As soon as it was perceived that such enterprises would be attempted, orders to prevent them were despatched to all the States and ports of the Union. In consequence of these, the Governor of New York, receiving information that a sloop heretofore called the Polly, now the Republican, was fitting out, arming, and manning in the port of New York, for the express and sole purpose of cruising against certain nations with whom we are at peace, that she had taken her guns and ammunition aboard and was on the point of departure, seized the vessel. That the Governor was not mistaken in the previous indications of her object, appears by the subsequent avowal of the citizen Hauterive, Consul of France at that port, who, in a letter to the Governor, reclaims her as ‘_Un vaisseau arme, en guerre, et pret a mettre a la voile_;’ and describes her object in these expressions; ‘_Cet usage étrange de la force publique contre les citoyens d’une nation amie qui se réunissent ici pour aller defendre leur frères_,’ &c. and again; ‘_Je requiers, monsieur, l’autorité dont vous êtes revêtu, pour faire rendre à des Francois, à des allies, &c. la liberte de voler au secours de leur patrie_.’ This transaction being reported to the President, orders were immediately sent to deliver over the vessel, and the persons concerned in the enterprise, to the tribunals of the country; that if the act was of those forbidden by the law, it might be punished; if it was not forbidden, it might be so declared, and all persons apprized of what they might or might not do. This we have reason to believe is the true state of the case, and it is a repetition of that which was the subject of my letter of the 5th instant, which animadverted, not merely on the single fact of the granting commissions of war by one nation within the territory of another, but on the aggregate of the facts: for it states the opinion of the President to be, ‘that the arming and equipping vessels in the ports of the United States, to cruise against nations with whom they are at peace, was incompatible with the sovereignty of the United States; that it made them instrumental to the annoyance of those nations, and thereby tended to commit their peace.’ And this opinion is still conceived to be not contrary to the principles of natural law, the usage of nations, the engagements which unite the two people, nor the proclamation of the President, as you seem to think. Surely, not a syllable can be found in the last mentioned instrument permitting the preparation of hostilities in the ports of the United States. Its object was to enjoin on our citizens ‘a friendly conduct towards all the belligerent powers;’ but a preparation of hostilities is the reverse of this.