Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-01-01

9TH minister, f under such circu,n stances
as could only lead to q disayowaI or Sns ast,
~ the government with whose minister the
arrangement was madcalid knowletsge OF o.
these circumstances rendered II an act- OF
forbearance and .candor to make no coma
nla;nt whatever of the disavowal--lt must
necessarily follow, that the arrangement ,p
thus made was improperly entered into oy
this povefhment ]; inasmuch as reliance
on this arrangement by our citizens had O.
verspread the ocean. with American COM
rnerce, which was waited BY. every gale TO
distant regions, all subject TO the avarce
Of British cruizers, and this fact was known
to those who administered our government
a, the time this dtlusive arrangement was
made. This, sir, appearsto me toto the
fair inference resulting from this sentence
when Invested Of. its diplomatic Hummery
and reduced to plain English.
Is Mr.. Jackson seems 10 Ind motlye LOT
this insinuation from communication
made by Mr.. Erskine to the BRITISH go
yernment, were he states that ne had SUD-
mit,ed TO the consideration OF MIR. omitn
the three conditions mentioned IN Mr.. Can
no;pp's despatch of the 2sd of January, and
.inasmueh as the arrangement OF Aprlt IS
variant from these three conditions. and
substituted Gas he states I'm lieu OF them ne
hence infers the andoubted right OF his ma
iesty to disavow the arrangement, and So
lennly declares that this was the only des-
patch by which the conditions were pre-
-scribed TO Mr.. Erskine for the conclusion
of an, arrangement with this country.
:, Mr.. Smith replies to MIR. Jackson as fol-
lows:
"Ifthere be no trace Of compliant against
the disayowI in the archives OF the mission
it is because this government could not
have entered such complaint before the rea'
sons for the disavowal lad been explained,
and especially as the explanations were just
" and confidently expected through the
new pIeuipotentiary. And as to the sup
posed reserve on my part on this subject
in our several conferences | did imagine,
that my repeated limitations to you OF the
necessity Of satisfactory explanations, as to
the disavow2!, were sufficient indications OF
the dissatisfaction of this government with
respect to lhe disayowal itself"
MIR. Smith, in this reply, seems to mann
r,;fsst a surprise that it should be declared
that the despatch from Mr.. Canning to MIR.
Erskine OF the esd of February was the on
Ay che by Which that minister was to regu-
late mis- conduct, and this surprise seems
to be the more natural, when by reference
70 the correspondence which took place in
: Anri, las, between M. Smith and MIR. Ct,
skine, at the time the arrangement Was
concluded, We find Mr.. Erskine, sub
uniting, sonErma6ly to instructions, GER
tain d propositions for the consideration
of the American government. This
official declaration that MIR. Erskine had re-
ceived the Instructions of his government
justified this government to proceed with
the ne negotiation, unless, as It is aIledged by
th. gentleman from Connecticut, Mr..
Danal it became the Indispensable duty Of
this government to see and examine Mr..
Erskines powers before any arrangement
was concluded with him, inasmuch as a ra-
tiGcation Of the arrangement of April last
was not Yesegved--and several ancient au-
thorities are produced in support of the OPT"
Mon.
Whatever raay be the rule ofprocedure
where one government, by its representa-
tive, makes important concessions to ano-
Their, or where the TERMS of the government
are unreasonable or unequal in themselves,
/ cannot pretend to answer; but where the
terms Of the agreement are reasonable and
equitable in themselves, it has not been the
practice Of more modern times to demand a
Sight of the Instructions possessed by the
minister making or proposing to make the
arrangement. BY reference to the cores
pondence which took place between Mr..
Pinkney, our minister at London, and Mr..