The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1810-01-10


whole despatch, was to be communicated in
extenso lin all its parts) to the chief magis-
trate Of the nation
1t seems to be some importance to the
merits of the case in question, to discrimin-
ate clearly between the act OF a minister con-
Guiding an agreement in virtue OF full pow
er in relation to terms Of the agreement, and
the act OF minister concluding such agree
ment by the authority of general power (or
letter of crcdcncc to act for his sovereign in
any matter respecting which he should be in
structed. In the first instance, the Minister
would have to produce his full power to the
govcrnmcnt with which he was about TO me-
gociatc in the second, the Minister being
resident near the government, and his gener-
al letter Of credencc being in the possession
Of the government, he would not be under
the necessity Of presenting any new power
nor to be compelled to shew his instructions,
but, acting in his usual cnvoyal ard plenipo-
tcn,ih character, full faith and credit would
be given to him in that shape by the govern
nlent with which he treated. Mr.. Erskine
appears to have acted in the latter way. He
rnade the arrangement in virtue OF his gener-
al letter of crcdcnce, and kept his several
letters ol instructions out Of view, g subject
20 his own discretion" But ii a, full power
had been necessary to enable Mr.. Erskinc to
conclude the arrangement, Mr.. Jackson ac-
knowledges that he mad that full power in his
possesGion for, says hc, in his letter Of the
9Th of Novcmbcr F" the instructions in this
.(Mr. Erskinc's) case took the place of full
power" And, il full power had not been
requisite, MIR. Jackson gives very substantial
reason'why il was not necessary :" No full
power (hc observes in his letter of Nov. 4th)
was given in the present Mr.. Erskinc's
case, because it was not treaty, but the ma
terials Tor forming treaty, that was in con-
temptation" Thus, in any view of the SUBJ
jcct, Mr.. Erskinc's mode Of proceeding and
the authority by which he acted, are pronoun-
ced by Mr.. Jackson to have been correct, and
sufficient.
The despatch from Mr.. Canning to Mr..
Erskinc of the 23d OF January, affords the
most conclusive proof that the arrange n,cnt
which he was authorized to conclude with
the American Executive was not TO be sub
Jcct 10 any subsequent act OF ratification in
London previously to its going into operation,
for, Mr. Canning says in that despatch, His
Majesty will be prepared on tho faith Of sue
en- ,agcmcnt Us Mr. Erskine might make
either Immediately Qf the repeal shall have
been immediate in Amcrica) or on any day
specified by the American government for
that repeal, rcciprocaily to recall the Orders
In Council, without waiting for the conclu-
sion Of the treaty I; and, you are authorized,
in the circumstances herein described, to
make. such reciprocal engagement OH His
Majesty's behalf" Here is a clear power to
conclude and give instantaneous effect to the
ovv1c eho ouf tpfo
there is no reservation for the Kings consent
after the arrangement was made His Ma
7jssty' S appreciation preceded the fact, and Mr..
Erskinc was acting on this point at least, by
the absolute command of his sovereign, nor
is the Case at all singular other British Min
listers, resident at foreign courts, have been
cloashed with the same power. Alleyne
Fitzhcrbcrt concluded a preliminary arrange
mcnt with the Court Of Spain, (Which was
signed at Madrid the Gath of July, 1890, by
himself and the Count Florida Blanca, res
pccting the capture of certain British vessels
in the bay of Nootka,) in virtue OF his general
letter OF credcncc as ambassadors cxtraordin-
AIRY and plenipetentiary to the Catholick king,
and this arrangement was held sacred and
binding on the British government, and was
followed BY u convention between G. Britain
and Spain on the 2sth of October Of the same
year. These state papers may be found in
the London Annual Register for 1890, pages
500, sol and so3. It's, therefore, flimsy
prctencc for disavowing the arrangement of
the 18th of April, to say that il was subject
20 ratification in England, seeing the author- .
iy is explicit to the contrary, and supported
by a parallel case in English history. And
Mr.. Jackson is truly unfortunate in his aIlu-
sion to the rejected treaty asscnted to by Col.
Monroe, because Col. Monroe informed the
British commissioners that he was acting con-
trary to his instructions, and the treaty con-
tanned, moreover, a special provision that it
should not go into effect before it was ratified
by tho American and British governments
respectively which circumstance ,precluded
.he possibility of all imposture IN she case,