The Secretary of the Treasury to Mr. Erskine,

SIR,

[COPY.]

WASHINGTON, AUGUST 13, 1809.

I Do not believe, that in the conversations we have had respecting the practicability of an adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great Britain, we have ever misunderstood one another. Yet as from Mr. Canning's instructions lately published by your government, it would seem that some opinions are ascribed to several members of this administration, which they did not entertain, it appears necessary to ascertain whether on any point a misapprehension can have taken place.

I will forbear making any observations on what in the instructions is called the third condition, since it is not asserted that that inadmissible proposition was suggested at Washington.

The points embraced in Mr. Canning's first proposition formed the principal topick of our conversations, relative to a revocation of the orders in council. Yet in the manner in which that proposition is expressed it goes farther than had been suggested by the members of this administration. It is sufficiently evident from the proceedings of Congress, both previous and subsequent to the unratified agreement of April last, that the United States intended to continue the restrictions on the commercial intercourse with France, whilst such of her decrees as violated our neutral rights continued in force, and to remove those restrictions in relation to Great Britain, in the event of a revocation of the orders in council. But that state of things so far as it related to France, was to result from our own laws-known or anticipated by your government when they authorized an arrangement; and it was not proposed by us that the continuance of the non-intercourse with France should be made a condition of that arrangement. Whilst on that subject, I will add an observation,

though perhaps not immediately connected with the object of this letter. I think that the object of that proposition, so far as it agreed with your previous understanding of the intentions of this government, has been substantially carried into effect on our part. It is true, that your government might at the date of the instructions have expected from the incipient proceedings of Congress, that Holland would be embraced by the restrictive laws of the United States. Not only however, was the omission nominal, since Ameriean vessels were at the time by the decrees of that country refused admission into its ports, but under the same construction of our laws by which the commercial intercourse with Holland was permitted, that with Portugal was also considered as legal in the event of that country being occupied by British troops in the name of the Prince Regent.

It is therefore principally as respects the second condition which relates to the colonial trade, that erroneous inferences might be drawn from the expressions used in Mr. Canning's instructions. Although the subject must have been mentioned here incidentally, and only in a transient manner, as it is one to which I had paid particular attention, and on which my opinion had never varied, I think that I can state with precision in what view I have always considered it, and must have alluded to it.

1. I never could have given countenance to an opinion that the United States would agree, or that it would be proper to make any arrangement whatever, respecting the colonial trade, a condition of the revocation of the orders in council. The two subjects were altogether unconnected, and I am confident that such a proposition was never suggested either by you, or by any member of this administration. Such an arrangement could be effected only by treaty; and it is with a considerable degree of surprise that I see your government now asking not only resistance to the French decrees, but the abandonment of a branch of our commerce as the price of the revocation of the orders in council. This seems to give a new character to a measure which had heretofore been represented as an act of re

taliation reluctantly adopted, and had been defended solely on the ground of a supposed acquiescence on the part of the United States in the injurious deerees of another nation.

2. In the event of a treaty, embracing all the points in dispute, and particularly that of impressments, without which, I trust, no treaty will ever take place, it was my opinion, and I may certainly have expressed it, that if the other subjects of difference were árranged, that respecting the colonial trade would be easily adjusted. I had considered the principles recognised in a former correspondence between lord Hawkesbury and Mr. King, on the subject of the colonial trade, and subsequently again adopted in the treaty negotiated by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, as a general basis agreed on under different administrations by both governments, from which neither could now recede, and susceptible only of modifications as to details. The instructions to our ministers in London on that subject, had also been published and were known to your government. I therefore believed that the United States, in the event of a treaty, would still be disposed to wave for the present, in the manner and on the terms contemplated by those instructions, their right to that branch, and to that branch only, of the colonial trade, known by the name of direct trade, that is to say, the trade carried directly from belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently, in peace as in war, permitted by the laws of the country to which those eolonies belonged. The right to a trade between such colonies and the United States generally, and to that in colonial articles between the United States and other countries, never can, or will in my opinion be abandoned, or its exercise be suspended by this government; on the contrary, it is solely in order to secure, by an express treaty stipulation, that trade against the danger of interruption, and thus by a mutual spirit of accommodation to avoid collisions, that the abandonment of the direct branch cau ever be assented to.

Permit me therefore to request, that you will inform me, whether you understood me on those two points, as I certainly meant to be understood; namely, that the relinquishment, during the present war, of what is called the direct trade was alone contemplated; and that no arrangement on that subject was suggested as a condition of the revocation of the orders in council.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th instant, in which you have been pleased to say, that although you "do not believe that, in the conversations we have had respecting the practicability of an adjustment of the differences between the United States and Great Britain, we ever have misunderstood one another; yet as from Mr. Canning's instructions, lately published by my government, it would seem that some opinions are ascribed to several members of this administration which they did not entertain, it appears necessary to ascertain, whether on any point a misapprehension can have taken place."

In answer to your inquiries, I have great satisfaction in assuring you, that there appears to have been no misunderstanding respecting the substance or meaning of the conversations which passed between us, as stated in Mr. Canning's instructions alluded to.

After the most careful perusal of your statement of the purport of our conversations, I cannot discover any material difference from the representation which I have made upon that subject to the secretary of state, (Mr. Robert Smith) in my letter to him of the 14th instant, to which I will therefore beg to refer you, as I have therein detailed the substance of the conversation, according to my recol

lection of it; which is, in every respect, essentially the same as that which you seem to have entertained.

During the conversation which we held respecting the practicability of an amicable adjustment of the differences between the two countries, when the relinquishment by the United States, during the present war, of what is called the colonial trade, was suggested by you, I conceived that you meant, (as you have stated) "the trade carried directly from belligerent colonies to the belligerents in Europe, when that trade was not permanently, in peace as in war, permitted by the laws of the country to which those colonies belonged."

I never supposed that you intended to convey an opinion, that the government of the United States would make any arrangement respecting the colonial trade, as a condition of the revocation of the orders in council, the two subjects being altogether unconnected; nor have I ever represented to his majesty's government that such preliminary pledges would be given.

With sentiments of the highest respect, I have the honour to be, &c.

(Signed)

The Hon. ALBERT GALLATIN, &c. &c.

D. M. ERSKINE.

[The other communications, accompanying the last message of the President, will be printed first in the next volume.]