Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-12-29

.Sltuhtless be conside cred proper evidsn,s 5 !
he deposited with the archives il, ii, ,a;;f;..
ton Of the authority Of the British poys,'
r,eut 10. conclude the arrangement. l;,s|
autherity was contained in any letter g. s.
trrs 81 instruction, III. authentic copv \,
such authority would, with the like t.
prie.y, be deposited in the department h
state.
The language of part. Of she corr.
spondence respecting Mr.. Erskines aushosl
ty seems tnhe grounded IN mistake. MI
administration is spoken Of as no. knssssI
the,restrictisn Of his authority ThisjM
guage might have bern accurate if he III
exhibited a full power giving him au,hons
to negotiate and conclude s.ipalation.,.
Because in the case of q full power embrs
ing the whole subject of negociation, M
minister might be restricted ID the cxsrts
of his power by orders from his goysnl
meat, instructing him how 70 proceed u
on what he might conclude. And sheuhI
has restrictive instructions for his own 4
rec,ion anil full power to be exhibited
the government with which the ncgociair
is had, if he departs from the instructions
his own government, notwithstanding kN
formidable plenitude-of bis power, is coli
sislrred as not bound 10 ratify his acts, 81
peciallysif he has departed from his ipatsE}
tions on subject of importance to thehs!
nnr. or rights which he was instruc,eds]
maintain. But 10 the case before us, nd.r
can we find sufficient reason for So ;aksp a
the rxlriction Of authority as being W.
known If the authority was known! Ths.
docs not appear to have been any restrictia
except what was Inherent in the nature II &
the authority. The same despatch, ,h.t
ter Of instruction, gave the authority 81
tsvfncd its extent. Jn the nature Of III!
thing, the minister could not have mm1
authority than was given to lin; and NJ
nci,ner was nor could be authorised to e.
beyond the extent of his authority, Ho
then, in this case, is it possible to sspns
the authority from what is calted the y
s.riction? If, therefore, the negociata
has been concluded according to the pin
ciples of public law, the evidence Of
authority, such as it existed and appsarSff
in fact, neither more nor less, car B. PROV
duced. Unless there be some cvid:&s
dis.inc, suthorit, ostensibly competent
the arrangement, where is the propr'e'!fN
insisting on explanations as il there w.
been apparent authority: Explanation
obviously due where the minister has ess
bitcd competent tull power, on I'll: fa'i1 q
which an arrangement has been concasI
If his government tIisavows the arraar
mrnt because Of departure from ms;rueu
on points important to the government I
violation of instructions, and the importa'
OF the matters respecting which they NJ
been violated, constitute the basis OF
proper explanation, to which may be aat
proper compensation for the failure, u
due attention TO the time and manaa
making the explanation. !.
The case of the arrangement with "
Erskine has sometimes been con,parsd
that ofthe treaty signed at London On
s1st of December, 1so6,.by Messr' No
roe and Pinkncy. But the cases are nf
rally different That negotiation was co
Quoted with observable prolrtr,y and q.
rum by the ncgociators of each parry y
haps no case is t, be found in which ta:f u.s.
spectiye ministers insisted with more nj
ness and perseverance SIN the claims, ma
ests and pretensions of their own gosuf
ments, and yet preserved towards each
so much decorum and honorable a'tsnoI
intheir Official and nalcomman,eans
Although Mrssrs. Monroe and pl'',
had full powers tor the negotiation,
had instructions sepcratc from tn" s.
raj powers, and 5yzthese instructions
were restricted according to n. sp''a. 81
terms. Inacceding to such artlce:s.
believed expcdeasmnd-r the existing #
thsv gave notice to the D.
plenipotentiaries, that they proceeded
~ ! -