The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1801-08-17 00:00:00

The National Intelligencer, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. I. WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, NEW-JERSEY AVENUE, NEAR THE CAPITOL. No. CXXIV.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, AUGUST 17th, 1801.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
On Tuesday last Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the following opinion of the Supreme Court of the U. States, in the case of
SILAS TALBOT, Captain of the United States Ship of War the Constitution,
VERSUS
HANS FREDERIC SEAMAN, claimant of the Ship Amelia, her tackle, apparel and furniture.
THIS is a writ of error to a decree of the circuit court for the district of New-York, by which the decree of the district court of that state, restoring the ship Amelia to her owners on the payment of one half for salvage, was reversed, and a decree rendered, directing the restoration of the vessel without salvage.
The facts agreed by the parties, and the pleadings in the cause, present the following case:
[The state of the case is concisely this: The ship Amelia sailed from Calcutta in Bengal, in April, 1799, loaded with a cargo of the product and manufacture of that country, and was bound to Hamburg. On the 6th September she was captured by the French national corvette La Diligente, commanded by L. J. Dubois, who took out the captain, part of the crew, and most of the papers of the Amelia, and putting a prize-master and French sailors on board her, ordered her to St. Domingo, to be judged according to the laws of war. On the 15th of September, she was re-captured by Captain Talbot, commander of the Constitution, who ordered her into New-York for adjudication.]
At the time of the re capture, the Amelia had eight iron cannon, and eight wooden guns, with which the left Calcutta. From the ship's papers, and other testimony, it appeared, that she was the property of Chapeau Rouge, a citizen and merchant of Hamburg; and it was conceded by the counsel below, that France and Hamburg were not in a state of hostility with each other, and that Hamburg was to be considered as neutral between the present belligerent powers.
The district court of New-York, before whom the cause first came, decreed one half of the gross amount of the ship and cargo as salvage to the re-captors. The circuit court of New-York reversed this decree, from which reversal, the re-captors appealed to this court.
Mr. Bayard and Mr. Ingersoll, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Dallas, Mr. Levy, and Mr. Malon, for the defendants.] The Amelia was libelled as a French vessel, and the libellant prays that she may be condemned as prize; or, if restored to any person entitled to her as the former owner, that such restoration should be made on paying salvage. The claim and answer of Hans Frederick Seaman, discloses the neutral character of the vessel, and claims her on behalf of the owners.
The questions growing out of these facts, and to be decided by the court, are—
1st. Is Capt. Talbot, the plaintiff in error, entitled to any, and if to any, to what salvage in the case which has been stated?
Salvage is a compensation for actual service rendered to the property charged with it.
It is demandable of right for vessels saved from pirates, or from the enemy.
In order, however, to support the demand, two circumstances must concur.
1st. The taking must be lawful. 2d. There must be a meritorious service rendered to the re-captured.
1st. The taking must be lawful—for no claim can be maintained in a court of justice, founded on an act in itself tortious. On a re-capture, therefore, made by a neutral power, no claim for salvage can arise, because the act of retaking is a hostile act, not justified by the situation of the nation to which the vessel making the recapture belongs, in relation to that from the possession of which such re-captured vessel was taken. The degree of service rendered the rescued vessel is precisely the same as if it had been rendered by a belligerent;
yet the rights accruing to the re-captor are not the same, because no right can accrue from an act in itself unlawful.
In order then to decide on the rights of Capt. Talbot, it becomes necessary to examine the relative situation of the United States and France at the date of the re-capture.
The whole powers of war being, by the constitution of the United States, vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this enquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorise general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation; or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed.
To determine then the real situation of America in regard to France, the acts of Congress are to be inspected.
The first act on this subject passed on the 28th of May, 1798, and is entitled "An act more effectually to protect the commerce and coasts of the United States."
This act authorises any armed vessel of the United States to capture any armed vessel sailing under the authority, or pretence of authority, of the republic of France, which shall have committed depredations on vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States, or which shall be found hovering on the coasts for the purpose of committing such depredations. It also authorises the re-capture of vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States.
On the 25th of June, 1798, an act was passed "to authorise the defence of the merchant vessels of the United States against French depredations."
This act empowers merchant vessels, owned wholly by citizens of the United States, to defend themselves against any attack which may be made on them by the commander or crew of any armed vessel sailing under French colours, or acting, or pretending to act, by or under the authority of the French republic; and to capture any such vessel. This act also authorises the re-capture of merchant vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States. By the 2d section, such armed vessel is to be brought in and condemned for the use of the owners and captors.
By the same section, re-captured vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States, are to be restored, they paying for salvage not less than one eighth, nor more than one half, of the true value of such vessel and cargo.
On the 28th of June, an act passed "in addition to the act more effectually to protect the commerce and coasts of the United States."
This authorises the condemnation of vessels brought in under the first act, with their cargoes, excepting only from such condemnation the goods of any citizen or person resident within the United States, which shall have been before taken by the crew of such captured vessel.
The second section provides, that whenever any vessel or goods, the property of any citizen of the United States, or person resident therein, shall be re-captured, the same shall be restored, he paying for salvage one eighth part of the value, free from all deductions.
On the 9th of July another law was enacted, "further to protect the commerce of the United States."
This act authorises the public armed vessels of the United States to take any armed French vessel found on the high seas. It also directs such armed vessel, with her apparel, guns, &c. and the goods and effects found on board, being French property, to be condemned as forfeited.
The same power of capture is extended to private armed vessels.
The 6th section provides, that the vessel, or goods of any citizen of the United States, or person residing therein, shall be restored, on paying for salvage not less than one eighth, nor more than one half, of the value of such re-capture, without any deduction.
The 7th section of the act for the government of the navy, passed the 2d of
March, 1799, enacts—"That for the ships or goods belonging to the citizens of the United States, or to the citizens or subjects of any nation in amity with the United States, if retaken from the enemy within twenty-four hours, the owners are to allow one eighth part of the whole value for salvage," and if they have remained above ninety-six hours in possession of the enemy, one half is to be allowed.
On the 3d of March 1800, Congress passed "an act providing for salvage in cases of re-capture."
This law regulates the salvage to be paid "when any vessel or goods, which shall be taken as prize as aforesaid, shall appear to have before belonged to any person or persons permanently resident within the territory and under the protection of any foreign prince, government or state, in amity with the United States, and to have been taken by an enemy of the United States, or by authority, or pretence of authority, from any prince, government or state, against which the United States have authorised, or shall authorise defence or reprisals."
These are the laws of the United States which define their situation in regard to France, and which regulate salvage to accrue on re-captures made in consequence of that situation.
A neutral armed vessel which has been captured, and which is commanded and manned by Frenchmen, whether found cruising on the high seas, or sailing directly for a French port, does not come within the description of those which the laws authorise an American ship of war to capture, unless she be considered quo ad hoc as a French vessel.
Very little doubt can be entertained but that a vessel thus circumstanced, encountering an American unarmed merchantman, or one which should be armed, but of inferior force, would as readily capture such merchantman as if she had failed immediately from the ports of France. One direct and declared object of the war then, which was the protection of the American commerce, would as certainly require the capture of such a vessel, as of others more determinately specified. But the rights of a neutral, which the government of the United States cannot be considered as having disregarded, here intervene; and the vessel certainly is not, correctly speaking, a French vessel.
If the Amelia was not, on the 15th of September 1799, a French vessel within the description of the act of Congress, could her capture be lawful?
It is, I believe, a universal principle, which applies to those engaged in a partial, as well as those engaged in a general war, that where there is probable cause to believe the vessel met with at sea, is in the condition of one liable to capture, it is lawful to take her, and subject her to the examination and adjudication of the courts.
The Amelia was an armed vessel commanded and manned by Frenchmen. It does not appear that there was evidence on board to ascertain her character. It is not then to be questioned, nor have the claimants questioned, but that there was probable cause to bring her in for adjudication.
The recapture then was lawful. But it has been insisted that this re-capture was only lawful in consequence of the doubtful character of the Amelia, and that no right of salvage can accrue from an act which was founded in mistake, and which is only justified by the difficulty of avoiding error, arising from the doubtful circumstances of the case.
The opinion of the court is, that had the character of the Amelia been completely ascertained by Capt. Talbot, yet as she was an armed vessel under French authority, and in a condition to annoy the American commerce, it was his duty to render her incapable of mischief. To have taken out the arms or the crew, was as little authorised by the construction of the acts of Congress contended for by the claimants, as to have taken possession of the vessel herself.
It has, I believe, been practised in the course of the present war, and, if not, is certainly very practicable, to man a prize
and cruise with her for a considerable time without sending her in for condemnation. The property of such vessel would not, strictly speaking be changed, so as become a French vessel, and yet it would probably have been a great departure from the real intent of Congress, to have permitted such vessel to cruise unmolested. An armed ship under these circumstances might have attacked one of the public vessels of the United States. The acts which have been recited expressly authorise the capture of such vessel so commencing hostilities, by a private armed ship, but not by one belonging to the public. To suppose that a capture would in the one case be lawful, and in the other unlawful; or to suppose that even in the limited state of hostilities in which we were placed, two vessels armed and manned by the enemy, and equally cruising on American commerce, might the one be lawfully captured, while the other, though an actual assailant, could not; or if captured that the act could only be justified from the probable cause of capture furnished by appearances; would be to attribute a capriciousness to our legislation on the subject of war, which can only be proper when inevitable.
There must then be incidents growing out of those acts of hostility specifically authorised, which a fair construction of the acts will authorise likewise.
This was obviously the sense of Congress.
If by the laws of Congress on this subject, that body shall appear to have legislated upon a perfect conviction that the state of war in which this country was placed, was such as to authorise re-captures generally from the enemy; if one part of the system shall be manifestly founded on this construction of the other part, it would have considerable weight in rendering certain what might before have been doubtful.
Upon a critical investigation of the acts of Congress it will appear, that the right of re-capture is expressly given in no single instance, but that of a vessel or goods belonging to a citizen of the United States.
It will also appear that the quantum of salvage is regulated, as if the right to it existed previous to the regulation.
Although no right of re-capture is given in terms for the vessels and goods belonging to persons residing within the United States not being citizens, yet an act, passed so early as the 28th of June 1798, declares, that vessels and goods of this description, when re-captured, shall be restored on paying salvage; thereby plainly indicating that such re-capture was sufficiently warranted by law to be the foundation of a claim for salvage.
If the recapture of vessels of one description, not expressly authorised by the very terms of the act of Congress, be yet a rightful act, recognised by Congress as the foundation for a claim to salvage, which claim Congress proceeds to regulate; then it would seem that other recaptures from the same enemy are equally rightful; and where the claim they afford for salvage has not been regulated by Congress, such claim must be determined by the principles of general law.
In this situation remained the re-captured vessels of any other power also at war with France, until the act of the 2d of March 1799, which regulates the salvage demandable from them. Neither by that act, nor by any previous act, was a power given in terms, to re-capture such vessels. But their re-capture was an incident which unavoidably grew out of the state of the war. On the capture of a French vessel, having with her as a prize, the vessel of such a power, the prize was inevitably re-captured. On the idea that the recapture was lawful and that it was a foundation on which the right to salvage could stand, the legislature in March '99 declare what the amount of that salvage should be.
The expression of this act is by no means explicit. If it extends to neutrals then it governs this case: if otherwise, the law respecting them continued still longer on the same ground with the law respecting a belligerent, prior to the passage of the act of the 2d of March 1799. Thus it continued until the 3d of March 1800,

when the legislature regulated the salvage to be paid by neutrals, re-captured from a power against which the United States had authorised defence or reprisals.
This act having passed subsequent to the recapture of the Amelia, can certainly not affect that case as to the quantity of salvage, or give a right to salvage which did not exist before. But it manifests in like manner with the laws already commented on, the system which Congress considered itself as having established. This act was passed at a time when no additional hostility against France could have been contemplated. It was only designed to keep up the defensive system which had before been formed, and which it was deemed necessary to continue, till the negotiation then pending should have a pacific termination. Accordingly there is no expression in the act extending the power of recapture, or giving it in the case of neutrals. This power is supposed to exist as an incident growing out of the state of war, and the right to salvage produced by that power is regulated in the act.
In case of a recapture subsequent to the act, no doubt could be entertained, but that salvage, according to its terms, would be demandable. Yet there is not a syllable in it which would warrant an idea that the right of recapture was extended by it, or did not exist before.
It must then have existed from the passage of the laws, which commenced our general resistance to the aggressions we had so long experienced and submitted to.
It is not unworthy of notice that the first regulation of the right of salvage in the case of a recapture, not expressly enumerated among the specified acts of hostility warranted by the law, is to be found in one of those acts which constitute a part of the very system of defence determined on by Congress, and is the first which subjects to condemnation the prizes made by our public ships of war.
It has not escaped the consideration of the court that a legislative act, founded on a mistaken opinion of what was law, does not change the actual state of the law as to pre-existing cases.
This principle is not shaken by the opinion now given. The court goes no further than to use the provisions in one of several acts forming a general system, as explanatory of other parts of the same system; and this appears to be in obedience to the best-established rules of exposition, and to be necessary to a sound construction of the law.
An objection was made to the claim of salvage by one of the counsel for the defendant in error, unconnected with the acts of Congress, and which it is proper here to notice.
He states that to give title to salvage the means used must not only have produced the benefit, but must have been used with that sole view. For this he cites Beawes lex mercatoria 158.
The principle is applied by Beawes to the single case of a vessel saved at sea by throwing overboard a part of her cargo. In that case the principle is unquestionably correct, and in the case of a recapture it is as unquestionably incorrect. The recaptor is seldom actuated by the sole view of saving the vessel, and in no case of the sort has the enquiry ever been made.
It is then the opinion of the court on a consideration of the acts of Congress, and of the circumstances of the case; that the recapture of the Amelia was lawful, and that, if the claim to salvage be in other respects well founded, there is nothing to defeat it in the character of the original taking.
It becomes then necessary to enquire, 2d. Whether there has been such a meritorious service rendered the recaptured as intitles the recaptor to salvage.
The Amelia was a neutral ship, captured by a French cruiser, and recaptured while on her way to a French port, to be adjudged according to the laws of war.
It is stated to be the settled doctrine of the law of nations that a neutral vessel captured by a belligerent is to be discharged without paying salvage; and for this several authorities have been quoted, and many more might certainly be cited. That such has been a general rule is not to be questioned. As little is it to be questioned that this rule is founded exclusively on the supposed safety of the neutral. It is expressly stated in the case of the Was Onskau , cited from Robinson's reports, to be founded on this plain principle, "that the liberation of a clear neutral from the hand of the enemy, is no essential service rendered to him, inasmuch as that same enemy would be compelled by the tribunals of his own country, after he had carried the neutral into port, to release him with costs and damages for the injurious seizure and detention." It is not unfrequent to consider and speak of a
regular practice under a rule, as itself forming a rule. A regular course of decisions on the text of the law, constitute rules of construction by which that text is to be applied to all similar cases: But alter the text and the rules no longer govern. So in the case of salvages. The general principle is, that salvage is only payable where a meritorious service has been rendered. In the application of this principle, it has been decided that neutrals carried in by a belligerent for examination, being in no danger, receive no benefit from recapture, and ought not therefore to pay salvage.
The principle is that without benefit, salvage is not payable: and it is merely a consequence from this principle, which exempts re-captured neutrals from its payment. But let a nation change its laws and its practice on this subject; let its legislation be such as to subject to condemnation all neutrals captured by its cruisers, and who will say that no benefit is conferred by a recapture? In such a course of things the state of the neutral is completely changed. So far from being safe he is in as much danger of condemnation as if captured by his own declared enemy. A series of decisions then, and of rules founded on his supposed safety, no longer apply. Only those rules are applicable, which regulate a situation of actual danger. This is not, as it has been termed, a change of principle, but a preservation of principle, by a practical application of it according to the original substantial good sense of the rule.
It becomes then necessary to enquire whether the laws of France were such as to have rendered the condemnation of the Amelia so extremely probable, as to create a case of such real danger, that her recapture by Capt. Talbot must be considered as a meritorious service entitling him to salvage.
To prove this the counsel for the plaintiff in error has offered several decrees of the French government, and especially one of the 18th of January 1798.
Objections have been made to the reading of these decrees as being the laws of a foreign nation, and therefore facts, which, like other facts, ought to have been proved, and to have formed a part of the case stated for the consideration of the court.
That the laws of a foreign nation designed only for the direction of its own affairs, are not to be noticed by the courts of other countries unless proved as facts, and that this court, with respect to facts, is limited to the statement made in the court below, can not be questioned. The real and only question is whether the public laws of a foreign nation, on a subject of common concern to all nations, promulgated by the governing powers of a country, can be noticed as law by a court of admiralty of that country, or must be still further proved as a fact.
The negative of this proposition has not been maintained in any of the authorities which have been adduced. On the contrary several have been quoted, (and such seems to have been the general practice) in which the marine ordinances of a foreign nation are read as law without being proved as facts. It has been said that this is done by consent: that it is a matter of general convenience not to put parties to the trouble and expence of proving permanent and well known laws, which it is in their power to prove; and this opinion is countenanced by the case cited from Douglas. If it be correct, yet this decree having been promulgated in the United States as the law of France, by the joint act of that department which is entrusted with foreign intercourse, and of that which is invested with the powers of war, seems to assume a character of notoriety which renders it admissible in our court.
It is therefore the opinion of the court that the decree should be read as an authenticated copy of a public law of France interesting to all nations.
The decree ordains— [The first article ought to be inserted here.]
This decree subjects to condemnation in the courts of France, a neutral vessel, laden in whole or in part, with articles the growth of England, or any of its possessions. A neutral thus circumstanced, cannot be considered as in a state of safety. His recaptor cannot be said to have rendered him no service. It cannot reasonably be contended that he would have been discharged in the ports of the belligerent, with costs and damages.
Let us then enquire, whether this was the situation of the Amelia. The first fact states her to have failed from Calcutta in Bengal, in April, 1799, laden with a cargo of the product and manufacture of that country. Here it is contended that the whole of Bengal may possibly not be in possession of the English, and therefore it does not appear that the cargo was within
the description of the decree. But to this it has been answered, that in enquiring whether the Amelia was in danger or not, this court must put itself in the place of a French court of admiralty, and determine as such court would have determined. Doing this, there seems to be no reason to doubt that the cargo, without enquiring into the precise situation of the British power in every part of Bengal, being a product of the product and manufacture of a possession of England, would have been so considered, unless the contrary could have been plainly shewn.
The next fact relied on by the defendant in error is, that the Amelia was sent to be adjudged according to the laws of war, and from thence it is inferred that she could not have been judged according to the decree of the 18th of January.
It is to be remembered, that these are the orders of the captor, and without a question in the language of a French cruiser, a law of his own country, furnishing a rule of conduct in time of war, will be spoken of as one of the laws of war.
But the 3d and 4th facts in the statement admit the Amelia, with her cargo, to have belonged to a citizen of Hamburg, which city was not in a state of hostility with the republic of France, but was to be considered as neutral between the then belligerent powers.
It has been contended that these facts not only do not show the re-captured vessel to have been one on which the decree could operate, but positively show that the decree could not have affected her.
The whole statement taken together, amounts to nothing more than that Hamburg was a neutral city—and it is precisely against neutrals that the decree is in terms directed. To prove, therefore, that the Amelia was a neutral vessel, is to prove her within the very words of the decree, and consequently to establish the reality of her danger.
Among the very elaborate arguments which have been used in this case, there were some which the court deem it proper to notice.
It has been contended that this decree might have been merely in terrorem; that it might never have been executed; and that, being in opposition to the law of nations, the court ought to presume it never would have been executed.
But the court cannot presume the laws of any country to have been enacted in terrorem, nor that they will be disregarded by its judicial authority. Their obligation on their own courts must be considered as complete; and, without resorting either to public notoriety, or the declarations of our own laws on the subject, the decisions of the French courts must be admitted to have conformed to the rules prescribed by their government.
It has been contended that France is an independent nation, entitled to the benefits of the law of nations, and further, that if she has violated them, we ought not to violate them also, but ought to remonstrate against such misconduct.
These positions have never been controverted; but they lead to a very different result from that which they have been relied on as producing.
The respect due to France is totally unconnected with the danger in which her laws had placed the Amelia; nor is France in any manner to be affected by the decree this court may pronounce. Her interest in the vessel was terminated by the re-capture, which was authorised by the state of hostility then subsisting between the two nations. From that time it has been a question only between the Amelia and the recaptor, with which France has nothing to do.
It is true, that a violation of the law of nations by one power does not justify its violation by another; but that remonstrance is the proper course to be pursued, and this is the course which has been pursued. America did remonstrate, most earnestly remonstrating to France against the injuries committed on her; but remonstrance having failed, she appealed to a higher tribunal, and authorised limited hostilities. This was not violating the law of nations, but conforming to it. In the course of these limited hostilities, the Amelia has been re-captured, and the enquiry now is, not whether the conduct of France would justify a departure from the law of nations, but what is the real law in the case. This depends on the danger from which she has been saved.
Much has been said about the general conduct of France and England on the seas, and it has been urged that the course of the latter has been still more injurious than that of the former. That is a consideration not to be taken up in this cause. Animadversions on either, in the present case, would be considered as extremely un-
becoming the judges of this court, who have only to enquire what was the real danger in which the laws of one of the countries placed the Amelia, and from which she has been freed by her re-capture.
It has been contended that an illegal commission to take, given by France, cannot authorise our vessels to retake: that we have no right by legislation, to grant salvage out of the property of a citizen of Hamburg, who might have objected to the condition of the service.
But it is not the authority given by the French government to capture neutrals, which is relied on as legalising the re-capture made by Capt. Talbot—it is the state of hostility between the two nations which is considered as having authorised that act. The re-capture having been made lawfully, then the right to salvage, on general principles, depends on the service rendered. We cannot presume this service to have been unacceptable to the Hamburger, because it has bettered his condition; but a re-capture must always be made without consulting the re-captured. The act is one of the incidents of the state of war, and is in itself only offensive as against the enemy. The subsequent fate of the re-captured depends on the service he has received, and on other circumstances.
To give a right to salvage, it is said there must be a contract either express or implied. Had Hamburg been in a state of declared war with France, the re-captured vessels of that city would be admitted to be liable to pay salvage. If a contract be necessary, from what circumstances would the law, in that state of things imply it? Clearly from the benefit received, and the risk incurred. If in the actual state of things there was also benefit and risk, then the same circumstances concur, and they warrant the same result.
It is also urged that to maintain this right, the danger ought not to be merely speculative, but must be imminent and the loss certain.
That a mere speculative danger will not be sufficient to entitle a person to salvage is unquestionably true. But that the danger must be such, that escape from it by other means was inevitable, can not be admitted.
In all the cases stated by the counsel for the defendant in error, safety by other means was possible, though not probable. The flames of a ship on fire might be extinguished by the crew, or by a sudden tempest. A ship on the rocks might possibly be got off by the aid of wind and tides without assistance from others. A vessel captured by an enemy might be separated from her captor, and if sailors had been placed on board the prize, a thousand accidents might possibly destroy them; or they might even be blown by a storm into a port of the country to which the prize vessel originally belonged.
It cannot therefore be necessary that the loss should be inevitably certain, but it is necessary that the danger should be real and imminent. It is believed to have been such in this case. The captured vessel was of such description that the law by which she was to be tried, condemned her as good prize to the captor. Her danger then was real and imminent. The service rendered her was an essential service, and the court is therefore of opinion that the recaptor is entitled to salvage.
The next object of enquiry is, what salvage ought to be allowed? The captors claim one half the gross value of the ship and cargo. To support this claim they rely on the act "for the government of the navy of the United States," passed the 2d of March, 1799. This act regulates the salvage payable on the ships or goods belonging to the citizens of the United States, or to the citizens or subjects of any nation in amity with the United States, re-taken from the enemy.
It has been contended that the case before the court is in the very words of the act. That the owner of the Amelia is a citizen of a state in amity with the United States, retaken from the enemy. That the description would have been more limited, had the intention of the act been to restrain its application to a recaptured vessel belonging to a nation engaged with the United States against the same enemy. The words of the act would certainly admit of this construction.
Against it, it has been urged, and we think with great force, that the laws of the United States ought not, if it be avoidable, so to be construed as to infract the common principles and usages of nations, or the general doctrines of national law. If the construction contended for, be given to the act, it subjects to the same rate of salvage a recaptured neutral, and a recaptured belligerent vessel. Yet according to the law of nations, a neutral is generally to be restored without salvage.

This argument, in the opinion of the court, derives great additional weight from the consideration that the act in question is not temporary, but permanent. It is not merely fitted to the then existing state of things, and calculated to expire with them, but is a regulation applying to present and future times.
Whenever the danger resulting to captured neutrals from the laws of France should cease, then, according to the principles laid down in this decree, the liability of recaptured neutrals to the payment of salvage, would, in conformity with the general law and usage of nations, cease also. This event might have happened, and probably did happen, before hostilities between the United States and France were terminated by treaty. Yet, if this law applies to the case, salvage from a recaptured neutral would still be demandable.
This act then, if the words admit it, since it provides a permanent rule for the payment of salvage, ought to be considered to apply only to cases in which salvage is permanently payable.
On inspecting the clause in question, the court is struck with the description of those from whom the vessel is to be retaken in order to come within the provisions of the act. The expression used is the enemy .—A vessel retaken from the enemy—the enemy of whom? The court thinks it not unreasonable to answer of both parties. By this construction, the act of Congress will never violate those principles which we believe, and which it is our duty to believe, the legislature of the United States will always hold sacred.
If this act does not comprehend the case, then the court is to decide on a just estimate of the danger from which the recaptured was saved, and of the risk attending the retaking of the vessel, what is a reasonable salvage. Considering the circumstances, and considering also what rule has been adopted in other courts of admiralty, one sixth appears to be a reasonable allowance.
It is therefore the opinion of the court, that the decree of the circuit court held for the district of New-York, was correct in reversing the decree of the district court, but not correct in decreeing the restoration of the Amelia without paying salvage. This court therefore is of opinion, that that decree so far as the restoration of the Amelia without salvage is ordered ought to be reversed, and that the Amelia and her cargo ought to be restored to the claimant, on paying for salvage one sixth part of the net value, after deducting therefrom the charges which have been incurred.
City of Washington, July 24, 1801.
The Subscribers
HAVING on hand a number of house frames of different dimensions, also, a large quantity of the various kinds of lumber requisite for building, and having made such arrangements as will ensure a constant supply thereof, and enable them to sell the same on very advantageous and moderate terms to the purchasers, hereby give notice, that on application, accompanied by a memorandum or bill of the frames or lumber wanted, they will cause the same to be delivered as soon as may be, at any of the wharves in the city of Washington, George-Town or Alexandria. The circumstances under which the subscribers enter into this business, authorize an assurance that the strictest punctuality in their engagements may be relied on. They are therefore induced to believe, that many persons who are engaged in building, or who may intend to build, will find a great convenience and advantage in making timely application, and being thus supplied with the whole of the lumber necessary for their buildings by the time it may be wanted for use.
JOHN CONNER,
Somerset County, near Princess Ann, Maryland.
THOMAS MUNROE
City of Washington.
July 27.
xwatt
NEW BOOKS.
JUST received by the sloop Highland , capt. Hand, from Philadelphia, and now opening at the store of Rapine, Conrad and Co. corner of South B Street and New Jersey Avenue; a very handsome assortment of books, amongst which are,
De Valcourt, by Mrs Bennett, author of Welch Heiress , Beggar Girl , &c. &c.
Nocturnal Visit, 2 vols. by Maria Regina Roche, author of the Children of the Abbey , &c.
The Girl of the Mountains, 2 vols. by Mrs. Parsons, author of "Women as they are."
Rash Vows; or the effects of enthusiasm, by Madame de Genlis.
The Farmer's Boy, a rural poem, by Robert Broomfield.
The life of Catherine the Second, Empress of Russia, 3 vols.
Dawin's phytologia; or the philosophy of agriculture and gardening.
Also a general assortment of law books, and miscellaneous history, Ratiomary, writing and wrapping paper, &c. &c. all which they will dispose of on the most reasonable terms.
N. B. Bookbinding in all its branches, with neatness and dispatch.
Washington, May 15,
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, August 17, 1801.
We this day present our Readers with the important opinion and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the AMELIA , for the entire admission of which, other miscellaneous articles have been excluded.
CHARLES PINCKNEY, minister from the United States to the court of Madrid, failed from Charleston on the 25th ult.
Census of the District of Maine.
[The following is an official statement of the number of inhabitants in this district, by the census taken during the last year. In the year 1790, the total number of inhabitants amounted to 96,540—They now amount to 150,896, giving an increase of 54,356 during the last ten years.]
  County of York, 37,729   Cumberland, 37,921   Kennebec, 24,394   Lincoln, 30,100   Hancock, 16,316   Washington, 4,436 
Total of each description in Maine, 150,896
Census of the inhabitants of New-Hampshire, as taken in 1791 and 1801, viz.
   Counties. 1791. 1801.     Rockingham 43,169 45,427   Strafford 23,601 45,427   Hillsborough 62,871 43,839   Cheshire 28,772 32,825   Grafton 13,472 23,093   Total 141,885 183,858   Increase 41,973  
By this statement it appears, that this state will be entitled to send to Congress two additional representatives.
Gross statement of the population in New-Jersey, according to the late Census.
  County of Hunterdon 21,261   Suffex 22,534   Burlington 21,521   Essex 22,269   Monmouth 19,872   Morris 17,750   Middlesex 17,890   Gloucester 16,115   Bergen 15,156   Somerset 12,915   Salem 11,371   Cumberland 9,529   Cape May 3,066   Total 211,149 
Of the above total 4,402 are people of colour, and 12,422 slaves.
2-5ths slaves deducted, 4,958
Constitutional number, 206,191
Giving, at the rate of 33,000 to a representative, six members of Congress to New-Jersey.
In 1790, the population of New-Jersey was 184,239, of which 11,423 were slaves. Increase in ten years, 26,910.
Captain M c Gregory of the schooner Andrew , arrived at Philadelphia, informs, that the British commandant at St. Bartholomews, had ordered the Swedish vessels seized in the harbor to be sold at public auction, on the 23d ult.
A Newport paper says, we are informed that the fortifications in this harbor, are to be completed, as soon as it can be done consistent with the principles of economy.
From the New-York Daily Advertiser.
"By the sloop Semiramis from Charleston we have papers from thence to the second inst.—The paper of the third contains an account of the French under Menou, having made a sortie from Alexandria, killed a great number of the English army, and forced them to raise the siege."
[A passenger in the Semiramis arrived at New-York, informs that the news above alluded to was brought to Charleston on the first inst. by a vessel in fifty days from Vigo.]
Extract of a letter from New-York, dated August 11, to a respectable house in this city.
"Arrived yesterday capt. Jercovich, of the polacre Benvenuto , chartered by the American Consul at Tunis, to carry dispatches for government. The consul told the captain that the dey of Tripoli asks from the American government 500,000 dollars for the present, and 400,000 dollars for every ensuing year. [Philad. Gaz.]
DIED—At Schenectady, N. Y. Jonathan Edwards, D. D. President of the College of that place.
At New-York, John Steymets, aged 62 years.
Prince Ruspoli, knight of Malta, has arrived at New-York.
Extract of a letter from Lisbon to a respectable merchant in Philadelphia, dated June 6, 1801.
"You will have seen by the English papers, that this country has actually been invaded by the Spaniards, who have penetrated to a certain distance beyond the frontiers, and taken three or four of our fortified towns. An armistice has since been agreed upon and preliminaries of peace have been signed. The ratifications, however, have not been exchanged, and it yet appears very doubtful in what manner the business will end. The English merchants of this place have received repeated intimations from their consul to be upon their guard; and it is generally understood that one of the conditions to which Portugal has been obliged to submit is, the exclusion of British trade from the ports; supposing even that it should not be worse, for many people have been afraid of confiscation. Some families have already retired, and many more hold themselves in readiness."
A letter from Lisbon, dated July 9, received by a respectable merchant in Philadelphia, states, that the terms of an armistice between Portugal, Spain and France, had been agreed upon, it was believed with the concurrence of Great Britain, and had been transmitted from Lisbon to Spain for ratification. Before the ratifications could be exchanged, advices were received at Lisbon (on the 9th July) of some alarming commotions in Madrid, fomented during the absence of the Spanish king, who had been obliged, as a measure of safety, to retire from his palace to Arragon: That Lucien Bonaparte had been desired to hasten with his army to Madrid, to suppress the disturbances.
The writer of this letter is of opinion, that France, on this occasion, will accomplish two important purposes, viz. the subjugation of Portugal, and the disorganization of the Spanish government. Although it was not known at Lisbon what were to be the terms with which a pacification was to be purchased, it was generally believed that the French, either by treaty or force, would finally take possession of that city; and in consequence of this belief, merchants, &c. were removing in crowds.
The above letter was brought by the ship Hare , and is dated the very day on which she failed. It states no news from Egypt.
CHARACTER OF TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE.
This extraordinary man is a native of St. Domingo. He was born a slave, and as such remained till the troubles in that island gave an opportunity for the display of his talents. His master, a considerable planter, took him while very young to France where he remained some time; and being a smart lad, attention was paid to his education, which is better than most negroes receive. But still he was only a negro slave, and returned to St. Domingo where he lived in that character several years before the troubles broke out. Soon after the French Revolution, every one knows how the misrepresentation of the principles of liberty and equality desolated St. Domingo. The whites were destroyed, and after them the people of colour; the blacks remaining, in fact masters of the island. In the dreadful scenes that occurred, Toussaint soon distinguished himself and acquired a sovereign sway over his fellow negroes amounting now to 100,000 men in arms, inured to the climate, and educated to war.
Toussaint, to the talents of a general and a politician, adds more amiable graces of gratitude and humanity. His master fled to the United States of America; and Toussaint remitted him, or endeavoured to remit as much of the produce of his estate as was possible. When General Maitland evacuated Port au-Prince, the treaty for that purpose was negotiated and concluded with Toussaint, who executed every condition with the strictest fidelity and honour. But Toussaint did not treat as an independent prince as some of the papers have said. All he did was in the name of the French Republic. For while he is absolute monarch over St. Domingo, he affects to be a subject of France, a fact of which the following anecdote is a sufficient testimony.
When General Maitland evacuated Port au-Prince, all the old French planters who had joined the British, departed with him
of course. In the harbour was the old master of Toussaint, who had come from the continent to endeavour to retrieve his property, in which he had been unsuccessful; and he was about to fly with the English in rags and wretchedness. General Maitland had too much wisdom to treat Toussaint as a brigand (robber,) as he had hitherto been treated; and Toussaint's conduct repaid him for civility.
Toussaint hearing of his master, sent a message to Gen. Maitland, saying he had a favor to ask. What was it! To send his master to him. The General did so; and Toussaint restored his master to his estates, and gave him negroes for their cultivation. He behaved in the affectionate kind manner to him who had truely been his father.
Gen. Maitland, upon this, sent a message, asking a favour of Toussaint. What is it? To restore a dozen of the principal planters to their estates. Toussaint desired they might be sent to his care. They were so. He clapped them in prison.
Some days afterwards, he had them brought into a church, before a large body of his fellow blacks; and he mounted the pulpit to preach a sermon; for his prowess at arms is but a small part of his distinction. Here he enforced the virtue of forgiveness to the repentant saying. "We were for a while Spaniards, (the blacks tied to the Spanish protection, in the beginning of the troubles,) but we were misled. We were born Frenchmen, and now we are Frenchmen again. These twelve men have also misled. They were born Frenchmen. For a time they have been British; but now they returned, and are Frenchmen again. Let us embrace." Here Toussaint embraced them, and reconciled his followers.—He restored them to their estates, and gave them negroes as servants.
It would be the disposition of a little mind, in Toussaint's situation, to hate and persecute the whites; but he knows well, that the island cannot flourish without them; that they are necessary to cultivation and good government, to the commerce and prosperity of the place. Therefore his chief aim is to restore the planters, and revive the trade. He fears that France will one day endeavour to punish him as a rebel; but this, France will never be able to accomplish. Hedouville the French Commissioner, is a person of no influence: Toussaint disregards him; but all Toussaint's acts are in the name of the French Republic, for which alone he pretends to act; and his utmost wish is, that the Directory would name him their General. Toussaint is anxious to find a market for the produce of the island; and there is an understanding, as if a treaty had been concluded. Col. Grant is appointed our agent in St. Domingo. His ostensible business is to settle points about the evacuation of the island; but his real business is to establish a trade, by which the whole produce of St. Domingo will be brought to Jamaica. [Lon. paper.]
By virtue of a decree from the Chancery Court of Maryland, will be exposed to PUBLIC SALE,
To the highest bidder, at Mr. Rhodes's Tavern, on the eighth day of September next, (the same being part of the real estate of Abraham Young deceased)
A LOT of ground situate in the District of Columbia, adjoining the City of Washington; whereon is erected, a two story brick house unfinished, subject to the widow's dower. A credit of twelve months will be given to the purchaser or purchasers, on giving bond with approved security, on interest. On the ratification of the sale by the chancellor, and on payment of the purchase money, a deed will be made to the person or persons purchasing, conveying all the right, title, interest and estate, belonging to the heirs of Abraham Young deceased. A Plat of the premises will be shewn on the day of sale, by
HENRY WHETCROFT, Trustee. Washington City, August 14, 1801. 172
To be sold or Exchanged
For improved lots in the city of Washington,
A VALUABLE FARM,
In Frederick County, Virginia, CONTAINING three hundred acres; 60 acres at present in thriving CORN—it is situated in a genteel neighbourhood, and contiguous to a Mill and Black-smith. The improvements are a handsome and convenient Dwelling House, Kitchen, Store house, Smoke-house, tables, Corn-house, Hen-house, Overseer's house, and necessary Negro Quarters. The whole of these buildings are new and complete.
Will be sold with it, if required, Negroes, Horses, Cattle, Hogs, Farming utensils, &c. &c. Likewise, fifty barrels of CORN on hands.
Any person desirous of possessing this valuable tract of land, by purchase or exchange, will apply to ROBERT W. PEACOCK, Attorney at Law, and Conveyancer. August 7. law3

PARIS, June 12. ON THE NEW ENGLISH MINISTRY.
The new English ministry use a moderate language, consonant to the character of a powerful and enlightened nation; and which forms a perfect contrast to that of their predecessors.
If we are to judge of them by their speeches, in Parliament, they appear desirous of putting an end to the calamities of war. If they be sincere, peace is infallible; for the pledge of peace is with them. The English have seized upon a great part of the French, Spanish and Dutch possessions in the East and West Indies. They may adopt a system honourable to their nation, which will give them advantages, but which will be perfectly compatible with the dignity of the allies, and preserve a just equilibrium in the different parts of the world. In acting thus the English ministers will obtain the highest glory; that of pacifying the world, and drying up the tears of so many thousand families. Impartial men reproach the new ministry with the ill treatment of our prisoners; but we are assured that attention is paid to the amelioration of their condition. It is easy to perceive, that it this has not already been accomplished, it is because the first labours of administration occupied all their time. France has expended (during the course of the years eight and nine) more than four millions of livres for the cloathing of the Russian, Austrian, and German prisoners. She has expended much larger sums in procuring for them dwellings, beds, and abundance of wholesome food, in every respect the same as for her own troops. She has mitigated their situation by allowing them to work, and to take the air in the environs of our towns. The new ministry is also reproached with the continuation of shameful intrigues, the result of which is to support a few monsters, such as San Quartier, Sans Pitie, Georges, Lunoclan, &c. but these men were excited to the commission of crimes by the late ministers. We cannot attribute to the present government the 23d of December; and if some villains, such as the Durheil, the bishop of Aarras, and Georges are suffered at London, it is because they were called thither by the late ministry. We think so well of the new ministers as to be persuaded that they would scorn to make use of such wretches in their service, and that they will employ the money of England in something else than the purchase of a few robberies and assassinations. If, however, the English ministry should not justify the hopes of Europe; if, like their predecessors, they should think that peace can only be founded upon the destruction of one of the two contending nations, and if they should be willing to abuse the great advantages they have obtained in both the Indies, while the allies employed all their efforts in the continental war, then we must resolve to seek peace in victory; to conquer will be the only way to bring back peace, prosperity, and commerce. England, during eight years, has been seconded by two coalitions; a third will not be seen for ten years to come. The cantonade of Copenhagen, the pillage of the Danish and Swedish isles, and Nelson's cruise in the Gulph of Finland, have evinced the perils with which the strength and lofty ambition of England menace the continental powers; and if these last prosper, and ever exist only by commerce, then that power which can resist all Europe upon the ocean, is signalized as the enemy of all nations and of all sovereigns. Without coalition, however, what will England be able to do against the allies? What will the allies be able to perform against England? We shall not enter into the discussion of these two questions; we shall confine ourselves to a single observation. The allies have no longer any commerce; no longer any small colonies; they have nothing to lose. England has conquered every thing; her power is felt every where; she has an immense commerce to lose. Happy the nations, who having attained the summit of prosperity, are directed by governments, that do not expose so many advantages to the caprice and vicissitudes of a single stroke of fortune. — Moniteur.
Dispatches have been received from Citizen Alquier, ambassador from Naples, who, in the absence of his majesty at Palermo, has been presented to the prince royal. The troubles at Naples are nearly appeased; hatred is ceasing; this unfortunate people begin to hail the dawn of happier times. A great number of state prisoners have been set at liberty, and there are not more persons detained in the different Sicilian prisons at present than in
those of other European states. All the French vessels which have entered the different ports of Sicily and Naples have been received with great propriety, and every thing leads to the belief that the cabinet of Naples perceives at last her real interest in attaching itself to the influence and protection of France, which alone can assure the interior and exterior tranquility, and the commercial prosperity of Naples. — Moniteur.
Whilst Austria is making financial dispositions for the maintenance of the Continental Peace; whilst she executes the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, articles of the treaty of Luneville, evil disposed persons, or dupes, seem to delight in spreading the most sinister rumours. They fortify these rumours by the circumstance that the King of Prussia has ordered 40,000 men to assemble between Berlin and Potsdam: and they deduce extraordinary consequences from the steps between these two powers: but they do not observe the following facts, or they disguise them from their partisans:
 1. The treaty of peace is concluded between the French Republic and the Emperor. The Emperor therefore is himself interested in the execution of the open and secret articles.  2. It is known that the French Government communicated to the government of Berlin the basis of peace before it was concluded.  3. The Prussian troops, now their manoeuvres are over, are returning to their cantonments.  4. Until the Secularisations are entirely executed, there remain in the Belgic and Rhine departments 60,000 men on the war establishment.  5. Some posts on the other side of the Rhine are re-occupied by the French, but merely to prevent the return of the emigrants and smuggling. 
NORFOLK, August 11, 1801.
ADMIRALTY CAUSE.
VIRGINIA:
At a special court of the United States, for the district of Norfolk, held at the court house of the borough of Norfolk, within the state of Virginia, on Monday the third of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, before the honorable Cyrus Griffin, esq. judge; Samuel Barron, his officers and crew, against The Schooner Success.
This cause being heard on the libel and the proofs offered in support thereof, and the several papers, writings and documents, found on board the said Schooner at the time of her seizure and capture, being brought in and deposited in the office of this honorable court; and on hearing what was alleged on the part of the said libellants—the court doth order, adjudge and decree, that the said Schooner Success, her guns, tackle, furniture and apparel, be forfeited for being employed in the slave trade, in violation of the act of Congress, entitled, "an act to prohibit the carrying on the slave trade, from the United States to any foreign place or country;"—and the same is hereby condemned to the use of the said Samuel Barron, commander of the ship of war called the Chesapeake, his officers, seamen, mariners and marines, all libellants in this cause; that the marshal, after giving six days notice in a public newspaper, proceed to sell the said Schooner Success, and her guns, tackle, apparel and furniture, at public auction; and after deducting the costs of this prosecution, and such expenses as have been incurred on account of said vessel since her arrival in this port, and the nett proceeds be paid to William Pennock, agent for the said libellants. And the court doth further order, that the monies arising from the said sale, be applied and distributed to, and amongst the libellants, in such proportion as is directed by the act for the government of the navy of the United States, in respect to prizes and money.
A true copy, Test,
SETH FOSTER, Clerk.
The above Schooner Success, we are informed, was owned by Samuel W. Green of Providence, in the state of Rhode Island; that she was commanded by Paul Brownell; and sailing under the authority of a commission from the late President of the United States, granting full power to seize and capture the armed vessels of the French Republic.
BROHAWN AND BOYS,
BEG leave to inform the citizens of Washington, that they have taken Mr. N. Young's wharf, very conveniently situated to the Capitol and President's Square; where they have opened a LUMBER YARD, and expect to go pretty largely in that line of business; and in about two or three weeks will have a general assortment of the first quality of groceries that can be procured in Baltimore.
Washington June 24, 1801. N. B. Any gentleman wishing to apply for bills of scantling of any size or dimensions, may obtain them at the shortest notice by applying as above.
Intending to leave the city in October next, I am desirous of disposing of my Furniture, two Negro Men, one a cook, the other an officer and coachman, and a pair of very well gaited Riding Horses.
It may be a convenience to any family removing here, and taking the house I now occupy upon rent, to take the Furniture (which is but little worn) by purchase. The house, one of the five buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue, is pleasantly and conveniently situated, and the furniture, which is tolerably well fitted to it, will be reduced in price in proportion to the wear and tear, and change of fashion, shall have made right ENJAMIN GRAYSON ORR. July 20, 1801. ep4w
For Sale and to Rent,
TWO elegant two story Brick DWELLING HOUSES, situate on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, a little to the west of the President's Square. Each house contains two parlours and passage on first floor; on second, two rooms with fire-places, and well finished garrets, cellar and kitchens. In the front of the buildings extending to the avenue, is a neat yard planted with trees, palisadoed, &c. The situation, in point of health and contiguity to the public buildings, is equal to any in the city, and is well adapted for private families, or to accommodate genteel Boarders. The title is indisputable. The terms will be moderate for part cash or slaves. For particulars inquire of OWEN ROBERTS, on the premises, or of THOMAS HERTY, Conveyancer City of Washington, May 25, 1801. 1y
VARDEN & CARPENTER, TAYLORS,
Gratefully acknowledge the favours of the public, whilst carrying on business opposite Mr. Stille's Tavern, and inform, that they have removed to the next house east of Mr. Tunnicliff's Hotel, where gentlemen and ladies will be served in a style of fashion and elegance which it has ever been, and ever will be, their study to execute, and they presume, equal to the most populous cities in the Union. Regimental and Ladies Habits made in the neatest manner. May 15, 1801. wtf
The subscriber respectfully acquaints the public, that he has removed to the corner of Ninth and B streets, where he continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of Ornaments for Chimney pieces, Door Caps, Frontispieces, Metal Safes, &c. which may also be had at his store No. 57, Barclay Street, New-York, and at Mr. WIL'S store, Market Street, Baltimore. GEORGE ANDREWS. Who has gold leaf for sale by the package or book. May 8, 1801. 1y
Conrad & M un m
HAVE opened houses of entertainment in the range of buildings formerly occupied by Mr. Law, about two hundred paces from the Capitol, in New Jersey Avenue, leading from thence to the Eastern Branch. They are spacious and convenient, one of which is designed for stage passengers and travellers, the other for the accommodation of boarders. There is stable sufficient for 60 horses—They hope to merit public patronage. City of Washington, Nov. 24, 1800. tf
CONVEYANCERS OFFICE, AND
OFFICE FOR SALE OF CITY LOTS, On the Pennsylvania Avenue fronting the President's Square, near Rhodes's tavern, City of Washington. THOMAS HERTY has connected with the business of drawing Conveyances of Land Wills, Mortgages, Leases, Bonds, Assignments powers of Attorney, petitions, and every other species of deed or contract in the profession; that of buying, selling and leasing lots and houses in the City, negotiating loans, &c.
His long experience as a draftsman, and knowledge of the laws relative thereto—the knowledge which he has acquired by residence of the situation of City Lots, and how their titles have been acquired, or are liable to be affected; together with his impartial and strict regard to the interest of those who may be pleased to employ him, will, he hopes, secure to him a continuance of public patronage. Titles to real property investigated, and opinions given thereon when required. $3 For sale a great variety of Lots, in desirable situations in the City.
N. B. At the above office may be had, his Abridgement of the Laws of Maryland, price 6 dollars. Also his Digest of the Laws of the United States, price 3 dollars. As the Laws of Maryland are in full force on this side the Potomac, it behoves settlers to avail themselves of that information which affects their lives, liberties and property. He who is without a knowledge of his "rule of conduct" is like a stranger in his native land. May 4. z2w4w. 12w2
Bottled porter & cider cellar.
THE subscriber respectfully acquaints the public that he has, in addition to his grocery and dry goods store, a bottled Porter and Cider Cellar. He intends to keep a constant supply of the best London and Philadelphia Porter, and brown stout English and American Cider; where the public can be accommodated by the barrel carefully packed, by the single dozen, or less quantity, at the most moderate prices. GILBERT DOCKER. Capitol Hill, New-Jersey Avenue, City of Washington, August 12, 1801. } N. B. The highest price given for empty Bottles.—$3 A two story Frame Store to let. 3t
A GREAT BARGAIN.
I WILL sell or lease for ten years, a valuable Farm, in the county of Culpepper, and state of Virginia, on Flat Run, containing 750 acres the land is extremely fertile, and yields abundantly in the production of corn, wheat, and tobacco; there are about 100 acres of meadow land, 50 or 60 of which are cleared, and 15 acres well set in Timothy, about 350 acres of the tract are cleared and well inclosed. This land is distant from Fredericksburg about 28 miles, and 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington. There are several valuable merchant mills, in the vicinity, one within the distance of a mile, where the Fredericksburg prices are given for all kinds of grain.
I will also sell the Reversion of 250 acres of land adjoining the above, on which are erected a number of valuable buildings, among them a large dwelling house of 60 feet by 40, with four rooms on a floor, with fireplaces, and every necessary out houses—A valuable peach and apple orchard.
A further description is deemed unnecessary, as any persons desirous of purchasing or leasing, will doubtless wish to view the premises. For terms apply to Robert Brooke Voss, Esq. who lives adjoining the premises, or to the subscriber.
I will also Sell or Rent, Two three story brick houses in Alexandria, completely finished, on King and Columbia Street, with sundry valuable property near the same, possession whereof may be had immediately. The situation for the flour and grocery business is equal to any in Alexandria. For terms apply to Henry Thomas Moore, Alexandria, or to the subscriber NICHOLAS VOSS. City of Washington, July 13, 1801.
N. B. I wish to hire by the month, or until the 1st day of November, ten or twelve labourers, for whom liberal wages will be given.—Apply to N. Voss, on F Street, or W. T. Voss, at the Navy-Yard. 2awtf
NAVY DEPARTMENT, JUNE 7th, 1800.
Regulations for ascertaining and fixing the Pensioners, and payment of pensions on the Navy establishment of the United States.
To obtain a pension the party must produce to the Secretary of the Navy a certificate from the commander of the ship or vessel on board of which he sustained the injury, which incapacitates him; or in the case of a marine, from the commanding officer of the marine corps, or commander of a detachment as the case may require; in the latter case however, if the injury happened on board a vessel of war, the certificate of the surgeon will also be required, if on shore, that of some respectable medical character of the place, that the same was received while he was acting in the line of his duty, specifying the nature and amount of the disability, the capacity or station in which he acted, and the monthly pay to which he was entitled at the time of sustaining the injury. On such certificate being produced, and it being ascertained to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Navy, that the disability still exists and is likely to continue, he will at once direct the applicant to be placed on the books of the Loan Office of the state in which he resides, and the loan officer will make the payments half yearly, viz. On the 1st of January, and 1st of July, to the party in person or his legal attorney during his life or the continuance of his disability. But if the pension is to be paid on a power of attorney, the loan officer must have it ascertained by the certificate of a Justice of the peace of the county where the pensioner resides, that he was living, and that his disability continued, in the month next preceding that in which payment is to be made every year, and must transmit the same to the Accountant of the Navy with the necessary receipts as vouchers for his payments.
Each person to be placed on the pension list, must receive at the Navy Office a certificate in the following form.
A. B. Seaman, &c. having been disabled in the service of the United States, on board of the ship of war while acting in the line of his duty, is entitled to receive dollars per month, from the loan officer of the state of payable half yearly, on the 1st of January and 1st of July in every year during his life or continuance of such disability, to commence from the day of The same will be paid to him in person or on his legal power of attorney. But no money will be paid on a power of attorney, unless the said A. B. shall send to the loan officer of said state, the certificate of a Justice of peace of the county wherein he resides, that he the said A. B. appeared before the said justice in the month preceding that in which the ill continued to be made and that his disability still continues.
Signed BENJ. STODDERT. The foregoing regulations are still in force.— By order, AN. THOMAS, P. CLK. Navy Department, } 32w4w June 17, 1801. }