Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1820-05-20

{ when the other party refuses to rstify."f In
your letterof the Gath ultimo, you observe
that these positions have already been reii-
! ted by your government; which makes 1t
necessary TO inquire as |, with great relue-
| lance, do, how they have been refuted
The duke Of San Fernando, 10 his reply
| TO this letterof Mr. Forsyth, says, maintains,
and repeats" that the very authorities cited
| by Mr.. Forsyth, literally declare, that the
| sovereign, for strong and solid reasons, or il
his minister has.exceeded his instructions.
| NAV refuse his ratification, lVattel. book 2,
cap. i27 and that public treaties are not OBJ
| ligatory until ratified. !" fMartens, book 2,
chap. 8. see notel In these citations, the
duke of San Fernando has substituted for the
connective term and, in VatteI, which makes
the proof OF Instructions transcended indis
| pensable to justify the refusal OF ratification,
| the distinctive term or,~hich presents ii AS
| an alternative, and unnecessary, on the con
tingercy of other existing strong and solid
reasons. Vattel says she sovereign must
have strong and solid reasons and particular
! Iy must show that the minister transcribed
| his instructions. The duke of San Fernan-
do makes him say the sovereign must have
strong and solid reasons. or If his minister
| has exceed his instructions. Vattel not only
| roakes the breach of instructions indispensa-
| BILE, but puts upon the sovereign the obliga-
ton Of proving it. The duke of San Fer
| nando cites Vattel not only as admitting that
other reasons, without breach OF instruc-
tons, may justify refusal Qualification, but
that the mere fact of such breach would
also justify the refusal, without requiring that
the sovereign alledging should prove it.
Is this retutation?
The only observation that shall permit
my self upon it, is to remark how conclusive
the authority Of the passage in Vattel mus!
| have been to the mindiof him who thus trans
formed it to the purpose Sor which he was
contending The citation from Martens re-
ceives the same treatment. The Duke of
San Fernando takes by itself a part of a SEN
tence 6 that public treaties are not obligato-
ry until ratified" He omits the preceding
sentence, by which Martens asserts that
treaty, signed in conformity TO full powers,
is in rigor obligatory from the moment of sig.
nature. without waiting for the ratification.
He onits the part Of the sentence cited,
which ascrbes the necessity Of ratification
to an usage founded upon the danger Of e1-
posing a slate TO the errors OF its minister
He omits the following sentence, which ex.
plicitly asserts that this usage can never be
resorted to, I'M Justification OF refusal TO ra-
tify, unless when The minstet has exceeded
his secret Instructions, and thus, with this
halt of a sentence, stripped of all its qualify
ing context, the Duke brings Martens TO as
sert that which he most explicitly denies.
Is this refutation
While upon this subject, permit me TO re-
fer you to another passage of Vattel, which
the more readily cite, because, indepen-
dent Of its weight as authority, it places
this obligation of sovereigns upon its immove-
able foundation of eternal justice in the law
of nature. 1t is shewn by the law of ma
ture, that he who has made promise 10 any
one, has conferred upon him true right to
require the thing promised and that, conse-
qnentiy, not to keep perfect promise, is to
violate the right of another; and is as mani.
fest an injustice as that of depriying per-
son of his property. All the tranquility, the
happiness, and security, of the human race,
rests on justice, on the obligation of paying
regard to the rights of others. The respect
of others for our rights of domain and proper
ty constitutes the security Of our actual pos
sessions. TIE faith Of promise is our secur-
ty for the things that cannot be delivered or
executed on the spot. There would be no
more security, no longer any commerce be-
tween mankind, did they not believe them
selves obliged TO preserve their faith and keep
their word. This obligation is then as ne
cessary, as it is natural and indubitable be-
tween the nations that live together in a
state of nature, and acknowledge no superior
upon earth to maintain order and peace in
their society. Nations and taeir conductors
ought then to keep their promises and their
treaties involable. This great truth, though
too often neglected an practice, is generally
acknowledged by all nations"