Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-10-17
Dirglala sjIE
TUESDAY, Oeroska Il, 1903.

R c II NJ IN !

ftt
ouf, IN the federal paper a toe priv,te
instructions of M. Ers,. ne, ytre. hnnwa
60 the American Seer atary of Stale, before
the rrtnSs men VS. Constituted bet Seea
them Ia the first D ace, ;he Instructions
as publshe by the authority of the 3 i,ish
government, bear on the face of them, and
III the circunstances oy wn.ch ,.hey were
acco mp ,nied, the strongest evidence. I'll It
we nave had IS ye,, ony Il sarnlsd and D ,r-
cal pub icaton of the conndacatina>.
hich passed on this subject betwssn Ir.
canning and Mr. Erskine. fns wmnhp..
Ding evidence, IN the power, OF the party,
aiwAys Creates a strong Inference against
she Cause which he supports. r,ere IS al
Us ground to believe, that the wlole truth
when d scosed, would OPP rate agan,t M N,
else why withnold It :? MIR. Gaming st lnI,
precisely I, the pre- iicdment, that i person
would do In Court of just &c, who snpu. Il
EXHIBIT p gee OF testimony, wnsn il W IS
apparent thai ne carefully wit,leid orher
important documents or evidence in hls
power, pertintci ousiy reflsu,s TO rxn,n,t
them, and assigning a, re ,soa far their non
production. In the inlividu, Il Case, the
c url and Jiry Won ,presu ne tnai the 3a..
~ mean 20 practicc q tTaul, ini decSPi,
on, On them, and the sane inference mast
necessary be IN d. by me people .of G reat
britain and Am>rica. There is very RIA.
s)n then, az prcse {, to suppose, Tn lt tue
pubic have never seen, al me corresDoi
denc between Ms. G. naipg and NJ. Ers.
ne, aud that WHEN discl,sed, 1t w..i prove
sntt the latter acted conforn oily t. h IN.
s'ruct'ons. Aln,tuu5, however, tor the
sake oil argulnent, that MIR. Erskine tran
scendeu nis private instruction,, yel the
@rranYement made by hin, rs b, nding on HI,
5overnnsni. Ii has never been denied tha.
Mr. Erskine nc Ell unQer pu1l,c INSTRUCT
ons or letters OF Gre deuce as a minis er ME
aipoIeniIary. fncse pu ,hc instruction,
must necessarily n we been saewn to- tn
oecretary vi b ate betore any discussion w >
entered inso, between himself ahd NJ Frs
/ Aihe' sOur government. tnen, from the ,le-
claratipns of the BRITISH CABINET itself, w :
| authorised 20 Con ,lder Mr. Erskine as IN
vested with full powers to MAKE an ar.
ransenent such As was included between
the two nations. Under the faith OF such
declarat ons, tie American administration.
not only made the arrans ,nenr which was
then published, ~ actusIiy-, ntered upon
performance OF IT, in respect hgly In
4 PorIa'. 20 Sfe Il Britain, namely, tn < wing
Nee scope 10 our IN erCourse with her and
'herey an)ra NJ ner supplies and raw ma
teriais Wh;ch. were essential foe her pros
perity- Alter hrs, Great Britain had ne
SHADOW OF rlgnt TO rescind, or declare VOID
the asreement entered into by ner minister
unier = Pretence that such minister had
violated, or d'sregarded private instructI-
ois oi tae oreish caDnet. Those ms rue
.ions were never, (Although the contrary
rs oeep falsely inslauated) shewn to our
'iSn.' attempt then to nuI lily a
S., 49,, entered INTO with an agent having
iui powers to make an ,arranpennent ON the
'uoJscts 20 whicl II rel tted. va. contrary
20 the principles of good faith, and by those
immnta6le maxims of natural justice which
s,a'es as wen as individuals, are bound to
OBEY, anc which they cannot disregard with /.
out u'snohor Aadfwhat IN axes the Inius
ticc more enormous and more trying on the
part OF Great Britain, is, that the United
osa'es I'VE actually performed the most
hNerlal thing expected OF them, the resto
ration oil an unrestrained intercourse. and
tne Consequent exposure of our commerce
ny the rescission Of the compact entered in.
20 to the unjust and Illegal deprrd ton OF
1reat brita and the other belligerents.
ihe ioiiow'ng passage. fra n one of their
own writer's on natural law, exposes very
Iorc y the njus'ice of the pretenslon now
set 'fp by Great BIZ tln.
. As W. IN bud ourselves by nronise.
"hicn we m de in our own persons SO like
wise we are Obliged to stand to a promise
winch ano her person makes for US, where
we nave given h m either general comm 3
S on to act for US in all things, or a partr.
ceiar commission to act in this affair In
elmer case, by such con mission, where
ne keeps within the bounds of it, we have
made AIS act our own.
where we have given man a power
or com MISSION to act for us, as our nroxy
though no restriction or Limitation of such
Commission may appear, yet 1t frequently
hfpp ms, that we give some private in
s'ructions to such proxy, or agent, Ia what
manner we weuld h I'VE him act, and how
TAR ne may 81. Suppose him then to act
contrary to these private instruci ions. and.
10 90 farther than we allowed hun I've
shal be obliged 10 stand to the promise
wacn ne makts rus, no twithstand,oy our
consent seems to be wanting For that
act OF our viii, whereby he was appointed
our agent which IS the only act OF our viii, |
that IS or eau be known by the parry to
whom the pr mise is made, is suffic en-
20 make what such agent does for us be |
considered as our own act. The SyivateI
instructions, which we gave HIN, caonot |
sfect any one, to whom they are no, J
known. and from whom we are determined
a. mr. ~