In every view, therefore, it appears to me that the resolution from the Senate not only is supported by the correspondence laid before us, but is rendered peculiarly important by the occasion. The appeal made by Mr. Jackson from the Executive, from the organ with which alone a foreign Minister can have communication, to the people, to a tribunal with which he cannot communicate, adds great force to the arguments in favor of a firm stand on our part. I hope it will be made, and that it never will be abandoned till we receive that justice which has been but too long delayed.
Mr. Ross observed: I, for one, am an Administration man, if that Administration act correctly, whether it shall, in a time of great difficulty and doubt, insure a prospect of peace with Great Britain, or whether it may find it necessary in asserting the rights and independence of the Government to involve the nation in war. I think the importance of the one course is as great as the other, and I will, under such circumstances, equally support them when they are likely to make war as to make peace, however other gentlemen may differ from me on this head.
Before I proceed to state, sir, what I conceive necessary to be understood, in order to come to a correct judgment on these resolutions, permit me to premise that there is more than a presumption that Mr. Erskine had a power to enter into the arrangement which he made. 1st. Because he himself declared he had such power. 2dly. Because he acted in conformity to that declaration; and, 3dly. Because Mr. Jackson does not deny he had such power. Mr. Jackson does not pretend to say that Mr. Erskine had not other despatches and other instructions than those of the 23d of January, and that, in them, there were not other conditions of a different grade and character from those contained in that despatch. Hence, I think it is fairly to be concluded, that Mr. Erskine had the power to enter into the agreement. It has, however, been said by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Dana,) that this is not so much a question of what our Government was ignorant of, as of what they knew, or what they ought to have known; and he has entered into a long examination of the mode of commissioning diplomatic characters, whether by letters of credence or by full powers, and has drawn a distinction between the two. In the first place, I apprehend it is in nowise material, to enable the House to decide on the resolution, whether the President did or did not know the nature of Mr. Erskine's powers. But it is necessary to rescue him from the imputation which those are disposed to cast on him who are desirous to pull down the Administration. What was the amount of the gentleman's showing on this occasion? That in all cases, in order to complete a treaty, it is necessary there should be a commission or full power. But has he shown that it is necessary in order to make a preliminary arrangement similar to that entered into? I apprehend he has not. On referring to the letter quoted by him from Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, we find the former calling upon the latter to exhibit his powers to enter into a negotiation; but Mr. Jefferson afterwards recedes from that demand, and receives the word of Mr. Hammond that he is possessed of power to negotiate as sufficient evidence of his being clothed with the proper power without the exhibition thereof. But the ratification was not withheld, as has been justly said, because there was an absence of a full power on this occasion. Mr. Jackson himself states that this was not the ground on which the ratification was withheld. It must first be proved that it was obligatory on the Executive to call for Mr. Erskine's full power, and it must then be proved that he did not, before his observations can be brought to bear on the question. Where is the proof that the Executive did not call for those powers? It is not pretended that Mr. Erskine had not a power to make an arrangement, but that it was not concluded in pursuance of his instructions. Therefore, if he had produced ten thousand powers, unless his instructions had authorized him to do what he did, the British Ministry would have rejected the terms stipulated for them, as they have done. But why is it necessary to know, on this occasion, whether the President did call for these powers or not? The inquiry composes no part of the resolution; it is neither expressly mentioned nor glanced at; and why this inquiry is raised, I confess I am utterly at a loss to know, unless it was to prove that the President of the United States had a knowledge of the instructions, and that they restricted Mr. Erskine's powers. The gentleman has not ventured to infer that the President of the United States had this knowledge, but the course of his argument goes to show that, in his opinion, he did possess this knowledge. He lays down the position, that it was the duty of the President to have seen those powers, and, I presume, supposes that the conclusion will be drawn that the President performed his duty; and, of course, taking it for granted that there were no other instructions than those of the 23d of January, that the President must have seen those instructions, and consequently have known that Mr. Erskine had not power to conclude the arrangement. All his argument went to raise a structure to induce a belief in this House, and in the public at large, that this knowledge must have been in possession of the President. The gentleman, at the same time, professes the utmost regard and respect for Mr. Madison. This, I confess, is following the direction of the poet, who says:
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer;
And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer."
But let us inquire if the President had any knowledge that Mr. Erskine had no full power; for if I show, beyond all doubt, that the President did not know it, all this insidious fabric, which is designed to produce so many delusions, will vanish at once. I think it is to be presumed that the President had no knowledge that Mr. Erskine had not full powers, because he entered into the arrangement. What object could he have in view which should induce him to conclude an arrangement, except with full confidence of its being carried into effect? Not to get rid of the embargo—that had long before been interred by its fathers with a truly Christian spirit. Not to get rid of the non-intercourse—because the moment the arrangement was disavowed, the President breathed life and spirit into that act, and gave it renewed existence. It was not from any hostile disposition to England, because he could have no reason to wish for a war. And because, if he had desired a war with that country, he had no occasion to seek a pretext therefor, inasmuch as long antecedents, and up to the very time of making the arrangement, the causes for war against Great Britain were great and numerous, as has been agreed by all parties. If not to get rid of the embargo, nor of the non-intercourse, nor for war, what object could he have, with such knowledge as has been imputed to him, not expressly, but by inference, in making the arrangement of April? Will gentlemen be good enough to condescend so far as to assign some object that the Executive could have had in view from such conduct? For it is not to be presumed that men, in or out of office, act without motive and without object. Therefore, hearing no reason assigned why the President should act thus preposterously, as it is attempted to be insinuated he did, by those in opposition, it would be reasonable to conclude that he had no such knowledge. But, in opposition to this insinuation, also, you have the solemn declaration of the President of the United States, through the Secretary of State. Humiliating in the extreme must it be to hear this solemn asseveration questioned, even in a side-way, in order to support the insolence of a British Minister! Was it not enough that the country has been enabled to endure, in order to secure the great object of remaining in peace, insult after insult, outrage after outrage, and even that the Government should be insulted by foreign diplomatic characters, without doubts and suspicions being insinuated by members of this House? Pray, sir, let me ask this House, or the whole of the United States, what the President of the United States has ever done in any official character, among the many which he has filled with honor to himself and reputation to his country, that the correctness of his declarations, made through his Minister of State, should be disputed? But I might suffer the humiliation of going still further into the subject. We have the word of the recalled Minister, if that be considered more conclusive by gentlemen than that of the President of the United States, that he did not communicate his instructions to Mr. Smith. We have, 1st. The presumption that the Executive had no knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, because he could have no object in view in concluding an arrangement with that knowledge; 2d. We have his declaration to that effect through the Secretary of State; 3d. We have the declaration of the Minister, whose act was disavowed, to the same effect. What have we to destroy this proof? The deceptive, poisonous insinuations of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Erskine repeatedly declared that he had ample powers. On the news being received during the last session of the issuing of the order of the 26th April, he declared that he had no doubt his arrangement would be carried into effect. He, to the last moment, declared that he acted in the spirit, if not in the letter, of his several letters of instructions. How, therefore, was it possible for the President to receive information from Mr. Erskine that he was not invested with competent power, when Mr. Erskine himself declared and believed he was, and acted accordingly.
From these considerations I apprehend it most clearly appears that the President of the United States had not a knowledge, neither was it his duty to have had a knowledge that Mr. Erskine did not possess powers to make the arrangement which he did.
Tuesday, December 26.
Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Benjamin Pickman, jr.; and from Virginia, William A. Burwell, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
Thursday, December 28.
Conduct of the British Minister.