The Delaware gazette. [volume] (Wilmington [Del.]) 1809-1810, 1809-12-13


glnatel in superstition. tina, it would be agree !
able the American government, why has it |
been persisted in alter the error was made |
known by the representation Of Mr. Eiskins |
to his government that neither this nor the
other conditions Of dispatch of the 2sd Jaf.ua- |
ny were attainable here!
3d. Aneaser psint in the dispatch, and ROT
in the arrangement, is that the British navy
might capture our trade to ports prohibited by
the United States.
This condition appears to have had its origin
IN mistake of your meaning In a conversation
with Mr.. Canning, as noted by yourself. and
in an inference thence deduced as to the dIs-
position of this government. But this double
mistake must have bcen brought to light in
time TO have been corrected in the new mission.
In urging it Mr.. Canning has taken ground,
forbidden by those principles OF decoruml,
which regulate and mark the proceedings Of
governments towads each other. In his dis
patch The condition is stated TO be Tor the pur-
pose of securing the bona iide intention .of
America to prevent her citizens from trading
with France and certain other powers. In
other words, 10 secure pledge to that effect
against the maIa tide intention of the United
States. And this dispatch too was authorised
| to be communicated in extenso to the govern
ment Of which such language was used.-
Might it not have been reasonably expected
| that such condition and such observations
would at least OH such an occasion have been
| given up by government willing to smooth
the way to an amicablc settlement of existing
| differences!
| In his zeal TO vindcate his government, Mr.
Jackson too has attempted gloss on rhis most
| extraordinary idea Of calling on foreign soy
I tn y,al-. atuS t,lr1
what is equivalent in principle, to supply a
supposed inability to execute them. He calls
| such an in,erposit:on Of his government, not
an execution of the law Of congress, but of a
| compact binding as public law Gil both parties
and which both would have common interest
in seeing duly executed. On his own princi-
pies there ought TO be reciprocity not only in
the execution Of the compact, but in the obi
cation and interest resulting from it. Besides
where there is reciprocity i'll co!npacts be-
tween nations touching attributes OF sovereign
ny, there is always as much OF sovereignty
gained as is parted with, so that there IS 10 loss
nor in'iignity on either side.
| 8. The remaining point Of the dispatch, not
secured by the arrangement, IS that which re-
CURED that whilst our prohibitory laws should
he repealed rs to Great Britain, they should be
left in force as to France and the powers adopt
ing 81 acting under her DEGREES.
Til. is the condition which alone properly
belongs to the subject, and it is to be remarked
in the first place that the British project. OF
| which this condition makes part, contcmpla
ted two things in their nature incompatible -
one repeal of the prohibitory acts as to Great
, Britain, without waiting for the conclusion of a
regular treaty, the other pledge or engagement
, for their Continuance as to the other powers
| e. Il. e ,tut,, IL,
in this particular ought to have been attended to
by the British government, 1t is manifest that the
executive authority could have given no such
pledge, tha: the continuance of the prohibitory
f acts being subject Of Legislative consideration,
could not have been provided for until the meet
, | ing of tie legislature, and that the condition
{ could not therefore but have failed, either in the
J immediate renewal of commerce with Grea,
Btitain, or in the immediate engagement that il
4 should not be renewed with France. the Bri
i fish government ought to have acquiesccd IN,
! and indeed ought to have been satisfied with the
, attainment Of the important object of an imme-
= diarc repeal of our prohibitory laws and with
the consideration that the other object, not i'm
: | mcdiately a,tainable, was unnecessary at The
: time, because the prohibition as to France was
!, then in force, and because there was every rea-
son to infer not only from this fact but from the
:. spirit of the communications made from time tc
:. time and from the overtures before submitted tc
;, the British government, that without repeal o.
:. the French DEGREES, our prohibitory laws woult
:. be continued in force against France, and espe
cially in the case of repeal OF the British or
: ders, which would necessarily render continu'
u ance of the French DEGREES doubly obnoxious.
y But if on this head doubts could have beer
! entertained, instead of rejecting the arrange
ment, ough, not the repeating act on our part ,e
have been met with suspension at least of tn,
&c orders in council, until it could have been seer
whether the non-in.ercourse law would or woule
y not have been continued against France. Suci
: suspension could not have given, In amy poin
, ! Of view, more advantage to the United State
T. than was given to Great Britain by the repeal
IS which had taken place on their part.
L. If this reasonable course could not have beer
y substituted for the disavowa, why was not
/ final disavowal suspended with proposition tina