The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-06-21 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1357.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
The National Intelligencer is conducted by SAMUEL H. SMITH, and JOSEPH GALES, Jun. and printed at the Office of the former, to whom subscribers and correspondents are requested to address themselves. The annual price, payable in advance, is Five Dollars.
ADVERTISEMENTS, not exceeding one square in breadth, are inserted the first time at fifty cents, and for every subsequent insertion twenty-five cents. If inserted less than three times a Dollar is charged. If inserted but once a week, an addition of one fourth part is made. Other advertisements charged in the same ratio.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Thursday, June 1.
DEBATE.
On Mr. Randolph's motion for approving the late conduct of the President of the U. States.—Continued.
Mr. GARDENIER said, that having been one of those who had looked up to the elevation of the present Chief Magistrate as one of the most calamitous events to this country that could take place, he rose to make that atonement which was in his power for that error. Yes, sir, (said Mr. G.) this tree from which I honestly expected so much bad fruit is bearing fruit of gladness and rejoicing for our country. I am not only willing but take pleasure in making this avowal. The first important act of the Chief Magistrate of the U. S. is one, which, while it calls for the confidence of the nation, demands no less the expression of it by this House. Being of the old school, sir, I am not of course very much lightened at the speech—not from the throne; thank God we have none, and I hope we shall long be without any—but by the idea of the terrors which are carried in the countenance of the Executive magistrate. If he would favor us with his presence to make his speech, my poor eyes would stand the dazzling glare of such an exhibition. Even in the British Parliament I have never understood that a speech from the throne humbles that body. I have never seen in their debate that the minority have been abashed by it; for notwithstanding the speech, they have carried the terrors of their eloquence to the throne itself, and they have carried it by means of the answer to the speech from the throne. On that occasion it is that the rights of the minority are, unrestrained; it is then that they speak to the throne in language of freemen—for the House of Commons, elected by the people, though irregularly, constitute the democratic and consequently free part of the English constitution. If you were to exclude them from the right of expressing their opinion on public measures, they would say with great justice that an ancient and constitutional right was withheld from them. They would protest against any measures calculated to deprive them of the right of speaking with freedom of the measures of the ministry and king. The course which has been here pursued, in theory though pleasant to the eye, has in practice been a course which has fortified the Executive magistrate, and built around him a wall which prevented approach, through which the measures of his administration could not be reviewed by any members of this House; because forsooth, the House might be disposed to press a flattering reply upon him—but, in point of fact that this minority, a strong ungovernable animal might be muzzled.—Your President was not unwilling to turn the delighted ear to the addresses of citizens assembled in meetings; and at no time has he frowned with severity at that courtly adulation of the Legislatures who have sung his own language in his own ears. He has thanked them for their patriotism, and republicanism too, in addressing him in this way. But if the Executive magistrate was, under the good old practice, flattered by these addresses in answer to his speeches, it was here to be canvassed whether he was entitled to that incense to be offered up by the majority; and I much doubt, when the praise of the majority was mixed up with the dispraise of the minority, if the bitter did not prevail over the sweet. The practice of communicating by message was one I will not say gone into for the purpose of precluding debate, but the effect has been that if we ever did examine the measures of administration, we were obliged to examine them piece-meal. We could not take them all in one view to make that impression, which is so proper for keeping in check
the Executive branch of the government. There might have been an apology made for the late President of the United States which, if my late information be correct, could hardly be made for the present. I understand that in Great Britain the king can speak but cannot write. Now I think it very well there that the king should have at least something to do in public concerns, and inasmuch as he cannot write, let him speak (for the king of England was never remarkable for great natural gifts) what others have written for him. And if we have had a President of the United States who would write but could not speak, it was very well to reverse the usual order of proceeding under this government. Whenever, sir, we have a President who can first write his speech and then deliver it to the House, I should like to see it, because it would show our superiority as a nation in point of talents. I wish to put down monarchy, sir—I am a republican, sir, and wish to show the men who will live the slaves of monarchy that they have nothing to boast of. It is therefore with these views of the subject that I could have been very well satisfied to have seen revived the good old way of the Executive magistrate of the people meeting the Representatives of the people face to face. I should like to receive a communication from the Executive, into which he could throw something of his own soul. On the other hand when a message is sent, what practical good result from the change? I presume to say none at all. The only principle on which it could be excused is that the President could not read it to so august a body as this. If this were the case, it might be excused, but on that principle alone.
However, sir, be the practice of the Executive what it may, I stand upon the rights of the House, and I will never give up any portion of my right to speak of public men and public measures. I am rejoiced, therefore, that the gentleman from Virginia has laid before the House the resolution now under debate, because it enables us not to sing to Paeans, not to offer up incense to the Executive, but to bring back to this House the right, which it ought never to have parted with, of animadverting upon the course of public measures, upon things which have passed. I would not tie myself down to approbate the conduct of the President, be it what it might; but when the President has done well, I will claim the right of approving him. I would say, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant;" and in so doing, I am permitted to say, if I please, "Ill done, thou bad and faithless servant." Where we have a right to praise, we have a right to dispraise, and vice versa; and will any one say that there is any thing in censuring misconduct which is inconsistent with a republican form of government?—No, sir; whoever may feel it, no one will so. I am therefore against a postponement of the question.
As to the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, I do not know precisely what he means by it; and therefore know not whether I am for or against it. I find language almost literally accordant with it in the message of the President of the United States. Now, sir, if this be meant as a mere echo of the President's message, that I do call adulation; that I do not like; it is too kingly even for me; I do not want these echoes. I wish the House to express its opinion; but, after receiving the message of the President of the United States, to breathe it back upon him is really nauseous. I believe the gentleman is a good republican; I extend to him the same charity which I ask for myself. This is a mere error into which he was led from the situation into which the House was drawn. To let the resolution pass entire, would not do; there was no objection to the substance of it, but that it should be adopted as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) moved it, there were a variety of reasons which I will not detail, which rendered it manifestly unjust. It was therefore proper to move an amendment.—In this point of view I object to it.
But in another view—as I cannot clearly comprehend the idea intended to be conveyed, I will explain my difficulty to the House. "And furnishes additional evidence of the spirit of accommodation on the part of our go-
vernment, which has at no time been intermitted." Now I agree with this; it is true, and I am surprised that it escaped the sagacity of the gentleman from Virginia, that as an amendment there can be no objection to it. Has it been intermitted? Intermission necessarily implies commencement. Now, sir, since it commenced, has it ever been interrupted? The government of the United States since it began to entertain that spirit, has not intermitted it. This is all true, and I cannot object to the substance of it; but I am afraid that I shall be compelled to vote against the amendment, because it is not republican; it is too much of an echo.
Now for the original resolution. I do much like the two words promptitude and frankness. The compliment contained in them is highly merited; and I will proceed to show it according to my way of judging upon this subject. We have just emerged from that dreadful night of embargo, which had plunged in utter darkness, distress and consternation, this great nation. Yes, sir, we have emerged from it. It is well now, after having escaped so great a calamity, that we should retrace the causes of that calamity and the means which have been happily employed ultimately to avert it. The original cause of this calamity may be distinctly traced to the issuing of the Berlin decree of the 21st November, 1806, and to the conduct of the American government subsequently to that period in relation to that decree—a conduct (I am free to express my opinion) not calculated for peace and as little for war, calculated to produce no other practical effect than the ruin of ourselves. By issuing the Berlin decree the French government infringed the rights of the American Republic and of the British government. They did an act which by the laws of nations they had no right to do, either as it regarded this country or as it regarded England. It was a mode of attack, as it regarded England, to which France had no right to resort. If I may be permitted to simplify this idea, it was as improper for her to have recourse to this mode as it would be in fair boxing to knock an adversary after he was down. There are laws of war as well as of peace between nations. You are not permitted legally to do every thing which you have the physical power to do. This need but be mentioned to be clearly perceived by every gentleman. France had not a right to assail her adversary through a neutral and friendly power. France had committed an act unauthorised towards England by the Berlin decree; the interests of Great Britain and of the U. States were both injured by the Berlin decree. Their interests and their rights then being mutually attacked, it was a mutual concern necessarily between the two countries. Both were interested in repelling this infraction of neutral rights; and the study of our government should have been, as to this Berlin decree and as to that only, to have made a common cause with Great Britain, and resisted the decree. If that common cause had been so made, a great deal of distress and ruin which has fallen upon the country would have been avoided. Our government, however, was silent upon this subject, though it was in the nature of the thing a common matter between this country and England; and I beg pardon of any fastidious gentlemen that I should think it possible that America and England could have common rights. As Great Britain could not be reached but thro' us, when she was so reached both had one object; both were assailed, and ought to have made common cause. But what did the government of the U. S.? Did it shew at that time a manly front to French injustice and arrogance? Did it consult with the British government what measures should be taken to repel this assault? No, sir, but it took steps (strange to tell) precisely of an opposite character. The Berlin decree was issued on the 21st Nov. 1806; the treaty negotiated between Messrs. Monroe & Pinkney and the British commissioners was signed on the 31st Dec. of the same year, say forty days after the issuing the Berlin decree. Did the government of Great Britain, willing to ruin your commerce (and many hold out this idea) make use of this pretext at that time to retaliate upon you? No sir—but what was the actual state of things? The Berlin decree had been
issued; a treaty was digested & signed by the commissioners of the two governments of America and Great Britain, and there was much of friendly intercourse between the two countries. I would demand the manner in which the American government received this decree? And much, I say, for I am not afraid to speak the truth, was to be expected from the American government, placing itself as a fair and impartial neutral between the two governments. Do you recollect that the British ministers annexed to the treaty a note in which, pointing to the consideration already mentioned as regarded themselves and the right of France to issue the decree, they said "Such principles are in themselves extravagant and repugnant to the law of nations; and the pretensions founded on them, though professedly directed solely against Great Britain, tend to alter the practice of war among civilized nations and utterly to subvert the rights and independence of neutral powers." Did not the Berlin decree tend to do this? And was it not an injury of a new and at the same time of a most frightful character as regarded G. B.? In this situation, when an attempt was made by her antagonist to keep from her her best customer, and this attempt was an injury to her customer as well as to her, was it a point on which it could have been expected that the British government would have been silent? Would not the British commissioners have forfeited all claims to the confidence of the British nation if upon such a decree they had not done something for themselves? Certainly. I speak of the time when they had only promulgated the decree. They signed a note in which they said that "They proceeded to the signature under the full persuasion that before the treaty shall be returned from America with the ratification of the U. S. the enemy will either have formally abandoned or tacitly relinquished his unjust pretensions." Was this an unreasonable expectation? Was it unreasonable to hope that the system of injustice which the first nation in the world was for the first time practising against her should be abandoned? Certainly not. But if it was not, what next did she express a desire to have done? "Or (as the British commissioners said) that the government of the U. S. by its conduct or assurances, will have given security to his majesty that it will not submit to such innovations in the established system of maritime law." Was there any thing wrong in this request, sir? It cannot be controverted that upon this matter we had a common cause with Great Britain, whether we chose to make it so or not. She said, "do you declare, either by your conduct or assurances, that you will resist the decree; do something that looks towards it; we do not require a specific pledge, but as we are so deeply interested in the manner in which you shall conduct, it becomes important to us to know what you will do about it." If such assurances had been given, if steps becoming the dignity of this government had been pursued, would the British orders in council have been issued? There never would have been occasion for them. But this is not all contained in that note; for it continues this. "The undersigned have presented this note from an anxious wish that it should be clearly understood on both sides, that, without such an abandonment on the part of the enemy, or such assurances or such conduct on the part of the U. S. his majesty will not consider himself bound by the present signature of his commissioners to ratify the treaty, or precluded from adopting such measures as may seem necessary for counteracting the designs of his enemy." Now, sir, was not all this fair? If we consider that Great Britain has rights as well as we, that one great right was in jeopardy in regard to her interest as well as ours, was this arrogance? Was it not reasonable? Having common cause with her, should we not have made that answer which she wished? But what answer did we make? Was the government of the United States content with being merely silent?—No, sir; so far from giving any intimation that it meant to defend itself, the very circumstance of this note was made one of the causes for the rejection of this treaty, as the President of the U. States at the subsequent session of
Congress declared. He declares that there was one consideration, independent of this note, which induced him to reject the treaty, thereby clearly shewing that the annexation of that note was considered as so offensive as to have induced him to reject the treaty, if there had been no other cause for it. After this, what, in fairness, could the British ministers, bound to assert the rights of their country, do? The U. S. never gave any intimation of the course which they intended to take. In the next place the President had told Congress that their speaking to him was so offensive, that on that account if on no other he should have considered himself warranted in rejecting the treaty. Were the British ministry to expect after this that the President would have recommended a resistance of the French decrees? No, sir; it would have been giving more faith than we generally give to them or they to us.
Now, sir, to carry you with me a little in the order of time, I would call the attention of the House to a letter dated at London on the 22d of April, 1807. If my frequent recurrence to documents should fatigue the House, I beg them to bear in mind that in these documents they may find truth as well as the arts of able diplomats. On the 31st of December 1806, then, the note was annexed to the treaty. On the 22d of April, 1807, Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, in their letter to the Secretary of State, inform him that they had had an interview with Mr. Canning. "As soon however (say they) as we glanced at the objects of this interview, he observed that he had just received intelligence, which, if true would make it unnecessary for us to enter at present on any of the topics alluded to; that it had been represented to him, that an officer, just arrived from America, had that morning informed the admiralty that the treaty which had been lately concluded here had been rejected by our government, &c. He observed that such an event would place the relations of the countries in an embarrassing situation, &c." Here now it will be proper to bear in mind that this treaty was framed by the ministry one of whom made that fine speech in Parliament which the gentleman from N. Y. read, the ministry most friendly to this country, if there be any such thing as friendship towards us, which I very much doubt. This treaty thus made was sent back immediately after the issuing of the Berlin decree, which so closely connected in one respect, the interests of the two countries. Was this not a fair cause of suspicion? Well might Mr. Canning hesitate as to what he should do in this new state of things. But to complete his disappointment and confusion on this subject, the American ministers on the 24th of July, 1807, addressed to Mr. Canning another note. This was the first answer which was ever given in any way whatever to the enquiry as to what the American government meant to do in relation to the Berlin decree. It was as follows:
"There is another object to which the undersigned have the orders of the President to invite the attention of his majesty's government, as affecting materially, and giving a new and unexpected character to the proposed treaty. They allude to the written declaration, relative to the French decree of the 21st of November last, by which his majesty's plenipotentiaries accompanied their signature of the treaty; a declaration which in its actual form creates unnecessary embarrassments in the way of an acceptance of the treaty by the United States. The undersigned persuade themselves that as this proceeding, to which no sanction was given on their part, imposed on the United States no new obligation, could only be intended to declare that in signing or ratifying the treaty it was understood by Great Britain that nothing contained in it would be a bar to any measure, which if no such treaty had been signed, would be lawful as a measure of retaliation against her enemy, and as the occasion which produced it does not now appear to exist as then supposed, it will not be thought that any thing is sacrificed by withdrawing it as unnecessary." Yes, sir; an enquiry made by Great Britain in a most perilous conjuncture was answered by a cool and very sur-

castic desire that her enquiries on that subject might be withdrawn. This was the answer which they received to an enquiry as to any disposition of the American government to acquiesce in the Berlin decree. It is not to be wondered at that this answer was unsatisfactory. It cannot be wondered at.—There is another letter from the same gentleman of the 22d October, 1807, to the Secretary of State, to which I will refer, in which it is stated that in the course of a conference with Mr. Canning he asked an explanation of their former answer to the note on the subject of the Berlin decree; which answer they agreed to give in writing. Mr. Canning closed the interview by saying that it would be necessary to postpone what he had farther to communicate to another opportunity. No information, no explanation was given, sir; nothing parading of the nature or quality of conciliation having been resorted to. A deathlike silence was observed on this point of critical interest to the nation. A note was delivered after to prove that the occasion which produced the note annexed to the treaty had disappeared—and what ground was taken in that note, sir? "Great anxiety having been excited by a constitution which many believed the decree to be susceptible of, the minister of the United States at Paris requested of the minister of marine, who was charged with its execution, an explanation of the sense in which it was understood by his government, who assured him that it was not intended that it should in any degree interfere with the provisions of the treaty of 1800, between the United States and France. We relied also upon the fact, not only that no countenance had been given by any practice or judicial decision, in France, to a different construction, but that the practice was in precise conformity with the view above suggested, and that in a cause in which the question had been formally brought into discussion, the court had sanctioned the conclusion, that the treaty between the two nations was to be exactly fulfilled, and that the decree was to be so construed as not to infringe it."
This was the answer given, to this amount: "Your solicitude about the operation of the decree is extremely idle, because we are perfectly satisfied, and you should be too, that the principle on which it was issued will never be carried into execution." It is easy to conceive, sir, how very far such a declaration fell short of what was requested in the note of Lord Auckland and Holland. It came to this point: either that the British government was to be satisfied, or to go on to the alternative which was threatened. It did go on to it. The British government did not trust to these favorable appearances which it lulled France to hold out. Who then was wrong, we or they? Did France act upon that decree, or did she not? For the whole point of this miserably conducted argument turned upon this at last: that if there was sufficient ground to calculate that the French government would not execute its decree, then the British government ought to be silent; but if she did execute it, that the British government should take care of its own preservation. How was the fact? France did execute the decree; and from that moment there could be no doubt that resistance was justifiable. But it appears that Great Britain did not know it was carried into execution before she issued her orders in council. If so, G. Britain displayed more knowledge of the character of nations than fits to our state. I have read in a speech made in the other House, as to the embargo, that, if the orders in council were not known, yet the embargo was a lucky hit. Then, sir, if Great Britain did not know that the Berlin decree was executed, the orders in council were a lucky hit. And, sir, as to the question whether the orders in council were known here when the embargo was laid, I will just step aside to notice it. In a letter dated February 19, 1808, to our minister at London, we find this passage—"My last, which was committed to the British packet, enclosed a copy of the act of embargo, and explained the policy of the measure. Among the considerations which enforced it was what? The knowledge of the orders in council? No, sir—the probability of such decrees as were issued by the British court on the 11th November, &c." Now, I do hope that after this we shall not have any more sophistical wire-drawn reasoning to show how they might have been known, when Mr. Madison himself told one minister at London that the orders in council were supposed to be secret, and that their appearance afterwards justified the embargo. But I think that gentlemen are carrying this point too far. Let them not for the whole length of saying that the orders in council were known before the embargo. It is giving the lie to
Mr. Madison most indecently, and as to this way of complimenting him, though I have very little to expect from him, I cannot concur in it. Not only, sir, am I willing to allow in the probability of this letter that there was a probability of the issuing the orders in council, not only that the language of the British gazettes left little doubt of it; but I feel justified in going a great deal farther and say, that the celebrated note rendered it improbable to suppose that any thing else could have happened. The British government said, "we desire that France should abandon her system, or, if not, that you will take some measure which will defend us." If we expected that the British ministers would keep their word, we might safely swear that the orders in council would issue. It is not necessary to the purpose of my argument at this time to say that Great Britain did right in issuing these orders in council, tho' I am free to acknowledge that, for the promotion of her own interest, it was right; but it is my purpose to show that the ground has been yielded, and that it has, is one of the reasons why we find ourselves in a situation so comparatively happy.
Permit me to go to the proof of this, to state, as my conception, that there were three things which prevented that accommodation between the two countries, which was so essential to the prosperity of both. They were these: the proclamation, the refusal to coalesce with Great Britain in resistance to the Berlin decree; and lastly, the refusal to repeal the embargo. These are the three reasons which prevented the accomplishment of that good of which the President has put us in possession. Great Britain demanded that we should intimate by our conduct or assurances that we would not submit to the innovations on maritime law attempted by the Berlin decree, and throughout the whole of this correspondence made it a point that she would never give up her orders in council till she had some pledge to that effect from us. She now has that pledge, and it is a great misfortune that it was not given before. Yes, sir, the first resolution reported by the committee of foreign relations last winter, adopting the language of Lords Holland and Auckland, declares that the United States cannot submit to the French decrees. I am disposed, on this part of the subject, to give the present President credit for his adroitness. I should not be surprised, sir, were the secret history of the cabinet ever to be written, if it should turn out that, without the knowledge of the then President of the U. States, the present President had, by making a very surly face at Great Britain, caused a demand to be made of France that she should revoke her decree, and given that very pledge which G. Britain demanded of us. Great Britain issued her orders in council to keep us from France. It was said that we could not go with any safety on the ocean between the French decrees and British orders. Now was supposed to be the happy time when the planets were auspicious for involving us in a British war; but it did so happen that, in the nature of things, we could not declare the British orders to be unlawful without declaring the French decrees to be unlawful also. We could not oppose one without also opposing the other. The very moment that we fought both Great Britain and France, Great Britain did not want any quarrel with us. If we had put ourselves in opposition to France when the question was raised, in the note attached to the treaty, we should never have had the orders in council. But we had them. We did declare, after we had them, that we would give the pledge. It was rendered indispensable by our refusing to give a pledge of resistance to the Berlin decree, that the orders in council should be issued. That pledge now having been given, it became as necessary that the orders should be withdrawn. It was folly for Great Britain to have continued them. We were fighting Great Britain (on paper)—for what? Because she joined us in the maintenance of our neutral rights. We acknowledged that, as soon as the Berlin decree was acted on, it was cause of war; but felt too proud to vindicate ourselves from the imputation of submitting to it, because Great Britain had asked it of us. When we had passed the non-intercourse law as to France, and excluded French ships from our harbors, we were placed in a situation which disabled us from submitting to the Berlin decree, and are now in that situation. I would observe, that, at the time these measures were agitated, we had all a little sand in our eyes; we did not understand the subject so completely at that time as we do now; and I am pretty well satisfied, that when the secret history of the two last years is divulged, it will be found that while the former President was endeavoring to fan the flames
of war, the Secretary of State, by originating these resolutions, &c. was smoothing the way for the happy discharge of his Presidential duties when he should come to the chair. I think it did him honor. The ground then having been taken, we, standing pledged in the face of the world to resist French injustice, have done what we were required to give a pledge to do. There is therefore no further difficulty on the part of Great Britain in relation to us. She withdraws her orders in council and leaves us precisely in the situation in which she first asked of us to place ourselves. All the difference is that the orders in council are enforced now by us instead of herself. In bringing about this state of things I yield my hearty approbation to the President of the United States; and I believe that, when I could not see the end of our troubles, the President was secretly conducting us to the late happy result.
But, says one gentleman, the embargo has so humbled the British nation, and the terrors of the non-intercourse law have performed such miracles that she is willing to fall at our feet, and the equal footing on which the two countries was placed was a pretence, and nothing more, for their change of position. Now let us examine it; for I do consider it extremely important that the fact should be ascertained and established whether the embargo was such a machine as to produce all these consequences: for, if it was, let us never forget that we had it, and have recourse to it on every future occasion. If it was, sir, let us inscribe in golden characters over your head that it may stare us in the face whenever we rise to address you. But if the late change be not ascribable to that, but to the abandonment of that pernicious system of which the embargo formed a principal feature; if it be ascribable to the frankness and promptitude with which the President met the late overtures, let us say so. The medicine has operated, and it is correct that we should ascertain by what physician the cure was performed. That medicine which had like to have killed us will never be resorted to again.
The proclamation was another stumbling block; in the consideration of which I must again have recourse to the volume of truth. It will be recollected, sir, that when the affair of the Chesapeake first became public at London, it was known to the British minister before it was known to our ministers. Whilst things were going on very smoothly in relation to that matter, information was received that the President of the United States had issued a proclamation interdicting the entrance of our waters to British vessels, and objection was made to it—on what ground? That the United States had no right by the laws of nations to exclude armed vessels from their waters? No, sir, that was a ground which was never contested. For in point of right, foreign armed vessels can no more claim permission to come within our waters than their armies can claim a right to encamp on the terra firma of our country. The right is enjoyed but by indulgence. But, if the armies of France and England were engaged upon our frontiers, and we should permit the army of one to receive accommodation and comfort within our territorial limits, and were to exclude the other, we should violate the neutral character by siding one to the depression of the other, taking, so far as this partiality extended, a part in the war, we should in fact be doing a hostile act. On the other hand, if we permitted both to come into our territories and fight it out, we still keep our neutral character, impartiality being of the essence of neutrality. When therefore the proclamation interdicting British vessels was issued, it was complained of only on this ground: "The total exclusion of all ships of war belonging to one of two belligerent parties, while the ships of war of the other were protected by the harbors of the neutral power, would furnish no light ground of complaint against that neutral, if considered in any other point of view than as a measure of retaliation for previous injury; and, so considered, it cannot but be necessary to take it into account in the adjustment of the original dispute."
If the House will give me a little attention, they will see that the objection to the proclamation did not go on the ground simply that British vessels were prohibited from entering, but that whilst British vessels were prohibited French were admitted. It was admitting the army of one belligerent to occupy your territory whilst that of the other was prevented. Therefore the giving the use of our waters to one belligerent and refusing it to the other was a fair and just cause of complaint; and till both were admitted or both excluded, Great Britain refused to treat or make reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake. Mr. Rose came forward afterwards with a long
letter on the same subject, and we find that he comes to the same conclusion. This point, wherever the subject is treated, is not lost sight of. You find it afterwards in the reply which was given by Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, when Mr. Pinkney made the famous proposal to the British government, that if they would withdraw the orders in council, the embargo should be suspended as regarded them; one reason of refusal was that British vessels were interdicted whilst French were admitted. She wished that both should be admitted or both excluded. She never would enter into any negotiation till that equality was produced. She has not talked as much as we have, to be sure, but she has acted more. Now, sir, by the non-intercourse act, this demand of placing both nations on an equality is complied with, and she offers that reparation which she had hitherto refused.
But it is said that the proposal made by Mr. Pinkney last summer embraced the same terms. And how? What did Mr. Pinkney offer at that time? After talking about and about the subject, Mr. Canning not understanding him, desired him to commit his ideas to paper. He wrote it. "I have the honor to state (says Mr. P.) that it was the intention"—it was (not it is) the intention of the President of the U. S. to suspend the embargo as to G. Britain in case she should withdraw her orders in council, &c. And Mr. Pinkney then makes no pledge that the embargo shall be continued as to France, but goes into an argument on the subject. Was this the pledge required by the British government? No, sir; we find till that demand was complied with she never would come to a settlement. Now, if the orders in council had been then repeated, would it have produced those consequences subsequently produced by her perseverance? No, sir. In the first place there was then no pledge on record that we would resist the French decrees; our government having studiously avoided such a pledge. The government was not pledged by Mr. Pinkney even to keep the embargo in operation in relation to France. They were not yet willing to pledge themselves to resist France. They would not act a manly part even then. It was not enough that France disregarded all neutral rights and the obligations of a sacred treaty. We would not then give intimation that we would resist France, but all we said, was, that if France persisted in her decrees, we would continue the embargo as to her. On this ground the orders in council were asked to be withdrawn. British vessels would still have been excluded whilst French were admitted. But at last that state of things has arrived, as to the pledge that this country will not submit to the French decrees, & as to both nations being placed on an equality in relation to armed ships, in which we ought first to have placed ourselves. The proclamation being removed is no impediment to that adjustment. It never would have been an impediment, if this government had been willing to do originally what it at last consented to do.
The third, last and only impediment was the existence of the embargo. As long as that remained in force, the British government stood pledged not to withdraw the orders in council. The embargo is given up. But the address and adroitness of the government is distinguishable there too; for while they killed the life and soul of the embargo, they held up the lifeless corpse as though in full life and vigor. The great argument in favor of the embargo was, that it would starve our adversary. Now we had repealed the embargo, except as to Great Britain and France; we had come down on our knees, and thus broke our fall. It was said to our merchants, you shall not go to Great Britain; but you shall go to St. Bartholomews, and thence Great Britain may get your produce. As soon as you said that, sir, you abandoned the principle on which the embargo went. It was no longer an embargo to that purpose for which it was designed. But it was better for our own interests to have permitted direct exportation, as I shall prove; for it is a material consideration with Great Britain to have her shipping employed. If we had exported our produce immediately from this country to Great Britain, I see very plainly that British shipping would not have been employed; but as it was, in striving to affect, and perhaps injure Great Britain, we gave employment to her seamen and ships which she would not otherwise have had. But I say that the principle of the embargo was completely abandoned as soon as Congress consented to give vent to the productions of the country by a partial repeal of the embargo. This measure was adopted on the ground that Great Britain stood so much in need of our produce and raw materials that she could not live without them; and the
moment that we repealed it in this manner, the embargo was destroyed. It looked well to have the embargo continued as to G. Britain and France, because it saved appearances. I do not know that the government was to blame. In the same letter of Mr. Canning to which I have before alluded, there is an expression, the import of which plainly is, that if the British government could restore friendly relations between the two countries without appearing to deprecate the embargo as a measure of dreadful hostility, she would have been very willing to have treated with you. If the embargo had remained to this day, would you not have remained without a step being taken? But we did repeal the embargo, notwithstanding the name which was left, so much that it could not be supposed by any body to operate on Great Britain so as to be injurious to her. Those who saved appearances by a partial repeal of the embargo, granted what she wanted in this respect.
When these three impediments were removed, and by our government too, when the door was fairly opened, Great Britain walked in and offered to the President of the United States that, since we had done all that she could reasonably desire, and we did nothing more, she was willing to do all that we could reasonably desire. It is for the promptitude and frankness with which the President met the late overture that I thank him most cordially for my country. I approve it most heartily. When Secretary of State, he satisfied me that when he wanted to keep off accommodation, no man was more competent; for instance, when reparation was offered in London, and our government had as lief have taken poison as accepted it. I know that the President of the United States, in the course of diplomatic discussion, could have produced delay in such a manner that no one could well have decided what prevented the arrangement from coming to a happy conclusion. But he chose, when he came into power, to dispel that darkness which the administration of his predecessor had spread around. He acted with promptitude and frankness, and merits the gratitude of the nation for it—and it is the duty of the House of Representatives to give their approbation of that act. And I am willing to join in it, not because I am in the habit of pouring out the incense of adulation—for I will tell gentlemen very frankly; that if any one who is so averse to praise, were to blame the President for his conduct in relation to the resistance to the laws in Pennsylvania, I would join him—but whilst I express my disappointment that he has not repressed rebellion, that he has not detailed the causes out of which it grew, and the manner in which it was composed, I must express approbation of his conduct in relation to the subject now before us. I must, indeed, regret that the President has not even submitted it to the consideration of Congress, when there was a rebellion, in the heart of the government, a rebellion against the judicial authority of the United States. I shall not make a motion to express my disapprobation; but if other gentlemen did, I might vote for it.
A colleague of mine (Mr. Pick) yesterday undertook to instruct us by reading part of the speech of a British nobleman, instead of listening to the dictates of his own judgment. As to this same Lord Grenville I have a word or two to say. Perhaps my colleague does not know that in Great Britain they understand the game of ins and outs as well as here; that there as well as here, men have one set of political connections to-day, and a new set of political connections and principles to-morrow. But the little knowledge which I possess of British corruption (I am sure I shall be applauded for that word) enables me to say that there are men in G. Britain who do not practise what they think, who make speeches for the mere purpose of putting the ins out, and themselves in. And tho' I would not put Lord Grenville, my worthy friend's friend, on his trial here; yet, since he is brought in, I chose to pay my respects to him. You have heard me read the note attached to the treaty. Would you believe, after hearing his speech, that this same Lord Grenville was one of the British ministry who pledged the British nation by that note to the orders in council which were subsequently issued, in failure of the conditions stated?—And this man is to be appealed to as authority that the offer of Mr. Pinkney in relation to the embargo was really fair, and such as the government should have consented to! Will the gentleman go the whole length with his British friend? He says that when the offer to repeal the embargo was made, then the orders in council ought to have been rescinded. In the opinion of Lord Grenville, the orders in council only became unlawful when the British government refused the of-

for the American minister. Is it fair to bring the arguments of the British minority to prove that the American majority are right? It might be right if it would not cut both ways. How would it operate? I am a Representative of 33,000 souls, a situation which I feel as honorable as to be a British peer, and therefore am on an equality with a member of the British House of Lords. I have said that the orders in council were fairly justifiable. Now, suppose that a British subject were to quote my argument as evidence that they were lawful—I have no doubt that Lord Grenville would make a pretty speech on the occasion. And this shows the absurdity of quoting arguments used by the minority as decisive on the subject of measures which it is a part of their plan to decree.
(Mr. Gardenier's Speech to be concluded.)
SENATE—JUNE 19.
On motion of Mr. Giles, Resolved, That the President of the U. S. be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate such information as he may deem proper to communicate, respecting the unfortunate exiles lately expelled from the Island of Cuba, and who may have arrived, or are expected to arrive within the jurisdiction of the United States; and also respecting any propositions which may have been made to him by the minister plenipotentiary of France, for the purpose of facilitating the removal of any of the said exiles with their slaves, and other effects from the U. S. to any place within the dominions of France.
The Senate resumed the 3d reading of the bill for the remission of certain penalties and forfeitures, &c. when it was recommitted to Messrs. Giles, Anderson, Crawford, Franklin, and Hillhouse.
Mr. Anderson, from the committee to whom was referred the bill to direct the sale of gun-boats, reported the bill amended.
The bill to appropriate certain public grounds in the city of Washington for the erection of public baths was read a second time, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
The bill to amend and continue in force the act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes, was read the 3d time and PASSED UNANIMOUSLY; the following gentlemen voting in the affirmative, viz.—Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Brent, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Giles, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Griswold, Hillhouse, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Robinson, Smith of N. Y., Thurston, Turner, White and Whiteside.
JUNE 20.
Mr. Leib submitted the following resolution:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency of providing by law for the exclusion of foreign armed vessel from the ports and harbors of the U. S. with leave to report by bill or otherwise.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to direct the sale of gun-boats.
When on motion of Mr. Reed, the further consideration thereof was postponed until the first Monday of December next.
Mr. Brent reported a bill making an appropriation to finish and furnish the Senate Chamber, and for other purposes, which was twice read, and ordered to a third reading. This bill was, subsequently, passed. It appropriates $6,500 dollars.
A written message was received from the President of the U. States, transmitting "such information as has been received respecting exiles from Cuba, a list, or expected within the United States; also a letter from Gen. Eustace connected with that subject."
Referred to the committee appointed on the bill for the remission of certain penalties, &c.
The bill to appropriate certain public ground in the city of Washington, for the erection of public baths, was read the third time: When a motion, to postpone the same until the 1st Monday of December prevailed—Yeas 15—Nays 13—as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard, German, Gilman, Gregg, Griswold, Hillhouse, Lambert, Mathewson, Pickering, Robinson, Smith of N. Y., Turner.
NAYS—Messrs. Bayard, Brent, Crawford, Giles, Goodrich, Leib, Lloyd, Meigs, Pope, Reed, Thurston, White and Whiteside.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Monday, June 19.
Mr. Galt offered a resolution for appointing a committee to enquire into the expediency of providing by law for ascertaining and settling the boundaries of the public lands at West Point. Agreed to.
Mr. P. B. Porter reported a bill for the relief of Joseph Wilkinson, Jr. which was twice read and committed.
BATTURE AT N. ORLEANS.
Mr. Macon called for the consideration of the report of the committee recommending a reference to the attorney general of the papers on the subject of the Batture in the suburbs of St. Mary's. On this proposition a very wide debate took place, not confined to the question before the House, but embracing, in some degree, the merits of the claim and of the law authorizing the expulsion of intruders on the public lands by military force.
Messrs. Burwell, Poydras, Sheffield, Macon, Ross, Troup, Boyd, Randolph, Lyon, Gould, W. Alston, Gholsom, Holland, Fisk, Bibb and Ehea took part in the debate, which shall be noticed in course.
The debate was extended till near five o'clock, when the proposition contained in the report of the committee was negatived, Ayes 23, apparently on the ground that it would produce delay, and that the attorney general had already given an opinion against the claim.
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
A bill was received from the Senate to amend and continue in force certain parts of an act, entitled "An act interdicting commercial intercourse between the U. S. and G. Britain and France and for other purposes." Twice read and committed to a committee of the whole.
Tuesday, June 20.
On motion of Mr. Randolph, a committee was appointed to superintend the expenditure of the annual appropriation for the use of the library of Congress.
NEW ORLEANS BATTURE.
Mr. Bibb, according to intimation given yesterday, offered the following motion, which, on suggestion of Mr. Montgomery, was laid on the table for one day:
"Resolved, That it is expedient to vest in the corporation of New Orleans whatever right, title or claim, the United States may possess to the batture in front of the suburb of St. Mary's, and adjoining the city of New Orleans."
SEA-LETTER VESSELS!
Mr. Macon observed that there was known to the laws of the United States a species of vessels called sea-letter vessels, foreign built, but belonging to this country. They appeared to be a mongrel species of vessel, of which he wished to get rid. Those who wished to encourage American ship-building would be in favor of the following motion, for it would go to encourage it:
Resolved, That the committee of commerce and manufactures be instructed to enquire into the expediency of authorizing the registering anew of vessels built in the United States, which are owned in whole by citizens of the United States, any disability incurred by such vessel to the contrary notwithstanding, and also into the expediency of forbidding by law sea letters or any custom house documents being granted to vessels not registered or licensed according to law, or not owned by citizens of the United States within a limited time after the passing of such a law.
The House agreed to consider the motion, ayes 72.
On the suggestion of Mr. Montgomery, the motion was ordered to lie on the table for one day.
BARRED CLAIM.
Mr. Johnson made a report on the claim of General Arthur St. Clair for monies due to him by the U. States, stating that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore recommending that the prayer of the petition be not to be granted.
A motion was made by Mr. Eppes to re-commit the report, because it rejected the claim merely because within the operation of the statute of limitations, without enquiring into its merits; and because the principle had already been settled in the case of the report on the petition of Hannah Foster, made a few days ago, which was re-committed on the same ground, and a report required on the merits of the case.
After debate, the report was ordered to lie on the table (presumed to be equivalent to a refusal to act on it during the present session.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL'S PAY.
Mr. Jackson offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the committee of ways and means be instructed to bring in a bill declaring that the compensation to the brigadiers general of the army of the United States, fixed by the 4th section of the act of Congress, entitled "An act fixing the military peace establishment of the United States," shall be no more than 225 dollars per month, including all rations and every other species of emoluments heretofore claimed or allowed, except the usual allowance for stationery.
The House agreed to consider the motion, Ayes 72.
After an hour's debate, in which Messrs. J. G. Jackson and Eppes supported and Messrs. Randolph, Livermore, Nelson and Tallmadge opposed it, Mr. Jackson withdrew the motion, to prevent its occupying the whole day.
FINANCE.
The engrossed bill to amend the act entitled an act for the support of the
public credit and for the reduction of public debt, was read the third time, opposed at length by Messrs. Pickman, Livermore, Lyon and Randolph, and passed by Yeas and Nays, 74 to 51—majority 23.
Mr. Dana moved to amend the title, that it might correspond with the real design of the bill, by adding at the end of it the words "and therein to make provision for borrowing money."
Motion negatived—Yeas 33, Nays 38.
The bill to alter the road from Baltimore to Annapolis by Rock Hall, was read the third time, and supported by Mr. Montgomery and opposed by Messrs. Stanford, Goldsborough and Livermore, and postponed indefinitely, Ayes 65.
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Basset in the Chair, on the bill from the Senate, to amend the non-intercourse act, but after remaining a short time in session, the committee rose and reported progress.
And the House adjourned.
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21.
At a meeting of the joint committee appointed on the part of the Democratic Citizens of Washington, Alexandria and George-Town, for the purpose of celebrating the 4th of July, held at Lindsay's Hotel on Monday the 19th June—it was determined that in the Chamber of the House of Representatives, at half past ten o'clock, the Declaration of Independence shall be read by Gen. John Mason, and an oration delivered by Joel Barlow, Esq.
That a dinner will be provided at the Centre Market House in the City of Washington, at which we understand the Vice President of the U. S. the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Heads of Departments, and a number of other officers of the government will be present; and that Joel Barlow, Esq. will preside, assisted by Gen. John Mason and Alexander Smith, Esq.
The following bill has passed the Senate unanimously:
A BILL.
To amend and continue in force the act, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes."
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, seventeenth and eighteenth sections of the act, "entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes," shall continue in force until the end of the next session of Congress: Provided, that nothing therein contained shall be construed to prohibit any trade or commercial intercourse which has been or may be permitted in conformity with the provisions of the eleventh section of the said act.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all acts repealed or mentioned or intended to be repealed by the said act to interdict commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, shall be, and remain repealed, notwithstanding any part of the same act which has been or may hereafter be revoked or annulled, or which may expire by its own limitation. Provided the penalties and forfeitures which may have been incurred or shall hereafter be incurred on account of any infraction of the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, or of any of the acts supplementary thereto, or of the act to enforce and make more effectual an act, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, or of any of the provisions of the act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes, shall after the expiration of any of the said acts or of any provision thereof, be recovered and distributed in like manner as if the said acts and every provision thereof were in full force and virtue.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That during the continuance of this act, no ship or vessel shall be permitted to depart for any foreign port or place with which commercial intercourse has not been or may not be permitted by virtue of this act or of the act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes. And no ship or vessel, bound to a foreign port or place with which commercial intercourse has been or may be thus permitted, shall be allowed to depart, unless the owner or owners, consignee of such ship or vessel, shall, with the master, have given bond with one or more sureties
to the United States, in a sum double the value of the vessel and cargo, that the vessel shall not proceed to any port or place with which commercial intercourse is not thus permitted, nor be directly or indirectly engaged, during the voyage, in any trade with such port or place. And if any ship or vessel shall, contrary to the provisions of this section, depart from any port of the United States without a clearance, or without having given bond in the manner above mentioned, such ship or vessel, together with her cargo, shall be wholly forfeited, and the owner or owners, agent, freighters or factors, master or commander of such ship or vessel shall therefor severally forfeit and pay a sum equal to the value of the ship or vessel and of the cargo put on board the same: Provided always, that the provisions of the eleventh section of the act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes, shall extend to the prohibitions imposed by this section; which prohibitions shall cease to operate in the manner and under the limitations prescribed by the eleventh section aforesaid, in relation to any nation with which commercial intercourse may hereafter be permitted, in conformity with the provisions of the eleventh section aforesaid.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That all penalties and forfeitures arising under, or incurred by virtue of this act, shall be recovered and distributed, and may be remitted or mitigated in the manner prescribed by the act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That all the vessels which may have arrived at any port or place within the United States from Great Britain, her colonies or dependencies, between the twentieth day of May and the eleventh of June, one thousand eight hundred and nine, shall be exempted from all the forfeitures and penalties incurred in consequence of any violation of any of the provisions of the said act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies.
A MEETING
Of the Citizens of Washington, without distinction of party is requested at Long's Hotel, at six o'clock in the evening, on Thursday next, to make arrangements for a public dinner on the 4th July next, 1809.
June 21, 1809
WASHINGTON THEATRE.
On Thursday Evening, June 22, 1809, Will be performed a celebrated Comedy, in five Acts, (never performed here,) called
THE SCHOOL FOR REFORM:
OR,
HOW TO RULE A HUSBAND.
To which will be added,
A COMIC OPERA, IN TWO ACTS,
CALLED THE
RIVAL SOLDIERS;
OR,
SPRIGS OF LAUREL.
* * Box One Dollar—Pit Three Quarters of a Dollar.
* * Tickets to be had at the Office of Dinmore and Cooper, Eleventh street, near Pennsylvania Avenue.
Doors will open at Six—Curtain rise a Quarter before Seven o'Clock.
NATIONAL GUARDS.
ATTENTION!
The officers having obtained their commissions, all those who have already joined this company, and those who wish to join it, are requested to meet at Capt. Jones', Pennsylvania Avenue, on Thursday evening, June 22d, precisely at half past 7 o'clock.
By order of the Captain.
L. KENT, Sec.
June 21—4.
TO BUTCHERS.
THE subscriber has upwards of thirty head of very fat BEEF, cattle that he has been feeding some time. He wishes to dispose of them before harvest, but has not time to drive them to market. Butchers may have in them a good bargain, by calling at my farm, near Hagers Town, Washington county, Maryland.
June 21—2w.
JOHN T. MASON.
A CARD.
DANCING.
M. FRANCIS, (assisted by Mr. Harris) of the Philadelphia Theatre, respectfully informs the citizens of Washington, that he will, during the stay of the company in this place, attend and instruct in private families. For particulars apply to Mr. F. at Lindsay's Hotel, Pennsylvania Avenue.
June 21—3t.
THIRTY DOLLARS REWARDED.
ABSCONDED on Friday last from the subscriber's farm (near Queen Anne, Prince George's county,) in the state of Maryland, a Negro AARON, about thirty years old, short fellow, bowlegged, short flat nose, the end of his great toes turning to the second toe, so that there is a large bulge at the joint between the toe and foot. Had on when absconded, ricklenburgh shirt, short brown coarse roundabout and pantalettes; any person taking up said negro and bringing him home, or sending him to jail so that I get him again, shall receive the above reward if taken thirty miles from home, or twenty dollars if taken nearer home than thirty miles.
ISAAC BUCKETT.
June 21—1t.
RAZOR BOAT.
And Water rendered unnecessary.—BY the incomparable newly invented shaving composition Oake, by a gentleman lately arrived in New-York from the Continent of Europe—by applying them with gentle friction to the beard they have the complete effect of shaving—And the public are assured that they do not contain a single particle that can have the smallest tendency to injure the skin, but on the contrary after the removal of the beard they leave an agreeable smoothness & softness on the skin and entirely destroy outcaneous eruptions etc. which frequently occasion very disagreeable & distressing pain in shaving with a razor. They are now for sale at the house of Dr. Gtt, Georgetown, at one and two dollars each, the one dollar cake will be sufficient for six months and two dollars for twelve.
N. B. They are particularly useful for Military Gentlemen, or Gentlemen travelling, either by sea or land.—F
District of Columbia, Washington County, ss.
ON the petition of HENRY SELBY an insolvent debtor, confined in the prison of Washington county aforesaid for debt—Notice is hereby given to the creditors of the said insolvent, that on the 10th inst. at the court room in Long's Hotel, in the city of Washington, the 4th section of the act of Congress, entitled "An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia," will be administered to the said insolvent, unless sufficient cause be then and there shown to the contrary.
Ordered, That this notice be published in the National Intelligencer, and Washington Federalist twice in each paper before that day.
By order of the hon. Wm. Cushing, then chief judge of the circuit court of the District of Columbia.
WM. BRENT, Off.
June 21—2t.
LAND TO SELL OR EXCHANGE.
I AM desirous to sell or exchange the following described tract of land, containing 1000 acres of old Military land, situated in the county of Mason, state of Virginia, on the river Ohio, about 9 miles from the mouth of the Great Kanawha. Half of the said quantity is rich arable bottom, well timbered, and on which farm 500 to 1200 bushels of Indian corn has been heretofore made in the year. On a part of this tract, situated to form a farm of 700 acres, is a good stone bank of the river, is lately been removed a single story framed dwelling, 20 feet by 20, with a stone walled cellar under the whole, rising 4 feet above the surface, which with little alteration might be made suitable for summer rooms, as will take for the boat, as well as for a third part of a dwelling on Kentucky river, and a third part of a satisfactory survey, in the forks of the Ohio and Tennessee, both valuable tracts all kinds of public securities or exchange as above.
JOHN PENTON MERCER.
Frederickshurg, June 9.
Letters directed to me, Gallipolis, Ohio, after the 15th of July, will be attended to.
June 21—3t.
SPREET-SPRINGS.
VIRGINIA.
THE Subscriber has been at great expense and trouble to render this much esteemed place comfortable and pleasant for the present season. Gentlemen and ladies who are desirous of visiting those waters, may depend upon every exertion on the part of the subscriber to make their time agreeable.
O. TOWLES, Jun.
June 21—3t.
GEO. W. RIGGS,
Has just received and for Sale, Gold and silver velum lace. Do. do. do. cords, &c. &c. Plated and gilt lace. Gold and silver epaulets. Gold watches, plain and repeating. Silver do. warranted. Jewelry of the newest fashion. A considerable choice of silver and plated ware. With a variety of fancy goods too tedious to mention.
—ALSO—
2800 RAGOON SKINS,
Of the best quality, assorted to suit the buyers.
Georgetown, June 21—w6t.
REAL ESTATE AT AUCTION.
WE will sell on the 1st Monday in August next, at the town of Mt. Ruth, in this town, the entire real estate (yet unsold) of Col. Chas. Beatty, deceased, consisting of a number of valuable improved and unimproved lots in Georgetown and its additions, and in the city of Washington. Several tracts of land in the neighborhood of the two places, and others in Montgomery, Frederick, and Washington counties, Maryland, with one of 512 acres, (an old grant) in Randolph County, Virginia. Plots and title papers will there be shown, and terms of sale then made known.
Sale to commence at 10 o'clock A. M. and continue from day to day until the whole is sold.
JOHN M. BRATTY,
CHAS. A. BRATTY.
Georgetown, D. C. June 21—w6t.
In Chancery, June 21, 1809.
ORDERED, That the sale made by Solomon Holland, of the real estate of JAMES BEALL, as reported by him be ratified and confirmed unless cause to the contrary be shown before the 20th day of August next—provided a copy of this order be published once in each of three successive weeks in the National Intelligencer before the 20th day of July next. The report states, that several tracts of land containing in the whole 270 1-2 acres were sold for $225 dollars.
True copy—Text,
NICHOLAS BREWER,
June 19—w3t. Dec. Cur. Can.
RUNAWAY.
WAS committed to the Goal of Washington county, in the district of Columbia as a runaway on the 1st inst. a black boy who calls himself SAM JONES, and says he belongs to Thomas Contee of Prince George's County, Maryland, and says he is about 19 years of age, 5 feet 6 inches high, had on when committed, an old blue cloth jacket and trowsers, coarse linen shirt, old hat, and no other clothes with him—his owner is desired to come and prove him and take him away, or he will be sold for his jail fees and other expenses as the law directs.
C. TIPPETT, Keeper
of the Goal for W. Boyd, Marshal.
June 19—w3t.

EIGHTY DOLLARS REWARD. RANAWAY from the subscriber on the 5th inst. a mulatto lad—JIM—who is about seventeen years of age, has a straight black hair, lacy cut, and black eyes. He had on when he absconded from me, a short blue kersey jacket and blue pantaloons patched with white, a large pair of laced shoes, an old hat, osnaburg shirt, with an old handkerchief round his neck—he has a father living in the city of Washington, near the navy yard, by the name of George, or George Beall, who served his time with Mr. John Addison, Jun. and a mother by the name of Betsy, who I sold to her husband a few years past, and expect he will make to them or probably to Baltimore as he has some friends and relations there also. I will give forty dollars for securing said lad in jail so that I get him again, or the above reward if taken out of the district of Columbia or state of Maryland. RACHEL PRATT, Prince George's County, June 18th, 1809. June 19—3t-wtf.
BY VIRTUE of a decree of the honorable the Chancellor of Maryland, will be exposed to public sale on Monday the 17th day of July next, if fair, if not on the next fair day, on the premises, all the estate, right, title, claim and interest of Nathaniel Washington of St. Mary's county, in and to a tract or parcel of land lying and being in St. Mary's county, on the Patuxent river, being part of a tract of land called Trent Neck, to which the said Nathaniel Washington is entitled in right of his wife Margaret Washington. This land is of a superior quality. —ALSO— All the estate of the said Nathaniel Washington and Margaret his wife, in and to one other tract or parcel of land, lying in St. Mary's county aforesaid, being another part of the aforementioned tract, called Trent Neck, situated in the forest, at the distance of three or four miles from the tract before mentioned. A more particular description of these tracts of land is deemed unnecessary. And there will be offered for sale at the same time and place, a variety of personal property of the said Nathaniel Washington, consisting of Negroes, Horses, Stock, Utensils and Household furniture. The above property will be sold in such lots or parts to accommodate purchasers as shall be judged most advantageous. Terms of sale—a credit of twelve months, purchasers giving bond with sufficient security, and to be on interest from the day of sale. JOHN RALPH, Trustee. Charlotte Hall, St. Mary's County, June 19—4w.
DOCTOR J. J. COMYN, OPERATING DENTIST, Respectfully acquaints the ladies and gentlemen of Washington and George-town, that he intends to practice in both those places, for a few days, in all the various branches of his profession. His method of cleaning the teeth is allowed by hundreds to be easy and effectual, he removes the tartar (let the gums be in the tenderest state possible) without giving the smallest pain or incurring the slightest injury to the enamel, in cases where the front teeth are loose from the separation of the gums, or other causes, he makes them fast by bringing the gums to adhere closely to the teeth. He sets artificial teeth from one to an entire set with such nicety, so as to answer the useful purposes of nature, and to make it impossible to discern them from real ones—in cases of decayed teeth, his method of removing the decayed part and preventing further tendency to decay in the teeth, will be found to exceed any method yet practised in this country. Dr. C. being regularly bred to the practice of physics, and his long experience in the dentistry business on the continent of Europe, France and Spain, enables him to flatter himself, that he will give every possible attention to those who favor him with their commands. Dr. C. may be consulted at Steele's Tavern, in Washington, on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays; at the Union Tavern in Georgetown on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. June 19—3t.
FORTY DOLLARS REWARD. RANAWAY from the subscriber on Feb. 1st. binary last, a handsome bright Mulatto Woman, named HULLEN, twenty years old, of the middling size, her marks as far as recollected, are large breasts, thin visage, a scar, I think, on the left side of her neck, occasioned by a cut; has a flat nose, I think, in her left hand, one on her forehead, and one between her breasts; sprightly spoken, quick turn of mind, and very capable of deception—it is useless to describe her dress, no doubt she will be well supplied with clothes and will try to pass for a free woman. Thirty dollars will be given if taken up in the district of Columbia, if farther, the above reward will be given if brought home to the subscriber living in the city of Washington, west of the President's house, all reasonable expenses allowed. All persons are forewarned from harboring her. WILLIAM HOLMES. June 14—7t.
FOR SALE, All or any part of the Estate of the Subscriber, lying on the Eastern Branch of the Potomac, between the two Bridges, and immediately opposite the city of Washington; a considerable part of the Estate is heavily wooded, and the whole is divided into convenient Farms, each containing a proper proportion of wood and arable land. On payment of one fourth part of the purchase money, indisputable title will be made, and reasonable credit for the residue, secured by bond and mortgage. Also for sale, The whole, or any part of the Estates of the "North American Land Company," and "Aggregate Fund," consisting of divers large bodies of Land variously situated, in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky; and of Houses & House Lots in the City of Washington. On the Sale of which, indisputable title and very liberal terms, both as to price and periods of payment, will be granted to all persons, particularly settlers disposed to purchase. For further information, and terms, apply to the subscriber, at present in Philadelphia, or at Washington from the 1st to the 15th June next. JAMES GREENLEAF. Philadelphia, April 12—ep10wug
BOOT-MAKING. JOHN MINCHIN, BOOT-MAKER, New Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol, has on hand and manufactures, BOOTS of the first quality, of the best materials and workmanship, and equal in neatness and durability to any in the United States—he can employ FIFTY MEN more to make strong shoes, to whom constant employment and good wages will be given. Richard Horwell's celebrated PATENT PARASOLS SUSPENDERS far superior to any hitherto in use can be had on the same terms retail, as at his Manufactory. November 27—4t
PATENT KNAPSACKS. THE Subscriber having obtained from the United States, a patent for an improved KNAPSACK, which in point of durability and convenience, has been pronounced by the best judges infinitely superior to any hitherto in use. The officers of the different volunteer companies in the United States, are respectfully solicited to adopt the same. They may be had in any quantity, and will be sold on the most reasonable terms by JOHN P. LHERBETTE, 81, Maiden Lane, New-York. To whom applications addressed by post may be made, or to B. H. Latrobe, at the city of Washington. May 19—ep4m.
TO BE SOLD AT PUBLIC AUCTION, At Northumberland court house, in the county of Northumberland, and state of Virginia, on Tuesday the 5th of September next, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, five contiguous plantations, amounting together to about 2,700 acres, situate on the river Potomac, and within about three miles of the court house. These estates formerly belonged to Presley Thornton, Esq., and are the same on which he lived. They have never been seen by either of the subscribers, but it is understood, that about 1,700 acres of them are as valuable low grounds as any on the river, and a considerable part thereof heavily timbered. The uplands consist of about 1,000 acres, and the whole is well calculated for the production of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy and small grain of all kinds, in great abundance. The waters are said to abound with excellent fish, oysters and wild fowl. The water carriage is easy and convenient to Norfolk, Baltimore, Alexandria and the city of Washington; and as these estates possess several good mill seats, with an abundance of water and a plentiful supply of timber, they must be very valuable. The premises will be shown to persons inclining to purchase, by col. James Moore, who lives on them, or by Samuel Blackwell, Esq., who lives near to them; and the terms of payment may be known a sufficient time before the sale, by applying to either of them, or to THOMAS ROBINSON, Near Chester, Delaware, Or to W. LEWIS, at Phila.
TO BE LET ON GROUND RENT, FOR 99 YEARS (renewable forever), On Saturday the 24th inst. (June) at the toll house of the Washington Bridge, at five o'clock in the evening. A CONSIDERABLE PART, if not the whole, of square 327, fronting on Maryland Avenue, which leads from the bridge over the Potomac to the Capitol, and contiguous to the foot of the bridge. The square will be laid out into convenient lots, so as to suit those who are disposed to rent. This square being in a most healthy, high and dry situation, and immediately on a great thoroughfare of the city, it is unnecessary to dwell on the probable advantages it will afford for business or for houses of public entertainment. The title is indisputable. N. B. At the same time will be rented, for one or three years, the Wharf and Warehouse below the bridge, on square 472, lately in the occupation of Griffith Coombs. June 9—dts. S. SPEAKE, Auct.
CHARLES J. NOURSE Offers for sale—Chateaux Margaux Claret in boxes of 1 dozen. Genuine Old London Particular wine in half pipes and quarter casks. Best Sallad Oil in baskets of 6 bottles each, 50c. 50c. 50c. George Town, May 24—4t.
CITY AUCTIONEERS. THE subscribers beg leave to inform their friends and the public, that having given the security required by law, they obtained a license to sell goods, wares and merchandise at vendue in this city. To accommodate those who may be pleased to employ them, they have taken a commodious house in the street directly opposite the Marine Barracks, and from their close attention to business, they flatter themselves that they will give general satisfaction. NICHOLAS L. QUEEN, HENRY M. QUEEN. May 29—4t.
WEISKOPFF and KELLER, CONFECTIONERS, High Street, George-Town, Beg leave to inform the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Washington, that they will be daily supplied with ICE CREAMS, to be served up either at their store or privately by giving a previous notice thereof. They will constantly be supplied with the various articles of confectionary, preserves, and cordials of an exquisite taste. Ladies and gentlemen who will please to favor them, will meet with an anxious desire to give general satisfaction. May 26—12t.
ROMULUS RIGGS, Has just received and opening at his New Cash Store, a complete and well selected assortment of SEASONABLE AND FANCY GOODS, Which being purchased for money, gives him the opportunity of offering the same at Baltimore and Philadelphia Prices. As he is determined to sell for very small profits. He intends keeping on hand a good assortment of Goods, to be sold by the piece; and those who purchase to sell again, will be furnished at as low rates as they can purchase in any market in the United States, being determined to sell. CASH GIVEN FOR TOBACCO Inspected at the Georgetown Warehouse. FOR RENT, THE upper part of the House I now occupy, which has Six well finished Rooms, and every necessary back building, all newly furnished and in complete order—The rent will be low to a genteel family, if application is immediately made. June 9—4t.
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD FOR apprehending the following NEGRO MEN, the property of the subscriber, residing at Washington city, and who ran away on the night of the 14th inst. DAVID is of a dark color, about 25 years of age, and has lost a joint off one finger of his right hand. The other by the name of JIM, about 33 years of age, also stout made, has been sickly, and is of a jet black. David was bought of Major Calvert, Mount Airy, and it is expected will be about there. Jim was bought of Mr. Samuel G. Griffith, of Baltimore, and will no doubt make for that city. They are both old runaways, and will try to pass for freemen. The above reward will be given for both, or half the sum for either, with reasonable charges. June 16—8t. JAMES CASSIN. Circuit Court, District of Columbia, County of Washington—June Term, 1809. Richard Soderstrom, } In Chancery. vs. Samuel Goodman, George, } Little and Josiah Quincy, }
THE object of the bill filed in this case, is to compel Samuel Goodman to pay to the complainant the sum of money alleged by the bill to be due to the complainant for a judgment obtained against the said Goodman in the island of St. Thomas, and the amount of commissions and expenses due to said Soderstrom from said Goodman, and for monies disbursed by said Soderstrom for and on account of said Goodman. The bill states, that a decree in the supreme court of the United States was rendered in favor of said Goodman against said Little for a large sum of money on account of the capture of the brig Flying Fish and her cargo, the property of the said Goodman, a Danish Burgher of the Island of St. Thomas, by the said Little, commander of the United States ship of war, the Boston. That the said Little, after the decree was pronounced, petitioned and obtained from the United States a sum of money to cover said decree, and to be specifically applied to the payment thereof. That the said money was received by Josiah Quincy, the attorney of said Little, and sufficient to satisfy the complainants demands, has been stopped and enjoined in the hands of said Quincy, out of which the complainant demands to be satisfied his claims, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that the said Little and Goodman respectively reside out of the district of Columbia and jurisdiction of this court. It is therefore ordered by this court, that the said Little and Goodman respectively be and appear in this court in person or by solicitor, on or before the fourth Monday of December next, to show cause why a decree should not be passed as prayed, and that this order be published for four successive weeks in the National Intelligencer and United States Gazette before the first day of August next. By order, June 16—ep4w. WM. BRENT, Clk.
RUNAWAY. WAS committed to the jail of Washington county, in the district of Columbia on the 26th of March last a black girl who calls herself Rosanna, and says she belongs to a Mrs. Summers of Alexandria—she is about 20 years of age, 5 feet high, with a large scar under her right jaw—had on when committed, a blue striped jacket, and a light colored calimanco petticoat, a pair of new shoes and old stockings. Her owner is desired to come and prove her and take her away or she will be sold for her jail fees and other expenses as the law directs. C. TIPPETT, Keeper of the Jail for W. Boyd, Marshal. April 10—w3t.
SPINNING & WEAVING. JOHN GEORGE BAXTER, OFFERS FOR SALE his, "Improved Patent Family Machine," with six Spindles, for spinning Flax or Hemp Yarn, from six dozen cuts in the pound, to six pounds in the dozen. The simplicity of the construction of this Machine is such, that competent judges have declared it as "little likely to go out of order or require repair as any machine they have seen." Another important advantage of this simplicity of construction is, that Yarn of any fineness may be spun on it by any person having strength and skill sufficient to turn a Coffee Mill or a Grinding Stone. Its superiority over the ordinary family modes of Spinning is not however confined to the advantages of not requiring repair, or of being capable of being worked by any unskilled hand, but principally in the quantity of work which it is able to execute. This fact is incontrovertibly established by the deposition of Charlotte Mills, aged 13 years who has sworn "that on the 7th day of this month between the hours of 7 o'clock in the morning and 9 in the evening, she spun nine dozen of Flax Yarn, on six spindles, for coarse cloth." The Machines will all be warranted. The price SIXTY DOLLARS, payable on the delivery of the Machine. J. G. Baxter, makes Six Spindle Machines on the same principle for Spinning Cotton and Wool. J. G. B. also makes LOOMS on an improved plan with harness, steel reeds and fly shuttles for weaving Linen or Hempen cloth of any fineness. Some idea of the superiority of these Looms may be formed on a knowledge of the fact that on one of them "Helen Elliott, did actually weave six pieces of Cotton Bagging, containing between three hundred and sixty and seventy yards in the course of one week." Those who contemplate the establishment of Baxter's Machinery for Spinning and Weaving shall have his good offices toward procuring them a woman from his own Manufactory well acquainted with the business. An experience of 30 years in the manufacturing of Flax and Hemp and a considerable experience in Cotton, enables J. G. Baxter confidently to offer his services for the erection of any machinery connected with those articles, from one to any number of Spindles and to be worked by any known power. The Machinery may be seen at work, and its principles explained at the Spinning and Weaving Manufactory, Blockley township, Philadelphia county, at which place, at the counting-house of Mr. Henry Orth, or at the Office of the Democratic Press, orders will be received. The Certificates and Depositions above-mentioned are left at the office of the Democratic Press. Philadelphia, March 11, 1809.
The Editors papers friendly to the encouragement of our own Manufactures will do a public service by giving the above a few insertions. See the certificate of Mr. John Meer and Mr. Patrick Lyon. See the deposition of Helen Elliott. The Editor of the Richmond Enquirer is requested to publish the above advertisement for three months—and the Editor of the National Intelligencer once a week for three months, and forward their bills for payment to Philadelphia. May 5—6t. WM. BRENT, Clk.
FOR LIVERPOOL. The fine fast sailing ship ALLEGANY— Captain John Morris, will sail from Alexandria in eight or ten days—For passage only, having very good accommodation, apply to the captain on board, or to ANDREW SMITH. George Town, June 19—3t.
UNITED STATES—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CC. NTY OF WASHINGTON, TO WIT: In Chancery, December Term 1808. Benjamin Stoddert and John Mason, versus Thomas Waters Griffith, John R. Livingston, Jonathan Burrell, Gobault and Dodrey, James C. Montfloreance, I. I. Picard, James Davidson, Robert R. Livingston and Daniel Parker. THE bill states that the defendant Thomas Waters Griffith was the agent of the house of Taney and Simmond for the delivery of a cargo of flour belonging to the said Taney and Simmond to the French government—that the French government not being able to pay ready money for the said cargo the balance due thereon from the said government was placed to the credit of the said Griffith the agent, instead of being placed to the credit of the real owners Taney and Simmond; that the debt so due hath been liquidated under the Louisiana Convention in the said Griffith's name, for the sum of one hundred and ninety thousand two hundred and seventy francs French money of the value of 35,675 dollars; that the said Thomas Waters Griffith, now residing and for several years past having resided in Baltimore city in the state of Maryland well knowing all the circumstances mentioned in the complaints said bill, and that the debt aforesaid was liquidated in his name in Paris, under the Louisiana Convention, was in truth and in fact a debt due to the said complainants, as the trustees of Francis Lewis Taney, and Taney and Simmond, did execute a writing transferring all the interest of said Griffith in the said debt due to the complainants as trustees aforesaid; that notwithstanding the above circumstances the said Griffith did employ James C. Montfloreance of Paris to receive for his own account and use the aforesaid debt which actually belongs to the said complainants as trustees aforesaid; & the said Montfloreance did actually receive the bills of the Minister of the United States on the Treasury of the United States in part payment of the said debt in four sets of bills drawn in favor of said Thomas Waters Griffith, and which bills have been fraudulently endorsed by the said Montfloreance with a view as the said complainants believe to defraud them the said complainants, and under a real or pretended power from the said Griffith, & as his attorney to the said I. I. Picard, who endorsed the same over to John R. Livingston who has endorsed the same over to Jonathan Burrell, cashier of the Bank of Discount and Deposit at New York, who has endorsed them over to James Davidson, cashier of the Branch Bank of the United States in the city of Washington, who now holds the same for collection. The complainants further state that four other bills, for the balance of the aforesaid claim on the French Government liquidated in the name of the said Griffith, but actually belonging to said complainants as trustees as aforesaid, have been drawn in favor of Gobault and Dodrey as transferees of Thomas Waters Griffith for thirty-thousand francs, French Money of the value of 5,625 dollars, which said four bills have also been sent to the aforesaid James Davidson and endorsed over to him for collection, in the same manner as in the case of the four other bills first herein recited. That all the aforesaid eight bills of exchange drawn by the American Minister at Paris on the Treasury of the United States under the Louisiana Convention for the debt liquidated in the name of Thomas Waters Griffith, are actually the property of said complainants as trustees aforesaid.
The object of the bill is to save and protect the said complainants from the fraud projected against them on the part of the said Thomas Waters Griffith, and his coadjutors, and to obtain a writ of injunction, directed to all the before-mentioned defendants, &c. and particularly to the said James Davidson enjoining him & commanding him, from paying over to any person besides the said complainants, the money that may be paid by the Treasury of the United States, in virtue of the said bills of exchange, and particularly enjoining the said James Davidson from paying the said money arising from the said bills or parting with the said bills, until the further order of this Court in the premises. It is represented by the complainants that the said Thomas W. Griffith, John R. Livingston, Jonathan Burrell, Gobault and Dodrey, James C. Montfloreance and I. I. Picard, defendants in this cause, all reside out of the District of Columbia, and are not within the reach of the process of this Court. And whereas further, in the supplemental bill filed in this cause, in which bill the said Robert R. Livingston and Daniel Parker are made defendants, reciting the substance of the said original bill, further states that Daniel Parker, a non-resident of the District of Columbia who resides in Paris in France was concerned in the fraudulent assignment of the bills of exchange mentioned in the said original bill, that the said Parker at the time he procured the assignment of said bills knew that the claim for which the same were drawn as liquidated in the name of Thomas W. Griffith was the bona fide property of the complainants, and had been properly before transferred and assigned to them, and also that the said Robert R. Livingston is not a resident of the said District of Columbia, but resides in the state of New York, and is the person really claiming the proceeds of the said bills, and prays that he may be made a party to said bill and compelled to answer to the facts stated in the original bill—Also that said Parker may state the circumstances attending the pretended transaction between Picard and Montfloreance the defendants, whether he paid any consideration and what to Picard & Montfloreance, and whether he did not know, or whether he had not received notice of the complainants claim and right at the time of or before the said transfer. The object of the bill is to obtain a decree in favor of the complainants, ordering and decreeing the monies for which said bills are drawn, now in the hands of James Davidson, to be paid over to the said complainants as the assignees of Taney and Taney and Simmond, and to enjoin the defendants and each of them from paying over or receiving the same until the decision of the court in the premises. It is therefore ordered that the complainants cause a copy of this order to be inserted in the National Intelligencer printed in the city of Washington, six weeks successively previous to the fourth Monday in December next, to the intent that the said defendants may have notice of this application, and of the object of this bill and to be warned to appear in this court in person or by solicitor on or before the said fourth Monday of December next, to show cause, if any, why a decree should not pass as prayed. By order WM. BRENT, Clk. May 5—6t.
POSTPONEMENT OF SALES. THE sales of Lots No. 16 and 17, in sq. No. 101, with the buildings thereon, formerly the property of Mr. Samuel Wilson, dec. and Lot No. 3, in sq. No. 161, with the dwelling house and slaughter house thereon, formerly the property of Daniel Guyer, which was advertised for public sale on the 15th of this month, are postponed until the 29th of the same month, on which day the sales will take place on the respective premises: for the former property at ten o'clock in the forenoon, and for the Lot, Slaughter House, etc. at five o'clock in the afternoon. Terms of payment for the property the same as per former advertisements. The above property will be sold at private sale previous to the day, if application be made to the subscriber. S. SPEAKE. June 16—429th. RICHARD BECK.
Has just received from New York & Philadelphia a Large and Handsome Assortment of Seasonable GOODS which are all of the latest importations, consisting of Imperial Cords, Grandrills, Cotton Cassimeres, white jeans, colored do. superfine Cloths and Cassimeres, Marseilles & Imperial Waistcoating, Patent Nankeen, Silk Hosiery, Bed Ticking, Seersuckers, Bandanno Handkerchiefs, Dimities, Apron Checks, Netting Cottons, Sewing Silks, Silk and Cambric Buttons, plain India Muslins, figured do. seeded do. Jacquet and book do. veined and japanned do. book & jacquet Handkerchiefs, plain & figured Lenoes, Italian Mantuas, Shinshaws and Lutestrings, Ribbands, Threads, black Cambrics, kid and Silk Gloves, Umbrellas and Parasols, Damask and other silk Shawls plush bordered do. York Tan and Beaver Gloves, Suspenders, fashionable Buttons, Boss Thread, Yellow, White, and Blue Nankeens. 1 case German Linens, 1 case 7-8 Cotton Shirting, 1 do. 4-4 do. do. 1 trunk 9-8 Cambrics, 2 do. 6-4 do. 3 trunks Calicoes and Chintzes, 1 trunk Ginghams, 1 case Irish Linens, 1 case Cotton Hosiery, 1 trunk Adelphia Cottons, 6 bales Gurrabs, Baftas, Emeries, Mamodies, Cassias, and Mow Lawns, etc. etc. All of which being well selected, and on the best terms, enables him to sell them at the most reduced prices, by the piece or retail for cash or approved notes. Georgetown, May 21—3tlw—2tlw—wtf
10,000 DOLLARS, MAY BE GAINED FOR 1-2 DOLLARS!! In the Third Class of the Lottery authorised by law for removing obstructions in the RIVER LEHIGH, IN PENNSYLVANIA.     SCHEME.     2 prizes of $ 10,000 each 20,000   2 5,000 10,000   2 2,500 5,000   3 1,000 3,000   6 500 3,000   15 200 3,000   30 100 3,000   60 50 3,000   150 20 3,000   300 10 3,000   13,800 5 69,000   35,630 not 2 1-2 blanks to a prize.   50,000 tickets at 2 1-2 dollars, = 125,000  
To draw 500 tickets each day at the State House in Philadelphia, and the prizes to be paid by Thomas Alibone, esq. the treasurer of that city, 30 days after the conclusion of the drawing, subject to a deduction of 15 per cent. Prizes not demanded in twelve months after the close of the drawing, to be considered as relinquished to the Lottery. Part of the above prizes determinable as follows: The 1st drawn ticket on the 1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 45th, 50th, and 55th, days $200 each. do. on the 60th, 65th, 70th, & 75th do. 500 do. do. on the 80th and 85th do. 1000 do. do. 90th do. 2500 do. do. 95th do. 5000 do. do. 100th do. 10000 do. The two $10,000 prizes to receive each in part payment 25 shares of the Lehigh Stock, at 100 dollars each, 10 shares The two 5000 dollars 5 do. The two 2500 do. 5 do. Societies, associations, and individuals purchasing not less than 50 tickets will be allowed to pay for them by instalments much to their interest. Letters post paid, and enclosing the cash, will be duly attended to, and prizes of Lotteries in the cities of Philadelphia, and New York, will be received in payment, by GEORGE TAYLOR, Jun. No. 85, South Second street, Philadelphia. and JOHN DAVIDSON, Washington city, December 12—wtf
SPRING GOODS. BAKER & RIGGS—SIGN OF THE PLOUGH, Has received by the late arrivals an extensive assortment of DRY GOODS, Which they will sell at reduced prices for cash, or to punctual customers at short dates. Among their stock are— 560 Pieces Calicoes, Cambric Muslins, Ginghams, Dimities, Chintzes & Shirting Muslins. 500 Pieces of coarse and fine India Muslins. 2500 Yds. Bright Ingrane and Venetian Carpeting. 600 Yds. Italian, French and India Silks. Noted, Ceded, Muhlul and Leno Muslins. Fancy Robes, Long Shawls, Spencers and Veils. Silk and Cotton Hosiery, Sleeves and Gloves, Cloths, Fancy Waistcoating, and fine Hats. Elegant Silk Shawls, Linnen Cambrics and Laces. 10 Cases Furred and Wool Hats—Cheap. Furniture Calicoes, Dimities and Checks. Furniture Fringe, Lace, Tassels and Hatters Trimmings. Bed Ticking, Sheetings, Table Cloths and Diapers. White Janes, Country Linnen and Ozna-burghs, &c. —ALSO— Many other articles not mentioned.—A liberal deduction will be made to large buyers and those that buy to sell again. Also—Just received from the manufactory in Rhode Island, 1200 yards of American made BED TICKING, Cheaper and superior in quality to the imported. June 7—cop4w.