The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-12-23 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
VOL. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1280.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DEBATE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS CONTINUED.
Mr. JACKSON (Virg.) said that the importance of this subject had been acknowledged by all the gentlemen who had addressed the committee of the whole; they had admitted that this was a crisis which called for all the information, talent and decision of the nation, which, unfortunately for its best interests, were divided into parties and subdivided, so as materially to affect that strength which ought to be united.
The course of discussion which had been pursued, necessarily resulted from the nature of the subject, our foreign relations; every thing connected with them came before the House in some shape or other. And although the time of the House might be employed on some things unnecessarily, according to his conception it would be well employed in defending measures which had been condemned with a view to prejudice the public mind, for it was not with the hope of changing the conviction of any member of the House, but for influencing the people, that they had been thus condemned. And as some gentlemen had taken views of our situation which were conceived by him to be incorrect, disingenuous, and improper, he thought it due to himself, to the majority with whom he was associated, and to the people, to state the grounds on which they acted according to his conception.
We are scarcely permitted to touch the threshold of this investigation, said Mr. J. when we are called upon to take care how we act, insurrection is threatened, and an attempt is made to influence the House by representations of hostility to the government, in the Eastern people, which only pervades the minds of those who represent them. I know that watchfulness is characteristic of a republican form of government; it is the grand sentinel of the system; and I should regret to see the disposition to watch over and animadvert on the measures of the administration, lulled into a listless security. But it is not that watchfulness, disgracing the authors of misrepresentations which have extended to every hamlet and fireside in the country, that is proper, but a candid examination of both sides of the question. Asst alteram partem is a precept founded on justice and reason, and necessary to a correct decision. Misrepresentations have gone forth to every quarter of the union, and charges reiterated in some instances on this floor, have operated on the public mind, so as to excite unnecessary, unjust and unreasonable jealousies against the government. Party spirit, the bane of free governments, a monstrous excrescence growing out of liberty, and threatening even liberty itself with destruction, still exists in our country, and after the unsuccessful experiment of seven years has been made, it is in vain to expect to disarm it of its antipathies and its malice. Its great mark seems to be that the end will justify the means; and if it can attain its end by the most dishonorable means, that they are justifiable.
This source in a great measure may be ascribed the difficulties this nation has to encounter, and to this source, foreign nations are unfortunately too much in the habit of looking; to our opposition prints and our opposition men, England looks for support, and from them an idea has gone abroad that the insurrections of the Vermontese and the opposition in the North East would overturn the constituted authorities; and if not by the regular process of election, by revolution itself, a change would be made in the politics of those who administer the government of the U. S. We know that it is the wish of each of the belligerents who have swallowed up in the vortex of their interminable disputes all the nations of the world but the U. S. to unite us in their cause. Each one wishes to form more intimate connections with us than those we have with its enemy. This disposition is natural; for when we look into private life, we see individuals endeavoring to enlist those who have no concern in the dispute among their partisans in their personal contests. Besides this wish common to both the belligerents, a spirit of monopoly and jealousy of our commercial greatness has seized upon the government and people of one of them. It is evident from the conduct of G. Britain for many years past, that she cannot consent to submit to the idea that the U. S. shall be reaping the rich harvest of their neutrality, while her thousand ships are
scouring every sea and driving everything from its surface. The commercial spirit of the people of the U. S. has been the cause of that jealousy; that spirit which in its infancy was so eloquently portrayed by Edmund Burke, which has been so essentially fostered by the measures of our government, has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. Our hardy adventurous seamen have prosecuted commerce in every sea, and reaped the most advantageous harvests appertaining to it. Therefore it is natural to suppose that with the jealousy excited by our successful competition, and a knowledge of her supremacy on the ocean, Great Britain, who wields its trident, should be disposed that we should bow to its haughty mistress; and though we have not succumbed, every right appertaining to us as a neutral nation has been assailed in turn. Let us look at the injuries practised by G. Britain in relation to their effects upon the U. S. in their national and neutral character; and first with reference to those effects on ourselves. Our citizens have been impressed under a pretext that they were British subjects; they have been deprived of their liberty, seized and carried from their country, compelled to endure an arduous service, and to fight against nations with whom we were at peace. The colonial trade, which tended to enrich our merchants, and from which we derived a revenue of a million of dollars per annum, was next assailed by them, on the principle that they had a right to prohibit a trade with enemy's colonies not permitted in time of peace. This attempt to destroy our commerce was enforced by an arbitrary and tyrannical interpolation of new principles into the law of nations, giving efficacy to the spirit which contemplates the pressure of its rival in every quarter. We find that spirit in other outrages, in relation to blockades notified to us, made only on paper, enforced solely towards neutrals, and which never existed in reality; thereby cutting off a trade with places which, by the laws of nations, except actually blockaded or invested, we have a right to carry on. By the order of June, 1803, a very essential branch of our commerce was likewise cut off, and our vessels were captured, although returning with innocent cargoes, which were not liable to seizure, upon the pretext that they previously had been employed in a trade with contraband articles. British outrages have been committed, not only on the high seas, but in our own harbors. The case of Pierce in the harbor of N. York is not forgotten by you, sir, or by the U. S. An American citizen, pursuing his lawful commerce within our own waters and exclusive jurisdiction, had his vessel fired upon, and he was killed. The case of the Cambrian was one of the same character; there the commanding officer declared that he claimed jurisdiction in our waters within the length of his guns, & there impressed our seamen, in defiance of the laws of hospitality and the laws of nations. We find the exercise of similar pretensions in the case of the Impetueux, a vessel belonging to a belligerent, stranded on the coast of N. Carolina, which, though by the law of nations exempt from attack, because within the jurisdiction of a third and neutral party, was destroyed by British vessels. By the order of January, 1807, restraining the trade of the U. S. from one port to another port of the same or another belligerent enemy, a profitable branch of our trade was annihilated. In addition to these the orders of November 11, 1807, amount to a declaration, in effect, that we shall not sail on the ocean without carrying our produce first to G. Britain, there paying a duty and receiving a licence, to carry it to its place of final destination. The attack on the Chesapeake was, at the time of the commission of the outrage, deemed by all parties if not disavowed a just cause of war, by many as an act of war in itself, and one whereat the public indignation could scarcely be appeased without a resort to war. The invitation to violate our embargo laws, touched upon by my colleague (Mr. Burwell) yesterday, connected with all those acts which I have recited, manifests a determination on the part of G. Britain, that our pride shall be humbled, the commerce which we have enjoyed shall be destroyed; that we shall bow to the supremacy of her thousand ships, and that we shall not sail on the ocean without her permission.
How is it when we cross over the water and look at France? We find by the proclamation of Gen. Ferrand, an attempt made to regulate our trade to St. Domingo, inconsistent with our
rights. The Berlin decree declaring the British islands in a state of blockade, although ineffectual because she had not the power of executing it was not less outrageous than many of the acts to which I have referred of the British government. The Milan decree, which may be considered as a supplement to the British orders, has endeavored to extend the principle and to render more efficient the measures of destruction which are aimed by the belligerents against our commerce. A decree is also said to have passed at Bayonne, by which France attempts to execute our embargo laws by seizing those American vessels which have not returned home, and is of the same character with the others. The burning our vessels is among the most flagitious of the whole, for which no apology can be offered consistent with reason and justice, and for which no apology has been attempted but the impracticability of keeping them in possession from the superior naval force of G. Britain.
But we were told the other day that a recapitulation of the injuries which we have received served but to blazon the dishonor of the country. It is proper that they should be recurred to, because they are the ground work of our proceedings; and it is impossible to keep them out of view, although the recital of them may tend to irritate and wound the feelings. But the reproach comes from those who say that our own government is chargeable with all these misfortunes, and are not attributable to the acts of our enemies, for so we may call them (although not declared enemies) who trample on our rights, add confiscation to insult and murder to both. And how is this assertion proven? Why, we are told (by Mr. Randolph) that in 1805, when the Kempers were taken from our territory by American citizens, we had submitted to the hostile tread of a foreign nation; that our character has declined abroad ever since; and that we ought to have gone to war at that time. What was the case of the Kempers? As well as I recollect it was this. These persons had committed an outrage within the Spanish territories. They were either Spanish subjects or American citizens; they took refuge within the American territory, and were seized by American citizens and negroes, carried out of our limits, and delivered up to the Spaniards. And was this cause of war? Is it from such cases as this that attacks from Europe have been encouraged? Should this nation have gone to war for this act? No, sir; for the nation or individual who is alive to the insults of the weak and pusillanimous, always have, and my life on it, always will shrink from a contest with the powerful and the brave, and expose themselves to the imputation of cowardice. The act was disavowed; Governor Grand Pre denied that it had been done with his cognizance. I recollect seeing an account in the public papers during the last summer, that some officer of the U. S. had pursued deserters from one of the gun boats in the Mississippi within the Spanish lines, there seized upon the individuals himself, and brought them within our jurisdiction and retained them in custody. Is there not a wide difference between this act committed in a foreign territory by our own officers, and the one committed in our territory by individuals investigated by foreigners? And if there were no difference, would this be considered by the Spanish government as cause of war against us? Would our government hesitate to disavow the act? Certainly not, as we do not claim the right of invading a foreign territory for the purpose of seizing deserters; and would the unauthorized act of one of our officers be cause of war against us? No, sir. Then as certainly it would not be cause of war by us, unless indeed we act upon the principle that where the enemy is weak and pusillanimous we must take upon ourselves acts of resistance; and when he is great and powerful we must shrink from the conflict. I therefore do not admit that a failure to make war for this individual offence was a submission or a cause of the declension of our character abroad. If it has declined at all, it is in consequence of the unjust attacks made on this government and on the majority of this House and the nation, by enemies in our own country. The nation which goes to war for an ignis fatuus offence will not be followed in it by the people. They will understand the causes of the contest; and when they find their government right and their adversary wrong, then they will rally around
the public functionaries; and I believe that all honest and virtuous citizens of the country who understand the causes of our present difficulty, though many are deluded and imposed on, will rally round their government at this time.
Not content however with saying that the affair of the Kempers has been a cause of disgrace to the nation, the same gentleman has told us that the non-importation law produced our difficulties; that he prophesied the consequences of it and his prophecy has become history. I shall refer to documents which come in such a shape and from such a source as with the gentleman will be unquestionable; and I will attempt to prove from them that he is mistaken. Mr. Monroe, in his letter of March 31, 1806, says—
"From what I can discern, I think that there is much cause to believe that Mr. Fox has the best disposition to settle our differences on just principles, but it must be recollected that some other of the members of the cabinet have not always thought with him on such topics. On the most deliberate reflection, I am convinced that too much reliance ought not to be placed on these favorable appearances, and that there is cause to fear that if the Congress should separate without adopting a system of coercive policy calculated to meet the most unfavorable result, their forbearance may contribute to the disappointment of our reasonable expectations. By this, however, I do not wish to imply that measures of the kind alluded to should be carried into prompt execution. I mean only that the attitude should be taken, but its operation be suspended by suitable powers to the President, till he shall be duly notified that the negotiation has failed. Such a suspension will be deemed a sufficient mark of respect to those in the ministry who are disposed to a fair accommodation, and the attitude will, in my opinion, tend to aid their councils in producing that effect."
I suppose therefore, sir, that the non-importation law is not, in whole or in part, the cause to which any of our embarrassments are to be ascribed, because the then minister of the U. S. who with the gentleman making the charge is high authority, residing on the spot, witnessing the career of the administration even of Mr. Fox, advised the adoption of the measure; and it was precisely pursuant to such advice that some measure ought to be adopted, that the non-importation law was passed. Then with regard to the dispositions manifested by the British government in relation to it, we have the evidence of the same gentleman in his letter of May 17, 1806,
"That on the whole the measure is considered by the government papers, on account of the distant period at which it does commence, rather as a pacific than as a hostile one. I persuade myself that the present ministry will see in the circumstance of delay, a strong proof of the disposition of the U. S. not only to preserve the relations of peace with G. Britain, but of their confidence, that the ministry is animated with the same desire. I cannot help remarking likewise the fact, that this paper was sent me immediately after the passage of the bill was known. It furnishes a strong presumption, that the government papers judge correctly of the sentiments of the government on that point. It may be inferred, that a knowledge of the passage of the bill hastened the communication to me."
Here we not only find it a measure which the minister deems correct, but we find that it is not deemed improper or hostile, is considered as a proof of a pacific disposition. I will not admit for a moment that this measure is the Pandora's box from which have flowed the evils which beset this country; but rather that there is a fixed disposition in the government of G. Britain to cramp the commercial spirit of this people, and to make them bow to the mistress of the ocean. In Mr. Monroe's letter of the 9th of June, 1806, we have further evidence of this. In a conversation which took place between him and Mr. Fox,
"In speaking of the non-importation act, he expressed his regret that it had passed. He said that it had the air of a menace, and that it was not agreeable to do things by compulsion. I reminded him how long we had complained of injuries which his government had not attempted to justify; injuries which were not imaginary or perspective, but real and severe, which affected equally the honor and the interest of the U. S. I added that under such circumstances his government had no right to complain of the act referred to. I assured him, however, that I was of opinion, if the ministry had not changed, that a bill of a very different import would have been adopted; that I had reason to believe that the tone of our government, and of the Congress, had been essentially moderated by the information which I had given of his assurances that our differences should be settled amicably, and on just principles; that the act which had passed in consequence of that information was little more than a declaration to the citizens of the U. S. that the object would be duly attended to."
It was such a declaration, sir, as was produced by the exigency of the times, when our tables were covered with petitions from the mercantile interest, demanding redress. Mr. Monroe continues,
"I observed that he must be sensible, after the subject had been taken up by Congress, as it was before the change of the ministry was known, that it was impossible for that body to dismiss it without
some expression of the rights of the U. S. in the question in dispute, without exposing itself to the charge of having abandoned them. He seemed finally to admit that the Congress could not well have avoided doing something in the business; and that the measure which had been adopted ought to be considered as a moderate one."
When we have such testimony as this, why will gentlemen persist in saying that our embarrassments are attributable to the passage of the non-importation act?
But it is said that our negotiations in Europe have been paralyzed by extraordinary missions; that when our affairs might have been well settled, we had hung our disputes up in chancery by them; that the negotiation in Spain particularly was paralyzed by the mission of Mr. Bowdoin. This is a new charge; notwithstanding the number which we have had from the same quarter heretofore, this was not one of the catalogue of offences. But this declaration comes with an ill grace from gentlemen who have declared that there was no Spain; that there were no longer Pyrenees, France had swallowed up all, and if so, an extraordinary mission to Spain could be of no importance, she being under the influence of the tyrant of the continent. But the old worn out story has been touched upon, that Mr. Monroe might have settled our differences with the ministry of Mr. Fox, but for the extraordinary mission. Sir, if Mr. Fox or the British ministry had been disposed to settle the difficulties with this country on amicable terms, there was time enough for it; and if those difficulties had been settled, inasmuch as the law of nations has been trampled under foot by Great Britain, and the treaty of 1800 by France, it does not follow that an hundred treaties would have restrained their licentious invasions of right. But let us recur to facts. The documents before me will prove the reverse of the assertion; and from the same source whence I have proved that the non-importation act was not the cause of our present difficulties, I will prove that Mr. Fox, with the best intentions, was incapable of entering into any stipulations with our minister, being overruled by his colleagues in the ministry. Let us recollect under what circumstances he came into office. His great talents had been arrayed against Mr. Pitt, who was the favorite of the king, and whom Mr. Fox and his party drove from power. He was brought in, in opposition to the will of the monarch, being forced upon him by the nation; and if he were not, he was prevented from acting, according to the disposition which he felt. On a reference to the documents it will be found that he came into office on the 12th of February, from which time to the 31st of May, when information of the extraordinary mission arrived in England, was a period of near four months; and was a longer time than was necessary for settling differences with our minister and entering into a treaty which could have been discussed and concluded in a few weeks. If it was not, it might well be said that our national affairs were hung up in a court of chancery, where discussion might be protracted ad infinitum , and a decision postponed to the end of time.
We are informed by the letter of Mr. Monroe, of the 12th of February, that "as soon as Mr. Fox took possession of his office, he requested an interview with the foreign ministers which took place yesterday." After detailing a part of their conversation, Mr. Monroe says:
"I could not avoid intimating to him that the friendly disposition which our government had shown, had been most ungraciously required by him; that it seemed as if it had pursued a just and friendly conduct towards the United States, till the moment that the new coalition was formed, and gave the present blow, when the prospect was favorable to success; and kept the business in suspense to see the result of affairs on the continent and in the United States. He heard me with much attention and apparent interest, intimated that he had been accused of being too friendly to America, and when I spoke of the treaty with Russia, he observed that he had not that arrangement made by him; that it was a good one, though I did not understand him as pledging himself by the remark to its conditions. I requested that he would make himself master, as soon as in his power, of the correspondence between Lord Minto and myself, and give me an interview, which he promised. I am happy to add, on a view of all circumstances, that I think the prospect of arranging our affairs with this government, especially that one which respects the trade with the colonies of its enemies, on satisfactory terms, every way and one. It is certain that nothing more favorable to such a result was or could reasonably have been expected from the first interview with the present minister."
Here we find that the disposition which characterized a what in the opposition had not discerned Mr. Fox when in power, and he even intimates (Continued on last page)

(Continued from last page.)
In what point of view are the decrees of France to be estimated in relation to Great Britain? The Berlin decree was mere brutum fulmen , and it will take British authority and prove that her own vessels could not venture to sea. The Berlin decree in part was no cause of just complaint, because it related to municipal regulations which do not interfere with the acknowledged rights of neutrals. The Milan decree was very hard on paper; but we are told, and it is verified by experience, that Great Britain yields nothing to the thunders of that artillery; it passes by like an idle wind which she regards not. But I acquiesce with pleasure in the declaration that both France and Britain are regardless of justice when opposed to the exercise of the power of prostrating our rights.
How are the decrees of both belligerents, considered with reference to an acquiescence by us? There never was a more base libel than the insinuation of acquiescence by us in the edicts of either. A recurrence to the documents will prove it. The U. S. have never acquiesced in any violation by either of the belligerents. But it is admitted by the minority that enough has been said as to Great Britain, though not as to France; that there has been an acquiescence in French usurpations; and indeed it has been asserted with a testimony not to be passed over with impunity, that there has not only been an acquiescence in the decrees, but a disposition to obey the commands of the French Emperor. It is true that there has not been as much said or written in relation to France as to Great Britain, because the injuries committed by the latter exceed those of the former ten fold; so far from admitting that there has been an acquiescence in the conduct of the conqueror of Europe and tyrant of France, a recurrence to the documents will prove that measures of greater vigor have been taken in relation to him than in relation to the tyrant of the sea; that the language and instructions of the government have partaken of this character; and that it has manifested more sensibility to the injuries committed by France, than to those committed by Great Britain. When the Berlin decree was issued, Mr. Armstrong wrote to M. Decres immediately for an explanation of it. It has been objected that although the explanations, given by that minister, were satisfactory, if he were the proper organ of the government, he was not the person of whom to ask them, that the minister of foreign affairs was the proper person. But surely the individual to whom the execution of the decree was confided must be considered as the proper person to give explanations concerning its import. But we have proof from Mr. Champagny, the successor of Talleyrand, that Decres was the proper organ, and that he was to be consulted. Champagny, in his letter of August, 1807, says that "as the execution of the maritime measures, indicated by the imperial decree of the 21st November, 1806, rests naturally with his excellency the minister of marine, and that moreover he has already had the honor of addressing you some first observations on the application of that decree, I transmitted without delay your letter." Thus the minister of foreign relations to whom it is said that our envoy at Paris should have addressed his note, & from whom alone he should have received them, referred him to the minister of marine for the proper explanations. So that the utmost diligence was manifested by the representative of this nation at the court of France, in obtaining proper explanations in relation to the construction of the decree; and not only the explanation was satisfactory, but what was more important, the practice under it was satisfactory also, as it corresponded with the explanation given. When our vessels were burnt at sea, an outrage so scandalous as to destroy the pretensions to civilization of the nation authorizing it, a special remonstrance was directed against the injudicious procedure. When the offensive note of Mr. Champagny was presented, Mr. Armstrong was specially directed to remonstrate against it; and he did remonstrate in such terms as were consistent with the dignity and honor of this nation. But when the infamous rider attached to the famous treaty was presented, there was no remonstrance directed, although that rider, with other communications, from the same source, are equally as offensive & equally obnoxious and repugnant to every American feeling as the insulting language of Champagny himself. Let us compare them, and see if I am not justified by facts in the conclusion which I draw.
Champagny says— "In the situation in which England has placed the continent, especially since her decrees of the 11th November, his majesty has no doubt of a declaration of war against her by the United States: whatever transient sacrifices may be necessary, they will not believe it consistent either with their interest or dignity, to acknowledge the monstrous principle, and the anarchy which that government wishes to establish on the seas. If it be useful and honorable for all nations to cause the true maritime law of nations to be re-established,
and to avenge the insults committed by England against every flag, it is indispensable for the U. S. who from the extent of their commerce have oftener to complain of those violations. War exists then in fact between England and the U. S.; and his majesty considers it as declared from the day on which England published her decrees. In that persuasion, his majesty, ready to consider the U. S. as associated with the cause of all the powers, who have to defend themselves against England, has not taken any definitive measure towards the American vessels which may have been brought into our ports; he has ordered that they should remain sequestered, until a decision may be had thereon, according to the dispositions which shall have been expressed by the government of the U. S."
This language is justly offensive, insulting, and inadmissible, but not more so than the justly offensive, insulting and inadmissible notes to which I will refer. What is their language?—
"The undersigned cannot, therefore, believe, that the enemy will ever seriously attempt to enforce such a system. If he should, they are confident that the good sense of the American government will perceive the fatal consequences of such pretensions to neutral commerce, and that its spirit and regard to national honor will prevent its acquiescence in such palpable violations of its rights, and injudicious encroachments on its interests."
"The undersigned considering that the distance of the American government renders any immediate explanation on this subject impossible, and animated by a desire of forwarding the beneficial work in which they are engaged, are authorized by his majesty to conclude the treaty without delay. They proceed 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, or that the government of the U. S. by its conduct or assurances, will have given security"—security to whom?—"to his majesty that it will not submit to such innovations in the established system of maritime law; and 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 United States 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 countering the designs of his enemy."
The one of these powers says that she considers war as declared; that the U. S. cannot submit to such sacrifices, and therefore war is declared. The other says that if we acquiesce, if we are not guided by spirit and national honor, if we do not give security to his majesty, by our conduct or assurances, that we will not acquiesce, he wishes it clearly to be understood by both sides, that his majesty would not be bound or precluded by the (rejected) treaty from chastising us in turn. This language so insulting is offered to a dignified, free and independent nation. It is not less offensive than the language of their minister here. What says he?
"I am charged by his majesty to express to the government of the U. S. his majesty's perfect confidence in their good sense and firmness in resisting the unjust pretensions contained in the decree issued by the French government at Berlin, on the 21st November, which, if suffered to take effect, must prove so destructive to the commerce of all neutral nations."
"His majesty, therefore, with that forbearance and moderation which have at all times distinguished his conduct, has determined, for the present, to confine himself to the exercise of the power given him by his decided naval superiority, in such a manner only as is authorized by the acknowledged principles of the law of nations, and has issued an order for preventing all commerce from port to port of his enemies, comprehending in this order, not only the ports of France, but those of other nations, as, either in alliance with France, or subject to her dominion, have by measures of active offence, or by the exclusion of British ships, taken a part in the present war."
"His majesty feels an entire confidence that the moderation and justice of this conduct will be duly appreciated by the U. S. and has charged me to express to their government, in the strongest terms, the regret he has experienced in being thus compelled, in his own defence, to act in a manner which must prove, in some degree embarrassing to the commerce of neutral nations, and his sincere desire to avoid any stronger measures, to which, however, if the injustice and aggression of his enemies should not be resisted by those nations, whose rights and interests are invaded by so flagrant a violation of all public law, it may be ultimately necessary for the king to have recourse."
He confides in our good sense! Is it not insulting to us to say so? has he any right to dictate to us what course we shall pursue? It is this which constitutes the essence of the insult in the note of Champagny, in the rider to the treaty, and in this instance also. Well, sir, we did not give those assurances to his majesty; and on the 23d of February, 1808, we are informed by his majesty's minister here, that
"His majesty has been induced hitherto to forbear recurring to measures of this nature by the expectation that the governments of the neutral states, who have been the objects of the French decrees, would have been awakened to a just sense of what they owe to their interests and own rights, and would have interposed with effect, either to prevent the execution of the French decrees, or to procure their abrogation."
"But his majesty having been disappointed in this just expectation, and perceiving that the neutral nations, so far from opposing any effectual resistance, have submitted to whatever regulations France may have prescribed for giving effect to her decrees, can no longer refrain from having recourse to such measures, &c."
"Such a measure the maritime power of Great Britain would have enabled his majesty to enforce; nor would those nations which have acquiesced, without effectual remonstrance, in the French decree of blockade, have derived any right from the more perfect execution of a corresponding decree."
and to avenge the insults committed by England against every flag, it is indispensable for the U. S. who from the extent of their commerce have oftener to complain of those violations. War exists then in fact between England and the U. S.; and his majesty considers it as declared from the day on which England published her decrees. In that persuasion, his majesty, ready to consider the U. S. as associated with the cause of all the powers, who have to defend themselves against England, has not taken any definitive measure towards the American vessels which may have been brought into our ports; he has ordered that they should remain sequestered, until a decision may be had thereon, according to the dispositions which shall have been expressed by the government of the U. S."
This language is justly offensive, insulting, and inadmissible, but not more so than the justly offensive, insulting and inadmissible notes to which I will refer. What is their language?—
"The undersigned cannot, therefore, believe, that the enemy will ever seriously attempt to enforce such a system. If he should, they are confident that the good sense of the American government will perceive the fatal consequences of such pretensions to neutral commerce, and that its spirit and regard to national honor will prevent its acquiescence in such palpable violations of its rights, and injudicious encroachments on its interests."
"The undersigned considering that the distance of the American government renders any immediate explanation on this subject impossible, and animated by a desire of forwarding the beneficial work in which they are engaged, are authorized by his majesty to conclude the treaty without delay. They proceed 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, or that the government of the U. S. by its conduct or assurances, will have given security"—security to whom?—"to his majesty that it will not submit to such innovations in the established system of maritime law; and 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 United States 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 countering the designs of his enemy."
The one of these powers says that she considers war as declared; that the U. S. cannot submit to such sacrifices, and therefore war is declared. The other says that if we acquiesce, if we are not guided by spirit and national honor, if we do not give security to his majesty, by our conduct or assurances, that we will not acquiesce, he wishes it clearly to be understood by both sides, that his majesty would not be bound or precluded by the (rejected) treaty from chastising us in turn. This language so insulting is offered to a dignified, free and independent nation. It is not less offensive than the language of their minister here. What says he?
"I am charged by his majesty to express to the government of the U. S. his majesty's perfect confidence in their good sense and firmness in resisting the unjust pretensions contained in the decree issued by the French government at Berlin, on the 21st November, which, if suffered to take effect, must prove so destructive to the commerce of all neutral nations."
"His majesty, therefore, with that forbearance and moderation which have at all times distinguished his conduct, has determined, for the present, to confine himself to the exercise of the power given him by his decided naval superiority, in such a manner only as is authorized by the acknowledged principles of the law of nations, and has issued an order for preventing all commerce from port to port of his enemies, comprehending in this order, not only the ports of France, but those of other nations, as, either in alliance with France, or subject to her dominion, have by measures of active offence, or by the exclusion of British ships, taken a part in the present war."
"His majesty feels an entire confidence that the moderation and justice of this conduct will be duly appreciated by the U. S. and has charged me to express to their government, in the strongest terms, the regret he has experienced in being thus compelled, in his own defence, to act in a manner which must prove, in some degree embarrassing to the commerce of neutral nations, and his sincere desire to avoid any stronger measures, to which, however, if the injustice and aggression of his enemies should not be resisted by those nations, whose rights and interests are invaded by so flagrant a violation of all public law, it may be ultimately necessary for the king to have recourse."
on the part of his majesty, to complain of his majesty's enforcing that measure which the enemy has executed imperfectly only, from the want of the means of execution.
"His majesty, however, actuated by the same sentiments of moderation by which his majesty's conduct has been uniformly governed, has been desirous of alleviating, as much as possible, the inconveniences necessarily brought upon neutral nations by a state of things so unfavorable to the commercial intercourse of the world."
"The relaxations must be considered as most peculiarly favorable to the particular interests of the U. S."
"Another most important relaxation of the principles upon which his majesty's orders proceed, is that which licences the importation of all flour and meal, and all grains, tobacco and other articles, the produce of the soil of America, with the exception of cotton, through the ports of his majesty's dominions, into those of his enemies, without the payment of any duty on the transit. This is, I beg leave to observe, an instance in which his majesty has deprived his measure of its most efficacious and hurtful operation against the enemy, through motives of consideration for the interests of America."
The same insulting and insidious language, which is contained in the note of Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney! He regrets that we have not given security for our good behaviour, and that his majesty is compelled to chastise us for it; and adds that these modifications must be considered as peculiarly favorable to the U. S. being made wholly through motives of consideration for the interests of America. These notes are as offensive and insulting as the note of Champagny, which cannot be exceeded, and can never be submitted to.
But there is another point of view in which these orders should be examined—in relation to the professed object of retaliating on us. And I protest against the pretensions of one belligerent to retaliate on us for injuries inflicted by another belligerent. The practice, if submitted to, would prostrate the rights of this country. In war retaliation may be proper between the parties to it, on the perpetrators of such outrages as the murders of Ishmael and Prague, where a victorious general entered towns which had bravely opposed him, and put all the inhabitants to the sword. It might have been proper in the war in which we opposed his majesty who has always manifested such extreme sympathy for us, when we were treated as rebels, confined in prison ships, and denied the right of prisoners of war, because we ungratefully revolted from the mother country. In such cases retaliation may be proper; it brings nations to a sense of their duty and interests. But to say that because one nation strikes at the rights of this country, and we cannot effectually resist the blow, that another nation shall be permitted to strike us also, is a principle which I hope never will be treated with complaisance, but always spurned with indignation. Although it is inadmissible, it is in consonance with the practice of the belligerents in the present war, who seem to have said, "Let us attack all the world but each other; let the war be carried on thro' neutrals, but let us as to each other cry, hands off; and this is a war which we may carry on ad infinitum ." Retaliation also implies a prior wrong, and Great Britain should be silent on the subject. If she looks at the impressionment of our seamen, restrictions on the colonial trade, blockades, the order of June, the case at N. York; where she increased her force within our waters, the case of the Impetueux, all which took place before the Berlin decree, her pretension of retaliation is destroyed; and if retaliation be admissible at all, it must be by her enemy, and not by her. What is the pretext on which she assumes the right of retaliation? Look at the famous rider, and you will find it; there it is claimed on the ground, first of an execution by France of her threats; and secondly, an acquiescence in them by us. But the order of January, 1807, professedly in retaliation, was issued before either took place.
I have said that the order of January, 1807, was issued before any execution of the threats of the French government, and before any acquiescence in such execution by the United States, and consequently inadmissible even on the British principle. A recurrence to dates will prove that no execution of the Berlin decree was known to Great Britain at the time that the notorious orders in council were issued. On the 7th of January, 1807, Mr. Armstrong writes that a modification favorable to the United States had taken place. On the 17th he speaks of an injudicious construction which he had heard of; on the 24th of September he states that he knew that an injudicious construction was about to take place; on the 17th of October he writes that this construction was certainly to take place; and in November, 1807, he heard of the decree in the case of the Horizon, and on the 12th remonstrated against it. No execution of the decree was known to the British government at the time of issuing the orders in council, nor to Mr. Armstrong, but for a few days antecedent to the orders. But, independent of this, it was proven on the floor of Parliament, that no condemnation was known to have taken place prior to them. It seemed to be an object with the ministry to prove that the execution of the decree was known in England; but no such proof was produced. It was proved by the evidence of their most celebrated merchants that no such case had been known to them. But even if France had intended to execute it, it was an idle menace, because she had no ships of war on the ocean, and could not even go from one port to another of the continent without skulking along shore to avoid meeting vessels of her enemy; and Great Britain is dishonored by attacking us on account of it. She knew very well that our trade had been carried on without the least interruption notwithstanding the decree. The absurdity of retaliating upon a threat was ably exposed by Lord Erskine. He said if the moon were to be declared in a state of blockade, it would be necessary according to the practice of his majesty's ministers, to have the whole board of astronomers convened to react on her satellites. Suppose the Emperor of China, whose policy forbids external commerce and who has no ships, were to declare the whole European continent in a state of blockade, would it be required by his Britannic majesty, from his sympathy for our interests, that we should go on a Quixotical expedition to China to compel him to repeal the decree? It would be equally as absurd as if the moon being declared in a state of blockade, we should be required to resist the declaration.
But gentlemen in this House again charge us with blazoning our dishonor by a repetition of the injuries we have received, notwithstanding the same gentlemen attribute every misfortune and encroachment on our rights to our own government alone. I have endeavored to shew, indeed I have shown it by a recurrence to documents which prove it, that the fault is not attributable to our government, but to the hostile disposition of the belligerents. But it is said that Bonaparte is extremely hostile to us, as if he alone entertained feelings of hostility; that he has declared to our minister, that we must be either his allies or his enemies. I have never seen the proofs of such a declaration, nor heard of it in such a way as to entitle it to credit. I never heard it suggested except in paragraphs of newspapers attributed to members of this House, which I am convinced are libels, because it is not true that he or his ministers have ever uttered such a threat to general Armstrong; but even if it were true, would it amount to more than the hostile acts, acts of war committed by him and the other belligerent, such as murdering our citizens, cutting off our trade, seizing and burning our vessels? No doubt they are both hostile to us. But it is said we know the wishes of the one belligerent, and the mandate of the other. I have no doubt as to what are the wishes of Britain; but I know not what is the mandate of the emperor of France. I have heard of threats attributed to him which I trust he dare not utter to our minister, such as a declaration that we should take the attitude of allies or enemies, that we should do the one or the other. I hope that if our government would not recall the minister in such a case, he would not submit to the disgrace of remaining there a day longer. But even were such the fact, it would not increase the proofs of the hostile disposition of the Emperor. Can it be doubted that Great Britain has the same hostile disposition? Look at her conduct to this country in her taxing us; look at the other more conclusive and unquestionable infractions of our rights, which was remarked upon by a gentleman who usually sits before me, when our doors were closed; look at the hissing at the London Tavern, when the corrupted pensioners of St. Stephens and the whole ministry were assembled, the President and the United States were given as a toast and hissed with indignation; the clamor was so great, that Sir Francis Baring, for the purpose of resisting the popular obloquy, found it necessary to write a letter to the editor of a public paper, apologising for having toasted the American government and its President. If it had been done at a Bacchanalian revel, such as I have heard has taken place in this country, at which "success to the British navy" and "his majesty's arms," and "damnation to democracy" were drunk among the toasts, I should have paid no regard to it, although, as it is represented, honorable members of this House might have been amongst the guests bidden to the feast. But when it occurs at a patriotic feast, where the ministry of Great Britain are present, may even give it, and their indignation was such as to require an apology for having proposed the toast, it does present itself in a very unquestionable shape, as proof of hostility to this country. Does not the affair of the Chesapeake prove it also? Surely it does. And because we have taken an attitude of precaution, and said, forasmuch as we have been wantonly assailed by a high-way robber, we will shut our doors and not open them to admit him and his whole gang, we hear the cry of French party, that "the finger of Napoleon is in this thing." "You do it from a spontaneous influence; you are sacrificing your rights to Napoleon." Sir, this cry is raised by British partisans, whose disposition is to sacrifice our rights at the shrine of Great Britain. Do the republicans of the United States vindicate the conduct of France? Do they palliate it? No, sir; not one of them. One universal burst of indignation has expressed their sensations at her conduct. With the minority, the few—not the people, for I beg to be understood as making a pointed distinction between those knowing ones at the head of a faction and those on whom they operate; the people, notwithstanding they have acted in hostility to the true interests of the country, are in my opinion still virtuous, they have been misled by the aid of ancient prejudices, deep-rooted and difficult to be eradicated, whether they relate to religion, politics or any thing else. How does the account stand with the few I ask, in relation to the vindication of England? Look at the publications in Boston, the cradle of the revolution. There the attack on the Chesapeake was vindicated and justified, although Mr. Canning and the whole British nation disavowed the act. And what is this ascribable to? I beg gentlemen to be cautious how they talk of French partisans. It will, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) has said, expose them to an insinuation—nay, more, proofs are not wanting—of an undue predilection for the enemy of France and the enemy of this country. Have we not lately seen it published in Eastern papers, that we have no cause of complaint against Great Britain? Yes, sir; the Pickering of the nation have said it, if not in terms, in effect; and it is this which has had an influence on the foreign relations of this country. The pamphlet (Hints to both Parties) referred to yesterday by my friend and colleague, (Mr. Burwell) speaks of the necessity of perseverance in the British system, because of the probability of an insurrection in the North, and that, like Paul's empire, wrested from him by assassins, every thing will be laid at the feet of Great Britain. What are these ideas produced by? By such productions as Pickering's letter, and as a letter which lately appeared in the Newburyport Herald, purporting to be from a member of Congress. When we look at this famous letter of the 16th of February, which included every offence committed by France, the recital of which gentlemen sicken at the idea of, we are told that the immediate if not the only object in calling out the militia was to excite a war pulse, for Great Britain has done us "no essential injury." Most magnanimous mother! We never can discharge the obligation of gratitude which we owe her " thousand ships ." What, sir! Can we doubt the effect of such productions in Europe? The fact of its passing through eight editions in London, proves the effect of these charges of a hostile disposition, an effort on the part of the President "to excite a war pulse," unjust resentment," a war without necessity, and the keeping the orders of council, and almost every thing relating to Great Britain wholly out of view. The British government is told from no informal source, by the opinion (official I may say) of a man high in the estimation of his party, that the President wishes to keep up resentment against Great Britain, "by exciting new resentments and cherishing old prejudices." I beg gentlemen to be careful how they urge a charge of foreign influence when there are such damning evidences to stare them in the face in proof of their own predilections. Notwithstanding all this, I am not willing to admit that there is so much depravity and corruption in this nation, as to produce such a partiality in any portion of the country for Great Britain, as the majority have been most falsely charged with entertaining for France.
But we are told that " punctilio " alone prevents a settlement of our differences with England. This is contained in an extract of a letter from a member of Congress, to a gentleman of Newburyport, and thus the people are deluded. Punctilio is the only cause of dispute! These falsehoods produce the arrogance and hostility of G. Britain to us, because she believes that we are a rope of sand; that the north is in a state of insurrection and the south falling off. And if these ideas were realised it would not be astonishing; because to a high-minded yeomanry, such as the great mass of the people of the north and east, it is natural to suppose that such statements as have been made will excite resentments against the government. It is not in the power of every man to read all the productions of the times; and if he does they do not make that impression upon him which they do upon statesmen whose duty it is to examine minutely, and therefore they do not know that every effort has been made to settle our differences with G. Britain; and believe the statement when they are told that punctilio only prevents a settlement. What is the idea

(Continued from first page.) ed to our minister that he had been accused of too friendly feelings to this country. On the 31st of March, Mr. Monroe writes that Mr. Fox gives him reason to expect that the condemnation of American vessels, which was then very frequent, owing to the resuscitation of the rule of 1756, would be suspended. In the same letter Mr. Monroe says "From what I can discern I think there is the best reason to believe that Mr. Fox has the best disposition to settle our differences on just principles, but it must be recollected that some other members of the cabinet have not always thought with him on such topics. On the most deliberate reflection I am convinced that too much reliance ought not to be placed on those favorable appearances, &c." Here we have still further proof of the disposition of Mr. Fox to settle the affairs of this country, and of the impracticability of doing it because he was overruled by the cabinet. Pursuing the subject further, we find the same ideas introduced into his letter of April 3d, 1806.
"How the cabinet is disposed in this question it is not in my power to state. Some of its members are known to have differed with Mr. Fox in respect to the policy of Great Britain towards the U.S. on former occasions and in similar cases. It is possible that the spirit of conciliation on which the ministry is formed may be felt in the present one. Every view, however, which I have been able to take of the subject, confirms me in the justice of the remarks which were communicated to you in my last of the 31st ult."
We are told in one of the letters which I have read that Mr. Fox intimated that he would give orders to suspend the condemnation of American vessels. On the 18th of April we find this had not been done, and although assurances had been given, the hostile acts were continued, as his influence had not been sufficient to procure a suspension of them. Mr. Monroe writes on the 18th April, that Mr. Fox had the day before said that he was essentially ready to proceed in the discussion of the subjects of difference.
"Some remarks of his having led the conversation to the merits of the principal topic, I told him that he must leave us in the enjoyment of the trade in question, and pay us for the property taken. To the first proposition he immediately assented. To the second he added that he had taken steps to prohibit the further condemnation of our ships and cargoes, as I had desired, of which he intended to have informed me by note, but had been prevented by other business; he had no objection, however, still to do it."
In his letter of the 20th April, Mr. M. says "the prohibition mentioned in my letter of the 18th is to be extended to the seizure as well as the condemnation of our vessels, of which he is to give me an official note in a day or two." On the 28th of April, Mr. Fox, although he had stated on the 20th that he had taken steps to prohibit further seizures, said that such orders had not been issued; that in truth to issue them would be to give up the point in negotiation. What does this prove? Not that Mr. Fox would be guilty of sanctioning such an unpardonable lie on his own character, by equivocations in this way and doing nothing, but that he was controlled by his associates in the administration. On the 28th of April Mr. Monroe says—
"You will observe, that Mr. Fox insisted in the late interview on restricting the trade with enemies' colonies in a greater degree than he had done in the preceding one. I am convinced that this was produced by the cabinet deliberations on the subject. For I am strong in the opinion, that if left to himself, he would meet in arrangements which would place the whole business, and indeed all our relations, on the most broad and liberal basis, in a firm belief that by so doing, he would advance the best interests of his country. But he has to consult and accord with others, some of whom may perhaps not entertain in all respects the same sentiments, or be equally prepared to encounter, in a new scheme of policy, ancient and deep-rooted prejudices."
On the 17th of May we find the following:
"After my interview with Mr. Fox, on the 25th ult. I waited a fortnight without hearing from him. This new instance of delay surprised me, because he had shown a sensibility to the former one, and did not seem aware of the necessity of adding to it."
Thus this friendly ministry, with Mr. Fox at its head, although Mr. Monroe had given an opinion, from the intimations of Mr. Fox, that every thing would be amicably settled, on the 16th of May had done nothing towards it, but we find the blockade of the coast from the Elbe to Brest inclusive, notified to Mr. Monroe on that day. Heretofore assurances of friendship had not been wanting; and now we find them verified by the blockade of a coast of a thousand miles, which all the ships of war of Great Britain are scarcely competent to blockade in an effectual manner. Here comes proof to put assertion to the blush. In his letter of the 20th of May Mr. M. says—
"With respect to the delay to which I am exposed, it is utterly out of my power to explain to you the cause. I have no reason to change the opinion, which I have heretofore expressed of Mr. Fox's disposition on the subject, though I had no late communication with him."
"Ask of the extraordinary mission suspending negotiation, &c.; when it is proven that it had been suspended from the 12th of April to the 20th of May!"
"The present reserve is unfavorable, but it may be accounted for, and on principles
which are quite natural and therefore presumable. He may have experienced more difficulties in the cabinet than he had expected. Many of the members may be disposed to an arrangement on such terms as can be accepted, and most of them willing to postpone any decision, until the result of the proceedings in Congress is known."
"Then in his letter of the 9th of June Mr. Monroe writes word that accounts were received on the 31st May, that the President and Senate had adopted the measure of a special mission. The negotiation had previously been suspended by the impossibility of producing a consensual disposition in the ministry with whom Mr. Fox was associated, and by whom he was overruled. I must therefore conclude that the charge is equally incorrect in relation to the failure of the negotiation, as I have proved it to be futile as to the hostile tread of our territory; that neither the consequences ascribed to the one or the other were at all attributable to our government, but to a persevering disposition of a part of the British nation, not to permit our rights to be exercised or acknowledged on the high road of nations."
Sir, the effect of these decrees and measures, which I have noticed in the course of my observations, has been to sweep our commerce from the ocean and even from the sea shore, (because there the commerce of the United States has been attacked)—or if permitted to be carried on, it is only on conditions, which every man in this House, every American must spurn with indignation. What! shall we pay tribute for permission to sail on the ocean? The idea is too preposterous to be combated. Montgomery, Mercer and Warren, and a host of worthies, who bled for the attainment of our independence, died in vain; Washington and his companions who at the expence of toil and blood shed in the field, aided by our Solomons in the cabinet, established our independence, fought to little purpose, if, after the lapse of a short period of thirty years, we can consent to pay tribute for the liberty of exercising an undeniable right. But I have as yet considered these measures, these encroachments of the belligerents only with reference to their effects on ourselves. I will now consider them with reference to violations of neutral right affecting each other.
First, let us consider the measures of Great Britain. The impressments of our seamen, a topic on which I can never think with coolness or without sensations which confound my judgment, are not to be considered injurious only in reference to us. They have been injurious to the enemies of Great Britain, because they have tended to maintain the naval superiority of that nation which has kept all the powers of Europe in check, and dictated maritime law to all nations; and would have been just ground of complaint by France against us if we had acquiesced in them. The vexation of the colonial trade—what is it!—I have merely glanced at it, because I was aware that if I extended my remarks I should have destroyed the patience which I fear I have already almost exhausted. The colonial trade was one which enabled the enemies of Great Britain to subsist, and conversed the produce of the enemy's colony to the mother country. France would then have had great right to complain if we had acquiesced in the destruction of this trade, because France recognised its legality in the war which gave rise to the celebrated rule of '56. A vessel during that war was captured by a British cruiser, recaptured by the French, and brought into port, the captors claiming salvage. The vessel and cargo were discharged by the French courts, which decreed the salvage was not due, because the capture was illegal, and the admiralty court of G. Britain would have released the vessel and cargo. Surely then they would have cause to complain if we had acquiesced in that infraction of our commercial rights. On the subject of blockades, if we had submitted, France might have complained with much greater right. The government of G. Britain has declared whole continents in a state of blockade; to use the diplomatic language of their orders they tell us that "they must be considered as in a state of rigid blockade," although perhaps the notification was made without a vessel to annoy the entrance of the ports and under a total impossibility of annoying it within the limits marked out. The law restricting our commerce with unblockaded ports was also a violation of the law of nations. In the case of the Cambrian, the commander of which vessel has to be sure been punished by his government with promotion, there was also cause of complaint if acquiesced in, because it is actually prohibited by the law of nations that a belligerent shall increase his force within the territory of a neutral state. The order of January, 1807, restricting the trade from one port to another of a belligerent power, was also injurious to France, and of which she would have had good cause of complaint against the U. S. if we had acquiesced in it. All these are
so many violations of neutral rights and national law injurious to France, and all but the last preceded the Berlin decree, and the last was before the operation of it.
(Continued on second page.)
BY AUTHORITY.
An act for renting the Wharves at the end of Twelfth and Seventeenth streets west and for other purposes.
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the First and Second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That the Mayor be and he hereby is authorised and directed to rent the wharves at the end of Twelfth and Seventeenth streets west on the Tyber Creek, by the year, for such rent as he may think just for the use of the Corporation.
Sec. 2. Be it enacted, That any amount for repairs that the Mayor may think just for said wharves shall be allowed out of the rent, and the surplus, (if any) shall be paid to the Treasurer of the city.
Sec. 3. Be it enacted, That until the Tyber Creek shall be so cleared as to admit vessels and boats to pass and repass without obstruction, the following rates of wharfage shall be received for landing or shipping:—
CENTS. For wood or bark per cord 10 Plank per M. 20 Scantling per M. 25 Shingles 18 in. long per M. 10 Do. 2 feet & upwards per M. 15 Laths per M. 6 Palings per M. 12 Stone per perch 9 Sand per barrel 1-2 Bricks per M. 12 House frames per story 30 Posts (cedar or locust) per 100 40 All kinds of grain, meal or bran per 100 bush. 20 Barrels each 3 Hay per ton 25 Hogsheads and crates each 6 Kegs and boxes, candles and soap each 3 Line per barl. 6 Dockage—vessels laying at the wharf longer than twenty-four hours shall be charged per day 25
None of the articles herein enumerated or that may be brought to are to lay on the above wharfs more than forty-eight hours without paying for every twenty-four hours the same price as for the former forty-eight hours and so in proportion for any shorter time. For all articles not herein enumerated, to pay in proportion as above. And any goods or articles being left on said wharves longer than six days, may be removed at the expence and risque of the owner.
Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That any person charging, or receiving more wharfage than is fixed by the third section of this act, shall forfeit and pay the sum of five dollars.
Sec. 5. And be it enacted, That the sum agreed to be expended in repairs on the said wharfs shall be laid out under the direction of two commissioners to be appointed by the Mayor.
CH: W. GOLDSBOROUGH.
President 1st Chamber.
E. B. CALDWELL.
President 2d Chamber.
Approved, Dec. 3, 1808.
ROBERT BRENT, Mayor.
AN ACT
To repeal an act laying a tax on Slaves the property of non-residents.
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the first and second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That so much of the act passed the twenty-fifth of May, one thousand eight hundred and eight, entitled "an act laying a tax on slaves, the property of non-residents as imposes a tax on female slaves employed within the city be and the same is hereby repealed.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one dollar tax be laid on female slaves between the age of fifteen and forty five years of age the property of non-residents.
CH: W. GOLDSBOROUGH.
President 1st Chamber.
E. B. CALDWELL.
President 2d Chamber.
Approved, Dec. 3, 1808.
ROBERT BRENT, Mayor.
PROPOSALS for carrying Mails of the United States, on the following post roads, will be received at the General Post Office in Washington, until the 16th day of January next inclusive.
1. IN Delaware—From Wilmington by Newcastle, St. George's Creek, Cantwell's Bridge, Duck Creek, Dover, Frederica and Milford to Georgetown three times a week. April 15 to November 15.
Leave Wilmington every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 11 A. M. arrive at Dover by 9 P. M. Leave Dover every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Georgetown by 7 P. M. Leave Georgetown every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 A. M. arrive at Dover by 8 P. M. Leave Dover on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 A. M. and arrive at Wilmington by 7 P. M.
November 15 to April 15—Leave Wilmington every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 A. M. arrive at Dover by 8 P. M. and at Milford on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 10 A. M. and at Georgetown by 6 P. M. Return. Leave Georgetown every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 A. M. and Milford at 2 P. M. Arrive at Dover by 8 P. M. and at Wilmington on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays by 6 P. M.
2. From Georgetown and Broadkill to Lewistown once a week. Leave Georgetown every Sunday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Lewistown by 10 A. M. Return. Leave Lewistown every Sunday at 2 P. M. and arrive at Georgetown by 8 P. M.
3. From Georgetown by Bridge Branch, N. W. Fork bridge and New Market to Cambridge once a week. Leave Georgetown every Monday at 6 A. M. and arrive at Cambridge on Tuesday by 11 A. M. Leave Cambridge at 1 p. m. and arrive at Georgetown on Wednesday by 7 p. m.
4. From Georgetown by Concord to Laurel, once a week. Leave Georgetown every Saturday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Laurel by 8 p. m. and arrive at Salisbury by 6 p. m. Leave Laurel every Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Georgetown by 11 a. m.
5. From Georgetown by Dagsboro', Trap, Snowhill, Horntown and Accomac c. h. to Northampton, c. h., once a week. Leave Georgetown, every Sunday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Northampton c. h. the next Wednesday by 10 a. m. Leave Northampton c. h. every Wednesday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Georgetown on Saturday by 8 p. m.
6. From Wilmington by Christiana, Middletown, Warwick, Sassafas and Georgetown Cross Roads to Chestertown, three times a week. Leave Wilmington every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Chestertown by 8 p. m. Leave Chestertown every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Wilmington by 8 p. m.
In Maryland—7. From Easton by Hillsboro', Denton, Greensboro' and Whiteley to Frederica, once a week. Leave Easton every Tuesday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Frederica on Wednesday by 11 a. m. Leave Frederica every Wednesday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Easton on Thursday by 6 p. m.
8. From Chestertown by Rockhill, to Annapolis twice a week. Leave Chestertown every Monday and Friday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Annapolis by 8 p. m. Leave Annapolis every Tuesday and Saturday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Chestertown by 8 p. m.
9. From Chestertown by Churchhill and Centerville to Easton, twice a week. Leave Chestertown every Monday and Friday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Centerville by 10 a. m. and at Easton by 5 p. m. Return. Leave Easton every Tuesday and Saturday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Chestertown by 6 p. m.
10. From Baltimore by Ellicott's Lower mills, Poplarstown and New Market to Fredericktown, three times a week. Leave Fredericktown every Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Baltimore by 4 p. m. Return. Leave Baltimore Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Fredericktown by 6 p. m.
11. From Fredericktown by Middletown, Hagerstown, and Greencastle to Chambersburg, three times a week. Leave Fredericktown every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a. m. and at Chambersburg by 8 p. m. Return. Leave Chambersburg every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Fredericktown by 8 p. m.
12. From Fredericktown by Woodboro', Taneytown, Petersville, Hanover, York and Columbia to Lancaster, twice a week. Leave Fredericktown every Tuesday and Saturday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Lancaster the next days by 6 p. m. Leave Lancaster every Sunday and Thursday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Fredericktown by 6 p. m. the next days.
13. From Hagerstown by Hancock, Berkeley Springs, Oldtown, Cumberland, Cressap'sburg, Frankfort, and Springfield to Romney, once a week. Leave Hagerstown every Thursday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Romney on Sunday by 6 p. m. Leave Romney every Monday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Hagerstown on Thursday by 10 a. m.
14. From Baltimore by Ellicott's lower mills, Brookville, Montgomery c. h. and Charlesburg to Leesburg, once a week. Leave Baltimore every Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Leesburg on Saturday by 6 p. m. Leave Leesburg every Thursday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Baltimore on Friday by 10 a. m.
15. From Fredericktown to Leesburg once a week. Leave Leesburg every Tuesday at 3 a. m. and arrive at Fredericktown by 11 a. m. Return. Leave Fredericktown every Tuesday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Leesburg by 8 p. m.
16. From Fredericktown by Newtown, Trap, Harper's Ferry, Charlesstown and Battletown to Winchester, once a week. Leave Fredericktown every Monday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Charlesstown by 2 p. m. Leave Charlesstown at 3 p. m. and arrive at Winchester on Tuesday by 8 a. m. Return. Leave Winchester every Saturday at 4 p. m. and arrive at Fredericktown on Sunday by 6 p. m.
17. From Hartford to Bel-Air once a week. Leave Bel-Air every Tuesday by 7 a. m. and arrive at Hartford by 9 a. m. Leave Hartford at 11 a. m. and arrive at Bel-Air by 1 p. m.
18. From Baltimore to Annapolis, twice a week. Leave Baltimore every Monday and Friday at 8 a. m. and arrive at Annapolis same days by 5 p. m. Return. Leave Annapolis every Tuesday and Saturday at 8 a. m. and arrive at Baltimore by 5 p. m.
19. From Annapolis by Queen Anne's, Pig Point, Tracy's Landing, Friendslip, Lower Marlboro', Huntingdon and Calvert c. h. to St. Leonard's, once a week. Leave Annapolis every Saturday at 6 a. m. and arrive at St. Leonard's on Monday by noon. Leave St. Leonard's every Monday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Annapolis on Friday by 3 p. m.
20. From Annapolis by Haddaway's, St. Michael's, Easton, Cambridge, Vienna, Salisbury, Quantico, Princess Ann and Snowhill to Salisbury, once a week. Leave Annapolis every Saturday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Easton by 7 p. m. Leave Easton on Sunday by 6 a. m. arrive at Cambridge by noon, and arrive at Snowhill on Tuesday by 1 p. m. Return. Leave Snowhill every Tuesday at 2 p. m. arrive at Easton on Thursday by 10 a. m. Leave Easton at 2 p. m. and arrive at Annapolis on Friday by 8 p. m.
21. From Washington to Brookville, once a week. Leave Washington every Wednesday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Brookville by 11 a. m. Leave Brookville every Wednesday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Washington by 8 p. m.
22. From Washington city by Georgetown, Montgomery c. h. and Charlesburg to Fredericktown, three times a week. Leave Washington city every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 8 a. m. and arrive at Fredericktown same days by 7 p. m. Leave Fredericktown every Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Washington city same days by 4 p. m.
23. From Washington city, by Piscataway, Port Tobacco, Allens Fresh, Newport, Chaptico, Leonardtown, Great Mill and St. Inigoes, to the Ridge. Leave Washington every Friday at 3 p. m. and arrive at Port Tobacco by 2 p. m. on Saturday and arrive at the Ridge, on Sunday by 7 p. m. Return. Leave the Ridge on Monday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Washington on Wednesday morning by 5 o'clock.
25. From Washington city by Upper Marlboro' and Queen Anne's to Annapolis, twice a week. Leave Washington every Monday and Friday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Annapolis by 6 p. m. Leave Annapolis every Tuesday and Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Washington by 4 p. m.
26. From Upper Marlboro' by Nottingham, Aquasco, Benedict and Charlotte Hall to Chaptico, once a week. Leave Upper Marlboro' every Friday noon, and arrive at Chaptico on Saturday by 3 p. m. Leave Chaptico every Saturday at 4 p. m. and arrive at Upper Marlboro' on Monday by noon.
In Virginia—27. From Martinsburg by Williamsport to Hagerstown, once a week. Leave Martinsburg every Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Hagerstown by 10 a. m. Leave Hagerstown at 2 p. m. and arrive at Martinsburg by 7 p. m.
28. From Winchester by Stevensburg or Newtown, Strasburg, Woodstock, Newmarket and Harrisonburg to Staunton, once a week. Leave Winchester every Tuesday at 10 a. m. and arrive at Staunton on Thursday by 11 a. m. Leave Staunton every Thursday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Winchester on Saturday by 3 p. m.
29. From Washington city by Prospect Hill, Laneyville, Leesburg, Waterford, Hillsboro', Charleson, Shepherdstown, Martinsburg and Middleway to Winchester, once a week. Leave Washington city every Tuesday at 7 a. m. and arrive at Martinsburg on Wednesday by 5 p. m. Leave Martinsburg at 6 p. m. and arrive at Winchester on Thursday by 4 p. m. Return. Leave Winchester every Friday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Washington city on Sunday by 2 p. m.
30. From Washington city by Fairfax c. h., Centerville, Middleway, Goshen, Millwood, Paris, Winchester, Romney, Waterport, Green Glades, and Gaudys, to Clarkburg, twice a week. Leave Washington every Monday and Friday at 3 p. m. and arrive at Fairfax c. h. by 6 p. m. Leave Fairfax c. h. at 6 1/2 p. m. and arrive at Clarkburg on Thursday and Monday by 8 p. m. Return. Leave Clarkburg every Tuesday and Friday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Fairfax c. h. on Friday and Monday by 5 1/2 a. m. and at Washington by 3 a. m.
31. From Clarkburg by Marsh's, Marietta, Athens, Chillicothe, Willis & Roads, New Market, Williamsburg and Columbia to Cincinnati, twice a week. Leave Clarkburg every Tuesday and Friday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Cincinnati on Friday and Monday by 10 a. m. Return. Leave Cincinnati every Monday and Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Clarkburg the next Thursday and Monday by 7 p. m.
32. From Romney, by Moorfields to Pendleton c. h. once a week. Leave Romney every Monday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Pendleton c. h. on Tuesday by 4 p. m. Return. Leave Pendleton c. h. on Wednesday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Romney on Thursday by 6 p. m.
33. From Marietta by Be Pre to Wood c. h. once a week. Leave Marietta every Thursday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Wood c. h. by 10 a. m. Leave Wood c. h. at 2 p. m. and arrive at Marietta by 6 p. m.
34. From Clarkburg by Buchanan & Randolph c. h. to Pendleton c. h. once in two weeks. Leave Clarkburg every other Tuesday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Pendleton c. h. the next Friday by 10 a. m. Leave Pendleton c. h. every other Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Clarkburg the next Monday by 6 p. m.
35. From Fredericksburg by Falmouth, Elkton church, Fauquier c. h. Oakhill and Salem, or Ashle's store to Paris once a week. Leave Paris, every Saturday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Monday by 8 p. m. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Paris on Friday by 6 p. m.
36. From Alexandria by Fairfax c. h., Centreville, Hay-market, Buckland, Warrenton, Jeffersonson, Culpepper c. h., Burtonsville, & Madison c. h. to Stauntonville once a week. Leave Alexandria every Friday at 2 p. m. arrive at Fairfax c. h. by 6 p. m. and arrive at Stauntonville on Monday by 5 p. m. Leave Stauntonville every Tuesday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Alexandria, on Friday by 10 a. m.
37. From Fredericksburg, by Germania, Stevensburg, Culpepper c. h., Gain's Cross Roads, & Front Royal to Winchester once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Winchester on Monday at 6 a. m. Return. Leave Winchester every Monday at noon, and arrive at Fredericksburg on Wednesday by 6 p. m.
38. From Culpepper c. h., by Woodville, T. Village, Washington, Pass Mills, Thompson's Gap, Mundell's Store, & Hawley's Mill mills, to Newmarket once a week. Leave Culpepper c. h. every Monday at 6 a. m. and arrive at New Market on Tuesday by 10 a. m. Leave New Market at 2 p. m. and arrive at Culpepper on Wednesday by 6 p. m.
39. From Fredericksburg, by Thornesburg, Roger's Mills, Chilesburg, Chesterfield, c. h., Newfound mills, Oxford, Crew's store, Goodland c. h., Mitchell's, Yanceyville, Price's mills, Cutskoville, Louisiana, c. h., Pottsville, Bibb's store & Spottsylvania c. h. to 1-dericksburg, once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Tuesday at noon, arrive at Goodland c. h. on Thursday by 11 a. m. and at Fredericksburg the next Tuesday by 9 a. m.
40. From Fredericksburg, by Port Royal, Pittsville, Layton's, Lloyd's, Tappahannock, Urbanna, Gleens, & Gloucester c. h. to Yorktown once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Yorktown, on Saturday by 6 p. m. Leave Yorktown every Sunday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Wednesday by 10 a. m.
41. From Fredericksburg, by King George, c. h., Broadfield, Mattax Bridge, Leesburg, Templeman's Cross Roads, Richmond c. h., Mount Airy, Farnham, Kinsale, Northumberland c. h. and Lancaster c. h. to Kilmarnock once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 3 p. m. and arrive at Kilmarnock, the next Saturday by 3 p. m. Return. Leave Kilmarnock every Sunday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Fredericksburg the next Wednesday by 10 a. m.
42. From Tappahannock to Richmond c. h. once a week. Leave Richmond c. h. every Thursday at noon & arrive at Tappahannock by 6 p. m. Return. Leave Tappahannock on Thursday at 6 1/2 p. m. and arrive at Richmond c. h. on Friday by 9 a. m.
43. From Bowling Green, by Butler'sville, Broadus's mill, Harrisonville, Newtown, Dunkirk, Walkerton, King William c. h., Lilly Point, & Cumberland, to New Kent c. h. once a week. Leave Bowling Green every Tuesday at 6 a. m. & arrive at New Kent c. h. on Wednesday by 10 a. m. Return. Leave New Kent c. h. every Wednesday at 2 p. m. & arrive at Bowling Green on Thursday by 8 p. m.
44. From Richmond by Hanovertown, Aylett's and Dunkirk, to Tappahannock once a week. Leave Richmond every Wednesday at 1 p. m. arrive at Dunkirk on Thursday by 3 a. m. Leave Dunkirk at 9 a. m. and arrive at Tappahannock by 1 p. m. Return. Leave Tappahannock every Sunday at 6 a. m. & arrive at Richmond on Monday by noon.
(To be continued.)