The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1806-02-07 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VI.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. DCCCXXXII.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1806.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
MEMORIAL OF THE MERCHANTS OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE.
(CONCLUDED.)
That doctrine had something of certainty belonging to it, & made safety at least possible. But there can be no safety while a malignant and deceitful principle like this hangs over us. It is just what the belligerent chooses to make it— lurking, unseen and unsafe, or visible, active and noxious. It may come abroad when it is least expected; and the moment of confidence may be the moment of destruction. It may sleep for a time, but no man knows when it is to wake, to shed its baleful influence upon the commerce of the world. It clothes itself, from season to season, in what are called "relaxations;" but again, without any previous intimation to the deluded citizens of the neutral powers, these relaxations are suddenly laid aside, either in the whole or in part, and the work of confiscation commences. Nearly ten months of the late war had elapsed before it announced itself at all; and, when it did so, it was in its most formidable shape, and in its fullest power and expansion. In a few weeks, it was seen to lose more than half its substance and character; and, long before the conclusion of the war, was scarcely perceptible. With the opening of the present war, it re-appeared in its mildest form, which it is again abandoning for another, more consonant to its spirit. Such are its capricious fluctuations; that no commercial undertaking, which it can in any way affect, can be considered as otherwise than precarious, whatever may be the avowed state of the principle at the time of its commencement.
It has been said that, by embarking in the colonial trade of either of the belligerents, neutral nations, in some sort, interpose in the war; since they assist, and serve the belligerent, in whose trade they so embark. It is a sufficient answer to this observation, that the same course of reasoning would prove that neutrals ought to discontinue all trade whatsoever, with the parties at war. A continuation of their accustomed peace trade , assists and serves the belligerent with whom it is continued; and, if this effect were sufficient to make a trade unneutral, and illegal, the best established and most usual traffic, would, of course, become so. But, Great Britain supplies us with another answer to this notion, that our interference in the trade of the colonies of her enemies is unlawful, because they are benefited by it . It is known that the same trade is, and long has been, carried on by British subjects; and your memorialists feel themselves bound to state, that according to authentic information lately received, the government of Great Britain does, at this moment, grant licences to neutral vessels, taking in a proportion of their cargoes there, to proceed on trading voyages to the colonies of Spain, from which she would exclude us, upon the condition that the return cargoes shall be carried to Great Britain, to swell the gains of her merchants and to give her a monopoly of the commerce of the world. This great belligerent right, then, upon which so much has been supposed to depend, sinks into an article of barter. It is used, not as a hostile instrument, wielded by a warlike state, by which her enemies are wounded, or their colonies subdued, but as the selfish means of commercial aggrandizement, to the impoverishment and ruin of her friends; as an engine by which Great Britain is to be lifted up to a vast height of prosperity, and the trade of neutrals crippled, and crushed, and destroyed. Such acts are a most intelligible commentary upon the principle in question. They show that it is a hollow and fallacious principle, susceptible of the worst abuse, and incapable of a just and honorable application. They show that in the hands of a great maritime state, it is not, in its ostensible character of a weapon of hostility, that it is prized, but rather as one of the means of establishing an unbounded monopoly, by which every enterprise, calculated to promote national wealth and power, shall be made to begin and end in Great Britain alone. Such acts may well be considered as pronouncing the condemnation of the principle against which we contend, as withdrawing from it the only pretext, upon which it is possible to rest it.
Great Britain does not pretend that this principle has any warrant in the opinions of writers on public law. She does not pretend, and cannot pretend, that it derives any countenance from the conduct of other nations. She is confessedly solitary in the use of this invention, by which rapacity is systematized, and a state of neutrality and war are made substantially the same. In this absence of all other authority, her courts have made an appeal to her own early example, for the justification of her own recent practice. Your memorialists join in that appeal, as affording the most conclusive and authoritative reprobation of the practice, which it is intended to support by it.
It would be easy to show by an examination of the different treaties to which Great Britain has been a party from times long past, that this doctrine is a modern usurpation. It would be equally easy to show, that during the greater part of the last century, her statesmen and lawyers uniformly disavowed it, either expressly or tacitly. But, it is a review of judicial examples, of all others the most weighty and solemn, that your memorialists propose to confine themselves.
In the war of 1744, in which Great Britain had the power if she thought fit to exert it, to exclude the neutral states from the colony trade of France and Spain, her high court of appeals decided that the trade was lawful, and released such vessels as had been found engaged in it.
In the war which soon followed the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle , Great Britain is supposed to have first acted upon the pretension that such a trade was unlawful, as being shut against neutrals in peace. And it is certain, that during the whole of that war, her courts of prize did condemn all neutral vessels taken in the prosecution of that trade, together with their cargoes, whether French or neutral. These condemnations, however, proceeded upon peculiar grounds. In the seven years' war, France did not throw open to neutrals the traffic of her colonies. She established no free ports in the east or in the west, with which foreign vessels could be admitted to trade, either generally, or occasionally as such . Her first practice was simply to grant special licences to particular neutral vessels, principally Dutch, and commonly chartered by Frenchmen, to make under the usual restrictions, particular trading voyages to the colonies. These licences furnished the British courts with a peculiar reason for condemning vessels sailing under them, viz. "that they became in virtue of them the adopted or naturalized vessels of France ." As soon as it was known that this effect was imputed to these licences, they were discontinued or pretended to be so; but the discontinuance, whether real or supposed, produced no change in the conduct of Great Britain; for neutral vessels employed in this trade, were captured and condemned as before. The grounds upon which they continued to be so captured and condemned, may best be collected from the reasons subjoined to the printed cases in the prize causes decided by the high court of admiralty, (in which sir Thomas Salisbury at that time presided) and by the lords commissioners of appeal in 1757 and 1760.
In the case of the America , (which was a Dutch ship, bound from Saint Domingo to Holland, with the produce of that island, belonging to French subjects, by whom the vessel had been chartered) the reason, stated in the printed case, is, "that the ship must be looked upon as a French ship (coming from St. Domingo) for by the laws of France, no foreign ship can trade to the French West-Indies."
In the case of the Ship , the reason (assigned by Sir George Hays and Mr. Pratt, afterwards lord Camden) is, "for that the ship (though once the property of Dutchmen) being employed in carrying provisions to, and goods from, a French colony, thereby became a French ship , and, as such, was justly condemned."
It is obvious that the reason, in case of the America , proceeds upon a presumption, that, as the trade was, by the standing laws of France, even up to that moment, confined to French ships, any ship, found employed in it, must be a French ship. The reason, in the other case, does not rest upon this idle presumption, but takes another ground; for it states, that, by reason of the trade, in which the vessel was employed, she became a French vessel. It is manifest that this is no other than the first idea of adoption, or naturalization, accommodated to the change, attempted to be introduced into the state of things, by the actual, or pretended discontinuance of the special licences. What then is the amount of the doctrine of the seven years war, in the utmost extent which it is possible to ascribe to it? It is in substance, no more than this,—that, as France did not at any period of that war, abandon, or in any degree suspend, the principle of colonial monopoly, or the system arising out of it, a neutral vessel, found in the prosecution of the trade, which, according to that principle, and that system, still continuing in force, could only be a French trade, and open to French vessels, either became, or was legally to be presumed to be, a French vessel. It cannot be necessary to show, that this doctrine differs essentially from the principle of the present day. But, even if it were otherwise, the practice of that war, whatsoever it might be, was undoubtedly contrary to that of the war of 1744, and as contrasted with it, will not be considered, by those who have at all attended to the history of these two periods, as entitled to any peculiar veneration. The effects of that practice were almost wholly confined to the Dutch, who had rendered themselves extremely obnoxious to G. Britain, by the selfish and pusillanimous
policy, as it was falsely called, which enabled them during the seven years war, to profit of the troubles of the rest of Europe. In the war of 1744, the neutrality of the Dutch, while it continued, had in it nothing of complaisance to France. They furnished, from the commencement of hostilities, on account of the Pragmatic sanction, succors to the confederates, declared openly, after a time, in favor of the queen of Hungary, and finally determined upon, and prepared for war, by sea and land. Great Britain, of course, had no inducement, in that war, to hunt after any hostile principle, by the operation of which, the trade of the Dutch might be harassed, or the advantages of their neutral position, while it lasted, defeated.
In the war of 1756, she had this inducement in its utmost strength. Independent of the commercial rivalry, existing between the two nations, the Dutch had excited the undisguised resentment of Great Britain, by declining to furnish against France, the succors stipulated by treaty; by constantly supplying France with naval and warlike stores, through the medium of a trade systematically pursued by the people, and countenanced by the government; by granting to France early in 1757, a free passage through Namur and Maestricht, for the provisions, ammunition and artillery belonging to the army destined to act against the territories of Prussia, in the neighborhood of the low countries—and by the indifference with which they saw Nieuport and Ostend put into the hands of France, by the court of Vienna, which Great Britain represented to be contrary to the barrier treaty, and the treaty of Utrecht. Without entering into the sufficiency of these grounds of dissatisfaction, which undoubtedly had a great influence on the conduct of Great Britain, towards the Dutch, from 1757, until the peace of 1763, it is manifest that this very dissatisfaction, little short of a disposition to open war, and frequently on the eve of producing it, takes away, in a considerable degree, from the authority of any practice to which it may be supposed to have led, as tending to establish a rule of the public law of Europe. It may not be improper to observe, too, that the station occupied by G. Britain, in the 7 years war, (as proud as one as any country ever did occupy) compared with that of the other European powers, was not exactly calculated to make the measures which her resentment against Holland, or her views against France might dictate peculiarly respectful to the general rights of neutrals. In the north, Russia and Sweden were engaged in the confederacy against Prussia, and were of course entitled to no consideration in this respect. The government of Sweden was, besides, weak and impotent. Denmark, it is true, took no part in the war, but she did not suffer by the practice in question. Besides all these powers combined, would have been as nothing, against the naval strength of Great Britain, in 1756. As to Spain, she could have no concern in this question; and, at length, became involved in the war on the side of France. Upon the whole, in the war of 1756, G. Britain had the power to be unjust, and irresistible temptations to abuse it. In that of 1744, her power was, perhaps, equally great, but every thing was favorable to equity and moderation. The example afforded on this subject, therefore, by the first war, has far better titles to respect, than that furnished by the last.
In the American war, the practice & decisions, on this point, followed those of the war of 1744.
The question first came before the lords of appeal, in Jan. 1782, in the Danish cases of the Tiger , Copenhagen , and others, captured in October, 1780, and condemned in St. Kitts, in December following. The grounds upon which the captors relied for condemnation, in the Tiger , as set forth at the end of the respondent's printed case, were: "for that the ship, having been trading to Cape Francois, where none but French ships are allowed to carry on any traffic, and have been laden, at the time of the capture, with the produce of the French part of the island of St. Domingo, put on board at Cape Francois, and both ship and cargo taken confessedly coming directly from thence, must (pursuant to precedents in the like cases in the last war) to all intents and purposes, be deemed a ship and goods belonging to the French, or at least adopted and naturalized as such."
In the Copenhagen , the captors reasons are thus given: "First, because it is allowed that the ship was destined with her cargo to the island of Guadalupe, and no other place."
"Secondly, because it is contrary to the established rule of general law, to admit any neutral ship, to go to, and trade at, a port belonging to the colony of an enemy, to which such neutral ships could not have freely traded in time of peace."
On the 22d of January, 1782, these causes came on for hearing before the lords of appeal, who decreed restitution in all of them; thus in the most solemn and explicit manner, disavowing and rejecting the pretended rules of the law of nations, upon which the captors re-
lied; the first of which was literally borrowed from the doctrine of the war of 1756, and the last of which is precisely that very rule on which Great Britain now relies.
It is true that in these cases, the judgment of the lords was pronounced upon one shape only of the colony trade of France, as carried on by neutrals—that is to say, a trade between the colony of France, and that of the country of the neutral skipper. But as no distinction was supposed to exist in point of principle, between the different modifications of the trade, and as the judgment went upon general grounds, applicable to the entire subject, we shall not be thought to overrate its effect and extent, when we represent it as a complete rejection both of the doctrine of the seven years war, and of that modern principle by which it has been attempted to replace it. But, at any rate, the subsequent records of the same high tribunal did go that length. Without enumerating the cases of various descriptions, involving the legality of the trade in all its modes, which were favorably adjudged by the lords of appeal, after the American peace, it will be sufficient to mention the case of the Vervagting , decided by them in 1785 and 1786. This was the case of a Danish ship, laden with a cargo of dry goods and provisions, with which she was bound on a voyage from Marseilles , to Martinique and Cape Francois , where she was to take in for Europe a return cargo of West India produce. The ship was not proceeded against; but the cargo, which was claimed for merchants of Ostend , was condemned as enemy's property, (as in truth it was) by the vice-admiralty of Anilgua , subject to the payment of freight, pro rata itineris , or rather for the whole of the outward voyage. On appeal as to the cargo, the lords of appeal, on the 8th of March 1785, reversed the condemnation, and ordered further proof of the property to be produced within three months. On the 28th March 1786, no further proof having been exhibited, and the proctor for the claimants declaring that he should exhibit none, the lords condemned the cargo; and on the same day reversed the decree below, giving freight, pro rata itineris ; (from which the neutral master had appealed) and decreed freight generally, and the costs of the appeal.
It is impossible that a judicial opinion could go more conclusively to the whole question than this—For it not only disavows the pretended illegality of the neutral interposition in that trade, even directly between France and her colonies (the most exceptional form, it is said, in which that interposition could present itself) it not only denies that property engaged in such a trade is on that account liable to confiscation, (inasmuch as, after having reversed the condemnation of the cargo, pronounced below, it proceeds afterwards to condemn it merely for want of further proof as to the property) but it holds that the trade is so unquestionably lawful to neutrals, as not even to put in jeopardy the claim to freight, for that part of the voyage which had not begun, and which the party had not yet put himself in a situation to begin. The force of this and the other British decisions, produced by the American war, will not be avoided by suggesting that there was anything peculiarly favorable in the time when, or the manner in which France opened her colonial trade to neutrals on that occasion. Something of that sort, however, has been said. We find the following language in a very learned opinion on this point: "It is certainly true, that in the last war [the American war] many decisions took place which then pronounced, that such a trade between France and her colonies was not considered as an unneutral commerce. But under what circumstances? It was understood that France, in opening her colonies during the war, declared this was not done with a temporary view, relative to the war, but on a general permanent purpose of altering her colonial system, and of admitting foreign vessels universally, and at all times to a participation of that commerce. Taking that to be the fact, (however suspicious its commencement might be during the actual existence of a war) there was no ground to say that neutrals were not carrying on a commerce as ordinary as any other in which they could be engaged; and therefore in the case of the Vervagting , and in many other succeeding cases, the lords decreed payment of freight to the neutral ship owner. It is to be remembered on this occasion, that the conduct of France evinced how little dependence can be placed upon explanations of measures adopted during the pressure of war; for hardly was the ratification of the peace signed, when she returned to her ancient system of colonial monopoly." We answer to all this, that to refer the decision of the lords in the Vervagting , and other succeeding cases, to the reason here assigned, is to accuse that high tribunal of acting upon a confidence which has no example in a singularly incredible declaration, (if indeed such a declaration was ever made) after the utter falsehood of it had been, as this learned opinion does itself inform
us, unequivocally and notoriously ascertained. We have seen that the Vervagting was decided by the lords in 1785 and 1786, at least two years after France had, as we are told, "returned to her ancient system of colonial monopoly;" and when, of course, the supposed assumption of an intended permanent abandonment of that system, could not be permitted to produce any legal consequences. We answer farther, that if this alleged declaration was in fact made, (and we must be allowed to say, that we have found no traces of it out of the opinion above recited) it never was put into such a formal and judicial shape as to be the fair subject of judicial notice. It is not contained in the Breuch arrests of that day, where it would be proper to look for it, and we are not referred to any other document proceeding from the government of France, in which it is said to appear. There does not, in a word, seem to have been any thing which an enlightened tribunal could be supposed capable of considering as a pledge on the part of France, that she had resolved upon or even meditated the extravagant change in her colonial system which she is said in this opinion to have been understood to announce to the world. But even if the declaration in question was actually made, and that too with all possible solemnity, still it would be difficult to persuade any thinking man, that the sincerity of such a declaration was in any degree confided in, or that any person, in any country, could regard it in any other light than as a mere artifice that could give no right which would not equally well exist without it.
Upon the whole, it is manifestly impracticable to rest the decisions of the lords of appeal, in and after the American war, upon any dependence placed on this declaration, of which there is no evidence that it ever was made, which, it is certain, was not authentically or formally made; which, however made, was not and could not be believed at any time, for less in 1785 and 1786, when its fallhood had been unquestionably proved by the public, and undistinguished conduct of its supposed authors, in direct opposition to it.
That Sir James Marriott, who sat in the high court of admiralty of Great Britain, during the greater part of the late war did not consider the decisions as standing upon this ground, is evident; for, notwithstanding, that in the war of 1756, he was the most zealous, and perhaps able advocate for the condemnation of the Dutch ships engaged in the colony trade of France, yet upon the breaking out of the late war, he relied upon the decisions in the American war, as authoritatively settling the legality of that trade, and decreed accordingly.
If, as a more plausible answer to these decisions, considered in the light of authorities, than that which we have just examined, it should be said that they ought rather to be viewed as reluctant sacrifices to policy, or even to necessity, under circumstances of singular difficulty and peril than as an expression of the deliberate opinion of the lords of appeal or the government of Great Britain, on the matter of right, it might, perhaps, be sufficient to reply that, if the armed neutrality, coupled with the situation of Great Britain, as a party to the war, did in any degree compel these decisions, we might also expect to find at the same era, some relaxation on the part of that country, relative to the doctrine of contraband, upon which the convention of the armed neutrality contained the most direct stipulations, which the Northern powers were particularly interested to enforce. Yet, such was not the fact. But in addition to this, and other considerations of a similar description, it is natural to enquire, why it happened, that if the lords of appeal were satisfied that Great Britain possessed the right in question, they recorded and gave to the world a series of decisions against it, founded, not upon British orders of council, gratuitously relaxing what was still asserted to be the strict right, (as in the late war) but upon general principles of public law. However prudence might have required (although there is no reason to believe that it did require) an abstinence on the part of Great Britain, from the extreme exercise of the right she had been supposed to claim, still it could not be necessary to give to the mere forbearance of a claim, the stamp and character of a formal admission, that the claim itself was illegal and unjust. In the late war, as often as the British government wished to concede and relax, from whatever motive, on the subject of the colony trade of her opponents, an order of council was resorted to, letting forth the nature of the concession or relaxation upon which the courts of prize were afterwards to found their sentences—and undoubtedly sentences so passed, cannot, in any fair reasoning, be equi-

dered as deciding more than that the order of council is only very on the courts which sentences they are. But the decree of the lords of appeal, in and after the American war, are not of this description, since there existed no orders of council on the subject of them; and, of course, they are not and ought to be of the highest weight and authority against Great Britain, on the questions involved in and adjudged by them.
This solemn renunciation of the principle in question, in the face of the whole world, by their highest tribunal, in matters of prize, reiterated in a succession of decrees, down to the year 1736, and afterwards, is powerfully confirmed by the acquiescence of Great Britain, during the first, most important, and active period of the late war, in the free and unlimited prosecution, by neutrals, of the whole colony trade to France. She did indeed at last prohibit that trade by an instruction, unprecedented in the annals of maritime depredation, but the revival of her discarded rule was characterized with such circumstances of inequity and violence, as rather to brighten, by the effect of contrast, the veneration of mankind for the just justice of her tribunals.—The world has not forgot the instruction to which we allude, and the enormities by which its true character was developed, produced in mystery, at a moment when universal confidence in the honor and integrity of her government, had brought upon the ocean a prey of vast value and importance—sent abroad, to the different naval stations, with such studied secrecy, that it would almost seem to have been intended to make an experiment, how far law and honor could be outraged by a nation, proverbial for respecting both; the Herald by whom it was first announced, were the commanders of their commissioned cruisers, who at the same instant carried it into effect, with every circumstance of aggravation—if of such an act there can be an aggravation. Upon such conduct there was but one opinion. It was condemned by reason and justice—it was condemned by that law which flows from, and is founded upon them—it was condemned, and will for ever continue to be condemned, by the universal voice of the civilized world.—Great Britain has made amends, with the good faith which belongs to her councils, for that act of injustice and oppression—and your memorialists have a strong confidence that the late departure from the usual course of her policy, will be followed by a like disposition to atonement and reparation. The relations, which subsist between Great Britain and the United States, rest upon the basis of reciprocal interests; and your memorialists see in these interests, as well as in the justice of the British government, and the firmness of our own, the best reasons to expect a satisfactory answer to their complaints, and a speedy abandonment of that system, by which they have lately been harassed and alarmed.
Your memorialists will not trespass upon your time, with a recital of the various acts, by which our coasts, and even our ports and harbors, have been converted into scenes of violence and depredation, by which the security of our trade and property has been impaired; the rights of our territory invaded; the honor of our country insulted and humiliated; and our gallant countrymen oppressed and persecuted. They feel it to be unnecessary to ask that the force of the nation should be employed, in repelling and chastising the lawless freebooters, who have dared to spread their ravages even beyond the seas, which form the principal theatre of their piratical exertions, and to infest our shores with their irregular and ferocious hostility. These are outrages which have pressed themselves, in a peculiar manner, upon the notice of our government, and cannot have failed to excite its indignation, and a correspondent disposition to prevent and redress them.
Such is the view which your memorialists have taken, in this anxious crisis of our public affairs; of subjects which appear to them in an alarming degree, to affect their country and its commerce; and to involve high questions of national honor and interest, of public law and individual right, which impiously demand discussion and adjustment. They do not presume to point out the measures which these great subjects may be supposed to call for. The means of reducing for the past and security for the future, are respectfully and confidently submitted to your wisdom. But your memorialists cannot forbear to indulge a hope, which they would abandon with deep reluctance, that they may be found in amicable explanations, with those who have ventured to inflict wrongs upon us, and to advance unjust pretensions to our prejudice.
Signed by order and in behalf of the merchants and traders of the city of Baltimore.
Robert Gilmor, Chairman. J. A. Buchanan, John Hollins, James Calhoun, Alexander McKim, David Stewart, Samuel Settle, William Patterson, John Donnell, Hugh Thompson, Luke Menden, John Swan, William Lybrand, William Wilson, Lemuel Taylor, Mark Pringle, Thomas Hollingsworth, Thomas Tenney, William Taylor, John Locks, Benjamin Williams, John Stricker, George Sipes, Henry Keyser, Joseph Sterrett, Stewart Brown.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21.
Debate on imposing a tax of ten dollars on every slave imported into the U. S.
(CONTINUED.)
Mr. DANA's amendment, to substitute the word PERSONS in the room of the word SLAVES still under consideration.
At the request of Mr. Smilie, the act of Congress passed in the year 1800, was read by the clerk.
Mr. BROOM. I agree with the gentleman from Georgia in expressing the wish that this resolution had never been brought forward, inasmuch as I wish that the state of South Carolina, in imitation of her sister states, had never given occasion for it. It is said that this is a question which has always produced agitation in this House whenever it came before it. If this be any argument at all, it is in favor of bringing the discussion to a close, by extinguishing the cause which produces it; for, until this shall be the case, there will always be found men in this House to offer a similar resolution, the result of which may be a like agitation. The question is not now whether this resolution shall be introduced, but as it is introduced, whether it shall not be put to sleep forever, by exercising at once our constitutional powers. It is contended by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Alston) that this measure is not constitutional, because it will operate partially.
Mr. ALSTON rose to explain. If he had said that he did not consider the resolution as constitutional, he had expressed what he did not mean to say—He had meant to say, & he believed he had said, it would operate partially and unjustly.
Mr. BROOM. I am glad the gentleman has saved the time of the House, and me, the trouble of confuting the argument which I had conceived him to have urged. But as on this point, much honest fear may prevail, I must be permitted to premise, notwithstanding the gentleman's concession, that this resolution is strictly constitutional. The spirit of the constitution, if there were no express provision, would embrace the power: and one of the first laws of the government would have been in consonance with this spirit, to prohibit a trade so repugnant to the uniform tenor of the constitution, and to its very preamble. The first object of a body, established to guarantee the rights of a free people, but for this provision, would have been at least a prohibition of the extension of slavery.
But, say gentlemen, there is part of the constitution which declares, that all duties shall be uniform; and because this tax will operate on South Carolina alone, it is unconstitutional. I do not know, however, that Congress are bound to say, that each state shall pay an exact proportion of the duties imposed; for in so extensive an union it would be impossible for any duty to be laid which would affect equally all parts of it. Do you impose a duty on distilled spirits, you raise one part of the union in arms; do you tax the fisheries, another part of the union is in ferment; and so with respect to the imposition of a tax upon other articles consumed unequally in different parts of the union. No tax can, in truth, from the nature of things, operate equally on all the states. Uniformity can only be meant, an uniform operation on all the subjects of the tax in whatever part of the union they may be found. It cannot, therefore, be said that this tax is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution. It has the very uniformity required by the constitution, for no part of the union will be exempted by any act of the union from its operation. There can be, therefore, no objection to the resolution on this ground. But we have not to resort to general principles to justify a tax expressly provided for by the words of the constitution.
"The migration, or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing...shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Here there is an express provision that this tax may be imposed. Will gentlemen say that it was the intention of the convention to give a power which was never to be carried into effect? This power so given implied on the part of the union an agreement to limit the amount of the tax, and on the part of the states a recognition of and an assent to it.
It is said this measure will be harsh, oppressive, unjust. Why? Because it will operate on South Carolina alone. But I will ask, if such be the characteristics of this power, how this clause became engrafted on the constitution? Was there not in the convention, on this subject, concession on both sides? Did not the union concede to the southern states, that prior to the year 1808, there should be no prohibition of the importation of slaves? But did not the states, interested in this traffic, concede to the U. S. the power of laying a tax of ten dollars upon every imported slave? Gentlemen then bind us to our concession, & when we call for their reciprocal concession, they say it is harsh, unjust; that it tends to wound, irritate, and harrow up their feelings. If this logic be applied to the private transactions of life, how will it sound? I sell a man a horse—he takes it, and I call upon him for the price he promised to give. Instead of giving me the money,
he says that it is harsh, and unjust, and that it tends to wound, irritate, and harrow up his feelings to demand it of him. Why did South Carolina submit to the constitution, and thereby pledge herself to pay this tax, if she is now unwilling to submit to it.
The gentleman says this ought to be considered as a matter of feeling, and that we ought not thus to point the finger of scorn at the state of South Carolina. What is this but an acknowledgment that the traffic is improper and that the finger of scorn might be directed to it? I am not saying that the proceedings of the state of South Carolina are wrong; but if they be wrong, to smother up the transaction without exercising our constitutional power is to make this government a party in the wrong. I do not wish to point the finger of scorn at any state, but are we to be prevented by this suggestion from prohibiting, as far as we constitutionally can, a trade disapproved of by the general voice of the country, and disapproved of by the laws of every state in the union except one? To show the extreme abhorrence of Congress against the slave trade, we have but to turn to the law passed in the year 1794; what does it say? "If any citizen or citizens of the U. S. shall contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, take on board, receive or transport any such persons, as above described in this act, for the purpose of selling them as slaves, as aforesaid, he or they shall forfeit and pay, for each and every person so received on board, transported, or sold as aforesaid, 200 dollars, to be recovered in any court of the U. S. proper to try the same: the one moiety thereof to the use of the U. S. and the other moiety to the use of such person, or persons, who shall sue for and prosecute the same." By this act all citizens are prohibited from fitting out vessels for carrying on this trade, and not only the ship is forfeited, but a penalty is likewise imposed of 200 dollars. In the year 1800, another act was passed by Congress, which has been read by the Clerk. In this act Congress have manifested their sense of the inhumanity of this trade, and they have imposed penalties on carrying on a trade in slaves even from one foreign port to another. I ask if this is not exhibiting in the strongest terms the disapprobation of Congress against this traffic? When not contented with prohibiting transactions relative to it, which occur under our own eyes, they inflict severe penalties upon those who pursue it in foreign parts. Every state but S. Carolina has passed prohibitory laws on this subject. I presume that the pecuniary interests of other states connected with it, are equal to those of S. Carolina. They, however, standing aloof from this pursuit of paltry gain, and actuated by motives of humanity & justice, have entirely interdicted it. S. Carolina alone, ununlenced by the example of her sister states, has opened her doors to the introduction of slaves.
If, then, their objection be profit, let us, as far as we can, reduce this profit; let us throw every impediment we can in the way of it, but it has been said, & with some degree of apparent triumph in argument,—if we pass the proposed law, we shall thereby regulate this trade, and in doing so, be bound to protect it. Astonished, sir, I should be, to see that standard heretofore raised in the defence of liberty, now reduced to protect the slave trade! Fortunately, I owe, we can never be bound to protect this trade, because the U. S. have solemnly declared, that it shall never be carried on in any of our vessels, or by any of our citizens. How then protect it? In French, Spanish or English vessels? Does not the common sense of every man revolt at the idea? By the laws of the land our own citizens cannot carry on the trade—surely, then, we cannot be called on to protect foreign vessels in practices disallowed to our own citizens. We have, therefore, no reason on earth to fear that our armed vessels will be degraded by convoying a parcel of slaves to this boasted land of liberty.
But it is said that we shall encourage the trade by drawing a revenue from it. I appeal to the correct sense of gentlemen whether the imposition of a duty upon an article can be considered as encouraging its importation? Have duties imposed upon imported articles, ordinarily this effect? No. If this effect is intended, the way is to strip them of duties, and in the case of a favorite article, always to keep it exempt from duty. To be told, then, because we lay a duty upon the importation of slaves, we therefore favor their importation, is the most novel principle I ever heard of.
It is said this duty will not prohibit the importation of slaves. I would be glad if it should have the effect of prohibiting their importation; but I will acknowledge I despair of any great effect being produced in this way. But though it may not have this effect, it may depress the great stimulus the trader has to carry on this trade. It can only be carried on from motives of gain. Will it be said to be no trifling thing to impose a tax of ten dollars a head on a cargo of 3 or 400 blacks? Will this be no diminution of profit?
This is all we can do. Let us then do all we can, and leave the rest to Providence. Let us not call for help, until we have first helped ourselves. Let us not say the constitution ties our hands from doing anything, when we are stared on the very face of it with the power to do something. We shall never be able to wipe away the disgrace of encouraging the slave trade, which may be imputed to us, unless we pass to the full extent of our constitutional powers, laws to prohibit it. May not the reflection be cast upon us that after having achieved our liberty, our first act was to trample under foot the most sacred
rights of humanity and justice. If what we shall do will not amount to a prohibition of the trade, is all our labor therefore lost. No, sir, we may draw a revenue from it. We are told that this will be disgraceful; that it will be the price of infamy; and that an honest government ought not to draw a revenue from so corrupt a source. In answer to this suggestion, I will appeal to the sentiments of every member of this committee. If it be infamous, as gentlemen contend, the constitution has tied up our hands; the constitution has legalized the trade. If there be infamy in it—we are bound to submit to it. Under these circumstances, what does common sense tell us to do? To make the most of the power we possess, there is evil enough, God knows, in the trade, and we can only lessen this evil by extracting as much good from it as we can. Is it just to say a government patronises crimes, because it derives profit from the labor of her criminal convicts? It is contrary to common sense to draw such a conclusion. Gentlemen say if you draw revenue from this source, you may as well obtain it from licensing thieves, murderers, and the perpetrators of other crimes. But there is a great difference between the cases. In one case you have a right to punish, and by punishing, prevent the commission of crimes. But here our hands are tied. Thus far, says the constitution, you shall go, and no farther. We may prevent and we do prevent our own citizens from carrying on the slave trade, but they dare not go further. With this view of the subject, I ask whether imposing a duty can be considered as sanctioning the act? A thief we may punish—but in this case, we cannot drag to our tribunals men who owe no allegiance to our government, and who are sheltered under a constitutional provision.
We impose duties on all articles except those we think proper to encourage. Why, then, exempt this. Unfortunately, a slave is considered by our laws as an article of property, and comes within the class of property imported into the U. S. Upon salt, sugar, and other articles of the first necessity, we have laid high and oppressive duties. We have laid a duty of 20 cents on every bushel of salt, and correspondent duties on tea, coffee, sugar and molasses. I ask, then, when it is considered that these articles are extensively consumed by the poor of our country, do we not take from labor the price of its industry, while we omit to lay any duty on slaves who, so far from being owned by the poor, are the exclusive property of the rich? Thus exempting this article of luxury, while others of the first necessity, which are consumed by the poor, in common with all descriptions of citizens, are burthened with a heavy duty—while articles allowed to be beneficial to all classes pay high duties, articles which are injurious, used by the rich to pamper their luxury, remain free from duty, and all the efforts of the nation cannot obtain the imposition of even a slight duty on them. How consistent is this with the pompous profession of relieving the poor, so long sounded in our ears? We have heard it triumphantly announced, that the millennium has arrived, and that poor men are no longer to be oppressed with grievous taxes; and yet when we propose to lay a duty, whose effect might be to lessen the tax on the necessaries of life, we are told we are not to do it, because it will irritate the rich. I would not wish to wound the feelings of any man; but I do not know why we should trample on the poor in order to privilege the rich. In this country, I know of no such privileged order, and I trust we never shall know it. Viewed in the aspect of revenue, is the duty so small as to be unworthy of notice? If the tax produce only 20,000 dollars, it will enable us to take off the tax on pepper, & should it produce only 10,000 dollars we may take off the tax on medicines and a variety of other articles consumed by all classes of our citizens; but it may not be as small as gentlemen imagine. If ten thousand slaves are imported in a year, it will amount to 100,000 dollars. It is possible, double that sum may arise from it. I affect not, on this point, to speak with precision; but if we reckon on what has occurred in past times, we calculate on improper data. As we shall in a short time possess the power of entirely prohibiting the trade, the present moment will probably be seized as the last days in which this iniquitous trade may be triumphantly carried on. In order to meet future demands, those engaged in it will go to the full extent of their capital, to the whole length of which importations will be made. This is a strong reason for our doing all in our power to repress this trade.
I need not dwell on the great number of slaves concentrated in the southern states. At the time of taking the census they amounted to 823,000. In the state of South Carolina, there were 146,000 slaves, and 199,000 whites. I need not expatiate on the greatness of this evil. Not only South Carolina may suffer, but all the other neighboring states may share the evil. Those states, who are ashamed to avow a participation in the trade, may be indebted to her for an augmentation of their slaves; and the evil may extend to those states who now believe themselves secure. If these people were to rise on their masters, I ask if the whole union would not be bound to assist in putting them down? It is not, therefore, South Carolina alone, but all the members of this confederacy that may be disturbed by the accumulation of this evil. It is from these considerations, because I wish this traffic to be checked; and because, as a subject of revenue, I am for making the most of the evil; and because, we may be enabled thereby to exempt articles of the first necessity from at least a part the duties imposed upon them,
that I am of opinion that we ought not, in justice to exempt this article any longer from duty.
After the speech of Mr. Broom, the debate went on during the remainder of this, and the greater part of the ensuing day. Having already presented, in the remarks of the preceding speakers, nearly the whole of the prominent facts and ideas disclosed in the debate, we shall, from a necessary regard to other more important matter, pass lightly over that part of it which followed, confining our notice principally to replies and explanations drawn forth from the observations already detailed.
This course is pursued to give an impartial sketch of what occurred.
Mr. SLOAN spoke at some length, enforcing the ideas previously expressed by him.
Mr. ENDINGER assigned his reasons for being against the resolutions. He viewed the slave trade as a great evil, but he feared the imposition of a duty would rather encourage than repress the importation of slaves. He knew the tax would be disagreeable to his constituents, and he would rather go on without receiving a cent from it than raise money in such a way.
Mr. EARLY said that he was far from intending to charge the mover of the resolution with a disposition to wound the feelings of any member of the House. He had said nothing to that effect. He would on the contrary observe, that he considered the manner of the gentleman mild, and such as had not rendered him in the least obnoxious to such a charge. He had said that the feelings of S. Carolina would be probably wounded by the measure. He had no disposition however, to charge the gentleman from New-Jersey (Mr. Sloan) with such an intention. The task of wounding the feelings of S. Carolina, if the observations of a gentleman on this floor could wound her feelings, had been reserved for the gentleman's friend from Del. (Mr. Broom) who had taken occasion to heap on her head, so far as related to the importation of slaves, every term of reproach which his imagination could bring to his aid. If he expected he would be imitated in such a procedure, he would be mistaken. One word in reply to an observation which he had applied to the state of Georgia. He had said that the evil was not confined to S. Carolina, but that it extended to the neighboring states, that it extended to the state of Georgia, who, though ashamed to avow her approbation of it, participated notwithstanding with S. Carolina in it. Give me leave to say, said Mr. E. so far as relates to the state of Georgia, that she has not been, that she never will be ashamed to avow what she does; and that so far from approving this trade, she took a step 5 or 8 years back, that had not then been taken by any other state. She prohibited the traffic by an express injunction of her constitution. Let the gentleman from Delaware show anything in his own constitution like this. On this occasion the opponents of the resolution were disposed to treat the subject with temper. Heretofore the temper which had been displayed had originated with them; but now it has proceeded from a different quarter.
The debate closed here for this day.
On the next day, [JAN. 22d.] Mr. SLOAN moved the again going into a consideration of his resolution.
Mr. DAWSON. Every gentleman who has spoken on this unfinished business has expressed his regret at its introduction—none feel it more than I do—of the sincerity of which declaration I mean to give a proof by the motion which I shall make to you.
If this regret was felt at the introduction, it must be increased by the course which the argument has taken, and by the warmth which has attended it—at a time like this when depredations are committed on our commerce, coasts and harbors—when our property is plundered, our citizens and our country mal-treated and insulted, it would seem to me to be more wise & more patriotic to cherish a spirit of accommodation, and to unite all our efforts and wisdom in adopting those measures best calculated to meet this state of things, to support our just claims, to vindicate our violated rights, and not to introduce subjects which will inevitably create division, which will excite one section of the continent, one portion of our fellow citizens against another, thereby disturbing that harmony and union of councils so necessary for the good of the whole.
With this view of our situation, in order to take such measures as the state of our country requires, I move to postpone the farther consideration of that resolution until this day week, in order that we may go into committee of the whole on the state of the union.
Mr. LEIB opposed, and Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee, supported the postponement.
Mr. BROOM said that the gentleman from Virginia spoke of a degree of warmth excited by this discussion. I presume, said Mr. B. that in this remark he had some allusion to me. I must confess I am sorry that any gentleman should have so understood my observations as to suppose them applicable to any member of this House, or any state in the union. I assure the House I intended my observations should apply to the slave trade as carried on from Africa and not to any state or member on this floor. I perceived by a law of the U. S. that this trade was not permitted to be carried on by any state, or citizen of the U. S. I therefore could not presume it was so carried on, and could therefore mean no reflection on any state or citizens of the U. S. My observations were exclusively applicable to the slave trade.
Messrs. SLOAN, STANTON, FISK & ELMER spoke against the postponement.

ment, and Mr. TAGGART against the resolution.
When the question on postponement was lost—Ayes 33.
The House again went into committee of the whole—Mr. DAWSON in the chair.
Mr. DANA took an historical view of the proceedings of Congress on this subject; regretted the rejection of his amendment, and added, that as the sole question was now on the original resolution, a question which he had wished to have parried, but which the committee had determined should be taken, and he was then officially called upon to express his approbation or disapprobation of the slave trade, he could not hesitate for a moment doing the latter. He should therefore vote for the resolution.
Mr. ALSTON placed in a more expanded view his observations of yesterday, and made some additional remarks.
Mr. J. C. SMITH supported the resolution, and vindicated the state he represented from any imputation from not having a similar feature in her constitution to that in the constitution of Georgia. He observed that the constitution of Connecticut having had its origin about 200 years ago, had not foreseen the present state of things; but he begged permission to say, that Connecticut had never received into her bosom any of the species of property alluded to.
Some recriminations ensued between several members, on the participation of the traders of some of the New-England states in carrying on the slave trade.
Messrs. SMITH and SOUTHARD spoke at considerable length in favor of the resolution.
Mr. T. MOORE said he had not on this occasion expected to have risen; but as he was one of the representatives of S. Carolina, he thought it his duty to offer a few remarks on the subject.
He said it was true he was one of those who had expressed his expectation that the legislature of S. Carolina would pass prohibitory laws against the importation of slaves. He had no doubt other representatives of the state had expressed in private the same opinion. It was probable, under that expectation, that the House had postponed the further consideration of the resolution the session before the last. Be that as it might, he hoped the House would not charge him with duplicity. He would state some facts not known to every one. It would be recollected, after the postponement had taken place here, in the legislature of S. Carolina a bill had passed the house of representatives by a large majority, and had been lost in the senate by a single vote. The last session of the legislature the same thing had occurred. He would ask, if this did not justify the expectation he had expressed. As he was up, Mr. Moore said he could not avoid making a reply to a few of the observations of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. BROOKS.) He was not a little astonished to hear a gentleman on this floor, express such sentiments of malice and disrespect towards S. Carolina and her citizens. He had hoped, from a gentleman who lately came into the House, more prudence. But he his standing what it might, he would tell him his expressions had been felt by the representatives of that state. He had made a long harangue to make the House believe that a tax of ten dollars would do every thing; but there was not a single gentleman in the House, acquainted with business, who could believe that it would prevent the importation of a single slave. Mr. Moore said he would make this single observation, and let the gentleman apply it as he pleased. He would remind him of the anecdote between the bedlamite and the beau, who had a sword swaggering at his side, when the latter was asked what he had that sword for, he said it was to kill his enemies—let them alone, said the former, they will die of themselves. If the gentleman had saved himself the trouble of making the disrespectful epithets in which he had indulged, he might have created less cause for irritation, and every thing might, perhaps, have been put on the best footing for passing prohibitory laws.
After a few explanatory remarks from Messrs. SLOAN and SMITH.
Mr. RHEA of Ten. entered largely into the field of argument against the resolution.
When the question being put, a resolution was agreed to—Ayes 79.
The committee having risen, and the House being resumed, took the report of the committee into consideration.
Mr. CLARK having made a few remarks against agreeing to the resolution, asked for the taking of the yeas and nays.
Mr. ALSTON said if the resolution were to pass, he hoped it would be made intelligible. What constituted a slave? That which made a slave in one state did not make it in another. A cargo of persons brought into S. Carolina became, under her laws, slaves, who would not be slaves under the laws of Massachusetts. Are we then about to pass a law for revenue, that taxes the very persons in S. Carolina that are not taxable in Massachusetts?
The main question was then taken by yeas and nays on agreeing to the resolution—Yeas 90—Nays 22—as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Archer, Bard, Bassett, Betton, Bitwell, Blount, Broom, Brown, Boyle, Chandler, Chittenden, Claiborne, Clinton, jun. Clapton, Conrad, Cook, Covington, Cutts, Dana, Darby, Davenport, jun. Dickson, Ellis, Elmer, Ely, Finlay, Fisk, Fowler, Goldsborough, Gray, Gregg, Halsey, Hamilton, Hastings, Helms, Holmes, Hough, Jackson, Jones, Kelly, Kenan, Knight, Lambert, Leib, Lewis, jun. Livingston, Lyon, N. R. Moore, Morrow, Mosely, J. Nelson, R. Nel-
son, Newton, jun. Olin, Pitken, jun. Pugh, Quincy, Rea of Pen. Russell, Sailly, Sammons, Seaver, Sloan, Smith, J. C. Smith, J. Smith, S. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stanton, Stedman, Sturges, Tallmadge, Tenney, P. R. Thompson, Tracy, Trigg, Van Cortlandt, Varnum, Verplanck, Wadsworth, Walton, J. Whitehill, R. Whitehill, Wickes, M. Williams, N. Williams, Wilson and Winston.
NAYS—Messrs. Alston, jun. Bedinger, Butler, J. Campbell, Casey, Clark, Crowninshield, Dawson, Egle, Early, Elliot, Garnet, Marion Masters, McCreery, Meriwether, Thos. Moore, T. M. Randolph, Rhea (Ten.) Sandford, O'B. Smith, Spalding, T. W. Thompson, D. R. Williams and Wyias.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7.
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. FEBRUARY 5.
GEN. SMITH of Maryland, from the Committee, to whom was referred on the 15th of January last, that part of the President's message, which relates to the stipulations of our commerce on the high seas, and informs us of the new principles assumed by the British courts of admiralty, as a pretext for the condemnation of our vessels in their prize courts, respectfully reports for the consideration of the Senate, the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, That the capture and condemnation, under the orders of the British government, and adjudication of their courts of admiralty, of American vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, is an unprovoked aggression upon the property of the citizens of these United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and an encroachment upon their national independence.
2. Resolved, That the President of the U. S. be requested to demand and insist upon the restoration of the property of their citizens, captured & condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace; and upon the indemnification of such American citizens, for their losses and damages sustained by these captures and condemnations: and to enter into such arrangements with the British government, on this and all other differences subsisting between the two nations, (and particularly respecting the improvement of American seamen,) as may be consistent with the honor and interests of the United States, and manifest their earnest desire to obtain for themselves and their citizens by amicable negotiation, that justice to which they are entitled.
3. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit by law, the importation into the U. S. of any of the following goods wares or merchandise, being the growth, produce or manufactures of the united kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, or the dependencies thereof, that is to say; woolens, linens, hats, nails, looking glasses, rum, hard wares, slate, salt, coal, boots, shoes, ribbons, silks, and plated and glass wares. The said prohibition to commence from the day of the adoption of this resolution, unless previously thereto, equitable arrangements shall be made between the two governments, on the differences subsisting between them; and to continue until such arrangements shall be agreed upon and settled.
And the report was read and ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 5.
Mr. T. M. RANDOLPH reported a bill removing the limitation of the right of suffrage in the Mississippi territory, and empowering the legislature thereof to increase the number of representatives in the General Assembly by a given ratio to that of electors, which was referred to a committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.
Mr. CLARK moved the following resolution which was agreed to.
Resolved, That the secretary of the navy be requested to inform this House of the nature and extent of the services rendered to the captive crew of the frigate Philadelphia, by the Danish consul at Tripoli.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD observed that the House had on the 3rd inst. directed the secretary of the Treasury to lay before them a statement of imports and exports from G. Britain to the U. S. for the two last years. It was probable the secretary would not be able to furnish a statement for the year 1805; but that he could make it for the years 1803, and 1804. Mr. C. said he had been anxious when this subject was before the House, to have received a statement for the year 1802. G. Britain seizes our ships loaded with colonial produce, on the idea that we did not enjoy the colonial trade during a period of peace. Whether this is a fact will be decided by the statement he wished to obtain, as the year 1802 was a period of peace. Mr. C. concluded by moving a resolution directing the secretary of the Treasury to lay before the House a like statement of exports and imports for the year 1802, as was directed on the 3rd inst. to be furnished for the last two years.
The House immediately considered this resolution and agreed to it.
M. J. CLAY. The gentleman from Massachusetts having laid on the table a resolution arising out of the present state of our foreign relations, and as that subject is one on which I think there cannot be too much deliberation before we act, or of which too many views cannot
be taken, I will take the liberty of submitting some resolutions which I have drawn up and to which I ask the attention of the House. In the present state of our relations with foreign powers, it appears to me that a system of commercial regulations mild and yet firm, one which can be carried into permanent effect without much inconvenience to ourselves, will be more effectual than any temporary expedients. If we are disposed to adopt such a system, it will be looked upon by foreign nations as one in which we are likely to persevere. They will consider its probable effects in time of peace upon their colonial possessions, and they may be induced to enter into permanent regulations opening to us a trade with their colonies. The distinction attempted to be made between a war trade and an accustomed trade will be destroyed, and with it the only pretext upon which are founded the vexatious and depredations committed on American commerce. The present is a favorable moment for the adoption of such a plan. At this time the ports of the belligerent powers are open, and the effect of the measures which I am about to propose, will not have an immediate distressing effect upon the West Indies. If these measures are taken, the powers of Europe will find that unless they admit our ships into their colonial ports in time of peace the trade between their colonies and us, will be cut off by a system which will be but slightly injurious to ourselves. I think, I repeat it, that a permanent system, mild but firm, will be more likely to induce Great Britain in particular to recede from the unjust pretensions she has set up, than more violent and extreme measures, which from their very nature, and their injurious consequences to ourselves must be necessarily temporary.
Mr. J. CLAY concluded with offering the following resolutions:
Resolved, That after the day of next, no trade or intercourse, in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign government, shall be permitted between the U. S. or their territories, and any port or place in the colonies or dominions of any European power, which trade or intercourse is not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such European power, to be carried on in ships or vessels of the U. S.
Resolved, That after the day of aforesaid, no goods, wares or merchandise, shall be exported from the U. S. or their territories, in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign government, to any port or place in the colonies or dominions of any European power, the importation of which into such port or place, in ships or vessels of the U. S. is not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such European power.
Resolved, That after the day of aforesaid, no goods, wares or merchandise, shall be imported into the U. S. or their territories, in any ship or vessel, owned in whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign government, from any port or place in the colonies or dominions of any European power, the exportation of which, from such port or place, in ships or vessels of the U. S. is not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such European power.
Resolved, That after the day of aforesaid, no goods, wares or merchandise shall be imported into the U. S. or their territories, in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign government, excepting articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the colonies or dominions of such foreign government, unless such importation be expressly permitted by treaty between the U. S. and such foreign government, or unless during a war in which the U. S. may be a party.
The House immediately considered these resolutions, and referred them to a committee of the whole on the state of the union.
Mr. VARNUM observed that considerable light would be thrown on the extent to which colonial products were exported from the U. S. by a statement of the amount of exports for which drawbacks were allowed. He, therefore, moved the following resolution:
Resolved, That the secretary of the treasury be directed to lay before this House a statement of the amount of the revenue derived to the U. S. from merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of any foreign country, which have heretofore been imported into the U. S. and exported from the same during the three last years.
This resolution was agreed to.
The bill relating to bonds given by marshals was read a third time and passed.
The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole—Mr. JOHN C. SMITH in the chair—on the bill imposing a duty of ten dollars on every slave imported into the U. S.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said as the advocates of the bill seemed to think the amendment he had offered intended to defeat it, he would withdraw it, and make it the subject of a distinct resolution.
Mr. JACKSON offered a new section, the object of which was to prohibit the importation into the territories of the U. S. of all slaves brought either from abroad, or from any state, except in the latter case by citizens of the U. S. removing to a territory to settle therein.
Mr. JACKSON viewed this provision as necessary, in consequence of a legal construction given to an act of the last session, which allowed the importation of slaves from abroad into Louisiana.
This motion was opposed by Messrs. Alston, Ely, Morrow, Spalding, and Sloan, who either viewed it as inexpedient in itself, or as proper to be intro-
duced into a distinct bill.
Mr. JACKSON said as it was the wish of his friends, he would withdraw the motion, and offer it on another occasion.
No farther amendments having been offered, the committee rose and reported their agreement to the bill.
The House immediately considered the report.
The amendment limiting the imposition of the tax to the first day of January, 1808, was disagreed to; and the other amendments agreed to.
Mr. JACKSON enquired what the effects would be of the forfeiture of the cargo in case slaves were smuggled into the U. S. Would they be sold, or would they be kept in the service of the U. S.? He did not wish to have any thing to do with them.
Mr. JOHN C. SMITH said he had voted for the resolution; but the defects in the details of the bill were so glaring, that he hoped it would be referred to a select committee, that it might be so modified as to cure these defects; or, that in case it were found insusceptible of such modification, it might be rejected. Mr. J. C. Smith accordingly moved the recommittal of the bill to a select committee.
Mr. JACKSON advocated this motion, and remarked that the proviso of the bill that declared the duty should not be construed as giving a sanction to the importation of slaves, offered an additional reason for either rejecting or recommitting it. How could this language be used with propriety in a law, when the constitution, the highest authority, authorised the trade?
Mr. QUINCY spoke to the like effect, and further enquired, whether it was the intention of gentlemen to apply the provisions of the bill to slaves navigating the ships of the U. S.
Messrs. Hastings and Sloan defended the provisions of the bill as perfectly correct. They observed that slaves were considered as property, as merchandise, and could only therefore in the bill be treated as such.
The motion to recommit was lost—Ayes 39—Nays 61.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD spoke against the bill, and moved its postponement to an indefinite day, which is a vote equivalent to a rejection of a bill.
Messrs. JOHN C. SMITH, TAGGART, & RHEA of Ten. supported; and MESSRS. SLOAN, ELMER, and SMITH opposed the motion; when the Yeas and Nays were called on it; and were Yeas 42—Nays 69.
Mr. JACKSON moved to strike out the proviso of the bill, which motion was disagreed to; when the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to morrow—Ayes 69.
THURSDAY, FEB. 6.
Several petitions were presented from sundry citizens of the 11th Congressional district of Pennsylvania, praying an alteration in that part of the constitution that extends the judicial power of the U. S. to controversies between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming grants of lands under different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Referred to a committee of the whole on the state of the union.
The bill laying a duty of ten dollars on every slave imported into the U. S. was read a third time.
Mr. JOHN C. SMITH stated, in a more detailed way, the objections previously offered to the provisions of the bill, and moved its recommittal to a select committee, in which the House concurred without a division.
A confidential message in writing was received from the President of the U. States about 12 o'clock; Whereupon the galleries were cleared. They remained cleared until near 4 o'clock, when the House adjourned.
JANUARY 28.
On motion of Mr. SOUTHARD, Resolved, That the committee appointed on the 18th of December last, be instructed to enquire whether any, and if any what alterations are necessary in the laws providing compensation to marshals, and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.
Erratum in the resolution offered by Mr. J. RANDOLPH. In the line next to the last, read with, instead of and.
ASSASSINATION.
An attempt has been made to assassinate Thomas Paine, in his house at New Rochelle, in the state of N. York. Last Christmas evening, Paine's two servants went to visit some of their acquaintances, leaving him and a neighbor's boy together in the house. A short time after this a musket was fired through the window, the ball narrowly missed Paine, and lodged in the opposite wall. Next day the supposed assassin was apprehended and admitted to bail.
Public notice is hereby given, that the subscribers affixes appointed by the judges of the inferior court of common pleas, in and for the county of Cumberland and state of New Jersey, to settle the estate of Samuel DOLLAS an insolvent debtor, have appointed to meet at the house of Benjamin S. Ogden's in the township of Fairfield and county aforesaid on Monday the sixteenth day of June next, to make a division of all the monies that may be in their hands of the estate of said insolvent. They will also meet at the house aforesaid on Monday the twelfth day of May next, "to examine and ascertain the debts due to each creditor," and to settle all controversies relating to such debts, agreeably to an act of the Council and General Assembly of this state in such cases made and provided.
DAVID C. WOOD, HUMPHRIES GREEN, Affixees. Downes Cumberland county, state of N. Jersey, Nov 16, 1805—5 February 7—48
New-York, Feb. 3. We understand that the Nancy now below from St. Lucar (Spain) brings official information, that the French troops entered Vienna on the 13th Nov.—that the Austrian Court had retired to Brunn in Moravia—that on the 14th, Bonaparte organized a new government in Austria, and appointed Gen. Clark (superintendent of the conquered countries) on the 14th a body of French troops entered Presburg—that Gen. Klein was entering Bohemia—that Hungary has offered to capitulate—and that the Russian army have made the same offer with the proviso that they be permitted to return to their own country. The Alexander in a short passage from Bordeaux is said to be below. By her we shall be furnished with Paris dates more than 30 days later than before received.
Subscribers in arrears are respectfully requested immediately to transmit their dues. They will otherwise incur the penalty of discontinuing their papers at this interesting period.
A RAFFLE.
To be Raffled for—50 Chances, at five Dollars each chance, payable before the raffle.
AN ELEGANT HISTORICAL PAINTING, 32 by 44, in a superb gilt frame executed at Rome by one of the most eminent artists in Italy.
The above painting is to be seen at J March's Stationary Store, George Town, where inscriptions are received.
The subscribers will be informed of the time and place of raffling, as soon as the chances are disposed of. February 7—7
MUSIC.
JUST received, and constantly kept at John March's book and Stationary Store, George Town.
A supply of the Newest Music. The Life and Songs of the celebrated Dibden in 4 volumes 8 vo elegant, calf, gilt, with plates, and a new and complete assortment of Johnson's childrens books. February 7—31
BICKLEY, versus BLODGET.
January 25, 1806.
ORDERED that the report made by Daniel Carroll reat the truffer in this case of the sale made by him be absolutely ratified and confirmed unless cause to the contrary be shown on or before the 4th Monday in March next. Provided a copy of this order be inserted three successive weeks before that time in the National Intelligencer, the Washington Federalist and the daily Aurora in Philadelphia.
he report states that a part of the property mentioned in the decree was sold by him to the amount of twenty thousand seven hundred and thirteen dollars, seventy five cents, the particulars of which are in the said report stated.
By order, WM BRENT, Ck. Feb. 7—3w
In the Circuit court of the District of Columbia for the county of Washington sitting in Chancery. In the matter of John Blagge John P. Van Ness, administrators of William Laught, Charles Laught, deceased, against George Walker defendant.
THE bill states that the said Wm. Laught and Charles Laught are now deceased and that the said John P. Van Ness is their administrator.
The object of the bill is to revive the proceedings in the original case and to obtain a foreclosure of any equity of redemption the said George Walker may have or may suppose himself to have in a certain indenture or mortgage therein mentioned.
It appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that the said George Walker is not at this time a resident of the district of Columbia, on the motion of the complainants by their counsel, it is ordered that the said George Walker be warned to appear in the circuit court of the district of Columbia and answer the said bill on the fourth Monday in July next, otherwise the same to be taken for confessed and that a copy of this order be published once in a week for three successive weeks before the 18th day of July next, in the National Intelligencer printed in the city of Washington. By order, WM BRENT, Ck.
Kearney, Solicitor for complainant. True copy, WM BRENT, Ck. February 7—w3t
Pocket Book Loft.
YESTERDAY morning I lost out of my pocket, between my house in George town and the bank in the city of Washington, a SMALL ALMANAC POCKET BOOK for 1805 a good deal defaced by use containing a number of papers of considerable value to myself, and of none to any one else; amongst which was a note dated 4th Nov. 1805, payable six months after date, negotiable at the bank of Columbia, and drawn by Stewart and Beall in my favor for 1457 drs. and 91 cents. Any person finding it shall receive five dollars reward for the trouble of returning it with its contents.
Samuel Turner, jun. Feb. 6—
MINIATURE PAINTING.
J. D. MALLAT has the honor of inviting the Ladies and Gentlemen that are desirous of having their likenesses taken in miniature, in the most striking resemblance, and in the latest modern style, executed to the satisfaction of those that will favor him with their patronage, to call at Mrs. TOMPSON'S, six buildings. Feb. 7. 2w2w.

WANTED a respectable person to Superintend the Arithmetical and Writing departments, at the Western Academy, Washington City, a liberal salary will be given to person well qualified for discharging the duties of the above situation.
ON the petition of WILLIAM R. KING an insolvent debtor, confined in the prison of Washington county for debt, notice is hereby given to the creditors of the said Wm. R. King that on Monday the 10th day of Feb. next at the Capitol in the court room, at the hour of 9 o'clock A. M. the oath prescribed by the act of Congress, entitled, "An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia," will be administered to the said King and a trustee appointed until sufficient cause be then and there shown to the contrary.
D. PETER
NOTIFIES to such gentlemen as have heretofore made consignments to Mr. William Marfoch, London, or may in future be disposed to do so, that he is duly authorized to conduct his business at this place, and make such advances upon shipments, as the prices in Europe will justify.
Twenty Dollars Reward,
WILL be given for apprehending negro FANNY a very low and tolerable lousy woman about 38 years of age, but from appearance older, very black and much marked with the small pox which occasioned a small defect in one of her eyes, has lost one of her foreteeth, is very artful and cunning, having procured a false pass, and passes by the name of Charity Shetter; she was formerly the property of John Chittenden of this county, and was run away for near eight years, was apprehended and sold to me in 1803 and was hired by me to a certain Thomas King of Prince George's county, from whom she absconded in Oct. 1804 and has been lurking, I do suppose near where she was hired or gone to Calvert county where I have understood her husband has gone. The above reward will be given to any person who will lodge her in jail so that I get her again, or deliver her to Mr. Samuel Speake City of Washington, or to the subscriber living in Charles county Maryland, near Fort Tobacco.
CITY OF WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 1805. Several persons under the impression that the public lots in this city are to be disposed of in future by public sales only, having made enquiries when the next sale will probably take place, we are requested to state that those lots may at any time be purchased at private sale of the Superintendent of the City.
On a liberal credit.
THE subscriber will dispose of at private sale, his estate called Chichester, lying on the eastern branch, immediately opposite the city of Washington. This tract of land containing 697 acres is laid off in lots from 33 to 144 acres for the convenience of purchasers. Fines of the estate and the terms of sale are in the hands of colonel Hanlon at the navy yard, and Charles Wayman of George Town. The lots will be shown by Mr. Wedden, living on the premises, near the Eastern Branch bridge.
Twenty Dollars Reward.
AARON, a mulatto man about 43 years old, left the city of Washington early in October, and was seen on the road leading from Alexandria to Leesburg in company with a black woman, who I am informed is the property of some person in the vicinity of this place. He is about 5 feet 10 inches high, has straight hair, very bald, in one of his eyes he has (I think it is the left) near his nose, there is an intended scar occasioned by a stroke he received, which fractured the bone in that place, and whenever he has it in his power never fails to drink to excess. It is probable that he has gone to J. Henson or Berkley county in Virginia, where he formerly resided, and from thence will endeavor to go to Kentucky. The above reward will be paid to any person who will have him committed to jail, and give information thereof to the subscriber in George Town, district of Columbia.
THE subscriber offers for sale the farm he now occupies, containing near 300 acres with or without the stock thereon. It is distant from the cities of Georgetown and Washington, about five miles, and well known as a healthy situation. There is much fine fruit trees, and abundant springs, affording as good water as in the United States, a considerable portion of the land has been in clover, and from thirty to forty acres fit for the loyale the ensuing summer. It is now in a very improving state, being together clear of broom fence, and from 40 to 50 acres ploughed and prepared for a spring crop, and from 30 to 40 acres well set with wheat and rye—some part of the land is calculated for tobacco, and plaster of paris mixtures well with it all. The dwelling house and other improvements may with small repairs, be rendered very comfortable—From its vicinity to two growing cities, many advantages result in supplying the markets. A purchaser may calculate on a good bargain, particularly if an early application be made. Some part of the purchase money will be required in cash or approved negotiable paper; the remainder rendered easy—or negroes received in payment. The subscriber, or Wm. H. Searcy residing on the farm will show it when required, and the terms made known by application to Mr. John Thompson, George Town, or Dr. Wm. Thornton, Washington.
Isaac Pollock,
Some lands calculated for the culture of cotton, Indian corn and small grain, situated on a navigable river in the healthiest part of the state of Georgia, will also be sold on reasonable terms or exchanged for negroes.
FOR SALE.
IN the county of Albemarle, Virginia, 971 acres of land lying on both sides of Rivanna river, generally adapted to small grain corn and tobacco with a great abundance of meadow land. About four hundred acres are cleared most of which are low grounds; and it is perhaps capable of the highest improvement of any land in this part of the world by having an inexhaustible source of rich mud or soil that has been accumulating for ages. The situation is fine, healthy, convenient to two tobacco warehouses, the court house and a general merchant mill and in a very respectable neighborhood. A wide river is capable of being made navigable into James river from seven miles above this tract for which there is an act of assembly. There is on the land a large two story dwelling house, almost new and other convenient houses—at about half a mile from which, there is also an old dwelling house, kitchen and store house, that may be made with some repairs capable of accommodating a genteel family. There is also on the premises between 90 and 100 acres brick well burn which will be disposed of on reasonable terms. The payments required will be one third cash and the remainder at two equal annual instalments. Any person wishing to purchase or view the said land will apply to the subscriber living on the premises.
Twenty Dollars Reward.
WILL be given for apprehending and securing in jail a young Mulatto man named ANDREW. He was hired by me last year to Mr. Joseph Thomas who keeps the wide ferry to Alexandria, and absconded from that place about the latter end of August last. He is about 23 years of age, 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, lusty and well made, has short curly hair, and is frequently subject to have several large pimples on his face. He is reckoned to be a venial fellow of an easy agreeable address for a man in his low sphere of life. As he has not been heard of by me since his departure, I suspect he has had the address to ship himself as a freeman on board some vessel either at Alexandria or Baltimore. Whoever takes him up and secures him in jail shall receive from me the above reward, as soon as due information thereof is given to me or to Dr. N. P. Caudin at Port Tobacco.
STELLE'S HOTEL & CITY TAVERN.
THE Subscriber takes this method of thanking his friends and the public for their favors whilst on the Capitol Square and begs leave to acquaint them that he has taken the Shadous Hotel lately erected by Mr. Carroll, near the Capitol. The hotel being above one hundred feet in front, and containing fifty rooms enables the subscriber to offer every accommodation to members of Congress and travellers which can be expected in a public house.
WANTED,
A WOMAN that understands plain cooking and house work; likewise a GIRL of about 14 years of age to take care of children none need apply but those who can bring unexceptionable recommendations. Enquire at the end house from the well end of the Six Buildings and at this office.
The undersigned begs that those gentlemen who took charge of subscription papers with a view to encourage the publication of his new work, entitled "Plain Discourses on the Chemical Laws of Matter" by procuring subscribers, would be pleased to return them, or in orn him of the number of subscribers they have obtained by private conveyance or by mail, immediately. He hopes that this request will be strictly attended to, as he cannot proceed with the publication of his performance until the number of subscribers is accurately ascertained.
TO BE SOLD,
TWO TRACTS OF LAND, ONE containing 103 acres, the other 26 acres, adjoining each other, and are from 3 to 4 miles from Alexandria in the county of Fairfax and state of Virginia. The aforesaid land is bounded on the old Leesburg road, just above captain Slacombs and joins the lands of Benjamin Dulany and Carlisle Whiting, and will be sold pursuant to a deed of trust given to the subscribers from a certain John Withers to secure the payment of a debt due to Jonathan and Mahlon Schoeffel. The above lands will be offered at private sale until the 18th day of February, inst. and if not sold by that day they will be sold at the Coffee House in Alexandria on the 21st day of February at public auction for cash. The sale to commence at 3 o'clock, P. M.
THE Subscribers will sell by private bargain those valuable iron works, mills and mill seats, situated at or near the mouth of Anti Batum creek in Washington county, Md. within less than half a mile of Potomac river, together with all the lands in Md. thereunto belonging, supposed to be between 7000 and 8000 acres, a sufficient quantity of which, for the use of the works, is rich grass land. To all the negroes, (several of whom are skillful forgesmen) stock, and other property, personal or mixed, appertaining to the said estate. Also, all the property in Virginia belonging to the same, consisting of a small tract of land on the river nearly opposite to the iron works of Denton's acques, which is known to contain iron ore in abundance—a part of the Keep Trybe Ore bank lately recovered, which is distant from the furnace at the Anti Batum works about four miles. Several lots in Shepherd's town, improved and unimproved; with the rights of the company, (which though now only conditional will be made complete) to the ferry across Potomac below Anti Batum, and the farm to which the same is annexed, containing between 150 and 200 acres of very good land—together with all rights and privileges to other ores, landing places, and conveniences, held and claimed by the late firm of Richard Henderson, and Co. making in the whole one of the most valuable estates in America for carrying on iron works of every kind, and for the manufacturing of flour on an extensive scale by a mill, lately built and now in complete order for that purpose, from which the Potomac canals give water carriage to the towns below, the land carriage to George Town being not more than 60 miles, and for an advantageous sale of iron, the very populous country and towns near the works afford a ready market.
PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.
THE partnership existing between Daniel Rapine, Michael Conrad, & John Conrad, booksellers, trading under the firm of Rapine, Conrad, & Co. was dissolved on the 1st of January last by mutual consent. All those to whom they stand indebted are requested to render their accounts for settlement, and those who are indebted to said firm, it is hoped will speedily pay their respective accounts to Daniel Rapine, by whom the business will be continued as heretofore on Capitol Hill, where
JUST RECEIVED,
American Annals; or a chronological history of America, from its discovery in 1492 to 1806, by Abiel Holmes, D. D. A Northern Summer; or travels round the Baltic through Denmark, Sweden, Russia, Prussia, and part of Germany, in the year 1804, by John Carr, esq. author of the "Stranger in France," &c. &c. Letters from Europe, during a tour through Switzerland and Italy, in the years 1801 & 1802, by Mr. Sandom of Pennsylvania, in 2 vols. An enquiry into the various sources of the usual forms of summer and autumnal disease in the U. S. and the means of preventing them, by Benjamin Rush, M. D. &c. &c. Sketches of trials in Ireland, for high treason, including the speeches of Mr. Curran at length; to which are prefixed, a brief sketch of the history of Ireland, with a biographical account and likenesses of Mr. Curran. WAR IN DISGUISE; or the frauds of Neutral Flags.
THE MEADOW FARM,
About 2300 acres in wood, with fine meadow ground—arable Land, well adapted to the use of plaster, a good mill seat with a constant stream, constant springs of water, and comfortable farm houses. Also, a little farm of only 115 acres 3 gills full unencumbered adjacent to the Meadow Farm. The object in this sale being to raise as much money as may be necessary to release the only encumbrance that exists on the above property; if the several purchasers produce the sum required, they will respectively be allowed a credit of part of the purchase money, as an inducement to them to buy as largely as they may wish to do; and no money will be required, but in exchange for a clear deed.
FALL & WINTER GOODS
JOHN COX HAS this day received a Large addition to his former supply of FALL and WINTER GOODS, which makes his assortment very complete. Most of his goods were bought on such terms as to enable him to offer them by piece or retail lower than the regular importers can afford to sell at.
STOP THE THIEF.
WAS Stolen out of my stable on Thursday night the 9th inst. and conveyed the same night by the villain about 12 or 1 o'clock, over Washington ferry to Washington city, a BAY MARE, 4 years old next spring, about 14 or 14 1/2 hands high, with a trip on the end of her nose, shod before, rub'd with the waggon greases, and think one hind foot white. I will give Five dollars for the mare if taken 10 miles from home, or for information to that I may get her again, 10 dollars if 20 miles from home, or 20 for the mare and thief if convicted, so as to be brought to condign punishment, and all reasonable charges if taken at a greater distance.
he notice of the reports circulated in Montgomery county, are false and malicious, and not one word of truth in them. The first report was, that I had made over all my property to my son Matthew in Kentucky, and was recorded in Montgomery county, for fear of Thomas Orme. The second was that I had published Thomas Orme in the public papers, and the 3rd was that my son Laurence had altered a figure in a certificate, for the weight of hay. Now the world may plainly see that there is nothing left undone that could be done with money & tongues, I will now state to the public how the business was transferred—the third day after the decision of Thomas Orme and myself, there was while I was at court at my house a gentleman who I never saw, and he said he was from the city at the distance of 14 or 15 miles with a pretence to purchase all my hay, that was I suppose to get some advantage of him, or some one of the family, and after I heard what they were about to do, I called on the hay weigher in the presence of two young gentlemen for the examination of his books, if they may be so called, where we found nothing but some half sheets of paper in the public streets and in the hay box to the liberty of any person who would wish to see them; upon examination we found the weight of the waggon the first time 1420, the 2nd 1280, and the 3rd time 1230, which happened all in a few days of each other, & on the day it weighed 1420 in the city, it only weighed 1225 in George town, which was weighed for one Mr. Bivins, but he could not take it in, Mr. Simms seeing the load of hay bo't it, and sent it on to the city which was the cause of it being weighed twice in one day, and I have the receipts to show both from him and Newton. Now if any man keeping such books, and being guilty of so many mistakes, I will ask, can any dependence be placed in him, or any other person, when one man would say he would give a thousand pounds, and another would say he would give a thousand dollars to have him punished the gentleman whose character has been represented to stand so fair, had better have kept his thousand pounds to give to Mrs. Toles Nugee, which she left in his hands for them, and he withheld it from, and do suppose the separate answer to the bill of complaint and the deed of a number of tracts of land contained in one deed, and the different assignments produced from record books hard on his mind, which I mean to produce to the next court in the district of Columbia, and it plainly shows his anxiety by coming into court & bringing the business forward; I shall certainly meet him in his own case, and if he wants satisfaction he must meet me in mine—and as for the other gentleman he had better kept his thousand dollars to pay his creditors, for he has surely forgot the 20 shilling bill that was made in Bladensburg or he would not have interested himself so much, for I have heard it for an old saying, and I believe it to be true, the more you stir any thing that is filthy, the more it will smell.
PUBLIC SALE
To the highest bidder, for ready money, that very desirable and well known estate formerly the property of James Wormeley, esq. Called THE ROCKS;
Situated upon the river Shenandoah, in the county of Jefferson, Virginia. It consists of 200 acres of Land (by estimation) more than one third in woods, and has upon it a variety of the most useful improvements with a large scope of river bottom and other distinguished natural advantages. The upland is remarkably adapted to the use of plaster & very productive. It will be sold either in one body, or in the convenient divisions of—the farm—the mills—the distillery—and the Ferry with a fine tavern for the accommodation of travellers; to each of which a suitable quantity of Land will be attached, by a division to be made previous to the sale.
Valuable Property For Sale.
THE subscriber offers for sale a number of valuable heights convenient to the city of Washington about 2 1/2 miles from the President's House and near the same distance from the Capitol, and command a handsome view of the City, river Potomac, and Alexandria. Lot No. 1. contains 60 acres, No. 2. contains 42 acres, No. 3. contains 102 acres, No. 4 contains 19 acres; Likewise a lot lying between John Taylor, and Dr. Worthington, containing from 30 to 100 acres. Those lots will be sold together or apart as may suit purchasers.
NOTICE.
In the town of Paris, Virginia, at the uppermost house on the farboard side going down street the subscriber has opened a quiet and peaceable house for the entertainment of travellers and drovers, and is opposite on the farboard side he has opened a grocery store, where he has all kinds of grain to sell by the barrel or by the bushel or smaller quantity, also a large quantity of most excellent timothy and clover hay by the stack or by the hundred, or smaller quantity at the most reduced prices.
For carrying mails of the United State on the following post roads will be received at the General Post Office until the 8th day of February next, inclusive. 1st. From Washington city by Upper Marlboro and Queen Anne to Annapolis twice a week. Leave Washington every Wednesday and Saturday at 5 A. M. arrive at Upper Marlboro by 10 A. M. and at Annapolis same days by 6 P. M. Returning—Leave Annapolis every Monday and Thursday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Washington the same days by 6 P. M. 2nd. From Annapolis by Rock Hall to Chestertown once a week. Leave Annapolis every Wednesday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Chestertown every Tuesday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Annapolis by 6 P. M. 3rd. From Chestertown by Church Hill and Centerville to Bason twice a week. Leave Chestertown every Wednesday and Saturday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Bason by 6 P. M. Leave Bason every Tuesday and Friday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Chestertown by 6 P. M. 4th. From Chestertown by Georgetown & Roads, Sassafras, Warwick, Middletown and Choptank to Wilmington twice a week. Leave Wilmington every Tuesday and Friday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Chestertown by 8 P. M. Leave Chestertown every Wednesday and Saturday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Wilmington by 8 P. M. 5th. From Camden by Stateberg, Jamesville, Nelsons ferry and Mooks Corner to Charleston twice a week. Leave Camden every Thursday and Sunday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Charleston on Saturday and Tuesday by 10 A. M. Leave Charleston every Saturday and Tuesday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Camden on Monday and Thursday by 8 P. M. 6th. From Nashville T. by Franklin, Occoquoppo, M'Intoshville, Grindstone Ford, Fort Gibson, Greenville, Huntinton, Washington and Natchez, to Fort Adams once a week. Leave Nashville every Friday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Natchez on Sunday by 2 P. M. in 9 1/2 days, and at Fort Adams on Monday by 10 A. M. Returning. Leave Fort Adams every Monday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Nashville T. in 10 1/2 days on Thursday by 9 P. M. The contracts for the first five routes are to be in operation on the 21st day of April next and to continue in force for one year and the contract for the route number 6 is to commence at the same time and to continue in force for six months until the 30th of September next. On the customary conditions and penalties for forfeitures and delays.
Wanted to hire, during the session of Congress, a sober steady man to drive a carriage.
Apply at the office of the National Intelligencer. County of Washington, Feb. 3, 1806.
CENTREVILLE ACADEMY.
ON the second day of January next an academy will be opened in this place for the reception of students under the direction of the Rev. Mr. SNYDER, assisted by one or more Ushers. This Gentleman has conducted different Academies for the space of several years past, with great credit; his department is consonant to his station, and to the accomplishments of the scholar, he adds the happy facility of excelling in his pupils the symptoms of literary genius, and to cultivate their mental improvements. In this institution will be taught the Latin and Greek Languages; the English Language grammatically; Geography, History, Elocution; the various branches of the Mathematics; Writing; Arithmetic and Book Keeping. There are few places in our country more advantageously situated for an institution of this nature, than this. Its situation is very elevated and the air salubrious; and in the centre of a remarkably healthy neighborhood; the necessaries of life are cheap and may easily be procured. The strictest attention will be paid to the morals of the students both in and out of school. The terms of tuition will be; for the Latin and Greek Languages, including Geography, &c 25 DOLLARS; for the Mathematics 20 DOLLARS; for Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic, 14 DOLLARS per annum, paid quarterly in advance. A small contribution will be required from each pupil for the purchase of fire-wood.
Valuable Property For Sale.
THE subscriber offers for sale a number of valuable heights convenient to the city of Washington about 2 1/2 miles from the President's House and near the same distance from the Capitol, and command a handsome view of the City, river Potomac, and Alexandria. Lot No. 1. contains 60 acres, No. 2. contains 42 acres, No. 3. contains 102 acres, No. 4 contains 19 acres; Likewise a lot lying between John Taylor, and Dr. Worthington, containing from 30 to 100 acres. Those lots will be sold together or apart as may suit purchasers. Terms may be known by applying to James White or Rev. John Breckenridge near the property.
NOTICE.
In the town of Paris, Virginia, at the uppermost house on the farboard side going down street the subscriber has opened a quiet and peaceable house for the entertainment of travellers and drovers, and is opposite on the farboard side he has opened a grocery store, where he has all kinds of grain to sell by the barrel or by the bushel or smaller quantity, also a large quantity of most excellent timothy and clover hay by the stack or by the hundred, or smaller quantity at the most reduced prices.