The Rhode-Island American, and general advertiser — Providence [R.I.], 1810-02-09 00:00:00, page 2

idea, if contained in that letter, is con
veyed in the paragraph I am now about to
quote. No man has pretended to cite any
part of this letter, as evidence of the as
serted insult, except the ensuing, and al
though there is not a perfect coincidence
in opinion as to the particular part in
•which it resides, yet all agree, that it lurks
somewhere in this paragraph, if it have
any dwelling place in this letter.
“ I have therefore no hesitation in in
forming you that his Majesty was pleased
to disavow the agreement concluded be
tween you and Mr. Erskine, because it
was concluded in violation of that gentle
man's instructions, and altogether without
These instructions I now understand by
your letter, as well as from the obvious de
duction which I took the liberty of making in
mine of the 11th inst. were, at the time, in
substance, made known to you; no stronger
illustration therefore can be given of the
deviation from them, which occurred, than
by a reference to the terms of your agree
ment. Nothing can be more notorious than
the frequency with which, in the course
of complicated negotiation* Ministers are
the expressions, in which this idea is said
to bo conveyed were equally easy of ascer
tainment. But on this point, those gentle
men, who maintain this insult, are far from
being agreed. Some being of opinion, that
it is to be found in one place; some in
another; and others again assert, that it
is to be found, in the whole correspondence
taken together. Never was an argument
of this nature before so strangely conduct
ed. Gentlemen seem wholly to lay out of
sight, that this resolution pledges this
house to the assertion of a particular fact,
and expresses no general sentiment con
cerning the conduct of Mr. Jackson, or the
conduct of his government. Yes, as if the
whole subject of the British relations was
under discussion, they have deemed them- I
selves at liberty to course through these
documents, collect every thing, which
seems, to them indecorous, insolent, or un
suitable, in Mr. Jackson’s language, and
add to the heap, thus made, the whole list I
of injuries received from Great-Britain,
impressments, affair of the Chesapeake,
murder of Fierce; and all this for what
purpose? Why, truly, to justify this house
in making a solemn asseveration of a fiar- I
titular fact ! As if any injury in the world,
could be even an apology for the deliberate
utterance of a falsehood. Let the conduct
of Mr. Jackson, or of Great-Britain, be ar
atrocious as it will, if the fact, which we
assert, du not exist, we and this nation are
disgraced. It is evident, then, that irk
some as such a task is, it is necessary that
we should submit tu a precise inquiry into
the truth .of that to which we are about to
pledge our reputation and that of this peo
ple. I
furnished with a gradation of conditions,
on which they may be successively au
thorised to conclude. So common is the
case, which you put hypothetically, that
in acceding to the justice of your state
ment, I feel myself compelled to make
only one observation upon it, which is, that
it does not strike me as bearing upon the
consideration of the unauthorised agree
jnent concluded hefe, inasmuch as in point
of fact Mr. Erskine had no such graduated
instructions. You are already acquainted
with that, which was given, and I have
had the honour of informing you, that it
was the only one, by which the conditions
authority to subscribe to the terms of it.—
is to be decided by known rules of con
struction. The only investigation is touch
ing the power or capacity of ceituin terms,
to convey an alleged idea. However illy
suited a question like this may be for the
discussion of an assembly like the present,
yet if we would be just toourselves and the
people, w« must submit to an examination
'of it in that form, in which alone certainty
can be attained. It is only by stripping
the subject of all adventitious circum
stances, that we can arrive at that pcrfvc'
view of its nature, which can satisfy minds,
scrupdlomf of truth and anxious concerning
duty. It is only by such a rigorous scruti I
ny that we shall be able to form that judge
ment, which •*««* •tand the test of time,
and do honour to us and out country, when
die passions of the day are passed away
and forgotten. j
.The natural course of inquiry now is
into the idea, which is asserted to be con
veyed, and the expressions, which are said
to convey it. Concerning the first there
is no difficulty. The idea asserted to be
conveyed is, ** that the arrangement made
between Mr. Erskine and Mr. Smith was
entered into, by the American government,
with the knowledge that the powers of Mr.
Erskine were incompetent for that pur-
In our investigation,* let us follow the
natural course that is pointed out in the
resolution. This allegesjthat the obnoxious
expressions are contained in the letter of
the 23d of October, and to this limits our
assertion. In this letter, therefore, either
directly, or by way of reference to some
other, this obnoxious idea, or insinuation,
must be found. For if it be not in this,
even if it should be contained in other parts
of the correspondence, which is not, how
ever, pretended, still our assertion would
be false. Concerning thia letter of the 23d
of October, I confidently assert, without
fear of contradiction, that the obnoxious
pose.” It would save a world of trouble,
lime in substance made known to you.”—
The sources stated, are Mr. Smith’s let-
tion, as being obviously wholly without the
possibility of any agibney in conveying the
obnoxious idea.—There remains only the
preceding part of this sentence for the re
sidence of the insult. Here, if any where,
it must exist. Accordingly this is usually
shewn as the spot where the ghost of insin
uation first appeared before the eyes of our
astonished administration. Here we shall
again find it; unless, indeed, it were in
fact a mere delusion of the fancy, formed
of “ such stuff as dreams are made.” Let
us examine by way of analysis.
The sentence, to which the advocates
of this insulting insinuation are now re
duced, contains, first—a fact asserted ; se
cond—the sources from which a knowledge
of that fact is derived. Tbe fact assorted
is, that “ the instructions were, at the
'er of the 19th October, and (he obvious
deductions in his, (Mr. Jackson’s,) letter of
the llth." The question h, whether in
•ither of these branches or in both taken
together, directly, or in the way of refer
ence, the following idea is by any fair con
traction conveyed, vis. •• That at the
time of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine,
deviation from them, which occurred, than
by a reference to the terms of your agree
ment.” The latter part of this sentence
being merely a conclusion of preceding
paragraph, having no relation to the know
ledge of our government at the time of the
arrangement, will be laid out of considera-
lution be capable of justification, by any
part of the letter of the 23d of October, it
’■» by the following, the only remaining sen
teace of the cited paragraph, which I
have not yet examined “ Thete instrue
tiont I now understand by your letter, at
well at from the obviout deduction, which
I took the liberty of making in mine tfthe
11/A instant, were, at the time, in tub
stance, .made known to you ; no stronger
illustration, therefore, can be given of the
in this letter. This point we have now at
tained. And as little inclined as gentle
men may be to precise investigation they
must yield to it. I say therefore, confi
dently, and without fear of contradiction,
clamation, I thought it not time lost, to
clear out of the way all irrelevant matter,
and to leave for distinct examination the
only sentence of this paragraph, in which
the insult lurks, if it have any existence,
structions, (a fact not denied and not sug
gested to be an insult,) and that the fact ot
'hese instructions being the only ones, Mr.
Smith knows from the information of Mr.
Jackton •> an assertion, which so far from
intimating the obnoxious idea of a know
ledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the ar
rangement with Mr. Erskine, that it con
veys a contrary idea, by declaring that he
was indebted for it to his, Mr. Jackson’s
information. Here then the insult is not.
With respect to the last sentence in this
paragraph, the only assertions it contains,
are the fact that the terms accepted were
not contained in the instructions, and the
evidence of this fact, derived from the
statement of Erskine that those acceded to
were substituted by Mr. Smith in lieu of
those originally proposed. In all this, the
knowledge of Mr. Smith of the incompe
tency of Mr. Erskine’s powers is net so
much as intimated. Indeed no one has
pretended directly to assert that they have
found it in the parts of this paragraph,
from which I have thus excluded the ob
noxious idea. Yet as the whole has been
cited and made the basis of desultory de
were not of that character. In this there
is no insult. As little can be pretended to
exist in the fifth sentence. It merely as
serts that Mr. Smith, “already,” that is,
at or before the time, Mr. Jackson was
then writing, is acquainted with the in-
hat if the assertion contained in this reso-
and assert the fact, that Mr. Erskine’s
a knowledge in our government of the in
competency of Erskine’s powers, that in
a manner it excludes that idea, by enume
rating violation of instructions, and want of
authority as the only causes of the disa
vows?. In the first sentence then the in
sult is not. I pass by the second, as it will
be the subject of a distinct examination
hereafter. The third and fourth sentences
it will not even be pretended, convey this
obnoxious idea. They simply acknowledge
the frequency of graduated instructions,
paragraph, I say confidently, that the in
sult is not contained there. It is simply a
declaration of the causes of the disavowal,
so far from excluding the obnoxious idea of
on which be was to conclude were pre
scribed. So far from the terms, which he
was actually induced to uccept, having
been contemplated in that instruction, he
himself states that they were submitted by
you, in lieu of those originally proposed.”
I have quoted the whole paragraph, be
cause, in that obscure and general mode
of argument, in which gentlemen have in
dulged, it has been read as that entire por
tion, in which the insult is conveyed. It
is difficult to conceive how some parts of
this paragraph can be thought to convey
any insult. However, in prosecution of my
plan, I shall first exclude all those parts
in which the obnoxious idea cannot be pre
tended to exist, and then limit my investi
gation to that part in which it must exist,
if in the letter of the 23d of October, it be
conveyed at all.
With respect to the first sentence in this
does not deny thia fact. He only admits
that he knew the three conditions; neither
admitting nor controverting the fact assert
ed by Mr. Jackson, that they were the sub
stance. But taking it for granted that this
assertion was insolent, general insolence is
no justification to this house for asserting a
particular fact. It is enough, however for
the present argument, to observe, that the
obnoxious idea which is the basis of the
The only fact open to dispute is, wheth
er the three conditions were the substance.
Mr. Jackson indeed asserts, but Mr. Smith
With respectjto Mr. SnJflfeletter of the
19th, the assertion, “ I by your
letter, >hat of the substance
of these instructions was known to you,”
has been represented as insolent. So far
from being insolent, it is not so much as a
contradiction. Mr. Smith says, “ I knew
the three conditions.” “ That is what I
say,” replies Mr. Jackson, “ you knew the
substance, because I tell you that those
three conditions were the substance.”—
Here is no contradiction.
the government of the United States had a
knowledge of the incompetency of Ers
kine’s power.”
Previous to proceeding further, I wish tv
make a single observation by way of Ulus
trating the nature and strength of the argu
ment I shall oflbr. To induce this house
co adopt a resolution so pregnant with con
sequences to the hopes and character of
this people, it cannot be sufficient merel)
to shew that the insinuation, on which their
assertion is predicated, may be conveyed,
it will require certainly that not only this
idea is, but, also, that no other possibly can
be. Surely if it be possible to shew, or
even make it probable, that another and
an innocent idea may be conveyed, thia
house will never consent to make an asser
tion of such high responsibility, on such
dubious ground.—For the purpose of de
feating this resolution, it would therefore
be amply sufficient for me to show, that an
idea, other than the obnoxious one, may be
conveyed. But Ido not limit myself to this
task, I undertake to shew not only that
another idea than the obnoxious one may
be conveyed, but that another is, and that
the idea asserted, in this resolution, is not
and by any fair construction of language
cannot possibly be conveyed, by these ex
pressions.
The question recurs, in the fact asserted
*in this sentence, is the knowledge of our
government of the incompetence of Ere
kine’s powers intimated f So far from con
veying such an idea that it intimates nothing
concerning the knowledge of our govern
ment, in relation to the general state of Mr
Erskine’s powers. The simple assertion
is, •' you knew the substance of those in
structions'—because you admit you knew
the conditions, and I tell you these were
the substance. So far from this assertion
conveying the idea of a knowledge in our
government of the general state of Mr.
Erskine’s power, that if Mr. J. had here
expressly asserted, that these instructions
were shewn.tn extenao to our government,
although this, after the denial of Mr. Smith,
might have been a* insult, yet it would not
have conveyed the obnoxious idea, nor au
thorized this resolution unless he had also
asserted, or it wask fact that those intruc
tions included an exclusion of all other pow
ers. Because the Assertion of the know
ledge of a particular power, which does not
include such an exclusion, can never con
vey the idea of the general incompetency
of the agent. In order to make my argu
ment distinct, I will state it more general
ly. If a particular pSwer contain an ex
clusion of all other powers, except those
expressed in it, then, an assertion that this
particular (rawer was known, may convey
the idea of a knowledge of the general in
competency of the agent. But if such par
ticular power do not in fact contain an ex
clusion of all other powers, then to assert
that this particular power was known, can
never convey the idea of a knowledge of
such general incompetency. In this case
it is not even suggested that the instruc
tions in question; did include any such ex
clusion of other powers. An assertion,
therefore, that they were known can never
convey the idea of a general knowledge of
the incompetency of the agent, unless a
•part can be made to include the whole,
and an assertion, that one thing is known
can be made to convey the idea that every
thing is known. If then an assertion of a
knowledge, in our goveyiment, of the In
structions in extenao, would not have con
veyed the idea of a general knowledge of
Mr. Erskine’s powers; by much stronger
reason a simple assertion, that not only the
substance of those instructions was known
cannot convey that idea. I say, therefore,
that so far as respects the fact, here assert
ed, not only another idea than the obnox
ious oneu may be conveyed, but that another
idea, is,and that the idea this resolution
asserts, cannot by any possibility be con
veyed.—So that if this idea is to be found
any where, in this letter of the 23d of Octo
ber it must be in consequence of the refer
ence to the two letters of the 19th and 11 th,
which Mr. J. says were the sources by
means of which he understood the fact, he
asserts. Into these letters therefore, we
must look after the insulting idea, for we
have now shewn that it is not in the letter
of the 23d of October, unless it be by virtue
of this reference.
to a time antecedent. The only knowledge
known and not the time of the arrange
ment made. The fair construction of these
expressions is, “ you must have thought it,
Mr. Smith, unreasonable to complain after
you knew of the disavowal, for that know
ledge apprised you that the act was done
under circumstances, which could only
lead to a disavowal” I say, therefore,
that the idea asserted in this resolution,
(a knowledge in Mr. Smith, at the time of
the arrangement,) is not conveyed in this
paragraph, but another idea is conveyed,
vfk, a knowledge at -the time of disavowal
known. 1 say farther, that the idea of
knowledge and incompetency of Mr. Ers
kine’s powers, in Mr. Smith at the time of
the arrangement cannot by any possibility
be conveyed, unless the assertion of a know-
ledge,-existing at a time subsequent can be
made to express such knowledge, limited
known to him ; and with that knowledge,
came also the knowledge of the circum
stances which led to itJ» Nothing, there
fore can be more plain, than that the time
here implied, is the time after disavowal
there is no trace of a complaint, on the part
of the United States, of his Majesty hav
ing disavowed the act of his Minister. You
have not in the conferences we have hith
erto held, distinctly announced any such
complaint, and I have seen with pleasure,
io this forbearance on your part, an in
stance of that candour, which I doubt not
will prevail io all our communications, in
asmuch as you could not but have thought
it unreasonable to complain of the disavow
al of an act, done under such circumstances
as could only lead to the consequences that
have actually followed.” Here is (he in
sult, the advocates of this resolution as
sert in a sort of embryo state. Let us look
at it through the spectacles of the friends
of administration without any disposition
to distort or to change 'my of its propor
tions. The features of this insult, say these
gentlemen, consist in this; first in refering
to the thoughts of Mr. Smith—second in
intimating that his thoughts must have
been such as to satisfy him, that it was un
reasonable to complain of an act done un
der such circumstances. In this the insult
consists. In other words, in this the ob
noxious idea is conveyed; because.lt im
plies a knowledge in Mr. Smith, that it
was done under circumstances, which
could only lead to a disavowal. Now, say
they, the circumstance, which could only
lead to a disavowal, is a knowledge in Mr.
Smith at the time of the arrangement of
the incompetency of Mr. Erskine’s powers.
Thus, say they, the knowledge of that in
competency is implied, and the idea as
serted in this resolution, conveyed.
This is a fair and full statement of their
argument. I reply—l do agree that these
expressions do imply a knowledge in Mr.
Smith that it was done under circum
stances which could only lead to a disa
vowal. But it does not imply that this
knowledge existed in Mr. Smith at the
time of the arrangement made; but on
the contrary, does imply and can imply
only, a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the
time of the disavowal known. The for
mer is the only implication which can pos
sibly be obnoxious, the latter is most inno
cent, because at the time of the disavowal
known, the circumstances which led to
that disavowal were communicated. An
intimation of this knowledge, in Mr. Smith,
could not but be, therefore, perfectly in
offensive. These expressions cannot im
ply a knowledge In Mr. Smith at the
time of the arrangement made, and can
only imply a knowledge in him, at the
time of disavowal known. I argue, from
this fact, that the only time intimated is
the time when Mr. Smith ’* could not but
have thought it unreasonable to complain
of the disavowal.” Now, Mr. Smith could
not have begun to think of complaining of
the disavowal, until the disavowal was
The following paragraph in the letter of
the 11th of October, is the first, and the
one principally relied upon, to prove the
existence of that obnoxious insinuation
which is the basis of the resolution. ** I
observe, that in the records of this mission,
resolution, cannot bo conveyed by means of
thia reference to the, letter of the 19th not
unly from the argument just now adduced,
ind shewing that even the auertlon that
these instructions were known in exteneo,
would not have conveyed that idea, but also
from this farther consideration, that no
gentleman has pretended that it was in
consequence of this reference to that let
ter, that this obnoxious idea was conveyed.
'The advocates of this insult and of this
resolution are, therefore, driven back to
the letter of the 11th. If it be not found
here, it can be found no where, at least to
justify this resolution. With respect to
this letter of the 11th we are subjected to
the same difficulty to which we were re
duced in relation to the letter of the 23d.
Many passages have been read for the
purpose of general comment to which,
in pursuance of my plan, I shall make no
allusion. I confine myself only to those
passages which have been cited to prove
the particular idea asserted in this resolu
tion. None of these I shall omit. With
any thing else, under this resolution, we
have nothing to do, unless we are willing,
by suffering extraneous influence to ope
rate, to mislead our own judgements, and
to deceive our fellow-citizens.
The next and last sentence in this para
graph is merely a declaration of the obvi
ous difference between the conditions in the
instructions and thbse contained in the ar
rangement, accompanied by a reference,
by way of recapitulation to the circum
stances alluded to in the paragraph which
has considered. As it has been
that others might be substituted in lieu of
them, that it is not denied by Mr. Smith.—
For in his letter of the 19th, Mr. Smith,
referring to this subject, expresses himself
very cautiously, that Mr. Erskine “on
finding his first prdposals unsuccessful, the
more reasonable terms, comprised in the ar
rangement respecting the Orders in Coun
cil were adopted,” without denying, ashfc
would, if it had been false, and had he
thought it material, that he had offered
•* reasons to Mr. Erskine, which induced
Mr. Smith to think that others might be
substituted in lieu of them.” But whether
true or false, the assertion that Mr. Smith
had offered such reasons to Mr. Erskine
can never, by any fair construction, be
made to convey the idea that Mr. Smith
knew that Erskine’s powers were limited
to the three conditions, or in other words,
that Mr. Erskine’s powers were incom
petent. Upon the next sentence the gen
tleman. from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Milnor,)
lays great stress, asserting that “it con
veys the idea that Smith had overreached
Mr. Erskine.” Concerning this sentence
my first assertion is, that whatever else it
may convey, it can never convey the idea
asserted in this resolution. For, certainly,
to say of two classes of conditions' under
consideration, that Mr. Smith and Mr.
Erskine concluded together, that the one
was equivalent to the other can only imply
a comparison and a knowledge of those
classes, and by no possibility can imply the
state of Mr. Smith’s knowledge in relation
to Mr. Erskine’s right to conclude concern
ing either of them. So that for all the pur*
poses of supporting this resolution, it is ut
terly useless, whatever other demerit it
may have.—The strenuousness of the gen
tleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Milnor,)
on this point, shews the crude ideas, which
even he, usually so acute and correct, en
tertains concerning his duties on this oc
casion.—His great aim was to shew that
Mr. Jackson here intimates the idea that
Mr. Smith had overreached Mr. Erskine.
Well, suppose he had said this directly in
so many words. Would that justify this
house in voting that Mr. Jackson had con
veyed the idea asserted in this resolution ?
It is the universal fallacy, prove any thing
rude or indecent and it is a sufficient justi
fication to this house for asserting a par
ticular independent fact. Is it possible for
any mode of conduct to be more unjustifia
ble, or thoughtless; more calculated to
bring shame upon ourselves and disgrace
upon the nation ?
On this passage it is only necessary to
remark, that so far as it respects the as
sertion that Mr. Erskine had submitted to
Mr. Smith the three conditions specified in
those instructions, the fact is admitted by
Mr. Smith ; that so far as it respects Mr.
Jackson’s assertion that Mr. Erskine re
ports, in his official correspondence, the
reasons which induced Mr. Smith to think
for his consideration. I need hardly add,
that the difference between these conditions
and those contained in the arrangement of
the 18th and 19th of April is sufficiently
obvious to require no elucidation ; nor need
I draw the conclusion which I consider as
admitted by. all absence of complaint on the
part of the American government, viz. that
under such circumstances his Majesty had
an undoubted and incontrovertible right to
disavow the act of his minister.”
lent for the original conditions, but the
very act of substitution evidently shows
that those original conditions were in fact
very explicitly communicated to you, and
by you of course laid before the President
great mutual advantage.—Mr. Erskine
then reports verbatim et teriatim your ob
servations upon each of the three conditions,
and the reasons which induced you to think
that others might be substituted in lieu of
them. It may have been concluded be- f
tween you that these latter were an equiva-
had submitted to your consideration the
three conditions specified in those instruc
tions as the ground work of an arrange
ment, which according to information re
ceived from this country, it was thought in
England might be made with a prospect of
correspondence, and particularly to a de
spatch addressed on the 20th of April .to
his Majesty’s Secretary of State for foreign
affairs, I find that he there states, that he
he did not. But in reverting to his official
I implied is subsequent to disavowal, and so
by no possibility can be wrested to express
the state of knowledge at a time antecc-*
dent to disavowal.
The ensuing paragraph I cite at large,
because it has been quoted by some of the
advocates of this resolution as containing
the obnoxious idea, although it requires only
a single perusal to satisfy any mind that it
is impossible that the far greatest part of it
can contain any thing offensive. It is the on
ly paragraph t emaining unexamined Which
has been thus quoted, and will require a
very short elucidation. ♦* It was not known
when I left England, whether Mr. Ers
kine had, according to the liberty allowed
him, communicated to you in extenso his
original instructions. It now appears that