Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-01-06


IN relation 10 me refusal 10 receive any
FURTHER. communication from Franc" Ja'
3nkssm
coNrtSuEn.
Ia committee ofths whole Mr. BAssEr
in the chair
TAr. Emsifs Speech continued.
Before I commence this analysis, permit
me air, (said Mr.. EmotD TO observe that
Mr.. jackson Ia not stated TO have nude
any direct charge, but to have eon!ensed
with insinuations, or IN other words, the
insult. complained offs a constructive one,
Now, MS a rule ofcons,ructon, lun ,erstan {,
that when ali intent is 70 be made OUT, the
whole paper is to be taken into consdera'
tion. A particular paragraph or phrase
fromit, generality or loos:ness, may con-
rey an impression which WIS not in the writ
sr's mind. This 10 peculiarly the case in a
correspondence where there is less caution
used,than In papers of more permancn, use.
How unfair it is to play upon words in a
correspondence, may be seen ny advert'ng
70 Mr.. Smiths letters, which certainly are
drawn with ability and we are to presume
witlrsrea. care. take single paragraph
in the letter of the 19,h October as it relates
more Immediately to the present discussion.
eth. declaration that the despatch from
Nj. Canning to Mr.. Erskjne OF the Esd of
january is III. only despatch by viii Oh the
conditions were prescr bed to FIR. ErsSlne
for the conclu,iea Of an arrangement on the
matter to which it relates is now tor the II st
time made to this government. Aud LnGed
hardly add that il that despatch had BEEN
communicated at thu time e the Wra>ygs-
,usa: or If it had bren kA5tn that the pro- o.
-s;,ion, contained in it and which were at
frs, presented by Mr.. Ersk'ne wsre the on
" ones on which lie was authors: d to maxi
m a,rangement,t the arranGem' mt would not
have been made.
Nov,h, kne,vledge of the tn NJ might
hsv been gained in a variety OF way with
.o,t declaration. Thus our secretary
ro;oh, have had view of the instructions
OF Nr. Erskinc-,hrre might bay e becn an
acknowledgement them on the sub.
;sc,, or Mr.. Smith might have the know.
ledge Of circumstances (w'Ihout MI open
svowal By tn minister (which would nerrS'
b ,,r;ly have led to the sane conclusion. ---
AGAIN, as the secretary is not the gov!rA.
n.nt. hut a mere agent, who unit directed
BY the president could no. move in the bu'
,;pess, the declaration NIGH. have been
made 20 Mr.. Smith Individually briore the
negotiation, or hu misht have bad fol-
knowledge Of the fact md yet this letter
would he true IL Il, term"
The secretary Geelarrs that if the des.
witch had been communicated as the time,
or ;rit hal been known that Mr.. ErSkine
had no other authority the arrangement
woull no. have been entered mso. Now
doc, he mean 70 say thar the mere eonInu.
nisa,ion of the dlsp".ch, although ION.
pauisd with further instructions, and better
terms would have broken up the treaty, and
v., this 10 il the terms Of the sentence. Was
!. necessary that the communication 80 have
had i, effect, must have been made at the
very time Of the arrangement What, 1t
made before, would this have varied the
result! Again, suppose that i'll point OF
fact our government did not absolutely
know. but had the strongest possible rea-
son 20 believe and think, and did in truth
believe AID think, when the arrangement
was made with Mr.. Erskins that he was not
authorised, would this form an excuse ON
their part!
In these criticisms, violence I admit is
done to the intent Of the writer, and they
are made only to shew the untairness Of
,eiz;ns on word to make out the intent
as eollectable from the whole paper. And
yet, sir, the British Senate may be told that
our secretary is man of wit, maker OF