The Kentucky gazette (Lexington [Ky.]), 1795-10-17 00:00:00

KENTUCKY GAZETTE.
[NUMB. V.]
S A T U R D A Y, OCTOBER 17, 1795.
[VOL. IX.]
N o . III.
THE TREATY.
TO THE WELL DISPOSED PEOPLE OF KENTUCKY.
[Concluded from our last.]
AGAIN, it is particularly objected, "That British subjects are allowed to enter our ports and places on the East side of the Mississippi as freely as they do our Atlantic ports. " And why, let me ask, should British subjects be excluded from the ports on the Western waters, any more than they are excluded from the ports on the Eastern waters? For my part I can discern no good reason for the distinction. If this objection had have come particularly from the merchants, I could have accounted for it. But I confess when I hear it made by any other, and those too assuming the name of patriotic politicians, I am at a loss to account for their conduct, except upon one principle. I say, I should not be surprised that the merchant, who always dreads a competition in his business—should object to British merchants coming into our ports, they might upon the same principle object to any other. But that the people at large should object to a competition among merchants, and traders must be accounted for upon principles out of the regular order of things. And the fact wherever it exists must excite in the inquisitive mind, an idea that their passions have been played upon, and their judgments strangely misled. Let any man who was in Kentucky in the year 1782, compare the price of merchandise sold in this country then, with the price of the same things, sold here now; and he will have a pretty just conception of the effects of both a monopoly, and a competition. In 1783, the business of merchandise was in one or two hands; and articles sold from three to perhaps ten times their original prices. At this time the business is in a hundred hands, and the retail price, is but little different here and in the Atlantic states. It will be understood that I do not extend this observation to heavy articles. Suppose then the British merchant uses the privilege which the proposed treaty offers him, will not this tend to increase this competition? Most assuredly it will. But let us see what new right this treaty has conferred on British subjects relative to the Mississippi, that will justify the representations which we have seen of it. It surely cannot be forgotten that the men who are most loud against this article in the present treaty, were at great expence of time, and words, last year to make the people of this country believe that they had the most undoubted right to the navigation of the Mississippi, derived as well from treaty as the great law of nature. What treaty was it they meant? No other than the treaty of 1783, with Great Britain. Even deriving our right to that navigation from Great Britain itself, what does that treaty say? It says in article the 8th, that the navigation of the river Mississippi from its source to the ocean shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain, and the citizens of the United States. And as to that point the proposed treaty declares—that, the river Mississippi shall however according to the treaty of peace be entirely open to both parties. Then as to the right of navigating the river, this treaty is no way different from the former. But there is in this treaty one new idea—and it is that,
upon which the present objection is more particularly founded. It is this—"And it is further agreed, that all the ports and places on its Eastern side to whichsoever of the parties belonging, may freely be resorted to and used by both parties in as ample a manner as any of the Atlantic ports or places of the United States, or any of the ports or places of his majesty in Great Britain." Hence it is observable that the British having the right to navigate this river by the treaty of peace, might as a consequence, anchor in any part of the river, and there being no law yet which prohibited the citizens of the United States from trading with such British navigators, they might have gone on the water to the vessel at anchor, and there exchanged their merchandise. But Oh horrid to tell! the proposed treaty allows the British to come ashore at any port or place, and there to make this exchange. This circumstance is magnified into a circumvallation round the United States—a sacrifice of her commerce; and no less than a colonization of her territory—I mean in the imagination of some people. But what opinion are we to form of those people themselves?
Some have said, that neither France, nor Spain will let the British trade in the Mississippi. But these conjurers have not let us know how they came by their knowledge. If however they be right, the treaty is a mere dead letter—what harm will it do then? Others have suggested that the British would obtain a port from Spain, and that they would engross the trade, as American vessels would not be entitled to enter such port. If it was on the Eastern side of the river, I should entertain no doubt, but that by the treaty, the citizens of the United States would have a right to enter and trade in such port. If it was on the Western side of the river, then by the treaty they would have no such right: consequently no cause of complaint. But even in such case, and were the British to exclude American sea vessels from such port—would it not be better to have a connexion with some commercial nation who would take our commodities from us—than to have no vent for them? It seems to me that it would. And I hesitate not to say that in my judgment it is good policy to interest as many European nations as possible in the trade of that river. The British having a common right with us to navigate this river, and being yet the first and only nation who offers itself, are surely the first to be accepted, and ought not to be rejected. It is probable too in the negotiation, that Spain will yield to the joint efforts of England and the United States, what she will not concede to either separately. And it is equally probable, that if a recurrence to force be necessary to obtain the profitable use of that river, that here again, the joint exertions of the two, would be quite as successful, as the United States alone. How are those joint operations to be produced, but by an union of interests? Spain has not yet agreed that we shall have a port. But what the French have to do with this business is more than I can tell. Are we to make no treaty, without consulting France; without knowing whether she will be pleased or not? I thought we called ourselves citizens of the United States, A FREE AND INDEPENDENT PEOPLE. I had not suspected until lately that we were dependant, even upon that magnanimous people, the French, who to be sure, of all others, I
should choose to be dependent upon. And I cannot submit patiently to that idea yet. For my settled opinion is, that we should be independent of all. And as such faithfully discharge our obligations arising from our treaties, or from our neutral situation to every nation. Yet free to consult our peace, happiness, and prosperity, by new connexions, without regarding the smiles or frowns of any. And if a mind, and conduct can be ascribed to government, this I believe is the line of conduct which the federal government has pursued, and still means to pursue.
Connected with the third article of the treaty, is, I believe, the objection, that Vessels belonging to the Citizens of the United States are not permitted to trade from the sea into the bays, ports or rivers of the British Colonies in America. In answer to this—I think it sufficient to observe at this place, that they are British Colonies, from which we have been always excluded. That the cost the government of Great Britain large sums of money, annually—and that the trade to them, is the principal if not the only means, by which the nation is reimbursed. That our situation, so convenient, would if we were permitted a free trade there, enable us to take the business of supply, out of their hands. Hence we have been, and probably shall be excluded from a maritime commerce with those colonies. This is what Britain has a right to do—and we have no right to complain: It is doing us no injury. Though to admit our sea vessels might be doing us a favor. In opening our ports to Great Britain, we do not consult her interest or convenience, it is our own that guides us. And every nation has a right to grant, or refuse, to other nations, the right of entering their ports. We have no right by our commercial treaty with France to enter the French ports in the east Indies, yet I never heard this complained of as an injury. Nor did I ever hear it insisted that we should have that right, to constitute a reciprocity of commerce. As most things are judged of by comparison, it is well at times to make comparisons. And if our enemies, the English, are as liberal to us, as our friends, the French, I think it should very much abate the rage of abuse against the former, though it should by no means diminish our attachment to the latter.
By way of conclusion to this paper, I beg leave to collect into one view, the general aspect of the third article. Its leading features present an open and free communication of the reciprocal advantages of commerce by means of the interior, between the two parties. In this respect the exclusive, selfish, and hostile system, is displaced by the friendly, liberal, and pleasing one of commerce and of peace. And the more effectually to carry this new order of things into its full operation, the two governments agree that they will mutually promote this amicable intercourse by causing speedy and impartial justice to be done; and necessary protection to be extended to all who may be concerned therein. And if mutual interest can strengthen, it is doubtless superadded to the moral obligation, which the parties have hereby imposed upon themselves for carrying this article into effect. Because the merchants and traders of the two parties respectively, in the territory of the other, will reciprocally be subject to the local laws and jurisdiction, and must depend upon them for protection.
H. MARSHALL.
Sept. 21, 1795.
Jay's treaty requires a second or final ratification, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to give it legal force and efficacy. If it does not require a second ratification, the one which it has received, has suspended all the articles of the treaty except the first ten.
THE first proposition is supported by the style of the ratification itself—it is, "a conditional ratification on the part of the United States." This implies that something further must be done before the treaty can be binding; and that the advice and consent then given to ratify the treaty was upon a condition, to be performed afterwards. As the senate were the constitutional judges of the treaty itself, so must they also be of the condition which ought to be annexed to it, and also of the manner of performing that condition; for there would be the same impropriety in referring it to any other power to determine, whether the condition had been properly complied with, as there would have been in leaving it to that power, to add the condition itself to the treaty. The condition when complied with, was to cause an alteration in the treaty; and the extent of the alteration, must depend on the manner, in which the condition was performed; it might be done in such a way as either to go beyond, or to fall short of, the senate's intention. As then the senate were the sole constitutional judges of the treaty, so far as its ratification depended upon their advice and consent, and as they could not transfer their power of judging of it to any other power, it must follow that, unless the conditional ratification does of itself contain the express terms, of the alteration or addition to be made to the treaty, so that that alteration could neither be added to or abridged, the treaty must again, when the alteration is made, be submitted to them to determine, whether the alteration has been made in conformity to their intentions.
An examination of the consequences of a contrary doctrine, will still further prove the justice of these observations. Suppose the President, in conformity to this advice and consent, should ratify the treaty, on a condition expressed in the same manner with that contained in the act of the senate: the consequence must be either, that our minister at the court of London, or the king of Great Britain, must be left to decide on the proper manner of performing that condition, and therefore the treaty be subject to alteration at the will of one of them: this would be clearly improper, and therefore further arguments would be unnecessary to prove that it would be so. Suppose then that the President himself has annexed to his ratification of the treaty, the manner in which the condition stipulated for by the senate should be performed, this would be an assumption of power on his part, which would be unconstitutional; because as this power is not expressly given to him by the act of the senate, it could not be exercised, but upon a supposition that it was given to him by implication by that act; but if as I have already shown, their act would have been unconstitutional, if it had expressly given him such a power to judge for them, he can never be supposed to be legally vested with that power, by any inference or implication arising from the act: because such inference or implication, can never be extended to

give a greater power, than the senate had a right to convey, if they had used express words for that purpose. As such a power of judging of the manner of performing the condition, if it had been given by the senate to the President, would have been unconstitutional, their act ought not to be construed to give him that power, unless it does so by the most express words: for, "it is a general rule that when the words of any instrument may have a double intendment, and the one standeth with law and right, and the other is wrongful and against law, the intendment which standeth with law shall be taken." If therefore, the senate could not constitutionally have given a final ratification to this treaty, unless they had themselves expressed the manner in which the condition stipulated for by them, was to be fulfilled; if they could not have delegated such power to judge for themselves, to the President; and if he could not constitutionally assume to himself or exercise such power, it will only remain to examine, whether the act of the senate is so expressed, as to define precisely, the manner in which they intended that the condition should be fulfilled; or whether their act is so expressed, as to leave the manner of fulfilling the condition at large, as a proper subject for further discussion and agreement: if the first is the case, there may be some reason to suppose, that the ratification is final and conclusive: but if the last, we cannot hesitate in declaring, that the ratification was conditional only, and that the senate must be again consulted upon the treaty, after the condition shall be said to have been performed. Their act is in these words. "Resolved that the senate do consent to and advise the President of the United States to ratify the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation between his Britannic majesty and the United States of America, concluded at London the 19th November 1794, on condition that there be added to the said treaty, an article whereby it shall be agreed to suspend the operation of so much of the twelfth article, as respects the trade which his said majesty thereby consents may be carried on between the United States and his islands in the West Indies, in the manner and on the terms and conditions therein specified."
And the senate recommend to the President to proceed without delay to further friendly negotiations with his majesty on the subject of the said trade, and of the terms and conditions in question." Now this act of the senate is so far from expressing the precise manner in which the condition they stipulated for should be fulfilled, that the wording of it shews, as fully as words can do, not only the propriety, but the absolute necessity, of the treaty's being again submitted to the consideration of the senate; it declares that, "they do consent to, and advise the President, to ratify the treaty, on condition that there be added to the said treaty an article, &c." Will not this new article when added, be as much a part of the treaty, as any of those which were originally inserted in it? And if none of those articles which were first inserted in the treaty would have had any force, unless they had been approved by the senate; how can the one which is to be added have that force, without such approbation. If it be said that they have given their approbation to this article, by giving their consent to the ratification of the treaty, on the express terms that such an article should be added to it, it may truly be answered, that although their consent is given by that condition, to an article of that nature, yet the consent does not specify the extent of that article, or the manner in which it should be drawn, so as to make it without their further assent, a part of the treaty. The subsequent part of this clause will
fully illustrate this idea; it goes on to say, "Whereby it shall be agreed to suspend the operation of so much of the 12th article as respects the trade, &c." This agreement to suspend the operation of the 12th article is to be a future act, and is to be contained in the new article, which is to be added to the treaty: By whom is this new agreement to be made? Most certainly by the contracting parties, the U. S. and Great Britain. But the federal constitution declares that such agreements shall not be made on the part of the United States, but with the advice and consent of the senate: therefore this new agreement when reduced into a new article, would require their advice and consent, as much as any one contained in any of the old articles. Suppose the senate, instead of being consulted by the President on the treaty after it was made, had, as the constitution seems to require, been consulted by him both as to the propriety of treating, and the terms of the treaty; and had agreed to instructions to be given to Jay to form a treaty with twenty-eight articles, pointing out the subjects to be contained in each article: would their assent to the making of a treaty, and their consent to the subjects which should be contained in the articles of that treaty, have been a sufficient ratification of the treaty, which was afterwards made; or would it have been necessary, for the President to have obtained their consent and advice to the ratification of the treaty, after it was made, notwithstanding their previous assent to the instructions, prior to the treaty? And if their subsequent consent and advice would have been necessary in that case, how does it happen that it will not be necessary in this, where they have only given their approbation to the adding a new article to the treaty, and also pointed out the subject matter of that article? That this act of the senate has only pointed out the subject matter of the new article, without defining or directing, how far it should extend, will be evident from a farther consideration of the act itself, which declares, that it shall be "an article, by which it shall be agreed to suspend the operation of so much of the 12th article as, &c." By this condition stipulated for by the senate, the 12th article is not to be done away entirely, and struck out of the treaty altogether, but its operations are only to be suspended, or put a stop to for a certain time, after which it would have the same efficacy, that it would have had if such suspension had never taken place. But by the treaty as it originally stood, it is declared that, "the twelfth article and every matter and thing therein contained shall continue to be in force during the continuance of the war in which his majesty is now engaged, and also for two years from and after the day of the signature of the articles of peace by which the same may be terminated." For what period then was this article to be suspended, and when was that suspension to commence? The act of the senate is silent as to both, and yet upon those periods being properly settled, the utility of this new article must certainly depend. Who then is to judge of the term of this suspension, the President, our minister at the court of London, or the king of Great Britain? Let who will be the proper judge, the condition is certainly literally complied with, if an article is inserted to suspend the operation of the twelfth article, although it does suspend it for only one hour. The suspension of this article was either essentially necessary to the interest of America, or it was not; if it was not, it ought not to have been made a condition of the ratification of the treaty; if it was, it ought to be suspended in such a manner, and for such a time, as will effectually prevent its pernicious consequences: and the consti-
tution has confided to the senate alone, the power to determine whether the new article shall have suspended it in such a manner, and for such a length of time, as will be sufficient for that purpose; no other power has a constitutional right to judge of this; and the senate could not constitutionally, neither have they attempted, to delegate this power to any other person whatsoever. As therefore this act of the senate has not stipulated for, or expressed the precise and necessary terms of this new article, and as it might easily be so modelled, as to defeat all the purposes, for which the senate insisted upon its being inserted, as the condition upon which alone, they consented to, and advised the President to ratify the treaty, it follows as a necessary consequence that the first proposition is right, when it states that "Jay's treaty requires a second, or final ratification, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to give it legal force and efficacy." If this proposition is a just one, it is surely incumbent on the legislature of this State, to give our senator who voted for the conditional ratification of this treaty, instructions to vote upon all future questions respecting this treaty, in a manner more conformable to the wishes of his constituents, and the true interests of his country.
The truth of the second proposition stated in the beginning of this paper, namely, "that if Jay's treaty does not require a second ratification, the one which it has received has suspended all the articles of the treaty, except the first ten," may be proved by an examination of, and fair deductions made from the contents of the act of the senate, the twelfth and twenty-eighth articles of the treaty. The act of the senate declares that the new article to be added to the treaty shall "suspend the operations of so much of the twelfth article as respects the trade which his said majesty thereby consents may be carried on between the United States and his islands in the West Indies, in the manner and on the terms and conditions therein specified." An examination of the twelfth article will show that it contains nothing but what does respect that trade, except a general agreement, to endeavor at the expiration of the term, during which the twelfth article was to continue in force, to make new regulations respecting that trade; and also to endeavor to agree, in what cases neutral vessels should make neutral property; so that the only things actually stipulated and agreed on by the twelfth article, were those which respect the trade, to be carried on between the United States and the British West India Islands, and therefore the whole of the operative part of the twelfth article would be suspended by the new article, which was to be added to the treaty. The twenty-eighth article is in these words: "It is agreed that the first ten articles of this treaty shall be permanent, and that the subsequent articles except the twelfth, shall be limited in their duration to twelve years, to be computed from the day on which the ratification of this treaty shall be exchanged, but subject to this condition—that whereas the said twelfth article will expire by the limitation therein contained at the end of two years from the signing the preliminary or other articles of peace, which shall terminate the present war in which his majesty is engaged, it is agreed, that proper measures shall by concert be taken for bringing the subject of that article (the trade to the West India Islands) into amicable treaty and discussion, so early before the expiration of the said term as that new arrangements on that head (the trade to the West Indies) may by that time be perfected and ready to take place. But if it should unfortunately happen that his majesty and the United States should not be able to agree
on such new arrangements (respecting the trade to the West India Islands) in that case all the articles of this treaty, except the first ten, shall then cease and expire together." A treaty is a compact of agreement between two contracting parties, and like every other agreement, ought to receive such a construction, as will be most conformable to the real intention of those parties. From the strong and forcible language used in this article, there can be no doubt but that it was the intention of the contracting parties, that none of the articles except the first ten, should operate or be in force for one moment, unless the twelfth article was also in force at the same time; nothing could more emphatically convey this meaning, than the concluding sentence of this article, "but if it should unfortunately happen, that his majesty and the United States should not be able to agree on such new arrangements, in that case all the articles of this treaty, except the first ten, shall then cease and expire together." And although the not being able to agree on new arrangements before the expiration of the twelfth article is the case stated by the twenty-eighth article, yet as it was the manifest intention of the parties, that all the articles subsequent to the tenth, should be in operation at the same time, and that none of them should be suffered to operate without the twelfth, any other mode by which the twelfth ceased to operate, was as much within the intention of the parties, as if it had actually expired; and being equally within their intention, shall be considered as being equally within their agreement, as if it had been so particularly expressed; and therefore when the act of the senate is complied with, and the operation of the twelfth article is suspended, the operation of all the articles subsequent to the tenth must be suspended also; for then according to the true spirit and meaning of the twenty-eighth article, they will cease and expire together. From these observations it follows, that if the ratification, which this treaty has already received, is final, the new article which is to be added, will suspend the operation of all the articles of the treaty, except the first ten.
To form a proper opinion then of this treaty, it should be considered as consisting of the first ten articles only; and when the concessions it contains to Great Britain on the part of America, and the just claims of America on Great Britain, which it has wholly omitted, are compared with the pretended advantages it secures to America; it will be found, that those who have been concerned, in making or ratifying this treaty, have done those things which they ought not to have done, and have omitted to do those things, which they ought to have done; and therefore ought to receive the sentence proper to be passed, on unprofitable, or corrupt servants.
A CITIZEN.
Lexington October 17.
No Mail having arrived down the river last week, we are without any late Foreign intelligence; and a scarcity of paper prevents our giving a Supplement this week, by which sundry Political Pieces and Advertisements are omitted—nor shall we be able to publish a Supplement, until we get a supply of paper, which alone depends on the rising of the water.
IN consequence of a contract made with the Trustees of the Transylvania Seminary for the land in Jefferson county, belonging to the Seminary; we wish to engage a number of families to settle on them, and will either give a lease for a number of years, or on their taking it for a shorter term, will pay them a sum of money for improving. For terms apply to THOMAS HART in Lexington.
Thomas Hart & Co.

Public Notice,
THAT on the 28th March 1783, was located by William Putman for myself 3793 acres of land, for H. Barnes 1373 and a half acres of land, R. Landrum 2001 acres of land, J. Atkins 1678 acres of land, E. Haydon 500 acres of land, S. Woolfolk 2596 acres of land, I. Sevens 276 and a fourth acres of land, I. Embree 261 and a half acres of land, and R. Embree 261 acres of land in the county now in the county of Green, on an branch of Brush creek, at a place called Field's spring, and a tree marked W P in the following bounds—Beginning 100 poles S. 20 E. from said spring and marked tree, thence N. 45 W. 1500 poles, thence N. 45 E. 1500 poles, thence South East 1500 poles, thence S. 45 W. 1500 poles to the beginning. And whereas I have purchased the proportion of the above named claimants in the above boundary, and whereas the testimony respecting the said spring & marked tree, depend on persons now living, in order to perpetuate their testimony, I procured from the county court of Green at their last term, an order appointing commissioners to examine and take the depositions of such persons as I might judge proper, by virtue of an act of the last session of assembly intitled "An act to ascertain the boundaries of land and for other purposes." All whom it may concern are therefore desired to take notice, that on Wednesday the 4th day of November next, I shall attend with the commissioners aforesaid and sundry witnesses at the said spring and marked tree as aforesaid, being the place called for in my said entry, when and where I shall take the depositions of said witnesses in order to establish the same, and do such farther acts therein as shall be necessary and as the said law directs.
Dillard Collins, for John Brockman. October 15, 1795. 112†
NOTICE is hereby given to all who may be interested therein, that on the third Monday in November next, I will, in pursuance of an order of the court of Bourbon county, attend the commissioners appointed by said court at the beginning corner of Meredith Helm's claim of 1125 acres on the dividing ridge between the waters of Hinton's fork and Main Licking, between the Upper and Lower Blue Lick roads, and at the place known as the beginning corner of one of the old Ohio Company's surveys; then and there to take and perpetuate the testimony of certain witnesses relative to said beginning corner.
Joseph Berry.
Kentucky Jct. October Court of Appeals, 1795. John Smith, Plaintiff Against Chapman Austin, &c. Defendants. In Chancery.
THE Defendant Austin not having entered his appearance herein agreeably to a rule of this Court, and it appearing by satisfactory proof to the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this State—on the motion of the Complainant by his Counsel, it is ordered, that the said Defendant do appear here on the twelfth day of next May term and answer the Complainant's bill. And that a copy of this order be published three times in the Kentucky Gazette.
A Copy. Teste Thomas Lodd, C.C.A. (G.N.T.p.)
Wanted to Purchase, A few Hogheads of Good Inspected CROP TOBACCO, For which a generous price will be given. Apply to Seitz & Lauman. September 24.
Public Notice.
THAT on the second day of July 1781, William Payne located by virtue of a land office treasury warrant, one thousand acres of land in Jefferson county, adjoining William Peyton's entry on Elkrum waters of Floyd's fork, to join on the west side of said entry, and on the south to include the Black Haw Grove. That the said Payne's entry was assigned to me, and on the 26th day of October 1792, I caused the said entry to be surveyed according to location, & have obtained a patent therefor, and as the testimony with respect to the said run's being formerly called Elkrum, and now called Chiniwith's run, depends on persons now living—in order to perpetuate their testimony, I obtained from the county of Jefferson, at their October court, an order appointing commissioners to examine and take the depositions of such persons as I might judge proper, by virtue of an act of the last session of Assembly, entitled "An act to ascertain the boundaries of lands and for other purposes." All whom it may concern are therefore requested to
Take Notice,
That on the second day of November next, I will attend with the Commissioners aforesaid and sundry witnesses on the bank of Floyd's fork, at the mouth of the said run, formerly called Elkrum, which is now called Chiniwith's run, in the county of Jefferson, when and where the depositions of the said witnesses will be taken, to establish that the said run was formerly called Elkrum, and shall have done such further acts therein, as may be necessary and as the law directs.
John Mundle.
October 7, 1795. 3w†
TO BE SOLD At PUBLIC VENDUE,
ON the 26th instant at the house of Mrs. Kifer in this town, a number of Cattle,—Consisting of Cows and Calves, and young Cattle.—Six months credit will be allowed, the purchasers giving bond and approved security to JOHN KISER, Admr. Lexington, Oct. 6, 1795. 12w
STOLEN
FROM the mouth of Townsend creek, a dark bay MARE, fourteen hands and a half high, seven years old next spring, branded on the near buttock PS, the P scarcely perceivable, a spot on each fore foot, in front, where the hair joins the hoof, about the size of a copper, has no hair on it; trots and canters compleat. Whosoever apprehends the thief and mare, and brings them to justice, shall have a generous reward by me.
SAMUEL WILSON.
Bourbon County, October 8. 11p
Twenty Dollars reward.
DISAPPEARED from my flock of horses, three miles north of Woodford court house, about the first of April last, three valuable young MARES, neither docked nor branded; two of which are two years old, the one a sorrel the other a bay; the bay has been taken up by Thomas Stevenson, on North Elkhorn, and shortly after she left me, (previously to her being taken up) was bled and branded something like this T's tho' not plain; it is probable the others may be used in the same manner—the sorrel is about fourteen hands and a half high, a star in her forehead, no flesh marks that I recollect, she is well formed—the other is one year old, but small, a fine bay, her legs inclines to the color of her body, no particular marks. (Should they be sold to any person I hope they will come forward and deliver the property, as I mean them not to be loser.) Ten Dollars will be given for any one of them.
Wm. Bowland.
October 13. 4w†
Run away,
On the 27th day of September, from the subscriber living in the forks of Dick's river, Lincoln county,
GULLY;
A NEGRO MAN, nineteen or twenty years old, five feet five or six inches high, had on a blue country cloth coat, a clouded red and white waistcoat, linen overalls, high crowned hat, the top of which had been torn off and sown on again, barefoot, whoever apprehends said negro, and secures him in any jail or brings him home, shall be handsomely rewarded.
Frederick Burditt.
October 14. 2p
TAKEN up by the subscriber, Fayette County, little North Elkhorn, a bay horse about 14 1-2 hands high, six years old, a small star in forehead, paces and trots branded O on the near shoulder, a scar nearly in this form \sim , on the off shoulder; appraised to 17l.
John Shannon.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living on the head of the East branch of Hickman, Fayette County a small bay horse, about four feet six or seven inches high, four years old, a star in his forehead, a snip on his nose, branded on the near shoulder and buttock thus 3 had on a 6f bell branded I. Blare tied on with a rope; appraised to seven pounds.
HEZ. HARRISON.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living on Salt river, about five miles from Thomas Lillard, Franklin County, a bay mare three years old last spring, neither docked nor branded her mane hangs to the left side, is about thirteen hands and a half high appraised to 10l. Sherwood Knight. August 14, 1795.
By virtue of a Power of Attorney Will be Sold to the Highest Bidder,
Before the door of Mr. Weisiger's Tavern in the Town of Frankfort, on Thursday, the 19th day of November next,
That VALUABLE TRACT of LAND,
LYING opposite said town, late the property of Col. Edmund Lyne dec. containing four hundred acres. On the above day and place, will be sold, one thousand acres, lying on Harrod's creek, Jefferson county, patented in the name of William Lyne, devisee of George Lyne dec'd; this land is said to be very valuable. And on the 26th day of the same month will be sold, in like manner, on the premises, that valuable tract whereon col. Edmund Lyne lived, in Bourbon county, containing 400 acres. The sales will be on the above mentioned days, if fair, if not, the next fair day. A credit of twelve months will be given for one half the purchase money, on giving bond and approved security, to carry interest from the date if not punctually paid; the other half to be paid on making the deeds of conveyance.
Wm. Starling.
September 14, 1795.
NOTICE is hereby given to all whom it may concern, that on Friday the 30th day of October next, I shall attend on a branch of Huston, part of Licking waters in Bourbon county about 7 miles from Bourbon town, and near Grant's old station, at the improvement known by the name of James Parberry's, at a spring near to Joshua Owens' on the land, then and there to perpetuate certain testimony respecting the settlement and pre-emption obtained in the name of said parberry, agreeable to an act of Assembly in that case made and provided.
JOHN GRANT.
Sept. 22, 1795.
MESSIEURS
CRITTENDEN & TURPIN, Have just opened a large and general assortment of
MERCHANDISE
At Versailles in Woodford county, WHICH they will sell very cheap for Cash, Salt, Country linen and Sugar.
Woodford court house, } Sept. 23, 1795. 3w
PULVERISED BARKS,
TO BE SOLD
By the Subscriber.
Andrew M'Calla.
Lexington, October 2.
ALL persons who have had dealings with the subscriber on account of ELLIOT & WILLIAMS & Co. are requested to come forward and settle the same without delay.
GEORGE WILSON.
Sept. 24, 1795. 3w
Taken up by the subscriber, in Fayette county, on the East fork of Hickman, near Calloway's horse mill, a bay horse, 14 hands two inches high, 9 years old, branded on the near shoulder \approx has a star in the face his off hind foot white, shod before; appraised to 11l. Frederick Zimmerman. Aug. 3, 1795. †
NEW WHOLESALE
London, Birmingham, and Sheffield
WARE-HOUSE,
CALVERT STREET, BALTIMORE, 15th of August, 1795.
John Graham & Co.
BEG leave to inform the Store Keepers in general, that they have opened a
Wholesale Hard Ware and Iron Mongery Store, In this place.
And as they are determined to be constantly supplied with every article in their line, Country Merchants will find it their interest in dealing with them.
They have on hand a large quantity of all kinds of
Nails, Pewter and Tin.
THOMAS HART & SON, Have Just Received, and are now opening, An EXTENSIVE and GENERAL Assortment of
MERCHANDIZE,
Which they will sell LOW by Whole Sale or Retail.
They have also a large assortment of
Bouling Cloths & Copper,
Which they will sell at a more reduced price than they have ever been sold at in this country.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, in Woodford county, on Craig's creek; a sorrel horse colt, fifteen months old, 13 hands high, snip on his nose, left hind foot white, branded on the near shoulder and buttock with a stirrup-iron, appraised to 3l. Richard Hainds. March 3, 1795. †
ALL persons indebted to the estate of Christopher Kifer deceased, are requested to pay their respective balances before the first of November, or their accounts will be put in the hands of the proper officer to collect, without discrimination.
JOHN KISER, Admr.
October 9, 1795.

S 1 R,
IN answer to your address to us in Mr. Bradford's paper, we assert, That you were guilty of perjury, in your answer to the bill filed against you in the late Supreme Court for the district of Kentucky, by James Wilkinson. We do not consider this as a proper subject for a News-Paper discussion; but if you will commence an action against us for having made this declaration, we will plead justification, and leave the truth of the charge to be decided on by a Jury of our Fellow Citizens.
GEORGE MUTER, BEN: SEBASTIAN. October 12, 1795. To Mr. Humphrey Marshall.
Four Dollars Reward, For apprehending and delivering
D A V I D To me, if taken within the state, or Ten if without. He is a likely black fellow, near six feet high, remarkable large feet, his legs inclines forward, and stands near the middle of his feet, appears to hobble as he walks, about twenty-seven years of age.
John Gibson sen. North Elkhorn, Scott county. ||rt
Two Dollars Reward,
WILL be paid by the subscriber, for apprehending my apprentice, ROBERT JOHNSON by name, about five feet eight inches high, round shouldered, sandy hair, had on when he went away, a short blue jacket, linen overalls, barefoot, an old hat with a patch on the top of the crown. —I believe he is lurking about Georgetown. Whosoever secures the said apprentice in any jail, shall have the above reward, paid by me.
SAMUEL COOPER. Town Fork, near Lexington. N. B. I do hereby forewarn all persons from employing or harboring said apprentice, as I intend to take the regular step of law for that purpose. September 1.
L O S T, In LEXINGTON, on the evening of the 13th instant,
A B O N D, Given by Thomas Bell to me, for the sum of 81. payable on demand. Mr. Bell is hereby requested not to take up said bond.
Leonard Claiborne. October 14. ||rw
Thirty Dollars Reward.
STOLEN from the subscriber, living near Harrod's station in Mercer county, a sorrel HORSE about fifteen hands high, 4 years old last spring, trots, lofty carriage, branded on the near shoulder S, on the near buttock S B and the ribs with a horse-shoe; said horse has a star and snip.—Also, a bright bay MARE eight years old, fourteen hands and a half high, blaze face, one hind foot white, her near fore foot turns in, branded on the near jaw, shoulder and buttock A. The mare was taken out of the field and the horse in the woods on the night of the 27th September last. Any person taking and securing said horses and thief, so that I get the horses, and the thief brought to justice, shall receive the above reward, or twelve dollars for the horses only, and reasonable charges if brought home to.
SAMUEL BANTA. October 2, 1795. ||3t
TAKEN up by the subscriber, on the waters of North Elkhorn, Scott county, a bay HORSE, about five years old, branded on the near shoulder the resemblance of D, a small star in the forehead, the near fore foot crooked, with a shoe on it; appraised to 151.
James White. May 8. ||
WHEREAS about the fifteenth of this instant, there was brought to the plantation of the subscriber by Thomas Armstrong, a two year old sorrel Stud Colt, (supposed to be stolen,) he is neither docked nor branded, has a gray spot on his near buttock, his near hind foot white, fresh shod before, a natural trotter. The owner is desired to come forward, pay charges and take him away, from the subscriber's plantation, within two miles of Stone lick, Mason county.
Benjamin Wood. Sept. 23. ||3t
I EXECUTED a deed sometime past to a — M'Kee of Mercer county; for 400 acres of land lying on the waters of North Elkhorn, Scott county, and as the said deed was fraudulently obtained, and as it has run out of date before admitted to record; all persons are cautioned against purchasing said land of said M'Kee.
Samuel M'Millin. Oct. 9. 2w||
I HEREBY forewarn all persons from crediting my wife MARY ALLCORN, as I am determined not to pay any debts of her contracting after this date.
ROBERT ALLCORN. October 6. 1w||
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living on the Ohio, about six miles below the mouth of Licking, Campbell county, a red roan MARE, thirteen hands three inches high, seven or eight years old, a small star in her forehead; appraised to 121.
Henry Anderson. July 8. ||
TAKEN up by the subscriber, in Campbell county, on Bank Lick, a bay MARE, fourteen hands high, a small star in her forehead, near fore foot white, 4 years old; appraised to 101. 10s.
Obediah Scott. August 15. ||
TAKEN up by the subscriber on the waters of North Elkhorn, Scott county, a dark bay MARE, about seven years old, a white spot on the near flank, & fore leg, no brand; appraised to 151.
John Hunt. May 8. ||
Taken up by the subscriber in the county of Clarke, at the mouth of Station-camp creek, a sorrel mare, appears to be very old, branded on the near shoulder thus O G, a narrow crooked blaze, about 14 hands high, some saddle spots, appraised to 91. 10s.
Also, a dark bay horse, 6 or 7 years old, upwards of 15 hands high, branded on the near shoulder thus R, a dark spot on the off buttock, a star in the forehead has on a 4s. bell, his near hind foot white, appraised to 201.
A copy teste D. BULLOCK, C. C. C. Aug. 29, 1795. †
To whom it may concern.
NOTICE is hereby given, that on Thursday the 19th day of November next (by order of Harrison court) we shall meet at Hugh Bell's in order to proceed according to a law of Kentucky, to take the depositions of sundry witnesses to identify and perpetuate testimony to the calls and beginning of a 2000 acre entry made in the name of James Blane the fifteenth of May 1780, on the North-East of the South fork of Licking.
J. BLANE. LUCAS SULLEVANT. Oct. 9. 1795. †
Taken up by the subscriber living in Campbell county, near the forks of Licking, a brown filley, 3 years old, 14 and a half hands high, neither docked nor branded perceivable, appraised to 121.
Mary Bryan July 27. †
NOTICE. THE Sheriffs, Collectors and Clerks of the several counties within this commonwealth, are desired to come forward early in November, and settle for the sums respectively due, for the Revenue tax for the year 1794. All those who have not obtained a Quietus for the preceding years must not expect any further indulgence.
WM. M'DOWELL, A. P. A. Frankfort, Sept. 28, 1795.
The Subscriber Intending to start for Philadelphia in November next,
REQUESTS those who are indebted to him will make payment (to Mr. Samuel Downing, who is authorized to receive the same) prior to that time. All those who fail in complying with this, may depend on their accounts being handed to a proper officer.
John Crozier. 25th Sept.
LEXINGTON RACES.
A Subscription Purse,
WILL be run for over the course at this place, the second Thursday in November next, free for any horse, mare or gelding, carrying weight for age, the four mile heats. Aged horses carrying ten stone—six years old nine stone—five years, eight stone—four years, seven stone—& three years old a feather.
On Friday will be run for over the same ground the three mile heats,
A Subscription Purse,
Free for any horse, mare or gelding, carrying weight for age as above.
And on Saturday the day following will be run for, over the same ground, the two mile heats,
The Entrance Money
Of the three days, free for none but three years old—the winning horse the two preceding days excepted.
Three horses to start or no race. The entrance money the first day two guineas, and so in proportion the two following days. Horses to be entered with Mr. Samuel Jameson, the day before the race or paydouble entrance at the pole. Proper judges will be appointed to determine any disputes that may arise.
October 3. Notice.
WHEREAS the Court of Scott county, on my application, have appointed commissioners to attend me at a lick in M'Connel's run, being the beginning of the following entry, (to wit) 'Alfred Williams enters fifty acres assignee of John Conner, on a north branch of the north fork of Elkhorn, the fifth big fork, below Bryan's station about 25 miles, at a lick in the creek, entered April the 28th 1780. Now to all concerned, I hereby give notice, that the said commissioners will attend at the said lick, to take the depositions of witnesses to prove the said beginning on the 20th day of October, by virtue of an act of Assembly entitled "An act to ascertain the boundaries of land."
James Taylor. Newport, 15th of September 1795.
Taken up by the subscriber living in Harrison county, on Twin creek, a dark brown horse, a star and snip down his forehead with a number of grey hairs under his chin, appears to be very old, three shoes on, both hind feet white some saddle spots, no brand perceivable, switch tail, has a white streak on each side of his wethers supposed to be occasioned by a collar, appraised to 71.
Adam Hows. Feb. 3, 1795. †
A list of letters now remaining in the Post-office at Lexington and if not taken out within three months, will return to the General Post-office as dead letters. October 1, 1795.
B. Joseph Beatty, North Elkhorn, 3. Joshua Brown Lexington, 2. Ignatius Byrn Lexington. Messrs. Bell & Allen, Lexington. William Barnhill, Lexington.
C. Thomas Collins, Lexington 2. Moses Cherry Lexington 2. Robert Clarke, Clarke county 2.
D. John Day Lexington. John Dyer, 12 miles from Lexington. Hugh Docherty, Licking. Moses Dougherty, Lexington. William Dunkin, Lexington.
E. William Ellison, Fayette county. George Edelen, near Lexington.
H. Richard Henderson, att'y, George-town. David Huston, George-town. Robinson Howell, Lexington. Moses Hough Kentucky. William Hanson.
J. Robert Johnson, Bourbon. Thomas Johnson near Lexington 2.
L. John Lytle. Samuel Lowry, Kentucky.
M. John M'Guire Lexington. Richard Masterfon Fayette county. Thomas D. Miller near Lexington. George Mansfield Lexington. William M'Murland, the care of John Moore. Mark M'Causland, Kentucky. George M'Clelland. Chas. Mayerback Lexington. Lawson M'Cullough, Lexington.
N. John Nailer Lexington.
O. Thomas Owen, at messrs A. & J. W. Hunt's. Pat. O'Linn Madison county.
P. Roger Patton on Hickman. James Patton near Strode's. Richard Pugh.
S. Richard Stephens Kentucky. John Scott George-town. Joseph Sebring Lexington. Robt. Stubbs George-town. William Scott care of John Nelson George-town. William Shepherd Lexington. Thos. Steele Fayette. Benjamin Stevenson Woodford.
T. Jacob Trumbo Bourbon.
W. James Woods, care of Geo. Wilson 3. Barnabas Wing 2. Sanders Walker near Lexington. Major Whitney Kentucky. John Williams, care of W. Taylor.
INNIS B. BRENT, P. M.
TO BE SOLD
At PUBLIC AUCTION,
ON Thursday the 12th day of next month, at Myers' station, about 5 miles from Danville, —about 1200 acres of Land, adjoining said station, and will be laid off in suitable lots between 200 and 400 acres in each, and sold separate. Twelve months credit on giving bond on interest with approved security.—Cash paid on the day of sale I will allow 5 per cent. deducted. A title of general warranty for the same will be given by me.
WALTER BEALL. October 2, 1795.
NOTICE,
To all the good people of this place as well as those who may frequent the same,
THAT I have the pleasure of informing them of opening a BAKE-SHOP in the house of Mr. Benj. S. Cox, near the corner of Main and Cross streets, formerly occupied by Isaac Ware, where they may be supplied with BREAD, CAKES and BEER, as well as BISCUITS for travellers, at the shortest notice, equal to any in this state, by their most obedient humble servant.
GEO. A. WEAVER. Lexington, Oct. 5, 1795.
Taken up by the subscriber in Scott county, about 4 miles from George-Town, a bay mare 5 feet high, 12 years old, no brand perceivable, appraised to 121.
John Troxel. June 1, 1795. †
LEXINGTON:
PRINTED BY JOHN BRADFORD, ON MAIN STREET.