Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-08-22

ed in ne other light than project of a
| treaty.
And here should not take the trouble
tn reply to the objection deduced from the
minister's exceeding his secret Instructions !;
were ie not that this. like many other
things from current use, has acquired an
Importance which it no way merits.
Over the secret instructions of an am
bassador, the sovereign of another country
has not tho right SO much as to demand
the perusal.
When therefore we hear persons calm 8.
ly talk of the right of the sovereign to dis
avow stipulations entered into by his min
ister, because they exceeded his private
instructions 1t brings to our minds the
ancient Jesuitical reservation for the sub
sequent violation of An osth-that the per-
| son should swear with different intention
from what the expressions he used, obvious
| ly bore. The only evidence the other par
| ~ has OF the intention of the sovereign, is
to be found in the full powers OF his ambas
sador: by his intention expressed in his Sc
cret instructions, he Cannot therefore be
supposed 10 be any ways influenced, because
| he Cannot even com nand their production.
Every politician knows, that sovereign
by the conventional laws of nations has Il
light to refuse the ratification of a treaty !;
|
lation of his ambass ,dor's instructions rs a
reason for his refusal; tits because he has
subjects himself, and there are neutral IA
tons in the world whose good opinion ne
would not wish to forfeit. The same thing
Happens, and for the same reasons in the
I publication Of manifcstoes on the breaking
on, of hostilities between two countries.
su,pose therefore, that because some of
those wiseacres, may find in books on the
laws of nations, that the belligerent sove-
! reign is bound to declare the motives and
reasons of his taking up arms; that they
will suppose this to be a positive obligat-
/ on which he lies under to the other beili-
{ gerene party. The truth is, a sovereign
now DAYS is not bound by any positive
obligation taking obligation in the sense
of a duty to be performed) to shew cause
for the rejection of treaty. This is re-
served in the powers, of his ambassador
! and where ne has promised nothing, he
has nothing to perform.
| These hippant gentle men, who can speak
and write upon any, or every subject which
they either do, or do not understand, and
who boldly assert that there are no ex :
Dles of the case in question in tsthe books ="
lif books mean any thing in the mouths
! of such persons; besides the quotations.
q Grotius, which l have. above a1duced,
will turn over tn the 18th nD5e upon the
XII chap. OF the'2d book of the same author ::
he will supply them with arallelinstances
for their purpose. But such persons know
that by the ignorant, assertion is swallow
ed as proof: and from those, who know
any thing about the subject; a sc:o,st
has very little reason to apprehend
the honor of a refutation. However
sorry / am to find that those bound to al :
vocate the rights of our country, should
yield up the present point to the few quota
tions of sorry dabler, in the laws ofnaii-
ons: that at least thsy did not suspe nj
their assent till something offered like CON
elusive argument. But to return TO the
question.
+ Though as a proxy those acts of an am
bas.ador within his full powers would be
binding on his sovereign, yet as princes
have no common tribunal to which they
can appeal, and in case of the refusal of a
prince to be boun1 by the covenant entered
in:o by his amb :ssador, the only recourse
of the injured party would be to arms this
Limitation of the powers Of an ambassador
was wisely introduced by the conventions
laws ofnations On } Fer this reason breach
of instructions, or bad faith on the part o.
the ambassador is deemed sufficient plea
for the refusal cf ratification. Yet 1t is wei
observed by a learne author, that the ex.
ception ag ainst a treaty either becanse the
agent had no commission, or exceeded his
instructions, is for the most part abthins
but cayil for the principal is to be justly
deemed to have gwen all power, without
which the object could not have been ac'
Co nplished. TO-
1t is a received principle oflaw, that ex-
ceptions to a general right are to be con
strued strictly; SO in the question now be.
fore us we have stated the only exception tC
the general principle which we have al
ready proved. But, of the principle itsel
we have numerous applications wherein al
are agreed. Thus governor of provlnc,
when attacked has right to act agsres'
sively, and enter the enemies country by
way of retaliation, though the right of ma
king war, is right belonging To the SOW:
, reign power. In this case the right is i'm
{ piled in the general powers given him TO
the administration of his province. Thu
: a commander IN chief has the right TO re
: ceive or grant terms of capitulatIo1 either
for the preservation Of his Jwn army, or o
an enemy: to enter into contracts for sup
: plies, to seize such property OF the state q
. is essentially necessary Tor the Subsisteac
u Of mis- army: and yet all these acts are Din
ding on mis- sovereign. BY the convention