The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1810-02-20 00:00:00, page 3

of i •*®ptVre^ .1 no-tica hf the time \nil
ic-op-rr y of cue individual, and operated in
too nit ire «»f n ctbicstion tax. lu the [Wrt
of the country to which he belonged, the
1'iS’iity to bs called into actual service was
n »t felt as a privilege. — file right to have
a well r-^g dated militia, and to bear arms,
was a r*gnt which ttiev claimed as a securi
ty agiirts' dones.ic usurpation, or foreign
invast >n —Hat it was fe't to be a tax on
the individual tube oblige l to be equipt for
regular militia duty, and in consequence of
this, exemptions were in some cases granted
from other taxes. The principle of the a
mendment was, that if the states attended
to their duty in making proper returns of
militia, no burden would be laid on them
which wns not in the sa ne maimer laid on
other states; if not, that they should con
tribute to this direct tax in proportion to
their representation.
Mr. 7’rou/i said th*:t the operation of the
amendment was one thing, and its principle
another, and wholly different thing. The
operation of it would be such as the gerule
inau, hw was convinced, did not design ; but
lie could not at the same time help condemn
ing the principle on which the amendment
was founded. He said he had always under
stood that the constitution was t >e result of
mutual compromise a*d concession of privi
leges and rights on the one hand, for rights
and privileges on the other. We (said Mr.
T. alluding to the southern states) paid for
onr privileges, and the price of them is as
distinctly marked in the constitution as the
privileges themselves. And does the gen
tleman call upon us in addition to this price,
to pay the discriminating »ax, proposed
hv this amendment to he levied up; n us?—
The gentleman from Connecticut cannot
he serious, lie understands too well the
constitution of his country and the principles
on which it is founded. The operation of
the amendment, will unquestionably be un
equal. Connecticut is one of the Northern
hives, and sends out annually a greater pro
portion, I make no doubt, than the natural
increase of her population. And certainly,
if the population of Connecticut has been
stationary tor the last ten years, whilst o
ther states have increased and doubled their
'numbers, Connecticut will be called upon
for her full quota, whilst other states will not
be called upon for one half of their proper
proportion.
Mr. /aunutate said, lie much doubted
whether the amendment which his col
league had proposed, would he a correct
remedy for the evil said to exist——It cer
tainly, however, could not apply, if there
were returns from all the states oft which an
apportionment could he made. A law had
Rome years ago been passed in which the
Execu'ivesof the several slates were called
up >n to make annual returns of their militia
to tlie general government. Mr. T. said
he could hardly believe, that tb_*re was a
ny state in the Union which had not made
these returns. If there was such a state,
he said he would accord in any amendment
which should give a more perfect clue hv
which the apportionment cmikl be made.
Hut he cou’d not consent to mulct any one of
the states, for the neglect of its officers, in &;iv
mode which would operate as unequally as
that proposed in the amendment. He was
therefore opposed to the motion.
Mv Southard concurred in tiic idea, that
militia service was capitation tax; and
conceived that it would be desirable that
the tax should be apportioned according to
the real nu liners of the militia in eacn state.
At present, the tax operated severely «m
l iiose who were most faithful in making their
returns. 'Returns had been made from some
states annually, and by others not for two or
throe years. There were states containing
150,000 souls which returned hut 23,000 mi
litia. Other states returned a greater pro
portion. New Jersey, for instance, return
ed 33,000. He found by the returns, that
the numhet of militia accumulated every
year; and -if course, if the apportionment
were to be made according to the returns
actually received, those states which were
punctual in making returns, would have to
p iy much more than their proportion of this
tax. The bill under consideration he there
lore thought unequal in its operation, and
was unwilling to take it in its present
form. With respect to the amendment,
however, lie agreed that it was not proper,
because of the prop irtion of blacks repre
S'-oted in so.ne of the slates. Wishing time
to consider of the best nunle of amending
the hill, he moved to postpone the further
tonsideralit.il of the subject ’till to-mor..
TOM.
Mr. Key said, that although the argu
merit ci trie gentleman limn Connecticut
(Mr. Dana,) was a very ingenious one, it
>'as not correct. The ingenuity (said Mr.
Key,) is in-this: He Contends that militia
duty is a personal service, and as such that
it is a capitation tax, and assuming as cor
ler.t the principle that it. is a capitation
tax, that it should be apportioned ac
cording to representation.—^-ln the quo
t.n of taxes, sir, we pay for onr blacks ;
we pay proportional tax according to the
ratio ot representation, as the Consent ion
directs. Hut the argument is incorrect in
this.—Our laws provide, that free white
males alone shall perform militia u.ity ; und
the stages respectively pay their full propor
tion ol that duty, when they bring 1' -waul
their proportion of white population
The gentleman wishes us to perform this
fluty not according to our own white popn
ration, but according to our representation.
Bid every thing is ictaimd to the states re
spectively, or to tlie pr iple, which "is not ta
ken from them by the constitution—and I
call upon gentlemen t>> shew what part ol the
constitution sa\s that the Southern state*
shall bring forward for mili'ia duty more
than their proportion of white population.—
The constitution bring silent on this point,
the argument cannot be correct. Heprcsen
♦a»ion and direct taxation are precisely spe
cified and linked together in the constitution ;
but, because *.:liti;t duty is said to he in the
PRtnve of a Capitation tax, it does not follow
that it should be apportioned according to
representation. The conclusion does not How
iroin the premises.
The question was taken on 'postponingthe
further consideration of the bid till to-mor
row, anti carried. And the house adjourned.
Thtjr st> a y, Feb. R.
On motl'm of Mr. l.yon, the bill from the
f-enafe in addition man nr* to regulate the
laying out nod making > r»>ad from Cumber
land in the state i f Maryland to the state of
Ohio, was passed through a committee of
the whole, \;r. Mit.von in the elixir, nnd
ordered, tube engross, d for a third reading
to-morrow.
n r 'it ttsty vt or
j / • hoe c resumed me cousMluiation ol
the nt.hnis'.M 'I !ui -s> -*t jester lav.
-'li.ib ’■ ntrendiuent vet under Cons’ -
idetati’ . —
, , • . 'I . t ■
Mr. Troufi moved to arruvui it by adding
the following wonts. declaring his object to
be merely, by shewing how improper the
one proposition was to display more striking
ly the deformity of thr> other :
•* And that the state of Connecticut, in
consideration of her admission into the Sen.
ate of the United States on terms of equality
with the states of New York, and Peersylva
rtla, withodt equivalent occasion, be reqoi.
red to furnish a quota of militia proportion
ed to her representation in that body.
Messrs, muter, Pickmun, Troup, Tall - !
madge, I'ayior ami Smilie. opposed Mr. Da 1
a i’s amendment, & Mr. Dana and Mr. lio*> j
supported it.
Mr. Talimadge read an retract of a let
ter which he had this day received from the i
secretary of war containing information to j
this effect : “ There m no suite ill the union .
which has not made its returns of militia !
according to law."
Mr. Quincy made a motion superceding j
the motions under consideration, viz.tosti ike i
out that part of the hill providing for cases
of deficient returns. As there was no such
case, there was no occasion for such a pro- j
vision.
Mr. Southard moved to recommit the bill
to a select committee \yith a view to enquire
into the practicability of more equitably ap
portioning the quotas than has heretofore
been done.
i'iie motion was carried, Messrs. Southard,
, Fisk, lloss, Tall madge and Dana supporting
it, and the bill referred to a committee ot j
i twenty members, and the House adjourned, i
Monday, Feb. 12.
Mr. Fir?; reported the census bill with amend
rp-nts ; which were lead and committed to a
committee of the whole House.
TORPEDOES.
Mr. Damon. On hearing the Journal roi»d, I
find that on last Friday a letter was received by
tiie Speaker from a-Mr. Fulton. What merit i»
due to his invention, I will not pretend to say ;
but I know Mr. Fulton to he r man of science
and successful experiment, of which he has giv
rn proofs both in Europe an l this country. It
seems to me th-it some attention ought to b ; paid J
to his communication. I tlieref ire move you that I
his letter be referred to a select committee.
Mr Datsson t motion was agreed to, & a com
mittee appointed, consisting of Messrs. Dawson,
Taylor and Bacon.
Mr, lihea (~ T.J offered the following resolu
tion :
* Resolved, That the President of the U. S. be
requested to cause to he laid before this H mse
a ••tutement ol the particular sums of monev
which ti-om time to time, t-ince the edmmence
nient ol the government, have been appropriated
uiul expended for the purpose of fortd'vmg the
p rts and harbors of the U. S. and o~ any of tiie
let ritories thereof; and the sums of money, if a
ny, winch remain unexpended.”
Tile motion was negatived, 41 to 39.
BATTURE OF NEW ORLEANS.
The House resolved itself into a committee of i
the whole on this subject, Ayes GO, Mr. Macon j
ill die chair.
Mr. Love spoke st great length in support of 1
the proposition submitted by him a lew days a- j
go ; a. •. Mr. Shelley replied also at g,-cal length.
The committee then rose, reported progress
j and obtained leave to sit again—and the llouso
i adjourned.
February 13;
Mr.' (Soldsborough obtained leave of absence
for t vo weeds
On motion of Mr. Withertpoon,
dissolved, That the crfuiruittee on Post Office &.
Post Roads be instruct—1 ;o enquire into tiie ex
pediency of establishing a post route leading
Irom Chatham, »>«• Greenville, ilentonsville, Jef
♦ ries Credit, Ports Ferry, Marion court house and
Hurliesville in the state uf South Carolinu, and by
M* Queen's store, Stewart’s Store, Lagrel Hill,
Rockm ?ham court house, Wadesbnroujgh and
Sneedshornugh in the sta'e of North Carolina
to Clialiiani aforesaid.
THIRD CENSUS. , |
Tiie House resolved itself imo a committee of ’
the whole on the lull for taking the third census
of'he inhabitant, of the U. States.
Various amendments were made to the allow'- i
anres to marshals, Stc.
Considerable debate, of little interest, took ,
place on the various motions.
The committee rose and reported the hill, and I
the house adjourned at three o’clock.
mit inquirer.
RICHMOND, FEBRUARY 20, 1810.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
OF COXVO YS.
At a time, when the rights anil the honor
of the U S. are at stake, every proposition
for defence should be fairly an. 1 fully weigh- J
ed.
I lie Bill of Mr. Macon is not to be regar
ded as a measure of resistance-it is tube
looked upon only as a weak memento of
our protestation against the edicts of France '
and G. B< itain.
liie plan ot Mr. Burwell is the only one,
which deserves, in any degree, the name of
energy-there is pith and marrow in it
-it asserts the rights of the United States,
is far as it goes, by fair, i.p^n and honorable
| force.
! This proposition corrcs from a most dig
' mfied ^commanding source—firm in his prin
. ciplss. clear in his views, with an integrity as
purcas the •• unsunned silver oft fie mines’” no
| proposition can co ne from William Burwell,
jthat is not entitled to the most respectful at
i tention.
To me, it would have hern more pleasing,
if the councils of my country had thought
proper to adopt the additional measures of
resistance——1 should have b»en pleased if
| my country hud assumed the firmest attitude
dt resistance—hut my wishes ate vain
i-and since we cannot obtain all that we i
, wish, it is our bounden duty to adopt every
portion of it which comports with our wish-,
i cs.
The proposition of Mr. Burwell is found- j
.ed on our clearest rights Those principles
which induce individuals to protect tin-»i
sclves from robbery on the high road, have
I the same validity in inducing our government
| to protect oar lawful commerce on the seas
j by the arm ot the nation.—If the pirates ot
; the (Kean will Continue to H»mdt c«, we have
I a right to protect ourselves against th**m.
It is idle to sn.y, that this plan ntav bring
us into collisions with England—beeniiso she
jgivesa different interpretation to the law of
) nations—Tor if Engl md chooses to violate
l our rights, are we to submit in silence? Jfj
I a deference to the Jiretensions of O. B. res
I trains us from av erting our rights to the o-!
j r.ean, every cause of quarrel v.ith that nation j
j is at an »-nd
This in ay be a de'drnVc '■or rmmifion »p
|tt»c federalists; and thrr-fufr, they wm j
1 resist the proposition for r»»Tivoys—’hey 111 J
I oppose the it nr of our navy, although thei I
jhiv uiv too;- -\.al(Kis in •»•>> erec.tfpn — l)n>|
, A
thesr.ire grctintYi; Itry wjp *'.«“*ay tr—m
>olvr- ngnumt the torpedoes of Mr. Fulton,
oecauve tiie British navy, which is “their
shield of the IT. States against France,”
may be subject toexplosion
The use of convoys is apparent from the
very nature of the subject——but we have
also a precedent in point. VVhen the victory
of Lord-Nelson, at the Nile, had let loose the
persecutions of his country against the rights
of neutrals; “after the reiterated com
plaints of the merchants and all vhe means
of official representation with the beiliger
ents had been exhausted in vain, the Danish
and Swedish governments at last came to
a resolution to protect their commerce ef
fectually by causing their fleets of merchant
men to be convoyed by ships of war.”
Such is our situation-Such must |>c our
resource.——-It is indeed a source of regret
that at this time, oor ships of war arc not
numerous enough to furnish greater facilities
to our own merchants, and more effectual
resistance to the enemv—to yield move cm
voys for the many points of oor coasts and
the various branches of our trade ; but it we
cannot do every tiling, we can at least do
something. We can at least do better than
those who are constantly preaching up »ub
mission through tae unfavorable contrast of
our resources with those of (1. Britain.
I approve, therefore, of the means, in ge
neral—soniwof therff/rt' t, however, might
he regulated for the better.—As this subject
is perhaps the most important of any which
are now before Congress, I shall beg leave
instate inv objections with freedom.—Let it
always be kept in mind, that there in no
o‘her road to Truth, hut free discus
rion —1. The first section of the bill requires
the President of the United Stales toemploy
the public armed vessels “ to convoy vessels
owned by citizens of the United States and
laden with the /irodttce of the U. States, !
the property of such citizens.”—Why limit
the protection to the produce of the United
States only? Suppose the merchants of the
U. S. have obtained, inlawful exchange for
our onm produce, the produce cf other na
tions, as tea, sugar, co/Tee and East-India
goods-these articles might l>e in high tie- I
mand in the N.nf Europe-they are b9ria
/idr the property of our own merchants —- -
why.are they then, to he debarred from the
privileges of the convoy ?
i he subsequent sections of the bill seem
to be at war with this provision—the 4tli li
mits the right of visitation and searrh on the
high seas, tocases of “ enemy's firofiertij, of
articles by this law declared contraband of
war,” or of destination •* to a port actually
blockaded.”—The 6th limits the light of
cu/uure to the same cases.
1'lie bill ought to be so amended as to take
in “ Teasels owned by citizens of ihe United
States and laden w iwi the property of such
citizens.”—It we give up,?/tM# even indirect
ly, the principle, that " free shifts make free
goods,” we ought at least to avail ourselves
of the benefit of the contrary maxim, that
shields even the property of a neutral in the
hips of a belligerent.
But it it be thought proper to make an ex
ception. in favor <4 the English pretensions as
to the colonial trade, it may be added, “ pro
vided if it be colonial produce, that it has been
landed in the U. S. and the duties ptiid on
it.”-In the convention between Ung
land and Hus#/a,in 1801, the right of trans
portation is even carried further; for •» it
is agreed, not to comprize in the number of
(enemy’s property) the merchandize of the
produce, growth or manufacture, of countries
at war which should have been acquired by
the subjects of the neutral fiower.&e should be
transportvciybr their account; which mer.
chandize cannot be excepted in any case
fromthe freedom granted to the Hag of the
said power.”
2. The first section, ten, limits .the
convoy to vessels not bound “ u» a blockaded
port, or to any port or place belonging to or
in the actual possession of any nation, haxdng
in force, orders, edicts, or decrees against
r.eutral rights in violation of the laws of na
tions.” That is to say, to France, England,
&c. Of course, our vessels, bound to France,
may be taken He confiscated by the English,
and vice versa. Is not this clause in di
rect contradiction to the purposes of the
bill ? What is the use of convoys ? To pro- \
tect our rightful and lawful trades, by force.
W by, merely protect a trade, which stands in
no need of protection? This bill convoys
our trade to the Baltic, for example—that
trade is not liable to interruptions dv the e
dicts of the belligerents—We therefore offer, j
to force a trade which is not prohibited bv j
the belligerents—and yet refuse to protect :
one, which is prohibited—that is, where pro*
ectionis principally wanting, we refuse it—
where not wanting, weave willing to give it.
Is this consistent t
And why refuse to protect a trade with
“ any nation having in force orders, edicts
“or decrees against neutral rights in viola
” tion of the laws of nations ?” Why grant
convoys at all? The answer recurs, to pro
tect a lawful trade ? And what is the aim of
Mr. Macon's bill, which liasjust passed thro’
the House of Representatives? Why—to
legalize the trade with France and England
-that is, to make lawful a trade with
nations “having ih force” these very or
drrs, &c. In one breath, then, arc we to
declare a certain trade lawful, and in ano
ther, refuse to protect it? Is this consist
cr.t ?
It may he said, perhaps, why not legalise
a trade, and yet refuse to protect it? Why
not tell our merchants, they may rink it at
their pleasure, hut that it is due to the re
sentment which we feel for those iniquitous
edicts, not to protect a trade with the nations
that thus insult ns? This is to say, that we
relinquish all controul over our merchants_
they may carry on whatsoever trade they
choose to risk, though the keels of their ves
sel* should he dragged over the bleeding ho
nour of their country—yet this trade is so in
famous, so cVrectly in the teeth of our neu
tral rights, that it excites all cur resentment
— He we refuse to protect our citizens with
the force of the nation.
Other reasons may be. urged-that this
is a deep stroke of policy-»hat France
and Great Iiritain have it at heart to en
tangle us in a war with the other-that
to reach this object, each may he willing to.
rescind its decrees against us, wuha view
of leading ns to convoy our trade to them
selves—and rhus throwing it open to the at
tacks of the other—‘—which attacks may
rouse our resentments and drive us into hns
t-blies-that this provision is, therefore.
a means' inducing each of the nations at
war, to do a way their attacks upon our " neu
tral tights,”
This contingnrnj is however, too remote
to enter into Ihtir calculations——and, of
course, into our or.m. These belligerents
have, gnu r ilk, held nut certain advantages,
arising to themselves, fiom their iniquilou*
edicts, (ircui iiritain has certait ly consul
ted tire inteixats of her own trr da, anti the
* . . . ... , . ; • . ...
rujhtnrr nr n-’V?tavy.' rrnnr-r nas 'nwn a
much less enlightened view of her interests,
than ordinarily guides her councils; hut.lhia is
an infatuation, which still endures; & which
our convoy hill cannot he expected to dissi
pate. Will then, either of these nations,
ex Jiangc those advantages, which they pro
mise themselves front their decrees, for the
mere chance of entrapping us into a war
with his opponent ? Is this chatter wotth
Uh sacrifices, which they m*ke to purchase
•r r*——Is this the degree of •• firmness,”
which Mr. Chan.pagny speaks of, intliet'.rs
j patch to Cleu. Armstrong—— in w ' ich hr
J announces “ the. unalterable principles” l»v
j which his majesty would continue to he go
, veined ? It is not.
; Let the bill then be ?o amended as to go
; •* cu - he broad ground of forcing by convoy
i irg and arming a commerce witli nil places,
j where. h\j th- local regulations of the sove
; rcigrtn, our commerce in Admitted.”
3 1 iie ‘2.1 section of this bill enumerates
the contraband of rear—As I have not seen
I the bill itrelf, I cannot, of course, know
! whether this specification is a proper one.
If it be, in the main, copied from the Russi
an Convention of Iflf'l, it maybe adopted—
though there is a doubt whether “salt pe
tre and sulphur,” which are the mere, ma
terials of war, and not the munitions them
selves, should be placed cn the list of contra
band.
*• section “provides that no port
shall lie. considered as blockaded, unless ac
tually invested with a sufficient force to ren
der the entrance to it dangerous.”
I merelv touch this definition, to make
one remark upon thu ia.e critiques which
have been thrown out by some of the federal
prints against this ar.d similar definitions—
They are so anxious to color over the Bri.
tish pretensions of paper blockade, that they
ridicule any attempt to set bounds to it_
“ What, cries the Boston Cevtinel, is an ac
tual blockade f Is it to be settled according
to the armed neutrality inf 1780. where there
is an imminent danger of entry ? Upon this
rule, what part of France is not now arttt
ally blockaded ? When not one ship in fifty
can get in without speaking an English crui
zer What a poor sophist is this ! A
blockade is instituted with a view of starving
a particular port into submission—all modes
of relief may of course be justifiably excluded.
It is not then because a ship may chance to
tie spoken on any part of a coast, that the
whole of it may be blockaded —but because
a particular port may be actually invested,
to force its surrender", by a competent squa
dron, that the general freedom of trade i - to
be circumscribed in that particular instance.
But though this is really the plain sense of
such a phrase, yet it is curious that t. is
writer should have even mutilated the quo
talion. to prove his point. The treaty of
Armed Neutrality sa\s, “ in order to ascer
tain what constitutes the blockade of any
place or port, it is to be understood to be in
such a predicament, when the assailing pow
er has taken such a station, as to expose to
imminent danger, any ship or ships that
would attempt to sail in or out of the said
ports”—by which it appears, that coasts
cannot be meant, as ships cannot sail in and
out of them, and moreover, that the assail
mg power is to take a station—not to be
roving about and speaking whomsoever it
chance sto meet.
A still clearer definition.than this, occurs
in the Declaration made by the Empress of
Russia to the courts of London, Versailles
a« d Madrid, on the 26th February, 1780:
“ That to determine what is meant by a
“blockaded port, this is only to be utuler
“ stood of one which is so well kept in, by the
“ships of the power that attacks it, and
“which kee/i their ftlaces, that it is danger
“ ous to enter into it ”
“5 The 4th section gives the right of visi
tation and search to the fiublic armed vessels
of any belligerent nation—the 5th forbids it
to “any privateer or other than a national
vessel.” These provisions seem to be copied
from the 4th Article of the Russian Conven
tion of 1801.
So far, therefore, G. B. can have no cause
for dispute—for it is a provision, signed by
her own ministers-we have fears, howe
ver, least this regulation should be too bold an
abandonment of neutral rights—For this, is
one ot those cases, which has given rise to
oneol'the most memorable disputes, on re
cord, respecting the law of nations.
i he world have not forgotten the case of
the Swedish convoy, which excited so much
interest a few years since-One of the
Federal prints of Philadelphia has at least
taken cure to refreshen our memories at this I
time, by publishing the judgment of Sir W.
Scott in that transaction——with the express
view of showing, that we must abandon our
rights, because we should otherwise come
into conflict with the claims of Britain. The
case is briefly this——Capt. Lawford com
manding a small English squadron in the
channel, met with a Swedish merchant fleet,
under convoy of a Swedish frigate——and
dispatched a nie'sengcr on board the frig te
to demand information of the destination 5c
catgo of the fleet. lie was answered, that
it was destined for different parts of the
Mediterranean, and laden with hemp, iron,
pitch and tar. After unavailing remonstran
cesagainst the detention and examination of
his convoy, the captain of the Swedish fri
gate was deterred by the impossibility of
defending himseif against so superior a
force and consented to yield up his convoy
without firing a single gun. When the case
came on for trial before the English Adrni
ralty Court, SirW. Scott decreed the confis.
cation of the vessels and cargoes, on two
grounds——one of which was, that they had
refused in a violent manlier to aujf’er them
actvea to be searched.
This drew forth a masterly reply from J.
F. W. Schlegel, professor of law iutheCni
versity of Copenhagen, who has most airly
supported the principle or the Bcrnstoi ffs.
He denies the right of marching veaaeta
under convoy—— even \ofmblic urn'ed ships.
He admits the right of aenreb, but takes
a most obvious distinction. “All the trea
• ies which speak of visitation at sea, sup
pose that it lias for. its object merchant ves
sels not convoyed ; and among the great)
number of commercial treaties, of which a
few only are unfavorable to the interests of
neutral powers, we shall not find one which
makes mention of tips right, telstively to
vessels escorted by ships of w ar.-Such a
stipulation would be, in fact, absurd. As
there can Ire no question in the visiting, hut
to know whether the merchant vessels have
not transgressed the laws relative to the
commerce of neutrals, and that tho benefit
of convoy is not granted but to those who
are proved arid recognized perfectly regular,
it would acknowledge either its incompe
•mice relatively to it< own subjects, or, what
•votil l Uc more disgraceful still, that it doe*
not merit any confidence in ils public con
duff. Sir W.Scott says, that i is only by vi
siting and searching, that belligerent pot/
AV anted, a pair of American spectacles, for f
a poor purhliiul Politician, to enable him to see 1
the present state of the world and the necessity
exists for measures of precaution,—“ the in- <
formation which rend’, is it necessary or prudent
on the part of the 1/ S. to augment its military
three —thev mist possess n very magnify log pow -
*-i', ijot lhat the objects to be se* n are small, but
i ill t the " Visual orb** is almost extinct : Such
things, ns the iinoressmwnt of 3U00 seamen, the
hrng of a large ship oo nr coart. the murder of
Pierce, the capture of hundreds of vessels, on the
inoHl iniquitous pretexts, having hitherto escaped
its ken.
•Jjr Application to be made to the Hon. T. 1*.
Senate Jhumher, Washington.
'Erratum of the Press—In Mr. Hancock’s last
piece, for •* ] ptir-h .»< d of Mr Ross. :*.l private
sale, his two thirds of the Deep Kun Pitts. the
!’ S 40U0 ’ read, 1 purchased, &c. Sic , at
the p;ice of/,' 40(,0 ”
Married—On the 14:h inst. Mr. Johk
G. Mo's by. of Powhatan County, to Miss
Mary VV. Pleasants of Henrico.
-— i— . .. ... iircj... jil. _
F^IVE DOLLARS REWARD-Strayed
I from my stable, at Malvern Hiils in lower
end of Itemi-o county, a large black HORSE,
all four I. e» \v ;ite, :. laige bh.xe in his toreliead,
with switv.h niane and t.»il. and shod •)■ fore, Sic
_ , JOHN LAWPEXCE.
*>._3tlV__
'■ -O BE RENTED, on Wedi esdav, the. 2Pth
fl day of t‘::s moi th, the residence of the l -te
Jonn Ileviningliam, e»q. with aii tl.e lands ad
joining, lately in his possession, to the highest
bidder, at the tavern of Zacliamh Brooks, in the
town ol Manchester :
The DWELLING HOUSE,
And sundry out houses, are in good repair for the
reception of a family. Such highest bidder mw
enter upon the possession of die prem .*« s, ar.d
continue to possess and cultivate the same until
the .51st day of December next, with th is proviso,
that he shall permit the person who may rent or
possess the same in the year following, to sow
wheaton such part thereof as may be proper, ac
cording to the usual mode of cultivation, and that
lie himself may be allowed to cut such wood from
the woodlands, as may be necessary for fire wood,
fort he use of himself and his family, or for th
itrpairs of fences on the land ; though none muse
b.- cut in waste or carrii d ofi' by him ; and it is
understood, that the tenant for the present year
s.iail pay all public duties and tav^s for the same.
_ , THE TRUSTEES.
February 22. it
® The LIBRARY of the deceased J'.ht*
Hcv mmgliam, will lie bold at the Book Store of
iv in Pi'icu .rd, in Richmond, on Monday n* xt,
at lour o’clock, P. M. by way of auction, for rfea
dy money.
nd. r *bi u«i y
NOTICE—The partnership of John and Fa
ber t Gamble, jr will expire on the first of
Apiilnext. All those ind-bled to said firm aits
rrqu-steil to come forward and setde tiieir ac
counts, as Unger indulgence cannot he given.
Those having claims against the firm, will plei sts
present them for n moot
JOHN G GAMBLE,
ROBERT GAMBLE Jr.
February 20. ep6w
MANCHESTER TURNPIKE COM F ANY
r I ''HE Stockholders are requested to meet at
Brooks's Tavern in Mancnetter, on tin first
Monday in Marth ensuing Special mattns rf
bus ness important to the interest of the Comp my,
require a full meeting and the tarty attendance of
each member on that day
By order of the Directors.
JAMES IIRAXDER, Clk.
Manchefttcr, Eeh, 20 C2d M
{/OK SALE—\ two story WOOD HOUSE,
upon a Cellar Story ot l»ri< k, pleasantly .sit
uated in a retired part of the city of Richmond,
On Snoe.koe Hill There ate six rooms, includ
ing the C< liar*, all of which have lire places. For
terms enquire ol
SAMUEL COLEMAN.
February 20. tf
t* llARl.ES BOSHER with dnr.cio thanks
s for former patronage—respectfully informs
hi* friends and the public, that the Carriage ma
king 8t ITacksm 'h work heretofore carried on by
1. m, will hereafter he conducted under Hie firm
of Ct.a.les and Thomas Boshcr—who hope by in.
dust.y s«nd at ention to business, to merit si ccn
inuar.ee of public favour. Fashionable Giggs,
C .mage*, Single ri< ing Chairs, and all kinds of
Blacksmith w<- k faitnfully executed, at their
shoo, three doors east ot the Bank, on the street
h ading from the mainslreet to tin Capitol.
CHARLES BOSHER.
THOMAS BOSHER.
F«-b. 20 eptf
I a hi ill R m RICHMOND
LIBRAK Y St)CIETY, is to be In'ld at the
U use ol Caspt-r Fieisher, on Monday the 2btli
in*t. .it 12 o', lock.
By order of tin. Preshlert Ri Dhvcto •*.
JOHN I.YnCH, Librarian.
Fch. 5._ 3t
V 1 !.ul<()i'.> I DF SA! /'.—In addition torn*
4 N N« p-r in advert-.** d for s-de by VVm I)j,
•iei, jr. »,n»! Edward Bookur, Irimteea for M essr*.
1)4*11*’*. ceei itors, the subscriber will < Her for
ale, tf next Cumberland Match Court, twenty,
ox Negioes, for e. *h.
GEOKCE PERKINS.
F*. b 20. ^awtiiv*i
erscr.r ratis:y tstrru"’vcs r»je ncui'-ai
Sf *s *"•> ** -t engaged in illegal com mete*.
Allowing thr.% tins may be’ true of ships
nor com • rt/.tiothing thence results relative
ly to those whiuh me under ctrorr. seeing
that the escort is hy its nature a solemn tes
timony given hy the neutral power, to the
legality of the coni me ice in which the ships
hi e engaged, Sec.’*
Tims, there is no doubt of our hnvihp a
speculative right, recognized too bv treaties.
I Ifcr. to refuse visitation even to ships «.f war
it we modify it in this particular instance,
j It is oi.lv from our anxiety to avoid a conflict
wkh Britain-it is an arrangement in the
! spirit of peace. Our government, like that
of Russia, may choose to sf:lit the differ
ence-deny the search to privateer s while
they grant it to vhipsef war. In this case,
however, all those previsions, which gu~rd
I jlie practice from abuse, as. stipulated for
lin the Russian convention, should he en
grafted into our -hill—nt least, as far ns is
practicable. “ In order to avoid all disor
der,” the ships of war shall keep out of can
; not shot, unless the situation of the sea, or
the pica of necessity, render a nearer ap
proach m cessary”-the commander of the
belligerent power is to send hut boat on
hoard the convoy, there to examine the pa
pers, fee. fkc. (
REMOVAL.
Alex'h Ghas. D’Lavicsb,
Resvectfuu. v informs his
numerous customers, that he
has removed fiom his late re
sidence in the Brick Row, to
the house adjoining the Wash
ington Tavern, on the Capitol
Square.