The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-06

h
| ment. lwill row speak of the conduct of the
Executive. az to the charge brought .gains,
him, by Mr.. Jackson. will not coodcsCcnd
to vindicate the Executive He stands
(thank God ! above suspicion. Histalents
his veracity. his love of country. are above
suspicion Il will not speak of motives as ap.
Ep'yingt to him. or i would ask what mott, e
the Exc cutive could have to enter. into an
arrangement which he knew would Ire rejec :
ted, an,i produce the mischief which has
resulted! 1st. Mr. Erskine declares he
did NOT Law before the Executive or the Sc
cretary OF State his instructions. Cd. On
our part the engagen,-nt now disavowed was
promptly executed ny the Executive All
this was known to Mr.. Jack: m, and every
circumstance enumerated should be recol-
lec,ed to interpret the intention of the Bri
fish government to insult US through their a.
gent. Mr.. jackson.
| From this retrospective summary, let any
unprecedented mind determine whether the
disavowal originated in British perfidy or the
mistake. of Mr.. Erskine. To enable us to
judge still more correctly, let US attend to
the mission vt Mr.. Jackssn---and am sorry
here tossate, that understood the gentle
man from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) either
| ny ms express words, or from the uRavoija-
Die conclusion drawn from his premises, 10
charge the chief Executive magistrate with
the consequences OF the disavowai on the
part ct Great Britain of an equitable ar
| rangement entered into with great solemni-
~, and which gave no more than our un-
doubted right, nor as much. did not hear
MN cast any censnre on the conduct of Mr..
| jackson, nor upon the conduct Of the Bri-
tish government in disavowing the act OF its
minister. He also admitted that the Presi.
Gent had right constitutionally to receive
| foreign minister's and might reject them up
on reasonable ground. He also stated that
| the Immunity o. y public minister did not al.
low him TO charge our Executive with
taisehood, or TO appeal to the people from
the government These principles being
admitted, / listened attentiveiy to hear
where the blame was TO be placed on whose
shouders-.nd to my astonishment, the
blame was packed upon the President of the
United States. in failing to comply with an
incumbent duty, viz. in not demanding the
authority of Mr. lIrskine to make the ar
rargemenr Aud many authorities were
quoted oprove the failure of duty on the part
OF the Executive. The gentlemaa has fail
ed IN his attempt, admitting every authority
quoted When Il foreign minister enters in
IT. any engagement with any other govern
ment, and the stipulations are to be carried
into Immediate effect, there the government
has right to demand the power or if yoa
will the authority of such foreign minister To
conclude an arrangements, on the subjects
embraced by the compact. .
But there is a difference between the DOW
| er OF public n.nister, and his special in
strnctons under the power. Itncver has
been denied that Mr. Erskine had power to
make an arrangement on the subject embra
ced by the disavowed stipulations. This is
acknowledged by MIR. Jackson i'm the cores
pondence. by Mr.. Canning in his letters, and
by all those who support Nj. jackson and
Scondenn our Executive government. The
President therefore demanded and received
proper evidence Of the power of Mr. Frs
kine to make arrangements embracing the
orders in Council ard the affair of the Ches-
apeake. Having done this, the President
discharged his dirty.
Secondly-Then hoy does the member
from Connecticut make and prove his Charge,
that the President failed in great and an
Incumbent duty? The gentleman has inge-
| niousy blended the power or the authority
OF public minister with his special instruc-
tons. would ask that learned member.
whether the annals Of diplomacy, CT the laws
OF nations. or his treaty of Westphalia can
furnish an instance where government had
the right or ever did demand sight of the
special instructions of foreign minister /?
IL never has been done Of rght it cannot
DC done 1t wonld be violating the most sa-
cred right of aforeign minister. IT, there
lore, special instructions are ever exhibited,
IL isfron courtesy and from the free will Of
the minister instructed. This doctrine is
proven ny the case under consideration. If
we mad right to demand the special in
structions of MIR. Erskine, why did Mr..
canning authorize Mr. Erskine to shew one
despatch toour government! This is a case
IN point. The principle is absurd and
unreasonable, and cannot bear examina-
tion.
When have so often, therefore, witnessed
the moderation OF that gentleman, and been
| so often instructed with his remarks upon
the laws of nations, &c. confess was
! PANIED to the heart TO hear charge of a
failure in the President to discharge his du-
! ~ to this nation, made out by blending the
powers OF minister with his special i'm.
structions regretted this still more. when
recolleCted that the same member dcclar.
ed, that he would be more unwilling TO cen
sure, than 10 appreciate the conduct of the
PRESIDENT. Ii might have been useful, if, at
that time, the learned member had recolIec
teu ms observations as to- the worth of cha
racter, made when speaking of that of the
! Blush minister, and when we were cauti-
oneu against it's traduction. A failure Of
duty therefore in the President to demand
| the Instructions of MIR. Erskine at the time
OF the arrangement, has led to the disavow
al and its consequences by the fair deduct
ons from the geutleman's premises, IL not
| from mis- express declarations. would ask
1t the President had demanded the special
Instructions of Mr. ErSIjne, and they had
= q. a., q.