Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-01-25

+, ton Of The intssesu rse," all impartial men
would have thought him justihed.
That /, must have had, and tina. It Id tact,
did have. ~ was doubtless Intended, an IA
suspicious and unfavorable' effect on Mr..
Jacksoa's mind, and on the future style
| of the negotiation, there can be no doubt.
| It 10 not favorable mode of commencing
settlement Of ancient controversies, to be-
gin with blow.
The second instance Of indeeorum on the
| part of Mr.. Smith, which falls very little
short of contradiction, and whatever it may
fail of amounting to that, may be fairly
placed to the account Of prevarication, is OF
vast importance, because the same insult,
| if it be enc, to the British minister, is re-
peated by Mr.. Madison in his unsssage.--
1t is the allegation made in Mr.. Smiths
first letter, that he learned with surprise
and regret, thas Mr.. Jackson, SO far from
coming prepared to make explanations tor
the disavowal Of Mr.. Erskiae's arrange
nient, had been directed to insist Upon terms
inadmissible and afrrontive.
MIR. Smith represented in'shis introduc-.
tory letter. .~
| 1st. That Mr.. jackson, had no. instruc-
tions to make any explanation Of the dlsa.
vssvaI Of Mr.. Erskine's arrangement.
IDLY. That III the affair Of tho Chesapeake
he he'd no authority to assign any reasons
for the refusal to accept thct% part Of Mr.:
Erskne's agreement, but that his bozvers
uuere limited merely to tendering note, Of
fsring the terms Of salty faction, on condition,
that he shosM receive simultaneous answer
from our government, accepting those terms
as ati.tactOry.
sd!y. 7hat he zvas not auth0rizedto e1sr
any ne1v proposals. jor the repeal Of the or.
ders in council ofNov. 1907.
lind lastly, That it was the intention Of
the British government, not to revokc Mose
orders, but upon the three jamsas conditions,
(which were declared inadmissibie by our s2.
vernmert, and which had tormedthe basis Of
Mr.. Efskine's instructions.
Now propose to prove, not only that
this statement was in every respect, except
as to the third proposition, untrue and TN
supported by the correspondence but that
it was Extensively adhered to, after Mr..
Jackson's explicit declarations to the con-
trary, not only by Mr.. Smith, but by Mr..
Madison in his message.
e IF this shall be made out satisfactorily
if it shall be proved in manner to defy
contradiction, or refutation, then it will fol.
low, that our government are chargeable,
not only with an unfair, but a disreputable
misrepre senta,ion of the views of the Bril-
fish cabinet, and with a. formal con,radic-
ton Of Mr.. Jackson's solemn asservations.
At should here be remembered, that Mr..
Jackson is the representative Of a sovereign
power, which treats with Us on equal terms,
and that to call in question his veracitr, is
to doubt the veracily or honor Of his ssVS-
reign.
Let US take up each point distinctly, and
in the order in which Mr.. Smith states
them-
1st. Did Mr.. jackson teNMr. Smith that
he had no instructions to e6sr any e.b!ans-
tisn oftheSisavsuval of Mr.. Erskiues agree.
ment--andMe!he failed to make any, :.
MIR. Jackson admits, that h. had maIe
no formal communication of the motives
for the disay oval, for which he assign two
reasons
1st. That Mr.. Canning had fastened
with an ardent zeal to sati,u cur !govern-
n.emt before any complaint had dren made BY
eur minister, to explain to Mr.. Pihkney the
msti0e sft4e disavs1val; andth;s note by an
empty and insincere declaration Of Mr.: En-
skine's having viohatsd his oraers, by can
did disclosure Of his actual instructions.
This was more than the laws of nations
required. 1t would have been sufficient to
have declared he had no full powers, but
Great Britain was unwilling that her good
faith should be called in question. She
| would not defend herself on ordinary and
sufficient ground. She produces the pr.
vate instructions, and demonstrates the vi
olation of them in toto. Those instructions
moreover, were supposed to have emanated
from our own proposals, and she would
have been justified, in referring the breach