The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1810-01-10
1DoiitiraI @isceItanp.
For the REPUBLIcYg.


Reflections on the Proceedings ofour Go
ve,nment with Jackson, the. BRITISH
Minister.
Conti1ned.
In ordinary cases the power is distinct from
the Instructions and the instructions are not
produced nor can they be required to be
produced. In such cases the power only
gives notice that the minister may treat, not
what that treaty must be. 1t gives no intiina-
ton OF the s,ipulations which he is 10 insist
on or which he may agree 10, These are ALI
detailed in his instructions, which are separate
and to be kept to himself for his own govern
ment. This being so, how was ourgovernnent
TO know thar in this particular case, that tie
power and the instructions were blended to-
gethcr in the same instrument, and that by
demanding the sight Of the one, they would
necessarily come TO the knowledge Of the
other. Why presume it, when the thing was
contrary to all probabiity--whcn perhaps such
IN instance had seldom or everoccurred The
government had right to presume, and doubt
less did presume that the ordinary course had
been pursued.-that Mr.. Erskine had power,
and adinstruc,ions distinct from that power
and that the production of the one would NOT
lead TO the knowledge of the other.
But let us suppose, however improbable,
that our government had conceived that the
instructions might be blended with the power,
and under pretcnce of questioning whether
Mr. Erskine had power, they had cunningly
contrived IN that way, and BY side wind to
get at his instructions. How, after all, could
they be certain what kind of treaty Mr.. Frs
kline might make How could they be GER
tain that the power contained his only instruc-
tions How particularly could they be cer-
tain IT he averred as he might, and in this
case has, that he had other instructions
Could they call on hin, to shew those other
instructions No, they could not. In no
case can minister be reanired to shew his in
structions. Had our government therefore
employed this hncsse, it could not have
guarded them against what has happcncd.--
The erroneous opinions entertained on this
subject seem to have arisen principally from
two sousces--one is the cohlounding the
power and instructions, and rnistaking them
Tor ore and the same thing. This seems 10
have been the misfortune of Mr.. Potter. His
observations, SO far as they have bearing
upon the resolution are bouomcd on this
mistaken idea He evidently snpposes that
the government, by seeing the power of a
minister, may know not only that he may
make treaty, but What kind of treaty
he may make One would have thought
that the very case he took to illustrate his
ideas, would have taught him the distinction
he overiooks. There the power to convey
would have given him no information as to
terms which the agent might agree to. These
would depend on his private instructions,
which the agent would have in his pocket,
and which Mr. Potter would have no right to
demand Sigh, OF.
The other source Of false ideas on the SUBJ
ject, is of quite different nature. 1t is an
errour in the contrary extreme. 1t supposes
that the power must necessarily be distinct
from the instructions. and in one particular
form and when the poweris not thus dis
,inct nor in this form there is no power at ali.
This is Mr.. Dana's idea, and much of his in
genious and learned argument is founded up
on that errour That the power is usaaiiy
separate from the Instructions is agreed rand
his numerous authorities and preesttcpts were
not necessary to establish the position. But
is the power necessarily so separate For
this Mr., Dana has produced no precedent,
has cited no authority, has reverted to NO
principle, nor is'thcre any. Sovereigps arc
not tied "a TO any necessity of this sort.
They may make their powers separate from
their Instructions, or blend them together as
they please. The despatch of january was
upon The face of i, an instrument of this dou,
bic nature.
But the whole Of this discussica might be
laid out of the Case, ior in fac: 1t has nothing
to do with il. ~
The resolution before Congress, goes to ap-
prove the conduct Of the President in dis.
missing Jackson for having insultcd the gov
crnmcnt The case involves the inquiry,
whether the dismissal was proper on that
ground, and il involves no other. Whether
the disavowaI was just Cause Of complaint
OF not, makes no part oflhc case for. deter
mine that question either way, and still it re-