The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1809-06-21


for the sake Of triumphing over G. Britain,
but because it has become necessary, on ac-
count of the unwarrantable misrepresentation
Of the opposition, TO show to the people the
dignifed attitude Of their own government
which must be SO gratifying to the just and
honest pride of every nncontaminated Amcri-
can. To do this, a retrospect viii be neces-
sary, from whence we shall be able to discoy--
CT the dispositions of both governments tow
ards each other. I shall begin as far back as
the year 1906, in the close of which, that
treaty was signed which Mr.. Jefferson has
been SO much abused for refusing to raufy
with how much reason and candour we shall
soon see. ssswtt ~
The instructions of our government to Mr..
Munroc, at first our sole minister, and after
wards in conjunction with Mr.. Pinckncy, have
been published, together with the corrcspon-
dence which passed upon the subject OF this
treaty, between the British commissioners
and our own. From these we learn, that our
ministers were instructed to form no treaty
which did not contain an article that would
secure our seamen from impressment. The
treaty signed by our ministers contained no
such article or provision: it therefore was
not made in pursuance of their instructions.
But, moreover, we lcarn,, that our ministers
at 20 time of signing this treaty, notified the
British commissioners of the nature of their
instructions, told them they had exceeded
their powers, and that their government could
not be considered as in any measure pledged
TO confirm their acts. One reason why such
a provision with respect to impressment was
considered as Indispensable by the President,
was, no doubt, that a resolution had passed
the Senate to that effect, for which MIR. Pick
erihg himself voted. The President, there
fore, was not bound even to submit the treaty
to the Senate, as it was not made In pursu-
ance of the instructions given, which were SO
specifck; but there was another great obJec-
tion. After this treaty was thus signed,
note was affixed to it by the British commits
sioncrs, Holland and Auckland, the purport
of which was THAT if France should carry
her Berlin decree into execution against US,
and we should not take Gin the Judgment OF
his Majesty necessary measures to resist 1t,
his Majesty would not consider himself as
prevented by the treaty, from taking such re-
ta.iatory measures as he should deem proper.
This was, in effect, binding us and leaving
them at liberty. Fhis note was thus affixed
without the consent or appreciation OF our min
isters (; and such treaty, coming in such a
questionable shape, the President did not hes
itate to send back, rs in fact it could not be
considered as any treaty at all. The Prcsi-
dent has been much censured by the opposi-
ZION, for sending these propositions back I;
and, 1t has been said, had this treaty Gas 1t Is
charitably caled) been ratified by us, we
should have had no differences with G.. Brit
ain. How false this assertion is will fully APP
pear from the following unteniablc fact. This
treaty was signed in England on the 3lst of
December, 1906, and, ON the 7th of January,
1907, but seven days afterwards, before the
treaty could have got half way to this coun.
try, a British order in council was issued,
protesting to be "a retaliation upon the French
Berlin decree; which order in council pro-
hibitcd us from going from port to port, not
only of France, but also of all countries be-
longing to enemies of G. Britain. This was
not only direct violation of the treaty which
they had signed, but even contrary to the note
which was unauthorisedly affixed to it; for,
by this note, G. Britain claimed the right OF
issuing such orders only in case France should
endeayour to execute her decree against us,
and we should submit to it; and it cannot be
pretended, that seven days could have produc-
cd such state of things as is here conten-
plated; and which, according to their own
admission, could only have justified them in
Issuing such ar order. Here we see the dis
position Of the British government, which
could not have been effected by any know
ledge of the disposition of ours. We also
see what dilemma we should have been in,
had our President and Senate ratified this
treaty withits accompanying note masmuch
as We should have prec.uded and estoppcd
ourselves from demonstrating against this or
der, upon the strong ground of principle and
also against the orders of ith November fol-
lowing which, Mr.. Canning says, are I" an
extension in oterahon but not in hrinciale''
of the order of the 9TH January. Thus far
our government appears upright and honour
ab1r: Bat, as a further evidence of the dis
position and candour of the British govern.
ment, when this treaty WIS returned to our