The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-04-25 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1175.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, APRIL 5.
Debate on the passage of the bill for raising an additional military force.
Mr. Randolph's speech concluded.
It has indeed been said that nothing would be more easy than when you have done with this army, to command it to lay down its arms. My worthy friend from North Carolina (Mr. Macon) of whose sentiments I was apprized before I rose yesterday, and whose dissent from my opinion would have caused me to distrust it if I had not conceived that his own speech in favor of the army was one of the most masterly arguments against it, and I assure him I was not singular in that opinion—tells us that it is easier to raise troops than to get rid of them. Recollect the patriot army of our revolution—was there no reluctance, no aversion there expressed at being disbanded? There was; for from their intimate connection with each other, they felt it as a separation of body and soul; they cannot bear it; it is as taking men from their wives and children, to take them from those with whom they have shared victory and defeat and all the toils and sufferings of war. Was there no expression of a sentiment in that army to disband those who were disposed to disband them? There was; and it was especially honorable to their commander in chief, if indeed any peculiar circumstance could confer honor on that man, that they did not step forth against their country. It is not from the physical force of this army that I apprehend any thing; it is from that connection, that ramification of interests which it extends to every class of society—your son or nephew holds a commission in the army—my neighbor is a contractor—your uncle supplies this thing, my father-in-law that, the evil extends itself through all society, and is so wrought that it requires not only the strongest but the most resolute hand to tear it asunder. I never again expect to see a disposition for reform so radical as that which prevailed in the first session of the 7th Congress, when the army was reduced. I do not, because I have seen a gradual relaxation, a general back sliding from principles which were then considered axioms in politics.
But let me ask where is the crying necessity of immediately passing this bill? Is the occasion for raising these troops so urgent, and have we been sitting here for six months with folded arms, and never thought of it till now? Or is it that we feel impatient to get back to our homes, and by way of saving the expence of keeping Congress in session for a few months—to save the expence of two or three hundred thousand dollars, throw away two millions on the first thing which presents itself as a pretext for adjournment? I will not believe that the urgency is so great as it is represented, & that gentlemen would have permitted the measure to sleep till now. And I repeat that I am not one of those who think we can without a dereliction of principle consent, to raise those troops for a possible emergency; it is our duty to stay here & watch the coming storm, to provide for the event be it what it may. I am not among those who will take these 6000 men as a safeguard from now till next Christmas, supposing that they could be raised instanter , though I would underwrite all the loss to which the United States are exposed from this time to that, which could be averted by such a force; I would guarantee the nation from any danger which may accrue from this time until our next meeting, which might be suppressed or repelled by the force now proposed, at the same time that I should not be willing to trust to them against such danger as may arise.
But it seems we have, as we had in '99—when the gentleman from Virginia tell us there was no probability of a war with France—I am afraid he is rather too young to recollect accurately, for we were then at open war— flagrante bello —we have wealthy cities and rich banks to defend from plunder, and we want these troops as
a rallying point to the militia. These 6000 men are to form rallying points against every attack, fall where it may. If every man of them were placed separate and apart from his fellows there would not be points enough. Are the militia afraid of ghosts? Are they afraid to assemble together in their own defence unless protected by the talisman, the charm of a red coat or a blue one. When the gentleman from Kentucky dwelt so much on the importance of Detroit I was glad to find that the protection of the bank of Detroit, amongst the rest, was not a motive for raising this additional force; although I understand, our positive lay to the contrary notwithstanding, that this bank is still in operation and that the troops of the United States are paid in its paper by one who might not improperly be styled President of the bank. But G. Britain who is fortifying Quebec against attack from you is to take Detroit. It must be immediately retaken.—It is impossible she can retain it a day—we have too strong a population in the western parts of New-York and Pennsylvania, and in the state of Ohio. It can produce no Indian war unless she can hold it, and would only justify us in rooting her out of the continent. It is on British America, a name so justly offensive to my friend from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. Williams) that she relies for sustenance and support of her rich possessions in this quarter of the globe, upon which her West India Islands must depend for food, if they were not already fed by us, the embargo to the contrary notwithstanding, on cheaper terms than supplies can be furnished from Canada and Nova Scotia: for such is the unfortunate propensity of our coasting vessels to be blown off, make leeway, spring their masts or stove their water casks that American flour was but a short time ago almost a drug in the Havanna. In no other way can we account for its bearing the price in the market of Baltimore which it even now does. One of my colleagues not long since obtained leave of absence to visit his family; on his return through Fredericksburg a vessel had just arrived from Antigua which left sixteen sail of American vessels at St. John's who had all fallen to leeward since the embargo. The current of the Gulph Stream is changed, sir—it sets from New-Foundland to Cape Florida and sweeps our flour along with it.
My colleague has said that Great Britain's throwing troops into Canada and Nova Scotia is to him an evidence of her intention to attack us in that quarter. Infatuated as her ministers sometimes have been, such a Quixotic project never entered their heads. No sir, I am more apprehensive of her involving us in war, not as an enemy but as an ally. The race between her and France now will be which shall soonest concede our just claims in the hope of producing a rupture with the adverse party. The only thing which now can lead to war is the giving to the one cause to believe that we incline to the side of the other. It for instance the French Emperor whose opinions have been so emphatically pronounced should consider our late measures as a compliance with his demand for the exclusion of British commerce from our ports, as an expression of those dispositions in security for which American property is held sequestered, and should release this property accordingly—it may lead to war with Great Britain in case she should take up the subject in the same point of view. But if on the contrary she shall view the measure as equally directed against both the rival powers, there is no probability that we shall have war, but that when she shall see the tenor and complexion of the French minister's communication to us it will produce a relaxation of her late illegal, offensive and enormous doctrines, even without supposing (what is probable) a change of ministry.
My excellent friend. (Mr. Macon) says that no reparation has been made for the attack on the Chesapeake, and with him I am inclined to think none will be made. But let be recollected, that this government (and by government I do not mean the President alone) has not deemed the failure to make reparation to be a just cause for war—or, rather that it has determin-
ed (and I do not say that it is not correct) not to make war upon the aggressor. We are therefore not in a state of actual war at this time with G. Britain; and whatever may be the opinion of my friend as to the disposition in our government in 1798 to provoke a war with France, he must agree, his good sense, candor, manliness and ingenuousness of character must compel him to agree that actual war between two nations, whoever was in fault in the beginning, is a state more imperiously requiring military preparations than a state not of war, however great provocation may have been received. In 1798, even conceding that we were the offending party, (a point not easy to make out) we were at war. In 1808, tho' it is agreed on all hands that we are the deeply, justly offended party, it must be conceded that we are not at war. I believe, if we had taken measures of immediate reprisal, we should have been at war; or when Mr. Rose required that the proclamation should be withdrawn, which he had not a right to do, any more than the French government had to expect that we should renew the negotiation in 1798—if we had then taken such measures, we might have been at war. We have not taken such, and we are not at war, although it may be alleged on the very brink of it. It is in vain therefore to urge a state of quasi or quid war , as a justification of measures which in 1798 were not conceived to be justified by actual war. But really I was of opinion that a quid war was one of the last in which my friend would be a party, in any manner whatsoever.
It has been said that our understanding with G. Britain is not quite so good at present as hers was with Turkey and Denmark, at the time of her attempt on the Dardanelles or Hellespont, and of her attack on Copenhagen. Admitting that fact, what does it prove? It is well known to you—you have proof in your pocket, I was going to say—that the motives for the attack on Copenhagen, which I am the last man on earth to defend, was a belief not totally without foundation, that a movement was about to be made by France at the same time against Denmark and Portugal (with the connivance of the former) to put those countries in the possession of France; the Portuguese not manifesting a disposition to play into the hand of France apprized G. Britain of what was going on, and we know what has happened; if they had manifested such a disposition, the same measures would have been taken against Portugal as against Denmark. I am not palliating the attack on Copenhagen; but we know that Denmark was not disposed to resist the intentions of the French emperor—in fact she possessed not the ability—she had no Brazils to fly to. Are gentlemen, when they bid us beware of the fate of Copenhagen, prepared to tell us that G. Britain has any right to believe that we are disposed to connive at the designs of France, or become a passive instrument in her hands? I hope not. I do conceive that G. Britain, if she possesses common sense, will never dream of attempting here any thing like the attack upon Copenhagen, which alone could justify an increase of our military force, and which would demand an effort very disproportionate to this.
It has been admitted on all hands, nemine dissentiente , that we are to be governed by circumstances which are not within our control. The difference in this House on this question has been as to the state of those circumstances alone. Two years ago it was said, fiat justitia ; these are our rights, and we will not attend to circumstances; we know nothing, and care nothing about the balance of Europe; we will not be guided by it. I am glad to find now, however, that circumstances have their due weight in our deliberations; that we are disposed to have an eye upon them, and that they, and they alone prevent us from laying a declaration of war on the table against either or both the two belligerents.
But it has been said that N. Orleans is in the vicinity of the Havanna, and that we are exposed to attack—from whom? Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Howard) believe that Spain or France (for they are one and the same) are capable of throwing a force at this time from the Havanna
into N. Orleans that can maintain it a day against the force from the upper country, which will be brought down against them—for as to this business of having a force in every town sufficient to ward off an attack a la Copen-hagen , I am against it, and so is this bill. Norfolk and N. York need such a force as much as N. Orleans; and so do Wilmington, Charleston, and other ports as much as they. This bill does not propose to raise such a force; it is not proposed to give a defence against a coup de main from a well appointed fleet and army. When the gentleman mentioned the Havanna, I could not help thinking, for republics too have a ubion , that it was a much stronger argument for taking possession of Havanna than fortifying N. Orleans, or rather for garrisoning it, for it was fortified, we all know, against the conspirators. I have no doubt, so far from N. Orleans being attacked from the Havanna, such is the tide of human events, such the cupidity and ambition of man under whatever form of government, that the time will soon come when the Havanna will be reduced by an army from N. Orleans, or some place along that coast; and, after we have got the mouth of the Mississippi to secure the navigation of the river, and the Havanna to secure the mouth of the river, we shall want some other place to secure Havanna; and we shall go on as all other nations have done, trying to keep what we have got, and get what we can.
With regard to the importance of these 6000 men for rallying points, I think, without pretending to know what disposition the wisdom of the Executive may make of them, whether south, west, north, or east—no doubt my worthy friend beside me (Mr. Mumford) would be glad to have them all at New-York—that out of these 6000 there would scarcely be a corporal's guard for each point, and I want to know what claim any one point has more than another to be made a rallying point?
An argument of mine with regard to the efficiency of military force has been much misrepresented. I did not say these troops would be equivalent to the militia of the cities. They are not equivalent; I would not give a pinch of snuff for them. If this army be so necessary, if the occasion for it be so urgent that we are to be precipitated at once into the measure, what are we doing with the force around us (the marine corps?) I might have been well justified if I had supposed these to be the piping times of peace, for, with a trifling exception, I never heard of any service which those troops we have, have ever performed. Where are they? Why are they not sent to intercept the tygers ? It is evident to me if you cannot find employment for those troops which you have, except to play on the pipe and tambourine, and I know not what on Sunday, it is a plain demonstration that you have already more than you can put to any beneficial use. And that gentlemen should at the same time declare that they deem fortifications unnecessary and as money thrown away, and yet should wish more regular troops, when the main reason given in favor of the bill (God forbid that I should accuse any gentleman of inconsistency—much less the gentleman who made that observation) that we want these men to take care of these fortifications and keep them in repair, is to me astonishing. What are six thousand men to man a line of coast of two thousand miles in extent? The arguments in favor of the bill will not hang together. The reasoning of its advocates, if true, would show that the bill ought not to pass. Dangers have been held up to your imagination, and if there were ground to believe their existence, you ought to bestow two millions of dollars on implements of war, to be put into the hands of every one capable of using them, instead of throwing out of your treasury millions on these mercenaries, and dealing out with a niggardly hand a scanty pittance to purchase arms; and it is because I believe the balance in your treasury will be too much diminished by the enormous and useless appropriation which must follow this bill, that I wish it to be postponed that we may make a liberal appropriation to the former object. I am more astonished and surprised, and permit me to say con-
cerned, for I feel the deepest concern whenever I differ with the gentleman in question (Mr. Macon) and nothing but the impulse of honest duty, knowing as I did of the difference which existed between us, on this subject, could have prevailed upon me to rise yesterday—I say it is a matter of surprise and regret to me that he should support this bill; that he should declare the present establishment useless, and at the same time declare his willingness to increase it three-fold. I hope the gentleman will pardon me for taking this notice of his arguments, as well as the gentlemen from Georgia and Kentucky, for it is the strongest evidence of my respect for them.
We are told that military science ought to be fostered. I agree that this is a military age. The century before the last was an age of religious fanaticism—the world was ruled by priestcraft; the next was the century of political intrigue and negotiation—the taking of a single town was the work of a campaign; this is the military age, a great portion of the civilized world being over-run and subjugated by military despotism; and if you wish to quench forever the military ardor in the great mass of your own citizens, who alone are to rescue you from the general chaos, take it from the whale, kindle it in a portion, and make them exclusively military men—Confine the profession of arms to a particular class, speak tauntingly of the militia, or at least damn them with faint praise. "The militia are the only defence of a free nation; but they are defective in organization and not armed;" yes, sir, and as long as you waste all your pains and treasure in organizing and arming regulars, defective and unarmed they will remain to the end of the chapter; and by a perpetual recurrence to this standing army, your children will read in your history that of every nation who has preceded you.
It is said too that to preserve peace you must prepare for war. To this observation I agree in one sense, but not in that in which it is applied; for it admits of very different constructions. If it is meant by the observation that every man in the community should be armed and trained, it is true; because whenever it is the interest of the community to go to war they will rise with one accord. You may safely trust questions of peace or war to the unbiased minds of the great body of the people; though, sometimes, in moments of ebullition and effervescence their good sense may be carried away, their interest will soon recall them to reason. To attempt to preserve peace by raising an army, which for the purposes of war is a mere nothing, though for the purpose of producing a state of war it is most cogent, is to me a strange way of avoiding war. My principal objection to the bill is that by passing it you raise a force which for the purposes of war is totally futile; but for bringing you into a state of war it is one of the most powerful engines you could erect; for this bevy of colonels, majors, captains, and corporals, to say nothing of the poor privates, and with these take the contractors for their supply, with all their whole tribe of relations—uncles, aunts, and grandmothers, will leave nothing undone to counteract the true interest of the nation, and inoculate every neighborhood with the fever of war. The people who are receiving two millions a year from the public purse, will never let go; they will hold on as long as they can; they will even set up newspapers to support the cause—and why? Because you put this great question of peace or war in the hands of a sort of privileged class, whose peculiar interest it is to go to war for commissions, contracts, bonuses, and docenas—while the interest of the great mass of society may call aloud for peace.
But my friend and worthy colleague (Mr. Burwell) tells us, that the state of Virginia, so much opposed to armies, has now got to the war pitch, so far as to want one regiment for the defence of half a million of souls and 70,000 square miles. What is the consequence? That this business of 6000 men, instead of being sufficient for offensive or defensive war, either to take Quebec or defend New-York, will be dispersed in companies—a mere maggot of the

real hobby horse, which great and respectable state of Virginia has descended from its dignity to bestride. Yes sir, the legislature of Virginia, my parent state of whom I cannot speak with disrespect, nor will I suffer any man worth my resentment to speak of her with disrespect in my hearing, has been carried away by the military mania, and they want one regiment. What will fall to the share of Delaware, Rhode Island, and those inchoate anomalous things, our territories, when one whole regiment is to go to Virginia? I respect and love the legislature and state of Virginia, and would feel myself bound at all times to give great weight to the opinion of that state expressed to its representatives; but I never will consent that one regiment of these troops shall be quartered amongst them. I do not know to what use these 6000 men are to be applied; but if that is one of the uses, if for that only I should be against them; for I know what the effect will be. I have known the recruiting service of the U. S. stopped by the indignation of the people. The people of Virginia were, with a few exceptions, in constant hot water with the federal troops; and those who agreed with them upon better terms, derived no other advantage than a dissipation of their time, the ruin of their estates, and the corruption of their morals. And this is the effect which I am not willing to see again produced in the state of Virginia.
My friend from North-Carolina (Mr. Macon) has well said that the time is not now as it was of yore, when the Franklins and Jeffersons were our representatives in Europe. It was then the interest of France to give you consequence for the purpose of lowering G. Britain. Indeed it is now her interest if she had sense enough to perceive it—but at the time when you were colonies, it was the interest of France to bolster you up—to give you docuors in return for the favors you bestowed on her by weakening the power of Britain. The times are altered since the treaty of 1778, but since the destruction of that treaty (I thank God for it—that act alone was almost sufficient to redeem a life of political sin) we have continued to regard her with the same eye.
But I think that something has been said of the quarter whence we received this bill. I hope not to depart from order, not to be guilty of a want of that decorum which should always subsist between this body and the coordinate branches of government, if I say that the quarter from whence the bill comes, the auspices under which it is here introduced, and the name given it at the baptismal font in the other House, are with me cogent reasons for voting against the bill. It is in fact the Senate's old peace establishment bill; we give it a new name—the House of Representatives' war establishment bill; but, after it is passed, it depends on the other branch of the legislature whether it be a war or a peace establishment; and there have been so many reasons to doubt the firmness of this House when coming into conflict with the other—it has so often given way when I have thought every mind in it was made up—I need not mention the salt tax—I am unwilling to give them this military peace establishment, even with the flimsy covering, the ill-contrived swaddling clothes of "an additional military force;" because hereafter they may alter the title, and because it is not possible that one hundred and forty men elected for two years, will ever resist the influence of thirty-four elected for six years—and why? Because we are the militia and they are the standing army. Gentlemen smile. It is a fact; they have a permanent character: they do not cast their slough as often as the serpent himself—and perhaps that may now happen in that House which has often happened, a single reactive member must be gratified. But I have other reasons besides that for not being pleased with the quarter whence this bill comes. I think we once received from the same source a bill for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; we indignantly rejected it, and yet I think standing armies and suspension of the habeas corpus should always go hand in hand; for the exercise of the privilege of habeas corpus as well as of other great and dear privileges are absolutely inconsistent in their very nature with the existence of a standing army.
I am afraid, sir, that you and the House are of the opinion that the address I am making to them is as permanent in its nature as the other body or the standing army itself. I had taken notes, sir, scraps of observations made by different gentlemen; I have endeavored to answer them all with a pure sense of honest duty. If
I were acting with a view to political triumph and had a political enemy in this House, I would not ask of him a greater favor than that he should stand forward as the supporter, and I as the opponent of this bill; because my ground is impregnable, one from which no man can be driven until a total change takes place in the dispositions of our people, and liberty whilst she dwells on their tongues, is rooted from the hearts and affections of the people. I have stood as long as I myself could bear, and until your patience, sir, polite as it has been, must be exhausted. I beg the House to consider if the necessity for this bill be so pressing that it may not be postponed for a short time, I expect to be indulged in my motion, because, although I will honestly say that I do not think any man can convert me from what I deem the true faith, and I have very little hope of others, yet it is possible that some of us may convince ourselves of the inexpediency of the proposed measure.
(Debate to be continued.)
THURSDAY, APRIL 21.
Mr. Morrow, from the committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of Judge Bruin, reported a resolution authorizing George Poin-dexter, Esq. delegate from the Mississippi territory, to take depositions on this subject during the recess, giving a reasonable notice to Judge Bruin of the time and place of taking such depositions—Agreed to.
The engrossed bill concerning invalid pensioners, was read the third time and passed.
A bill to establish certain post-roads in the state of Georgia was read three times and passed.
Mr. Stanford, from the select committee to whom the subject was referred, reported a bill making an appropriation to supply a deficit in the appropriation for public buildings in 1807, and to make a further appropriation towards repairing and finishing the buildings, together with a detailed report on the subject, &c. Twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
A bill from the Senate to alter the time of the next meeting of Congress, was read three times and passed by Yeas and Nays, 61 to 30.
[The bill fixes the meeting for the first Monday in November.]
A bill to make Plymouth in N. C. a port of entry, and to change the name of the district of Nanjemoy to that of St. Mary's, was twice read & referred to a committee of the whole, and made the order of the day for to-morrow.
A bill from the Senate, in addition to the several acts laying an embargo, was read twice and referred to a committee of the whole House on this day.
A bill from the Senate to authorize the President of the U. States to suspend the operation of the act prohibiting the importation of certain goods, wares and merchandise, was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
Monday being named as the day, was negatived.
To-morrow was agreed to. A motion being made to consider the amendments of the Senate to the bill concerning courts martial and courts of enquiry, was negatived, 41 to 40.
On motion of Mr. G. W. Campbell the House resolved into a committee of the whole, Mr. FITKEN in the chair, on the bill making an appropriation for the support of an additional military force for the year 1808.
The blanks in the bill were filled to the amount of 985,000 dollars.
The bill being gone through, was reported to the House and ordered to a third reading.
On motion of Mr. G. W. Campbell the House went into committee of the whole on the bill making an additional appropriation for the support of government for the year 1808, and to meet expenses of valuation of houses, lands, &c.
[The first item in the bill is 7000 dollars for contingent expenses of the House of Representatives during the present session.
The second item is 5401 dollars a balance of a former appropriation which had been carried to the credit of the surplus fund, and was now deficient.
The bill having been gone thro' was reported, to the House, & ordered to a third reading.
Mr. Randolph, from the committee appointed to enquire into the expediency of repealing part of the act making provision for persons disabled by known wounds in the revolutionary war, reported a bill to amend that act; which was twice read and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Macon offered the following resolution which was adopted without objection:
Resolved That the Secretary of
the Treasury be directed to report to this House at the next session of Congress, every sum of money drawn from the treasury and not accounted for on the 30th of June next.
The House took up the report of the committee of the whole on the bill for the relief of Philip Turner; which was ordered to a third reading this day and read & passed accordingly, Ayes 60.
The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, 45 to 28, Mr. FITKEN in the chair, on the bill for relinquishing to the corporation of the city of Orleans the right to the batture in front of the suburbs of St. Mary's.
Mr. Rowan moved to strike out the first section of the bill, as it went possibly to prostrate an individual right. It was known that an individual in a suit respecting this batture had decision in his favor by a competent tribunal, but had been dispossessed and ousted from possession under the law to prevent persons from settling on lands of the United States. The individual interested could not have a knowledge that a law was about to pass by strong implication declaring a title to exist in the U. States to the claim; and the passage of the law would be an ex-harte decision. No injury could result from postponement, as the corporation were now in peaceable possession.
Mr. Eppes said that the gentleman from Kentucky were mistaken as to one material fact, to wit, that the corporation were in peaceable possession. The contrary was the case: for although the individual had been deprived of possession, the court had lately intefered on the subject, and the question of right was again in agitation. He was happy that the House were in possession of documents which would shew much more clearly than in his power, the precise situation of the case, and how far it was necessary for the House to act at present.
[The Clerk then read the statement of the case and opinion by counsel in New-Orleans.]
Mr. Eppes said the question of relative right of the individual or corporation was not now before the House. In whomsoever the right might lie, the bill before the House was calculated to do justice as well to the individual as to the corporation. Under a law of the United States the President was authorized to remove by force settlers on lands of the U. States, who are now in possession of the land. The intention of the law is to bring fairly before a court a trial of the title, to enable the individual and the United States or the corporation to obtain a fair and impartial decision. The bill provided for an appeal, because it was thought that where the United States is party, it is proper that the decision of the territorial court should not be conclusive, as a variety of circumstances might operate upon their decision.
The question was then taken on striking out the first section, and negatived, Ayes 23.
On motion of Mr. Clark a new section was added to the bill reviving a clause of a former law vesting certain rights in the corporation, of N. Orleans, which had expired from a delay in the execution of the law. The committee then rose & reported the bill.
Mr. Rowan moved to postpone the report indefinitely. It was extremely hard after the widow claimant had already obtained one decision at the expence of 12,000 dollars that a new trial should be granted, for this was in fact granting a new trial. The paper which had been read was a statement of citizens of Orleans, and an opinion by a single lawyer, opposed to the solemn decision of a court. Mr. R. dwelt some time on the difficulty of this subject, as the bill prostrated the right of the individual and strongly implicated the decision of a court of the United States. He did not wish to relinquish the claim of the United States, but he did not wish the U. S. to declare their right which would be the undoubted implication of this law without a full statement of the facts.
Mr. Ely although one of the committee stated reasons which influenced him to think that the subject ought to be postponed.
Mr. Eppes stated in reply to Messrs. Rowan and Ely that the land was now in possession of the U. S. from whom it could not be taken; this law prescribed the only way in which this widow woman, if she had a title, could have it confirmed; for the United States could not be sued. The gentleman had controverted the right of the United States on the ground that there was no proof of title in the United States. Mr. E. said the property had been always claimed by the Spanish government, and held as public property by Spain; and various instances
were upon record in which application had been made by individuals and objected to, 1st because it was public property, and 2nd, because buildings might affect the health of the city. Individual rights was not in question; for he trusted in God that such a body as ti is would never attempt to try rights between man and man.
Mr. Randolph observed that he had just been informed that the Senate had postponed the subject indefinitely. This might possibly be a reason for postponement.
Mr. D. R. Williams hoped it would not be postponed on this account. For in case of the drawback business the Senate had postponed it and afterwards agreed to take it up; and very possibly they might change their mind in this case also.
The question on postponement was then taken by Yeas & Nays, & lost—Yeas 29, Nays 58.
Mr. Bibb moved to strike out the 2d section of the bill. [This section provides for an appeal from a final decree on this subject in any court in Orleans to the supreme court of U. States.] He thought it went to establish a principle by which the Yazoo claimants may hereafter bring their claim before the supreme court of the U. States. For whenever it came before that court, it was not difficult to foresee how it would be decided.
Mr. Randolph said he voted in the majority against postponement. If the gentleman from Georgia would withdraw his motion he would move to re-consider that vote.
Mr. Bibb withdrew his motion, and Mr. Randolph moved re-consider the vote on postponement.
Mr. Eppes said if this 2d section were a general provision for appeal from territorial courts to the supreme courts, he should be one of the last to support it. How did this section establish the general principle of appeal? It did not; on the contrary the section shewed that this was a particular case of appeal authorised by a special and particular law; and he called upon gentlemen to shew how an appeal could be had except by a special law passed for that purpose—and he asked also how, if at any future period, the House determined to allow an appeal, it could be prevented, supposing, this bill not to pass? It could not. In the present case there was various reasons why the appeal should be authorized, and if the clause were struck out, he must vote against the whole bill. For, in a case involving property to the value of perhaps a million of dollars, being a piece of land the only spot whence the dykes which kept the Mississippi, from inundating the property could be constructed—when it was considered that every cart load of sand which was constantly renewed by the Mississippi, was worth twenty-five cents, and the property consequently almost invaluable—when all these things were taken together, and in addition the feeling and sentiment excited on the subject, it was at least doubtful whether either the individual on the one side or the U. S. on the other, could have a fair and impartial trial without appeal; and it must be conceded that a decision at a distance from the scene of contest would promote justice between the individuals and the U. S. If he thought this could go to establish a principle which in any shape could bring the case of the Yazoo claimants before the supreme court, he would himself be the last in the House to vote for it.
Mr. Bibb observed that he had not supposed that the law made a general provision for appeal in all cases; but it established a principle which might hereafter be drawn into precedent as a reason for allowing appeal in a similar case.
Messrs. Key & Ely followed in support of the second section.
Mr. Randolph supported the motion for reconsideration of the motion for postponement. He admitted that his opinion was that the right was either in the U. S. or the corporation of New-Orleans. If the right were in the U. S. he was desirous of transferring it to the corporation; but he was in favor of postponing the bill on two distinct grounds. He thought with his friend from Georgia (Mr. Bibb) that he could see a squinting towards Yazooism in that bill; that it might be a precedent to give the same power to the supreme court in relation to cases decided before a Mississippi court as it went to give in this case. He had ever been of opinion that cases like that alluded to by his friend from Georgia, cases of empires he might say, not of hundreds of acres but of thousands of square miles, were not subjects of judicial decision. He said he should as soon think of trying the independence of the U. S. or whether the
declaration of independence was a lawful act before a petty jury with appeal to a supreme court, as to try cases of this immense magnitude. He was in favor of postponement on another ground. This case of the Batture the right to which had been enjoyed a long while, although perhaps essential to the city, was a different case entirely from a case going to cover a claim to territory of an hundred miles in length and breadth; it was very much such a case as might present itself within sight of the House. Suppose a contest between Mr. J. Mason and the corporation of George-town as to the mud deposited on his island by the Potomac—whether it should be considered as the property of Mr. Mason or of the corporation of George-Town. There was a vast difference between a case like this, and the giving power to decide whether an immense country shall belong to swindlers; and perhaps the means which might be resorted to in the one case would not be justified in the other. Mr. R. said, he had heard of no corrupt grants in relation to this claim, which had been burnt as they always ought to be by the hands of the common hangman; but it was one of those nice and subtle points with which those gentlemen learned in the law like to amuse themselves—something like a case which he had lately heard of, in which a man said, if as the lawyers said his land was his exclusive property from the heavens above downward to the centre, his neighbor had no right to plant poplars on the ground adjacent to his, because the roots would intalibly extend into his soil. Mr. R. said, they should not pass a law respecting a special case while it was sub judice between the corporation and the nominal claimant who he had heard it said was a widow woman, he understood the real claimant was a very different person.
Mr. R. went at some length into a view of the subject. He was willing to give the corporation the right of the U. S. and let them establish that right if they could. This was as far as he should go.
Mr. Holland remarked on Mr. Randolph's observations. He questioned the correctness of the gentleman's doctrine; for he had taken a singular distinction; he would permit cases involving property of small value to go before the supreme court, but in a case involving property of great value he would not trust them, but legislate specially for it. Mr. H. was willing to give all territorial courts the right of appeal—to adopt the universal principle of doing universal justice. He said he should not have expected to hear from any gentleman on this floor that our judges were not to be trusted; and the declaration of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bibb) that the Yazoo business would be decided in favor of the claimants, was a clear evidence that it ought to be so decided.
Mr. Smilie opposed the motion for reconsideration. He was of opinion that the second section of the bill was constitutional and expedient; and it could not be suspected that he would support any thing to favor the Yazoo claim, his sentiments on it being well known.
Mr. Troup could not see the danger which his colleague apprehended; he was not himself governed by precedent, nor ever would be. If this second section were to operate at all as precedent, it would be in a case where it should be proposed to give the Yazoo claimants a right of appeal from the circuit or district court of the Mississippi territory to the supreme court. What the legislature would do indirectly in such a case they would not hesitate to do directly. They would not hesitate to make a gift of ten millions of dollars, or to make a donation in fee simple of 30 millions of acres. It was a position as clear as the noon day, that where a legislature was found disposed to do either one or the other, such a legislature must be as notoriously corrupt as the Yazoo claimants themselves.
Mr. Bibb said he should hope with his colleague that precedent would not influence this House or any other, but he was convinced that they would and do govern legislative proceedings. It might happen that a proposition might be made to give territorial courts appellate jurisdiction, and a majority might revolt if this bill should not pass, because it was a case without precedent. Supposing a number of new members, and such a proposition introduced; it might be said to them you may pass this bill; it is not a novel thing; a former legislature has passed a similar bill and there can be no impropriety in it. In this way Mr. B. said it might be drawn into precedent.
Mr. Macon wished it were possible to get a question. If gentlemen wished to adjourn at the time fixed, it was necessary that it should be immediately decided one way or the o-

ther; for Yazoo had been dragged into the discussion and it might occupy a month. The seats were empty, and it was time to adjourn, if but for an hour, to give an opportunity for members to take refreshment.
Mr. Holland commenced some observations in relation to Yazoo. No subject could be introduced, but this or some such alarm which had no relation to the subject was certainly introduced, to no purpose but to operate a delay of business.
A quorum of members not appearing in the hall, Mr. Holland resumed his seat, and the House adjourned 38 to 23.
FRIDAY, APRIL 22.
On motion of Mr. Newton, the House resolved into a committee of the whole, Mr. Basset in the chair, on the bill in addition to the several acts laying an embargo.
Mr. D. R. Williams, after some observations going to show that the embargo ought to be rigidly enforced, and that it was as much the duty of all, however originally disposed towards the measure, to secure its observance, as it would be to prevent a robbery or fraud of any sort, stated a circumstance which had occurred in George Town, under our own eyes, and which called for remedy. Application had also been lately made to the custom house officer of a southern port for clearance to New Orleans for a ship said to be laden with 500 hogsheads of New England rum. The collector, being surprised at so large a cargo of such an article, sent an inspector to examine it, and on inspection it was found to be 500 hogsheads of rice instead of rum. Nothing would have been easier than for this vessel to have slipped into New Providence or Havana, landed its cargo and reloaded with rum, which could be carried into New Orleans, thus committing a double fraud—violating the embargo law, and defrauding the revenue of the duty on the rum thus imported. He therefore offered a new section to the bill, which it would be seen would operate only on such vessels as take licences.
[This section goes to require every vessel required to take out a licence to be loaded under the immediate inspection of the revenue officers.]
Mr. Goldsborough objected to the section as going to operate a great inconvenience, almost an impossibility, to the revenue officers. Some of the districts, for instance the one which he represented comprising many ports or places of loading to which only one collector belonged; so that it was impossible that he could attend to the loading every vessel required to take a licence under the provisions of this bill.
Mr. D. R. Williams replied that this objection could not properly be made to the House, but to the Secretary of the Treasury, whose duty it would be to appoint additional inspectors.
The section was agreed to, Ayes 65.
A new section was also added on motion of Mr. Newton, supported by Mr. Cutts to permit vessels with cargoes on board to remove from port to port, and to remain loaded, for the purpose of preserving their produce.
A section was also added for allowing to Indians their usual trade.
Mr. Newton, wishing in the times which try men's souls, that the true American and patriot should be distinguished from the unfair trader or British agent, moved a new section directing the Secretary of the Treasury to cause to be published the names of those persons who had violated the embargo laws.
On the suggestion of Mr. D. R. Williams that this had better be done by resolution, Mr. Newton withdrew the motion.
Several other verbal amendments having been made, the committee rose and reported the bill as amended.
Mr. Goldsborough moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill, in order that the amendments might be printed—Negatived, Ayes 19.
The Yeas and Nays being required by Mr. Quincy on the section moved by Mr. D. R. Williams in committee of the whole.
Mr. D. R. Williams said that the section was such an one as could distress no honest man, and would promote an observance of the laws. It had also an operation which gentlemen from commercial towns should look to; for it went to provide employment for the inspectors who were now almost starving for want of it.
Mr. Dana and Mr. Quincy objected to the section on the general principle that it threw difficulties into the way unnecessarily; and on account of the distressing operation which this section and the law generally would have upon the coasting trade. Mr. Quincy complained also, that the bill could not be understood, from the numerous amendments made to it in committee, and that the operation of each section could not be distinctly seen.
The question was then taken by Yeas and Nays on concurring with the committee of the whole, and carried—Yeas 74, Nays 20.
A section authorising the collectors of the U. S. to detain vessels suspect
ed of an intention to violate the embargo, having been reported by the committee of the whole.
Mr. Goldsborough called for the Yeas and Nays on concurrence with it; which being taken there were Yeas 64, Nays 25.
FIVE O'CLOCK.
A message from the President of the U. S. was read as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the U. States.
I transmit to both Houses of Congress a letter from the envoy of his Britannic majesty at this place to the Secretary of State, on the subject of certain British claims to lands in the territory of Mississippi, relative to which several acts have been heretofore passed by the legislature.
TH: JEFFERSON.
April 22, 1808.
Mr. G. W. Campbell moved to refer the papers and documents to the committee on Public Lands.
Mr. Rowan moved to postpone them indefinitely. It was but little worth while to consider claims of this nature, while claims by us of such enormous magnitude against that nation remained unsettled.
The Speaker declared a motion for a reference to take precedence.
Mr. Blackledge thought that as the communication had been made in the form of civility, it might at least receive the form of a consideration.
Mr. Fisk hoped it would not be referred. He had no respect for form in these little cases where they had shown none for reality in greater claims by us.
Mr. G. W. Campbell said this was a claim by individuals, not by the government, and he hoped therefore it would be referred.
Mr. Newton could not see the difference between a motion for reference and a motion for postponement, for the subject was equally postponed by either course. With respect to individual rights, were not the claims of our impressed seamen claims for personal liberty and individual right, and had they ever been listened to?
Mr. Dana said that the President of the U. S. had transmitted a message recommending the subject to their attention; from respect to the chief magistrate of our own country, therefore it would perhaps be proper to refer it.
Mr. Smith said he would just observe that we had always valued ourselves in doing justice to every nation. That being the case, whatever injury may have been received by us, we should act in such a way as to show that we will always hear complaints and consider whether they are well founded or not. In justice to the character of the nation it ought to be referred.
Mr. Rhea (T) having called for the reading of the memorial of the claimants to the British minister,
Mr. Eppes observed that he understood the memorial only to claim further time, which had in certain cases been already granted. This was an application; whether further time should be given or not, might be enquired into by the House; he did not expect that it would be acted on during the present session.
The message was referred to the committee on Public Lands.
The House proceeded in the consideration of the amendments made in committee of the whole to the bill supplementary to the several embargo laws.
An amendment being under consideration authorizing the collectors, when at any time any collection of certain produce shall be gathered together under suspicious circumstances, to take the same into safe keeping, and Mr. Pitkin having called for the Yeas and Nays, it was passed by Yeas and Nays, 58 to 36.
Another new section being under consideration for allowing vessels from the southern ports to pass laden northward, without being compelled to re-land their cargo, in order to give accommodation as store vessels,
Mr. D. R. Williams asked for the Yeas and Nays on it, because as they were compelled to impose hardships on the people, he wished it to be shown that they were desirous of giving them every alleviation in their power.
Mr. Rowan opposed this amendment because it granted no privilege not already allowed by the embargo laws; and because, if it did, it did not impose the same obligations on the motions of these vessels as they had just done on small craft; he could therefore see no object of it but that it exempted a particular class of vessels from the general duty. He wished to be informed whether these vessels might not be blown off the coast as others were said to be? Certainly they would be much more likely to be so than those compelled to give such heavy bond. As to these additional embargo laws he could not agree with gentlemen in their zealous endeavors to amend them, for every law which passed on the subject, embraced a ground not before touched; every additional law in fact was a new embargo law.
Messrs. D. R. Williams and Marion replied that there were a sort of ve-
sels cut off from sailing by the embargo in the southern ports, whose bottoms would be eaten up and crews become sick in the summer, and therefore they wished to remove to the northern ports to act as store ships. True, that by the present laws these vessels might sail from one port to the other, but were compelled on arrival to re-land their cargo before their bonds could be cancelled, which it was now wished to retain on board the ships, to save the expense of storage. The cargo consisting of cotton, and being packed by means of screws it was extremely troublesome to load and reload. These vessels would not be more subject to be blown off than others, for they would give the same bonds on removal with this section as without it; the only difference was that they were not compelled to be unladen.
The amendment was concurred in, 38 to 6.
An amendment respecting Indian trade, providing that nothing in these acts shall be construed to prevent transportation by land or inland navigation from the territories of the U. S. into those of G. Britain, or furs the property of subjects of G. Britain and by them purchased of the Indians, or from the territories of Britain into the U. S. of property of British subjects imported for the use of the Indians.
This amendment was opposed by Messrs. Rowan, Montgomery, and Rhea, and supported by Messrs. Newton, Dana, Eppes, and Campbell. Mr. Rowan called for the yeas and nays on it.
The opponents contended that while such great differences existed between the country and G. Britain it was not well to yield up any commerce to her when she has totally interdicted ours. If it were for the exclusive benefit of the Indians they would not object to it; but it went to admit G. Britain to pursue in our territories a trade of considerable value, and it certainly was the interest of the U. S. to give a clear preference to the American trader. From very good information it was said, that there is now arrested within the territory of the U. S. peltry to an immense amount, which by this amendment would be taken out. The British trader was more benefitted by this amendment than the Indians could be; for without it, the trade would be diverted in its course from the British to the American trader. In the present situation of affairs to act a benevolent part to either European power was wrong; whatever part other nations pursue we ought to mete out to them the same.
On the other hand it was said by the friends of the provision, that it was not to yield our commerce to Britain, but to permit trade with unoffending tribes of Indians, and would not deprive G. Britain of a powerful weapon which she might possess in the distress of the savages in consequence of our measures. That various tribes of Indians had become habitually dependant on the British provinces for supplies; and a stoppage of them by the U. S. would only have an ill effect on their dispositions towards us. That if there were any race of human beings who could not be made to understand an embargo system, it was the native Indians of America; in vain then would it be attempted to convince them of the necessity of cutting them off from their supplies. A rejection of this amendment would be in fact tantamount to a declaration of war against them; and, to save a few thousand dollars value of trade, we should have to spend millions in an Indian war.
The amendment was agreed to, 60 to 32.
Some further verbal amendment having been made, the bill as amended was ordered to a third reading to-morrow.
A motion to adjourn was negatived Ayes 38.
On motion of Mr. Blount the House went into committee of the whole, Mr. Storer in the chair, on the bill to erect Plymouth N. C. into a port of entry and to change the name of the district of Nanjemoy, &c.
An amendment was added to the bill on motion of Mr. Cutts including the town of Augusta in the district of Maine.
The committee rose and reported the bill
Mr. Randolph said he really did not suppose the House had agreed to sit in the evening to transact such important business as this, and therefore moved to adjourn—Negatived.
The bill before mentioned was ordered to a third reading.
The amendments of the Senate to the bill concerning certain post roads in the state of Georgia and the bill concerning invalid pensioners were taken up & agreed to.
The Speaker had proceeded in reading the bill to authorize the President of the United States to arm and equip the frigates, when,
Mr. Nelson moved to postpone it till to-morrow.
The reading being called for by a member the Speaker proceeded in reading the bill.
A question of order having been made whether the bill should be read, after the motion of postponement.
The Speaker decided in the affirmative.
Mr. Nelson appealed from the Speaker's decision and called for the Yeas and Nays on the appeal.
Mr. Garnet moved to adjourn—Negatived.
After a desultory debate of half an hour on the point of order, in the course of which Mr. Randolph made a motion to adjourn which was negatived 48 to 29.
Mr. Nelson withdrew his appeal.
The bill was then read the first time, and on the question stated by the Speaker that it do now have a second reading—
Mr. Stanford moved to reject the bill.
On motion of Mr. Nicholas the House adjourned—Half past eight.
SATURDAY, APRIL 23.
The bill amending the embargo law passed this day by Yeas and Nays, 70 to 22.
The bill from the Senate authorizing and requiring the President to equip all the armed vessels of the United States was, after debate, postponed indefinitely by Yeas and Nays, 52 to 45.
The House adjourned till 5 o'clock.
FIVE O'CLOCK.
The bill to supply the deficit in the appropriations for public buildings in the city of Washington was ordered to a third reading.
(Details in our next.)
New-York, April 21.
The fast sailing ship Protection, Captain Beanes, arrived at this port last evening in 29 days from Belfast, and furnishes to the office of the MERCANTILE ADVERTISER, Belfast papers to the 19th of March, inclusive, containing London dates to the 14th being nineteen days later than our last advices from that quarter.
Capt. Beanes informed us it was the general opinion in England that Mr. Rose would adjust the difference between that country & this, in which case it was expected, the embargo would not continue longer than the 22d of March. Petitions for Peace with America were sending into Parliament from all parts of the kingdom. No prospect presented itself of an accommodation between France and England. Markets for American produce very high.
A numerous meeting had been held of the Merchants and Manufacturers of Liverpool, who had petitioned Parliament against the orders of council. In a discussion in the House of Commons on the orders on the 7th of March, it was stated that there was not in the country a supply of silk for more than six weeks, and that probably 60,000 manufacturers would be turned out of employ in a short time; that the usual importation of flaxseed amounted to 60,000 hogsheads, of which but 10,000 had been received. A number of merchants of London presented a petition to Parliament requesting to be heard by counsel against the British orders, which request had been rejected—Ayes 66—Nays 99.
A gentleman arrived in the Protection, confirms the intelligence of the failure of crops throughout Ireland. Provisions of every description are extravagantly dear. The Protection literally hurried off on account of a report that an Embargo had been laid upon all American vessels in the British dominions. Flax-seed, from 11 to 15 guineas per hogshead. The linen business very much stagnated, and, on account of our non-importation act, the sale was very dull.
The Rochefort fleet, relative to which there have been so many surmises, has joined the fleet at Toulon, prior to which a number of Spanish ships of war had at different periods also been added, and has sailed for Sicily. The whole force consisted of thirty sail.
The marquis of Wellesley, has been appointed by the king of Great Britain, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the room of Mr. Canning, resigned.
STRASBURGH, FEB. 20.
Letters from Toulon bring the important advice, that the fleet there reinforced by the combined French and Spanish fleets (probably the fleets from Rochefort and Cadiz) set sail from that harbor on the 7th and 8th of February, and steered towards Sicily with a favorable wind at S. S. The number of ships of the line amount to thirty.
New-York, April 22.
We have seen a letter from a very respectable commercial house in Nantz dated the 23d of February, which gives strong hopes that the American vessels detained in France under the Milan decree would be released. This hope was founded upon favorable intelligence received at Nantz from Paris.
Captain Chester from Bordeaux, informs, that all the American vessels in
Bordeaux, which had been boarded by the British, were under arrest.
Doctor Leighman, of Philadelphia, passenger in the Gorgon, is the bearer of dispatches from Mr. Armstrong to the Secretary of State.
A vessel has arrived at New York, which brings Lord Napier one day later; but contains nothing of moment.
TO THE PUBLIC.
It has been with extreme unwillingness that I have yielded to the unpleasant necessity of appearing before the public. Such an appeal will always be resorted to reluctantly by the man content with the situation in which he is placed, and preferring in silence the peaceful occupations of industry to the uncertain and agitated pursuits of ambition and intrigue. The extraordinary course pursued by Gen. Wilkinson before the Court of Enquiry, instituted, as it is said, for the trial of this officer, calls upon me in justice to myself and my friends to ask a suspension of the public opinion for a short time, till it will be in my power to lay before them, in one perspicuous view, a statement of testimony and facts relative to him, that shall leave no doubt as to his criminality, and will sufficiently account for his recent mode of proceeding. Gen. Wilkinson well knows that the testimony submitted against him in the House of Representatives, under a resolution of that body, cannot be rebutted. He is conscious of the truth of every word of it. It is, therefore, not wonderful that instead of meeting and endeavoring to refute that testimony, he should attempt by every means in his power to divert the public attention from himself and fix it upon others. He knows too that the disgrace and shame which await him can only be delayed or resisted by endeavoring to stigmatize and destroy the character of those who have been called upon to testify against him. Hence the novel mode of defence he has pursued of criminating others instead of attempting to exculpate himself from the high charges exhibited against him. Before I left Washington, and before I obtained leave of absence for the remainder of the session, I had seen unmoved, Gen. Wilkinson's two pompous addresses to the Court of Enquiry, containing against me charges of forgery, perjury and treason, with no other sentiments than contempt, as he knew the whole to be without foundation, and utterly incapable of being substantiated. I was in Philadelphia, about to sail for N. Orleans, where my private business most imperiously demanded my attention, when I saw in a paper of that city extracts said to be taken from the testimony of general Smith, delivered before the Grand Jury, and received information that Gen. Wilkinson had intimated the particular case upon which he intended to rest his charge of perjury.—That it related to some conduct of mine in 1795, as consignee of the brig Grand Sachem. The circumstances of this transaction, among a multiplicity of other mercantile concerns, had escaped my recollection, and I am yet at a loss to conceive why that case is particularly referred to. However I have here and at N. Orleans all the papers and information necessary to explain satisfactorily my conduct in relation to every part of it, from its commencement in N. Orleans to the trial of this vessel in Charleston, and in it as in every transaction of my life I challenge investigation. I defy general Wilkinson and his myrmidons to cover me for a moment with the shadow of criminal or dishonorable intentions. It has been the practice since the establishment of this Court of Enquiry, for some person, general Wilkinson I presume, to publish garbled and detached extracts of the testimony delivered before them. Mr. Spence found it necessary to deny in the public prints what had been given to the world as his testimony, and Gen. Smith has declared that the testimony published as his is totally incorrect, and not in fact such as he delivered before the court. I have made a very considerable sacrifice by returning to Washington for the purpose of enquiring into the correctness of the extracts published as the testimony of Gen. Smith and of refuting any charge that might have been made against me supported by the least appearance of plausibility; but I find the extracts are totally incorrect, and no charge but in the form of an innuendo. I have therefore only to request of my friends for whose good opinion I have the most sacred regard, that whilst Gen. Wilkinson is carrying on an exparte trial of me before the Court of Enquiry instead of defending himself, they will rest perfectly satisfied that I shall sustain no possible injury; and that I regret indeed that it was ever my misfortune to be placed in a situation to become perhaps better acquainted than any other man now in the U. S. with Gen. Wilkinson's transactions and connexions with the Spaniards, under the disclosure and proof of which he must sink. Yet it has so happened, and the consequence is unavoidable.
DANIEL CLARK