The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-02-17 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1304.
P. IX.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE
PAYS DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
The National Intelligencer will henceforth be conducted by SAMUEL H. SMITH , and JOSEPH GALES , Jun., and printed at the Office of the former , to whom subscribers and correspondents are requested still to address themselves.
The annual price, payable in advance, is Five dollars. The punctilious compliance with this term is at this time of the greatest importance, and is earnestly requested.
Advertisements, not exceeding one square in breadth, are inserted the first time at fifty cents, and for every subsequent insertion twenty-five cents. If inserted less than three times a dollar is charged. If inserted but once a week, an addition of one fourth part is made. Other advertisements charged in the same ratio.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Debate on raising the Embargo, and authorising Letters of Marque and Reprisal—Continued.
Thursday, Feb. 2.
Mr. Durell's speech concluded.
In the discussion of this part of the subject, I shall be obliged to indulge in a wider range than I at first had intended. In order, sir, to cure a disease, it is often necessary to know its origin and causes—combat and subdue the cause, and the effect ceases of course. The first enquiry then should be, what were the causes which produced the embargo? To this question, sir, I answer without the fear of contradiction from any man—he British orders in council of November 11, 1807, & the French decree of November 1806, or rather the practice under it, which began about the time the British orders first made their appearance. I am aware that the British orders had not been officially notified to the American government, at the moment of laying the embargo—but the substance of them had appeared in the newspapers, and were publicly read in this hall, a day or two before the President's message recommending that measure was sent to the House; and although we might not know the precise details of those orders at the time of passing the embargo law, yet we knew enough of them to be satisfied that they were intended to fatten the British navy upon the ruin and spoils of American commerce. The orders of Britain and the decrees of France, then, were the true causes of laying the embargo; and to these edicts the nation must not, cannot submit. Sir, we, its representatives in behalf of the people, have already pledged ourselves that we will not submit. This then is an axiom, a first principle, that the orders of Britain and the decrees of France cannot, and will not be acquiesced in.
The bearing of those edicts, in relation to the American commerce, being anticipated by the embargo, their deleterious effects have hitherto in a great measure been prevented. Our object then in selecting a substitute should be to adopt such measures as will meet them full in the face, and thereby prevent them from operating injuriously in future. Raise your embargo and the bearing of those edicts upon your commerce must be prospective, and if we are to content ourselves for the present with security for the future, it will be sufficient if your substitute has a prospective bearing too, capable of resisting the orders and decrees henceforward, and of preventing them from operating injuriously in future.
War, sir, in order to be justifiable, is always retrospective as well as prospective in its objects—it seeks indemnity for the past, as well as security for the future; and however governments may pretend they are justifiable in making an unprovoked attack, for the purpose of averting a distant, and, of course, uncertain evil, as was the case with G. Britain in her assault upon Denmark, yet I think no nation can be justified in commencing hostilities, unless those hostilities are grounded upon injuries already received, for which it is intended by the war to seek indemnity. Let us, for a moment, examine the ground we have already taken in relation to the orders and decrees.
In pursuance of a law of the last Congress, the President of the United States did, some time in the month of June, propose to the British cabinet to suspend the embargo, as to them, on condition that the orders in council should be rescinded as to us. This proposition did not consider indemnity for the numerous injuries we have received at the hands of the British nation, as a sine qua non to a removal of the embargo; but on the contrary, it was a consent, on our part, to waive all considerations of indemnity for the past, till a season more propitious for negotiation
should present itself, and to content ourselves with a bare removal of the orders in council, as a pledge both of security for the future, and indemnity for the past. On this point then, the government seems to be committed; for its language has been, give us a pledge of security for the future, and we consent to waive indemnity for the past till a more favorable and propitious moment for negotiation. As this friendly proposition was rejected by the British cabinet, I acknowledge we are under no obligation to it, to pursue a course which would have the same result of that proposal, had it been acceded to by Britain; yet if that proposition was wise, and we can attain the end proposed by it, without recurring to the dreadful calamities of war, it is unquestionably our interest and our duty to do so.
The grand desideratum then, is to find a substitute for the embargo which will meet the future operations of the orders and decrees full in the face, and will either secure us against their effects, or reduce the belligerents to the necessity of becoming the aggressors anew . Such a course must assuredly be preferable to direct hostilities; because it would give you a chance of avoiding hostilities altogether, and because, if hostilities must follow you will throw upon your enemy the odium of being the aggressor. Sir, I would not be understood as insinuating that G. Britain and France are not already the aggressors, but I am looking forward to a state of things subsequent to a repeal of the embargo. If then, we are willing to postpone a consideration of the past to a season better adapted to a friendly discussion of the points in difference, and to regulate our conduct solely with a view to the future—then, I say, if we should be so unfortunate as to come again into collision with the belligerents, it will be all important to us, that we should throw upon them the odium of aggression. It is to this source alone we are to look for that spirit of union and manly resentment necessary to carry a government like ours, thro' a war successfully. It has been said on a former occasion, that kings go to war to gratify a favorite, or a mistress. This, thank God, is not the case with republicans, who have no favorites but their country, nor mistresses but the laws. Republicans are rarely so intemperate as "to seek a quarrel in the cannon's mouth." They never go to war till the general sentiment, roused by some flagrant act of injustice against the state, demands it; and even then, if their resentment be suffered a little to cool, there is no way of bringing the public pulse back again to a war pitch but by new aggressions from the side of the enemy. We all know we have ample cause of war with G. Britain, and there was a time when the people of the U. S. would, to a man, have dared every danger to meet it; but their resentments have been suffered to cool, and instead of making it a point of honor, they now consider it as a matter of deliberate calculation. If we have war, we all wish that war to be successful: but in order to be successful we must be united, and we shall not be united till we have received new indignities. But it will be asked, what is this new course, this grand specific? I answer, to arm against the illegal and obnoxious orders and decrees of the belligerents. But, say gentlemen, will you arm against the British navy? Sir, I would arm against her tyrannical orders (not against her navy) for the purpose of bringing the subject fairly at issue. The project of arming against France, no one will treat as chimerical; all sides of the House, and especially our friends in the opposition, suppose we are a full match for her upon the ocean. France then, we may lay quite out of the reckoning. Thus, having happily got rid of France, we have only to contend with the navy of Britain; and how is this to be done? Sir, I have already observed that the object was not to fight the British navy, but to oppose the orders in council, and in such way as to bring their bearing upon our commerce fairly at issue. Let then your merchants arm in their own defence, and if they are suffered to proceed without molestation (and verily, sir, I am almost ready to persuade myself they would be) well—but if they are captured and condemned, then we are at war, and England being again the aggressor, the war will be popular. Either alternative would be preferable to the present state of things, and there could be no possibility of avoiding both of them. One or the other must
be our condition immediately upon a removal of the embargo.
If, sir, I could persuade gentlemen to go with me in the belief that a state of things, such as I have described, would immediately follow a removal of the embargo, no considerations could induce me to suppose they would hesitate for a moment to adopt the system I have proposed. A fear of having the reputation of abandoning a measure which had been unsuccessful could have no weight with the good sense and patriotism of this honorable body, if such an aspersion should be attempted; but as there could be no possibility of succeeding in the attempt, there can be no reason for alarm from that quarter. Let us examine this part of the subject a little more minutely, that we may not mistake its consequences.
If your merchants go out armed, and suffered to proceed to their ports of destination without being molested, we shall be perfectly secure both in point of interest and political reputation, also—for who in this case, would have the presumption to say, the embargo was not the cause of this security? Had not the embargo been laid the edicts in question would have been enforced & your commerce would have been swept away. One hundred millions would have been sacrificed to glut the avarice of Britain or France. The embargo then, will have saved this immense property to its rightful owners, and have given it a permanent security. But, sir, if your property should be arrested, and condemned, what better evidence could you have of the importance of the embargo. This state of things would clearly demonstrate that it had not only saved your property from the devouring grasp of the belligerents, but had also hitherto preserved you from war. This state of things would also confute the arguments of our opponents, who have contended there was no sort of danger in resuming the navigation of the high seas. All their logic upon this subject would be overthrown in an instant. The people would be satisfied that the government, was correct, and that themselves had been led into an error by the clamor of demagogues, and the sophistry of such as make a point of railing at every act of your government. And what is more, sir, the spirit of impatience too often manifested against the necessary restraints of the law, would give way to a just and fiery indignation against those free-booters who again had dared to rob you upon the common highway of nations.
Sir, we have been told by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Burwell) that the embargo, being a measure of precaution, by letting out your merchants before you are prepared to protect them by war, would be counteracting the principle you had assumed. This supposition must have been predicated on the idea, that the propriety over which the precaution had been exercised, belongs to the state. Indeed, it belongs to the nation, or rather to the individuals who compose it, and in this point of view alone has the government a right, under the constitution, to exercise this sort of protection over it; but even this ceases the moment the property is in safety. The government then has done its duty—like a faithful monitor, it has given the warning after which the individual should be left to manage his own property agreeably to his own discretion; unless weighty reasons of state should induce the government to control him. So that, as a precaution operating solely with a view of securing the property of individuals from sudden danger, the government has nothing farther to do with it. Again, the same gentleman told us—if you will raise the embargo, you would have war in less than six weeks. This, sir, would be bringing the thing to a point; it would unite the nation, and is precisely what we want.
These remarks, sir, have appeared to me to be pertinent to the subject before us. If therefore the principle of arming is to be adopted, in filling the blank upon you, table, we need not at all be governed by a consideration of war. All then that is necessary, is to consult the general convenience of our mercantile brethren. It will be recollected that some of our principal seaports are, at this moment, embarrassed by the frost; such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Alexandria; and will probably remain so till the first of March. It would be unfair then, to raise the embargo at a moment when
the merchants of these cities could not find their way to the ocean. And indeed, were it otherwise, some little time should be allowed in order that the citizens, from one extremity of the union to the other, might have an equal opportunity of finding a good market.
On the whole, I am of opinion that the fourth of March will be a generally accommodating as any other period that has been mentioned, and shall therefore vote for filling the blank with that day.
Mr. GHOLSON said he considered the time at which the change of measures should take place, to be equally important with the resolution itself. Not one month ago (said he) the House voted by a very audible and distinct majority that the embargo should be enforced and carried into effect as the best policy to relieve the nation from the difficulties under which it labors. I have therefore felt a degree of surprize at hearing gentlemen who voted in the affirmative then, advocating now a sudden departure from the measure. Is not the consistency and dignity of the House involved in filling up the blank? Will the House of Representatives act like a parcel of school boys? Determine to enforce the law, and then without the happening of any circumstances to induce a change, suddenly depart from the measure they determine to enforce. Unless I was very much deceived, I heard all the friends of the present policy declare that their object was, that the measure should receive a fair experiment. If not, for what reason was the act for enforcing the embargo passed? For passing that act Congress have been censured. The federalists throughout the union have denounced us for giving to custom houses so much of what they call legislative discretion. I ask then again and again, was all this for nothing? If it is to be abdicated the 15th of this month, I do protest that the passage of the supplementary embargo law was a rash, hasty and inconsiderate deed, unworthy of this assembly. Whilst it was the opinion of most of the friends of the present system, and mine distinctly expressed on a former occasion, that the embargo should have a fair trial, that it should be carried into execution, and that for that purpose the President should possess all the energies of the state. I wish it to be understood that I was not in favor of a protracted embargo after the period should have arrived which would prove it to be inefficient or after an act of even half justice to us. Let me ask, then, whether the first of June is more than a reasonable period? Will gentlemen say that five months embargo (for till the first of January it was little more than nominal, being daily violated) is more than a reasonable experiment? I humbly conceive not. A law has lately been passed requiring the national councils to assemble on the 4th Monday in May. Now, upon a change of policy, for it appears to be contemplated that we should have war of some kind—when a transition is made from a calm and pacific to a warlike attitude, it will very possibly produce some convulsion which will render it necessary that Congress should be here. For what should Congress convene here but to take advantage of circumstances as they may arise? I want not Congress to be here if we are to take war on or before the 4th day of March. But, being in session, and a change of policy not taking place till after they meet, they will have it in their power to take advantage of any change in our relations. Another circumstance operates on my mind. If as is generally expected, war must ensue a repeal of the embargo, I ask gentlemen whether we are at this time prepared for war—and I will refer the House to arguments already advanced on this subject. Have we an army already prepared? Would you expect to conduct a war with militia? On the contrary, are you certain that the militia are constitutionally qualified to embark in this kind of war in which we should in all probability be involved? It is a serious question, sir, whether the militia can be carried without the limits of the United States. There is another reason which weighs powerfully with me; it is a respect for the character of the government itself. Your law has been wantonly and traitorously set at defiance. The hardy arm of rebellion has been raised against you. Amidst the feuds of the East the law has been silent. I would sooner see the country spill its best blood than I would
yield to turbulence and faction the dominion of the law, and with it the very existence of your government. Although my own constituents suffer as much as any other, they wait patiently under the laws which they partake in forming. What an example will it be for future times, if an inconsiderable portion of your citizens are permitted to rise in opposition to the laws which are fairly and constitutionally enacted? If measures the most important be put at defiance by factious individuals goaded on by avarice, or worse passions, your constitution is not worth having. I have already remarked that I consider it necessary, for the sake of consistency, putting aside motives of policy, that the repeal of the embargo should be protracted at least till June. There is another consideration which perhaps is more powerful than all. It has been well said on both sides of the House that ours is a peaceable nation; that we wish for peace; that for it we would sacrifice any other considerations, in the cause of national honor. I hope the time never will arrive when we sacrifice national character for peace. Although the governments which have injured us have manifested little disposition to do us justice, I am willing, nay, I am anxious, whatever may be said of the cup of humiliation or of paper wars, to have another chance for the renewal of intercourse.
I have understood from the public prints that government vessels are about to leave this country for France and Great Britain. If those nations are apprized that we are determined beyond a particular period no longer to endure their aggressions against us, that our forbearance will speedily have an end, they may give to the differences between us a more attentive consideration. Perhaps each may think it better to do us justice than that we shall be added to the list of their enemies. I attempt not to say, sir, that I have any confidence that such will be the case; but as there is at least a hope of it, I am willing to protract this measure till the first of June that, if a disposition to friendly accommodation exists, we may avail ourselves of it. I suppose none of us would have an objection to peace with G. Britain, altho' I view her our grand, natural and determined enemy—if she will respect our neutrality; there is not much doubt as to other nations; it will be their interest to do so.
Sir, I have heard many arguments advanced at different times by a gentleman from New York, at which I have been astonished, particularly at his apologising for those who violate our laws. He was told in debate that they could not consent to the present measures; that they could not endure it; that it could not be expected of them. When we hear language like this in this hall, we are no longer astonished at circumstances which have occurred. Shall it be told to any portion of the people of the U. S. from this Hall, that the people will not consent to a law; that they will not endure it, and that it cannot be expected of them? If they cannot consent, I see no other inference but they may rebel. And is it not a doctrine which should be advocated by every one friendly to the constitution, that every portion of the people ought to acquiesce in those rules of conduct in the enactment of which they have themselves participated? I should be very glad that gentlemen who hold & openly avow such doctrines, would reconsider their observations, & if compatible with their ideas of propriety would hereafter abstain from such excitements. Upon a calm and dispassionate review of such expressions, gentlemen must, and I am sure will feel sensible of their mischievous tendency, and I hope will cheerfully revoke them. But the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) has introduced the example of Virginia as standing out in opposition to the sedition act. Sir, there never was a more splendid & memorable triumph of law over public feeling than in the trial of Callender. There, where every one around the court execrated the law, we saw its authority supported. The statute said that what was published was illegal and seditious, and the judge declared the law to be constitutional. What did the people of Virginia do? They saw one of her citizens go into a dungeon by virtue of an act which they deemed to be oppressive and contrary to the spirit of the constitution. They distanced to oppose the execution of a law constitutionally passed, and declared by its judicial authority to be constitutional.
When the vote was taken upon the resolution of the commerce

exterior relations which said that we could not consistently with our national dignity submit to the edicts of the belligerents, and the gentleman from New York answered in the negative, I thought he believed it to be a truism, but because it was an abstract proposition voted against it. Now I know not what to think, because he has admonished the House, if the embargo be repealed, not to bring on greater grievances. If we are to repeal the embargo and not to take any stronger measure, I beg of that honorable gentleman to point out what we are to do? If we take off the embargo and oppose nothing betwixt us and taxation, we are to submit; and his doctrine tends to the most unequivocal and unconditional submission; and so far as gentlemen contend for the repeal of the embargo unconditionally, and the adoption of no other measure, do we hear down right and base submission advocated on this floor. I do not say that gentlemen mean to submit; but to me it is as clear as day, that the doctrine leads to a down right submission.
When the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Van Dyke) entered into a prolix review of the conduct of the Executive for the last five years, I did expect that the chairman would have called him to order; but such a latitude has been throughout the session tolerated in discussion, that in future I shall scarcely expect any gentleman on any subject to be called to order. Sir, it would only require a very concise examination of the gentleman's doctrine to demonstrate most clearly that to admit his conclusions he must admit premises to which the people of the United States will never consent. You must in fact admit the British doctrine of impressment itself. He says that in January, 1804, the project of a treaty was transmitted from the department of state to the commissioner of the United States in London; that, although it was known to the American government that the principle of impressment would never be abandoned, yet subsequently in 1807, the same concession from Great Britain was insisted on as a sine qua non in negotiation. Now, sir, the gentleman and I am at issue as to the principle. If we had not a right at any time to deny the principle that Great Britain may impress American seamen when she pleases, the gentleman may be correct. [Mr. Van Dyke said, he had spoken only of the impressment of British seamen.] Mr. Gholson observed, that as he conceived this subject to have no relation to the question before the House, he would not persist in the discussion of it; but that take it as the gentleman pleased, his argument was founded altogether on the surrender on our part of the right of impressment to Great Britain. A right which the American people will never recognize.
Mr. DANA rose with a view that his vote might not be misunderstood, that he might not be supposed in voting for repealing the embargo on the first part of the proposition, to pledge himself as to any other measure. The only pledge for him, then, to give as a member of the House, was the fact, that a public trust was committed to him by freemen; & in executing the trust according to his best judgment, his mind should be left free as the ally, with respect to any ulterior question. This however he was ready to say—if the alternatives presented to the House were to be only those stated in the report of the committee of foreign relations—national occlusion or national submission or national war with the belligerent world, he was for neither of them. It was enough for him then, to say, that he did not agree to either of those propositions.
With respect to the general idea of going to war, I have had some doubts at least whether we should go to war very soon with France and Great Britain; for if it be difficult to fight one of those powers, it must be peculiarly difficult to fight them both. Before we go to war, I have been of opinion that those charged with the affairs of the nation, or at least some of the leaders, must make one discovery. It is this—Before we go to war we should be prepared for it. To go to war before being prepared for it would not become us as officers of the public, although an ardor of zeal even without preparation might be well enough for mere recruits. Before going to war, a number of things might be convenient for waging it to advantage; such as a military chest, because it is necessary to have some money as well for the pay of troops, as for various other expenditures, known to be requisite for the advantageous conduct of a war. Men too may be wanted. In case of undertaking an expedition to Halifax, I have thought that it might be proper to consider whether we should go by land or by water. If by water, I have rather supposed that we should not go in gun boats. If by land, I have been disposed to consider the distance, and to estimate how many leagues of forest in the province of New Brunswick would intervene,
which have not been traversed by any considerable body of men, or in which a horse-track or foot path could scarcely be found. In travelling with an army, it might be proper to consider how long a time it would require to make a road through such forest, and whether it was not probable that all the men who might be employed in cutting it would be cut to pieces before they could cut through the road. Baggage and some provisions too must be transported; for really soldiers are such beings that they cannot live without eating. And I have been disposed to enquire, in case of undertaking to march thro' that province a military force, with baggage, provisions, military stores, waggons, field artillery, and battering cannon, what length of time would be requisite for an army of the best spirit under commanders of the greatest talents to accomplish it. Canada has also been mentioned. But the season for striking a blow there has certainly passed away during the embargo. The spirit of hostility which existed between the Northern parts of the union and Canada is diminished. The boundary line is imaginary, passed daily by those who are in the habit of performing offices of friendship towards each other, or of transacting business; and thus the spirit of hostility is allayed; and however once the inhabitants of Canada might have wished to be under the government of the U. States, that wish has ceased. For however much we may extol the protection of the embargo, those who a year since perhaps were friendly to you, would now not accept your protection; for whilst they pay but small or no taxes there, and enjoy various privileges of freemen, they will not take your taxes, and receive no privilege with them. If you were to go to war now, you would find that the zeal of the inhabitants of the U. S. as to marching into Canada, is very much diminished. And, sir, when we come to consider the subject, the idea of marching to attack a foreign territory is not congenial with the habits of this country. How much would the invasion of Canada cost you? You would want an operating army of at least 25,000 well disciplined men. Are you ready to appropriate 10 millions of dollars for raising and supporting troops? With respect to marching the militia into Canada, you might order them, but I do not believe that the militia can be constitutionally required to march beyond the frontier. I do not believe that you can make a law requiring the march. For such reasons among others, I think that you will not soon go to war; especially as you cannot seriously think of going to war, merely for the sake of fighting when there is no prospect of success. When you talk about going to war without any systematic plan, it is to be regarded as merely theoretic.
On the question of enforcing the statutes of embargo, I shall not enter into a particular examination of the subject; but I agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Gholson) that if there be a rebellion against the laws, you ought to crush it. If you know of the existence of rebellion, put it down, or you are unworthy to hold the reins of empire. If you do not put it down, cease to call it rebellion. Take either alternative. What has been the doctrine of every administration? That insurrection should be put down if necessary by arms. Was it not on the anniversary of the battle of Lexington, on the 19th of April, 1808, that the President of the U. S. issued his proclamation for quelling an insurrection near lake Champlain? This, to be sure, was so small an insurrection or commotion that it was not seen by any one on the spot. Congress was then in session, and no information on the subject was laid before us; indeed I believe the proclamation only states a probability of an insurrection. Now it has been stated on the floor of Congress, that there is rebellion in the land. And here let me ask, what was intended or predicted by advocates of the embargo as to the effects on a foreign country? Was it not this? That it would produce such effects relative to some of the foreign powers, as to cause insurrections against government, and thus compel an accession to your terms. The policy of your embargo was a policy of insurrection. And are you disposed to say, that the bitter chalice of trouble, which was prepared for a foreign government, is already commenced to the lips of our own administration? Are they even now drinking the ingredients which they had compounded for others?
Gentlemen should in some degree be cautious as to the language which they use on this floor. When unadvised versions are here made upon the people for a want of patriotism, do such reproaches become this House? Can the history of the world exhibit the example of a free and active people bearing so long and with so much patience, measures which affect them so severely, which produce so much suffering? And are we so little acquainted with human nature, that we
expect our acts of government to be enforced by patriotism alone? In a population of six millions of whites, are there to be none but patriots? More especially, when many men in the country have but recently come into it. Do you expect all the people without any exception, to be patriots? Do your constitution and laws suppose this? If so, for what cause is the Executive magistrate authorized to display the sword? No, sir; they have not been weak enough to trust to patriotism alone; they were more wise. Some persons may have felt indifference with respect to the policy of embargo; and some from principle, whatever they might think of the policy, would abstain from violating it. Some may have evaded it with impunity, while they were urged by the pressure of want on the one hand, and by the hope of profit on the other. Have you trusted to patriotism altogether? Wherefore then have your statutes been passed with such rigorous punishments? You might trust to the patriotism of a majority of the community; you trust to the sentiments of the great mass of men who are interested in maintaining the rights of property, person and character. But you may always expect there will be some bad men who will evade or violate the laws, although clearly constitutional; and those you should calculate to put down.
Some questions however have arisen in relation to this subject, of a very serious and interesting nature. Perhaps the House might not be willing to bear me express all the sentiments which are familiar to my own reflection. Perhaps too my expressions might be liable to misconstruction, which on such a subject I should by no means wish. On one point, however, which has reference to the idea of the secession of any state from the union, or a dismemberment of the union, perhaps I ought to say something. All this doctrine, for myself I utterly disclaim. The achievement of the independence of the thirteen original states, and the establishment of the constitution under which they are united, are connected with too many precious, too many proud recollections to permit a man easily to think of realising a dismemberment of the union so achieved and so established. Whatever diversity of opinion, whatever rivalry of states, whatever jealousy of state ambition may exist, still one sentiment is to be recollected, and it is one on which, when I mention it, I need make no comment. The distinguished, the illustrious patriot, whose memory is cherished in the northern portion of this union with a veneration next to idolatry, was a gentleman of Virginia. Independently of all those recollections which apply strongly to the heart, & which must so interest all honorable minds as not to be driven from them by any diversity of political opinion, for amongst gentlemen there are some sentiments of honor always recollected in relation to each other—independently of these, there are considerations so strongly applying to what I deem the interest of the state from which I am a representative, against a separation of the states, and such is my confidence in the good sense, the strong practical intelligence, and the sound principles of my constituents, that were every state near it to solicit a separation from the present union, and desire the concurrence of Connecticut, supporting it with all the talents which those states possess, I do believe, that even myself, with my single talent, however small, could prevent the acceding to the proposition supposed. A reason for this opinion is, that from the habit of education together, and my knowledge of the consequent uniformity of sentiment, I am very confident on mature reflection with respect to a subject of this nature the people of Connecticut would generally adopt the same conclusion with myself. And in saying this, sir, I request to be understood as relying not on any imaginary potency of my talent, but on the prevalent power of truth.
Yet, sir, be pleased to recollect, that this government, according to constitutional principles, is not a consolidated government. I have heard, in the course of the present session, an argument against the embargo as being a consolidating measure; and reference was made to the language of a celebrated orator of Virginia (now deceased) as to the danger of consolidation. Since that time I have been almost astonished at the change produced in my own opinion: for the argument, which then seemed to have more of eloquence and fertility of mind than of reality, the argument which then seemed but specious has since appeared to be hardened into solidity by measures which have been adopted. It is well known that this is a government of limited powers—when the members of the government act without constitutional authority, they act as unauthorized individuals. In case of questions arising, whether our acts are constitutional or not, soe perhaps might say that our decision should be regarded as infallible. But the constitution does not proceed upon the suppo-
sition of the infallibility of Congress, or upon the supposition of Executive infallibility. The question therefore remains with respect to our acts, whether others may not rightfully decide as to their constitutionality. Every member of government, who is sworn to support the constitution, has to perform his public trust according to what he believes to be the true construction of the rule of duty to which he is bound by oath. According to this principle, judges have doubted the constitutionality of legislative acts, and have considered themselves not bound to give effect to any legislative provision when clearly unconstitutional.
The elective franchise is of great use as well to prevent the adoption of unconstitutional measures, as to guard against the abuse of powers unquestionably delegated by the constitution. If however unconstitutional acts be adopted, are they not acts of usurpation? Such acts, whether adopted from patriotic motives or otherwise, are not in pursuance of the trust committed to the government; and the members of independent authorities, who are sworn expressly to support the constitution, are not to be considered as sworn to give effect to such measures. When therefore a deliberative body is called upon to act in aid of statutes not constitutional, they are at liberty to refuse. Thus the judges of courts of the U. S. are considered as not bound to afford any agency or aid towards carrying into effect a legislative provision which is unconstitutional. The legislatures of individual states are also deliberative bodies. And some acts might be required from them for giving complete effect to some of the acts of Congress. I will cite an example. The act relative to the militia, could not be carried into its intended effect without some legislative provisions on the part of the state governments. Such provisions have been made, and the act has gone into general operation. But if any state legislature had believed the act to be unconstitutional, would it have been their duty to comply with its unconstitutional provisions. One state, I think, did omit for a time, to pass any act conformable to that act of Congress, although not from doubts about constitutionality, but from some other cause. I consider therefore, that the state legislatures, whose members are sworn to support the constitution, may refuse assistance, aid, or co-operation as to an act of Congress which they sincerely believe to be unconstitutional. And one step further, I think, may be admitted. They may refuse the co-operation of persons holding offices as agents under the state; for the agency of such persons is the agency of a part of the state itself.
If we admit all these principles, gentlemen need not suppose that they in the least endanger the constitution of the union—not in the least, sir. But if measures were pursued tending to alienate large portions of the people by giving effect to unconstitutional principles, this might expose the union to the hazard of division, or to the hazard of being consolidated by arbitrary power into one government. The legislatures of individual states have motives of policy and interest to decide in favor of acts of the general government; because it is a common cause to maintain legislative authority. Of consequence when a question is raised by a respectable portion of the community, as to the constitutionality of a statute, it should be regarded as warning the general government to review the subject with serious deliberation.
Perhaps gentlemen are not perfectly acquainted with the nature of some proceedings which have taken place in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, or with the nature of their town meetings. Those primary assemblies of the people exhibit the great force of the principles of free government. They are bodies legally constituted, with the power of making local regulations, and of imposing taxes upon themselves—they are meetings convened in strict form of law, as much so as when the President of the U. S. issues his proclamation for a meeting of Congress. When assembled they proceed to choose a person to preside in a manner as conformable to law as the choice of Speaker of this House; & order may be maintained there with as absolute certainty as it is here, for the officer who presides may require the assistance of peace officers. In those places, their military men assemble; the men and officers there meet on even floor, and deliberate freely. Thus the meetings may exhibit what is resolved upon by the mass of fighting men. They are assemblies to which the people are perfectly accustomed, to which all legally qualified to vote are admitted, and in which they all may express their sentiments on their common concerns. They are seen proceeding with much deliberation and with much caution to judge and decide on what they believe to be proper for them according to the constitutional law of the land. Instead of thinking them scarcely worthy of notice, they should rather be regarded with pecu-
Much has been said as to the example of Virginia in relation to a trial under the statute of the United States called the sedition act. That was a case, sir, in which a statute could not go into effect but through the medium of a court. The court gave its aid, pronouncing the act in question to be constitutional. If however, an act were never to come before the court, and the state officers were called upon to execute it, it would present a very different case. There was an insurrection of unauthorized individuals in Pennsylvania against a law of the United States which was certainly constitutional. I recollect that much was heard from Virginia about the trial alluded to. Resolutions and addresses of the Virginia legislature were passed about legislative or judicial usurpation. [Mr. Gholson asked leave to correct Mr. Dana as to facts. The resolutions of the legislature of Virginia were antecedent to the trial of Callender.] Mr. Dana would mention some other trials for supposed libels or sedition. There is a case now coming up to the supreme court of the United States. It is the case of a prosecution at common law for supposed libel, or sedition, or slander, instituted before a circuit court of the United States, conducted by an officer appointed by the present President of U. States. There have been instituted before the circuit court of the United States in the district of Connecticut, within about three or four years past, seven or eight prosecutions at common law for supposed libelous publications or seditious or slanderous words against either the President or Congress or some portion of the government of the U. States. Some of the prosecutions have been attempted to be carried at common law beyond anything contained in that sedition act of which so much has been said. These are facts well known. The district attorney of the United States has conducted the prosecutions. To be sure, no persons have ever been punished under them, because it always so happened that there has been some error in the business, some defect of skill or attention in the attempt to bring up the question which it was wished to have decided by jury. I do not mean to charge the public prosecutor with purposely leaving a deficiency in these cases so as to liberate the persons prosecuted. You may judge of the nature of the prosecutions when I observe that a judge of the highest court of law, has been prosecuted in the name of the the United States for a supposed libel—a man eminent for his personal worth, professional talents & literary acquirements. One of our most distinguished clergymen has been indicted, and another clerical gentleman has, I think, been committed to prison. Two or three of the editors of newspapers have also been indicted. All these prosecutions have been had in a court of the United States. Yet the people had made no noise whatever about them abroad. They suppose that the influence of the Executive administration of the United States, however great, was directed against that small state; but they have never complained to the other states, or asked aid of any other state about the affair. The judges of the court have both been appointed by the present administration; they are however of distinguished professional talents, and I recollect no reproach cast upon them as to any decision in these prosecutions even by those most opposed to them with respect to political opinion. The Lieut. Governor of the state has been arraigned before the same circuit court. Although it was painful to see the second magistrate of the state subjected to such a prosecution, and although it was felt as an insult upon the state, yet for this no opprobrium was cast on the court. The prosecution was ultimately abandoned—unquestionably, it could not be sustained where law and justice were respected. When gentlemen say so much of one prosecution in Virginia under the sedition act, they are desired to reflect that the small state of Connecticut has borne all these prosecutions. It is a state which never has given a President to the U. S. & perhaps never will. The prosecution now pending at common law for supposed libel or sedition is suffered to proceed without disturbance.
(Debate to be continued.)
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 15.
Mr. Lewis reported the bill for incorporating a company for making a turnpike road from Mason's Causeway to Alexandria, without amendment.
Mr. Van Horn moved that the bill now be read a third time; which motion was opposed by Mr. Lewis and a motion to refer it to a committee of the whole was carried, 51 to 34.
ARMY AND NAVY APPROPRIATION.
Mr. W. Alston, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill further to amend the several acts for establishing the War and Navy Departments; and to make an appropriation for the support of the naval and military establishments for the year 1809. Twice read and referred.

NON-INTERCOURSE. On motion of Mr. NICHOLAS, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole. Mr. Bassett in the Chair, on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes.
Mr. MILSON moved to strike out the first section of the bill, with a view to try the principle of the non-intercourse system. In support of this motion, he alleged the impossibility of carrying the system into effect; for he conceived that the embargo had been ineffective from the impossibility of carrying it into complete effect, and the proposed system would be at least as difficult to enforce. He thought that it would be impossible to carry a non-intercourse system into effect, as long as vessels were permitted to go to sea. He had many other objections to this bill, amongst which were these: that, although it raised the embargo in part only, the permission to vessels to go out, would render the provision for a partial embargo nugatory; that if the bill were to pass in its present shape, it was to be doubted whether any revenue officer of the United States would understand the duty enjoined on him by it; that a time, only two days previous to the meeting of the next Congress, was fixed upon as the day on which the non-importation should go into operation, and thus the bill appeared to manifest a distrust of that Congress, who certainly would be more competent than the present Congress to decide on its propriety at that time; that a non-intercourse between these countries would but compel our citizens to pay a double freight to and from the country, without producing any other effect than injuring our own citizens; that goods from these countries, although their importation were interdicted by law, would be introduced nevertheless; that the extent of the territory and sea-coast of the United States was so great, that all efforts to interdict the importation of goods must be ineffectual, for they would be introduced contrary to law, thus depriving the United States of the revenue which would be derived from them if their importation were permitted by law. Rather than accept this system, Mr. M. thought it would be better that this country should remain yet longer under the pressure of the embargo; which he had no doubt must be repealed early in the next session.
Mr. QUINCY entered at considerable length into an examination of the system of coercion on foreign nations by means of commercial restrictions. The idea of the efficacy of this system he traced to a deeper root than any administration under this government. It was an error of the American people, originating in a period antecedent to the revolution; it grew out of our colonial regulations. It began to be a favorite belief with the people, antecedent to the year 1765, and was then fostered by the patriots of that day, the idea being also encouraged by the patriots of England. Mr. Quincy entered into a comparative statement of the exports from and imports to Great Britain from America at two different periods, viz. the nine years preceding the year 1775, and the nine years succeeding it, with a view to show that the average imports into Great Britain from all the world, during the nine years peace with this country, amounted to but about one-thirteenth more than the average imports during the same period of war; and the exports diminished, nearly in the same proportion. From his statements on this head, and a comparison of the present relative situation of the two countries, Mr. Quincy drew the inference that this supposed means of coercing the European powers did not exist. He deemed it peculiarly unfortunate that a confidence in this power of coercion had so long existed, as it had prevented the United States from making preparations which they otherwise might have made. He hoped the idea would now cease. In relation to our present situation, he recommended a plain remedy; comprised in two words—"Follow nature." What did she first dictate for remedying any complaint? The removal of all obstructions on her operations. Mr. Quincy therefore recommended the removal of the embargo, the repeal of the non-importation act and the abandonment of the non-intercourse system. He wished "peace if possible; if war, union in that war;" for this reason he wished a negotiation to be opened unshackled with those impediments to it which now existed. As long as they remained, the people in the portion of the country whence he came, would not deem an unsuccessful attempt at negotiation to be cause for war; if they were removed, and an earnest attempt at negotiation was made unimpeded with these restrictions, and should not meet with success, they would join heartily in a war. They would not however go to war to contest the rights of Great Britain to search American vessels for British seamen; for it was a general opinion with them, that if A-
there would be no occasion for the employment of foreign seamen; the removal of the embargo without dropping any other measure until the result of negotiation had been tried. Mr. Quincy said would, first , prevent any collision with the belligerents which might tend to embarrass negotiation; and secondly , would give an opportunity to the country to ascertain what would be the practical operation of these orders and decrees on our commerce; and give an opportunity to the next Congress to shape its measures according to their actual effect. If commerce did not suffer, the knowledge of this fact would supersede the necessity of any other measure, and peace would follow of course; if on the contrary, a general sweep was made of all the property afloat, it would unite all parties in a war. Mr. Quincy concluded a speech of two hours in length, by lamenting the state of the country, and invoking the spirit which "rides the whirlwind and directs the storm" to guide the nation to a happy result.
Mr. NICHOLAS replied to the observations of Mr. Quincy on the subject of the legal opposition to the embargo laws in Massachusetts. He said if the laws of the nation were to be regarded in the manner in which he lamented to say that he saw it contemplated in one part of the community, it became the duty of this Legislature to meet it; it was not compatible with their duty to shrink from it. He could not consent that thirteen or fourteen states should submit to one. As men vested with certain powers by the constitution, Congress could not transfer the powers to any state legislature or to any town. In relation to negotiating with measures of coercion in existence, Mr. Nicholas asked when did the violations of our rights commence? So long ago that the precise time could not be fixed. When did our coercive measures commence? In 1806. Mr. N. noticed the negotiators during whose ministry abroad these injuries had commenced and continued. Mr. King, Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, all honorable men, had successfully represented the United States in Great Britain. And could any thing be gathered from anything they had ever written or said, to induce a belief that this government had not acted with sincerity? There was the most conclusive evidence to the contrary. Mr. N. said he would ask nothing of Great Britain or France that would tend to sacrifice their honor; and he wished when gentlemen dwelt so much on the regard of foreign nations for their national character, that they would respect a little the character of our own country.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he had been decidedly in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal once; he believed it would have cut off all that fungous matter now deteriorating the body politic—for the people of New England were as patriotic as any, and when the choice was between their own and a foreign country they would cling to their own. It was the hot-bed politicians who stirred them up; and it was necessary to do something promptly to put an end to their intrigues. Mr. W. disliked the non-intercourse system throughout. If he could not get war or a continuance of the embargo, he wished, inasmuch as G. Britain and France had each interdicted us from going to the other, to declare that neither their armed or unarmed ships should contaminate our waters. This was a system which required no exertion of patriotism to carry into effect, which could excite no animosities between the North and South. In relation to the non-intercourse, he believed that it could not be enforced, and used a variety of arguments to show that it could not. If it could be enforced, he believed it would be prodigiously partial. If the embargo was to be taken off and war not to be substituted, if the nation was to submit, he wished to do it profitably. If the embargo were raised as to a single spot, it was raised entirely to all effectual purposes. Then let your vessels go, (said he) without let or hindrance; let them go and be burnt; your merchants will then feel that the embargo was a shield spread over them, and will come back to your protection like the prodigal son, and unite like brethren in the common cause. Mr. Williams said his plan was to interdict the entrance of our ports to belligerent vessels armed or unarmed and lay a tax of 50 per cent. on their manufactures. Great Britain must then either go to war or treat with us. If she was inclined to go to war in preference to revoking her orders in council, let her do so. But he was inclined to believe that she would treat. If she seized our vessels, however, the effect would be inevitable. Division amongst us would be done away—all would unite heart and hand in war. Mr. W. replied to a number of the observations of Mr. Quincy—particularly in relation to his position that all obstructions ought to be removed with a view to negotiation. He asked what secu-
did all this, if they submitted to such object humiliation, that Great Britain could treat? Was it to be expected that she would treat more liberally with us when we solicited as slaves, than she would whilst we magnanimously contended for our rights? The gentleman from Massachusetts, (said he) when repeating his creed, had forgotten a part, viz. " Unfurl the banners of the republic against the imperial standard! " This would complete a project he had lately seen proposed from the East; and, as to its application, coinciding with the wishes over the water, would be just such a project as Mr. Canning might dictate. "Revoke your proclamation, remove the embargo and "unfurl the republican banners against the imperial standard." Mr. Williams concluded a speech of an hour and a half in length with giving notice that he should move to amend the bill, when the present motion was decided, by striking out all that part of it relating to non-intercourse, and inserting a provision interdicting the entrance of our harbors to any vessel of Great Britain and France, and imposing an additional duty on all goods imported from those countries.
When Mr. Williams concluded, the committee rose and obtained leave to sit again. ( Debate in detail hereafter. )
THURSDAY, FEB. 15. ADDITIONAL DUTIES. The House this day passed the bill laying an additional duty (50 per cent. on present duties) on all goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States.
NON-INTERCOURSE. Some progress was made in the non-intercourse bill. The motion for striking out the first section of the bill was negatived, 24 only rising in favor of it.
The 20th day of May was fixed as the day on which the part interdicting the entrance of British and French vessels should take effect.
Mr. D. R. Williams moved to strike out the fourth section of the bill (prohibiting the importation of British and French goods) and insert in lieu of it a section for imposing a discriminating duty of fifty per cent. on all former duties, on goods, &c. imported from those countries.
The committee rose without coming to a decision on this question. [Further details of this day's proceedings in our next.]
ERRATUM —In the part of Mr. DARELL's speech contained in the last National Intelligencer, in the 2nd column of 2nd page, instead of "Oceans" read "ocean."
BIRTH NIGHT BALL. AN ASSEMBLY , in commemoration of the Nativity of Gen. Washington, will be held at Long's Hotel on Wednesday evening the 22nd February. Gentlemen to obtain Tickets at the bar, by application to one of the Managers.
John Taylor, } MANAGERS. Lt. Col. Donald Wharton, } Lt. J. Henderson, } James Pakin, } February 17—3t
FOR SALE OR TO RENT, The Two Story FRAME HOUSE & LOT On 13th street west, belonging and now in the occupation of the Subscriber. The house is convenient; the situation is healthy and pleasant. Possession may be had the first of Fourth month. For further particulars enquire on the premises. Wm. YEATES, Jr. 17th of 2d month—w3t
A TOWN FARM TO BE RENTED, For a term of years, from the 2nd day of April next. The premises consist of a good Dwelling House and Stable, with two Gardens; the Yard contains about 24 Sinks, a large Barn and Mill House, a Warehouse, Currying Shop, &c. Situate near the Capitol and Navy Yard, in the city of Washington. The present tenant will treat with any person who may rent this property, for the Stock of Leather, Hides, and Bark, which he may then have on hand. For further particulars enquire of ROBT. UNDERWOOD on the Pennsylvania avenue, who will show the premises. February 17—1f
IN COUNCIL—ANNAPOLIS, FEB. 8, 1809. Ordered, That the resolution of the Legislature, passed at the last session, respecting the Governor and Council to procure information as to the probable expenses of erecting and furnishing a building of sufficient dimensions for the manufacturing annually one thousand stand of arms complete, be published twice a week for the space of four weeks in the American and Federal Gazette at Baltimore; the Maryland Gazette at Annapolis; the Republican Advocate at Frederick Town; the National Intelligencer; the Maryland Herald at Hager's-Town, and in Mr. Smith's paper at Eason. BY ORDER, NINIAN PINKNEY, Clk.
Resolved, That the Governor and Council be requested to procure, and submit to this House, at their next meeting, information as to the probable expenses of erecting and furnishing a building of sufficient dimensions for the manufacturing, annually, one thousand stand of arms complete, fifty brace of horsemen's pistols, one hundred horsemen's swords, and one hundred swords suitable for artillerists, and the practicability of procuring workmen sufficient for the same, and the usual wages for such workmen, and as to the most eligible site for the erection of such buildings, the machinery of which, if necessary, to be worked by water, steam, or otherwise; and that by publication of this resolution, they give notice that they will receive description of and proposal for the sale of such site. And that they procure, if practicable, the annual report in the different establishments of the same kind in the United States. February 17—lawyer
WASHINGTON CITY. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17.
A rumor prevails of the receipt of intelligence from Spain, that the French arms had been attended with decisive success. We have not been able to trace this information to any credible source.
The ice in the Potomac yesterday passed the Bridge without doing it any injury.
The citizens of the town of Marblehead have met, and passed a set of resolutions worthy of their high character for patriotism, from which we extract the following—
Resolved , That we view with the utmost abhorrence and indignation in the conduct of a party among us, who are continually endeavoring to excite the good people of this commonwealth to a disobedience of the laws of the union, by false and libelous publications, respecting the motives and measures of the General Government, and by gross misstatements of the nature and sources of our present embarrassments, that the real object of this party is to separate the United States, and excite rebellion and civil war for the purpose of establishing a monarchy under the pretence of a northern confederacy, or to force us into a destructive war with the continent of Europe, consequently a fatal alliance with the corrupted monarchy of Britain, "whose embrace is death."
Resolved , That we behold with mixed emotions of pain and abhorrence the proceedings of certain towns in this Commonwealth, convened for the express purpose of criminalizing the National Government, and scattering the seeds of discord and contention among the community, as pregnant with the most pernicious consequences, inflaming the minds of individuals against their rulers, enticing them to an open rebellion against the constituted authorities, and which if persisted in will produce scenes from which the mind recoils with horror.
SENATE, FEBRUARY 13. Mr. Giles occupied the greater part of the day in support of his resolution relative to the embargo, &c.
FEB. 14. On motion of Mr. Hillhouse, resolved, that a committee be appointed to examine and report, whether any, and what further regulations or provisions are necessary to check the allowance or payment of extravagant claims, or unreasonable accounts, and to prevent an improper expenditure of public money; & that the committee be authorized to call on the several departments for such information and papers, as may be necessary to aid them in their enquiry; and to report by bill or otherwise. Ordered, that Messrs. Giles, Hillhouse and Crawford be the committee.
Mr. Gregg reported a bill authorizing an augmentation of the marine corps. [This bill passed to a third reading on the 16th. It authorizes the President to augment the present corps by one major, two captains, two first lieutenants, 185 corporals, and 594 privates.]
The Senate resumed the consideration of Mr. Giles's resolution, which is as follows:
Resolved , That the several laws laying an embargo on all ships, and vessels in the ports and harbors of the U. States be repealed on the fourth day of March next, except as to G. Britain and France, and their dependencies; and that provision be made by law for prohibiting all commercial intercourse with those nations and their dependencies, and the importation of any article into the U. S. the growth, produce or manufacture of either of the said nations, or of the dominions of either of them.
Mr. Bayard moved to strike out the words in Italic .
On this motion Mr. Bayard spoke at great length, when the question was taken by Yeas and Nays, as follows:
Yeas —Messrs. Bayard, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, Parker, Pickering, White—8. Nays —Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Howland, Kitchell, Leib, Matthewson, Mitchell, Moore, Pope, Reid, Smith, of Md. Smith, of N. Y. Smith, of Ten. Sumter, Thurston, Tiffin, Turner—23.
Mr. Hillhouse moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution—Lost.
On agreeing to the original resolution the Senate divided—Yeas 22—Nays 9—All the members voting in the affirmative, who voted in the negative on Mr. Bayard's amendment, and vice versa; except Mr. Turner, who on the resolution voted in the negative.
Ordered that Messrs. Giles, Smith of Md. and Crawford, be a committee to bring in a bill.
FEBRUARY 15. On motion of Mr. Smith of Md. Resolved, That a committee be appointed to join such committee as
may be appointed on the part of the House of Representatives, to consider whether any, and if any, what measures ought to be adopted for the further accommodation of the President of the United States, for the term commencing the 4th of March next. Committee Messrs. Smith of Md. White and Sumter.
FEBRUARY 16. Mr. Giles reported a bill to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes.
Boston, Feb. 9. The officer commanding Fort Independence deems it his duty to inform the inhabitants of Boston and Charlestown, that he has been instructed by the Secretary of War, to obey the requests of the Collector of the port of Boston and Charlestown, or of his officers duly authorised to carry into effect the embargo laws, that he is called upon to stop only such vessels as may attempt to depart from the harbor contrary to law, that orders were given to the officer of the day at Fort Independence, and are now in force, conformably to said instructions.
Orders were also given to respect the clearance of Mr. Lovell as lawful, which orders have been obeyed; and further that no vessel whatever has in fact been detained or prevented from sailing by the castle.
JNO. P. BOYD, Col. 4th Reg. Inf. C. M. D.
MARRIED —Last evening, by the Rev. Mr. Matthews, Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON to Miss T. DIXON.
FOR ALEXANDRIA GEORGETOWN and the City of WASHINGTON. THE Schooner CAROLINE, John Hand, Jr. Master—a constant trader. All persons having goods to ship, will please leave a list of the packages with their contents and value, with the master on board at Morris's wharf, (at above the Drawbridge) that a general permit may be taken, as nothing can afterwards be taken on board. Philadelphia, Feb. 47—3t
CHARLES J. NOURSE Offers for sale 100 boxes of fresh Muscatel Raisins of superior quality. He has also received per the brig Orozimbo from Liverpool,  5 Bales of Plains, assorted  10 do Rose Blankets  2 do 64 Cloths  7 do Negro Cottons  5 do Flannels  4 do Carpeting  2 do Booking Baise  3 Cases of 4-4 and 6-4 Cambric muslins  3 do Dimities  4 do Velvets and Cords  2 do Shirting Muslins  which will be sold by the package or piece on reasonable terms—He has on hand 4th proof Cognac Brandy, Holland Gin, New-York do. L. P. Madeira Wine, N. Y. Market do. Sherry do. Teneriffe do. Port (old) do. Catalonia do. Bucelas do. Malaga do. TEAS—Imperial, Hyson, Young Hyson, Hyson Skin, Bohea—Best soft shelled Almonds, Piston Indigo, Muscovado Loaf and Lump Sugars, Bourbon & W. India Coffee, Molasses, & Rice. Mould, Dips, and Spermaceti Candles, Castile, White and Brown Soap, London Mustard, Hare's best Philadelphia Porter in barrels of 3 doz. each, Pickles assorted, Martinique Cordials, best Havana Segars, Table oil in bottles and flasks, Chocolate, Nutmegs, Mace, Cloves, Cinnamon, Pepper, Pimento, Turk's Island, Isle of May and Liverpool salt. Geo. Town. Feb. 3—2awtf.
ANY LADY OR GENTLEMEN Properly qualified to Teach the PIANO-FORTE. May probably hear something that may tend to their advantage by applying to the Printer hereof. None need apply who cannot be well recommended. January 3—3t
NOTICE. THE subscribers to the " Manufacturing Company of the City of Washington and district of Columbia ," are requested to meet at LYNN & Co's Hotel on the 22d inst. to elect by ballot nine directors and a secretary agreeably to the "articles of association." ** The election to commence at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and to close at 8 o'clock in the evening. By order of the committees. CHARLES MINNIE, Chairman. Feb. 13—3t.
CHEAP GOODS. BAKER & RIGGS, (SIGN OF THE PLOUGH.)
HAVE removed to the Store, lately occupied by Romulus Riggs, and have bought his entire Stock of GOODS, (very low) which added to their former supply, with some fresh Goods, just received from Philadelphia, makes their assortment very extensive, they being bought principally for cash, previous to any material rise in the markets, enables them to sell lower than the present prices.
Amongst their Stock are Irish Linens, Shirting & Cambric Muslins, Linen Cambrics, Cambric Handkerchiefs, Furniture Dimities & Chintzes, Fine Mr. Mid Leno & Coled Muslins, Muslin Shawls, Mantles & Robes, Super undressed Shirting Muslins, very fine Cambric Muslin for Cravats, veils, laces, shades, silks, crapes, Silk Shawls, Elastic India Crapes, Ladies Beaver and Stray Bonnets, Silk, Cotton & Worsted Hosiery and Gloves, Bleached country Linen for sheeting, Cloths, Cords, Blankets, Waiscoatng, Carpeting, and many other Fancy and substantial articles, which will be sold low for Cash, and a liberal discount to persons to sell again. They also expect to receive in a few days, a quantity of best Ingraine, English, and Venetian CARPETING with other articles. Georgetown. February 5—2awtf.
A TEACHER. CAPABLE of Teaching, Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Geography, and the Rudiments of the Latin Language, wants a situation in a Private Family. One on the banks of the river Potomac or Paucourt would be preferred. A line addressed to A. Z. in the city of Washington by mail, (and the postage paid) will receive any attention.

The Answer of the House to the Speech of the Lieut. Governor, was taken up and accepted without debate. Yeas 182—Nays 115—Majority 67.
THE ANSWER.
May it please your honor. The House of Representatives view, with deep and serious regret the very peculiar circumstances under which they have assembled, and with fearful anxiety direct their thoughts to that Being, without whose aid the portentous aspect of our public affairs cannot be changed. In a season of political calamity, when the hand of the General Government presses with peculiar rigor upon the people of Massachusetts, the known patriotism of her sons, becomes a sure pledge for the display of those virtues which the times require. At such a moment the House of Representatives will manifest with patience and circumspection the causes which have led to the existing and threatened evils, and will endeavor to apply such remedies as the powers confided to that branch of the State Legislature will constitutionally warrant.
The affliction dispensation of Divine Providence which has deprived this Commonwealth of its late Commander in Chief, cannot be more sincerely deplored by your honor than it is sensibly felt by the House of Representatives. Elevated to the chair of state, in opposition to the political sentiments of a majority of the Legislature, we are happy to declare that the late Governor Sullivan, in the discharge of his high and important trust, appeared rather desirous to be the Governor of Massachusetts than the leader of a party, or the vindictive champion of its cause.
We receive with respectful attention the assurance of your honor's "solicitude, assiduity and best endeavors to promote what shall appear most conducive to the good of the whole," and pursuing the fair and obvious construction of the national and state constitutions as a rule of action, we present that it is impossible your honor should furnish any occasion for the exertion of candor or indulgence on our part.
We are unwilling to believe that any division of sentiment can exist among the New England states or their inhabitants as to the obvious infringement of rights secured to them by the constitution of the U. S.—and still more so, that any men can be weak or wicked enough to consume a disposition to support that constitution and preserve the union, by a temperate and firm opposition to acts which are repugnant to the first principles and purposes of both, into a wish to secede from the other states. If a secession has been conceived by the states or people referred to in your honor's communication, it is unknown to the House of Representatives, who absolutely disclaim any participation therein, or having afforded the least color for such a charge. If ever such suspicions existed, they can have been only in the minds of those who must be sensible that they had adopted, and were persisting in measures which had driven the people to desperation, by infringing rights which the citizens of Massachusetts conceive to be unalienable, and which they fondly hoped had been inviolably secured to them by the federal compact.
The legislature and people of Massachusetts ever have been and are firmly and sincerely attached to the union of the states, and there is no sacrifice they have not been, & are not now willing to submit to, in order to preserve the same, according to its original purpose—Of this truth your honor must be convinced. We do not appeal to the unvarying conduct of our citizens during the glorious administrations of Washington and Adams, when the patriotic endeavors of our statesmen, under the most perplexing embarrassments, pursued and secured the interests and honor of the nation—But we can appeal to the patience with which our fellow citizens have borne the administration of those, whose best it has been, to proscribe all the measures of their predecessors, and most of the men whose talents and virtues had assisted in forming the United States the blessing of a free government. The people in this section of the country had undoubtedly agreed themselves, that the liberal confidence which they had afforded to professions of their rulers, would induce a regard to their interests, and when experience had shown the incompetency of their measures to the honor and safety of the country, they would have the magnanimity to correct their errors. It ought not to be matter of surprise that men who either on the floor of Congress or elsewhere, have adopted measures hostile to the union, and subversive of its principles, should endeavor to brand with calumny, you or one of the efforts of those who sincerely aim at preserving the constitution, by demonstrating the tendency of their acts, and who studiously exert themselves to prevent a dissolution of the Federal Compact, by stating the dangers of such an event. An event the House cannot fail to deprecate as the greatest of evils, and to prevent which they will leave no constitutional means unassayed. But it would be greatly to be deplored, if any thing in your honor's address could be construed into a sanction, by the chief magistrate of this commonwealth, of a charge so unfounded and a slander so unmerited.
It is with much pleasure the House of Representatives receive your honor's declaration, that no personal gratification shall stand in the way of any arrangement, which shall concentrate the general will, and direct its strength for our country's safety. In this declaration, so honorable to yourself, sir, the House of Representatives most promptly and cordially concur, and so far as constitutionally they may sacredly pledge themselves to your honor in defence of all those rights which have been violated abroad, or usurped at home.
The House of Representatives agree in sentiment with your honor, that "it cannot be necessary to review in detail the continued and aggravated insults and injuries which have been heaped upon us by the warring powers of Europe," yet it may not be improper to remark, that when a government, in the first instance, from an overweening partiality to one power, and undue prejudice against another, or a timid and pusillanimous policy towards all nations, surrenders essential rights without a struggle, the nation over which it rules becomes the victim of aggression from without, and of impositions from within. The partial development of public documents is but too conclusive on this point.
That the regulation of our commercial intercourse and our national defence, are most wisely confided to the general government, is a truth so plain and palpable, that we should hold it unnecessary to be repeated here, were it not for the purpose of contending, with your honor in the justice of the sentiment; but the liberty of discussing the measures of our general government with fairness and moderation, is a right the House of Representatives never will relinquish.
with fairness and moderation, is a right the House of Representatives never will relinquish.
We cannot agree with your honor that in a free country there is any stage at which the constitutionality of an act may no longer be open to discussion and debate; at least it is only upon the high road to despotism that such stages can be found.
At such a point the government undertaking to extend its powers beyond the limits of the constitution, degenerates into tyranny. The people, if temperate and firm, will, we confidently rely, eventually triumph over such usurpations.
Were it true that the measures of government once passed into an act, the constitutionality of that act is stamped with the seal of infallibility, and is no longer a subject for the deliberation or remonstrance of the citizen, to what monstrous lengths might not an arbitrary and tyrannical administration carry its power. It has only to pass through rapid readings and midnight sessions, without allowing time for reflection and debate, to the final enacting of a bill, and before the people are even informed of the intentions of their rulers, their chains are riveted, and the right of complaint denied them. Were such a doctrine sound, what species of oppression might not be inflicted on the prostrate liberties of our country. If such a doctrine were true, our constitution would be nothing but a name—nay worse, a fatal instrument to sanctify oppression, and legalize the tyranny which indicts it.
Nothing but malice or imbecility could put at hazard the existence of a "balanced government, capable of operating and providing for the public good," unless the administration of that government, by its arbitrary impositions had endangered or destroyed the very object for the protection of which it had been instituted.
Should such a case ever occur, on the administration who should usurp powers and violate such sacred obligations, must rest the odium of having hazarded a government "so stable, so reasonable, and so beyond every thing else essential to the liberty and happiness of our fellow citizens."
Although the history of the first twelve years of our Federal Government abundantly proves that no administration, however wise and happy, can be satisfactory to all our citizens, yet have the people at all times, and under all administrations, an undoubted right to insist that neither the letter nor spirit of the constitution shall be violated. And most certainly the policy and capacity of that administration may be questioned, which in a few years has reduced this great, active and enterprising nation, from an unexampled height of commercial prosperity, to comparative poverty and idleness. Assembled that administration which meets aggression only with retirement and non-intercourse laws, never can acquire the confidence of a commercial people, and never will afford any security against violence, injustice and deprivation. To the present administration is the country indebted for a system of measures as novel as it is imbecile, as weak against foreign nations as it is oppressive and ruinous to our own.
The House of Representatives certainly have no disposition to assume the direction of those affairs, the management of which has been so properly confined to the general government; yet upon this occasion it may not be deemed improper to observe, that from the scanty information which has been suffered to escape, they cannot discern in the situation of our foreign relations, any difficulties or embarrassments which have not heretofore been successfully encountered by former administrations of our government. During the administration of Washington and Adams, circumstances of much greater political embarrassment were met with a steady eye, and firm and vigorous purpose. Negotiations with both the great contending powers of Europe were commenced, and by a steady adherence to the just rights of our nation, with an active preparation to use force, when negotiation failed, the patriots of the day successfully repelled every unjust pretension, while they preserved the honor, as well as the resources and property of their fellow citizens. The House of Representatives, therefore, cannot doubt, that the same measures resorted to with the same spirit and good faith, would effect now what they did then, the protection instead of the annihilation of our commerce—the preservation instead of the abandonment of the nation's honor.
It cannot be denied that jealousy and distrust have arisen among the people of Massachusetts, and which is to be regretted, that they have been so well founded. A system of policy inimical to their interests, and uncongenial to their enterprising spirit—a system, for which the administration has yet, in our opinion, assigned no adequate reason, has borne most heavily and unequally on the northern and commercial states. For relief from this oppression the people fondly looked to the meeting of Congress;—But alas! How fatally have their hopes been blasted.—Their humble prayers have been answered by an act so arbitrary and oppressive, that it violates the first principles of civil liberty, and the fundamental provisions of the constitution. At such a moment, and under such a pressure, when every thing which freemen hold dear, is at stake, it cannot be expected, and it ought not to be wished, that they should suffer in silence. The House of Representatives cannot admit that laws which operate unequally are inviolable. The government, in their opinion, has no right to sacrifice the interests of one section of the union, to the prejudices, partialities, or convenience, of another.
We perfectly agree with your honor in the general principle, that, in a free government, the majority must decide upon all existing or projected measures. But it will be recollected, that the decision of that majority, to be binding, must be constitutional and just. Government is formed for the security of the citizen, and the protection of his rights. Whenever his liberty is infringed, his rights violated or unprotected, if not absolved from his allegiance, he may demand redress, and take all lawful measures to obtain it.
It is impossible for the House of Representatives to follow the very wide and extended range of political remark through which it has pleased your honor to expatiate. The limits which time and duty prescribe, necessarily confine our observations to a few of the most prominent features of your honor's elaborate address. Those individual indiscretions, and that rashness of sentiment and action which have so justly incurred your honor's censure, as opposing a vital movement of the body politic; appear to indicate with precision that period of our federal history in which an insurrection, fomented by those who assumed to themselves exclusively the denunciation of republicans, and aided by the machinations of French intrigue, had nearly
prostrated the national government. Thanks to the friends of the constitution, with the beloved Washington at their head, they protected by their valor in the field, what their wisdom in the cabinet had created. We trust, sir, that there is now no danger of a repetition of those scenes of licentious riot and rebellion. We perfectly accord in sentiment with your honor, "that to suggest such things of New England is not less a libel on the morals and understanding of its inhabitants, than on their patriotism;" their character is not marked with propensities to disorder, outrage and blood." It such characters exist any where in the U.S. they are not to be found among the peaceful and industrious citizens of New England.
The early habits and constant practice of our fathers and ourselves have led us on every great emergency, and on the pressure of political calamities, to resort to town meetings, wherein the general sense of the people might be collected. This practice, so wholesome and salutary, was one of the most influential means employed in bringing about that glorious revolution which established our independence. It was against these meetings, therefore, that the strong arm of royal power was elevated, in the year 1774, and they were prohibited under severe penalties. Had the British ministry of that day attended to the voice of the people so expressed, they would have avoided the evils which they had afterwards so much reason to deplore. The expression of the public sentiment has become necessary to counteract the errors and misrepresentations of those who have falsely inculcated upon the administration of the general government, a belief that the measures they were pursuing were satisfactory to the people. From the suppression of these meetings would liberty have more to apprehend than from any other cause whatever. From such a cause should we dread "the overturning the splendid edifice erected by the wisdom and valor of our fathers." A privilege so wisely secured by our constitution, we cannot hesitate to declare, the citizens of Massachusetts will never resign.
We are perfectly aware, that "misrepresentations, groundless suspicions, violent and indiscriminate abuse," are the rank weeds of a free government and an unrestricted press. Perhaps no country has afforded more fatal examples of such misrepresentations, than our own. It is by the use of such means that factions and designing men always rise to power. The instructive page of history is crowded with examples. In some countries we have seen political partisans clandestinely supporting these vehicles of calumny and slander; by their agency blackening the reputation of a meritorious and successful rival, for whom in the face of the world they professed the greatest personal consideration and respect. The object once gained, however, it has always been the practice of low ambition to disavow the means by which it mounted. In our country, we congratulate your honor that every citizen has a temple of refuge in the laws. To these and an independent jury he may safely flee for protection from the poisonous breath of political slander and detraction.
In the description which your honor has drawn of the situation of our country previous to the adoption of the federal constitution, we cannot but observe the very strong resemblance which it bears to the picture of the present times. "Our government humbled and inefficient, our union on a thread, our commerce unprotected, our revenue nothing, individuals embarrassed, grievances complained of, our rulers censured, town and county resolutions published, combinations formed, non-compliance with the laws announced, property sold for one third its value, the insolvent imprisoned, and the courts of justice stopped;" that this description applies to the present state of parts if not the whole of our country, we believe will not be denied. Whence comes it that from a state of the most flourishing prosperity a few months should have produced a change so truly astonishing! It is not in the restless and unsteady habits of a people, till lately contented and happy, that we must look for the causes of these frightful calamities; it is in the pernicious and dreadful consequences of this shallow system of embargo and non-intercourse, that we shall find the fruitful source of our country's ruin. We do most sincerely hope that neither Virginia nor any other state may ever succeed in "dictating measures to Congress and by a convulsed state of things force their adoption." However, such an usurpation might from various causes endure for a time, the returning good sense of the people would eventually restore the equilibrium and effectually prevent those tempestuous scenes which your honor has so eloquently described. "The importance and the interesting and perilous nature of the crisis" have excited the most alarming reflections in our minds, and we doubt not that every member of the legislature will devote himself to the arduous yet necessary duty of "devising some reconciling expedient to quiet the agitated minds of our citizens," and relieve them from the weight of these unconstitutional restrictions.
The House of Representatives derive peculiar satisfaction from contemplating the patriotism, order and discipline of our militia, and look with co-fidence to this establishment for a sure defence of their country and its rights. Such a bulwark will always render "standing armies in times of peace" unnecessary; for protection; and inadequate for usurpation or subjection at any time. So long as the militia system shall be deemed susceptible of improvement, so long will it be the favorite object of Legislative aid and shall meet the early and persevering attention of the House of Representatives. So far as it lies in our power we will take care that it shall be "capable of moving and being moved without mortifying delays and dangerous collisions." Nothing will more subserve this desirable end than the preservation of that discipline upon which depends the regularity and precision of all military movements. A vigilant regard also to those military judgments upon which depend the pride and honor of a soldier will tend greatly to inspire confidence in our officers, to procure obedience in their men, and restore the system that harmony which constitutes its perfection.
The House of Representatives have remarked, with much anxiety, an evil of growing magnitude in the accumulation of depreciated and counterfeited bank bills: the alarming height to which this evil has arisen, loudly calls for some remedy; and although "the want of a foreign market, for the produce of our farms," and the total suspension of our commerce, afford fewer opportunities for witnessing impositions, yet no doubt the number of persons who resort to dishonest practices, with our paper currency, is much increased by the peculiar situation of the country. The ingenuity which is driven from the pursuit of
honest industry and labor, frequently seeks a refuge from poverty in the path of vice.
It always has been the practice of the legislature of Massachusetts to extend the fostering hand of encouragement to all manufactures, undertaken within the commonwealth, with any prospect of success, or public utility. The House of Representatives will be happy upon every fair occasion, to continue this laudable custom, and will seize the earliest moment, which is free from other occupation, to deliberate upon this important subject, and to devise such plans as will best promote the object in view.
Good public roads certainly afford very great facilities to husbandry, commerce & manufactures; and Massachusetts in this respect, is not behind any portion of the U. States. It is a matter of much satisfaction to the House of Representatives, that these advantages have been obtained by the voluntary exertions and enterprise of our fellow-citizens, without resorting to the general government for any aid from that superfluous wealth which we are officially informed, the national treasury overflows. In a period of general prosperity, encouragement to the ornamental planting of our public roads would certainly be entitled to some attention from the legislature, but at this awful crisis, when our very existence as a nation is almost in question, it is respectfully submitted to your honor, whether the occupation of much time on this subject might not be considered by our constituents as trifling with the public expectations.
To cherish the interests of literature, at all times, and under all circumstances, the House of Representatives will consider as one of the first and most pleasing of their duties—upon this subject we shall always be ready most cheerfully to co-operate with your honor.
The House of Representatives accept with gratitude, and reciprocate with perfect sincerity, the wish which forms the conclusion of your honor's address, and pray your honor to be convinced that nothing, on their part, shall be wanting to bring the session to a termination consistent with the wish so devoutly expressed.
THE COMMERCIAL COMPANY OF WASHINGTON,
Have received by the Schooner Citizen, capt. Sturges, from New York, in addition to their supply of GOODS, and a new offer for Sale,
 20 bhs. Muscovado Sugar,  6 pipes Holland Gin,  9 bds. Rum,  3 pipes Cogniac Brandy,  6 pipes L. P. Madeira,  2 pipes Marsala,  5 qrs. casks Lisbon,  5 qrs. casks Sherry,  15 qrs. casks Catalonia,  30 boxes Claret,  17 chests, Imperial, Hyson and Young Hyson, Tea,  25 barrels Loaf Sugar,  16 boxes Spermaceti,  25 do. Mould  8 casks Ginger,  2 do. Salt Petre,  2 do. Pimento,  5 do. Pepper,  12 boxes Mustard,  3 bales Cassia,  6 do. soft shelled Almonds,  20 boxes Raisins,  8 do. Olives,  10 do. long and short Pipes,  10 barrels Mackerel,  3 do. Cranberries,  2 do. Fig Blue,  50 boxes Spanish Segars,  50 bags Corks,  They have also for Sale, Mace, Cloves, Cinnamon, Sallad Oil, Sperm Oil, Butter, Whiskey, Soap, Sheet Iron, Powder, Shot, Stone Ware in crates, &c. &c.
JOSEPH FORREST, Pres.
TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION.
ON Thursday the 2nd of March next, on a credit of 6 and 12 months, with interest from the 1st of April next, and the credit calculated from that time; the purchaser to give notes payable either at the City or Georgetown Banks, with two approved endorsers, that well known HOUSE on Pennsylvania avenue, occupied by Mr. William Rhodes as a Hotel, together with all the buildings attached thereunto, comprising every thing necessary for a Tavern, with a private Dwelling House. The situation of these premises give them some advantages over any other Tavern in the city, being near to the Public Offices and also to the street that will lead across the Tyber to Bridge crossing over the Potomac, and which is now progressing with a Turnpike road to Alexandria, which will add much to the value of this stand as a house of entertainment. Those inclined to purchase the above very extensive and valuable premises, are invited to call and view them. A few fixtures to be taken by the purchaser at a fair appraisement, consisting of the Bells in and about the House, the Gates, &c. in the fire places, and the Smoke Jack in the kitchen chimney. Further particulars on the day of sale, which will be on the premises, and commence at 1 o'clock P. M.
SAMUEL SPEAKE, Auc.
FOR SALE.
RAN AWAY from the Subscriber in December last, a Mulatto man named PETER, a blacksmith by trade, about 25 years old, 5 feet 6 inches high, had on when he went away, an old blue broad cloth coat, black waistcoat, and country jeans breeches, filled in with blue and red twisted; he is a forward impudent fellow and fond of spirits; he has a down look when spoken to and cannot utter words clear. I expect he is lurking about Alexandria or Fairfax Court House, as his mother belongs to Mr. Parker who lives near the Court House. All persons are forewarned from employing or harboring said slave at their peril. Whoever takes up said slave and delivers him to me at Fairfax Court House, shall receive Ten Dollars and all reasonable charges, or if secured in any jail and information given so that I get him again, the above reward.
SAML. FISHER.
January 30—1m
THREE PIPES OF MADEIRA WINE.
To be Exchanged for FLOUR
Delivered in Georgetown or Baltimore, by the 10th of May next. For further particulars, apply to TOPPAN WEBSTER, who has for sale a few barrels of very fine
PIPEN APPLES.
Washington, January 30—1m
A meeting of the Commercial Company, this day, a Dividend was declared of Five per Cent. for the six months ending the 31st December last, which will be paid to the Stock-holders or their representatives on Saturday the 18th inst.
JOSEPH FORREST, Pr. February 6—13th
CHARLES H. VARDEN,
MERCHANT TAYLOR, RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia and Public in general, that he has received by a late arrival from Philadelphia, a Choice Assortment of superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, single and double milled, superfine Coatings, black silk Florentines. Likewise an elegant assortment of Sponcelots & rich silk Moloskins for Waistcoats with a variety of other articles suitable for the season. Regiments and Navy Uniforms made in the most elegant and uniform style of fashion.
Richard Norwell's celebrated PATENT PARALLEL SUSPENDERS far superior to any hitherto in use can be had on the same terms retail, as at his Manufactory.
November 27—4f
District of Columbia, Washington county, to wit:
ON the petition of EDWARD GANTT, an insolvent debtor, confined in the prison of Washington county aforesaid for debt—No. 12 is hereby given to the creditors of the said Edward Gant that on the 20th inst. at the Court room in Long's hotel in the city of Washington, at the hour of 10 o'clock A. M. the oath prescribed by the act of Congress, entitled "An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia," will be administered to the said Edward Gant and a trustee appointed, unless sufficient cause be then and there shown to the contrary. Ordered that this notice be published in the National Intelligencer and Washington Federalist three times in each paper before said day.
By order of the hon. Wm. Cranch, esq. chief judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia.
WM. BRENT, Clk.
February 13—3t
WANTED TO RENT
During the next Session of Congress, A SMALL FURNISHED HOUSE, Convenient to the Capitol—Apply at this Office.
February 14—3t
Mr. MADISON'S PORTRAIT.
In elegant engraved Portrait of JAMES MADISON, Executed by the celebrated Elkanah Phillips, from an original painting by Stewart, is just received and for Sale at the Bookstore of R. C. WEIGHTMAN, Pennsylvania avenue.
PRICE 2 DOLLARS,
Published by B. Boyle, Baltimore.
February 15—6t
FRESH CLOVER SEED,
FOR SALE BY RICHARD PARROT.
February 15—3t
In the case of ROBERT BROWN JAMESON, an insolvent debtor.
THE Creditors are hereby notified that the time limited for the production of claims expires on the 22nd inst.; on the following day they may have an opportunity of inspecting the claims produced and a statement of the transactions of the trustee relative to the subject; and on the 1st proximo a division will be made of the money in his hands among those creditors whose claims are admitted, upon their entering into bonds with sufficient sureties to refund the dividends received by them respectively, in case the decree of the circuit court passed last July term should hereafter be set aside by the absent defendant therein mentioned.
COLIN AULD, Trustee.
Alexandria, February 15—3t
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE.
WILL be offered for Sale at Public Auction at Rhodes's hotel, on the 11th day of February next, the HOUSE & LOT on P. street, in square 233, at present occupied by Washington Boyd. From its contiguity to the Bank, the President's House, and the Public Offices, the situation is not exceeded by any in this city. The terms will be made known on the day of sale. A good title will be given to the purchaser—the sale will take place at 12 o'clock noon. SAML. SPEAKE, Auc. Washington, January 30—tdos
Q The above Sale is postponed until 2nd of March, at 1 o'clock P. M.
Feb. 15—ep
NOTICE.
BY Virtue of a decree of the hon. the high Court of Chancery of Maryland, the subscribers will offer at PUBLIC SALE, on the Premises on TUESDAY the 7th day of March next, the following Tracts of LAND, to wit: "The Ranble," "Houslow," and the "Strand," lying and being in St. Mary's county, and adjoining each other, supposed to contain more than 1000 acres, and formerly occupied by Dr. William Lansdale, deceased. The above estate is situated in a healthy and genteel neighborhood, about two miles from Leonardtown. The improvements consist of a large and convenient Brick Dwelling house 4 rooms below and 4 above stairs, with a Kitchen adjoining, Meat House, Corn House, Stables and Granary, and a young thriving Apple Orchard. The Dwelling House stands on an eminence, commanding a view of the whole of the flat land on said estate which is esteemed to be of the first quality in the county and is well adapted to the culture of tobacco, corn, small grain, clover, &c. and is deemed the best grazing land in the county. There is a fine stream of water that runs through this estate, on which has been heretofore a valuable Mill.
On the same day, by virtue of the above decree, the subscribers will also sell on the premises, Three other Tracts of LAND, called "Nowacat," "Dearts Delight," and "Back Acre," containing in the whole about 500 acres adjoining the above described estate—they are lately owned and occupied by Dr. John Reader, deceased. The improvements on these lands are extremely valuable, consisting of a new Two story Dwelling House, Kitchen, Corn House, Granary, Cow House and Stables; there is likewise on this estate a valuable Mill in complete repair. This estate is rendered very valuable on account of the great quantity of Wood and Timber on it, and of the flat and which is adapted to meadow.
A further description is deemed unnecessary as persons who are inclined to purchase can view the premises; the title of which together with a part of the whole may be seen on application to Mr. Enoch J. Millard of Leonard Town. This property will be sold entire or in parcels as may be deemed advantageous. The terms of sale are that the purchaser of the whole or any part thereof shall give bond with approved security for the payment of the purchase money within eighteen months from the day of sale.
CLEMENT BROOKE, GUSTAVUS A. CLAGETT, Trustees. February 10—widos