Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1810-01-20

prove that our cabinet he'd no expeeteAon %
wish that the arrangement with NJ. Err.
skins should take effect, 10 the ,ecadaet OF
Mr.. Madison and Of Consress' 6 shs Jane
session., -. - ..--ll. :
| Mr.. Madison, IL you take Mr.. Esstinr's
fret statement to his swn government. had
assured thar minister, thatf Great Britain
would repeal her ordfrs, we would take
aide with her against those nations which
kept in force DEGREES Infringing the rights
of neu.rals and of Great Britain.
When called upon by our government to
explain, the submissive and supplian. Mr..
Erskine still persists that Mr. Madison
told him, thar although he could not answer
for Congress, yc, that there was. mo doubt
but that Congress woul honestly fulfil the
implied stipulation, and Would enforce Our
laws against the offending power. 49,.
What was the fact /? Mr.. Madison not
only fails to recommend it in his speech,
but Congress neglect to include Holland.
tho within the British orders, tho, within
the absolute dominion Of France, tho eu-
forcing laws injurious both to our own
rights and those of Great Britain. What
apology is made for this. breach of faith ?
Shall ne say that Mr.. Madison'sl sugges-
tious amounted to no pieaye3 Did it nos
bind hinseE at least, 70 the recommends
ton? What is the excuse set up for this
violation of private understanding? Mr..
Smith tells us that it was less important to-
Great Britain because Holland excluded us
from her ports? This, if it had been true,
would have been singular reason for OPEN
ing our trade with her, bu. it was not cor
rect--She has never excluded our ships
freighsed with certain productions Of
our own country, unless they came within
the provisions of the Dutch decree, which
copied the DEGREES Of Berlin and Milan.
. Thus We see that if the arrangement with
Erskine had been deemed by Mr.. Madison
serious one, he has very i'll fulfilled the
poor and narrow conditions which he had
persuaded Mr.. Erskine to accept in lieu
of those to which he was directed to as
sent. .
Let US now say a few words upon the
rejection of the agreement by Great Britain,
for u teu only, with the remarks We have
before made, will suffice.
Great Britain would have had a right to
have refused to ratify the agreement eve"
If Mr.. Erskine had pursued his Instructions,
because he was NOT vested With full powers,
and slNe would only have been obliged to.
cay to us shat he had no sufficient authority.
| This is supported by the quotation from
Vsttei, made by our own civilian Air.
Smith. and which 10 in fact, and is to be
presumed to be the strongest case he can
ci;e-Vattel says that agreements and trea.
: ties made in vivtus Of full ps,rsr arc bind.
ing-Now this implies necessarily that if
they are not made in virtue OF aJuHPazVer
they are not binding. ..... 49,.
That the general letter OF credsace OF
even-a resident minister plenipotentiary 10
not full power, We have the testimony Of
! all the great civilians. but of none who de.
serve 80 much weight in this case, as that OF
the very learned Doctor in Law, Thomas
/ Jefferson, whose authority We cited ic
. note TO No. 4.
But Great Britain il not so mean and
ungenerous as 20 put her ,Iisavowal on the
merchant, Of power. She says" will not
| initiate your example IN. the case Of the
| treaty mAtls BY Msssts' Nunsoe & Pinkney.
The simple want of authority would nos in
dsee me to reject a treaty just and EQUAL.
But I reject it because my servant brake ms
orders. Whether he broke them or not, IS
imma,erial 70 YOU. tits sufficient that he
had no power, and you never even asked
him whether he had, which you know is the
| established usage, and which asase you your
selves adopted against our former minister
! Hammond. 1t is therefore, doubly unrea-
sonable, tina. you should complainant sm'a-
sure, which was, on two principles, both
equally recognised BY the laws OF nations,
authorised to adopt"
That Gresr Britain did not, as she well
Nigh, haze done, repose upon the general
incombetency Of AIR. Erskine's poss,s, who
no. only did no, possess a fill p0'0' r bur OF
whom our government, contrary TO their
cum former conduct. did MT demand any