The New Hampshire gazette — Portsmouth [N.H.], 1810-01-30 00:00:00, page 5

wUth, January 30, 1810,
; Yn:@&(afaer advertising [friends occufy Jo large
- asportion of our papir, it has not been in our praw-
S e fﬂ;%%rz our readers /b much po/itical mat
ter ay e wifbed—The pesple lock with interef]
-20 the speeches of their Reprefentativzs in Con
. grefi.—on Mr. Giles? resolutions the oppolition
- bhave been remarkably voluble—T he [peeches of the
~, AMERICAN party they could not anfwer—>but, in
imitation of -the man whom they supported, they
inveloped them[elvesin [uc‘bawildcrnefsof words,
__ that many who have long consented to walk blind.
- fold in the leading flring: of federalifm, rather
" tacitly assented that thy were right, than felt
- convinced that they were so—and could not or
. owould not explore a fierile wafle where nothing
but deformiry met the mental eye. . ‘
Mr. Macon, though a decided REPUBLICAN, did
ot favor the refolutions,and finally voted againf
themt—But he did jrin the abandined men awho
i ppm?j fapported Jackfon,and condemned theirown
goverpment—and for 77 other reason, as can be
discerned from their mofl labored {peeches and
tra@s on the fubjelt, than that it was a collision
Betaween an agent of the Britith, and the Ameri
can government.
The fagiéiizg are extrafls from Mr. Macon’s
. Jpeeth, in the debate on Mr. Giles refilutions.
T Y e LR v
“Mr. Macon said that it appeared o him, the
&t point for consideration in the resolution
onght to be, is it_expedient ; but it seemed to
him thatthofe who had taken part in the debate
had looked at every thing but the réfolation ;
and he should probably follow the example.
The difmifla! of a foreign mionifter is no new
case in the conutry— Genet was difmifled, Yrujo
. was cifmiff=d, and no bad confeqaence follow.
ed, and why thould any be anticipated because
Tackfon has been dis siffed ? T will not trouble
the committee with reading any part of the doc
uments, they mul be tiredof hearing parts of
them already, and every member has surely read
them with attention, beside Lhe nation hasthem,
and will decide on them, without our affitance;
tO me it appears ©OB 2 fair examination of his
letrers, that he was properly dismissed.
Pormit me, to notice an argament of the gen.
vieman from Connellticu®, (Mr. Dana) relative
va the disavowal by the Britith government 5 if
te pround he ‘¥rimes be true, his argument is
ananfwerable. If [ miftatehim, 1 wifk he would
corre@ me, because I have no cefare to do it 3
I underkpod him to {2y that Mr. Ertkine had
no f{ull power to do what he did, and that the
it ministration ought ormud have known it; 1
helieve, fir, it is as difficult’to cdecide. what an
arciedited minister may do under bis letter of
cvedefce, and what would require a new or full
powsr ; asitis to ditinguifh the lines which
{:parate the thades of color.” All the _pentle.
raan’s arguments went to shew thata full pow
et was neceflary to make a treaty. This T mean
aot te deny, but he affamed’as 2 fa&t that the
arrangement made i April lalt was a treaty. I
deny that it was a treaty ; if it was 2 treaty,
how dcss it hapoen that at the last feflion of
‘Congrels, neither the gentleman himfeif nor any
ofie eife inthis house ever said a word about its ;
being laid before the Senate > Every one knows
that a treaty cannot be made under the conflitu- ?
tion without the consent of that House. [am ’
not diplomatist esough to fay to what class of
pablic agreements the difavywed arrangement |
properly belongs ; Mr. Eafkine called it an ar- §
‘rangement and Mr. Jackson an agreement s and |
I challenge any man to fay it was a treaty and |
ought to hive been laid before the Senate by the |
Piefident If a full power was neceflary to the |
coaciufion of the arrangement, where was the
sagacity of the gentleman from Conne&icut lait |
spring when he was so desirous of voting thanks '
to the President, for haviog made this very ar- |
rangemeot. In this House it is well known that ‘
I was as much opposed to the motion last spring f
as'] am now to this, and intenled to have de- i
livered my sentiments upon it, hut was prevent- |
edby the House notdecidingon it. Why did not |
the gentleman then come forward and tell us |
that this boasted arrangement was all nothing ? }
For in the whole correfpondence,which was then
“laid before 115, there is not a word about full I
powers ;in fa& the Britih governmentin the ‘
disavowal has not made this objetion ; nor has |
it called the arrangement a treaty ; both gov
ernments and every man in both countries un. |
“derftood it to be not a treaty, but only an agree- |
ment by which the United States engaged to |
withdraw the operation of a certain law as to
Great Britain, provided: Great Britain would
withdraw her orders in council 5 both engaged
to do certain things, and the Uhi&dﬁgﬁt&;gir- |
ly performed their part. 1f the President was
to blame, the blame does not begin with him ;
it begins with congress, because congress pafled
/the law, which authorifed him to.do as he did.
He wasauthorifed to suspend the operation of
;-Ithe*gggn;gptércbﬁrfe»a&,f provided France of G.
) Brifa’iﬁﬂmutdéncerwm things. If the ar
_rangemeht be a treaty, then congress passed a
la# to authorife the President to make a treaty ;
~and if Congress c2O conflitutionally pass a law
: de?tbéi’reﬁd&t to make a treaty, my
lips are sealed ‘on this point>—to use a modern.
phrase they are hermetically {o forever. But
ﬁdm}ﬁ “thing 3 the arrangement
R e ’@? ie law, and né‘i‘gﬁd;;g:: ;@'
flitational power to make treaties. _lf the Pre.
e oed M w%mgm&mﬂo
f dos otjeétions. of
— ” vwa*f%%'%:%*{*fﬁ»é “,*M',x}:wﬁ&% ﬁg;»fm A i
et % o "‘“fg*%ﬁi,wﬁ“x*w%&m =
N
SUPPLEMENT TO THE NEW-HAMPSHIRE GAZETTE.
natien said to him * well done.”” If the British
government had nat*difavov‘ed the arrangement
and the Préfident and Mr. Jackson differed, we
never should in my opinion have heard a werd
about this want of full power in Esfkine, it
weculd not have been thought of. et
'I confefs, fir, I bave been molt egregiously
disappointed, since the debate on the resolutions
commenced. 1 did not believe before, that there
was 2 man in the nation who thought the ad
ministration hostile to an amicable adjustment of
all our disputes with Great Britain,or who could
read Mr. Jackson’s firlt letter without feeling
the insult offered in that. Inthat letter ke in
tended either to insult the adminifiration, to
laugh at it, or if you please to humbug it. His
appeal is nothing compared to his firlt letter—
Instead of his appealing to the people, suppose
“the President had refufed the arrangement offer
ed by Mr. Erskine, and he had in an appeal to
the people, stated the offer and the refufal.—
Shoudd we have had motions to approve the con
dué of the President ? 70 not onz, all would have
declared that the adminftration. was hostile to
‘negociation with England, every one would have
been as much displeased with the refuful, as they
were pleased with the arrangement, and so pleas
ed were all parties, that all seemed to claim the
President. It seemed to be almost a dispute in
the house to which of the two great parties he be
longed,and if he had not concluded the arrange
meat, bothy parties would probably have dis
claimed him, one faying they never expefted any
pood from him, and the other that they always
entertained doubts of him. If the adminifira
tion were unwilling, as has been said, to fettle
our disputes with England, whywnake the agree
ment with Mr Erskine, especially if they knew,
as the gentleman from Conne&icut has told us
they did, that he had no full power ? If this as
sertion of the gentleman proved any thing, it.
proves an over zaxiety in the adminifiration to
fettle our disputes with Great Britain, and if
they have erred, they have erred from this over
anxiety.
This debate, I fear, will have a most unfortu.
nate effc& on the nation, it has more than once
put me in mind of two men, who should be pre
fznt when the house of a third was burning, who
inflead of assisting him to save his property,w=ie
endeavoring to call his attention from the fire,
to some unimportant circumstance, such as loock
vender is a Jack-a-lanthron, or a &as fhnoting;
they were willing to amuse the man with trifles,
but not to aid - him in putting the fire cut—loH
with us, any thing will do to debate on, that will
take off the attention of the nation from the
great-quellions which it ought to confider. One
fays, Smith is wrong and Jackson is right,a
nother that Jackion ts'wrong and Smithisright;
ts this to cali the attention of the nation to this |
peity qnanel, for so T call i, in «comparison |
with other evils infl:Ged on us, Isit equal tothe
attack on the Chesapeake ? Is it equai to the
-of gur seamen ? Lsit egual to the i
French decrees z2nd Britith orders i council, |
which violate all our nentral rights ? Or is it |
equal to Trance, prying ne fore efregard to her |
treaty with us ? It is pointing the eyes of the
nation to Jackson alone. How comes itto pass |
thatthe insolence of this minitter makes so much
noise in this house. when that of D’'Yrujo made
none, and that of Genert very little—to me this |
iz incohceivable. , : ; 2
A gentleman from Rhode island, (Mr. Pot
ter)} who made a very elegant speech, said that é
the whole dispute between the two great parties,
was that of the ins and onts, a contelt who thould ’
have the loaves and fifhes. If it really be so, I |
have been very unfortunate, having been here a |
long time, and have not got either loaf or fith ;
I do not doubt, but the gentleman believes it as
he itated, nor can I doubt, what he fays con.
cerning his own party, he knows them better
than Ido, and I therefore must beélieve him as
to them. Bat, fir, the men who were in oppo
sition in the year 1798, did not want places, and
they afterwards proved it by their adls. As
soon as they got into power, they put down four
or five hundred foug places, by repealing the
laws under which they existed ; if those in pow
er now poflefs the fame principles with the op
position of the year 1798, they do not want
places. = - : s ;
To my mind the cause of the difavewal is as
clear as the noon-day fun. The embargo, which |
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gold) has '
braught into the debate, produced the arrange.
ment, and the repezling of it the disavowal.— ’
At the lalt feflion I had potes, with which I ’
thought I could then defend the embargo, and |
made {everal attempts to do it, but some bow ‘
or ather was always prevented. I was then
willing to have undertaken it against talents a -
hundred to one my superior. Gentlemen may
laugh, but it is certainly true, that by repealing
‘the embargo they gave their party a severe blow,
and did the country great injury. The repeal I
100 was not made, until the house had declared
that to repeal th@.fémbargo and not go to war
‘would be submission ; notwith&anding all this,
on the queflion to authorize the President to if
{ue forthwith letters of marque apd reprisal, on
ly seventeen voted in the affirmative. The Brit
ish government sent Mr. Oakley here with in-
Rru&tions, under the firm belief, as ' T conceive, :
that the ‘embargo’ was in force, and had Mr.
Erskine, after receiving the inftru&ions, infkead
ol obeying them as he did, informed-his gov
erament of the great change which had taken
place here, he would not [ believe have been dis- -
graced, but ennobled. . The inftruétions were -
S rger (NG il gkt the pbacge e O
4 m%%“‘%@*
oo & hin Baie dnsinci
e T A OO R S eU T e
iTONG S S L R e e L Y
-course alone, is not worth the hair after being
: cut-’f'i'__ciml the head of Sampson. It has had the
- effe@ expe@ed—it has operated upon ourselves,
~4nd nobudy else, and scarcely on durfelves ; for
no one, I believe, regards it. I have seen letters
_from England, written as ['was told, by refpe&:
- able men, which fated that the people of Eng
- land conld not have food the embargo thre
~montbs longer, and that they were determined
“to stand it 2s long as possible 5 becaule if they
yielded to it, we obtained a viftory in a way that
-would zlways put them in our power. The na.
tion was prepared to continue the embargo a
greeably to the votes of this house. -We had
~made the &and, and ought to bave adhered to
it. We then solemnly pledged ourselves to the
l nation, but we did not mind that ;we unpledged
ourselves with great ease, and I am unwilling
oW to make any pledge to the Executive what-
EVEr. g )
- Itis a little remarkable, that this question a
- bout full powers has never,been started before
either in this country or England. When Mr.
- Binkney was inftru@ted to make an offer of the
- répeal of the embargo, provided the Britith gov
emiment would withdraw their orders in coun
cil, ke was not asked for his inftruétions or full
~ poer ; his authority was not doubred. If be
tween ueand the Englifi there fhonld be a de.
partare from the firi@ rules of diplomatic eti
‘quette, may it not reasonably be imputed to
this circemßance, that we speak the fame lan
guage,and of course there may be more ease and
loss form generally in our diplomatic intercourse,
than among nations not {peaking the fame lan
_guarge,
Whether Mr. Erskine had competent powers
or not, is a queflion between him and his gov
ernment, with whith we huve nothing to do.—
He told the executive he had authority to make
-the afrangement, apd the executive was bound
-to believe him. I put this queflion to the gen
tlemen—suppose th executive had not believed
him, or that the exeturive had told him his in
firndions were not fulfici-nt to make the arrangee
ment, and had declijed all negociation for eith-:
er canfe, what would have been said ? Surely
this : that here was 1 fair offer to adjust 4 part
of aur difp:utes, and the accredited miniller was
not believed 5 or thiat it was refufed on a matter
of forsr—a mere poigt of etiquette. |
What is it that makes it necessary for the
house to pass the resolution ? The dismissal of
Jackson cannot he the reason, although it ap
pears to me fromall his letters that he did not
come here with any friendly intentions. The
fiyle of his lctters§fﬁd€-ntly shews this. It will
not be said for thiswe ought to pass the resolu
tion. It seems to me in atking for paflports to
prote& him from the infuits of the peaple, he has
difwiffed—they aﬂ%d for no paflports. I beg
continued bis insult - Genet and D’Yrujo weie
of the members to tompure his letters with the
letters of any other/ minister, and they will be
fatisfied I have not miltaken their meaning, es
pecially theé firlt, with any firlt letter written by
any minifier in the world. :
It has been {aid, that the.adminillration were
unwilling to fettle our disputes with G. Britain.
In my confuience, fir, 1 firmly believe, and I
judge only from their tranfadtions, that they are
‘not only willing but anxious to fettle our dis
putes with all the world. If ‘we had an ambi
tious military man in the Presidential house, it
might be thought that he would not be willing
to have our disputes fettled, but rather to en
creafe them ; that he might thereby get armies
and navies to follow the steps of Cesar, of
Cramwell or of Bonaparte. Examine the mef
'{'Age of the President of the zgth ult. te Con
gress, in which he informs us that, Jackson had
been difmifled and you will not find a single ex
?‘preﬂifm in it, that looks as if he was not'fincere
ly desirous to fettle our differences with all the
world ; if there be such an exprefiion I will
thank geptlemen to point it out. - After men
tioning the disavowal, and the breaking off of
the negociation, does he not plainly tell you,
that Je is fill for another attempt to fettle by
negodation ! Every part of the mefluge breathes
a fpi:tt friendly to tie peaceable settlement of
all our disputes ; according to my understand
ing it {peaks of nothing but peace § not a word
to be found in it advising a warlike attitude ;
no advice to increase the army or navy. It is
@irange, indeed, that after reading such a mes
sage, it should be thnoglit that there was a hos
tility in" the adroinifiration to an amicable fet<
tlement with Great Britain. - SR bt
I have believed (and 1 hope in God T am
mifiaken, for no man is more desirous of peace
than I am) from the time’ of the attack oa the
Chesapeake, that hefore our differences are,fet
tled'with England, we should be compelled to
go to war withder ; for one I would put it off
as long as poflible. It will be remembered that
the embargo was fopported 4s the only means
“to keep ns out of this war, and as a sure Reans.
-to bring G. Britain to fair terms; and I‘;&tﬂbj:«'
lieve as r‘nncg”as Ido that we shall all die, if it
‘had been continued three months longer, we
should have fettled every dispute with the Eng-
MR gOvSlleng, 4 RE R RL DU
ke conversations of Mr. Pinkiey arid Mr.
- Canning commupicated by the President to the
house at their requelt, have been brought into
the debate. ~ Unfort ﬂﬂf’!f@mzﬂ“‘m
from N. York, (Ms. Gold) who mentioned the
embatgo, be stad i pant of them. 1 i wiil
ing to reR the policy of that meafire on tiat
o oot e Shg g
- Righsiny, the embirga iy michtionéd ' T
~feems to be the firfk and the last word with him.
86 ongan doub sk i nad o menise Tl
Bio o 2
s‘mediately atter be had completed his bufirefs,
and so with our minilters. I had rather give
i one 50,000 dollars for a trip’ of this kind than
| 9.000 dollars a year to reside at a foreign court.
- If Mr, Jackson was authorifed to dc any thing,
| it was to reiterate proposals which had been re
| je@ted,and which,he mpult have known before he
i left England, would be again reje@ed. Howev
| er it seems, infltead of making proposals to fatis
' fy us for the wrongs and injuries done to us, he
politely waited for the administration to make
! propofils to him. The case of the Exeeutive
- and Jackson has been compared to common life
? --an unfortunate comparison. lam sure no
case in private life can be found, where the in
jured party was told—give me your terms, af
ter you have done this, I am willing to talk to
you about them. The United States are the
injured party, and Great Britain ought in juflice
to make the propositions for accommodation, —
However, I would not myfelf sand on this, so
that we could any how have our differences fair
ly fertled. Carry this individual comparison to
a single case, that one man should without prove
ocation give another a blow in the face—ounghe
the man who received the blow to ask pardon ?
if he did every man in the world would think
him a very great fool or {omething worse. The
British have attacked your unprepared frigate,
killed and imprefled your seamen, when there
was no war between you, and they have issued
againlt you the most abominable proclamation
that ever disgraced acivilized government, and
now they tell you for all these injaries & wrongs, .
we are ready to hear all you have to fay, but
will not promise to do any thing. The letters
of Mr. Smith and Mr+ Jackson are before the .
nation, and the nation will pass judgment upon
them, and that judgment will be, in my opinion, -
that the administration has been moderate e~
nough. Many will, no doubt, wonder that Mr.
Jackson’s firlt letter was pafled over in silence,
It {urely is the molt insulting-—the other only
repeats the infalt of the firft : it would seem as -
/if the administration had not read the firft.— .
There 1s no danger that Great Britain will take -
the difmifial of Jackson in dudgeon. She well -
koows that neither the present nor the pakt ad
ministration has the {fmalleß inclination to goto
war with lier-... 2 L sl e oy o
- The committee will, 1 hape, pardon me for -
so often touching on the embargo. - I believe £ -
~am the only man on the floor, who. has always
been willing to defend it and to Bick to ity thro” »
~good and through evil report’; and fofar am L -
now from giving up, that I am willing againto
try it,provided the house would adhere to it,un
til we had a fair experiment of its efe@s. If -
the late administration were desirous of war, -
" why try the embargo ? If the present arg defir
~ous of it, bow does it happen the. meflage has -
_not a word about war in it ? The real truth isy
that G. Britain does not want to treat with us.
1f she did, Ihe might at any fime, by doing juf- -
fice, fettle every dispute between us, What mo
tive can an honelt and upright chief magifirate
eon thie free: comatey towilh Gir et (ol
| Fod forbid that we fhonid have S e B 5
|er charatér) —e%f;m ‘mult be linked to his .
| adminifiration it the couatry b profpsrous and .
| grehteßofame s S 0 RS, Hibe sl cihie AL
WLo eMRBt M ToR el RN SMR R
If there be 2 man clear of party feeling, let bim
l‘read the conversations between Mr. Pinkney &
Mr. Canning, and if be does not decice that the
’ embargo wos a bitter pill to Mr. Canning, I am
greatly milisken. That we fuffered a little un
der the embargo was never denied ;3 but, adopt
what measure you will, that will have half the
eff=& on England that that had, and we shall fuf.
fer twice as much under it as we did under that
3 —in truth our Jittle fufferings under it were o
ver, and it had begun to operate in C. Britain,
i' when it was repealed. A little ‘perfeverance
would have brought the 'Britith miniflry ‘to
terms. : - ok
All have said they would not submit, as well
those who opposed the embarpgo from the firt,"
as those who repealed it. T have keard so much
said about not'{fubmitting, that I am really anx
ious that the gentlemen fhonld come bol-di} ocut
and tell us what they will do ; if they will not
do this, they ought to quit talking about the em.
bargo. When the hip i$ in danger every hand
ought to be at the pump, and it"is no enquiry
how she got into danger, but to get ber out of
danger. Suppose your house set on fire, will
you ask for help to discover who did #t 2 Or will
you endeavor to put it out as soon as poflible
~and then erquire who did it ? That the nation.
- has many dubculties to firuggle with cannot be
Cenied 3 and no one will 2gree that he had any ;
hand in producing a single one of them lit
enough for us not to havs aided in producing
them ?Tome it seems not. It is the caﬁgg |
thing in nature to fay what yeu will not do, but
it is quite different to fay what you will do. :
Betore I fit down, { must ask the gentlemen
for the proof, that the Executive is unwilling to
fettle our disputes with Great Britain by friend- .
ly negociation. The assertion has astonished me.
His meflage of the 29th November, is to my
mind complete proof to the centrary ; his not
treating with Jackson is no proof, because the
gentlemen themselves would not have treated
with him on the terms proposed ; his fending
him away is no proof, because he has declared
himf{elf ready to treat with any other agent that
the Britith government may appoint. Jackson
I believe came, like Rose, to fettle no dispute
whatever, and if no one would consent to treat
with him on the ground proposed by Mr. - Can
ning,what use could there be in his staying here 2
I cannot conceive any atall. For one 1 fine
cerely wish, that no foreign minister were ever
to put his foot on our thore, unless sent for some
special and particular purpofz, and to returnim-