€3*1 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDDbE13Tfi4 
 

 0° 
 
 
 A-^ 
 
 .0* . 
 
 ■.\s 
 
 ■^•\v- 
 
 *^ 
 
 *jfr/^^^\ 
 
 - -^-^ 
 
 
 o • • 
 
 
 -\vff0 
 
 
 '^. 
 
 Af 
 
 
 o.., % 
 
 • ^ ' • ♦ 
 
 ^0- 
 
 
 V ^ . 
 
 
 
 •^n 
 
 ' • . * 
 
 % **^>?^** A 
 
 
 aV ..-., 
 
 ^HV 
 
 • -^ 
 
 ^"^ •^l'» 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o • • 
 
 
 ^0^ • 
 
 V • 
 
 « ■ • 
 
 ■^^. 
 
 
 • 1 1 
 
 1^;-. 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 .^" 
 
 
 
 bV 
 
 V ^VS 
 
 .0 
 
 ^^lif^ 
 
A- 
 
 
 ^ A^ • • • # 
 
 ^0 yy.^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O > 
 
s/ 
 
 It « 
 
 TO A 
 
 .FEDERAL PAMPHLET^ 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 ^' THE DIPLOMATIC POLICY OF MR. MAD- 
 ISON UNVEILED." 
 
 S' 
 
 ' OME zealot, bewildered by the madnc fs of party, or affli^V- 
 -J ed with the Bonapartean brain fever, has lately been pub- 
 lilhing his abfurditieo and his ravings in the Bolton papers, and 
 now in th^ form of a pamphlet they are circulating in the coun- 
 try. Grofs as are the misrcprcfentations it contains — ablurd 
 and unfounded as are its ftatements, it is read by many well- 
 meaning citizens with belief, and many, who do not believe, 
 witji approbation- 
 It feems to have been the intention of the author to fhew, 
 that Mr. Madifon entertains fentiments of inveterate hoftility 
 to Great Britain, and unwarrantable attachment to the poli- 
 tics of France ; that in the late arrangement between this coun- 
 try and Great Britain, Mr. Eilkine was duped ; that our gov- 
 ernment, when they made the arrangement, expected it would 
 be difavowed, knowing it to be contrary to the inftru6\ions of 
 Tvlr- P2.rlkine ; and that there is nothing infolent or infulting 
 in the letters of Mr. Jackfon. 
 
 In conducting this difcuffion the author has proved the fm- 
 cerity of his intention, at the expence of every thing which 
 ought to be .due to a man of fenlibility and honor. He has 
 wilfully mifreprefented fadts — has difcovered his partiality and 
 malignity by the difcolored ftatements he has made — and has, 
 through the whole manifefted a defire, ever uppermoft in his 
 heart and continually leading him aftray, to find the govern- 
 ment of his country guilty — to degrade it in the eyes of its con- 
 ftituents and the world. Party fpirit has lo long rankled ia 
 his bofom, that it has expelled every noble fcntiment— -dead- 
 ened every patriotic feeling. 
 
 In this pamphlet, which may in fome refpe^s be confider- 
 ed as an aniwer to the other, it is intended to expofe the erro- 
 neous ftatc ments of the federal writer ; to vindicate our gov- 
 ernment from his unfounded imputation, and by giving a cor- 
 rect difplay of its conduct and principles, to ftrengthen the con- 
 fidence w ith which it has hitherto been di fervedly honored by 
 the people. In doing this the author will not fuffer himfelf to 
 be knowingly milled by the fpirit of party. Infallability is not 
 the lot of human nature, and he will not therefore require the 
 implicit belief of the reader to all liis deductions and opinions, 
 by protefting that the moft rigid impartiality Ihall control his 
 
 
2 
 
 pen. On the contrary, knowing his liabiliij' to err, he invite 
 him to pcrufc with all the watchh-ihitiij ol" a critic, and pals '^ 
 icntcnce with all the Icvtrity of a judge. It would occalloii ' 
 him no little unhappinefs were he, though unintentionally, to | 
 miflcad his ft How citizens. ^ J 
 
 The firflNo. is nKTcly an introduciion to tVir ferics. The 
 fecond, contains ibme remarks upon Mr. Madilbn's conducl 
 previous to his accellion to the pn.ii'!ency. As our object is 
 to review only that part of the pamphlet which relates to the 
 documents lately publiihicl, we Ihall notice*thcm no farther 
 than to oblerve, that in the latter the writer attributes to Mr. 
 Madifon, motives and prepolle {lions of u Inch no one ever be- 
 fore had th.e hardihood to accufe him. an.d of w hich he has re- 
 peatt^dly, by thefedcrahils themfelves, been declared innocent. 
 Such a commencement furnidies no prefumption in favor of 
 his impartiality or candor. 
 
 The whole of the third and part of the fourth number is ta- 
 ken lip in attempting to pro\ e, that the- thrt e conditions con- 
 tained in Mr. Canning's difpatch of the 23d of January, were 
 not infulting, as Mr. Canning had a riglit to pre fume they 
 would be agreed to by our government. But how did Mr. 
 Canning become poireired of this right ? By pretending to 
 have underftood, through Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Erikine, that 
 the conditions were agreeable to the prdent adminiflration. 
 That Mr. Canning did really fo underitand MelVrs. Pinkney 
 and Erikine, it is abfurd to fuppole. One of ihele conditions 
 vas that we lliould rtlinquilh entirely the colonial trade ; and 
 according to Mr. Canning, it was Mr. Eifkine who allured 
 him that this condition would be agreed to by our govt rnment : 
 How could a man lb aftute and penetrating as Mr. Canning, 
 funpole that we Ihould r< linc^uilh the direiSl trade w ith the 
 enemy's colonies, when that trade had never been the fubje^t 
 of nerociation, or at leail liad never been interrupted by the 
 Britilh government ? How could he liippofe that we fliould 
 relinquifh more than he liad demanded ? And belides, Mi\ 
 Erskine exprefsly declares, at the clofe of his letter to Mr. 
 Gallatin, that he never had repreleiited to his government that 
 the United States would agree to relinquifli that trade. 
 
 The fubUance of another condition was, that the American, 
 governinent Ihould repeal the non-intercouiR laws, &g;. as far 
 as tht y related to Great Britain, and leave them in force as far 
 as thev related to France. The federal writer conceives that i 
 Mr. Canning had a right to confider the American govern- 
 ment pledged Xoi\oX\\\^ on Mr. Krskinc's agreeing to revoke 
 the orders in council, Mr. MacVilbn having wlun fecretary 
 of (late dt clared his opinion that lliouid ei^iier of the IxUiger- I 
 ents relax their n llii61ions upon m ntral commerce, the Uni- 
 terl Stages would at once tide with that power againll the other 
 whicl. Ihould crntinueits aggrelTion. This, according to him, 
 amj.unted to apUdge ; " for, lays he, the Prelident and Sen- 
 ate have a right to make treaties which ipso facto become the 
 
fapreme laws of the land." — The fccretary of ftate delivers art ' 
 ophiion-^the preficient and lenatc have a right to make 
 treaties — therefore the government is pledged i— i.\dmirable 
 reafoning ! 
 
 As to the 1 ift condition, uhich is the mod inlulting of all, to 
 wit, that the British navy flionld be permitted to carry into 
 efte^l the lli|)ulations we flionld make, Mr. Canning did not 
 pretend he hud any other reafon to believe it wonld be accept- 
 able to our government, bnt an opinion to that effect which he 
 underftood Mr. Pinkney to exprefs, in an informal converfa- 
 tion witli iiim. Mr. Pinknc y has iliice declared that he never 
 exprefllcl fnch an opinion ; and therefore Mr. Canning is 
 deprived of all the fupport which he intended to reap from his 
 pretences. 
 
 Every one rauftconftfs thattlie tender of fuch conditions 
 as thefe, wonld be infulting to any goverment, unlefs fome- 
 thinghad taken place to excufe him by whom they were prof- 
 ered. This Mr. Canning knew, and therefore he pretended 
 to have underftood that they would be accepted by our gov- 
 ernment. This pretence, w^e have shewn, was fupported by 
 at least very shallow foundations. 
 
 *' No point," says the federal writer in his fourth No. *' can 
 be more fully settled, than that a mere letter of credence ap- 
 pointing a man a minister resident or even plenipotentiary, 
 does not of itself include the powir to mtike a treaty." This 
 doctrine, thus expressed, we shall not at present controvert ; 
 but we Ihall contend, that a minister plenipotentiary is a com- 
 petent oflicer to conclude such an agreement as that conclud- 
 ed l3y Mr. Erskine ;-. -an agreement of a transitory nature, 
 which had but one object in view-— that of restoring to each 
 nation the rights which each rcfpectively enjoyed but a short 
 time before it was made. 
 
 The position intended to be taken is, that a minister 
 plenipotentiary is a competent officer, as far as it concerns the 
 court at which he resides, to conclude an agreement ^ without 
 being specially authorised for that purpofe, by a new com- 
 mission from his sovereign. 
 
 The minister, for his own fafety and justification, ought to 
 be furnished wish instructions for the regulation of his con- 
 duct ; but if he concludes an agreement without them, that 
 is an aftair between him and his master. It does not con- 
 cern the government with which the agreement was made, 
 
 A section in Vattel, tlie moft approved author upon the law 
 of nations, authorises an opinion that it requires greater sol- 
 emnities to conclude a treaty than an agreement. 
 
 *' The pacts, (he observes) with a view to transitory af- 
 fairs, are called agreements^ conventions, and pactions- 
 They are accompliOied by one single act and not by iterated 
 Qaths. These pacts arc perfected in their execuucxi once for 
 
4 
 
 aH ; treaties receive a succssive execution, the duration df 
 \vhich equals that of the treaty." 
 
 By this it sh )uld seem that though Mr. Erskine were not 
 authori!:ed to conclude a treaty, he might neverthekfs have 
 been competent to conclude an agreement. 
 
 But there is another reason lulVicicnt of itself to (lop the 
 mouthof every friend of England in this country; the Brit- 
 ish government did not itklf suppose that a special commis- 
 sion was necessary. This appears, from their having neglec- 
 ted to furniih their envoy with one, although i' was their 
 wish and intention that he should coiKlude an agreement. 
 They suppofcd that lettersof instruction would be sufficient, 
 and accordmgly sent nothing elese.* 
 
 Of the same opinion was Mr. Jackson, *' No full power, 
 Ciys he, was given in the present cafe, because it -ivas not a 
 treaty, but tlie materials J or forming a treaty, that was in 
 contemplation." Again-—" In this cafe, Mr. Erskine's in- 
 structions took the place of a full power." 
 
 By some it is contended that Mr. Smith ought to have de- 
 manded a sight of Mr Erskine's instructions, in order to be 
 certain that they authorised him to conclude the agreement 
 in question. But this would have been improper, and ev( n 
 impertinent. It would have implied a doubt of Mr. Ersk- 
 ine's honesty and veracity,! as he had repeatedly declaied 
 that they did authorife him to do it. INIr. Smith ought to 
 have presumed, as he did presume, that Mr. Erskine's in- 
 structions A\arranted the courfe he purfued. 
 
 The following extract of a letter from IVIr. Canning to 
 MeflVs. Munroc andPinkney, dated Oct. 22d, 1807, sup- 
 ports the doctrine, that a government ought not to concern it- 
 ielf with the inftructions of the minister with whom it treats. 
 He is fpeaking of the Prelident's refusal to ratify Munroe's 
 treaty. 
 
 " Some of the considerations upon whicli the refusal of the 
 Prcfident of the United States to ratify the treaty is founded, 
 are Inch as can be matter of difcufiiion only between the A- 
 mencan government and its commililoners ; fince it is not 
 
 * The case referred to by the federalists, which occurred during the 
 administration of Washington, will be found to be decidedly aij^ainst 
 them if the whole is taken into consideration. In that case Mr. Jcfler-' 
 son, then secretary of state, called, it is true, upon Mr. Hammond the 
 British minister, for the exhibition of his full power, or special commis- 
 sion ; but afterwards /iroi^/Jc(/ to iwi^ociale, thougli Mr. Hammond in- 
 formed him he had no special commission, but only a letter of credence 
 as minister plenipotentiary, and instructions for the regulation of his fier- 
 iicnal co)iduc(. He was therefore precisely in the same situation as Mr. 
 Ersitine. 
 
 t " It should here be remembered," says the federal writer in his 
 8th No. " that Mr. Jackson is the representative of a sovereign pow- 
 er, which treats with us oh equal terms, and that to call in question 
 his vcr icity, is to doubt tlie veracity or honor of ^is sove^eigf^.** 
 Was not equal ci edit duetto Mr. Erikini; .* 
 
for his majesty to enquire whether, in the conduct of the ne- 
 gociation the commillioners of the United States have failed 
 to conform themfelvcs, in any rcfpect, to tlie inftruciiuns of 
 their governnn nt." 
 
 We will again make use of Mr. Jackson to support a po- 
 sition we have taken. His authority and that of Mr. Can- 
 ning, what federalist will dare controvert ? In his letter dated 
 Oct. 23d, he obfcryes---" It is not intended to call upon me 
 to state as a preliminary to negociation, what is the whole 
 extent of my instructions ; they must, as I have before said, 
 remain subject to my own discretion." 
 
 It will, on the slightest reflection, appear manifestly impro- 
 per that a government Ihould pofiefs tl^.c riglit of having the in- 
 structions of a foreign minister difplayed before tliem. By 
 this means, all the fecrets of his cabinet, his whole plan of op- 
 erations, would be disclosed. The government with which 
 he was treating would learn the whole extent of the surren- 
 der he was authorised to make, and obtain his lowest terms.* 
 
 We have shewn, to the satisuction, we prefuu)e, of every 
 candid politician, 
 
 That Mr. Erskine was a competent officer, fo far as it con- 
 cerned our government, to conclude the agreement of April 
 last : 
 
 And that Mr. Smith ought not to have demanded either a 
 fight of Mr. Erskine's instructions, or to know their full ex- 
 tent and purport. 
 
 " But, fays the federal writer, the actual conditions of Mr. 
 Erskine's instructions w^;-^>^/70=iu7z; audit was known that 
 tl e arrangement violated them." "They were not merely 
 the fubstance, they were the iy/w/^of Mr. Erskine 's instruc- 
 tions." 
 
 It is disgusting, it is mortifying to be obliged to deal with 
 a man fo destitute of principle and of honor as topublilh such 
 manifest falfehoods. Would to God it were not necessary to 
 expofe them to the people. Gladh, would I relinquish my 
 pen to perform the duties of a parish beadle. Depravity kTs 
 shocking— meannefs lels contemptible, would then prefect 
 itfelfto my contemplation. The thief who stole, the fwindier 
 V'hq cheated, might plead ignorance, poverty and huiiger as a 
 partial excufe : They might not all be destitute of love for 
 their country and refpect for its governmenv. S )rnething- 
 would then exist to alleviate the painful senfations which I 
 Ihould otherwife feel, and which I do feel while viewing the 
 
 * The doctrine, that a minister ought to disclose his instructions on tlie 
 demand of the power with which he is sent to treat, remiiKls us of a 
 pleasant anecdote of a certain federal character, wlio has sometimes 
 shewn himself upon the political stage, and who fancies he has 
 made many Cau fit ic applications to the republican party. Being wliea 
 young sent by his father to treat concerning the sale ot some property, 
 he was asked by the intended purchaser, what instrucrionn h\s fatlicr 
 had given him. •' My father told me, he replied, to insist upon having 
 twenty dollars, but if you refused to give it, to take fifteen." 
 
p;imphlct before me. 1 am now fensihle, that the repu1)llcan 
 editors in Bollon had reason for treating the author in fuch a 
 contemptuous manner. 
 
 Tile meaning he intends to convey by thefe assertions, if 
 we tal^e them in their moil obvious s-.-nfe, or judge by the de- 
 ductions he makes, is, that our government, when they made 
 the agreement, knew what were Mr. Erskine's instructions, 
 and that he was acting in violation of them. 
 
 Tiiat this was not the cafe, we have thepofitivc affertion of 
 Mr. Smitli himself, to invalidate which not a particle of evi- 
 dence has been or can be produced. 
 
 I ihatl here perhaps be told that Mr, Jacklbn lias ftated and 
 Air. Smitii acknowledged, that the three conditions contain- 
 ed in the dcfpatchfiom Mr. Canning of the 23d of January, 
 were communicated. But these conditions were not by 
 any means the ful^ftance, they formed but a small part 
 of the dcfpatch. They were leparatcd from the con- 
 text, and thereby deprived of all the consequence they 
 would otherwise have poiVcfied. In this state of fcpara- 
 tion, dibconnccttd with every thing else, were they commu- 
 nicated, and verbally too, as has been declared in the papers 
 at the foutiiward. Could Mr. Smith, by hearing, or even 
 by reading, tliC cor.diticn;: in such a state^ know what were 
 the whole of Mr Erskine's instructions ? If he could, he must 
 have polllfLd more than luur.an powers-.-he m-ift have pof- 
 {elfcd omniscience. And liad he ponilTed a sulhcient por- 
 tion of that attribute of Deity to know what was the sub- 
 stance of the delpateh of the 23d of January, he might stil! have 
 supposed that other despatches existed, which authorised Mr. 
 Jllaskine to conclude the agreement. Indeed any odier sup- 
 position was impossible, as Mr. Erskine allured him that he 
 was acting in puriuance of instructions from his government, 
 and nothing is more common than for a minister to have 
 two or more sets of inltructions with as many difterent 
 grades of conditions. 
 
 It may be expected, perhaps, that I should here acknowl- 
 edge th.at, in fact, Mr. Erskine had no other inflructions. 
 But this woukl be needlefsly abandoning a point which can 
 be proved, or at leall fupportcd by very probable evidence. 
 
 In Mr. Erskine's letter to Mr. Smith, he cxprefsly ftates 
 that, upon this subject^ he actually had other instructions ; 
 and every natural suppofition must corroborate this llate- 
 ment. It could not be suppoled that lie was acting without 
 instruciions or contrary to those he poirircd. In fo doing he 
 mMst have known that he should o.'llnd his fovereign, forfeit 
 hisoflice, and completely destroy his reputation ; and that, to 
 balance all thefe evils, lie had not one advantage or benefit to 
 liope f(jr. With tlicfe prolpects before him, his motives and 
 principles of action mull: hiwc been difierent fiom thofe of ev- 
 ery other mortal, or the fuppoliiion is unreasonable that he 
 acted contrary to his instructions. 
 
'7 
 
 But, (it will be faid) Mr. Jackson afllrts exprefsly and fol- 
 emnly, that Mr. Erskine had no other inbtiuctionii. At the 
 molt, then, there is aflertion againft aillrtion ; Mr. Jackson 
 against ^Ir. Erskine- -And which Ihall we believe r They 
 are both rcprelentatives of his majdly, " who can do no 
 wrong," and to disbelieve either *' would be to doubt the 
 honor and veracity" of his said majefty. His lionor and ve- 
 racity must therefore be in a very difagreeable predicament, 
 for we cannot believe both. We have a right, however, to 
 take our choice. Shall we believe Mr. Jackson, whose rep- 
 utation has been tarnished by the difgraceful fervices in 
 which he has been employed ; who has no corroborating cir- 
 cymftances to support his declaration ; and who could not 
 know, with pofitive certainty, the truth of what hcalfcrtcd, as 
 he must have depended upon the information of Mr. Can- 
 ning. His evidence, in a court of justice, would amount to 
 nothing but hearsay. Or ihall we believe Mr. Erskine, 
 Vv'hofe reputation is fiir and unblemished ; who has not yet 
 lost the opennefs, the candor, and the ingenuousnels of youth ; 
 to whom the real truth mult be known ; and \vhofe con- 
 duct cannot be accounted for upon any principle by which 
 the actions of man have been heretofore judged, unlefs we 
 fuppofe him to have dated the truth ? No candid man will 
 hesitate an instant. 
 
 Let us look back to the time when this agreement was 
 made. We may polfibly find fomething to account for 
 all this confufion, this contradiction, this making and un- 
 making of agreements. At that time our non-intercourfe 
 fyllem kept from England a large quantity of the provilions 
 upon which her inhabitants had to that time fed ; it preven- 
 ted her manutacturers from receiving their ufual fupplies of 
 raw materials, and it alfo prevented them from vending molt 
 of the articles they had fabricated. The coniequences were 
 a itagnation of trade, and frequent riots among the diltrelTcd 
 fuljects. Much as it was the interelt of England to prevent 
 these facts from being kno\\'n, they w-ere known on this side 
 of the Atlantic ; and probably not half was^ told us. Only 
 thenmrmurs of diftrels were heard; and with the dreadful 
 example of Ireland before their eyes, what dared the oppref- 
 fed poor of England do more than murmur ? But thcfe mur- 
 murs carried difmay and terror to the hearts of their rulers. 
 Some plan they knew must be contrived to aHeviate the dif- 
 trcffcs of the ptople, or something more terrible than mur- 
 murs was to be expected. While the decrees of France 
 V ere in force, they were too haughty to revoke their orders, 
 and by that means procure the benefits of our commerce. 
 Some other expedient mult be adopted, and probably the 
 follow ing was conceived molt advifeable : To inltruct Mr. 
 Erskine-.-perhaps by fccret inftructions, which he was bound 
 never to reveaJ---perhaps verbally by Mr. Oakley, who \va3 
 
fent from England but a short time before the agreement was 
 nitide-- -perhaps ambiguously, so that the letter wouk! be con- 
 trarj' to the Ipirit — in fome of thtfe ways, to inftruct Mr. 
 Erskine to procure the repeal of our non-intcrcourfe laws, 
 by proniifuig the repeal of their orders. Tluy knew tliat the 
 b'ca would be immediately covered with our veflcls ; that 
 tlicir markets would be glutted with our produce ; that a 
 ready fale would be made of tin ir manufactures, and that the 
 clamors of the laborer, the mechanic, and the merchant 
 would be a|)pcafvd. They night then difavow the act of 
 tlieir miniiler, declare he had acted contrary to his inftruct- 
 tions, and what remedy had we ? We could not recall our 
 iliips, nor was there any court bifore which we could cite 
 them for a breach of contract. Having obtained what ihey fo 
 mucli delired, they could keep alfo the equivalent they had 
 pror.iifcd, and then laugh in fecret at the dexterity with 
 uiiich dley had overreaciied us. 
 
 Is any thing more probable than this fiippofillon ? Is it not 
 fupportee! by the whole tenor of the Briiiih conduct ? 
 
 If they la ! no intention of tricking us, why did they in- 
 ftruct Mr i:.ilkine (and only inftruct him) to conclude an a- 
 gre-. nv. nt with us, which according to their prif nt doctrine, 
 would be invalid '»fnot with full power ?-They offer no rt afon, 
 imlepend( nt of the pretended violation ot inftri. • ions, for the 
 difavoual ot the agreement, but that it would compel them to 
 *' facrificc a yreat fvftem of policy acted upon in retaliation of 
 the unprcccoented modesot'hoftility rtfortid to by the ene- 
 emy." But this facrifice, by which is meant the repeal of 
 of the orders in council, Mr. Ei ftiine was actually inftructed 
 to make. They had therefore contemplated it, if they were 
 fincere in their defpatchei to him. 
 
 To shew tluit it was really known here, at the time the a- 
 greement was made, that Mr. Erfkine had violated his in- 
 ftructions, itis ftated, in No. 5, to furoe been reported, diat 
 A^r. Gallatin, Mr. Seaver, and Mr. Prince, all reipictable re- 
 publicans, declared, before the news of the difavow al had 
 reached this country, that " they feared the agree ment would 
 not be ratified, as Mr. Eift^ine had exceeded his powers." 
 IVlr. Prince lias publicly and l^)lenml5 contradicled the re- 
 port, as far as it regardeei him, and tiie other two would undoubt- 
 edly do till fame could they condelcend to notice it. 
 
 As an argunaentto prove that our government was not fin- 
 cere in making the arraimemenc w ith England, the w riier, in 
 No. 6, adverts to the appointment of Mr. Adams, as miniiler 
 plenipotentiary to Uuffia. Aecordihg to iiis do<^\rine, a neu- 
 tral power ought not to have a minister at die court Qi\oiie bel- 
 ligerent, ifihe is on terms of amity with another Of courfe 
 then, if we defire to keep on amicable terms w iih England we 
 rtught to rccal our miniiler from France. This is too flimfy, 
 too childifh to need ri/utaiion. It i^ (luotcd merely lo ihcw 
 
to what kind of reafoning the writer is obliged to refort, and 
 what is the extent of his intelleclnal faculties- 
 
 *' Grtat Britain would liave a right," fays the federal writer, 
 " to ha\'e rf-fufccl lo ratify the agrecmt nt, even if Mr. Erfkine 
 hi'.d purfutd his infl; ii^lions, btcaiifehe was not invefled with 
 a full power." _ Si -all not a government then be bound by an 
 agreement which they have inllruCled their envoy to make, 
 becaulcfrom their own intentional negletl, he is notfurniHi- 
 ed Vv'ith full powers? The nioil ignorant and iUiterate will at 
 once lee the ahfurdity of this doctrine. 
 
 In the pami)hlei before us, reference is made to the rejctSlion 
 cf the treaty concluded by Meflrs. Munroe and Pinkney, and 
 this circumftance infrequently adduced to fliew that our gov- 
 ernment had once exercifed tliat power which they now deny 
 to odiers. But there is a total dillimilarity in the two cafes. 
 Our minifters, when the y iiiinc d the treaty, declared they were 
 a<5\i(ig contrary to their inftruCtion-., and that their government 
 ought not to be confi.'eiC<l as pledged to ratify it ; an article 
 Mas inRrted. which expreisly refcrved the right of ratification, 
 (aiid of courf^-'rejc^lion) to our government; and the treaty 
 was not to take eftl-ft until the ratificaiions were exchanged. 
 On the other hand, Uit Britifli miniiler declared he wasa61ing 
 in purfuancc of his initruCtions ;_ tiie agreement was to talze 
 tifeS. immediately, and in good faith we performed what was 
 jftipulated on our part ; it was peril 6\ed as loon as tigned by 
 Mr. Erfkine, and no right of ratification or rtje6\ion wasre- 
 ferved to the Britilli government. It isharelly pollible that 
 two cafes could be more diffimilar. 
 
 Admitting that Mr. Erfkine had no Ipecial commilTion for 
 this particular purpofe from his fovereign, and admitting 
 alfo, for the f<ke of argument, that he a6\ed contrary to his in- 
 itruclions, flill it is contended that Great Britain had no rigfit 
 todifavow the agreement, unl« fs flie could adduce " ftrong 
 and folid reafons" for the difIi\'owal, independent of the viola- 
 tion of inflru«?tions— unlefs fhe could fhew at leaft that adher- 
 ing to the agreement would do her more injury than rejecting 
 of it would do us. As it was through her own mifcondu6>, 
 or that of her reprefentatives, that this ftate of tilings was 
 created, flie and not we ought tofufRr the confcquences. 
 
 And what "reafons Itrong and folid" has file adduced to 
 juftifv the a6\ of difavowal ? The only one offered by Mr. 
 Jackfon is the follo\ving--that the agreement *' involved the 
 facrifice of a great fystem of policy a61ted upon-in retaliation of 
 the unprecedented modes of hoftility reforted to by the ene- 
 my.*' On confulting the letter of Mr. Smith to Mr. Pink- 
 ney, it may be feen how much would have been facrificed. 
 
 '' Under the orders in council," fays Mr. Smith, *' all the 
 ports of Europe, except France including the kingdom of Ita- 
 ly and Holland, with their dependencies were opened to ottr 
 
 commerce . 
 
10 
 
 -- ■ — ' 
 
 •* Under the arrangrment oi" April, combined with our act 
 of non-intercom fc, all the ports of Europe, except France 
 and her dependencies, including the kingdom of Italy, would 
 have been opened to our commerce. 
 
 *' The ditterence then is reduced merely to Holland, and 
 that again is reduce d to the (difference be tween a dire (St trade 
 to the ports of Holland, and an indirect trade to Holland 
 through the nriuhboring ports of Tonningen, Hamburgh, 
 Bremen and Embden." 
 
 All the fcicrifice, the reforc, which Great Britain would have 
 made, would have been the p( rmitting of Holland to enjoy a 
 <lirc6\ trade with us infttad of an indint\ trade through the 
 ports abovemtntioned. Will any one fay, that this fmall fac- 
 rifice was a fufticient reafon to juftlfy her in difavowing the a- 
 creement f 
 
 The next fubjecl worthy of notice that is difcuflld by the 
 federal writer is the inf lit upon our government wiiich gave 
 caufe for the difmiifal of Mr. Jackibn ; and on this iul;je6l wc 
 have difcovered one paragraph to which *ve give our moll cor- 
 dial aillnt. Itsfentiments are corrc6\, and as it gives us pain 
 to fee it furrounded with fiich company, without one relative 
 or friend to keep in countcnanct% we eagerly remove it into 
 this our production, not only tliat it may enjoy congeni- 
 al fociety, but that it may be eternally preferved. 
 
 *' The right to difmifs a "foreign miniller, lor indecorous or 
 offenfive condu6l, can never be doubted by any man acquaint, 
 ed witii public law, nor \\ ill be contelkd by any pt rfon who is 
 alive to the true interclls and honor of his countiy." 
 
 This paragrapli (beds abundant lufture upon the pamphlet 
 from which it is taken. 
 
 " So shines a good deed in a naughty -world." 
 But we fliould never have been gralifit d with the fight of 
 this conccflion, had iiot the author bcin prepared to aflert, 
 with his nfual hardihood, tliat Mr. Jackscm's comhict had not 
 been indecorous or offemhc. It did not furprilc ns to meet 
 with this alfertion. We, who had waded through fix lr)ng 
 numbers compofed of falf hoods and mifreprcfvntaiions, teem- 
 ing with abundant indications of an infuriate brain and a heart 
 deftitute of all honorable feeling, were not (urprifed that he 
 neither felt nor difcovtred the inlult ; nor Ihould we have 
 been f urprif d had he aflerted in broa^ !er terms than were uled 
 by die " American Ariilides," " Ihat England had done 
 •us no essential injury.'''' 
 
 The author of the numbers imdfTtakes to flicw that no part 
 of Mr. Jackfon's letters are infulting. He does this by t-x- 
 tra^linr certain palTnges, giving thiin his own meaning, and 
 then aflerting triumphantly, that the inlulr is not there, hi the 
 fame wav a dexterous (liftorter of meanings migin prove by 
 the Bible, diat " there is no Gorl." and (hew tliat the au^ 
 thor's ten numbers contain not a iinglc lalfehood. 
 
11 
 
 The infult confided, as is Hated by Mr. Smith, in imputing 
 to our government a knowledge that t!ic ii.ilrucl:ions of JNlr. 
 Eifkine did not audioiilc him to conclude the arrangement 
 of April lall; and ptdiftingin the imputation after having 
 be in re[)eu'cdly airured tnat the government poflelltd no fuch 
 knoxvkdge. 
 
 It is attempted, in the pamphlet before us> to prove the truth 
 of the impuTation, and this feems to I le the grand obj^^t of the 
 Eritilh anib.iffidor and his friends in this country. Dcfirable 
 indeed riinlt l:)e the object to them, as they would then enjoy 
 the pleafure of having exonerated the Britilh Government 
 fiom thi charge of bad faith, and attached the ftigma to our 
 own. 0;» this fnbjedl vve have pointed out the faltity of their 
 reprcfentations ; but were they true — weie the inllrutlions of 
 Mr. Etlklne a^lualiy knf)wn to our government — Hill he had 
 no right to pediil in his inlinuations after they had been de- 
 clared inadmiffible. It was not confiftent with the lefpe^Sl 
 which is due Irom a foreign minifter to the government near 
 ivhich he refi les. Of this opinion is Mr. Dana, the leader of 
 the federal parly in Congrefs. In fuch a cuie as this, faid he, 
 I would not enquire whetner the iniinuation is well or ill foun- 
 ded. It is fufficient that a difgraceful imputation has been caft 
 upon the government of my countr3^ 
 
 The imputation, had it not been perfiftedin, wasagrofs, 
 inexcufable infult. it was like one man accufmg anodier of 
 the knowledge of a ceitain fa6t, when both paities were ienfi- 
 ble that if he did know it, he was a fcoundrel. 
 
 The place where the imputation firft appears, is in Mr. 
 Jackfon's^r^/ letter. Here, as well as at Copenhagen, he 
 entered immediately upon the tafk affigned him. His words 
 are — " I obferve that in the recortis of this miflion there is no 
 trace of a complaint, on the part of the United States, of his 
 majefty having difavow ed the ail of his minifter. Y(^u have 
 not, in the conferences ve have hitherto held, diftin6\ly an- 
 nounced any fuch complaint, and I have leen with pleafure in 
 this forbearance on your part an inftance of that candor which 
 I doubt not will prevail in ail our communications, inasmuch 
 as you could not but hci'ue thought it unreasonabld to complain 
 ef the disavaowl of an act done under such ciViCXSUZTAi^- 
 c'E.s as could only lead to the consequences that haiic actually 
 followed'''^ 
 
 To what circumstances does he here allude ? Evidently to 
 the knowledge which it is pretended our governnjent poflefs- 
 ed, that the act disavowed was contrary to Mr. Erfkine's in- 
 ftru6\ions ; as fuch a circumftance, and such only^ could 
 make it unreasonable for our government to complain. 
 
 Mr. Smith undoubtedly alludes to this pallage when he ob- 
 ferves, in his letter to Mr. Pinkncy, that " it was in the out- 
 fet perceived, that it was the obje6l of Mr. Jackfon to bring 
 OS to refume the fubje^l of the ajrangenieut of April, in a way 
 
12 
 
 that woulrl implv that we were aware that the arrangement was 
 not binding on his government, becauie made \n ith a knowl- 
 edge on our part, that Mr. Erlkine hdd no auihority lo make 
 
 it." 
 
 In Mr. Jack{on*s firfl letter occurs alfo the following decla- 
 rations. " It is my duty, lir, loK mnly to declare to you and 
 through you totlie prefident, that the d\fpatch from Mr. Can- 
 ning to Mr. Erfkine, iv/iic/i you /uwe made the basis of an cf- 
 Jicial correspondence with 'ihe latter minister, and 
 which was read by the former to tlic American rninilter in 
 London, is the only defpatch by which the conditions were 
 pre (bribed to Mr. JLitkine for the conclufion of an arrange- 
 meiit with this country on the matter to which it re- 
 lates." 
 
 Here Mr. Jackfon aflerts, that Mr. Smith had made a cr- 
 taln defpatch (to wit, Mr. J^rfkine's inllructions) the b^ilis of a 
 correfpondence wit/i the latter Mniister. How could he liave 
 made it the basis ot a correfpondence without leaving feen it or 
 known its contents ? 1 ckfy that party, ixsliich encircles all 
 the talents in the union, to produce a man who can convey an 
 iniinuation in llronger language than this. 
 
 If this infmuation was so oifLufive, \vhy, it may be asked, 
 was not Mr. Jackf 3n immediately difmilled r To excufe the 
 repeated forbearance of our government, Mr. Smiih thus 
 writes to Mr. Pinkncv : 
 
 *' In the lird inftance it \\as deemed bcft rather to rcptl his 
 obfervations argumentativcly, than to meet them as an oftln- 
 iive infmuation. This fprbearance had not theexptci^d tfiliil 
 of reilraining him from a repetition of the offence. And e\ en 
 on his further inhnuations, nothing further was done than to 
 premonish him oUhe inadmiifibility ol fo ind( corous a courfe 
 of proceeding. This alfo being without effect, nothing re- 
 mained but the step that was finally taken. And there \\as 
 the less hesitation in shutting the door to further opportimi- 
 ties for infulting insinuations, as the disclofure he had made 
 and the spirit of his difcussions had fo entirely Ihut it to the 
 hope of any favorable refult from his million. "_ 
 
 In confequmce of this fpirit of forbearance with which our 
 government was actuated, Mr. Smith, witiiout noticing the 
 exprelTuji-ss of Mr. J.ickson ati infulting, wrote to him as fol- 
 lows in his next letter : 
 
 "The declaration tliat the despatch from Mr. Canning to 
 Mr. Krskine of the 23d of January is the onlv despatch by 
 which tiie conditions were prefcribed to Mr. Erskine for the 
 conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to whicli it re- 
 lates, is now for llie first time made to this government. And 
 I need hardly add, tliat if that despatch had been communi- 
 cated at the time of the arrangement, or if it had been knoivn 
 that the propositions contained in it, and which were at first 
 presented by Mr. Krskine, were the only ones on which he 
 
13 
 
 was autliorised to make an arrangement, tlic nrrangcmcnt 
 Mould not have been made." 
 
 It might reasonably have been siippoRd tliat Mr. Jackfoa 
 would now desibt from insinuating v.'hat our Jiovcrnm-nt naU 
 thusptremptorily denied, but in his next letter we find the 
 foUovv'ing : 
 
 *' I haveno hcfitatlon in iafo-ming you, that his majesty 
 was pleased to di^avov/ the agreement conciudt:d betweert 
 ycu and M? . Krfl^ine, becaufe ii was conciu.k:d In "ciolation of 
 tbjt gc.'itiemon's instructions, and ako.rciher \* itriout auUior- 
 ity to subscribe to the terms cfit. T/'use instructions ^ I now 
 underftand by your letter, as well as by the obvious deduct- 
 ions which I /<y('/^ /r//£?//^tv7// ot" making in mine of the 11th 
 inil. were at the tirne^ in substance made knoivn to l;o!i-'''* 
 
 In this palf/igf is an aiVertion li.at the agrteiUeU was made 
 in viokvion of Mr. Kilkuie's inilructious-.and another 
 assertion immediately follow s, that these instructi ns were at 
 the time, in substance, made known to the government. 
 This amounts to more tiian an inIiiiua»ion.--it is a plain af- 
 fi^rtion that the government knew, at the vimethey made the 
 agreement, that it was in violation of Mr. Erikin.'s inilruc- 
 tions. 
 
 What arc ** t!ie ohmons deductions which he tooh the liberty 
 of makmgin his letter of the IKh i'4l." Here lie un(ioubled;y 
 refers to the paflagis we have quoted, in one of which he says 
 the agreement was made under sucJi .circumstances as could 
 only lead to tiie confequences that have aciualiy followed ; 
 and in iiie other that Mr. Smith had made the despatch in 
 question the basis of an official correspondence ivith Mr. Erf- 
 kine. Thefe three p.iflages, taken tog-ether, renler _ the mean- 
 ing of each more plain, and preclude the poliibiliry of th^jir 
 being millaken. 
 
 Some have raised a quibble upon the words *' in sub- 
 stance," and say diat the despatch wascommunic;ited in sub- 
 stance because the three conditions were the subftance of it. 
 But here, to uL^ no harsher plirase, they are very m.uch mif- 
 taken. The nioft material part i>, that in which the condi- 
 tions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine. It u as this part, and 
 this only, whicli ^vas violated. And certainly it could not be 
 faid that the inltructions were communicated in fubftance, if 
 that part was withheld, which in this (li-icuflinn is all-impor- 
 tant, as it is the only one in which they fuffered violaiion. 
 
 But enough of this quibble. 1 v. iil now quote a part of the 
 laft paragraph of Mr. Smitih's next Itter. 
 
 " It would be improp T to conclude the few observations 
 to w^hich I purpofjly limit myself, without adverting to your 
 repetition ofa language implying a knowledge on the part of 
 this government ttiat the inftructions of your predecessor did 
 not authorise the arrangement formed by him. After the ex- 
 plicit and peremptory afleveralion that this government had 
 
u 
 
 ■ II : 1 
 
 nofuchknowlerlgp, and that wiih buch a knowledge no such 
 arrangement would have been tntered into, the view vviiich 
 you have again pr sented of the labject, makes it my duty 
 to appriic you, that fuch insinuations are inadniffi'jle in the 
 intercourse of a foreign ministtr witli a government that un- 
 derllands what it owes to i:selt." 
 
 Wlicn Mr. Jack:.on hal read vhat we have jufl quoted, he 
 iriust have known tliat our government und* iftojd iu..i to in- 
 fiauate that they were acquaiiited with Mr. E llvine's want 
 ol power to conclude the arrangement ; and n>ull have dis- 
 covered that this infmaatim was l)ighly off. nsivc to them. 
 If lie was not correctly underilo'jd, why did lie not explain 
 his meaning? That would have been his m^il obvious 
 course, and the only one which he coukl witn propriety have 
 taken But lie did not do it, and by n. glecting it, he admitted 
 unequivocally rhnt our government underilood him a^ he in- 
 tended thcij should. 
 
 Inltead of any attempt to explain away the meaning which 
 he knew had been attached to his expr'^fiions, he plumply ad- 
 heres to it in the follo'.ving moil mfolent and insulting para- 
 graph, which alfo is the lall paragraph of iiis next letter lo Mr, 
 bmith. 
 
 " You will find that in mycorrefpondence widi j^ou, I have 
 carefully avoided drawing concluiions which did not nec^rlfari- 
 ly follow from the premifes advanced by me, and least of tdl 
 should I think of uttering an insifjuation ivbere I could not 
 substLintiate a fact. To facts, inch as I have l>ecome acquani- 
 iv.iS with them, Ikanje scrupulously adhered, and in so doing 
 I must continue, \vh! never the good laitn of his mujefty's g«)v- 
 ernmtnr is called in question, to viadicute its honor and dig- 
 nity in the manner that appears to me best calculated for th.it 
 purpose."^* 
 
 Base, degenerate and Ilupid mnft be that American, who 
 can read this paragraj^h with coinpufure— mean and spiritless 
 that government which colli! fuffer an insult such as this to 
 pafs with impunity. Tliank God, we hav.' rulers who have 
 knowledge and feeling, and who are notdisptjfed to be trodden 
 under foot by an upllart minion of that king whom once we 
 hjve beaten. 
 
 We have now, wc presume, satisfied all, except those \\ ho 
 will not see or cannot ieel, that Mr. Jackson most grofsly in- 
 fuited our government ; and of course that sulncieiit reafon 
 cxilled for his ilifmiffil. 
 
 In the eighth and ninth numl.icrs the writer attempts to 
 shew tliat Mr. Smit'.i ?7iade use of language indecorous and 
 oifeniive towards Mr. Jiekson. ILid we lime we would ex- 
 pofe the many distortions of meaning and misreprc sentations 
 of facts, wliicli they contain; but as uc have not, we will 
 content ourstivrs with observing, rliat Mr. Smith would have 
 been conlidered tame and spirillefs had he not made use of 
 
15 
 
 £)me severity in his replies to M\. Jackfon's insults ; and 
 timt thtfc nunilxrs furnish additional evickiicc of the writer's 
 inveterate enmity to our government, and partiality in favor 
 of the Britiih. He will hardly allow that Mr. Smith Hated a 
 iiiigle truth in the whole coireljiondencc, while his dearly Lx--* 
 loved Jackfon nuift not tje suipectt.d of uttering a falfehood. 
 The perusal of these numbers would do moie good to the re- 
 publican caufe than any remarks we are able to make. The 
 cloven foot is hi re too manifesd> difplayed to efcapeoblorvation. 
 
 In his ninth number the writer completes his obXrvations 
 upon thecorrefpondencc !x;tween M .Smith and iVlr.Jackftm, 
 Bat before we quit tne fubject we v\ould enquire, wheth- 
 er tliere was the leaft probability that Mr. Jackfon, had he not 
 been difmiffed, would have made any ac|juIlment,on reafonai:)le 
 terms, of thediflf rences between tlte two countries. 'I'his 
 inquiry will be (hort, as we have already tranfgrefied the 
 bounds we at fiiftpreferibed toourfelves. 
 
 In regard to the orders in council, he had not, he obfervec!, 
 any propofals to make; he was only authorifed to receive and 
 difcufs iuch as our Kovernment might think proper to make to 
 him, and evtnfua/Ii/ to conclude a ireaty between the two na- 
 tions. In the event, we prefume, of our furrendering the right 
 to trade with her enemies ; and with mis right a portion of our 
 fovereignty. That thefi:* are the evi nts to which he alludes is 
 evident from the documents. In Wis letter of the S'h of Nov. 
 he fays, that '* it is unqueftionably true that before the orders 
 in council can be re>'oked, their objc6l muft be obtained in 
 fome othf r way.*' And in what other w ay can it be obtained, 
 than by inducing us to relinquilh tl^e right to trade with the 
 enemies of Great Britain ? Art! thir> r< linquifliment, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Cannir g, would be" perf..e\iy nugatory," u'llels 
 we alfoconf nted that Grea^-Britain iliould have tho liberty of 
 enforcing, wi'h her navy, the ftipula'aons we ihould make. 
 Would terms like thefc be reafonable. 
 
 As to the affair of the Chefapeake, Mr. Jnckfon was in fa6t 
 authorifed to make propofal:> ; and grofslj infolent and infult- 
 ing were thefe propof.ils. In the hi ft place they wert; fuch as 
 ive had once before peremptorily declined accepting. A t -n- 
 der of them a fecond time muft therefore have been highly 
 provoking to our government. 
 
 In another rcfptct they were infuhing. The y cont. mplatedl 
 the acknowledgement on nur part that the firll ft' p had l3cen 
 made by us- This he mnft have known would not be done. 
 He muft have known diat our government wriild not, by any 
 at\ whatever, purchase the reparation of a moft outrageous 
 aggrefiion. 
 
 In yet another refpcct they were infulting and inadmiflible. 
 They exprefted his Majefty's wiliinqnt (s " to reftore the men 
 taken on board the Chefapeake, but ref rved to him the ric^ht 
 of claitrsing tlie difcharge of fuch of them (if any) as Hull be 
 
16 
 
 proved to be (lt-f( rtcrs xrom his Majt-fty's fervice." The Cic- 
 nomination of dtfcrUTS includes all Ilich American citizens 'ds 
 hatl been imprillld l)y the B. itilh, or iiad cnlifted in their 
 IvTvice. If therefore we Irad agreed to thefc propofals, al- 
 tliOLigh the men were real American citiziis, and had per- 
 haps been impreiT-d, we mull neverthrLfs have returned 
 them, if 't could be proved that they had ever deferted from 
 the Britilh fervice. In doins tiiiswe Ihould have furrcndcr- 
 fed a point w hicli the Engliih knew we had contended for as 
 ihe si/ie qua non of a tn a*y. 
 
 In the laws of England on this fubjed^ there is fomething 
 firangcly ahfurd and unreaf )nable. According to them ihe 
 has a right to every E.iglilh nan wherever found and however 
 long lie may have been abfent from his country, and alio to 
 cveiy American who \\\^ ferved two years in her navy. If 
 tlvn fore an Er.glilh nan hasf.rved forty years in our navy, 
 ilie has IVilLa right to imprtfs him ; but if one of our citizens 
 has ferved only nw years in her navy, u'^ have no right ever 
 to demand liim. 
 
 'ilieu' propofals beincr the only ones that Mr. Jackfon was 
 audioriled lo make, and being thus inf lent and infuUing in 
 th( ir narure, coulH it have been expelled that any good would 
 refuli from his milTion ? Muil not our government have fup- 
 pofed that he wa^ lent merely to c.n<jle and iniult us ? 
 
 Ifliowever, the Bri[i!h government have any wilh or inten- 
 tion to conclude a treaty on equitable terms, they have ftill an 
 opportunity. Mr. Pinkney has been particularly inllrucled 
 toinform them th.at further negociation would be agreeable to 
 us. It is the miniiVr, not die nation, w ith which our gov- 
 ernm.ent is in this caf-' offended, aufl especial care has been 
 taken toalfurelhe nation oftl.is. Nopraencc therefore can 
 exist that it was hostility to Great Bri'ain that ocaifiomd the 
 difinilfil of Mr. Jackson. Should another minister be sent 
 he v.ould be received with pleafure and treated withrefpect. 
 
 In his tent!) and last number dK^ author of the pamphlet bc- 
 f'te us hiis fome observations upon the documents in n la- 
 tion to cur intercourse wilh France. " The most material 
 parts of t'u'sc," says he, " are suppressed. This is not all--- 
 I'oholc letters lmkI the irjhole history of our late negociation 
 Witli France is k.pt behind t .c curtain." 
 
 It nould be gratiiying to the puljlic to know how the writ- 
 er became pofielfeJ of this impoi taut fact ; and it was his du- 
 ty to ft I'e on what authority he made the declaration. We 
 might then judge of its credibilitv. His simple aifertion 
 ouvjht not to enforce bilief. efpecially af^er we have proved 
 t!iMt licf jmetimes fi uls no diftieulty in allVrting a falfehood. 
 
 It is not probable l!iat tiie President has suppressed any 
 material pari of the documents. It was his duty to commu- 
 j-iicate whatever wus nctei-oury to be known, which he has 
 uridoubtedlv done. 
 
17 
 
 as 
 
 A note from Mr. Champagny is tlie only important part of 
 the documents publilhed. In this note he pretends to make 
 known the invariable principles which have regulated and 
 which will regulate the conduct of Bonaparte on the great 
 queftion of neutrals. Thefe principles are in the highest degree 
 iinexcepiionable, liberal and just. They are precibtly thofe for 
 which we are contending in our negociations with Great- 
 Britain; and had Bonaparte, as he profeffcs, always made 
 them the rule of his conduct, no neutral would ever have had 
 caufe of complaint againft him. The following are the clofing 
 paragraphs of the note : 
 
 " Thus, fir, France acknowledges in principle, the liberty 
 of the commerce of neutrals and the independence of nari- 
 time powers. She has rLfpc6\ed them until the moment 
 when the maritime tyranny of England, which refpefled no- 
 thing, and the arbitrary acts of its government, have forced her 
 to meafures of reprifal, which flie has not adopted but with 
 relu6^ance. Let England revoke her declarations of block- 
 ade against France : France w ill revoke her decree of block' 
 ade againft Eng'and. Let England revoke her orders in coun- 
 cil of the 11th of Nov. 1807 ; the decree of Milan will fall of 
 itfelf. 
 
 " The Arnerican commerce will then have regained all its 
 liberty, and it will be fure of finding favor and protection in 
 the ports of France. But it is for the United States, by their 
 firmnefs, to bring on thefe happy refults- Can a nation that 
 wiflies to remain free and fovenign, even balance between 
 fome temporary interefts, and the great interefts of its honor, 
 of its fovereignty, and of its dignity." 
 
 This note has been called '''"insulting in the extreme'^— -a 
 most impudent letter"—^'' the quintessence of arrogance^ hypo- 
 crisy and liillany ."' We have read it and re-read it, in order 
 to find fomething to juftify this ftring of epithets. We were 
 for a long time wholly unfuccefsful, and to this hour fhould 
 have remained in the dark, had w-e not moft fortunately recol- 
 le6\ed the advice of our much refpeCled profefforat college — 
 that the beft way to arrive at the meaning of an obfcure paf- 
 iage, was to place ourfelves, as much as pofiiblc, in the fitua- 
 tion of the perfon \vho wrote it. We immediately transform- 
 ed ourfelves into a full-blooded federalift, and foon felt all the 
 prejudice, partiality and malignity of fuch a charafiler rankling 
 in our bofom. In this terrible fituation, raging with all the 
 agony of a Pytliian priefttfs when flie delivers her refpon- 
 fes, we took up the paper and perufed the note. Infults then 
 glared in every paragraph ; and at every paragraph wc were 
 forced to ftop and vent our indignation. But the following 
 *vcs too much to bear : 
 
 " If the EngliHi had on the land that fupcriority they have 
 obtamed at fea, we fiiould havefeen, as in the times of barba- 
 nfm, the vanquiftcdfoldasflaves, and thtir land parcelled 
 
18 
 
 out. Mercantile avidity would have ufurpcd evcr^- thing ; 
 and thf return to bartarous ulages would have beta the work 
 of the government of a nation that has improved the arts and 
 civilization. That government is not ignorant of die injullice 
 ol its maritime code-— but what fignifies to it what is jull ? It 
 only conficieis wliat is ufelul to illLlf." 
 
 Now having had the good fortune *' excussisse Deutn,'' siud 
 having refumed the character more conformable to our nature, 
 we are able fincerely and difpafiionately to declare that we can 
 find no paffage which would juftify an American citizen in be- 
 llowing upon the note fuch outrageous epithets. 
 
 We do not wilh to be coniiderc d the advocates or the apolo- 
 gias of France, We have noaff.Clion but for our own coun- 
 try. Our obj' 6t has bctn to fliew that nothing appears in the 
 documents which required that Air. Madilbn fliould notice 
 h'.r conduct in terms of greater fcverity than he a(!i\ually cm- 
 ployed in his meflage. Tnis l)eing lliewn, the federalills can 
 then have no pretence for accuiing him of partiality to that 
 nation. 
 
 The talk we had undertaken of expofing a few of the prin- 
 cipal milrt-prelentations in the federal pampl.kt, is now com- 
 pleted. Well plcafed fliould we have been had fomc al)ler 
 pen precluded the neceffify of our labors. Nothing can cer- 
 tainly be more difa^reeablc than the tiifk of dctc^^ling faife- 
 hoods:-— nor more difgufting than the contemplation of the 
 ftate of depravity into which fome of our fellow-creatures have 
 voluntarily reduced themfelves. 
 
 Jn the courfe of our labors it has been our object to fliew. 
 
 That Mr. Canning had no right to preiume that the three 
 conditions in his defpatch of the 23d of January, wxjuld be 
 agreeable to our government. Of courfe they were offculivc 
 and infulting. 
 
 That Mr. Erfkine had in fact, and even in the opinion of 
 thofe who font him, fullicient powers to authorife him to con- 
 clude fuch an agreement as that of April lyft. 
 
 That our gove rnment had no rig! it to demand a fight of Mr. 
 El fl-iine's inftri"6)ions or powers, bur that in io doing, Uiey 
 would have a6\eel improperly. 
 
 That they did not know the fubllance of them, nor did any 
 thing exill, w he n the arrangement of April v.as made, to in- 
 duce them to fuppofe that Mr, Erlkine acled in violation of 
 them. 
 
 'J'hat proba!)ly Mr. Erfkine had other inftruclions than 
 thofcofthe 23dof Jiuiuary, by which he regulated his condutt. 
 
 Tiiat there is no fimilarity between the cafe of the r(;)\ ctioii 
 of Monroe's lieaty^ and that of the rcjeCiion of Mr. Eilkine's 
 agreement. 
 
 That the Brilifh go\'crnment liad no right to difavow Mr. 
 Erlkine's agieemmt, unlefs they could oflcr, indepe^ndent of 
 the violation of infhudlions, " flrong anel folid reafons'' for the 
 clilavowal, and that fuch rcafous have not been offered. 
 
 i 
 
19 
 
 That Mr. Jackfon moft grof^ly infulted our government by 
 imputing to them a knowledge oi' Mr. Erfkine's inftrurtions, 
 even after they had pofitively afllired him that no fuch know- 
 ledge exifled ; and that therefore they were juftified in difmif- 
 fuighim. 
 
 That had he not been difmilTed, not the leaft probability ex- 
 ifts that the negociation with him uould have had a favorable 
 ifliie. 
 
 That the documents in relation to France did not, as is 
 pretended, contain any tiding ouiragcoufly infulting to this 
 government, and then fore that the charge againft Mr. Madi- 
 fon, of partiality to th.it nation, is totally unfounded. 
 
 Thefe poinis, the contrary of all of which is advanced by 
 the federal writer, we have attempted to establish, and \ye 
 have, we prefume, fucceeded to the fotisfa^lion of an impartial 
 and difpafhonate public. » 
 
 But we cannot dilrnils this fubject, without calling UDon 
 our fellow citizens in the earntft voice of one who enjoys the 
 fame blefiings, and whofe deiliny is intimate ly connected with 
 theirs, to frown with indignation upon thofe adherents of Bri- 
 tain, whofe efforts are perfeveringly directed to render every 
 aft of our government unpopular, and to fap the foundation 
 of our liberty and independence. We call upon them, with 
 all the fervency of brotherly aftection, to watch their motions, 
 their condudl and their manoeuvres ; to diftfufl; their preten- 
 fions to patriotifm, more cfpecially whet\ thofe pretenfions are 
 accompanied with conduct incompatible with patriotism-- - 
 when they fhamelefsly calumniate the government of their 
 country, which can ha'oe no inducement to do ivrong, and o- 
 penlyjuftilyevery aft of a foreign kingdom evidently hostile 
 to our intertfts. We entreat them to rally round the ftand- 
 ard of their country, and alTare them that m times of doubt, 
 of difficulty, and of peril, that courle is the only one whicli 
 can be proper— the only one which it becomes, a patriot to 
 purfue. 
 
« V3 
 
.'/"-v 
 
 1)' 
 
 
 ♦ j\\ '■ 
 
 
 ' 0* r 
 
 0^ f'^ ^ 
 
 *^^6^ 
 
 
 . »■ • 
 
 ^». * 
 
 rfi. f 
 
 
 
 T7^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 ' • e , 
 
 
 ':^',% 
 
 • • 
 
 Vtj *' 
 
 
 <^^ * " w 
 
 .^^ .» I 
 
 '■'J 
 
 ^<«>. 
 
 
 a ■ • 
 
 •^o 
 
 

 
 V .^'^''•<^ 
 
 •'♦ "> V" •1*°- C>6 4P c 
 
 >*^ < 
 
 * • ' ^ A° '^ • • . » ' . v^ 
 
 > « ^ts. fk'^ • • • * ■» 
 
 
 • » 
 
 
 .•«•■* °- 
 
 
 0" V^.V. .X 
 
 ' J' ... % ^^^ 4<^ . •^A " • ■ ' ^'-^ -=^. ■■^^- 
 
 
 
mmmmmmmm^^^^^mm