Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1809-10-31

seems probable that the negotiation will BE
protracted until the state of Europe is so al
tered that our mai atime laws and your neu-
tralitv will not so frequently come into con-
tact betwixt this and war we see no mea-
sure practicable. Among the reports OF
the day il is said, on the authority OF a let
ter from Bremen, dated 25th August that
peace bctwixt this country, Russia, Swe-
den and Denmark, is about 70 be negoclat-
ed we give no credit to the statement"
. In the m,ltiplicitv.of foreign matter (says
London ministerial paper) which requir-
ed our attention yesterday, We omitted no.
,eins certain opinions stated in a m!niste-
rial Journal of the United States Of Amrri-
ca, and which was most probably sancti0i1-
ed by the government Of that country. 1t
is said, that whether Mr.. Erskine exceed
ed his instructions or not, is question be-
tween him and his sovereign, ana that his
nasion is in Justice and honor lrrevocably
bound to his stipulation" Now we con-
Tess that in common cases this doctrine does
appear to us to be founded in reason, tho
we believe precedcnts and general usage
bear strongly against it. To recur to We
ry recent example: NJ. D'Oubrips devla-
ton from his instructions i'll the treaty form.
ed BY him at Paris was esteemed sufficient
reason for the invalidation of that act; and
an ample Justification Of the emperor OF
Russia's refusal to ratify It. Yet still 1t
must be allowed that, as sight of the pow
ers to which negoc!ators treat is all that they
can mutually demand Of each other, 1t
should seem that these are plenary, the So
vereiga who grants them is bound, except
in extreme cases, to the observation OF any
compact which may emanate from such de-
volution of his own authority; tor as some
one must be disappointed by an ambassa-
doris deviation from his Instructions, II is
proper thar The disappointment should rest
with the party WHO selected that anlbassa-
dor examined or relied upon his compe-
tence, and put the cause in his hands.
This being doctrine, as we conceive,
generally founded i'll reason, though but lit
tie observed. let us see what right Anne RIGA
has to urge it in the present instance.
Does she adopt it into her own practice!
by no means. For after a treaty had been
concluded :nd signed by her ambassadors,
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, on the one
part, and bv lords Holland and Auckland on
the other, in July, 1907 the President,
Mr.. Jefferson, refused to ratliy that treaty,
thus signed and concluded ly his owna-
gents, possessing fui! powers, and respect
ina whom he did not even complain 60 US
at least that they had swerved from his dl
ectors.
Of so much value is treaty not yet pos
sessing the signature ofthe sovereign or ex-
ecutive power, in the estimation OF the A
merican government; and why all instru-
ment which she holds Of SO little obligation
against herself should be urged against US
as an irreversible rule of action, we cannot
conceive. America loses nothing by the
imperfect conclusion OF Mr.. Erskint's trea-
ty. Yes, it may be said she losses the adj
vantages which she supposed herself to
have game ID by that act; but according to
her own practical opinion, she could not
suppose herself 70 have gained any ill the
treaty was ratified. According to her own
practical opinion, and her declaration con-
tanned in her acts, she knew the king might
withhold his ratification without assigning
anv reason, (becuase she did the same);
and she must therefore think his majesty
fully justified in refusing his assent upon SO
fair ground as that which is now alledged,
she having refused her assent to treaty in
the very same state, without aliedging any
cause whatever so that America could not
possibly believe herself to be in the posses
sion of any advantages from Mr.. Ersklne's
act till it received the kings signature.
We urge this argument with the greater
earnestness, because we think the conslde-
ration of IL calculated 10 close the breach