The Sun.
London, England, 1810-01-04 00:00:00

TB3 SVCRIZARY or THE T.REASURY TOME. SRSTi►il

• • , • Wasinugton, Aug. !3v
do not believe, that in the conversations we.
have had respecting the practicubility ot an adjust-
meat' of The 'differences between the United Suites.
-And 'Great Britain, we eser have tuisuuderstood one
another: Yet as from Mr. Ginning's test.rtietions_
lately pUblished by your government, it would seetis
that some opinions are ascribed to, sever_ Members
'of this Administration which they. did not einerain,
it appears necessary to ascertain whether nu any
point a misapprehension can have taken place..
wilLforbeat making any observations on, what
in the instructions :is called the third condition,
since it is not asserted that that inadmissible propirsi-
tiorrwas suggested at Washington.
The poitits embraced in Mr. 'Canning's•first pro
position formed the principal topic of our
.cotivp-
isationa, relative to a revocation ot the Orders in
Councils Yet in
.the manner in whien that propo-
sition is expressed, it goes further than. ,
suggested by the Members of the Administratioir.
It is sufficiently evident froth the proceedings of the
Congress, 'both previous and subsequent to the -un-
ratified ,agreement of April last, that the :United
States intended to continue the restriction. on
,the
Commercial intercourse with France, while ,such of
her decrees as violated Our neutral rights continued
in three, amid to remove those restrictions. ier rela-.
Lion to Great 13ritaitr, in the event ofa revocation of
the Orders in• Council. But that state of. things, sn
far as it related to France, was to result from ot4r
own laws known- or anticipated by your Go-
vernment when they authorised an. arrangement 3.
and it was not proposed by us that the; continu-!
apes of (he note-intercourse with . France sheuid, be
made a' condition of that arraegerneot. *iiVitilst an
that subject, I witl add an observation, though per-
haps:net immediately 'coneected with the object of
this leiter. think that the obiect of that prop9si-
. tion;i6lar as it agreed with your previous . under-
standing of the imetitioni of
_this government, •has
hei.;n subs:initially carried intoellect, on our part.
It is true that your gdiertnnent might at the date
of the ititrtictiotisliaVe expetted from the incipient
proceedtrigs it Couwess; that FIALA "woutd net
etilbrEked.by the restrictive laws of the 'United States.
Not
.Only, wavever, was the omission nominal,
• since. American vessels were at the, time by the de-
creeS of
.that country refused admission iiiip its
perts but under the same consfruCtion Of our laws
by'w inch the cotimiercizil intercourse with Holland
wa, pl/4.ltoitied, unit with
,Portugal was :its° cousi7
dered as legal eon the event of oat country- being
occupied by British troops in the name of the
Prince Regent.
It is therefore principally as respects the second
condition which relates to the colonial trade, That
erroneous inferences might be • drawn front the ex-.
pressions used in Mr. -Ciuming's instructions. Al-'
though the subject must have been mentioned here
incidentally, and only in •A' transient manner, as it
is One to which I had paid particutar attention, and'
• on which my-opinion had never. varied, I think that
can state witli precision in. what view I have al-
ways considered it, and must have alluded to it.
1. I never could have given.countenance to an
opinion that the United States would agree, or that
• it wound be proper
.to make any arrangement what-
ever respecting the colonial trade, a condition .ot the
revocation of the Ofders in Council.
..The two sub-
jects were altogether unconnected, and I arts confi-
dent that such a proposition was never suggested
either by you, or any member of this administration.
Such an arrangement could be effected only by
treaty; and if is with a considerable degree of. sur-
prise that .1 see your government now asking resist-
wide to the French decrees, but the abandonment of
a branch of oar commerce, as the price of tbe.revo-
catitinof the Orders in Council. ' This seems ,to
give a new character to a measure which had here-
totere been represented.. as an act of retaliation re-
lactauily adopted, and had'been defended solely on
the. grOund of a suppo,sed acquiescence on the:part
of the United States ie 'the injurious decrees of an-
other nation.
2, In the event of a treaty embracing all the
points in :dispitte, and particularly that. of impress. 7
resents, withoin Which, trust, no treaty will ever
take place, it was my opitsibri, 'atid I may certainly
have expressed it; that it the other subjects of do-
teretide_ were ananged, that respecting the colonial
trade. would be eatsily adjusted. I bad considered
the- principles:recoguized in a fOrtner correspondence
between Lord HawkeSbury_and Mr. King, on the
subject of the..colOnial ll'ade, and subsequently again
adoined in the treaty .negocialed by Messrs. Monroe
and Pinckney, aS a general basis agreed oh, under

ITONLA,Is; Pririted by RICHARD HARRIS, 0fN0..4, Martlett-co:in, an
At the SUN-OFFICE, .NO. 1 J 2, Stkapd; wiiero :eldvartisenients,' arders

different administrations, by boat Governinents;
from which neither could now recede, and suiceptii:
hie only of modification as to-details. The instruc-
tions to our Ministers in London on. that subject
had also been published, and were known to your-
Government. I therefore believed that the United.
States, in the event of a treaty, would still be cl'N7
posed to wave for the present, in 'the manner and
on the terms contemplated by those instructions,
their right to that branch, and ,to that branch only,
of the colonial trade, ttnown- by the name of direct
trade, that is to say, the trade carried directly from
belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe,
when that trade was not .permanently, in peace as
in war, permitted by the I-aws of the country to
which those; countries belonged. The right to a
trade between such colonies and the United States
generally, and to that in colotti4 articles between
the United States and other countries; nevercan, nr
will, in my opinion, be abandoned, or 'its exercises
be suspended by. this
_GoVernment. On the con-
trary, it is solely in order to secure, by an express
treaty stipulation, that trade against the danger
.of
inttituption, and thus
.by a mutual spirit of ac-
commodation; to avoid collisions; that , the aban-
donment of the direct branch can never be. assent-
,
ed to.. .

Permit me therefore to request, that yOu will in-
form me, whether you understood me on those two
points, as I certainly- meant to be understood, name-,
ly,.thtt the relisquishment, during the present war,
of what.is called the direct trade; was eforre contern-
platett ; at-hi !hit no arrangemeint on that subject
o was
.stAggeed as A condition of the revocation of
thic Orders in Council.

-1 have the hanour to be, with the highest respect
and coaideration., Sir, your Obedient servant, -
(Signed) 'ALBERT GALLATIN.
Hon. D, M. Erskine, Minister Pieniiaoterttiary, &c. &c.

MR.,ERSKINR TO THE SRCRET.ARY OrTHE TREASURY.

Washington, August 15, Ito 9

Sin7.—l have she honour to acknowledge, the re-
ceipt.of your letter on the 13,1) inst. in which yon
have been pleased to say that although you 6' do not
believe that in the conversations we,have had respect-
ing the .practicability of an adjustment 'of the ditfe-
rences between the United States and Great Britain,'
We ever have misunderstood one another. Yet, as
from Mr, Canning's instructions, lately published• by-
my would seem that some opinions
are ascribed to several Members of this Administra-
tion whkh they did not entertain, it appears .neces-
sat y to ascertain .whether, on: any point, a misav-
prehenkon. can have taken place."
In answer to your inquiries, I have great satisfac-
tion it,-assuring you that there appears to have been
no misunderstanding respecting .the substance or
'meaning of the conversations which .paSsed.betweerr
us, as stated in Mr. Canning's instructions allu-
ded to. •

After the most careful perusal of your statement
of the 'purport of our conversations, I cannot disco-
ver any material difference from the representation
which I have made upon ,that subject to tilts Secre-
tary:. of State (Mr. Robert Smith) in my letter to
him of the.i4th inst. to which 1 .wil herefore beg
leave to refer.you, as I have therein.detailed the sub-
stance of the conversation according to my recollec-
tion of it; which'is in every respect esientially; the
same as that wtdch you seem. to have_ entertained. • • '-
During the 'conversation which we. held' respect-
ing the practicability, of an amicable. adjustment of
the differences between the two countries; when the
relinquishment by the °United States; during-Ahe
present war, of what is called -the Colonial: trade;
was suggested by you, I conceived that you:meant'
(as you have sated) trade carried directly
from belligerent colonies. to the-. befligerent's in ,Eu--
rope, when Oa( trade was not permanently in peace
as in war permitted by the laws of the cowry to
which thofil. colonies belonged.
I never supposed' that you intended to convey. an,
opinion that the Govermnent of the United States
wonid make any arrangements respecting the ,cold.
lila! trade as a condition of the . revocation of the
Orders in Council; the two subjects•being altogether
unconnected ; nor have I ever. represented to his
Majesty's Government that such preiiminary plecigva
would tie given' • •

With ientiniepts of the highest respect, I have
the honour to-be, Sir, y-four npOst obedient-humble
servant,

(Signed) D. M. ERSKINE.
The aon. Albeit Gallatin,' &c. &c.

. •
Here follow the ,letters *hie!' pasted between Mr. Jack-
son and Mr. Stnitti (three in number). with the notes referred
to in the second. Letter of the tatter Gentleman, wilich ap-r.
geared in THE Sure of Monday, Tuesday. and yesterday. 3

The National Intelligencer df the hof Novem-
ber; from which we Copied the •whhle‘of these Do-
cuments, promises he reniairting tour letters in full ;
but in another Paper giyes
.the following as the put-,
port of the whole. We copy the co:lrse language of
the"Arnerican Journalist verbatim
. .
" Letter I. In the first 'eater Mr. Jacksontle-
clares \that Canning's letter of the 23d January, t
Was "rhe only dispatch
~upon which Er-
skine was authorised to enter into ,any arrangement
with this country.'
" 2. is the reply of Mr. Smith ; he assures Jack-
son, that no such declaration •as be had made had
ever been given to the Amerkcan GoVernment and
that it had, the arrangement would never have
taken plate.

" 3. To thii assurance Jackson replies,. by, itnpu-
de-ntly irksintiating, that at the time .the April ar-
rangement \vas made, the American. Government'
did kno*. that Cantiiiig's' lettek was the only letter
of instruction authorising Erskine to.negociate.,

4. Mr. Smith, in answer, properly. resents the
insolence of Jackson, and informs hirh, that The
sinuation that the American GOverorziept 11.'41 a
knowledge Which. they had ei.pl.citly denied, was
an indecorom perfectly inadinissible."
Jack Son, in reply to this ii-itirnation, reite-•
rated• his former assertion, in latiguage 'more gr(.6-;
'and tinequivodal.tlian that which fle:tiad befOre,used,
and which halt juitly.proiokeS" the .rosuntment,.Of
tho Administration. 7, . . •
" 6. The language .oflihe Airlerican'Secretary,
in reply to the, repeated arid'unwarY-atitable.false7,
hood, will rhea he cordial approbation of every
honest American from Maineto'.Georgia. He in-
formed this impudent-Repieseptakive,ora perfidious
Court that no:further sopportunity \mold ne alforelo-
i

P.LblttleLVby IV/1:,I-1AM A ItAtite; E R SCR/I'l's, 'Sou‘h
or the Paper; Letters for the Editor, Ste. (post-p`ataY,

ed him to leant the Government, for that no more
communications would be'received, and that hii in-
solent deportment would be immediately communi-
cated to his ,Government ; who might if they pleas,.
ed, send out another Minister, or take the conse.
quences,9f his unpro% Oked asad arrogant impticlence."

POLICE.