The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-01-11 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1130.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JANUARY 11.
SUBSCRIBERS in Arrears are requested to forward without delay their respective dues. As this paper almost entirely depends for support on the regular payment of the subscriptions, this request must be complied with, otherwise the Editor will be constrained, however reluctantly, to discontinue the paper, notwithstanding the deeply interesting nature of the crisis.
Mr. Elliot, in his speech on the subject of gun-boats, inserted in the National Intelligencer of December 30th, quotes from the President's message of February 10, 1807, the following passage: "In the remarkable action between the Russian flotilla of gun-boats and Gallies, and a Turkish fleet of ships of the line and frigates in the Liman Sea, in 1788, the latter, commanded by their most celebrated admiral, were completely defeated, and several of their ships of the line destroyed." He adds "that he has not only consulted the professed annals of the times, but has obtained some information from a writer who appears to have been personally acquainted with the scene of action;" and then he gives such an account of the action as may suit the scope of his argument but not naming either "the professed annals" or "the writer who seems to have been personally acquainted with the scene of action," so as to enable his hearers to question his account; it stands on his own personal authority only. Mr. Elliot's situation probably had not given him an opportunity of consulting the new Annual Register of 1789, which is certainly among "the professed annals of the times" and the most respectable of them. The following account of the two actions in the Liman of the 19th & 28th of June, 1788, is copied verbatim from that work, pa. 70.
"A fleet of an inferior sort was industriously created in the Euxine. It does not seem to have consisted of more than four ships of the line, three of which had been launched in the preceding summer at Cherson, together with some frigates and a considerable number of galleys; and these, being distributed into two squadrons, were stationed in part at Kinburn, under the Prince of Nassau Siegen, and in part at Sebastopolis in the Crimea under admiral count Wainowitz. In the former of these squadrons Paul Jones, the celebrated free boater, served in the quality of rear admiral.
"The naval armament of the Turks was an object of principal attention with the court of Constantinople. It was intended to be commanded by Hassan Ali, who had made so distinguished a figure in Egypt, and whose military reputation greatly surpassed that of the rest of his countrymen. It was destined for the conquest of the Crimea, the favorite object which had excited the Turks to the late declaration of war. When the Captain Pacha sailed from the road of Constantinople on the 20th of May, his fleet consisted of sixteen ships of the line and nine frigates, besides many smaller vessels; and it was altogether impossible that the navy of Cronstadt could arrive time enough to counteract his operations. His success however did not correspond with the expectations he excited; and the Prince of Nassau displayed not merely the superiority of refinement and science over barbarism, but also threw contempt upon that inequality of force, which it has lately been the fashion to consider as decisive in naval engagements."
"Hassan Ali appeared at the mouth of the Dnieper on the beginning of the following month; his adversary found himself totally unable to encounter the vast superiority of the Turkish force, and had therefore judiciously stationed his little fleet, in the bay of Kinburn commonly called the Liman, in shallow water where they could not safely be approached by ships of barthen. The Turkish admiral found it impracticable to bear down upon him with his whole force, and at the same time conceived he had sufficient reason for confidence in his smaller vessels, which amounted to fifty seven, while those of the enemy did not exceed twenty seven sail. He therefore sent in this force
to the attack on the 19th of June; but the Prince of Nassau, aware of his design, stationed his vessels in such a manner as to prevent an attack in line, and by his exertions repulsed the Turkish assailants. Two of their vessels were blown up, one sunk, and the rest driven back in confusion till they got under protection of their ships of the line.
"Hassan was little accustomed to brook a defeat, and he resolved to repair in person the miscarriage of those who acted under him. Forgetting the circumstance, which appears to have influenced his conduct in a former instance, and hurried by a blind impetuosity, he entered the Liman with his principal fleet, regardless of the shallowness of the navigation. Here, as might have been expected, his vessel immediately struck; but it was got off before the Russians could advance to the attack. The wind was unfavorable, and therefore the Prince of Nassau put off the engagement to the next day which was the 28th. In the mean time he had been reinforced with twenty two vessels of 1 gun each, that were built at Kremenschuck; in the beginning of the conflict a Turkish sixty-four struck upon the sand and was assailed on all sides by the Muscovites. The contest lasted several hours, but the Turk was at length obliged to yield, and his crew was saved though the ship was blown up. A similar fate attended the admiral ship of the captain Pacha. The Turks were prevented by the batteries of Kinburn from escaping out of the Liman during the night. The next morning more of the Ottoman ships of the line were found stranded; and the Prince of Nassau having come up with his flotilla, a battle ensued, which lasted four hours and a half. In the result five other of the Turkish vessels were destroyed, as well ships of the line, as frigates, and two taken. The number of prisoners were near seven hundred. Two thousand Turks are computed to have perished in the flames. Through the whole action they displayed a firmness and perseverance altogether unconquerable, and were only subdued by the ruinous situation in which they had placed themselves."
In the Leyden Gazettes of August 1, 22 and 28, 1788, the reader will find official and more detailed accounts of these two actions too long to be copied here. From these authorities taken together it appears that the Turkish force was 16 ships of the line, 9 frigates, and many smaller vessels. The Russian force, 4 ships of the line, some frigates and galleys (under which denomination they include gun-boats) making 27 in all. In the first action of June 19th, the small vessels on both sides were alone engaged, the Turks were defeated and having lost 4 of their number the residue retired under the protection of their ships of the line. That in the second action of the 28th, the Turkish admiral carried his large as well as small vessels into the Liman sea or lake. The Russians had in the mean time been reinforced by 22 gun-boats carrying an 18 pounder each. The result was by the annual register nine vessels, ships of the line and frigates taken, or destroyed, and by the Leyden account sixteen; the remainder of the Turkish fleet, the large as well as small vessels, retreating under shelter of the walls of Oczakow. It does not appear in either account that any part of the Russian force was ever engaged but the flotilla of small vessels, which were almost entirely galleys and gun-boats, and in the second and decisive action were arranged in two lines in the form of a crescent. The reader will now judge for himself whether the statement in the message of Feb. 10 is not a fair summary of these accounts, and whether it be true, as Mr. Elliot has said, that "it appears that no such battle as that described in the message of Feb. 10 ever happened."
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
Mr. Smith, In the testimony published in your paper taken on the trial of Aaron Burr at Richmond, there appeared a deposition of Commodore Shaw, stating that Daniel M. Bradford of New Orleans, told him that some person on board the gun-boats built by me, for the government, told him, Brad-
ford, that the gun-boats were to be given up to Burr, that I was one of Burr's partisans, and other matters, purporting that I was knowing to, or aiding in Burr's nefarious designs—all which were false and groundless. It was unpleasant to me to see my name made use of in this way, although I was satisfied that no one of my acquaintance imputed to me the least thought of being concerned in those villainous projects, I therefore wrote to Mr. Bradford, a letter of which the following is a copy:
Copy of a letter from M. Lyon to Jas. M. Bradford, dated Washington, Nov. 5, 1807.
Dear Sir, This day, for the first time, have I seen or heard any thing that seemed seriously to speak of a suspicion of my being concerned in, or having any knowledge of Aaron Burr's nefarious projects. I had hoped, that among all the charges and suspicions, my name would go clear, it has proved otherwise, and I wish to know (if it be possible) to whom I am beholden for the introduction of my name among the real or suspected conspirators.
I will thank you to read the inclosed copy of Commodore Shaw's deposition, and to answer me the following questions, viz.
 1st. Did you see my gun-boats, or any gun-boats at the mouth of Cumberland River?  2d. Did you see any men fitting out gun-boats there?  3d. Did you go on board a gun boat there?  4th. Did you go to them and fasten your craft to any gun boat there?  5th. Who did you converse with that belonged to the gun-boats? What was his name, or what was his station, occupation or appearance, who said that I was one of Burr's partisans and had given up the gun-boats to him.  6th. What kind and number of small arms did you see in or about the gun-boats, and what circumstances led you to suppose that a number of small arms were carried on board them gun-boats. 
Your bare declaration in answer to these questions would perfectly satisfy me, but to those who are less acquainted with you, the answers under the sanction of an oath may be more satisfactory.
I consider this volunteer deposition as an unprovoked attack on my reputation, and persuaded that you did not intend nor do not wish undeserved ill to any one, and that your candor will induce you to aid in wiping away any unfounded prejudices created under the sanction of your name, I expect an explicit answer to these questions, and am, respectfully yours, M. LYON.
Mr. JAMES M. BRADFORD, New-Orleans.
In order to have the questions in the foregoing letter understood, it is proper for me to remark, that when Mr. Bradford must have passed the gun-boats they were aground on a sand-bar near the middle of the Ohio, a quarter of a mile below the lower point of the Island, opposite to the mouth of Cumberland river, where the water ran so swift by them, that a person in any boat floating by could not have five minutes conversation with any one on board, and the water was so swift that it was difficult to lash to them, that when I left the gun-boats at that place to come to Congress, a few days before the water in the Ohio rose, and took them off the bar and they proceeded, there was but one rifle and two large pistols on board of them, nor was there more arms on board of them until they arrived at Orleans, that I have heard.
On Sunday evening last, I received by mail a letter from Mr. Bradford in which he disavows his having used my name in the manner which gave me unpleasant sensations, and of course puts an end to my enquiries for the author of the unfavorable reports. I herewith send you extracts of that letter so far as it respects my character. I wish you to give publicity to my letter and the answer, in order that any unfavorable impressions may be removed, which the publication of commodore Shaw's deposition on the minds of persons unacquainted with me may have made. I am, with due respect, &c. M. LYON. Washington, Jan. 6, 1808.
Extract of a letter from James M. Bradford, to Mathew Lyon, dated New-Orleans, Dec. 1st, 1807.
"Dear Sir, "You have doubtless read with as much surprize as I have astonishment the affidavit of Commodore Shaw read in the trials at Richmond. I have sat down to endeavor to set your mind at rest on that subject, and as you know me well, I cannot conceive it further necessary to convince you that I never was guilty of such odious falsehood as there imputed to me, than promptly and explicitly to deny it, but to my own reputation and that of Capt. Talbot and yourself, I owe something more than private communication. I have prepared, and shall this week publish, a statement of facts which will place the affidavit in its true light, and remove any false impressions that might be made thereby on the public mind."
"Must conclude by requesting you to suspend any unfavorable opinion of my veracity you might be inclined to form until you see my explanations."
With due respect, I am, Your obedient servant, JAMES M. BRADFORD. "COL. M. LYON."
CONGRESS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DEBATE On the Resolution for requesting the President to cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of General Wilkinson.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 5.
Mr. MILNOR felt great doubts as to the propriety of proceeding on the resolution itself, and still greater of referring it as was proposed, with power to send for persons and papers. If they were about to try general Wilkinson, if he was to be brought to the bar of the House, and his guilt or innocence was to be there determined, Mr. M. should be willing to appoint a committee to send for persons, papers, &c. to act as a grand jury and enquire whether there were a sufficient degree of guilt to warrant a trial. But as he believed the House had no right to call general Wilkinson before them, he had no idea of proceeding in this way to collect evidence when they had no authority to act upon it. It had been said that a court of enquiry had been called: Mr. M. had heard himself, and had reason to believe the information was correct, that an enquiry had been asked for and ordered. If so, was it proper that the House should go into the subject? Was it right, when a court of enquiry was called, when every evidence would be sought for on this and every other charge brought before the court, that the House should endeavor in an ex parte manner to ascertain the guilt or innocence of any person about to be tried by the proper tribunal? It was extremely improper, to go into any enquiry on the subject. If, when the gentleman from Virginia brought his resolution forward, he had laid the papers he had read on the table, he should have had no hesitation in voting that they should be transmitted to the executive, and should have voted for a motion to that effect, because he believed that when any information came before the House with respect to the conduct of any officer, it should be laid before the proper authority. But a positive declaration of the House that an enquiry ought to be held on the conduct of any officer would convey to the public mind and to the court a strong impression of his guilt; and this would be giving an undue influence in an enquiry.
Believing that it would be improper in the House to investigate the subject, or to influence an enquiry by virtually saying that they believed general Wilkinson to be guilty, he hoped the present motion would be agreed to, and afterwards that they would decide against the reference. He had no hesitation in saying it would be improper to constitute any committee or court of enquiry on this subject, and under this impression should vote.
Mr. GARDENIER was somewhat surprised at the opposition which the motion he had made had met with, and was also surprised that the propriety of pursuing the course which he had recommended, (to appoint a committee of investigation) had not struck gentlemen more forcibly than it had. He was therefore reduced to the necessity of stating the reasons which induced him to make the motion, and which now compelled him to persist in it. The charge brought against gen. Wilkinson was calculated not only to occupy the attention of the House, but of the whole American people. Whether they considered that he was an officer no less than commander in chief of the army of the U. S.—whether they considered that
department of government by which he had hitherto been protected and cherished, no less than the Executive—whether they considered that this charge was no less than against a general or commander in chief for bargaining and selling himself, his army, and his country to a foreign or a hostile power—whether they considered the time when this accusation was brought forward, a time when the destiny of the nation, its slavery on one hand and its liberty on the other, depended not on the capacity alone, but dreadful to say, on the fidelity of the commander in chief—when they considered to whom this charge was submitted, to the grand inquest of the nation, that body whose duty it was to watch with unceasing vigilance the safety of the commonwealth, to use the language of an ancient writer, ne quid Respublica detrimenti Capiat —in whatever view they considered it, its decision required assuredly all the wisdom, all the patriotism, and he would add, all the independence of this body.
The original resolution of the gentleman from Virginia had been met at its threshold by an objection, the more surprising as it proceeded from those who had hitherto affected an exclusive and almost hysterical jealousy of Executive power—to his mind an objection more to be execrated, as it struck at the very root of republican government: as it went to deprive those of the right of instituting an enquiry into the conduct of an officer, who possessed the right of impeaching the President himself who appointed that officer. The lesser power was included in the greater. If they had power over the master of Gen. Wilkinson, if they were master over the superior, they were master over the servant also. He could never reprobate in terms of sufficient abhorrence, the position assumed that this House was the only body which could not lay a request before the President. When he had seen the President of the United States benignly receiving addresses from the legislatures of different states (he could not say with smiles) requesting him to extend his paternal and affectionate care over the country for another constitutional period, from bodies who had no constitutional power to make this request, he could not believe that the President would shew less attention to a request from this body than he had shewn a disposition to do to requests from the legislatures of particular states.
On a question of this kind he could not condescend to reason. It was too plain, palpable almost to the sense, that this enquiry was within the limits of their constitutional power. There could be no question that the House possessed a right to lay a request before the President—a right which was possessed by the meanest individual in society. It only then remained for the House to determine whether they would act upon this subject, so important in every point of view—after a deaf ear had been turned to this accusation in the palace, it remained for them to say, whether they would suffer venality and corruption to run through this body unhurt. He hoped never to see that day when the House would so much disgrace itself as to refuse to do what became a duty. If documents submitted to the House by the gentleman from Virginia were authentic, if these documents spoke the truth, there could be no hesitation in saying that a continuance of Gen. Wilkinson at the head of the American army, was not only disgraceful to the nation, but inconsistent with its security. If it were true that the gentleman from Orleans territory had it in his power to give evidence still more convincing than any that could be found in the documents which had been submitted by the gentleman from Virginia, and Mr. G. had much reason to believe, and indeed had no doubt that the gentleman had it in his power, it would be proper to obtain that evidence; and if the course had been pursued as stated (and he did not question the fact) to institute a committee before the proceedings of the House had terminated on the subject, an enquiry to be carried on by persons possessing no such powers as that now proposed to be delegated to a committee, (to send for persons, papers, &c.) and if the gentleman from Orleans persisted in his word as he always did; this enquiry would appear, if not in-

tended, at least calculated to mislead. For, as he understood it, this committee, this board of officers, this trio of the President's, had not the power, if authorized to pursue the enquiry to the utmost extent that the nature of the case demanded, to enforce their process; they were a substitute for the reality, a mere make believe. It was therefore that he was not to be taken in by this; it was therefore that he was bound to do his duty to his country by persisting in an investigation; that at least if he could not satisfy the Executive, he might satisfy the American people; for when its nature was known the calamity would not be so great.
This disposition for enquiry seemed to be manifested on all sides of the House. They wished to ascertain with unerring certainty whether this charge was true or not. If the mode which they were now told (on what authority he did not know) was pursued by the government—if that mode would not reach the object which was now aimed at, why refuse to delegate this power to a committee? This measure of appointing a court of enquiry was not communicated to the House officially as it ought to be in order to stop their proceedings, nor in such a way that they could place confidence in it, not meaning at the same time any disrespect to the gentleman from Kentucky who had stated the circumstance. It was sufficient for Mr. G. that such a court was not competent; and here he pledged himself, as upon a rock from which he would not be removed, that it was not in the power, if it was in the disposition of the President, from his own authority to go on with an enquiry of this sort, except the House gave him the authority on which to support it. He did not know whether the President had the power to compel the attendance of witnesses, except in cases of military matters and military men. How then was the evidence of the gentleman from Orleans to be got at? How, but by the intervention of the great constitutional power of this House—the only way. If then those gentlemen were sincere who wished to give General Wilkinson an opportunity of showing his innocence, or those who doubted it, and wished to have an opportunity of giving evidence of his guilt, the mode which Mr. G. proposed was the only one: if not the only, assuredly the most proper way.
What was the accusation? Not for an overt act or crime—not for an offence committed in the face of day, or which was capable of open proof. The crime was secret, if committed at all. The very nature of the act, being done in secret, carefully avoiding public attention, acting with such precaution as not to permit his name to be written or spoken, required a particular mode of proceeding. There was no other mode which would give satisfaction to the people of this country than a candid, fair, impartial, and unprejudiced investigation. If General Wilkinson could walk unhurt through the flames of such an ordeal, he deserved the confidence of the people: if not, it became the duty of the house to enquire further.
It had been said by some that the papers read by the gentleman from Virginia should be sent to the executive; but nothing had been said about the gentleman from Orleans. Mr. G. would ask the gentleman from Tennessee why would he send these papers to the Executive? As what? He should suppose as evidence which the President was to communicate to the board of enquiry which had been instituted. If the gentleman considered it proper that any evidence should be sent, why not send the whole of the evidence which it was in the power of this House to acquire? If they sent any, why not send all? And if they would send all, why not take measures without which they could not procure it? It did strike Mr. G. that the thing admitted of no other course; that if they sent any they should send the whole. He would in this case particularly, if there were the most distant prospect of being able to accomplish the object sought for, place before the President such evidence as could not be resisted.
The gentleman from Tennessee was pleased to remark that the House had no more business with this enquiry than the President of the United States had to recommend any act which exclusively pertained to the House of Representatives of the U. States. He did not know what he might call the peculiar province of the President; but he knew that it was the peculiar province of the House of Representatives to originate impeachments, and yet he had seen in the message from the President to the House an implied recommendation to them on that subject. Mr. G. did not object to this; he thought the different
branches of government did well to sustain each other in all events. The President, said he, has given us an evidence that he thinks himself competent to advise us; and I really wish to be equally civil, and return him the compliment; to shew him that we can advise him, and give him the means of acting efficiently. It was in this way that the House would effectually perform its duty. He wanted no half measures; they had appropriated money for half-fortification this session; he wanted no half-way enquiry into the conduct of the commander in chief, for this half-way business would not answer.
The power of the House to do this was unquestioned; it had exercised that power in a variety of cases. The only question was, whether this was one of those cases in which the House should exercise that power? Was this the only mode in which they could convict Gen. Wilkinson if he was guilty, or satisfy the community of his innocence if he were not guilty? If this were the case, he thought friends and enemies should take this plain course; this was the object and the only object they ought to pursue. Mr. G. was not influenced by any personal dislike to Gen. W. for he had no acquaintance with or knowledge of him. Gen. W. had never injured him or any of his connections or friends, and he felt himself therefore free to decide; but he should ill discharge his duty to his country if on an occasion like the present he did not advocate the most effectual means for an enquiry. He should express on all occasions what was his opinion, and he would say that the present case was a test of the impartiality of the House. If notwithstanding party attachments, and deference to the Executive, the House should exercise that impartiality which should of right attach to them, he should have hopes of the salvation of his country. It was here, within these walls that the fate of the country was to be decided; it was here that corruption was to be arrested and exposed, if not here, he was afraid no where.
He was more desirous of seeing this enquiry take the proper course, from events which had recently taken place, in which this officer had been charged with violating the constitution of the country. The bleeding charter of our rights, and the oppression of our citizens, had long ago called upon the House for interference. If the constitution was for no purpose, were paper works which a military officer could with impunity trample under foot, it was time the people should know it that they might submit. But when he found in the declaration of independence, that among the causes of our separation from the mother country were these: "He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power—He has given his assent "for transporting beyond the seas to be tried for pretended offences"—that these among others were assigned as reasons for destroying the political bonds of society, as sufficient reasons for throwing off our allegiance—when he had seen, not a great and powerful government committing these enormities, but a mere military commander committing them with impunity—when the spirit of the nation was so base as not to cry out with unceasing sensibility at these violations of its rights—when he saw this, he was disposed to think that the officer would not be too much injured by an enquiry into this particular charge, which was, to say the least of it, important. On consulting the constitution he found that the people of the United States were not sufficiently content with the original articles of the constitution, but other articles had been added, in which it was declared that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law—a right which one would think did not require the sanction of a constitution to secure it. This right which the people had so sedulously guarded as to include it in an additional article, had been violated wantonly and without occasion. He wanted no evidence of this; it had been done at noon day, before the whole American people. He must himself express his astonishment that, after conduct of this sort, the person who had dared to commit these acts had been suffered to exist as a military commander; and he conceived that he who had suffered him to do these things in a country of civil law, was scarcely less culpable than the offender. He expressed his surprise that at this day it was necessary to institute the enquiry now proposed. When was the cup of guilt to be full? When was the wounded constitution of the country to receive its balm? He would not have it in this case understood that he believed the Executive had gone through with the whole business; he believed it would have been content if the effect alone of certain measures had been produced,
without the means which were employed.
Would ever a case exist in which a military commander would not render himself independent if he could? Would a case exist in which he could not find a pretence? They had seen the Emperor of France go forward step by step, and had he ever been at a loss for plausible pretences? No; nor ever would be. A nation which submitted to the first violation was ruined forever. Let us, said he, once become familiar with the violation of our national honor, and we are familiar with it forever—if we ever suffered the constitution to be invaded more particularly by a military power. Those military gentlemen who acted in their proper sphere, protecting and fighting for their country, should have his zealous support as long as their conduct was proper. He wished they might gather laurels in profusion; he wished they might be well provided for; and at the present crisis he would go so far as to say, that better provision ought to be made for their support than they receive at present: but whenever they went out of the line of their duty, whenever they violated the constitution of the country which it was their duty to defend, they would become the foe of every honest man: he was persuaded that but few of our officers were entitled to this appellation.
Upon the whole he thought that every gentleman on the floor was satisfied that the nation demanded that an effectual enquiry should be instituted; that even they who apologised for the conduct of this officer could not rest satisfied unless an opportunity was given to enquire. As a member of the grand inquest of the nation, he could say that he had seen enough to induce him to enter his vote in favor of the propriety of effectually enquiring. The people were now arrived at that point where they could neither turn to the right or the left. If an enquiry were had, the commander in chief of the army of the U. States on one hand might have the confidence of the people; on the other, the army would be governed by a man of more fidelity and integrity.
Mr. Holland wished to be indulged with a very few remarks on this subject. It appeared to be completely admitted by gentlemen who had spoken on the subject, that this House had not the power to try the offence charged. But although this point was given up, they were asked to enable the Executive to try Gen. Wilkinson—to procure testimony for the President to enable him to convict that officer, and asked to send for persons and papers for that purpose. The gentleman last up had told them that this was the only way in which they could convict Gen. W. that he knew of no other way, and was solicitous at all events to convict him. Mr. H. said it was honest in him to state his designs so candidly. It appeared that the gentleman wished an enquiry into the conduct of Gen. W.—that he thought it was high time to make an enquiry, lest he should overwhelm the country and drive every thing before him, and the greatest reason for this and the greatest fault he found with his conduct, was in taking into custody Swartwout and Bollman, Col. Burr and others, and not paying due regard to the constituted authorities of the country. If the gentleman's feelings were so exceedingly excited by this, Mr. H. did not participate in them. Gen. Wilkinson had acknowledged that he had been and still was responsible to the civil authority. Let those gentlemen whose individual rights had been injured apply to courts of justice, to the civil authority, and if Gen. W. could not answer for his conduct, damages would be awarded against him. The law of the country was competent to punish every offence wherever the laws had been violated. Under this belief he thought it was not now necessary to take up this enquiry for his civil conduct. If he had acted improperly as a military officer, he was answerable to military courts or to the Executive. And was it necessary to take this measure to enable a military court to examine into the conduct of Gen. W. on this occasion? Why enquire into the business? Because the laws were not competent? Were there no laws which would operate on the case? It was not pretended to say that the testimony to be procured was to be a ground on which to fix a law. If it were, he should not object to it. Let us examine our laws, said he, and if they are not competent to punish offences such as that charged, let us amend them.
Gentlemen talked much of the strong evidence adduced to the House. Mr. H. had examined the evidence, and it was not of that kind entitled to credit, certainly not stronger evidence than that produced to the court of Richmond against the conspirators. And what had resulted from that tes-
timony? Those persons charged with conspiracy had been discharged from the court, who had paid no respect to the evidence, and set at liberty the persons accused. If what had been read could be called evidence, it was, to say the best of it, very vague. A paper had been produced (he could not say what it contained, for it was not in his possession) said to be a translation of a Spanish letter. Had the translation been sworn to? Had the person who certified it been sworn to? He believed not: if not, the evidence it contained, if any, was neither valid or legal. How did it come into the House? How was it brought here? They knew not how it was procured or how it was brought forward.
With respect to the evidence of Power, it was not entitled to credit. He had certified one way, and he had certified the other: it was Power versus Power; by one certificate he had done away another. The House were surely not prepared upon this testimony to enter into a measure of this kind—to ask the President of the U. S. if indeed it were in their power, to do it, to make an enquiry. It would not be said that this testimony was of any force. True it was that a clamor had been raised throughout the union on the subject; and there was a time when Mr. H. himself thought that officer and the whole army were corrupted—that the conspiracy had proceeded farther than it had: but, thank God! he had been convinced of his error. It was to be supposed that those concerned in the conspiracy would endeavor to prosecute Wilkinson, & that those connected would endeavor to throw an odium upon him. Be that as it might, the House should not enquire, except they possessed authority to do it. Certainly this case was not similar to that quoted of an enquiry into the conduct of Gen. St. Clair; for that was not grounded on any specific charge.
It certainly was a general principle, that where a power did not exist to consummate a trial, to prosecute it to a final end, the power of prosecution did not exist at all: it therefore followed that the power of enquiring into this subject did not exist in this House. Was it then proper that they should neglect former cases, to form a precedent which would not be correct. Each department of the government should exercise its own functions; and the moment the House commenced an enquiry of this kind they travelled out of their course; & shewed that they had not that confidence which they ought to have in that department of government competent to try the case. Why then proceed in this business? Certainly whatever the intention might be, it would have an improper effect on the trial of that officer. The House sending a resolution to the proper department requesting it to try a certain officer, operated as the opinion of the legislature on his guilt. Could it be possible that a person thus treated could have a fair trial? He should doubt the justice of a trial conducted by persons thus directed; the proper authority should remain unbiassed and unprejudiced by such an influence as the passage of this resolution would operate. He was in hopes that the honorable gentleman who brought forward this motion would have withdrawn it when he had cooled; and as the gentleman had stated that he had gained his object. [Mr. Randolph explained that his expression had been, that one object was gained.]—The gentleman then had obtained one object, probably the only object he intended—certainly the most valuable purpose he had in view.
Gentlemen who advocated this motion ought to shew to the House that they had power to proceed in this way; that the existing authority of this country was not competent to try this officer. But they had not shown it; and they had certainly shown a disposition to do it if they could. He considered such a measure as this calculated to injure the officer, and in whatever point he viewed it, as an improper measure. Had the gentleman from Virginia laid the evidence on the table, he would certainly have agreed to transmit these papers to the proper tribunal; which would have been sufficient notice of them, more perhaps than they deserved.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8.
The engrossed bill for continuing for a limited time (three years) the salaries of certain officers of government, was passed the 3d time 50 to 25.
The House took up for consideration the amendments by the Senate to the bill to extend the right of suffrage in the Mississippi territory.
One amendment to this bill requires an equitable freehold qualification for a voter. On this amendment some discussion took place; but it was agreed to. Messrs. Alston and Rhea opposed it on the ground that the
House should pass no law permitting the contraction of the principle of universal suffrage. Messrs. Poindexter, Holland, Sloan and Smilie urged an agreement to it, as without it the bill would not probably be passed by the other branch of the legislature. Mr. Bibb opposed the amendment, as he should oppose every amendment made to the bill, lest he might be thought to sanction it.
Mr. Troup said it was perfectly immaterial what qualifications were enacted, and he should not oppose this as the compact between the United States and Georgia was violated by legislating on this subject in any shape; they need not strain at gnats when they had swallowed the camel.
The amendments being agreed to, the bill only awaits the signature of the President to become a law.
A message was received from the President of the U. S. inclosing the annual report of the director of the Mint; which was referred to a select committee, composed of Messrs. W. Alston, Upham, Marion, J. Richards, and G. W. Campbell, with instruction to report thereon by bill or bills.
A message was also received from the President, inclosing an account of the expenditures from the contingent fund for 1807; by which it appears that of the sum of 18,012 dollars 50 cents which remained unexpended at the close of the year 1806, 3731 dollars 11 cents have been placed in the hands of the Attorney General of the U. S. to enable him to defray sundry expenses incident to the prosecution of Aaron Burr and his accomplices for treasons alleged to have been committed by them, and the unexpended balance of 9275 dollars 39 cents is now carried to the credit of the surplus fund. The message was read and ordered to lie on the table.
On motion of Mr. Rhea (T.) so much of the report of the Post-Master-General, as relates to the salaries of the clerks in his office, was referred to the committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. Basset moved that the House go into a committee of the whole on the standing rules and orders of the House.
On motion of Mr. Randolph this business was ordered to lie on the table.
On motion of Mr. Randolph that the House take up for consideration the resolution submitted by him relative to the conduct of Brigadier-General James Wilkinson.
Mr. Taylor said, before deciding on taking up this resolution now, he should be glad to know, and rose to ask for information, whether the gentleman from New-Orleans had complied or intended to comply with the request of the House yesterday expressed.
The Speaker said he had not. The House agreed to consider the resolution, 54 to 36.
Mr. Gardner said an order had yesterday passed the House requesting two members to lay papers and information before them on this subject. He would ask whether any information had been furnished by either of these gentlemen? If there had, he should wish it to be printed for consideration.
The Speaker said the gentleman from Virginia had laid papers on the table, but the delegate from Orleans had not made any communication.
Mr. Clarke laid on the table a letter in Spanish from the Baron de Carondelet to Manuel Gayoso with a translation of the following extract;
TRANSLATION OF AN Extract of a letter from the Baron de Carondelet, Governor of Louisiana, to Dn. Manuel Gayoso de Lemus, Governor of Natchez, dated New-Orleans, 27th April, 1796.
"Argote's letter cannot, in my opinion have foundation, since the Prince of Peace tells me that in consequence of the treaty, it is now useless to treat separately with Kentucky."
N. B. Argote was then Spanish Consul in Kentucky.
Mr. Chandler wished to know if these papers contained all the information which could be expected from the gentleman from N. Orleans in consequence of the resolution?
Mr. Randolph said the gentleman from Orleans did not appear to be in his seat at present; but Mr. R. presumed this was by no means all the information which was to be expected. It might be the only paper which the gentleman possessed on this subject; but if the gentleman's knowledge was so extensive as it was believed to be, the House would perceive that he could not have had time since the adjournment of yesterday to have reduced it to such a statement as might be necessary. Indeed the House met so early and sat so late, that if other gentlemen in the House had the same feelings with him, they must be utterly incapacitated for business the remaining part of the 24 hours. Mr. R. wished however to understand whether that was all the information in the gentleman's possession, and he had no doubt the gen-

leman would inform them.
Mr. Clarke said it was pretty well understood, that was not the whole information he possessed; but if he were to give it otherwise than on paper, what he said would be liable to criticism or misquotation. Mr. C. said it would be proper for him to know whether he could adduce evidence in support of the information he might give, for he might otherwise be called a calumniator. It could not be supposed that he had with him proofs in writing on this subject. When he left home he had not expected to be called upon for evidence. He could state where evidence might be had, and the persons who knew more than himself on the subject. If the House insisted, however, he would give what information he possessed.
A motion was made by Mr. Taylor, that the resolution at present under consideration lie on the table; but which was afterwards withdrawn and renewed by Mr. Milner.
A debate took place on this motion in which Messrs. Lloyd, Milner, and Gadenier supported it, and Messrs. Crowninshield, W. Alston, Rowan, Findley, and Smilie opposed it. [Debate hereafter.]
Mr. Clark now stated that he conceived that he could prepare his information by Monday.
The postponement was agreed to, 70 to 32.
Mr. Crowninshield moved to discharge the committee of the whole from the further consideration of the resolution which he had offered respecting telegraphs, and to refer the resolution to the select committee appointed on this subject. Agreed.
Mr. Holmes, from the committee of Claims, made a favorable report on the petition of Mary Barclay, which was referred to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Masters moved that the House take up the amendments this day received from the Senate, to the bill supplementary to the act laying an embargo.
Mr. Quincy moved that the consideration of this subject be postponed till Monday next. Negatived Ayes 20.
Mr. Quincy then moved a postponement till to-morrow. As he did insist that the people should know who were in the habit of hurrying through business without consideration, he called for the yeas and nays upon the motion.
Mr. Newton said that he too wished for the yeas and nays, that the people might know who were in the habit of delaying business. That gentleman had taken up at least as great a portion of time in the discussion of the bill as any gentleman in the House. He hoped the House would not be trifled with in this way.
The motion for postponement was advocated by Messrs. Quincy, Livermore, Upham, Barker, Dana, Lyon, and Ely, on the ground that no time had been allowed to consider the amendments; and opposed by Messrs. Taylor, Newton, Basset, and Masters, for the reason that it was necessary to pass on this bill with all dispatch to secure more firmly the provisions of the former law—and negatived by yeas and nays—58 to 39.
The amendments were then taken up and severally agreed to without a division.
This bill therefore only awaits the sanction of the President to become a law.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 9.
The Speaker laid before the House a report from the Post-Master-General favorable to the petition of Samuel Whiting. Referred to a select committee, with leave to report by bill.
Mr. Wilbour presented a petition from sundry citizens of Rhode-Island, praying for the erection of a lighthouse at point. Referred to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Mr. M. D. Williams, from the committee to whom the subject was referred, reported a bill making further compensation to the marshals of the districts of North-Carolina and New-Jersey. Read twice and referred to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Dana begged leave to state to the House a proposition which had for its object the encouragement and the security of the seamen of the United States; by this expression he meant all who belonged to the national family, whether by birth or regular adoption. The proposition which he meant to offer contemplated a measure of permanent policy, to which the United States might adhere in either alternative of peace or war. The adoption of the measure could not interfere with any stipulation which might be made in any treaty between the United States and any foreign power, or with any negotiation pending or expected; it did not propose to renounce any claim ever made by the government of the United States. It proposed no national degradation or acknowledgment of inferiority to any power whatever. Yet the
proposition was of such a nature that he apprehended it would, if adopted, essentially diminish the range of controversy as respected seamen; and might be carried to such an extent as to annihilate it altogether. When he said this, he spoke as to those seamen who did in fact belong to the United States. The proposition proposed a marked distinction between our own seamen and those who were aliens to our country and our laws, and gave a preference to our own over any other. It proposed that they should have better and more employment, that they should be known to a certainty and firmly protected. If he should be asked what this proposition was, it would be evident that it was a plain measure; it exhibited nothing of the magnificence of a learned and abstract disquisition; it was a proposition which addressed itself to the interest of the merchant and to the heart of the American seaman. That the House might understand how it was intended to accomplish this object, he would call their attention first to the revenue laws, and then to the navigation laws of the U. States.
It would be sufficient to observe, as respected the revenue system, that the law of the U. S. marked a strong distinction between vessels of the U. S. and all others. The term vessel of the U. States denoted a title to peculiar benefits and privileges, an exemption from the extraordinary duty on tonnage, and an exemption from a duty of 10 per cent on all articles imported, this being levied as a discriminating duty, in addition to the ordinary impost, on all goods imported in foreign vessels. This duty was nearly equal to the average expence of freight across the Atlantic; so that it gave a decided preference, and of course a greater employment to American vessels. It was proposed to avail ourselves of the same principle for American seamen; making it requisite that a portion of the seamen should be Americans, thereby ensuring them employment by this duty of ten per cent. to be incurred by the employment of foreign seamen in preference.
If the House would advert to the navigation law of the U. S. they would see how the principle recognized by that could be applied to American seamen. That act speaks of certain qualifications which should entitle vessels to be named vessels of the U. S. The qualifications are three. The first, for the encouragement of American ship building, requires that a vessel shall be built in the U. S.—American construction. The next, that this vessel shall be owned by American citizens—American construction and American property. The next, that a vessel shall not enjoy the privilege of American vessels, longer than commanded by an American captain—American construction, property, and commander. These three qualifications were necessary for a registered vessel.
The addition which Mr. D. proposed to these qualifications, was, that these vessels should be navigated by a proportion of American mariners; this was the proposition which he should submit. As soon as the proposition was stated, its operation would be instantly seen. If it were adopted, American seamen would of course in preference be employed; it would give them a more comfortable means of subsistence. The merchant would be compelled to employ them, if his vessels could not otherwise enjoy the privilege of American vessels; and all his exertions to procure American seamen would be more than compensated by the diminution of duty in consequence of their employment. It would then be the interest as well as duty of American seamen to point out imposters, as they might be kept out of employ by false swearing of seamen not citizens. In adopting this principle into our navigation law, Mr. D. felt perfectly willing to renounce the whole system of certificates & protections. He did not wish American seamen to carry protections while on board our ships; he wished that their being on board an American ship should be a sufficient protection; and if this peaceable means of protection will not answer, said Mr. D. let us take stronger measures. But in giving a man this protection with merely documentary proof, in giving him the complete protection of the American flag, it would be perceived that he would enjoy it no longer than he was faithful to his duty. In order to entitle a vessel to the character of a registered vessel it would be necessary that it should appear that she had on board a proportion of American seamen. It would be a plain regulation, no acknowledgement of inferiority, and its adoption would not interfere with any existing treaty or negotiation.
There was a reason why he felt disposed to have this subject considered at the present time. The operation
of the embargo would no doubt throw out of employment a great many seamen; among them might be foreign subjects. Thrown out of employ by the embargo, and a portion of them being called home by the proclamation of his Britannic majesty, Mr. D. should suppose it probable that foreign seamen might be induced to go into other service. He wished to hold out to American seamen, to our own citizens, the inducement of employment in preference to others, thereby giving them some cause to hope for brighter prospects and better times than the present. With these views he offered the following resolution:
Resolved , That for the encouragement and security of seamen of the United States, it is expedient to make provision, that registered ships or vessels, after a time to be limited by law, shall not continue to enjoy the benefits and privileges appertaining to ships or vessels of the United States, unless some proportion of the mariners on board the same shall be citizens of the United States.
Mr. D. moved that it be referred to a committee of the whole on Wednesday next, that its principle might be fully discussed.—Agreed.
Mr. Dana said it would be recollected that the Secretary of the Treasury had reported a statement of the tonnage in the United States; this document he deemed very interesting, and it might have an important bearing on the subject just referred. It was also important to know how many seamen were registered in the United States as American that the House might judge how the seamen were proportioned to the tonnage. He was not certain that the Secretary of State could give all the information desired; but all that he had Mr. D. wished to procure, and therefore submitted the following resolution, which was adopted.
Resolved , That the Secretary of State be directed to lay before this House a statement of the respective numbers of citizens of the United States, registered as American seamen, and now belonging to the several districts of the customs, according to the returns made by the collectors, in pursuance of the law relative to the relief and protection of American seamen.
On motion of Mr. Basset, the House went into a committee of the whole on the bill incorporating a church at Alexandria; and after some time, the committee rose and obtained leave to sit again.
On motion of Mr. G. W. Campbell, the House went into a committee of the whole on the report of the committee of Ways & Means on the petition of Edward Weld and Samuel Beebee; after a short time spent, the committee rose and reported their agreement to the report in favor of their petition which was referred to the committee of Ways & Means to bring in a bill in pursuance thereof.
On motion of Mr. G. W. Campbell, the House went into committee of the whole on the bill authorising the payment of certain expences attending the impeachment of Samuel Chase. The committee rose in a few minutes and reported their agreement to the bill, which was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. Van Horn offered the following resolution which he conceived to embrace information connected with the resolution this day proposed by Mr. Dana:
Resolved , That the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to lay before this House a statement showing the amount of tonnage employed in the U. S. in the exportation of articles of the produce or manufacture of the U. States.—Agreed to.
The report of the committee of Claims unfavorable to the petition of Peter Landais was taken up and concurred with.
The House went into a committee of the whole on the bill to remit the duties payable on the monument imported by the naval officers of the U. S. when Mr. Milner moved to add a new section to the bill to appropriate a sum of money for railing in and covering the monument. After some debate on this, in which Messrs. Milner, Lyon and Witherell supported, and Messrs. Stanford, Macon, and Smilie opposed it, the committee rose without deciding on it, and obtained leave to sit again.
Mr. Blackledge laid before the House a resolution of the legislature of N. Carolina, requesting the representatives of that state to use their endeavors to procure the erection of a fortification or defence near Beaufort in that state, which was not contemplated in the report of the Secretary of War, made to the House.
After some discussion as to the proper mode of disposing of it, the House agreed, 60 to 17, to transmit it to the President of the U. S. in order that due provision might be made for the defence of that port.
WASHINGTON CITY. MONDAY, JANUARY 11.
[For the continuation of the Gun-Boat Debate, see last page.]
COMMUNICATION. DR. LE BARON, a gentleman lately from Michillimackinac, and who has resided there for the last five years, has lately left this city for Philadelphia, New York and Boston, for the very laudable purpose of forming a company of American Merchants from those cities to embark in the Far Trade of our Northwestern frontiers. We hope the enterprise of Dr. Le Baron may be crowned with every possible success in this important object. It is the only means by which the current of that valuable & lucrative trade can be diverted from Canada to the United States, and it is the only way to acquire such an ascendancy over the savage mind, as to ensure a pacific disposition on the part of the Indian Tribes. We are happy to learn, that every disposition has been manifested on the part of the government to encourage and support this important object.
Extract of a letter from a member of the Assembly of Virginia, to his friend at this place, dated January 6, 1808.
"We have been engaged during the present day, on a resolution, and the preamble, principally going to the effect, of pledging the energies of the Commonwealth, in support of the measures of the general government against our enemies, and approving of the embargo: declaring our willingness to meet with pleasure any privations that might ensue.
"The preamble to the resolution was lengthy, and contained the statement relative to the embargo. The resolution was carried unanimously, and thirteen only opposed to the preamble."
Wheeling, (Ohio) December 3. The celebrated Gen. Moreau left this place yesterday morning. He is descending the river to New Orleans.
New York, January 5. English Blockading Decree.—We have seen a Cork paper of November 19, which says—"A proclamation has been signed by his majesty, declaring France and every other country under her control in a state of blockade, prohibiting all intercourse with them, and forbidding all ships to enter their harbors, except such as have cleared last from a port in the United Kingdom, or a port in the British Colonies."
AN ACT Supplementary to the act, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States."
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That during the continuance of the act to which this act is a supplement, no vessel licensed for the coasting trade shall be allowed to depart from any port of the United States, or shall receive a clearance, until the owner, consignee, agent or factor, shall, with the master, give bond with one or more sureties to the United States, in a sum double the value of the vessel and cargo, that the vessel shall not proceed to any foreign port or place, and that the cargo shall be reloaded in some port of the United States.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the owner, or owners of all vessels licensed for fisheries, or those bound on a whaling voyage, and having no other cargo than sea stores, salt, and the usual fishing tackling and apparel, shall give a general bond, in four times the value of the vessel and cargo, that they will not, during the continuance of the abovementioned act, proceed to any foreign port or place; and will return with their fishing fare to some port or place within the United States: Provided, That it shall be lawful and shall be sufficient in the case of any licensed vessel, whose employment has uniformly been confined to rivers, bays and sounds, within the jurisdiction of the United States, to give bond, in an amount equal to three hundred dollars for each ton of said vessel, with condition, that such vessel shall not be employed in any foreign trade during the time limited in the condition of the bond.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That if any ship or vessel shall, during the continuance of the act to which this act is a supplement, depart from any port of the United States without a clearance or permit, or if any ship or vessel shall, contrary to the provisions of this act, or of the act to which this act is a supplement, proceed to a foreign port or place, or trade with
or put on board of any other ship or vessel, any goods, wares, or merchandise, of foreign or domestic growth or manufacture, such ship or vessels, goods, wares or merchandise shall be wholly forfeited, and if the same shall not be seized, the owner or owners, agent, freighter, or factors of any such ship or vessel, shall for every such offence, forfeit and pay a sum equal to double the value of the ship or vessel and cargo, and shall never thereafter be allowed a credit for duties on any goods, wares, or merchandise, imported by him or them into any of the ports of the United States. And the master or commander of such ship or vessel, as well as all other persons who, shall knowingly be concerned in such prohibited foreign voyage, shall each respectively forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding twenty thousand, nor less than one thousand dollars, for every such offence, whether the vessel be seized and condemned or not. And the oath or affirmation of any master or commander, knowingly offending against the provisions of this section, shall ever thereafter be inadmissible before any collector of the customs of the United States.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the exception made by the act to which this act is a supplement, in favor of armed vessels possessing public commissions from foreign powers, shall apply only to public armed vessels, and shall not be construed to embrace either privateers, vessels having letters of marque, or any other private armed vessels; but such private armed vessels shall be permitted to depart in the same manner and on the same conditions as is provided for other private foreign ships or vessels.
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That if any foreign ship or vessel shall, during the continuance of the act to which this act is a supplement, take on board any specie or any goods, wares or merchandise, other than the provisions and sea stores necessary for the voyage, such ship or vessel, and the specie and cargo on board shall be wholly forfeited, and may be seized and condemned in any court of the United States having competent jurisdiction, and every person concerned in such unlawful shipment, shall forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding twenty thousand dollars, nor less than one thousand dollars, for every such offence.
SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That all penalties and forfeitures incurred by force of this act, shall be sued for, recovered, distributed, and accounted for in the manner prescribed by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," passed the second day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and may be mitigated or remitted in the manner prescribed by the act, entitled "An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties and disabilities accruing in certain cases therein mentioned," passed the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and made perpetual by an act passed the eleventh of February, one thousand eight hundred.
SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the time during which the act to which this act is a supplement, shall continue in force, shall not be computed as making part of the term of twelve calendar months, during which goods, wares or merchandise, imported into the United States, must be re-exported in order to be entitled to a drawback of the duties paid on the importation thereof.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
GEO: CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, an! President of the Senate.
January 9, 1808. APPROVED, TH: JEFFERSON.
FRESH GARDEN SEEDS, &c.
THE Subscriber having recently received a supply of European Garden Seeds, &c. which added to the various sorts saved by him the last summer, makes his assortment extensive and which are for sale at his Nursery Garden, Eastern Branch and at Dr. Ott's Medicine Store, George town. THEO. HOLT, Washington city, Jan. 11 th .
PUBLIC SALE.
WILL positively be sold at public auction on Saturday the 23 rd inst. at 3 o'clock in the afternoon at Rhode's creek, a lot of ground situated in square No. 974, in the city of Washington, fronting on South Street, 26 feet, and running 150 feet back of the line thereof. This lot is adjoining Mr. King's near the Navy Yard.
Terms of sale a negotiable note of sixty days.
SAMUEL SPEAKE, Auctioneer. January 11 th .

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11.
Debate on the bill from the Senate authorizing the building of gun-boats and for the defence of ports and harbors.
(CONTINUED.)
Mr. MILSON said, after the subject had received such a lengthy and laborious discussion it was not his intention further to detain the House; but the Yeas and Nays having been called, he wished merely to assign a few reasons which induced him to vote in favor of the bill; it was not because he had heard arguments which tended to convince him of their very great utility, or that he himself placed great reliance on them, though he was willing to admit that they might in certain places and in certain cases be useful. The reason for the affirmative vote he should give on this measure was, that he found a great majority of the House in favor of it; it was a system which the friends of administration brought forward, and which he supposed must accord with the wishes of administration; therefore as he could not obtain that system which he believed more efficacious and more proper for the nation, rather than risk the having no defence at all in case of war, he was willing this system should be tested. When he had offered an amendment the other day, he had stated his ideas generally on the subject; he had then endeavored to show that other means of defence were more efficacious; but, that this system should be fully tried, although he thought the number too large, he should vote for the bill, not wishing at the same time by such a vote to be considered as expressing a belief that they would answer their intended purpose.
Mr. JOHNSON said although he should not pretend to propose measures of great national defence, he considered it a prudent exercise of his right as a member to express his sentiments upon subjects proposed by others, upon which it became his duty to vote. He was in favor of the passage of the bill. He believed they had arrived at a crisis—a crisis which had marked the maritime annals of Great Britain with the blood of American citizens; the period had arrived when this nation must receive a satisfaction for injuries inflicted, and a security from future wrongs—or the sword must again be drawn to defend that liberty, which was the boast of all, and which had cost so much. They had before them evidence sufficient to demonstrate the probability of war, an event which could not be long protracted but by an honorable accommodation. While America mourned the loss of her sons, she had wisely forborne to strike a blow which her wrongs had justified. New instructions since the outrage upon the Chesapeake had been dispatched to our minister at the court of St. James, and a last appeal had been made to the reason and justice of that government by whom they had been so much injured. The negotiation had terminated in England; and even now a special minister was expected from Great Britain to attempt a settlement here. The door to reconciliation had not been closed, and he hoped it would not be barred so long as a real desire could be traced in Great Britain to make an honorable settlement of all important differences. But every thing they could hear or see proved the propriety of making preparations for the worst event. Our government had been the injured party, and must have redress.
The conduct of the administration had been arraigned. Mr. J. did not hesitate to approve the conduct of the Executive, and particularly in this late and important transaction, it had acted with prudence, wisdom and firmness. If feeling had not been governed by prudence, the nation might have been in a state of actual war. Perhaps our wrongs might have justified it; but while there remained a hope for honorable peace, negotiation was the proper course. We fear no nation, (said Mr. J.) but let the time for shedding human blood be protracted, when consistent with our safety. If our claims upon the justice of England should be disregarded, there would be time enough for human butchery. He looked around him, and saw many who had witnessed the calamities and miseries of the American revolution. But if war could not be avoided, accumulated wrongs would not induce the American people to endanger their independence. They would say, like the immortal Washington, the former victorious leader of their armies, "I will conquer or die with my countrymen." Unanimity in times of public exigence was all important; any other course than that which had been pursued by the administration, might and would have created division; but if
they should now be driven into war by the injustice of Great Britain, where was the man who would not be with them, who would not approve the conduct of the administration, pronounce our cause just, and appeal to Heaven for victory.
It had been said that the gun-boat system was a substitute for every other defence. Mr. J. said this must be an error. Gun-boats, land batteries and fortifications are designed to defend our cities and sea ports, from the destruction of a maritime force, and to expel hostile fleets from our waters, which end he believed they were adequate to effect.
It had been said that the present administration was in a state of total incapacity to defend the nation, and that the measures pursued would subvert our liberties, and lead directly to ruin. This is not the fact. The treasonable batteries of internal enemies had not been able to shake the strength of the administration in the slightest degree, and with the greatest ease the traitors have been put down; nor had the measures of the administration been ruinous—our government and the people had been prosperous and happy so far as they have depended upon the administration. And when our troubles and misfortunes were traced to their source, it would be found in the unprincipled conduct of the British government. Their injustice had been coeval with the settlement of this country. Civil and religious intolerance had driven our ancestors from their native soil to this country. And British injustice this nation would experience, until it make a manly stand against their pretensions. Other nations had injured us, but not vitally, as Great Britain. Other nations have not impressed our seamen; they have not murdered our citizens; they have not violated the honor of our flag. But Great Britain has injured us in every possible relation; our commercial, political, and personal rights had all been violated.
The same gentleman, (Mr. Elliot) had introduced the subject of an important letter written by capt. Love, a British naval officer, reflecting upon the proclamation of the Executive, and much sensibility was expressed, that our naval officer sent this letter, and waited for further orders from the President; and the gentleman exclaimed this was the gun-boat and proclamation system. Mr. J. said the conduct of the American officer and the President was correct. What other conduct did the gentleman wish? Did he wish that the nation should be involved in war for a disgraceful, scandalous and impertinent letter, written by a petty naval officer of his Britannic majesty. That letter excited contempt and indignation; but it was a small item in the general account against that nation. If war could be justified for this impertinent letter, certainly that gentleman would not be wanting in a conflict between a foreign court and this government upon acts of real injury, as he seemed to insinuate. Mr. J. said they had better look to the protection of their commerce, which was swept from the ocean, the capture of their vessels, the condemnation of lawful cargoes, the impressment and slavery of American seamen, and the blood of this people, the citizens of the United States were attacked in a national ship carrying the symbol of the sovereignty of this nation, and in sight of the sacred soil of America, by the hands of piratical assassination.
Another gentleman (Mr. Dana) stated emphatically, that we had not in our possession any documents containing the late correspondence in England, between Mr. Munro and the British government upon this late outrage. He said he could not see the object of the gentleman in thus expressing himself; but he would state that the President had laid the whole correspondence upon that subject before the House, in a confidential communication; that the House had the papers in their power, and the President had requested that they might be returned when the House was satisfied with the perusal of their contents, which had been done.
As to the system of gun-boats, which had involved such a wide range of discussion and almost every national topic, he had no practical knowledge of their utility; but he could state the evidence he had of their utility to the full extent contended for. First it was a system which had been recommended by the President, supported by the opinions of general Gates, commodore Barron, and capt. Tingey. He perceived that a very large majority of the representatives of the sea coast from Georgia to Main was in their favor. They are used by most of the powers of Europe, & particularly in the Mediterranean, for defence, and often for offence. They were considered particularly useful in the North of Europe and the Baltic, on account of inmoderate tides, shallow
water, and narrow seas. He had also many examples of their practical utility: In the war between France and England and her colonies, a case had been cited of an attack and conflict in the river St. Lawrence in the year 1763, between four American gun-boats and a French vessel of war carrying 16 guns and 180 men. The battle was obstinate; the French lost 60 or 70 men, the hull and rigging of the vessel were cut to pieces, while only one man was killed on board the gun-boats. A battle had been mentioned by the same member, which happened in the Delaware during the revolution, where two English frigates were attacked by gun-boats, one of the frigates driven from our waters, and the other stranded, and would have been captured, but for the want of powder. Again, the celebrated battle between the English navy and the French flotilla of gun-boats off the port of Boulogne, in the British channel. Lord Nelson was charged with the destruction of these gun-boats, and made the attack for that express purpose. The first attack was made with 30 vessels of war of all sizes; he failed in the enterprize and was obliged to retire. This great naval commander not having satisfied himself or his nation by this attempt, 10 days after returned to the assault, with more ships of the line, a larger number of frigates and brigs, and renewed the fight; after a very bloody battle and great loss, he was again repulsed. In fact, nothing did the English so much fear as these gun-boats, properly managed. A few years ago, it would be recollected, Napoleon collected above one hundred thousand soldiers for the purpose of invading England. This created alarm and agitation in Great Britain, and this project the British cabinet knew could not be effected without the aid of the French flotilla of gun-boats at the port of Boulogne. The late minister Pitt, to divert the attention of Napoleon from this design, by British gold and British influence, created a new coalition upon the continent of Europe against France. For the moment, this coalition had its desired effect, and it is known to all how it had terminated; it had resulted in the conquest of the North, cost the lives of thousands, and inundated Europe with human blood.
Much had been said by gentlemen of the naval engagements in the Lyman sea, referred to in the President's message at a former session. These were two bloody and obstinate conflicts between Russian gun-boats and Turkish vessels of war, in which each fought with desperate courage; and the victory had been assigned, by the gentleman from Connecticut, to two causes: First, the superior science & information of the Russians, and the debased brutality of the Turks, at the time this battle was fought. Mr. J. said he had never understood that the mass of the people of Russia were more enlightened, except about Petersburg and a few other populous towns, than the Turks; nor did he ever understand that philosophers and men of science made braver soldiers than plain men of common sense. This brutality spoken of could not certainly apply to the Turkish commander: at least he must have had information enough to find the channel and shallows of the Lyman sea, as science and philosophy were not essential qualifications for a good pilot. The second reason assigned for the victory of the Russians is the narrowness of the Lyman sea and its shoals, and the difficulty of moving to advantage the large vessels. This was one of the advantages that the advocates of this system contemplated from its adoption.
Another gentleman had observed, that the Turks were not conquered until their vessels were stranded. In that very way, said Mr. J. will the United States conquer them if they come into our harbors and shallows, where no superiority of science will operate against the Americans. Gun-boats were not designed to leave the water and mount upon dry land. An invading foe would be met in a different way, and with a different force, the militia, with that spirit of volunteering, which had manifested itself on a very late occasion, every part of the union would be in motion, and then they would see also the spirit of that state which gave birth to a Preble and other heroes, as a member from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) had said. Mr. J. said, he lived in a state far removed from the ocean, and could not apprehend immediate danger from a naval force; but the people of Kentucky were willing to make this a common cause; they wish every part of the union to be defended. In case of war they would call upon Congress, through their representatives, for the means of protecting their western frontiers from the inroads of savage hostility. A large frontier will be exposed to sa-
vage incursions; English influence will excite the savages to hostility. They had even now before their eyes monuments of British influence and savage ferocity: They had at this time before their eyes widows and orphans, who had lost their dearest connections by this influence and hostility. Let not a foreign enemy then imagine that he could divide the American councils or people by arts of diplomacy. Our President in his conduct had been actuated by a love of peace, and should this nation be compelled to take up arms, the people were unanimous; they were pledged by their resolutions to support measures of the government consistent with the nation's honor and the nation's rights. They were not only bound by resolutions, but the more sacred principle of patriotism. The ten counties Mr. J. represented, had expressed their sentiments: They would defend their independence at the hazard of life and property; and he believed other parts of the state were not less patriotic. He said he was one who would rally round and support the Executive in every measure which it might pursue in a conflict with a foreign power in vindication of the honor and the rights of the people. The same sentiment had been expressed at the same time in Georgia and Maine; the collected voice of the nation had met at this place, the centre of the union, and had resounded across the Atlantic; the result would soon be known.
The gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Elliot) had asserted that the nation was disgraced; Mr. J. said he could not admit that the U. States had disgraced herself: America had acted with dignity and justice; but Britain was disgraced by her injustice, and the time had arrived when the U. S. would prove whether she had disgraced herself or not. If the claims of this government upon the justice of G. Britain should be spurned at this moment, and America tamely submitted to the injury and insult, then would it be said with propriety that America was disgraced, and not till then. For while they asked redress for injury and insult, they acted rationally, but if they tamely submitted to this humiliation either before or after a demand and refusal of satisfaction, then and not till then were they a disgraced people!
Mr. MACON said it appeared to him that the only question at present discussed, was, whether the number of boats authorized by this bill was the proper number. Some cases had been stated in which gun-boats had been efficacious, and some in which they had not. Mr. M. did not mean to dispute their efficacy, but as gentlemen on the sea coast were divided on the subject, until gentlemen could better agree as to number and utility, so large a number ought not to be built.
There was another thing he should have been glad to have seen before he voted on this bill; he should have wished to have seen how these boats were to be manned; they might be told that people would volunteer their services on board these boats. There must be some way in which they must be manned; unmanned they would be perfectly useless. He did not like legislating in this detached way; it had been tried in former days; first passing one law, they must pass another to render it effectual. He wished to see some efficient method in which these boats should be manned; he could have wished that the whole system should go hand in hand. The President was authorised to man these boats. Was any authority given to draft sailors for the purpose, or how were they to be supplied? It was essential that this should be known. He should wish, and if he thought he could succeed he would make a motion, to re-commit the bill to a select committee for the purpose of making this provision. Suppose twenty boats were stationed at Norfolk, did they know that these boats could be manned? In his opinion the bill should contain a regulation for manning them; every law should stand upon its own merits, and he should always protest against passing one law which would oblige them to pass another to carry it into effect. Let us, said he, see the whole system, and then let us vote upon it.
Mr. BLOUNT would inform his colleague just sat down, that the committee to whom that subject was committed, had it in contemplation to provide the means of arming these boats, by establishing a marine militia. The gentleman would readily conceive that a bill to carry this into effect, must require a great deal of detail. The detaining of this bill till that subject was ready, would have occasioned a great delay; time sufficient had already been consumed in which one-third of these boats might have been built. The gentleman had expressed a wish that every law should stand on its own merits. Mr. B. concurred
with him in this principle, and had contended for it on this very subject; he had not wished this bill to be connected with or encumbered by any other subject, but to stand on its own bottom, and for this reason the marine militia had been kept distinct from the subject of gun-boats.
(Debate to be continued.)
   ASS ZE OF BREAD, For January, 1808.     Single Loaf 27 ounces,   Double Loaf 54 ounces,   Price of Flour 5 dollars per barrel.  
ROBERT BRENT, Mayor.
United States, District of Columbia, county of Washington, to wit.
IN CHANCERY, 9th October, 1807.
Benjamin Stoddert and John Mason, versus
Thomas Waters Griffith, John R. Livingston, Jonathan Durrell, G. B. Gault & Doyrey, James C. Montmorency, I. I. Picaud and James Davidson.
The bill states that the defendant, Thomas Waters Griffith was the agent of the house of Taney, and Simmond for the delivery of a cargo of flour belonging to the said Taney and Simmond to the French government. That the French government not being able to pay ready money for the said cargo, the balance due thereon from the said government was placed to the credit of the said Griffith, the agent, instead of being placed to the credit of the real owners Taney and Simmond. That the debt so due hath been liquidated under the Louisiana Convention in the said Griffith's name, for the sum of one hundred and ninety thousand, two hundred and seventy francs, French money of the value of 35,675 dollars. That the said Thomas Waters Griffith, now residing and for several years past having resided in Baltimore city in the state of Maryland, well knowing all the circumstances mentioned in the complainants' said bill, and that the debt aforesaid was liquidated in his name in Paris under the Louisiana Convention was in truth and in fact a debt due to the said complainants as the trustees of Francis Lewis, Taney, and Taney and Simmond, did execute a writing transferring all the interest of said Griffith in the said debt to the said complainants as trustees aforesaid. That notwithstanding the above circumstances the said Griffith did employ James C. Montmorency of Paris to receive for his own account and use the aforesaid debt, which actually belongs to the said complainants as trustees aforesaid; and the said Montmorency did actually receive the bills on the ministers of the United States, on the Treasury of the United States in part payment of the said debt in four sets of bills drawn in favor of said Thomas Waters Griffith, and which bills have been fraudulently endorsed by the said Montmorency, with a view as the said complainants believe, to defraud them the said complainants, and under a real or pretended power from the said Griffith and as his attorney to the said I. I. Picaud, who endorsed the same over to John R. Livingston, who has endorsed the same over to James Davidson, cashier of the Branch Bank of the United States in the city of Washington who now holds the same for collection. The complainants further state that four other bills for the balance of the aforesaid claim on the French government liquidated in the name of the said Griffith, but actually belonging to said complainants as trustees aforesaid, have been drawn in favor of G. B. Gault and Doyrey as trustees of Thomas Waters Griffith, for thirty thousand francs French money of the value of 5625 dollars, which said four bills have also been sent to the aforesaid James Davidson, and endorsed over to him for collection in the same manner as in the case of the four other bills first herein recited. That all the aforesaid eight bills of exchange drawn by the American minister at Paris on the treasury of the United States under the Louisiana Convention for the debt liquidated in the name of Thomas Waters Griffith, are actually the property of said complainants as trustees aforesaid. The object of the said bill is to save and protect the said complainants from the fraud projected against them on the part of the said Thomas Waters Griffith, and his co-adjudicators, and to obtain a writ of injunction directed to all the before-mentioned defendants, &c. and particularly to the said James Davidson enjoining and commanding him from paying over to any person besides the said complainants the money that may be paid by the Treasury of the United States in virtue of the said bills of exchange, and particularly enjoining the said James Davidson from paying the said money arising from the said bills, or parting with the said bills until the further order of this court in the premises.
It is represented by the complainants that the said Thomas W. Griffith, John R. Livingston, Jonathan Durrell, G. B. Gault and Doyrey, James C. Montmorency, and I. I. Picaud, defendants in this cause all reside out of the district of Columbia and are not within the reach of the process of this court. It is therefore ordered that the complainants cause a copy of this order to be inserted once each week for six months previous to the first Monday in June next in the National Intelligencer, to the intent that the said defendants may have notice of this application and of the object of this bill and to be warned to appear in this court in person or by solicitor on or before the first Monday of June next, to show cause, if any, why a decree shall not pass as prayed.
By order, WM. BRENT, Clk. December 4—6a