The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1809-06-05 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER
Vol. IX.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. 1350
THREE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1809.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
The National Intelligencer is conducted by SAMUEL H. SMITH, and JOSEPH GALES, Jr., and printed at the office of the former, to whom subscribers and correspondents are requested to address themselves.
The annual price, payable in advance, is Five Dollars.
Advertisements, not exceeding one square in breadth, are inserted the first time at fifty cents, and for every subsequent insertion twenty-five cents. If inserted less than three times a dollar is charged. If inserted more than a week, an addition of one fourth per line is made. Other advertisements charged in the same ratio.
District of Columbia, Washington County, ss.
ON the petition of JOHN STEPHEN, an insolvent debtor, confined in the prison of Washington county aforesaid for debt—Notice is hereby given to the creditors of the said John Stephen, that on the 10th day of June next, at the hour of 9 o'clock A. M. at the court room in Long's Tavern, in the city of Washington, the oath prescribed by the act of Congress, entitled "An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia," will be administered to the said John Stephen, and a trustee appointed, unless sufficient cause be then and there shown to the contrary.
Ordered, That this notice be published in the National Intelligencer, the Washington Federalist and the Alexandria Advertiser three times in each paper before that day.
By order of the hon. Wm. Cranch, chief judge of the circuit court of the District of Columbia.
Wm. BRENT, Clerk.
June 5—3t.
ROBERT ELLIS.
Near the Navy Yard Gate, respectfully informs the public that he has commenced the profession of CONVEYANCER in all its branches, where every kind of instrument of writing is prepared with neatness, correctness, and on moderate terms—settles and adjusts books—draws out accounts, etc. He begs leave to observe, that for the last eleven years and upwards, he was first book-keeper in the office of the Accountant, Department of War.
For sale at the above place.
A general assortment of wines and spirituous liquors, with almost every article in the Grocery line.
June 5—3t.
A RUNAWAY.
COMMITTED to my custody as a runaway on the 4th day of March last a Negro man who calls himself DICK, about 5 feet 7 or 8 inches high, well made, black complexion—had on when committed a country cloth jacket and trousers, yellowish color kersey wore, says he formerly belonged to a certain John Watson of Charles County by whom he was sold to a negro trader from the state of Georgia, and from whom he made his escape at the winter of 1808, and whose name he does not remember. His owner is desired to prove his property, pay charges, and take him away, or he will be sold as the law directs.
NOTLEY MADDOX, Sheriff of Prince George's County, Md. June 5—3t.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, May 26.
DEBATE.
On Mr. Randolph's motion for approving the late conduct of the President of the U. States.—Continued.
MR. HOLLAND said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and as he had entertained no doubt but the President would on this and every other occasion do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on the occasion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts which he trusted would be as they had heretofore been performed by the Executive. Were he, the author of the proposition, he should have felt many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation. The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such a motion. I (said Mr. H.) would be one of the last to introduce such a motion were I a friend to the President; and if I were not a friend to the President, I would not bring it forward lest it should be thought that I was counting favor in his eyes. But why, sir, should this House give an expression of approbation of the President? Because, we are told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. Let this House be careful how it acts, and attend to its own duties. The President does not stand in need of this kind of support. I never will step forward, as a member of this House, to excite him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I believe he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient to induce him to perform it. I believe that the voice of the people of the United States is such in relation to the present and late President, that they believe they were well disposed
to do their duty, & that they have done their duty; but it does not follow that we ought to express our approbation as to any particular act. The gentleman himself says that the President has only done his duty. Is it not surprising, then, that we are called upon to give him the approbation of this House? What would be inferred from this procedure? Why, that it is so seldom our Presidents have done their duty, that in the very first instance in which they have done it, the House of Representatives had discovered and applauded it. If the gentleman thinks so, I wholly disagree with him. If our officers do their duty properly, they will receive the thanks of the nation—and where is the propriety of singling out for approbation or disapprobation this particular act? I see none. It is asked will you leave the President of the United States to grope in the dark and not let him know whether he has received our approbation or not. And is the President to judge from the thanks of the House that he has done his duty?—How is he to know that they have expressed their sense of his conduct from proper motives? Would he not be right to suspect those who vote for and more especially those who bring forward such a proposition, of improper motives? He would be left still worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite postponement.
MR. J. G. JACKSON observed that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Virginia was, that the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the government of Great Britain, towards a restoration of harmony and a free commercial intercourse between the two nations, received the approbation of this House; and that the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts declared that it furnished an additional proof of the part of the government of the United States, which has at no time been intermitted. I do not hesitate to declare my firm conviction (said Mr. J.) that the propositions contained in the motion and amendment are true; that, if it be necessary or proper for this House as a part of their duty to express an opinion on them, they ought to be adopted. If a direct vote must be taken, I shall be in the affirmative; but notwithstanding my belief that the facts alleged are irrefragable, I am opposed to a deviation from what I conceive to be the duty, and becoming the dignity of this House, by expressing them. It is true, sir, that the assertion contained in the amendment has been denied in some of the partisan newspapers of this country; but hitherto I had understood and believed that it was, as far as respected the opinions of members on this floor, unquestionable; and it is not without some surprise that I have just heard the gentleman from Virginia denying it in the most unequivocal manner.—It is not because I fear the result of a vote on the amendment that I am unwilling to have it taken: my objections are of a different character—I think the House have nobler duties to perform than passing abstract resolutions, out of which no legislative act is contemplated, merely for the purpose of pouring the oil of adulation upon the head of the chief magistrate; and, according to my conception, the gentleman from Virginia has made an attack on the principles he professes, and upon the independence of this House, which will, as a precedent, be productive of lasting injury. If the course he proposes be a correct one, and we are to pass votes of approbation upon all the leading measures of the Executive, who among us, that may happen hereafter to disapprove any, will venture to oppose, without endangering his standing with the people? I take a wide distinction between the propriety of approving, and the right of condemning. If the President, or any other high officer of the government, violate his duty, it becomes ours to animadvert upon his conduct; but we ought to leave to the people, whose province it is, and who are competent to judge for themselves, whose discernment is not to be eluded by our votes, approbatory of a bad measure, or condemnatory of a good one, that decision which they have already pronounced in a style as emphatic as it is audible.—And what good I pray you can result from this resolution? Those
who had always denied that the administration possess any patriotism or virtue, will, to be consistent, find it necessary to oppose votes of this kind, and instead of doing the ordinary business of legislation, we shall employ our whole time in discussing propositions capable of doing no good, likely to produce much evil.—But we are already met with a charge that we condemn the accommodation, and are afraid to meet the question. I repeat, sir, I am not inimical to it, for I am highly pleased—and the friends of administration derive a triumph from it—that the spirit of accommodation, which has at no time been intermitted on the part of our government, was met at last by a correspondent disposition on the part of Great Britain.
I did not expect, sir, admitting gentlemen were of opinion that there has not been a spirit of accommodation displayed on the part of the government at all times, and that they have even acted with duplicity—that we were now to enter into an examination of the measures of this country for five or six years past, and it will be with much reluctance that I shall follow the gentleman by touching, however lightly, on the various topics discussed in the wide range that he has taken.—Nor did I expect from that gentleman an eulogium on the non-intercourse law, which he pronounced, only three months ago, to be fraught with much evil, and which to day he affirms, by placing the two belligerents on an equal footing, was the cause of the rescission of the orders in council, inasmuch as it admitted the British government to treat without inflicting a wound on their pride.—It is asserted by the gentleman that the recent arrangement is entered into by Great Britain on very different terms from those offered last summer thro' our minister at London—because, 1st, the non-importation law is now repealed—and 2dly, that having prohibited British ships alone by the proclamation of the President from entering our ports, it was highly offensive to Great Britain, and we have done away the discrimination which existed between them and French vessels. I contend, sir, that the gentleman is in two positions, and that the offer made to Great Britain, and rejected, was not worse, but better, as regards her pride or interest, than that now accepted; and the offer of Mr. Pinkney, by order of the President, was of itself a strong proof of the spirit of accommodation which has been evinced by the government. In the offer made to Mr. Canning, the American government proposed to suspend the embargo so far as related to Great Britain, on a revocation of the orders in council merely as respected us—to renew our trade with them, and prohibit it with France.—It was not only contemptuously rejected, but Mr. Canning declared that the formal abandonment (a tacit relinquishment of them was not sufficient, but a formal abandonment) by France of her decrees was an indispensable prerequisite to a repeal of the British orders in council.
There is no mention made of the French decrees or of our non-intercourse with France in the late correspondence, and his Britannic majesty withdraws his orders of January and November merely on condition that we will renew the intercourse with Great Britain. The indispensable prerequisite is forgotten, all mention of France is pre-termitted, & in that view the late accommodation has given up more than we asked in September last. How then can the gentleman insist that the terms on which the late adjustment was made are more favorable to Great Britain than those rejected last summer? He relies, however, upon the repeal of the non-importation law, and the merger of the proclamation issued in consequence of the affair of the Chesapeake; in the general prohibition of British and French ships of war as materially changing the state of our relations with Great Britain, and by placing her on a footing of equality with France, has given an opportunity to propose terms. Sir, I did not suppose that the affair of the Chesapeake, and the proclamation which grew out of it, would have been introduced here as a proof of the want of a spirit of accommodation on our part. Am I mistaken in supposing that the gentleman himself did on this floor condemn the President for not calling Congress together sooner to take higher ground, under the idea that the proclamation was a weak measure? (Mr. Randolph stated he had never said so.) Sir, it seems I am mistaken in ascribing such a declaration to the gentleman. I ask you, sir, if the indignation of the people could without difficulty be ap-
peased with the measure such as it was, and whether it would have been consistent with that honorable feeling to have revoked it for the purpose of preventing a tax on our exports imposed by the orders in council? Let it be recollected, sir, that the affair of the Chesapeake was treated of distinct from all others, and never blended with any other, except that which it was necessarily connected, viz: a provision against impressment from on board of vessels sailing under the American flag, and that connection was disregarded in compliance with the wish of G. B.
The equality in the restrictions imposed by us grew out of posterior acts of the French government,—France had not invaded our national jurisdiction, had not murdered Pierce, or taken the Chesapeake; even admitting her other attacks were equally flagitious with those of Great Britain—and the only discrimination made as consequent on those injuries, was the partial non-importation law, and the prohibition to enter our waters with their armed vessels—afterwards when France to the extent of her power attacked our rights, we prohibited the vessels of both nations and their manufactures from entering our harbors; and how an exclusion of all articles and all vessels by law, was a more favorable state of things to G. Britain than the partial exclusion of either, at a time when the few French that ventured upon the ocean and escaped capture were admitted, it remains for that gentleman (Mr. Randolph) to demonstrate. In the very sentence wherein the gentleman approves of the conduct of government he tells us G. B. has conceded nothing. We have obtained an important concession inasmuch as reparation is made for the attack on the Chesapeake, and Mr. Erskine was instructed to offer an abandonment of the orders in council without a repeal of her decrees by France or a promise to refuse trading with her; but merely on a renewal of intercourse with G. Britain; which I repeat it, is obtaining better terms than we offered to accept. Then we were told that unless the French decrees were formally rescinded the orders would be adhered to. Now the British orders are abandoned whilst the French decrees are unrevoked.
Mr. Monroe's treaty is drawn into discussion, and the gentleman says that the objection to it, was because there was no provision against impressing seamen; and we nevertheless come to an accommodation now without any such provision. Does the gentleman recollect, that when the affair of the Chesapeake took place all negotiation had been suspended for some time, and except in relation to it and the orders in council has never been renewed? The affair of the Chesapeake was a barrier to all other negotiation: it was impossible at a time when the blood of our citizens was crying for vengeance, and the survivors were confined in slavery worse than death, it was impossible to sit down coolly and calculate how far the East India or colonial trade could be given up by us. Nothing could be done in relation to minor points of difference, when higher paramount concerns pressed upon us. But does it follow, sir, because these points are not now settled, that the seamen are to be abandoned, that the West India trade is to be given up? That all points of collision are to be considered as conceded? The negotiators have wisely deferred the subject, for we are informed that a minister with ample powers will be sent here to negotiate a treaty, and we ought to suspend our opinions until it is concluded.—The gentleman says another objection to the treaty was on account of the British note, that it was opposed because it tended to bring us in collision with France, and now we have done what it required of us. Sir, there were various objections to that note; one was that Great Britain attempted to bury us into the course she wished us to pursue, to compel us to give "security to his majesty" that we would not submit to the attack made by France on our rights.—Now although we did not, and would not submit, we could not tolerate such arrogance in Great Britain.
The note, however, says the gentleman, was no part of the treaty. It was certainly communicated by the British government as forming an indispensable condition of it; and the British commissioners in the correspondence with Mr. Canning, which I read to the House at the last session, stated expressly that the treaty was a perfect instrument, no reservation was annexed to it except the note to
question, which maintained the right to chastise us in case we did not resist France; and Mr. Canning repeated the reservation to our ministers. The gentleman has gone on to say that Mr. Monroe could have received no sanction for the attack on the Chesapeake if his instructions concerning seamen which were blended with it had permitted him. On this point I have the correspondence before me which must satisfy the gentleman that he is wrong. As soon as the attack on the Chesapeake was known, the President issued his proclamation, and on receiving it, Mr. Canning wrote a letter to Mr. Monroe, in which he says:—
"Before I proceed to observe that part of it which relates immediately to the question now pending between our two governments, allow me to observe, that in the first instance, to express the surprise which I felt at the total omission of a subject upon which, I had already been commanded to apply to you for information, the proclamation purported to have been issued by the President of the United States. Of this paper, which I addressed to you upon its appearance, I have no knowledge beyond what the ordinary character of public information afforded, and authority to declare it to be null and void."
"I feel it an indispensable duty to renew my enquiry on this subject. The answer which I may receive from you is by no means unimportant to the settlement of the discussion which has arisen from the occurrence of the Leopard and the Chesapeake."
And he goes on to use the language of striking irony in regard to the existence of the proclamation. And I ask again, sir, would the question have been reconciled to the spirit of the President if he had neglected to breathe forth his spirit, feebly as it was done, in the forbidding British armed vessels the use of our waters whilst the men (except the one whom they hung in Halifax) were retained in bondage, and the outrage had the sanction of a high officer of the British government, which induced the belief that it was with its authority that the act was committed could the proclamation have been rescinded or a less friendly measure have been resorted to?
The gentleman says the orders in council were made inoperative by our measures, and to give them up was in fact to yield nothing; that they were to prevent our trade to France, and we have prevented it ourselves, and therefore Great Britain conceded nothing on that point. It was not upon a trade to France alone that the orders operated, but upon all nations from whose ports the British flag was excluded, and even from some who never had made any such regulations; but independent of this, suppose France, without relaxing in her hostility towards Great Britain, admitted our vessels freely, although they had entered a British port, and been spoken by a British cruiser, and in consequence of such relaxation the trade with her was renewed; what then would have been the effect of the British orders? We should still be subjected to the payment of tribute. We are not now compelled to go first to Great Britain, pay tribute, and receive his majesty's licence to carry on our accustomed trade, therefore a repeal of the orders is a most important measure. Sir, in the wide range of debate the gentleman has repeated his old argument, that the orders in council were not known in this country when the embargo was laid. Afterwards he qualified it by saying they were not known in the cabinet at the time the President recommended the embargo. If, sir, the Executive knew nothing of them it is surprising, because the purport of them had been published in the National Intelligencer in this city, and in two or three papers printed in New York and Philadelphia, which were received here previous to the message of the President. They even stated the date at which his Britannic majesty's signature would be affixed to the orders, and gave a minute of the purport of them. The President in his message not only referred to the papers then enclosed, but "the great and increasing dangers" to which our commerce was exposed, thereby alluding to what had come to his knowledge through the medium of the newspapers, as understood to have been determined on by the British government, but not known so formally as to authorise expression of it.
Sir, the people of the United States are enlightened and intelligent, they do not wait for the French to inform them of an examination into the question of great national questions, and our vote of approbation or disapprobation will never check or tell them.

rit of enquiry—they have already approved the act of the President, and whether they have or not, it is improper for us to enter into abstract resolutions, regardless of our legislative duties, and thereby establish a precedent alike dangerous, and invasive of our independence.
Mr. J. concluded his observations by remarking that he could not conjecture what the dangerous doctrine said to have been advanced by him yesterday, had to do with the question. He controverted the opinion of Mr. R. however in relation to the doctrine of federal judicial power as conferred by the constitution, and made some remarks on the subject of state and federal rights.
Mr. FINDLAY said if he was not mistaken the motion now before the House was for postponing indefinitely the resolution submitted by the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph). I will vote, sir, (said Mr. F.) for the postponement, and for the same reasons that I opposed the novel resolution when it was first submitted for consideration to the House; but believing the impropriety of the resolution to be on the very first impression so evident as to require little explanation, it is probable that my objections were offered in so concise or so confused a manner as not to be well understood. Indeed they were the hasty result of the moment, excited by such a resolution as I believe no member of Congress ever offered before, and which there was no reason to expect on this occasion. I am opposed to it on correct legislative principles.
It is, sir, my opinion, that the resolution is wholly out of order, that it ought not to have been made, that it ought not, when offered, to have been considered or discussed by the House. This House is one branch of the legislature of the United States, it possesses no powers but what are transferred and specifically prescribed, they do not possess general powers on all cases not specially excepted, as the state legislatures do. In this I know the honorable mover from Virginia will agree with me. I then ask by what article or section of the constitution we are authorized to appropriate, discuss or censure the conduct of the Executive? But leaving the constitution for a moment as a dead letter, and resorting solely to the rules of the House, I ask by what rule are we authorized to decide on this resolution or for what purpose?
This House is one branch of the federal legislature, authorized to originate laws or to concur with such as may be originated by the senatorial branch; these laws may be passed in the form of bills or of legislative resolutions; but in either case they must be agreed to by both Houses and approved by the President. The House has indeed other incidental powers; they are judges of the elections and qualifications of their own members, and are authorized to punish or to expel a member. These powers are necessary towards carrying their legislative powers into effect, and therefore, even if they had not been expressly vested they were necessarily implied. They are also invested with the powers of impeaching public officers, and of sustaining the character of prosecutors before the Senate. These are all the powers I can find vested in this House by the constitution.
This resolution is not even professed to be the foundation of a law, or to have any effect as a rule of conduct for the citizens, nor to be for impeaching the President or any other public officer, nor does it relate to the proceedings of our own House or the conduct of our own members, therefore it is not it cannot be constitutionally before the House. The people of the United States have by the constitution vested this House with the power of disapproving the conduct of public officers by impeachment, and by that only, or of the measures recommended by the President, by rejecting them or treating them with neglect; this has probably been done by every Congress; but the people have reserved the right of addresses of approbation or censure in their own hands, and assuming it by this House would be an usurpation of powers, and a precedent for other usurpations.
Mr. SPEAKER, if I am mistaken in this, every Congress since the commencement of this government has been also mistaken. I am confident the honorable gentleman from Virginia cannot lay his hand on such a resolution in the journals of Congress. He has admitted on the floor, that in this case the President did his duty, but not more than his duty; that in so far as the law authorized discretion, as it certainly did with respect to time and manner, and the confidence to be placed in the declaration of the British minister, he has acted with propriety; he has also highly applauded on this floor the first four years administration of the late President; but he himself nor any other member, it is believed, never submitted a resolution to the House for a legislative approbation of his conduct, during even that four years of perfection; no such resolution was submitted or passed respecting the conduct of Washington, with
respect to the choice of whom there were no parties; no such resolution was submitted or passed with respect to Adams by the majority, who were the friends and supporters of his administration; in short, there is no example of the kind on the journals; therefore I am justified in calling this resolution a novelty.
But it may be asked, has this House no method within its power of approving of the Executive measures? It certainly has.
Let Congress, sir, pass laws to carry the measures of the Executive into effect, as to correspond with them. This and this only is a legislative expression of approbation, and the highest that can be given. Law is the only language of a legislature; it is the only language that can command obedience or respect. Any equal number of citizens met in a tavern, and there passing a resolution of approbation, would have equal force with such a resolution passed in this House, and would be more in character. For, admitting and discussing this resolution, the House is not acting in its legislative character, but as individual citizens, and in fact degrading the legislative character. They are acting without authority from the constitution or the rules of this House.
When this government commenced after the example of the British Parliament, the President made his communication to both Houses at the opening of a session, in a speech, to which the Houses prepared an answer, and frequently such an answer as anticipated the most prominent measures of the session, to which such amendments were generally moved and discussed, as brought forward all the party artillery and irritation which the House contained, before any progress was made in the proper business of the legislature. We have seen, sir, two weeks of the beginning of a session spent in this way, and party irritation excited to the greatest height, not only in but out of the House before legislation commenced. I confess I rejoiced when this method of corresponding with the Executive was changed.
In support of the resolution, however, the gentleman states, that there is a difference of opinion on this subject, both within and without this House, and to prove this has read part of a paragraph out of a newspaper, conducted by an influential military officer; but I confess so much of this as he read comes short of proving the truth of this, in my opinion. I have said when I was up before, and I repeat it again, that I know of no such difference of opinion, and since the measure was made public, I have conversed with many citizens of different counties and states, and read many newspapers. All I have conversed with agree that the President did his duty in exercising the authority vested in him by Congress on this occasion, and as far as I am acquainted, it is the general opinion that the late President equally discharged his duty with respect to the same subject; this is fully testified by the present President in the correspondence with the British minister. If this is true, as I certainly believe it is, he is equally entitled to a vote of approbation, as the present President. But the gentleman (Mr. R.) has exerted his ingenuity to prove that this is not true. Here is a difference of opinion, but not such as can have any effect on the measures now before Congress.
If we sanction this resolution by our vote, where will it end? In what instances shall we give a vote of approbation, or in what shall we withhold it? The gentleman knows well that by voting in the negative it will appear to be a vote of censure against what we really approve. It would be easy in the course of a session to promote 20 or 50 such votes. If we have a right to pass abstract votes of approbation, we have the same right to pass votes of censure, and to condemn unheard, by a hasty resolution of one House, and by so doing turn this House into a council of censors. Such Pennsylvania once had, in which I sat, but it had the power of censure only, and not of approbation; this the people kept in their own hands, and officially expressed it at their elections.
Is the gentleman (Mr. R.) really so fond of party contests as to urge this unprecedented resolution merely for curiosity to find some new source of party divisions. This will be fully put to the test on passing the laws on the subjects already referred to select committees, for carrying the measures communicated by the President into effect, on which I trust there will be little difference of opinion. I will vote for postponement; if not postponed, for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. The members will certainly take time to deliberate before they vote for such a useless and such a dangerous precedent; they will reflect that such resolutions as these are not warranted by the constitution, are not subject to the revision of the other branch, nor to that course of deliberation in this House that is necessary on passing laws. They will reflect that agreeing to the resolution can do no good, but that the example, if drawn into precedent, must do much harm. With respect to individual members they have abun-
dant opportunity of censuring or of approving in their debates on the floor, of which they frequently avail themselves with little restraint.
Monday, May 29. Mr. DANA protested against the indefinite postponement. Whatever he might think of the propriety of adopting the motion of the gentleman from Virginia, he was certainly against postponing it indefinitely. What would be the effect of such a course? That the subject could not be acted upon during the present session.
Why should a subject be postponed from one session to another? If it were premature to act upon it this session, it might be proper to dispose of it in this manner; but such reasoning could not apply to the motion in question. If it could be ever proper to adopt a measure of this kind, it must be peculiarly proper that it should be done at the present session of Congress.
There can be (said he) but one further reason why it should be postponed indefinitely; and that is, that we are against the proposition itself, and postponing it is a more delicate mode of rejection, than a vote meeting it directly. I do not wish to avoid the question. If my opinion be against the President of the United States, I have certainly nothing to fear from him so as to prevent me from expressing that opinion; if it be in favor of him, I have certainly nothing to hope for from him, so as to tempt me to express it improperly. In my place here, sir, I cannot for one moment admit, that the President, or any member of the cabinet, would suppose that I should be induced, by any such fear or hope, to vary in the least from the course which I deem proper in performance of the trust with which I am honored by the freemen who sent me here. Whether the present President be the person whom, in preference to all others, I would have wished to see placed in the presidential chair, it is not for me to express at this time. It is enough, that he is placed at the head of the nation according to the constitution; and in my place, as a public man, it becomes me to observe that decorum towards him which is due from the legislature to the executive magistrate.
On the general question respecting the propriety or expediency of passing the tribute of approbation to our officers on any occasion, I have listened with much attention to the objections; and it is very true, in my opinion, that in the ordinary course of public affairs it would be unworthy of the legislature to express approbation of the conduct of the Executive, especially in every instance in which he may be supposed to have acted correctly. If he has performed merely an ordinary duty at an ordinary time, it is needless to say anything about it; and yet I do not say that I would always refuse approbation when he has done his duty. Neither do I admit, if it be proper to express approbation at any time, that the converse is true, that we may express censure. As respects the conduct of gentlemen holding commissions in the army or navy, who have done their duty in a manner useful to their country, and creditable to themselves, or affording good examples to others, the legislature may express its approbation, when every gentleman composing it may reprobate an adulatory address.
The real question, therefore, as to the propriety or impropriety of adopting the resolution, is, whether there be any thing, either in the nature of the time, or in the character of the transaction, which renders it proper for the legislature to express an opinion on the subject? If it were but an ordinary time, and if the chief magistrate has only performed an ordinary executive duty with ordinary propriety, it must be admitted that there is nothing in this case worthy of being distinguished by the legislative approbation. Is there then any thing observable in the nature of the time? What was the state of things prior to this act of the Executive, both in relation to domestic and foreign concerns? What was it in relation to the constituted authorities of the country? Were not questions agitated of the most serious import? Were we not presenting to the world the afflictive spectacle of a nation rent by internal discord? Did it not seem as if the potent spell of some mighty enchanter had arrested our faculties of action? What has been the result of the recent arrangements? The reproaches of party, and the stigmatizing imputations of attachment to one or another foreign power, have been hushed; industry is revived; mutual gratulations have succeeded to the voice of reproach. The joy of hope succeeds to apprehension and anxiety throughout the nation. And all this is witnessed soon after the accession of a new chief magistrate to the head of affairs. Can there be named any one act of any chief magistrate of the United States, which has made a greater change than this?
The character of the transaction is not that of an ordinary performance of an ordinary executive trust. What, sir, are the powers which the President has undertaken to execute? One
is, the power in relation to the restoration of intercourse between this country and the British dominions. By statute, this intercourse was interdicted. The President was authorized by the same statute to declare the renewal of intercourse on certain conditions: He was thus authorized to suspended the operation of an act of Congress. Has he then exercised this dispensing power according to the conditions limited in the act? This being the nature of the transaction, there seems to be a propriety in the legislature's expressing an opinion, because in the execution of his duty his act was to have a legislative effect.
By the section of the non-intercourse act under which the President issued his late proclamation, "in case either France or G. Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the lawful commerce of the U. S." the President of the U. S. is authorized "to declare the same by proclamation; after which the trade of the U. S. may be renewed with the nation so doing." On this phraseology arises the question—Was the President authorized to proclaim the existence of a fact after its taking place, or was he to predict that a fact would exist? Was he to declare an actual revocation of the orders in council, or to predict that they would be revoked? Look at the section, sir! Authority was given to the President of the U. S. to declare the fact by proclamation, in case Britain or France should revoke or modify their edicts so as not to violate the neutral commerce of the U. S. Must not the fact have existed before he could legally declare it? Yet at the time when the President issued his proclamation, G. Britain had not revoked or modified her edicts at all. The question, therefore, is, whether this section authorized him to proclaim the renewal of the trade, as he has done? I am not saying that he has not conformed to the spirit of the act. I am not disposed to pronounce a censure on his conduct. But the question, sir, whether his procedure be strictly legal? If it be not, and we approbate his conduct, it might, perhaps, be proper to pass some act giving validity to what he has done; in the same manner, as when the Secretary of the Navy under the direction of the late President expended several hundred thousand dollars for naval supplies, for which no appropriation had been made, we passed a law giving validity to the transaction. An assurance was given by the British minister plenipotentiary, that the orders in council will have been withdrawn, as respects the U. S. on the 10th day of June next.
Was the President of the U. S. authorized to accept the assurance instead of the fact? I admit that it was scarcely to be expected that an actual revocation should be made a long time prior to a renewal of intercourse, and I should suppose that the phraseology of this section must have occasioned difficulty in negotiation. How the fact was, I do not pretend to have any information. I am perfectly willing to give the officers concerned full credit for attempting to avoid the difficulty arising from the terms of the law; and if the proceeding was not strictly legal, I am willing to give the President of the U. S. full credit for the disposition which he has manifested; and if the state of things had been anticipated by Congress, I presume they would have been willing to adopt provisions proper for giving validity to the transaction. When I reflect on the great variety of constructions given to this non-intercourse act, I admit it to be so confused and obscure that even the first officer of the Treasury Department has given opinions on some of its sections completely contradictory; and some of the constructions given to the act have made the Congress guilty of extravagant absurdity; to remedy part of which we have already passed one act this session; such for instance, as the construction which permitted foreign vessels to return home with cargoes, but if they were bound elsewhere compelled them to give bond and security not to go home. If the President has done a substantial benefit to the country in the spirit of the law, although in correctness of legal construction the act of Congress did not give him the power, I would approbate the spirit in which he has acted.
So much, sir, as respects one part of the subject to which the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia refers. On examination of the resolution, I find it expressed with a precision which completely applies to the two great acts of the President of the U. S.; one of which is the opening of intercourse with Great Britain, and the other is the adjusting of the controversy as to the frigate Chesapeake. With respect to the latter case, I should have considered that, while remaining unsatisfied and unatoned, as an insuperable obstacle to the adjustment of other matters in question between the two countries. It was an obstacle presenting itself at the threshold of every negotiation; and we could not with propriety negotiate on other matters while that remained unadjusted. It was perhaps one of the first questions of the kind that ever occurred under the constitution of the United
States. It respected an attack on the honor of the national flag, which, if unexpiated, would be considered in the national estimation as sufficient cause for public war, an attack which would authorize active measures of hostility as much as an attack on a garrison within our frontiers; an attack, which in its nature, is to be completely distinguished from the searching of private merchant vessels, on board of which no public authority was exercised by the government, and for which the government is not responsible.
In what branch of the government, sir, is vested the full power of accepting national satisfaction for an injury to our national flag? In what branch is vested the authority of accepting reparation for an insult which might be complete justification of war on our part? We know full well that in governments where the chief magistrate wears the diadem or the crown, his dignity and the honor of his flag are supposed to be affected by an insult or outrage from a foreign power. But here the question concerns the dignity of the United States and the honor of the national flag. To whom has the constitution given the power of deciding the questions of war and of peace on the part of the U. S.? Certainly the power of making war does not constitutionally appertain to the President; neither can he make a valid treaty of peace, except by concurrence of the Senate. Yet we know that negotiations must be conducted by means of the Executive as the organ of communication with foreign powers. As the President has not the authority to make war and peace exclusively, has he the exclusive power to accept satisfaction for an outrage which, if unatoned, might be valid cause of war? The general question therefore is, whether it would or would not be proper, when the President has undertaken to accept such satisfaction, to confirm his acceptance by the legislative sanction. Is this an ordinary case to be considered as an affair of course? We have to reflect, whether it should be declared, in consequence of the public reparation, that the attack on the Chesapeake frigate shall no longer be noticed as a question in any difference between the U. S. & G. Britain, but that it shall never hereafter be brought into account. By appropriating the acceptance of satisfaction, the transaction is finished on the part of Congress. If it be not appropriated, the President himself is pledged in good faith not to give his consent to any act of making war or authorizing hostility on account of their outrage. But if the Congress appropriate the accommodation, it becomes unquestionably complete.
So much, sir, as respects the question relative to the acceptance of satisfaction for an insult to the national flag of the United States. There remains a more particular view of the subject, with respect to the terms of satisfaction which have been accepted by the President now in office. If they were precisely the whole terms which had been formerly demanded, there might be less reason for expressing our opinion as it respects the particular terms of satisfaction. But it will be recollected, that formerly the minister of the U. S. at the court of London had demanded reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake, when first heard of; and that he thought it improper to mingle other subjects with this more serious cause of complaint. His instructions subsequently received, directed him to introduce with this subject that of impressment from merchant vessels. And in obedience to his instructions, he made additions to his demands. The points on which he was instructed to insist were a formal disavowal of the attack—the restoration of the men taken from the frigate Chesapeake—an entire abolition of impressment from vessels under the flag of the United States—and the solemnity of a legation extraordinary for completing the reparation.
To require the suppression of impressments as the condition of being admitted to make honorable reparation for an acknowledged injury, was a demand, which, in the language of the British government could be answered no otherwise than by a qualified refusal. A minister extraordinary was afterwards sent to this country; and then the suppression of impressments was not specifically insisted on as an indispensable condition of any adjustment. But it was proposed on the part of the late administration of the United States, that the British minister extraordinary should dislose the terms of reparation on which he was authorized to agree; and if they should appear to be satisfactory, then the President would consider them as a pledge for preventing other alleged abuses, and that the interdictory proclamation against the British navy might then be revoked by an act of the same date with the act of reparation. We now find, that terms of reparation are accepted, without any stipulation as to the suppression of impressments, and without considering these terms as a pledge for giving satisfaction on any other point.
The terms accepted being thus variant from the terms formerly insisted

on, is there not pecuniary reason for expressing our opinion upon the change which has taken place? For myself, altho' the difference has not been accommodated in a style so highly honorable as I could have wished, I much doubt whether reasonable men, under the circumstances ultimately attending the case, would insist on terms more advantageous than those which the President in office has accepted; for doubtless there has been peculiar difficulty in settling them. The main points desirable were, that the inadmissible pretension, which gave rise to the attack on the Chesapeake, should be solemnly disclaimed forever; and that the adjustment should be so finished as that neither nation should experience any sentiment of peculiar mortification or debasement in consequence of the settlement. I incline to the opinion, sir, that when the subject came to be examined, it was so circumstanced that no reasonable man could have expected it to be settled on better terms than it has been, for the United States. I therefore am ready to declare my approbation of the conduct of the President of the United States in relation to the promptitude and frankness which which he has met the overtures of the British government.
(Debate to be continued.)
Thursday, June 1.
DOMESTIC MANUFACTURES.
Mr. Lyon said he felt himself called upon by the resolution laid on the table yesterday by the gentleman from Massachusetts, to propose a resolution. He had not himself been in favor of encouraging manufactures by laying an embargo; but the House had done so, and he was not for deserting them all at once. The enumeration of articles mentioned in the following resolution might be defective, but he wished to try the principle.—
Resolved, That for the protection of those who have commenced, and the encouragement of those who may be disposed to set on foot, manufactures within the U. States of the articles hereafter enumerated, as well as for the encouragement of the cultivation of the productions necessary for such manufactures, provision ought forthwith to be made by law to subject to additional duties on their importation into the U. S. all articles of which leather is the material of chief value—lemp and cotton and all articles of which they or either of them are the material of chief value—Woolen cloths whose invoice prices shall exceed six shillings sterling per square yard—Woolen hosiery, window glass, silver and plated wares, paper of every description, nails, spikes and tacks, hats, clothing ready made, millinery of all kinds, beer, ale and porter.
Mr. Milnor observed that this resolution contemplated a duty on what was not at present and probably could not be manufactured in this country. He had no objection to Congress pursuing such measures as might judiciously encourage manufactures; but it was a subject which required serious consideration. He believed that among the mania to which the gentleman himself had alluded the other day, the mania for encouraging manufactures might also arise to a dangerous degree. The gentleman contemplated a duty on all cloths above 6s. sterling a square yard. Mr. M. said it was well known that in this country, although the coarser cloths were manufactured to a great extent in domestic circles, we could not get into the manufacture of fine cloths. There were not materials for it. He was happy to have seen a disposition to improve the breed of sheep; but at this time the country was not competent to the manufacture of these articles. If the gentleman from Kentucky was in possession of information which he might have obtained, Mr. Milnor said he would have known that the present price of wool in England, and the situation of their manufacturers, had raised the price of fine cloths so much as nearly to stop their importation into this country, without the impediment of a duty. He had no objection to seeing manufactures encouraged by a determination in gentlemen to wear domestic fabrics, even at a greater expense, in preference to any other; but he would not encourage them by law. Manufactures had already been commenced in the Eastern states before the embargo, and which, without any additional duties, had grown to a considerable extent. They were establishments in which a great number of hands were employed at low wages, the emoluments of the business going into the pockets of a few individuals, who were already enriched by them; and the laying an additional duty would only throw so much money into the pockets of those individuals, who alone would benefit by it. Mr. M. stated the articles of tacks to have risen in price during the embargo, and as being necessary to many manufacturers, and taxing them, he said, would be in fact to tax the manufacturers, whom it was proposed to encourage. He approved of the plan proposed by Mr. Bacon, for calling for a report from the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject; and moved that this resolution be referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, to whom was referred so much of the President's message as related to that subject.
Mr. Newton observed that the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures already had this subject under consideration, by order of the House.
Mr. Lyon said he had no objection to the reference of this resolution to the committee as an instruction; for that was the course which he had designed to give to it. He said he was once himself a great manufacturer in iron, but had failed of success from the want of encouragement. Fine woolens, Mr. L. said, were not necessary in this country; there were costs in the House that cost less than 6s. the square yard; and he questioned whether that which he wore cost so much. In reply to Mr. Milnor's observations about tacks, Mr. Lyon said that there was a manufactory of tacks in the capital of the state from which the gentleman was a representative, which made those articles much more expeditiously than they were ever made before, and much cheaper than they could be imported. From the merchants of the great cities objections had always been made to these duties, and always would be made, because they raised the price of goods, and consequently lessened the importation, and diminished their profits; and if Congress were to wait till they consented to this measure, it would never be done. But he could see no excuse for this House evading a vote on this subject, or for their neglecting to take some measure for the encouragement of manufactures.
Mr. Macon said he was opposed to referring this motion to the committee of commerce and manufactures, except the house should think proper to refer it as an instruction, for he believed that the committee would not report this session. In the country in which he lived, the people wanted no protecting duties to encourage domestic manufactures; the only way to encourage them was for our great people, for instance the President and Heads of Departments, to make them fashionable. Until domestic manufacture was thus encouraged, it would not thrive; laying a tax on foreign goods would but tax the many for the benefit of the few. He had no idea of laying taxes to induce men to work in iron, leather, or any other article. He wished not to refer this resolution, because he wished to meet the question. Let it be referred, and it would be claimed as the commencement of a system, and as an earnest of what was to be done. When the merchants of this country had too much capital to employ it in the commerce of the United States, they would either employ it in the improvement of the country, or convert it into manufactures; and until this was the case, men of capital would not employ it in manufactures. All that could be done in manufactures in this country, Mr. Macon said was already done in the domestic way. Before there is a surplus of capital, you cannot go to manufactures. Any attempt to do it before that time, would be like an attempt to raise vegetables in a hot-house. The people who were in favor of the embargo, did not look upon it as the gentleman did, as an encouragement to manufacturing; they avowed the object which they had in view, and that was not the encouragement of manufactures. Of what advantage was it to the community to tax themselves to make the articles mentioned in the resolution? So long as there were so many other ways of making a living, people would not go into manufacturing houses. Whilst the present constitution remained to the United States, Mr. Macon said it was utterly impossible for the United States to become a manufacturing nation. The government must be materially changed before it could succeed; laws must be passed to prevent workmen from conspiring to raise their wages; and all the laws on this subject in existence in England, would become necessary here. Since the tax had been laid on leather manufactures imported, the price of articles of leather had nearly doubled in this country, and the quality was not as good as before. Going into this system he feared would encourage smuggling—and what then would become of manufactures? They would be destroyed. Mr. Macon concluded his observations by expressing his wish that a decision should now be made on the subject.
Mr. Pickman followed Mr. Macon on the same side of the question. He said he certainly was in favor of encouraging manufactures; but it ought to be recollected that there were other interests also, and they ought not to suffer their real for manufactures to injure the more important interests of agriculture or commerce. He considered agriculture as the greatest interest and the most honorable and useful employment, as the most favorable to health and congenial to happiness; and he feared an essential injury might be done to the country by converting agriculturists into manufacturers. We ought also to consider (said he) that we new hold out considerable encouragement to manufactures, for almost all the revenue of the U. S. is derived from imports on foreign manufactures, the duties on which already average thirty per cent. and that is surely sufficient. Mr. P. said he was much alarmed when he found this motion predicated on the old non-importation act, which he considered the most absurd and impolitic measure that had ever been enacted. It had prohibited such goods as if not necessary of life, habit and long usage had made necessary for comfort—and what was the consequence? The articles had risen to most enormous prices—and what resulted from this? The goods had been smuggled into the country, and instead of paying money to the Treasury had been paying it to unprincipled smugglers. It was now perfectly true in political arithmetic that two and two make
four; for by doubling the duty they would not double the revenue, but very probably much diminish it. He said he did believe that some manufactures deserved encouragement; but the house should proceed cautiously. The subject could not be discussed at this short session, and the very agitation of the question, by inducing men to establish manufactures, in expectation of encouragement, might do great injury.
Mr. Holland thought very differently from his colleague (Mr. Macon) on this subject. He thought manufactures ought to be encouraged, and that this nation would never be completely independent till they were fostered in preference to other systems. The gentleman had asked what good was to be derived from the establishment of manufactures. Mr. H. said he would answer him that it would place the government in a state of independence of all the casualties of the ocean and of external commerce; we should not then be convulsed by the storms of Europe. We ought not, he said, to encourage foreign commerce, when, with the same enterprise at home, we could be equally happy and less subject to disasters. From external commerce had arisen all our difficulties; from that source were derived all our navy and army bills. We should comparatively stand in need of no revenue if we were to turn our attention to the cultivation of our own resources. We were, he said, distant from the scenes of war, and nothing was necessary to make us happy but the encouragement of our own manufactures. It was unjust not to protect them, for we could not protect our commerce on the ocean, and ought to turn our eyes to the measures which would make us comfortable and happy; and this was one of them. With this nation Mr. Holland said, agriculture was the first, manufactures the second, and external commerce a minor consideration. The situation of G. Britain rendered internal commerce absolutely necessary to her existence; but we were differently situated and could do without. Without her wooded wells, G. Britain would long before this time have become a province of the continent. But was this the situation of America? No; we had our own resources, independent of the world, and ought to cultivate them.
Mr. Love made some remarks going to show that this was an important subject, but that the attention of the House had been prematurely and in an irregular manner called to it.
The question for reference to the committee was lost, 56 to 49.
SENATE.
Friday, June 2.
Stanley Griswold, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the state of Ohio, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Edward Tiffin, appeared and took his seat.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to amend and continue in force the act entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," together with the amendment submitted yesterday; and on motion by Mr. Pickering further to amend the bill, ordered, that the bill and the amendment be recommitted to Messrs. Smith of Md. Gilles, Lloyd, Pope and Gregg.
Mr. German, from the committee to whom was referred so much of the President's message as relates to the defence of our seaport towns and harbors, &c. reported a bill making further appropriations to complete the fortifications commenced for the security of the ports and harbors of the United States and to erect such fortifications as may be necessary for the protection of the Northern and Western frontiers of the U. S.
Ordered to the second reading. Adjourned to Monday.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, June 2.
Some business of minor importance was done, which shall be noticed in our next paper.
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
On motion of Mr. J. G. Jackson, the unfinished business of yesterday (Mr. Randolph's motion for a vote of approbation) was ordered to lie on the table, 54 to 41; and The house went into a committee of the whole, Mr. Basset in the chair, on the bill for continuing in force and amending the non-intercourse law. A motion was made by Mr. Gardner that the committee rise for the purpose of recommending the bill to amend it so as wholly to repeal the non-intercourse law, and re-enact that part of the system which it was judged proper to retain, in a separate bill. This motion was opposed at great length by Mr. J. G. Jackson; and supported by Messrs. Quincy, Livermore and Gardner. Mr. Randolph commenced a speech, but a question arising on a point of order, and some irritation being caused by it, after a reversal by the committee of the chairman's decision on the point of order, the committee rose, and reported progress, and at three o'clock. The House adjourned till Monday.
MRS. LEE.
BEGS leave to inform her friends, that her residence is on NEW JERSEY AVENUE, in the house formerly occupied by Mr. Law, which is sufficiently large and commodious to accommodate ten or twelve more young ladies, as boarders in her academy. June 5—3t.
FOR SALE OR LEASE
FOR A TERM OF YEARS.
MY MANUFACTURING MILL, on Neabsco run, near the stage road, and very convenient to navigation, now in complete order, having two pair of burrs, and all the newly invented machinery, and can grind from 50 to 60 barrels of flour in the 24 hours—Besides the crops of wheat of the subscriber on Potomac, which can always be had at market price; this mill is conveniently situated to a fine forming back country. There is attached to the mill two acres of land, a good granary and miller's house (more land though can be had if desired); any person desirous of such property, can be informed all about it on application to my agent Thomas T. Page, at Neabsco, near Dumfries, Virginia. JOHN TAYLOR. June 5—3t.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JUNE 5.
It is with sensations of painful regret that we announce the sudden death of FRANCIS MALONE, Esq. a Senator from the state of Rhode-Island. He dropped down yesterday on his way to attend Divine Service at the Capitol, and immediately expired.
The following is a report of the Secretary of the Treasury to both houses of Congress, received on Friday last:
REPORT.
In obedience to the directions of the act supplementary to the act, entitled, "An act to establish the Treasury Department," the Secretary of the Treasury respectfully submits the following report—
The net revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage which accrued during the year 1807, amounted as appeared by the last annual statement, to Dollars. 16,060,000
A correct statement of that revenue for the year 1808 cannot be prepared at this time, but may be estimated, as will appear by the estimate A, to about 10,270,000
The revenue arising from the same sources which accrued during the first quarter of this year did not much exceed one million of dollars; and although considerable importations may be expected from Great Britain and the West Indies during the last six months of this year; yet, considering that there will be no arrivals from China and the East Indies, and the situation of the commercial intercourse of the United States with the rest of the world, it is not probable that the revenue accruing during the year 1809 will exceed that of the year 1808.
The specie in the Treasury on the 1st of October, 1808, amounted to 13,846,717 52
And the receipts during the last 3 months of that year, as appears by the statement (B) to 3,586,316 99
17,433,034 51
The disbursements during the same period have amounted, including 6,105,000 dollars paid in reimbursement of the principal of the public debt, to 7,491,339 79
Leaving a balance in the Treasury, on the 1st Jan. 1809, of 9,941,694 72
17,433,034 51
The cash in the hands of Collectors and Receivers, and the outstanding revenue bonds, amounted, on the 1st Jan. 1809, to 9,880,000
From which deducting for the expenses of collection and for the drawbacks payable during the year 1809 3,000,000
Leaves for the probable receipts of the year 1809, exclusively of the inconsiderable sums which may be received on account of the revenue accruing during that year, a sum of 6,880,000
Making together with the balance in the Treasury on the first of January 1809, of 9,941,000
16,821,000
An aggregate of 16,821,000 dollars, applicable to the expenditure of this year.
The expenses of the year 1809 are, in conformity with the existing appropriations, estimated at 14,500,000 dollars consisting of the following items:
Civil list (including the expenses of this session of Congress) miscellaneous expenses and foreign intercourse 1,342,000
Military and Indian Departments, viz.
Appropriation for the Army & Indian Departs. 2,765,000
Ditto for fortifications 475,000
Arms & military stores 550,000
3,790,000
Naval Department, this year's appropriation 2,915,000
Public debt (1,547,000 dollars of the appropriation of 8,000,000 of dollars for the year 1809, having been paid in advance in the year 1808, in order to effect the reimbursement of the whole of 8 per cent. stock) 6,463,000
14,500,000
It must, however, be observed that the estimate of the sums payable in the course of this year, on account of drawbacks is conjectural, and that the expectations particularly of colonial produce would, if the restrictions laid by the Continental powers of Europe on neutral commerce were removed, produce a much greater defalcation in the nett receipts into the Treasury than the sum assumed in the preceding estimate. In order to guard against any inconvenience arising from that contingency, and for the purpose of keeping always a moderate sum in the Treasury, it may be necessary to borrow a sum equal to the amount of the
principal of public debt which will be reimbursed during the year, and which will exceed three millions of dollars.
By the 10th and 19th sections of the act making further provision for the support of public credit, and for the redemption of the public debt, passed on the 3rd March, 1795, the commissioners of the Sinking Fund are authorized from time to time to borrow, and the bank of the United States to lend sums equal to the reimbursements of the public debt. But as doubts have arisen whether the powers vested by those two sections are applicable to the new six per cent. stocks issued by virtue of the act of February 11, 1807, in exchange of the old six per cent. deferred and three per cent. stocks, it is desirable that the authority should be expressly extended by law to that case. And no other provision seems necessary for the public service of this year.
It would be premature to attempt at this time an estimate of the receipts and expenditures of the year 1810. It is sufficient to observe that, although the receipts may exceed those of the present year, it is highly improbable that they should be equal to the expenditures of that year, which, unless the military and naval establishments should be reduced, will amount to sixteen millions of dollars. But it is believed that the revenue will after that year be adequate to the discharge of the annual expenses.
All which is respectfully submitted. ALBERT GALLATIN. Treasury Department, June 1, 1809.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman of high respectability to a member of Congress, dated St. Louis, (L. T.) May 10th, 1809.
"The tranquillity of the people in this Territory has of late been disturbed from a fear of Indian hostilities. Fort Madison, on the Mississippi and in the Indian country, was threatened to be attacked. Two companies of militia marched to reinforce it, and three more of volunteers have made this place their head quarters for several days past, waiting marching orders. The general court opened, and adjourned sine die—no business was done. But the danger is happily over; the militia are returning—the volunteers have returned, and the people are returning to their habitations and to their senses. The Governor deserves credit for his zeal and exertions to defend the country."
The following is an extract of a letter from Christopher Greenup, Esq. late Governor of Kentucky, to a gentleman in this city, dated May 25:
"I am happy to inform you that by letters lately received from Kaskaskia, we learn that the alarm of Indian war has abated."
The election for the First Ward will be held at the House of Mr. John Gardner, in stead of the house of Miss Bradley, as here before stated.
NOW OPENING
AND FOR SALE, At R. C. WIGHTMAN'S Book-Store, Pennsylvania Avenue, a handsome assortment of Books, and Stationery, amongst which are the following:
LAW BOOKS.
Harrison's Chancery, 2 vols. Sugden's Law of Vendors, Newland on Contracts, Roberts on Fraudulent Conveyances, Rid on Awards, Selwyn's Nisi Prius, 3 vols. Maxwell's Law Dictionary, Watson on Partnership, Butler's Homicide, etc. Barrow's Reports, 5 vols. Admiralty Decisions, 2 vols. Douglas' Reports, 2 vols. Robinson's Admiralty Reports, 5 vols. Roberts on Frauds, Amesley on Insurance, Brady on Distresses, Peake's Evidence, Burlemarque on Law, 2 vols. Boothe on Real Actions, Noy's Maxims, Jones on Bailment, Montague on Set-off, Pothier on Obligations, M'Nally's evidence, 2 vols. Peake's Nisi Prius, Vernon's Chancery, 2 vols. Lawes on Pleading, Powell on Devises, Parke on Insurance, Cruise on Real Property, 5 vols. Plowden's Reports, 2 vols. Hale's Common Law, Notes to Blackstone, Burne's Justice, 4 vols. Attorney's Manual, Kyd on Bills, Burne's Insurance, East's Crown Law, 2 vols. Foster's Reports, Dallas' Reports, 3 vols. Study of Law, Day's Espinasse, 2 vols. Buller's Nisi Prius, Gilbert's Law of Evidence, Graydon's Digest, Tidd's Practice, 2 vols. Espinasse's Nisi Prius, 2 vols. etc. etc.
MISCELLANEOUS
Capt. Raining's Memoirs, Montgomery's Poems, Chaptall's Chemistry, Barton's St. Pierre, 3 vols. Burne's Obstetrical Works, Ramsay's Washington, Campaigns of Bonaparte, 2 vols. Virgil's Georgicks, Complete Farrier, Military Tutor, Lacroix's Military and Political Hints, Military Mentor, 2 vols. Military Library, by Lt. Col. Duane, 2 vols. and 1 vol. plates, Rosseau's Manoeuvres of Horse Artillery, Rollin's Ancient History, 5 vols. B. Lejeune's Classical Dictionary, Aitken's Annual Review for 1807, Edinburgh Review for October 1808, etc. McCulloch's Music, Irish Melodies by Andrew Moore, etc. etc.
NEW NOVELS.
Woman, or Ida of Athens, by Miss Owenson, Thaddeus of Warsaw, by Miss Porter, Laura, Exiles of Siberia, March Girl by Mrs. Radcliffe, 3 vols. etc.
MINIATURE EDITIONS.
Sharpe's British Theatre, 13 vols. Zeluor, manon Solitude, 2 vols. Hind. Odyssey, Roderick Random, Junius, Old Solomon Baron, Pope, Dryden's Virgil, Osman, Thomson's Seasons, Gulliver, Clarissa, and Marmion, Akenside, Gray, Petrarch, Shenstone, Stevens's Lecture on heads, Dietrich's in Organized cases, etc.
A general assortment of paper, quills, etc. wholesale and retail.
Arrowsmith's maps of Europe, and America, on rollers, and in portable form. Writing Secretaries, Mathematical Instruments, etc. etc.
Printing Ink of the first quality. A few boxes of best Havana Segars. June 5—3t.