Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political — Alexandria [Va.], 1810-01-08 00:00:00, page 2

' vemment that no explanation of the grounds ss
] of refuse! would have been given by Mr.!
];ickson ; goes on to state that - the presi— '
den: understood that the British minister
had no instructions from his government'
authorisiug him to make any explanation as 4
- moche reasons of the disavowal, and callsct
si _upsion _Mr. Jackson to correct sithis statement I
The eorrespondence- on your table wasss
eommenced by this government with a let- ?
ter from Mr. Smith to Mr. ]ackson, ini
which the. secretary after nating the an'-i
\ rangemc'nt with Dlr. Erskine, the disavow- (
al of that arrangement by his Britannici
! majesty, and the expeccation of this go- ]
——
3 i
si In'commiuee of the whole Mr-ctsictB-xssm ss
- in thechair— l
[Mr. Emott'e Speech continued.)
azggegzy—ezs
DEBA TE
on THE ]OlNT RESOLU'l'lON
- Approoing the conduct qf the Exccutive
in relation to the refusal to receive (my
jicrtlzer commimication from Francis- jeu.
that Mr.—Erekine not only acted without}
authority butagainsthis instructions, who
can renonin questiongthe right in his go
vernment to refuse to recognise his _agree
ment ? To solve this point we mue: not refer
ourselves to writers on the lawe of nations.
The every day docu'im ok-sisidie right: and
(luties of principle and agem is enﬂicient
.,[or our purpose. Why then will the exc
cutiwginsin upon on _an iminuazion which
be consider: so odious, when the sentence
"'u bear another and a better comen-action?
A nous-traction too, which will be found .
Mary- w give force to the conclusion, as ?
it 'siu'not the circumstance 'that the instruc- :
tion-.ssensskmﬂ, buuhanhey were dis- '
regarded by the minister, on which the
right to sictsidillvow is founded. ! like not
the feve'rdb apprehenszon which can so rea
dily (uncover inlult in disguised md "ned
iuinmfiou- -
' I on saddle that another part of the
"once [in been enlipted in the cause of
the in'inoaeion. Mr. ]acksou man the:
in the fordo-m of complaint onthepm
of si'Mr. said-, he hid wimeued and can:
do: 'figh lit-did me doubt would prevash
ssil he had been misuntlerstoow
- The letter of his. ]:tckson of ths llth ofI
October, in answer to this enil, states that ]
he is not altogether certain whether Mr.
Smith nieant to complain us the disavowal
itself, of : total want of an cXpl-situatioul of!
it, or that the explanation had not been4
watlsse'ihrough him, and under the inﬂu
ence of this doubt, the letter is ;sconcttinued
with s resetence to each of these particulars.
Speaking of the disavowal Mr. ]sckson re
marks that hehad found no trace of com
plaint on the part of this government in the
records of his predecessor, and that list
Smith had not in thtir conference-s distinct
ly snnouoeed'any such complaint. llc adds,
" that he hadseen with pleasure in thes sur
besrance on the part of M r. Smith, an in
stance of tha csndor which he (lld not
doubt would ,Qvail in all their communi
cations, inasmuch as M'r. Smith could not
Lut have thought it unreasonabls to com
plain of-the disavowul ol'un act Under such
circumstances, as could only lead to the
consequences that had actually followed."
— It is to this part of the letter that we have
been relerreti for the insult, and very pro
zerly, for if it is not to be found here, we
shall in vain so.]: for it elsewhere. It has
been urged that when M r. ]:tcltson declares
that the arrangement w; s made under such
circumstances as could only lead to a disa
vowsl, he is o be undrstood as charging
she executive not only with ; knowledge of
the instructions of Mr. Erskine, but with
dishononble conduct in procuring with
'such knowledge his asstnt to an atct which
his instructions did nct anthmise. Now,
sir, is this the charitable or fair construe
tion of this sentence? Are there not o
ther circumstances which would equally
warrant the disavownl! if the fact is so,,
_ '—
Da'ly Came, 6 Dolhm per annum.
Country Gazemsif Doth".
si ssmmzwr; :!ANUARY :. si.)
-—--—_*_.—*-— " ——---o—.-_: .. ; -
sictCONoREsa
- House or RLTZFEA EN'I'A mes. '
common), AND POLﬂ'lCAL.
x. "men un runnen: :! !
jacban. _ , -
[communm]
Alex ' Dailv Gazette, 1!
]
SAMUELSNOWDEMss.
Royal-eﬀect, dlemdn'c. ?
Tuzsnn, December 19.
in their eotresþondence, ss Mr. Smith
could not but have thought it unreasonshle
to complain of the disavowsl. it is mitte
rinl here in the first place, to uncertain sithe
'time towhich Mr. ]ackson nlludee When
he refers to Mr. Smith's thoughts. is the
eriocl at which the arrangement was made
intended. Not so sure] , because there
walnodissvowslof whic to complain.—
7 The sentence in this pOintnt least it suffi
cientiy clear. Mr. Mldilon verydietinct
ly says, that during the! conferences Mr.
Smith could not but havectthﬂ'ght it unrea
sonnbieto complain of the disavov'nlof an
* nct done under such circumstances ashuld'
only lend to a disavowal. You will hear it
in mind that the conferences were had a
short time before the Writing of the letter,
as Mr. ]:tckeon in it, dechres that but a
very few days had elapsed since his intro
duction to the president. " Now what were
the materials for thinking which Mr. Smith
had at the period of the conferences.
From the papers on-your table, sir, said
Mr. E. you will find that our minister, 'at
London, on the 28th of May, aye our se
cretnry an account of & consgrence with
. Mr. Canning, in which the English secre
l tary declared that M r. Erskine had ncted
ss not only without authority, but in direct
; oppositinn to his instructions, and read the
dispatch of the 23d ]anuary, the substance
l of which is contained in Mr. Pinltney's
si letter. By Mr. Pihitney's letter of the ch '
i ]une, it appears that the instructions of
! Mr. Ersltine had been laidhesore the house
s of commons, 'and a copy of them were then
. enclosed to our secrctary. In the letter of
sisithc 23d ]une, Mr. Pinkney gives to our
secte-tary the reasons which Mr. Cunning
had stated to him for the disavowal. Mr.
ssl Smith in his letter to Mr. Erskinc, of the
I ch August, declares that he hadjust re
l ceived lrom Mr. Pinltney the printed copy
( oft'ne despatch of Mr. Canning of the LZd
; osjnnuary, and it appears from the letter
) of Mr. jncksdn, which l am now testing, si
['that this despatch had been a suizjectot
? conversation between him and Mr. Smith.
* We have in review some things which
might in the conception of the British mi
,nister have found materials for thinking
ss for our secretary. He knew the preten
5ions of the British government that its mi
nister had violated its instruCtions. He
had seen the despatch in its whole extent
and might have compared it with the ar
rangement. Mr. ]acltson thought there
was a substantial diﬀerence between the in
structions and arrangement; and perhaps
he had a right therefore to conclude that
j Mr. Smith did not complaioss because after
what had come to his knowledge he sound
that the act was done under such circum
stances as justified the disavowal—Nactv,
sir, he must at this very time haVe had in
.aind the latter part of the letter of Mr.
ctSmith to Mr. Erskine which l havejust
alluded to, in which after the conditions in
the despatch of the 23d of ]anuary are
mentioned, our secretary says—" ] sor
hear to express to you, sir, the surprize
that is felt at the extraordinary pretensious
set forth in this letter of instructions and
especially at the expectution that this go
vernment would as a' preliminary recog
nise conditions two of which are so ma
nisestly irreconeileahle to the dignity and
interest of the United States." The set-sie
tary had thus oﬄcialiy voluuteered his opi
nion respecting the diﬀerences between the
instruction of the 23d ]anuary and the ar
rangement to the English legation itself.
li however there is yet rOom for a jaun
tliced or jealous mind to suspect an insiuu
ation in the sentence before us it must be
obviated by whatimmediately follows in the
tions were, in fact. very explicitly commu
nicated to you, and by you of course laid
before the predident for his consideration.
I had had]! add, that the diﬀerence be
{then these conditions and those contained
" it was not known wnen 1 iett nngianu, 1
'whether Mr. Ersltine had, according to the
liberty allowed him communicated to you
'in extcnsa his original instructions. It now
"appears that he did not. But, in reverting
to his official correspondcuce, particularly
to :: despatch addressed on the 20th of A
ctpril to his majesty's secretnry ol'lst ate for
soreign aﬀairs, I find that he had submitted
-to your consideration, the three conditions
speeified in those instructiondms the ground i
work ol an arrangement, which according 3
to information received from this country,
it was thought in England might be made,
with a prospect of great mutual advantage.
Mr. Erskine then report! orrbatim et seri
nh'm your observations upon each of the
three conditions, and the reasons which in
duced you to think that others might be
substituted in lieu of them. It may have
been concluded between you that those lat
ter were an equivolent lor the original con
ditions ; but the very act .of substitution
evidently shewe that those original condi
same letter.
in the'amngtmrnt as the tath and itch of
April'il lttﬂicientiy obvious to require nqsi
'elucidation ; nor need! draw (be'n-nels
eion, which ! consider as admitted hv all;
absence ofeompia'mt on the part of the—55]
merican government, viz. that under , on
circumstances, h : in tjeut) hztd nctl nn
donbted and incnntrovcrtit-lt- i'igbtjto dim
t*ow the let of his minister. lct-ntmt ht'l'c -
ttiitttic to : Stlppoeition which you have
more than once menti (1 to me, and by
which if it had any the ghteot sound-nion,
this right mi Þ-peﬂiiipn. in some degree
hat'psibjﬂl .Jected. You have infiirttted
me that you undcntood that Mr. is.-skin.:
had two sets of instructions, by which tu re
ulate his conduct; and that upon one of
them.which had not been communicated
either to you or to the public, was to he
rested the justification of the trrms smaily
agreod'upon between you and him. It is
my duty, air, solemnly to declare to you,
and through you. to the president. that the
despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Er
skine, which you have made the basia of an
officiaicorrespontlence with the latter mi
nister, and which was read by the former
to the American minister in London, is the
only despatch, by which the conditions
were prescrihed to Mr. Et'sitine for the con
clusion ot'an arrangement with this cousin)
on the matter to which it man."
Here we find that Mr. jack-inn expressly
places the disat-owai on lite. ddl'erence in the
conditions contained in the instruction and
the terms of the: arrangement, and again
draws his conclusion that under such cir
cumstances the king had a right to disavow
the act of his ministry. \Vt:eu apt-skin;: of
the instruction he admits that M r. Erskine
had not communicated it in (sitenso, hut
(ll'ClnS it neCessnry in answer to a sugges
tion made hv M r. Smith in tih'il' conscien
ces, that Mssr. Erslcine had more than on: ,
set of instructions solemnly to assure our
secretarctv, and through him the president,
that su-rh "was not the false. This declarin—
tion is to me utterly irreconcilahle with the
notion of an insinuation that the: (Xt't'LNiVC
of this country knew at the time ol the ar
rangement that the British agent was acting;
Without authority. ls Mr. ];zckson l-ul
intended a charge of this kind, he certainly
would n-it thus notice a mere conversation
for the sole purpose of giving an offieial ne
gative to it.
Tnere is one part osthe paragraph which
] have last read to you which requires ::
moment's attention, as it has been tne sub
ject of some cavil; ! adude to that part of
the specificatinn of the letter of Mr. Can
ning in which Dlr. ]ackson says that secrv
tary Smith had made it the his : at a cor
respondence with his. l-sirskine. This is
sutficicntly exPlained by a rsi-sss-re-nce to the
letter from Mr. Smith m Mr. Ersltine us
the 9th of August. in that letter the des
putch is indeed made the basis of a Corres
ponden- :. .]t was not so anterinr to the ar
rangcment. ()ne ohservation more, sir, in
relation to this letter. it has been urged
that in a fair and critical comuuction at the
terms used by M r. jack-son, it not only
does not uppear'that Mr. l'Lisizine had no
authority to conclude the arrangement, liu- ss
it is justzy to be mL-rrst; that me nati au
thority. This l confess is not my construe
tion at the l.-tler,-!>ut it is surely stzange
for those who'nialte and pt'utess to believe
it, to urge at the same time that Mr. jack
son in the same letter has charged the go
vernment with the knowledge of a matter
which he admits to be untrue, that Mr. Er
skine acted withom authority.
I shall now, for the present, leave the
first letter to Mr. ]ackson. remarkiag, that
in the part of it which we have had hcsoress
us, ! understand him as proceeding on the
hypothesis that our government asked from
him an explanation of the disavowal. and
that 'he attempts to answer such call by re
ferxing to the despatch of the 2Stl of ].tnua
ry as containing the only authority of h's
predecessot, and alleging the disavowsl was
occasioned hy what was regarded on the
part of his government a departure from
such authority. As to the insinuation at,
tribuled to Mr. ]ackson, it is not my wish
to extenuate, but ! have not been able to
ss discover it. "it is in the letter it is a mite
ss too small [Or my vision.
[ The neXt letter in course is that of Mr.
Smitssh ofthe 19th ofOctoher, in which Mr.
! ]ackmn is reminded that the president ex
l pected " :! sound and satislaetory explana
' tion" Of the reasons of the disavowal, and
The is told that the president " persists in
si that expectation_ and in the opinion that
si there has been given no explanation that is
adequate either as to the matter or the
mode." in a subsequent part of the letter
the "C'CW'Y 80" 0" to saw—" The stress
you have. laid on what you have heeri' pleas
ed to stase as the substitu-ion of the .terms
finally agreed on for the' terms first propoud
hasexetted no_small cle,-see of surpriZe."
lAnd why did it excite so much surprise in
him. ct . ss .. '.
tiittfiﬂlthnt ydt .
fut M;Msdemtttm the three enmsh',
- si - ' _n_l' in the printed docummct
_ , 'ed to urge them
than the "a _ : oftwo of them (lion, ct
ably inadmiqible) could permit, th" "sit
{tiding his sin! proposed uneueemtut, shtss
more ten-unable term comprieed in the In]
' rangement repeeting the orden in and"
were adopted." No, etr, the eonclitiu}
were not merely shewn by Mr. Ettkiss,
but they were prtnetl by him and ".
l'propetly rt'ietted ny the secretaty. and (si'l
ther me;-ne finally adopted: And wh th ss
You call the propoeal : substitution or 5,"
siome other name, it was the natural Wire:
to be taken. _ :
Mr. Smith then proceeds to say— " Ancl'ss
what,air, is there in this to countenance-;
thecteonclusion drawn in fever of the righz'.
of his Ilritnnnic majesty to disavow shesi
proceeding? ls any thing more common;
in public negociatlom than to begin wi-h ,,
i higher demand, and, that sailing, to dsissct'
! cend to :: lower ? To have. it' no: two R.,ss
Iof instructions . two or more than twct:
gratlee nt'propnsitions in the same net oi
: instructions lu [do-gin with what is the most
T (lesirahle and to end with what is found in
: admissible in case the more tlesirable shousii
lnotbe attainahle. This must be obvious
; to every under-standing, and it is confirmed'
!
i
by universal experience. ﬄss
" What were the real and entire instrucct-"ctj'ss
tions given to your predccessor is a qucs- sslsi
tion essentiztlly between him and his go. "
vcrnment. That he had, or at least, that "
& he believed he had sufficient authority miss
l conclude the arrangement, his formal m-l ;ssss
] sum/acts, during our discussiuns, were such .sssi-J
as to leave no room for doubt. His subse— *ss'ss
quent letter of thc'15th ]un-, renewing his :!
assurance to me " that the terms of the act?
greement so happily concluded by the rc-..'si
cent negociation will be strictly fulfilled m. '-.
the part of his majesty," is an evident in? ss
tllczttion of what hit persuasion then was a. *,
to his ins*rusitions. And with a view hff
shew what his imsirrssiuns have been man?,
sun,-e the (lies;.vtzttal. l must take the !iher {l.
oiss l'tst'll'lttg you to the annexed t'xlr'ssls'siy
(see L.) from his ulsi- irtl letter: of the ill-:. _.
jul_' and of th: l-l- h Atigztst. i):
" sil'hc (lt-clnz'utwn '* that the despntch si_
srom P-lr. Can ting to Mr. Þi-skine of the t
ill ]fmnzt'y is the only despntch by tri-'- :: 53
th.- cnnditimn wi rr: prrscrihcd to Mr. lirct
ssi'inc for the conclussion of an strange-men.:
on the matter to vuhirh it !(l-lltS" is n-w'ess
for the first time made to titit gvzvt-rnmsi-nzct
And ! need hardly add, that is that daw
patch had been tomtnunicz'ted at the time:
of the :trisinugt intent, or "it had been ltnmn
that the ]su]!08ll-OM contained in it am! '-'
which were at liest prcstnted by M . L. ctsi
skine, were the only ches on whtt'l) he wax . ssY
nuthnrised to make an among-ment, lll': {,
arrangement \*.* mid not hwe hue.-o made." ),?
[Mr. Lmolz's .ssþrcrh to be cantinmw/J 07
——__.-___
mv— ————-————_——.—_
llE first number of this v.tlttable ch'. &
is just come to hand and is rect-ly lut -
lttspeClinn at the store of the sttbscribcr. i". \
king;-street, and with Mr. Tri/zlct-t, at the -.si
coi't'ec-housie. t'
Fully aware of the impo'sitions that have '
been practised upon the public by strange"
mliciting aubscrigtions from distunt places; '
the l-Zditort invite their examingtitm of a ,
Work perhaps the most usesul. entertainin-ct '
as well as extcnsive in its him] that but cvcf ?
been undertaken in my country. And [[th )
tlatzer themselves that the American will In
no means shrink from acnmpurisqn with the
London edition, tho' oﬀered at six dollm
per Vol. less.
This number may heItsitlcred at it [I.
sprcimcr. of the execution of the work, and
will belcst a shmt timchov examinationmcforc '
the Ltl number tspmtopren. After this the
snbscriptiun will he raised to 32 25 each nnm
her ; and but a few more copiec printed than
are snﬂ'uicnt to snpply the subsrxihers, that
the early patrons ot'thie (valua'ble \Vork m"
have a-dccid'etl atltrsittttagzc—subuquem appli
cation: may therefore sowe too late,
it is also the intention oi'the Editor to an
ne't to the last number a complete list us
names ofthe 5IIl)It'l'ihCl'I no the pairons anl
encounaers us nscfnlsi- knmiestgc, the am"
and literature of the United Slatcs.
Subscriptions are received by the sat-cult
.?o ' si
rznkcrcssssmfs Collection of t'oyct
Fm-mr'ng' (! to n/t'sre [lit—tary Qsfsilt' Orr'ctp'n ('zc' ctctsi
l'rogrru qs sh'st'ovcry (ly Sea and Land,
]) am (be most on:/untie Sourcee.
'o- . " si—si—uw—n ;;
james- Kennedy, sen.
December 5. - . cosf
agcs and Travcls, 3
\