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

participation (nor was he instructed so 70 do)
what might be the answer that he should e.
Eventually think it his duty to return to Us
consequently he could not ha~s made 7yith
thaf Utezc the statement contained in the
| fth section OF Mr.. Smiths letter, and the
three subdivisions of it,"
Here indeed is a strange medley of ideas
but through all this mist of words. it ap
pears. that the total & unqualified interdicti
an OF all trade with the enemy rs correct in
lhrinc:Hle-that there is little practical hard
ship in recurring to the rule which, howe
yer occasionally mitgated in its application,
u. Is. can never ccasr IN friaciHie 10 main
;ain-and that he could not have made 4vifh
that vieSv the statement detailed by Mr.. j.
Thus then the British minister re assert.
the assumed rights OF G. B-declares it to
be matter of indifference whether the Or
ders in Council are continued. or We shall
Consent to AN arrangement in its room-anL
merely denies that he had spoken to Mr. S.
of the three conditions, svifh that ciezv.-
| IL Is indifferent to us, zuih gvhat Uiezv he
made this statement-it is sufficient, that
he stated these conditions as the sine qua
non, 7vtfh any vie7v whatever. II is not the
motiUe. but the matter OF the com nunication
which is in question.
In reply, the Secretary of State repeats
enc matter OF the communication. according
his understanding that Mr. J. had no autho
rity :" but merely to receive and discuss
proposals, on the part of the u. States
and these, IL ahhears, must include
stipulation on the part of the u. $ to relin
lGuish the trade with the enemies colonies.
even IN branches not hitherto interrupted
10y British orders for capture, and also a
sancuonlng to the ehforcing Of an act of Con
Igress by the British navy"-he states that
II the way were formerly opened for for
mai propositions from this government, a
Snoson determination on the part Of his Bri
tannic Majesty to adhere to such extraordi
nary pretensions, would preclude the hope
OF success in such advances. &c" Here the
Secretary OF State directly leaves open an
opportunity to Mr., ]. to deny his statement
OF the sn6Iect matter Of their conferences
he states an inducemeut to such a denial
the facility which it would open for formal
!, propositions on our part, and the hopes of
success in such advances Thus called on i,
thus invited. how does Mr. ]. act? Does
he contradict it? No. Though this i'm Dor
tant statement of the Secretary is before
him. though it formed SO prominent a part
IN his communications to him, he does not
, meet it-he Is silent about it-and his silence
under such circumstances, is to be intcrDre
ted into an admission Of The correctness of
the Secretary's statement. All that he saws,
which is in the most distant manner Capable
} OF being said TO bear upon it. is, that {" be-
yond this point ~ explanation" ION the disa
vowal of Mr. Els arrangement "my In.
strnctions are Prospective; they look to
substituting for notions OF good understand
ing. enormously entertained, Practical sti
hutahons on which real reconciliation of
all differences may be substantially founded
We shall not insult the re ader BY disserta-
, ton on nsfonS and StihulationS-nor rouse
his Indignation by showing how easily cur
rights are made toevaporate into notions,
and how probable it is, that these stihulati-
ons are the three Conditions
1t is in this light, that Mr.. Smith views
his silence-for in his next letter of Nov
1. he says, that lit only remains. as to that
part of the disavowed arrangement, to re-
greet, that such considerations should have
been allowed to outweigh the solid objections
to the disavowal; it being understood, at
the same time, that his Britannia majesty
perseveres in requiring, as indispens able
conditions on the part OF the United States,
an entire REIMBURSEMENT of the right to
trade with enemies colonies, and also a per-
mission to the British navy to aid in execu-
ting law of Congress"
Thus CALLED and pressed by his correspon-
dent, Mr.. ]. found it necessary TO saw some
thing-he now denies in an evasive form
still his denial dass not go to the subject
matter ofthc statement-hs object is still
tobe attained substantially by a concession
of the three condi:ionS.-Hear him in
eItenSo
=, Z" You say " thatit s'understood that hi, Br-
fannie majesty perseveres in requiring as indls-
, pensable conditions on the part of the States,
r an entire REIMBURSEMENT of the right to trade
with the enemies colonies, and also a permission
to the British navy to aid IN executing law Of
, Congress"
" This same statement iscontaned in your let
ter OF the 9th instant, and represented the sub
stance Of what had fallen from me in our previ.
Gus conferences. In my answer To that letter,
l took the liberty of shelving that such suppo-
sition erroneous, and nave looked IN vain
. to my letter of the 23d, to find in it any sug-
gestion of similar tenor. believe, therefore,
that by reference to my two letters you will
, find, tIat the statement now again brought for
ward is contained in neither Of them, that it
made no part of my previous conversations with
you, and that have in no way given room to sup
pose, that ! ever made any such statement at all
That betore ire orders in council can be revoked,
their object nluSt be o5Ginean other gvay, is
un9aesfionabiy true /; bat you may be SssureJ , SIR
that there is no wish whatever entert aimed in En-
gland, that the British navy should be employed
in executing law Of Congress. If the propo-
sal that was made upon that subject, and m ide
as YOU n6W know, because it was believed
to be acceptable here, had been adopted, and
had become a matter Of compact, between the
two countries, and thereby a part, not of the
law of Congress, but of the public law binding
upon both parties, and which both would have
had common interest in seeing duly executed ;