The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-04

Viz uisaVowal IN the archives ct the misSl-
ON, 1t IS because this government could not
nave entered such complaint before the rca-
sons for the disavowal had been cxplaine d.
anu especially as the explanations we're Just
W and confidently expected through che new
tunctonary. And as to the supposed re-
serve on my part ou this subject, in our Sc
veral conferences, did imagine, that my
repeated intimatiDns to You Of the necessity
or satisfactory explanations as TO the disa.
vowal. were sufficient indications ofthe dis
satisfaction OF this government with respect
to the dissvowal itseif">
Mr.. Smith, in this reply, seems to mani
fest,a surprise that it should be declared
thatthe despatch from Mr.. Canning 20 Mr..
trskine OF the 23d January was the only one
by winch that minister was to regulate his
conduct, and this surprise seems the mere
natural. when, by reference to the cor
respondence which took place in Aprii last
between Mr.. Smith and Mr.. Erskine, at
the time the arrangement was concluded
we md Mr.. Erskine submitting, con- orma
O!g TO fnstrncnonS, certain propositions for
tue consideration of the American govern
mept. This official declaration that Mr.
Ersk'ns had received the Instructions OF his
government justified this government TO
proceed with the negociatoI, unless, as il
IS alledged bv the gentleman from Connec-
ticut, (Mr Dana) it became the indispen-
sable duty of this government TO see and exa
mine Mr.. Erskine's powers before any ar
fangement was concluded with him, mas
much as a ratification or the arrangement of
April last was not reserved ---anG several
ancient authorities are produced in Support
of this opinion.
Whatever may be the rule Of procedure
where one government. by its representa-
tive, makes important concessions to ano
tacf, or where the terms O! the agreement
arc unreasonable or unequal in themselves,
cannon pretend to answer; but where the
terms or the agreement are reasonable and
equitable IN themselves, it has not been
tue practice or more modern times to de
mand sight OF the instructions possessed!
by the minister making or proposing TO make
ne arrangement BY n reference to the
corFeSppndence which tool. place between
Mr.. Pinkney, cur minister at L1ndoa, and
Mr. canning. in which Mr.. PmkNev sub
mits Certain propositions to the British gov
eminent for their consideration, we do not
find that Mr.. Pinkney was called on to shew
ms Instructions Or interroeated RESPECTING
them. His official statement, that he was
instructed to make the overture was then
deemed sutncient, and although Mr.. Can
ning d!d noe think proper to accede to the
terms proposed by Mr.. Pinkney. yet no want
or power or authority is alledged as q reason
Tor the refusal on his part.
here seems to be a manifest impropriety
In the notion of demandinga sight of nstrnc
lions In ordinary cases, inasmuch as the
act OF the minister, in violation of his in
strnctions, would be obligatory on his gov
ernment, according to the usages of nations.
where ratification was reserved, in all ca
SEES where the terms Of the agreement were
reasonable and -, 4.
NOW, sir, what was acquired by shs govern
ment in the arrangement with Mr.. F,rskine
unreasonable or unequal! Was any thing
more obtained than recognition of our ma
tnrai and indeieasibie right freely to navigate
the ocean according to the rules of public
'aw' right belonging equally to all foreign
and independent nations9 Ifbv the arrange
ment of April lasr, a ratification had b.en
reserved, the British government would in
good faith have been bound to have ratjied
the agreement, as no good reason could be
assigned for failing to do So
And, sir, this failure to see and examine
MI. EsSkine'S Instructions is not ailedged by
Mr.. Jackson as a cause on reason whv this
government had not a right to com plain of
the disavowaf. From this infer that the
official statement contained in MIR. Ersk .ne's
correspondence, that he had instructions,
and that he was authorised to a,ake the ar
rangement, was all that was necessary to be
known by this government before The ar
Management was entered into, ard that the
secretary or State was necessarily lead to
believe that Mr.. Erskine had other letters of
instruction than those contained in Mr. Can
ning's despatch Of the 23d of Jan. last.
Sir let us now examine Mr. Jacksan's re-
ply to Mr.. Smiths statement, in which Mr..
smith declares this government had not a
knowledge that the instruction contained in
Mr.. Canning's despatch of the Esd Ian was
the only desparch by which the conditions
were prescribed to MIR. Erskine for the con
ciusion OF an arrangement OH the matter tn
which 1T relates, and declares, if this fact
had been known at the time the arrangement
was made, that it would not have been
made.
Mr.. Jackson, in his reply to Mr.. Smith,
declares that Mr.. Smith was acquainted
with the instruction which was given 10 Mr..
Erskine, and ti',t he had no other instruc
.'on than chat contained in Mr.. Cannnc's
despatch of the 23d Jan. is it possible to
conceive contradiction more positive than
that contained in this reply. If gentleman
IN his place states any matter of TACT to ex
is,, and he is told in reply that the fact sta
ted IS unrr.e, and that this statement was
made with Il perfect and intimate knowledge
oi IT'S taisehood. all the world would at oncs
agree he was insulted. And the present
cas-. does not differ from the case put, ex
cept ih.st ii is oDScured with diplomatic yer
bage.
But, sir, Mr. Smith in his lctter Of the iath
Of Nov. expresses mis- dissatisfaction at the
liberty taken bV Mr. Jackson AND declares