The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1810-01-10

EXPOSITION,
OF TEE cospvcr OF THE HoNoURABLE
FR.ENcLS LANES JACKSON.
IN HIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH,
ROBERT S.nITH, ESQ
SECRETARY OF STATE.


calculations which arc given by Mr.. Smith,
in his letter of the 18th If October, OH the
several interesting topicks in dispute between
the United States and Great Britain, and par
ticularly to the conciIiatory offer of he Pres
idcnt 20 comprehend tie Orders in Council
in general negotiation, the writcr'of this
exposition proceeds to the letter OF MIR. Jack
sou TO Mr.. Smith Of the Esd of October
This letter is rc~,arkabe,amon other points,
for The very unsatisfactory explanation il fHr..
nisLes of the reasons for cisayowing Mr..
Erskine's arrangement. 1t was disayowed,
Mr. Jackson asserts, because his predecessor
had no authority TO conclude it. There is no
reference ito the equity and Justice Of the
tern no " strcng and solid reasons in re-
lation to the rights of the United Statcs.---
But, simply, the act was disayowcd, because
the Minister was unauthorized to conclude IT,.
;'his, certainly, is a convenient, it not legal
excuse. 1t is one which may at al times
and under all circumstances be rcfc, red to-
Nothing more is necessary than to declare
that Minister has not comprehensied bis IN
structions ,and most solemn engagements are
at an end. But this is neither law nor good
faith. Supposing, that the violation of m
structions is good cause for disavowing an ar
rangcment, the mere saying so is no coinpc-
tent and satisfactory explanation TO tho disap-
pointed party. 1t is incumbent ON the disa-
vowing party to shew That they have been Vi
olated; that is, the disappointing party should
prove the fact Of violation MIR. Jackson has
not done this. He refers to printed des-
patch of the 2sd Of January, and Offers his
bare word for all the rest. Where are the
several letters of instructions mentioned
by Mr.. Erskine Why not produce the orig
inal paper OF the despatch OF January Esd,
that is, the manuscript oft! Why, in an Of
fetal proceeding, refer to a copy which APP
pcared in the newspapers And where is
the instruction relative to the Chesapeake !!
| Did MIR. E.rskine exceed his orders in that
| respect also ! Mr.. Jackson says hc did but
I Mr.. jackson produces no copy, mot even a
printed one) Of the obstruction on that bead
| Is this what Waited, Gan authority fully admit.
ted by Mr.. jaclsson} would call 8 siron, and
| solid reason /" Mr.. JacksoI,'s Yslerc'mord
| unsupported by coroborating vouchers cr cir.
cumstances, cannot be received as evidence
in the case yet he offers no other and in
this view it is worthy of notice, that Mr.. Jack
son claims for himself that weight Of crcdl.
bility which he denies to Mr. Smith and The
President. He requires that his solitary dec
laration Ga declaration vitisted by his tergiyer
sations) should be taken In support and fo
full proof of fact, and at the same time more
than insinnatcs that Mr.. Smiths word, anc
the asseverations of the President through MIR
Smith are not entitled to belief
sThc reader will observe, that Mr.. Smit'
in his letter of the 10Th Of October, says
!" The declaration that the despatch from Mr.
Canning to Mr.. Erskinc OF the 23d OF Janua
ry, is the only despatch by which the condi
tons were prescribed to Mr.. Erskine for th'
conclusion OF an arrangement on the matte
ON which it relates, is now for tho FIRST tins
made to this government" Mr.. Jackson
had read this observation when he wrote hi
reply Of October 23d, from which the follow
ing is an extract So
$50 far from the terms which he MI
Erskine was actually induced to accept hav
ing been contemplated in that instruction, b
himself states that the, were SUBSTITUTE
by rot the Secretary of State in lieu {
those originally proposed :"
This is not only an untruth IS il respect
MIR. Smith, bat it is palpalac dcpartpr
from veracity inregard to Mr.. Erskine. Tn
latter gentleman has no where asserted, (it
confidently afiirmc1D tha, Mr.. Smith subst
! tuted conditions Thc inAucement with NJ
ErsAine FOR concluding ihs agreement OF III
10Th OF April, arose, as he ayers in his lcue
Of August i4th, from Thorough conform
ity with fiis Maiesty's wishes" Mr.. Smit
neither solicited him to accept nor to reject
all the propositions came from Mr.. Ersxin
| There could be no possible motive on Il
part Of the American government to ure
, Mr.. Erssine to depart from the tenour OF h
. Instructions, or the least disposition to sui
stitutc terms for him for what possible bel
eft could accrue to Mr.. Smith or to the Pre-
idcnt by whccdIing the British Minister in
an accommodation, which, If contrary to b
orders, they would have known would .
have been accepted by his government e
II Common sense rejects all such insinuation.