The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-12-29 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
VOL. X.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 459
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
DEBATE.
ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION Approving the conduct of the Executive in relation to the refusal to receive any further communication from Francis James Jackson.
DECEMBER 20.
In committee of the whole. Mr. BASSETT in the chair.
Mr. BASSETT said he rose with some reluctance to address the committee as the business of the hour and the discussion which had taken place led him to believe that gentlemen would not willingly attend to the detail which he had to wade through, but as he found no person ready to take the floor, he would occupy the time of the committee in submitting to them his view of the subject.
Mr. (said he) the resolution on your table calls upon us to give our assent to two propositions. First, that Mr. Jackson has in his correspondence with Mr. Smith insulted the government, by intimating that the Executive had a knowledge that the arrangement entered into with Mr. Erskine was without authority on his part; and secondly, that in refusing to receive any further communications from the English minister, in consequence of this insult, the Executive has manifested a just regard to the character and interests of the American people. Now I can agree to neither of these propositions, inasmuch as I have not been able to discover the insult, and as I do not believe that the interest of the people has been consulted in the measure.
In making this declaration, I know I subject myself (not here I hope) to the imputation of being a British apologist and partisan, and of taking part against the government of my country. But if the President has his duty to perform, I also as a representative have mine, and although I might have remained silent if his friends had not called up this subject; yet when I am thus pressed for an opinion it is my duty to give it fairly, and I will do it. It is not I trust necessary in order to evince my respect for the government to appropriate every Executive measure, or to join with the administration in its plans and views. Our present Chief Magistrate will doubtless recollect the time when he did not deem a love of country and a due regard to its government incompatible with a marked disapprobation of Executive measures and an earnest opposition to the views of the persons in power. In all this there is nothing to blame when the opposition proceeds from good motives. I am not in the habit, sir, of making professions, but I will on this occasion say, that I have not a drop of blood running in my veins that is not purely American, and that I have not a wish but for the happiness, the prosperity, & the honor of my country and the preservation of its government.
As to the insult, it is said by Mr. Smith, in his letter of the 8th of Nov. to consist in the use of language on the part of Mr. Jackson "implying a knowledge in this government that the instructions of his predecessor did not authorise the arrangement formed by him." Had such language been used by the British minister in the commencement of the correspondence, it does not appear to me to follow that it would have been an insult, for it can be no offence for our government to enter into a provisional arrangement with a resident minister who has not full power. Nay, had Mr. Erskine shown his instructions of the 23d of January in extenso, declaring them to be the only instructions received by him from his government, and had the terms held out by them been negatived by our Executive, as they certainly ought; it would have been competent for the minister to receive & negotiate on other propositions more just in themselves and to send the result to his government for its acceptance. Indeed this is the view which Mr. Smith himself appears to have taken of the subject. In his letters of the first and eighth of Nov. he intimates that Mr. Jackson's first letter contained the implication as he speaks of the rejection of a language conveying the idea that our Executive had a knowledge that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine was without authority, and in both letters the offence is placed in the repetition after the declaration that there was no such
knowledge. The same course is adopted by the resolutions, as they omit all mention of Mr. Jackson's first letter & find the insult in expressions, in the letters of the 23d of October and the 4th of November. It is not therefore strictly necessary to examine the first letter, but as it has in the debate of this day been much dwelt on by gentlemen who are in favor of the resolution, I shall claim your attention while I in a brief manner analyse the entire correspondence.
Before I commence this analysis, permit me, sir, (said Mr. BASSETT) to observe, that Mr. Jackson is not stated to have made any direct charge, but to have contented himself with insinuations, or in other words, the insult complained of is a constructive one. Now, as a rule of construction, I understand, that when an intent is to be made out, the whole paper is to be taken into consideration. A particular paragraph or phrase from its generality or its looseness may convey an impression which was not in the writer's mind. This is peculiarly the case with a correspondence where there is less caution used than in papers of more permanent use.
How unfair it is to play upon words in a correspondence, may be seen by referring to Mr. Smith's letters, which certainly are drawn with ability, and we are to presume with great care. I take a single paragraph in the letter of the 19th of October as it relates more immediately to the present discussion—"The declaration that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d of January is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it relates, is now for the time made to this government . And I need hardly add that if that despatch had been communicated at the time of the arrangement or if it had been known that the propositions contained in it and which were at first presented by Mr. Erskine were the only ones on which he was authorised to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not have been made."
Now the knowledge of the thing might have been gained in a variety of ways without a declaration . Thus our Secretary might have had a view of the instructions of Mr. Erskine—there might have been an understanding between them on the subject, or Mr. Smith might have the knowledge of circumstances (without an open avowal by the minister) which would necessarily have led to the same conclusion. Again, as the Secretary is not the government, but a mere agent who until directed by the President could not move in the business, the declaration might have been made to Mr. Smith individually before the negotiation, or he might have had full knowledge of the fact and yet this letter would be true in its terms.
The Secretary declares that if the despatch had been communicated at the time, or if it had been known that Mr. Erskine had no other authority, the arrangement would not have been entered into. Now does he mean to say that the mere communication of the despatch, although accompanied by farther instructions, and better terms would have broken up the treaty, and yet this is in the terms of the sentence. Was it necessary that the communication to have had its effect, must have been made at the very time of the arrangement? What, if made before, would this have varied the result? Again, suppose that in point of fact our government did not absolutely know, but had the strongest possible reason to believe and think, and did in truth believe and think, when the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine that he was not authorised, would this form an excuse on their part?
In these criticisms, violence, I admit is done to the intent of the writer, and they are made only to show the unfairness of seizing one word to make out the intent against the intent as collectable from the whole paper. And yet sir, the British Senate may be told that our Secretary is a man of wit, a maker of puns, a vender of conundrums, and a master of equivoque, and that therefore the intent lies in the terms, and is there to be sought. If they do so, however, however highly I may think of their ingenuity, I shall think little of their logic.
One word more before I take up the communications. I wish not to be
understood as standing here the apologist of Mr. Jackson, for the manner in which he conducted his part of the correspondence, may, I am ready to admit that there is in some of his letters a harshness of expression and a want of courtesy which is not justifiable. But on this I am not called to judge. The Executive has placed the dismissal on a different ground, and by the resolutions we are to pronounce whether the ground taken by him is defensible.
The correspondence on your table was commenced by this government with a letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson, in which the Secretary after stating the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, the disavowal of that arrangement by his Britannic Majesty, and the expectation of this government that an explanation of the grounds of refusal would have been given by Mr. Jackson; goes on to state that the President understood that the British minister had no instructions from his government authorising him to make any explanation as to the reasons of the disavowal, and calls upon Mr. Jackson to correct this statement if he had been misunderstood.
The letter of Mr. Jackson of the 11th of October in answer to this call, states that he is not altogether certain whether Mr. Smith meant to complain of the disavowal itself, of a total want of explanation of it, or that the explanation had not been made through him, and under the influence of this doubt, the letter is continued with a reference to each of these particulars. Speaking of the disavowal Mr. Jackson remarks, that he had found no trace of complaint on the part of this government in the records of his predecessor, and that Mr. Smith had not in their conferences distinctly announced any such complaint. He adds, "that he had seen with pleasure in this forbearance on the part of Mr. Smith, an instance of that candor which he did not doubt would prevail in all their communications, inasmuch as Mr. Smith could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act done under such circumstances, as could only lead to the consequences that had actually followed."
It is to this part of the letter that we have been referred for the insult, and very properly, for if it is not to be found here, we shall in vain seek for it elsewhere. It has been urged that when Mr. Jackson declares that the arrangement was made under such circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal, he is to be understood as charging the Executive not only with a knowledge of the instructions of Mr. Erskine, but with dishonorable conduct in procuring with such knowledge his assent to an act which his instructions did not authorise. Now, sir, is this the charitable or fair construction of this sentence? Are there not other circumstances which would equally warrant the disavowal? If the fact is so, that Mr. Erskine not only acted without authority but against his instructions, who can reasonably question the right in his government to refuse to recognise his agreement? To solve this point we need not refer ourselves to writers on the laws of nations. The every day doctrine of the rights and duties of principle and agent is sufficient for our purpose. Why then will the Executive insist upon an insinuation which he considers so odious, when the sentence will bear another and a better construction? A construction too, which will be found necessary to give force to the conclusion, as it is not the circumstance that the instructions were known, but that they were disregarded by the minister, on which the right to disavow is founded. I like not the feverish apprehension which can so readily discover insult in disguised and veiled insinuations.
I am sensible that another part of the sentence has been enlisted in the cause of the insinuation. Mr. Jackson states, that in the forbearance of complaint on the part of Mr. Smith, he had witnessed that candor which he did not doubt would prevail in their correspondence, as Mr. Smith could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal. It is material here in the first place, to ascertain the time to which Mr. Jackson alludes when he refers to Mr. Smith's thoughts. Is the period at which the arrangement was made intended? Not so surely, because then there was
no disavowal of which to complain. The sentence in this point at least is sufficiently clear. Mr. Jackson very distinctly says, that during their conferences Mr. Smith could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act done under such circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal. You will bear it in mind that the conferences were had at a time before the writing of the letter, as Mr. Jackson in it declares, that but a very few days had elapsed since his introduction to the President. Now what were the materials for thinking which Mr. Smith had at the period of the conferences.
From the papers on your table, sir, (said Mr. E.) you will find that our minister at London, on the 28th of May, gave our Secretary an account of a conference with Mr. Canning, in which the English Secretary declared that Mr. Erskine had acted not only without authority, but in direct opposition to his instructions, and read the despatch of the 23d of January, the substance of which is contained in Mr. Pinkney's letter. By Mr. Pinkney's letter of the 9th June, it appears that the instructions of Mr. Erskine had been laid before the House of Commons, and a copy of them were then enclosed to our Secretary. In the letter of the 23d June, Mr. Pinkney gives to our Secretary the reasons which Mr. Canning had stated to him for the disavowal. Mr. Smith in his letter to Mr. Erskine of the 9th August, declares that he had just received from Mr. Pinkney the printed copy of the despatch of Mr. Canning of the 23d of January, and it appears from the letter of Mr. Jackson, which I am now testing, that this despatch had been a subject of conversation between him and Mr. Smith.
We have now in review some things which might in the conception of the British minister have found materials for thinking for our Secretary. He knew the pretensions of the British government that its minister had violated his instructions. He had seen the despatch in its whole extent and might have compared it with the arrangement. Mr. Jackson thought there was a substantial difference between the instructions and arrangement; and perhaps he had a right therefore to conclude that Mr. Smith did not complain, because after what had come to his knowledge he found that the act was done under such circumstances as justified the disavowal. Nay, sir, he must at this very time have had in mind the latter part of the letter of Mr. Smith to Mr. Erskine which I have just alluded to, in which after the conditions in the despatch of the 23d of January are mentioned, our Secretary says—"I forbear to express to you, sir, the surprise that is felt at the extraordinary pretensions set forth in this letter of instructions and especially at the expectation that this government would as a preliminary recognise conditions two of which are so manifestly irreconcilable to the dignity and interest of the United States." The Secretary had thus officially volunteered his opinion respecting the difference between the instruction of the 23d January and the arrangement to the English legation itself.
If however there is yet room for a jaundiced or a jealous mind to suspect an insinuation in the sentence before us it must be obviated by what immediately follows in the same letter.
"It was not known when I left England, whether Mr. Erskine had, according to the liberty allowed him communicated to you in extenso his original instructions. It now appears that he did not. But, in reverting to his official correspondence, and particularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of April to His Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, I find that he had submitted to your consideration, the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the ground work of an arrangement, which according to information received from this country, it was thought in England might be made, with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports verbatim et seriatim your observations upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons which induced you to think that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you that the latter were an equivalent for the original conditions; but the very act of substitution evidently shows that
those original conditions etc. in fact very explicitly communicated to you and by you of course laid before the President for his consideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th April is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint, on the part of the American government, viz. that under such circumstances, His Majesty's minister had acted and acted without authority, and that the act of his minister, I must here allude to a supposition, which you have more than once mentioned to me, and by which it had any the slightest foundation, this right might perhaps in one degree have been affected. You have informed me that you understood that Mr. Erskine had two sets of instructions, by which to regulate his conduct, and that upon one of them, which had not been communicated either to you or to the public, was to be rested the justification of the terms finally agreed upon between you and him. It is my duty, sir, solemnly to declare to you and, through you, to the President, that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, which you have made the basis of an official correspondence with the latter Minister, and which was read by the former to the American Minister in London, is the only despatch, by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement with this country on the matter to which it relates."
Here we find that Mr. Jackson expressly places the disavowal on the difference in the conditions contained in the instruction and the terms of the arrangement, and again draws his conclusion that under such circumstances the King had a right to disavow the act of his minister. When speaking of the instruction he not only admits that Mr. Erskine had not communicated it in extenso, but deems it necessary in answer to a suggestion made by Mr. Smith in their conferences, that Mr. Erskine had more than one set of instructions solemnly to assure our secretary, and through him the President, that such was not the case. This declaration is to me utterly irreconcilable with the notion of an insinuation that the executive of this country knew at the time of the arrangement that the British agent was acting without authority. If Mr. Jackson had intended a charge of this kind, he certainly would not thus notice a mere conversation for the sole purpose of giving an official negative to it.
There is one part of the paragraph which I have last read to you which requires a moment's attention as it has been the subject of some cavil; I allude to that part of the specification of the letter of Mr. Canning in which Mr. Jackson says that Secretary Smith had made it the basis of a correspondence with Mr. Erskine. This is sufficiently explained by a reference to the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Erskine of the 9th of August. In that letter the despatch is indeed made the basis of a correspondence. It was not so anterior to the arrangement. One observation more, sir, in relation to this letter. It has been urged that in a fair and critical construction of the terms used by Mr. Jackson, it not only does not appear that Mr. Erskine had no authority to conclude the arrangement, but it is justly to be inferred that he had authority. This I confess is not my construction of the letter, but it is surely strange for those who make and profess to believe it, to urge at the same time that Mr. Jackson in the same letter has charged the government with the knowledge of a matter which he admits to be untrue, had Mr. Erskine acted without authority.
I shall now, for the present, leave the first letter of Mr. Jackson, remarking, that in the part of it which I have had before us, I understand it is proceeding on the hypothesis our government asked from explanation of the disavowal, he attempts to answer such referring to the despatch of 23d January as containing the terms of his predecessor, and the disavowal was occasioned by the regard on the part of the government to the department for foreign affairs. As to the insinuation to Mr. Jackson, it

wish to extenuate, but I have not been able to discover it. If it is in the letter, it is a mite too small for my vision.
The next letter in course is that of Mr. Smith of the 19th of October, in which Mr. Jackson is reminded that the President expected "a formal and satisfactory explanation" of the reasons of the disavowal, and he is told that the President "persists in that expectation and in the opinion that there has been given no explanation that is adequate either as to the matter or the mode." In a subsequent part of the letter the Secretary goes on to say—"The stress you have laid on what you have been pleased to state as the substitution of the terms finally agreed on for the terms first proposed has excited no small degree of surprise." And why did it excite so much surprise in Mr. Smith? Was it that he now, for the first time, had information of the offensive conditions, or that the alleged substitution was considered by him as an imputation on his honesty or that of the government? Let him give the answer. "Certain it is that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed document; that he was disposed to urge them more than the nature of two of them (both palpably inadmissible, and one more than merely inadmissible) could permit, and that on finding his first proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable terms comprised in the arrangement respecting the orders in council were adopted." No, sir, the conditions were not merely shown by Mr. Erskine, but they were pressed by him, and very properly rejected by the Secretary, and other terms finally adopted. And whether you call the proposal a substitution or by some other name, it was the natural course to be taken.
Mr. Smith then proceeds to say—"And what, sir, is there in this to countenance the conclusion you have drawn in favor of the right of his Britannic Majesty to disavow the proceeding? Is anything more common in public negotiations than to begin with a higher demand, and that failing, to descend to a lower? To have, if not two sets of instruction; two or more than two grades of propositions in the same set of instructions to begin with what is the most desirable and to end with what is found inadmissible in case the more desirable should not be attainable. This must be obvious to every understanding, and it is confirmed by universal experience."
"What were the real and entire instructions given to your predecessor in a question essentially between him and his government. That he had, or at least, that he believed he had sufficient authority to conclude the arrangement, his formal assurances, during our discussions, were such as to leave no room for doubt. His subsequent letter of the 15th June renewing his assurance to me "that the terms of the agreement so happily concluded by the recent negotiation will be strictly fulfilled on the part of His Majesty," is an evident indication of what his persuasion then was as to his instructions. And with a view to show what his impressions have been even since the disavowal, I must take the liberty of referring you to the annexed extracts (See C.) from his official letters of the 31st July & of the 14th August."
"The declaration "that the despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine of the 23d January is the only despatch by which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it relates" is now for the first time made to this government. And I need hardly add, that if that despatch had been communicated at the time of the arrangement, or if it had been known that the propositions contained in it and which were at first presented by Mr. Erskine, were the only ones on which he was authorised to make an arrangement, the arrangement would not have been made."
I must beg you, sir, here to recollect that when Mr. Smith wrote this letter he had seen the instructions of the 23d of January which, tho' they may be deemed offensive, are precise and clear, and that Mr. Jackson had not only solemnly pledged himself that Mr. Erskine had no other instructions, but had placed the right of disavowal on this very circumstance. Now in what I have just read to you I perceive a direct charge of falsehood made by Mr. Smith to Mr. Jackson, such as the Secretary not only intended to be made against Mr. Erskine, but against instructions or different grades of instructions in the same instructions to make out the Mr. Erskine's assurance of correspondence. In doing this insinuates that the British government has been guilty of perfidy in refusing to effect the arrangement, and that on the face of the correspondence.
you will recollect that by the letter of Mr. Pinkney of the 28th of May, it appears that Mr. Canning declared to him that Mr. Erskine had acted "not only without authority but in direct opposition to the most precise instructions," and the order of council of the 24th of May, declares that the agreement "is not such as was authorised by his majesty's instructions."
I am not about to question the propriety of this measure. It is perhaps right, and it might have been necessary, if the Executive had this impression, to avow it; but it does appear to me that if Mr. Smith deemed this course of correspondence proper & justifiable on his part, he should not have been so ready to take fire at an insinuation not more gross. Let me say too that not perceiving the necessity or utility in the then existing state of things of the remark, I do most sincerely regret they were made. Their tendency is certainly not to bring to a happy termination our disputes with G. Britain.
We will now, sir, pass to the reply of Mr. Jackson of the 23d of October. In answer to the renewed call for an explanation of the disavowal, he says: "His majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it. These instructions I now understand by your letter as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th inst. were at the time in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration therefore can be given of the deviation from them which occurred than by reference to the terms of your agreement."
Here again it is said, this evil spirit of insinuation has embodied itself, and it has been discovered lurking in the latter sentence in which Mr. Jackson states that the instructions of Mr. Erskine, which with a reference to his former letter, and what follows in this, is declared by the British minister to rest in the despatch of the 23d of Jan. were known in substance by Mr. Smith at the time of the arrangement, as he understood not only from the admission of Mr. Smith, but from the deduction in the letter of the 11th of Oct. Now what is the deduction? By advertising to that letter it will be discovered to rest on the "official correspondence" of Mr. Erskine to his government. And what are the facts? Mr. Smith in his letter of the 19th of October very fairly admits that the "three conditions" were presented and pressed by Mr. Erskine. But does Mr. Jackson allege in this or any other letter, that when Mr. Erskine gave in the "three conditions" he intimated that he was not authorised to treat on other terms, or that our government so knew? I can perceive nothing of this. Indeed it would have been much more fair for the Executive to have drawn a contrary admission from this sentence. For if the "three conditions" were distinctly known, and the British minister would consent, as he did consent, to adopt terms which did not comport with them, the fair inference is that he must have led our government to believe that his instructions had "two or more grades of propositions." Why then did the Executive persist in the notion that the mere recital of things known to be true bore with it an insinuation of another fact which is not true.
Permit me now, sir, to read that part of Mr. Jackson's letter which is in answer to the insinuation of double instructions.
"Nothing can be more notorious than the frequency with which, in the course of a complicated negotiation, ministers are furnished with a gradation of conditions, on which they may be successively authorised to conclude. So common is the case which you put hypothetically, that in acceding to the justice of your statement, I feel myself compelled to make only one observation upon it, which is, that it does not strike me as bearing upon the consideration of the unauthorised agreement concluded here, inasmuch as in point of fact Mr. Erskine had no such graduated instruction. You are already acquainted with that which was given, & I have had the honor of informing you, that it was the only one by which the conditions on which he was to conclude were prescribed. So far from the terms, which he was actually induced to accept, having been contemplated in that instruction, he himself states that they were substituted by you in lieu of those originally proposed."
Here Mr. Jackson meets the insinuation, not by talking of the respect due to his government, but by an open and unequivocal denial. "Mr. Erskine had no such graduated instruction." You, sir, he says to Mr. Smith, have never seen the despatch of the 23d January, and although you might have been induced to think that Mr. Erskine had farther powers, I have
informed you, and again repeat, that this is not so. Does not this renewed asseveration afford a strong ground for the belief that Mr. Jackson never had in mind the insinuation with which he is charged. One word, sir, as to what is stated about the substitution. In this as well as in the former letter, it appears to me that the remark that Mr. Erskine had stated that the terms finally agreed on were substituted in lieu of those originally proposed is made for the very obvious purpose of showing that in Mr. Erskine's own conception the agreement did not comport with the "three conditions."
In the course of the correspondence the next letter is that of Mr. Smith of the 1st of November, from which I will read a few passages. In answer to the explanation he says—"Altho' the delay and the apparent reluctance in specifying the grounds of the disavowal of the arrangement with respect to the orders in council do not correspond with the course of proceeding deemed most becoming the occasion, yet as the explanation has at length been made, it only remains as to that part of the disavowed arrangement to regret that such considerations should have been allowed to outweigh the solid objections to the disavowal."
While the disavowal was a matter of discussion, it might be proper to canvass the reasons on which it was attempted to be justified. But after the explanation had been given and recognized by our government, it was not strictly necessary to intimate as is here done, that the British minister had behaved unbecomingly in delaying that explanation, or in evincing a reluctance to give it at all. Besides, sir, as the first letter of Mr. Smith is dated the 9th of October, and the letter of Mr. Jackson is of the 23d of the same month, there was really no great delay, and as to any reluctance, I find in Mr. Jackson's first letter of the 11th of Oct. the same causes assigned for the disavowal as in that of the 23d, with perhaps less force.
The letter of Mr. Smith closes thus:—
"I abstain, sir, from making any particular animadversions on several irrelevant and improper allusions, in your letter, not at all comporting with the professed disposition to adjust in an amicable manner the differences unhappily subsisting between the two countries. But it would be improper to conclude the few observations to which I purposely limit myself, without advertizing to your repetition of a language implying a knowledge on the part of this government that the instructions of your predecessor did not authorize the arrangement formed by him. After the explicit and peremptory asseveration that this government had no such knowledge, and that with such a knowledge no such arrangement would have been entered into, the view, which you have again presented of the subject, makes it my duty to apprize you, that such insinuations are inadmissible in the intercourse of a foreign minister with a government that understands what it owes to itself."
Shall I say, sir, that in this part of the letter the Secretary shews such a want of temper, the expressions used by him are so harsh, that as an American, I have to regret that he ever suffered the paper to pass the threshold of his office. I admire firmness, and when the occasion demands it our public functionaries ought to use the language of complaint and expostulation, nay, even that of crimination, but then it ought to be done in terms which are decorous. To tell a minister in terms that he has made "several irrelevant and improper allusions in his letter," without specifying wherein, is not using the language even of dignified resentment. And while a negotiation is pending, the adoption of such language must irritate, and however intended, can have the effect only, of bringing it to a disastrous close.
I am now come to Mr. Jackson's last letter, and you will here permit me to repeat, that I feel no inclination to justify the manner in which the correspondence was conducted on his part. The close of this letter in particular is so uncourteous, that but for the letter of Mr. Smith, to which it is in answer, I should call it rude. The charges however made against the British minister, of conduct unbecoming and improper, in the plainest terms, and without coloring or qualification, invited a reply out of the ordinary course of diplomatic civility.
Mr. Jackson in his letter of the 4th of November, thus expresses himself:—
"I am concerned, sir, to be obliged a second time to appeal to those principles of public law under the sanction and protection of which I was sent to this country. Where there is no freedom of communication in the form substituted for the more usual one of verbal discussion, there can be little useful intercourse between ministers; and one at least, of the ep-
ithets which you have thought proper to apply to my last letter, is such as necessarily abridges that freedom. That any thing therein contained may be irrelevant to the subject, it is of course competent in you to endeavor to show, and as far as you succeed in so doing, in so far will my argument lose of its validity—but as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the decision of my own sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom alone I can consider myself responsible. Beyond this it suffices that I do not deviate from the respect due to the government to which I am accredited."
"You will find that in my correspondence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation, where I was unable to substantiate a fact. To facts, such as I have become acquainted with them, I have scrupulously adhered, and in so doing I must continue, whenever the good faith of his majesty's government is called in question, to vindicate its honor and dignity in the manner that appears to me best calculated for that purpose."
Now, what are the insinuation which Mr. Jackson "had uttered" and the facts he had stated? I find it no where said that he had uttered the insinuation complained of, the charge on the contrary is that he has used a language which by implication is said to convey the idea so offensive to our government. And what, sir, is this language? I have already given it to you in detail, and will only here remark generally, that I see nothing in it but an adherence to two facts, that the despatch of the 23d of January, was the only authority which Mr. Erskine had to conclude an arrangement, and that the "three conditions" forming the substance of that despatch, were known to our government. Permit me to remark that if the insinuation is not contained in the former letters, it certainly is not in this.
But it is said that inasmuch as Mr. Smith had charged Mr. Jackson with the insinuation, and as Mr. Jackson makes no denial, but declares that he should not think of uttering an insinuation where he was not able to substantiate a fact it is an admission of the charge. If we strip the sentence of its severity and rudeness we will perceive that Mr. Jackson, never having uttered the insinuation in terms, must have understood that Mr. Smith perceived it in the statement of the two facts, and as he knew this statement to be correct, he meant to adhere to it, notwithstanding Mr. Smith might draw an inference which did not inevitably flow from it. At best this sentence is equivocal, and our Executive might have understood Mr. Jackson as saying I did not think of making the insinuation of which you complain, because I am not able to substantiate the fact.
Will any gentleman still say that Mr. Jackson ought explicitly to have renounced his error, to have acknowledged that he did mean the insinuation, and that it was without foundation? If he does so say, he must have forgot the course and temper of this correspondence. Certainly there was nothing in Mr. Smith's last letter, which could possibly lead to conciliation or concession. When equals meet we must expect that harshness will meet harshness, and when one party will permit himself to be uncivil, he must expect incivility, not courtesy or concession from the other.
I have now done with the correspondence as it relates to the insult. And, sir, lest I may be misunderstood, I will now state, that it is not my intention to intimate that our government arranged without authority. My aim has been to show that Mr. Jackson did not use "a language implying a knowledge in this government, that the instructions of his predecessor did not authorise the arrangement formed by him." To myself the considerations I have urged are satisfactory.
I will now proceed, sir, (said Mr. Emott) to consider whether the Executive in refusing to receive any farther communications from the British minister, has manifested a just regard to the interest of the American people. I have already remarked, that in my opinion the true interest of the country was not consulted in or promoted by this measure; it remains then for me to explain the grounds of that opinion.
It would be superfluous in me at this time to attempt to prove that the interest of this country is best promoted by a state of peace and of free intercourse with Great Britain. The mutual wants of the two nations might be brought to prove this, but the general joy of the country so audibly expressed at the time it was thought our restrictive system as to that nation was about to be abandoned, is sufficient for my purpose, as it shews as
well the general wish as the general sense of the community on this subject. If then it is the interest and the wish of the nation to be at peace with Great Britain, it ought to be a primary point in the policy of our administration to form a treaty with that country on just principles. Matters of etiquette and personal considerations ought to give way to this greater object. I cannot therefore think that the interest of the country was promoted by a refusal in the course of a few days, to communicate with the man who came (ostensibly at least) to form a treaty with us.
It has been remarked, however, that Mr. Jackson had no power to treat, and that therefore any farther communication with him could answer no desirable purpose. I will not ask your attention to all that passed between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jackson on this point, but will merely present to you the call which Mr. Smith made for the authority and the answer which Mr. Jackson gave.
Mr. Smith in his letter of the 1st of November says:—
"For the first time it is now disclosed that the subjects, arranged with this government by your predecessor, are held not to be within the authority of a Minister Plenipotentiary, and that, not having had a "full power"
direct from that authority, his transactions on those subjects might of right be disavowed by his government." This disclosure, so contrary to every antecedent supposition and just inference, gives a new aspect to this business. If the authority of your predecessor did not embrace the subjects in question, so as to bind his government, it necessarily follows, that the only credentials yet presented by you being the same with those presented by him, give you no authority to bind it, and that the exhibition of a "full power" for that purpose, such as you doubtless are furnished with, is become an indispensable preliminary to further negotiation; or, to speak more strictly, was required in the first instance by the view of the matter now disclosed by you. Negotiation without this preliminary, would not only be a departure from the principle of equality, which is the essential basis of it, but would moreover be a disregard of the precautions and of the self-respect enjoined on the attention of the United States, by the circumstances which have hitherto taken place.
"I need scarcely add, that in the full power alluded to, as a preliminary to negotiation, is not intended to be included either the whole extent or any part of your instructions for the exercise of it. These, of course as you have justly remarked, remain subject to our own discretion."
To this call Mr. Jackson in his letter of the 4th of November answers:—
"It will not, I dare say, have escaped your recollection that I informed you at a very early period of our communications, that in addition to the usual credential letter, his Majesty had been pleased to invest me with a full power under the great seal of his kingdom, for the express purpose of concluding a treaty or convention. I well remember your testifying your satisfaction at the circumstance, and I have only now to add that I am ready, whenever it suits your convenience, to exchange my full power against that with which you shall be provided, for the progress of negotiation."
It is not necessary for me after the very able and satisfactory explanation which has been given by my friend from Connecticut, (Mr. Dana) of what is intended by "a full power" in diplomacy to show the authority it creates. Suffice it to say, that if Mr. Jackson had such authorization he might have concluded a treaty, & that he had it is now satisfied. He not only declared that in addition to his letter of credence he had a full power under the great seal of England, but offered to produce it. Would such offer have been made if the thing had no existence. If the executive entertained a suspicion of this kind why did he not take Mr. Jackson at his word. Instead of doing this, the answer of Mr. Smith is a dismissal of the negotiation with the negotiator.
But if Mr. Jackson was empowered to treat, it is suggested that it was on terms derogatory to the honor and inconsistent with the interest of the country, inasmuch as his instructions bound him to insist on the "three conditions" as the basis of his negotiation. One of these conditions you will recollect is the absolute relinquishment of the colonial trade as well indirect as direct, and another is the authorization of the British Navy to enforce our non intercourse system.
Now on these terms I never would conclude a treaty with Great Britain. Nay I can hardly forgive our secretary for his official assurance to Mr. Erskine, as I find it in the letter of that Gentleman to Mr. Smith of the 9th of August—"The third condition you

certainly, very distinctly informed me that I was not instructed to make to you any proposal whatever upon this subject. I must necessarily reserve, until I hear from you, what proposals it may be deemed proper to make on behalf of the United States, to state in how far they do or do not accord with the instructions, which it has pleased his Majesty to give me for the guidance in this negotiation.
"I will only add, sir, in conclusion of this letter, that his Majesty is very sincerely desirous of maintaining a perfect and cordial understanding with the United States, and of bringing to a complete and satisfactory adjustment all the points of difference that have arisen between the two governments; and that agreeing as I do with you, most heartily as to the interest which both nations have in fostering a mutual and solid friendship and cordiality, no zeal or exertions shall be wanting on my part to carry into effect his Majesty's commands for this most salutary purpose."
Now, sir, how is this received by our government? Are they satisfied with this correction of their statement, and do they proceed to specify their terms? Let Mr. Smith answer. In his letter of the 19th of October he speaks thus:
"On the subject of the orders in council, the President perceives with sentiments of deep regret, that your instructions contemplate, neither an explanation of the refusal of your government to fulfil the arrangement of that branch of the existing differences, nor the substitution of any other plan of adjustment, nor any authority to conclude any arrangement on that subject; but merely to receive and discuss proposals, that might be made to you on the part of the U. States; and these, it appears, must include a stipulation on the part of the U. S. to relinquish the trade with the enemies' colonies, even in branches not hitherto interrupted by British orders for capture, and also a sanction to the enforcement of an act of Congress by the British navy."
"Were the way properly opened for formal propositions from this government, a known determination on the part of his Britannic Majesty to adhere to such extraordinary propositions, would preclude the hope of success in such advances, whether regard be had to the conditions themselves, or to the disposition they indicate, in return for the conciliatory temper which has been evinced by the U. S."
It is not charitable to think the Secretary could entertain a wish, that Mr. Jackson should have authority to discuss on the terms of a treaty without a power to conclude, and that such discussion must be made a mere play of words, by the introduction of "the three conditions." And yet why this renewed statement against the obvious meaning of the terms of Mr. Jackson's last letter; but I will not farther consume your time by reflections which must suggest themselves to every mind.
Mr. Jackson in his letter of the 23d of October, repeats that he was not authorised to renew proposals already declared unacceptable. "Beyond this point, (says he) my instructions are prospective; they look to substituting for notions of good understanding erroneously entertained, practical stipulations on which a real reconciliation of all differences may be substantially founded. And they authorise me not to renew proposals which have already been declared here to be unacceptable, but to receive and discuss any proposal made on the part of the U. S. and eventually to conclude a convention between the two countries. It is not of course intended to call upon me to state as a preliminary to negotiation, what is the whole extent of those instructions; they must, as I have before said, remain subject to my own discretion until I am enabled to apply them to the overtures which I may have the honor of receiving from you."
Here, again, we find Mr. Jackson repeating that he did not come to renew proposals which had been declared unacceptable. But it has been remarked, that he speaks not of making other proposals, but of receiving propositions from our government, and that the usual course of negotiation required him to take the first step. I will not stop to ascertain this point, but you will recollect that by the disavowal the arrangement, was considered by the British government as at an end, and according to Mr. Jackson's statement he did not come to form another arrangement adjusting our differences partially; but to conclude a convention whereby there might be a real reconciliation of all differences between the two countries. Now as the "three conditions" had been deemed inadmissible by the President, it does not appear to me to have been very exceptional in Mr. Jackson to say, that not wishing to propose to us what might be deemed improper, he desires the propositions to come from us originally.
Let us now attend to the reply of Mr. Smith of the 1st of Nov. After speaking of the disavowal and the reasons assigned for it he adds, that he has "to regret that such considerations should have been allowed to outweigh the solid objections to the disavowal; it being understood at the same time that his Britannic majesty perseveres in requiring as indispensable conditions on the part of the United States, an entire relinquishment of the right to trade with enemies' colonies; also a permission to the British navy to aid in executing a law of Congress; pretensions, which cannot but render abortive all proposals whatever upon this subject, whether made by the United States or by his Britannic majesty."
I will close this examination of the correspondence by presenting you with a part of Mr. Jackson's last letter of the 4th of Nov.
"You say "that it is understood that his Britannic majesty perseveres in requiring as indispensable conditions on the part of the U. States, an entire relinquishment of the right to trade with the enemies' colonies, and also a permission to the British navy to aid in executing a law of Congress."
"This same statement is contained in your letter of the 9th inst. and represented as the substance of what had fallen from me in our previous conferences. In my answer to that letter I took the liberty of shewing that such a supposition was erroneous, and I have looked in vain to my letter of the 23d, to find in it any suggestion of a similar tenor. I believe, therefore, that by reference to my two letters you will find, that the statement now again brought forward is contained in neither of them, that it made no part of my previous conversations with you, and that I have in no way given room to suppose I ever made any such statement at all."
"That before the orders in council can be revoked, their object must be obtained in some other way, is unquestionably true; but you may be assured, sir, that there is no wish whatever entertained in England, that the British navy should be employed in executing a law of Congress. If the proposal that was made upon that subject, and made, as you now know, because it was believed to be acceptable here, had been adopted, & had become a matter of compact between the two countries, and thereby a part, not of the law of Congress, but of the public law binding upon both parties, and which both would have had a common interest in seeing duly executed; in that case the agency of the British navy, would not have had the invidious aspect, which is now attempted to be given to it. At present there is no engagement between the two countries, no laws of Congress which bear a reference to any such engagement, & consequently it cannot be wished to take any share whatever in the execution of those laws."
"In regard to the colonial trade I need only observe, that all, or nearly all the enemies' colonies are blockaded by British squadrons; it cannot, therefore, be so much an object of solicitude, as you imagine, to obtain the relinquishment of the trade of any country to those colonies. On the contrary, you will find it stated in my letter of the 11th ultimo, to be a "matter of indifference whether the order in council (on this subject) be continued, or an arrangement by mutual consent substituted in its room."
In this letter Mr. Jackson is full and precise; he declares that he has been misapprehended by Mr. Smith as well in the conferences as in his letters, and states in terms "that there is no wish whatever entertained in England that the British navy should be employed in executing a law of Congress." Thus then this offensive condition is most explicitly given up. As to the colonial trade, he observes, that its relinquishment by us is not a matter of much solicitude to G. Britain at this day, but yet that his government is willing to form an arrangement relative to it. Does he mean by this, to be understood as requiring us to make perpetual by treaty, what is now temporary; to recognize as right in all its extent the British rule of 1756. I do not so understand him. You will recollect the arrangement on this subject in Monroe's treaty. By that the English government consented to recognise our right to the indirect trade on our relinquishing the direct trade. And certainly what was conceded to us at a period when the colonial trade was of greater importance than it now is would not at this time be refused in an arrangement.
Is it not then to be regretted that at the moment when our Executive had ascertained Mr. Jackson had power to make a treaty, and that his instructions were not limited by the "three conditions," the negotiation should be broken off under pretence of an institution which, to say no more of it, is doubtful—did not the interest of the people point to a different course of proceeding?
One part of this letter I think has not been fairly understood. I mean the declaration "that before the orders in council can be revoked, their object must be obtained in some way." The object of those orders we have been informed is to retaliate on France the effect of her own system by refusing to her those advantages of commerce which she had forbidden to England. Now without enquiring who was the original aggressor in this warfare on neutrals, or in any manner attempting to justify the orders in council; let me ask, what has been the understanding of our government on this subject. When the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine, was it not understood that the non-intercourse law was to take the place of the orders in council, and did we not in some degree by the law of the last session, give effect to this system as against France. (Speech to be Concluded in our next.)
WASHINGTON CITY. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29.
William Henry Harrison is re appointed Governor of the territory of Indiana.
It having been rumored that I fired into the Bonhomme Richard, commanded by captain Jones, and killed many of her men, I have deposited in the Public Library a printed Memorial to disprove this charge and to show that the capture of the Serapis, commanded by captain Pearson, was attributed by him to my ship, the Alliance. Any member of Congress or other person wishing to have accurate information respecting the engagement above-mentioned, so honorable to the American navy, will find it in the memorial above referred to presented in 1785 and never replied to. PETER LANDAIS.
MARRIED on the 24th inst. by the Rev. Mr. Breckenridge, Saml. Burh, Esq. of the city of Washington, to Miss Susan Maria Wilson, of Prince Georges county, Maryland.
CONGRESS.
IN SENATE—DECEMBER 27.
The bill to authorise the surveying and making certain roads in the state of Ohio, as contemplated by the treaty of Brownstown in the territory of Michigan, was read a third time and passed.
The resolution yesterday submitted by Mr. Bradley was taken up and passed, and the Secretary of the Senate was directed to lay the same before the President of the United States.
DECEMBER 28.
Mr. Tait, a Senator from the state of Georgia appeared and took his seat. Mr. Pope gave notice that on tomorrow he should ask leave to bring in a bill concerning canals and roads in the United States.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Wednesday, December 27.
Mr. Burrwell & Mr. Pickman yesterday appeared and took their seats.
On motion of Mr. Poindexter, Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the propriety of allowing an additional judge to the Mississippi Territory, to reside in Madison county, and to have the same powers as those granted by law to the judge of Washington county. [Messrs. Poindexter, Seaver, Burrwell, Heister and Smelt form the committee.]
Mr. Nicholson laid upon the table the following resolutions:
Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency of making permanent provision by law for constructing public canals and roads, and for the general establishment of seminaries for education throughout the United States, and that they have leave to report thereon to this House.
Resolved, That the same committee be instructed to enquire into the best means of providing by law permanent funds for the accomplishment of these objects; and that they in like manner have leave to report thereon to this House.
RUPTURE WITH MR. JACKSON.
The House again in committee of the whole on the resolution from the Senate.
Mr. Milnor supported the resolution in a speech of two hours.
When the question on the committee's rising and reporting their agreement to the resolution, was taken and carried 54 to 55—fifty-two members being absent.
Mr. Livermore, after a few remarks, moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution indefinitely.
Mr. Rhea called for the Yeas and Nays on the motion.
Mr. Elyes opposed the motion in a speech of an hour and a half.
When he concluded, the House adjourned.
The bill from the Senate to authorise the surveying and making certain roads in the state of Ohio, as contemplated by the treaty of Brownstown in the Territory of Michigan, was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Talmadge presented the petition of Commodore Wilapple, stating that he is infirm and disabled, & praying relief from the government—referred to a select committee.
RUPTURE WITH MR. JACKSON.
On motion of Mr. Goodwyn the House again resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of the whole on the resolution from the Senate approving the conduct of the executive in refusing to receive any further communications from Francis James Jackson.
The motion for indefinite postponement still under consideration. Messrs. Stanford, Quincy, Gardner and Pinkin supported the motion. When Mr. Pinkin had been speaking about an hour, a motion was made to adjourn and carried.
Philadelphia Dec. 25. A letter received in this city from New-York, states a report that the French fleet had taken Payol, and destroyed the shipping at that place—But little credit attaches to this report, and it is supposed to have originated in some scheme of speculation.
AN ACT
Extending the time for issuing and locating military land warrants. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be authorised to issue military land warrants to such persons as have, or shall, before the first day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, produce to him satisfactory evidence of the validity of their claims; which warrants, with those heretofore issued and not yet satisfied, shall and may be located in the names of the holders or proprietors thereof, prior to the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, on any unlocated parts of the fifty quarter townships and the fractional quarter townships, reserved by law for original holders of military land warrants.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. ANDREW GREGG, President of the Senate, pro tempore.
December 29, 1809. APPROVED, JAMES MADISON.
THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE WASHINGTON BUILDING COMPANY.
Will please to attend at Captain Chas. Jones's, near the Centre Market, Washington, on Tuesday the 2d of January, 1810, at 7 P. M. to elect officers to serve for one year; and attend to other business of special importance. THOMAS CARPENTER, Sec. December 29—2.
A NEGRO BOY FOR SALE.
HE is about 13 or 14 years old—healthy, able, honest and strong. Apply within a fortnight to JOHN P. VAN NESS. December 20—6.
PUBLIC SALE.
THE Subscriber, by virtue of a deed of trust to him from Wm. Hodgson dated on the 10th day of November, in the year 1808, for the purpose of indemnifying Mr. John Hopkins; will, on the first day of Feb. next, at the hour of 12 o'clock of that day, if fair; if not, on the next fair day at the same hour, proceed to sell, at the courthouse, in Alexandria, at public auction, to the highest bidder for ready money, Three Thousand Acres of Land, situate on the left fork of Big Sandy Creek, which land was, at the time of the grants for the same, in the county of Monongalia, in the state of Virginia.
The above tracts of Land were granted by the state of Virginia, to John Allison by three several patents containing respectively 1000 acres, and bearing date on the first day of October, 1784, which Land has been since duly conveyed to the said Wm. Hodgson by deed dated 2d of August, 1790. EDMUND J. LEE, Trustee. December 29—10ds
PUBLIC SALE OF CITY LOTS.
BY virtue of a decree of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, in a suit in Chancery (Charles Minifie and others against George Walker). The subscribers, appointed trustees for the sale of property mentioned in said decree, will, on Monday the 15th day of January next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, at Long's Hotel, in the city of Washington, offer for sale the following lots in the said city, viz:
  The whole of square numbered 934. 934.   Lots No. 1 and 2 in square 931   3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 933   3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 933   5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1011   No. 1, 1012   5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 23, 26, 27 and 28, 1015   12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1018   4, 5 and 7, 1039   2, 3, 4 and 5, 1040   5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16 and 17, 1041   14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1047   10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1048   1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 14, 1062   5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16 & 17 1063   Containing 708,645 square feet.
The terms of sale to be, the purchase money to be paid on the ratification of the sale by the court.
P. B. KEY, } Trustees. WM. BRENT, } December 14—30wts
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.
THE Store-House of the Subscriber, adjoining the Glass-works, was broke open on the night of the 25th inst. and several boxes of Glass taken therefrom. The above reward will be given to any person who may discover the thief and bring him to justice. EDWARDS, WAY, & Co. Dec. 27—2s.

FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD. RAN AWAY from the Subscriber living near Nottingham, Prince George's county, a Negro man named CHARLES, sometimes calls himself GHAM BOY, about 25 years old, 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high, has a dark complexion, when spoken to has a droll look, one of his upper front teeth is out, has several scars about his face occasioned by a whip when young, he is rather slender made, brisk and active about any thing, particularly cooking and waiting, he took with him two homespun cotton shirts, India cotton shirts, and brown round about jacket, sundry waistcoats, one pair corduroy pantaloons, James Maitland yarn stockings and shoes, one pair old and worn out. He has a variety of clothing, and being an artful, cunning fellow he may change them for others, it is very likely that he is got a forged pass, and it is very likely he will endeavour to pass as a free man, we expect he is making towards Pennsylvania, if taken within ten miles, ten dollars; if twenty miles, twenty dollars; if thirty miles, thirty dollars; if taken without the state the above reward will be given to any person or persons securing him in any jail, so that we get him again. All persons are forewarned harboring, employing, or carrying said negro out of this state. LEONARD P. HARVEY. WILLIAM HARVEY. Dec. 4-4y.
PUBLIC SALE. PURSUANT to an order of the Orphans Court of Prince George's county will be offered for sale, on Monday the 8th of January next, if fair, if not, the first fair day thereafter, at the late Dwelling of Mary Beck Ducket , deceased, (within 7 miles of Upper Marlboro, and near Mr. Dennis Magruder) the PERSONAL PROPERTY of said deceased, consisting of Negroes, Beds, Furniture, Cattle, etc. etc. A credit of nine months will be given, the purchasers giving bond with approved security. The sale to commence at 9 o'clock, A. M. and to continue from day to day until the whole Personal Estate ordered to be sold, shall be disposed of. JACOB DUCKET, Exrs. U. BRUCE. It is desired that all claims against the above Estate, may be presented to the Executors by the day of sale. Prince George's county, Dec. 14-10t
TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC VENDUE, To the highest bidder, On Monday the 19th day of February next, about noon of that day, on the premises, the following Real Property in the city of Washington: viz. TWO LOTS OF GROUND, Numbered and distinguished on the ground plan of the City by numbers 16 and 17, in squares numbered 161, together with the Buildings and Improvements on the same. The above mentioned sale will take place by virtue of a certain Indenture or Deed of trust, dated the 16th day of January in the year of our Lord 1905, and, the same day, recorded among the Land Records of Washington county in the district of Columbia, between one Samuel Wilson, of the one part, and the undersigned James Davidson, jun. of the other part, in order to secure John P. Van Ness, of a certain debt of 75 dollars 77 cents, and interest, in the said Recd. mentioned to be due from said Wilson to said Van Ness. JAMES DAVIDSON, Trustee. No. 17-1m
NOTICE. An Annual meeting of the Stockholders in the Washington and Alexandria Turnpike Company will be held at the City Tavern, in the town of Alexandria on the first Monday in January next. By order of the Directors. G. DENEALE, President. Dec. 13-4d
FOR RENT, The Three Story BRICK HOUSE Near the Navy Yard, lately occupied as a Tavern by Mr. Hugh Drummond. It is situated at the intersection of Virginia Avenue, South R Street and Seventh Street East, and is not above eighty yards distant from the Navy Yard Market. Several improvements and additions will be made by the Subscribers to the house for any tenant who might wish to occupy it as a Tavern on a large scale. For terms apply to NOTLEY MADDOX, or JOHN LAW. November 22-
REILLY'S STORE, On Pennsylvania Avenue, IS now supplied with a fresh assortment of LIQUORS & GROCERIES, viz. Madeira, Sherry, Lisbon, Malaga and Teneriffe Wines, French Brandy, Holland Gin, Jamaica Spirit, Whiskey, Rum, and Whiskey Bounce, Molasses, Imperial, Hyson and Young Hyson Teas, Loaf and Lump Sugar, Muscovado do. Coffee, Chocolate, Mustard, Pepper, Allspice, Ground Ginger, Nutmegs, Cloves, Salt and Saltpetre, Spermaceti and Salled Oil, Mould, Dpt & Spermaceti Candles, Shaving and Brown Soap first quality, Chewing Tobacco, Spanish and Country Segars, Men and Women's coarse and fine Shoes, Youth's and Children's do. best quality Goshen Cheese, Broom, Muscadel and Keg Raisins, Sweet Oranges, Lemons and fresh Cranberries, a few barrels of Apples, Salmon in barrels and kegs, Codfish, Shad and Herrings, India Butter, Irish Potatoes, and as usual best quality Superfine Flour, carefully selected at Alexandria for family use, Jamieson's water crackers—Also corn, oats, chopt eye, shorts, bran, cut straw. Dec. 13, 1909-9t.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, THAT an election for twelve Directors for the Commercial Company of Washington for the year 1910, will be held at Stolle's Hotel on Monday the first day of January next, agreeably to the articles of association. JOS FOREST, President. December 25-3t
FOR SALE, A FRAMED HOUSE on the Virginia avenue, between 7th and 8th streets east near the Navy Yard. The purchaser at the former sale having failed to comply with the terms of sale. The House is 16 feet front and 27 deep, completely finished, with an alley in front and running back to street, the situation is fine, and pleasantly situated for a private family or a store. For terms apply to WILLIAM STETSON, Facing the East Market. N. B. If not sold by private sale, it will be sold at Public Auction on the premises on the 2d day of January, at half past 10 o'clock, A. M. QUEEN, Auct.
FOR SALE ON Monday the first day of January next, at the Plantation of the late Robert Peter in the SUGAR LANDS, within one mile of the Seneca Mills, about FIFTY VALUABLE SLAVES: Consisting of Men, Women, Boys & Girls; Horses, Cattle, Sheep and Hogs; Plantation Utensils, and a quantity of Indian Corn. The Sale will commence at 11 o'clock, A. M. and continue till all are sold—Terms of Sale six months credit, the purchasers giving bond with such security as will be approved of, bonds bearing interest from day of Sale. THOMAS PETER, Executor. Dec. 11-4ds.
RICHARD BECK Has just received for the latest arrivals, a large and handsome assortment of SEASONABLE GOODS, Among which are— Superfine cloths and cashmers, Second do. do. do. Coatings, Kersey Moloskins, Cords and Velveteens, Moloskin & Swansdown Waistcoating, Silk Florentines, Hose and Stripe Blankets, Plains and Kerseys, Double Milled Devonshire Kersey, Flannels, Stockings and Baizes, Carpeting and Hearth Rugs, Apron Checks, Cotton Stripes, Brown Hollands, Fashionable Buttons, Bed Tickings, India Mantuas, India Linestrings, Bombazets and Wildbores, Ginghams, Fancy Shawls and Muslins, Damask and large Silk Shawls, Laces and Ribbons, Worsted, Cotton and Silk Hosiery, Silk Velveteens, Puntiline Dimity, Chintzes and Cambrics, Pellice Velveteens, Chambrays, Madras Handkerchiefs, Bandanna do. 3 Trunks Calicoes, 1 Do. Furnitures, 1 Do. Cambric Muslins, 1 Do. Shirting Cottons, &c. &c. 4 Boxes German Linens, 6 Boxes India Muslins, 1 Case Irish Linens. All of which being well selected and on the best terms, enables him to sell them at wholesale or retail, at the most reduced prices for cash, or approved notes. He flatters himself that from his regular mode of dealing, that all those who favor him with a call will meet with such bargains as will please—and will on his part leave nothing undone to render general satisfaction. December 15-3w&4t.
GRAND LOTTERY. THREE PRIZES of 25,000 DOLLARS EACH. State of New York, UNION COLLEGE LOTTERY, No. 1. MANAGERS. William W. Gilbert, Benjamin Davis, George W. Bennett, Isaac Demmon, and Stephen Duane. J. DODD and LAZARUS, (late N. Judah) No. 64, Maiden Lane, New York; having purchased one-half of the tickets in the present Lottery, offer the same for sale, at their Lucky Lottery Office (where the highest Prize of $30,000 in the last Lottery, and most of the capital Prizes in former Lotteries were sold) in Whole, Half, and Quarter Tickets, for which most of the Bank Notes of other states, Prize Tickets in former Lotteries, and approved promissory notes will be taken in payment. Distant adventurers, by enclosing cash (post paid) shall receive immediate attention, and the earliest advice given of their success. Owing to the great demand for Tickets in this Lottery (being one of the best Schemes we ever had, as one Ticket may draw $140,000) they will soon advance from the present price of EIGHT DOLLARS. SCHEME.
3 Prizes of $25,000 is $75,000 1 — 10,000 — 10,000 1 — 5,000 — 5,000 4 — 250 tickets each, 7,000 2 — 2,000 — 4,000 5 — 1,000 — 5,000 25 — 500 — 12,500 30 — 200 — 6,000 50 — 100 — 5,000 100 — 50 — 5,000 200 — 20 — 4,000 10,500 — 10 — 105,000 10,924 Prizes, $245,000 24,076 Blanks, 35,000 Tickets at 7 dollars, is 245,000 Part of the Capital Prizes will be determined as follows:
1st drawn No. 10th day, blank or prize $1000 (Excepting the reserved tickets) 250 tickets, from No. 1 to No. 250 inclusive. (Excepting the reserved) 1st do. 15th 250 tickets, from No. 251 to No. 500 inclusive. (Excepting the reserved) 1st do. 20th 250 tickets, from No. 501 to No. 750 inclusive. (Excepting the reserved) 1st do. 25th 250 tickets, from No. 751 to No. 1000 inclusive. (Excepting the reserved) 1st do. 30th 250 tickets, from No. 1001 to No. 1250 inclusive. (Excepting the reserved) 1st do. 35th — — — $25,000 1st do. 40th — — — 1,000 1st do. 45th — — — 25,000
The first 4,000 blanks will be entitled to Ten Dollars each. Less than Two and a 1/4 Blanks to a Prize. Subject to a deduction of 15 per cent.—Prizes payable thirty days after the conclusion of the drawing. The drawing will commence in the city of New York, on the Third Tuesday in April next, and will continue to draw 600 Tickets each day (excepting the last day, when there will remain 600 Tickets to be drawn) until finished. Tickets purchased at this office, examined gratis—A correct Check Book, kept for the examination of tickets, and the highest price in cash, given for prizes as soon as drawn. New York, December 4-2m
THE NEW FAST-SAILING SCHOONER AGNES, Barthon 125 tons, now laying at the Navy Yard; will be ready in three or four days to receive a cargo. Apply to the master on board. Washington City, Dec. 23, 1909. DRUGS A fresh supply just received from New York, at H. CATLETT'S DRUG STORE, F Street Also, Paints, Oils, &c. October 13-4t
LEWIS DENNIS, Has for Sale at his Store near the New Church, a general assortment of GRAIN, &c. Gum-powder, Imperial, 7 Tens of the Young Hyson and Hyson Skin, 5 latest imp't Mace, Nutmegs, Cloves, Cassia, Allspice, Black Pepper, &c. London Mustard by the pound or bottle, Best Boston Chocolate, Welsh's make, No. 1 Common do. Good Green Coffee per bag or retail, Muscatel and Bloom Raisins in boxes, Fresh Keg do. Figs and Currants, Spermaceti Candles, Mould and Dpt Tallow do. Winter Strained Spermaceti Oil, Pickled Salmon in kegs and barrels, Shad, Herrings, Neats Tongues in half bbls. Best picked Flour for family use, Corn, Corn-Meal, Bran, Rice, Barley, Butter, Cheese, Madeira, Lisbon and Port Wines; French Brandy, Old Jamaica Spirits, Do. Holland Gin, Peach Brandy, New-England Rum, Whiskey, Sugar House Molasses, West-India do. Loaf and Brown Sugars, Lemmons, Jamieson's Crackers, A large quantity of Good Cider Vinegar. December 20-1w.
MRS. WALKER acquaints the Ladies of the city of Washington and its vicinity, that on Monday morning the 11th inst. in the Front Room of Mr. Peltz's house, near the Centre Market, Pennsylvania avenue, he opened and offers for SALE on reasonable terms, a FRESH and ELEGANT ASSORTMENT of Fashionable Silk Velvets, Satin, Silk and split-straw Bonnets, and straw Hats, dress Cops & Turbans, artificial Flowers, and Feathers. Pellices, Great Coats and Dresses of every description made up at the shortest notice and in the most fashionable manner. Should Mrs. WALKER receive that encouragement which she hopes the moderation of her terms, her punctuality, and attention to please will entitle her to, from the known liberality of the Ladies of Washington, she will become a permanent resident of the City. She also offers for Sale an elegant assortment of Chairs and Settees , a sample of which will be exhibited. December 13-4t
GEORGE BOLD, INFORMS his friends and acquaintances in Georgetown and the city of Washington that he has opened STORE at the House formerly occupied by Mr. JOHN PETER, where he solicits a portion of their custom. He has within a few days received a handsome supply of GOODS from Baltimore, which together with the Stock had of Mr. Peter renders his Assortment very complete. Georgetown, December 18-3w
ROSE & GETTY Have just received from New-York and Philadelphia, the following GROCERIES & LIQUORS, viz. 12 Bhd. Prime Jamaica Sugars. 8 do. Second Quality. 6 do. Molasses. 4 do. Jamaica Spirits. 300 Baskets Salt. 60 Boxes Mould and Dipped Candles. A few pipes Holland and New-York Anchoi Gin. Cognac Brandy, Mace, Pepper, Cloves, &c. &c. IN STORE— Gun Powder Tea in canisters of 2 pounds each. Imperial, Hyson, Young Hyson, Hyson Skin, & Souchong. 3000 pounds prime Green Coffee. 3 Pines genuine old Madeira Wine. 5 do. Sicily Madeira. 4 do. Lisbon Wine. Port Wine in pipes, qr. casks and bottles. Claret in Boxes. Finishes of all kinds. Powder and Shot. Cordials, &c. together with a large variety of articles in their line, which renders their assortment complete. Also, just received on commission, a small invoice of handsome looking glasses. And Irons. Brass mounted Fenders, Shovels and Tongs. Tea Trays, washers, coal hods, &c. &c. All of which will be sold cheap, on early application to them at their store, corner of Washington and Bridge Street, opposite the Union Tavern, George Town. November 18-4t
STATE OF MARYLAND—IN ORPHANS COURT, November 27th, 1909. Frederick Kemp, John Kemp, Philip Kemp, Sarah Kemp, George Kemp, Adam Mayne and Catharine his wife, against Mary, Elizabeth, Michael, Catharine, George, Nicholas, Susannah, Margaret Whitmore, children and heirs of Michael Whitmore. THE object of this bill is to obtain a decree for conveyance to the complainant of two Tracts of Land situate in Frederick county. The bill states that on the twentieth day of January 1798 the said Michael Whitmore father of the defendants sold to a certain Henry Kemp, father of the complainants, two Tracts of Land situate in Frederick county, the one called "The Resurvey on Rocky Hill," the other called "Puzzlesome Corrected," and on same day executed his bond for conveyance of the same, that the whole of the purchase money has been paid but no conveyance has been made. The bill further states that the said Henry Kemp died, leaving the complainants his heirs at law, and that the said Michael Whitmore is also dead, leaving the defendants his heirs at law and that all the defendants reside in Loudoun county, commonwealth of Virginia. It is thereupon on motion of the complainants adjudged and ordered that a copy of this order be inserted in the National Intelligencer at least once in each of three successive weeks before the first day of January eighteen hundred and ten to the end that the said defendants may have notice of this application and the object of it and to appear in this court on or before the first day of May 1910, to show cause, if any they have, wherefore a decree should not pass as prayed. Nichs. BREWER, Keg. Cur. Com. December 4-4w
TO RENT To the Highest Bidder, ON Saturday the 30th inst. at Rande's Hotel, at 12 o'clock, for the next year—the TWO WHELIVES on Tyber Creek belonging to the corporation of the City of Washington. Further information may be obtained by inquiring at the office of the National Intelligencer. HENRY WHETCROFT. Dec. 17-4t
SAMUEL STEINLE, Pennsylvania Avenue, Near the Centre Market. begs leave to refer to his last advertisement of dry goods, and to inform his friends and the public at large that he has added to them a few days ago another extensive stock, which, completing his stock of all goods, will enable him to accommodate every kind call with which he might be favored. He has also received from Philadelphia per Schooner Eleanor, Capt. Wm. Howard, 10 Hds. New-Orleans Sugar 13 Bbls. do. do. 2 Pipes 4th proof French Brandy 1 Hhd. Jamaica Spirits, 4th proof 2 Chests first quality Young Hyson Tea 2 Hyson Skin do. 1 Imperial do. 15 Boxes Tin Plates 1 Bbl. Corks 4 Gross empty bottles 200 pounds of Black Pepper 300 Raisins 500 Cheese 5 Bbls. Spermaceti Oil 4 Boxes of Copperas and Alum 6 Kgs. Mustard 3 Quarter casks first quality Lisbon Wine 2 do. do. Malaga do. do. 1 Bbl. Superfine Barley Currants, Mace, Almonds Saltpetre and Mask Oil 1 Box Pig Blue, best quality 1 Quarter Cask Sherry Wine 150 lbs. Allspice, and 30 Dozen clarified Sweet Cyder in bottles. —ALSO— A most extensive assortment of hollow glass, consisting of flowered and gilt Decanters, cut and flowered ditto, quart, pint and half pint tumblers, wine glasses, with a number of other articles. Those of his friends who wish to buy by the wholesale as well as those buying by retail, may rest assured that he will endeavor to deserve their respective satisfactions, by selling them at pleasing terms and very low December 8-4t.
PROPOSALS For Carrying the Mails of the United States on the following routes will be received at the General Post Office until the first day of February, 1910. 1. From Petersburg by Harris's, Percival's, Drummondsburg, Warrenton and Louisa to Raleigh three times a week Leave Petersburg every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 1 P. M. and arrived at Raleigh on Wednesday Friday and Monday by 7 A. M. in 42 hours. Leave Raleigh every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 5 P. M. and arrive at Petersburg the next Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday by 11 A. M. in 42 hours. 2. From Raleigh by Ayersboro' to Fayetteville three times a week. Leave Raleigh every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8 A. M. and arrive at Fayetteville by 10 P. M. Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 A. M. and arrive at Raleigh by 4 P. M. 3. From Fayetteville by Lumberton and Barfield Mills to Porters Ferry on Pee Dee three times. Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 A. M. and arrive at Porters Ferry by 10 P. M. in 20 hours. Leave Porters Ferry every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 2 A. M. and arrive at Fayetteville by 10 P. M. in 20 hours. 4. From Porters Ferry by Gasque, Georgetown and Tidwin to Charleston three times a week. Leave Porters Ferry every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Tidwin by 8 P. M. Leave Tidwin every Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday at 3 A. M. and arrive at Charleston by 10 A. M. Leave Charleston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Tidwin by 8 P. M. and arrive at Porters Ferry on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 6 P. M. 5. From Athens by Coweta, Tuckebatly, Tensaw and Fort Stoddert to Pascagoula River once a week. Leave Athens every Saturday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Pascagoula River the next Saturday by 10 A. M. Leave Pascagoula every Saturday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Athens the next Saturday by 10 A. M. 6. From Pascagoula River to Mr. Spell's at the mouth of Casten Creek on Lake Pontchartrain. Leave Pascagoula River every Saturday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Mr. Spell's on Monday by 8 P. M. Leave Mr. Spell's every Thursday at 5 A. M. and arrive at Pascagoula on Saturday by 10 A. M. 7. From Mr. Spell's on Lake Pontchartrain to New Orleans once a week. Leave Mr. Spell's on Lake Pontchartrain on Tuesday at 3 A. M. and arrive at New Orleans by 3 P. M. Leave New Orleans on Wednesday by 10 A. M. and arrive at Mr. Spell's by 10 P. M. Proposals for this route will be received by the Postmaster at New Orleans. NOTE. The contracts are to commence on the 1st day of April next, and are to continue in force for one year, and the customary penalties for failures and delays will be stipulated in the contract and executed. GIBSON GRANGER, Post-Master-General. GENERAL POST OFFICE, December 9, 1909. Dec. 13-4t.
THIS DAY IS PUBLISHED BY J. MILLIGAN, GEORGETOWN. LANDS IN THE STATES OF OHIO AND KENTUCKY FOR SALE. BY Virtue of the Last Will and Testament of Robert Means, deceased, the subscriber offers for sale, all the Lands of the testator in the states of Ohio & Kentucky. As there is a large quantity of these Lands, and the quality in general good, they are well worth the attention of all persons desirous of purchasing Lands in those parts of the country. The tracts are of various sizes, and consequently calculated to suit purchasers of all descriptions. Further information respecting the said Lands may be obtained from Mr. Walter Dun, residing in, or near the town of Chillicothe in the State of Ohio. DANIEL CALL, Executor of the last Will & Testament of Robert Means, dec'd. Richmond, July 19-4t
INSTRUCTION. A YOUNG MAN , with good testimonials of his moral and literary character, is desirous of engaging as a private instructor, in some gentleman's family. He will teach any of the following branches: viz. English Grammar, Arithmetic and the higher branches of Mathematics, Geometry, Astronomy, the Latin and Greek languages, &c. &c. Further information may be obtained by inquiring at the office of the National Intelligencer. Dec. 17-4t
PAPER HANGINGS. S. A. MCELHENNY, Has just received at his NEW STORE, High Street, George Town, Two doors above J. Williams's Book Store. An elegant assortment of the most fashionable Paper Hangings from the manufactory of Thomas and Callender. He is just opening an assortment of SEASONABLE DRY GOODS Together with a neat and well selected supply of CUTLERY JAPANED WARE, &c. N. B. S. F. having employed a paper hanger, will engage to paper rooms with neatness and dispatch. Georgetown December 6-5y.
BY HIS EXCELLENCY EDWARD LLOYD, ESQUIRE, GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND. A PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS it has been officially represented to me, that Negro PERRY , otherwise called Percy , the proper slave of Elizabeth Becket , and Negro JODY , otherwise called John Armstrong , a free negro, who has lately been sentenced by the Judges of Queen Anne's county Court to suffer death for murder, and Negro STEPHEN , the proper slave of Joseph Sadler , and who has lately been sentenced by the Judges of Queen Anne's county Jail, and whereas it is the duty of the Executive, in the execution of the laws, to endeavor to bring all malefactors to justice, I have therefore thought proper to issue this my Proclamation, and do by and with the advice and consent of the Council, offer a reward of THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS to any person or persons who shall apprehend and bring to justice the said negroes Perry, John and Stephen , or one hundred dollars for either of them. Given under my hand, and the seal of the state of Maryland, this twenty-fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the thirty fourth. EDWARD LLOYD. By his Excellency's command, NINTAN PINKNEY, Clerk of the Council.
The following is a description of the above mentioned Criminals, transmitted to his Excellency the Governor by the sheriff of Queen Anne's county:
Negro Perry , otherwise called Percy , the proper slave of Elizabeth Becket , is about twenty-three or four years old, very dark complexion for a mulatto, about five feet ten inches high, very well made but a little round shouldered, has a scar over one of his eyes, (not certain which) occasioned by the kick of a horse, a thin and very back beard, with long whiskers that extend to the end of his chin, also a very bushy head. He took with him the following clothing, a coarse muslin shirt, filled kersey trousers, and coat of a light drab color, two waistcoats, one of black cloth and the other of yellow striped Marcellus, a light drab great coat, with a pair of double capes, about half worn, a fine pair of shoes, very long quartered and sharp toes, and farrier hat. It is said that he has a number of other clo's he is a good quality—he also has a silver watch, the case very much battered and bruised, has no christal in it; a black ribbon chain and brass key—it is also said that he has two other watches, one of them silver and the other golden pinch back, which cannot be particularly described.
Negro John , otherwise called John Armstrong , free negro, is supposed to be upwards of thirty years of age, a very bright mulatto, thin visage, very high cheek bone, large black beard, small thin whiskers, and very large white eye, has a very stern look, large mouth, his lips not very thick; he is about five feet eight or nine inches high, has a scar on his face, one of his arms very badly burnt from being held. Had on the following clothes, brown linen shirt and trousers, old short blue coat, light cloth waistcoat, old shoes, a worn hat better than half worn.
Negro Stephen , the proper slave of Joseph Sadler , is about thirty years old, five feet nine or ten inches high, of a yellow complexion, very high forehead, flat nose, stout and well built, rather round shouldered, very full and bluff face, large black whiskers, rather a down look, and is apt to smile when spoken to. Had on a tow linen shirt, white kersey trousers and round robin jacket, a pair of coarse round toed shoes, double soled almost new, a wool hat about half worn. ORDERED, That the foregoing Proclamation be published twice in each week, for the space of four weeks, in the American and Federal Gazette , at Baltimore, the Maryland Gazette and Maryland Republican at Annapolis, the National Intelligencer , the Boston Star , Mr. Greville's paper at Hagerstown, and in Mr. Burgis's paper at Fredericktown. By order, NINTAN PINKNEY, Clerk of the Council. December 4-4w
NOTICE. A Meeting of the Washington Bridge Company, will be held at Long's Tavern on the first Monday of January next, at 11 o'clock, A. M. according to law, for the purpose of choosing Five Directors, a Clerk and a Treasurer for the ensuing year. By order of the President and Directors. S. ELLIOT, Jr. Clk. December 22-4t
Prince George's county court, September term, 1909.
ON the application by petition in writing of ISAAC SWAIN of Prince George's county, to this court, for the benefit of the act of Assembly passed at November session eighteen hundred and five, entitled "An act for the benefit of sundry insolvent debtors," and the several supplements thereto, a schedule of his property and list of his creditors on oath, as far as he can ascertain them, being annexed to his said petition, and the court being satisfied by competent testimony that the said petitioner is a citizen of the state of Maryland, & that he has presented therein the two last years preceding his application, and being also satisfied that he and Isaac Swain is now in actual confinement for debt, and the said petitioner having entered into bond with security for his appearance in this court on the first Monday in April next, then and there to answer such allegations as may be exhibited against him by his creditors. It is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the said Isaac Swain be discharged from imprisonment, and he the said Isaac Swain in April next, is appointed for the said petitioner to deliver up his property and to have a trustee appointed for the benefit of his creditors. And it is ordered that the said Isaac Swain be allowed a copy of the foregoing to be published once a week for three months successively in the National Intelligencer before the said first Monday in April next, give notice to his creditors to be and appear before this court on the said day to recommend a trustee for their benefit. Test JOHN READ MAGRUDER, Jr. Clerk. G. C. C. December 22-3w