The Rhode-Island American, and general advertiser — Providence [R.I.], 1810-01-16 00:00:00, page 2

justification, - and by the law* of nation*, by
~ our own former example in former treaties
made by ui, she was fully exonerated.
Secondly. The tecond retolution for
woi having offered an explicit 'defence tf
'the disavowal through Mr. Jackton, wat
that Mr. Ertkine had been directed to
make it, and it wat tufifioted. when Mr.
Jack ton came away, that he done it—Great-
Jiri tain he declaret wat unwilling to rett <p
long under the imputation oj a want of
good frith, and thevrjbrr intuntly order
‘ ed her Minitier here to explain her nro-
riuet. <
ut. Did Mr. Jackson tell Mr. Smith
that he had no instructions to offer ano ex
planation ff the disavowal ff Mr. Ers
kine’s agreement—and that he failed to
make any f
Mr. Jackson admits, that he had made
no formal com mon tea Cion of the motives
for the disavowal, for which he assigns two
let. That Mr. Canning had hastened
with an ardent zeal to satisfy our govern
ment before any complaint had been made
by our Minister, to explain to Mr. Pink
ney the motives qf the Usavovtal t and thia
not by an empty and insincere declaration
qfMr. Erskine's having violated, bib or
ders. but by a candid disclosure of his ac
* tual instructions.
This was more than the laws of nations
required. It jrould have been sufficient
to have declared he had no full powers,
but Great-Britain was unwilling that her
good faith should be called in questioh.—
She would not defend herself on ordinary
and sufficient produces the
private instructions, and the
violation of them in toto. Those instruc
tions moreover, were supposed to have
emanated from our own proposals, and she
s would have been justified, in retorting the
breach of faith' upon ua ; but she dclteatdlyv
■' " abstained —She confined herself to her own
iV'*?
\btft that it was offensively etdherei to, after
Mr. Jackson’s explicit declarations to the
contrary, not only by Mr. Siyith, but by
Mr. M artisan in his Message.
If this shall be made out satisfactorily—
if it shall be proved in a manner to defy
* contradiction, or refutation, then it will
follow, that our government are charge
able, not only with an unfair, but a disre
putable misrepresentation of the views of
the British Cabinet, and with a formal
contradiction of Mr. Jackson’s solemn at
teverationt. It should here be remember-,
ed, that Mr. Jackson is the representative
of a sovereign power, which treats with
us on equal terms, and that to call in
question his veracity, is to doubt the ve
racity or honour of his sovereign.
• Let us take up each point distinctly, and
In the order in which Mr. Smith states
them—
One would suppose this would satisfy
the most fastidious and captious govern
ment, but Mr. Jackson anxious to remove
every possible objection to an amicable ad
justment, adds,
But, \f beyond this, any incidental
diecueeion, or explanation, ehould be wieh
cd for by thie government, I came fully
prepared to enter into them—l even coh
aider them to have Jaken place between
us.— l have certainly derived great eatie
faction from the eeveral hburs we have
Ofient in coherence on these subjects.”
We here perceive, that the explanations
had in fact been made, though not in the
formal manner which the scrupufou*
nicety of our government required. W<
see, moreover, that be came fully author
iaed to supply whatever was deficient in
the explanations of Mr. Canning or Mr
Brskine.
To thia fair offer, Mr. Smith replies in
his letter of October 19, that his objectim
was not so much to the want of explana
tion as to the failure of that solemnity and
formality which such an important case re
quired—Let us examine this principle
We make a bargain with a Minister with
out demanding his powers.—lt appears no>
only that be possessed none, but that h<
"had violated his positive and clear instruc
tions.—The law of nations in such a case
requires no apology from the nation which
refuses to confirm the agreement of its un
authorised and culpable agent. We o«>
the other hand demand not an explanation
which waa given to as, and which we had
no right to require, but a solemn and for
mal embassy, and a penitential and apolo
getick document from a nation, which bad
only exercised its acknowledged rights.
We may judge from this circumstance
« of the temper with which this negotiation
has been conducted, and how impossible
it is, that Great-Britain should over satis
fy our Cabinet. We should not be con
tented,” said Mr. Ames, ” with a temper
like this, if treaty left King George
his Island, not even it he stipulated to pay
rent for It.”
But Mr. Smith, not content with this
haughty requisition, proceeds, in the earn*.
Utter, to cnntyadict Mr. Jackson.
•• .1e you have dieclaimed any authority
to offer explanations for the dieavowal,**
Ifc." [See page 47 of, the primed docu
ments] ,
Mr. Jackson, however, irritated by thia
repetition, after hit express offer to make
any additional explanation which might be
deemed necessary, in place of recrimioat-
of the disavowal: '
“ I have no hetitation in in
forming you, that hit Majesty wat pleated
to disavow the agreement concluded be
tween yoh and Mr. Erskine, because it
wat concluded in violation (f that gentle
man't intiructiont, and altogether without
log language, chooses the mere prudent
course of taking away all pretext from his
opponent, by stating formally the grounds
authority to agree to the termt of it.**
Here one would suppose this question at
rest.—The true, the only,and two sufficient
reasons were assigned, which ought to
have satisfied any impartial and honoura
ble mind.
his representative. In Mr. Smith’s letter
to Mr. Pinkney, (page 89, of the printed
documents,) he says, that besides Mr. Jack
son’s indittinct and reluctant explanation
of the reasons for the disavowal, he did not
ply about to be giver, to it
It is here seen, that this most distinct,
plain correct and forcible explanation—an
explanation the most perfect that could be
given, couched in distinct an appropriate
language; to wit: That Mr. Erskine had
no authority, and had violated his instruc
tions, is declared to be reluctant and in
explicit. Nor did the misrepresentation
and contradiction end here. It ascended
to a higher source. Mr. Madison long af
ter thit, referring solely to this point, de
clares in his Message, that,
“ It could not be doubted that the new
Minister could at least be charged with
conciliatory explanation!.”
“ Req tonable and univer tai at thit ex
pectation wat.it alto hat not beenfulfilled.”
We now pass to the second charge of
Mr. Smith against Mr. Jackson, and the
British Cabinet, that Mr. Jackson not only
assigned no reaton for the disavowal of that
part of Mr. Erskine’s arrangement which
regarded the Chesapeake, but that he had
only proposed to tender a note offering a'
satisfaction which should be simultaneous
with our acceptance of the satisfaction.
This charge in its frtt branch is totally
unfounded; and in the second part of it,
the ground taken by the British Minister
is perfectly defensible not only by the law
of nations, but by the circumstances which
attended their former offer of satisfaction
for this unauthorized injury.
Still the pertinacy of our Minister did
not cease.—Still it was deemed necessary
to affront his Britannick Majesty, through
make his proposal till he had made such
progress in his offensive insinuation as
made it proper to wait the issue of his re-
“ That he war authorized to renew the
offer made by Mr. Ernkine, notwit/utand
ing the u-igracious manner in which it had
been formerly received. You have said,
addressing Mr. Smith, that you to fully
understood the particulars of that offer,
that I deem it unnecessary to recapitulate
them here "
la/. Then, the first part of the charge
that Mr. Jackton did not come prepared
to attign any reaton for the rejection qf
thit part of the agreement, it unfounded
This clause tenders specifically the terms, I
because Mr. Erskine's arrangement was in
i>ur own possession, and Mr. Smith had de- I
dared his full knowledge of them. It does
more: It assigns the reason why that part
of the agreement was not fulfilled—“ be
cause of the ungracious manner in which
it was accepted.”
We have shewn in a former number, in I
what the ungraciousness of this manner
consisted—but shall it be insisted that Mr. I
Jackson was bound to repeat the offensive
terms? If a man calls me a liar or a thief, I
>s it not enough for me to allude to his of
fensive epithets, but must I be compelled
I to repeat the outrageous expressions ? i
But Mr. Jackson is more explicit ; he I
fells Mr. Smith, “ that hie Majesty would I
he justified in rejecting that agreement,
not only on account of the form in which I
his Minister had tendered it, but of Mel
nanner in which that tender had been re
ceived.” He adds, ” that he had elucidated I
fiat observation by a reference to the
Particular expressions which made the
terms of satisfaction appear unacceptable I
to the American government, at the very |
moment when they were accepted. 1 *
I The just and honourable pride of Mr. I
I Jackson forbade his repeating to the world I
I the insulting expressions, but an American I
I who thinks as I do, that our government I
I put an unnecessary impediment in the way I
I of adjustment, is restrained by no such I
I delicacy. , .
I It was because our government declared
I •• that the offer made by his Britannick
I Majesty did not comport with his honour
II and dignity that it was dishonourable in I
I him to make it; that the agreement was
II rejected. This is the reason assigned, and
II yet we are told this is no explanation. A
Virginia nobleman would not hesitate tn
take away the life of a fellow-citisen on
such a ground, and yet we are told this
>ll is no reasonable ground for rejecting a
bargain.
This phrase purposely introduced, shews,
I as Mr. Jackson says, that the satisfaction
II given was unacceptable to our government.
I and yet we complain that this unacceptable
II and insufficient satisfaction is withheld
I! —P'-oh Pudor ! '.
The second part nf this charge, in rela-
I lion to the Chesapeake, is now tobecuu-
Mr. Jackson in his fit a tetter declares,
fensive language ever introduced into a
diplomatick correspondence. Was it then
unreasonable, that Great-Britain should be
unwilling again to confide in our delicacy—
again to repose in our sense of decorum ?
But lastly, her* was a serious controver
sy about to be adjusted, here waa a trespass
on our rights about to be compromised by
the payment of money, and the acknow
ledgement of wrong.
Did any prudent man ever pay his
money, or tender his satisfaction without
seeing his discharge, without reading his
receipt in fulft If such imprudence does
not occur in private life, how could it be
expected of a nation Vhich had no ex
traordinary reason to confide in our good
will?
tidered. Is it affrontive to ns? Is it inju
rious that Great-Britain should Insist upm
fer ? Is it unreasonable that she should in
sist on seeing the letter agreeing to receh
the satisfaction I We think not, because
let. Mr. Jackson ttalet that thit it th
invariable course of European govern
mentt in like cases.,
having our acceptance of the satisfactioi
simultaneous, cotemporaneous with the o’
Is this denied by Mr. Smith ? We have
three letters of his, after this assertion, anti
ed.—But,
2dly. If no such utage had before exist
ed, here were special reasons for the adop
tion qf tuch a rule.
Great-Britain, through Mr. Erskine, had
tendered a full satisfaction for the Chesa-
Mr. Jackson’s principles are not question-
our answer and agreeing to it beforehand,
our government had inserted the most of-
peake affair, which had been accepted b>
us—but owing to his neglect of demanding
But Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison so far
from confiding in these positive assurances
of Mr. Jackson of hit powers in relation to
the Chesapeake, and of his being clothed
with the fullest authority, continue in the
future correspondence and in the Message
after the whole negotiation waa closed, to
insinuate that he had no competent pow
er—that he had made no apecifick offer,
and that his intimations were accompanied
with inadmissible pretensions on this point.
I shall hereafter distinctly examine these
pretensions which are declared inadmissi
ble, but at present my object is simply to
shew, and that I have fully done, that our
Cabinet have In very indecoroua language
contradicted Mr. Jackspn’s most solemn
asseverations, and misrepresented in a
glaring manner his observations.
As to the third charge brought against
Great-Britain, that of having made no pro
posals for the repeal of the Orders in Coun
cil, it is the only one in which our govern
ment have not come to a flat contradiction
of Mr. Jackson’s declarations.
authorised to receive or to make any other
proposals for the repeal of the Orders in
Council.
And what are the reasons ? The most
respectful to us, the most justifiable in
themselves. They are,
l«r. Because it would have been indgli- I
cate and indeed affrontive to renew the
propositions which, although they proba
bly first emanated from our Cabinet, we
had seen fit to disavow and reject.
2dly. Because we, claiming the repeal
of a measure which Gnat-Britain had
adopted as a just retaliation on her enemy,
she had a right to expect that we should
propose a substitute resistance to her
enemy which would take the place of her
orders, and would fulfil the duty which she
contended we were bound to perform in
order to entitle ue to our neutral privi
leges.
But it will |>e seen that they do not stand
m better ground Is to this charge.
But lastly, and the most important rea
son of all, was, that stm had in repeated
instances tried the effecT of propositions in
vain. In the case of Mr. Rose and Mr*
Erskine she had stated her terms, and as
soon as they were known we had demand
ed something higher which she could not
grant—besides as the last proposal came
from her and we had rejected it, she had a
right to expect a proposal from us.
• [TO It CONTINUID.]
■XOI
Frews Me Mnrvaaican,
Tat Virginian democrats, who for the
last eight or nine years have ruled the I
whole union, are Justly chargeable, in the
first instance, with all the evil that their
disastrous practices have entailed upon us.
They have at length reached the neplus j
ultra of folly, which now stands confessed,
before the nation in itsjiaked deformity.
Embargoes and non-intercourse are admit
ted to be suicidal acts. What is next to be
done ? It appears by the irritable publica
i tions in the papers which they control;
I from their publick speeches; and still
more from tbeir conversations, that war |
with England is the remaining expedient;
thus intending to redeem the pledges they
I have made to France, and at the same
I stroke to conceal, like the quack doctor,
I their blunders in the grave ; for they flat-
I ter themselves that a war will be the grave
lof all inquiry into’their misdeeds. In this
I last expedient we may, however, behold
I <he struggle uf their dissolution as a party ;
I for if the President or any of his
I in Congress shall venture to propose such
I a step, they will be at once convinced that
It is true that Mr. Jackson did not come
If it were possible to be Ignorant, that there
is yet remaining a sufficient portion of com
mon sense among the people to control it.
The patience, with which tb»y submitted
o the senseless but costly manoeuvres,
which till now, these state jugglers have
represented as preservatives from the
greatest of human calamities, is nothing
inoru than a continued proof of the people’s
reluctance to encounter it There can be
no doubt, that this is the true state of the
publick pulse; and whatever delusions
nay be scattered by vena) prints of a dif
ferent aspect, however confidently the har
cangues of party hatknies may promise
support from the people ; Virginia herself
will prove that she possesses a fellow feel
ing with the rest of the union—in an aver
sion to representatives who have deceived
her into suffering, and who aid* now will
ing to plunge us without cause into final
ruin. The tendency of what is now trans
acting at Washington is therefore to a fur
ther purgation of the representation of that
state. The phantom of honour, conjured
up by the Executive, will not prove potent
enough to sooth the pangs of a Virginian
any more than a Connecticut father for
his sons torn away to make soldiers, not
for an American but a French interest.—
“ A contradiction by Implication,” if it had
i*ny real existence, would be but a pitiful
justification of administration in the eyes
of a citizen of Norfolk, when he beheld his
mansifin in flames and his wife and daugh
ters houseless. The freedom of the «seas
promised by Bonaparte could- not be re
garded by the Planter as a suitable quid
pro quo for rendering his produce unsale
able—for refusing it admission into France
and burning it, when on its way to Eng
*land. Beside, the virtuous feeling of right
and wrong, of justice and injustice, may
be found to overpower the partiality which
is cherished for a citizen of the same state,
exalted into the highest Execative station.
For a more flagrant and daring impo»itioi
never was attempted upon the comtnuni
ty, than that which has been disclosed in
the recent communications to Congress.
The abject misrepresentation to which the
Executive has stooped to borrpw a wretch
ed veil for its real designs, may strike with
pain even the morbid mind which has hith
erto felt nothing but the injustice of Eng v
land. To the attestation of the papers pub
lished by Congress, Mr. Monroe, another
citizen of that State, will be able to add his
own experience of the views of the Bri
tish government, during several years re
sidenee as our Minister accredited to it.—
Yet his endeavours to establish a treaty.
Wore forced to yield to the same catastro
pise, which frustrated the missions of Mr
Rose and Mr. Jackson. ETo treaty or ac
commo da Pon was DStiJttD er M»- Jar
ssttsoM, attD moms will a* pstttttrrtD
ar tit tvcctssoi.
Those, who had deeply studied the cha
racter of the former, apprehended some
direful calamity from his retiring. They
knew that lie did not possess that indiffer
ence for power and emolument which, he
affected. Though prone to mischief, his
heart sometimes admonished him of his per
sonal responsibility. He therefore shrunk
from the scenes, which were to ensue, and
resigned the Regalia to another actor,
whilst he is planted behind him with his
prompter's book.
Extract of a letter from a Member of
Congress to the editor, dated Washing-
ton, January 4.
Aftxx sixteen days debate, tbe great
leaders of Democracy have forced a de
cision bn the foreboding resolution of Giles,
pledging the nation for war to satisfy the
punctilios of personal honour.
“ It was not until after a debate of seven
teen hours, continued through a gloomy
night, in which the Heavens, in angry tem
pest, seemed to frown upon the Capitol,
that the momentous question received a
determination in the House of Representa
tives, at 6 o'clock this morning, by a ma
jority of 31 Members in support of the re
solution. During this night's stormy debate,
when every topick seemed exhausted, Mr.
Gardenier rose, and in a speech of six
hours, carried terfour and dismay into the
ranks of democracy. With the touch of
Ithuriels spear, he rent the veil that cover
ed their unhallowed purposes, and exposed
to the naked eye the loathsome features of
their deformity.—He pierced the secret
recesses and haunts of past administration,
and laid open the crooked track of the
government in all its windings with the
great belligerents of Europe; its marked
hatred of Great-Britain, and its favour and
co-operation with France. The mountain
shook to its centre, and the champions of
administration stood in silence, abashed,
and stunned under the overwhelming tor
rent of eloquent invective. May kind
Heaven, which has hitherto watched over
the destinies of our country, protect us
against the horrours of war, which the re
solution in question and the open language
of its authour, threaten to this nation."
•* The debate in the House of Represen
tatives, this day, on the introduction of the
Extract of another letter from Washing
ton, dated January 5.
NEW-YORK, January 8.
25p ttje Jftailo.
new rule into the House for the* purpose, as
the majority avow, of curtailing the free,
dom of speech, is becoming interesting.-J*
The weakness of the arguments advanced
in favour of the innovation is an evidence
of the decline of the party, and some
spoke who never spoke before, and in all
probability will never apeak more—»l\ of
them, I say, pointed to the late debate
on Giles’s resolutions for adjustificatkm of
this proceeding. They shewed th< scars
received in that conflict, as a proof that
something ought to be done to shield them
from such terrible wounds in future. They
candidly acknowledged that if the minori
ty wdttUnffered to oppose them with such
talents n they possessed, they could never
proceed in their own way with the business
of the nation—meaning I suppose they
never could get the country willing to go to
war with Great-Britain. It is an acknow
ledgement that the cause is bad—that the
party is weak, and that it cannot, be sup
ported but by arbitrary power.
Thus it seems, that at length these odious
resplutions have been forced down the
throats of the minority, by the new weapon
called the perpetual tilting; borrowed
from the French National Assembly, and
once before resorted to, upon the command
of Jefferson. This is such an abominable
tyrannical, mean and scandalous system*
as cannot fail to excite the indignation and
the disgust, of the whole nation. It is such
an infringement on the freedom of debate,
without which a deliberative assembly is
nothing better than an absurd farce, that
it ought to rouse and alarm all classes of
people. The qualification, hereafter ask
ed for, in a candidate for Congress must
be, not whether he is a man of sound views,
abilities and integrity, but whether he is a
man that can go a long time without sleep
ind without eating ?
A general and very numerous meeting
•>f the citizens of Albany was held on the
sth inst. for the purpose of nominating a
candidate for the office of Governourof
this state, at the ensuing general election.
At this meeting, JONAS PLATT, Esq.
>f Oneida county, was proposed, and re
commended to be supported at the ensuing
election, for Governour of the state of New-
York.
The Philadelphia Gazette of Wednes
day evening, which we anticipated, con
tains the following article >—
“ A letter from a leading administration
Member of Congress, says, that it was ex
pected Mr. Macon’s bill would be taken
into consideration on Monday last; and
it as the opinion of the writer that the
Pitt will finally pass with a few immaterial ,
modifications.”
Yesterday morning Commodore Rogers
left the Constitution for Washington, on
which occasion the frigate fired a salute.
Captain Chauncey, and other gentle
men of the Navy, preceded the Commo
dore. It seems that all the leading officers
of the Navy have been ordered to the seat
of government, where it is said, a plan is
to be arranged for the enforcement of
measures about to be adopted
ment. *
The letter of the Secretary of tbe Navy,
transmitted to Congress, states, that in his
opinion, that the frigates in ordinary do re
quire material repairs; that the increasing
injury which will result from tbeir remain
ing in their present situation may be esti
mated at 50 per cent, for the first year.—
Tbe following estimate of the expenses of
* repaiis' is also submitted :
For repairs of vessels not in com
mission 130,000
For freight, store-rent and all other
contingent expenses 75,000'
For the repair of frigates now ly-
ing in ordinary, and keeping the
gun-boats that are not in service
in a state of preservation, fire. 458,000
For freight and other contingent
expenses 100,000
. This report was referred to a committee
of the whole.
LATEST FROM ENGLAHb.
The ship Minerva-Smyth, Captain Pes
torias, has arrived at Philadelphia from
Liverpool, having left that port on the 34th
of November. Our correspondent enables
us this day, to lay before our readers ex
tracts from Loudon papers to tbe 28th of
November inclusive, a week later than
our former advices. Despatches from
Mr. Pinkney, our Minister at London,
were received by this vessel
Lowdom, November 31.
We continue to-day our extracts from
the French papers. The Mooiteur pre
serves a sullen silence upon roost of the
events that are passing on the continent;
confining itself » tbe governmental de
crees relative to theinteriour police, and to
the fetes and amusements of Fontainbleau.
If Bonaparte be capable of taking the vi
gorous exercise he to Mated to be in the
dally habit of taking, all the accounts
respecting hie indisposition Must be un
founded. There to nothing certainly in hia
*»ets that betrays either imbenilhy of mind
or' weakness of body. The speculation
that was tended ttpurf the urcumstance
January 12.
FEDERAL GOVE RNOUR.
A REMARK.