The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-16

different object. He had seen the expert
mcnt tried with success in the Case OF tile
Chesapeake. While the angry spirit of the
nation brea,hed nothing but veveDge, and
could not be opposed with inquiry the
apologists of Great Britain either remained
silent or joined in the general cry; but no
sooner had the storm subsidized, than they
crept from their holes and gradually unfol
ded themselves. They used with dex,erity
all the weapons furnished by MIR. Canning;
they debated like casuists whether the pro-
clamation ought to be revoked before or at
ter the satisfaction was rendered; and they
confounded the question with learned arga-
meuts ON the right Of mpressment. BY ar
tihces like these, they tanned the unruly spi-
rt of the nation, until it has learned to bear
the burthen Of it's disgrace without muir
muir. The same policy has been pursued in
this more recent instance OF British inso-
lence. To what ger mutive:can we asciioc
| the conduct of MIR. Dana, who, in 4
speech OF unusual length. has studiousiy "a
vnded the only question then before the
house, aud directed all his censure against
the Executive? Or what conclusion can we
form honorable to him, when we finn him
practising such humanity arts, to shield to-
reign minister from the indignation which
his conduct has so Justly excited! The ma,i
who boldly attirms that Mr.. Jackson 5 inno-
cent of the oience imputed to him, meets
the question fairly. He nust BE- infatuated.
but he nay be honest But he who eviuCes that
he comprehehds the subject, while he EN-
ploys every stratagem to elude it, betrayS
the want of an American heart, and confes-
Ses himself the slave OF faction. The same
reasons which have induced MIR. Dana 10
confound Mr.. Jackson conduct with ma
ny irrelevant subjects, impel me to single
it out, to place it ON an emincnce where it
Ina at ART al nd Stt.ise
with undivided force the seRsibility of the
people.
But let us return 20 Mr.. Dana's objection.
He contends that the President ousht not to
have concluded the agreement With Mr..
Erskine, without requiring the latter to cx-
hibit the particular instrument of writing
which authorised him TO bind hlz govern
ment.
Before examine the merits of this pro-
position, it will BIZ proper Ia remark. thar
Mr. Jackson has NO where aledged this OBJ
jection as the motive fnr the dsavow:.', or
as a,eason which would exempt his govern
ment from the necessity of assigning reasons
tor that act S'ill less can il be said that
Mr.. Jackson alluded TO this neglect or the
part CT flie President to obtain a knowledge
of MIR, Els INSTRUCTIONS when he made those
inSinuatioDs which caused his dismission -.
II Mr.. Jackson had meant te say TO our go
maoded Of Mr.. E. sight Of HIS powers. in
which case you would have seen also the IL
initiation of them; and as it was your righr
~ have made this demand, il is to be pre-.
suned that you did SO. and therefore YOU
must be regarded AS having notice in the
eye oflaw of the limitation OF Mr. Erskine'<
powers" if, l say, Mr. Jackson had used this
! language, however IalIaCious it mis- ht be ia
argument, it would sill have afforded no
1
meant this. it would have been easy to have
SAID it in terms which could not be misun-
derstood. 1t was not this constructive spe
cies of knowledge, of which MIR. Jackson &C
cused the government; 1t was a knowledge
supposed TO have been derived from tie
communications of Mr.. Erskine himself.
Had MIR. Dana erdeavored 10 shew that MIR.
| Jackson really Intended TO say nothing more
than this, when he insinuatcd that the 60
vernment had knowledge of MIR. E's ia
structions; his argument might have had
some affinity to the question then before the
House. But this is, i'll fact. almost the only
view of the subject that he has not taken
SO far then rs Mr.. Dana's proposition could
have any relation to the conduct OF Mr.. Jack
son, it seca.s not to be urged by either Of
them.
III Mar. Dana's argument was intended as a
Justification of Great Britain in d,sayowiug
the agreement, it is equally unfortunate
According to him, the case stands thus
The President was bound. by the law Of ma
tious, tohave required Mr. Erskime to exhi-
bit his powers; if he did so, the President
was appraised also If the Limitation OK those
| powers; if he neglected to make his demand,
he chose to run the hazard Q. Contracting
with an unauthorized agent. and G Britain
is not bou"d by the agre ement. Now all this
may he very true. and YET if this objection
never occurred to Great Britain or her minis
! ter, it Cannot be taken into any estimate of
the motives OF mat power i'll disayowiug the
i act It's ia that case to be considered only
as The offspring of Mr.. Dana's mind, without
! cffe citing the dispute between the two Coun-
| tries. Let nos Mr.. Dana, however, be rob-
| bed OK the merit of having explored argu-
ments IN defence of oar inveterate enemy,
which escaped the scrutinizing eye of her
most celebrated minister. When Mr. JACK
Fson was called upon to explain the reasons
| Of his government for disavowimg the agree
ment, how easy would it have been for him
to get rid of so troublesome az enquiry, by
saying That orr government either did know,
or ousiit to have knowa the 5a,r,, 6 Mr. Els
powers, and therefore Great Britain was noe
bound to expiaini This answer, however.
did not occur 10 him. He contented himself
/ WIN saying, LIST. that those explanations had
been sent to MIR. Erskine to be made by him
I'd. 1hatliisy had been made to Mr. Pink
hFy by iIr. Canning; and lastly, he insinu-
ates that no such explanation was necessary.
from tue privity OF orr government to- Mr..