Norfolk gazette and publick ledger — Norfolk [Va.], 1810-01-01 00:00:00, page 2

a pu'eut of fill! powers is
•ut mi Hinjrte fifrm ; hut (he proper nflrer,
disp«tW»e* a Irtter of iustrisctinns givthg the j
authority uccaswry for fhc py iposMl negoei
Yet, whether the minister undertake* to ne
t* vjrttte of a technical full power of in vir*
« latter of itlstrucihin, it in proper to exhibit
*4 HU distfnct authority before signing tiny arrangement
^ tf sfipulatimi*, intended to be mutually.
obligatory on
lllwsn^pective government*. He may fairly and with
perfect propriety be coiled Jfcon tp exhibit such au
thority in eases where therms are t.> he expressly
Itfyitfyed fof the ratificatioPnf his own government,
w fftw terms of engagement are' to be deemed obli
wntolhr and acted nomt aecordioglv as ms signed
»y the negnciator* .mdnn ratification is reserved, it
Yt mare pernhrrlv proper for the negoci.itim; mini*.'
ter to exhibit the nffi i.tloiidence of his authority to
«ftrter into stipulations. If Jfcdoes not exhibit the
evidence, it becomes the inmmihrnt duty of the other
negmmting party to es)! for it before the conclusion
«f spy ysuch terms of engagement, or to refuse to eon*
cbm the termvunti! :h.' evidence is exhibited offici
ally and the autliority ascertained to be •ufli. ient.—
. In this case, if the distinct authority he not offered or
for and found adequate, there is a niintake and
a failure in duty on the jisrt of the adnrii*
Ift concluding the engagement ; unless in
transaction may have been understood at
as not warranted by regular authority, but
wspected t*lie confirmed as :<n acceptable project.
J express myself in these terms, wishing to lie strict,
ly derjcumus in i
manner and believing the general
t l principle correct—When an administration enters
JBM ebgitgements or stipulation with a foreign mi
Qiiit^ to be immediately executed without any rc
servMtion, it Is incnm ient on the administration to
reunite theofS ial exhibition of the distinct authori
4y of the ntipister form .king the stipulations; and
If the terms be concluded by signature and delivery
r.0 iefore the authority had been exhibited «ml ascer
tained to he ademi te, there is a mistake and of
„ «ouipe a failure In the duty on the part of the ad
^•stmuistration.
•yawc /WWWwJ « .. -_ _
£*5 V < ^cuiirmrn sj)C«K oi i\3r. f^rs*
' ]$■**• having competent powers to m ikr the provi
fckuml ftrrangemenl in April, they may be desired (•>
pimthKe the regular evidence-of the fact. If the uo
««tlation was conducted according to .yhe course of
5Jf)lnntalick usage and strict propriety, there is the
regular evldns 'c of his hying authorised to tu .kc the
•rringcmCnt, and it ran he prndured. If he had tt
iggtten( of full power, a copy authenticated by the ini
bister or asecretaty acting under him, would doubt-1
less he considered proper rwder.ee to lie deposited
With the a rchives in matiifestution of the authority of
the British government to conclude the arangemeot.
If his authority was contained in any letter or letters
of instructions, the nutheotirk copy of such authority
wouli\ With the like propriety, be deposited in the
department of state. N
'r.Uelanguage of • part of the voMpl'cntlence re
•pecling IVtaj||E-'kn>*-s ve--n. t<>
grounded '("he .idmiaMrvMen h -p Urn
t>f as fl'-t tHjHHfth.- rest, I: tit.o t hi rit
H’W*' ihku cs«ji».ight h ve been accurate if he had
exhibited <af ml p vf giving him suth fits t,. nego
tU«| riul iv-.ndu'e ttipni n« : Hei.-mse in the c.se
of ..foy power embr.r.iiig ill. whole ,ai.jm ,-f „eg...
tiiitr’njithe minister might he lestrirted in the ex
ei’tise power by ortlerv fronrhis government
fpftrurtin'g him how to proceed and mi what he
inilyht eontlude.'' And when he Ins restrictive in
•ti tictjon* for his own direction and a foil
p. wer tp
Wtud tnthe gooeriirmnt with which the i.cgo.’
if he departs from the instructions, his
•IfPilfMWit, mitwithst .tiding the found plcmi
*tude<t>f;bis,J)swii, is considered as not bound tu r*ti
'hhlMjgi^P^cirUy if he lo.s riep ,ru(j Ire.a Ids
faietfjQPPm » subject of importance to the h,mohi
cr rights which he was instructed to maintain. But
1ft the case before us, where c ,n he fitjd sufiii ient
W*um for speaking nf the restriction of audim-W as
being unknown if the authority was knowrtK There
»tv# appc.tr to bare been nnv restrict*, n, except
it Wftftphcrent in the nature of the authority—
I same ‘despairb, the letter of instruction, gave
toe uBtlmrity and defined its ex'ent. In the nature
PT tM tnUhg,’the minister c< uid not have more nu,
tpority than jyas given t*> him ; ,nd he neither was
«nr could be aOthnrised to act beyond the extent of
I authority. H >w then, in this case, is it possible
r:t|eihe authority from what is called the re
Aherefcne. the negotiation has ln?en
Wttng to the principles of publick law,
M*t<*f the ttadntrivy, such as it existed and
I# %ct, nettheemgni e nor less, can lie pro
gsysJlMWa there be stifft* evidence of a distinct
lly Ostensibly dnmpetent to the arrangement,
■• thy propriety of insisting on explanations a*
; had iu m apparent authority? Explanatii n'
is obviously doe where the mifisier has exhibited %
I
OHftjJftttutfull power o« the faith of which an ar
roBgefllidBt H u been concluded, if his government'
dil&vuw* tin. arriugement because of departure from
imtruetionaorvpt.ims impot um to the gmeniment.
TlH 'rflnitrartitj^, and the importance of
ltntrmaU*l,Sf^spt’niug winch they have been violat
ed, constitute the basis of the proper explanati. n, to
r .fte added proper compensati-iti f. r the
i due attention to time and manner of
.-'jiJIilfeSWft® •rrangement with Mr. i>*kine
IgyMffSgjN. cohip-ired to that of the treaty
> f*gW£gjP»iWDt*. oil the sut December, 1B06, by
and PmTtney. Bat the casts are
InnUtriaDyidine rent ito*t negotiation was conduct
s^titrvutile pnipi iei y and decorum by the
Itemlawf»W «*drj»rty. Perhaps hr#care is to he
ftrwad JJX which tKf?>r*»pectjve ministers insisted
perseverance on the cl- ims,
stpi prctftttiotn of their ow n governments,
i»l#» towards each other so much tlrco
tww'hnd bs-n'jur-ddt attention in their official and
'P*r»w>I communications. ''Although Messrs. Mon
ro# andPtnkney h.dfuU powers t>r the tieguiutnm,
«!\ey h^»P-‘r»^fr^in ^host^ gener^
t pftcup^teriUuriesf that they proceeded to the signa
ture Ofc, thr treaty oh their Own res; on.ibdity, and
thgjJh* Mt’* "f tlieir instructions did n 4».,rr.,i,t
gMurftOf.cmrnt M the manner it) which it wj»
they beiiefed th*n»seinial objects
'.pisp*' bpWtilll'attained in substance f«r
#"£$£#■ vlfP***,f thy yviitcd States, and accord
t between the,
Outlie "•tfhfe'fcf if:
, however, thete is
another enquiry wl
m cu«»elvu*;.«ld on
whifli the Brni#i govern
esnhave no right to
,*iy any thing; for u it n
their concern, hut our*
exclusively. Thp enquiry
...... v; --t —t-.,,, Is/whether , the tggsaty
was not of so much importance, concluded after so
, inuch discussion, ami by »ur.h persons, and under
such circumstances, that it should hdVe been sub
• ntittrd to the senate, who might have advi-eeffts ra
tiiicttipn unconditionally or mi condition of such mo
difications as, after full deliberation, might be judg
ed best for the UniOul States ? Whetlier the affairs
of the country havemot since been changed from bad
to worse, hr-tend of securing more beneficial terms
or any terms whatever ?
With a view to the general subject of letters of
credence, and ihe distinct authority of public minis
ters, I wiil now refer to examples in the history of
our own government, without detoininx yon by cita
•ions from the works of foreign wutm on publick
The first authority to which I now refer, is the
authority of ptevident M/idison as president of the
United States. 1 propose io shew, that prior to the
present session of congress he believed it proper that
a publick minister plenipotentiary having letters of
credence should also have a distinct authority to en
able him t<> siiptilnte in behalf of his government.—.
jjV'ith this view l refer to the message from the pre
sident of the United States at the commencement of
the last session of congress. In that message there
U a clause relative to the purport of certain instruc
tions for our ministers at London and Paris ; and
then immediately follow the expressions which I will
now read.
“ Soon after these instructions wpre dispatched,
it was found that the British government, anticipat
ing, from early proceedings of congress, at their i«st
session, the sta'e of our laws, wlnrh has had the et
iet t in placing the t vi> belligerent powers nji « foot
ing of equal restrictions* and relying cn the concilia
tor} disp osition of the United Stairs, had tran-init
ted to their legation here. provisional in«trnc,ii ns,
not onl} to offer Sitlisfnni ni for the attack on the fri
gate C.nesape -kc, and to m ike kn >wn tlio determi
nation of his Brit* nnick majesty to send an envoy ex- '
traovcliiirtW with powers to conclude a treatv n ail
the points Ijetweui ihe two Countries; hot, moreover,
to signify his witlin.ness, iri the mean lime, to with
drdSs- nis orders in council, in the persuasion that the
-intercourse with Ciie.it Brit .in would be renewed on
tne part of the (Jutted States.
“ 1 nese steps of the British government led to
the Correspondence and the proclamation now laid
before you ; bv virtue of which, the commerce be
twocn the two cyanines will tic renewable after the
ten: Ii day of June next.”
The language here is direct as to the f.,ct stated.
I he fact is mentioned as being unquestionably as
■certained, as being discovered „nd known to tile ad
ministi iimn, aith'-u^fi pethnps not to hr great bo
dy of the f.ommiimty, as being kryoivn after examiliu
m nfe ol expression such as is observable in
tiie message would be of strong import in ■ asts where
persons are bound 1>_, usth or affirmation to declare
the truth of fu< t/according to evidence- On review
ing toe si’ttemenC communicated to congress by the
^resident, we critrsrt this sentiment distinctly—it
•■vas iound that ihe Hriti-h government had tr .n -nilt
ted tn their legation here, provisions) instructions
to signify the willingness of his Brit-nmick tTu-jestv to
withdraw Itis orders m c aincil, in the persuasion
th .t the intercou »e with Ores'-Brit-in would he re
newed on fhepaitbf ihe United "Oates; and the
steps ofthe Hi itisli government led to the correspon
tleftce end pror Uniatimi laid before congress. VVhv
shodid the expressions have been so direct and ex
plirtt -is to the pis.visional instructions and their im
port, if no distinct • uthorhy was necessary to give
validity to the provisional arrangement f Tn the pro
cl.irn.-t ion, the hnn. l)ovid Montague Erskine, his
Brit tnnick majesty’s envoy extraordinary and mi
nister ple-ni’i'itesitiary, is stated to have made the
specified «le< larai ion by the m tier and in the name of
bis soicn it-n. It tin letter of credence were bey
iieved sufficient to en >bie the minister to stipulate
for his government, wan'd me statement have been
made 50'distinctly mentioning the transmitted in
structions, the steps of the British government, the
declaration of the miutter by the order of hissove
I reign? 1 he president in the foil Ittdief of the stete
ment would of course iieiieve the arr«-ngement to
have been validly concluded. Bet from that mess
age of the pi 1 sinetit, tri-tV n't we justly dctlnre the
[inference—a letter of credence does not enable a
minister to tn ke stipulations.- obligatory on the go
vernment from which he ill i’,r.i>-edited.
In retracing the history of ,>nr government, the
next authority refers ns r tiie admit-,isti atton of pre
sident Jefferson. Itis ther-se of -an extraordinary
ll.'inuiu llaVUlg lliC vl»H"
racter tlf |)lei>i|v>t*i!tinvy in ordiihry. Messrs.
Muaroe end I’inknej were appointed commissioners
gsxtfaorritnary and plenipotentiaries tor negotiating
arrniigPij.enU with the Briti.-li government ; and as
such they hail leut t's nf credence from the United
States. Yet tliev also had full powers in a commis
sion authorising them to treat severally as well as
jointly. I his, according to my apprebeusion, suffi
ciently appears from a volume of state papers cont
nnmieafed by piesident Jefferson to the tenth con
gress, particularly a letter from Mr. Madison, se
rrefnry of state to Messrs. Monroe ancl Pinkney.—
It is dated from tile department of state the 17th of
■May, 1806.' Permit me, sir, to read the first part
of the leter. “ Gentlemen, l herewith eudoae a
commission and letters of eredence, authorising you
to treat with the British government concerning the
maritime wrongs which have been committed and
the regulation of commerce and navigation between
the parties. Your authority i* made several as well
as joint, as a provision fur any contingency depriv
ing either nf the ci'-oppration of the ether."
We wiil now recur to the administration of presi
dent Adams, who was so well known as a diploma
tick functionary in Europe. Among the state pa
pers which he communicated to congress, we may
find instructive documentary information relative to
diplomatic credence and authority. Among those
papers is the letter of credence for the envoys extra
ordinary to France according to full form of diplo
macy. These are the terms;
“ CkhDEtsCE '
For Messrs. Pinkney, Marshall anddierry, Envoys to France.
“ JOHN ADAMS,
president of the United States of America, to the Exesu
- live Directory of the French Republic :—
' Citizens 1) is serous—peslrnus of terminating all dif
ferences between the United States and the Flench Repub
lic, and of restoring that ha'tnonv and good undeistandmg,
and that convm ic.iat and liaendly interccuise, which from
the cotmaiticemeot of their *ofic:cal connection until late
ly', have so ha; pi!); subsisted, 1 have nominated, and bv
and with the arty hr* and cnnsei t of the senate cf the U
r.itvrl Susy*', a, ;ioi-:te4 ClurlrslCoteswurth l'iocki.ey, John
Maishalpand Elbtidgo Grr;, distinguish eil citizens of these
<* VCS> jointly and ev-.ruity, envoys extraordinary and mi.
maters gJcuiyijV-'.iafcjolbe F%teh Republic, for the pur
povoof accomplislijythc gre^t objects above-mentioned :
VVheieiore 1 pwy y»u, citizens directors, in give full ere
to what they and «:ch of them shad say to ynu’in
a behalf Ol tbs United States, and also .when
you cf the sincerity of out vialns foe the
nsbch RepuUjs.
TIMOTHY P(CRFR)K«,
lUBy^roHnMfe
mw observe, that tfie letter of
expressly %tWk* the objects of the mission
fdinary, and desires full credence to be given
to the eiivoys in those respects. Say» the letter pf
credence,' u 1 pray you, citizens Directors, to give
full credence to what they and each of them shall
say to you in these respects, in behalf of the United
States/' But did the president then in office suppose
the letter of credence even in such case to give the
proper authority for negotiating an arrangement of
matters in difference between the two epuntries ? He
understood the subject far otherwise ; for he believ
ed it proper to authorise the envoys distinctly, by
giving them full powers. If gentlemen will now at
tend, they m.»y know the terms of this public com
mission.
« FULL POWERS
To Messrs. Pinckney, Mar-1*.all and Gerry, Envoys to France.
“JOHN ADAMS,'
President #f the United States of America,
To ait whom the o present* shall concern-—-Greet.ing:
KNOvV A K, That fin the purpose of terminating ulidif
Wnce*, between trie United States and the French Re
public, arid of restoring and confirming peif.Tt harmony
and good understanding, smd re-establi-hmg a commercial
and friendly intercourse between them, and reposing £*neci
at trust and confidence in the int«j»nty, pnidt-nce and abi
Utivs of CharlesC«4'*sworth Pinckney, John Marshall, and
L-bridge Gerry, citizm % of the United States, 1 have nomi
nated, and, by and with the advice and c«»n*eut of the Se
nate, au^rdutud the said Claris. C .teswc rth Pinckney, ] hy
Marshal , *nd E lhrhigeGtrry, jointly and severally, envoys
extraordinary and mio'si.e** j lcni .»,tontiary »>f the United
St:.ic> to the French R : public, hereby giving and granting
to them, and any and ^jeh of them, full ;,owcr and authori
ty. an i al»o a genera) and special command, for^and in th«
' vS#11
nan cof the United States to meet and confer with the roi
'’Cter.^, comin:ss»>'iKrs, or deputies of the French republic,
briu^ umsiitt ’ wall itic like full powers, wheiS'*! separate
or joi. tly,j»nd witli t:*e»u to treat, consult and‘negotiate
of and concerning ali claims, awdall matt, rs and causes of
1ifl r.'..ce, subsisting butwc&n. the United Stabs arid the
E rench Republic, fur the purjicse of satisfying and termi
nating the »ame in a just and equiutde manner and also of
an lcoi.ee long the general commerce between the* United
Stat< sand Er tnce and ail other the dominions of-he French
R \ ubhc, |fnd t-icnnclude and sign a treaty or tr arie% cou
veattun * r c«mv- minus, touching the { remises: trai.smit
ti; g the -a me to the president if the United States of Ame
n a f r is fi »al ratmc-itnui, by and with the advice, and
c» * s-r»t f the Senate of tne Unittd States, if such advice
a» d ro'S.iit shall be K»ven
In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the Unit
ed State* to b* hereunto affixed
Givsn under my hand at the city of Philadelphia.'the
twenty-seeniid day of June, in the 'ta of cur Lord,
one thousand seven hundred a-id mm tv-wen, ai.d of
the im'. jpr odcuee of the United Stitt* of America, the
twenty-hist.
JOHN ADAMS.
By the President of the United States.
TIMOTHY PI KI RING,
The history of the government presents further
authority. Let us remount to the administration of
the first President of the United States, the man first
in w.ir, first in peace, firs: in the hearts i f his coun
try men ! Mr. Hammond was residing iu Philadelphia
in character of minister plenipotentiary from Gieat
Writ .in. On the 20th of Nov. in the year 1791, a
leitei was addressed to him by the secretary of state
Mr. Jeffr-tsoii, who had returned from F.uropt, where
he is well known to have !>eei» a minister from the
United States. After advet ting to the inexecutmn of
the 7th article of the definitive troty of peace, and
mentioning the sentiment entt rtainrd of the friendly
movement then “ lately in de !>v the court of Lon
don in sending a minister," the tetter contains these
expressions :—1 Permit roe then, sir. to ; <-k, whe
ther you a re. instructed to give us explanations of the
iutentinns < f | our court us to the execution of the ar
ticle abi ve quoted.
“ With respect to the commerce of the two conn
tries, we h..< e supposed, tli-a we saw . iu several in
stances, regulations on 'he part of tour government,
which, if reciprocally adopted, would main lally in
jure the interests of both nations. ’’
“ On this subject, too, 1 must beg the favour of
von to say whether you are authorised to conclude or
to negotiate arrangements w ith us which may fix
the commerce between the two countries on princi
ples of reciprocal advantage ?”
The correspondent e gives us interesting informa
tion npTdic.ihle to the present subject. Under the
administration of the first President of tfie 1 'nited
States, the enquiry was made by the secretary f
st te officially—whether the accredited British mi
nister plenipotentiary was authorised to conclude ar
rangements respecting commerce, or to negotiate
such <rr ngenunts?—Whether lie was in-triicted to
explain the intentions of the British government as
to the execution of an ariicie of the definitive treaty
of peace?
if ones tint serm to have been lm igmed at that
time, that the enquiry coulcl he thought to vary in a
hv respect whatever from the honourable principle*
of (lipii tnntlrk intercourse. The answer is to he
found in the letter to the secretary of state from the
Hritish minister pienipoteu iary, bearing date at Phi
ladelphia, the 30th of November iryi,*the next day
after the official inquiry was made. Permit me now,
sir, to state such parts of this letter as appear the
most applicable to the case before us.
“ With respect to the non-execution of the 7th ar
ticle of the definitive treaty of peace between his
RiHaiinick majesty and the United Stites of Ameri
ca, which you hive recalled to my attention, it i*
scarcely necessary for me to remaik to you, sir, that
the king mv master was induced to suspend the ex
ecution of that article on his part, in consequence ni
the non-compliance of the United States with the en
gagements contained in the 4th, 5th, and Sth article
of the same treaty. These two objects are there
fore so materially connet ted with e.,ch other as not
to admit of separation, either in the inode of discus
sing them or in any subsequent arrangements which
may result from that discussion.”
“ In stating to you, sir, this iudisnensible consider
ation, I must at the same time assure you, that .in
the confidence of experiencing a similar disposition
in the government uf the United States, it is his ma
jesty’s desire to remove every ground and occasion
df misunderstanding which may arise between the
two countries : and in conformity to that disposition
in his majesty I can add that J am instructed to enter
into the discussion of all such measures as maybe
deemed the most practicable and reasonable for giv
ing effect to those stipulations of the definitive trea
ty, the execution of which his hitherto been delayed
as well by the government of this country as by that
of Great Britain.”
“ In answer to your question on the subject ef the
commerce of Great Britain and the United tjtates, I
can also tuform you, sir, that the lung is sincerely
disposed to promote and faoiliute^fihe commercial
intercourse between the two countries, and that I am
authored to cammuiiicate to this government his
majesty ** readiness to enter into a negotiation for
establishing that^jljteryourae upon principles of reel
procal benefit.*’?" « '
And I trust, 1 may be permitted to add, that it
would be the highest object of my ambition to l>e tltq,
nimble instrument of contributing m any manner t<
uc ap«q a permanent bails the future systeraiot har
♦
mge <tf fhe British tnir.itherjjifctH
kemblauce of itic>rr mrh -^h tli«
.,£ ; *■ W»/'ificVsJ .JdsMfer,
- ■ e JW men* tuned itrtht subject of the
corrfepondetice, end to the seme letter meath.r.td
tiltfts.’igagsa
rcspondeuee twvwbefo.e oie i» also from Mr. Ham
m.itid. n-he letter is so short, and; in point of gfin
tuple it bas ae near relation to the present subject,
that the whole wiU now bajsued ,s it appears in the
printed collection,
u ,, •M Dec. 6/4,
Mr. mnmond, minister plenipotentiary of Great
« tic .to,Mr- Jeffersou, secretary of state.
.MK—Assam extremely solicitous to avoid any mow
y miiif
prehm.nor. ot my letter of the 3Vth ult I have now the W
nourof suiii.j toyoh in explanation ofthat part of it to
winch you have adverted in yours o(y\«!ierd;y, that altho*
(as 1 fo.me.ly mentioned to toy fi■*fi-onve«tianii wnh you
’it er my arrival .n this countryJ I am not as y«t emowe.ed
to crmcluai ar y defimttye arrangement With respect to the
(.ominercnl icte.omi.se between the two countries, I s»i||
meant it to be understood, that l am fuliy authorised to m
U: a,\m for that purpose, and into the discussion
such principles as may appear besl calculated to promote
UrAt oojffcl ««ii a bisis of reciprocal advantage.
’ I am furtoer authorized to receive any proposition
whu h this govern men: may be pl«**d to make to me on
in hi subject.
“ I have the honour to be, with evfry sentiment of re
spmandcsteem, »ir, your^ostobedient and humble ser
GEO. HAMMOND”
" lcl“r' ‘»e aisunction is marked between
concludingurt perungenirn' and entering into nego
ttuiion tup that purpose. According to his own state
mint, although fully authorised to enter into negoti
ation, the minister was not empowered to conUude
*n arrangement respecting the commercial inter
course net ween the two countries. • As to the idea of
conrlur.mg any definitive commercial arrangement,
therefore, there could be no further question under
the existing circumstances. The minister plenipo
| tentiary had not the competent powers ; and nothing
ought to be done : And of course, under the admit.
mstratmn <d the first president of the United States,
nothing was done. Hut the British minister pleni
potentiary undoubtedly believed himself fully autho
rized to enter into a negotiation ; such was Ids state
meat as distinctly made in an < ffi* lal letter to the se
cret irv of state. W hat was the consequence ? The
secretary ot sta'e addressed a letter the next week
to the British minister pieuipote'iti..rv. The letter ,
was short, hot verymtelligiMe. Gentlemen are re
quested to attend to the whole.
Dec 'S mi.
Mr Jefferson, ss-crotary of sut, to Mr. Hammond wlc
totter p a, rpolautivy of (.teat B ita’n
“ SI»—J have ai l helm, the reudent of lh, U States
th letters of Nev 3f)th a:r I Deceinbe. 6th with wh.ch vow
honoured niw ; and n ennseq o oce there, f at.d particu arly
° taat pa.ta.f vour let-er of l>,c filh, vhtmouoy that
you a*r tully authorized to enter into a negottati ■>. for the
pur.10,0,1 a rn it g th coonnercial intercourse brtween
ihe two countries, 1 have this h n ur to inform son that I
am ready to receive a cammunfeatinn of your full powers,
or that pu pose, nr aoy time veil ,hj|l think proper, ar.d to
proceed immediately to their object. 1 have, *c.
_ . . t ‘ TH : jflFFKRSQN.”
auen was the principle and such the style of dipUw
marie propriety under the admin strationof president
Washington. I he Britrsh minister plenipotentiary
retur ned an answer the following day. I will read
every part,r.f it as I find it, that gentlemen may judge
on a f..ir »iew of the whole.
“ w, Dec 14, >791.
Mr Hammond, nvn stcr lompntentiary of Great iiu ..in,
to Mr Jcftuisnn, secretary of state
“ SIR—In answer to your letter :f yeste day, I can only
repeat what 1 haw before dated in my first convert.t'orii
w lir V‘ u af'er mv arrival and subsequent in my letter *>r t!t*
; li of this mouth: viz: that l have no special commissi wi
ban we mg rn< ta nrctxJe any jtrJ-i’iMffr arra'sement upon
toe subject of the commercial it tcic'rirse between G eat
* 'tain and the V- iter'States Butt I,at I < nncerve myselft'a!-#
ly crop, tent to enter l to i negotiation w th thrsg •vernment
'or that purpose, in the -'ire r,s...n of the principles which *
may s vi a th« basis and constitute the stipulation* of such
•'lefi'i rive irr r.g mei.t
“ Tin . opinion of rnv eompetercy i; founded upon my
lustruciice inasmuch as they are t regulate mv r ers rial
co oltict, a d upon the cn»v ction that thelttte> fcredencat,
from Ins m jt'ty investing me with a general phnif* tw'wry
character, wtncfr I had tho hour u -if prOftnlir.g to thepre
,ider,t of the I'ruted States, and his consequent rccwyi, 11:0x4
of me it, tha* character, arc authorities decidedly uilequaMt
i.j the comrar r-eetn ur or a pte.iiminary negotiation,
i have the h ou to be,
W 1 th sentiments of great respect,
Sir, veu' most ■ bedi, nt
And most humble servant
The course of covrespnndcnre had now shewn,'
•h.n the Hniivh minister plenipotentiary believed
hunsclf tully authorized to art as negotiator, becaus®
he U d presen el hl» letter of credence to the presi
'pnt of the United States arid been rereived accord
tnj<ly. and because too he had instructions to regtj—
1 ate his personal conduct, hut which he did not think
proper to communicate, a id which he di es not ap
pear to have been at liberty to communicate toth®
American government.
If the letter < f cieh'iice could be regarded as au
thorizing the negnti.ttirn. it had already been pre
sented to the president of the United States. That
this did not constitute thecompetentnulhority, there
fore, must have bean decided by the president, be.
y nd C' ntrr.vevsy, at the date of the letter which in.
vinted the Hi itish minister plenipotentiary to com
municate his full powers. -■
It is now to be recollected, that in his letter of th®
doth of November the minister had mentioned his
being instructed to enter into discussions with respect
to articles of a definitive treaty, which h id been con
cluded, but not fuily executed. According to ht>
decision, he wanted cempetent authority to conclude
i definitive commercial arrangement between th®
two con tries ; and according to the decision of th®
first pi esident of the United States, undoubtedly h®
wanted the competent authority to negotiate ®H^k ar
rangement. An. opinions expressed toy the minister
in his letters of the 6th and 14;li of December could
not be supposed to reverse a decision deliberately
formed b> president Washington ; and a controvert
siul correspondence relative to such opinions might #
he worse than useless. Of course, it would accordfc
with expedience as well us diplomatic decorum wpf.v
abstain from remarking on those letters in futur®
correspondence. But to discuss the respertiveckdm®
and complaints might contribute to a distinct know
ledge of the affairs, and undoubtedly the minister
might enter into such discussions. No discussions,
however multiplied, could constitute a stipulation for
any thing to be done on the part of the government
of either country. Accordingly, it is worthy of ob
servation, that the letter of the 14th of December
from the British minister plenipotentiary is not men
tinned in the letter of the next d.n fx in the secreta
ry of state, who acknowledges the ministers of th®
t h of November, without seeming to Secpllnft any
ng of the intervening correspondence. I will now
state the introductory part of this letter from then®.- ,
cretary of stile. v
" z>,r 175*. .
Mr Jefferson, irerrtary ,or nate, t Mr I'aa nd, mU
J(M"‘ r rlvoMMitenOary ..f Ore.it Htn , n
<% SIR-^T am tu aekriowk-t}/, t)ic lon«t*r <*f ^’cir l«Uer*f
Wov ’Citi.'md to eapresg. the silisfjctVo '«w#h * Inch we
< if:,, tVf.il jcu »'K i«iu«ce4 to » Hr-tt ft, me;’U-f®
Which t«M and prayihwbibty may dictate for giymg effect
4^
4