The Rhode-Island American, and general advertiser — Providence [R.I.], 1810-01-12 00:00:00, page 2

-
wv ■■
and Am if it was certain that, like
Mbn/k would cud in noisy and vapid dc-
IHfflamatioD. It is, however, no less a quea-
M'tiou chan thJt of a ruinous war, or a dis-
B,graceful peace The position in yfhich the
Ill'Ute dremaawd of Mr. Jackson has placed
H the United State*, is one from whidh they
Kqm never extricate themselves with hon
|KeMr ; and they may esteem themselves the
Btfavouriies of Heaven if they escape from
|Bu withunt serious calamity. Our fate do
Blpngar depends on the wavering, noisy and
||g vapouring councils of boisterous dem-t-
B (agues, but.upon lite policy and
Kof another nation, upon whose good-will
9 we can no U*»gcr calculate. Let us ex
|W plain ourselves.
K The right to dismiss a foreign minister
B for itidcConats, or offensive conduct, (how
ever It mtyy have been qqastiuned, and in
deed denied, as we shall shew, by Mr.
- M disen’s partv,) can newer be doubted by
any medhequaintsd With public.k law, nor
WitlJw contested by any person who Is ulivt
alp the true interests and honour of his
country. If the offence is palpable and un-
which regards its
ahdWtich wishes U» preserve
*spßace, *BLWfs' tc to reC * H lu XW***'
Who fcauSptJwuilty °f ,ucl ‘ •“ offcMe.—
tVhe harmuDy < the two nations is not in
Buch a ca.»tyjß> any degree affected.
But if the case be a questionable onr.
and especially if ths time, conduct ami
circumstances be such as to render i 1
■ qbvious that it was either intended as a«
affront, or as an excuse for the rupture ot
negotiation. It becomes Impossible for th«
injured nation to recall its Minister, to dis
grace him in the eyes of the world, and t
renew the interrupted intercourse.
If such a dismissal be, moreover, accom
, panted with .circumstances of insult ami
aggravation, war may be expected to fol
low ; Mi. Giles, In this c-se with h
spirit tvffly firofihrtirk, has predicted that
such will probably be the result. Wh
that gentlemen should have presumed it, >1
Mr. Jackson has been rightfully dismisaeo
for his own personal misconduct, we leav<
to the publtck to decide. Should, howevet,
Great-Britain not deem it for her interest.
In this instance, to declare war, let us con
sider what will be our own predicament ?
We pretend th-«t we have sustained gre i
and unexampled wrongs. Great-Brltain
‘ will not send us another Minister if, (as it
Will appear.) Mr. Jackson has been guilty
nf no breach of indecorum. We shall be
compelled, from the invariable usage of na
<bns, and respect to our national charac
ter. tn recall Mr. Pinkney. What then will
become of our long continued complaints ;
Cf those deep and premeditated injuries
with which our present administration has
to frequently filled the poblick ear, and
with which they have so often and so suc
cessfully inflamed the publick passions ?
Are we to submit to them, without re
dress ? or, if we are, shall we forego, for
ever, thr advantages arising from a free
Commerce not only to Great-Britain, but to
an the countries to which the now inter
dicts our entry. JFar then on our tide
seems to be our-only choice, unless we shall
prefer to tukmit. Great Britain nevc,r can
send another minister to this country : and
surely our government never will nuke
another advance to her.. It-would be a
concession that we were in the wrong to
which so Wty a pride as that which dic
tated the dismissal of Mr. Jackson, for
merely an intimation not perceptible to or
dinary understandings, could never submit.
Such then are the serious consequences
of tins measure—consequences far more
important than any which have yet follow
ed from any' measure adopted by any
* administration in our country. Either war
upon us by Great-Britain, war by us against
her, or a submission to all her alleged
wrongs, and a total suspension of inter
course with her, until either she or our
selves shall so f <r forget our pride and
honour as to court a renewal of intercourse.
Now, serious and alarming as this posi
tion is, no honourable man, no man who re
gards the rights and dignity of his coun
try, will regret the consequences, it the
measure was called for by our honour—if
not, let the censure fall upon those persons
who rashly advised so hasty and moment
ous a step. The administration have de
fended this measure by the example of
General Washington tn the case of Genet •
the allusion is an unfortunate one, on every
account. I had intended to cite this cas*
against them, and I could not have dream
ed that Mr. Madison or his friends would
have had the imprudence to induce us to
take a retrospective view of that dixgrace
fu! etent. That these men, Who now affect
to be so alive to the national honour, wh
ere so ready to take offence at a look, a
word, an insinuation, shall remind us of >
i period in.which not only the honour of the
country wav trampled under foot, but in
which the foreign agents who insulted us
•were honoured, feasted and set up in hot
tile array by our own citisena against their
own government, is among the marvellous
events of even times on which we have fall
k en. Genet was not di emitted, his recall
only wav requested, and his personal and
political friends. Thorons Jeffl-rson and
James Madison, knew it full well; Genet
was not requested to be recalled merely for
any insulting language towards our own
government: It was for a long continued
■’•<' • '*<?’ ’* »> y**\ \ .< z •' '■ ■♦, ,’ / *
'S.' ■ ’•’’y \ J '
series of overt acts, far which he might i
(have bfgk tried and punished, that Mr.
Genet was suspended: It was for assuos
-Ing the functions of his office before he was
accredited; far promoting military expe
ditious in our territory ; for rrskiing the
executions of the laws; for openly defy
ing, the executive authority, to which was
only tufieradded personal insults, which
were repeated for several months before
the prudence and patience of General
Washington were exhausted. Mr. Jt-ffer—
son and Mr. Madison can tell, why the
President was so forbearing. They can
tell us how large, how powerful was the
combination of their friends, against our
government, and m favour of Genet.
Let us now proceed to examine the con
cealed insult, which is said to lurk tome
where in Mr. Jackson’s correspondence.—
There were several Interesting circum
stances attending the disclosure of this pre
tended insult, which led many judicious
men to suspect, that the transaction would
not bear the closest examination. The
people at large are not capable of expend
ing the time and devoting the attention ne
cessary to ttyr perusal and comparison of # a
long correspondence expreWed 4n. the IW 11
lied language of diplomatick men It was
knowh to the administration, that if an ud
. quivocal declaration should be made to >
he publick, that Mr. Jaclnon had insulted
>ur government, this would reach every '
need, and inflame every heart in the
Jnited States, while the slow and laborious
vindication and disproof of such a charge,
■eceived with distrust, into minds already
prejudiced, would make but a feeble pro
giess. The act of publishing the state
nent of Mr. Jackson’s insult in the Nation
al Intelligencer was the act of the govern
' :nent: That statement proves to be a co
y of the official note addretted to Mr.
lackton. Tiie government then, ten days
>nly before the meeting of Congress, pub
ish an account of the dismissal and of its
pretended causes and call uport the people
<o resent this conduct before any evidence
<.f it was laid before them. The National
Intelligencer endeavoured to excite the
highest degree of irritation, and succeeded
>n it. Finding that the publick mind would
become too much excited, they changed
their tone, and begged the people to re
strain their rage, and not to violate the im
munities of Mr. Jackson’s office by an out
rage on his person. If the formal notice of
the insult was the act of the government,
so also was this; and yet this very admin
istration make it a subject of complaint
against Mr. Jackson that he demanded a
tafe-conduct against the populace whom
the fiatront of the National Intelligencer
endeavoured to appease, and whose fury
they appeared to dread. A second circum
stance, which tended tnjexcite a suspicion
of unfairness, wag the attempt to divert
the publiek attention from the alleged in
sult which was the avowed cause of the
rupture c.f the negotiation, to the proposi
tions pretended to have been made by Mr.
Jickson. This was a subject more com
plex, more difficult for the people to com
prehend. But the resort to it was a subter
fuge which we shall endeavour to remove.
A third circumstance, which haa a very
suspicious appearance, is the change in the
termt of the charge brought against Mr.
Jackson. We were at fret told, that he
had given the lie direct. When the Na
tional Intelligencer led us to suppose that
he had charged the government with the
knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instruction*,
of which they had declared they had no
knowledge ; we supposed the contradiction
was upon some plain, specifick, and im
portant fact; but as soon as J4r. Jackson’s
explanation appeared, it was thought ne
cessary to write a letter to Mr. Pinkney,
and to explain the charge. A very differ
ent view is given of the affair in this letter
from the first statement in the Intelligencer.
This leads us to a belief that if Mr. Jack
ton’s circular had not reached the press,
we should never have seen Mr. Smith’s
very extraordinary letter to Mr. Pinkney.
Under circumstances so inauspicious to
truth, did this transaction appear before
the publick. Let us now proceed to shew,
from the documents, that there is not even
a shadow for the charge as it stands cor
rected, and dwindled down to-pigmy site
in the letter to Mr. Pinkney. The charge
as it is now corrected and explained, may
be found in the following extract from Mr.
Smith’s letter to Mr. Pinkney, of Novem
ber 23d, 1809
“ It was never objected to him that he
had stated it as a fact that the three pro
positions in question had been submitted to
me by Mr. Erskine, nor that he had stated
it, as made known to him by the instruc
tions of Mr. Canning, that the instructions
to Mr. Erskine Containing those three con
ditions was the only one frotn which his au
thority was derived to conclude an arrange
ment on the matter to which it related
The objection was that a knowledge of this
restriction of Mr. Erskine waa imputed to
his government, and the repetition of the
'mputation after it had been peremptorily,
disclaimed.”
The amount of this paragraph and
charge is simply this, that Mr. Jaaftson
either by diiect assertion, implication, in
ference or insinuation, did either say or
u <Krst, “that our government knew that
Mr. Erskine had no other instructions than
that* whk:>t%ey admit were made know*
to them ’* and thatrepeated thia fnafn
ueft'on after aur government disclaimed
such knowledge. Had Mr. Jackson aoharvi
conductcdeUw YMft! have been not oulj
insolent, but extremely weak. For it would*
have been ridieulobvin him to impute to ou»
government the knowledge of such a nega
live, which it was almost impossible the?
could have known, besides that such a*
imputatioawould have been contradictory
to other partf of hie own letters. la -
letter of the 11th of October, Ise,tells M
Smith, “ that although when he Itft Eng
land it was believed that Mr. Erskine had
shewn hia instructions in it
now appeared Air did not'* This was a
candid admission of Mr. Smith's declare
tion on th ; s subject; and in the same lettei
h* adds, " that the letter of the 23d Jan
uary, from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine,
was the only despatch by which the condi
tions of an arrangement were prescribed
—and he adds no insinuation or inference
that our government knew thia to be the
fact. Un the contrary, the declaration to
Mr. Smith, in so solemn and formal a man
ner, iftipJied,u<n<H(oicta6/</ implied, that oui
did nbt know that fact before.
If, then, it would (save been absurd and
contradictory in Mr. Jackson to have in
sinuated such a knowledge of the restric
tion of Mr. Erskine, let us see whether in
point cd fact be was guilty of this folly.—
The first instance in which any mention i»
made of the instructions of Mr. Erskine is
in Mr. Jackson’s first letter, of October 11th.
After stating, that it was believed that Mr.
Erskine had communicated hia powers ii>
exttnto, when Mr. Jackson left England,
and admitting the fact unconditionally and
frankly “ that he had not,** he proceeds to
state, that by Mr. Erskine's letters it ap
peared that the three conditions which
formed the basis of his instructions had
beentnade known to our Cabinet, and that
all the arguments and observations upon
those conditions by our Minister had been
stated by Mr. Erskine to his own govern
ment, from all which he infers, that the
substitution of other articles instead of
those proposed by Great-Britain was a
proof that the conditions were known to
jus. He only adds to this simple and intel
ligible idea, one remark, “ that our gov
ernment must now perceive how widely
the agreement differs from* the condition*
preset ibed, and of course how just were ths
claims of Great-Britain to refuse her as
sent to it." Is there in all this the remotest
intimation, inference or insinuation that
our Cabinet knew, or might have known,
or might have inferred that these were Mr.
Erskine’s only instructions?—We confess
we cannot perceive any such insinuation.
On the subject of instructions Mr. Jackson
adds, that the despatch of thedMd January
was the only onbby which theeerme wer<
'prescribed. This clause is simple, unac
companied with any inference or insinua
tion whatever; and we assert, confident
ly, that no other passage can be found
in this first letter relative to this subject.
In Mr. Smith's reply to this letter we ought
to expect to find not only a reproof or no
tice of any offensive terms, had there been
any, but a particular designation of the
part which was deemed offensive. Mr.
Smith does express his surprise, that Mr
Jackson should lay so much stress on the
want of complaint on the part of our Cabi
net, and on the substitution of other terms
instead of those which Mr. Erskine was
authorised to propose;—but he does not
intimate that Mr. Jackson had drawn from
those circumstances a conclusion that oui
government had a knowledge of the re
stricted power* tf Mr. Erskine. Now.
as Mr. Jackson had not in fact, as we havt
shewn, drawn any such conclusion, and as
Mr. Smith did not tell him that he supposed
he had, how could that Minister divine it
or give any explanation of it? Mr. Smith
adds, ** that'if the government had known
that the conditions presented by Mr. Ers
kine were the only ones on which he was
authorized to make the arrangement, it
never would have been made." This was
the moment for him to have told Mr.
Jackson that he understood him to insinu
ate in his first letter, that our government
had such knowledge. This was omitted.
Why ? HecnUae Mr. Jackson had made no
such insinuation. But if he had made it,
it would have been no offence until out
government denied it, which they nevei.
did, till this clause was inserted in Mr
Smith's letter of October 19th. The of--
fence, if any, must be found, therefore, in
the subsequent correspondence. The next
letter from Mr. Jackson in reply to this de
nial now fi*t made by our government of
their knowledge of the restricted nature o’ |
Mr. Erskine's powers, is dated October
23d : In this letter he most dgfcately ab
stains from any insinuation of the know*
1 ledge of nnr government of Mr. Erskine’s
restrictions : The only sentences in rela
tion to this subject are the following, and
are in strict and exact conformity tw the
facts admitted by our cabinet :
" The<l instructions (Mr. Erskine's) I
now understand by your letter as well a
the deductions which 1 took the liberty of
making in mine, of the 11th instate* wen
at the time in substance made known to
you."
"You are already acquainted with that
which was given (alluding to the communi-
cation of Mr. Canning's letter to Mr. Ers
kine which was shewn io Mr. Pinkecy,
nd I have had the honour of informing
ou that it was the on/y one by which the
onditioos were prescribed"
These ere the only sentences dhich af
fect this question in this letter. It is im
xwsiblo to conceive of language more
lear—h is difficult to form an idea of ea
rn wons more respectful or less offensive.
Vet the next we hear from Mr. Smith on
subject, is in the highest possible tone
of haughtiness and affront: He assures Mr.
Jackson, without any qualification, that his
language is improper and irrelevant, and
that Mt, Jackton had insinuated, which
we have proved he had not— that our gov
ernment knew that Mr. Erskine's instruc
tions did not authorise him to conclude the
arrangement, and that he must not repeat
the insinuation which he had never made.
Mr. Jackson had insinuated only what our
government admitted; that they knew the
substance of Mr. Erskine's flow era, aud
the only inference he made was that his
Majesty was not held by an agreement
which so essentially departed from them.
The language of Mr. Jackson heretofore
wys not considered good cause for dismiss
ing him : But we are told that in his lasf,
letter he persisted in the same insinuations,
with aggravating circumstances. In that
letter we affirm that not one line can be
found alluding to the contested point:—
There is a moderation accompanied with
firmness which Mr. Smith would do well tu
imitate. The only passage which ciiu be
pretended to refer to the dispute ja the last
paragraph, where Mr. Jackson regrets
that he should be charged in unqualified
terms with Irrelevant and improper argu
ments, and adds, “ that he should not
think of uttering an insinuation wheie he
was unable to substantiate a feet." Now'
it is said, and said with justice, that if Mr.
Jackson hadfpde an improper insinuation
before, this was in effect an adherence to
it, and an offensive one. This we admit j
but as be had made no insinuation, as we
have proved, but of facts admitted by our
Cabinet, and especially as he had not made
•he insinuation now charged upon him, it
was not a breach of delicacy to assert that
le had made no insinuations unsupported
»y facts.
[to be continued.]
Mr. Milnor offered a resolution for grant
ing fifty dollars to the sons of Mr Claxton,
for their attendance on the House at the
last cession—adopted.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Monday, January 1.
St... al petitions of a private nature
were read and referred.
Mr. Love reported a bill for the im
provement of the navigation of the river
Potomack, (authorizing a lottery.for the
purpose.) The bill was twice read and
committed to a committee of the whole—
-52 to 29. The House agreed to its being
nrinted—37 to 34.
RUPTURE WITH MR. JACKSON.
The House resumed the unfinished busi
ness.
Mr. Love presented the petition of the
President and Directors of the Bank ot
Alexandria, praying for an extension of
the .charter of said Bank ; also the peti
tion of the President and Directors of th.
Bank of Potomack ; and the petition of the
Union Bank of Georgetown, praying foi
charters.—Referred to the committee of
the District of Columbia. •
Mr. Uphjm and Mr. Tallmadge spoke
in favout of indefinite postponement, and
Mr. Alston against it.
A motion was made to adjourn, at half
past three, and negatived.
Mr. Livermore commenced a speech in
favour of indefinite postponement, during
which several unsuccessful motions for ad
journment were made.
When Mr. Livermore concluded, (half
past six,) the motion for indefinite post
ponement was negatived by yeas 44
nays 73.
This day the President communicated
the following Message to both Houses:
To the Senate and House of Representa
tives of the United States.
THE act authorizing a detach merit of
100,000 men from the militia, will expire
<ui the 30th of March next. Its early re
vival is recommended, in order that timely
*tep* may be taken for arrangements, such
as the act contemplated.
Without interfering with the modifica
tion rendered necessary by the defects or
the inefficacy of the law* restrictive of
commerce and navigation, or with the po
licy of disallowing to foreign armed ves
sels the use of our waters, it falls within
iny duty to recommend also, that in addi
tion to the precautionary measure* author
ized by that act and to the regular troop*
far completing the legal establishment, of
which enlistment* are renewed, every ne
cessary provision may be made for a vo
'unteer force of 20.000 men to be enlisted
for a short period, to be held ir. a state of
••’■gynitation and readiness for actual ser
vice, at the shortest warning.
Mr. Jenkins appeared and took his seat
Wednesday, January 3.
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE.
Tuesday, January 2.
Congress.
? I submit to the consideration of Congress,
moreover, the expediency of such a clas
sification and organisation of the militia,
W will best ensure prompt and successful
aids from that source, adequate to enter- /
gencies which may call for them.
It will rest with you also to determine
how far further provision ’may be expe- *
dient for putting into |Ctqal service, if ne
cessary, any pMrt of the naval armament
not now employed.
At a period presenting features in the
conduct of foreigp powers towards the Uni
ted States Which impose on them the ne
cessity of precautionary measures involving
expense, it is a happy consideration that
such is the solid state of the publick credit,
that reliance may be made for resorting to
it in a convenient form, and to a& adequate
amount JAMES MADISON.
January 3, 1810.
Referred to the Committee on the Na
val and Military establishments of the Uni- *
ted States, and to the Committee of Way*
and Means.
Thursday, January 4.
The House again resumed the consid
eration of the joint resolution from the Se
nate. i ‘
This resolution was read a third time.
The question was stated, ** shall th* re- x
solution pass ?” ~
Mr. Newton spoke about two hour* in
favour of the resolution.
Mr. Stanley opposed the resolution in *
speech of nearly the same length.
Mr. Findley spoke a few minutes in fa
vour of it.—[He could not be heard.]
Mr. Gardenier rose to make a motion,'
which he prefaced by a few remarks,—
that the resolution be until the
third Monday in February. Lott—yea*
40—nays 73.
Mr. Taggart spoke against the resolu- '
tion. He was repeatedly interrupted by
motions for an adjournment, and for want
of a quorum.
Mr. Fisk, (at six o'clock,) moved a reso
lution to compel the appearance of absent
members; but a question appearing, he
withdrew it.
Mr. Gardenier again rose, and spoke
‘ome time against the resolution.
Mr. Gold followed, and replied to the
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes) who
had on a former day animadverted upon
•ome of his remarks. [The reporter was
absent while Mr. Gold was up.]
Mr. Eppes made a few observations in
answer.
Mr. Dana, in reply to a former speech
of Mr. Eppes adverted to hi* own conduct
at the session next after the attack upon
the Chesapeake. He presumed that If the
gentleman had recollected hi* conduct bn
chat occasion he would not have intimated
'hat he had acted inconsistently on the sub
ject.
Mr. Gardenier protested against urging
a decision of the question at this time of
night, [lff o'clock,] without allowing gentle
men an opportunity of delivering their sen
timents on so important a subject. He
•herefore moved that the house adjourn—
Negatived.
Mr. Gardenier then addressed the chair
in a speech of great length and animation
♦gainst the resolution.
Sundry private petition* were read and
.referred.
Mr. Taggart proceeded. He spoke up
wards of two hour*.
Mr. Gardenier then, having spoken
twice on the main question, to enable him
to conclude his speech, moved that the re
solution he postponed until the second
Monday in February, and proceeded :
[Soon after which, our Reporter retired to
write out the foregoing sketch. Mr. Gar
denier occupied the floor several hours.—
Xbout five o’clock in the morning the ques
•ion was taken on the final passage of the
resolution, and carried—yeas 72, nays 41.]
Evening Post.
Friday, January 5.
Several communication* from the Secre
taries were read, via: A letter from the
secretary ot war—a letter from the secre
tary of the navy—a letter from the secre
tary of the treasury—and another letter
from the secretary at war. The commu
nication* were respecting account* in the
several departments. Ordered to be print
ed.
The order of the day was called for.—
The House went into committee of the
whole on the report of the committee ap
pointed to draft rule* and regulations tor
the House. Mr. Pitkin in the chair. '
The rules reported were read.
Mr. Livermore moved to strike out the
rule respecting taking previous questions,
which state* that after the previous ques
tion is called for by one fifth of the mem
ber* present, al) debate shell cease.
Mr. Livermore spoke at some length in
favour of this motion. A long debate en
sued which lasted to a late hour of the day>
Messrs. Gardenier, Ely, Pitman, Quincy,
Wheaton, Shrffy, Dana and Emott, spoke
against the rule, and In favour of striking
out. Jtfessr*. Rhea. Ross, Bmiiie, South
ard, Boyd, Alston, Root and Johnson,
spoke in favour of the rule. Mr. Johnson
declared that he meant to keep the power
in his own hands a* long as he could.
Mr.' Eppes explained.
Mr. Macon spoke an hour, in opposition
o the resolution.