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

vernIllens III the pScitlGhs = .s 'A 2..ysS
sk;nr onre asonablesor unequal vas any =
s, mo :, ore obtained than a recognItIon OF
aNr Natural and ind feasible right freely Y
nsy;5ate the ocean. according to the itlles q
nnfIIc law, right Belonging equally 10 al
tort;on and independent nations Il, by
he arrangement OF April last, a ratification
had been reserved, the British government
would in good faith have been bouud TO
have ratified the agreement, as no Sood@ rs ei-
SON could be assigned for failing TO do SO. &
| And, sir, this failure to see, and examine
Mr.. Erskine's instructions is not alleSedb by,
Mr.. Jackson as Cause or reason why THIS
government had not right 20 complain 81
/ rhe ,disayowal. From This infer that the
/ official statement contained III MIR. LIS
] kine's correspondence, that he had lnstruc-
! tons, and that he was authorised 20 make
/ the arrangement, was all that was necessa-
| ~ to be known by this government before
| the arrangement was enteredInto, and that
I the secretary of state swas necessarily ieas
1 TO believe that Nir. Erskine had other let
| tiers of instruction than those contained IN
Mr.. Canning's despatch of the Esd OF ia
nuary last.
Sir, let us now examine Mr.. Jackson's
reply to MIR. Smiths statement, in which
Mr.. Smith declares this government had
not knowledge that the instructions cen
tanned in Mr.. Canning's despatch OF the
Esd of January was the only despatch by
! which the conditions were prescribed to
! MIR. Erskine for the conclusion Of an ar
| raugemcGt on the matter to which Il re-
la,es, and declares, if this fact mad been
| made known at the time the arrangement
was made, that il would not have beea
| made. IT,.
MIR. Jackson, in his reply to Mr.. Smith,
| declares that Nv. Smith was acquainted
| with the instruction which was given to
| Mr.. Erskine, and that he had no other IN
| struction than that contained in Mir. Can
nine's despatch of the Esd january. Is 1t
| possible to conceive a con r.ohction more
| positive than that contained in this reply!
Ii gentleman in his place states any mat
ter OF fact to exist, and he Is tod IN reply
that the fact stated is untrue, and that MS
| statement was made with 4 perfect and IN
innate knowledge of lis talsehood, all tie
| world would at once agree ne was lnsuItcd.
| And the pr>oens C"o4 does nor d'l!~r from
! the case l put, except that II is obScurcd
! with diplomatic vclbage.
But, sir, Mr.. Smith in his letter of the
18th Of November, eNp esses his d'ssatls-
faction at the liberty taken bv Ny. Jackson,
| and declares such destinations ln"dmIss.-
bic. And what is Mr.. Jackson reply to
Mr. Smith ? Why, sir, we find III page
II of the printed documents, the follow
ing
| G. You will find that in my correspond
ence with YOU, have carefully avoided
| drawing conclusions that did not nscsssa-
| rily follow from the premises advanced by
| me, and last of all should think OF utter
| ing an nsnualion where | was unable to
| substantiate fact. To facts, such as
| have become acquainted with them, have
scrupulously adhered, and in so doing
| must continue whenever the good faith of
| his maiesty's government is called in ques-
ton, to vindicatc its honor and dignity in a
| manner that appears to me best calculated
! for that purpose"
What were the insinuations which Mr..
Jackson had made Why, first, that the ar
rangement negotiated with Mr.. Elskine
| was done under such circumstances as could
| only lead to disavowal, and it would have
| been an act destitute Of candor on the part
of our government to make any complaint
| of that disavowal and, secondly, that Mr..
Smith was perfectly acquainted with Mr..
( Erskine's instructions, and knew he had but
the one instruction contained in Mr.. Can
niness despatch of the $50 of January. Not
withstanding MIR. Smith positively denies
any such knowledge, and complains of such
insinuations as inadmssible, yet Mr.. Jack