The New Hampshire gazette — Portsmouth [N.H.], 1810-01-16 00:00:00, page 2

o ‘From the NATIONAL INTELLIGEXCER.
| EXPOSITION 1
OF THE CONDUCT oF THE HON. FRANCIS
FAMES FACKSON, 1n fls CORRESPON
pENCE WiTH ROBERT SMITH, BsQUIRE,
SECRERTARY QE -STATE. Flg et 2T e
; [Consinued } : e A
_ Refetring the reader to the corrg
elucidations which are given by Mr.
'Smith, in i letter of the 12th of
Of&ober, on the several interesting
topics in difpate between the United
_States and Great Britain, and parti
cularly to the conciliatory offerof the
President to comprehend the orders
in council in a general negociation,
the writer of this exposition proceeds
to the letter of Mr. Jackson to Mr.
Smith of the 23d of O&ober. This
letter is remarkable, among other
points, for the very unfatisfaltory ex
planation it furnifhes of the reasons
for disavowing Mr. Erskine’s ar
rangement. It was disavowed, Mr.
Jackson asserts, because his predecessor
had no authority 'to conclude it.
There is no reference to the equity
and justice of the terms ;no “.fßrong
and solid reasons™ in relation to the
rights of the Uritéd States. But,
~ simply, the a& was disavowed, becaule
the minister was unauthorized to con
cludeit. This, certainly is a con
venient if not a legal excuse. Itisone
which may at all times-and under all
circum({tances be resorted to. No
thing more is neceflary than to de
clare that a minister has not compre
hended. his infiru&ions, and the most
solemn engagements are at an end.
Bat this is neither law nor good faith.
Suppofiog that the violation of in
frudions is good cause for the dis:
avowing an arrang gment, the mere
faging o is ‘no competent and fatis
fadory explanation to the disappoint
ed party. Itisincumbent on the dis
avowing party to shew that they
have been violated j that is, the dis
appointing patty should prove thefad
of violation. Mr. Jackion has not
done this. He refers to a printed dis
patch of the 234 of January, and
offers his bare word for all the rest.
Where are the * several” letters of in
firu&@ions mentionad by Mr. Eifkine ?
. Why not prosnce” the original papsr
of the dispatch of January 23d, that
is, the manufeript of it ? Why in- an
official proceeding, pefer to a copy
which appeared in tl:e newspapers ?
Aad where is the inftru&ion relative
to the Chesapeake ? Did Mr. Erskine
exceed his orders in that refpeét also?
Mr. Jackson fays he did ; but Mr.
Jackson produces no copy (not even
a printed one,) of the inftradtion on
that head : Is this what Vattel, (an
authority fully admitted by Mr. Jack
son,) would calla*a firong and solid
reason 2’ Mr. Jackson’s mere word.
-unsupported by corroborating vouch
ers or circumitances cannot be receiv
e as evidence in the case ; yet he
_effcrsnoother ; and in this view t
is worthy of notice, that Mr. Jackson
" claims for himfelf that weight of cre
_ dibility which he denies to Mr. Smith
‘and the President. He requires that
his solitary declaration (2 declaration
violated by his tergiverfation} should
be taken in support and full proof of
a fa&t, and at the fame time more than
‘infinnates that Mr. Smith’s word,
“and the asseverations of the President
' “through Mr. Smith, are not entitled
to belief. '
The reader will observe, that Mr
Smith in his letter of the nineteenth
of Qétober, fays, * The declaration
that the dispatch from Mr. Canning
to Mr. Erikine of the 234 of Jan, is
the only dispatch by which the <con
ditions were prescribed to Mr. Etfkine
for the conclusion of an arrangement
on the matter to which it relates is
now for the firft time made to this
government.” Mr. Jackfoh had read
“this observation when he wrote his
reply of O&ober 234, from whichthe
following is an extraét : - :
«S 0 far from the terms which' he
[Mr. Eifkine] was aßually induced
to accept having been contemplated
in that infru@ion, he himfelf Rates
_that they were sussTITUTED by You
[the Secrétary. of State] in liew of
-thdfeoriéginally proposed.”
" This is not. only an untreth as it
‘refpeéts Mr. Smith, but it is a palpa
“Ble departure from veracity in regard
to Mr. Erskine. The ‘latter gentle-.
“man bas no where asserted, éit_’ is
cochidently afirmed ) that Mr. Smith
fubftiruted conditions, The induce
“ mest with Mr E:fkine for concludiag
she sgreement of the loth of April
arose as he ‘aversin bis letter of Au
gult 14h, from * a thorough con
“wiction ? his mind, that he was alting
in couformity with bis majelly’s
wishes.”, Mr. Smith neither solicited
mwwwﬂiﬁ"v&"g the
Fome couir be no plisle odve.
Aroge e ”"
President by ? vheec ling ms
would have known would not have
been ‘accepted by his government?
Common sense reje&s all such insinua
tions 3 and that man mult be the
viétim of credulity indeed, who can
for one instant believe that the Secre
tary of State or that “Mr. Madison
would not only risk their reputations,
but place in jeopardy a great mass of
property belonging to their fellow
citizgns, on the event of {o fraila com
pa&, 'Befides, if Mr. Erfkioe had
beeh weak enough to be their dupe,
or fufficiently wicked to combine with
them, he would hardly have sense
enough or be so honest as to keep the
secret. <
The extra& just quoted, which thus
libels the American government and
implicates Mr. Erskine is that paflage
of Mr. Jackson’s letter wherein he
presumes to contradié the constituted
authorities of the United States. It
was of course incumbent on the Exe
cutive to vindicate his own honor
and maintain the outraged dignity of
the nation.
Mt. Smith’s letter to Mr. Jackson
of the 1t of Nov. contains this neces
sary vindication, by declaring such
infinnations ¢ inadmissible.” 'And
“what was Mr. Jackson’s answer ? ¢ [
have carefully avoided (fays he)draw
ing conclusions that did notneceffarily
fbﬁbw from the premises advanced by
me, and least of all should 1 think of
uttering an insinuation where I was
upable to substantiate a fa&.””. With
determined pertinacity, he adds,* aud
in so doing I must contine.” Thus,it
is perceived, Mr. Jackson had insulted.
the government ; he repeated thein
fult after being told that it was inad
miflible ; and infifking on the untruth
in the most unequivocal terms, openly
and imperativeiy avowed his refolu.
tion to. ¢ continue’’ the fame line of
condu&. There was no possibility of
forbearing any longer; it had be
come indispensably necessary to cut
Him off from the government, and ac
, cordingly he was cut off.
I The evasion which Mr. Jackson as-
E terwards attempted to palm upon
~ the Secretary of State, is the bafelt of
_all possible fubterfuges. Muking use
{ of Mr. Oakley’s name he fays, ¢ One
- of the fa&s alluded to [the communi
' cation of the conditions by Mr. Erfk
ine] has been admitted by the Secre
tary, of State himfelf;” and, that
that infiru&ion [of January 23d]'is
the only one in which the conditions
were prescribed, is known to me.”—
He then proclaims, that it was for
¢ {tating thefle -faéls and adhering to
them,”” that he was dismissed by the
- President. 'So far from this baving
* been the ground for discarding him, it
15 confidently affirmed by the writer
- ofthis article, that if Mr. Jackson, in
_his letters to the Secretary of State,
had advanced nothing more than
- what he doesin Mr. Oakley’s note,
the government of the United States
~ would certainly have taken no offence
atit. But Mr. Jackfon’sinfinuations
~and aflertions were of a very different
~ complexion. They were not that Mr.
Smith admitted one fadt, that Mr.
‘ Jackson knew another faét ; bat that,
'Mr. Smith having Rated to Mr. Jack
_fon, that ¢ after the explicit and per
‘emptory asseveration that this govern:
ment had no such knowledge [of the
- defpatch }2nd that with such a knowl
~edge no such arrangement would
havebeen entered into,the view which
you have again prefsnted of the f{ub
je€t, makes it ‘my duty to apprise you
~that such mfinvations are inadmifi
ble;” Mr; Jackson replied after other
remarks, ¢ least of all should I thiuk
of uttering an insinuation where I was
unable to substantiate a sac.” A man
{o fully convi&ted of prevarication can
surely have no credit with the public.
It will be observed that the ?ennd' of
Mr Jackson’s disgrace, is not a difagree
mem as to personal weracity between Mr
Smith and Mr Ertkine, nor between Mr
Smith and Mr Jackson ; but it is exclusive
ly a gueftion whether Mr Jackson, in an
official correspondence with the American
government, was to be permitted to call in
question the veracity of the power with
whom bhe was treating, not whether Mr
Smith told the truth, or whether Mr Jack
son told the troth ; but whether the excen
tive of the United States was to fuffer it
{clf to be repeatedly and unequivocally stig
matized with the implication of falfchood.
The pith and fubfapce of it is'this : Would
-a private gentleman, in negociating any bu
finefs whatever with another person, put
~up with tlie /iz direét? Apply the answer
to the case between the United States and
Mr - Jackion, and the point is decided to.
the fatisfaction of every American citizen
who loves his country and venerates the
eonflitution. Mr Jackson ‘was,” doubtless,
at fall liberty to amplify and enforce any
refpecful propositions that he advanced, by
~all the arguments within his reach, provided
they were decorously urged ; but it was de,
parting from every customary rule of diplo
‘matic_deportment, which prevails even in
‘time of war, to draw inferences and to in
£ift pan conclusions, which are neither de-
Qucible from the circumstances which he
cites, nor warranted by the evidenee which
he quistes Ta fuppast of them. - Flek muth
Jess was it permissible to invent facts whick'
gel g bnd O ARG
- Supposing, nevertheless, that Mr Erfkin ¥
Gt i e M S {obitedconds
Dioms Sor Doy WW‘;EE{'«&
PrEoE S ke peg ecpactit fradiihe J o
an untrith, is td bel received av a compe- -
tent and er " ible Efg,, a&\otﬁf*&"h“?h 2
is denied by the fovernment which he had
deccived ? Such {@hiftry cannot be support
ed by the most @aning lawyzr, or subtle,
‘cafuilt. Th-re, itindeed, norhiag more in
consistent ﬁ‘;n . ackfon’s falfe mfemng; :
from the beginnig to the cnd of the cor
respondence. TH: length of the correspon
dence and the dis ’i of h!‘;%?a may,
for an instant exiigeafs the underitandiog s
but, when Hhis aiti-neutral doctrincs and
anti- American grejudices are cffentially
comprehended, their flagrant and tyrannic al
aspect will be manifefted to every individ
ual in the community. The new Cn'Pg
admits, he evades, avows and disavows, al
ferts, rejeéts, insinuates, and cquivocates, aIl
in a breath, "The more he wrote the more
he convinced the American government
that he was cither the mischievous .inﬂru
ment for perverting the good intentions of
his sovereign or the slippery too! of a design
ing ministry, whose evil fchcmes were too
%laring to be concealed by his shallow arti
ces. :
In the preceding part. of this exposition
it is remarked, that *-a rigid examination of
the langoage and spirit of Mr Jackson’s
letters would evince that the recapitulation
of the secretary of state (as to what pafled’
in official verbal conference) is substantially
corré&” There is no manner of doubt,
that the three ionditions are the only terms
upon which Mr Jackson would acccpt any
proffered arraigemcnt, however he might
¢ yeceive and difufs” propositions of any oth
er defcription.] He does not any where in
his etters to the secretary of state deny it.
All that he: {ays is in coroboration of it.—
These three conditions are embraced in the
defpatch from Mr. Canning to Mr Erikine
of the 23d of January, and require from
the United States a relioquithment of the
carrying trade, a non-intercourse against
France and her dependencies, and permif-
fion for Great Britain to enforce the acts of |
congress on the ocean. Mr Jackson fays,
indeed that he was not instructed to renew
these nor to make any other proposals; but |
he assigned as the sole reasons for the ab- |
fence of such inftrations, Ift that they had |
been rejected by the American government
—=and 2d that Great Britain would never -
ccafe to maintain the principle recognized
by thofe’conditions, to wit, *¢ the total and
unqualified interdiction of all trade with
the enemy” in neutral bottoms on Ameri
can account, declaring it to be “ matter of
indifference to Great Britain, whether the
order in council be continued, or an ar
rangement by’ mutual confént' mbfßituted in
its room.” In brief, Mr Jackson was not
authorifed to renew the three conditions, be
_caufe they wonld not be accepted by the
president ; and he was instructed to pros
pose no new enes, becanfe the Britith gov
ernment would yield to nothing but the
. three conditions. I a doubt exists upon the
fubjeck, let the reader infpet the new en
- voy’s letter of the 4th of November, where
~in he fays, “before the orders in council
can be revoked, their object muff be obtain
~ ed in some other way.” 'And one of those
- orders, to wit. that of the 26th of April, the
} onc which is now in operative exifltence, Mr
Jackson affirms, “is more reffristive thanthofe |
of November ;807.” These declarations
on the part of the discarded Minister, ex
plain what be ‘means in his letter of the 23d
of October, when, in speaking of his instruc
tions, he announces that « they look to sub
stituting for noTioNs of good underfland- |
INg erroncoufly entertained, PRACTICAL STIP
“vLATIONS in which a reconciliation of all
diffcrences may be substantially fouaded.”
That is, the equitable and Jawful claims of
the United States arc considered as mere
“ NoTiONS,” for which notions Mr Jackson’s
instructions empower him to “fubflitute”
“ PRACTICAL STIPULATIONS,” which praéii
cal flipulations. are the three conditions of the
dispatch of the £3d of January, or “ the or
der in council of the 26th of April, which is
more reflrictive than those of November 1807,”
and which, in prineiple, (and in practice too,
with occasional variations,) his Britaanic
majefly “ can never cease to maintain.”
Mr Smith in his letter to Mr Pinkney of
November the 23d, has placed the subject
of the disavowal of Mr Erskine’s arrange
ment in fofair a light, and exposed so com
pletely the frivolity of the pretences upon
which it was disavowed, that but very few
additional firiGures, in that particalar will
be introduced into this exposition ; and
these will be confined to the tenor of the dis
patch of the :3d of January, which Mr
Erskine is said to have violated. One of
the conditions’ prescribed in that di‘fpatcb,
was in the following werds - : R
“ 3d. G Britain, for the purpose of fecur
- tng the operation of the embargo, and of the
boua fide intention of ‘America to prevent
her ciuzens from trading with Frauce, and
the powers adopting and. a&ing under the.
French decrees, is to be considered at liber:
_ty to capture all such American veflels, as
may be found attempting to trade with the
. ports-of any of these powers; without
- which -security for the observance of the.
embargo, the raising it nominally, with ref
pedt to Great Britain alone, would, in fad,
raise it with refpe& to all the world.” =
“ In urging” this condition, Mr Smith .
very properly remarks, “ Ar Canning has
taken a gronnd forbidden by those princi- |
ples of decorum which regulate and mark
the proceedings of governments towards
each other.” it was not only to obtain a
| pledge against the bad faith-of the intention
of the American government, as the fecreta
vy of slate fays; but the liberty t 0 capture
~which the condition requires, plainly im
plies, that even if the inteation of the Ame
rican government be an intention of good
Sfaith, yet there would be nofecurity to' Great
Britain for the fulfilment of it by the citizéns
of the United States, unless t®c Britith navy
- were ‘at liberty to make prize of the vefiels
and goods of those citizens, who are by the
- condition supposed to be so profligate asnot
to obey the laws of their country, and the.
- conflituted authoritigs so imbecile as not to
_ be able to compel ;%to refpe the alts
of congress. - Iy effeét, Ihatthcpdg’(of:the ~
United States are'knaves and law-breakers,
and their congrefsand president a mere cy
pher. The navy of Great Britain was to |
strengthen the latter and make the former
~virtuous:- Apd thﬁ - ‘eopdition. and the
~ whole defpatchiwas t 6 be communicated in -
~extenfo (in-all ire parts) so the chief magif-
RLt o o
ke e .'-, g,. Sas G , ~-.’ ,';;.' e ’
ie e e PR B
s SRS MO ST S L VT iTtRTe e SR e S T
© Patwonal Legitature,
ELEVENTH CONGRESS—=SBEOND SEssigN: -
R R /. TUESDAY DEC. 19. =
i Tbc"'ﬁcci'ctzry At ‘War communicated a
report on “the ftuation of :gRTIFICA
TIONS in the United States’ Referred 1o /
the landing committee onthe subject.
“The report of Mr Latrobe on the state of
the public buildings-was received. Committed
_ The Houvfe went into commiittee on the
Resolution from the Senate approving the
condu@ of the Executive as it regarded Mr
Jackson, the ' Britith Ministers Mr Rhea
supported, and Mr Potter, and. Mr Dana
opposed it——the latter for about an hour
and an half — When the committee rose and
had leave tofit again. Tea: -~ %
A petition was presented praying for the
incorporation of the Bank in W afbingtons -
Committed. Several local fubje@s were dis
posed of. ‘
pec 20~—The committee on the {ulje&
reported against the claim of Edward Tur
ner —-accepted.
~ The Resolutions from the Senate on the
subject of the rupture with Mr. Jackson
were taken up. They were advocated by
Mr M’Key, and Mr Johnson—and cppofed
by Mr Wheaton, and Mr Emott. Before
Mz: E concluded, the committee rose, repot
ed progress, and had leave to fit again.
peC. 21—The Coantefled Eleflions Evidence
bill was read twice
Ages 53, Noes 35 .— 4
. And reported to the House, -
" - Mr Livermore moved the indafinite post
. ponement of the Resolution.
~ Mr Eppes spoke at some length against
-the peftponement; when the houfeadjourn
- ed. : g
~ Dec, 28—After several local fubjecs had
~ been disposed of, the House again resumed
i the discussion of the Resolutions from the Senate
The motion in debate was, That the Reso
lutions be indefinitely poftponed.—Mefirs.
Saoford, Quincy, Gardinier and Pitkin op.
-posed the lefniutions, and urged their post
. pcnement.—No question taken.
} - De¢. 29—Mr, Taylor from the committee
to whom was referred the letter from ] A.
' Coles, réported that they had enquired into
~ that affair, and found that the said J A. Coles
' did make an outrageous and unprovoked at
. tack on a member of this house, and that
- they confider said attack a breach of the
~ privileges of the house. But that the letters
of ackriowledgement of the said Ju A. Coles
| ought{to be fatisfactory, and they therefore
report that mo further procecdings on the
~ {ubjeét areneceflary —Laid on the table.
'+ The Resolutions from the Senate were again
called up—The motion for postponement
- under discussion. ,
- Meflrs Pitkin and Quificy concluded their
-observations commenced yeflerday. Mr.
Gardinier made @ {econd speech against the
resolutions. -Mr Livermore made some
observations in favor of bis motion for post
- ponement. At 4lo’clock adjourned.
- DEE. 30-—A motion was made to print the
report on the fubje@® of the attack on Gen,
"Nelson by Mr. Coles.. oo :
. Mr. Wilson was opposed to the motion—
which was advaocated by Mr Gardinier, 4
Mr. Alfton’ stated that the ficftaccount of
~the affaiy was falle, and that the truth ought
to be known —The motiofi to print the rea
- port, pafled 7610’25 - ; 5
" The House again resumed the ¢onfidera
“tion of the Resolutions fiom the Scnate
cealuring the conda of the Britith Mini-
Mter “ Mr. Poindexter, and Mr Rhea, made
fongfpecchesin favor of the Resolutions ;
- when the House adjourned. =
. Monday, Fan. 1-—After fitting about half
_am hour, and disposing of several local arti
cles, the House adjourned. -
. Tuesday Fan. 2—A bill was reported for
improving the navigation: of the river Poto
~mac, authorifing a lottery for the purpofe—
committed jt%a@gﬂﬂniétccrgf- the whole. .
b Refltins from the Snate were_taken
-up—Meflr<. Upbam and Tallmadge spoke
“in favor of their indefinite postponement,
~and Mr Alston against it Mr. Livermore
followed, iv. support of his motien ‘for the.
pollponcnt. ‘Sevsa motions o ajour
BLo X inel LGS Sr 6 b ohick
IS e e oagmgy
Afollowiog Meflage o < 0
The resolution on the fubje@ of th¢ rup
tare with Mr Jackson was again taken up
in committee. Mr Ghoifon and Rofdfpoke
in favor of it. At half palt’s, the commit
tee rose, reported progress, and obtained
leave to fit again. Ay e
DEC. 22— The Wafbington Cotlege Truficesim
corporation bill, was read twice -
The bili repeting Foreign Miy.iflers was
read twice; and committed sos Tuesday.
The committee of | Elections, reported
that the election of Jonathan Jenkins was
illegal, and that his feat was vacated . Rex
ferred for Friday. . :
RUPTURE WITH MR. FACKSON.,
~ The Resolutions from the Senate were
again taken up in Committee, and debated
ar great dength, 00l e ey
No question was taken, andthe Commit
tee rose, reported progress ; and the House
adjourned for four days to pals Christmas.
pEC. ¢6. Mr . Foindexter presented to the
Houlg the proceedings of a number of per
sons of the district eaflt of pearl river, (Mis,
‘Ter.) calling themselves a conwention, flat
ing the proje&t of a form of government
which they should wish to establish in that
diftrici, in case Congress should think prop
er to divide the Mififlippi Territory. Refer
réd to the committce to whom was referred,
the petition for the division. of -the territory.
Several loeal bills and reports being difpes
ed of, the House, refclved into Committee
on the g {
RESOLUTION from the SENATE,
Approving the condu of the Executive in
the rupture with the British Mimifter; when
Mr Fisk (of New York) occupied the
floor. in favor of the resolution until 4
o'clock. when the committee rose; and had
leave to fit again. - ‘
pec e-.—A pumber of local motions
and reports were, as usual made and com
onptted. . s F by e, As gy
Mr Nichotfon offered a resolution for the
confiru@ion of roads and canals, and for
“eftablifthing Seminaries of learning, throlgh
out the United States. 3 :
The House again went into Committee
on the S W
RESOLUTION from the SENATE.
When Mr Milnor, spoke in favor of it.
The question was then taken on the Resolu
tion in committee ; and it was agreed to,
T PRESIDENT'S ME %
Zo the 5,,,.y, and House o T y:
= “'g;l © the C.’nikd&atq:."";b o " ‘:ﬁ‘
. The ad autharizing a detachment of one
bundred thowtfand men from the miiidia,
will expire on the 30th of March next. Lis
‘early reyival is recommended i order that
timely @ ps may bie taken for arrangements
such asthe ac¥ contemplared. -
* Without interfering with the mod;ifica.
ﬁonzgc dered ncc'eﬂ‘ary Dy the defe@s or
the 'in';:icacy of the laws reftritive of
commerce and navigation, or with the pol
icy of disallowing to foreign aroied vefiels
the ule of our waters it falls withip my
duty torecommend also, that in addition to
the precautionary measures authorized by
that ag, and tothe regular troops for com
plcling‘ the legal establishment of which
enlistments are rencwed, cvery neceflary
provision may be madefor a vokuntccr force
of twenty thousand men, to be enlisted for
a short Pcriod,to be held in a state of or
ganization and readiness for atdal service
at the fhortell warning.
* Lfubmit to the contideration ot Congress,
moreover, the expediency of such a claf
fification and organization of the'militia, as
will best insure prompt and fucceflsful aids
from that source, adcquate to emergencies
which may call for them.
It will'reft with them, also. to determine
how far further provision may be expedi
ent, for putting intd6 actual service, if ne
ceflary,any part of the naval armament not
now employed
At a period presenting features in the
condité of fortign powers towards the U
nited States, which impose on them the
ineceflity of precautionary measures invol
ving expence, it is a happy consideration.
that such is;the solid state of public credit,
that reliance may jultly be pikced on any
legal ‘provifion that may be made for resor
ting toit in a convenient form, and to an
adequate amoupt, £A ;
'\ JAMES MADISON.
Fanuary 3,180
Referred to the vommittee on naval and
military ¢ftablifhments, and to the commite
tee of ways and means,
Jackson’s Insult.
On the appearanee of Jackson’s démand
for special protetiion from the government,
alledging as a rcafon for this extraordinary
demand that hie had been irifulted at Hamp
ten in the person of an officer bearing the
King’s uniform, the ColleGor at Norfolk
wtote to the Collector at Hampton, from
whom he obtained the following particalars,
certified on oath, which were tranimitted to
the Secretary of State,
, Hampton, Dec. 29, 1809.
Sir,—l received your note of the ::th
instant refpeing the condu@ of the Brit
ish afficers from the Africaine frigate while
in Hampton. .
I confider it an incumbent duty, being
thus officially ' called upon, to give such a-.
narrative of faés as may tend to an eclair
ciffement of the conduct of one of the Brits
ith officers, the effect of which hasl pre
sume, given rife to this enquiry. —The day
previous to the failing of the Africaine frig
ate from Hampton Roads to Annapolis, con
veying the late Britith miinifter, x few of
that thip’s officers were ashore at Hamgpton,
Returning home, I was informed by the cit
izens that during my absence one of the of
ficers had, in a very disrefpe@fol manner,
reatered my house, and was seen shortly af
terwards retiring precipitately - The offis
cer being pointed out to me, I accosted him
in the presence of the other officers, nearly
as follows. You have taken the hiberty, (ir,
to offer an unprovoked insult by entering
my Loufein a difrefpe@ful manner. What
were your motives for such conduet ? the
rights of the citizens &ere are held [acred, and
1o man is fuffired to'infringe them with im
punity —You fir. have been permitted with
_the rest of the officers to walk in our firects
unmolested. - It is firange considering the
political: fitvation of the ftimes, that yo® .
should be among the firft to infuit the citi
zens of Hampton”
The officer attempted to extenvate the of~’
fence by faying that he did not mean an in
fule. ' Tafterwards left bim and the other
officers in company " with several citizens
who were expressing their indignation at
his conduct. L T TR Rt TNG F Dol
~ Shortly after the return of the frigate to
Hampton Roads I redcived several verbal
meflages from the fame officer, requesting
permififon ta make me a personal apology
for his recent condu&. - I returned him this
aplwer, * that the citizens of Hampton
considered the indignity offered to me asa
general insult, and tifat if he withed to :3)-
ologife to them also threugh me, I was will
ing to hear what he had to fay on that fub
jeet. . Accordingly this officcr was introduc
cd to me at my office, by the name of Jack
son, & after acknowledging that he did enter .
my house, made the apology required ; he
then observed that he was fearful upon a fus
ture investigation of this fubjeét, that he
might sustain much injury, as he had rea
son to expe@ a public tridl on his return to
England. 2 <
In order to corre@& misrepresentation, I
mull here remark, that during the continu
ance of Mr Jackson in my housey he was
not fcen by any of my family,‘“‘pt fec
vants; ¢ [ S e "
lam Sir, - ta e
with refpe, your obt. fervaot.
-~ ROEBRT ARMISTEAD.
e s :
Not long after a commotion in the town
of Hampton in consequence of the indiscre
tion of an officer whole name was Jackion,
belonging to the ship Afticaine,in eatering
iu a very disrefpe@ful manner the px:iyat:e_
dwelling of Mr Robch Armxﬂcad, a citizen”
of Hampton, I bappencdon board the said
ship ; Mr. Jackson, the cfficer before allud- .
‘ed to, observed to me, that he was defirons
of an introdu@ion to Mr Armificad,(whefe
private fancteary had thus been violated)
for the purpose of c¥piating h:sfauh, by an
apology. ~Soon after the aforefaid converfas -
tion,Mr _[gckfo’n, the officer iﬂp'f{f't@ to, came.
‘ou fhote, and purfvantto hig with,l intro.
duced him to. Mr. Armiflead, whose forgiv.
nefs in my presence be asked as well gs the
forgivaels threugh bim “of the citizens
of the town—alter which conference ‘with -
ik s e Lo
mufler, where. after regaling himfelf wich
the persons attending the said” muster, be*
and hospitable manrier in which he had b
entertamed, | HCHARD i, SMITEL
AR T e
’;%”*M
ot Boffon onthe aath imflast, etk