Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political — Alexandria [Va.], 1810-01-25 00:00:00, page 2

MR. MADlSON UN—VEILED.
.' ss NO-"Vlll. -
Llr. Smith': quioe iminwiom and irri -
tating- [came "to M. ject-ran.
We have them, that neither the origin-l
eharge of insult, preferred against his
Jaekson;—-_-in the note, by" which his fune
tr'onI-were rucpended; nor the milder and
.correeted explanation, of that ehargt, rn
the letter from Mr. swim to" Mr. Pinkney,
can be oupported by any'sait'eonetruction of
Mr. ]aekron'l letters. * What, thin, is the
"result? Why, that the ecrtainty 0_ a con
tinuauce of astate of irritation and danger,
and the pessibility of the horrible calami
ties of war, are to be endured by the peo-si
ple of the United Statee, on account of an
imagiuary insult, of such extreme tenuitv,
ossuch an imperceptible & intaugible form,
that it requires all the rophistry of Mr.
Giln, in : speech of twenty page-, to pre
lent & saint and feeble icture of it. An
inlult of no subtle and c ngeable a nature,
that ever man who would point'it out, va
ried in 4 neleetion of the ofl'entlve pas
sage, and in the construction of the parts
lelected.
Who are themen, who would thus in
ﬂame the nation to mortal hatred and in
extinguisihahle rage? Are the the same
persons, who, in a moment o pretended
reconciliatien, told his Britannic majesty,
that his oﬀer of reparntion for the Chesa
peake did not comport with his honor or
dignity ) Or are we to be hurried on to
our ruin, under the belief, that-sensibtlityct
and right;: are all on {our side, "and that
while the sovereign of another nation shall
not sveh look awry at us, we may, with
out ossence, impcach his good faith, and
question his honor ? -
Let us endeavor, for the first time. to-'
wards Great Britain, 'to sdopt the golden
ss-ruleof Christianity, which, if it be not re
sispected as an authority in our cabinet, it is
hoped, has yet some inﬂuence with the so
ber and religious First of. our people ;.and
while we are courttng a war, on ucctmnt of
pretended insults, in the letters of Mr.
]nckson, let us see whether the language
of Mr. Smith be wholly faithless—in short,
whether it be unnecessarily aﬀrontive.
The correspondence, in the late case, was
opened by Mr. Smith, by his letter of the
ch of October, and we doubt whether so
abrupt, so rude and ossensive a note can be
found in the whole annels of diplomacy, if
we exeepr the uniform tenor of the French—
esrrespendenre with as.
This letter is in the nature of: manifcsto,
rather than of a friendly enquiry. lt charg
as Great Britain with perstdy—it declares,
by ,snticipatinn, that she had-no apolog'y for
it—it alletlges, that she had made no expla
nations of her conduct, buc that she had
accompanied this neglect by new and insult
ing pretensions. It goes further—i: speci
fies those pretensions, though, as we shall
hereafter shew, they had been absolately
denied by the British minister, in previous
conversations', and in fact, no such propo
aitions have ever been suggested by him.
After all these charges, as unqualified, un—
measnred and indecorous in their language
as they turn out -to be unlot—ded in point
of fact, the common rule: of diplomacy.
would have required that Ml- Smith ehouid
have concluded, which he did not, with
love exprentons of cousidenc'c' in the (su
Poeitioo of in: Britaumc majesty to rccou
cile hi- conduct with good feith and with
the principlee of justice. Theee profes
eioue, imiacere enough to be eure, are a
opeeiee of counterieit eoine, of little or no
intrineic nlue, but which uuge hae ren
dered," indispenubie medinm of diploma
& Mane- lnd who ought more ecru
'My Io ldhol'c to the use of them, than
iol-mable sirulen, who can" calmly ha
si the exieteltce of I nation, for : sup
" 'ssfoiluxe of etiquette? ,
sillﬄr'. ackm had replied to thie letter
efsi-Ili.) hid: (which-: 39" mon-fit.
gaf-Fat? temper in whic'lsitpoMt-Z
nen: o e eorr n -_
"a?! man Weivod, too ditch re
Med the wine tone inwlueh Mr.
End-t'! hent tree .dect to
begun! hop- WKM = P'QWT
Akxazdmctsi
'eomncunsssmctpom'ncw -
. .d-fi-si-ct '; .
rnmzo And "him" .. \'
IAMUEL s'nowoxw, .
iesisimmsi M ct'
sipdzy Gum: e Dclb'r: is si' ss
um Gaze'tce, ; um — :
ss ral/man, lANUARY n.
me mpLoM'firbss—ctroucy or
_ "no! Tnsisi -m*rsioussusierr'rr.
lion of the intercourse," all in'iþartial men
would have thought him juttisiccl. __
That it man have had, and-thaz ssifirsl'act,
&d have, a was doubtless intended, an issu
autpieioua end unfavOrable' effect on-Mr.
4 ]nckabn'a mind," and sson_ the future-style
' of the negociation." there'e'an be no doubt.
it it not : favorable made of csiosimniencing
a nettlement of antient contrOVersica, to be-_
'n with a blow.
' The second ioltance ofindeeorum on the
4 panof Mr. Smith, which falls very little
short of" contradiction, and whatever it may
fail of'amonntiag' to that,-may be fairly
placed to the- atcoun't of prevarication, ll ol'
vast iriportance, because the- same insult,
if it be one, to the British minister, ia re-'
; peated by Mr. Madison in his meisngect—
' it is the allegation' made in Mr. Smith's
first letter, that he learned wsiiih surprise
and regret, that Mr. Jackson, so far from
; "coming prepared to make explanations us
'ss-the ditavaal of Mr; Erskine'asi arrasi'gc-si
dient, had been directed to imist Upon terms
inadmissible and assrontive.
a
l Mr. Smith represented in'this introduc
ct tory letter— _
, let. That ilsr.ct_74clson, had no' instruc
ct'tiene te mahe any explanation of the disa-ss
I'vewal of Air. lrshine's arrangement.
Uly. That in the aﬀizir of the Chesa/reahe
ss he had no authority to assign any reasons"
: for the rejiesal to 'accept that'si part of fÞIr;
Erehine's agreement, but 'that his power:
f were limitted merely to tendering a note, of-'
7 fering the term (featis/Itction. on condition,
; that he should receive a simnltaneous answer"
'fiom our government, accepting' thou terms '
ae eatiesactory. _
sd/y. That he was not autho'rizrd to oﬀer
any new propeeakfor the repeol of the er
ders in council ojNov. 1807.
- And both;, That it was the intention of
the British government, not to reso/te those
orders, but upon the thretssameue conditions-,
which were declared inn: miseib/c by our go
vernrne t, and which hadjbrsned the beste of
Mr. E siine'e instructione.
' Now lpronose to prove, hot only that
this statement was in every respect, except
as to the third propositltm, untrue and un—
supported by the CGl'l'CIpomlche ; but that
it was oﬀensivcly adhered to, after Mr.
]ackson's explicit declarations to the con
trary, not only by Mr. Smith, but by Mr.
Madison in his message.
- is this shall be made out satisfactorily—
is it shall be proved in a manner to defy
eontradiction, or refutation, then it will sul
low, that our got/eminent are chargeablc-,
not only with an unsair, but a 'disreputable
misrepresontation of the viewo-Of the" Bri
tish cab'tnet,nnd with n'scrmal contradic
tion of Mr. ]ackson's solemn" ase'ervationsi
it should here be remembered, that Mr.
]aeltson is the 'representntive of a sovereign
power, which treats with us on equal terms,
and that to call in question his veracitv, is
to doubt the veracity or honor of his set-s
reign. ,
- Let us take up each point distinctly, and
in the order in which Mr. Smith states
them—
lst. Did Mr. jachson tell )Ir. Smith that
he had no instructions to oﬀer any explana
tion osthcdictavowal osJsr. Erehizze's agree
ment——an:.' that he sailed to make any ?
Mr. ]ackson admits, that he had made
no formal communication of the motives
for the disatowa], for which he assign; two
reasons
let. That Mr. Cannz'ng had hastened
with an ardentzeal to satisisfu our govern
ment before any complaint had been made by
eur minister, to explain to Air. Pinsiney the
motivc eflhe disavowal ; and this note by an
empty and insincere der.-Iaration oer-Er
shine's having violated his orders, by a can
diddisciosure of his actual instructions.
This was more than the laws of ' nations
required. it would have been sufficient to
have declared he had no. sull-powers, but
Great Britain was unwilling that her good
faith should be called in question. She
would not-defend herself on ordinary and
sufficient ground. She produces the pri
F olluon or tnem m toto. ]. nose rnsrmcuone
moreover, were supposed to have emanated
from our own proposals, shd she would
( have been justified, in retorring the breach
of saith upon us ; but shodelicarely absrajn
ed." She confined herself to her own justi
sication, and by the laws of nations, by our
own former example in former treaties made
by us. she wsias fairly exhwerated.
Secondly. The second reason for not
having oﬀered an explicit defence ofche dis
svowel chrou h Mr. .]sckson,wes, the: Mr.
Erskine had en directed to make it, end
it one suppoeed, when Mr. Zeekson eeme
sway, that he had done in. . "Bricsln he
declares, lus-unwilling to rest so long un
der the impumion of s went of good faith,
and therefore instsmly ordered her minis
ter hereto :: lain her motives.
l Ose w suppose this would miss)
I
vate instructions , and demonstrates the vi
them-m fastidiou'sldd copious swim
— mqssnt, but' Mr. ]acklctm, noxious to remove
"je-very possible olijcetton to 39 amica'ule adq
siFfjushneot adds, _ _ _
; "'Bllj, is beyond this, any mouse-ma! du
"sscufsim, , or explanation she:/l.! be zctt-is/tcdfor
- [w this government, fewe: _: 71in jsirr ctured
t; enter into them--I cum CONNN/t's then. to
have taken place betwemus. I have t'rr
" taiitly derivedgrcat salt-g/bt-lionjram !lie sc
vtral houn-we have;}mt in conference on
these subjects " . .
-We here perceive, that the explanations
had in fact been made. though not in the
formal manner which the scrupulous nicety
of our jowrmnent, required. We see,
" moreover, that he came inllv :mthorised to
- mpply whatever was tie/fele :: in the
exfilnnatiolct of Mr. (smiling ut' Mr. Lr
" akme.
To this fair oﬀer, Mr. Smith rcprzl in
- his letter of Osi:t.46, that his ohjccton was
' not so much to the want of explanation as
to the failnre of that solemnity and formal
- ity which such an important case required.
; Let us examine this principle :-—\Ve m;-'.
! : bargain with :: minister without demansiz
ling his pot-,ers: lt appears not only that
he pos'ssi-ssed none, but thst he had violated
! his positive and clear instructions: The
! law of nations in such a case require no
' apology from the nation whith rel'uses to
3 confirm the agreement of its uunuthunised
" and culptthle agent. 'We on the Other
. hand demsntl not ttn e1plzmntirzn which was
given to us, anrl whirh We had no rightto
. require, hot a solemn and so:-mal embassy,
, find ;: ptsinittutgnl mid ;ipologl-zi- k docuincnt
! irom at nation, which had only eXt'scioeti
. it; acknowledged 1'i5lits.
* We may-judge from this circumstance of
the temper with which this in gocintion has
been conduetcd, and how impossible it is,
that Great Briluin should ever snti-ss-l'v om
ealiinc-t. " We should not he colltisintt'd,
; said Mr. Aui-sis, with & temper him this, is
the tra-my it'si king George his is?;th, no:
even it he atipulssed to [my not so; it."
But Mr. Smith, not content with this
haughty it-qsiiisition, proceeds, in the tame
[after. to contssulict Mr. salt'ksil].
!
"any ndditional explanation which might be
this, referring solely to this point, declares
"Reasonable and universal us this expee-ss
tation wn, it aleo has not been fulfilled."
_We now pan to the eeeond charge of
Mctr. Smith against Mr. Iackton, and the
Britith cabiner, "11! Mr. luck-on not on
ly at .igncd no reason for the dinvowai of
that pm of Mr. Erukine'e arrangement
which regarded the Cheeapenke, but that
'he had only proposed to tender : note of
fering : ntiesaction which thould be" timul
tane-m with our ecceptuee or the ntiefic- ss
tun. :
This charge in its rot branch ie untill];
unfennded ; and in t ucond part of it,]
the ground taken by the British minister in
perfectly des-wish mvdy by the in of
plicx't. Nor did the misrepresentation and
deemed necessarv, in place of resiisiiminat
ing language, choose-s the more piud-sint
course of taking away all pretext from his ss
opponent, by stuting sormttlly the grounds
of the disuvowal : ss
" [have therefore no hesitafz'sn in inform
ing you, that his majesty was pleased la
disavow the agreement touch.-o'er] between
you auer. Eiskine, because it was con
clude-(lift violation of that grut/cmun's in
structions, and altogetlu-r without authority
to agree to the terms of it."
- Here one would suppese this question at
rest. The true, the only, and two setti
cient reasicns were assigned, which ought
to have satisfied-any burnt-tial and-lionora- ss
ble mind.
_,Still the pertinacitssv of our minister did
not cease. Stillirwas deemed necessary
to aﬀront his Britannic majesty, through
his representative. In Mr. Smith's letter
to Mr. Pinkney, (page '82 of the printed
documcnts) he says, that besides Mr. jack
soo's indistmct snd reluctant explanation of
the reasons for the disavowal, he did not
make his proposel tithe had made such
progress in his oﬀensive insinuation as made
it prbpcr to'wsit the issue of his reply ass
bout to be given to it.
Itis here seen, that this most distinct,
plain, correct and forciblc explanatiou- an
explanation the most perfect that could he
given, couched in distinct and appropriate
language, towit: That Mr. 'Erskioe had
no authority and had violated his instruc
tions, is declared to be reluctant and incr
" As you have n'is-cluihctic'z/ no;; authority
to ofl'ei- r.—siplan:ttions_/br t/te a'.-'ctsiav:zu:zl,*'£2ctc.
[See page 47 of "the printed (.l-.)Cttments.]
Mr. jackson, however irrimtcd at this
repetition, after his express osscr to make
in his message, that, /
" lt could not be dodbted that the new
minister Could at least be charged with
conciliatory exlilsnstionssi"
contrsdiction end here. [: ascended to :
higher source—Mr. Madison, long- 'Zssi'
. - . ,;t-LM .zss'zzsssirass' \
3[: sithe errthm'at'lms lthit-h As.
is As me!" nﬀt i' of iaiksactiuu l'nr
_' uthorised' injury. . .
"l.-Then, the son-( start ns'the clh-gsi.
? that Mr. ]atksnn, (lld not cbnsite press.:- :] ",
assign any reason for the Isi'Pjtcti-m ottms
. part of the agrecm:u$ssisunwumltd.
_' Mr. ]ach'eon-siiu dcsissrsiletur declares,
" That he was auahurizetl to l'Cnt'W Ass
" oﬀer made by Enktsine, notwithstacdiris; me
ungracious nmottet' in which it. 'had been
fctrmerly received} You have said, add-35
ing Mr. Stplsithg wot)-ones) fl'lilzjlkildtfrFl-md
; the particulars of that oﬀer, that ] deem, ctct
i unntsiceesztry to recapilulate them here. "
] This clause tender: 'spbcf/fcd/ly the terms
because Plr. Enkincctf arrangement in.-, 55;
; our own passes-too, and-Mr. Smith had sssict.
:si dared" his full knowfiklctgc- osthcm. ], ' ss
marc- : [( nctosigns the reasons why that lull
of the agreement was out lultssuled..---b,si
jcause of the ugzgruc-ous manner it which it
was accepted." , .. "
We have shewn in : former number, in
what the ungracioumcn of this manner
! consisted—but shall it be insintcd that Mr.
j ]ackson was bound to repent the osseffiive
! :erms ? I! a man cal: me a liar or'a thief,
l is it not enough for me to alludect to his of.
lcnsive epithen, but must ! be compelled to
repent, the outrageous expressions !
But Mr. Jackaun is more explicit; he
tells Mr. Smith ** that his majesty would
hejustisied in rejecting that agreement not
only on account of the form, in which his
minister had tenth-red it, but of the manne.
in which that sende!" lmd been reck-ved." He
adds, " that he had tlucitlated lhat<1b5cl'\4
tiun by a reserrcnce tosia particular expres
alone which made the term: of satisfaction
appear senator/tial)!!- to the Anwrican go
Vcrnment. at the very utomsint when they
Were accepted."si 3
! 'l'he just and honorable pride_o! Mr.
]aekson l'orbsde his repeating to the Wm l.!
the insulting expressions, but an Atttcrica",
who thinks asl do, that nau- go\-t-rnnn-nt
' put an unnecessary impediment in the in;
of ndjusttnent, is restrained by no such tle
licacy. .
it was because our government declare-t!
" that the oﬀer made by his ,Brttannie ma
jesty did not comport with his honor and
dignity ; that it was'dishauorable in him. to
. make it ; that the agreement was rejected.
' This is the reason assigned, and yet we are
} told this is no explanation. A Virginia no
; lileman would not hrsltatc to take away life
, [se osa sellQW-citizen on sue/t agrswtd, and
? y. t we are told this is no reasonable ground
{or r'jecting :: hargain. si
] This phrase, ptirposely introduced,-thews,
; as Mr. ]ackson says, that the satisfaction
ss given was mmccesttable to our get-eminent,
and yet we Complain that this ttnsi'u'csi'c-jvmbz'e
and insuﬂicient satisfaction is'witiiheld ? ! .'
Pro/z Pudw' .' !
ss The second part (is this charge in rela
tion to the Chesapcake is now to be consi
dered. let it alsrontive to tis? ]: it injuri
ous that (}reat Britain should insist upon
having our acce'pttmcc of the satisfaction
i simultaneous, cotetpsiporancons with the us
l (or? 13 it unreasonable that she should in
ss sist on seeing the letter agrieing to receive
\ the satisfaction. \Ve think sinOt, became,
lst. Mr. ]arkson states that this is ths
! invariable course osEuropean gonerntnents
! in like cases. — .
l lsthis denied by Mr. Smiti'. ? 'TVe have
l three letters of his, after this assertion, and
I Mr. ]ackson's principles are not question
; ed. But.
i 2dl_t_'. ls no such usage had before exist
ed, here were special reasons sorshe adop
tion of such a rule.
, C. Britain, thro' Mr. Rrskiaeshad ten
! der-] a-fullsatissaetion for the' Chesnpcalte
assair, which had been accepted by us--'
but owing to his neglect of demanding our
answer and agreeing to it beforehand, _
our government had inserted the man qs
._ sronliw langusg'c eﬂr introduced into a di
si plomatic correspondence. Was it then tus-"
, reasonable that'Great Britsin should be un
; willing again to conside in our delicacy -a
! gain to repoec in our sense of decorum.
But lastly, here was a serious controver- .
JV about to be ndjuste , here was a tres
-' pass on our rights a t to be eomprotnised
[ by the paytnent of money,und the acknow- *
ssledgmcnt ol' wrong. -
[ Did any prudent men ever pay hie-money
or tendi-r his eatisisnetion, without seeing his
! diechargv, without receiving hit reeeipt in
full? [inch imprudcnce doeenot occur in
private lischw weld it be expected of a
nation which had no extruntdinery remn
' to confide in ourgeodtvill n' ,
But Mr. Smith and Mr. Medium in far
Iron confiding in thee-poem" newe-ence
uf Mr. ]ukgon of hie power: in relatian to
the Chnap'eeke, and nl' hie being eloathcd
with the fulle-t'amhmlty,.cnntinue in the:
future ceneepondence end in the mang
ester the whole negocietion me closed. up
; ineinum that he" hud no eomqtent power: