The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-06-06 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1193.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, JUNE 6, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, APRIL 7.
Debate on the passage of the bill for raising an additional military force.
(CONTINUED.)
Mr. KEY said he always had been and still was friendly to raising the force proposed by the bill. It was not necessary to enter into the general argument or assign reasons why he was so disposed; certainly he should not enter into any view of the merits or demerits of the belligerents, because, it was conceded by every gentleman in the House that each had given abundant cause for war. But war was not the subject now before the House; if it were, a very different course would be pursued. However then he might reprobate the conduct of both nations in burning and capturing our ships, injuries sufficiently flagrant to call for war if our government had not resolved to pursue another course, high feelings and sonorous words were not consonant with the course which we had adopted; and it was not necessary more to inflame the public mind. Disregarding what had past, but meaning to provide for what should hereafter happen, was the policy pursued. In that view of our policy and of this subject, he reconciled to himself the vote he should give on this bill for raising a number of regiments. If he erred at all, it was in not having it in his power to vote for more; for he was satisfied that whether we look to our exterior relations, our extensive frontier line, its consequent weakness and great importance—to whatever point we cast our eyes and view the situation of our country, no harm could ensue or wrong be done in providing a force to the extent which this bill contemplated. He would not, after they had been so much more handsomely detailed than he could do it, repeat the acts of injustice of foreign nations; it was enough for him to say, whether he looked abroad or on our frontier, that in his mind he could find an adequate reason for voting for the bill. He hoped, because he was about to vote for this bill, that it would not be conceived that he did not place confidence in the militia. Far from it, said he. In the hands of the militia alone can our country be safe, and so far as they can be armed and organized, I am ready and willing to go; because on these men must repose our security and happiness. Although, however, the militia are fully competent to all the purposes of defence, the number of men proposed by the bill may well be raised and well employed in useful purposes.
Mr. K. said he wished that those who coincided with him in this opinion would in another; that they would vote for the recommittal of the bill, not to defeat it, but to strengthen it by amendment. There were two objections to the bill which in his mind were well worthy of amendment, and it would occupy but little time to consult a committee of the whole upon them; and for his life he could not see the necessity for the passage of the bill in 24 or 36 hours. Could any man shew him the immediate pressing necessity that this bill should pass on this day in preference to one more distant? He was friendly to the bill, and differed with the honorable member from Tennessee in his construction of the first section of this bill. He thought that this bill from its construction, contemplated a permanent army, and wished that part of the first section to be amended by a term of limitation to the duration of the force; as the limitation of the term of enlistment to five years, was couched precisely in the words of the law fixing the present peace establishment. Of course this was an addition to it. He had an objection also to that clause of this bill which gives the President power to appoint officers during the recess; which he thought was an evasion of the true spirit of the constitution. If gentlemen felt as he did, they would see that it was arming the Executive with a vast patronage. He hoped those objections would have weight, and that he should not be forced to give a vote upon the bill in this situation, when it could be so easily remedied.
Mr. DANA said for his part he felt so much for the character of his country, that he would not complain to the world that insult after insult had been committed on us, and that we had born it patiently. What did gentlemen intend to do now? To bear it still. Did they mean to chastise the authors of these insults? Did they mean to go to war? No. Why then proclaim to the world if they mean to bear it patiently? He thought all this passion served but to cloud the understanding.
In regard to the opinion which he had before expressed, that the renunciation of the principle of impressment was not for the interest of American seamen, to test its force, the consideration of the principle should be confined to the principle rigorously and completely carried into effect, without any deviation from it—that is, that British not American , seamen may be impressed from neutrals. He was examining the principle as strictly adhered to. If their never were any variation in that practice, it never would be for the interest of the American seamen that the principle should be renounced. In considering the principle, they should proceed upon the supposition that abuses are excepted. When gentlemen then said that this principle was liable to abuse, Mr. D. said he certainly did not deny that fact; nor was he so stupid or so little a friend to seamen as to suppose that they could not suffer; that they had not the feelings or the sympathies of other men; or that humanity could not be outraged in their persons. This was not the question. He admitted that there should be some distinction to serve as a security against the abuse of the principle; and the question still remained whether or not they could provide an adequate security against the impressment of American seamen, without a total renunciation of the claim on the part of Great Britain to impress her own seamen. At present, said he, the British seaman is confounded with the American seaman, and the American with the British; and from the difficulties occasioned by this confusion results the necessity of making a discrimination. If once we could be assured that the American seamen would not be impressed, clearly it would not be a disadvantage to our seamen that the British seamen should be impressed. Therefore I am not disposed to question the patriotism of our minister at London, or of the Secretary of State; but I have been led to enquire what can be done for our seamen that would be most for their interest. It is the effect of extravagant pretensions to destroy the whole. If gentlemen are disposed to say that we should seize reparation for the injuries which have been done us, I wish this language had been asserted at an earlier period. There was a time you might have vindicated your honor—when the British squadron lay in the Chesapeake. Recollect on the subject of the report of the committee on the attack on the Chesapeake, gentlemen maintained the principle that the report should be taken up because their armed vessels then actually violated our jurisdiction; and I have not forgotten the zeal with which a gentleman from Kentucky urged that they should be expelled from our waters. I believe that the frigates which we might have sent out would have compelled the British to retire; & that it would have gone to shew that if we would not suffer an insurrection of our own countrymen against the imposition of a tax on whiskey, neither could we suffer an insurrection of aliens in our own waters against our sovereignty. I really cannot see the advantage of detailing these evils; for the time has passed when the British flag might have been struck to an American seaman.
The motion for recommittal was then lost, Ayes 29.
A motion was made to adjourn and negatived, Ayes 24.
Mr. CLOXTON said that from an allusion made to him by a gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Stanford) it had become incumbent on him to say a few words in reply. The gentleman, said Mr. C. has labored extremely hard to fix on me the stamp of inconsistency on account of my vote now and in 1798. How has the gentleman proved it? What is inconsis-
tency? When a member is charged with an inconsistent vote, it must be when having given a vote on one occasion, he votes differently on another, when the ground of both votes is precisely the same. Was that the case in the vote which I gave in 1798 and that which I mean to give now? No; I avow the contrary. I did hope that it would have been satisfactory to gentlemen that I considered myself as acting consistently with the principle on which I went in 1798; for I did explicitly declare, when up before on this subject, that had the state of things appeared to me in 1798 as they do now, my vote would then have been, as it will be now, affirmative: and were the circumstances now as they were then, my vote now would be as it was then. I did hope that I should be permitted to be the judge of my own views at that period and at this.
The gentleman in the course of his observations took occasion to observe that I had presented in '98 a memorial against the measures of the then administration. He did not surely mean to adduce that as any proof of inconsistency. If I had presented a thousand similar and opposite things, would it be a ground on which to charge me with inconsistency? No, sir: but even that remonstrance which the gentleman has so industriously sought up, though it recommended to its representative not to aid measures which had a hostile tendency, yet did strictly enjoin upon him to support such measures as had for their object the defence of the country alone. Their representative voted against measures which he deemed not necessary, the situation of the country not requiring them. The authors of the remonstrance spoke the language of his constituents; and he obeyed it: and I have the consolation to say that the particular representative alluded to, does now intend to act in conformity to their wishes.
Upon the whole, I cannot see that the gentleman from N. Carolina could have proceeded a single step to affix upon me the charge of inconsistency or deviation from principle. My principle was in '98 to support all measures which the situation of my country appeared to render necessary for defence. The measure alluded to did not appear to me to be required, and therefore I did not vote for it. My principle is now the same; and under the impression that the situation of the country calls for this measure, I shall vote for it. In this case then, if I am capable of knowing my own intentions, of knowing my own opinion, if I am capable of judging between two things dissimilar, I declare in the most positive manner that I am not sensible of any deviation from principle in my conduct formerly and at this time.
I do not mean to enter into an argument now on the situation of this country. I did not when I spoke before; I stated in general terms that the situation of the country was alarming. I considered the facts of the monstrous outrages and repeated violations of every right, as so well known to every member of the House, that it was unnecessary for me to recapitulate them. I believe then that the gentleman from North Carolina need not to look to my inconsistency but perhaps to his own.
But it has been observed, so far from the present situation of our country being more alarming than at that period, that there was greater prospect of war then than now; and one gentleman has said that we were really then at war. I acknowledge that there were naval attacks on both sides, and that the American merchant vessels were authorised to arm; yet at the same time I did not conceive, nor do I believe that the American people had any conception that there existed in the French government any disposition to go to war with this country. If those attacks constituted war, what do you account the attack on the Chesapeake, superadded to all those monstrous outrages by which it was preceded? These added together create much greater cause of war than formerly; but neither is in my opinion actual war. The prospect of it being greater at this time than then, on that I founded my vote. I did express also when I was up before in positive terms, that I should vote for this bill, not as a force on which to rest the general defence, but as a body necessary to be employed
for purposes which are unsuited to the militia, which have since been more minutely recited—in fact for garrison duty—at the same time that I believe the general defence should in every situation be rested on the militia. Besides this I would take other measures; for it surely never was understood that it was intended that this body of troops should constitute the sole defence of this country.
I believe it has, in the course of argument on this subject, been suggested that probably this bill or raising these troops, instead of operating to ward off war, might give rise to it. The idea seemed to be founded on an apprehension that Britain would consider this as a warlike measure aimed particularly at her, and therefore would be more disposed to commit aggression than without it. If I am mistaken in my understanding of this I wish to be corrected. If I do not forget this was a labored argument against the embargo: that it would be considered as pressing more heavily upon Britain than upon France, and therefore would be thought good cause for war; that the embargo was an offensive measure, a provocation which their forbearance would not brook. Has experience fulfilled the prediction? On the contrary we find it is considered as a measure totally neutral, and inoffensive in its nature.
If the prediction when applied to the embargo has failed, it is fair to conclude that it will fail in this case also. For myself I can truly state the intention of this bill was not contemplated by me for G. Britain; nor did I predict that we should be in a war with G. Britain; but such was the situation of the two great belligerent powers, that it behoved us to be in a state of preparation, that if attacked by one or the other we might resist.
(DEBATE TO BE CONCLUDED.)
Letter of Mr. Monroe to Mr. Madison—Continued.
I say that this trade is not inhibited by the British principle, because it supposes a trade between enemy colonies and the mother country. But a trade between the U. S. and Asia or Africa, let the subject of it be what it may, is not a trade of that kind. It is a trade with independent powers at peace with G. Britain, with whom we have a right to trade, by all the rules which G. Britain has at any time insisted on. It would be of dangerous tendency to admit that G. Britain had a pretension to interfere with such a trade in any case. After the goods are received into the U. S. no matter of what articles they consist, or from what quarter they came, they are the property of the country, and may of right be shipped to any other country. The British principle does not controvert this doctrine. It asserts in its widest range the right only to seize them on their route to the neutral country, and from it to the mother country of the colony, or some other enemy's country of Europe, provided, they be not incorporated into the stock of the neutral country. If they are, they may go under the arrangement made to the countries to which the British principle applies. But they require no sanction from the British government, to go to those to which it does not apply. The destination of the vessel alone would, as I presume, dispel every doubt of the legality of the trade, and preclude all farther inquiry concerning it. The question of continuity of voyage could never arise in such a case. It is certain that the arrangement alluded to gives no sanction to it, and for the best of all reasons, that the trade was not admitted, or even contended to be comprized within the range of British principle.
I shall close my remarks on this point by observing, that as the arrangement of the acts to break the continuity of the voyage from the U. States, to the parent country, and other enemy countries of Europe, in the produce of their colonies, and from the United States to those colonies, in the manufactures of Europe, is confined strictly to that object, the rights of the parties remain unimpaired in every other circumstance relative to that trade: that as the article contains no stipulation against the direct trade from the colony to the parent country, the right to carry on even that trade is not necessarily suspended by it: that if in any view it can be considered as suspended it is by implication arising out of the
whole transaction, rather than from the stipulation itself. How much stronger then is the conclusion already drawn from other premises, that nothing is to be deduced from that article to justify the construction which has been imputed to it.
The remarks above made, refer more particularly to a trade between the United States and Europe in the produce of enemy colonies. They are however equally applicable to the other objection stated in your letter, of a trade between the United States and enemy colonies, in the produce or manufactures of Africa or Asia. None of the orders alluded to, inhibit that commerce, and it is most certain that the article alluded to, gives no sanction to such a pretension.
As to the conditions by which it is agreed to break the continuity of the voyage, I have to observe that they are as favorable as you had expected. We were authorized to stipulate, if better conditions could not be obtained, that the goods should be landed , the duties paid , and the ship charged . We stipulated, only that the goods should be landed, and the duty paid, making the duty on European goods 1 per cent. and on colony productions two. By exempting the party from the necessity of changing the ship; an important advantage was certainly secured. By fixing the duty at 1 per cent. in the one instance, and at 2 in the other, it was not possible that the slightest embarrassment should be thrown in the way of the trade. The duty payable on manufactures consumed in the country is about 15 per cent. and on West-India productions 25. The trifling amount made payable to the country on the re-exportation of the articles, could not be felt by the merchant. It would fall on the European consumer. It could not be felt as a heavy imposition on the trade itself. Our only competitor in it, would be Great-Britain, whose merchants would labor under the disadvantages incident to war, in a thousand shapes, more especially as the ports of the whole continent would be shut on them, in not being able to get their goods into those ports, otherwise than by smuggling them: a mode which could not fail to be onerous, if it succeeded, but which was likely to fail in most cases. It should be remembered also, that the increased duties which would accrue to the country would tend, in the degree, to interest the whole community in support of a commerce, in which the commercial part was most materially interested. It is the policy of the European powers having colonies in the West-Indies, to make the parent country the entrepot of the productions of its colonies. Is not that policy worthy the attention and imitation of the United States, in respect to the trade of the colonies in question? The duty received would make some recompence to the nation for the expenses incurred and sums expended, in supporting our right to that trade. Besides, by making the ports of the United States the "entrepots" for such productions, the country in general would derive some advantage from the measure. Every ship engaged in the commerce which entered an American port, would bring something to, and take something from it. The vast amount of Asiatic, European and West-India articles brought to our markets, would cheapen the price of those articles at home, and each ship, while in port, and in the prosecution of her voyage, would require supplies in provision and other articles, which would raise the price of those articles, to the great advantage of the general interest of the country.
The limitation of the article to the term specified, was a condition which we presumed might prove advantageous to the United States, while it could not possibly injure them. It is expressly stipulated that the right of both parties shall revive at the expiration of the term. Those of the U. States, therefore, would then be in force, and to the full extent of their pretensions, in the same manner as if the stipulation had not been entered into. In another war they might insist on conditions which this stipulation did not secure, and, if Great-Britain did not yield to their demand, they might resort to any expedient, to compel her, which the wisdom of their councils might dictate. Any encroachment on the part of Great-Britain on their rights, as heretofore

contended for, might be considered by their government an act of hostility, and treated accordingly. The least favorable conditions that she could offer would be those already settled, which the United States might accept or reject, as they thought best. As a youthful, prosperous, and rising nation, it could not be doubted that in the next war their situation would be more imposing than in the present one. The presumption is, that they would be able then to obtain better conditions than at present.
On the third article I have to observe, in addition to what is stated in our joint letter of January 3, 1807, that nothing would have been more easy than to have omitted any provision on the subject of it, and to have placed that trade on the footing of the most favored nation. To obtain better terms by treaty was utterly impossible. We were much inclined to omit any provision on the subject, because we were aware that the arrangement made would fall short of the expectation of our government and country, and most probably subject us to censure. We acceded to that arrangement from a conviction that it secured its better terms than we should be likely to enjoy, if left to depend on the pleasure of the British government, simulated as we knew that was to restrict us in it by the India Company, and other interests of the country. It is impossible to conceive too high an idea of the jealousy which is entertained of the United States, in a commercial view, by that government, and of the danger with which it thinks Great Britain is menaced by their extraordinary prosperity and rapid growth. The boldness and ability with which they are prosecuted by our merchants and mariners, excite the admiration of Europe. Great Britain has seen, that, wherever our citizens gained a foothold, they never lost it. Without distrusting her own means, or the hardness and activity of her people, she finds that our position, remote from Europe, contiguous to the West-Indies and the southern continent, and as near to India as herself, give us advantages, against which she cannot cope. The effort which we made and persevered in for several months to gain admission into British India, on more favorable terms, and the disposition which was shown by the British commissioners to yield, excited a sensation, or more properly speaking, an alarm in the board of India directors, and of the commercial people in general, even among those who had no particular interest in the question, which was extremely obvious. Had we made no provision in the treaty to secure our admittance into India, on certain conditions, we had much reason to believe that that commerce would have been fettered to an extreme degree, and in every form.
We were extremely anxious to provide that our citizens might make their shipments from Europe, to take species from Spain and Portugal, goods from England, &c. and that they might touch at the Cape of Good Hope, at the Isle of Bourbon, at the Mauritius, &c. that they might carry on the coasting trade in India, and be permitted to pass from Calcutta to China. These advantages were insisted on, but the pressure which we made produced reports from the board of directors, at the instance of the government, and from political men conversant in these topics, which fixed the government in its decision not to grant them. I repeat, however, that it would have been easy to have omitted the regulation from the treaty, and placed the trade on the footing of the most favored nation, as it would have been at any time afterwards, had the state of affairs in other respects permitted it.
By your instructions, a provision in favor of indemnity was not made an indispensable condition of a treaty. We were authorized to conclude one without it. We were, therefore, persuaded that the ground on which that interest was placed, could not fail to be approved. The arrangement which we made authorized a just claim to expect a dismission of all the causes that were depending in the courts of admiralty, and even to an indemnity in the cases of condemnation. The documents which we forwarded to you in our joint letter of [blank] give a full view of this subject, and to them I beg to refer.
Your 5th objection applies to the 12th and 19th articles of the treaty, and in the first instance to the prohibition it contains, of extending the privileges which are made reciprocal between the parties, to other nations, which is supposed to be a breach of neutrality. Had I conceived that those articles were justly exposed to that imputation, I should certainly not have assented to them. But I saw no foundation for the imputation. With Spain and Holland we have treaties which secure them all the
rights to which they are entitled. It is usual, and certainly proper, for a nation in estimating its claims on other powers, to examine its treaties with them, and not to think of setting up a pretension beyond the limit of such treaties. By treaty, neither of those powers have any right in the case in question, nor have we in the ports of either. By treaty, Great Britain had enjoyed those rights in the ports of the United States, as we had in her ports from the year 1794. Spain and Holland knew the conditions of that treaty, which was in force at the commencement of the present war, and some time afterwards, and would have been in force if late in the last year, had a special condition of the 12th article been carried into effect. To renew the treaty in the express terms of the former one, a treaty which deprived no one power of any existing conventional right; which subjected none to conditions to which they had not been always subjected; which allowed to Great Britain, on principles of reciprocity, a privilege which there was no reason to presume that any other power, especially Spain, would consent to reciprocate with the United States, did not seem to be liable to the objection stated to it. The general principle which you advance, of extending those privileges to as small a number of powers as possible, had also some weight in inducing us to accede to the arrangement. France is admitted to an enjoyment of them, in the same extent with Great Britain. She, therefore, has no cause of complaint. I do not think that the stipulation forbids any arrangement of the government, relative to the number of ships of war, that shall be admitted into the ports of the United States at one time, or any regulation relative to their conduct while within the ports of the United States, provided it be general and equally applicable to both powers. A stipulation that the ships of war of each nation shall be hospitably received into the ports of the other, does not necessarily imply that there is to be no rule as to the numbers to be admitted into the ports to which they shall be confined, or the order they shall observe while in port. All these topics have been at all times, as I have reason to believe, the object of regulation by Great Britain, and I have equal reason to believe that her government did not consider itself as having abandoned its right to regulate them by this article.
Your next objection applies to the last paragraph of the 19th, taken in connection with the 12th article. By your construction of those parts of the treaty, the United States would be bound to claim redress in favor of Great Britain of her enemies, for any acts of hostility which they might commit on her ships of war or merchant vessels, within the additional limit, while she might commit, with impunity, like acts of hostility on the ships of war and merchant vessels of her enemies, in case they did not acknowledge it, and against their ships of war in case they did, although her own ships of war in both cases would be protected within it. I was decidedly of opinion, and still am, that while those articles secure to the United States an unconditional advantage, none whatever is stipulated by them in favor of Great Britain, which must not of necessity be common to her enemies; that her privilege, on the contrary, whatever it may be, must be founded on their consent, follow, and terminate with it.
The 12th article stipulates that Great Britain shall not stop the vessels of the United States within five marine miles of their coast, except for the purpose of examining whether they be American, or those of another power; and that she shall not stop the unarmed vessels of other powers within the same limit, provided they acknowledge it, except to ascertain whether they belong to those who have acknowledged it. The vessels of the powers who do not adopt the regulation are not affected by it. They remain under the ordinary protection of the law of nations, which extends to the distance of cannon shot or three miles from the coast. Beyond that limit the enemies of Great Britain have a right to search and seize her vessels, without being amenable to the United States, and the same right is reserved to her by this article, as if it had not been entered into. Vessels of war are expressly excluded from the advantage of the regulation.
It is the sole object of the 12th article to secure to the United States an accommodation, by extending their jurisdiction on their coast, in what concerns themselves, from three to five miles. The stipulation is unconditional as to them, but conditional as to other powers, dependent on their acknowledging the same limit. It is made reciprocal, by being extended to the British dominions, northward
of the United States, a circumstance which merits attention, as it precludes the idea that any other equivalent was expected or intended to be given for it. It would have been extended to the dominions of Great Britain, in Europe and elsewhere, had the British commissioners desired it. They declined it, from a fear that it might produce some innovation in the general doctrine of the law of nations on the subject. This is, I think, fairly to be inferred from the instrument itself.
The last paragraph of the 19th article stipulates that neither of the parties shall permit the ships or goods belonging to the subjects or citizens of the other, to be taken within cannon shot of the coast, nor within the jurisdiction described in article 12th, so long as the provisions of the said article shall be in force, by the ships of war of other powers; but in case it should so happen, the party, whose territorial rights shall thus have been violated, shall endeavor to obtain from the offending party, full and ample satisfaction for the vessels so taken, whether the same be vessels of war or merchant vessels.
If any advantage is given to Great Britain by the arrangement proposed by the 12th article, and this clause of the 19th, to the prejudice of her enemies, or of the United States, it must be by this clause. She can certainly claim none under the 12th article. This clause consists of two distinct members, of very different import. The first contains a general stipulation, conformable to the law of nations, applicable to all the dominions of both parties, and equally so to their ships of war and merchant vessels. With respect to the latter, however, it is conditional. The second member applies to the arrangement made in the 12th article, and in the sense and spirit of that article. If the 12th article is carried into effect in favor of other powers, which can only be done by their consent, then the advantage which is secured to them by it, will accrue likewise to Great Britain. What is that advantage? Protection to their merchant vessels within the additional two miles, and nothing else. It is obvious, that the protection which is stipulated in favor of ships of war is provided for, by the first member of the clause, and not by the second. It cannot be by both, for the distance defined by them is different, it being three miles in one, and five in the other. It is equally obvious, that the stipulation contained in the second member of the clause, relative to the 12th article, is intended to operate in the spirit of that article, and to be made dependent on it. By the terms "nor within the jurisdiction described 12th, so long as the provisions of the said article shall be in force," the stipulation contemplated is made conditional. In force, in respect to whom? Not to the United States, because it was unconditional as to them. It was conditional only with respect to other powers. Other reasons might be given to show that the arrangement under consideration is not liable to the objection made to it, but I presume that those stated will be satisfactory.
The difficulty to obtain the accommodation which was yielded in the 12th article was extreme. We labored most earnestly to extend it to other powers, without their consenting to reciprocate it in favor of Great Britain; but that could not be accomplished. The British commissioners urged that as Great Britain predominated at sea, and must lose by the concession in any form, it would be unjust for her to make the concession in their favor unless they would allow her the advantage of it. Finding that it was impossible to extend the additional limit to other powers, on other terms, we thought it advisable to adopt the arrangement in respect to them conditionally, putting it in their power to accept or reject it, as they thought fit. We flattered ourselves that as they could not lose by it, they would not refuse their assent to an arrangement by which they might gain, especially as it would prove advantageous to a friendly power. We deemed it highly important to establish the additional limit in favor of the United States from the advantage it might afford to their commerce within it, and from the effect which the measure seemed likely to produce on the future conduct of the British squadrons on our coast, by whom it could not fail to be considered as a severe censure on the past.
It is readily admitted that more suitable terms might have been adopted to accomplish the object in view. But it ought to be recollected, that as the right of jurisdiction imposes of necessity the obligation of protection, without a special exception to it, there was some difficulty in making an arrangement
which should secure to the United States the advantage which they desired, and at the same time exempt them from the duty incident to it.
Letter to be continued.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JUNE 6.
The Boston Chronicle, in confirmation of the statements in our last respecting the Massachusetts election, says, "the federalists could not increase their number [of representatives] so much as twenty, if every town in which they have the majority had chosen its full quota; while the republicans might have added at least eighty-seven."
The Chronicle then enumerates eighty-two towns, that sent but 32, which might have sent 119 representatives.
The triumph of federalism in Massachusetts is, as might be expected, arrogant and boundless. The Repertory, to all intents and purposes a British print, ascribes it among other reasons to "a disposition [on the part of the government] to wage unnecessary war with a nation (England) disposed to settle all differences with our government—a servile cringing partiality to a power of a very different character" (France). We quote this paragraph to mark the genuine character of the Essex junto.
On the 27th May, were introduced into the Legislature of Massachusetts a string of resolutions, expressive of an opposition to the embargo, and a wish to substitute for it an "effective navy." The resolutions are of some length, and artfully worded. They declare that to secure protection to commerce, navigation and fisheries, "was a primary motive for the accession of this commonwealth to the constitution of the U. States." They then proceed to say that in their opinion they are not protected by the late measures of government, and deprecate the policy "which has impaired our naval force and left us exposed to every invader."
A day was assigned for their consideration. They shall be given at length hereafter.
The following dignified and truly patriotic toasts were drank amongst others at the dinner lately given at Salem, (Mass.) to the hon. Timothy Pickering, as a tribute of "respect and gratitude" for his meritorious efforts to mislead the public mind:
"A steady opposition to despotism, whether in the form of Imperial decrees, royal proclamations, or Presidential recommendations."
"Our political chymists: In their experiments to melt down our merchants into manufacturers, may they burn their fingers in the crucible."
"Our brethren of Cape Ann: May their fish break through the embargo net, and twist its thread round the neck of democracy!"
The commandant of the island of St. Croix has prohibited any merchant vessel leaving the island from carrying away from the island "provisions of any kind, but what is absolutely necessary for the subsistence of the passengers and crew, until her arrival at the port for which she is destined." The allowance estimated for a voyage to Europe, is for eight weeks; to America, thirty days; to Barbadoes, ten days.
The provident policy of our government having withdrawn for a time our vessels from the ocean, leaving but a remnant as food for the commercial interdictions and retaliations of the belligerents, their cruisers and privateers are hovering on our coast, and have assailed even our coasting trade. Vessels sailing from Orleans and Charleston to the northern ports, have been attacked and plundered; one, the Roboreus, bound from Baltimore to Orleans, was captured by two French privateers, carried into an uninhabited port of the island of Cuba, disburthened of her cargo, and in this situation permitted to return.
On the 28th ult. arrived at Salem schooner Joanna, capt. Huffam, 30 days from Bilbao. The Prince of Peace had not been beheaded, as has been reported. Every thing appeared to be quietly settling under the new King in Spain. The Joanna was originally bound to Bilbao, but had her register endorsed by an Englishman. She however proceeded for her port, and was taken by a Spanish boat within sight of it. No condemnations of American vessels had taken place in Spain under the blocka-
ding decrees. The Court of Admiralty at Madrid cleared vessel and cargo. The brig Betsey, Hooper, of Boston, was waiting trial.
We are informed that the Marquis Yrujo has received letters from Spain, stating that all the American vessels carried into the ports of Spain, under the Milan decree, had been released, and that those detained in French ports were also expected to be immediately released.
Dem. Press.
At a meeting of a number of citizens of Muskingum County, Ohio, convened for the purpose on the 29th April, it was
"Resolved unanimously, That from the best information we have been able to collect, as to our foreign relations, we are led to believe, that the U. S. were placed in a situation from which no alternative, consistent with the honor and interest of this nation remained, but war, or an embargo; that of the two evils, the least has been adopted."
"Resolved unanimously, That the course pursued by the constituted authorities in conducting the negotiation with England, as also our relations with France and other powers, meets our approbation; and that the several laws laying an embargo, although bearing hard on the commercial and agricultural interest of the United States, we believe to be the best calculated to obtain redress and justice from the belligerent powers of Europe."
Resolutions were also adopted by the same meeting expressive of their approbation of the nomination of James Madison as President of the United States and George Clinton as Vice-President, and of a determination to give their votes for such men only as will support that nomination.
White Plains, May 13.
"The Grand Jury for the county of West Chester, assembled at this place, for the performance of those important duties, assigned to them by the constitution and the laws, &c. congratulate their fellow citizens upon such a desirable state of tranquility and order; and this too, under the pressure of circumstances in our national concerns, acknowledged to involve great, yet unavoidable privations—and they ardently wish that the same attention to the laws of our country, which appears to have been observed in this country, may generally prevail and longer continue."
"And at this eventful crisis of our national affairs; assailed by the great belligerent powers of Europe, the peaceable avocations of our fellow citizens, unjustly interrupted, their property the spoil, and their persons the prey of the spoilers—this Grand Jury have considered it to be their duty, publicly to express their confidence in the integrity and wisdom, and their full approbation of the measures of the government of these United States."
"They consider the embargo to have been a measure of safety and protection calculated to preserve our resources from the grasp of foreign violence, and to cherish and collect them, until it appear whether a perseverance in aggression render a resort to force inevitable, and they recommend to their fellow citizens a firm and patriotic support of this excellent administration, which under divine Providence has so greatly promoted the independence, prosperity and happiness of the union—and when our venerable and illustrious President shall have completed the term for which he is elected, may his successor and associates with his mantle, constitutionally conferred, receive and retain his spirit also."
Signed by twenty-one jurors.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman of high respectability in London, to one of the public insurance companies of Philadelphia dated the 7th of April, 1808.
"I have much satisfaction in stating to you, that by a decision made the other day in the court of admiralty, those ports in St. Domingo, not in the possession, or under the dominion of France or Spain, are declared not to belong to an enemy's colony; and that an American ship (the Manila) trading from Hayti to Gottemburg, was restored. There is, therefore, good grounds for believing that appeals from the condemnation of vessels belonging to any country not being hostile trading to St. Domingo, may prove successful." [Register.
Sr. Croix, 13th April, 1808.
On Tuesday last came on, in his majesty's vice admiralty court at Tortola the trial of the property captured in this island, St. Thomas, St. John's and its dependencies, when after a full hearing, the judge decreed the condemnation of all the Danish &

Dutch bonds, credit notes, obligations, &c. to the benefit of the land and naval force under the command of gen. Bowyer, and rear admiral sir Alexander Cochrane, K. B. and the judge at the same time decreed the public buildings to belong to his majesty the king of the united kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.
To the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. V.
Having established the position, that but for the Embargo war would have been inevitable, it remains to consider the relative effects of these alternatives.
Had war been resorted to, it is far from improbable, strange as the fact might be, that it would have been with both England and France, and all the nations politically connected with the latter. For although it be demonstrable that the original great violations of our neutral rights came from Great Britain, yet, inasmuch as France has, without any just cause, followed her example, it would have been too late for us to attempt to draw any line of difference between them. However things may have originally stood, both nations are now, and have been for some time, equally aggressors.
It may be said that such a war would be impossible; that a demonstration of hostility towards either nation would have injured the friendship of the other. But this is by no means certain so far as it relates either to their disposition, or our own. Is there any reason to believe that England would, as the price of our declaring war against France, suffer our trade to pass undisturbed, or admit us to a wider immunity of interests with her own subjects than we at present enjoy? The inevitable effect of being at war with France would be in some degree at least to cripple our power, to lessen the capital at present embarked in commerce, and proportionally diminish our means of resistance against the pretension of Britain to the exclusive dominion of the ocean. Thus hampered, there is every reason to infer that our commercial rival would restrain, instead of enlarging, the freedom of our trade, and would make us in a greater degree tributary than we should be, in a period of peace. Her friendship would be like that of all powerful nations; and she would be more likely to hug us to death than to cherish and maintain our interests. There is no reason to believe that we should yield to such pretensions, or, in other words, that we should risk a coalition with her.
On the other hand, those who nurture a spirit of discontent at the embargo will be the last to recommend a coalition with France against England. As there appears to be no man among us who even dreams of such an event, it would be mere quixotism to combat the position. The naked fact probably is that, after the experience we have had, there is no administration which could emanate from the people, that would be so infatuated as to propose a close coalition of interests, by political association, with either nation; and should it be proposed, there is no doubt that the great body of the people would indignantly reject it.
War, therefore, would most probably be carried on with both nations.
The necessary effect would be a total destruction of our neutrality and trade. In addition to the inhibition to export our commodities would be superadded an inhibition to import those of foreign nations. There would not be a port, in the world, open to us, and, ours would be shut, so far as we could shut them, against a hostile world. There would, however, be this unfortunate difference between us. While we were destitute of means of forcing a trade with them, they would have the means of attacking our rich depots, and, no doubt, would do it, and of committing consequent spoliations to an unlimited amount, to supply their own pressing wants.
In this respect war would be a complete embargo; it would be a practical application of the principle of the present embargo to a much greater extent. All the arguments, therefore, brought against the latter, would apply with increased strength against the former.
Our only resort would be to privateering. Let us examine its effects. The tonnage of the shipping of the United States may be taken at one and a half millions, and may be valued, in its present state at fifty millions of dollars. Supposing, that we should take as many vessels as are taken from us, the maintenance of our full establishment of tonnage would be requisite to furnish us with our present supplies. Let us, also, admit
that our merchant men would do for privateers. This is giving this species of operations the greatest possible advantage. The expence, incurred, from arming them, would, on a very moderate estimate, equal the first cost. Their annual maintenance would cost at least three times that incurred in times of peace, owing to the augmented number of seamen and military stores. This would come to about fifty millions of dollars a year. The effect, consequently, of the conversion of our merchant vessels into privateers, would be an augmentation in the capital required of fifty millions, and in the annual expenditure of fifty millions more.
The whole of this expence would be incurred, not so much for the purpose of forcing the exportation of our own products; as for that of capturing the commodities of the belligerent nations. Of these last we consume at present but about fifty millions; supposing, then, that we should take to this amount, we should have to pay for it the value of the annual maintenance of our shipping, with the interest on the capital, amounting at six per cent. to six millions, and making altogether fifty-six millions of dollars. The game would, of course, be a losing one.
This calculation is on the ground that while we took the vessels of our enemies, they would not take any of ours. But as there is every probability that they would capture a full moiety of the whole taken, this loss would be to be superadded.
Should it so happen that a foreign market would be opened for the disposition of our produce, the following would be the result, on the favorable supposition that our chances of capture on the ocean were great to those of our enemies.
 1. The absorption of a new capital of fifty millions of dollars.  2. The increasing annual expenditure of fifty millions.  3. The interest chargeable, on the old & new capital, amounting to six millions. 
It would follow that our trade would be exposed to an additional annual burthen of fifty-six millions of dollars.
But under such accumulated burthens, it would be impossible to carry on our trade without utter ruin. It is obvious that most of our articles of export, would not sell in the foreign markets at a price much advanced beyond that at which they ordinarily stand; and that very considerable rise in their prices would either altogether prevent their sale, or considerably abridge it by diminishing the consumption. While, therefore, we got but a small advance for our produce, the foreign articles imported would be chargeable with the remaining expences as our trade. The difference between the enhanced price of our exports, and of foreign imports, would constitute a balance against us, which amounting to at least one half the increased expence, would operate as annual drain of twenty-eight millions of dollars. Such a trade could not be carried on without ruin; and it is, therefore, but fair to infer that it could not eventually be carried on at all; and that, consequently, our merchants, after the loss of incalculable wealth, would impose upon themselves a voluntary embargo.
There remains to add to this estimate of the effects of war, the expences incident to our defence. Whatever might be the real danger of invasion, there can be no question but that it would be menaced; without an adequate protective force our frontiers would be embroiled, and our interior disturbed by insurrections among the blacks. To prevent or repress these effects a considerable effective force would be indispensable. It is useless to enquire whether this force ought to consist of regulars or militia; as the expence in either case would be the same; the only difference would be that in the case of regulars it would be defrayed by the government, and in the case of militia by the citizens individually. A force, equivalent to that of 30,000 regulars, would cost ten millions; add to this five millions for fortifications and gun boats, and we have an increased annual expence of fifteen millions chargeable, in addition to that already stated, to the protection of our trade; for it ought not to be lost sight of that this calculation is one altogether of pecuniary profit and loss.
Such are the outlines of the pecuniary effects of war.
Let us now enquire into the effects of the embargo.
The evils resulting from it may be divided into,
 Those felt by the merchant; and  Those felt by the farmer and planter. 
In the case of the merchant, there is in general a mere suspension of business. So far as he owns articles of
a perishable nature there is a positive loss, and this is the case with his shipping; though it remains to be seen, whether at the raising of the embargo the enhanced prices paid for shipping and for the articles exported will not amply remunerate his present losses.
Estimating the commercial capital of the U. States at 100 millions, and the mercantile profit at ten per cent. his loss, from not continuing his trade, cannot exceed ten millions. If to this be added five millions on account of the perishable property of the shipping, and an equal loss for the injury on other perishable articles, we have an aggregate of twenty millions.
As an offset to this, it is but fair to put down the increased price of foreign goods, which, estimated at ten per cent. on fifty millions amount to
5,000,000
The increased price paid in foreign markets for his goods, stored previously to the embargo, which may be confidently computed at
5,000,000
And the increased cheapness of living during the continuance of the Embargo, which may be estimated at
2,000,000
Making altogether, 12,000,000
This leaves a deficit of 8,000,000, which will in a great measure be met by the new employment given by him to that portion of his capital disengaged from trade.
It follows that the injuries sustained by the merchant will be inconsiderable. Those, indeed, acquainted with the principles of political economy know how difficult it is materially to injure this class of men, who, drawing all their profits from the consumption of the other classes of society, likewise saddle them, with very few exceptions, with their losses.
On the farmer and planter the injury will principally fall. They will be either kept out of the value of their surplus produce for a considerable time, or be obliged to sell it at a reduced price. Happily, however, they are generally in such circumstances, that unless the embargo be of unlooked for duration, they will have the means of retaining their produce for sale until a more propitious season shall arrive. In the mean time it is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate with any precision the amount of pecuniary loss. But it will be manifest to any man, who reflects on the subject that it will fall far short of fifty or sixty millions, which we have seen would be the increased annual expence of war. This is evident from the whole amount of our domestic exports falling considerably short of fifty millions, and from the loss actually sustained being limited to the value of the articles which shall perish before the embargo is raised, and to the eventual diminution of the foreign demand for the residue. The actual loss cannot surpass the amount of these two items, which itself will in all probability form but an inconsiderable part of the whole; as the tobacco, the cotton, the rice, usually exported, may be kept uninjured for several years, and as these articles constitute the larger portion of our exports.
2. The second view, worthy of notice, is that the embargo, though the cause of much individual distress will produce little national loss of wealth; while war would most extensively produce both.
The degree in which war would produce a loss of property almost defies calculation. Our whole commerce might be swept into the possession of our enemy at a blow, thereby enriching her at our expence by taking its full value from the national stock.
The embargo has the advantage of securing the whole mass of national property; of concentrating our means; and of preparing us for the day of danger.
3. The embargo will necessarily produce an economical expenditure of the public monies; war would not fail to produce a lavish disbursement of them. All that can be required under the former is a moderate preparation for defence; while under the latter, a more extensive preparation for defence would be indispensable, and the infinitely more expensive means of offensive operations might be called for. At present, under the embargo, an extraordinary expenditure of three or four millions has been thought sufficient; once engaged in war, the extraordinary expences would not fall short of twenty millions. If these were drawn from loans they would not fail to clog our future growth; and if from pre-
* A profit nearly equal to this has been made on the single article of tobacco.
sent taxes to operate most oppressively.
4. The embargo withdraws us altogether from a political association with foreign nations; war would bind together our common destinies. Is there any thing in the condition of the foreign world generally, or in that of any one state in particular that ought to tempt us, at any price whatever, to embark our interests with theirs? If there be not, if this is the decided conviction of our countrymen, they ought to consider war as among the greatest curses that could befall us, and not to murmur at any lesser evil that saves them from it.
5. The embargo protects not only our trade, but likewise our political institutions, from injury or ruin, by withdrawing us from all collisions with foreign powers. War would expose our political institutions to hazard, not only by the direct effect of those collisions; but still more so by the interior system which would require adoption. Large armies, heavy taxes, vast and almost unlimited powers, a patronage extended and ramified through the whole community would expose our system to one of the most severe trials to which it could be subjected.
6. Finally, the embargo may be temporary; war would, in all probability, be of a long duration. This point is of sufficient importance to be treated separately, and shall be reserved for the next number.
AN AMERICAN WHIG.
To the Editor of the National Intelligencer.
SIR—In your paper of Friday last I remarked a communication from "A Proprietor," on the subject of the ensuing election for the City Council. The slightest reflection must convince every individual of the injudicious tendency of such publications. The most innocent inflame the public mind on trivial occasions, and the generality are too frequently made the vehicle of personal allusion and invectives.
The immediate tendency of the Proprietor's publication is to add another source of discord and dissention to the many which already distract our unfortunate city, and to excite among the citizens an unfounded jealousy of those who use every exertion to promote the general welfare of the community and whose interests are materially connected with their own. The substance of his remarks amount to this: that the great proprietors of the city ought to be oppressed by arbitrary exactions in order that they may be induced through distress to sacrifice their property. It is not my intention to descend on the benevolence of such a principle; nor on the justice of injuring a neighbor for the selfish purpose of deriving benefit from his misfortune. But I hope I may be permitted to examine whether the measure recommended by this sagacious writer is either necessary or politic.
In my humble opinion the funds of the city of Washington, which on the treasurer's books amount to nearly $9,000 are amply sufficient for every necessary purpose, if they were properly appropriated. But it is not astonishing, that complaints should be uttered on the subject, when we see those funds absorbed in the establishment of free schools, in the support of a lazy and vicious poor, collected from all parts of the country, in building poor houses in distant situations, where no work or employment can be given them; in opening streets, on which a pathway is scarcely perceptible through the grass that immediately covers them; and in making wharves, where there is only water enough for boats. Economy and prudence exercised in the expenditure of the existing revenue would remove every complaint; and would certainly be more beneficial to the city, than a recurrence to a heavy system of taxation for the supply of extravagance.
If however more money is wanted for internal improvements in the city than what is now annually received, the Proprietor ought to have told us what those improvements were, and we might then have decided whether there was any foundation for his complaint; but this is not pretended or attempted, and his only apparent object in wishing our taxes to be increased, is to make the great proprietors sacrifice their property. It will however be found on reflection, that such a measure would produce an effect diametrically opposite. A proprietor will value his property at the same rate and in the same proportions as the public; and in all the sales he makes he will take care to be indemnified for the taxes he has paid. Increase his taxes, and he will increase the price of his lots, and when he finds that the taxes raised therefrom are spent in improving his property, he will be justified in doing so. The policy recommended by the writer in your paper would only bring the worst lots into market, and would resemble the narrow conduct pursued
by arbitrary princes, who by compelling their subjects in periods of famine, to sell their provisions at a low stipulated price, ultimately encrase the evil intended to be removed.
But is it advisable or just to distress or ruin the persons who have expended their fortune for the welfare and establishment of the city? Their exertions were made at a period when the city was solitary and unfriended; and it is not therefore wonderful, that the amount of their services cannot be estimated by those who like the Proprietor, that has addressed the public through the medium of your paper, have only resided here since our prosperity began to dawn. But for the exertions of two of the proprietors Congress could never have sat on the Capitol Hill; the Capitol would never have been finished; and the seat of government would have been long since removed. Dissatisfied as the members of Congress now are with their accommodation, what would have been their sentiments, if they had scarcely seen a house within a mile of the Capitol. Nor have the great proprietors been backward in encouraging individual improvements. Their names are never wanting on any subscription paper. They have given several lots for public purposes; advanced money to persons to assist them in building, and bestowed property on many for similar purposes. In every contemplated measure for the general good they forwarded it to the utmost of their power by their fortune, their influence and their pen. But have they ever been repaid for these exertions? Far from it. Their houses do not yield 3 per cent. the majority of their lots cannot be sold at any price. The taxes paid by Mr. Carroll amount to at least 30 per cent. on his income; those paid by Mr. Law to above 15 per cent; and what is paid by other large proprietors bear a similar proportion to their receipts. Are not such contributions enough for the general good? And do those who pay them find the improvements that are made out of their money by the council ever regard their interest or convenience?
But it is said that two at least of the proprietors in consequence of the prospect of a bridge being erected over the Potomac, have raised the price of their lots, 100 per cent. above what they had previously demanded. Admitting the assertion to be correct, I would ask whether such a thing ought not to have been expected? I should also wish to know by the author of the publication under consideration what gentlemen are particularly alluded to. If the remark is intended to apply to a gentleman who has not lately been in the City of Washington, I personally know and publicly declare that the assertion is destitute of truth.
I am sorry to have been obliged to occupy so much of your paper and to trespass so far on the attention of the public on local subjects. But it is the duty of every citizen, to arrest the progress of unjust and unnecessary jealousies, and I shall therefore hope you will not refuse this communication an early insertion in your newspaper.
A CITIZEN.
An act making an appropriation for finishing the Infirmary and Tobacco Warehouse.
SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the First and Second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars be and the same is hereby appropriated for finishing the Infirmary to be expended by the commissioners appointed to erect the same.
SEC. 2. And be it enacted, That a sum not exceeding fifty-four dollars for discharging bills due upon the Tobacco Warehouse, and the further sum of ten dollars for finishing and improving the same be and is hereby appropriated to be expended by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose.
FRED. MAY,
President of First Chamber.
CHARLES MINIFIE,
President of Second Chamber.
Approved, May 30, 1808.
ROBERT BRENT, Mayor.
An act making an appropriation for the payment of the expenses attending the election of Members of the City Council.
Be it enacted by the First and Second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That the sum of thirty dollars be and is hereby appropriated for the payment of such necessary expenses as may be incurred in holding the ensuing election for members of the City Council, payable by the Treasurer if allowed by the Mayor.
FRED. MAY,
President of the First Chamber.
CHARLES MINIFIE,
President of Second Chamber.
Approved, May 30, 1808.
ROBERT BRENT, Mayor.

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, May 28th, 1808.
IT has recently been made known to this department, that on the first day of June, 1807, the first moiety of the under-mentioned notes of the bank of the United States, were, enclosed by William Keats, Esq. Collector of the Customs at Washington, North Carolina, in a letter addressed to Thomas Tudor Tucker, Esq. Treasurer of the United States, and put into the Post-office at that place; and on the 8th day of June, 1807, the second moiety of the said Bank notes were enclosed, addressed and put into the Post-Office as aforesaid; neither of which letters, with the notes enclosed, have been received. On the back of each moiety of every note was written the name of William Keats, and on one part of the back of all or most of the notes, was written the name of Lewis Leroy; from which circumstance the notes may with certainty be traced and detected. Payment of the notes has been stopped at the Bank of the United States and its several offices of Discount and Deposit; and a reward of FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS will be paid to any person who shall give such information to this department, as shall produce the conviction of the offender by whom the letters containing the said notes were purloined or stolen.
ALBERT GALLATIN, secretary of the Treasury.
Table with 4 columns: No., Date, DESCRIPTION OF NOTES, Dollars. It lists various bank notes and their values.
May 30—1m
CHARLES H. VAN DEN MERCHANT TAILOR.
RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia and public in general, that he has just received by a late arrival from Philadelphia,
A CHOICE ASSORTMENT Of superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, single and double milled, superfine Coatings, black silk Florentines. Likewise an elegant assortment of Spaniards and rich silk Molekins for waistcoats with a variety of other articles suitable for the season.
Regimentals and Navy Uniforms made in the most elegant and uniform style of fashion.
Richard Horwell's celebrated patent parallel suspender far superior to any hitherto in use can be had on the same terms retail, as at his manufactory. November 27—tf
TO BE LET.
AND possession given the 13th June next, that house on Pennsylvania Avenue, the property of the Washington Building Company, at present occupied by Mr. Solomon Myers—it being so well known, it is not deemed necessary to give a peculiar description of it, suffice it to say, it is calculated for an extensive tavern and boarding house—for terms, apply to
Mr. THOMAS HERTY. Sec. to said Company.
April 29—tf
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD.
RAN away on the evening of the 7th inst. a bright Mulatto Man, named BOB, who calls himself Robert Thomas, about 5 feet 10 inches high, 24 or 25 years of age, has large black eyebrows, large full eyes, not very dark, and is a stout, well made, handsome fellow. His hair is thick, but not quite straight, and he wears it nicely trimmed, combed and ridged on the top. His beard appears very black if suffered to grow for a day or two, but he usually shaves it very closely. He has recently received an injury on the forefinger of the left hand, and has it bound up, and may probably lose the first joint of it. He speaks deliberately, and is more correct in conversation than persons of his color usually are. He walks slowly, is a very good waiter, but delights particularly in attending to horses. He has a variety of cloths, and took with him one dark green broadcloth coat and pantaloons with yellow buttons, one cloth coat and pantaloons nearly of the same color, but the cloth of inferior quality, with white metal buttons, one blue cloth coat much worn, one old brown surcoat with covered buttons, a good hat, and a pair of black top boots. The rest of his apparel I am unable particularly to describe. He is fond of wearing boots, and pays great attention to his dress.
As he can read and write very well, he may probably produce a forged authority for him to pass, or procure the certificate of some one of the Negroes, who, a few years ago, petitioned by the name of Thomas, and obtained their freedom in Maryland. If taken out of the state of Maryland and district of Columbia, and secured in any jail, so that I shall get him again, the above reward will be given, or sixty dollars if taken and secured within the said state or district; all reasonable expenses will also be paid, if he should be delivered to me in the city of Washington, or to Dr. Richard Duckett, in Prince George's county, Maryland.—He is well acquainted in Annapolis, Baltimore, Geo. Town, and the city of Washington.
ALLEN B. DUCKETT.
May 13—epf
JAMES A. PORTER, ATTORNEY at Law, hath just settled in the city of Washington, and opened his Office in the house of THOMAS HERTY, Esq. opposite Mr. Biddle's tavern, Pennsylvania Avenue, where he can be consulted, and employed in the line of his profession, at almost any time, and will use every necessary attention and exertion to merit public confidence.
May 11—w2m
WANTED
AT the Woodyard for the ensuing year a Manager, to take charge of the whole estate. He must be a sober, diligent and discreet man—well acquainted with the culture of wheat, corn and tobacco, and the management of negroes. To such a man who can produce unquestionable testimonials of his capacity, sobriety and fidelity, high wages will be given. A person not connected in the neighborhood will be preferred.
Apply to RD. W. WEST, Woodyard. N. B. Application must be made before the 1st. Sept. next. May 13—epf
NOW LANDING From on board the schooner VIRGINIA from New York, First quality St. Croix SUGAR in hogsheads, prime green COFFEE in bags, fresh TEAS, Bordeaux CLARET in boxes of one dozen each, SWEET OIL, OLIVES, CAPERS & ANCHOVIES, for sale by ROSS & GETTY. George Town, May 23—tf
NOTICE. THE Subscriber being anxious to settle all his business, has sold his entire stock of goods to John Peter; he therefore requests all those indebted to him to call and pay their accounts, (particularly such as are of long standing, as further indulgence cannot be given them). His Books are removed to the counting house of Baker, Rogers, and Co. where all his accounts will be ready for settlement by his assistant Mr. Samuel C. O'Flut, or ELISHA RIGGS. George Town, March 16—tf
BURNS AND BEALL. WOOLLEN drapers, men's mercers, and tailors, New-Jersey Avenue, opposite the Secretary of the Navy's, respectfully inform the public that they have commenced business in the above line, where they will endeavor to give satisfaction—they have on hand a fresh supply of the most fashionable goods, suitable for the approaching season, all fresh and of the very best quality. N. B. Regimentals and naval uniforms made in the most elegant and fashionable style with neatness and dispatch. October 23—tf.
A BULL. THERE is now on Col. Tayloe's farm, called Peirsworth, near the City of Washington, a BUFFALO BULL, of the true English breed, very remarkable for size and figure, will be let to cows this season at one dollar each—those wishing to improve their breed of cattle should embrace the opportunity, as he will be removed the ensuing season. Apply to the Manager. N. B. The money to be paid when the cattle are sent. June 3—6t.
WANTS A SITUATION AS a TUTOR in a family, or as an assistant or principal in a school or academy, an elderly man, without a family. He professes to teach the English language grammatically, including the principles of composition and elocution; writing, arithmetic, geography, with the use of the globes, maps and charts: the elements of geometry, trigonometry, mensuration, dialing, gauging, surveying, navigation, and algebra. He is a compleat master of the latin language, and has a tolerable knowledge of Greek and French. His object for advertising in this paper is to obtain employment in a warmer climate. Further particulars may be known by directing a line, post paid, to A. Z. Carlisle, Pennsylvania, any time before the tenth of July next. Suitable testimonials of his moral and literary character can be produced, if required. June 3—3t.
PUBLIC SALE. THE sale of the real estate of Gustavus Scott, deceased, heretofore advertised, being postponed by order of the Chancellor, the subscriber as trustee, will sell at public auction, at Van Wyck & Dorsey's Auction Room in the city of Baltimore, on Friday the 17th day of June next at 12 o'clock, the following tracts of unimproved land lying in Allegany county, to wit:
THE terms of sale are, that the purchaser or purchasers of the whole or any part of the above lands, shall give bond with security to be approved of by the trustee for paying the purchase money within twelve months from the day of sale. The creditors of Gustavus Scott, deceased, who have not yet exhibited their claims, are hereby notified to bring the same into the Chancery Court with the vouchers thereof within six months from the day of sale aforesaid. ROGER PERRY, Trustee. Cumberland, May 23—3w.
NOTICE.
THE Taxable Inhabitants of Washington city and all others concerned, are notified that the Board of Appeal, composed of the city Commissioners will sit at the Council Chamber on Tuesday the 14th day of June next, and continue to sit for TEN days, Sundays excepted, from 3 until 7 o'clock, P. M. to hear and determine on appeals from the late assessment. WASHINGTON BOYD, Treasurer of Washington city. June 1—124
TEN DOLLARS REWARD. LOST—having strayed from the commons of the city of Washington on Sunday last, a large BAY HORSE, about 17 hands high, black mane, tail and legs; no white mark upon his face. He has some times cut behind, and is shod in a particular manner to prevent it. The above reward will be paid to any one who delivers him to B. H. LATROBE, near the Navy Yard, Washington. He was seen near Bladensburg on Sunday evening. June 1—3t
BUZZARD'S ISLAND. I WILL sell at private sale or exchange on liberal terms for other Landed Property, provided the situation is approved, the tract of land on which I reside, called Buzzard Island, lying on Patuxent river in Calvert county, and nearly opposite to Benedict, containing about eight hundred acres of as rich fertile land as can be found in the state of Maryland, one third of which is in wood and very heavily timbered; likewise a great quantity of Locust, Cedar and Chesnut. The arable part of this plantation is level and much of it covered with oyster shells, and is divided into three fields, each of which will produce two hundred barrels of corn, with a reserve of prime tobacco land sufficient to grow fifty hds. annually, and with very little labor more meadow may be reclaimed than will be found sufficient. No land can be better adapted to the growth of corn, tobacco and wheat, and few plantations hold out stronger inducements to stimulate an industrious man. It binds for a considerable distance on the river, has several landings and lies nearly in a square—fish, oysters, and wild fowl are to be had at all times—stock of every description, particularly sheep, thrive and improve wonderfully when removed to this land, a convincing proof of the goodness of soil and the nutritious quality of the grass which it produces in great abundance. The improvements are sufficient to accommodate a small family. A more particular description is not necessary—a purchaser will naturally view the premises. RICHARD W. HARWOOD. June 3—w5t
THIS is to give notice that the subscriber has obtained from the Orphan's Court of Prince George's county, letters of administration on the estate of Thomas Upton, deceased. All persons having claims against the deceased, are warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof to the subscriber within six months, they may otherwise be deprived of all benefit of said estate. And all those indebted to said estate are requested to make immediate payment. JOHN R. BUSSARD, Ex'r. June 3—3t
Prince George's county court, April term, 1808. HENRY T. COMPTON of Prince George's county having applied to this court, by petition in writing, praying the benefit of the act, entitled "An act for the relief of sundry insolvent debtors," passed at the session of 1805, and the supplement thereto in 1806; and a schedule of his property and list of his creditors as far as he can ascertain them being annexed to his petition; and the court being satisfied by competent testimony that the said Henry T. Compton resided the two last years preceding this application within the state of Maryland. And the said Henry T. Compton being in the custody of the sheriff of Prince George's county; and having entered into bond in such penalty as directed by this court, and with approved security, conditioned for his personal appearance before this court, on the second day of the next term, to answer the allegations of his creditor or creditors. It is by this court directed that the said Henry T. Compton be discharged from imprisonment, and the said second day of the next term, which will be the sixth day of September next, is by the court appointed for the said Henry T. Compton to appear before this court, to answer interrogatories, which his creditors may propose to him. And it is ordered, that the said Henry T. Compton, give notice to his creditors, of his application, by causing a copy of the foregoing, to be published three months in the National Intelligencer, previous to the next term. True copy from the proceedings, Test JOHN READ MAGRUDER, jr. Ck. June 1—w3m
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, THAT the subscriber, of Montgomery county, hath obtained from the Orphan's Court of the county aforesaid, letters of administration on the personal Estate of Stephen Adams, late of said county, deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber, at or before the first day of November next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said Estate. Given under my hand this 29th day of April, 1808. HENNARITTA ADAMS, Exx. w6t of Stephen Adams, dec'd. May 2—
SALE BY AUCTION.
ON Thursday the 9th inst. will be offered for sale a two story BRICK HOUSE, & LOT No. 1, on square 104, fronting on 20th street west, pursuant to a deed of trust made to the subscriber for certain purposes therein mentioned; the House lies near the Glass House and Lears Wharf. Terms of sale—a note with an approved endorser, payable in nine months. Sale to commence at 12 o'clock. CHARLES JONES, Trustee. June 3—3t
ORDERED that DANIEL BRENT administrator of EDWARD KILLEN, deceased, give notice for creditors to exhibit their claims against the deceased, by advertisement in the usual form, inserted once a week for three weeks in the National Intelligencer. JOHN HEWITT, Reg.
THIS is to give notice that the subscriber has obtained from the Orphan's Court of the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia, letters of administration on the personal estate of Edward Killen, late a mariner of the United States' schooner Enterprise, deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber on or before the 23d day of November next; they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. DANL. BRENT, Adm'r. with the will annexed of Edward Killen. Washington, May 23—w5t.
40 DOLLARS REWARD. FOR apprehending and delivering Negro HARRY to the subscriber in the city of Washington or twenty-five dollars for securing said slave so that I get him again: Harry ran off on the 11th day of March 1808, he is about 5 feet 7 or 8 inches high, well made, thick lips, light black color, has the wool shaved off the back of the head the size of a dollar, and a scar on the same, and a small wen on the breast; had on when he went off a blue cloth coat, drab color bear skin round jacket (as a spencer.) Harry was purchased of Mr. George Cole of Poplar Hill, Saint Mary's county. N. B. Having reason to believe that he was persuaded and aided in his elopement, I offer 50 dollars reward to any person who will prove to conviction in a court of justice the person guilty of such acts. PETER LENOX. April 6—lawf
FOR SALE OR RENT, The dwelling house of the subscriber—possession may be had immediately, if required. JOSEPH FORREST. June 3—6t.
Notice is hereby Given, THAT application will be made for the renewal of the following lost certificate of United States stock, issued by Joseph Forrester, Register of the Treasury. LOUISIANA 6 PER CENTS. In favor of FRANCIS BARING & Co. of London No. 92, DECEMBER 24th, 1803—4000 dollars. JAMES DAVIDSON, Jun. May 13—w6w.
NOW LANDING From on board the VIRGINIA, captain Phillips from New York— 3 hds. Prime St. Croix, scale sugars, 25 do. 2d and 3d quality do. do. 1 Pipe and 4 quarter casks, choice old Port Wine, 6 Qr. casks Catalonia do. 11 do. old Sherry do. 10 do. London particular Teneriffe do. 12 boxes Claret, one dozen each, 5 Pipes New York anchor Gin, 2000 lb. Best Martinique green Coffee, 25 Boxes Olives, Capers & Anchovies, 12 Parcels extra wide and fine white Russia Sheetings, From on board the CITIZEN, capt. Sturgeon, from Charleston. 20 Bales first quality upland Cotton, 10 Tierces fresh Rice, And in store, 25 Pipes Cognac Brandy, 8 Do. Holland Gin, Madeira, Lisbon, and Tercalaga wines, Old and new Whiskey, 20 Puncheons Antigua and St. Croix Rum, 30 Chests Hyson, Young Hyson, Hyson Skin and Imperial Teas, Loaf and Lump Sugars, Cassia in small bales, Sweet Oil in bottles and flasks, Sugars, 1st and 2d quality, Demijohns, Gin cases, &c. &c. &c. For sale by, W. & C. SMITH. George Town, May 20—2aw4w
TAKE NOTICE.
W AS committed to the jail of Frederick county, Maryland, on the 20th day of April last, as a runaway, a negro man who calls himself JOHN ROMAN; he appears to be about 29 years of age, about five feet five or six inches high, well made, very black, and has a smiling countenance: his clothing when committed, was as follows—a blue cloth coat and pantaloons, a striped cotton waistcoat, an osnaburgh shirt, a pair of black woolen stockings, and one pair of shoes, all of which are pretty much worn; by trade, as he says, a blacksmith and gunsmith; he has a small scar between his eyes, and says he belongs to Bennet Taylor, of Jefferson county, Virginia, within six miles of Charlestown, on the water of Bullskin, near the place it empties into the Shenandoah. The owner is requested to come and release him otherwise he will be sold for his prison fees agreeable to law. GEORGE CREAGER, jun. Sheriff, Frederick county, Md. May 13—w8t.