The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-11-21
Il CITE Gnaulrer.
RICHMOND, ele NOVEMBER.
IMPORTANT FACTS.

4
ilufratc our remark:
| 1. 1t isnst true that " our mininers propo-
fed to furrender our claims," ez'cn in the Ienf
intended by Decius. Granting that " their ul-
innate payment was to be aumed by the u.
States" it was not therefore fairly equivalent
to furrender of them" Will Decius pretend
that our claim upon the French government
svas "relinquilhed," by the convention of sos,
although it a(Iumed the payment of 90 millions
of francs by the government of United States |?
The arrangement in both cafes would have
been precifely the fame. The value of Louifi-
ana qvaJ eliminated at 60 millions of francs, of
which IL $50, 900 dollars only were to be paid
to the French republic; the remaining 90 mil
] lions of francs being referved TO the American
claimants. In the fame manner, the value Of
the Floridas would have been eitimated at fnTc
I particular FUN, from which would have been
deducted the amount of American claims and
the balance would have been paid in money or
in ftock to Spain. In both cafes, the amount of
American claims would have been deducted
from the price Of the purchafe. In both, the
claimant" would have been more conveniently
" provided for :" for they would have looked
to their own treafury for payment, inilead OF
the Golfers of Spain Our own government
would have advanced the amount OF the claim,
but would have received repayment in the va
lue of the land.
Q. Decius has traugely COMPOUNDED his own
differences with fails ; and mere probabilities
with poftiye af1ertions. In his firt number, he
allerts that " our minfers had propofed to eff
tabliih the Colorado as the wehern boundary of
Louiiiana." In his lat, he enquiries whetherit is
" not probable" from certain circumstances, that
| they had made tuch propoftion. Now what
are thoie circumstances "In their correfpon-
dence with the Spanib miuifry, our minitters"
may bavc " ftatsd, that they had exceeded their
inftruetions." But Decius may have mfunder-
| food the words of our minifers. Decius may
have miiconftrued that myferiouS language
and even thofe bargaining expedients of policy
| which are 70 common in diplomatic concerns.
Deeius has forgotten to fate the conditions,
which we required on the part of Spain, and
in thofc conditions may be found an explanation
OF the difference which exits in our ffatemcnts.
Our mlnliters may baVe much exceeded their
inttructions by propoiing TO eftabfh the CO.
dorado as the wenern boundary, without nipu-
lating the conditions on which that conceiIion
was to have been made, as if they had propofed
IT without reeeiUing the imallet initructions.
1t is true, that fuch propoftion would not
have exceeded the nfru6tons of our miRters,
| ifthey have taken care TO accompany ii with the
| proper conditions. Our mnfers " were au-
thoriied to relinqunl 70 mucbio thew edward,
as they could obtain TO the Eafward Of the Milf
fffppi;" and thus fuocefiive facrfces were
marked ont cf .-h;ct re :
to be the lait. Had then our minifers advanc-
ed anyother proportions then thefe, they would
have certainly overlooked their inftrueicns !;
but what other reafons have we for GYeb a
belief, than the ibjs dixit of Decius ?
! 1t is true that Decius " has no where poH-
fiveLy aDsrted" that the LouGana treaty WAS
antedated and yet Decius had afleried his
beiieE that fuch was the fact.-But Deems
merely JfHggsR5, that "the treaty was .Egned:
(hkiSqnentLy to the date exprefed on the face of
it," The /xggeRion is equally probable, that
! the date eXprefed upon the face OF it, was the
very fame as the day of Egning it. But this is
not thetrue point at iflue. Decius fuggelted, that
the Louifana treaty antedated, for the
purpofe of " obviating" the objections, which
the BrtiIh minitry might pleafe to make to if.
Granting then that the preient explanation of
Decius is correct that few days did inter
vene between the making and the Ggning of
the convention it does not therefore follow
that this hort interval of few days was in
! tended to provide againft any apparent breach
OF neutrality. The true reafon was to allow time
enough to tranicribe the convention in that
fplendid manner, which Chninguifhes all Bona.
parties treaties. 1t was 5Sere matter of form
and no diplomatic trick to evade fancied
breac6 of neutrality. But this laG was theEnjc, in
which Decius evprs9;d and mtfndedh. How
idi III WAS proper 10 duSdIlCc lUCn an lnu0gdti-
on againlt his government, upon fuch deficient
| evidence as he fcemingly poGehes, it is left to
his ingenuity to determine.
Sd and 18th. We agree with Dccius, that
the meiidgeS" may be left to fpeak for
themfelves." If the public meiTage led
| the nation to breathe fpirited language, it was
not becauGe they believed war with Spain was
| necenary, but becauGe they wiiiled to manifef
to her that we would not, if necehary, decline
it.. IF the private mefage did not excite the
fame ieRtiments among the people, it was on
| Iy becaufe it was not laid before them
5. Is Decius correct in afIerting, that Z" r.
r'er0i of the bef-i9tormed members, who had
voted for the majority, declared that Mr.. Mon
roe's dispatches" had produced fuch an " i'm
portant cftd" upon their minds Decus feems
not very f:rupulous in bringing the members
ofCongrcfs into notice why then docs he he
ttate to defignate the names Of thofe new con
verts to his dottrne9 Why was not this " i'm
portant efr6l" manifelted in the Senate, he.
fore whom thefe diGpatcheswere duly exhibited
II is imPo1ibc to believe, that Decits could
have meant any thing more by the word 6 in
formation" than fiiifJ +; but what were the fatFJ
difplayed in thefc dfpatches Does not Deci-
US well know, taat they contained nothing but
a." opinion /" Would even the obiHion5 Of DR..
Franklin under fuch circumstances, have ftlfficed
to controul the detllions Of congrcfs Is it rot
a fact, that there is no documented" com
munication between our minifters at Paris and
nd he ,cI, 10.