The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1803-11-25 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IV.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCCCLXXXIII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 23th, 1803.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
DEBATE IN THE SENATE,
ON THE LOUISIANA TREATY.
THURSDAY, November 3.
(Debate continued.)
An act authorising the creation of a Stock to the amount of eleven millions two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the purpose of carrying into effect the Convention of the thirtieth of April 1803, between the United States of America and the French Republic and making provision for the payment of the same, under consideration.
On the question shall the bill pass?
Mr. BUTLER next delivered his sentiments in favor of the bill, as well as generally in favor of the treaty. We regret our inability to present the public with his remarks.
Mr. TRACY. Mr. President—I shall vote against this bill; and will offer some of the reasons which govern my vote in this case.
It is well known that this bill is introduced to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and France, which has been lately ratified. If that treaty be an unconstitutional compact, such a one, as the President and Senate had no rightful authority to make; the conclusion is easy, that it creates no obligation on any branch or member of the government to vote for this bill or any other, which is calculated to carry into effect such unconstitutional compact.
The third and seventh articles of the treaty are, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
The third article is in the following words:—"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be maintained in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the religion which they profess."
The obvious meaning of this article is, that the inhabitants of Louisiana are incorporated, by it, into the union, upon the same footing that the territorial governments are, and like them, the territory when the population is sufficiently numerous, must be admitted as a state, with every right of any other state.
Have the President and Senate a constitutional right to do all this?
When we advert to the constitution, we shall find, that the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, may make treaties. Now, say gentlemen, this power is undefined, and one gentleman says, it is unlimited.
True, there is no definition in words, of the extent and nature of the treaty making power. Two modes of ascertaining its extent, have been mentioned; one is, by ascertaining the extent of the same power among the monarchs of Europe, and making that the standard of the treaty making power here; and the other is, to limit the power of the President and Senate, in respect to treaties, by the constitution, and the nature and principles of our government.
Upon the first criterion, it is obvious that we cannot obtain any satisfactory definition of the treaty making power, as applicable to our government.
It is well known that in Europe, any part of a country may be ceded by treaty, and the transfer is considered valid, without the consent of the inhabitants of the part thus transferred. Will it be said, that the President and Senate can transfer Connecticut by treaty to France or to any other country? I know that a nation may be in war, and reduced to such necessitous circumstances, as that giving up a part, or half the territory to save the remainder may be inevitable; the United States may be in this condition; but necessity knows no law, nor constitution either; such a case might be the result of extreme necessity, but it would never make it constitutional, it is a state of things, which cannot in its own nature be governed by law or constitution. But if the President and Senate should, in ordinary peaceable times transfer Connecticut, against her consent, would the government be bound to make laws to carry such a treaty into effect? Such a transfer of territory can certainly be made by the monarchs in Europe, under the head of their treaty
making power. I am convinced, Sir, that only a cursory view of this subject, will be sufficient to show every reasonable man, that the treaty making power in the United States cannot be the same, that it is in the European governments; and further, that the only method to obtain a sound construction of that power, as part of our constitution, is by examining it with a view to the constitution, and the nature and principles of our government.
A number of states, or independent sovereignties, entered into a voluntary association, or to familiarize the subject, it may be called a partnership, and the constitution was agreed to as the measure of power delegated by them to the federal government, reserving to themselves every other power, not thereby delegated. In this constitution they have restricted the powers of Congress, or the federal government in a number of instances. In all these, I think the treaty making power is clearly restricted, as much as if it had been mentioned in the restriction. For instance, Congress can lay no tax or duty on articles exported from any state. If this restriction should be violated by treaty, could it be thought valid? Congress can give no preference, by any regulations of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another. Can this preference be given by treaty, and the preference be constitutional? If the treaty making power is so extensive as not to be limited by the constitution, we must submit to the most extraordinary condition, of seeing the parts of a government, when acting separately, possessing more power, than the whole when acting together. And this further absurdity would follow—Congress itself would be released from an unequivocal restriction, contained in the constitution in the cases mentioned; for if a treaty, containing stipulations to tax exports, or giving commercial preference to one port over another, be constitutional, it is, of course binding on every branch of the government, and we should see the government, not only released from a constitutional restriction by such a treaty, but absolutely bound by it, to act in open violation of the Constitution.
Many instances could be given, but I cannot conceive, that any sober opinion can be entertained, that the treaty making power is not limited by the restrictions contained in the constitution. To give a precise definition, and mark out unerring limits to the treaty making power, by the nature and principles of our government, is not an easy task, neither is it requisite, for the purpose of obtaining clear ideas upon the point now before us.
The object of the original sovereignties, or partners to this compact, is obvious, from the constitution itself; they united, as equals in power, to promote the political welfare of all. Certain powers they gave; but no one partner can be supposed stupid enough, to give power to transfer itself, without, and against its consent, to the government of Algiers or any other despotic government.
It is agreed by the friends to the treaty, that the President and Senate cannot transfer a state. Let us examine the power of introducing a state. Suppose Louisiana contained ten millions of inhabitants; or, for the sake of argument, let it be supposed, that we had a President inclined to monarchical principles, and he lived at the northern part of the union, say in Connecticut or Massachusetts, and that two-thirds of the Senate were with him in sentiment; and that the four northern provinces of Great Britain contained ten millions of inhabitants, and were all determined monarchists,—would the partners of this union say it was competent and constitutional for the President and Senate to introduce those ten millions of monarchists, who could at once out vote us all; and even give fifteen millions of dollars for the benefit of having them?
The principles of our government, the original ideas and rights of the partners to the compact forbid such a measure; and without the consent of all the partners, no such thing can be done.
The principle of admission, in the case of Louisiana, is the same, as if it contained ten millions of inhabitants; and the principles of those people are probably as hostile to our government, in its true construction, as they can be, and the relative strength which this admission gives to a northern and western interest, is as contradictory to the principles of our original union, as any can be, however strongly stated.
The paragraph in the constitution, which says that "New states may be
admitted by the congress into this union," has been quoted to justify this treaty.—To this two answers may be given, either of which are conclusive in my favor. First, if Congress have the power collectively of admitting Louisiana it cannot be vested in the President and Senate alone.—Second, Congress have no power to admit new foreign states into the union, without the consent of all the old partners.—The article of the constitution, if any person will take the trouble to examine it, refers to domestic states only and not at all to foreign states; and it is unreasonable to suppose that Congress should by a majority only admit New Foreign states, and swallow up, by it, the old partners when two thirds of all the members are made requisite for the least alteration in the constitution.—The words of the constitution are completely satisfied, by a construction which shall include only the admission of domestic states, who were all parties, to the revolutionary war, and to the compact; and the spirit of the association seems to embrace no other.—But I repeat it, if the Congress collectively has this power, the President and Senate cannot of course have it exclusively.
I think Sir, that, from a fair construction of the constitution, and an impartial view of the nature and principles of our association, the President and Senate have not the power of thus obtruding upon us Louisiana.
But it is said, that this 3d article of the treaty, only promises an introduction of the inhabitants of Louisiana into this union, as soon as the principles of the federal government will permit; and that, if it is unconstitutional, it is void; and in that case we ought to carry into effect the constitutional part.
To this, I answer, if it is a promise only to admit into the union, and this promise is unconstitutional; while I agree it is void, it must be agreed on the other side, that it makes the whole treaty void; and that one article in a treaty being void, either from an unconstitutional, or any other impossibility to carry it into effect, puts it in the power of either party to stay a fulfilment of any and every part of it. No principle in the law of nations, respecting the construction of treaties, is better settled, than that every article of a treaty, is a consideration for every other article; and if any one article shall be expunged, or its performance becomes impossible, the opposite party is released from a performance. And my opinion is, that a new negotiation upon the subject of this very article, and an agreement on the side of the French government, to release us from a compliance with this article, can alone render us safe, in paying the money.
After we have paid the money, the 15,000,000 of dollars—and have fulfilled with ever so much conscientious punctuality every other part of the treaty, yet if we refuse an admission of these people into our union, the French may, and probably will say, that to give the people of Louisiana the full and complete rights of citizens of the United States, was their great and leading motive in ceding to us the territory, and if we deny them that, the treaty is void, and they will take them back again, and give them the enjoyment of real liberty, under the First Consul. They will be justified by the law of nations if they do so; but how shall we stand justified if we pay this money, which with the interest amounts to 26 or 27 millions of dollars, and finally get nothing for it; unless we call a breach of faith, and a war with France, an acquisition?
The 7th article admits for twelve years the ships of France and Spain into the ceded territory, free of foreign duty—this is giving a commercial preference to those ports over the other ports of the United States; because it is well known, that a duty of 44 cents on tonnage, and 10 per cent. on duties, are paid by all foreign ships or vessels in all the ports of the United States. If it be said we must repeal those laws, and then the preference will cease, the answer is, that this 7th article gives the exclusive right of entering the ports of Louisiana to the ships of France and Spain, and if our discriminating duties were repealed this day, the preference would be given to the ports of the United States against those of Louisiana, so that the preference by any regulation of commerce or revenue, which the constitution expressly prohibits from being given to the ports of one state, over those of another, would be given by this treaty, in violation of the constitution. I acknowledge, if Louisiana is not admitted into the union, and that if there is no promise to admit her, then this part
of our argument will not apply; but in declaring these to be facts, my opponents are driven to acknowledge that the 3d article of this treaty is void, which answers every purpose which I wish to establish, that this treaty is unconstitutional and void; and that I have consequently a right to withhold my vote from any bill, which shall be introduced to carry it into effect. I acknowledge, Sir, that my opinion ever has been, and still is, that when a treaty is ratified by the constituted authorities, and is a constitutional treaty, every member of the government and community is bound by it, as a law of the land; but not so by a treaty, which is unconstitutional. The terms of this treaty may be extravagant and unwise, yet in my legislative capacity, that can form no excuse for an opposition; we may have no title, we may have given an enormous sum, we may have made a silly attempt to destroy the discriminating duties, yet, if the treaty be not unconstitutional, every member of the government is bound to carry it into effect.
I shall be asked, Sir, what can be done? To this question I have two answers, one is, that nothing unconstitutional can or ought to be done, and if it be ever so desirable that we acquire foreign states, and the navigation of the Mississippi, &c. &c. No excuse can be formed for violating the constitution; and if all these desirable effects cannot take place, without violating it, they must be given up. But another and more satisfactory answer can be given. I have no doubt but we can obtain territory either by conquest or compact, and hold it, even all Louisiana, and a thousand times more, if you please, without violating the constitution. We can hold territory; but to admit the inhabitants into the union, to make citizens of them, and states, by treaty, we cannot constitutionally do, and no subsequent act of legislation, or even ordinary amendment to our constitution can legalize such measures. If done at all, they must be done by universal consent of all the states or partners to our political association. And this universal consent, I am positive can never be obtained to such a pernicious measure as the admission of Louisiana, of a world, and such a world, into our union. This would be absorbing the northern states, and rendering them as insignificant in the union, as they ought to be, if by their own consent the measure should be adopted.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE observed, that he little expected a proceeding so much out of order would have been attempted, as a re-discussion of the merits of the treaty on the passage of this bill; but as the gentleman in the opposition had urged it, he would, exhausted as the subject was, claim the indulgence of the Senate in replying to some of their remarks.
No gentleman, continued he, has yet ventured to deny, that it is incumbent on the United States to secure to the citizens of the western waters, the uninterrupted use of the Mississippi. Under this impression of duty which has been the conduct of the general government, and particularly of the gentlemen now in the opposition for the last eight months?—When the right of deposit was violated by a Spanish officer without authority from his government, these gentlemen considered our national honor so deeply implicated, and the rights of the western people so wantonly violated, that no atonement or redress was admissible, except through the medium of the bayonet. Negotiation was scouted at. It was deemed pusillanimous, and was said to exhibit a want of fellow feeling for the western people, and a disregard to their essential rights. Fortunately for their country, the counsel of these gentlemen was rejected, and their war measures negatived. The so much lauded process of negotiation was however persisted in, and instead of restoring the right of deposit and securing more effectually for the future our right to navigate the Mississippi; the Mississippi itself was acquired, and every thing which appertained to it. I did suppose that those gentlemen who at the last session so strongly urged war measures for the attainment of this object, upon an avowal that it was too important to trust to the tardy and less effectual process of negotiation, would have flooded foremost in carrying the treaty into effect, and that the peaceful mode by which it was acquired, would not lessen with them, the importance of the acquisition. But it seems to me, Sir, that the opinions of a certain portion of the United States with respect to this ill-fated Mississippi, have varied as often as the
fashions. (Here Mr. B. made some remarks on the attempts which were made in the old Congress and which had nearly proved successful, to cede this river to Spain for twenty five years) But I trust, continued he, these opinions, schemes and projects will be forever flouted and crushed by the vote which we are this evening about to pass.
Permit me to examine some of the principal reasons which are deemed so powerful by gentlemen, as to induce them to vote for the destruction of this treaty. Unfortunately for the gentlemen, no two of them can agree on the same set of objections; and what is still more unfortunate, I believe there is no two of them concur in any one objection. In one thing only they seem to agree, and that is to vote against the bill. An honorable gentleman from Delaware (Mr. White) considers the price to be given, enormous. An honorable gentleman from Connecticut who has just set down (Mr. Tracy) says, he has no objection whatever to the price; it is, he supposes, not too much. An honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Pickering) says, that France acquired no title from Spain, and therefore our title is bad. The same gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Tracy) says, he has no objection to the title of France; he thinks it a good one. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Pickering) contends, that the United States cannot under the constitution acquire foreign territory. The gentleman from Connecticut is of a different opinion, and has no doubt but that the United States can acquire and hold foreign territory; but that Congress alone have the power of incorporating that territory into the union. Of what weight therefore ought all their lesser objections to be entitled to, when they are at war among themselves on the greater one?
As to enormity of the price, I would ask that gentleman, would his mode of acquiring it through the medium of 50,000 men have cost nothing? Is he so confident of this as to be able to pronounce positively that the price is enormous? Does he make no calculation or the hazard attending this conflict? Is he sure the God of battles was enlisted on his side? Were France and Spain under the auspices of Bonaparte contemptible adversaries? Good as the cause has, and great as my confidence is in the courage of my countrymen, sure I am that I shall never regret, as the gentlemen seems to do, that the experiment was not made.—I am not in the habit, Mr. President, on this floor, of panegyricizing those who administered the government of this country. Their good works are their best panegyrics, and of these my fellow-citizens are as competent to judge as I am; but if my opinion were of any consequence I should be free to declare, that this transaction from its commencement to its close, not only as to the mode in which it was pursued, but as to the object achieved, is one of the most splendid which the annals of any nation can produce. To acquire an empire of perhaps half the extent of the one we possessed, from the most powerful and warlike nation on earth, without bloodshed, without the oppression of a single individual, without in the least embarrassing the ordinary operation of your finances, and all this thro' the peaceful forms of negotiation, and in despite too of the opposition of a considerable portion of the community, is an achievement of which the archives of the predecessors at least of those now in office, cannot furnish a parallel.
The same gentleman has told us, that this acquisition, will, from its extent, soon prove destructive to the confederacy. This, continued Mr. B. is an old and hackneyed doctrine; that a republic ought not to be extensive. But the gentleman has assumed two facts and then reasoned from them. First, that the extent is too great; and secondly, that the country will be soon populated. I would ask, Sir, what is his standard extent for a republic? How does he come at that standard? Our boundary is already extensive. Would his standard extent be violated by including the island of Orleans and the Floridas? I presume not, as all parties seem to think their acquisition in part or in the whole, essential. Why not then acquire territory on the west as well as on the east side of the Mississippi? Is the Goldens of Liberty rest area by water courses? Is she governed by geographical lines? Is her dominion on this continent confined to the east side of the Mississippi?—So far from believing in the doctrine that a republic ought to be confined within narrow limits, I believe on the contrary

that the more extensive its dominion, the more safe and more durable it will be. In proportion to the number of hands you intrust the precious blessings of a free government to, in the same proportion do you multiply the chances for their preservation. I entertain therefore no fears for the confederacy on account of its extent. The American people too well know the art of governing and of being governed, to become the victims of party factions or of domestic tyranny. They not only understand the true theory of a free government, but as well understand a much rarer thing, the true art of practicing it. Had a great nation by yond the Atlantic, so often alluded to by some gentlemen on this floor, understood this practice but half as well as did the theory, a very different result would have been produced by her revolution. I believe, Sir, there are a set of general causes which operate in every government, and either exalt and support it, or else involve it in ruin. If any particular cause has destroyed the government of a country, some general cause has preceded and produced the ruin. Whenever that general cause shall exist, it matters little whether the extent of the republic be great or small, for its destruction is equally inevitable.
But is the immense population of that country, even admitting its extent were too great, a necessary consequence, cannot the general government restrain that population within such bounds as may be judged proper? Will gentlemen say that this is impracticable? Let us not then, Sir, assume to ourselves so much wisdom and foresight in attempting to decide upon things which properly belong to those who are to succeed us. It is enough for us to make the acquisition: the time and manner of disposing of it, must be left to posterity. If they do not improve the means of rational prosperity and greatness which we have placed in their hands, the fault or the folly will lie with them. But nothing is more clear to me than that this acquisition will tend to strengthen the confederacy. It is evident, as this country had passed out of the hands of Spain, that whether it remained with France, or should be acquired by England, its population would have been attempted. Such is the policy of all nations but Spain. From whence would that population come? Certainly not from Europe. It would come almost exclusively from the United States. The question then would simply be, is the confederacy more in danger from Louisiana when colonized by American people under American jurisdiction, or when populated by Americans under the control of some foreign, powerful and rival nation? Or in other words, whether it would be safer for the United States to populate this country how and when she pleased, or permit some foreign nation to do it at her expense?
The gentlemen from Delaware and Massachusetts both contend, that the 3d article of the treaty is unconstitutional, and our consent to its ratification a nullity, because the United States cannot acquire foreign territory. I am really at a loss how to understand gentlemen. They admit, if I do understand them, that the acquisition of part at least of this country is essential to the United States, and must be made. That this acquisition must extend to the soil; and to the words of their resolutions last session, "That it is not consistent with the dignity of the union to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain." How I ask is this certain tenure to be acquired but by conquest, or by a purchase of the soil? Did not gentlemen intend when they urged its seizure, that the United States, if successful, should hold it in absolute sovereignty? Were any constitutional difficulties then in the way? And will they now be so good as to point out that part of the constitution which authorizes us to acquire territory by conquest; but forbids us to acquire it by treaty? But if gentlemen are not satisfied with any of the expositions which have been given to the 3d article of the treaty, is there not one way at least by which this territory can be held? Cannot the constitution be so amended, (if it should be necessary) as to embrace this territory? If the authority to acquire foreign territory be not included in the treaty making power, it remains with the people; and in that way all the doubts and difficulties of gentlemen may be completely removed; and that too without affording France the smallest grounds of exception to the literal execution on our part, of that article of the treaty.
Suppose, continues the same gentleman, we should discover before the end of the session that France had acquired from Spain no title to Louisiana; would you not put it out of your power to withhold the stock, by passing this bill? If such a discovery had any possibility of existence, there would be some force in the objection; but with the information before us, such discovery is impossible. By the Treaty, France declares and covenants that she has an incontestable title . Spain has sanctioned that covenant by a similar declaration, that the right is in France, and has parted so far as is in her power with the possession by the delivery to France of the royal order for its sur-
render. It would therefore be a strange discovery now to make, that France had no title, nevertheless the declarations and acts of Spain to the contrary. But how could we reconcile such conduct to ourselves and to the world, after what has passed? A purchase has been made from France, and no exception during the negotiation taken to her title: The treaty has been ratified and proclaimed by the President; Congress has passed an act authorizing him to take possession: He has no doubt made the arrangements, and is at this moment carrying into execution the injunctions of that act; but when we are about to fulfil the only stipulation which is important to France, we are called on to hold our hands, and examine if we cannot discover some flaw in the title we have purchased. Is this a candid, a becoming, an honorable course of proceeding? Would it not rather be a diplomatic and legislative coup de main , to avail ourselves of the possession of this country, which France and the world might justly call perfidy? It certainly would; and the rejection or even postponement of this bill on such grounds, would in my opinion afford France no trifling pretext for the non-execution of the treaty on her part.
It is said, that there is something mysterious in the very face of the treaty, for no consideration is stated to be given for this territory. The gentleman has certainly not examined these instruments with attention: and I shall merely refer him to the ninth article of the treaty. That article expressly refers to the conventions and declares them to be a part of it. Those conventions which are to be ratified jointly and at the same time with the treaty, state the consideration.
I had hoped, Sir, that the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Tracy) from the trouble he was so good as to give himself yesterday in assisting to amend this bill, would have voted for it: But it seems he is constrained to vote to day against it. He asks, if the United States have power to acquire and add new states to the Union, can they not also cede states? Can they not for example cede Connecticut to France? I answer they cannot; but for none of the reasons assigned by him. The government of the United States cannot cede Connecticut, because, 1st, it would be annihilating part of that sovereignty of the nation which is whole and entire, and upon which the government of the United States is dependant for its existence; and 2dly, because the 4th section of the 4th article of the constitution forbids it. But how does it follow as a consequence, that because the United States cannot cede an existing state, they cannot acquire a new state? He admits explicitly, that Congress may acquire territory and hold it as a territory, but cannot incorporate it into the Union. By this construction he admits the power to acquire territory under a modification infinitely more dangerous than the unconditional admission of a new state; for by his construction, territories and citizens are considered and held as the property of the government of the United States, and may consequently be used as dangerous engines in the hands of the government against the states and people.
Could we not, says the same gentleman, incorporate in the Union some foreign nation containing ten millions of inhabitants, Africa for instance, and thereby destroy our government? Certainly the thing would be possible if congress would do it, and the people consent to it; but it is supposing so extreme a case and is so barely possible, that it does not merit serious refutation. It is also possible and equally probable that republicanism itself may one day or other become unfashionable (for I believe it is not without its enemies) and that the people of America may call for a King. From such hypotheses it is impossible to deduce any thing for or against the constitution contended for. The true construction must depend on the manifest import of the instrument and the good sense of the community.
The same gentleman in reply to the observations which fell from the gentleman from South Carolina, as to the admission of new states, observes that altho' Congress may admit new states, the President and Senate who are but a component part, cannot. Apply this doctrine to the case before us. How could Congress by any mode of legislation admit this country into the union until it was acquired? and how can this acquisition be made except through the treaty making power? Could the gentleman rise in his place and move for leave to bring in a bill for the purchase of Louisiana and its admission into the Union? I take it that no transaction of this or any other kind with a foreign power can take place except thro' the Executive Department, and that in the form of a treaty, agreement or convention. When the acquisition is made, Congress can then make such disposition of it as may be expedient.
In the search for objections to this treaty the same gentleman has discovered, that it is not the business of France to deliver possession of this country, because the 2d article of the convention says, w
are to take possession of it; and another gentleman on the same point observes, that the possession may also be an incomplete one, for the President, for aught he knows, may consider the seizing a twig, or the knocker of a door sufficient. Here is another instance of an objection which is refuted by a mere reference to the instrument itself; for the 4th and 5th articles of the treaty expressly stipulate, that the government of France shall send a commissary to Louisiana to receive it and all its dependencies from the officers of Spain, and in the name of the French Republic to transmit it to the commissary or agent of the United States. As to the other object on which is founded on a doubt whether the President will take complete possession or not, it really exhibits the most unconstitutional distrust of the Executive Department, which I have ever witnessed. If he cannot be trusted, who are to be the judges whether this delivery of possession be complete or not? Does the gentleman intend that the two Houses of Congress shall take upon themselves the management of this business? But greater trusts have been confided to former Presidents. Have gentlemen forgotten the law of '98 or '99, which enabled the then President, not only to raise an army, but to go to war, if in his opinion exigencies should require it? Have they forgotten a more recent event; the resolutions proposed by themselves at the last session, authorizing the President to raise an army of 50,000 men, and take possession of this country by force? The confidence of gentlemen in the President was then abundant indeed, but now he cannot be trusted to receive peaceable possession of that, which but a few months ago, they were anxious to authorize him to take by conquest from both France and Spain.
Although the gentleman from Connecticut declares, that he has no objection to the title of France, nor to the price agreed to be given; and although he admits the United States have power under the constitution to purchase and to hold the country as territory, yet still he cannot vote for the measure. Has that gentleman, and those who mean to give a similar vote, well weighed the state of things which will result, in case they should be successful in their opposition?
Is not the national honor pledged to procure this right? what course do gentlemen mean to pursue to attain it? or do they mean to abandon near a million of your western citizens to ruin and despair? If you reject this treaty, with what face can you open another negotiation?—What President would venture another mission, or what minister would be prevailed on to be made the instrument of another negotiation? You adopt the treaty, direct possession to be taken of the country, and then refuse to pay for it.
What palliation can we offer to our western citizens for a conduct like this? Will they be content with the refined and metaphysical reasonings and constructions upon which gentlemen have bottomed their opposition to day? Will it be satisfactory to them to be told, that the title is good, the price low, the finances competent, and the authority at least to purchase constitutional; but that the country is too extensive, and that the admission of these people to all the privileges we ourselves enjoy is not permitted by the constitution. It will not, Sir.
Without disparagement Mr. President to any portion of America, I hesitate not to declare that I believe the people of the Western states are as sincerely attached to the confederacy and to the true principles of the constitution, as any other quarter of the Union. A great portion of them have emigrated from the Atlantic states and are attached to them by all those ties which so strongly bind societies together. The present generation may therefore possibly be disposed to endure much. But can you hope that those attachments, or dispositions to acquiesce in wrongs, will descend to our sons. Let no such calculations, I pray you, be made either upon us, or on those who are to succeed us. They will prove fallacious. There is a point of indurance beyond which even the advocates for passive obedience and non-resistance cannot expect men to pass. That point is at once the moment you solemnly declare by your vote, that a part of your citizens shall not enjoy those natural rights and advantages of which they are unjustly deprived and which you have the complete power to restore to them. Then it is that gentleman may talk of danger to the union. Then it is I shall begin to tremble for my country: And then it is, and not till then, I shall agree with gentlemen that the confederacy is in danger.
MR. ADAMS.—It is not my intention to trespass long, upon the patience of the Senate, on a subject which has already been debated, almost to satiety.—But as objections on constitutional grounds have been raised against the bill under discussion, I will to say a very few words in justification of the vote which I think it my duty to give.
The objections against the passage of the bill, as far as my recollection serves me, are two. The first, started by the honorable gentleman from Delaware, who opened this debate. The second,
urged by several of the other members, who have spoken upon the question.
The gentleman from Delaware admits the necessity of making the provision, for carrying into execution on our part, the treaty which has been duly ratified by the Senate, provided, we can obtain complete and undoubted possession of the territory ceded us by France, in that treaty. But he observes that the term possession is indefinite. That it may mean nothing more than the delivery of a twig, or of the knob of a door. That from sources, of the authenticity of which we have no reason to doubt, we are informed that Spain is very far from acquiescing in the cession of this territory to us—that probably the Spanish officers will not deliver peaceable possession, and that we ought not to put out of our own hands the power of withholding the payment of this money, until it shall be ascertained beyond all question, that the territory, for which it is the consideration, is in our hands. But, Sir, admitting that the word possession were of itself not sufficiently precise, I think with the gentleman last up, that the fourth and fifth articles of the treaty, read by him, render it so in this instance. The fourth stipulating that the French commissary shall do every act necessary to receive the country from the Spanish officers, and transmit it to the agent of the United States—and the fifth, providing, not only that all the military posts shall be delivered to us; and that the troops, whether of France or Spain, shall cease to occupy them, but that those troops shall all be embarked, within three months after the ratification of the treaty. Now, when the country has been formally surrendered to us, when all the military posts are in our hands, and when all the troops, French or Spanish, have been embarked, what possible adverse possession can there be to contend against ours? Until all these conditions shall have been fulfilled on the part of France, neither the convention nor the bill before us, requires the payment of money on our part; and we may safely trust the execution of the law to the discretion of the President of the United States. For even if I could see any reason for distrusting him in the exercise of such a power, under different circumstances, which I certainly do not, still in the present case, his own interest, and the weight of responsibility resting upon him ample security to us, against any undue precipitation on his part in the payment of the money. On the other hand, I am extremely solicitous that every title of the engagements on our part in the conventions should be performed with the most scrupulous good faith, and I see no purpose of utility that can be answered by postponing the determination on the passage of this bill.
But it has been argued that the bill ought not to pass, because the treaty itself is an unconstitutional, or to use the words of the gentleman from Connecticut, an extra-constitutional act, because it contains engagements, which the powers of the Senate, were not competent to ratify; the powers of Congress not competent to confirm, and even as two of the gentlemen have contended, not even the legislatures of the number of states requisite to effect an amendment of the constitution, are adequate to sanction. It is, therefore, say they, a nullity. We cannot fulfil our part of its conditions, and on our failure in the performance of any one stipulation, France may consider herself as absolved from the obligations of the whole treaty on her part. I do not conceive it necessary to enter into the merits of the treaty at this time. The proper occasion for that discussion is past. But allowing even that this is a case for which the constitution has not provided, it does not in my mind follow, that the treaty is a nullity, or that its obligations either on us or on France, must necessarily be cancelled. For my own part, I am free to confess, that the third article and more especially the seventh, contain engagements placing us in a dilemma, from which I see no possible mode of extricating ourselves but by an amendment, or rather, an addition to the constitution. The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Tracy) both on a former occasion, and in this day's debate, appears to me to have shown this to demonstration. But what is this more, than saying that the President and Senate have bound the nation to engagements which require the co-operation of more extensive powers than theirs, to carry them into execution. Nothing is more common in the negotiations between nation and nation, than for a minister to agree to and sign articles, beyond the extent of his powers. This is what your ministers in the very case before you, have confessedly done. It is well known that their powers did not authorize them to conclude this treaty; but they acted for the benefit of their country, and this house by a large majority has advised to the ratification of their proceedings. Suppose then, not only that the ministers who signed, but the President and Senate who ratified this compact, have exceeded their powers. Suppose that the other House of Congress, who have given their assent by passing this and other bills for the fulfilment of the obligations it imposes on us, have exceeded their powers. Nay,
suppose even that the majority of states competent to amend the constitution in other cases, could not amend it in this, without exceeding their powers; and this is the extremest point to which any gentleman on this floor has extended his suppositions. Suppose all this; and there still remains in the country a power, competent to adopt and sanction every part of our engagements and to carry them entirely into execution. For notwithstanding the objections and apprehensions of many individuals, of many wise, able and excellent men, in various parts of the union, yet such is the public favor attending the transaction which commenced by the negotiation of this treaty, and which I hope will terminate in our full, undisturbed and undivided possession of the ceded territory, that I firmly believe if an amendment to the constitution, amply sufficient for the accomplishment of every thing for which we have contracted, shall be proposed, as I think it ought, it will be adopted by the legislature of every state in the union. We can, therefore, fulfil our part of the conventions, and this is all that France has a right to require of us. France never can have the right to come and say—"I am discharged from the obligation of this treaty, because your President and Senate in ratifying it, exceeded their powers,"—for this would be interfering in the internal arrangements of our government. It would be intermeddling in questions with which she has no concern, and which must be settled altogether by ourselves. The only question for France is whether she has contracted with the department of our government, authorized to make treaties; and this being clear, her only right is to require that the conditions stipulated in our name be punctually and faithfully performed. I trust they will be so performed, and will cheerfully lend my hand to every act necessary for the purpose. For I consider the object as of the highest advantage to us; and the gentleman from Kentucky himself, who has displayed with so much eloquence the immense importance to this union, of the possession of the ceded country, cannot carry his ideas further on that subject than I do.
With these impressions, Sir, perceiving in the first objection no substantial reason, requiring the postponement, and in the second no adequate argument for the rejection of this bill, I shall give my vote in its favor.
MR. NICHOLAS.—Mr. President, so much has been laid upon this subject that but little remains for me to say, as I mean to confine myself to a few observations that I have not heard made by others. It is extraordinary that arguments to shew the unconstitutionality of the treaty, should be addressed to this Senate, to prevent its execution, after two thirds of this body have advised and consented to its ratification. The motive for this must be what was suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina; an expostulation of making impressions unfavorable to the treaty; and that, after the full discussion that has been had, the friends of the treaty, would not deem it necessary to refute arguments so unfashionably repeated. The gentleman on the other side differ among themselves. The two gentlemen from Delaware say, that if peaceable possession is given of Louisiana this bill ought to pass, the other gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to it have declared, that if they believed the constitution was not violated by the treaty, they should think themselves bound to vote for the bill. To this Senate it cannot be necessary to answer arguments, denying the power of the government to make such a treaty; it has already been affirmed, so far as we could affirm it, by two thirds of this body; it is then only now necessary, to shew that we ought to pass the bill at this time. In addition to the reasons which have been so ably and forcibly urged by my friends, I will remark, that the treaty making power of this government is so limited that engagements to pay money cannot be carried into effect without the consent and co-operation of Congress. This was solemnly decided after a long discussion of several weeks, by the House of Representatives, which made the appropriations for carrying the British treaty into effect, and such I believe is the understanding of nine tenths of the American people, as to the construction of their constitution. This decision must be also known to foreigners, and if not, they are bound to know the extent of the powers of the government with which they treat. If this bill should be rejected, I ask gentlemen whether they believe, that France would or ought, to execute the treaty on her part. It is known to the French government, that the President and Senate cannot create stock, nor provide for the payment of either principal or interest of stock; and if that government should be informed that a bill, authorizing the issue of stock to pay for the purchase, "after possession shall be delivered," had been rejected by the only department of our government competent to the execution of that part of the treaty, they would have strong ground to suspect, that we did not mean to execute the treaty on our part, particularly when they are informed, that the argu-

ments most pressed in opposition to the bill, were grounded upon a belief, that the government of the United States had not a constitutional power to execute the treaty. Of one thing I am confident, that if they have the distrust of us, which some gentlemen have this day expressed of them, the country will not be delivered to the agents of our government, should this bill be rejected. The gentleman from Connecticut, finding himself unable to combat or refute the able and ingenious exposition of the 3rd article of the treaty given by my colleague, has attempted to lessen the force of his observations by representing him as having given a construction to the constitution, by which the treaty making power is rendered omnipotent. This is an artifice often practised. But in this instance as in all others, it must fail of producing the intended effect with such an assembly as this. The gentleman from Massachusetts had read and commented on the constitution in such a manner as to make an impression, that it was declared in the 6th article, that the constitution, the laws of the United States and all treaties made or to be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land. My colleague shewed that the constitution had not been correctly quoted, and stated that the expression of the constitution was "all treaties made or to be made under the authority of the United States," that the legislative power was defined and that the treaty making power was not defined, though not unlimited; and this is evident and palpable; for if the treaty making power is unlimited in the manner that some gentlemen now contend it is, why declare that the laws made in pursuance of the constitution and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States are the supreme laws of the land? The reason is obvious, the legislative power is limited in a manner that it was neither intended, nor was it practicable to limit the treaty making power. The power of legislation was only meant to be given for certain and particular purposes; all other legislative powers were reserved to the states, whereas the whole treaty making power of the nation was vested in the President, to be exercised with the advice and consent of the Senate. To refute the arguments of my colleague, it is necessary to shew, that the powers of the President and Senate in their treaty making capacity, are defined and limited, either by special grants of power which exclude powers not given, or by particular reservations. Upon an examination of the constitution it will be found that the powers are neither specified nor are there any reservations. But it must not be inferred from this, that we believe the treaty making power is unlimited. The constitution imposes particular and general limitations upon the powers of the government of the United States. No department of the government can do any of the things that are prohibited by the constitution. Nor would they be justifiable in not doing what is positively enjoined upon them to do. I do not believe therefore that the President and Senate would cede a state or any part of a state, because our common defence was one of the great purposes for which the government was formed, and because the constitution guarantees to every state in the Union a republican form of government, and engages to protect each of them against invasion. If the special grants of power to Congress are to be considered as limitations of the treaty making power, the power of making treaties does not substantially exist in this government; and if our time would permit it, I would shew that a commercial treaty cannot be formed, without interfering with the power given to Congress to regulate commerce, lay and collect duties, imposts, &c. and that no other treaty can be formed that will not require an engagement for the payment of money, or, in one way or other the exercise of one or more of the powers vested in Congress. To make our a practicable government, it must be understood that the treaty making power may negotiate respecting many of the subjects upon which Congress are may legislate, but that Congress are not bound to carry into execution such compacts (where an act of theirs is necessary to give them effect) unless they approve of them. And this must be fully understood by all nations with whom such compacts may be formed. Upon every other subject proper for a national compact, not inconsistent with our constitution, and under the limitations by me stated, a treaty may be negotiated and absolutely concluded by the treaty making power, so as to bind the nation. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Tracy) must consider the grant of power to the legislature as a limitation of the treaty making power, for he lays, "that the power to admit new states, and to make citizens is given to Congress, and not to the treaty making power"—therefore an engagement in a treaty to do either of these things is unconstitutional. I cannot help expressing my surprise, at that gentleman's giving that opinion, and I think myself justifiable in saying, that if it is now
his opinion, it was not always so. The contrary opinion is the only justification of that gentleman's approbation of the British treaty, and of his vote for carrying it into effect. By that treaty a great number of persons had a right to become American citizens immediately; not only without a law, but contrary to an existing law. And by that treaty many of the powers specially given to Congress were exercised by the treaty making power. It is for gentlemen who supported that treaty, to reconcile the construction given by them to the constitution in its application to that instrument, with their exposition of it at this time. If the third article of the treaty is an engagement to incorporate the territory of Louisiana into the union of the United States, and to make it a state, it cannot be considered as an unconstitutional exercise of the treaty making power; for it will not be altered by any rational man that the territory is incorporated as a state by the treaty itself; when it is expressly declared that "the inhabitants shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution." Evidently referring the question of incorporation, in whatever character it was to take place, to the competent authority; and leaving to that authority, to do it, at such time, and in such manner as they may think proper. If, as some gentlemen suppose, Congress possesses this power, they are free to exercise it in the manner that they may think most conducive to the public good. If it can only be done by an amendment to the constitution, it is a matter of discretion with the states whether they will do it or not; for it cannot be done "according to the principles of the federal constitution," if the Congress or the states are deprived of that discretion, which is given to the first, and secured to the last by the constitution. In the third section of the fourth article of the constitution it is said, "new states may be admitted by the Congress into this union." If Congress have the power, it is derived from this source; for there are no other words in the constitution that can by any construction that can be given to them, be considered as conveying this power. If Congress have not this power, the constitutional mode would be by an amendment to the constitution. If it should be conceded then that the admission of this territory into the union, as a state, was in the contemplation of the contracting parties, it must be understood with a reservation of the rights of this Congress, or of the states to do it, or not: the words "admitted as soon as possible," must refer to the voluntary admission in one of the two modes that I have mentioned; for in no other way can a state be admitted into this union. MR. COCKE.—MR. PRESIDENT, It is with reluctance I rise at this late hour of the day to claim your attention on a subject that has been so ably discussed, but the deep interest the state must feel that I have the honor in part to repel recent pleas my apology and requires that the objections made to the passage of this bill should meet my answer. Gentlemen appear to have rested their objections on two grounds; first the constitutionality; secondly, the expediency of passing the bill at this time—these objections when we give them their full weight, cannot appear well founded or consistent with opinions formerly delivered by the gentlemen on this floor, at a time when they contemplated taking New Orleans and the Floridas by military force. Here, however, I must except the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Dayton) and freely confess that he has been consistent, and that a manly consistency has accompanied him through the whole of this business, although I believe him to have been mistaken in point of true policy. But what must we think of gentlemen on whom this sudden change has taken place, and who now exclaim against the passage of this bill, when we recollect that last winter they were ready to form the Spanish garrisons, and who then promised by their valour to secure us a free trade down the Mississippi, and to make New Orleans and the Floridas their own. Did the constitution then form a barrier against them? They must excuse me, if in point of candour I cannot compliment them, for they have not only voted against the treaty that secures to us more than they could have contemplated by their arms and their valor, but they have also voted against the law for carrying the objects of that treaty into effect, after the treaty has been ratified, and the exchange of ratification taken place in due form; and now, sir, we hear those warlike spirits expressing their fears, that the western country will soon become too powerful for the east, and that a separation must inevitably take place between us. I ask gentlemen the ground on which they build their fears. It cannot be, sir, that we have paid less respect to the laws of the Union than any other portion of our fellow citizens, or have we in any instance shown less regard for our government, or its honest administration? Is it then that gentlemen had deter-
mined in their own minds to treat us with such marked indifference, or injustice, as should result in a just resentment. When that shall be the case, I agree with my friend from Kentucky, that there is a point beyond which we cannot go; but let not gentlemen be alarmed at the acquisition of Louisiana, this new world as they please to call it, and which they seem to foretell a lot to know what to do with. Since, sir, we have made it our own I trust we shall find capacity sufficient to govern it. For why all those fears? Is it not the true interest of all to be united, and and will not our mutual interest and love of country bind us together. It certainly will. But gentlemen appear as if they thought our late acquisition has made us too rich, and seek to know how we shall dispose of that vast country. When that shall be the question before us, there will be but little difficulty on that subject, and for myself I promise the gentlemen I shall without hesitation say what I may think will best accord with the interest and bind in friendship every part of this Union. It must, however, be recollected that about six or eight months past these gentlemen had no constitutional objections, or conscientious scruples, on this subject. Had they then taken New Orleans and the Floridas, will the gentlemen now tell us that they intended to return it again to those from whom they might have taken it. Would they then have laid the constitution limited them to certain bounds? If so, I would ask what are the constitutional limitations? It has none, sir, in that respect, and I contend that the treaty making powers in this country are competent to the full and free exercise of their best judgment in making treaties without limitation of power; for on every subject in which that power is called to act, it must act on its own responsibility. Our Government is indeed the government of the people; the constitution is the instrument of their choice; it is that instrument that grants the power I contend for, and which lays that the President shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. This power then, sir, passes out of the hands of the people by their consent, and is vested for the time limited by themselves, and until the period they have chosen for the free exercise of their elective rights shall return. On the ground of expediency little need to be said, and I hope gentlemen will excuse me if I again repeat a desire to know the extent of their objects, when they so loudly clamoured for war. Were I as suspicious as themselves, I might readily indulge a belief, from the present state of things, that they wished to check the rising growth of the western people, by getting them into a war, make them a handsome bow and leave them to fight their battles. But happily our treaty secures us against all such apprehensions, and I hope we shall pass the bill now before you, as necessary for carrying into effect the conditions of our treaty with good faith. The gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. White) should have stated me more correctly, he should have said that I contended that if his favorite plan of reception took place, that the power to whom the reception was made would entice our citizens by every means and by the very means that the gentleman seems to wish to put in their power to settle well of the Mississippi; that in an event like that we might as well pass laws to prevent the fish from swimming up the Chesapeake as to prevent our citizens from migrating to that country; and I again warn gentlemen of the dangerous tendency of such reception, and assure them that I am not among those that believe that France, Spain, or even the British government would govern that country more to our interest than we shall do, nor do I credit a doctrine so absurd as to believe the people of the western country will abandon their interest and prostitute their honour to create dangers so imminent, as the gentlemen from Connecticut (Mr. Hildreth) seems to apprehend, and who is in fear of the day in which the western people shall give laws to the union, but if ever it should so happen I hope they will be at least as just and salutary as they were when that honorable gentleman and his friends formed the political majority in this house. The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and carried in the affirmative. YEAS—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Butler, Cocke, Coudit, Dayton, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholson, Olcott, Plumer, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith, Stone, Taylor, Worthington, Wright—26. NAYS—Messrs. Hildreth, Pickering, Tracy, Wells, White—5. NOTICE. ALL who are indebted to the estate of John Crookshank deceased are requested to make immediate payment to CHARLES GLOVER, Adm. George Town, Nov. 25—14
WASHINGTON CITY FRIDAY, November 25. On Wednesday the Senate took into consideration the amendment to the constitution in relation to the election of President and Vice-President, as offered by the House of Representatives; on which a debate ensued which continued that day, and yesterday, when the Senate adjourned without coming to a decision. The reader is desired to correct an error in our report of the proceedings of the House of Representatives of Tuesday, wherein Mr. Smith is stated as opposing a repeal of the Bankrupt Law; on the contrary, he advocated the repeal. We understand that GOVERNOR CLINTON, during the recess of the Legislature, has appointed GENERAL ARMSTRONG to fill the seat in the Senate of the United States, become vacant by the resignation of De Witt Clinton, Esq. House of Representatives. WEDNESDAY, November 23. The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Dawson in the chair—on the resolution, offered by Mr. Newton, for repealing the BANKRUPT LAW. The debate was resumed by Messrs. Elliot, Hastings, Sanford and Randolph in favor of it, and by Messrs. Skinner and Eustis against the repeal of the Bankrupt Law. About 4 o'clock, the debate being closed, the question on the resolution to repeal, was taken and carried in the affirmative—Ayes 94. The committee rose, and the House immediately took up their report, on agreeing to which the yeas and nays were required, and were, Yeas 99—Nays 13. THURSDAY, Nov. 3, 1803. A committee was appointed to enquire into the expediency of amending the acts of Congress for the sale of lands. On the motion of Mr. Claiborne, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole—Mr. Varnum in the chair—on the report of the committee of claims on the petition of AMEY DARDEN. The report is unfavorable to the prayer of the petitioner. On agreeing to this report, a discussion took place, which occupied the whole of the day. Messrs. I. C. Smith, Gregg, and Macon supported, and Messrs. Claiborne, Smith, and Elliott opposed the report; when the question was taken on agreeing to the report of the committee of claims, and lost—Ayes 33. Mr. Claiborne then moved a resolution—"that the prayer of Amey Darden is reasonable and ought to be granted." Messrs. Claiborne and Nicholson supported, and Messrs. Griswold and Gregg opposed this resolution, which, on the question being taken, was carried—Ayes 61—Nays 38. The committee then rose, and reported their agreement to the resolution. Mr. Gregg moved an amendment directing the proper accounting officer of the treasury to settle the claim of Amey Darden on the same principles with similar cases, the statute of limitations notwithstanding. Messrs. Griswold and Gregg supported, and Messrs. Nicholson and Claiborne opposed this amendment. Lost—Ayes 47—Nays 61. A concurrence in the report was then agreed to, and the committee of claims instructed to bring in a bill. Mr. Newton, from the committee appointed yesterday, reported a bill to repeal an act entitled an act to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States. Read twice and referred to a committee of the whole, to-morrow. In the case of JOHN WILLIAMS LYTTION—a Bankrupt. WHEREAS a commission of Bankruptcy founded upon the act of Congress of the United States passed on the fourth day of April, 1800, entitled, "An act to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States" has been awarded and issued against John Williams Lyttion of Washington county in the district of Columbia, dealer and Chapman, and he has been declared a bankrupt. He is therefore required to surrender himself to the commissioners in the said commission named or the majority of them on the 8th and 22nd days of December, and 5th of January next at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of each day at the house of William Rhodes his inn keeper in the city of Washington, and make a full disclosure and discovery of his estate and effects, when and where his creditors are to come prepared to prove their debts, and at the second sitting to choose assignees, and the last sitting the bankrupt required to make his examination. Persons indebted to the said bankrupt, or who have any of his estate or effects in their hands are not to pay or deliver the same to any person not appointed by the commissioners, but give notice to LEWIS FORD, Secretary to the Commissioners. Nov. 25—
IMPORTANT! Chattanooga, November 12. The following letter from the Department of War at the City of Washington, to his Excellency the Governor of this State, was received by last night's mail. WAR DEPARTMENT, October 21, 1803. Sir, THERE being reason to suspect that the officers of the Spanish government at New Orleans may decline to refuse to give possession of the country of Louisiana ceded to the United States by the French Republic, and which Congress have by law authorized the President of the United States to take possession of, and the President having judged it expedient to pursue such measures as will insure the possession, I have therefore been directed by the President of the United States to request your Excellency to assemble with the least possible delay Five Hundred of the militia of the state of Ohio, including a suitable number of officers, and cause the same to be formed into a regiment of eight companies, to be engaged to serve four months, unless sooner discharged, to be mustered in companies and ready to march, if called, by the 20th of December at farthest; after having been so mustered in companies by suitable persons appointed by your Excellency, the men may return to their homes, but must hold themselves in readiness to join their companies and march at the shortest notice. Each officer and soldier will be entitled to pay from the day they shall receive orders and march to join their respective regiments, until discharged. They will be entitled to the same pay as regular troops in the service of the United States. I have the honor to be, Respectfully, Your humble servant, H. DEARBORN. To his Excellency Edw. Tiffin, Governor of the State of Ohio. We understand that the provisional army is to be composed of 500 mounted volunteers from the Mississippi Territory, to join the regular troops in that Territory, and to proceed immediately to New Orleans, to take possession of Louisiana; in the mean time the State of Tennessee is to hold in readiness to march at a moment's warning— 2000 volunteers. Kentucky, 4000 do. Ohio, 500 do. Mississippi Ter. 500 do. In the case of ROBERT ELLIS an insolvent debtor. SIX months from the first day of December next, is limited and appointed for the creditors to bring in and exhibit their claims to the trustee. This order to be published in the National Intelligencer and Washington Federalist once a month during the said six months. By order of Wm. Cranch, esq. URIAH FORREST, CLK. Notice is hereby given to the creditors of Robert Ellis, above named, that the subscriber has been appointed Trustee in the above case, and their claims are required to be produced at the office of the subscriber within the limited period. ROBERT W. PEACOCK. Nov. 25—14/64m Lots in Washington City. THE subscriber offers for sale a variety of whole, half, and quarter squares, as well as single lots situated on the beautiful and healthy ground ea ward of the capitol and immediately adjoining the bridge now built over the Eastern Branch of the Potomac river. As those wishing to purchase, will no doubt view the ground and examine the title; it is not now necessary to be more particular as full information may be had at Mr. STILLE's hotel on Capitol square, of the proprietor. GEORGE WALKER. Washington, Nov. 24—3t WANTED. IMMEDIATELY a good male servant, and a woman who can come well recommended as a Cook and Laundress. For information apply at this office: November 24—4t Grocery & Liquor Store. SAMUEL MUNIRE informs the inhabitants of Washington and the public in general, that he has opened a grocery and liquor store at the Navy yard opposite Mr. Prout's, where he has and intends to keep a supply of every thing in his line of the best quality. He has now on hand best Coniac brandy, Imperial tea, Bordeaux do. Hylon, Holland do. Young Hylon, Jamaica Rts, Hylon & n. Whisk y, &c. Loaf, lamp, and Molawine, very fine brown sugar, for immediate use, soap and candles, Sherry do. Bacon, trout, quality, Lib. wine. Red Spanish segars, And a variety of other articles all which he intends to sell on the lowest terms for Cash. N. B. A lot for sale in an eligible situation on the Capitol hill, New Jersey Avenue. November 4—cept

On the petition of EZEKIEL KING ,
An Insolvent debt is examined in the pri- son of Washington county for debt notice is hereby given to the creditors of the said Eze- kiel King , that on the 25th day of No- vember next, at the courthouse in the capi- tol to be held at the said city, the said Ezekiel King will be examined as to the said insolvent debt, and if admitted to the said Ezekiel King , will be allowed the statute in such case la- tely passed, and provided; and a trustee appoint- ed, who is ordered that this notice be pub- lished in the Washington Federalist and National Intelligencer before the said 25th day of November. By order of William Cranch, esq. assistant judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia.
URIAH FORREST, Ch.
November 23-2t
HENRY POLKINHORN, Saddler, Harness, Army Accoutrements, & Trunk-maker.
HAVING taken his two nephews Wm. & Richard M. Hall , into partnership, the business in future will be conducted in this place under the firm of H. Polkinhorn and Wm. Hall , who have opened at the store lately occupied by Mr. Couper , (two doors from the bank of Columbia) a handsome assortment of articles in their line; and hope from attention to business to merit the favors of their friends and the public.
The business will be continued as usual in Baltimore, (under the firm of H. Polkinhorn and R. Hall ) where they have for sale a gene- ral assortment of Saddlery, wholesale and re- tail, which they are determined to sell on the lowest terms.
George Town, Nov. 23-1m
District of Pennsylvania, to wit:
Be it remembered, That on the ninth day of May, in the twenty-seventh year of the independence of the United States of America, William Young Birch , and Abram Small , of the said dis- trict, have deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof they claim as pro- prietors, in the words following, to wit:
"BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTA- TARIES,
"with notes of reference, to the constitution "and laws of the Federal Government of the "United States, and of the commonwealth "of Virginia, in Five Volumes, with an "Appendix to each volume, containing "such tracts upon such subjects as appeared "necessary to form a connected view of the "laws of Virginia, as a member of the Fede- "ral union, by GEORGE LUCKER, "Professor of Law, in the university of Wil- "iam and Mary, and one of the judges of "the General Court in Virginia."
In conformity to the act of Congress of the United States, intitled, "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, charts and books, to the au- thors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned;" and also to an act entitled, "An act supplementary to an act, entitled, an act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the authors and pro- prietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned. And extending the benefits hereof to the arts of designing, engraving, and etching historical, and other prints."
(H. S.) D. CALDWELL,
Clerk of the District of Pennsylvania.
The above work may be had at John March's book store, George Town, and at the bookellers in the city of Washington.
November 23-1m
A Double Barrell Gun,
WAS taken from a room at Mrs. Johnson's, near the Bank, on Thursday evening or Friday last. The gun is bush'd with gold, and lettered on the barrels with gold leaf. The stock, which has been split at the end, is secured by two silver clasps, and the Butt contains a small chamber, which opens by a spring. It is old and has been much used.
Five dollars will be paid to any person re- turning the gun, with a liberal allowance for detecting the thief, if stolen.
W. HOWISON.
Nov. 23-3t
FOR SALE.
ABOUT 2000 acres of land on the East side of the Eastern Branch, and adjoin- ing it, three miles from the city of Washing- ton. Vessels drawing 12 feet water, may load at the landing, where there is a tolerable good fishery.
Near 400 acres of this land is a rich bottom through which there are several streams of water, that turn a mill, erected on the land, and which might be used to advantage, in watering meadow: a part of the bottom is now in Timothy grass and the whole is capa- ble of producing grass in abundance, and to- bacco. There may be between five and six hundred acres in wood, the rest is cleared land. A part of the land adjoins a commodious brick dwelling house, with all convenient out- houses; and a large and handsome garden but not in good repair, on the borders of the town of Bladensburg.
This property, so convenient to the city of Washington, which affords a market for grass and all other productions of land, equal to any in the United States; so certain from its situ- ation to rise in a few years, to a price seve- ral times as high as will now be taken for it, well deserves the attention of men of fortune. The whole land including the dwelling house and improvements, and mill, will be sold for 10 pound per acre. It is questionable whether the meadow ground, alone, is not worth all the money; it is certain, that it might easily be made to pay more than the annual interest of the whole purchase.
BEN. STODDER.
George Town, Nov. 15-3w
FOR SALE,
An excellent second handed Forté Piano;
The owner being about to remove from Washington, will dispose of it low for cash—Enquire of the printer hereof.
November 16-6t
Sales by Auction.
To be sold by auction by Mr. John Tra- vers at his auction store High Street, on Saturday at 11 o'clock, sundry looking glasses in ornamental burnish'd gold frames, mahogany oval dressing glasses with drawers, an elegant assortment of Prints framed and glazed in burnished gold frames. About one thousand feet of clean white pine panel boards of a su- perior quality and great width, inch and half inch—a ship stove, and sundry other articles, to be viewed on Saturday morning previous to sale. As the proprietor will leave this part of the country the beginning of next week, they will be sold without re- serve.
Nov. 23-2t
MILITARY LANDS FOR SALE.
By virtue of a power dele- gated to his executors, by the last will and testament of John Rose, esq. deceased, late of the county of Westmoreland we the sub- scribers, having taken upon ourselves the ex- ecution of his said will, and qualified thereto according to law, now offer for sale, the fol- lowing tracts of land, viz.
One tract of fifteen hundred acres, by pa- tents, bearing date 7th of day of January, 1796, lying on Cumberlander river, in the state Kentucky.
One of 1500 acres by patent, bearing date the 30th day of August, 1797, on the waters of Paint Creek, between the Miami and Sci- ta rivers.
One of 1500 acres by patent, bearing date the 25th of April 1800, also on the waters of Paint Creek.
One of 1500 acres by patent, bearing date the 25th day of April 1800, lying on the banks of the Sciota river.
Two other small lots of one and two hun- dred acres on the waters of Lees creek a branch of the Rattle Snake fork of Paint creek.
One other small tract, of 360 acres, in the same neighborhood—and lastly,
One other tract of 1500 acres, surveyed and patented for Burgess Bell , lying on a branch of Gaspere river adjoining the upper corner of George Washington's survey, and the same having been sold and conveyed by the said Bell to the said Rose . Proposals for a pur- chase of the whole or any part of the said lands will be received verbally or by letter, addressed to any of the subscribers. The taxes on these lands have been regularly paid, and a clear and indisputable title will be made the purchaser, by HENRY ROSE, Alexandria, WM. ROBINSON, Leeds, AB. BERRY, Port Royal, September 26.
Executors.
Valuable Land for Sale.
The executors of the last will and testament of Anthony Holmead de- ceased, will sell at private sale about forty a- cres of Land adjoining the city of Washington at the northern extremity of 20th Street west. This land is generally allowed to be one of the handsomest situations near the city, having a beautiful prospect of nearly the whole of the city of Washington, Alexandria and George Town, and any person inclined to purchase this valuable property, will be shown the same, and know the terms by ap- plication to the subscriber near the premises.
JOHN HOLME D.
November 17-1t
TO RENT
AND immediate possession given, a two story frame HOUSE, in the city of Washington, on sq. 224, opposite to Robert Peacock's eq- lately occupied by doctor Tubbs. Contain- ing 3 rooms and a large pantry on the 1st floor, two on the 2d floor with garret rooms— a piazza and balcony to the south front, cellar and dry well, with an excellent garden—kitch- en stable and carriage house, with every other convenience fit for the reception of a genteel family—for further particulars, enquire at the store of Mr. Xampi a few doors east of Rhodes's tavern, north E Street.
October 19.
NOTICE.
APPLICATION is intended to be made at the Treasury for the renewal of the following described certificates of Registered debt which have been lost, viz. No. 22039 and 22041, given to James Moore and Andrew Henderson for 165 69-100ths cents each—one to Charles Auronet, No. 2199 for 165 69 100ths cents—another to M. redith Webb, No. 2193, for 164 62-100ths cents, and one granted to Charles Miller, No. for 165 69 100ths cents, all bearing interest from 1st July 1781.
WILLIAM CALHOUN.
October 26-6w
FOR SALE.
THE Plantation on which I live, con- taining about 600 acres of valuable and. The improvements are, an exceeding good dwelling, house two stories high, 42 feet long, by 36 feet wide, with a passage through the middle, three rooms below, and four above stairs, with fire places in all but one, and a dry sweet cellar, the size of the house, in which is a capital vault with two rooms, and above is a fine airy pantry. A kitchen 36 by 18, two stories high, with a kitchen and laundry below, and lodging rooms for servants above. A washing house, meat house and dairy and in short every necessary improvement for the accommodation of a fam- ily, and a very fine collection of grafted and budded peach trees of the most approved kinds, chiefly from Princes nurseries on Long Island, which are just beginning to bear. This property is situated in a healthy general neighborhood, about four miles from the city of Washington, five from Alexandria. Nearly one half is in wood and timbered, and the residue arable and meadow land, of the latter, there are about 50 or 60 acres under the scythe and more may be easily laid down. Perhaps no tract of the same size, abounds more in fine springs, there being a never failing stream in every field, besides an abun- dant one which runs through the meadow and from which the greatest part of it may be watered. For terms apply to the subscriber on the premises.
OVERTON CARR.
September 19.
All persons having claims or
demands of any nature against the subscriber are requested to exhibit their accounts, with- out delay, to JOHN HEWIT or RICHARD FORREST , Esqrs. of the city of Washing- ton, who are authorized, in my name, to ad- just and settle the same; and all persons in- debted to me are requested to make payment to either of the gentlemen above named.
SAMUEL BLODGET.
March 30.
On Monday next will be published at
Duane's Store Pennsylvania Avenue.
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTA-
RIES,
WITH
NOTES OF REFERENCE
to the
CONSTITUTION and LAWS
of the
Federal government of the United
States, and the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
IN FIVE VOLUMES
WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VO-
LUME,
Containing short tracts upon such subjects
as appeared necessary to form a correct view
of the laws of Virginia, as a member of the
federal union.
By St. George Tucker,
Professor of law, in the university of William
and Mary, and one of the Judges of the General
Court in Virginia.
A large collection of the most valuable
books, and an extensive assortment of station- ery will be opened on the same day—Cata- logues will be published in the course of the
The highest price will be given in cash for linen and cotton rags in any quantity from a pound to a ton weight—at the above store.
Book-binding, ruled work for accounts— Letter-press and copper plate printing execut- ed—and orders for engraving by the best ar- tists of America executed.
November 14-1t
JUST RECEIVED,
By the UNITED STATES , Capt. Finley
from Liverpool,
Fall Goods, viz.
Brass Plate and wire fenders and irons, shov-
el and tongs, pokers, bellows, coal hods,
bell metal kettles, brass footmen, knives and
forks, plated, bridle bits and stirrups, with a
variety of saddlery, brass ware, kitchen fur- niture, tools and building materials, &c.
HENRY INGLE.
Washington. Oct. 28—epm.
Lots for sale.
IN eligible situations, and upon very ad- vantageous terms—A plan of the several squares in which they are contained may be seen and terms thereon by applying to,
ROBERT W. PEACOCK.
Attorney at law and Conveyancer.
I WILL sell five hundred and fifty acres of
Land whereon I live, in Fairfax county,
within five miles of the court house, and with- in twenty of the City of Washington, Alexan- dria, Dumfries, and twelve of the Oco- quan mills, it is a healthy situation, the land fertile, and has about two hundred acres of wood to cut, there is a great proportion of white and red oak, popular and hickory tim- ber—There is nearly one hundred acres of prime land for meadow, I will give six months credit for one fourth of the purchase money —twelve months for the other quarter, eigh- teen for the third, and two years for the last payment, a purchaser will find me on the he premises.
Thos. POLLARD.
Feb. 21st.
LECTURES.
IN a science so various and complicated as
the present system of the LAW, nothing
which tends to facilitate the progress of the
student can be deemed useless. It is with
this view that the subscriber proposes to de-
liver during the winter, (and if suitable en-
couragement offers, annually)
A COURSE OF LECTURES,
On Education, Belle Letters, Compo-
sition, History and Law.
The subscriber means to divide the same
into two distinct courses. The object of the
division is, that young gentlemen who are
designed to fill stations in active life, distinct
from those of the learned professions, may re-
sort to that course of lectures which will be
delivered without a relation to the Law, which
will be the sole foundation of the other.
If the plan should meet with success, the
subscriber contemplates furnishing, next win-
ter, a handsome Library, for the use of such
gentlemen as feel desirous of patronizing the
undertaking.
The municipal laws of each state will then
be provided—That students of law from any
part of the United States will find their in-
terest to repair to the Metropolis, to pursue
their studies; where they will have the ad-
vantage of attending the Congressional de-
bates.
The facility of access which the houses of
Congress offer, is a circumstance peculiarly
advantageous to the student, and the youthful
pleader, not only from the light which
thrown in the course of debate on controver-
ted questions of law; not only to be derived
from witnessing the eager contests, the vigor-
ous attacks, the wary retreats of defence,
exhibited by men of the most conspicuous ta-
lents, rivals alike in abilities and interest
but especially from this consideration, that
the speakers are, in general, exempted by the
nature of their functions, from those defects
to which pleaders are peculiarly exposed.
The Lectures will commence the first week
in December next, and continue until twelve
distinct Lectures in each course shall have been
delivered.
The terms may be known by applica-
personally, or by letters post paid to
ROBERT WARB PEACOCK,
Attorney at Law.
City of Washington,
October 17,
NICUGDI
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR.
HAS just received a handsome supply of fall goods which he is determined to sell and make upon the most reasonable terms, and in the best and most fashionable manner, and greatest expedition.
Pennsylvania Avenue, near the President's Square and Capitol Hill, seventh house from the Capitol.
Oct. 14.
JUST PUBLISHED,
AND FOR SALE,
BY RAPINE CONRAD & Co.
New Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol.
(Price 2 dolls. 25 cents in boards, or 2
dolls. 50 cents bound.)
History of the British Expedition to
Egypt.
To which is subjoined, A sketch of that
country and its means of defence. Illustrated
with maps and a portrait of Sir Ralph Aber-
crombie.
By ROBERT T. WILSON,
Lieutenant colonel of cavalry in his Britannic
Majesty's service, & Knight of the Impe-
rial military order of Maria Theresa.
September 28
By LETTERS PATENT.