The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-12-14

insulted the government he repeated til,
insult after being told that it was inadmis
sibIe; and insisting on the untruth in tn,
most unequivocA terms, openly and imper
atively avowed his resolution to continue
the same line of conduct. There was M
possibility OF. forbearing any longer; it hac
become indispensably necessary to cst Aim
Of + ON the government, and accordingly he
was cut off.
The evasion which Mr.Jackson afterwards
attempted to palm upon the Secretary oil
State, is the bases. of all possible subterfu
ges. Making use of Mr., Oak; ey's name, he
says. zone of the facts alluded to 1.-THE com.
municatou of the conditions by Mr. Erskine
has been admitted by the Secretary Of State
HIMSELF" and, "thae that instruction Toi
January 2Sd] is the only one in which the
conuitions wereprescribed, is known to NE. .
He then proclaims. thatit was for "stating
these facts and adhering to them," that he
was dismissed by the President. So far from
TINS having been the ground for discarding
him. It's confidently affirmed by the writer
for this article, that if Mr.. Jackson. in his let
tiers to the Secretary of State, had advanced
nothing more than what he does i'm Mr..
Oakeley's note, the government of the Uni
ted States wouii certainly have taken no Of
fence at it. But Mr.. Jackson's insinuations
| and assertions were of avery different com
piexion. They were nor that Mr.. Smith
admitted one fact that Mr.. Jackson knew
another fact; but that, Mr.. Smith having
stated to Mr. Jackson, that '' after the expl
cit * peremptory asseveration that this go
vernmeHt had no such knowledge 1of the
despatch1 and that with such knowledge
no such arrangement would have been en-
tered into. the view, which yos have again
presented OF the subject, makes it my duty
"a,
rnadmissibie )" Dir. jackson replied after
other remarks, least Of all shcnld think of
uttering an insinuation where ! was unable
to substantate fact" A maa so fally con
victed OF preyarications can surely have ne
credit with the public.
II will be observed, that the ground of
Mr.. Jacksnn's disgrace, is not disagree
ment as 10 Personal ueraciiy between MIR.
Smith and Mr.. Erskine nor between MIR.
Smith and Mr.. Jackson but it is exclusive
y aquestion, whether Mr.. Jackson, in an
ofhcial correspondence with the American
government, was to be permitted TO call in
question the veracity of the power with
whom he was treating; not whether Mr.
Smith told the truth or whether Mr.. Jack
son told the truth but whether the Execu-
tive OF the Uaited States was to suffer itself
| to be repeatedly and unequivocaily stigma
Used with the lmputation Of falsehocd.-
he pith and substance Oft is this Would
private gentleman in negotiating any bu-
lsiness whatever with another person, put up
with the lie direct? Apply the answer to
the case between the government of the Uni
ted States and Mr.. jackson, and the point
| is decided to the satisfaction of every Anne
rican citizen who loves his country and We
nerates the constitution. Mr.. Jackson was
doubtless. at full liberty to amplfy and en-
force any respectful propositions that he ad
vanced, by all the arguments within his
reach, provided they were decorously urg-
ed; but 1T was departing from every Gus
tomary rule OF diplomatic department, which
prevails even in time of war, to draw infer
ences and to Insist upon conclusions, which
are neither deduciole from the circunstaa-
ces which he cites, nor warranted by the
evidence which he quotes in support of
them. How ua,ieh less was it permissible to
invent facts which had no foundation ia
truth.
Surprising, nevertheless, that Mr. Frs.
kline had stated. that Mr.. Smith substituted
conditions for him, by what new rule of To-
gic is it, that Mr.. Erskine, whom Mr. Jack.
son represents as having departed from the
conditions of his instructions as well as hav-
ing affirmed to thC government of the Unit
ed States an untruth, is to- be resolved as a
competent and credible witness as to a fact
which is denied by the government which
he has deceived! Such sophistry cannot be
supported by the mot cunning lawyer or
subtle Casuist. There is, indeed, nothing
more inconsistent, than Mr.. Jackson's false
reasoning, from the beginning to the end of
the correspondence. The length of the cor
respondence and the diffusiveness of his stvle
may, Tor an instant, embarrass the under
standing; but when his anti-neutral doc
trines and anti American prejudices are es.
seRtially comprehended, their fragrant and
tyrannical aspect will be manifest to every
individual in the community. The new en-.
voy admits, he evades, avows aud disavows,
asserts, rejects, insinuates and equivocates,
all in a breath. The more he wrote, the
more he convinced the American govern
ment, that he was either the mischievons
instrument for perversing the good intent-
ons OF his sovereign, or the slippery tool Of
designing ministry, whose evil schemes
were too garng TO be concealed by his shel-
low articles.
In the preceding part of this exposition II
IS remarked, that :" a right examination o
the language and spirit of Mr.. Jackson
letters, would evince, that the recapitulati
on of the Secretary of State (as to what pas
sed in Official verbal conference. } is substan
| tally correct" There is no manner of d~ubt
| that the three conditions are the only term,
upon which Mr.. Jackson would aceelt an,
profered arrangement, however he Nigh
"receiUe and discuss" propositions of an,
other description. He does not any where
in his letters to the Secretary Of State deny
it. All that lie says is in crgrGDors;ion Of Il
Il. n. a.