laws, after due promulgation and notice thereof; but beyond this, the United States hope and believe that his majesty will not go.

M. De Champagny will not fail to seize the distinction which these remarks present, between the authority of municipal regulations and that of public law, and will decide whether it does or does not offer a ground on which a good understanding so long and so usefully maintained between the United States and France, may be preserved, and a degree of intercourse revived between them, which shall have the effect of reanimating their form erndustry.

Does his majesty fear that the balance of trade arising from this renewed industry, would go to the advantage of England? Means are certainly not wanting to prevent this consequence. Would it not be entirely avoided by making it a condition of the commerce in question, that all ships leaving France shall take in (in some article or articles of her manufacture) the full amount of the cargo they bring hither.

Ships sailing under this regulation would or would not go voluntarily to England. If they went voluntarily, it would only be because that country afforded the best markets for the production of France, in which case, the habitual results would be entirely changed, and England ceasing to receive a balance for her manufactures, would begin to pay one to the United States, on the productions of France. Could France wish a state of Commerce more prosperous than this?

If, on the other hand, the American ships did not go voluntarily to England, but were captured and sent in for adjudication, it may be

fairly presumed, that the United States would no longer hesitate about becoming a party in the war against England.

Thus, in either case, the interests of his majesty would be directly advanced by the measure: in the one, the wants of France and her colonies would be not only regularly supplied, but she would herself become an entrepot for the supply of the continent: in the other, the wishes of his majesty, as expressed in February last, would be directly promoted.

Proclamation issued in Mexico, dated 16th September, 1808.

Inhabitants of Mexico, of all classes and conditions! Necessity is not subject to common laws. The city has seized the person of his excellency the Viceroy. His removal has been imperiously demanded by reasons of utility and general convenience. In the course of last night, the Royal Acuerdo, the most illustrious seignor, the Archbishop, and the other authorities were convoked. They have submitted to the urgency of affairs; and the said Viceroy being divested of his authority, it has devolved, conformably to the royal order of the 30th October 1808, upon field marshal D. Pedro Gariby, until the dispatches brought by the Providence shall have been opened. He is actually in posses sion of the supreme authority. Be calm and tranquil; you are now governed by an accredited chief, with whose prudence you are acquainted. Confide in the vigilance of the Royal Acuerdo; all will turn out to your advantage. Impatience can only serve to divide men's minds,

-and

Dear Sir-I am instructed by the Committee appointed to consider the several Embargo Laws, &c. to request you to lay before them with as little delay as possible, such information as your department affords upon the following questions. First, What measures would be most effectual in preventing the violations or evasions of the several Embargo Laws: and enforcing due observance thereof?

Second, Can any of the inconveniences of the present system he remedied by further modifications; and what modifications would effect that object?

Be pleased, Sir, to accept assurances of my high consideration and regard.

Letter from Mr. Gallatin, in Answer to Mr. Giles. Dated 21st November, 1808.

Sir-Indisposition has prevented an earlier answer to your letter of the 14th inst.

For better preventing coasting vessels regularly cleared from violating the Embargo, two measures appear necessary:

1st. That the amount of the Bonds should be increased.

2dly. That neither capture, distress, or any other accident should be admitted as a plea, or be given in evidence on trial.

By the first regulation the temp. tation of going to a foreign port, in hopes that the profit on the sale of the cargo will indemnify for the forfeiture of the penalty, will be done away. By the second, every expectation of escaping the payment of the penalty under fraudulent pretences will be disappointed; and the power of remitting the penalties in the few cases of unavoidable accident which may occur, will remain as heretofore, and as in other cases, with the treasury.

As the object of those two regu→ lations will be to make the bond a sufficient and complete security, they will have a tendency to relieve, in a considerable degree, the coasting trade from the inconvenience resulting from detentions. The sufficiency of the bond will in many doubtful cases remove the necessity of detaining the vessels, or what amounts to the same, of informing the owners that unless they reduce the amount of their cargoes they will be detained.

I would also submit the propriety of placing under the control of the president,that power of detention vested in the collectors bythe act of the25th April last. That subject has been a constant source of complaint and difficulty. It has been the uniform practice from the establishment of the government of the United States, to give positive instructions to the collectors

ws, after due promulgation and tice thereof; but beyond this, the ited States hope and believe that Smatesty will not go.

1. De Champagny will not fail eze the distinction which these marks present, between the autho-unicipal regulations and uic law, and will decide ther it does or does not offer a To which a good underso ong and so usefully eesween the United France, may be preservree of intercourse reetween 20am, which shall Perne cicer of reuniuating their

fairly presumed, that the United States would no longer hesitate about becoming a party in the war against England.

Thus, in either case, the interests of his majesty would be directly advanced by the measure: in the one, the wants of France and her colonies would be not only regularly supplied, but she would herself become an entrepot for the supply of the continent: in the other, the wishes of his majesty, as expressed in February last, would be directly promoted.

Dear Sir-I am instructed by the Committee appointed to consider the several Embargo Laws, &c. to request you to lay before them with as little delay as possible, such information as your department affords upon the following questions. First, What measures would be most effectual in preventing the violations or evasions of the several Embargo Laws: and enforcing due observance thereof?

Second, Can any of the inconveniences of the present system he reedied by further modifications; what modifications would effect object?

pleased, Sir, to accept assurof my high consideration and

om Mr. Gallatin, in AnMr. Giles. Dated 21st er, 1808.

position has prevented ver to your letter of

For better preventing coasting vessels regularly cleared from violating the Embargo, two measures appear necessary:

1st. That the amount of the Bonds should be increased.

2dly. That neither capture, distress, or any other accident should be admitted as a plea, or be given in evidence on trial.

By the first regulation the temptation of going to a foreign port, in hopes that the profit on the sale of the cargo will indemnify for the forfeiture of the penalty, will be done away. By the second, every expectation of escaping the payment of the penalty under fraudulent pretences will be disappointed; and the power of remitting the penalties in the few cases of unavoidable accident which may occur, will remain as heretofore, and as in other cases, with the treasury.

As the object of those two regulations will be to make the bond a sufficient and complete security, they will have a tendency to relieve, in a considerable degree, the coasting trade from the inconvenience resulting from detentions. The sufficiency of the bond will in many doubtful cases remove the necessity of detaining the vessels, or what amounts to the same, of informing the owners that unless they reduce the amount of their cargoes they will be detained.

I would also submit the propriety of placing under the control of the president,that power of detentionvested in the collectors bythe act of the25th April last. That subject has been a constant source of complaint and difficulty. It has been the uniform practice from the establishment of the government of the United States, to give positive instructions to the col

lectors

lectors respecting the execution of the laws, and which they were bound to obey, unless a different construction should be established by a legal decision. This indeed was essentially necessary, in order to secure an uniform construction and execution of the laws. But the provision now alluded to makes the detention to rest on the opinion of each collector, and this must necessarily produce a great diversity in the manner in which the power should be executed. All has been done that can be done to obviate that evil; and the president being authorized to decide on the detentions when made, the opportunity was taken to inform the collectors of what in his opinion should be a proper cause of detention. This however could be given only as opinion, and operate as a recommendation, and not as an order. Nor does it appear practicable to establish uniformity, and to prevent partiality, and either laxity or too great severity in practice, unless the power of prescribing general rules in that respect by which the collectors will be bound to abide, be vested in the president.

I am aware that there is another mode of evasion, by regular coasting vessels, which will not be prevented by either of the preceding provisions. Either whilst in port or on their way down our rivers and bays, coasting vessels may receive articles not entered on their manifest, which they put on board other vessels lying off the coast for that purpose.

But it is not perceived that any legal provision can prevent that infraction, nor that any other remedy can be found than the vigilance of the officers. Another general regulation will, however, be suggested perhaps useful as a permanent mea

sure, but which would at all events, under existing circumstances, give additional security for the observance of the laws, and afford some relief to our own seamen ; to wit, a prohibition to employ any aliens either as masters or part of the crew of any coasting vessel.

It is still more difficult to guard against violations by vessels departing without clearance, in open defiance of the laws. The following provisions, on mature consideration, appear the most efficient that can be devised against infractions, which it is the more necessary to repress,as they may be daily expected to increase, and threaten to prostrate the law and government itself.

1st. To forbid expressly under pain of forfeiture (the penalty now being only implied) the lading of any vessel without the permission of the collector, and without the bond for a coasting voyage being previously given;-authorizing the collectors to refuse permission, unless the object be that of a lawful coasting or fishing voyage. The great number of vessels now laden and in a state of readiness to depart, shows the necessity of this provision. If there be cases in which the indulgences of converting vessels into warehouses ought to be granted, there will be no hardship, where the intention is fair, to require a bond similar to that given for a coasting voyage. And the collectors should likewise in such cases be expressly authorized to take such efficient precautions as will put it out of the power of such vessels to sail without warning.

2. In order to prevent those fraudulent sales of vessels by which ostensible owners of no responsibility are substituted to those from whom penalties