The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-04-11 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1169.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, APRIL 11, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
Letter from Mr. MADISON to Mr. MONROE—Concluded.
On Article VI. The fictitious blockades proclaimed by Great Britain, and made the pretext for violating the commerce of neutral nations, has been one of the greatest abuses ever committed on the high seas. During the late war they were carried to an extravagance which would have been ridiculous, if their effects had not inflicted such serious and extensive injuries on neutral nations. Ports were proclaimed in a state of blockade, previous to the arrival of any force at them, were considered in that state without regard to intermissions in the presence of the blockading force, and the proclamations left in operation after its final departure, the British cruisers during the whole time seizing every vessel bound to such ports, at whatever distance from them, and the British prize courts pronouncing condemnations whenever a knowledge of the proclamation at the time of sailing could be presumed, although it might afterwards be known that no real blockade existed. The whole scene was a perfect mockery, in which fact was sacrificed to form, and right to power and plunder. The United States were among the greatest sufferers; and would have been still more so, if redress for some of the spoliations proceeding from this source, had not fallen within the provisions of an article in the treaty of 1794.
From the effect of this and other arbitrary practices of G. Britain, on the temper and policy of neutral nations towards her; from the spirit of her treaty made near the close of the late war with Russia, from the general disposition manifested at the beginning of the present towards the U. States, and the comparative moderation observed in Europe with respect to blockades; (if indeed the two cases of the Weser and Elbe are not to be excepted) it was hoped that the mockeries and mischiefs practised under the name of blockades would no where be repeated. It is found, however, that the W. Indies are again the theatre of them. The three entire and extensive islands of Martinique, Guadaloupe and St. Domingo have been published as in a state of blockade, although the whole naval force applied to the purpose is inconsiderable; although it appears that a part of this inconsiderable force is occasionally seen at the distance of many leagues at sea; although it does not appear that more than one or two ports at most have at any time been actually blockaded; and although complaints are heard, that the British ships of war do not protect their own trade, against the numerous cruisers from the islands under this pretended blockade.
Inclosed herewith are three letters on this subject; two from me, the first to Mr. Thornton, the second to Mr. Merry, and the third from Mr. Merry to me. You will observe that he does not pretend to justify the measures pursued in the West Indies; but on the contrary wishes them to be regarded as proceeding from an officer who does not pursue the intentions of his government. Still such measures prove that no general regulations or orders have been yet issued by that government against the evil, as might reasonably have been expected, and that a stipulated security against it, is an object as important as it is just.
In the two letters to Mr. Thornton and Mr. Merry, the ground is marked out on which you will be able to combat the false blockades, and to maintain the definition of a real one, contained in the proposed article which is a literal copy from the 4th article of the Russian treaty above cited. In addition to these letters, you will find inclosed a letter of the of to Mr. Pinckney, in which some views are taken of the subject, which may also be of use in your discussions with the British government.
On Article VII. This article is due, if not to all neutrals, at least to the United States, who are distinguished by the distance of their situation. Decisions of the British court of admiralty, have so far respected this peculiarity as to admit a want of information as a plea for going to a blockaded port, where such a plea would be refused to its remote countries. But more than this may fairly be claimed. A vessel, knowing that a particular blockade existed two months before, may well conjecture that before her arrival at the port, which will require two months more, the blockade will have ceased; and may accordingly clear and steer for
such a port with an honest intention, in case of finding on her approach, the fact otherwise, not to attempt an unlawful entrance. To condemn vessels under such circumstances would be manifestly unjust; and to restrain them from a distant voyage to a port once in a state of blockade, until information of a change shall have travelled a like distance, must produce a delay and uncertainty little short of an absolute prohibition of the commerce. To require them even to go out of their course, to seek at other ports, information on the subject, would be an unreasonable imposition. The British government can have little objection to this article, after defining blockades as is agreed with Russia, and as is here proposed; since our distance is of itself a security against any concert with the blockaded, for surreptitious entries, which might be attempted by nearer adventurers; and since in the case of blockades by a force actually present, a preliminary notice may be required without impairing their efficacy, as might be the case with blockades, such as the preceding article guards against.
The only difference between the articles as standing in the different columns, consists in the preamble to that which is to be admitted, if the proposition of the other should not succeed. The article is preferable without the recital of any reason particular to the United States, because as a naked stipulation, it strengthens instead of weakening a general principle friendly to neutral and pacific nations.
On articles VIII, IX and X. These are articles which are known to have been long wished and contemplated on the part of Great Britain, and together with the justice, and in many views the expediency to Great Britain herself of the articles desired on our part, may induce her to accede to the whole. The articles are in substance the same with a project offered to the American administration in the year 1800, by Mr. Liston, who appears to have borrowed it from corresponding stipulations in the convention between the U. States and France in the year 1795. The project was at that time dropped, owing perhaps in part to the change in the head of the department of state, between whom and Mr. Liston it had been discussed, and principally, to the difficulty of combining with it, proper stipulations against British impressments on the high seas. Without such an equivalent, the project had little to recommend it to the U. States. Considered by itself, it was too the less admissible, as one of its articles, under some obscurity of expression, was thought to favor the British pretension to impress British seamen from American vessels on the high seas.
A copy of this document is inclosed, as it may be not without use, in showing the ideas of the British government at that time, so far at least as its minister here was an organ of them.
The terms in which these articles are to be proposed, differ but slightly from those in which they may be admitted. In the former, the delivery of deserters is confined to soldiers and seamen, without requiring a delivery of officers, whose desertion will not be from the service of their country, but on account of offences for which it might sometimes be more agreeable to the United States to be unbound to give them up for trial and punishment. At the same time this consideration ought not to be a bar to an arrangement, which, in its general character, will be so important to the interests of the United States.
On article XI. This is a stipulation which is not to be yielded but in the event of its being made an indispensable condition. It cannot be essential for the object of it, whilst the British government is left free to take the precautions allowable within its own jurisdiction for preventing the clandestine departure of its seamen or its soldiers in neutral vessels. And it is very ineligible to the U. States, inasmuch as it will be difficult to enforce the prohibition, whether we regard the embarkation of such persons in British ports, or their landing on the American shores; and inasmuch as the inefficacy of regulations for such purposes, though made with due sincerity and care, may become a source of secret jealousy and dissatisfaction, if not of controversy, and reproach.
The article is copied from that in the arrangement (of which you have a copy) discussed and brought near to a conclusion between Mr. King
and the British ministry, and you are authorized to accede to it, on the supposition that it may again be insisted on. It is to be recollected, however, that the article was the understood to be the only price given for relinquishing the impressment of American seamen. The other offer now substituted will justify you in pressing the omission of the original one.
On article XII. The law of nations does not exact of neutral powers the prohibition specified in this article. On the other hand, it does not restrain them from prohibiting a trade which appears on the face of the official papers proceeding from the custom-house to be intended to violate the law of nations, and from which legitimate considerations of prudence may also dissuade a government. All that can be reasonably expected by belligerent from neutral powers, is that their regulations on this subject be impartial, and that their stipulations relative to it, when made in time of war at least, should not preclude an impartiality.
It is not certain what degree of value Great Britain may put on this article, connected, as it essentially is, with the article which limits the list of contraband. It will at least mitigate her objection to such a limitation. With the range given to contraband by her construction of the law of nations, even as acquiesced in by the U. States, a stipulation of this sort would be utterly inadmissible.
The last article, in making this city the place for exchanging the ratifications, consults expedition in putting the treaty into operation, since the British ratification can be forwarded at the same time with the instrument itself. And it is otherwise reasonable, that as the negotiation and formation of the treaty will have taken place at the seat of the British government, the concluding formality should be at that of the government of the United States.
In addition to these articles which, with the observations thereon, I am charged by the President to communicate to you as his instructions, he leaves you at liberty to insert any others which may do no more than place British armed vessels, with their prizes, on an equality within our ports and jurisdiction with those of France. This would only stipulate what would probably be done by gratuitous regulations here, and as it would no doubt be acceptable to Great Britain, it may not only aid in reconciling her to the principal objects desired by the United States, but may induce her to concur in the further insertion of articles, corresponding with those in the convention of 1800 with France, which regulate more precisely and more effectually, the treatment of vessels of the neutral party on the high seas.
The occasion will be proper also, for calling the attention of the British government to the reasonableness of permitting American consuls to reside in every part of her dominions, where, and so long as she permits our citizens to trade. It is not denied that she has a natural right to refuse such a residence, and that she is free by her treaty with us, to refuse it in other than her European dominions. But the exception authorised with respect to the residence of consuls elsewhere, having reference to the refusal of our trade elsewhere, the refusal of the one ought manifestly to cease with the refusal of the other. When our vessels and citizens are allowed to trade to ports in the West-Indies, there is the same reason for a temporary admission of consuls to take care of it, as there is for their admission in ports where the trade is permanently allowed. There is the juster expectation of your success on this point, as some official patronage is due to the rights of our citizens in the prize courts established in the West-India islands. Should the British government be unwilling to enter into a stipulated provision, you may, perhaps, obtain an order to the governors for the purpose. Or if consuls be objected to altogether, it is desirable that agents may be admitted, if no where else, at least in the islands where the vice-admiralty courts are established.
It has been intimated that the articles as standing in the different columns, are to be considered, the one as the offer to be made, the other as the ultimatum to be required. This is however, not to be taken too strictly; it being impossible to foresee the turns and the combinations which may present themselves
in the course of the negotiation. The essential objects for the United States are the suppression of impressments, and the definition of blockades. To these in importance, are the function of the list of contraband, and the enlargement of our neutral trade with hostile colonies. Whilst you keep in view, therefore, those objects, the two last as highly important, and the two first as absolutely indispensable, your discretion, in which the President places great confidence, must guide you in all that relates to the inferior ones.
With sentiments of great respect & esteem, I remain, sir, your most obedient servant.
(Signed)
JAMES MADISON.
C O N G R E S S.
H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S.
Debate on the passage of the bill concerning courts martial and courts of enquiry—Continued.
SATURDAY, MARCH 12.
Mr. J. MONTGOMERY observed, that having been chairman of the committee who reported the bill, it might be considered proper for him to assign the reasons which influenced the committee to report the bill, to state its principles, explain its provisions, and to meet objections yesterday urged by gentlemen on the floor against it. Ingenuity has been exercised, said he, talents have been displayed, & the powers of imagination put to the stretch to invent objections to the principle and provisions of the bill—some of such a nature as to fright us, to excite a horror against its adoption. The bill has been denounced as erroneous in principle, defective in detail, inoperative in practice, causing delay in military justice, and as oppressive to the citizen. It has been said that this bill, instead of being entitled a bill concerning courts martial and courts of enquiry, should have been denominated a bill making the civil subservient to the military authority. It has been said, that if you pass this bill, one of the greatest misfortunes at this all-important crisis of the nation, one of the most serious calamities will certainly happen: It will cause, it is said with confidence, a dissolution of your army. It has been said too, that pass this law, and one of its prominent features is, that you cause military law to be established in your land; that you subject the citizens of the U. States to military despotism—a state of things the most abhorrent to our feelings—a state of things the most to be deprecated. It has been said too, that this bill is worse than the alien or sedition laws; that if you pass this bill you drag before your courts martial your wife, sister or daughter to be maltreated, and compel them to follow a moveable camp; that this bill was originally designed for a special case, and that there is such a defect of detail in it, that there is not a solitary provision which will meet the case.
Are all those objections real or visionary?
How easy is it for the human mind to raise objections against any system on earth! What system was ever adopted, which would not be equally objectionable as this, going in the same manner upon the supposition of abuses which might occur under that system? When measures are held up for adoption to the national councils, how easy is it to reprobate them! Prior to the elevation of a Jefferson to the chief magistracy of the nation, we heard various objections urged against him; he was denounced as an infidel; it was said that by establishing him in the presidential chair, you would establish infidelity throughout the land; that the government would be perfectly nerveless. He has been elevated, and where is the citizen hardy enough to say that one of those consequences which were predicted, have resulted? On the contrary, all his measures, the selection of his men, all the acts of government have been approved. Shall I call the consideration of the House to the embargo law? How many objections, how many clamors were raised against it? How many evils predicted? That our citizens would be ruined, our country prostrated, and every thing hazarded by its adoption. The measure has been adopted; and what is the result? It meets with popular approbation throughout the Union. In those places where it was at first unpopular, the moment it was understood, and the censures against it met and obviated, the law became popular, and is now considered one of the sheet anchors of the nation. When that measure was first introduced to
the House, will any gentleman say that the bill for imposing it was correct in its provisions? Was it not defective, and have not two bills been passed to amend it? Assuredly; and one of the grounds of objection to this bill, and it has been repeated two or three times, is, that the bill is defective. It was not correctly reported at first I admit, and it requires time and deliberate discussion to understand and correct its principles.
How have gentlemen argued upon this bill? They blow hot and cold. Sometimes it is too strong: sometimes powerless. When it was originally reported, it was censured by some of its friends and all its enemies as being too extensive in its operation; inasmuch as that when a man was put on trial for his life, a summons might issue to any person within the U. States. Here then it was too strong. What was done? The bill, to meet the ideas of gentlemen, to ameliorate it, was re-committed, and the committee have reported it thus; as it now stands no summons shall issue to a person at a greater distance than 100 miles; and in all cases beyond that, depositions shall be taken. But, says a gentleman now, will you put a man's life at stake upon a deposition? The bill was too strong when it authorized the calling witnesses; but the moment we have made a provision to meet the ideas of gentlemen, then we endanger life upon exparte depositions.
If the bill contained the mischievous principles and provisions which on this floor have been ascribed to it, I am one of the last in the nation who would give their assent to it. The exceptions taken to it consist entirely in declaration. Strip them of that, meet the bill on its merits, and they vanish.
Of what description is the bill now before the House? It is a remedial bill. The only questions to be asked are, is there a defect in the laws on this subject? If so, is it so important as to require a remedy? This is the real and genuine principle. Apply it to practice: is there a defect in the rules and articles for the regulation of the army? If so, is it of so serious a nature as to require a remedy? Does this bill afford such remedy? If I can show to the House, and I have no hesitation in saying that I can satisfy any reasonable mind that there is a defect, and of such a serious kind as to call for a remedy, and that this bill affords that remedy, I cannot but expect that the House will adopt the measure now under consideration.
The rules and regulations in all cases of offences established by those rules, whether capital or not, are not defective in the power of compelling witnesses to attend where proof must be confined to the ranks. If those articles contained no offences but such as must necessarily be confined in proof to persons in the army or navy, there would be no necessity for the interference of Congress. Is there one provision in all the articles to meet a case either capital or otherwise, where the witness is not in service? Yes; there is one, in a case not capital, in a case not going to life or dismissal from office, depositions may be taken—how? Before a magistrate. Even in that case there is no want of summons. The party accused, let the offence be clothed with whatever infamy, or going even to deprivation of life, has not the power of obtaining process for witnesses. The only opportunity he has is in cases not capital to obtain the testimony of a witness by a deposition taken before a magistrate provided both parties shall be present at the time of taking. Here then is a defect in the existing regulations; with respect to minor crimes, depositions may be taken; but as to capital crimes there is no provision whatever. Will any gentleman here say that a man charged with offences going to infamy shall only have the benefit of depositions taken before a simple magistrate, subject to the pleasure of the prosecutor to attend even in that case? That the party accused shall be left to this mere skeleton of a relief to get the benefit of testimony? Was the bill under consideration to go no further than this, I am confident that the good sense of this body would say that Congress ought to pass a bill to meet such cases as that—not only to make more perfect provision for taking depositions, but to give the benefit of process to compel attendance of witnesses. What is the existing regulation? I will read it, as I wish not to state any thing in which I am not borne out by the laws of the land. One of the articles of war says, "In the trial of all cases not capital before courts martial, the depositions of wit-

nesses not in the line of staff of the army may be taken before some justice of the peace and read in evidence: Provided, that the prosecutor and the person accused are present at the time of taking the same, or are duly notified thereof." With respect to courts of enquiry, an article says courts of enquiry shall have the same powers to collect evidence as courts martial. This description of courts then have all the powers of courts martial, and all the privileges extended to the soldier or officer in cases less than capital in the one court which he possesses in the other. Will any gentleman say that a party accused of a capital offence to a conviction of which infamy would be attached by the sentence, has one particle of relief from the existing laws? There is but one solitary provision, and that in cases less than capital. A person who is in the regular service may be brought up before a court martial, his life upon the hazard; and when he comes before them what will it avail him to say, that he has witnesses, but cannot compel them to attend? If we examine the articles of war we shall there find at least thirty offences punishable with death or infamy. Is it then wise, politic or humane to suffer such offences to exist, and prevent the accused from enjoying the opportunity of acquitting himself from the charges against him? I believe there is upon the present military establishment, from 2 to 3000 men; it is contemplated by a bill on the table to increase the military establishment by adding there to six thousand men. A bill yesterday passed authorising a detachment of 100,000 militia. In what situation are they placed, the militia as well as the army? By the articles of war, the militia when in service are subject to the same discipline as regular troops. Then those men who are to be drafted from the militia, those 6000 who are contemplated to be raised, and those now in service, are subject to the vilest punishments which can be inflicted on men; and ought we deprive them of the benefit of testimony to prove their innocence? If a militia man be charged with one of the offences contained in the various articles of war, and the only witness be a citizen not in service, no testimony could be had. No person acquainted with the transaction is in the military service; in what situation do you place him? Do you not forfeit his life by not applying a relief and remedy? Surely you do; if you refuse him the benefit of process, you certainly place that man in a situation to forfeit his life without relief. Am I or is any gentleman prepared to go home, and tell our constituents that we have given our consent to a law for calling into service 100,000 militia, while death may stare them in the face in thirty different shapes, without having passed any law to establish their innocence? The common malignity shall conjure up a charge going to life or reputation, that moment these men may be sacrificed. I am not prepared to tell my constituents that I have done this—that I have left them suspended in this dangerous situation.
This being the fact, that an evil does exist, is it such an evil as requires a remedy? I presume that no gentleman in this House is prepared to say that if such an evil does exist, there ought not to be a remedy provided.
Is this the proper remedy? In all cases under the provisions of the bill, where the witness is a citizen, neither court martial or military officer are authorized to issue process. It is to issue out of courts of justice. Whence do subpoenas issue in all cases? Out of courts of justice. The bill then provides in all cases pending in military courts martial to give the same opportunity for obtaining witnesses that is provided in suits at common law.
It has been objected to the bill that by it the military institution is blended with the civil. It is so from the necessity of the thing. Whence should summons issue if not from the civil courts? Would gentlemen say that it should issue from courts martial? If not from them, where could the power be better intrusted than with courts of justice? Has not the military and civil already been blended in the laws now in existence? Look at the only article which provides for the obtaining testimony in civil cases, and how is it there provided? Do you there go to a court martial or a military officer for authority to take depositions? No; to the civil authority—to a magistrate. There is already in certain cases a provision that the party accused may have the benefit of the civil authority. Does this bill go further? It does—because we did not wish to go to an inferior authority for a summons: we would go to the same source from which all summons do flow—to the courts of justice.
But it is objected that by this bill a person is compelled to submit documents to the inspection of a military court martial. Good cause is first to be shewn to a civil court; it is not to be issued upon a mere
application; good cause must be shewn, verified by affidavit, and the paper must be described. But gentlemen tell us this is making the judges of the superior courts bend to the military. This provision was introduced for the purpose of guarding the right of the citizen to have his papers sacred. A magistrate therefore is not trusted with this power; the authority is given to the judge of a superior court. Can it be placed in safer hands than theirs?
The bill provides that in cases not going to loss of life or cashierment of a commissioned officer, where the witness shall reside within 25 miles, the party shall have the benefit of attendance; where the witness shall reside at a greater distance than 25 miles, his deposition shall be taken. This regulation was incorporated in the bill for the convenience of the witness. As the bill stood originally the party accused or the judge advocate might take a summons over the whole U. S. but gentlemen in favor of the principle considered the latitude given to this provision to be too great, and it was accordingly abridged.
As the bill is amended it gives the military court the same privilege of testimony which is given to the circuit courts. A party having suit in the district and circuit courts of the U. States can have a subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness if he lives within 100 miles. Here it is provided that a party being charged in a military court, his life on the hazard, should have the benefit of oral testimony, if to be had within one hundred miles; if beyond that limit he may take depositions.
In every instance where a person is put to inconvenience, he ought to be paid for his trouble, and provision is made in the bill for that purpose. It has been objected that in this bill there is no provision for payment. It was conceived that the common law would act in this as in every other case; that the witness had a right to have his expenses tendered him; and if not paid that he might refuse to attend.
This bill has been said to be modelled after the mutiny act of England. I have examined that act with the bill and can see no similarity in their features. The mutiny act is annually passed for continuing the army, and one of the provisions of it is that the rules and articles of war shall be framed at the pleasure of the king! There is surely nothing like that in this bill.
Is it true that the civil authority is subjected to the military by this bill? What are the authorities given by this bill to the civil authority? They are to issue a summons and subpoena duces tecum ; the manner in which process shall be served and punishment inflicted are specified in the bill. What authority does it vest in courts martial or of enquiry to exercise one solitary power? All the power that a court martial can exercise under this bill is the mere simple power, when the witness does appear to receive his testimony. A court of justice issues the summons, it is served by a civil officer, returned to a civil court; if the witness or officer to whom the process be directed be guilty of disobedience, they are punishable by the court which issued the summons; and courts in civil cases possess the same power precisely in all cases of summonses from the courts of the U. S. and disobedience, as this bill authorizes them to exercise on a matter over which before they had no jurisdiction. The power given by the bill to military courts extends to the mere examination of witnesses and no further.
The whole of this bill may be included in a nut shell. The principle is to provide a remedy for an existing defect in the rules and regulations for the discipline of the army, to which every citizen of the U. S. from 18 to 45 may by the laws of the land be subjected—it is merely a remedy to protect innocence and punish guilt. If we refuse to provide a remedy for the defect which exists, what will be our consequent duty? To repeal all those rules and regulations, or give the party under their operation some relief.
A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) has already told us that the laws and regulations relative to the laws of the several states go a great deal further than this bill; and he has said correctly. In the state of Maryland the rule for obtaining testimony before courts martial is broad, and gives the court martial full power. It is in these words: [Here Mr. Montgomery read an article in the military law of Maryland, passed the last session, by which courts martial have a power of issuing summonses for witnesses to run to any place within the limits of the state.]
Here then we find a provision in one of the articles for the regulation of the militia of a sovereign and independent state, vesting the power of issuing summonses in the courts martial themselves—within twenty-five or 100 miles, or confined to the militia alone? No; a broad power to call for persons residing where they may. A court martial in Wor-
cester may send for persons of whatever age or sex (the power being as broad as that of courts of law) even to Allegany, a distance of 3 or 400 miles. But the law does not stop here; it gives power to a court martial to issue attachment against a witness for non-attendance, and to impose a fine. Contrast this regulation, and I believe it is a good one, with the regulation on your table, which vests in a court martial no further power than to examine a witness when before them. All the powers granted by the bill are to be exercised by the civil courts under the laws of the U. States.
I think therefore the principles of the bill are correct, and the power vested in an authority by which it is not likely to be abused.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)
On the passage of the bill for raising an additional military force.
MONDAY, APRIL 4. (CONTINUED.)
MR. RANDOLPH had calculated on being in a very small minority on the vote which he should probably give on this question; but he was sorry to perceive that even that minority was likely to prove smaller than he had at first supposed;—for without any disposition to invade the consistency of any gentleman on that floor, he had humbly conceived that those, who, in the year 1798, had voted against armies and navies, would have voted against the bill. His object however, was not to make proselytes, but, like his colleague, who had preceded him, to give to the House and to the world (and particularly that portion of his own country which he represented) the reasons for the vote which his most deliberate judgment compelled him to give on this occasion.
With his colleague he had ever been of opinion (and if he mistook not, had maintained this doctrine in 1799) that in times of danger reliance should be had on the militia. Amongst those gentlemen who were unfriendly to military establishments, some indeed seemed to think that after the first onset regulars might be necessary—but all had agreed that, in the first instance, dependence should be placed in the militia alone. Now it seems this doctrine is to be reversed, for although we are to rely on the militia as a dernier resort , they must be preceded by this advanced guard of regular troops, which the bill proposed to raise. And on what grounds? That this is a great and momentous crisis. It certainly is. But, sir, is it possible that these 6,000 men—(I have not attended to the details of the bill—the unexampled length of our sittings has prevented me—and indeed my little, I might almost say no knowledge of military affairs rendered it scarcely necessary)—is it possible that these 6,000 men, whom you are told it will take till next year to raise, are competent to the defence of our long line of sea coast, to say nothing of our still more extensive frontier? It is obvious that sixty thousand would hardly suffice, supposing the circumstances on which gentlemen reason and from which their conclusions are drawn to be correct. What therefore, now, any more than in the year 1798, calls for this increase of our military establishment? In 1798 we were at actual, open war. We captured the ships of France, and they captured ours. And yet it was not then deemed expedient by gentlemen, who professed the tenets, which I then did and do now hold, to raise an army. It appeared from very high authority when our doors were lately closed that we are, not only, not at war, but that the circumstances of the world are such as imperiously to require that we should not go to war, if it can possibly be avoided—although under a different state of things gentlemen would have felt themselves authorised, nay obliged to lay a declaration of war on your table, against one, or both of the two great belligerents.
Mr. Randolph said he was extremely happy to observe, whilst in conclave, what a good understanding prevailed amongst the various and hitherto discordant parts of the House—with what good humor points were discussed and settled between them, and how totally devoid of asperity all their deliberations had been. He hoped that nothing would fall from him to change the temper of mind which then, and he trusted still existed. It was to justify his vote that he trespassed on the attention of the House; although he humbly conceived, if gentlemen would lend a patient ear, that he might convince them of the impolicy and inexpediency of the bill. He accorded with his worthy colleague (Mr. Burwell) respecting the opinions lately delivered by his respectable friend from North Carolina (Mr. Macon)—and if in politics, as in mathematics, things which agree with the same thing agree with one another, there could be no variance of opinion between his colleague and himself. He subscribed to every sentiment uttered by that excellent member, on the occasion to which he alluded. He regretted
that they were delivered under circumstances which precluded the public from hearing them: he thought it a great public loss. He accorded also with the opinions expressed by the same gentleman ten years ago on a question like the present, and by the gentleman, who now presides with so much ability and so much honor to himself, over the treasury department, on the proposition to raise a provisional army. They would never be forgotten. He wished he had the speeches, he would read them to the House; they would be heard with much more effect than any thing that he could say.
I wish it to be demonstrated (said Mr. R.) that we are more at war now than we were in 1798. Sir we are not. Nor are we in the slightest danger, as I apprehend, of any thing like invasion. The foe (I speak of both, for as my colleague tells you, to strike the meditated blow. But will they strike that blow on your territory?—where alone this force may aid to ward it off. Does any man dream of invasion? No. The blow is aimed at your commerce, your ships, and in regard to them you have taken effectual precaution. They are both abandoned. The seamen indeed could not be embargoed; they have disappeared. England will now have no difficulty in manning her navy. Notwithstanding the eloquent speech of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Quincy) on Saturday, and his copious extracts from a French general's pamphlet, I do not dread invasion.
Is it possible that Great Britain, with the recollection of Saratoga and York-town fresh in her memory, can be so frantic as to think of invading the U. States? She cannot, and she has given the best proof of it. Instead of dreaming of invading you, she trembles lest you should invade her, for she knows the consequences, and for that reason she has repaired the fortifications of Quebec, and thrown reinforcements into Canada. What stronger proof could she give of her fears? I speak not of her inclination; for I believe that if she could reduce us to the condition in which we were in 1765, she would do it to-morrow. I speak of her ability, and suppose her to possess only common sense. Although, in some cases of late, she has evinced such a want of discretion, that too much reliance ought not, perhaps, to be placed upon that. But so far from entertaining a thought of invading us, she is taking precautions against invasion from us. And there is not a shadow of doubt that she would gladly enter into a covenant with you and exchange hostages to abstain from violating your territory, if you will abstain from attacking her provinces on your eastern and northern frontier. But if she were to invade us, any military force which she could detach for such a purpose, would be as incompetent even to the reduction of the state of Delaware, as to the conquest of Europe.
Let us see, then, on the other side, what danger there is of invasion from France. On all hands it is agreed that during the present preponderance of the British naval power, France cannot send an army into the U. S. sufficient to make an impression upon us. It is true, the British naval power may not retain its present pitch. France may, she probably will, crush G. Britain, and it is against that event and such a colossal strength as France will then possess, bestriding both continents and every sea, that you are raising a force to be commanded by two brigadier generals! Sir, when gentlemen talk of attack from the two greatest powers on earth, and at the same time provide such means of defence, they invite, they provoke that which they would guard against. They hold us up to the derision of the world—we may indeed find security in the contempt of the enemy for this force, not in his fears of it. But notwithstanding the power which France even then would possess, I do trust that there is spirit and virtue enough in the U. S. to maintain our independence. I do trust that the enemy would find it impossible, at such a distance—for I hope he would be unable to do here what he has done elsewhere with such signal success—make use of one half of the people to subjugate the other—I trust that he would find it impossible to maintain a force sufficient to keep possession even of our great maritime ports, much less to reduce the surrounding territory. I believe that in case of invasion by a foreign enemy—and until that event happens you need not expect to raise a military force—our people being too happy and too wise to subject themselves to the slavery of military life until its necessity is not to be avoided—and hence the odium in 1798 against the then rulers, and the difficulty, nay the impossibility of obtaining men; in case of the actual invasion of our territory, I hope we shall make war in a very different style from that in which it was waged during the revolution; and this I say without disparagement to the heroes who achieved it. We were then, in the phraseology of kings and despots, in rebellion against our lawful
sovereign—an awful situation; fighting with halters about our necks, dubious of our untired strength, and consequently afraid to risk every thing upon a single action. But if invasion were now to be attempted, no sooner would the enemy set his foot upon our shores than we should push him back into the sea. The people would rise with one accord, the continent would move like one man, and he would be met by a force however inferior in skill, in military tactics, his equal at least in courage & so superior in numbers as at once to overwhelm him, with all his factitious, artificial advantages. Such, believe me, would be the event. We should deserve to be conquered, if through timidity and irresolution, we suffered the war to be protracted for years, and every quarter of our country to become in turn the theatre of it. France, in better days, set us the example how to meet an invading enemy, it will not be lost upon us.
But your towns may be laid under contribution, and so they might have been in 1798; and what is worse, this force of 6,000 men could not prevent it, even if it were now embodied, instead of requiring till next year to enlist the troops. They could not prevent the destruction of a single town, even if they were all collected together on the spot. It is obvious that a strong squadron, in defiance of such a force could destroy N. York—I take this city, as a favorite example—could lay it in ashes, or batter it to the ground. Sir, if every man of them were thrown into that rich and flourishing city, whose defence is of primary importance, they could not prevent an enemy's fleet from offering to its inhabitants the hard alternative of submitting to contribution or seeing their habitations burnt over their heads. What resistance then are we to expect from them, when they shall have been divided and subdivided amongst our various seaports and western garrisons? Therefore fear, that instead of working the good effects ascribed to it by some gentlemen, and by my worthy colleague amongst them, that it will be attended with no other than to drain the treasury (we are now drawing upon our capital, rather than our income) to increase the thirst of office, that disgraceful spirit of living, by any means, rather than honest industry, or our own property; and tend in an equal degree to diminish the disgust and abhorrence which the people feel against standing armies; and be it remembered that a standing army is the dearth of which all republics have died. I have another objection to the bill. If this force be raised, although for purposes of defence, it is contemptible, in another point of view it is truly formidable. It will almost ensure war, and why? Certainly these persons will not wish to be disbanded—they will shrink from the idea of returning back upon their own resources—they will keep the fever up to the war-pitch and precipitate the country into war with some power, they care not who; for what will public considerations weigh against their own private advantage? And this was in 1798, and ought now to be one great objection to raising troops before you have actual war. If you raise these troops to provide against war you may be certain it will not be their fault if the war does not ensue which they were raised to avert. If you leave the country to its natural defence, and bestow your pains and treasure in strengthening that defence, instead of taking money out of the pockets of the people, of the militia, to throw it away on a few useless hirelings, you will not only ensure the requisite number of men when they shall be actually wanted, but avoid the dreadful effect of a standing military force (without active employment) upon public & private morals; and I am one of those who do not think lightly of the expence of this establishment. Remember that the present state of our treasury is unexampled—many outgoings, no incomings—living, in the language of the compting house, upon our principal instead of our interest. I am therefore unwilling to diminish the sum which we have in hand, and which it is our duty carefully to husband; (for where are we to look for a supply when it is gone?) by feeding and clothing and paying a parcel of men merely to look at one another; who, in my sincere belief, so far from doing any public service, will be a public detriment. For the very moment that this bill is passed; nay, they have begun already; every man without some fixed, determinate mode of life, will be pressing to get a subsistence out of the public purse; and this is not the description of men to whom, in my opinion, the defence of any country ought to be entrusted. I see indeed a striking instance to the contrary in this morning's paper. The annual expence of our present establishment is about a million; by the bill that expence will probably be trebled; however, let us say that it will only be doubled, will the House throw away an annual million? On what? Mere parade; on a force inadequate to the crisis which it is

meant to meet, when no man can think there is any serious danger of invasion from France, or England.
With my colleague and other gentlemen, whom I highly respect on this floor, I agree that the violations of France on our neutral commerce and rights in '98 were less flagrant than now: certainly the former outrages of G. Britain, have been far surpassed by that on the Chesapeake. But it is not necessary for our purpose to ask what were the violations of former times, or to measure them with the present, since, great or small, they produced war. When a nation is at war, it is idle to enquire what produced it. It is enough that she is at war, and measures must be taken accordingly. In 1798, with a loss degree of aggression (if gentlemen will have it so) we were at war: in 1808, with a greater degree, we are at peace, and I am glad of it. But does it follow that because our provocations are greater now than in 1798; being now at peace, we should take measures, which a state of war would not justify in '98?
But one gentleman told us the other day; I am sorry to be so diffuse; I cannot methodize my thoughts, being too unprepared, and I may truly say too unwell; that by the death of the French emperor, Great Britain might re-acquire her old ascendancy on the continent; her naval power would then remain undiminished, and we should lie at her mercy. How improbable a conjecture! How much more likely that the French emperor will outlive the naval power of England. Did the death of Cæsar liberate Gaul; or did Augustus, one of the most contemptible and worthless of men, both in a military and moral capacity, even after a civil war (which may perhaps also take place in France to decide who shall be head of the empire) succeed to the undivided dominion and power of his adopted father? There is not in my mind the smallest probability that the death of the present French emperor will liberate Germany, Spain or Italy, no more than the death of Cæsar should have liberated Gaul, Macedon, and the other provinces. But suppose that it would, and that the power of France should be limited within the Pyrenees, the Alps and the Rhine. What ascendancy can England even then have on the continent? Is it possible that the veteran troops of France can rest unemployed, or that they will ever tamely relinquish their present acquisitions? The days are past when the Marlboroughs and the Peterboroughs figured at the head of armies on the continent. Whatever revolutions may take place there, a preponderance must always be found to the naval power of England. And shall we guard against this power by raising two brigades of regulars? There is an inconsistency in the thing. The means are so little adapted to the proposed end. It will only have the effect of drawing money out of the treasury, without adding one iota to the national defence. It holds out a premium to idleness at the expence of the honest yeomanry, who are laboring upon their farms and plantations, contributing to the national support, and adding to the national wealth, who, when the storm shall really burst upon us, must defend their country, who will be just as ready to meet the foe as these idlers who have been living at their expence. Against the inroads of the savages it is upon the militia of Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio, that you must rely, and not upon men picked up in the streets, recruited in ale-houses, and disciplined on the next common. On the same class of men in the other states, you must depend for defence against Atlantic invasion, for the protection of their homes and fire sides.
Before I sit down, permit me to recall the attention of the House to some circumstances which passed, I think on Saturday, and which made on others, as well as myself a great impression. I allude to a discussion of the topic of French and English partiality—in the course of which I was happy to see the disposition which was generally manifested. But as was then observed by my most respectable friend from N. Carolina (Mr. Macon) so long as the public prints, which influence and direct public opinion, espouse either the one nation or the other, it is impossible that the mass of the people can acquire correct information respecting them; when those who act as their instructors endeavour to mislead. It is impossible, for another reason, that they can feel equally indifferent to these two powers. We cannot wash from our memory the revolutionary war, and its accumulated horrors. We cannot forget that France was our ally—perhaps our saviour. There is yet another cause which induces us to feel, if not to display, a great degree of partiality towards her. It grows out of the French revolution. That revolution was a struggle of liberty against despotism. It was, in its commencement at least, a war of principle. The government and people of France contended, or professed to contend for principles justly dear to us, for they were those of our own constitution—and we saw in the confederation of despotism a systematic attack on the liberties of man; a combination, which when it had succeeded in crushing France, in all human probability would have been turned against ourselves. These honest prejudices, for honest prejudices may exist, have always given a bias in a certain degree to the
public mind, in all collisions and contests where Great Britain and France have been involved, sensibly in favor of the latter—as it was natural they should. But I do trust that when France has done that which confederated kings in vain attempted—when she has committed velo de se on her own freedom, when she has assumed the shape of a military despotism more formidable to the liberties of the world from its physical force, and, if possible, even from its temper and disposition, than any combination of despots that the world has ever seen; when from recent occurrences our people shall see her designs upon us, unmasked, the public mind will be brought to view these nations, on the same level, to feel a perfect indifference for both, and a degree of resentment against each in proportion to their aggressions on us, neither modified nor aggravated by past recollections. The papers, which in the information of the President of the U. S. have been made public—and I am happy to find that they were made public for one, at least, of the very reasons, which induced me repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, to propose the measure; I am happy too to find that my pressure that the President would give such a direction, that it was impossible they should be kept concealed, has proved correct; these papers ought to work the effect so highly desirable on the minds of the people, and I trust they will. They ought to teach us to view each of the two great belligerents as standing upon the same ground, and that our conduct towards them must be governed (as I was glad to hear the other day) by circumstances, that they must govern us, since we cannot govern them.
As it has become fashionable of late, to anticipate charges of inconsistency, and plead to them before they are made (and a very convenient fashion it is) I must avail myself of the same privilege. It will be recollected that about two years ago, I proposed an addition to our regular force to repel Spanish inroads and chastise the same. I then thought, and still believe that measure to have been proper—because the territory of the United States, even that not in dispute, had been invaded, and their sovereignty violated, because although no formal declaration of war had passed, yet our troops were absolutely in hostile array, confronting those of the enemy—and because the theatre of war was an outpost, where it was impossible to collect militia to repress invasion. The population, the natural strength of the country lay at such an immense distance, that it could not be brought to act—and therefore I deemed it necessary that there should be an addition to our military force in order to enable our army to face the enemy on equal terms, for it was represented to have been extremely over matched in numbers; and moreover, we were instructed by the proper authority that the crisis was such as to render the interposition of force indispensable . Is there now danger of invasion on that frontier, or of an attempt on the part of Spain to take possession of New Orleans? If there be danger of invasion any where it is upon our northern and eastern frontier, from Canada and Nova Scotia, where (thank God for it!) they must take the bull by the horns. Does any gentleman from New England or New York, believe that 6000 men are necessary for their defence, or if necessary that they are adequate to prevent the British from Montreal and Quebec from making inroads into the United States, the result of which must ensure the subjection of the invaders. Great Britain cannot be mad enough to throw away her colonies in such a wild attempt. There are then no dangers against which we have to guard, at this moment, except the British naval power, which this force surely is not calculated to resist—for such a purpose it is totally inefficient. If indeed these 6000 men are to be raised as an offensive force to make an irruption into her provinces the question is totally altered, except that the quantum of force is not sufficient. It should be more than double that number. But I understand that no such thing is in contemplation—that the United States are determined to adhere to their present neutral position, and I am glad of it. I hope we shall not make war on the one, or the other.
These 6000 troops then, are to give protection against a naval force by garrisoning our seaports. It is perfectly evident that the militia of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and other great towns are out of all proportion superior in numbers and even in discipline to the quota of these raw levies that will fall to their respective shares. They will be nothing when divided even amongst a few important places. The idea of defending the sea coast from Maine to New Orleans with such a force is visionary in the extreme. Their aid will not be felt. They are as a drop in the ocean. What then remains for us but to husband our resources to buy arms—to put the whole nation in a state of defence, to prepare at all points for attack, and enable ourselves to oppose if necessary not with six but sixty, or even six hundred thousand men—that I believe is the number capable of bearing arms, and I trust not one would remain at home when his service was required, but that there would be one general resolution that not one of the enemy should escape. But the people will not enlist when they see no prospect of actual service, of real fighting. I remember, indeed when the twelve regiments were raised, or rather raised—for except in procuring officers government had little success—they are always to be had in sufficient numbers at least—an eloquent member, who no longer holds a seat in this House, told us, among other uses, that they would serve to keep down a French faction, who in case of invasion, would be ready to join the enemy; but I trust that this army is not raised upon a plea which is a libel upon the country. I mean no improper insinuation—no man can insinuate what he does not feel. With
the success of the former project we are all acquainted—and it is certain that a similar effect will result from a similar cause. I however shall have nothing to charge myself with, should it so happen. I shall give the same vote now that I did then, and will never consent to encroach our standing military force by one man, until I see the enemy against whom we are contending. This used to be the old republican maxim, and may it ever remain so.
(Debate to be continued.) FRIDAY, APRIL 8.
Mr. G. W. Campbell said that it appeared to be understood that the session was drawing to a close; and during the recess it was at least possible that such a change might take place in the conduct of the belligerent powers as might justify the suspension of the law laying an embargo, and thereby remove from the citizens of this country the pressure under which they now labor in consequence of that law. As he conceived it very important to the nation that the moment it could be done with propriety such pressure should be removed, he considered it proper that Congress before they adjourned should determine the events or contingencies upon which that law should be suspended, and also that they should vest in the Executive, under certain restrictions, a power to suspend the operation of that law upon such events having taken place as Congress should conceive would authorize such suspension till the next session. This might prevent the call of Congress at an improper time of the year, or a time when it would be very inconvenient to meet. In order to bring the subject before the House, he begged leave to submit to their consideration the following resolution:
Resolved, That in the event of such peace or suspension of hostilities between the belligerent powers of Europe, or of such changes in their measures affecting neutral commerce, as may render that of the United States sufficiently safe, in the judgement of the President of the United States, he ought to be authorised by law to suspend the act "laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," and the several acts supplementary thereto, under such exceptions and restrictions, as the public interest and circumstances of the case may require: Provided, That such suspension shall not extend beyond days after the commencement of the next session of Congress.
Mr. Rhea moved that it lie on the table, Negatived, Ayes 12.
On motion of Mr. G. W. Campbell, it was referred to a committee of the whole House, without a division, and made the order of the day for to-morrow.
Mr. Randolph moved that the House go into committee of the whole on the bill making an appropriation for arming the whole body of the militia. Negatived, 59 to 38.
On motion of Mr. Rhea, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole 59 to 15, on the bill concerning post roads. The House were engaged on this subject until the usual hour of adjournment; when the committee rose, reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.
SATURDAY, APRIL 9.
Mr. Randolph observed that he knew it was customary of late to do certain species of small business in the early part of the day; but the session was now drawing to a close, and it was little more than a mere matter of form for gentlemen now to present petitions, as it was scarcely possible to obtain reports on them. He therefore asked for the consideration of the bill for arming the whole body of the militia; and also asked for the Yeas and Nays on the motion, that it might appear on the Journals that it was from no neglect of his that the bill had not been taken up. Such was his extreme indisposition on this day as well as yesterday that nothing but a wish to get up the bill could have induced him to come to the House these two days.
The question on taking this bill into consideration was then decided by Yeas and Nays; Yeas 41, Nays 50.
The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the bill concerning the post-office and post roads, Mr. Masters in the chair. The bill having been gone through, was reported to the House.
Mr. Randolph renewed his motion for taking up the bill for arming the whole body of the militia.—Negatived 44 to 36.
The House then took up the report of the committee of the whole just made on the bill for altering and establishing certain post roads.
There being great difficulty in retaining a quorum within the bar, and the report not having been gone through,
After repeated motions for adjournment, one of which was taken by yeas and nays, the House at length adjourned 35 to 30.
THE COMMISSIONERS appointed for the erection of a BRIDGE over the POTOMAC, give notice to the Stockholders, that an election of five Directors, one Clerk and a Treasurer will be held on the 2nd of May, between 10 A. M. and 3 P. M., at Stelle's Hotel. April 11.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, APRIL 11.
For Laws and Post Office advertisement see the last page.
Department of State, April 8, 1808. Merchants and others wishing to forward letters to Europe, are informed, that a vessel, under the orders of the government, will sail from Baltimore on the 20th of this month, or as soon thereafter as possible, which will deliver at L'Orient and Falmouth all such letters as may be respectively consigned to those ports, or to other places through the same. The postage on the letters must be paid to Baltimore.
We have received a number of late London papers down to the 24th of Feb. inclusive. They do not contain any new continental intelligence; being principally filled with Parliamentary proceedings. The correspondence between Mr. Esdaile and Mr. Madison, with the letters of Lord Hawick to the former, as laid before Parliament, is commenced. No definitive vote had passed on the late British orders. The Ministry had proposed to commute the export duty on cotton into a total prohibition of the exportation of that article, unless licensed under particular circumstances. They had likewise abandoned the proposed export duty on salt to this country. We shall give some interesting extracts in our next.
The latest intelligence from France states, that Bonaparte was on the eve of leaving Paris to head an army of 200,000 men for the purpose of penetrating Africa. It is said to be his purpose totally to subvert the government of Algiers and the other Barbary states. If this information be correct, we presume one of his leading views is to possess himself of the immense treasures which have been there hoarded up for centuries, which has been long since estimated at a hundred millions of dollars.
Considerable solicitude has for some time existed to learn the issue of the trial of Commodore Barron at Norfolk. We understand that the documents and proceedings on this occasion are so very voluminous as not to have been yet forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy.
We are authorized to state that the remarks made by Daniel Bedinger, late naval agent at Norfolk, in his pamphlet, lately published, respecting a correspondence between him & the Accountant of the navy, are calculated to convey an impression foreign to the truth. From his remarks it might be supposed that in the correspondence he alludes to, he had obtained a complete victory, and that the accountant had yielded—or discontinued his "dishonest efforts" to wrong him out of money so justly paid on public account; when the facts are directly the reverse. In the adjustment of his accounts many errors were discovered, some few items rejected, and others suspended, not being supported by such vouchers as were deemed requisite, of which Mr. B. was informed, and at which he thought proper to take high dudgeon, and indulge himself in a strain of indecorous invective. Some of his letters were replied to—others were treated with silent contempt, and eventually he relinquished some of his pretensions, and in support of others, he forwarded additional vouchers, proofs and explanations, such as were deemed satisfactory, and such as it is evident were at all times in his power.
We are authorized also to say, that the documents in the possession of the Accountant of the Navy will shew that this statement is correct, and that they will with great cheerfulness be shown by that officer to any person desirous of being correctly informed, and who will be at the trouble of calling at his office.
Mr. Clopton desires the following alteration to be made in his speech in our last as more expressive of his meaning.
Near the close of the speech, for the words "all the purposes of war," read the chief purposes of defensive war.
CASE OF JOHN SMITH. FRIDAY, APRIL 8.
A short conversation arose on the course of proceeding, some diversity of opinion existing as to the propriety deciding on the report generally, or on the resolution of expulsion with which it concludes.
When on motion of Mr. Franklin, it was agreed, without a division, to proceed to the consideration of the resolution. A message was received from the President, in consequence of the resolution adopted yesterday, laying various papers before the Senate.
Mr. Adams then addressed the Senate in a speech of about three hours length; in the course of which he vindicated the course pursued in this case against the objection of unconstitutionality; and then went at considerable length into an examination of the evidence. Abandoning almost entirely the testimony of Grover and McFarlane, and insisting but lightly on that of the other deponents, he rested his argument principally on the letters, declarations and acknowledgements of Mr. Smith himself; and concluded with expressing his opinion in favor of the resolution of expulsion.
When, on motion of Mr. Giles, the further consideration of the subject was postponed until to-morrow. SATURDAY, APRIL 9.
Messrs. Anderson, Crawford, and Adams, spoke in favor of the resolution of expulsion; and Messrs. Hillhouse, Giles and Pope against it; when the question was taken by Yeas and Nays—Yeas 19—Nays 10. The Constitution requiring the concurrence of two thirds to expel a member, the resolution is to be considered as disagreed to.
Arrived at New York, with George and Mary, from London, passengers, Ad. Graves and Mr. Baing. By this arrival a Tynmouth paper of Feb. 27 was received.
LONDON, FEB. 23. Papers respecting negotiations with America were last night laid before the House of Commons.
A petition for peace was presented, Mr. Canning voted for bringing up the petition, and said no fair opportunity would be neglected of concluding peace.
An order has been issued to prohibit the exportation of Peruvian Bark to France, where a sickness is said to prevail (among the troops from Poland,) in which the bark is wanted. Mr. Whitbread censured the order.
FEB. 24. Lord ST. JOHN has given notice that he shall to-morrow move an adjournment to his Majesty to suspend the operation of the orders in council.
TRURO, FEB. 27. The Expedition under Spencer sailed on the 20th. The troops amount to 5000. They are supposed to be bound to Gibraltar.
The true friends of their country will rejoice to find the leading commercial town of the union taking the following enlightened, honest and commanding ground.
GENERAL MEETING. An uncommonly numerous and respectable meeting of the Republican electors of the city and county of New York, called together by public notice from their committee, held at Martineau's Long Room on Tuesday evening, April 5, 1808. WILLIAM L. CHIT, in the chair, A. C. VAN OLCK, Sec.
The following resolutions were unanimously passed, viz.
Resolved, That this meeting highly and unreservedly approve of the conduct of the President and government of the U. S. in the late representations to, and negotiations with the government of G. Britain and France; that in our opinion the general administration of the union has manifested as great a degree and spirit of conciliation as is consistent with the violated honor and independent rights of their country; and that in the present critical and interesting situation of our affairs, they are entitled to our gratitude and warm support.
Resolved, That we also decidedly and unreservedly approve of the Proclamation of the President of the U. S. of the 2d of July last, and also of the embargo, which has been recently laid upon American vessels; because in the present exigency of affairs, when the rights of neutrals are entirely disregarded by belligerent powers, and no security whatsoever is allowed to their commerce or their flags, it would have been in the highest degree impolitic and unsafe to have suffered the property of our fellow-citizens to be exposed to the depredations of foreign nations, and our government by the rash and improvident enterprises of individuals without its authority and consent, liable to be called upon with demands of indemnity and protection, and in channels of negotiation obstructed with additional difficulties.
Resolved, That the President and government of these U. S. in their negotiations with the late special minister of G. Britain, by consenting to separate the particular question of reparation for the attack upon the frigate Chesapeake from the general subjects of negotiation in relation to improvements and captures, and affording to such minister a general declaration and assurance, that upon receiving an adequate satisfaction and apology for the outrage, the proclamation of the President should be revoked, in so far as respects the preservation of peace, and if unfortunately and against our ardent wishes it should happen that negotiation shall eventually terminate without a settlement, the king and ministry of G. Britain must be answerable for the consequences, whilst we, relying with firm conviction upon the justice of our cause, will support our country and our government against the aggressions of any foreign nation, with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Resolved, That the frank and satisfactory communication which has been made by the President to both Houses of Congress of the United States, and published at his request for general information, of the instructions to our ministers, and the correspondence which has taken place in our respective negotiations with G. Britain and with France, completely justifies the confidence which has been reposed in, and expressed towards the President, and entitles him to the thanks and approbation of his country.
Resolved as the opinion of this meeting, that harmony among republicans in their elections, is at all times desirable, and particularly so at the present important crisis in our public affairs.
Resolved, That it appears to us both reasonable and consistent with the principles we profess as republicans, that when a difference of opinion arises among ourselves, in regard to particular men, that the minority should give up to, and acquiesce in the opinion of the majority, whenever such opinion has been fairly ascertained.
Resolved, That we prefer principles to men; because principles are immovable and unchangeable; and always the same, whether applied to an individual state or to the U. S.
[Here follow resolutions relative to the arrangements for the ensuing election.]

BY AUTHORITY.
AN ACT
Further to prolong the continuance of the mint at Philadelphia.
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the act entitled "An act concerning the mint," approved March the third, one thousand eight hundred and one, is hereby revived and continued in force and operation for the further term of five years after the fourth day of March one thousand eight hundred and eight.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
GEO: CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. April 1, 1808.
APPROVED,
TH: JEFFERSON.
AN ACT
Authorizing the sale of public arms.
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized to cause to be sold to individual states, which may wish to purchase any arms now owned by the United States, and which may be parted with without injury to the public: Accounts of such sales shall be laid before Congress, and the money arising therefrom be, and the same is hereby appropriated, under the direction of the President of the United States, to the purchase or manufacture of other arms for the use of the United States: Provided , That such arms be not delivered to any state or their agents until the payment of the purchase money be first made into the Treasury of the United States, in money or in the stock of the United States, at its value as established by an act, entitled "An act to repeal so much of any act or acts as authorize the receipt of evidences of the public debt, in payment for the lands of the United States, and for other purposes relative to the public debt:" Provided also , That this provision shall not extend to any purchase, not exceeding five thousand stand of arms, which shall be made by a state to which the United States by existing engagements are bound to pay a sum of money, equal to the amount of such purchase.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. GEO: CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. April 2, 1808.
APPROVED,
TH: JEFFERSON.
AN ACT
Concerning the sale of the lands of the United States, and for other purposes.
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That whenever the President of the United States has been or may be authorized to cause the public lands, in any land district, to be offered for sale, it shall be lawful, whenever he shall think it convenient, to offer for sale at first, only a part of the lands contained in such district, and at any subsequent time or times, to offer for sale in the same manner, any other part, or the remainder of the lands contained in the same.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted , That the fourth section of an act passed the twenty-first day of April, one thousand eight hundred and six, entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled "An act regulating the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States, south of the state of Tennessee," be be revived and continued in force until the first day of October next: and in any case where a donation shall be granted in lieu of a pre-emption certificate, agreeable to the provisions of the said fourth section, the money, if any shall have been paid, shall be by the receiver of the public money repaid to the person or persons who have paid the same.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted , That certain settlers on the river Mobile, in the Mississippi territory, (east of Pearl river, who reside near the line of demarcation, between the United States and Spain, run in pursuance of the treaty of the twenty-seventh day of October, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, and whose claims to land has not been decided on according to law) shall be allowed until the first day of October next, to file a notice in writing with the register of the land office, stating the nature and extent of their claims, together with a plat of the tract or tracts claimed, and the said register of the land office, and the receiver of public monies, are hereby required to hear and determine such claims according to the several acts of Congress "regulating the grants of land and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the state of Tennessee," and to grant certificates in the form heretofore prescribed
ed by the board of commissioners in said district.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted , That it shall be the duty of the register of the land office east and west of Pearl river, in the Mississippi territory, to transmit to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, on or before the first day of November next, a full and fair report of all the claims of certain persons to lands in the Mississippi territory, founded upon British or Spanish warrants or orders of survey granted prior to the twenty-seventh day of October one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, not confirmed by former laws regulating the grants of lands in said territory, which have heretofore been regularly filed with the register of the land office aforesaid, together with the evidence in support of such claims respectively, and to be by him laid before Congress at their next ensuing session. And the land contained in such warrants or orders of survey, shall not be disposed of until otherwise directed by law.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted , That that part of the lands to which the Indian title was extinguished by the treaty with the Choctaw nation, made on Mount Dexter, in the year one thousand eight hundred and five, lying on the east of Pearl river, shall be attached to the land district east of Pearl river, and that the residue of the lands to which the Indian title was extinguished by said treaty, shall be attached to the land district west of Pearl river; and the said lands shall, with the exception of section number sixteen, which shall be reserved in each township for the use of schools within the same, and also with the exception of fifteen hundred acres of land, which is hereby confirmed to John McGrew, in compliance with the fourth article of said treaty, be offered for sale under the same regulations, at the same prices, and on the same terms as other lands lying within the said districts.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted , That every person and the legal representatives of every person, who being either the head of a family, or above the age of twenty-one years, who did before the fourth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seven, actually inhabit and cultivate a tract of land, in the Mississippi territory, belonging to the United States, shall be allowed until the first day of October next, to obtain permission to remain on such tract or tracts of land, according to the provisions of the act said entitled, "An act to prevent settlements being made on lands ceded to the United States until authorized by law," and the person or persons obtaining such permission shall be entitled to all the benefits, rights and privileges granted by law to those who obtained the same prior to the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight.
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted , That the right of the United States to two town lots lying and being in the city of Natchez be, and the same is hereby forever vested in the corporation of the said city, so as not to affect the legal or equitable claims of any individuals, or of any body politic or corporate, if any such there be.
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted , That whenever the claims of persons having a right of pre-emption in either of the districts east or west of Pearl river, shall interfere with each other, the register and receiver of public monies are hereby authorized in their respective districts so to regulate their locations or to prevent such interference.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. GEO: CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. March 31, 1808.
APPROVED,
TH: JEFFERSON.
30 DOLLARS REWARD,
FOR apprehending and safe keeping, JACK MOSES, about 5 feet 10 inches high, about 25 years old; has lost an upper fore tooth, has a rupture near his groin; when sharply spoken to shows submission, his voice is soft and low, his gestures is such as has enabled him to deceive those who are acquainted with him. I have had him twice since the 30th of July last; once he broke from the stocks; once from five men on the 26th December last. On the day after he broke Wm. Lee's house, and took therefrom all said Lee's wearing apparel, also a saddle and bridle and a horse from my stable. The horse, saddle and bridle I have recovered, which was taken from him by Mr. Rison who keeps ferry near Dumfries. The principal part of clothing he had with him when he was lodged in Dumfries jail, on 30th December last, consisted of home made cloth, which he took with him on the 1st of January last when he broke jail and cleared himself. I suppose he is lurking about George Town or Alexandria. He called himself a freeman, and passed by the name of John Lucas Rouns. It is likely he will take some other. The above reward and all reasonable charges I will pay to any person who will lodge him in any jail, or deliver him to me in Orange county.
J. H. PAYNE, Black Walnut Run. March 18—10
List of Letters remaining in the Post Office at Washington city, on the 1st of April 1808.
A—Thomas Armistead, Walter G. Anderson 3, William Adams 2, Samuel Abbott, jun. Miss Sally Alexander, James Anderson.
B—Nuanja Belt, Dr. Edward Briscoe, Miss Betsey Bell, Thomas Brown, Ben. Boehm, Wm. Brown, Isaac Briggs, Samuel Burgess, Elizabeth Bowin, Capt. James Bankhead, Robert Butler, Caleb Ball, Wm. Bell, Wm. Burdine, Mansford Beverly, Thos. Buchanan, Mrs. Anne Butler, John Breed 7, John Barnes, Martha Butler, Joseph Foster Burwell, Joseph Billing, Dr. John Beall, John V. Brounough, Col. John Ballinger.
C—Monsieur Chaumont, John Coles, John Cummings, John Baptist Canepa, Francis Coffin, John Crook, Isaac Chauncey, Dr. Edward Cutbush, Richard Crump, Charles G. Cabot 2, Wm. Cooper 2 Agness Cook, Mrs. Sarah Crawford, Wm. Cumberland, Gen. Henry Corberry 3, H. A. Callis 2, John Chambers, jun. Lt. E. Noel Cox, Joseph Cogan, Joseph Chambers 5, Jess. Crowder, John Coonz, G. N. William Clarke 5, Alexander Cochran, Francis Cambron.
D—Midshipman Glen Drayton, Mr. Dove, Alexander Darragh, David Davis, John Douglass, Capt. Geo. R. Dowdall, Marg. Davis, Dr. Dorsey, George S. Davis, Mrs. Dyson, Wm. Drayton 5, Walter Dorsey, Lewis Dennun, Wm. Duguid, Joseph L. Driscoll 2, Richard Dinmore 3.
E—Evan Evans, Wm. N. Earle, Wm. Elwes, George Elsing, Mr. Rebecca Edward, John Earle, Miss R. B. Edwards, Eliza Earle.
F—Nancy Freeman, Miss Eliza B. Finch, Mrs. Susanna B. Finch, Burton Foster, John Fletcher, Ay. Filippi, Joseph Foster, Joseph Fordy.
G—Miss Hannah L. Gibbs, George Gibbs, Jonathan Graft, H. N. John Griffin 3, Capt. Thomas N. Gutter, Thomas Gowers.
H—John Hopkins, Dr. George Hunter 2, Moses Hopkins 2, Maj. S. Hunt 6, John Hand, Joseph Hibberd, Leonard I. Henebick 2, Patrik Kelly, Gen. John Hester, Capt. A. G. Hammond, Dally Hardeity, Miss Lettice Hall, Capt. Matt. Henderson.
I—Mr. James, Mrs. Prudence Jones, Frederick Jones, Thomas Johnston 2, Cadwallader Jones, B. S. Jones, Thomas Jenkins, jun. H. N. B. J. W. Jones, jun. 3, Ebenezer Jackson 2, James Jones, Andes Jones 2.
K—Lt. Lawrence Keene 4, R. R. Keene, Samuel Kelly, John Kelly 2.
L—Samuel Lane, Charles Lee, Wm. Latham, Daniel W. Lewis, John Laurence, David L. Lott, J. E. Livingston, Lt. Charles Luff, Wm. Gen. Henry Lee 2, Alexander F. Lanham.
M—John Moore, Com. Alexander Murray, Thos. McMinn, Genlis Macartney, David. M'Gunder, Mrs. Ann Marshall, Charles M'Allister 3, Enoch Miller, Adam Murray, Warner Massey, A. C. Margrave, Andrew Mitchell, jr. James M'Cormick 3, Thomas M'Cahan, James Marshall, Benger Morrison, Samuel Mecker, 2 D. T. Maddox, Abraham Mason, James Mills 2, Horatio Moore 2, John M'Creary.
N—Hamblett Nuttle, Miles Northum, W. C. Newton, John Nowland, Capt. Stephen Neale, George Neale, Charles Neil, Lewis Scott, John H. Nicholls, jr., Miss Margaret G. Nicholas 2.
O—Miss Mary Oliver, Col. Archibald Orme.
P—William Parsons, Jonathan Post, jun. H. I. Pride, Capt. David Porter 2, Thomas Paine, James Price, Edward Phelan, Capt. Pearl, Bartholemew Pastor, Isaac Pollock, George Pickett, James Paul Penback, George Powers, Capt. Benjamin Price.
R—John Revell 2, Benjamin F. Read, Samuel Rovertson, Nathaniel F. Rogers, Peter Remson.
S—Samuel L. Southard 2, Wm. Smith, Peter S. S. 1, Capt. John Smith, J. James Stewart, John Stevens, Zachariah Seymour 4, M. J. John Stockly, Thos. Swindling, Dumon Sturges, Samuel H. Sander, Susan Sturges, Edward C. Stanard 2, Nath. Spence.
T—Mrs. Dorcas Talbott, Hon. Thomas Todd, Elisha Ferry, Philip Thomas, jun. John Tooker, jun. Col. Lewis Toudard 2, Benjamin Taylor, D. James Tongue.
V—Abram Von Nostrand, esq. W—George Wright, Miss Rusha Ann Wilson, George Walker, John White, F. A. Wagler, Richard Williams, Joseph Worsley, Wm. Williams, Rev. Joshua Wells, Joseph Ward, Thos. Wilson, James D. Wolf, Capt. Edward Watts, Michael Wilkinson, Philip Williams, Robert Wild, Capt. Abraham Wheelwright. April 11—tf
LINDSAY'S HOTEL.
The Subscriber has taken that well calculated house on the Capitol Hill, late occupied by Mr. Frost formerly by Mr. Steele—Where he intends to open a Tavern on the 24th October. Those gentlemen who may favor him with their Custom may rely on every attention in the Power of the Public's devoted Servant.
GEO. W. LINDSAY. N.B.—EIGHT or TEN BOARDERS may be conveniently accommodated. October 19—tf
PORTRAITS,
PAINTED IN OIL COLORS. By C. BOYLE, at the Building formerly occupied by Mr. G. Stewart, Pennsylvania avenue. Washington, March 11—tf
ROSS AND GETTY,
HAVE for sale at their store George Town, the following articles just received from Philadelphia, by the schooner Carolina, capt. HAND. jun. viz. 30 kegs butter, 20 barrels, New Town, Pippin Apples, 10 do. buck wheat flour, 10 do. Cranberries, and 10 do. shell bark hickory nuts. Also a small assortment of very elegant Looking Glasses, Watches, Trays, polished steel Shovel and Tongs, with copper and brass heads, &c. &c. January 9—tf
NOTICE.
PURSUANT to an act of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed at November session, 1806, entitled "An act authorizing the collection of certain ground rents due on lots in the Town of Cumberland, in Allegany county," and a supplement thereto, passed at November session, 1807, Public Notice is hereby given to all persons holding unimproved lots in said town, on which ground rents are now due, that unless the said rents are paid on or before the first day of December next, the said lots will on that day be offered at public sale to the highest bidder, on a credit of 60 days. The sale to be held at Mr. J. Rine's tavern in said town, to commence at ten o'clock, A. M. and continue from day to day, until the whole are sold. THOMAS BEALL, of Saml. March 21—tf
WOOLLEN DRAPERS,
men's mercers, and tailors, New Jersey Avenue, opposite the Secretary of the Navy's, respectfully inform the public that they have commenced business in the above line, where they will endeavor to give satisfaction—they have on hand a fresh supply of the most fashionable goods, suitable for the approaching season, all fresh and of the very best quality. N. B. Regimentals and naval uniforms made in the most elegant and fashionable stile with neatness and dispatch. October 23—tf
TUNIS CRAVEN,
HAS removed his entire stock of DRY GOODS from Alexandria to Washington, and is now opening at his new Store, between the Marine Garrison and Navy Yard Gate, an assortment equal to any in the District;—among which are, Wooln's best London cloths, Do. double milled & plain cassimeres, Bennett's cords and velvets, Constitution Gerrow, hunting, Tra- falgur, and silver cords, Velvets, Imperial, Brunswick waistcoating, Silk moleskins do. Toilnets, swansdown do. Plain and figured Marseilles do. Bearskin coatings, Plains, kerseys, halfhicks, Rose and duffel blank ts, flannels, Superfine green cloth table covers, Calicoes, colored cambrics, Ginghams, silk and cotton chambrays, Furniture Chintz, Cambric and jacquet muslins, India and British book do. India mu small figured and plain, Plain and figured lenoes, Laced cambrics, Elegant tambooured mulls, Grecian robes and Pelisse dresses, 8 4 damask and raw silk shawls, Damask do. Camel's hair and swansdown do. Down scarfs, Long and short lace sleeves, spider & nett sleeves, Extra long and habit kid gloves, Do. do. silk do. Do. do. raw silk do. Cross-barred and plain Mantuas and interstungs, Persians and Medes, Thread and cotton laces, Lace caps and handkerchiefs, Book muslin and leno cap patterns, 4 4 7 8 Irish linens, Long lawns, linen cambrics, Irish diapers, table-cloths, napkins, Cotton counterpanes, Cambric Dimities, Common do. Furniture do. Ladies' and gentlemen's silk, thread, cotton, worsted, lamb's wool & Angola hose, Gentlemen's pantaloons do. Silk cords and buttons, Ribbons, floss threads, Scarlet and other colored bombazets, Hearth rugs, Russia sheeting, ticklingurg, Os naburgs, bastas, gurrahs, &c. &c.
ALSO,
Imperial and young hyson tea of a superior quality in small boxes, to suit families, or by the pound—Also genuine Havana segars. T. C. is determined to sell on the lowest terms. February 3—tf
CHARLOTTE HALL,
MARCH 27, 1808.
WHEN the emulation and exertions of youth are sanctioned by the respectability and experience of riper years how serious is the calamity which deprives them of a Friend. The Washington Society unanimously have resolved to wear crape upon the left arm for the space of one month as a small but sincere token of respect to the memory of NATHANIEL C. WEEMS, Esq. of Prince Georges county late an honorary member of that Society.
Signed by order, ROBERT MURPHY, Secretary. April 4—3t
NOTICE.
THE Subscriber being anxious to settle all his business, has sold his entire stock of goods to John Peter, he therefore requests all those indebted to him to call and pay their accounts. (Particularly such as are of long standing, as further indulgence cannot be given them). His Books are removed to the counting house of his brother Romulus Riggs, where all his accounts will be ready for settlement by his assistant Mr. Samuel C. Offut, or ELISA RIGGS. George Town, March 16—tf
BOOM!
THE Subscriber has his best Drawing Room in Four Bed Chambers unoccupied with Stables and Carriage house. April 6—3t
JOSEPH WHEATON Broker and Commission Merchant, has put into his hands for sale, at his office in F Street near the Bank, a valuable property in the city of Washington, consisting of 646,453 square feet of city LOTS advantageously situated on the most prominent and valuable streets, and near the Navy Yard and Bridge, and to be had on the most reasonable terms of payment. This great bargain is recommended to gentlemen desirous of securing an early fortune, in this truly growing and flourishing city; the permanent residence and seat of the government of the United States. Other city property to be had—Houses and Lots—Enquire as above. All kinds of Stocks bought and sold. Wanted to Purchase a few MILITARY LAND WARRANTS. Washington city, Dec. 11—tf
CHARLES H. VIRDEN,
MERCHANT TAYLOR, RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia and public in general, that he has just received by a late arrival from Philadelphia,
A CHOICE ASSORTMENT Of superior Cloths, Cassimeres, single and double milled, superfine Cutting, black silk Florentines. Likewise an elegant assortment of Spaniels and rich silk Moleskins for waistcoats with a variety of other articles suitable for the season. Regimentals and Navy Uniforms made in the most elegant and uniform stile of fashion. Richard Horwell'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—tf
THE subscriber has purchased out the stock of GOODS lately belonging to Mr. Elisha Riggs, and will be enabled, from the conditions of purchase, to dispose of them in the same house on as liberal if not better terms than they were sold before. He expects by capt. Hand, from Philadelphia this week or the first of next, a handsome Spring supply, which will make his assortment complete. They were laid in for cash, therefore will accommodate his friends no doubt satisfactorily. JOHN PETER. George Town, March 16—tf
AMERICAN MILITARY LIBRARY.
Just received and for sale at R. C. Weightman's Bookstore, Pennsylvania Avenue. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the American Military Library. Horror of St. Domingo. Lay of an Irish Harp, by Miss Owenson. A Sailor's Friendship and A Soldier's Love, a new novel, by Miss Porter. Ivory and bone Chessmen. Battledores and shuttlecocks. Leather Chessboards. April 4—3t
FAMILY PHYSICIAN.
A new and greatly improved Family Physician, entitled "The Planter's and Mariner's Companion."
FOR SALE AT R. C. WEIGHTMAN'S Book store, Washington city. J. MILLIGAN'S George Town, And AID & THOMAS'S, Market street, Baltimore. March 23—3w
FOR SALE,
A handsome new GIG & HARNESS COMPLETE. Enquire of the Printer. Washington, April 6—
PHILADELPHIA
PORTER & ALE, CELLAR. LEWIS ZIMMER, at his store near the NAVY YARD, begs leave to inform the Public that he is just opening a PORTER CELLAR, near the gate of the Navy Yard, where the best kind of Porter and Ale from Philadelphia shall at all times be procured in bottles or otherwise. He has also received from Philadelphia, a parcel of the very best LIQUID BLACKING, for Boots and Shoes in bottles and half bottles—the fine shining gloss of this blacking is so well fixed on the surface of the leather, that you may pass a white handkerchief over your boots without soiling them in the least; in short, it is difficult to describe all the admirable qualities of this Liquid Blacking. He continues to keep a general assortment of GROCERIES & DRY GOODS, which he offers for sale on very moderate prices. April 6—2t
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE,
That the subscriber of St. Mary's county, hath obtained from the Orphan's Court of St. Mary's county in Maryland Letters Testamentary on the personal estate of of Command Plowden late of the county aforesaid deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with vouchers thereof to the subscriber, at or before the 25th day of September next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under my hand this 18th day of March, eighteen hundred and eight. HENRY NEALE, Ex'r. March 25—6w
PUBLIC NOTICE.
By order of the Orphan's Court of Prince George's county, will be sold on Thursday the 21st day of April next, at his late dwelling in Prince George's county, all the personal estate of John Rustin, late of said county, deceased, consisting of Horses, Cattle, Hogs, Plantation Utensils and a variety of other articles too numerous to mention. The terms of sale are six months credit, for all sums above ten dollars, the purchaser giving bond with two good securities bearing interest from the day of sale; for all sums to the amount of ten dollars and under, the cash must be paid. The sale to commence at 12 o'clock. JOHN H. HALL, Adm'r. March 25—3w