The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1809-01-17 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
VOL. 5.]
RICHMOND, TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1809.
[No. 81.]
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE GLOBE TAVERN, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
NOTICE —All persons indebted to the Estate of Mary Seabrook, dec'd. are desired to make immediate payment, and those who have claims upon the said estate, are requested to make them known to the Subscriber, before the first Monday in March next, for at that time he intends closing his executorship.
JAMES SEABROOK.
December 31. oaw4w.
FOR SALE —The subscriber has 40 or 50 bushels of Red Clover seed for sale, of last years growth; any person wanting, can get supplied by calling on the subscriber, at Dover, in Goochland County, or Dinwiddie and Turner in Richmond.
GEORGE HARDING.
January 14. 44.
FOR SALE —An excellent young riding HORSE, inquire at this office.
January 13th 1809. tf.
BY virtue of the last will and testament of the late Dr. John Cringan, will be sold on the premises, in this city, on Saturday, the twenty-eighth instant, (January) at public auction, upon a credit of twelve months, the purchasers giving bond with approved security, to carry interest from the date, the LOTS whereon the deceased resided, except that part allotted to his widow for her dower—Also, a lot whereon is a stable and carriage-house together with a moiety of an orchard on the square whereon Mrs. M'Credie now resides.
WM. C. WILLIAMS, Exor of Doct. J. CRINGAN, dec'd
January 10th 1809. tfs.
THE Members of the Mutual Assurance Society against fire, on buildings &c. are hereby notified, that the General Annual meeting of that Society will be held by adjournment at the Capitol, this day at 10 o'clock A. M.
SAMUEL GREENHOW.
Principal Agent. Saturday, Jan. 14th 1809. tf.
WILL BE SOLD , at public auction, on Friday the 27th day of January next, if fair, if not the next fair day, the PLANTATION , called and known by the name of Mount-Polly, lying on York River, in James City county, belonging to the estate of Stephen Bingham, deceased, containing by estimation, fourteen hundred acres, including Marsh, said Land will be surveyed prior to the day of sale, and will be sold, subject to the widow's dower. The purchaser will be allowed a credit until the younger son of said Bingham, arrives to the age of twenty one years, which will be some time in the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three. Bond and approved personal security, as well as a deed of mortgage on the said land, will be required—Possession will be given on the day of sale, for all the land except the part laid off for the widow's dower. The above sale will take place in compliance of Stephen Bingham's will, as well as a decree of King William Court.
B. LIPScomb, Deputy for WM. GREGORY, Sheriff.
January 12. oaw2w4.
CONGRESS.
DEBATE IN THE SENATE, ON MR. GILES'S BILL FOR FURTHER ENFORCING THE EMBARGO LAWS.
(MR. GILES'S SPEECH CONCLUDED.)
And also, upon a further examination of the Journals, that sundry memorials from the merchants were presented for the continuation of an embargo, and amongst others, one from the inhabitants of the town of Salem, as appears from the following extract:
Journal 3d Congress, 1st session, page 339.
"A memorial of the inhabitants of the town of Salem, in the state of Massachusetts, was presented to the house, and read, praying a further continuation of the embargo laid on ships or vessels in the ports of the United States, bound to any foreign port or place."
I have read these proceedings to show that the same terrific alarms respecting embargoes, were not circulated through the country in the year 1794, which now are, because there were then no objects for such an excitement. The history of those times will also show the principle upon which congress gave to the President unlimited powers to lay embargoes at his discretion during their recess. It is known that in consequence of the British hostile orders against our commerce in 1793, during the session of 1794 Mr. Jay was sent to London to demand redress from the British government for the injuries done to our commerce under those orders, and to make an amicable adjustment of all differences between the two countries. It was believed by congress that if the mission did not succeed, war might probably be the consequence of its failure, & as the result would probably be known during the recess, congress did not hesitate to give to the president full power to protect our commerce and seamen by an embargo, from the dangers to which both would have been exposed in the event of a war with Great Britain. Upon what principle was this unlimited power given? Why simply upon this, that the event, upon which its exercise was to depend, was not in existence, but might possibly exist, and therefore was incapable of definition, or in other words of legislation, and yet the exercise of the power in case of the happening of the event, might be indispensable to the common defence and general welfare.
At that time the nation acted from a just sense of its own interest and honor. It was considered as the cause of this nation, against a foreign nation. It was then the irresistible effort of an undivided nation. It must be admitted by all that the British orders of 1793, did not present to us the dangers and difficulties resulting from the combined influence of British orders and French decrees of the present day. Whence then this sad reverse in our public councils? Whence then these unfortunate & alarming internal divisions? These evils can only be ascribed to party spirit. Fortunately that day, the U. States were not distracted and torn asunder by party spirit. Unfortunately at the present day, this painful influence seems to have become so inveterate, so lost to its own interest
and honor, as to be willing to seek a temporary and ruinous protection under foreign aggressors, rather than unite in any measures to resist and repel their aggressions.
Gentlemen have even gone so far as to object to the clause for the protection of the public officers from vexatious suits for the discharge of their duties. It is believed that this provision is not only correct in itself, but that it exists in the laws of the several states & in the laws of the union; the only reply therefore, that I shall make to this suggestion, will consist in reading the clause objected to in this bill, and a similar clause in the existing laws.
Extract from the bill: "And if any action or suit be brought against any collector or other person, acting under the direction of and in pursuance of this act, he may plead the general issue, and give this act and the instructions and regulations of the President in evidence for his justification and defence."
Extract from one of the existing laws:
Sec. 71. "That if any officer or other person, executing or aiding or assisting in the seizure of goods, shall be sued or molested for any thing done in virtue of the powers given by this act, or by virtue of a warrant granted by any judge or justice pursuant to law, such officer or other person may plead the general issue, and give this act and the special matter in evidence; and if in any such suit the plaintiff is nonsuited, or judgment pass against him, the defendant shall recover double costs; and in actions, suits or informations to be brought, where any seizure shall be made pursuant to this act, if the property be claimed by any person, in every such case the onus probandi shall be upon such claimant."
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Goodrich) not content with finding fault with the particular provisions of the bill has ventured to give it a general character. He has ventured to call it 'a military despotism';—This surely would be a most alarming mark to stamp on the forehead of this bill—If true, the bill would certainly be left without an advocate. But, sir, before I enter into an examination of this harsh and uncharitable suggestion, permit me to ask what is the situation of the United States at this moment, as it respects peace or war?—It can hardly be said, that the United States are at peace, when two belligerent powers are making war on them; when some of the essential attributes of national sovereignty, attempted to be forcibly arrested from them. The most that can be said, if we are at all at peace, is, that it is a peace like war, and in my judgment would authorise the adoption of any measure, which would be justified in a state of war. And in the event of war, are we to expect to meet with little cavils and difficulties of this kind, with every measure which may be proposed for the annoyance of the common enemy? I hope not, sir. If we should unfortunately be driven into war after so many patient efforts to avoid it; I hope and trust it will not be a war like a peace: But that the whole energy of the nation will be brought to bear upon the enemy both by land and sea—I hope the war will be vigorous; and in that case, I am sure that it will be short and successful. Let me, then, sir, under this exposition of our real situation, examine this terrible suggestion brought against this bill—what is it, which has doomed it to this unwarrantable reproach? The only section which has the remote reference to the use of military force, is the eleventh, which is in the following words—
Sec. 11. "And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States or such other person as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land and naval forces or militia of the United States and of the territories thereof as may be deemed necessary, in conformity with the provisions of this and other acts respecting the embargo, for the purpose of preventing the illegal departure of any ship or vessel, or of detaining, taking possession of, and keeping in custody any ship or vessel, or of taking into custody and guarding any specie or articles of domestic growth, produce, or manufacture, and also for the purpose of preventing and suppressing any armed or riotous assemblage of persons resisting the custom-house officers in the exercise of their duties, or in any manner opposing the execution of the laws laying an embargo, or otherwise violating, or assisting and abetting violations of the same."
It will be found upon examination, that this section contains no new principle; but like others which have been objected to, merely applies an old principle to a new object. In justification of this assertion, permit me here to read an extract from an act of Congress which will be found in the 7th volume of the laws, page 335 in the following words—they will be found to be precisely of the same import with the material words of the section under discussion.
"An act for the more effectual preservation of peace in the ports and harbors of the U. States, and in the waters under their jurisdiction."
"Sec. 5. And be it, &c. That whenever any armed vessel of a foreign nation entering the harbors or waters within the jurisdiction of the U. States, & required to depart therefrom, shall fail so to do, it shall be lawful for the President of the U. States, or such other person as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land and naval forces of the United States, or the militia thereof, as he shall deem necessary, to compel the said armed vessel to depart, &c."
But, sir, as gentlemen in the opposition may have more respect for a precedent in 1794, which probably received the sanction of the votes of all those then in Congress, I will furnish them with one of that date expressly in point. It is in the following words—3 vol. Laws, page 92.
"An act in addition to the act, for the punishment of certain crimes against the U. States. Approved the 5th June, 1794."
"Sec. 7. Be it enacted, &c. That in every case in which a vessel shall be fitted out and armed, or attempted so to be fitted out or armed, or in which the force of any vessel of war, cruiser or other armed vessel shall be increased or augmented, or in which
any military expedition or enterprize shall be begun or set on foot contrary to the prohibitions and provisions of this act; and in every case of the capture of a ship or vessel within the jurisdiction or protection of the U. States as above defined, & in every case in which any process issuing out of any court of the United States, shall be disobeyed or resisted by any person or persons having the custody of any vessel of war, cruiser or other armed vessel of any foreign prince or state; or of the subjects or citizens of such prince or state; in every such case it shall be lawful for the President of the U. S. or such other person as he shall have empowered for that purpose to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the U. States, or of the militia thereof as shall be judged necessary for the purpose of taking possession of, and detaining any such ship or vessel with her prize or prizes, &c."
In all these cases the principle is precisely the same. It is the application of the physical force of the nation to carry into effect its laws in different arms, according to the different objects to be affected by it.
But, sir, as I know how easy it is to alarm the public sensibility by the suggestion of "military despotism," without examining into its applicability to the case in question; I will take the liberty of giving a short history of the proceedings of the government in relation to this subject.
In the year 1792, shortly after the establishment of the government, it was foreseen by congress, that a state of things might exist, which would require the physical force of the nation to be called forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. At this time, however, no occasions having occurred to render a resort to this remedy necessary, considerable precaution & delicacy were manifested in making the provisions for this object. Accordingly on the 2d day of May, 1793, a law for this purpose was passed. It is not necessary now to read it, but merely to remark, that it was accompanied with so many precautions, and consequent delays, that upon the first experiment made under its provisions, it was found to be ineffectual.
This occurred in the insurrection of the apprehended insurrection of Pennsylvania, and shortly after an act was passed for the same purpose, repealing the act in question, and dispensing with most of its dilatory ceremonies, which were found rather calculated to defeat, than effect the object, in the event of a prompt and formidable resistance, &c. This act contains the following amongst other provisions:
3 Vol. Laws, page 189.
"An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, &c."
"Sec. 2. That whenever the laws of the U. States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations and cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress."
"Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that whenever it may be necessary in the judgement of the president, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the president shall forthwith by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time."
It cannot escape observation, sir, that the authority given to the president to call out the force of the nation, was limited to the militia only, in both the laws referred to; at that time such were the apprehensions or fears of employing the regular land and naval forces for the purpose of executing the laws, &c. that the authority to employ them for that purpose, was actually withheld from the President.—But subsequent events have taught us the necessity and propriety of dismissing such groundless alarms. It was discovered by the insurrection of Burr, that the U. States might be attacked and threatened by the most serious dangers, in parts, where the militia could not be brought to act with effect, and it was rendered probable, that the most exposed and defenceless parts would generally become the objects of attack, accordingly, congress did not hesitate to pass a law, I believe unanimously, (at least I recollect to have drawn the law, and do not recollect any opposition to its passage,) solely for the purpose of authorizing the president to employ the land and naval forces in all cases in which he was previously authorized to call out the militia. The act is in the following words:
8 Vol. page 311.
"An act authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces of the U. States in cases of insurrection."
"That in all cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws either of the U. States or of an individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the U. States as he shall judge necessary having first observed all the prerequisites of the law in that respect."
the extremes of the United States to issue his proclamation commanding the insurgents to disperse, &c. when their sole object is to disperse? this too would be almost instantaneous—It certainly would, sir. This is surely a stronger case than the one which called forth precisely a similar provision in 1794, for seizing, &c. vessels intended to be fitted out as privateers in violation of the existing laws: this case is before referred to in the course of these observations. The necessity and propriety of this provision is so obvious, that the people themselves have discovered the want of it, and are now beginning to tender their services for enforcing the embargo laws, in places where they have witnessed their violation—and shall Congress be deterred from accepting this the honorable and patriotic tender of their services? As an honorable testimony of this fact, I have just had put into my hands, the patriotic resolutions of the people of the town of Marblehead in Massachusetts. They are so highly honorable to the patriotism, disinterestedness and good sense of the people of that town, that I beg leave to present them to the Senate in their own words:
At a meeting of the freeholders and others, inhabitants of the town of Marblehead, legally convened at the town house, in said town, on Tuesday, the 7th day of December, 1808, at half past two o'clock in the afternoon.
Capt. Richard James, Moderator.
The following resolves being read, it was unanimously voted that they pass:
Resolved, That this town continues steadfast in the faith that the embargo law was a law of wisdom, and that the President and Congress of the United States, are entitled and shall receive our warmest thanks for their early attention to the independence, liberty and just rights of the Union, and particularly to the commercial part thereof.
Resolved, That this town will use all the energy they possess, to carry into full effect all laws the present Congress have or may enact for the support of our just and equal rights as an independent nation, against the unjustifiable, tyrannical and imperial orders and decrees of the belligerent powers of Europe, by preferring to our country, our property and services.
VOTED, A committee be appointed to transmit to Joseph Story, Esq. our representative in Congress, the doings of this meeting.
VOTED, The above committee consist of the following persons: Captains William Story, Nathan B. Martin and Joseph Pedrick.
Attest, JOSHUA PRENTIS, Town Clerk.
Upon a candid view of this terrific objection, I think I am warranted in the conclusion, that the provision partakes nothing of the character of military despotism—but is fully justified both by principle and precedent.
Still further to excite our alarms, intimations have been thrown out, but family I acknowledge, that the embargo laws are unconstitutional. After what had taken place upon that subject, in 1794, by the unanimous consent of all the departments, as well as what has lately been decided upon in that respect; I really should have been surprised, on entering a boarding school, to have heard that question propounded, merely to try the skill or wit of the ingenuity of spouting boys, or lisping misses; but to hear it intimated by grave Legislators, in quest of truth, and engaged in directing the practical operation of the government, even tooby judges and lawyers, is to me really astonishing. I am astonished, that the respect they must feel for the opinions of their acquaintances, as well as of future times, could not deter them from hazarding themselves upon such a suggestion. But, sir, I find within a few days past, the mental optics of some gentlemen have been upon the stretch to discover other doubts , which under the names of casus omissis, or some other subtleties, are transformed into realities, so formidable as to destroy the whole energy of the constitution, and arrest completely the practical operation of the government. I allude, sir, to the supposed discovery of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lloyd) that Congress could make no regulation of commerce between the ports of the same state, altho' he will find the principle settled in every law that ever was passed for regulating the coasting trade; that the same principle was formally decided by the unanimous vote of this body only a year or two ago, and with not more than five dissentients in the other House; and even they might have been influenced by some collateral considerations, when it is also considered, that without the exercise of this power, several of the most important specific powers, would be rendered wholly nugatory. Yes, sir, every speck which a disturbed imagination had supposed it had discovered upon the horizon of the constitution, is now by the help of mental microscopes, transformed into a tremendous cloud, fraught with dreadful storms and horrid thunders: and which in its destructive course, is to tear up all our rights and liberties by the roots! Sir, 'tis time to turn from such unprofitable scrutinies—'tis time to bend our thoughts on other objects—'tis time to face the public dangers and to repel them.
The last tossin of alarm which has been sounded upon this occasion, is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. We have been reminded of the proceedings of this house, upon that subject, and the fate they experienced in the other house. Instead of this circumstance being urged as an admission to those who wish to see the laws respected, and to furnish the means for causing the national will to be executed, it ought to be a caution to those, who with the most laudable zeal for the preservation of individual rights, are deterred from these objects by popular suggestions. I thought by this time, that every man of common impartiality and common sense, had seen in subsequent events, the propriety of that measure. I rejoice that I had the honor of proposing it, and always regretted its rejection. Indulge me, sir, with very few observations upon this subject. The constitution contains but one clause respecting this writ. It is in the following words, "The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be
suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." I presume, that every man in the U. States, will now admit, that a rebellion did exist, and that the public safety was in danger: No constitutional objection could therefore exist to the bill, and when its limitations and directions are observed, which appear never to have been presented to public notice; I presume posterior events will have demonstrated its propriety in the opinion of every candid man of understanding in the community. What, Mr. President, have been the consequences of its rejection? You have seen your judiciary publicly held up to the world as a spectacle of disgrace—You have seen a jury sworn to try an issue in a criminal case, and excluded from the privilege of hearing the most material evidence upon which the trial of the issue depended. You have seen treason go unpunished. And you have seen the character of the judiciary given to our government, calculated to excite distrust at home, and to invite contempt and attacks from abroad. What would have been the probable effects of passing the bill?—Guilt would have received its just reward. The public justice would have been appeased, the confidence in the energy of the government would have been preserved, & you would have been saved, sir, the painful mortification of beholding the most atrocious treason stalking unpunished through the land, triumphing in a security afforded, it is feared, sir, through the hostile propensities of the judge against his own government, or at least against the administration of his own government. Yes, sir, and if through popular suggestions we should now be driven from affording the means of executing the embargo laws, the consequences will be the more to be regretted, as the evils to be remedied are much more formidable. Let me then, sir, now enquire into the causes of the violations of the embargo laws; the nature of the offences, and the description of persons engaged in their commissions. The original cause of these violations is, British influence. I do not mean to apply this observation in the remotest degree to any gentleman in the opposition to this bill—I believe those gentlemen are perfectly exempt from this influence. I merely speak of British influence as a fact which exists, as an incident attached to society, and of course ought to be guarded against. It is a fact notoriously known that as soon as the British government was apprised of the measure of the embargo, an order was issued inviting our citizens to violate the laws by offering to receive and protect their vessels, although they should leave our ports without the customary papers, engage in a lawless trade, & rates. It is also known, that the British government has agents in most of our sea port towns for purchasing up supplies for its fleets and armies. That there are also British merchants with British capital connected with unprincipled Americans engaged in the violation of these laws. Yes, sir, unprincipled Americans have been invited through these means to engage in this scandalous traffic. And what, sir, is the nature of the offences they have been induced to commit? Is it treason? No, sir, but it partakes essentially of its character. If instead of an incident, we were in an actual state of war; it would be treason, and treason of the basest sort. It is, to say the least, a base abandonment of every honorable and patriotic sentiment. Is it bribery? It certainly partakes essentially of that character. It is violating the laws of our country, and operating in counteracting their effects upon our enemies for the sake of money, regardless of consequences. Is it perjury? In its essence, and subornation of perjury in all. Yet, sir, the authors of these offences, and those who countenance and advise the commission of them, have the impudence to talk of moral and religious obligations to be treated with so much tenderness?—Are these the offences which are to be proclaimed legal and constitutional? That they have conquered the constitution, & cannot be contravened by its provisions? If sir, we should be driven by our fears from affording the means of executing the embargo laws, in what situation should we stand before the nation and the world? We have just said we will not for the present repeal these laws, and are we now about to declare that we are afraid to execute them? That the constitution furnishes no means for this purpose? What a slander upon the constitution! What an insult upon the framers of it! What an insult upon the people who adopted it! And what will the people say to all this?—What is the general sentiment at this moment? It is, enforce your embargo laws or repeal them. And are we about to tell them that the constitution contains no means for executing the national will when fairly pronounced upon legitimate objects? or are we to tell them, that the constitution does afford the proper and necessary means for executing the national will, but that we are either afraid, or do not know how to call them into action?
Sir, those who assert that the constitution is defective in this respect, either do not understand, or they misrepresent its provisions. They neither breathe the spirit nor speak the language of the constitution. Sir, I feel for this instrument the most sacred veneration. And with this constitution in my hand and its precepts in my heart, I am now ready and willing, in its own spirit and language to furnish the means necessary and proper for carrying into effect agreat national and constitutional object . For carrying into effect the embargo laws—and thus, to make a last effort to preserve the peace of the nation.
* AN ACT
To suspend the privileges of the writ of Habeas Corpus, for a limited time, in certain cases.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That in all cases where any person or persons charged on oath with treason, misprision of treason, or other high crime or misdemeanor endangering the peace, safety or neutrality of the

United States, have been, or shall be arrested and imprisoned by virtue of any warrant or authority from the President of the U. States, or from the chief executive magistrate of any state or territorial government, or from any person acting under the direction or authority of the President of the States, the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be, and the same hereby is suspended for and during the term of three months from and after the passage of this act, and no longer.
Office of the Secretary of the Senate, January 24, 1809. I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a bill that passed the Senate on the 23d of January, 1807. SAMUEL A. OTIS, Sec'y.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. SATURDAY, Jan. 7. EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS.
Mr. Smith offered the following resolution: "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the propriety of providing by law for the meeting of Congress at an earlier period than the 1st Monday in December next, with leave to report by bill or otherwise."
On this motion a debate of three hours took place. Of this debate our crowded columns will not permit us to give more than sufficient to mark its spirit. Mr. Smith observed that on reflection every gentleman must be convinced that both our internal and external situation rendered it proper that Congress should be convened earlier than the usual time.
Mr. Mason said that as the constitution had given to the President a power to call Congress whenever he should judge it expedient; and as the President would have a full knowledge of the state of our foreign relations, he was willing to leave the power with him, believing that if necessary, he would not fail to exercise it. He was also opposed to adopting this resolution at this time, because in six weeks hence it would be time enough to propose it.
Mr. Southard observed, that the resolution but proposed an enquiry, and no one would commit himself, by voting for it, to vote for an earlier meeting than usual.
Mr. Durell was opposed to this resolution; for he had no idea of closing the session without taking further steps in regard to our foreign relations.
Mr. Holland thought the resolution wholly premature. Mr. Talmadge was also opposed to the resolution. He conceived that the House had better proceed in the business which lay before them. When they had progressed further, they might be much better able to decide this question.
Mr. Nicholas said that if, instead of a resolution, this was a bill in its third reading, he was ready to vote for it. He lamented that the term of service of the present Congress expired as early as the 4th day of March. He wished it to meet as soon after as practicable. He alluded to the state of Tennessee's not choosing its representatives in Congress before the Governor of that state could convene the legislature, to provide for an earlier election, and supply the representation of that important state. Admit that the present Congress were to declare war, no gentleman would deny that Congress ought to convene earlier than usual. If it were not done this session, he would long before the 1st of December give his vote for changing the attitude of the nation. The experiment which we were now making, would have been continued as far as justifiable before that time. He said he would not trust the discretion of any one man, under these circumstances, to convene Congress; though he had as much confidence in the person whose duty it would be, as one man ought to have in another.
Mr. Dazee said he had not the slightest suspicion of any intention in the present Congress to declare war. Even the inhabitants of Bedlam would refuse to concur in such a project. He really had no idea of it. He wished the country not to be continually alarmed by these war speeches! Keep out of war if you can, (said he) if not go into it; do not look at it and proclaim it as so horrible a thing. He was in favor of this resolution, because it was for an enquiry, and he might possibly vote for the bill when reported.
Mr. D. R. Williams opposed the resolution. Every circumstance, he said, showed that Great Britain predicted her measures, on an idea of our want of stability. He wished not to accomplish her expectations by early session. If the extra session were proposed with a view to war, it was extremely injudicious; if with a view to the repeal of the embargo, it was equally injudicious, as it indicated to our enemies the period at which one measure should commence, or the other cease. He wished to hold on to the embargo. He had no doubt of its proving effectual. If any change of our situation should take place, the constitution had vested in the head of our foreign relations a power to call Congress.
Mr. Story had no idea of the resolution producing the effect anticipated by Mr. Williams. He would be the last man to doubt the ability or integrity of the administration; but why throw the responsibility on his shoulders? Why shrink from it themselves? When they alone were vested with the power to declare war, why not listen to the warning voice of Providence; attend at their posts, and prepare a whole system which should call for the active co-operation of the people? Did Congress mean to say, that the embargo should be co-existent with the orders in council? That it was to endure forever? He trusted and believed, that this was not the sentiment of any gentleman who occupied a seat on this floor. The time was fast approaching when this measure must give way to one of a more energetic character. And he distinctly understood, that it was contemplated that Congress should convene at an early period for discussing this subject. Was Great Britain so totally unacquainted with the subject as not to know that this body had the power to declare war? Certainly not. So far then as the call of an extra session could influence Great Britain and France, it would go far to convince them that submission would not be the submission would not be the course of men whose hearts were in their country, and who had their country in their hearts. Mr. S. made some remarks, tending to show that the councils of the mother country were not guided by the cool dictates of reason. When Great Britain lost (as a great Statesman had observed) "the brightest jewel of the British crown," the helm of state was under the guide of an able ministry, but who took council of their passions rather than of their reason. No dependence was therefore
to be placed on her sense of justice or interest. We must resort at last to the ratio regum , and we ought to prepare for it. Mr. Linn wished foreign nations to know that unless they changed their measures, we would adopt some other measures. He wished the resolution to be adopted, that the people of the United States might know that the time was not far distant, when a change of measures would take place.
Mr. G. W. Campbell was in favor of the resolution. He wished the nation to understand that its representatives would meet here at an early period; that they would meet at the day of danger, and be ready to take stronger measures. He cared not how soon foreign nations knew it. It was high time that they should know it. Mr. Campbell adverted to Mr. Dana's observations, in relation to the madness of the idea of the present Congress declaring war. He observed that the gentleman had but a few days ago voted, that the nation could not submit to the effects of the belligerents. The gentleman had also expressed an opinion, that the attack on the Chesapeake was cause of war. He could not therefore suppose that to resist by war these accumulated injuries, would appear strange to the gentleman.
Mr. Troup was in favor of the resolution. He regretted not any effect it would have on foreign nations. If Great Britain had rather have war than embargo (said he) let her have it; and let her see that we can be as formidable to her as an adversary in war, as we are a rival in peace.
Mr. Dazee supported the resolution. He said, he had given votes at the present session which he should have given with reluctance but for the belief that the extra session would take place; and measures were now pending before the House, for which he should vote with reluctance but under this expectation.
Mr. Eppes said he was not for adhering to the embargo till December; he did not believe that it would comport the honor or the interest of the United States to adhere to it so long. He had declared by his vote that he would not repeal the embargo on the 4th of March, and he was still of the same opinion. But long before the first of December, he said, he should be prepared to substitute another measure in its place.
Mr. Jackson expressed nearly the same sentiments as Mr. Eppes. He did not know whether it would be proper to continue the embargo longer than the first of June.
Mr. Dana observed, that this nation would never go to war, except the objects for which it went to war were distinctly marked and defined; because a war would not otherwise be popular; and a war declared by this government, to be effectual, must be followed by the general sense of the people. Mr. D. examined some of the points in controversy, and made some observations in relation to the principle, that the American flag should protect all persons sailing under it.
Mr. Alexander moved that the resolution lie on the table.
Mr. Taylor was in favor of the resolution. The invasion of Canada could not be authorized without an extra session, nor regular force sufficient for offensive operations be organized. The object for which the nation might now justly go to war was sufficiently defined. The gentleman himself (Mr. Dana) had by his vote declared it, and the nation had followed their representatives in the declaration.
Mr. Nicholas said he thought and still believed the embargo to have been the best measure which could have been adopted. It had answered every purpose as a precautionary measure; and he believed it would have operated coercively on the principal aggressor on our rights (and in saying so he had no fear of being accused of undue partiality)—if every man in the nation had been faithful to his country, and had it not been for circumstances which we could not control. Those who had violated the embargo, those who had encouraged violations of it, he said, were responsible for its failure, if it did fail—those who told the people that it was to subserve the interests of the South—that it was intended to destroy commerce and promote manufactures. Nothing but extreme ignorance could have produced such an idea; for manufactures neither did nor could exist to any extent in the country whose interests were said to have been intended to be promoted. He thought that Congress ought to meet about the 15th of May or 1st of June—that the embargo ought to be continued till the country was in a state of defence, and till means of offence were at hand.
The question on the resolution's laying on the table was negatived—Ayes 19. The question on the resolution was carried, 62 to 21.
TUESDAY, Jan. 10.
A bill from the Senate making an appropriation for the public buildings, &c. was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
A bill from the Senate, authorising the Insurance Company of Alexandria to alter their stile and firm, was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
The bill for the relief of the infirm and disabled officers and soldiers of the late revolutionary army, with amendments reported by a select committee, was referred to a committee of the whole.
Mr. Rhea in pursuance of a resolution yesterday offered by Mr. Story, reported a bill authorising the transmission by mail of certain documents free of postage; which was read three times and passed. [It was rejected on the first reading in the Senate afterwards.]
NAVIGATION LAWS.
Mr. Dana after observing that at present there was a defect in the law for the enrolment of licenced vessels, offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to enquire into the propriety of amending the law relative to bonds required for enrolment or licenced vessels of the U. States. Agreed to.
Mr. Dana called up his resolution laid on the table yesterday, proposing an amendment of our navigation laws.
On suggestion of Mr. McCrery the words "some of the seamen, &c." in the resolution was exchanged for the words "a certain proportion of the seamen, &c." and the resolution as amended, was referred to a select committee.
Mr. Green presented a petition from the merchants of the island of Nantucket, praying that Nantucket may be erected into a port of entry for vessels from beyond the Cape of Good Hope. Referred.
Mr. Van Horn, after stating certain difficulties in the present organization of the courts of the district of Columbia, moved the following resolution:
Resolved, That the committee of the district of Columbia be instructed to enquire whether any, and if any, what amendments are necessary in the act concerning the district of Columbia. Agreed to.
WEDNESDAY, Jan. 11.
Mr. Rhea offered a resolution for rescinding the resolution offered a few days ago, and agreed to by the House, for the calling upon the Department of State for a statement of our naturalized seamen; which, Mr. Dana not being present, was ordered to lie on the table.
EXTRA SESSION.
Mr. Smith, from the committee appointed to consider the propriety of convening Congress at an earlier period than usual, reported a bill to alter the time if the next meeting of Congress. [The 4th Monday in May is the day fixed on in the bill.] Twice read and referred.
On motion of Mr. Dazee, a resolution directing the committee of Commerce and Manufactures to enquire into the expediency of removing a port of entry from Tappahannock to Fredericksburg, was taken up and agreed to.
Mr. Nelson reported a bill supplementing to the act for establishing and organizing a marine corps—[Making the term of service of marines five years.] Twice read and referred.
VOLUNTEER TROOPS.
Mr. Nelson also reported a bill to provide an additional military force—(the 50,000 volunteers ordered by a resolution of the House.) Twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.
NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT.
The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday on the remaining amendments of the Senate to the bill for employing an additional number of seamen and marines.
Mr. D. R. Williams moved that the bill, with the amendments, be committed to a committee of the whole. [It was supposed, had this motion carried, that the amendment from the Senate yesterday agreed to, might have been rescinded in the House.] After a long debate, the motion was lost—Yeas 59—Nays 58, and the House immediately adjourned at half past four o'clock.
THURSDAY, Jan. 12.
Mr. Barker laid upon the table a memorial from sundry inhabitants of the State of Massachusetts on the subject of the late election of Electors in the state of Massachusetts, stating it to have been illegally conducted.
NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT.
The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday. After considerable debate, Mr. J. Montgomery moved a reference of the bill to a committee of the whole, stating his object to be to give a discretionary power to the Executive instead of a peremptory power to fit out and employ the naval force as it now stood. [This motion was understood, if carried, to place again the amendment of the Senate to which the House had agreed, under their power.] At half past 4, the motion to commit the bill was carried, 69 to 53—majority 16. And the house immediately adjourned.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
THURSDAY, Jan. 12.
Mr. Bradley asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill making further provision for the corps of engineers, which was ordered to a third reading. This bill authorises the removal of the Military Academy from West Point to the city of Washington.
A bill reported by General Smith of Md. for the establishment of a marine militia was passed.
Respecting the accounts of the Spanish Defeat via Oporto.
Although we have no doubt that the result of any regular action, must be such as is above stated, should the Spaniards have the blindness to engage in that way; yet we cannot give credit to this for two reasons: first, because we suppose the Spaniards have some judgment, and would not therefore hazard all in a general action. Secondly, because we do not think the French armies had all arrived, and formed so early as between the 10th and 15th of November; & any action, such as above stated, must have taken place between those dates, to have been heard of in Oporto after the last advices, and ten days before the 29th of November.
The march into Spain could not be like the march to Ulm in 1805; for even then Bonaparte was two weeks at the head of the army before any thing more than an action of the out posts took place; he left Paris on the 26th September, and the first action was at Wertingen on the 8th of October.
Neither can the movements that preceded the battle of Jena, in the year 1806 be taken as a precedent, for the movements of the six legions had been made six weeks before he left Paris; that is in the middle of August; he crossed the Rhine on October 1, & the battle of Jena was on the 14th of October, six days after the first movements in the field, which was on the 8th after a proclamation.
Now Bonaparte was at Bordeaux on the 3d of Nov and although an action within ten days after would be perfectly congenial with his tactics; the provision of the army in Spain, the transportation of provision from France, and the disposition of the troops for active operations, could not have been accomplished within eighteen days, by any thing less than a miraculous power.
This rumor, however, may have its use, it is only probably intended to take off the force of what may be expected to arrive, and to prevent any shock or dismay, at an event already anticipated—so far so good—Aurora.
NEW-YORK, Jan. 10.
The Letter from Mr. Canning, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Mr. Pinkney, our minister at the Court of St. James, will interest every reader—We never saw it till yesterday, and we believe it did not accompany the Documents ordered to be published by Congress.
This letter establishes two IMPORTANT FACTS, which ought never to be forgotten.
The first is, that the offer of Mr. Jefferson to raise the embargo on the rescinding the Orders in Council, was only communicated to Mr. Canning by Mr. Pinkney in his INDIVIDUAL capacity, in a VERBAL communication, and with an expression of BELIEF only, that his government would raise the Embargo IF the British government it would first remove their obnoxious orders in Council.
The second Fact is, that Mr. Pinkney, (in
reply to Mr. Canning's request for the information) states unreservedly, that when the President recommended the embargo, he had no information of the passage of the British Orders in Council now complained of.
On these highly important facts, the public can easily decide how far our government have been DISPOSED to settle their differences with England—Lang's Royal Gaz.
Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney accompanying his letter of Sept. 23, 1808. FOREIGN OFFICE, Sept. 23, 1808.
SIR, In laying before the King, your letter of the 23d of August, and in communicating to you the accompanying answer, which I have received his majesty's commands to return to you—I confess I feel some little embarrassment from the repeated references which your letter contains, to what has passed between us in conversation—An embarrassment arising in no degree (as you are perfectly aware) from any feeling of distrust in you personally, but from a recollection of the misrepresentation which took place in America of former conferences between us. You gave me, on that account, the most satisfactory proof that such misrepresentation did not originate with you, by communicating to me that part of your dispatch, in which the conferences particularly referred to, were related correctly; but this very circumstance which establishes your personal claim to entire confidence, proves, at the same time, that a faithful report of a conference on your part is not a security against its misrepresentation.
It was for that reason principally that after hearing, with the most respectful attention, all that you had to state to me, verbally, upon the subject of the present matter, I felt myself under the necessity of requiring, as "indispensible," a written communication upon the subject.
It is for that reason, also, that as in your written communication you refer to our late conversations for the "bearings and details" of your proposal, I feel it necessary to recapitulate, as shortly as I can, what conceivably have passed in these conversations beyond what I find recorded in your letter.
The principal points on which the suggestions brought forward by you in personal conference, appear to me to have differed some degree from the proposal now stated by you in writing are two—the first, that in conversation the proposal itself was not distinctly stated as an overture authorized by your government—the second, that the beneficial consequences likely to result to this country from the acceptance of that proposal were "pursued" through more ample "illustrations."
In the first of our conferences, I understood you to say little more on the authority of your government, than that you were instructed to remonstrate against the Orders in Council of the 7th of January, and 11th of November 1807—but to add, as from yourself, an expression of your own conviction, that if these orders were repealed, the President of the U. States would suspend the Embargo with respect to Great Britain.
Upon the consequences of such a suspension of the embargo, which it would still continue to be enforced against France, you expatiated largely—still speaking, however, (as I understood) your own individual sentiments.
It was suggested by you, that America would, in that case, probably annex her merchant ships against the aggressions of France an expedient, to which you observed, it would be perfectly idle to resort against G. Britain. The collisions of armed vessels would probably produce war—and the U. States would thus be brought into the very situation in which we must wish to place them—that of hostility to France and virtual, if not formal, alliance with Great Britain.
In our second conference, you repeated and enforced the arguments calculated to induce the British government to consent to the repeal of the Orders in Council, and in this conference, though not stating your pro to be authorized by your government formally to offer the suspension of the embargo as an immediate consequence of that repeal—yet you did press (as I understood you) a readiness to take upon yourself to make that offer, provided that I should give you b. f. re hand an unofficial assurance that, coupled with that offer so made, the demand of the repeal of the Orders in Council of Jan. and November, 1807 would be probably rescinded.
I, of course, declined to give any such previous assurances—but as you appeared to attach great importance to this suggestion, and as I was led to think that a compliance with it might relieve you from a difficulty in executing the instructions of your government, I consented to take a few days to consider of it, and to reserve my definitive answer until I should see you again.
I never doubted in my own mind as to the inexpediency & impropriety of encouraging you to take an unauthorized step, by an unofficial promise that it should be well received—but in a matter of such delicacy I was desirous of either confirming or correcting my own opinion by the opinion of others.
The result was, that in a third interview, which took place shortly after the second, I had the honor to inform you that after the most mature deliberation, I found it impossible to yield to your suggestion, and that it therefore remained for you to frame your proposition according to the instructions of your government, as to your own unbiassed discretion.
My own share in these several conferences, beyond what was implied in the above statement, was very small. I have (as you know) always wished to refer the argumentative discussion of the subject of the orders in council, to the official correspondence, which I have more than once been taught to expect you to open upon it, than to engage with you in a verbal controversy, which if confined to ourselves, would be useless—If afterwards to be reduced into writing for the purpose of being communicated to our respective governments—superfluous.
But to the representations which you have repeatedly made against the Orders in Council of January and November, "as violating the rights of the United States, and affecting most descriptively their best interests upon grounds wholly inadmissible both in principle and fact,"—I have uniformly maintained the unquestionable right of his Majesty to resort to the fullest measures of retaliation, in consequence of the unparalleled aggression of the enemy, and to resort upon that enemy the evils of his own injustice—and have uniformly contended that "if third parties suffer from those measures, the demand of reparation must be made to that power, which first violates the established usages of war and the rights of neutral states."
There was indeed, one point upon which I was particularly anxious to receive precise information, and upon which, from your candor and frankness, I was fortunate enough to obtain it. The connecting together in your proposed overture, the suspension of the embargo, and the repeal of the orders in council—as well as those of November as the succeeding one of the 7th of January, might appear to imply that the Embargo had been the immediate consequence of those Orders, and I was, therefore desirous to ascertain whether, in fact the orders in Council of Nov had been known to the government of the United States previous to the message of the President proposing the embargo—so as to be a moving consideration to that message. I had the satisfaction to learn from you, that such was not the fact—that rumours, indeed might have reached America of some measure of further retaliation, being in the contemplation of the British Government, that, perhaps, (as I understood you,) some more severe and sweeping measures might have been expected—but that the orders in council of the 11th of November, as having been issued, there was no knowledge of in America—at least none in possession of the American Government at the time of proposing the Embargo.—Such Sir, is, (according to the best of my recollection,) correctly, the substance of what has passed between us, at our several interviews, previous to the presentation of your official letter; and such I have represented to have been the substance of what has passed on these several occasions in the reports of our conferences which it has been my duty to make to the king.
If in this recapitulation, there is any thing mistaken, or any thing omitted, you will do me the justice to believe the error unintentional, and you may rely on my readiness to set it right.
I have the honor to be &c, GEORGE CANNING.
CATCH THE TRICK!
The editors of the N. York Gazette, on the 10th inst. inserted in their paper a production purporting to be a letter from Mr. Canning to Mr. Pinkney, accompanying his letter of Sept. 23, 1808. In the preface to which it is said that "This letter establishes two important facts. The first is, that the offer of Mr. Jefferson to raise the embargo on the rescinding the orders in council was only communicated to Mr. Canning by Mr. Pinkney in his individual capacity, in a verbal communication, and with an expression of a belief only, that his government would raise the embargo if the British government would first remove their obnoxious orders in council." To this assertion of the N. York Gazette, it is only necessary to reply, that the documents which have been submitted to Congress, and to the American people at large, in particular the letter of Mr. Pinkney to Mr. Canning and Mr. Canning's reply to that, sufficiently prove that the overture was made in official form by the American government, and in official form and with comely spirit rejected by the cabinet of London. A reference to the Documents will establish the truth of what I say in this respect. The second fact (continue the editors of the N. York Gazette) is, that Mr. Pinkney (in relation to Mr. Canning's request for the information) states unreservedly, that when the President recommended the embargo, he had no information of the passage of the British orders in council now complained of. I pretend to know nothing about the letter in question; I neither assert it to be true nor forged. But it must be evident to any man that it does not follow, because Mr. Canning has written certain things in a letter to Mr. Pinkney, that therefore those things must be true. I am inclined to think Mr. Pinkney did not tell Mr. Canning what is asserted in this "second fact." I know, certainly, that the American government had positive knowledge of the British orders in council BEFORE THE EMBARGO WAS LAID. Admitting the reputed letter to be authentic, is it fair to draw any inference from it until Mr. Pinkney's answer to it shall appear? For surely, if such a letter were written by Mr. Canning, Mr. Pinkney made him a reply. As the matter stands, the affair is altogether ex parte. It would, indeed, be a strange thing, if the "recapitulation" of an English secretary is to be received as full evidence of a fact reflecting the government of the U. States. Mr. Pinkney could not have made the broad assertion attributed to him, because, supposing that he had transmitted no information respecting the orders in council, how could he tell but what our government had received intelligence through another channel? With respect to this alleged letter, it will occur to every man of reflection, that if it be genuine, if could only have been made public by the British government through its agents here, or by the American government. On this point the N. York Gazette observes, "we never saw it till yesterday, and we believe it did not accompany the documents ordered to be published by congress." Now, it is certain that our executive would not communicate it (if that were possible) to the editors of the N. Y. Gazette. Where, then, did they procure it? They never saw it till "yesterday," [the 9th instant] In whose hands did they see it at that time? Was it in the possession of Mr. Barclay, the British consul at N. York? Or what agency has Mr. Erskine had in this business? Setting aside every other consideration, I think the circumstance proves conclusively that the British have their pretexts in this country—Monitor.
BALTIMORE, January 11.
Last night a fire was discovered in the middle of Messrs. Ellicott's upper mills, on the Frederick-Town road, about ten miles from Baltimore. This very valuable property and a quantity of stock were consumed. There appears no reason to attribute the unfortunate occurrence to any other cause than accident.
The property was not insured; tho' a determination had recently been made to cover it by insurance, which was on the point of being executed.—N. American.
KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON, Dec. 27.
In the house of representatives of this state, Mr. Marshall offered sundry resolutions and amendments to those presented by Mr. Scruggin, (mentioned in our last) which went to give a new feature to them entirely—and on taking the question, Mr. Marshall stood alone in support of them. Sundry other resolutions were offered by Mr. Clay, as amendments, and passed by a unanimous vote of all the members except Mr. Marshall. The resolutions as amended were sent to the senate and concurred in, with a few amendments, three only voting against them. The following are the resolutions as they passed both houses:—

Resolved, That the administration of the general government, since the fourth of March, eighteen hundred and one, hath been wise, dignified and patriotic, and merits the approbation of the country.
Resolved, That the embargo was a measure highly judicious, and was an honorable expedient to avoid war, whilst its direct tendency, besides annoying those who had rendered resort to it necessary, was to preserve our seamen and property, exposed to the piratical depredations of foreign vessels.
Resolved, That the general assembly of Kentucky would view with the utmost horror, a proposition in any shape to submit to the tributary exactions of Great-Britain, as attempted to be imposed by her orders of council, or to acquiesce in the violation of neutral rights as menaced by the French decrees; in resisting which aggressions, they pledge themselves to the general government, for their most energetic support.
Resolved, That whether war, a total non-intercourse, or a more rigid execution of the embargo system be determined on, the several members of the assembly, on the occasion, will cordially approve and co-operate in enforcing the measure; for they are sensible that in the present crisis of the nation, the alternatives are a surrender of liberty and independence, or a bold and manly resistance.
Resolved, That Thomas Jefferson is entitled to the thanks of his country for the ability, uprightness and intelligence which he has displayed in the management both of our foreign relations and domestic concerns.
Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the President of the United States, and each of our senators and representatives in Congress.
A body of about 500 troops passed through Baltimore two days ago, from Carlisle, on their way to Annapolis, where they will be held in a state of readiness for immediate embarkation. Monitor.
THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, JANUARY 17, 1809.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER.
No. I.
SIR, The object of the writer in the following remarks, is to submit to public consideration the advantages which would result from a tax on dogs in the state of Virginia. I am well aware that the subject is of such a nature as to be incapable of affording much amusement, or any display of that literary refinement which while it delights the fancy, conveys instruction to the mind. My highest expectations will be gratified, if the subject is placed in such a light as to induce a serious consideration of the objects contemplated, as I am convinced it receives such consideration it will produce the effect desired. The general object of a law ought to be the accomplishment of some positive or relative good, or the suppression of some public evil. If I should be enabled to show that a law imposing a tax on dogs would embrace both these objects, I may fairly hope that the question submitted to public view will receive that weight to which it is entitled. In the first place then it is confidently believed that such a law would produce a very considerable public revenue, with less inconvenience than any other law which can be proposed. Let it be supposed, for I do not pretend to be accurate on this point, that there are in the state of Virginia one hundred thousand families, and that there are to a family upon an average three dogs, which is considered a moderate computation, taking into view the number of negroes who are suffered to keep dogs, and the number of Fox hunters &c. Let us suppose that a tax of one dollar was imposed on every dog in a family over one, and we should have a revenue of two hundred thousand dollars derived from such a tax, if none of the present number of dogs should be destroyed. But it is presumed, that many would be destroyed, and it is ardently to be wished that such an event should take place. I have stated that I do not pretend to be entirely accurate; I mean as to the number of families in the state, nor can I be supposed to have ascertained the average number of dogs to a family with positive certainty. It is thought, however, that my estimate on consideration will not be found to be extravagant. The times loudly call for a full treasury, and the public is here presented with a plan which would lay the foundation for a handsome revenue, without much inconvenience or hardship to any one. It will not produce much inconvenience or hardship, because none will in the case supposed, keep more dogs than he can afford. The tax will fall principally on the rich or such as can afford it, and there will be a vast saving to the community in preventing a part of the consumption of the present useless number of dogs. A dog will consume more than a hog, and I will leave it to any considerate man to say, which would be of most advantage to the poor man, a dog which he might well spare, or a good fat hog.
But it may be asked why it should be imagined that a man will keep more dogs on his plantation than he has an absolute occasion for? It is in vain to attempt to account for men's prejudices, and often as difficult to remove them by argument. But I may safely rely on the experience of my fellow-citizens to decide on the facts I have taken for granted. But I have admitted that if the tax in question should take place, that many dogs will be destroyed, such probably as are useless, and a part of the revenue which would be received if all were preserved, would consequently be lost. But still it is believed that a sufficient number would be left to raise considerable revenue. I have said the tax would principally fall on the rich or such as can afford to pay it, and yet the rich as well as the poor if I am not deceived, would be greatly benefited, and a public grievance would be removed.
This brings me to another point which I have proposed to consider, and it is thought much the most important one. The present daily destruction of stock, hogs, and sheep; particularly sheep, is a serious public evil, which would it is believed be greatly diminished by such a law as the one proposed. If a man can save two thirds of the hogs he intends for consumption, he is fortunate. Often one half is lost, and there can be no doubt of the principal cause of such destruction.
But the destruction of sheep at the present momentous crisis, is certainly an evil which every patriot must feel disposed to redress. It is no uncommon thing for the farmer in
the course of a few nights to lose half, sometimes almost the whole of his flock of sheep, by voracious dogs, prompted by famine or accustomed to the pursuit of this unresisting animal by unprincipled slaves.
Ought not every encouragement which an enlightened Legislature can devise, be extended to the propagation and improvement of this animal? Are these the times when a policy so obvious should be overlooked or neglected? What remedy can be devised so apparent & efficacious, as the destruction of a portion of the present useless number of dogs, leaving only such as are principally under the care & inspection of a house-keeper whose interest and inclination would equally bind him to prevent from going at large, an animal so destructive when left to himself, and so useful when properly restrained?
Should not every faculty of the mind be extended, and every nerve strung to its utmost pitch, to enable us with the least inconvenience to resist the usurpations and oppressions of foreign powers, and to render us for the future, less dependent on them for their manufactures? But who would be at the expence and care necessary for the improvement and raising of sheep, when all his fairest prospects might probably be blasted in a night? I shall now conclude my remarks; I fear I have been already tedious. I may possibly at another time resume the subject. ALEXIS.
No. II.
SIR, I attempted on a former occasion to prove, that a law imposing a tax on dogs, would be a most useful, wise and necessary law. I attempted to prove, that the best interests of the state, required at a period like this, when almost a world in arms, are endeavoring by their unjust restrictions on our commerce, and their unprincipled invasions of our rights, to entangle us in their wars; that we should prepare to live without ourselves. I was of opinion, that to effect this, it was necessary that all due encouragement should be given to the production of such articles as are essential to domestic manufactures. Wool was considered as an article most essential to the comfort of a people exposed to the vicissitudes of cold and wet, and to the effects which must ever attend a climate always varying and unsteady. It was believed that a sufficient quantity of wool could not be raised without extending to the improvement and propagation of sheep, encouragement heretofore withheld.
The greatest & most effectual encouragement which can be given to the improvement of that most useful animal, aided by the necessity of the times, is to make it the interest of men to lay out their money in the most approved breeds of sheep, as well as to bestow on them such labor and pains as are necessary to improve the condition of all kinds of stock, or at least to render them stationary. But it never can be the interest of men to lay out much money, or to bestow great pains on that, which is subject to almost certain loss, without at any rate an unusual concurrence of fortunate circumstances—Remove the cause, and you give all that stimulus to activity and perseverance, which are necessary to obtain success in any undertaking. I have endeavored to establish this fact, that the present number of useless dogs is the cause to which we are principally to attribute the present destruction of our sheep. Let us impose a tax on dogs, and we remove the cause which prevents the increase of our flocks.
But we have among us a set of drivelling politicians, who by turns consider dogs as objects of adoration, and then as too insignificant to merit attention. They are willing to tax horses, or asses, but the dog, however injurious he may become to the interests of society, is to be held sacred. These illiterate and refined genius's affect to ridicule and laugh at such a proposition, and become indignant at the bare idea of such a law. A man of plain common sense, would consider the utility of a measure, as the standard by which we ought to judge of its wisdom and its policy. If a stranger casually passing through our country, should hear the opinions of some, among us, he would think the dog the God of the Virginians, worshipped as he would find on examination, more for the evil which he is the cause, than for the good which he does to man.
It is said, however, that such a law as the one proposed, would bear particularly hard on the people of some of the Western Counties, where from the number of wolves, &c. dogs are of the utmost importance. There ought to exist in every society such good will and harmony among the different members, that each should be disposed to yield something to the convenience and wishes of others. All in their turn may find something in which they may wish to be accommodated, and each may contribute something to the general happiness and prosperity of his Country. But if such a tax would be oppressive to the frontier Counties, it would be better to exempt them from its operation, as free negroes in those counties are exempted from the general restrictions of a law excluding that description of people from the privilege of carrying arms. There is a law granting to the people of some of those counties, premiums for killing wolves. This law operates as a tax on the people of the middle and lower counties. The advantages of such premiums, it might be thought, would counter-balance the inconveniences of the law in question, if indeed any inconveniences worth a calculation, are to be apprehended.
But it is humbly conceived that this is not a time to be cavilling about trivial and local interests. When our country is surrounded with great and alarming dangers, every citizen ought to advance with a firm and steady step to oppose them. The present is not a contest of contending armies where the courage of man dares and hazards everything in defence of his country, or for the proud triumph of victory. It is a contest where one nation by commercial restrictions and arbitrary regulations, endeavors to force the wealth of another into her own coffers; and that other with many firmness has determined to withhold for a time, that wealth from the ocean, to disappoint the avaricious, and ambitious views of her adversary. The nation which can best dispense with the necessities, manufactures, or luxuries of the other, will obtain the victory.
Let us then make a firm stand, determined never to abandon our rights but with our existence. Our general government may think it sound policy to continue the embargo a twelve month longer, and to aid it by a law prohibiting all intercourse with those nations who have invaded our rights. Perhaps this is a course which for some time longer may be preferable to war. It is true, we may acquire by the loss of some thousands of lives, the possession of Canada. But is it not at least problematical whether it would be good
Policy to add to the extent of a country, already so widely extended; to endanger perhaps at no very remote period, a dismemberment? A dismemberment it is certain, would be the greatest of all follies, as all the parts would be weakened, and rendered contemptible by such a step. But wisdom itself is not always a sufficient safeguard against passions and local prejudices.
Let us however, be prepared to aid the views of the general government whatever course they may take, with all our energies. Let us at this time be prepared to meet the embargo and non intercourse, or war with as little inconvenience to ourselves as the nature of things will admit of. Let us for this purpose extend to domestic manufactures, every aid and encouragement. We should exact laws which would increase if possible, in a tenfold degree, our present stock of wool.
The only practicable mode of doing this, has it is believed been pointed out. Let us become independent of foreign powers in fact, as well as in theory, for it is a solemn truth, that while men's wants, and luxuries, and pride, render them dependent, their boast of independence is an empty sound, unless indeed they have virtue & wisdom, and energy enough, to rise superior to the difficulties in which circumstances out of the reach of their controul, may have placed them. ALEXIS.
ALEXIS.
It is obvious, from the course of this paper, that its author's views have some shades of difference from those of Alexis—These, it is unnecessary to point out—As to the possession of Canada, why not let it be a pledge—an equivalent for some concession, at the period of pacification? EDITOR.
EXTRACTS FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
TUESDAY, January 10th. A communication from the Senate by their Clerk.
The Senate have passed the following bills, to wit:
A bill "Relative to the election of trustees of Lynchburg parish;"
A bill "Remitting certain damages and interest to Samuel Ritchie;"
A bill "Allowing persons arraigned of misdemeanors in certain cases the right of challenge;"
A bill "To supply the deficiencies in the appropriations of last year;" and
A bill "Dissolving a marriage solemnized between West Alricks and Anne Peyton."
An engrossed bill "Incorporating a company to establish a turnpike from Fredericksburg to Swift Run Gap in the Blue Ridge," (which lay on the table) was taken up; and the said bill amended by an engrossed clause by way of rider;
Resolved, That the bill, with the rider, do pass, and that the title be "An act to incorporate a company to establish a turnpike from Fredericksburg to Swift Run Gap in the Blue Ridge."
The report and resolution of the committee appointed to enquire into the condition of the House, &c. set apart for the use of the Governor (which report lay on the table) was taken up and the said resolution agreed to by the House.
Ordered, That a bill be brought in pursuant to the said resolution, and that the committee who reported the said resolution, do prepare and bring in the said bill.
A report from the committee for Courts of Justice. They have, according to order, had under their consideration several petitions to them referred, & have come to the following resolutions thereupon:
1. Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the petition of George Pickett, Robert Pollard, Charles Johnston and Nathaniel Sheppard, administrators of John Pendleton, dec'd, praying that provision may be made by law for discharging certain public certificates found among the papers of the intestate, or that they may be liquidated and certificates granted in lieu thereof, to bear legal interest, is reasonable.
2. Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that so much of the petition of the said Henry J. Arnold, as prays that the right of the commonwealth to a certain tenement or part of a lot of land lying in the city of Richmond, which hath escheated to the Commonwealth by the death of William Frederick Ast, may be vested in the petitioner, who is represented to be a nephew of, and the only person of kin to, the said Ast in the United States, is reasonable.
3. Resolved, as the opinion of this committee that the residue of the petition of the said Henry J. Arnold praying, that in case the commonwealth's right to the said tenement should not be vested in him, that an act may pass authorising a sale, after directing the proceeds of such sale, after deducting the expenses thereof, to be paid to the petitioner as administrator of the said Ast, be rejected.
The said resolutions being read a second time, were agreed to by the House.
A bill "Prescribing the manner of licensing persons to practice medicine and surgery within this commonwealth;" and,
A bill "Altering the name of Boswell's warehouse;" were severally read the first time;
On motion, Ordered, That the further consideration of the said bills be postponed to the 31st day of March next.
A bill "Allowing a claim to David Moffet," (which lay on the table) was taken up and read the first time, and the question being put on the second reading of the said bill it passed in the negative—Rejected.
A report from the committee for Courts of Justice (which lay on the table) was taken up and read in the following words:
The committee for Courts of Justice, have according to order, had under their consideration the petition of John Minor, to them referred, and have come to the following resolution thereupon:
Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the petition of the said John Minor, praying that the Auditor of Public Accounts may be authorised to issue in favor of the petitioner, a duplicate of a warrant issued in the name of John Syme, for three hundred & forty three dollars 33 cents, upon a certificate of a registered debt, it appearing that the original warrant hath been lost, is reasonable.
The said resolution being read a second time, was agreed to by the House.
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill "To explain the act, entitled an act, for reducing into one the several acts concerning the Land Office; ascertaining the terms and manner of granting waste and unsappropriated lands; for settling the titles and bounds of lands; directing the mode of procuring, and prescribing the duties of surveyors;" and Messrs. Wirt, Walton, Walker, Sheley, Otey, Sargeant and M'Henry, do prepare and bring in the same.
Mr. Baytop, from the committee appointed to examine the enrolled bills, reported, that the committee had examined several bills, and found them to be truly enrolled. Ordered, That the clerk carry the said bills to the Senate.
To the Freeholders of Charlotte, Buckingham, Prince Edward and Gumberland.
FELLOW-CITIZENS, The period is fast approaching when you will again assemble for the purpose of choosing a person to represent you in the next Congress. As a candidate on this occasion, permit me to say to you, it may not be improper to give you some idea of my political creed—I have been and ever will be a republican—I not only admire, but within my proper sphere have uniformly supported the present administration—I think the course pursued in the management of our foreign as well as Domestic Concerns, that, which was best calculated to promote the general good.
I approve of and supported as much as I could the election of Mr. James Madison to the presidency, because I thought him better qualified than any other man in the United States to be the successor of the illustrious Jefferson—That a very great majority of you agree with me in this opinion, has been fully demonstrated by the choice you have made of Electors. And that a very great majority of you approve of the present administration, I have never doubted.
That the representative of a free people should on great national questions accord in opinion with his constituents, will I presume be admitted by all.
To prove that your present representative does not agree with you in opinion of the correctness of the course pursued by the present administration. I will mention one strong case, viz: The Embargo—a measure which he has opposed on every occasion. The wisdom and policy of which has been questioned by few among you—It is easy to prove that it has not only saved millions of dollars to the United States—but many thousand hardy tars.
That your present representative does not agree with you in the Successor of your favorite Jefferson, cannot be denied—He has published to the world his opinion that the man of your choice (James Madison) does not possess any of those great and noble qualities which are requisite in the character to fill the office of President. How, let me ask you, could you reconcile the inconsistency of voting for James Madison as president, and his most bitter political enemy as your representative?
Fellow-Citizens! the present is an awful period; never was there greater necessity for unanimity than the present, not only among the people but in our councils. To promote which—let us elect men as our representatives who will support, not oppose, the administration of our choice—should I have the honor to be elected, my best exertions shall be used to promote the general welfare of our Country—On the contrary, you should re-elect your present representative, I will submit with cheerfulness to the public will. Your Fellow-Citizen, JERMAN BAKER.
See the Protest of the seventeen members of Congress against the presidential caucus held in Washington last winter.
JOHN ALCOCK, informs his friends, and the public, that he is carrying on his CABINET MAKING BUSINESS, in all its branches where he makes all kind of Mahogany Furniture in the best manner, and on the newest fashions—Any gentlemen or ladies wanting any Furniture, will find good work executed, and on low terms, as can be bought in New-York, or any other place. Any orders left at my shop, in the Cross-Street, adjoining Prosser and Moncure's Vendue Store, or at Mr. George Greenhow's where I keep my Warehouse, will be pointedly attended to, and great care taken to deliver it in good order.
N. B. Two Apprentices wanted at the above business, who can come well Recommended. January 17.
ATTENTION! MANCHESTER REPUBLICAN BLOOD. In consequence of the death of the late beloved Capt. ARCHIBALD MATE, who was reported to attend at Briscoe's Coliseum, on Saturday evening last at 6 o'clock, for the purpose of a public meeting, it is hoped on an occasion so important as this, to the future welfare of the company, the members will be punctilious in their attendance. By order of the standing committee. HANSFIELD WATKINS, Secretary. January 17.
For the information of members residing in the country, I have been requested to state that a majority of the Company residing in Town; have come to a unanimous resolution of voting as a block, around their mass, for four weeks, as a testimonial of respect for the memory of our deceased Capt. A. MATE. M. W. January 17.
LANDING from the Schooner RICHMOND Isaac Seaman, Master:—
37 Boxes Raisins,
10 Bales Soft Shelled Almonds,
5 Casks Green Coffee,
19 Barrels Prime Pork, and
1 Pipe London Pimento Madeira Wine. IN STORE.
17 Hogsheads Brown Sugar,
25 do. Molasses,
5 Tierces Green Coffee,
75 Boxes Hay and Segars,
3 Bales Welch Plaines,
Family Flour in barrels and half barrels,
Young Hyson, Hyson Skin and Souchong Tea,
10 Boxes Mottled Candles, FOR SALE BY, GEORGE WATT, if.
TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN—At the time of a dissolution of the firm of Campbell and Clark, merchants here, a transfer and sale was made to the subscriber, one of the partners, by Mr. Archibald Campbell of New-York, the other, of all his interest in the debts and stock of that copartnership, and also of the house of Robert Campbell & Co. of Charlotte county, carried on under the superintendence of Robert Campbell, deceased, who was exclusively interested in that firm one third, and the remainder belonging to the house here.
There is still due from Robert Campbell & Co. a considerable balance for advances (during the existence of that firm, to the subscriber, who is therefore, only competent (or his agent,) to collect & grant discharges for debts due Robert Campbell & Co. to amount of the sums owing by them for advances of stock, and the remainder; if any, will be profits, and to which the representatives of Robert Campbell, will be entitled one-third part. SAMUEL CLARK. Only surviving partner of the late firm of Robert Campbell & Co. Richmond, January 17. o.wow
N. B. I will give the highest price for Tobacco and other produce in discharge of the debts due to Robert Campbell & Co. S. CLARK.
THE General Meeting of the Mutual Assurance Society, against Fire, &c. will, on Wednesday next, take under their consideration matters of considerable importance to the institution. The meeting will be held at the Capitol in the Room of the Committee of Propositions and Grievances, at the hour of 10 A. M.—It is wished that the meeting should be as fully attended as possible. SAMUEL GREENHOW, Principal Agent. January 17.
BALL.—The subscription for the Return Ball is at the Bar of the Bell-Tavern. January 17.
United States' Court, 5th circuit and Virginia district, NOVEMBER TERM, 1808.
UNITED STATES, }
AGAINST }
JOHN MOSS, }
ON the motion of the defendant, by his attorney, It is ordered, that the Bank-Notes concerning which James Byrne, Esq. a witness examined on the trial of the indictment spoke, and of which he declared himself to be in possession, as having been taken from John Moss, be retained by the said Byrne, until the further order of the court, that in the mean time he publish in proper news-papers, a list of those Notes, so as to enable any persons claiming them, to make known such claim to the said Byrne, that upon the identifying of any of them, the said Byrne in consequence with Edmund Randolph, may deliver the same to the claimant; and that the said Byrne report to the next court his proceedings in the premises, together with a list of such of the said notes, as may then remain in his hands. A COPY. TESTE, WILLIAM MARSHALL, CLERK.
PERSONS identifying and claiming notes under the foregoing order, must have their proofs authenticated in the same manner that depositions are required to be authenticated when offered as evidence in the Federal Court of the United States, and if forwarded to me, the postage must be paid, or I shall not take them from the Post-Office. JAMES BYRNE. PETERSBURG, December 28, 1808.
A list of Bank-Notes found on JOHN MOSS, lately convicted of having stolen Bank-Notes out of letters in the Post-Office in Petersburg, while acting therein as a Clerk, and which are now in the possession of James Byrne, as Mayor of Petersburg
Table with 7 columns: Letter, No, Date, To whom drawn, In whose favor, Bank, Amount. It lists various bank notes found on John Moss, including details on who they were drawn to and from, and the issuing bank.
(7) 1775 June 15th, 1808. D. Lewis. James Stevenson, and endorsed by him to William Faulcon only or order. This note was got from MOSS the night before his being apprehended—it is in the possession of Hart and Wright of this place, who exchanged Virginia notes for it, for the purpose of leading to the detection—it is for one hundred dollars.