The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-07

vemoer. subsequent to his proposal, he sags
he was possessed of full power in due for IN
Tor the express purpose OF concluding trca-
/ y or convention.
but IL still re;adins uncertain, whether b.
the treaty or Convention tn which il relate /.
! was not meant evcHtaGf or provisional
srea'y on the general relations between the
two countries without any reference to the
case 81 the chesapeake. Cer,aia it is that
the British government in iorn,er like cases,
rs wit be seen by the adjustment OF that
part:oi the affair at Nootls sound, which is
analogous to this case, did not consider any
such distinct full power as necessary nor is
there the slightest ground for surprising that
Mr.. E.r>lSinc, although coaEcsscdly instruct
j ell to adjust this very case of the Chesa-
peake, was furnished with any authority
distinct from his credsntial letter. That
Mr.. Jackson has any such commission is the
less to be supposed, as it is but barely possi-
bic, that possessing it, he should not on some
occasion or in some. form have useda lam
suagc susceptible Of no possible doubt on this
point.
But proceeding % the proposal itself, it IS
20 De kept IN mind that the conditions form
ing Its basis. are the very conditions for the
deviating FROM which Mr. Erskine's adjust
| 'nent was disavowed. Mr. Jackson, il not
on others, is ON this point explicit Inew
F., add, says he, that the deviation consulted
! In not recording i'll the official document
signed here the abrogation of the Presidents
proclamation of the Cd July, 1907, as we'll
as the two reserves specified in the paper
| of memoranda enclosed in my Official letter
| to you of the 9th ut''
Considering thenth con 9itions in the pro.
toSal rs an ultimatum, in what light are we
compelled 10 view such an attempt to repair
the outrage committed on the frigate Ches-
npeake and to heal the disappointment pro-
dnccd by disavowal of previous equitable
reparation>
1t is impossible on such an occasion not to
recall the circumstances which constituted
the character of the outrage 10 which such
an uitimatum is now applied. A national
SNIP proceeding on an important service.
was watched by superior naval force CHI
Joying at the time the hospitality of our ports,
was followed and scarcely ont of our waters
when she was, after an insulting summons,
attacked in hostile manner; and the ship
SO injured as to require expensive repairs,
the expedition frustrated a number of the
crew Killed and wounded, several carried
into captivity, and one of them put to death
under military sentence. The three sea-
men, though American citizens and there
lore ON every suppo sit ion detained as wrong.
fully as the ship would have Deen detained.
nave notwithstanding, remained in captivity
between two and three years and, it may
he aided, after it has long ceased TO be de-
med that they are American citizens.
Under these circumstances we are called
upon to ransom the captives,
lst. By acknowledging that precautiou-
airy proclamation. justified by events prece-
oing the outrage, by the outrage itself and
ny what Immediately followed it, was un
Justitiable, and that repeal of it was pro.
perry condition precedent to a repara ion
for the outrage And this requisition is re-
peated, too, after such an acknowledgment
bad been uniformly asserted by this govern
ment to be utterly ina missi5le, and, what
is particularly remarkable. ut time when +
the PROCLAMATION, is well understood, was
no long + IN force. The occasion obviously
invited silent assumption Of the existing
tact. and this would have excluded the Diff
Guilty heretofore found to be insuperabe
"a. By throwing ,nto complete oblivion
the Conduct OF the officer apswerable for the
murderous transactio,., with knowledge too,
en- our part, that instead of being punished
or even brought to trial, he has been no.
norcd by his government with new and
more important command
sd. by admitting right on the part OF
Great Britain to claim discharge from our
service of descrters generally, and particu-
larly or her natural born subjects, without
excepting such as had been naturalized in
due form under the laws Of the U States.
1t has not been explained, whether it was
meant, rs the universally of the term :" de-
serters" would import to include American
citizens who might have left the British
service. Bat what possible consideration
could have induced the British government
TO expect that the United States could admit
a principle, that wculd deprive our natural
lied citizens of the legal privileges, which
they hold i'll common with their native fell
low citizens. The British government ought
NOT lave made such proposition because.
lit not only, like others. naturalizcs aliens:-
but in relation to the United States have g.
ven refused to discharges from the British
service native citizens of the United States.
inyoluntariIy detained Ifan American sea-
man has resided in Great Britain, or has
married therein, or has accepted bounty in
her naval service, his discharge therefrom.
on the regular application to the British 90
vernmcnt, has been invariably refused by
it's board of admiralty. This state on the
authority of the official reports made to this
department. 1t is, therefore, truly aston
shing that, with knowledge of these facts.
such pretension should have been advar-
lced at all, but above all, that il should have
been made Il sine qua nan TO an act of plain
Justice, already so long DELAYED. This is
the more to be regretted, as the omen docs
not favor the belief VIC would. willingly che.
rish, that no pre- determination exists i'm tho
councils ofhis Bri.annic Majesty irreconcil-
able to an amicable arrangement Of an af-
fair, which, aft citing so deeply the honor os
the United States, must precede general
regulation OF the mutual interests of the two
Countries.