The Rhode-Island American, and general advertiser — Providence [R.I.], 1810-01-19 00:00:00, page 2

2dy. 77/ar hit Majeoty had solid nnd
• weighty reaoono for the rejection—-to wit,
the fetal violation of in struc liens— the
of that nature. I believe, therefore, that
by r<ftr nee to my two letters you will
Jlnd that the HOW tctltt
b--ought frward.is contained in neither
ble for any man, with honest views, to per
sist in it after such unequivocal declara
tions. But Mr. Smith and Mr. Madison
have disappointed us—they rely more up- |
on the folly and blindness of their parti- |
sans than one could have conceived to be
possible.
In spite of all this evidence, we are still
told, with the most unparalleled indelica
cy, that Mr. Jackson was directed to per
sist in pretensions which our government
had repeatedly declared to be inadmissible.
In reviewing the whole correspondence,
we discover this to be the result, that Mr.
Jackson was not authorised to insist on the
conditions stated in Mr. Cannisg’s letter,
although they were jtiiown to have been
prtdously agreed to bv our own officers;
that on the contrary he was ordered to
receive our proposals, and fully empower
ed by special authority to conclude a trea
ty on such terms as should be mutually ad
vantageous -and further, that the events
of the war had rendeted the conditions
stated in Mr. Canning’s letter, less impor
tant to both parties, and therefore it was
to be expected that Great-Britain would
more readily consent to modify them.—W\
this is stated by the British Minister; and
although from our reception of all former
proposals, he could not see any benefit, nor
could he be expected to state beforehand
the full extent of his instructions, yet from
what he intimates, it is unavoidably to be
presumed he was directed to agree t<
torn* thing more agreeable to us than the
former conditions.
“ This same jtnfement it contained bi
your letter <fthe S.'A inst. and represented
44 the subrtance qf our previous confer’
ancet. In my answer, I took the liberty qf
shewing that such a supposition vat er
rvneous, and I have looked in vain to my
letter qf th-' 23d, to find any suggestions
qfthem. that it made nn part qf my con
■Vftations with you, and that I have in no
w*y given room to suppose that I ever
made such a statement at all."
Ou> language, though remarkable for its
strength, does not furnish the means of a
snore direct and positive denial of a charge;
and one would have supposed it impossi-
It was precise!) the discovery of this/n/Z
power and of this disposition to concession,
which produced Mr. Jackson’s dismissal
Let any impartial man pt ruse the whole
C*Ae-pondcnc.e, and he will find an in
-variable disposition tn seek an occasion of
c •llision on the part of our Cabinet, and a<-
sedu'.nu* a desire on the part of Mr. Jack
son to avoid it. One thing he must
ticularlv notice, that although Mr. Jack
son’s nff-nsive insinuations, (if any man can I
discover them,) must he found in the early I
part of the correspondence, yet there wus
not the sllehtes' intimation of discontent on
our part, until Mr. Jncksoq’s letter of th
-33d of October, disclosing his full powers,
and removing every possible obstacle to a
final, full and satisfactory adjustment.
It is then proved, that the sharp, irri
tating introductory letter of our Secretary
of State, comprising four articles of chargi
against the British Minister, was perfect!)
refuted in the subsequent correspondence ;
but notwithstanding the British Minister’s
allegations, they were offensively adhered
to. I anticipate, that those outrageous par
tisans who exclusively arrogate to them
selves the virtue of patriotism, will hen
interrupt me by saying, that the declara
tions of our Ministers are more to be relieti
upon by a True American than that oi
“ Copenhagen Jackson"— l grant ever)
thing on tliis subject to national prejudice—
lag! e<*, whieh is as much ns can be atk
cd • f me, that on an indifferent subject
M'. Jnckson, though supported by fact ana
evidence, is not to be credited by an Amr
ric .n patriot in opposition to Mr. Smith
unsupported bv any proof; but still I must
hunibh contend for the peace of our ebuii
try, for the avoidance of the horrours <>■
war, that where the point of diseordanc
consist* in what are, or are not the pre
tensions upon which Mr. J ack eon does in
sist, that his declaration solemnly repeat
ed as to the extent qf hit pretention* Is
conclusive evidence of those pretensions.
We ahull now slate one or two other in
etances of Mr. Smith’s offensive, and as far
a* we can see, unprovoked harshness to
wards Mr. Jackson, the representative ot
hit Britannick Majesty.
Mr. Smith, most unaptly and unfortu
nately, had cited a case from Vattel, to
shew that Great-Rritnin had no right to
reject the arrangement with Mr. Ers
kine. That case was, unhappily, most di
rectly against our ride: It went to prove,
that *' where a bargain was made by a
minister in virtue of full fiowero it could
not be rejected without ootid and weighty
reasons."
Mr. Jackson turned both parts of this
quotation against Mr. Smith, and with un
answerable force*.—
Ist. That Mr. Erskine had not ao Mr.
Mattel oufiftooeo in hit quotation, full
powers. *
expected by the agreement.
How does Mr. Smi'h reply u> these forci
ble objection*!—By a sarcasm which par
take* a* much of tamper a* of weakness—
“ I understand, Sir, ( tayt he io Mr.
Jackton,) for the fir*t time, that you object
to Mr. Erskine’s want (/full power*, If
that be an objection, the tame applies to
yourself, and we ought not to have heard
you at long at we have done, because you
have exhibited no full powers.”
This was an’ admission of the principle;
for if it had been true that a minister pleni
pot'» tiary ex officio had a right in all case*
to bind his sovereign. It would have been
the most natural, the most perfect, and
certainly a less insulting answer.
But Mr, Smith’s reply was defective on
another ground, as proved by the corres
pondence between Mr. Jefferson and Mr.
Hammond, cited by me in a former num
ber t—For though a full power is requisite
to conclude antf sign. yet a general letter
of credence is sufficient to negotiate. 1 hus
in common life we are satisfied to make a
bargain with a reputed attorney, but when
require and we examine the letter of at
torney.—ln this case Mr. Jackson was only
paving the way to a treatylt was there
fore premature and indecorous to demand
hi* power*:—lt wa* still more than that to
demand them in so taunting a manner;—
but, what is still worse, Mr. Jackson de
dares thst he hsd long before thi* verbal
ly stated to Mr. Smith that he possessed
such full powers. To these very irritating
remark* of Mr. Smith’s, which one would
hive expected would have roused the ut
most resentment of a haughty man, a* Mr.
“ That he was turprited at the transi
tion by which it appeared to Mr. Smith
that this part of the subject wat connected
with the authority empowering him to ne
gotiate with Mr. Smith. It will not, f says
Mr r Jackton,J escape your recollection
‘hat Unformed you,at a very early period,
that in addition to the usual credential let
ter hit Majesty had been pleated to in
vest me with a full power under the great
seal of hit kingdom, for the express pur
pose of concluding a treaty or convention-
I well remember your testifying your tat
we come to take the deed or contract, we
Jackson ha* been represented by our de
mocrats, he calmly replied, in his letter of
the 4th of November—
i«faction at the circumstance, and I now
add, that whenever it suite your con
venience I ifm ready to exchange my full
power against chat with which you shall
be provided for the progress qf the ne
gotiation.”
Thus we see that the lacerating taunt of
Mr. Smith was not only an unprovoked,
but in face of a positive knowledge, that
Mr. Jackson was furnfshed with special
and plenary powers.
One would imagine that it would be im
possible, in a free country, a country en
joying the privileges of the press, for a
Minister to question, after such a declara-
rion, Mr. Jackson’s powers, which such
Ministrr had a right at the very moment
to demand and examine.—But we shall
lind that it is more easy to palm off an im
posture in this Enlightened Country, than
we could imagine and the result of thi*
.ffair will shew, that even when detected,
its effects on the authour* of it, will not be
perceptible, unless it be to raise them in
he estimation of their devoted partisans.
After this offer of Mr. Jackson to shew
his full powers, Mr. Smith says, in his let
ter to Mr. Finkney, of November 25
•• That although Mr. Jackson had given
us to understand that the ordinary cre
dentials, such alone as he delivered, could
not bind his governmt nt, on such a case,
his proposal had neither been preceded
by, nor aceompanii d with the exhibition
f other commission or full power."
In this paragraph two idea* are en
deavoured to be conveyed—
-Ist. That Mr. Jackson’s objection to
<lr. Erskine’s ordinary credentials as the
foundation qf a treaty, was an unfounded
ne, although Mr. Smith and Mr. Mode
rn must know that it was perfectly cor
rect and supported by our own conduct in
the case qf Mr. Hammond.
2dly. That Mr. Jackson really had no
other power because he had not exhibiteu
any.
If any man, after reading the above, can
find any means of getting rid of a direct
wd indecent contradiction, we shall, for
(he honour of our Cabinet, be happy to
see them pointed out.
Amidst these charges of perfidy and
falsehood, advanced no liberally against
the British Cabinet and Minister, one loses
■fight of a great number of offensive and
rude clauses and injurious suggestions. It
would be hardly worth our time and rhe
publick patience to notice the strong and
offensive paragraph which notified Mr.
Jackson of his indiscoverahle and indis
cribable offence; but there is one sentence
which, for the honour of our Country, 1
hope, (since one will be able,) will explain
differently from its apparent meaning. In
Mr. Smith's letter, (page 81, of the print
ed documents,) he thus writes to Mr.
Pinkney— • /
•• Fox will fterreive that throughout the
early otugco <f the correoftondence, thio
case, (that of the Chesapeake,) was in
ovmc reo/iocti Improperly eonfoemded with,
in othera improperly separated from that It
tfthe Ordera in Council.' ‘
Now, in of candour, what
course was Mr. Jackson to take J If he
connected it with the Ordera in Council, it
was improper J—lf he aepnrated it from
them, he was equally in fault. la it not
then clear that Mr. Jackson could not sat
isfy our government at any rate i This we
have long known, and this the present
documents prove beyond all contradiction.
They who run, may read it—and even the
blind may perceive it.
We have now finished this part of our
subject—and we flatter ourselves redeem
ed the pledge we had given to the pub
lick. It is obvious from what has been said,
that Great-Britain adheres to no offen
sive propositions in relation to her Orders
in Council That those Orders rest, a>
they always have done, on ground which
our own government have admitted to b«
correct in principle, that of retaliation oo
her enemy That Great-Britain was will
ing to repeal them on the terms which
her Minister assured her were propoaed
by us:—That finding we would not admit
hem she will not re*ew or insist upon
them—that Mr. Jackson’s reasoning upon
them in his letters is simply to convince us
that they are not now important to either
them or ua .‘—And -the fair inference is,
that when we propose any terms short of
them, and yet amounting to a reaiatance to
the French Decrefa, Great-Britain will
accept them. That she had a right to
expect as much an thia from us is certain,
because Mr. Jefferson tejd Congress, and
his party boasted laat year, that we had
made her auch an offer : Such an offer,
however, never haa been made and never
will be i and the discovery that Mr. Jack
son will agree to such a propoeal, is the
true reason why the negotiation is now
Itroken off.
If then, a* it appears, Great-Britain does
not insist upon any pretension* as condi
tion* for the repeal of her Orders in Coun
cil to which we cannut subscribe; if she
places it simply on the ground of an effec
tual resistance to the Decree* of France,
which we have voted shall not be submit
ted to, let u* examine if there are am
other pretensions of her’* which should be
a barrier to an accommodation.
Let us here premise, that in national con
troversies where there is neither judge,
jury nor umpire, perfect justice is not to be
expected. Neither party ought to expect,
however they may claim, to obtain every
thing they may deem right. Something
ought on both sides to be sacrificed to har
mony ; and the nation which insists upon
the attainment of all it* preteushais can
not be considered a* being honestly de
sirous of peace.
Mr. Madison tells us that Great-Britaln
in the affair of the Chesapeake insists upon
pretensions which had been declared inad
missible. As thi* is the only point on which
Great-Britain makes any pretensions, or
insists on kny conditions, as we have shewn,
and as she most certainly doet in this case
insist on two preliminary point*, it is im
portant to see how far these are unreason
able, and how far they are good causes
for hatarding our peace.
Ist. She insists, “ That in the record qf
the satisfaction whit/h we shall agree to ac
cept, a mtmordnduni shall be made that
our Proclamation interdicting the entry
qf British ships qf war has been repealed.’’
This Mr. Madison in his covered lan
guage entitles, “ A demand that the first
step should proceed from us.*’
This is not so. It is now admitted on all I
sides that the act of the British Admiral
was unauthorised ; and of course his Gov
ernment were only responsible fur disa
vowal and reparation.
The law of nature, of nations, of com- I
mon courtesy, and thfe common law of the I
land, all require that in ouch a case a re
course should first be had to the Master I
of the offending servant, and after he re
fuses to do justice, reprisals may take
place.
In this instance we took the reparation I
into our own hands: We inflicted the first I
punishment: We deprived Great-Britain
<>f her rights; for it was her right to enter
<>iir ports so long as her enemy was per
mitted so to do. |
It was pretended th it this was a mere
measure of precaution ; if it were so, it
mght to have been revoked as soon as
Great-Britain declared her disapprobation
of the acts of her servant. No danger any
longer existed any more than at the mo
ment when we suffered the proclamation
to expire. d-. ••
» But with Great-Britain it was different.
It was absolutely impossible for her to
jffer any terms whatever so long as this
rod was held in terrorem over her head—
On thio fioint Mr. Rose's mission termi
nated. And let us ask every man of hon
our, if compensation was demanded of him
for any set of his servant's, whether he
would give it while the complaining party
threatened to chastise him t
Between nations this is Impossible: And
shall the nations In the world, and of all
the administrations which ever existed in
any nation, ours, owe of the most captious,
ought io be the last to find fault with this
objection.
It m, I confess, truly a point f honour:
and /he only question is, which Is righ’ ? 1
■' '■! v 7'■*>'( -'*w trf-'r '*■ tf '■ ■
admit that aekhtr party whirls i» th«
f ight, o*ghc to sacrifice this point of hon
our unless for ths sake of preserving peace,
which is wore interestine than any point of
etiquette. But In this case we can ac
knowledge the repeal of the Proclamation
without dishonour, because we never pre
tended that it was a hostile measure; but
on the other band Great-Britain, who con
sidered it an insult, could not agree to
treat with us without a formal acknow
ledgement of the repeal. Mr.
Smith, this adherence to punctilio is the
more unreasonable in Great-Britain be
cause it wa* well known that the Procla- |
mation had expired qf itself. He was Ij
think not aware of the natural answer to
thia, which would have been made if he
had not sealed Mr. Jackson’s lips, that if
the Proclamation had expired, there could
be less reason for a nation disposed for
peace to refuse to note that fact in the pro
ceedings. And why this delicacy on the
part of Great-Britain ? Because she could
not compensate us so long a* the record of
so hostile a measure remained against her.
The only other inadmissible pretension
of Great-Britain which our Cabinet urge is.
The reservation of Great-Britain, that
she will not pay the bounty to such qf the
railort wounded in the Chesapeake, nor
will she return such qf them as the has
taken, who may appear to have been de
letters front his Majesty*s service, or na
tural born subjects qf hit Britannick Ma
jesty.
Now without entering into the question
so folly settled by the American people
that they will not go into a contest for
British sailors, we would simply remark,
that an objection of this sort comes with
a very ill grace fromi'a government, one ol
whose Captains last year entered the Bri
tish territories, seised a school-master in
he act oi giving instruction in a peaceful
village, and shot him dead upon the spot,
and to which officer after a formal Court
Martial bis sword ha* been returned with
honour. It thia doe* not amount Co a tlaim
qf detertert, we confess we do not know
what dues.
From rax New-Yoh* Hebald.
PART OF A REPORT
Of a committee of the Humane Society,
appointed to inquire into the number ot
tavern licenses ; the manner of granting
them ; their effects upon the community;
and the other sources of vice and misery
in thi* city; and to visit Bridewell.
TO THI
HUMANE SOCIETY.
The committee appointed to inquire into
the number of tavern license*; the manner
<>f granting them ; their effects upon the
community ; and the other sources of vice
and misery in thi* city; and to visit the
Bridewell,
Respectfully report,
That to investigate fully all the sources
of vice and misery existing in this populous
city, would require an acquaintance with
facts, more extensive than they possess, or
have been able to acquire. They have
therefore directed their attention principal
ly to the objects more particularly men
tioned in the resolution by which they are
appointed. I
By a just and inflexible law of Providence
misery is ordained to be the companion and
the punishment of vice ; and in proportion
as a community is corrupted, physical as
Well as moral evil is introduced and pro
pagated, among them. Hence it is a duty
which every society owes as well to the in-
I dividuals who compose it as the Great
Governour of all, to preserve the purity of
the publick morals, and to abstain from
permitting, and still more from author-
I izing, whatever may tend to deprave the
manners, or destroy the principles of its
members.
I Supposing these observations to be cor
rect, the committee think that no existing
evil requires a more prompt and effectual I
remedy, than the excessive number of li-
I censes for retailing spirituous liquors which
I are annually granted in this city.
By the charter of the city the Mayor is
authorised to grant licenses to whom and I
as many as he thinks proper. He receives
for each the sum of forty shillings of which
he retains nineteen for himself, and pays
the residue into the city Treasury. By a
law of the state all persons selling spirit-
I uous liquors in smaller quantities than five
gallons must also receive a license from
the commissioner of excise, who deter- I
mines the sum to be paid therefor at his
I own discretion, provided it be not less than I
five nor more than fifty dollars. From the
money thus raised, the Commissioner is 1
permitted to retain five hundred dollars
I per annum, and the residue belongs to tbe
corporation. *
I Under these regulations, upwards of
I seventeen hundred tavern licenses were,
during the last year, granted by the May
-1 or, and above eighteen hundred licenses to
I retail spirituous liquors are yearly issued b>
I the Commissioner.
This astonishing number cannot be re-
I qulred for the accommodation of the citi-
I sens, or the convenience of strangers.
From information obtained ftfßf the
I Mayor's office of Pi .adelphia, it appears
i U that the whole lumber ef persons Itoenstti
[tc bk comtinukd]
to keep tavtrns, including b«er houses, and
to sell liquors bv retail, in that city, amount
only to one hv> *red and ninety, and that in
the eounty of Philadelphia, (comprehend
ing the suburb* of the city, several con
siderable > tow ns and villages, and a large
tract of country,) there arc two hundred
and forty. No dtmbt, however, is enter
tained but tljat a groit number of persons
in both cities retail liquors without any au
thority or license.
The Committee think that the bara
statement of these fact* are sufficient to
prove the existence of an evil at once inju
rious and disgraceful to thi* city, and the
more the subject is investigated, the more
enormous and destructive does that evil ap
pear. It causes, or aggravates the misery
and poverty of most of the labouring poo’ ;
it fills the list of unfortunate debtors main
tained by thi* society ; it crowds the alms
house, the hospital, the state, and the city
prisons.
some places in which those who are unable
to purchase much liquor at a time may pro
cure it in smaller quantities. But the great
tain guests. They vend their liquor in lit
tle shops situated generally in obscure
streets, and often in cellars. Their only
object is to acquire profit, and to thi* end
every artifice is employed by which the la
bourer may beenticed to squander in intoxi
cation, those earnings by which his family
should be supported. Hence these petty
taverns exhibit perpetual scenes of riot and
neither the desire, nor the means to enter-
mass of those who take licenses have
■lisorder. Hence law suits and criminal
prosecutions. Hence that day which the
religion and Taws of the country have set
apart for the .publick worship of God is
openly profaned. In house* of this de
scription, liquor is constantly sold on that
day, in defiance of the law. And the poors
instead of spending the time allotted them
for rest from their labour, and the service
of their Maker, are encouraged to devote
it tp intoxication and profanity.
These enormities, so fatal to the health
and morals, and frequently to the life, of
the individuals who commit them, and *•
contrary to law, both divine and human,
cannot but be disgraceful, and will ulti
mately prove ruinous to the people among
whom they are tolerated.
Supposing that the city contains fourteen
thousand families, which is a probable cal
culation, it will appear that one seventh of
the inhabitants are maintained by selling
poison to the rest. Can it be wise, can it
De consistent with duty, thus to distribute
incentive* to vice through every street in
the city ? ‘
The habit of drinking ardent spirits ener
vates the mind, sours the disposition, in
flames the passions, renders the heart cal-
lous to the feelings of humanity, and leads
to the neglect and violation of the social
duties. It lays the foundation of many dis
eases, and makes many others terminate
fatally which would otherwise yield to the
application of remedies. By many whose
opinions deserve weight, it has been thought
as destructive to the human species as the
sword: And in this country, certainly it
furnishes death with more victims than all
the other causes of premature mt rtality.
Many of these considerations acquire
additional force when the form uf govern
ment and political institutions of our coun
try are taken .into view. The annals of
history attest, that almost every free state
of antiquity lost its liberty *«» consequence
of the corruption of the lower classes of its
citizens: And scarce an instance can be
found of a popular government which has
survived the morals and manners of its
people.
Surely then every one who is interested
in the preservation of peace, the welfare,
and the liberty of his country, every one
who reflects on the spirit, the laws, and the
sanctions of the holy religion which he pro
fesses, must be impressed with the neces
sity and duty of endeavouring to arrest the
progress of so destructive a vice, and te
lessen the practice of unnecessarily grant
ing licenses for the express purposes of
furnishing his fellow-citizens with a poison
so fatal and so bancfoil in its effects.
There can be no hope of accomplishing
this most important and desirable object
while the present object is continued of li
censing petty-tavems and grog-shops, the
nurseries of intemperance, disorder and
profligacy. With tbe wisdom of the corpo
ration of this city, and of the Legislature,
this business must ultimately rest. ‘lt can
not be supposed that they will regard with
indifference a subject which involves se
deeply the health, the morals, and the hap
piness of their fellow-citisens.
The committee therefore forbear to de
tail any system for correcting the evil they
complain of, further than to suggest the
propriety of applying tn the Legislature
for an act, so to enhance the expense of
obtaining licenses, to retail spirituous li
quors In the city of New-York, as to dimin
ish the number of applications for them.
The committee also think It would be
nseftil to license beer-houses, and to per
mit small liquors and cider only to be sold
in them. Houses of thia description are
licensed in the neighbouring states, but
here is ne regulation concerning them ie
' ‘.his.
Inn* must be provided for travellers, and
may be thought expedient to permit