The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1804-12-28 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. V. WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. NO. DCLX.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28th, 1804.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28.
Debate on the bill for authorizing the erection of a Dam or Causeway from Mason's Island to the Western shore of the Potomac.
Mr. Nelson said it was with difficulty he again troubled the House after the lengthy discussion which had taken place. But doubts having been originated as to the authority of Congress to pass the bill in question, he felt compelled to remove those doubts as far as lay in his power. As the House had decided the expediency of the measure by a large majority, if upon an investigation it should be demonstrated that Congress possessed ample power to pass the bill, he trusted the same majority would still be found in favor of it. He would proceed to examine the power which Congress possessed to pass the bill, and he trusted that he should be able to satisfy a majority of the House, that they had sufficient power. Previous to the compact between Virginia and Maryland which had been so much talked of, Maryland claimed the sole jurisdiction of the Potomac river, and Virginia claimed Cape Henry and Cape Charles, also the jurisdiction of the Potomac as her property. In order to prevent any duties from being imposed upon their vessels at either of those places, the two states entered into a compact by which Maryland agreed that the navigation of the Potomac should be free to the people of Virginia, and Virginia contracted not to impose duties on the vessels of Maryland coming by Cape Henry or navigating the Potomac. By this compact, the Potomac became the joint property of Maryland and Virginia as to the free navigation, but all the islands were under the jurisdiction of Maryland. This being the situation each of these states by a law ceded to Congress any part of their territory not exceeding ten miles square which they might choose to accept. Congress chose to accept of part from one and part from the other, and among the rest, this joint property, the river Potomac. There was no exception made in the act of cession as to the water courses, and it would be needless to inform the members, that a grant of land necessarily carried with it a grant of the waters thereon, unless an exception was made.
But it had been said, that this being joint property, neither of the states had the power to grant it to Congress, and they had not done it jointly. To this he would answer that each state had granted to Congress, all their right at different times, and Congress having accepted of it, the whole had vested in them. If two persons, to wit, A and B are possessed of joint property, and A grants the whole to C, the moiety passed thereby. After this if B grants the whole to C also, his part passes by the grant and C becomes proprietor of the whole. This was exactly similar to the present case. But he would ask gentlemen if the jurisdiction of the Potomac was not in Congress, in the body of what county was it? If not in Alexandria or Washington counties it could be in no county. Suppose then a crime should be committed on the river, in the body of what county should the indictment state the crime to have been committed? It could not be in the county of Fairfax or Montgomery, because the parts of those counties adjacent to the river had been ceded to Congress. Then if the doctrine contended for by gentlemen was correct, no offence could be committed on the Potomac as far as the limits of the District extend, and it would become a sanctuary for criminals. He trusted this was not the case, but that the river was by the cessions granted to Congress, and was in Washington and Alexandria counties. He considered the argument of his colleague, (Mr. Nicholson) that Virginia had no property in the river which she could cede of no avail—because it was the case, Maryland owned the whole and Maryland had ceded it to Congress. He hoped the committee would be granted leave to sit again.  Mr. J. Randolph. The gentleman asks in the body of what county is the river Potomac passing through the district of Columbia. Will he take it for an answer that its jurisdiction is within the bodies of the same counties it was in before the acceptance of the territory on each side.
In addition to the observations made on passing joint property with exclusive property, suppose England and France to hold Malta in joint possession, and
that they cede to Germany for her acquiescence in that measure, some of the exclusive property held by each within the German empire, will they say that their joint property in Malta passed by the treaty?
Mr. Clarke was unwilling to trouble the House at that late hour with any remarks, and would have entirely foreborne, was not the question, on which we were about to decide, and which had become extremely important, susceptible of a position which it had not assumed. It had been stated, and generally agreed to, and he supposed was correct, that the state of Maryland previous to her compact with Virginia rightfully claimed the whole river Potomac to the high water mark on the western bank. Virginia owned the capes. This collision of interest produced in the year 1786 an adjustment of their interfering interests, and it was expressly stipulated that the river Potomac should remain a high way, free for the navigation of each state. In the year 1790, the legislature of Virginia passed a law making a cession to the United States of a territory ten miles square, or any less quantity, that should be accepted for the seat of the general government, to be located and laid off within her limits; thus by the terms of her cession confining it to her territory. Maryland, nearly at the same period, made a similar cession. Out of these two cessions is the present Columbian territory made. It is contended by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) that the two states uniting in the cession makes the grant complete, and the right in the United States predominant and exclusive. He acknowledges at the same time, this correct principle, that they could grant no greater right than they possessed. This doctrine I hold in controvertible, that the alinee can have no greater or better title than the alienor; otherwise the derivative would be superior to the original title, a principle not to be admitted.
Let it be distinctly recollected, that prior to the cession Virginia had purchased a right out of the soil of her sister state, distinct from the land, an incorporeal hereditament, a franchise which she had the right of exercising unconnected with the use of the soil—so that while Maryland owned the land, Virginia owned the right of way. She never passed this right by the terms of her cession, or by any other act. Maryland could not, having already parted from it. No strength of argument can be derived from the terms of the cession; for if Virginia never parted with her right, the United States could never have acquired it. I trust I have shown that Virginia purchased a right in the navigation of the Potomac, which she never parted from, and of course retains to this moment. We therefore cannot constitutionally legislate on this subject.
Let it not be said, that the object is improvement and not obstruction. Is not building the wall from Mason's island to the Virginia shore an obstruction, and the improvement at best problematical? But this is begging the question—On a fair admission of my construction, I contend, and have endeavored to prove, that we, possessing no jurisdiction over the river, it cannot be touched by any legislative act of ours in any point whatever. For if it be touched in one way, it may be in another, and may finally end in whatever arrangement Congress may think expedient to make.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11. The House went into a committee of the whole by a vote of 54 ayes against 30 noes.
Gen. Varnum in the chair. Mr. Macon [Speaker] gave it as his opinion that it would be improper at this time to take up the subject, especially as there was a motion on the table to recede the territory of the district back to the jurisdiction of the states out of which it had been carved; if it is intended to recede the territory, it would certainly be better to recede with as few encumbrances or alterations as possible; indeed the striking property of the business taking the course he had just mentioned, had led him to expect that the present bill would not be again agitated until the question of recession had been investigated and decided. He would therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.
Mr. Smilie voted against going into a committee of the whole, on the ground mentioned by the Speaker. If it be the intention of the legislature to recede this territory there certainly was no necessity of discussing the propriety of erecting a causeway; if it be not the
intention, when this is manifest it will be time enough to consider the bill before them. From what he had observed on the part of the inhabitants of the district of Columbia, there seemed to be a disposition, if not a determination, to give Congress as much trouble in legislating for them as they had for all the rest of the union. During the present session this single ten mile square had occupied as much of the time of the House, as the whole of the United States, whose general and important business was daily caused to be suspended for the local concerns of this place. From observing this to be the settled course of proceeding he was convinced that Congress must do one of two things, either recede them to their respective states, or put them in a situation capable of managing their own affairs in their own way. The daily pay of the members amounted to a considerable sum, and the length of time consumed on every trifling application for want of some member able to explain the true situation of a district occasioned by its unrepresented state on this floor, were evils much to be lamented, if they could not be remedied. He thought members could hardly justify the waste of their time intended to be devoted to the public, whatever they might think of the expense it occasioned. He hoped the committee would agree to rise.
Mr. Lewis did not think it fair to anticipate the opinion of the House on the question of recession, which he considered would be the effect of the committee's rising. If however the committee shall determine that they would not at this time discuss the present bill, he had no objection to enter on the consideration of the other subject.
Mr. Nelson thought this the proper time to discuss this question even in preference to that of recession. It appears from the petition of the inhabitants of George-town, that the channel of the river, on which the salvation of that town depends, is filling up daily, that the mass of mud would soon encroach to such a degree as totally to ruin the navigation to that port. If even it should be agreed by Congress to recede the territory to the states of Virginia and Maryland, which he wished and hoped in God would not be the case, it would be late in the session and in all probability at a time when neither of those state legislatures will be in session. Supposing both states were willing to accept the recession, which he believed would not be found to be the case, the petitioners could not apply to the Virginia legislature until next December, as their session began, in that month, nor to Maryland until next November. A twelve months delay might defeat the object altogether, for the petitioners assert that it requires immediate exertions to prevent the channel filling up altogether.
Again, if the question of recession must be first decided, he saw that it would be an everlasting obstacle to the consideration of the propriety of the measure contemplated by the bill. Suppose a number of gentlemen opposed to the consideration of the question on recession should join with those opposed to the erection of a causeway, the subject will never be called up, neither at this or any future session.—When a petition is presented from George-town to be allowed the object of their present prayer it is in the power of any gentleman inclined to vote against that measure, to lay on the table a motion for recession, and the two will sleep side by side on your table till the rising of Congress. The same argument for this course of proceeding will have as much weight at any future period as at the present time. Hence he inferred that now was the proper season for investigation, and the sooner a decision was obtained the better. He did not think the subject of recession ought to have been introduced on the present occasion, as it did not necessarily connect itself with an improvement of the navigation of the Potomac.
Mr. Macon had stated his reasons for making the motion, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) had replied that the main question would be eternally suspended, if his (Mr. Macon's) arguments were allowed to prevail; this did not appear to follow from the premises. If there is a majority in favour of the causeway, and the minority attempt to defeat the will of the majority by introducing the question of recession, nothing is more easy than to remove that or any other obstruction thrown in their way. The majority may call up the motion made by my colleague (Mr. Stanford) to recede the jurisdiction to Maryland and Virginia this day if they
please—and when they have it before them, it is an easy matter to reject it, and proceed to their favourite measure of daming up the western half of the river.
Mr. Nelson. Mr. Speaker tells us it is easy for a majority to reject any thing they disapprove; true, but when a motion has obtained access to your table, it would be deemed ill manners for any gentleman but the individual who introduced it, to call it up to the attention of the House with a view to turn it out of doors. Politeness or common civility will permit every gentleman to carry on the business he introduces here in his own way; it was for this reason that he had said it never would be called up, but stand an eternal obstacle in the way of the required improvement.
Mr. Sloan reminded the committee of an old saying, the time present only is in our power, the future we know not of. The time present then is the time to redress the grievances of the suffering part of this community, and as the citizens of Georgetown were really embarrassed, and their apprehensions excited of greater danger, he hoped the committee would proceed with the business.
Mr. Stanford seldom troubled the House with any motion. But the one alluded to by his colleague (Mr. Speaker) he had brought forward from a sense of duty: the reiterated applications of the inhabitants of this district for legislative provisions he had always listened to with attention, and he had no objection to proceeding in the discussion of the present bill, convinced that it would only serve to shew the necessity of receding the territory. From all that had hitherto been done, it was apparent that they could not attempt to accommodate one part of the district without drawing forth petitions against the same, from another part; counter petitions were constantly coming in; he was willing to hear every thing, but he did not believe the House could agree to any thing; and it was not to be wondered at when the inhabitants could not agree among themselves, or if the House agreed at this time relative to the objects of the bridge company and the causeway petitioners, it would be, he suspected, to do nothing in either case; all this tended to evince the propriety of adopting the resolution he had laid on the table to recede the territory to the states of Virginia and Maryland, who would then have competent powers to gratify both parties, if they deemed it expedient, of which he was convinced they were better judges than this or any future Congress were ever likely to be.
The question on the committee rising was taken and lost, only 43 members voting in the affirmative.
Mr. Macon then proposed to amend the bill in such a way as to provide for regulating the ferries that might be established across the eastern part of the stream to the causeway, and applying the fund arising from the same for the purpose of keeping the causeway in repair.
Mr. Lewis did not conceive it useful to travel over the ground assumed on a former occasion, but would confine himself to state to the committee some information he had acquired since, in respect to the damage the eastern branch or the port of Alexandria was likely to sustain, as had been alleged. Before the year 1784, the channel on the western side was so shallow, that vessels of only very ordinary burthen could pass, while on the Maryland side vessels of great draft of water could easily pass up to George-town. The uncommon hard winter of 1783-4, was followed in the spring by the greatest torrents ever known in the Potomac, the bodies of ice were of immense magnitude, and many of them lodged upon the island, and under the rocks of its bed, pressing with a force beyond all credibility, tore the rocks asunder, and pressed them over into the new channel, occasioning a rise of 30 or 40 feet on the Georgetown side. On the Virginia side the torrent also forced itself, and deepened that channel, while it left a vast quantity of mud, rocks and sand, in the eastern channel, which has been constantly accumulating since that period. The situation of the present bar is at the meeting of the two arms of the river below the island, and does not permit the passage of vessels over it drawing more than 12 feet water. The consequence of this alteration in the bed of the river below the island has been to narrow the mouth of the eastern branch; but it had no effect upon the harbor of Alexandria. This will serve to explain what may be the effect of opening the old channel in the way proposed; it may operate to widen the mouth of the eastern
branch harbor, but it cannot injure Alexandria.
With regard to the objection stated by his colleague (Mr. Plate) in relation to the power given to the corporation of George-town to tax the additions to that town, he could assure the committee that almost every person in George-town had signed the petition, and as no objection had been made by any person concerned, though the bill had been a long time before the committee, he considered it a tacit acknowledgement on the part of those who had not signed the petition, that they wished the measure might be adopted and carried into execution.
He felt particularly solicitous for the erection of this dam, as it regards the interests of the citizens in the western parts of the states of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. For if no steps are taken to improve the navigation below George-town, the navigation will soon become so shallow as not to permit vessels to come to George-town to carry off the produce which may descend by the Potomac and its improved canals. The destruction of George-town will follow the loss of the navigation, and the western farmers will lose a choice of two rival markets.
While he was up he would add a few words with respect to the right which Congress have to legislate on this subject. He differed entirely from those of his colleagues who held that Congress had no jurisdiction over the river Potomac, because it never was ceded by Virginia. The state of Virginia ceded to her dividing line, and it was immaterial whether that dividing line was high water mark on her shore, or the middle of the channel; for as Maryland has ceded all she had, she cedes up to the Virginia line wherever that may be. For he held it to be found law that you could not convey a body of territory without conveying all its appurtenances, unless expressly reserved, and neither state had made a reservation of any right, or a part of any right. Suppose A. and B. should hold two adjoining tracts of land, and A. should sell to C. all the tract he held, and B. should also sell to C. all his adjoining tract, would not the whole of the property of A. and B. thereon, of what nature soever it might be, vest solely and exclusively in C. and if a road passed along the line of A. upon the land of B. or part on each of their lands, would it be contended that C. could not keep it in repair, or improve it for his own and his neighbors accommodation without obtaining the consent from A. and B. every time an improvement was required. This statement he considered as a full reply to all that had been urged on this head, and he concluded with repeating his former wish, that the bill might be speedily passed into a law.
Mr. Clarke.—When this bill was under consideration some days past I endeavored to shew, and hope with satisfaction, that Congress had not the power of legislating on this subject. The ground I then assumed was, that Virginia had by contract with the state of Maryland, before the cession to the United States, acquired the right of high way on the river Potomac, which she has never granted. It is now unnecessary to enquire into the reasons of this policy; it is sufficient to our present purpose to say it is the fact.
In retracing this subject I find my arguments very much strengthened by examining the articles of agreement between the states of Maryland and Virginia, and this circumstance is the only inducement for my troubling the committee again. The sixth article of the agreement declares that the river Potomac shall be considered as a common high way for the purpose of navigation and commerce to the citizens of Virginia and Maryland, and of the United States, and as those in amity with them. The eighth article declares that all laws and regulations, which may be necessary for preserving and keeping open the channel and navigation of the river, shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both states. If a doubt remained heretofore, it appears to me this must remove it, and time will be spent in vain to illustrate the subject.
My colleague (Mr. Lewis) supposed, that as the two states have ceded the territory, that all that either or both possessed, passed by the grant; but let it be recollected, this was a several and not a joint conveyance, and no ring more passes than is embraced by the terms of the grant; and Virginia has expressly limited it to her territory, and cautiously avoids yielding any right she had acquired from the state of Mary-

land. Here, Mr. Chairman, they distinguish between what they call an improvement, and an obstruction of the navigation, the one they contend they have the right to do; but the other they have no power over. This distinction, in my conception, surrenders the question, for if we have the power of legislating on the subject, we can make any regulations we please, and indiscriminately improve, alter, or obstruct. It seems a little remarkable that gentlemen with to improve a property they have no title to, and it does not appear a conscious mark of understanding to begin at the wrong end to improve, and then contend about the right.
Mr. Nelson did not expect that this point would have been brought up again, but since it had so happened, he felt a propriety not to say a duty in recapitulating also what he had urged before, and adding some further reasons to show that Congress had the right, and the exclusive right of jurisdiction over all that part of the river Potomac within the district of Columbia. The business of the long appears to be this, that because the states of Maryland and Virginia entered into a compact, before the formation of the present constitution, by which it was agreed that the river should be considered a common highway, and as both possessed the right of way, it was a joint right, which as they did not jointly convey the right has never been ceded to the United States. Does the gentleman (Mr. Clarke) mean to say that the states of Virginia and Maryland had not the power of granting this joint right? If he does not assert this, or if he admits they had the power, we shall be able to demonstrate that they have granted it to Congress. After two states have made a division of a part of each of their particular property, cannot they mutually give to another the property they have thus acquired? Surely common sense cannot deny them the right to do so: if you cannot grant away a right, it is no right, for a right cannot be complete, if it cannot be conveyed to another, the very idea of a right implies the power of disposal. They say that Maryland had the exclusive right of navigating the river Potomac, and that she gave by compact a qualified property in that exclusive right to Virginia. Cannot Virginia convey this qualified right? If one holds a right to an estate for life or a term of years, is it not as competent for the party to convey such right, as he would be to convey an estate in fee simple? Whether the right be a special right, or a limited right, or of whatever nature it be, every man has a right to convey it to another, unless there be exceptions or reservations; but in the compact between Maryland and Virginia there are no reservations or stipulations that changes or prohibits a conveyance. Then he asked them to propound this case. Maryland has a common right with Virginia in the Potomac, & Maryland declares that she gives up all her rights to 10 miles square of her territory; the Potomac is a part; Virginia also says that, so far as she has a right, she gives it up also. Well then, both states have given up their respective rights. Does not the relinquishment of their rights by both states produce the same effect as if it had been done by a joint instrument? Maryland, he asserted, had given up her right; no matter whether it was a real right or qualified right, she gave up all but what she had conveyed to Virginia and Virginia has given up all she possessed.
Mark the matter, if Virginia has not ceded her right in the Potomac, and Maryland here, to Congress, then this is not a district of territory within the meaning of the constitution, and if it be not the constitutional district, we have no right to exercise any other jurisdiction here than what we exercise in common for every other part of the United States. For if the district be separated by the Potomac, it is not one district, but two districts, and the constitution does not give Congress power to assume exclusive jurisdiction over two districts. It however the state of Maryland has ceded the Potomac, and is runs up to the Virginia territorial line, then the district is but one district though it consists of parts taken from two states. He felt a difficulty in doing this idea, because when a thing is self evident, it renders it hard to prove what is palpable, and a multitude of words rather tend to confuse than clear the point. But what he over it was, that when several tracts of land were joined together, they are not separated by the water or by any thing else, whether or touching the same; then the jurisdiction of Congress runs as well upon the bed of the river as its banks, and so over the whole 10 miles square; if this idea was correct, Congress had assumed the exclusive jurisdiction over no more territory than they had a constitutional right to require. He might be mistaken in his opinion; he therefore urged his arguments with great confidence. He was liable to error, and that very often; and it may be the case in the present instance. But he must acknowledge that he had not as yet heard any thing that satisfied his mind that he had been wrong. He therefore still hoped that
the bill might pass into a law, from a conviction that it would be a great benefit to all persons residing upon or near the waters of the Potomac.
Mr. J. Randolph had hoped that the very perfidious statement of his colleague (Mr. Clarke) when the subject was last under consideration had satisfied the most incredulous that Congress were not competent to pass the bill before them. Indeed he had hoped that the bill would have been suffered to sleep through the rest of the session and the House no more troubled on the subject. The reasoning of the gentleman last up was to his mind utterly fallacious and inconclusive. The district was not necessarily divided into two bodies politic because of the intervening jurisdiction of Virginia over the Potomac. Did Massachusetts constitute two states because its parts were completely separated by New Hampshire through which you must necessarily pass to get in or out of it from old Massachusetts, as it was called? For the purpose of division the mathematical line which marked the boundary between the two states of Maryland and Virginia was equivalent to the whole breadth of the Potomac. On the ground of natural right Congress could not obstruct the navigation of the river. They could not do it without admitting the right of Virginia and Maryland to raise obstructions above and below. Those states had as good a claim to stop the fall as the ships of the United States as Congress had to interrupt their business. But gentlemen say they are not stopping the navigation; they are improving it—how? by damming up the best channel. Did not this justify any species of obstruction—it was only to term it an improvement and every objection was silenced. Whatever might be the decision of the House he trusted no member from Virginia would be found to concede her right over the Potomac. He hoped also that the subject would be suffered to remain at rest until the question of reception was decided—but in whatever shape it should appear he should always protest against it as a violation of the rights of the state which he represented.
Mr. Nelson would briefly reply to what had been said in relation to two districts being but one district. The fact was as had been often stated, that two parts of the district had been separately granted by Maryland and Virginia, that if these two parts touched each other and left no interval, they became one district, but if there was an interval between them, such as the river Potomac, they were two districts, and over two districts Congress had no authority to assume exclusive jurisdiction. But he thought the gentleman from Virginia had evaded an answer to the position that Congress cannot exercise powers of exclusive legislation over two districts. What had been said of Massachusetts and Maine being one state, although separated from each other by New Hampshire, did not apply; they might be and in fact were a body politic, notwithstanding the geographical separation of the parts. A nation and its territory, like the United States and Louisiana, were a body politic; but the decision of the present question does not depend on things like these. The jurisdiction given to Congress by the constitution over one district of country can never be considered a jurisdiction over two separate districts. True, if both parts together they are but one district; yet if they are separate they are two districts.
What has been said of Virginia's holding the right of free navigation under the law of nature and of nations was an opinion different from that he held; but it would take such a length of time to discuss that point, and recite his authorities, that he was induced to give it the go-by, with one single remark. It was not the understanding which the states of Virginia and Maryland had at the time of entering into the compact for the free navigation of the Potomac, Potomac, and the mouth of the Chesapeake bay. By that instrument it would appear that their right of navigating these waters was the result of compact and did not grow out of the law of nature, or the code adopted by the nations of Europe.
But suppose his idea to be correct, still he would contend that what was proposed to be done by the inhabitants of George Town was within the power of the United States legislature, inasmuch as it goes to amend and make better the navigation of the Potomac. Indeed any stranger standing by and hearing the debate which had taken place, would suppose that the advocates for the dam were disposed to obstruct the navigation of the river in such a manner that no other vessels than those belonging to George Town should be permitted to pass by Mason's island. This however was by no means the intention. He concluded with observing, that to him and his constituents it was really a matter of great concern; and he believed it to be equally important to all the upper country of Maryland, and part of Virginia and Pennsylvania, all in Pennsylvania within 20 miles of the south line of that state, and all the inhabitants of Virginia between the ridge dividing the head waters of Rappahannock and
James rivers from the Potomac. If, by inaction or refusal, the channel to George Town should be suffered to fill up, he would not give a farthing for all the improvements made upon the canal navigation. The Potomac company may as well be abolished at once, for there will be an end to all the advantages they have heretofore calculated upon, and which had been the inducement for them to expend so many myriads of dollars on their improvements. He could not restrain himself from expressing his anxiety that the bill should pass, and this he still thought, as he had before declared to be the proper time.
Mr. Lucas. The question is, whether we can authorize the inhabitants of George Town to improve the river at their own expense; and it appears from the statements made in the course of the argument, that the Potomac was within the charter bounds of Maryland, and not within the charter bounds of Virginia; and unless Maryland had ceded the right of navigation thereon to Virginia by compact, Maryland would yet have been the sole owner of the soil, all the sole owner of the river. What Maryland gave to Virginia was not a title to admit them to the right of ownership; they only granted a qualified right, and reserved the territorial right, and if so, Virginia has never possessed more than a qualified right. Let it be enquired what right is that? and it will be found to be merely the right of free navigation. That is nothing more than the right of passage over the soil of another, or as it is termed by the civilians, the right of servitude. It is not a right in the territory, but merely a right of usage across the soil. If for example, an aluvion was to form an island in the Potomac, would Virginia claim it as joint owner of the soil. She would not, because she has no other claim than what is declared in the compact; that being only a qualified right, she is not joint owner; of course Maryland being the sole owner of the soil might convey her whole territorial right, subject only to the qualified right of Virginia, viz. the right of navigation. If the right of fishery, or any other territorial right, was contended for on her part, it would not be allowed her. For all territorial rights, as they were in Maryland from the beginning, remained in her till her act of cession.
It is evident, therefore, that Maryland as absolute proprietor of the soil could convey the same to Congress without the intervention of Virginia, and if Maryland could do this, she has done it; for by her act of cession she has ceded to Congress all her territorial rights over ten miles square, or less, of her state, but still subject to the qualified right of Virginia. It is urged that such a conveyance cannot be complete, without the consent of Virginia, and as Virginia has not ceded her qualified right derived from Maryland, Congress do not hold the Potomac in full sovereignty. He granted it, and admitted further that as Virginia had only ceded such of her territory as was within her charter bounds, and as the right she had to the river was not included in her charter, but derived from Maryland by compact, that she had still that right, but that was a right neither more or less than that of the free navigation, to which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) had said the state of Virginia was entitled by the law of nature and of nations, inasmuch as the held territory above and below. But if Maryland has conveyed to Congress all her right to that part of the Potomac lying within the boundaries of the district, Congress has the same right which Maryland had. Suppose a case; a person conveys his right of soil to another, but previously he had agreed with his adjoining neighbor to let him have the service of his road. Shall this qualified right in the use of the road across the other's soil prevent the new possessor from repairing or improving such road. Such a position cannot be supported. Because a general right of improvement in the owner of the soil would be frustrated by the special right of way or passage granted to another. Can it be said that Congress, when they wish to improve a road or a river within their exclusive jurisdiction, cannot exercise this right, without the consent of those whom they have allowed to travel along or over the same. Surely this will not be contended for.
The waters of the Potomac are a common highway. We grant it, but will it cease to be a common highway, whilst the whole body of the waters are carried through one channel instead of two? Does the contraction of the surface and deepening of the channel render it less a highway than it was heretofore. Will the river Potomac cease to be the Potomac, when its waters are compressed within narrower bounds? No. What is lost in surface is gained in depth, not a drop is lost to the river, but there is a clear profit in the gain.
Allusion has been made to the navigation of the Mississippi, in which France has a qualified right of navigation. The United States owing the soil on both sides. If the United States should pass a law to remove its obstructions or cut across from point to point,
would France interfere, and say you shall not remove a single stick of drift wood, or any of the masses of trees which almost choke up the navigation at certain seasons. It is preposterous to think so; what not remove a bar that shall be formed by the course of nature! It is absurd. But yet there is more ground for this position than the one now advocated for the concurrent jurisdiction of Virginia. It has been contended that the states of Maryland and Virginia were to make the improvements in this river not only by joint consent, but at joint expense. Now would George Town at her own expense offer to lay out such a sum of money, as is likely to be required for the erection of the dam, in order to obstruct the navigation of the river, a river in which she is most deeply concerned? Would they pay the whole expense, if it was to work an injury instead of a benefit? The states of Virginia and Maryland agreed in the opening of the canal, but here George Town bears the whole expense, and let any man say whether they would contrive and pay for their own ruin?
Mr. Sloan would leave the dispute as to the right of jurisdiction over the river to be settled by those who were more competent to investigate law questions than he was himself. But from what he had heard, he had brought his mind to this conclusion, that whatever right Maryland possessed to the jurisdiction of the Potomac, Congress was now entitled to exercise. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) has said that Congress has no right to obstruct the navigation. True; but it does not follow that Congress has no right to remove obstructions. He says also that we might stop both branches. Not so, it is intended to stop one only, in order to deepen the other, so as to render the navigation more useful and safe. The case before us has been occasioned by the act of God, or a great movement in nature, a quantity of ice has been lodged, and torn up from the shore and the island the materials that form perhaps the base of this sand bar, by which the navigation has been obstructed. Now, suppose another case, that this ice had pent up the whole body of the river, and compelled the waters to form themselves a channel for escape, through the lower grounds of the Virginia side, and thereby have given a new course to the river, and it would not be the first time that ice had been the cause of changing the bed of a river. He would ask, was there any member of this House but would heartily concur in restoring the inhabitants on this side the river to the use of the river, by erecting proper works to restore the stream to its old bed. He did not believe there would be the slightest objection to such a proposition, especially if it was to be done, like the present measure, at the sole expense of the people of George Town. With regard to the doubt which had been entertained whether it would be advantageous or not, he believed that to be perfectly settled, after what had been stated by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Lewis.) He believed it would no more injure Alexandria, or the mouth of the eastern branch, than it would the mouth of the Chesapeake.
Mr. R. Griswold. This question has assumed several important aspects since it has been before the committee. The first, though not the least, has been the denial of the right of Congress to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district of 10 miles square. This question however, must be solved by referring to the constitution of the United States, and the acts of cession of the states of Maryland and Virginia, which were passed for the purpose of carrying into execution that part of the constitution relative to a territory over which the United States were to exercise exclusive legislation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) has stated in fact, though not in words, that Congress have the power of assuming exclusive jurisdiction over more than one district if granted by any of the states. He says that this district of 10 miles square is divided into two districts by the Potomac, or by a mathematical line, therefore they are still two districts, and he does not deny the right of Congress to assume the exclusive legislation over them, but merely they have no right to exercise jurisdiction on the interval between them; this he has illustrated by a reference to old Massachusetts and her province of Maine. He says they are one body politic, and constitute one state of the union. Here that gentleman must surely be mistaken. It is not to be disputed that a state may consist of separated parts, and so might the territory of 10 miles square, if the constitution had not tied it down to one entire and connected district. As well might it be contended that Congress might assume 100 districts, each consisting of one mile square, as that they are authorized to hold two districts within their ten miles square. But the truth is that by the acts of cession of both Maryland and Virginia, the two parts which Congress have assumed are expressly granted, and Congress now stand on their ground, and have all the rights and jurisdiction which either or both states possessed previous to the act of cession, and that right ex-
tends over the river included in the ten miles square. He would admit, for argument sake, that these two states have the privilege of free navigation, or the right of high way; but he would ask if there was any thing contained in the bill that infringed that right? And he knew the answer must be that there was nothing in the bill likely to work an injury to any person.
Mr. Alston did not intend to consume much time of the committee in delivering his sentiments, as the discussion had already been protracted to a much greater length, than he at first view of the subject supposed it merited. It has been contended by several gentlemen that Congress have no power to legislate at all upon the subject of the navigation of the river Potomac. This really to him appeared to be a very extraordinary doctrine indeed. That because Virginia and Maryland had not jointly conveyed a common property, their conveyances separate, although including this very common property, was not obligatory, and did not convey to Congress exclusive legislation and jurisdiction over such part of the river as lay within the district of Columbia. He admitted that the river Potomac was a common highway, and ought for ever to remain so, for the benefit, not only of the people of Virginia and Maryland, but like wise for all the citizens of the United States, choosing to navigate the same, and to do any act whereby the navigation would in the smallest degree whatever be obstructed, was more than we had a right or ought to do; but would it follow in consequence that we had no right to improve or benefit the navigation of the river; most indubitably not. It was in his mind clear, from the information he had received, that unless something was done for the benefit of the navigation of the river, that an end would soon be put to George Town as a commercial spot. He believed it to be universally the case that, the uniting of any two streams of nearly equal size produced a bar or shallow place just below their junction. If then the bar complained of just below Mason's island, has been produced in consequence of the uniting of the two arms of the river, it seemed to him, as an inevitable consequence, that if one of them was dammed up, the channel would return to its former depth.
Mr. Alston could not see the force of an argument made use of by his colleague, the honorable Speaker, if he understood him correctly, to say that if the dam contemplated should be effected, it would tend to injure the ferries established on the river. In what manner the erecting of the dam from Mason's island to the Virginia shore could affect them, he was not able to discover, as the land on the Virginia shore, opposite the ferries, and the island belong to the same person. He entertained no doubt but that the same privileges would extend to the island as were now enjoyed at the landing on the Virginia shore.
It therefore appeared to him that the propriety or impropriety of the measure contemplated by the bill upon the table, turned wholly upon the question, whether thereby the navigation of the river Potomac would be obstructed or benefited. For his part he had no doubt but that it would greatly tend to the improvement of the navigation of the river; he should therefore give it his decided support, and hoped the bill would pass into a law.
Mr. Claiborne asked if the ten miles square located and surveyed to the United States included the river; he rather suspected that they had laid off ten miles square exclusive of the river. If this was the case, Congress had assumed jurisdiction over more territory than they were constitutionally entitled to.
Mr. J. Randolph had really hoped that after this question had been so long before the committee it would have been better understood than it appeared to be. He regretted his incompetency to make himself intelligible. He had not meant to convey the idea attributed to him by Mr. R. Griswold. What he had said in relation to the two districts was offered as a solution of the difficulties which the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) seemed to labour under. He never did contend, that because Congress had the power of exercising exclusive jurisdiction over a district of ten miles square, they had therefore the right to exercise similar authority over one hundred districts of one mile square. The same gentleman seemed to labour under another error in supposing that he contended that Congress, because they had no right to legislate over the river, had no right to legislate here. The right of jurisdiction over the territory is not impaired by a denial of the right over the river. It is a little remarkable that the gentlemen from Connecticut (Mr. R. Griswold) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lucas) draw the same conclusion from different premises; but it never was contended by him, that Virginia had a territorial right over this river. What she had was a stipulated right, and Maryland had conceded that no obstruction should be made in the river, but by the joint consent of the two states. It is however said that the dam will not be an obstruction, and the gentleman from

Pennsylvania has discovered that all the water will still flow between the banks of the Potomac; but though the water be there, there will be no navigating up or down on the west side of the island. The gentleman is also at a loss to conceive how Georgetown, which is so greatly interested in the navigation of the Potomac, should at its own expense undertake to throw obstructions in the river. Is he yet to learn that Georgetown might not be greatly concerned, if she hindered the navigation generally, while she derived much benefit to herself. He knows that there is a project afloat for cutting a canal across from the Potomac to the Eastern branch, and by that means obstruct the passage to Alexandria. If you undertake to exercise this right, what is to prevent your taking the water out at the Little Falls, and bringing the whole to the residence of your favorite child, the City of Washington, and thereby destroy the canal constructed at such vast expense by the joint funds of Maryland and Virginia. He thought the present to be a very important question, or he would not have been so troublesome. He would just review the position he had taken; the state of Virginia acquired by compact an extension of her natural right to the navigation of the Potomac; the afterwards ceded ten miles square within her limits; but did not cede any qualified right she might have beyond her limits; yet you assume this power, and deprive Virginia of what she all along she neither did nor ever meant to convey. He hoped whatever might be the decision, that not a single member from Virginia would vote to yield up her rights without her consent.
Mr. Lewis did not view the subject in the same light with his colleague (Mr. J. Randolph) and should therefore vote in favor of the bill.
(To be continued.)
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY DECEMBER 28.
At an adjourned meeting of the citizens of the City of Washington, held at Rhodes's Hotel on Wednesday last, the following resolutions were adopted.
RESOLVED, That inasmuch as Congress do not possess the power, because its exercise would involve an infringement of the Constitution, to adopt any measures, which shall directly or indirectly tend to remove the tax of government from the City of Washington, we have full confidence that their deliberations on any topic connected with the political state of the district will result in rendering, if possible, more sacred, the pledged faith of the nation.
RESOLVED, That the prosperity of the District of Columbia essentially depends upon an early, solemn, and conclusive decision on the propositions now before Congress relative to a re-cession.
RESOLVED, That in the event of a re-cession of the other sections of the District, the retention of the City of Washington under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress would be destructive of her interests, and fatal to the attainment of those great political rights, to which her citizens, in common with all the freemen of America, are entitled.
RESOLVED, That the foregoing resolutions be published.
C. CONINGHAM, Chairman. HENRY HERFORD, Sec'y.
"On Thursday last, says the American, Messrs. Montgomery, Lyles, Stanbury, Lowry, B. Tomlinson, Clarke, and Sherardine, were balloted for and duly elected a committee to prepare and bring in a bill to withdraw certain funds from the cities of Baltimore and Annapolis, and the town of Easton, and from St. John's and Washington colleges, and placing the same in the treasury, subject to the appropriation of the legislature."
We are assured, from respectable authority, that this measure does not proceed from motives in the least unfriendly to the interests of learning; but that, on the contrary, it originated in views of the most liberal kind. It seems that some of the representatives of counties, whose schools have been liberally endowed, are averse to extending the same measure of liberality to their constituents had received, to the other counties. The contemplated bill is represented as a measure of policy, having for its object the inducing the representatives of those counties to withdraw their opposition to a general and equal plan for the endowment of schools. Should this end not be obtained, and the bill pass, we are assured that not only the divested funds will be restored, but much more comprehensive funds devoted, on a general scale, to the promotion of schools. Much as we respect the motives in which this measure originated, we cannot too deeply regret it. We fear it will be unproductive of its contemplated object, while it may hereafter be urged as a precedent for violating rights which ought to be deemed sacred.
The Governor of South Carolina has, by proclamation, declared the following gentlemen to be duly elected representa-
tives in the ninth congress of the United States.
* Robert Motion, William Butler, * David R. Williams, * O'Brien Smith, Richard Winn, Levi Coffey, Thomas Moore, John B. Earle. The marked * are new members. The whole are republicans.
LEGISLATURE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
IN THE SENATE, December 8.
Mr. Keith, from the committee of the whole, to whom was referred the bill to prohibit the importation or bringing into this state, from Africa and other places beyond the seas, negroes and other persons of colour, and for other purposes therein mentioned, reported, that they have had the same under consideration, and disagreed thereto.
On motion Ordered, That the house do disagree to the report of the committee; and on the question being taken, the yeas and nays were required by col. Taylor and capt. Hobben, and are as follows, viz.
YEAS—Messrs. John Bake, Robert Barnwell, James Davis, Charles Goodwin, James Hibbon, Elias Lyman, Benjamin Hart, Mathias Hutchinson, John Keith, John Kilgore, John McPherson, Robert Marion, Thomas Taylor, Robert Thornly, John Ward, Henry Wells—16.
NAYS—Messrs. William Bellinger, Joseph C. Dohau, Zachariah Cantey, Leonard Dozier, Thomas Farar, John Hampton, Thomas McFadden, Alexander Mitchell, Paul Michaux, William B. Mitchell, James Porcher, Benj. Rogers, Arthur Sunkins, James Saxen, William Smith, Robert Stark, Samuel Warren—17.
The question was determined in the negative.
Ordered, That the yeas and nays, required and taken on the said bill, be printed.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DECEMBER 10.
Mr. Henry Dais moved the following resolution, which was ordered to lie on the table:
Resolved, That in the opinion of this house it is inexpedient to permit the importation or introduction of slaves into this state, and that a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for that purpose.
The following motion, made in the House of Representatives of South Carolina, marks the growing attention paid in that state to the most important object of state legislation. The triumph of republican principles will be complete if it issues in the universal diffusion of knowledge:
It was moved and seconded, that it be referred to the comptroller-general to report to this House whether, consistent with the present situation of the finances of the state, the sum of 52,000 dollars, or any other sum, and what sum can, during the present year, be appropriated for the endowment of schools throughout the state; whereupon Resolved, that the consideration of the said motion be postponed until the report of the comptroller-general shall be made.
House of Delegates of Maryland.
On Tuesday last the House resumed the consideration of the bill to incorporate companies to make several turnpike roads through Baltimore county; and after several amendments were proposed, and the bill being read throughout, the question was put, that the said bill do pass. Resolved in the affirmative, Yeas 41, Nays 23.
On Wednesday last week the electors of President and Vice-President for this state convened at Woodstock and gave their votes unanimously, for Thomas Jefferson, President, and George Clinton, Vice-President.
[Vermont Gaz. Dec. 10.]
CAESAR A. RODNEY member of Congress, from the state of Delaware, on the application of the legislature of Pennsylvania, has agreed to undertake to support the impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court, before the Senate.
Baltimore, December 25.
The House of delegates of this state have ordered that Messrs. J. Bly, Montgomery, Goldbrough, Mercer and Shaeff be a committee to prepare and bring in a bill, to provide for the Election of a GOVERNOR by the PEOPLE, and to abolish all those parts of the constitution and form of government, which relate to the council to the governor, and the time and manner of electing the governor.
The Senate of this state have assented to the resolutions of the House of delegates, respecting compensation to be made to William Pinkney, Esq. for the recovery of the bank stock.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, December 26.
Mr. Speaker laid before the House a letter he had received from Mons. De Baugé De Marreilles, of Elizabeth-Town, New Jersey, stating that he had discovered the means of preserving the life of persons shipwrecked at sea, and requesting Congress to promote the extension of such an useful discovery.
The bill declaring Cambridge, in Massachusetts, a port of delivery, was read a third time and passed; as was also
The bill for disposing of certain copies of laws of the United States, received from the Senate.
The bill from the Senate, dividing the Indiana Territory into two governments, was read twice and referred to a select committee.
Mr. Boyle laid on the table a resolution to amend the rules of the House, by adding, that a standing committee should be erected for the consideration of all matters relating to the sale or distribution of the vacant lands, belonging to the United States, to be styled the Land Committee.
Mr. Gregg presented a petition from Moses Young, who, accompanying Mr. Laurens, our minister plenipotentiary to Holland, in 1779, as his secretary, was taken by the British, and confined in prison, on a charge of high treason, requesting that his salary may be paid to him in full, he having, under these circumstances, never received more than the half. Referred to the Committee of Claims.
Mr. Palmer presented the petition of David Johnson, on his own behalf, as well as on account of his father, David Johnson, a lieutenant in our revolutionary army, praying compensation for wounds and losses. Referred to the Committee of Claims.
Mr. Meriwether presented the petition of Forrest Green, of the third Virginia regiment, now residing in Georgia, praying that, in consideration of a wound received in the action of Bandywine, 11th September, 1777, he may be allowed a pension, the better to enable him to support himself, his wife and eight children. Referred to the Committee of Claims.
Mr. Sanford, on motion, obtained a reference to the committee of claims of the petition of Arthur St. Clair, late a major general, praying the liquidation and settlement of a claim for a specified sum, which he advanced major W. Butler, for the purpose of re-enlisting soldiers in 1776.
Mr. J. Randolph, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill making an appropriation for the support of the Navy of the United States, for the year 1805, which was read twice and referred to a committee of the whole for tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Dana, the report of the Committee of Claims, on the petition of John Steele, late secretary of the Mississippi Territory, went to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Gregg in the chair.
After some time spent in considering the report, the committee of the whole rose and reported their concurrence to the report of the select committee, and, on motion, the Committee of Claims was instructed to report a bill in his favour.
On motion of Mr. Dana, the House went into a committee of the whole, on the bill for the relief of Charlotte Hazen.
Mr. J. C. SMITH in the chair.
After a long conversation on the subject of this claim, the committee rose and reported the bill, with an amendment. The House proceeded to consider the same, and, after some discussion, the bill passed to its third reading. Fifty one for, and thirty six against it. Ordered to be read a third time tomorrow.
Mr. Crowninshield, from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, reported a bill for carrying into complete effect the 10th article of the treaty with Spain, which, being read twice, was ordered to be referred to the committee of the whole on Friday.
Adjourned.
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27.
Mr. Leib presented a petition from the board of directors of the Philadelphia Typographical Society, praying Congress to lay an additional duty on all books imported into the United States for sale.
Referred to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Mr. Claiborne presented the petition of Amy Darden, praying that compensation may be made to her as the widow, relict and administratrix of David Darden, for the celebrated horse Rerum, pressed in the year 1781 into the service of the United States. Referred to the committee of the whole to whom was referred the bill making further provision for the extinguishment of the debts of the United States.
Mr. Lyon presented a petition from a number of the inhabitants of the town and county of Alexandria, praying for the incorporation of a company to erect a bridge across the river Potomac, from the end of the Maryland avenue to Alexander's island in the county of
Alexandria. Referred to the committee to whom was referred the several other petitions on this subject which were presented at the last session.
The engrossed bill for the relief of Charlotte Hazen, widow and relict of the late brigadier general M. Hazen, was read a third time, and on the question shall the bill pass, the yeas and nays being called by Mr. Early, and were Yeas 60—Nays 38.
And the bill passed accordingly.
Mr. Jackson gave notice that on Monday next he should call up the motion respecting the expenditure of the monies appropriated for public roads connecting the waters of the Atlantic with the Ohio.
On motion of Mr. Tenney the letter of yesterday on the subject of saving the lives of persons shipwrecked at sea, was referred to the committee of commerce and manufactures.
On motion of Mr. Lewis the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the bill to incorporate the Washington building and fire insurance company.
General VARNUM in the chair.
After going through the same and making a few amendments thereto, not affecting the principles of the bill, the committee rose and reported their assent to the same.
The House considered the amendments and incorporated them in the bill, which was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday next.
Mr. Crowninshield from the committee of commerce and manufactures reported a bill supplementary to the act regulating the collection of duties on imports and tonnage, which was twice read, and referred to a committee of the whole to-morrow.
Mr. Hastings moved to refer the petition of Abner Snow, presented 27th December, 1803, an old militia soldier, claiming to be indemnified his expenses for the cure of his wounds, received in the actual service of the United States, during our revolutionary war, referred to the committee of claims. Adjourned.
At a meeting held at Waccamaw, on Saturday the 22nd of Dec. 1804, by public notice, for the north and west parts of Washington county. ISAAC PIERCE, esq. in the chair; the following resolutions were entered into.
WHEREAS we did apply to the legislature of Maryland, to cede to the United States that part of the district of Columbia which was taken from that state, to be exclusively governed by Congress, and experience has rather increased than diminished the reasons that operated on our minds to induce such consent, therefore,
Resolved, That the sense of this meeting is opposed to a re-cession of any part of said district.
Resolved, That we know not of, nor feel any grievance in the existing laws of the district of sufficient moment to justify a representation, or application, to Congress at this time; that the only real grievance complained of, is that the levy court of Washington county is precluded from laying taxes on the property within the city of Washington, in common with the other property within the county, although that court is composed of persons resident within the city, and holding no interest in any other part of the county, and although the money levied by and expended under the control of that court, is applied to objects almost exclusively appertaining to the city and town. These views meeting with general assent, it is the wish of the meeting at a future session, when more time will be allowed, and less pressing matter engage the attention of that honorable body, remove this, or any other cause of complaint.
Resolved, That the general government and laws of the district, are such as to give general satisfaction to the people composing this meeting, and to the country part of Washington county; that they have reason to believe that any changes or alterations contemplated must have originated in the corporate towns in said district, which have extensive powers, which internal government, it is hoped, may be extended or extended as to the wisdom of Congress shall seem meet; without interfering with any part of the general government of the district, which may affect that part of the county of Washington not within the jurisdiction of said corporations.
Resolved, That if any reforms or alterations are necessary in the existing laws of the district, that it belongs not to the officers of the corporations of Washington or Georgetown, much less to the justices of the levy court (unauthorized by the people) to send delegates to deliberate thereon.
Resolved, That the persons said to be acting as delegates from the levy court in an all union of people, living in the city of Washington and filing themselves a convention, have no authority from the country part of Washington county (on whom alone they have exercised the power of levying taxes) and that having no authority they ought to withdraw therefrom.
Resolved, That when delegates have or shall be appointed by the people of
the county and town of Alexandria, the people of the city of Washington and the people of Georgetown, for the purpose of discussing matters relating to the district generally, it will be proper for the people of the county of Washington to have persons therein to watch over and to attend to their interests, and that Richard Parrott, Philip B. Key, and John H. Mead, be delegates on the part of this meeting.
Resolved, That before any measure be reported or considered as the act of said assembly it shall have received the assent and approbation of a majority of the whole number of members for each county.
Resolved, That this meeting entertain a high sense of the able, faithful, and impartial manner in which the laws of the district have been administered by the supreme executive.
Resolved, That the foregoing resolutions be published in the National Intelligencer and Washington Federalist.
ISAAC PIERCE, Chairman.
A. C. Mc. R. Purdie.
A person well qualified to conduct a NEWSPAPER, and execute printing of all kinds, and willing to become a partner in editing a paper, and executing other printing on usual terms, provided with a Printing Office ready furnished for business, and the benefit of a well long established and who can be well recommended, will meet with advantageous terms, from the executors of GEORGE ROULSTON, deceased, in KNOXVILLE, late of Tennessee. Further information may be had by applying to the Editor of the National Intelligencer.
Analysis of the Washington Fontain.
THIS institution, as its name implies, is calculated for the benefit of survivorship. Each share owner must, at the time of subscribing, or at some time before the 18th, name a life or lives, on the continuance of which his share must depend. For failing to do this, the existence of his stock will depend upon his own life.
The basis of the institution is upwards of 1200 lots in the city of Washington, averaging 35 feet by 125, and lying principally between George town and the President's square, between that square and the canal, and adjacent to the navy yard. At present prices, from 60 to 240 dollars, amount to 20000 dollars. This sum is divided into 4000 shares, of 50 dollars each.
It was necessary that the legal estate in the lots should be deposited some where for the use of the company. Trustees, who are men of probity and property, are named in the articles, to whom in the property is to be conveyed. These trustees, however, cannot dispose of the property. That can only be done by the directors, who are to be chosen in each year by the stock holders. The first election of directors will be held at St. John's hotel, on the first Monday in February next.
It was proper too, that the public should not be imposed upon by bad titles. Two gentlemen therefore, as respectable for their private worth, as eminent for their knowledge in the law, and thoroughly versed in city matters, are pointed out by the combination of the Tontine, to investigate, and to judge of the titles before the execution of the deed. These gentlemen happen to be the counsel for the assignees of persons, who have heretofore speculated largely in the city property; a circumstance which rendered it still more proper, because more safe for the public, that they should be selected as the judges of the Tontine titles.
The directors are to sell the lots, and to invest the money arising from sales, in stock of the United States. The interest of the stock, until the end of the year 1807, is also to be invested in like stock. After 1807, it is to be divided, semi annually amongst the shareholders of existing stock, until the dissolution of the company in 1825, when the capital, the whole of which is to be presumed, will then exist in stock of the United States, is to be divided amongst the owners of the then existing stock, in proportion to the sum held by each.
These are the leading features of the Tontine—there are many minor regulations, which it would be tedious to enumerate—and which will be better understood by reference to the constitution itself.
December 28.
833w
FOR SALE.
ALL that extensive building generally known by the name of the GREAT HOTEL, in the City of Washington with the appurtenances and lots whereon the same is erected—Also lots No 1, 2 and 3, adjoining this property is 214 feet on North East Street, 125 feet on Eighth Street west, and 75 feet on Seventh Street west on square No. 439.
The situation of this property is such that it may at a small expense be converted into three elegant houses of forty feet by sixty; the materials in this building are equal to any in the city, and its situation in the most improved part, being immediately between the Capitol and President's House. For terms and other particulars enquire of the subscriber at Mr. Barney's hotel in George town.
ROBERT BICKLEY.
N. B. An indispensible title will be given for the above property. The subscriber will leave George town for Philadelphia in a few days.
Dec 28
ALL persons who are interested in the estate of Michael Roberts deceased (or debts contracted at his house in George town) are requested to come forward immediately and make payment to Edgar Patterson, who is duly authorized to receive the same, otherwise their accounts will be paid in full without discrimination to any who have demands against him and none, if any there are, are requested to apply as above for payment.
FRANCIS ROSUR, } Executrix.
THOMAS CUMMINGS, } Executor.
JOSEPH WILLIAMS, } Executor.
Georgetown, 26th Dec. 1804.—optw

PROPOSALS
For carrying the mails of the United States on the following Post-Roads, will be received at the General Post-Office, in Washington, until the 14th day of Jan. next, inclusive. (Concluded.)
70. From Newbern to Beaufort once in two weeks.
Leave Newbern every other Tuesday at 4 a m and arrive at Beaufort by 5 p m. Leave Beaufort the next Wednesday at 4 a m and arrive at Newbern by 3 p m.
71. From Warrenton by Ransom's bridge, Jonesville, Halifax, Scotland neck, Hington, Williamson, Daily's, Plymouth and Lee's mills, to Scuppernong, once a week.
Leave Warrenton every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Ransom's bridge by noon.
Leave Ransom's bridge at 1 p m and arrive at Halifax by 6 p m. Leave Halifax at 7 p m and arrive at Scotland neck at 8 p m.
Leave Scotland neck at 8 p m and arrive at Scuppernong on Friday by 11 a m. Returning—Leave Scuppernong every Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Scotland neck at 2 p m.
Leave Scotland neck at 2 p m and arrive at Halifax at 3 p m. Leave Halifax at 4 p m and arrive at Ransom's bridge by noon.
Leave Ransom's bridge at 1 p m and arrive at Warrenton by 7 p m. 72. From Halifax by Northampton c h, Princeton, Maysville, Winton, Coker's, Pitch Landing and Windfall to Edenton once a week.
Leave Halifax every Wednesday at 4 a m and arrive at Murfreesboro' by 4 p m. Leave Murfreesboro' by 5 p m and arrive at Edenton on Friday by 10 a m. Returning—Leave Edenton every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Murfreesboro' on Sunday by 7 a m and at Halifax by 8 p m.
73. From Ransom's bridge by Enfield, Tarboro' and Greenfield to Washington, and thence by Greenville, Tarboro' Nash c h and Still's Store, to Ransom's bridge once a week.
Leave Ransom's bridge every Tuesday at 1 p m and arrive at Enfield by 6 p m. Leave Enfield at 7 p m and arrive at Washington on Thursday by 4 p m. Returning—Leave Washington every Friday at 8 a m and arrive at Ransom's bridge on Sunday by 6 p m.
74. From Halifax by Tate's store to Edenton once a week.
Leave Halifax every Tuesday at noon and arrive at Enfield by 3 p m. Leave Enfield at 4 p m and arrive at Halifax by 8 p m.
75. From Scotland neck by Norfleet's ferry, Grandberry Cofs Roads and Clarksville to Windsor once a week.
Leave Scotland neck every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Windsor by 4 p m. Leave Windsor every Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Scotland neck by 6 p m.
76. From Raleigh by Pittsburg and Chapel Hill to Hillsboro' once a week.
Leave Raleigh every Tuesday at 4 a m and arrive at Hillsboro' on Wednesday by 8 a m. Leave Hillsboro' every Sunday at 5 p m and arrive at Raleigh on Monday by 8 p m.
77. From Hillsboro' by Mount Tizah, Person c h, Lewisburg, Caldwell c h, Lenox Castle, Rockingham, Boistwick's and Germanton to Salem once a week.
Leave Hillsboro' every Wednesday at 10 a m and arrive at Mount Tizah by 3 p m and arrive at Salem the next Saturday by 5 p m. Leave Salem every Saturday at 10 p m and arrive at Hillsboro' the next Wednesday by 8 a m.
78. From Raleigh by Nutall's to Oxford or Morrisville once a week.
Leave Raleigh every Tuesday at 4 a m and arrive at Oxford by 6 p m. Leave Oxford every Wednesday at 4 a m and arrive at Raleigh by 5 p m.
79. From Warrenton by Williamboro', Oxford, Hillsboro', Alamance, Martinville, New Garden, Salem and Lexington to Salisbury once a week.
Leave Warrenton every Tuesday at 2 a m and arrive at Hillsboro' on Wednesday by 8 a m. Leave Hillsboro' at 9 a m and arrive at Salem on Thursday by 3 p m. Leave Salem at 4 p m and arrive at Salisbury on Friday by 10 a m. Returning—Leave Salisbury every Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Salem on Saturday at 8 a m. Leave Salem at 9 a m and arrive at Hillsboro' on Sunday by 3 p m. Leave Hillsboro' at 5 p m and arrive at Warrenton on Monday by 5 p m.
80. From Salem by Bethania, Hyattsville, Rockford and Wilkes to Morganton and thence by Island Ford, Houltown and Huntville to Salem once a week.
Leave Salem every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Morganton the next Monday by 5 p m. Leave Morganton every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Salem the next Friday by 10 a m.
81. From Wilkes to Ash c h once a week.
Leave Wilkes every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Ash c h by 5 p m. Leave Ash c h every Tuesday at 5 a m and arrive at Wilkes by 5 p m.
82. From Salisbury by Statesville, Charlotte, Hunterville and Lincoln to Morganton once a week.
Leave Salisbury every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Charlotte on Sunday by 8 p m.
8 a m and at Morganton on Monday by 5 p m. Leave Morganton every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Charlotte on Wednesday at 10 a m. Leave Charlotte at noon and arrive at Salisbury on Friday by 10 a m.
83. From Morganton by Rutherfordton, the Warm Springs, Newport T. and Sevierville, to Knoxville T. once a week.
Leave Morganton every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Knoxville on Friday by 10 a m. Leave Knoxville every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Morganton the next Monday by 6 p m.
84. From Morganton by Rutherfordton and Gowens store to Greenville, c h S. C. once in two weeks.
Leave Morganton every other Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Greenville c h the next day, Wednesday, by 6 P M. Returning—Leave Greenville c h every other Sunday at 6 a m and arrive at Morganton on Monday by 6 P M.
85. From Charlotte by Beggar's ferry and Hills Iron-works to York c h S. C. once a week. Leave Charlotte every Sunday at 9 a m and arrive at York c h by 8 P M. Returning—Leave York c h every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Charlotte by 6 P M.
86. From Raleigh by Smithfield, Wanesboro', Green c h & Kingston to Newbern, once a week. Leave Raleigh every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Newbern the next Friday by 10 a m. Leave Newbern every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Raleigh the next Monday by 4 P M.
87. From Fayetteville by Elizabeth town to Wilmington and thence by South Washington and Sampson c h to Fayetteville, once a week.
Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday at 4 a m and arrive at Wilmington on Thursday by 10 a m. Leave Wilmington every Thursday at 2 P M and arrive at Fayetteville on Sunday by noon.
88. From Fayetteville by Andoversville to Wilmington, once a week.
Leave Fayetteville every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Wilmington on Sunday by 9 P M. Leave Wilmington every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Fayetteville on Friday by 7 P M.
89. From Fayetteville by McFall'sville, Winnsboro' and Cheraw c h to Camden S. C. once a week.
Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday at 5 a m and arrive at Camden on Thursday by 8 P M. Leave Camden every Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Fayetteville on Sunday by 8 P M.
90. From Fayetteville by Moore c h, Garthage & Randolph c h to Salisbury & thence by Tindallville, Henderson, Wadesboro', Richmond c h & Sneedsboro' to Fayetteville, once a week.
Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Salisbury the next Friday by 10 a m. Leave Salisbury at 2 P M and arrive at Richmond c h on Sunday by 4 P M and at Fayetteville on Monday by 5 P M.
91. From Richmond c h by Parkers ferry, Chatham, Cheraw c h Bentonville, Darlington c h Pauleysville, Jaffrays and the Clay House to Port ferry, once a week.
Leave Richmond c h every Monday at 4 a m and arrive at Port ferry on Tuesday by 6 P M. Leave Port ferry on Wednesday at 4 a m and arrive at Richmond c h on Thursday by 8 P M.
92. From Camden by Statesburg and Jamesville to Nelsons ferry twice a week. Leave Camden every Thursday and Sunday at 4 a m and arrive at Statesburg by 10 a m and at Nelsons ferry Friday and Monday by 8 a m. Leave Nelsons ferry every Thursday and Sunday at 5 p m and arrive at Camden on Friday and Monday by 8 p m.
93. From Columbia by Smithville, Nelsons ferry, Monks Corner and Dorchester to Charleston twice a week. Leave Columbia every Sunday and Thursday at 4 a m and arrive at Nelsons ferry on Monday and Friday by 8 a m. Leave Nelsons ferry at 10 a m and arrive at Monks Corner by 2 p m. Leave it in half an hour and arrive at Charleston on Tuesday and Saturday by 10 a m. Returning—Leave Charleston every Tuesday and Saturday at 2 p m and arrive at Nelsons ferry on Wednesday and Sunday by 4 p m and at Columbia on Thursday and Monday by 6 p m.
94. From Columbia by Winnsboro', Chester c h, York c h, Pinckneyville, Union c h and Spartanburg to Greenville c h and thence by Reedy shoal River, Belfast, Laurens c h and Newberry c h to Columbia once a week. Leave Columbia every Monday at 8 a m and arrive at York c h on Tuesday by 7 p m. Leave it at 7 1-2 p m and arrive at Greenville c h on Friday by 8 a m. Leave Greenville c h at 10 a m and arrive at Columbia on Sunday by 6 p m.
95. From Columbia to Statesburg once a week.
Leave Columbia every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Statesburg by 6 p m. Leave Statesburg every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Columbia by 5 p m.
96. From Statesburg by Sumterville, Salem and Kingstree to Willtown once a week. Leave Statesburg every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Willtown on Wednesday by 6 p m. Leave Willtown every Thursday at 6 a m and
arrive at Statesburg on Friday by 6 p m.
97. From Monks Corner or the Black Oak on Santee Canal, Pineville and Murrays ferry to Kingstree once a week. Leave Monks Corner every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Kingstree by 6 p m. Leave Kingstree every Friday at 6 a m and arrive at Monks Corner by 6 p m.
98. From Nelsons ferry by Orangeburg, Johnstons bridge, Barnwell c h, Robert's, Tredways and Town Creek to Campbelltown once a week. Leave Nelsons ferry every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Campbelltown on Saturday by 6 p m. Leave Campbelltown every Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Nelsons ferry on Wednesday by 6 p m.
99. From Camden by Columbia, Edgefield c h and Campbelltown to Augusta once a week. Leave Camden every Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Columbia by 4 p m. Leave it at 5 p m and arrive at Edgefield c h on Saturday by 10 a m. Leave there at 11 a m and arrive at Augusta by 6 p m. Returning—Leave Augusta every Tuesday at 4 a m and arrive at Edgefield by 1 p m. Leave there at 2 p m and arrive at Columbia on Thursday by 8 a m. Leave there at 9 a m and arrive at Camden by 8 P M.
100. From Camden by Lancaster to Chaputte N. C. once in two weeks. Leave Camden every other Friday at 5 a m and arrive at Chaputte on Saturday by 6 P M. Leave Chaputte every other Wednesday at 5 a m and arrive at Camden on Thursday by 6 P M.
101. From Edgefield c h by Amos Richardsons, Cambridge, Southampton, Abbeville c h and Rocky River, to Pendleton c h once a week. Leave Edgefield c h every Saturday at 2 P M and arrive at Pendleton c h on Tuesday by 6 P M. Leave Pendleton c h every Wednesday at 6 a m and arrive at Edgefield c h the next Saturday by 10 A M.
102. From Coosawhatchie by Black Swamp, Lower 3 Runs and Upper 3 Runs to Augusta once a week. Leave Coosawhatchie every Sunday at 6 a m and arrive at Augusta on Tuesday by 4 P M. Leave Augusta every Wednesday at 4 a m and arrive at Coosawhatchie on Friday by 8 P M.
103. From Pocotaligo to Beaufort twice a week. Leave Pocotaligo every Tuesday and Saturday at 1 P M and arrive at Beaufort by 7 P M. Leave Beaufort every Tuesday and Friday by 5 a m and arrive at Pocotaligo by 10 A M.
IN GEORGIA.
104. From Augusta by Little River, Lincoln c h, Petersburg and Elberton to Franklin c h once a week. Leave Franklin every Thursday noon, and arrive at Augusta on Saturday by 5 P M. Leave Augusta every Sunday at 8 A M and arrive at Franklin c h on Tuesday by noon.
105. From Augusta by Columbia c h to Washington once a week. Leave Augusta every Sunday at 3 P M and arrive at Washington on Monday by 4 P M. Leave Washington every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Augusta on Wednesday by 10 A M.
106. From Washington by Burris's, Lexington, Athens, Watkinsville, and Clarkboro', to Jackson c h once a week.
Leave Washington every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Jackson c h on Wednesday by 6 p m. Leave Jackson c h every Sunday at 6 a m and arrive at Washington on Monday by 4 p m.
107. From Washington by Greenboro', Richardonville, Sparta, Georgetown and Warrenton to Louisville once a week.
Leave Washington every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Louisville on Friday by 11 a m. Leave Louisville every Friday at 3 p m and arrive at Washington on Monday by 5 p m.
108. From Louisville by Saunderville to Fort Wilkinson once a week.
Leave Louisville every Friday at 4 p m and arrive at Fort Wilkinson on Saturday by 4 p m. Leave Fort Wilkinson every Saturday at 8 p m and arrive at Louisville on Monday by 6 a m.
109. From Riceboro', by Fort James to Tattall c h and from Riceboro' to Sunbury once a week.
Leave Riceboro' every Wednesday at 11 a m and arrive at Sunbury by 1 p m. Leave Sunbury every Wednesday at 4 p m and arrive at Tattall c h on Friday by 6 p m. Leave Tattall c h every Saturday at 6 a m and arrive at Riceboro' on Sunday by 6 p m.
IN TENNESSEE.
110. From Wythe c h Va. by Crab Orchard, Abingdon Va. Blountville, Roanville, Rogersville, Orefville, and Rutledge to Knoxville once a week.
Leave Wythe c h every Tuesday at 5 a m and arrive at Blountville on Wednesday by noon, and arrive at Orefville the next Thursday by 2 p m. Leave Orefville at 3 p m and arrive at Knoxville on Friday by 10 a m. Returning—Leave Knoxville on Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Orefville on Saturday by 9 a m. Leave Orefville at 10 a m and arrive at Blountville on Sunday by 11 a m. Leave it at noon, and arrive at Wythe c h the next Tuesday by 6 p m.
111. From Orefville by Powell's valley, Cumberland Gap, Barker'sville and Raccoon Spring to the Road Forks or Hazle patch in Kentucky once a week.
Leave Orefville every Saturday at 11 a m and arrive at Hazle patch on Monday by 6 p m. Leave Hazle patch every Tuesday at 8 a m and arrive at Orefville on Thursday by noon.
112. From Blountville by Maffingale, Jonesboro', Greenville, Cheeks Cofs Roads and Dandridge to Knoxville once a week.
Leave Blountville every Wednesday at 1 p m and arrive at Knoxville on Friday by 11 a m. Leave Knoxville every Friday at 1 p m and arrive at Blountville on Saturday by 11 a m.
113. From Orefville by Cheeks Cofs Roads to Newport once a week.
Leave Orefville every Thursday at 4 p m and arrive at Newport on Friday by 10 a m. Leave Newport every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Orefville on Saturday by 8 a m.
114. From Knoxville to Marysville once a week.
Leave Knoxville every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Marysville by 7 p m. Leave Marysville every Friday at 7 a m and arrive at Knoxville by 11 a m.
115. From Knoxville to Burrville once a week.
Leave Burrville every Friday at 3 a m and arrive at Knoxville by 11 a m. Leave Knoxville every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Burrville by 9 p m.
116. From Jonesboro' to Elizabeth Town once a week.
Leave Jonesboro' every Thursday at 5 a m and arrive at Elizabethtown by 9 a m. Leave Elizabethtown at 11 a m and arrive at Jonesboro' by 3 p m.
117. From Knoxville by Campbell, Gardner, Kingston, Blackburn Springs, Fort Blount, Dixons Springs, Craigfont, Gallatin and Hendersonville to Nashville once a week.
Leave Knoxville every Friday at 2 p m and arrive at Nashville on Monday by 7 p m. Returning—Leave Nashville every Tuesday at 7 p m and arrive at Knoxville on Friday by 10 a m.
118. From Springfield by Port Royal and Clarksville to Palmyra once a week.
Leave Springfield every Wednesday at 5 a m and arrive at Palmyra by 4 p m. Leave Palmyra every Thursday at 6 a m and arrive at Springfield by 5 p m.
119. From Dixon's Springs, by Lebanon and Rutledge c h to Nashville once in two weeks.
Leave Dixon's Springs every other Monday at 6 a m and arrive at Nashville on Tuesday by 4 p m. Leave Nashville every other Wednesday at 5 a m and arrive at Dixon's Springs on Thursday by 6 p m.
IN KENTUCKY.
120. From Lexington by Nicholasville, Richmond, Woods, and Metcalfe to Hazle patch once a week.
Leave Lexington every Sunday at 6 a m and arrive at Hazle patch on Monday by 6 p m. Leave Hazle patch every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Lexington on Wednesday by 6 p m.
121. From Danville by Lancaster Stanfield and Crab orchard to Hazle patch once a week.
Leave Danville every Sunday noon and arrive at Hazle patch on Monday by 6 p m. Leave Hazle patch every Tuesday at 6 a m and arrive at Danville on Wednesday by noon.
NOTES.
1. The Postmaster-general may expedite the mails and alter the times of arrival and departure at any time during the continuance of the contracts, he stipulating an adequate compensation for any extra expense that may be occasioned thereby.
2. Fifteen minutes shall be allowed for opening and closing the mails at all offices where no particular time is specified.
3. For every thirty minutes delay (unavoidable accidents excepted) in arriving after the time prescribed in any contract, the contractor shall forfeit one dollar; and if the delay continue until the departure of any departing mail, whereby the mails destined for such departing mail lose a trip, an additional forfeiture of five dollars shall be incurred.
4. Newspapers as well as letters are to be sent in the mail; and if any person making proposals, desires to carry newspapers, other than those conveyed in the mail, for his own emolument, he must state in his proposals for what sum he will carry with the emolument, and for what sum without that emolument.
5. Should any person making proposals desire an alteration of the times of arrival and departure above specified, he must state in his proposals the alteration desired, and the difference they will make in the terms of the contract.
6. Persons making proposals are desired to state their prices by the year. Those who contract will receive their pay quarterly in the months of August, November, February and May, in one month after the expiration of each quarter.
7. No other than a free white person shall be employed to convey the mail.
8. Where the proposer intends to convey the mail in the body of a stage-carriage, he is desired to state it in his proposals.
9. The Postmaster General reserves to himself the right of declaring any contract at an end whenever three failures happen which amount to the loss of a trip each.
10. The contracts for the above routes are to be in operation on the first day of April next, and are to continue in force for two years.
GIDEON GRANGER, Postmaster General. General Post-Office, Washington City, Nov. 18, 1804. law t Jan. 15.
Advertisement.
FOR SALE, one undivided third of that most valuable estate, held in common by Messrs. Joshua Collins, Nathaniel Allen, and the heirs of Samuel Dickenson, deceased, commonly called the Lake Company. The said estate consists of 53,000 acres of land, in Washington, North Carolina, lying between the canal and Long acre, bounding on Lake Phelps, Pungo Lake, and the head of Pungo river. Also, 5,000 acres of Land in Gun Neck, near Little Allegator river, in Tyrrell county. The above lands are equal if not superior for fertility of soil, to any land within the state: no part of them are subject to freshets or overflows from said Lakes or Rivers; but a very considerable part may be laid under water or kept perfectly dry, at pleasure, by means of said canal. This canal formerly cut by said company to join the waters of Lake Phelps to Scuppernong river is 20 feet wide, 6 feet deep, and affords an excellent navigation the distance of 6 miles, on one side of the first tract; on it and on the Lake is the plantation containing about 250 acres of cleared land in a high state of cultivation. The produce in general is for one acre, in wheat, about 30 bushels, in rice from 50 to 60 do. and in Indian corn in good seasons about 63 1/2 do. taking the whole crop together. In dry seasons hemp has been very productive.
On the plantation is a rice machine in complete order, in a building 72 feet long, 42 feet wide, and 4 stories high.
Also a grist-mill with a pair of stones for corn, and a pair of stones for wheat, with two bolting cloths, &c.
Also a thrashing machine in excellent order. There is a saw mill which is now repairing, to carry one saw, and is intended to be in the same frame with a merchant mill to carry 3 or 4 pair of stones for manufacturing flour, &c.
There is a good dwelling house two stories high, and all sorts of out houses, besides two barns and stables, &c.
There are 63 negroes above 12 years of age, amongst them are tradesmen of different kinds—Also 33 negroes under 12 years of age.
There are carpenter's cooper's and blacksmith's tools, besides every kind of plantation utensils, in good order. Horses, hogs, sheep, and about 100 head of cattle. Three large farts for the use of the canal &c.
The medium crops when making rice and corn, is from 220 to 280 casks of rice, 6000. gross each, from 3 to 600 barrels of corn.
To when making wheat, from 160 to 190 casks of rice, from 3 to 400 barrels of corn, 1500 bushels of wheat.
Lumber from the saw mill when employed with two saws, has sold from 2500 to 3000 dollars yearly, employing 12 hands.
Flax, cotton and hemp are not included, The rice has sold from 5 to 6 dollars per hundred, these several years past.
Were there 40 hands more on the plantation, the profits might be reckoned at least one third, if not one half more, for each hand, and for as many more as could be put on it.
Certified by THOS. TROTTER, Superintendent.
Mr. Nathaniel Allen, of the town of Edenton, and one of the company, being desirous to sell his interest in said property, had authorised the subscriber to dispose of the same, in his behalf, and has put into his possession all the necessary documents for the information of the persons desirous or inclined to purchase; the terms of payment, are one fourth down, on the execution of the deed or deeds of conveyance, the remainder at two annual and equal payments, to be secured in the most unexceptionable way.
The manner in which said property has been managed since the year 1787, when the company was formed, makes it a most desirable acquisition to gentlemen of capital, and by far outweighs the inconveniences attending property held in common, as a superintendent having the management and direction of the whole, with one or two overseers under him, renders it unnecessary for the proprietors to be at any farther trouble, concerning said estate, than an annual settlement. It will further appear by the above statement furnished from the company's books by Mr. Trotter, the present intendant, that the yearly produce of 250 acres now under tillage, amounts to between 8 and 10,000 dollars, annually, and that were 40 or 50 more working hands put on the said estate, the profits would nearly be double, with hardly any additional expense, as a much larger quantity of land might be laid under cultivation, with nearly the charges of the present farm. Any application by post to the subscriber, who resides near Plymouth, Washington county, North Carolina, or to Mr. Allen himself, or Mr. Stephen Cabarrus, of Edenton, will be duly attended to, and any further information, if required will cheerfully be imparted.
JOHN ROULHAC, At. at Law Plymouth, N. C. Oct. 16, 1804—w2m
* See Guthrie's Geography improved 2d volume, page 516 Philadelphia edition, April 1795.
This day is published by SAMUEL H. SMITH, —price 50 cts.— A DEFENCE of the MEASURES OF THE ADMINISTRATION of THOMAS JEFFERSON. BY CURTIUS. Taken from the National Intelligencer