The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-23

|
structions, as. the ground work of an arrange
ment which. according to information recei-
we'd from t.is country, 1t was thought i'm
England nigh. be made, with prospect Of
great mutual advantage. Mr.. Erskine then
reports verbatim ct seridtint your observa-
tions upon each of the three conditions, and
the reasons which had induced YOU to think
that others might be substituted in lieu of
| them. ltmay have been concluded between
you that these latter were an equivalent for
the original conditions, bat the very act of
substitution evidently shews that those orr
ginal conditions, were, in fact, very eXpli
City communicated To you, and by YOU of
course laid before the President for his con :.
sideration ! need hardly add, that the diff
ference between these conditions and those
contained in the arrangement of the 18th
and 10Th of April, is sufficiently obvious to
require no calculation nor need draw the
conclusion, which, consider as admitted by
all absence of complaint. on the part of the
American government. viz. that under such
circumstances, his majesty had an undoubt-
ed and incoatrovertible right to disavow the
act of his minister. / must here allude to a
supposition, which you have more than once
mentioned to me. and by which, if il had any
the slightest foundation, this right might
perhaps have been in some degree affected.
You have informed me that you understood
that Mr.. Erkinc had two sets of instructions
by which TO regulate his conduct; and that,
upon one of them. which had not been commu
nicated either toyou or 20 the public, was to
be rested the justification oe the terms finally
agreed upon between you and him. It is my
duty. sir, solemuiy TO declare TO you, ard
through you to the President, that the de.
spatch from Mr.. Canning TO Mr., Erskine,
which you have made the basis Of an official
correspondence with the latter minister and
which was readily the former to the Anne
rican minister in London, is the only despatch
by which the conditions were prescribed TO
Mr.. Erskine for the conclusion of an ar
rangement with this country on the matter
to which it relates"
Mfr. Smith to Mr.. Jackson---rnges As,
A6
"Ihe declaration, "that the despatch
from Mr.. Canning to Mr.. Erskine, of the
Esd January, is the ouly despatch, by which
the conditions were prescribed to Mr.. Frs
kline for the conclusion of an arrangement
on the matter to which it relates" is now.
for the first time. made to this sovern.D ens.
And need hardly add, that If that des-
patch had been communicated al the time
OF the arrangement, or if it had been known
mat the propositions contained in il, aud
which were at first presented by Mr.. Frs
kline, were tne only ones on which he was au
thorized 10 make an arrangement, the ar
rangement would not have been made
Mr.. Jackson to Mr.. SmiM--hages 81.
So.
have, therefore, no hesitation i'm in
forming you, that his majesty was pleased
to disavow the agreement concluded be
tween you and Mr.. Erskine, because it
was concluded in violation Of that gentle
mans Instructions, and altogether without
" RI s,tlNc tt,.
These instructions, now understand By your
letter, as well as from the obvious deducti-
on which took the liberty of making in
| mine OF the 11th instant, were, ut the time
IN substance, made known to you no stron.
ger illustration, therefore, can be given of
the deviation from them which occur
red, than by a reference to the terms of
your agreement.
Nothing can be more notorious than
the frequency with which, in the Course of p
complicated negotiation, ministers are fur
nished with a graduation of conditions ON
which they may be successfully authorized
| to conclude. So common is the case which
you put alphabetically, that, in acceding TO
the justice OF your statement, feel mvseif
impelied to make only one observation upon
| it, which is. that i. does not strike me as
bearing upon the consideration of the unau-
| thoriEed agreement concluded here, inas
much as, in point of fact, MIR. Erskine had
| no such graduated instruction. You are al
ready acquainted with that which was civ
en-; and Ihave had the honor of informing
you, that it was the only one by which the
conditions, on which he was to conclude,
were prescribed. So far from the terms.
| which he was actually induced to accept,
having been contemplated in that instruct
on, he himself states, that they were sub
stituted by you in lieu of those originally pro
posed"
Mr.. Smith 10 Mr. Jackson.
"But it would be improper to conclude
the few observations to which purpesey
limit myself, without advcrting TO your re
petition OF Language implying a knowledge
on the part OF this government, that the in
structlons of your predecessor did not autho
rize the arrangement formed by him. AT
ter the explicit and peremptory asseveration
that this government had no such knowledge
and that with such knowledge no such ar
rangement would have been entered into,
the view which you have again presented Of
the subject, makes it my duty to apprze
you, that such insinuatons are inadmissibe
in the intercourse of a foreign minister with
government that understands what it owes
TO itself"
Mr.. Jackson TO Mr. Smith---hegcs 70,
Il.
"You will find that. in my correspondence
with you, have carefully avoided drawing
conclusions, that did not necessarily follow
from the premises advanced by ne, and