The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-09


and the last session, the policy of passing
approSatory resolutions will have been as
well Investigated as ever any question was
in Congress, because as we'll as recollect,
when at the last session it was proposed by
a resolution to approve the conduct of the
President. for making the arrangement with
Mr. Erskine, those who support the pre-
sent resolution opposed that. and those who
supported that oppose this, SO that all the
talents of the House seem to have been en-
ployed on each side of the question at the
two sessions. In fact it appears to me, that
gentlemen have completely changed sides.
l mean not by this to cast any imputation or
reflection on any one. / consider the right
OF changing opinions sacred one, and that
which every man ought to do. when con
vinced that his opinions are erroneous or
wrong, and it is one of the few rights of
which the most tyranncal governmen. can
not deprive us. Convince me that am
wrong in opposing the present resolutions,
and too will change sides.
The dismissal of a foreign minister is no
new case in the country-Genet was dis
missed. Yrujo was dismissed. and no bad
consequence followed, and why should any
be anticipated because Jackson has been dis
missed! / will not trouble the committee
with reading any part of the documents,
they must be tired of hearing parts of them
already, and every member has surely read
them with attention, besides the nation has
them, and will decide OIL them, without our
assistance; to me it appears on fair exa
mination of his letters, that he was properly
dismissed. but to the ,resolution-it will not
be denied that either House might pass an
approbatory resolution without asking the
concurrence of the other. Then what would
be the situation of the government or the
country. ifone branch of the legislature was
OF different party from the Executive, and
the branch agreeing with the Executive
should pass an approbatory resolution might
we not from our knowledge of the intolerant
spirit OF party expect the other branch to
pass one to censurei But suppose both
branches opposed to the Executive, and
they pass joint resolutions against him,
what then becomes of the Executive p
Strong as it is with all its patronage, it must
fall. No Executive could maintain itself ia
this situation. This state of things would
asltate every part of the nation and shake
the union itself; and this government is so
organized, that it is not impossible but all
this may happen. This House is elected for
two years, the Senate for six and the Presi
dent for four. If ever it should happen. I
fear you would not only have no President,
but no federal government. This would be
very different case, from that which took
place, when Congress repealed a law, be-
cause 1t was opposed by part of the nation :;
that opposition was used as All argument to
shake the firmness of the National Legisla-
ture, and it succeeded. have, since / had
a seat in the House, heard great deal a.
bout foreign influence; i never believed
much in 1T, but it events, like those have
mentioned, should ever take place, then yon
may look for foreign iniuc nee
Permit me, here, to notice an argument
OF the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr.
Dana) relative to the dsavowal by the Bri
tish government; if the ground he assumes
De true, his argument is unanswerable. IF
mlstate him, l wish he would correct me.
because have no desire to do it / under
stood him to say that Mr.. Erskine had no
full power to do what he did, and that the
administration ought or must have known
it; lbelieye, sir, it is as difficult 20 decide
what an accredited minister may do under
his letter OF credencc, and what would re
qnlre new or full power; as it is TO distin-
guish the lines which separate the shades of
Color. All the gentleman's arguments went
to shew that full power was necessary to
make treaty. This mean not to deny,
but he assumed as fact that the arrange,
ment made in April last was a treaty. de
ny that 1t was a treaty; if it was treaty,
how does it happen that at the last session
ef Congress, neither the gentleman himself
nor any one else in this House ever said a
word about its being laid before the Senate .
Every one knows that treaty cannot be
made under the constitution without the
consent of that House. lam not 6iplomatist
enough to say to what class of public agree
ments the disavowed arrangement properly
belongs; Mr.. Erskine called it an arrange
ment and Mr.. Jackson an agreement; and
challenge any man to say it was treaty
and ought to have been laid before the Sc
nate by the President. IF full power was
necessary to the conclusion of the arrange
ment, where was the sagacity of the gen.
tleman froih Connecticut last spring when
he was so DESTROYS of voting thanks to the
President, for having made this very ar
rangemcnt' In this House it is we'll known
that was rs much opposed to the motion
last spring as am now to this, and intend
ed to have delivered my sentiments upon it,
but was prevented by the House not deci
ding on it. Why did not the gentleman then
come t1rward and tell us that this boosted
arrangement was all nothing, For in the
whole correspondence, which was then laid
before us. there is not a word aboat full
powers; III fact the British government in
the disavowal has not made this objection :
nor has it called the arrange ncnt q treaty :
both governments and every man in both
COUNT IS understood it to be not a treaty.
but only all agreement by which the United
States engaged to withdraw the operation Of
a certain law as to Great Britain. provided
Great Britain would withdraw her orders in
Council; both engaged TO do certain chimes.
ny lac NIfrft e.. 4