, the surprise that is felt at the extraordinary circumstances. My pretensions that are so forth in this letter of instructions, and especially at the expectation that this government would, as a preliminary, recognize conditions, two of which are so materially irreconcilable to the dignity and interest of the United States. However, I would remark, that had you deemed it proper to have communicated in extent this letter, it would have been impossible for the President to have perceived, in its conditions or in its spirit, that conciliatory disposition which had been professed, and which, it was hoped, had really existed. I am, etc. (Signed) R. SMITH. The Hon. David M. Ervine, etc. 2. There was a serious difference of opinion between Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe upon the bill, touching over foreign relations, which was introduced by Mr. Macon early in the session of 1809. The policy developed in that bill, became at once a subject of universal disapproval. Not a word in its favor was to be found in any print. It was, therefore, that fortunately not forced upon the nation. In its place, however, was substituted the act of May, 1810, which the voice of the people, in the expression of their indignation, in denunciation called Macon No. 2. At that odium, which the two bills had excited throughout the United States. ~ States, was ¥ a certain. manage ment faftenad upon Me. Macon and _others. - Iu these measures, as anwife’ . as humiliating; Mr. ‘Madifon was not’ ~ at all femn by his conllituents. Not - a'fufpicion was cntertained that he had any participation in a&s so gooy ly calculated to effe@uate. their pro . fefled purpose of avengiug the infuits, . of repairing the injuries, and of main taining the rights of the U, States.— ' "To account then, for the very acyte sensibility of Mr. Madison as to ‘thefe ~ twobills, it has become indispensably néceflary to the purpose of this address to-draw the myßerions. curtain, that had 4t firlk entireiy, and yer does in part, veil these transactions, and.to {tate to my countrymen that the rép robated bills, ufually’ called Macon’s - Bill No.'l, and Macon’s Bill 'No. 2, werein fa®t the special contrivance of Mr. Madison himfeif ; that they were his great and eflicient Mmealures of the f:flion ; that initead of being recom mendéd to -Congress by the President _himfzlf; as the Constitution has wifely -requiréd, they 'were severally through a certain mediom banded to Mr. M a. com, to be, it would fesm, by him re. - eommended. T T PR | Of these twio meafores, which were - alike reg&idklgfjt‘hi: prosperity and ; theﬁoﬁémf&éﬁlﬁ&g“ﬁ‘"“‘d - not permit myfelf to'be the advocate, anéﬁefpémﬂgaﬂ'wﬂﬁ‘é«mﬁ ¢d'thae the good fenle, the honorable princlples, and dhe patriotic feelings Ym,wqﬁa dtterly eon dbmn hémh. o e 3. Duridg the fefion of 180518, R ‘"’ L e Galuls, of vepaibing the injapics, and of onaintaining the rights of the U. States. Findings to that impotencies be finally fed to Congress the following: A means for keeping the United States, delivered on the 24th April 1810. For the Separation - The petition, authorizing a detachment of one thousand men from the militia, will expire on the 30th March. A revival is recommended, in order that timely steps may be taken for arrangements such as contemplated. Elections rendered necessary by the defects, or the ineffectiveness of the laws, or with the policy of allowing foreign armed vessels, the use of our waters, it falls within my duty to recommend also, that in addition to the precautionary measures authorized by that act, and to the regular troops, for completing the legal establishment, enlistments are renewed, every necessary provision may be made for a volunteer force of twenty thousand men, to be enlisted for a short period, and held in a state of organization and readiness for actual service, at the shortest warning. I submit to the consideration of Congress, moreover, the expediency of such a classification and organization of the militia, as will best insure prompt and successful aids, from that source, adequate to emergencies, which may call for them. It will also be with there also, to determine whether allowances should be made for the payment of volunteers, as the case may be. termine how far further provisions may be expedient, for putting into actual service, if necessary, any part of the naval armament not now employed. At a period presenting features in the condition of foreign powers towards the United States, which impose on them the necessity of precautionary measures involving expense, it is a happy consideration that such is the solidity of the public credit, that reliance can justly be given, of any legal provision that may be made for resorting to it; in a convenient form, and to an adequate amount. January 3rd, 1871, To this Message I had the following observations: If the honor and the interest of the United States did in fact imperiously call for war, then, instead of the half-way measures contemplated in the message, the recommendation ought to have been, that the abundant physical resources of the nation should be duly organized and brought forth with a tone that would unequivocally manifest at home and abroad a determination to take a manly stand, and especially, as such a precautionary measure has, not unfrequently had the effect of averting war. The war was not the real object, whence was the necessity of filling the public mind with the alarm of war? Whence the propriety of expending our treasures in calling to arms 20,000 men? Whence the policy of trifling with the manly, generous feelings of the people? ing of 2 brave, honorable; enterpril., ing people, as are the people of the AL S b o s 4 A A gn eveénts, whatever may ' have been the real obj-@, the Rudied ' ambiguity of the ladguage of the | ﬂkf.ﬂtort'_!?ﬁd: of 'itfc% a fufficient objedtion. OF this ambiguity M% '/ Madison was duly.apprifed. . And, as ' was_foréfeen, members of Congress, - not_cowprchending its meaning ap-. ~ plied,:but in vam, for the requisite ex. - planation. .At length, a republican * Benator, diltinguithed by his fonnd. ,principles by fiagelgian, as, wcl 28 by hisindependent feclings as 2 gea- Bl otikrin e S Jocech _ mike among other V&F’?a‘:" f"m‘u - ing pithy comment upon this exttao . dinary message. Ao et e %-,9‘;%3%?&4@}’5 message of ‘Q‘ﬁ inftanc has beeo introduced by the " port of this Bill. Feeble mos be the _ from that source. This message; in R SRRy, comg AR YT LBN BRI, Wiich Dt FORERICeL oY Li g e Te w* ﬁg« o e L 5e F '#"2; eB K o t;z’ N"~ ?“4‘s«";.‘,_:‘-{"' SR G ST el i e [Fwo povLs. Pk awnum] Galls for s palfager Ts be a Gricnd t 2 (plargeßapding Afly ? Wiy, then, _the “mgcflige aneans. 20,050 regular tréop?gﬁl sﬁ;‘f frim&};‘@;ﬁﬁghi{ 2 The weilige does not call for fepular troopsa—ir-means milicia, . THEs Siry this eucflage meang 2ny thisg, or nothe - g, et the will of ths ‘commentator. l If this mélfage is oracalar ints Gasan. ing, it was no less miraculons in itg - | ywamulgation, . The newipap:rs i the. E&m‘ofth sigflated thae such a mefe gt wonld "B deivéred, wnd Agred its conténts ﬁwiw - éﬁg the two Houfss.of Crugfeß. An account for this phenomenon, is neither within royal power nor proportionate, according to the wisdom of the crown. The non-intercourse law of the late session was also the device of Mr. Madison. It too was introduced by presidential machinery. Should this nature be viewed, as it ought to be, in connection with, and as emanating from the law of May 1st, then we have to look for the 281st required by that law, namely; the actual revocation of the Berlin and Munoz decrees. If this revocation did in fact take place, as declared by the Proclamation, then the act of May, communicated as it had been by the executive to the two Belligerent powers, did become ipso facto a compromise between the United States and France, and in that case neither party had a right to disregard, or by law to change its stipulated terms or conditions, as this Government confessedly did by the non-intercourse act of the last session. The act of May, 1800, it is a sorrowful truth, did not provide for several obvious cases, where our merchants necessarily had been injured in the eyes of that law, which had been carried into effect in the crude form in which it had been passed. Of this improvidence, our citizens might, in such a case, well have complained against their Representatives; Executive as well as Legislative. But, from it, one Government must certainly could not have deduced a right to alter of itself the condition of the compact. The other party might indeed from a sentiment of compassion for our artless simplicity have consented to such a change; but without such an acquiescence, it could not, upon any principle of natural or political law, be done. If, however, the Emperor of the French did not in fact revoke, as declared by the Proclamation, the Berlin and Milan decrees; the act of May did not become a compact between the United States and France, and in that case his imperial majesty had no claim against this government. Upon that statute, to enforce the non-intercourse against the other belligerents at I. What then, was the evidence which had induced Congress to consider these decrees repealed, and which had accordingly induced them to pass the non-intercourse law? To the President, in this, as in every other case, touching our foreign relations, the Legislature must necessarily have looked for information and recommendation. From him they had inadequate form received what, they imagined, they were officially bound to consider as satisfactory “evidence of the repeal of the said decrees; namely, his Proclamation and his message containing a recommendation to enforce the act of May, 1810. In respect then to this evidence, and in pursuance of this recommendation, did Congress pass the called the non-intercourse law of the last session. This non-intercourse law, let it be distinctly kept in mind, was passed in response to Washington of the new French minister, viz. on the wmvmﬂ' sévintem deliberately and dispassionately to view it in connection with my letters to Gen. Armitage of the 6th of June and the 3rd of July; and with the information hereafter detailed in the earlier part of this note. They will have a clear perception of my enmity to me with respect to France, evident from his measure. It is the purpose of the Broadsides, most directly to show 