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

real nature aud extent Of Mr. Erskinc's in
structions; and AYERS. if they had been
known to be such rs Mr.. Jackson assert.
them TO De. no compact would have been
made. 1t will .be seen in the conclusion by
"hat feeble sophism the new envoy at
tempts to evade the force of this fact. d.
Referring the reader to the correct eiuci
dations which are given by Mr.. Smith, in
MS letter of the 18th of October, on the Sc.
yerai interesting topics in dispute between
the United States and Great Britain, and
particularly to the concihatory offer of the
president to comprehend the orders in coun-
| cii II ageneral negotiation, the writer of
TINS exposition proceeds to the lclter of Mr..
Jackson to Mr.. Saith of the 23d October.
ms letter is remarkable, among other
PoiHts, for the very unsatisfactory explana
tion 1t furnishes of the reasons for disavow.
ing Mr. Erskine's arrangement. 1t was
o.saVowed, Mr.. Jackson asserts. because
ms predecessor had no authority to con.
ciude it. There is no reference to the earl .
~ SJHSftce OF the terms; no " strong and
sodd reasons" in relation to the rights of
the United States. But, simply. the act
was disavowed, because the minister was
unauthorized tc conclude it. This certainly
Is a Convenient, if not a legal excuse
lt is one which may at all times and
uhuer all circumstances be resorted to-
Nothing more is necessary than to de.
iare that minister has anot compre-
hended his Instructions. and the most
solemn engagements are az an end. But this
is neither. law nor good faith. Surprising
that the violation of instructions Is good cause
TOT disaVowlug an arrangement, the mere
saying SO is no competent and satisfactory
explanation to the disappointed party. 1t is
incumbent on the disavowing party to chem
that they have been violated; that is, the
disappointing party should hrooe the fact of
violation. MIR. Jackson has not done this
he refers to a printed despatch of the 23d
January, and offers his bare .vord for all the
rest. Where are the severaE' letters of
instructions mentioned by Mr. Erskine WHY
not produce the original paper of the des.
patch OF January 23d, that is. the mann
scriff OF it? Why. in an official proceed
ing. refer to copy which appeared in the
newspapers! And where is the instruc-
ton relative to the Chesapeake Did Mr..
Erskine exceed his orders in that respect
also? Mr.. jackson says he did; but Mr.:
Jackson produces no copy, mot even a prin-
red one OF the instructions on that head -
Is this what Vattel, Gan authority fully ad-
mitted by Mr.. Jackson would cali a"stronp
and solid reason 2" Mr.. Jackson's mere
Toord, unsupported by corroborating vouch-
ers or circumstances, cannot be received as
evidence in the case; yet he offers no other :;
and in this view it is worthy of notice, that
Mr. Jackson claims for himself that weight
OF credibility which he denies TO Mr.: Smith
and to the President. Ha requires that his
solitary declaration Ga declaration vitia,ed
by his tergiversations) should be taken in
support and for full proof of afact, and at the
same time more than insinuates that Mr..
Smiths word, and the asseverations of the
President through Mr.. Smith, are not enti-
tied to belief.
The reader will observe, that Mr.. Smit1
in his letter of the 18th Of Oct. says, .s the
declaration that the despatch fro-s Mr..
Canning to Mr.. Erskine Ct the Esd Of Janua-
ry is the only despatch by which the condi
tons were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for
the conclusion of an arrangement on the
matter to which it relates, is now for the
first time made to this government" Mr..
Jackson had read this observation when he
wrote his reply of Oct. Esd, from which the
following is an extract:
" So far from the terms which he mfr.
Erskinel was actually induced to accept
having been contemplated in that instruc-
ton, he himself states thatthey qpere SUR
sTITUTED by you [the Secretary of STATED
in lieu of those originally proposed
This is not only an untruth as it respects
Mr.. Smith, but it is palpable departure
from veracity in regard to Mr.. Erskinc-
The latter gentleman has no where asserted
CT is confidently affirmed, J that Mr.. Smith
substituted conditions. The inducemept
with Mr.. Erskine for concluding the agree
ment- of the 10Th of April. arose as he AYERS
in his letter of August 18th, from "afho
rough conviction in his mind, that he was
acting in conformity with his majeSty's qoish
eS." MIR. Smith neither solicited him to ac-
cept nor to reject ALT the propositions came
from Mr. Erskine. There could be no DOS
sible motive on The part Of the American
government 20 urge Mr.. Erskine to depart
from the tenor of his instructions, or the
least disposition TO substitute terms for him
for what possible benefit could accrue to Mr..
Smith or to the President by wheedling the
British minister into an accommodation.
which, if contrary to his orders, they would
have known would not have been accepted
by his government, Common sense rejects
all such insinuations and that man must be
the victim of credulity indeed, who can for
one instant believe that the Secretary of
State or that Mr.. Madison would not only
risk their regulations, but place in jeopardy
a great mass of property belonging to their
fellow citizens, on the event of SO frail n
compact Besides, if Mr.. Erskine had been
weak enough to be their dupe, or sufficient
ly wicked to combine with them, he .youId
hardly have sense enough or.be so honest as
| to keep the secret.
The extract, Just quoted, which thus ibels
| the American government and duplicates
Mr.: brskine, is that passage oil Mr. Jack
sons letter wherein he prcsumes to contra.
dict the constituted authoritiec of .l,o IT,;,,J