Newspaper Page Text
THE DELAWARE. GAZETTE. VOL, l.j WILMINGTON. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13 NO. 46 1809. Î 3d« Printed and Published On Wednesdays and Saturdays BY JOSEPH JONES, In Market street, a few doors above the B.nkof Delaware. to ry in the in in In • CONDITIONS. .I. The Delaware Gazette shall be published every Wednesday and Saturday, on a large Folio sheet. J£. The price shall be four dollars per annum, exclusive of postage, payable half-yearly in advance. III. No subscription will bo received for a shorter period than one year. ÎV. Subscribers shall have the rigl*. of discontinuing their subscription at the end of a year from the time of their subscribing, by paying what may be due, and V. Advertisement*, not exceeding sixteen lit be inserted four times for one dollar, and for every •subsequent insertion twenty cents—longer (.ties in the same proportion i but a reasonable discount will be made in favor of those who advertise by the ■year, half-year, or quarter. VI. Ail articles of a personal or private nature will be charged as advertisements, and must be paid for before insertion. VII. Advertisements, notices, fee. of all religious and charitable institutions, within the state of De •ing notice of their intention. will lavvare, shall be conspicuously inserted gratis. all letters and (Tj- The postage must be paid communications addressed to the Editor, through the medium of the Post-Office, or they will not be re ce» v ed. DOCUMENTS, Which accompanied ike Missaac of (he President of the United States» Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney. Department of stale, Nov. 23, 180 '). Sir— My letters in the correspondence with Mr. Jackson, already transmitted to yon, sufficient lyevince the disappointment that was felt, on finding that he had not been charged to make to this government either the frank explana tions or the liberal propositions which the oc casion manifestly required. Instead of this ob vious course of proceeding, it was in the outset perceived, that his object was to bring us to re sume the subjects of the arrangement of April in a way, tint would imply that we were aware that the arrangement was not binding on his government because made with knowledge on our part that Mr. Erskine had no authority to make it, and thus to convert the responsibility .of his government for the disavowal into a re proach on this for its conduct in the transaction disavowed. In the first instance it was deem ed best rather to repel his observations argu mentatively than to meet them as an offensive insinuation. This forbearance had not the ex pected effect of restraining him from a repeti tion of the offence. And even on his further insinuations nothing more was done than to premonish him of ttie inadmissibility of so in decorous a course of proceeding. This also being without effect, nothing remained but the step finally taken. And there was the less he sitation in shutting the door to further oppor tunities for insulting insinuations, as the dis closures he had made anti the spirit of his dis cussions had so entirely shut it to the hope of ttny favorable result from his mission. I will not dwell on his reluctance to give up the uncertainties of verbal for the precision of written discussion ; nor on the manner or the time of his denial that he had given any room at all for a statement which in order r.o guard against the misconceptions incident to verbal conferences, I had placed before him in wri ting, with a request that he would point out any inaccuracies, and to which he did not Own object otherwise than by intimating that he could not have made the statement with the par ticular view which set mal to he supposed. Nor will I dwell on the various instances irt which partial or inconsistent views ol'lhe subject have taken place of its real merits. But it may not be amiss to make some observations on the correspondence as it relates to the justification of hit government in having disavowed the act of his predecessor. With respect to the orders in council, the ground of the disavowal is the difference between the arrangement and the printed dispatch of Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d Janu ary. According to this dispatch then the ar rangement failed in three points. 1st. In not relinquishing the trade of the United States with enemies colonies. With respect to this point it is not necessary at this time to discuss the right of that trade. It is sufficient to remark, 1st. that as the trade Is admitted to have become, in the view of G. Britain, of little practical importance, why has it been made a ground of Hie disavowal, and, «specially, as important considerations only could upon principles of public law have justi fied a measure of so serious a character ? 2d. that as the colonial trade is ft subject no wise concerned either with the ordets in council or with the affair of. the Chesapeake, why has it been permitted to frustrate an arrangement re Ming to those subjects; and to those only ■ 3d« that as this condition is allowed to have ori ginate! in supposition, that it would be agree able to the American government, why has it been persisted in after the error was made known by the representation of Mr. Kvskiivt to hts government that neither this nor the other conditions of dispatch of the 23d Janua ry were attainable here ? Sd. AmÄer pfcint in the dispatch, and not in the arrangement, is that the British navy might capture our trade to ports prohibited by the United States. This condition appears to have had its origin in a mistake of your meaning in a conversation with Mr. Canning, as noted by yourself, and in an inference thence deduced os to the dis position of this government. But this double mistake must have been brought to light in tituc to have heen corrected in the new mission. In tit ging it Mr. Canning lus taken a ground, forbidden by those principles of decorum, which regulate and mark the proceedings of governments towads each other. In his dis patch the condition is stated to be for the pur pose of securing the bona fide intention «of America to prevent her citizens from trading with France and certain other powers, in other words, to secure a pledge to that effect against the mala fide intention of the United States. And this dispatch too was authorised robe communicated in extenso to tiie govern ment of which such language was used.— Might it not have been reasonably expected that such a condition and such observations would at least on such an occasion have been given up by a government willing to smooth the way to an amicable settlement of existing differences? In his zeal to vindicate his government, Mr. Jackson too has attempted a gloss on this most extraordinary idea of calling on a foreign sov ereignty, not indeed to make laws for us, but what is equivalent in principle, to supply a supposed inability to execute them. He calls such an interposition of his government, not an execution of the law of congress, but of a compact binding as a public law on both parties and which both would have a common interest in seeing duly executed. On his own princi ples there ought to he a reciprocity not only in the execution of the compact, but in the obli gation and interest resulting from it. Besides where there is a reciprocity in compacts be tween nations touching attributes of sovereign ty, there is always as much of sovereignty gained as is parted with, so'that there is no loss nor indignity on either side. 3. The remaining point of the dispatch, not secured by the arrangement, is that which re secured by the arrangement, is that which re quired that whilst our prohibitory laws should he repealed as to Great Britain, they should he left in force as to France and the powers adopt ing or acting under her decrees. This is the condition which alone properly belongs to the subject, and it is to be remarked in the first place that the British project, of which this condition makes a part, contempla ted two things in their nature incompatible;— one a repeal of the prohibitory acts os to Great Britain, without waiting for the conclusion of a regular treaty, the other a pledge or engagement for their continuance as to tiie other powers.— Now, from the nature of our constitution, which in this particular ought to have been attended to by the British government, it is manifest that the executive authority could have given no such pledge, that the continuance ol the prohibitory acts being a subject of legislative consideration, could not have been provided for until the meet ing of tite legislature, and that the condition could not therelore but have failed, either in the immediate renewal of commerce with Great Britain, or in the immediate engagement that it should not he renewed with France. The Bri tish government ought to have acquiesced in, and indeed ought to have been satisfied with the attainment of the important object of an imme diate repeal of our prohibitory laws and with the consideration that the other object, not im mediately attainable, was unnecessary at the time, because the prohibition as to France was then in force, and because there was every rea son to infer not only from this fact, but from the spirit of the communications made from time to time and from the overtures before submitted to the British government, that without a repeal of the French decrees, our prohibitory laws would be conttnued in force against France, and espe. dally in the case of a repeal of the British or ders, which would necessarily render a continu of tiie French decrees doubly obnoxious. But if on this head doubts could have been entertained, instead of rejecting the arrange ment, ought not the repealing act on our part to have been met with a suspension at least of the orders in council, until it could have been seen whether the non-intercourse law would or would not have been continued against France. Such a suspension could not bave given, in any point of view, more advantage to the United States than was given to Great Britain by the repeal, which bad taken place on their part. If this reasonable cotitse could not have been substituted for the disavowal, why was not a final disavowal suspended with a proposition that the arrangement would be executed by Great Britain, in the event of a compliance on the part of the United States with the condition requi red as to France ? I *tn not unaware, yon may be told, that the to to 1 ance «on-intercourse law of the United States did n':t extend to. Holland, though so intimately con nected with France, and so subservient to her decrees against neutral commerce. It would not be improper on this occasion to observe, that this objection can he the less urged by Great Britain, as she has herself never in her allcdged retaliations adhered to the principle on which they were founded. Thus site has from the date of them, until very lately, directed them against the American trade even to Russia; although Russia had never adopted the French decrees, nor otherwise vio lated her neutral trade with Great Britain. So in her order of April last, she has discriminated not only between the countries devoted to Prance by the tics of blood, and other powers, hut between Holland, Westphalia and Naples, in enforcing hen prohibitory order against the first, and not against the two last. Whilst therefore she finds it expedient to make these distinctions, she ought to presume-that we too may perceive equal propriety in the distinctions we have made. But it may be of move importance here to compare the British order in council of April last with the arrangement of April, made by Mr. Etskine. It will thence be seen how little ns been nor, to true a to 4th he not the is the real difference, and how trivial it is when j ill ed is he in siti compared to the extensive end serious conse quences of the disavowal. Under the order in council of April, all the ports uf Europe except France, including tite kingdoms of Italy and Holland with their de pendencies, arc opcnetl to our commerce. Under the arrangement of April, combined with our act of non-intercourse, ail the putts of Europe, except France and Iter dependencies, including the kingdom of Italy, would have been opened to our commerce. The difference then is reduced merely to Hol land, and that nation is reduced to the difference between a direct trade to the ports of Holland and an indirect trade to Holland, through the neighboring ports of Tonningen, Hamburgh, Bremen and Emden. Now, as the iniuring of the enemies of Great Britain is the only avowed object of her inter dicting order agairst our trade, let a computation be made of the effect which this difference be tween the order in cot ncil and the arrangement could possibly have in producing such an inju ry. And then let the question be candidly an swered whether, laying aside ail considérations of right and justice, sufficient inducements could have been found in that result for rejecting the arrangement, and for producing the c querit embarrassments, as well to Gicat Britain as to the United States. If it be necessary, as Mr. Jackson has stated, to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment and universal dominion, which would bind all tilings to its own standard, anil to falsify by honorable and manly resistance an annunciation that all Europe is submitting by degrees, the effort must be feeble indeed which is to be found irt the in convenience accruing to the formidable toe front the operation of this order in council, and espe cially when we combine with it the strange phenomenon of substituting for the lawful trade phenomenon of substituting for the lawful trade of the United States, a trade of British subjects, contrary to the laws of the adverse party, ant! amounting without a special license in the eye of British law to high treason. Thus much for the orders in council. What has taken place with respect to the case of the Chesapeake will equally engage your attention. You will perceive that throughout the early stages of the correspondence, this ease wa9 im properly confounded with, in others improperly separated from, that of the orders in council ; and particularly that pains had been taken by Mr, Jackson to substitute verbal and vague ob servations on the disavowal of this part' of the arrangement for an explicit and formal explana tion, such as was obviously due. seen also that when finally brought to the point, he referred for a justification of the disavowal to the departure of Mr. Erskine from his instruc tions without shewing what those instructions were, and to allusions to an expression in the arrangement without giving to his meaning the distinctness prerequisite to a just reply. It appears, however, that he lays great stress on the proposal enclosed in his letter of the27th October, as at once indicating the departure of Mr. Erskine from his instructions, ar.d as con taining the conditions on the basis of which he was ready to enter on an adjustment. And from a note from the setre'ury of the British legation, it appears that he lias complained of not having received an answer to this proposal, as he had before complained that no answer had heen given to hts verbal disclosures on this head in his interviews with me. With respect to his intimations in conversati on, as they were preceded by no proper assign ment of the reasons for not tiavmg executed the original adjustment, it cannot be necessary to remark that no such notice, as he wished to ob tain, could with any sort of propriety have been taken of them. With respect to his written projects, it will suffice to remark : 1st. That beside his reluctant and indistinct explanation of the disavowal of the original ad justment, he did not present his proposal until he had made such progress in his offensive situ ation as made it proper to await the issue of the reply about to be given to it, and that this issue had necessarily put a stop to further comutuniea 1 dons. It will be 2d!y. That although he had given us to un« derstand that the ordinary credentials, such alone ns he had delivered, could not bind his govern ment in such a ca~-r, his proposal had neither been preceded by nor accompanied with the bibition of other commission or full powei nor, indeed, has he. ever given sufficient reason to suppose that he had any such full power to It is St exhib t in relation to this particular case, true that ir. his letter of the 23d October, lie has stated an author.tv eventually (o conclude, a convention between the t,vo countries.-— Without adverting to the ambiguity of the term cvoilua/lji with the mark of emphasis attached to it, and to other uncertainties in the pltraseo iogy, it is clear that the authority referred t°, whatever it may he, is derived from instructions subject lo ids men discretion : and not from a patent commission, such as might be properly railed for. It is true also that in his letter of the 4th of November, subsequent to this proposal, he says he was possessed uf a full power in due form lor the expies-, purpose of concluding a treaty or convention. But it still remains uncertain, whether by the treaty or convention to which it related, not meant an eventual or provisional treaty on the general relations between the two countries j without any reference to cite case of the Chesa peake. Certain it is mat the British government ill former like cases, as will be seen by tiie ad justment of that pint of the affair at Nootka Sound, which is analogous to this case, did not consider any such distinct power as necessary I nor is there the slightest ground for supposing that Mr. Erskinc, although confessedly instruct ed to adjust this very cats of iii£ Chesapeake, was furnished with any authority distinct from. his credential letter. That Mr. Jack: on has any such commission is the less to be supposed, as it is but barely possible, that possessing it, he should not on eome occasion or in some form, have used a language susceptible of no possible doubt on this point. But proceeding to the proposal itself, it is to he kept in mind that the conditions forming its basis, are the very conditions for the deviating from which Mr. Erskine's adjustment was disa vowed. Mr. Jackson, if not on others, is on titis point explicit. " I now add (says he) that the deviation consisted in not recording in the official document signed here the abroga tion of the president's proc!-matiou of the 2d July, 180,", a3 well as the two reserves specified was in the piper of metricranda enclosed in my offi cial letter to you of the 27th ult." Considering then the conditions in the propo siti as an ultimatum, in what tight are we eom peiied to view such an attempt to repair the outrage committed on the frigate Chesapeake, and to heal the disappointment produced by a disavowal of a previous equitable reparation ? It is impossible on such an occasion not to recall the circumstances which constituted the character of tiie outrage to which such an ulti matum is now applied. A national ship pro ceeding on an important service, was watched by a superior naval force enjoying at the same time the hospitality of our ports, was followed and scarcely out of our waters when she was, after an insulting summons, attacked in a hos tile manner ; and tite ship so injured as to re quire expensive repairs, the expedition frustra ted, a number of tite crew killed and wounded, several carried into captivity, and one of them put to death, under a military sentence. The three seamen, though American citizens, and therefore on every supposition detained as wrongfully as the ship would have detained, have notwithstanding remained in captivity be tween two and three years; and, it may he ad ded, after it has long ceased to be denied that they are American citizens. Under these circumstances we are cafGJ upon to ransom the < 1st. By acknowledging that a precautionary proclamation, justified by events preceding the outrage, by the outrage.itself and by what im mediately followed it, was unjustifiable, and that a repeal of it was properly a condition pre cedent to a reparation for the outrage. And this requisition is repeated, too, after such oil acknowledgement had been uniformly asserted by this government to be utterly inadmissible, and, what is particularly rcmarkaUe, at a time when the proclamarion, as is well understood, was no longer in force. The occasion obvious ly invited a silent assumption of the existing fact, and this would have excluded the difficul ty heretofore found tobe insuperable. 2d. By throwing into complete oblivion the conductof the officer answerable for the mur derous transaction, with a knowledge too on our part, that instead of being punished or even brought to trial, he has ljéçn honoured by his government with a new and'inure important command. 3d. By admitting a right or. the part of Great Britain to claim a discharge from our service of deserters generally, and particularly of her natural born subjects, without excepting such as had been naturalized in due form under the laws of the United Slates. it has not been explained, whether it was meant, as the universality of the te. m " deser ter" would import, to include American citi zens who might have left the British service. But what possible consideration could have in duced the British government to expect that the United States could admit a principle, that, would deprive our naturalized citizens of the 'es.