Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-03-25


ever
In The question relating 10 impressmen. there is
sunh reserve We have letter on that vital subj CT
from each party. And yet tins correspondence led l.
nothing: and when 1t was prepared, II was known .
would lead TO nothing. Why !, IS there, II passes my
comprebe nson 10 Judge. When in conversation will
the British nopociator you found lie prepare
10 make any concession upon this subject why INTRO
duce it ct ALL and give has Government another oPpor
tunly to assert lis pretension and 10 avow It's deter
rnina.on TO enforce IL What vas gained ny th,ss-
You could hardly expect to shed new light upon
question discussed By Jefferson and Madison and you
could hardly expect that any declaration of resistance
10 the practice could be more emphatic, than the re
Ss;a Of the last war; and the numerous resances
against the doctrine, with which our diplomatic his
tory abounds. An important subject is introduced
into the treaty. without any discussion, and ano-
Their still more important, is discussed without intro
ducton. and with the full knowledge thatt would moi
be introduced.
Allow again to spread before you the paragraph
YOU quote and which contains the "llssue Of mistakes
which occupies so conspicuous place in your letter
"But England then urged the United States enter
into conventional arrangement by which we might be
pledged to concur with her IN The measures for the
suppression OF the slave trade. TIL then, we had
cuied our own laws in our own way. But yielding TO
Ibis application aud departing from our former princi
pie OF avoidng European combinations upon subjects
no. American, we stipulated, IN solemn treaty, that
We would carry into fleet our own laws, and fixed the
minimum force we would employ tor that purpose. =
! This is the whole charge you make II. This is The
paragraph, in reference TO which you say, "the Presi
dent cannot conceive how you should have been led
adventure upon such statement as this Now let Us
analyze this matter, and see If II IS as startling you
suppose How many facts are here stated, and OF these,
how many denied or doubted
First England urged US 10 make treaty for The sup
preston of the slave trade
Second We yielded to this application
Third Before then, had executed our own laws
in our own way.
Fourth. We departed thereby from our old principle
of avoiding European combinations upon subjects not
American
Fifth We stipulated we would carry into effect cur
own laws.
Sixth We fixed the minimum force would en-
p!oy for that purpose.
Here is the whole Indictment Now Cor The defence
suppose may pass the second fact, de-
pends entirely upon the first and is in truth part of
it. If England urged this treaty upon US, and we
therefore assen'ed TO the negotiation OF II, of course
yielded to the application suppose may pass over
the third fact No will dispute its truth Or, il
denied let it be shown, when before laws were
enforced by virtue OF treaty spulations suppose |
may pass the fourth II is matter of opinion
said in my former letter. of inference. No one can
place in that cory Of facts, for The truth of which,
he who advances them morally responsible. You say,
that the suppression OF the slave trade interesting
the u S, and that therefore have not departed, in
the formation Of this treaty from the wholesome maxim
of nonconhinaons say, it is interesting also, but tina.
our duties be fully performed without European
combination, and that such mutual arrangement
is injurious, and violates of the articles of our
political faith. And in proof of the danger OF these
arrangements, refer to tie perpetually recurring
difficulties which presenting themselves 10 the
execution of the Conventions between France ard
England upon this subject" | suppose | may pass
over the fifth fact for no one can question, that
by the treaty, do stipna.e to carry into effect
our laws. The eighth article expressly declares,
TINT the object is to "eniorce the laws &c, of each
Of the two countries. suppose, also, may pass over
the sixth fact for the eighth article provides that
the squadron employed in supp.essing the slave trade
shall "carrv in ell, not less than eighty guns Here
is the minimum We thus remove FIVE Of these con-
dernued fdcis from the act OF accusation There
mains one support the charge you have made, and
10 Justify the unqualified language you have employed
nd what is this solitary proof ofmy bad faith: Here
it is | said Lel England had urged cur Government
enter into sipnatons for suppressng the slave trade
to which we had yielded ! am "sarted" myself, at
the importance you attach to my views of this matter,
and to the gravity Of the reproof these have led to-
have already remarked, that all the world suppose
Lord Ashburton came here with propositions upon
this as well rs upon some other subjects dispute,
between the two Governments. And, al the moment
am writing, find in the papers an extract OF letter
from Mr.. Everett 10 you, presented 10 the House oil
Representatives by Mr. Gushing, which fully confirms
my previous impressions In that letter, Mr.. Everett
says he was told by Lord Aberdeen the eth
81 December, lS4l, that Lord Ashburton going TO
the u. S., "wiih full power to settle any point in dis
cussion embodying what was called the right OF
search, which The most difficult
And another incident comes OPPORTUNITY to confirm
all this II is the statement of Senator, who, from
s positions ought 10 know the circumstances and who,
from his high character, is entitled TO all credt-Coi
King said in the Senate, the ODD ult, speaking oil
THIS claim visit vessels, {: 1t ntolerable-
Here then, direct point of coislou and that was
what brought Lord Ashbuon 10 this country, with the
view OF adjusting the difficulty. may express The
surprise, felt, when read the following paragraph
your last letter, urged with as much emphasis, as
though the merits of the treaty and OF whole con
troyersy, turned upon this point Truly when such
undue Importance Is given TO topic, SO little mertine
il, wien lis discussion occupies seven folio pages o.
your last etcr and three pages Of its predecessor anc
when the view you present is mos. deliberately pre-
pared may we'll presume, that substantial defence
81 your various positions Is not easily found
This is the paragraph: Suppose your letter to &c
before the public, unanswered and uncontradcled-
suppose il TO minge itself With the general potca
history Of the country, official letter among the
archives of the Department of Slate, would not the
general mass of readers understand you reclting
facts, rather than drawing your own conclusions
stating history, rather than presenting an argu
ment II IS OF an incorrect narrative, that the Pre-
sden complains It's that, in your hotel al Paris you
should undertake 10 write history Of very delicate
par, Of negotiations carried al Washington, with
which you had nothing 10 DO, and OF which you hac
no authentic information, and which history, as yor
natra,e 1t, reflects not little the independence, WIS
dom, aud pubic spirit Of The Administration
Strange, indeed, that 'hs "hisory," aud "norra
tive, and "delIcalc par; of negotiation" &c. &c
Sc., are 10 be charged 10 simple suggestion, OF
assertion, If you please, tina. Lord Ashburlon came
over to make propositions to the Government, respect
| mr. the slave trade, which accepted.
Bot, before quitting this topc, shall! appeal 10 you
o:sn authority. You remarked to me- in your letter o
Noyember l4th, that ''the United States yielded Il
no application from England The proposition fo
abol'shing The slave trade, stands in the Treaty
vas an American proposition 1t originated with thu
| Executive Government Of The United States, which
chceJiu'ly assumed lis responsibility
You remarked in your letter ofDecembcr GOTH "Nov
the English minister no more presented the sublec
Tor negotiation ,Ian lie Government OF the u. State
presented ii, Nor can IL b. said that the United State
consented TO its Introduction, in any other than
br said that the British minister consented TO it,
All this is too Diplomatic for | neihe
clearly comprehend what is meant in the last quotation
nor, so far comprehend il, can reconcile it will
the other Whether either fairly contradcts my sug
ge.tion that the introduction Of the slave trade spu
lation into the treaty due 10 the application o