Portland gazette and Maine advertiser., 1810-01-29


10 the honour or rights which he was
initrueted to maintain. But in the
cafe before us, where can we find
iutiici5pt reafon for fpeaking of the
reitri6ton of authority as being un-
know There does not appear TO
have been any redridion, except
what was inherent in the nature OF
the authority. The fame defpatch,
the letter of iufru6tion, have the
authority and defined the extent.
In the nature Of the thing, the min
liter could not have more authority
than was given to him and he
neither was nor could be authorized
to act beyond the extent Of his au-
thority from what is called the reitric-
ton IF, before, the negotiation has
been concluded according to the
principles of publick law, the evi
dcnce of the authority, fuch as it is
exited and appeared in fact, neither
more nor lels, can be produced
Unlefs there be fome evidence of a
difina authority oiteudbly compe
tent to the arrangement, where is
the proprieiy of Uniting on explana-
tons as if there had been apparent
authority Explanatian is obviou1y
due where the minilter has exhibited
a competcnt full power on the faith
of which an arrangement has been
concluded if his government difa-
vows the arrangement becaufe of de-
parture from inttruttions on points
important to the povernment. The
violation of inltructions, and the i'm
portance Of the matters refpe6ing
which they have been violated, con-
ftitute the bits of the proper expla-
nation, to which may be added pro-
per compensation for the failure,
with dne attention to the time and
manner of making the explanation
The cafe of the arrangement with
Mr.. Er1kinc has fometimes been
compared to that of the treaty fgn-
at London on the gift of December,
1896. by Meffrs Monroe & Pinkney.
But the cafes are materially different.
That negotiation was conducted
with obfervable Propriety and deco
rum by the negotiators Of each par
ty. Perhaps no c,fc is to be found
in which the respective minifers in
fitted with more frmnefs and perfc-
verance on the claims, interefs, and
pretentions of their own govern,
ments, and yet preferved towards
each other 10 much iecorum and
honourable attention in their official
and perfonal- communications. AL
though MeiIrs. Monroe and Pinkney
had full powers for the negotiation,
they had inftru6tions fcparatc from
thole general powers, and by the(e
initru6tions they were refrided &C
cording to the fpeciied terms. In
acoeding 10 the articles as they be-
lieved expedient under the exiting
circumstances, they gave notice to
the Britiih plcnipotentiaries, that
they proceeded to the fgnature Of the
treaty on their own refponGbility,
and that the letter of their inftruc-
tons did not warrant the arrange
ment in the manner in which It was
made although he believed the
ehtntial object, of their inltruCtions
to be attained in fubltance for prac-
tical benefit to the United States,
and accordingly they truGed that the
terms would be approved by our gov
eminent.
The Briti(h government had not
juf caule to complain and Unfit on
formal explanations merely becaule
the treaty was diiavowed in this coun-
try, although the full powers of Mef-
frs. Monroe and Pinkney on the part
of the United States, were exhibited
and appeared competent for the re-
friction contained in the inffructons
had been fairly communicated to
the Britih plenipotentiaries. Ac-
cordingly the Britilh fecretary Of
fate, afterwards in his official note,
Eating the Kings acquiefccnce in
the PreGdent's refufal to ratify the
treaty, did not complain on that &C.
count but he adverted TO the fall
ure of conforming TO inRructions as