The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-01-02

"C was Instructed To MAINTAIN. but IN tht
case before US, where cav we find sufficien
! reason TOR speaking of the restriction of au
thority as being unknown, if the authority wa,
known! There does not appear to lave
been any restriction. except what was in.
herent in the nature of the authority. The
same despatch, the letter of instruction
gave the authority and defined it's extent -
In the nature of the thing, the mins.e,
could have no more authority than was given
to him; and he neither was nor could be
authorised to act beyond the extent of his
authority. How then, in this case, is ii
possible to separate the authority from what
Is called the restriction? If therefore, the
negotiation has been concluded according
to the principles of public law, the evidence
OF the authority, such as it existed ard APP
P"ared IN fact, neither more nor less, can
be produced. Unless there be some evi
dence OF a distinct authority oslensibly COM
petent to the arrangement, where is the
propriety OF insisting on explanations as If
there had been apparent authority9 Elk.
PLANTATION is obviously due where the minis
ter has exhibited competent full power on
the faith of which an arrangement has been
concluded, il his government disavows rhe
arrangement because OF departure from in
structions on points important TO the govern
ment. The violation of instructions, and
the Importance of the matters respecting
which they have been violated, constitute
the basis OF the proper explanation, to which
may be added proper compensation for the
failure, with due attention to the time and
manner ofmaking the explanation.
he case or the arrangement with Mr..
Lrskme has sometimes been compared to
t',at OF the treaty sigucd at London OH the
3ist OF December, 1906, by Messrs. Mon
roe and Pinkney Rut the cases are mate
rally different. That negotiation was con-
Quoted with observable propriety and deco.
rum by the negociators of each party-Per-
maps ho case is to be found in which the res
pectIve ministers insisted with more fran
ness and perseverance on the claims, inter
ests and pretensions of their own govern
ments, and vet preserved towards each O.
ther SO much decorum and honorable atten-
ton in their official and personal conmuni-
cations. Although Messrs. Monroe and
rini<ney had full powers for the negotiation,
thcy had instructions separate from these
general powers, and by these instructions
they were restricted according TO the speci-
ned terms In acceding to the articles as
they believed eXpedient under the existing
circumstances, they gave notice TO the Rri
fish plenipotentiarieS, that they proceeded
to the signature of the treaty on their own
responsibility. and that the letter of their
instructions did not warrant the arrange.
ment in the manner in which it was made !;
although they believed the essential objects
of their instructions to be attained in sub.
stance for practical benefit to the United
States, and accordingly they trusted that
the terms would be approved by our gov
ernment.
The British government had not Just cause
to complain and insist on formal explanati-
ems merely because the treaty was disavow
ed in this country. although the full powers
OF Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, on the
part of the United States, were exhibited
and appeared competent; for the restriction
contained In the Instructions had been fairly
communicated 10 the British plenipotentia-
ries. Accordingly tne British secretary IF
state, afterwards in his o",icia, NOE, stating
the Kings acquiescence in the PresideHL's
refusal to ratfy the treaty. did not complain
on that account. but he adverted to the fail
nre of conforming to instructions as a mat
ter between the American government and
its commissioners.
On the subject of the treaty, however.
there is another enquiry which concerns
ourselves, and on which the British govern
ment Can have no right to say anv thing
for it is not their Concern, but ours excu-
sivc!y. The enquiry is, whether the treaty
was not of so much Importance, concluded
after SO much discussion, and by such per-
sons, and under such circumstances, that it
should have been submitted to the Senate
who might have advised its ratification I'M
conditionally or on condition of such modifi
cations as, after full deliberation, might be
Judged best Tor the United States! Whether
the affairs of the country have not since been
changing from bad to worse. instead of Sc
curing more beneficial terms or any terms
whatevers
With view to the general subject of let
ters of credence, and the distinct authority
of public minister's. l will now refer 10 cx-
pies in the history of our own government.
without OBTAINING YOU by citations from the
works of foreigd writer's on public law.
ihe first authority to which ] now refer,
is the authority Of President Madison as
President of the United States I PROPOSE
10 shew. atprior to the present session of
Congress he believed it proper that public
minister pIenipotentiary having letters of
credencc should also have distinct authori
ty to enable him TO stipulate in behalf of his
government. With this view refer to the
Message FROM the President Of the n. States
AT 1e commencement Of the last session OF
Congress. In that Message, there iska
clause relative to the purport Of certain in.
strnciI'Us. for our ministers ut London and
PARIS; and then Immediately !. low the G..
prgfaiOnS which 7 viii now reas:
q Boon after these Instructions were dis
patched, it was fouad that the British Go.
vcrnmcnt, anticipating, from the early pro-
ceedlngs ct Congress at their last session.
the sta.e of our Il" vs., which has had the eff
feet OF placing the two beiligereut powers
on "A flpf mo Cf cuuoI rec.ri~t;o,- 81.