Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-12-08
DOCUMENTS,
WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE
AESSAGE 81 tie PRESIDENT
OF THE
UNITED STATES.


1t could not enter into view my tc
withhold from you AN explanation
merely because it had been already
given, but because, having been so gi-
ven, could not imagine, until inform
led by you, that arepetition Of it woulG
De required at my hands. | am quite
certain that his majesty's government
having complied with whal was consi-
dered to be the substantial duty i'm.
lposed upon it on this occasion would,
had this been fofeseen, have added TO
the proofs OF conciliatory good faith
ialready manifested, the farther COM
Placency 10 the wishes of the United
States OF adopting the form OF com
munlcauon most agreeable to them,
ana OF giving through me the explain
latlon IN question. l have therefore no
hesitation In informing you, that his
majesty was pleased to disavow the a.
agreement concluded between YOU and
| Mr.. Ersklne, because it was conclud-
ed IN violation OF that gentleman's III
strucuons, and altogether without au-
thorlty to subscribe TO the terms of it.
/ these instructions Inow understand bv
Your letter, rs well as fram the obvious
deduction which took the liberty of
making In mine of the I4th instant,
were &c the time, IN substance, made
known to you, no stronger illustration
therefore can be given OF the deviation
from them which occurred, than by a
reference 10 the terms of your agree
ment.
Nothing can be more notorious than
l5he frequency with which, in the
course OF q complicated negotiation,
ministers are furnlsed with graduation
ioi CONDITIONS on which they NAV be
isuccesslvely authorised to conclude.
SO common is the case which you put
alphabetically, that In accedlng to the
Justice OF your statement, [ feel my
sell lmpeiled to make only one obser-
vation upon 1t, which IS, that it does
not strike me as bearing upon the con
lsideratlon of the unauthorized agree
rncnt concluded here, in as much as in
poInt OF ia Mr. Grskine had no such
| graduated instructions. You are al
ready acquainted with that which was
given, and 1 have had the honor of
informing you that it was the only one
BY which the conditions on which he
was to conclude were prescribed. So
far from the terms, which he was &C
tually induced to accept, having been
contemplated in that instruction, he
himself states that they were substitut
ed by you in lieu of those originally
+. proposed.
! 1t may perhaps be satisfactory that
should say here that most willingly
subscribe, on this occasion, to the high
ly respectable authority which yot
have quoted, and 1 join issue viii
you upon the essentials which that au
thoritY requires to constitute a right t,
r disavow the act of public minister.
II 1t is not immaterial tn observe o,
the qualification contained in the pas
sage you have quoted; as itimplies tn
case of minister concluding IN virul
I9f q full bo1er. To this it would sui
lGce to answer that Mr.. Erskinc had II
- jul b2zverj and his act does not com
within the range of your quotation
although it cannot b. forgotten that tn
United States have, ut no very distar
period, most freely exercised the rigl
Iol Withholding their ratification iror
even the authorised act OF their ow
diplomatic agents, done under the
vowed sanction Of full power.
l conceive that what has been alre;
dy said establishes beyond the rcac
of doubt or controversy that his M
ljesty's minister did violate his instru,
3. lions, and the consequent right in h
majesty to disavow an act so conclu,
ed. That his majesty had StyoHg an
slid reasons for SO doing will appCarnc
only from his instructions having bee
.' violated, butfrom the circumstance tn;
= the violation OF them involved the sacr
fee of great system Of policy delibC
rately adopted & acted upon in just
- necessary retaliation of the uuprect
dented modes of hostility resor,ed (
by his enemy.
Z There appears to have prcvaile