Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-12-23

before the house that strenuous efforts w,,sS
made BY Mr.. Jackson to call up the di i
sion of the subject afresh, on the principi.
that the arrangement Of Mr.. Erskine Is.
unauthorized & entered into by the govern.
ment OF the United States with know.
ledge Of its being so. Hewas against civ.
Ing any color whatever to that opinion. Rs
was never opposed to calling for necessary
information, but the reason be had assign.
ed, sif there were no other, was sufficient
10 induce him to vote against the resolution
Of the gentleman FROM New-York Nj.
Erskine having denied ever having 3: y
his government reasonto snppose, from i
conversations he had with any of the mem.
beers of the executive, ytnat this governmsnt
would agree to the third proposition, /,
seemed 10 be thousht necessary Dy the Brii.
fish ministry to throw the blame of it on
Mr.. P;nkney. The very naa,ir of the Of.
fensive proposition itself, ought to Undue.
gentlemen to reject erervp,otion to enquire
into its origin. He would spurn the idea
of enqniring what AR. Pinkney thought Of
it, because it went to a point which was
wholly inadmissitle in itself and he ncv,,
could have proposed TO any government that
it should assist in executing the laws Of the
United States. Ii was just as inadmissitl.
as ifthe British gnve'hmrr: ha,s proposed
to Congress 10 pass laws for thrn.. MIR.
Jackson had stated that arrangement vas
disavowed because. the instructions contan.
ed in Mr.. Canning's note OF the Esd fla.
nuary, had no, been complied with which
instruction included this third proposltio,
And consequently this third propositioa
mus, be agreed TO before any negotiation
could b. brought to conclusion. But all
this was entirely foreign to the concurrent
resolution from the S-nats, which merely
respected the conduct of Dir. Jackson TO-
wards this government, ; and whether b.
government he'd acted properly in the nan.
ner in which it had treated him Brsldrs
it must evidently have been Mr.. Caunn,
who had mistaken the mcaningof Mr.Pnk.
ney in th> conversation, because Mr.pMs.
nev could not have had any doub;s on tn:
subject of such proposal. And VIVA, had
the house to do with the mistakes OF Nh
Canning? They had re int ri n Of erect
ing an incuisition into the corrvcnsss or'n.
correctness Of his ideas, and Therefore
needed no information on the sUb!cct Of
them. Our minister had been made &C.
quain,ed with Mr.. Erskine's i"7tr'~tpNs,
on the 9Th of May and the arrar3rnra.
with that gentleman was entered in,",N a
pril For that it had been carried into execA'
ton ny the ". St...es, rr;oi I" ,h:. ii i've at
which the Instructions of Mr.. Erskin: hsl
been communicated to Mr.. piHkacy. III
Mr.. Canning was at that time d:visias
means of disavowing the arrangement, he
might expect was entered mo, "! at was
that to the Ucitrd States :. TIA. arrao5
mcnt was plain matter of bargain that anv
one could understand, which after being
carried by one party to it, into compile:
execution, was refused to &c fulfilled by the s
other. Gentlemen have slid thar e,e Br.
tish government had right to get from tn.
Uaited States all it could, and that, if hD s
proposition had been made BY our mi.
ni.te, they were not to blame in accepting h
it. Where was the evidence that Mr.. Pink. Z
ney had ever proposed or even assented 10
it. Snch was his opinion of tina. gentleman,
that he could not for a moment permit him
to suppose tina. he would assent to such a
proposition. ltwas not treating him with
Justice to suppose so. He concluded bYre'
that it was not for him to say
whether or not war would result from tn: 81
present state Of things he dill not wish t0' &
war but this consideration had nothing s.
do with the present resolution agalns
which hswoud vote for many reasons, so"'
of which he had specified.
Fir. Go!d had examined, he said, the d" q
cumrn.s communicated at thc last session 81
and had found no such despatch as had been b