The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1807-10-10
FROM THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
THE TREATY.

have afcertained to my fatisfaction that the
pamphlet recently publifhed in this city, with
the title of " The Britiih Treaty." and which
Is now IN courfe OF entire republication in
the columns of the Evening Poft, was written
by Mr.. Oliver Wolcott, late fecretary of the
treafury, and printed at the office of Mefrs r.
and ]. Swords. The faa in relation to the
latter gentlemen is not mentioned in the way os
ceniure, for they have printed the pamphlet a.
they fell books; both are in the line of their bu
nefs.
But what fhall we fay ofMr. Wolcott, diff.
tinguifhed federaiih, and once confidential
advifer of PreGdent Adams? He who conliders
the objed of the pamphlet, can have no Difficult.
ty in making the anfwer.
Engaged in ferrous Misunderstanding with
England, one in which are involved the peace.
the PROPERTY, and the honor of America, MIR.
Wolcott has written and publiilied the pamph.
let in apology for England on the one hand,
and, on the other, avowedly to cenlurc the Pre-.
fident for rejecting the treaty without having,
in the Judgment of MIR. w. fufiicent caufe for
the rejection.
In the profecutoD of thofe purpofes, we fee
Mr.. Wo!cott acting in fecret with the Brtiih
minifer.
predicate this remark on the well known
fa6t that only two copies of the treaty were re.
II,
was not laid before the Ssnate, and the one by
the Brtilh minifter and ALTO on what is c.
qually certain-that Mr.. Wolcott has not OBJ
tanned acopy OF the treaty from the Executive
department.
Need we ak by whom he was furnfhed with
it? There can be no mftake in anfwering --5y
the Brtifh minifter.
What then do we witnefs? A foreign miniC
ter, difregarding the cufomary refpc6t due to
the nation to which he is ient, colieaeung with
confpicuous member of the federal party to
invigorate the old and raiie if pofible new op.
petition to the administration.
The ground taken by MIR. Wolcott, "a far as
we can upderfand him, for he is contradictory
and contuied, is that the treaty contains many
commercial advantages TO the u. S. and there.
fore that it Rlould not have been reieaed--efpe-
cially in the way it was, without referring i, 10
the Senate. am not about to difcufs the trea-
ty, to afcertaio the advantages or disadvantages
OF It, for whatever it was, it is no more but
agaiult the party and malignant efforts of the
writer, will offer fome observations in defence
Of the executive.
have always underfood, and my informa.
ton is derived from fources as correct "a thofc
Of Mr.. Wolcott, that the treaty was reje6ied on
two grounds
]. That it contained no article, or one not
satisfactory, in relation 10 the right imperiouag
affirmed by the Britilh government Of fearching
our merchant fhips for men.
2. That the treaty was accompanied with
note calling upon the U. S. in very arrogant
tone to make common caufe with England 2.
gsint the blockading decree of the emperor Of
France, and in cafe of refuiing to do TO-, de.
claring, in terms too explicit to be mifunder-
food, that even when ratified by the commit
foncrs Of the Britifl government, and by the
PRECEDENT and Senate Of the u. s. England
would be bound by it or not as her interehs
might dictate.
The queftion regarding the right Of fcarch,
which has 70 long been the fubjed Of difcufIion
Between the two governments, is not noticed in
the treaty az givea by Mr.. Wolcott. IF no o.
ther and greater objection than The omifiiou of
an important item had been entertained, what
ever might have been the final deciiion of the
President as 10 ra,ifying the inltrumeut, he
would in all likelihood have referred it TO ;he
Senate.