The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-04-15 00:00:00

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
By virtue of a deed of trust, executed to me by Armistead Russell, for the purpose of securing to Bartholomew Dandridge, the payment of one thousand two hundred and nineteen pounds and eight pence—shall, on the 2d day of May next, proceed to sell, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at New-Kent Court-House, A TRACT OF LAND, lying in New-Kent county, called Pointdexter's, containing six hundred and thirty-six acres; twelve likely NEGROES; or so much of the said property as may be necessary to satisfy the balance of the debt due on said deed, together with the expenses attending the execution thereof.
WM. ARMISTEAD, Trustee.
April 8. [3w] SELECT SCHOOL.—This school is removed to the former Loan-Office, opposite to the Swan-Tavern.—The instructions given are in the Latin and Greek languages, Rhetoric and Mathematics, &c. The School hours are from 8 o'clock in the morning to 3 in the afternoon. The pupils are limited to twenty, and as that number is not filled up at present, a few will be received. The fees of tuition are fifteen dollars a quarter, payable in advance. There is no additional charge upon the Scholar's first entering, nor is there any for fuel. FRANCIS S. O'REILLY. Richmond, April 8. [2m.]
NOTICE.—The subscribers having formed a connection in Business, under the firm of HOVEY & SIZER, offer for sale (at the store lately occupied by Mr. C. J. Macmurdo) the following articles viz :
 50 bds. N. E. Rum,  25 bds. Loaf and Lump Sugar,  12 bags of Pepper,  2 ton of Bar Lead,  10 boxes Cotton and Wool Cards,  25 boxes Candles,  15 boxes New-York Chocolate,  25 trunks of Shoes assorted,  50 tiers Stone Lime. 
HENRY HOVEY, JAMES SIZER. [ep5v.]
All persons who are indebted to the subscriber are requested to make immediate payment—No further indulgence will be given to those whose bonds and accounts have been due 6 months. HENRY HOVEY.
DOMESTIC.
LETTERS
From the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of Impressments, &c. Also extracts from, and enclosures in, the letters of Mr. Monroe to the Secretary of State, prior to the joint mission of him and Mr. Pinkney; Part 2. accompanying the message of the President of the U. S. received on the 22d of March, 1808.
LETTERS FROM MR. MADISON TO MR. MONROE.
OBSERVATIONS
ON THE PRECEDING PLAN. (Published in our last.)
THE first article relates to impressments from American vessels on the high seas. The commanders of British armed vessels have, as is well known, been long in this practice. They have indeed not only continued it, under the sanction of their superiors, on the high seas; but have, with impunity, extended it to our own coasts, to neutral ports and to neutral territory; and, in some instances, to our own harbors. The article does not comprehend these latter cases; because it would not be very honorable in Great-Britain to stipulate against the practice of such enormities, nor in the United States to recur to stipulations as a security against it; and because it may be presumed that such particular enormities will not be repeated or unpunished, after a general stop shall have been put to impressments.
The article, in its first form, renounces the claim to take from the vessels of the neutral party, on the high seas, any person whatever, not in the military service of an enemy; an exception which we admit to come within the law of nations, on the subject of contraband of war.
With this exception, we consider a neutral flag on the high seas, as a safe guard to those sailing under it. Great-Britain, on the contrary, asserts a right to search for, and seize her own subjects; and under that cover, as cannot but happen, are often seized and taken off, citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of other neutral countries navigating the high seas, under the protection of the American flag.
Were the right of Great-Britain in this case not denied, the abuses flowing from it would justify the United States in claiming and expecting a discontinuance of its exercise. But the right is denied, and on the best grounds.
Although Great-Britain has not yet adopted, in the same latitude with most other nations, the immunities of a neutral flag, she will not deny the general freedom of the high seas, and of neutral vessels navigating them, with such exceptions only, as are annexed to it, by the law of nations. She must produce then such an exception in the law of nations, in favor of the right she contends for. But in what written and received authority will she find it? In what usage, except her own, will it be found? She will find in both, that a neutral vessel does not protect certain objects denominated contraband of war, including enemies serving in the war, nor articles going into a blockaded port; nor, as she has maintained, and as we have not contested, enemy's property of any kind. But no where will she find an exception to this freedom of the seas, and of neutral flags which justifies the taking away of any person, not an enemy in military service, found on board a neutral vessel.
If treaties, British as well as others, are to be consulted on this subject, it will equally appear that no countenance to the practice can be found in them. Whilst they admit a contraband of war, by enumerating its articles, and the effect of a real blockade by defining it, in no instance do they affirm or imply a right in any sovereign, to enforce his claims to the allegiance of his subjects, on board neutral vessels, on the high seas. On the contrary, whenever a belligerent
claim against persons on board a neutral vessel, is referred to in treaties, enemies in military service alone are excepted from the general immunity of persons in that situation; and this exception confirms the immunity of those who are not included in it.
It is not then from the law, or the usage of nations, nor from the tenor of treaties, that any sanction can be derived for the practice in question. And surely it will not be pretended, that the sovereignty of any nation extends, in any case whatever, beyond its own dominions, and its own vessels on the high seas. Such a doctrine would give just alarm to all nations, and more than any thing would countenance the imputation of aspiring to an universal empire of the seas. It would be the less admissible too, as well as to times of war, and to property as well as to persons. If the law of allegiance, which is a municipal law, be in force at all on the high seas, on board foreign vessels, it must be so at all times there, as it is within its acknowledged sphere. If the reason alleged for it be good in time of war, namely, that the sovereign has then a right to the service of all his subjects, it must be good at all times, because at all times he has the same right to their service. War is not the only occasion for which he may want their services; nor is external danger the only danger against which their services may be required for his security. Again, if the authority of a municipal law can operate on persons in foreign vessels on the high seas, because within the dominion of their sovereign they would be subject to that law, and are violating that law by being in that situation; how reject the inference that the authority of a municipal law may equally be enforced on board foreign vessels on the high seas, against articles of property exported in violation of such a law, or belonging to the country from which it was exported?—
And thus every commercial regulation, in time of peace too, as well as of war, would be made obligatory on foreigners and their vessels, not only whilst within the dominion of the sovereign making the regulation, but in every sea, and at every distance where an armed vessel might meet with them. Another inference deserves attention. If the subjects of one sovereign may be taken by force from the vessels of another, on the high seas, the right of taking them, when found, implies the right of searching for them; a vexation of commerce, especially in time of peace, which has not yet been attempted, and which, for that as well as other reasons, may be regarded as contradicting the principle from which it would flow.
Taking reason and justice for the tests of this practice, it is peculiarly indefensible; because it deprives the dearest rights of persons, of a regular trial, to which the most inconsiderable article of property captured on the high seas, is entitled; and leaves their destiny to the will of an officer, sometimes cruel, often ignorant, and generally interested by his want of mariners, in his own decision: Whenever property found in a neutral vessel is supposed to be liable on any grounds to capture and condemnation, the rule in all cases is, that the question shall not be decided by the captor, but be carried before a legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, and where the captor himself is liable to damages for an abuse of his power. Can it be reasonable then or just, that a belligerent commander who is thus restricted and thus responsible in a case of mere property of trivial amount, should be permitted, without recurring to any tribunal whatever, to examine the crew of a neutral vessel, to decide the important question of their respective allegiances, and to carry that decision into instant execution by forcing every individual he may choose into a service abhorrent to his feelings; cutting him off from his most tender connections, exposing his mind and his person to the most humiliating discipline, and his life itself to the greatest dangers? Reason, justice and humanity unite in protesting against so extravagant a proceeding. And what is the pretext for it? It is that the similarity of language and of features, between American citizens and British subjects, are such as not easily to be distinguished; and that without this arbitrary and summary authority to make the distinction, British subjects would escape under the name of American citizens, from the duty which they owe to their sovereign. Is then the difficulty of distinguishing a mariner of one country from the mariner of the other and the importance of his services, a good plea for referring the question whether he belongs to one or to the other, to an arbitrary decision on the spot, by an interested and irresponsible officer?—
In all other cases, the difficulty and the importance of questions are considered as reasons for requiring greater care and formality in investigating them, and greater security for a right decision on them. To say that precautions of this sort are incompatible with the object, is to admit that the object is unjustifiable, since the only means by which it can be pursued are such as cannot be justified.
The evil takes a deeper die when viewed in its practice as well as its principles. Were it allowable that British subjects should be taken out of American vessels on the high seas, it might at least be required that the proof of their allegiance should lie on the British side. This obvious and just rule is however reversed, and every seaman on board, though going from an American port and sailing under the American flag, and sometimes even speaking an idiom proving him not to be a British subject, is presumed to be such, unless shown to be an American citizen. It may safely be affirmed that this is an outrage and an indignity which has no precedent, and which Great-Britain would be among the last nations in the world to suffer, if offered to her own subjects and her own flag. Nor is it always against the right presumption alone, which is in favor of the citizenship corresponding with the flag, that the violence is committed. Not unfrequently it takes place in defiance of the most positive proof, certified in due form by an American officer. Let it not be said, that in granting to American seamen this protection on their rights as such, the point is yielded that the proof lies on the American side,
and that the want of it in the prescribed form, justifies the inference, that the seaman is not of American allegiance. It is distinctly to be understood, that the certificate usually called a protection to American seamen, is not meant to protect them under their own or even any other neutral flag on the high seas. We can never admit, that in such a situation, any other protection is required for them than the neutral flag itself, on the high seas. The document is given to prove their real character, in situations to which neither the law of nations nor the laws of their own country are applicable, in other words, to protect them within the jurisdiction of the British laws, and to secure to them, within every other jurisdiction the rights & immunities due to them. If in the course of their navigation even on the high seas, the document should have the effect of repelling wrongs of any sort, it is an incidental advantage only, of which they avail themselves, and is by no means to be misconstrued into a right to exact such a proof, or to make any disadvantageous inference from the want of it.
Were it even admitted that certificates for protection might be justly required in time of war, from American seamen, they could only be required in cases, where the lapse of time from its commencement had given an opportunity for the American seamen to provide themselves with such a document. Yet it is certain, that in a variety of instances, seamen have been impressed from American vessels, on the plea, that they had not this proof of citizenship, when the dates and places of the impressment, demonstrated the impossibility of their knowing, in time to provide the proof, that a state of war had rendered it necessary.
Whether, therefore, we consult the law of nations, the tenor of treaties or the dictates of reason and justice, no warrant, no pretext can be found for the British practice of making impressment from American vessels on the high seas.
Great-Britain has the less to say in excuse for this practice, as it is in direct contradiction to the principles on which she proceeds in other cases. Whilst she claims and seizes on the high seas, her own subjects voluntarily serving in American vessels, she has constantly given, when she could give as a reason for not discharging from her service, American citizens, that they had voluntarily engaged in it. Nay, more, whilst she impresses her own subjects from the American service, although they may have been settled and married, and even naturalized in the U. States, she constantly refuses to release from her, American citizens impressed into it, whenever she can give for a reason, that they were either settled or married within her dominions. Thus, when the voluntary consent of the individual favors her pretensions, she pleads the validity of that consent.—When the voluntary consent of the individual stands in the way of her pretensions, it goes for nothing! When marriage or residence can be pleaded in her favor, she avails herself of the plea. When marriage and residence and even naturalization are against her, no respect whatever is paid to either! She takes by force her own subjects voluntarily serving in our vessels. She keeps by force, American citizens involuntarily serving in hers. More flagrant inconsistencies cannot be imagined.
Notwithstanding the powerful motives which ought to be felt by the British government to relinquish a practice which exposes it to so many reproaches, it is foreseen that objections of different sorts will be pressed on you. You will be told, first, of the great number of British seamen in the American trade, and of the necessity for their services in time of war and danger. Secondly, of the right and the prejudice of the British nation with respect to what are called the British or narrow seas, where its domains would be abandoned by the general stipulation required. Thirdly, of the use which would be made of such a sanctuary as that of American vessels for desertions and traitorous communications to her enemies, especially across the channel to France.
1st. With respect to the British seamen serving in our trade, it may be remarked, first, that the number, though considerable is probably less than may be supposed. Secondly, that what is wrong in itself, cannot be made right by considerations of expediency or advantage. Thirdly, that it is proved by the fact, that the number of real British subjects gained by the practice in question, is of inconsiderable importance, even in the scale of advantage. The annexed report to Congress on the subject of impressments, with the addition of such cases as may be in the hands of Mr. Erving, will verify the remark in its application to the present war. The statement made by his predecessor during the last war, and which is also annexed, is in the same view still more conclusive. The statement comprehends not only all the applications made by him in the first instance, for the liberation of impressed seamen, between the month of June, 1797, and September 1801, but many also, which had been made previous to this agency by Mr. Pinkney and Mr. King, and which it was necessary for him to renew. These applications, therefore, may fairly be considered as embracing the greater part of the period of the war; and as applications are known to be pretty indiscriminately made, they may further be considered as embracing, if not the whole, the far greater part of the impressments, those of British subjects as well as others. Yet the result exhibits 2,059 cases only, and of this number, 102 seamen only detained as being British subjects, which is less than 1-20th of the number impressed, and 1142 discharged or ordered to be so, as not being British subjects, which is more than half of the whole number, leaving 803 for further proof, with the strongest presumption that the greater part, if not the whole, were Americans or other aliens, whose proof of citizenship had been lost or destroyed, or whose situation would account for the difficulties and delays in producing it. So that it is certain, that for all the British seamen gained by this violent proceeding, more than an equal number who were not so, were the victims. It is highly probable, that for every British seaman so gained, a number of others not less than ten for one, must have been the victims, and it is
even possible that this number may have exceeded the proportion of twenty to one.
It cannot therefore be doubted, that the acquisition of British seamen by these impressments, whatever may be its advantage, is lost in the wrong done to Americans, ignorantly or wilfully mistaken for British subjects; in the jealousy and ill will excited among all maritime nations by an adherence to such a practice; & in the particular provocation to measures of redress on the part of the United States, not less disagreeable to them than embarrassing to Great-Britain, & which may threaten the good understanding which ought to be faithfully cultivated by both. The copy of a bill brought into Congress under the influence of violations committed on our flag, gives force to this latter consideration. Whether it will pass into a law, and at the present session, is more than yet can be said. As there is every reason to believe that it has been proposed with reluctance, it will probably not be pursued into effect, if any hope can be supported, of a remedy by an amicable arrangement between the two nations. But such is the feeling through this country, produced by the reiterated and atrocious cases of impressments and other insults on our flag, that a remedy of some kind will ere long be called for, in a tone not to be disregarded. A copy of the bill referred to, is herewith inclosed.
There is a further consideration which ought to have weight in this question. Although the British seamen employed in carrying on American commerce, be in some respects lost to their own nation, yet such is the intimate and extensive connexion of this commerce, direct and circuitous, with the commerce, the manufactures, the revenue and the general resources of the British nation, that in other respects, its mariners on board American vessels may truly be said to be rendering it the most valuable services. It would not be extravagant to make it a question, whether G. Britain would not suffer more by withdrawing her seamen from the merchant vessels of the United States, than her enemies would suffer from the addition of them to the crews of her ships of war and cruisers.
Should any difficulty be started concerning seamen, born within the British dominions, and naturalized by the United States, since the treaty of 1793, you may remove it by observing, first, that very few if any such naturalizations can take place, the law here, requiring a preparatory residence of five years, with notice of the intention to become a citizen entered of record, two years before the last necessary formality, besides a regular proof of good moral character, conditions little likely to be complied with by ordinary seafaring persons. Secondly, that a discontinuance of impressments on the high seas will preclude an actual collision between the interfering claims. Within the jurisdiction of each nation, and in their respective vessels on the high seas, each will enforce the allegiance which it claims. In other situations, the individuals doubly claimed will be within a jurisdiction independent of both nations.
2d. The British pretensions to domain over the narrow seas are so obsolete, and so indefensible, that they never would have occurred as a probable objection in this case, if they had not actually frustrated an arrangement settled by Mr. King with the British minister, on the subject of impressments from American vessels on the high seas. At the moment when the articles were expected to be signed, an exception of the "narrow seas" was urged and insisted on by lord St. Vincent, and being utterly inadmissible on our part, the negotiation was abandoned.—Mr. King seems to be of opinion, however, that with more time than was left him for the experiment, the objection might have been overcome. This is not improbable, if the objection was not merely an expedient for evading a relinquishment of a favorite practice.
The objection in itself has certainly not the slightest foundation. The time has been indeed, when England not only claimed but exercised pretensions scarcely inferior to full sovereignty over the seas surrounding the British Isles, and even as far as Cape Finisterre to the south, and Vanstaten in Norway, to the north. It was a time however, when reason had little share in determining the law and the intercourse of nations; when power alone decided questions of right; and when the ignorance and want of concert among other maritime countries facilitated such an usurpation. The progress of civilization and information has produced a change in all those respects, and no principle in the code of public law, is at present better established, than the common freedom of the seas, beyond a very limited distance from the territories washed by them. This distance is not indeed fixed with absolute precision. It is varied in a small degree by written authorities; and perhaps it may be reasonably varied, in some degree, by local peculiarities. But the greatest distance which would now be listened to any where, would make a small proportion of the narrowest part of the narrowest seas in question.
What are in fact the prerogatives claimed and exercised by Great-Britain over these seas? If they were really a part of her dominion, her authority would be the same there as within her other domains. Foreign vessels would be subject to all the laws and regulations framed for them, as much as if they were within the harbors or rivers of the country. Nothing of this sort would be tolerated—Nothing of this sort would be tolerated. The only instances in which these seas are distinguished from other seas, or in which Great-Britain enjoys within them any distinction over other nations, are first, the compliment paid by other flags to hers; secondly, the extension of her territorial jurisdiction in certain cases to the distance of four leagues from the coast. The first is a relic of ancient usurpation, which has thus long escaped the correction, which modern and more enlightened times have applied to other usurpations. The prerogative has been often contested however, even at the expense of bloody wars, and is still borne with ill will and impatience by her neighbors. At the last treaty of peace at Amiens, the abolition of it was repeatedly and strongly pressed by France, and it is not improbable that at no remote day it will follow the fate of the title of 'King of France' so long worn by the British monarchs, and at length so properly sacrificed to the lessons of a magnanimous wisdom. As far as this homage to the British flag has any foundation at present, it rests merely on long usage and long acquiescence, which are construed, as in a few other cases of maritime claims, into the effect of a general though tacit convention. The second instance is the extension of the territorial jurisdiction to four leagues from the shore.—This too, as far as the distance may exceed that which is generally allowed, rests on a like foundation, strengthened perhaps by the local facility of smuggling, and the peculiar interest which Great-Britain has in preventing a practice affecting so deeply her whole system of revenue, commerce and manufactures, whilst the limitation itself to four leagues necessarily implies that, beyond that distance no territorial jurisdiction is assumed.
But whatever may be the origin or the value of these prerogatives over foreign flags in one case, and within a limited portion of these seas in another, it is obvious that neither of them will be violated by the exemption of American vessels from impressments, which are no wise connected with either, having never been made on the pretext either of withholding the wonted homage to the British flag, or of smuggling in defiance of British laws.
This extension of the British law to four leagues from the shore is inferred from an act of parliament passed in the year 1736, (9 G. 2 C. 35) the terms of which comprehend all vessels, foreign as well as British. It is possible, however, that the former are constructively excepted. Should your enquiries ascertain this to be the case, you will find yourself on better ground than the concession here made.
With respect to the compliment paid to the British flag, it is also possible that more is here conceded than you may find to be necessary. After the peace of 1763, this compliment was peremptorily withheld by France in spite of the remonstrances of Great-Britain; and it remains for your inquiry, whether it did not continue to be refused, notwithstanding the failure at Amiens to obtain from Great-Britain a formal renunciation of the claim.
From every view of the subject it is reasonable to expect, that the exception of the narrow seas, from the stipulation against impressments, will not be inflexibly maintained. Should it be so, your negotiation will be at an end. The truth is, that so great a proportion of our trade direct and circuitous passes through those channels, and such is its peculiar exposure in them to the wrong practised, that with such an exception, any remedy would be very partial. And we can never consent to purchase a partial remedy by confirming a general evil, and by subjecting ourselves to our own reproaches, as well as to those of other nations.
3d. It appears as well by a letter from Mr. Thornton, in answer to one from me, of both which copies are inclosed, as from conversations with Mr. Merry, that the facility which would be given, particularly in the British channel, by the immunity claimed for American vessels, to the escape of traitors, and the desertion of others whose services in time of war may be particularly important to an enemy, forms one of the pleas for the British practice of examining American crews, and will be one of the objections to a formal relinquishment of it.
This plea, like all others, admits a solid & satisfactory reply. In the first place, if it could prevail at all against the neutral claim, it would authorise the seizure of the persons described only, and in vessels bound to a hostile country only, whereas the practice of impressing is applied to persons, few if any of whom are alleged to be of either description, and to vessels whatsoever bound, even to Great-Britain herself. In the next place, it is not only a preference of a smaller object on the one side to a greater object on the other; but a sacrifice of right on one side, to expediency on the other side.
Considering, nevertheless, the possible adherence of the British government to this last objection, and the extreme importance to our seafaring citizens and commerce, of a stipulation suppressing a practice flagrant in its nature, and still more so in the abuses inseparable from it, you are left at liberty to concur, if necessary, in the modification as it stands in the second column. You will observe that this guards, in all cases, the crews of our vessels from being meddled with; and in referring for an exception to the immunity on board our vessels to the law of nations, yields no principle maintained by the U. States; inasmuch as the reference will be satisfied by the acknowledged exception of enemies in military service.
Should persons therefore, other than such, be taken under pretext of the law of nations, the U. States will be free to contest the proceeding, and there is the less difficulty in leaving the stipulation on this footing, as the case may never happen, and will be pretty sure to happen but rarely. You will observe also, that in the passage from one port to another of the respective countries, the vessels of the neutral parties are to protect all persons without exception. Independently of the general principle asserted by the U. States, this respect is due to the peculiar character of the coasting trade, and the utter improbability that it will at any time be a vehicle to persons of any obnoxious description.
On Article II. The reasonableness of this article is manifest. Citizens or subjects of one country residing in another, though bound by their temporary allegiance to many common duties, can never be rightfully forced into military service, particularly external service, nor be restrained from leaving their residence when they please.—The law of nations protects them against both, and the violation of this law by the avowed impressment of American citizens residing in Great-Britain, may be pressed with the greater force on the British government, as it is in direct inconsistency with her impressment of her own subjects bound by much stronger ties to the U. States, as above explained, as well as with the spirit of her commercial laws and policy, by which foreigners are invited to a residence. The liberation of the persons comprehended by this article, therefore, cannot be justly or honorably refused, and the ground for such a refusal.

compence and their return home, is equally due to the service rendered by, and the wrong done to them.
On Article III. This regulation is conformable to the law of nations, and to the tenor of all treaties which define the belligerent claim of visiting and searching neutral vessels. No treaty can be cited in which the practice of compelling the neutral vessel to send its boat, its officers, its people or its papers, to the belligerent vessel, is authorised. British treaties, as well as those to which she is not a party, in every instance where a regulation of the claim is undertaken, co-incident with the article here proposed. The article is in fact almost a transcript of the article of the treaty of 1786 between Great Britain and France.
The regulation is founded in the best reasons. 1st. It is sufficient for the neutral that he acquiesces in the interruption of his voyage, and the trouble of the examination, imposed by the belligerent commander. To require a positive and active co-operation on his part in behalf of the latter, is more than can be justified on any principle. 2d. The belligerent party can always send more conveniently to the neutral vessel, than this can send to the belligerent vessel, having neither such fit boats for the purpose, especially in a rough sea, nor being so abundantly manned. 3d. This last. This last consideration is enforced by the numerous and cruel abuses committed in the practice of requiring the neutral vessel to send to the belligerent. As an example you will find in the documents now transmitted, a case where neither the smallness and leakiness of the boat, nor the boisterous state of the weather, nor the pathetic remonstrances of the neutral commander, had any effect on the imperious injunctions of the belligerent, and where the task was performed at the manifest peril of the boat, the papers, and the lives of the people. The limitation of the number to be sent on board the neutral vessel is a reasonable and usual precaution against the danger of insults and pillage.
On Article IV. This enumeration of contraband articles is copied from the treaty of 1786 between Great Britain and Russia. It is sufficiently limited, and that treaty is an authority more likely than any other to be respected by the British government. The sequel of the article, which protects the productions of a hostile colony converted into neutral property, is taken from the same model, with the addition of the terms "in any case or on any pretext." This addition is meant to embrace more explicitly, our right to trade freely with the colonies at war with Great Britain, and between them and all parts of the world, in colonial productions, being at the time not enemy's, but neutral property; a trade equally legitimate in itself with that between neutral countries directly, and in their respective vessels and such colonies, which her regulations do not contest.
In support of this right, in opposition to the British doctrine, that a trade not allowed by a nation in time of peace, cannot be opened to neutrals in time of war; it may be urged, that all nations are in the practice of varying more or less in time of war, their commercial laws, from the state of those laws in time of peace; a practice agreeable to reason as well as favorable to neutral nations; that the change may be made in time of war, on considerations not incident to a state of war, but on such as are known to have the same effect in time of peace; that Great Britain herself is in the regular practice of changing her navigation and commercial laws, in times of war, particularly in relation to a neutral intercourse with her colonies; that at this time she admits a trade between neutral countries and the colonies of her enemies, when carried on directly between them, or between the former and herself, interrupting only a direct trade between such colonies & their parent state, and between them and countries in Europe, other than those to which the neutral trade may respectively belong; that as she does not contest the right of neutrals to trade with hostile colonies, within these limitations, the trade can be, and actually is carried on indirectly between such colonies and all countries, even those to which the colonies belong; and, consequently, that the effect of her doctrine and her practice, is not to deprive her enemy of their colonial trade, but merely to lessen the value of it in proportion to the charges incident to the circuitous course into which it is forced, an advantage to her which if just in itself, would not be sufficient to balance the impolitic vexations accruing to neutral and friendly nations.
These views of the subject have entered into my conversations with Mr. Merry. He expresses, notwithstanding, a belief that Great Britain will turn an unfavorable ear to any proposition calculated to give her enemies the resources of their colonial trade, beyond the degree in which her present regulations permit. This is doubtless to be apprehended, but considering the proposition as an article which may find a balance in the general bargain, it may not be inadmissible, or if inadmissible in the extent proposed, a middle ground may perhaps be accepted. The colonial trade in question consists of four branches; first, between the colonies and Great Britain herself; secondly, between the colonies and the neutral countries carrying on the trade; thirdly, between the colonies and neutral countries not themselves carrying on the trade; fourthly, between the colonies and the countries to which they belong, or which are parties to the war with Great Britain.
The first and second branches are those with which her own regulations accord. The last is that to which her aversion will of course be the strongest. Should this aversion be unconquerable, let it be tried then, and then only, whether on our yielding, or rather omitting that point, she will not yield to us in return, the direct trade between hostile colonies and neutral countries generally.
You will be careful, however, so to modify the compromise as will mark as little as may be, a positive relinquishment of the direct trade between the belligerent nations and their colonies.
Should such a compromise be altogether rejected, you will limit the article to the simple enumeration of contraband, it being desirable that without a very valuable consideration, no precedent should be given by the United States of a stipulated acknowledgment that free ships do not make free goods. And you will omit the article altogether, if a proper list of contraband cannot be agreed on, particularly one that excludes money, provisions and naval stores.
On Article V. This article taken from the convention of 1800, between the United States and France, is conformable to the general practice of the prize courts in the latter, and is the more worthy of adoption every where, as it would contribute so much to the consistency and stability of the rules
of admiralty proceedings. Without a single objection justly lying against it, it will have the important advantages of being a check on the inferior tribunals, of enabling the superior tribunal where a faulty reason appears on the face of the sentence, to correct the wrong without delay or expense, and of being a check moreover on the decision of the superior tribunal itself. As prize causes also are tried by courts not of a third party, but of one of the parties interested, it is but reasonable that the ground should be known to the other, on which judgment has passed against its citizens or subjects, in order, if deemed proper, that negotiation may be employed for redressing past or guarding against future injustice.
On Article VI. The fictitious blockades proclaimed by Great Britain and made the pretext for violating the commerce of neutral nations, has been one of the greatest abuses ever committed on the high seas. During the late war they were carried to an extravagance which would have been ridiculous, if in their effects they had not inflicted serious and extensive injuries on neutral nations. Ports were proclaimed in a state of blockade previous to the arrival of any force at them, were considered in that state without regard to intermissions in the presence of the blockading force, and the proclamations left in operation after its final departure; the British cruisers during the whole time seizing every vessel bound to such ports, at whatever distance from them, and the British prize courts, pronouncing condemnations whenever a knowledge of the proclamation at the time of sailing could be presumed, although it might afterwards be known that no real blockade existed. The whole scene was a perfect mockery, in which fact was sacrificed to form, and right to power and plunder. The U. States were amongst the greatest sufferers; and would have been still more so, if redress for some of the spoliations proceeding from this source, had not fallen within the provisions of an article in the treaty of 1794.
From the effects of this and other arbitrary practices of Great Britain, on the temper and policy of neutral nations towards her; from the spirit of her treaty made near the close of the late war with Russia, from the general disposition manifested at the beginning of the present towards the United States, and the comparative moderation observed in Europe with respect to blockades; (if indeed the two cases of the Weser and Elbe are not to be excepted) it was hoped that the mockeries and mischiefs practised under the name of blockades would no where be repeated. It is found, however, that the West-Indies are again the theatre of them. The three entire and extensive islands of Martinique, Guadeloupe and St. Domingo have been published as in a state of blockade, altho' the whole naval force applied to the purpose is inconsiderable; although it appears that a part of this inconsiderable force is occasionally seen at the distance of many leagues at sea; although it does not appear that more than one or two ports at most, have at any time been actually blockaded; and although complaints are heard that the British ships of war do not protect their own trade against the numerous cruisers from the islands under this pretended blockade.
Inclosed herewith are three letters on this subject; two from me, the first to Mr. Thornton, the second to Mr. Merry, and the 3d from Mr. M. to me. You will observe that he does not pretend to justify the measures pursued in the West-Indies; but on the contrary wishes them to be regarded as proceeding from an officer who does not pursue the intentions of his government. Still such measures prove that no general regulations or orders have been yet issued by that government against the evil, as might reasonably have been expected, and that a stipulated security against it, is an object as important as it is just.
In the two letters to Mr. Thornton & Mr. Merry, the ground is marked out on which you will be able to combat the false blockades, and to maintain the definition of a real one, contained in the proposed article which is a literal copy from the 4th article of the Russian treaty above cited. In addition to these letters you find inclosed a letter of the of to Mr. Pinkney, in which some views are taken of the subject, which may also be of use in your discussions with the British government.
The only difference between the articles as standing in the different columns consists in the preamble to that which is to be admitted, if the proposition of the other should not succeed. The article is preferable without the recital of any reason particular to the United States, because as a naked stipulation, it strengthens instead of weakening a general principle friendly to neutral and pacific nations.
On Articles VIII, IX, and X. These are articles which are known to have been long wished and contemplated on the part of G. Britain, and together with the justice, and in many views the expediency to G. Britain herself of the articles desired on our part, may induce her to accede to the whole. The articles are in substance the same with a project offered to the American adminis-
tration in the year 1800, by Mr. Liston, who appears to have borrowed it from corresponding stipulations in the convention between the United States and France in the year 1795. The project was at that time dropped, owing perhaps, in part to the change in the head of the department of state, between whom and Mr. Liston it had been discussed, and principally, to the difficulty of combining with it, proper stipulations against British impressments on the high seas. Without such an equivalent, the project had little to recommend it to the United States. Considered by itself, it was too the less admissible, as one of its articles, under some obscurity of expression, was thought to favor the British pretension to impress British seamen from American vessels on the high seas.
A copy of this document is inclosed, as it may be not without use, in showing the ideas of the British government at that time, so far at least as its minister here was an organ of them.
The terms in which these articles are to be proposed, differ but slightly from those in which they may be admitted. In the former, the delivery of deserters is confined to soldiers and seamen, without requiring a delivery of officers, whose desertion will not be from the service of their country but on account of offences for which it might sometimes be more agreeable to the United States to be unbound to give them up for trial and punishment. At the same time this consideration ought not to be a bar to an arrangement, which, in its general character, will be so important to the interests of the United States.
On Article XI. This is a stipulation which is not to be yielded but in the event of its being made an indispensable condition. It cannot be essential for the object of it, whilst the British government is left free to take the precautions allowable within its own jurisdiction for preventing the clandestine departure of its seamen or its soldiers in neutral vessels. And it is very ineligible to the United States, inasmuch as it will be difficult to enforce the prohibition, whether we regard the embarkation of such persons in British ports, or their landing on the American shores; and inasmuch as the inefficacy of regulations for such purposes, though made with due sincerity and care, may become a source of secret jealousy and dissatisfaction, if not of controversy and reproach.
The article is copied from that in the arrangement (of which you have a copy) discussed and brought near to a conclusion, between Mr. King and the British ministry, & you are authorised to accede to it, on the supposition that it may again be insisted on. It is to be recollected, however, that the article was then understood to be the only price given for relinquishing the impressment of American seamen. The other offers now substituted will justify you in pressing the omission of the original one.
On Article XII. The law of nations does not exact of neutral powers the prohibition specified in this article. On the other hand, it does not restrain them from prohibiting a trade, which appears on the face of the official papers proceeding from the custom house to be intended to violate the law of nations and from which legitimate consideration of prudence may also dissuade a government. All that can be reasonably expected by belligerent from neutral powers, is that their regulations on this subject be impartial, and that their stipulations relative to it, when made in time of war at least, should not preclude an impartiality.
It is not certain what degree of value G. Britain may put on this article connected as it essentially is with the article which limits the list of contraband. It will at least mitigate her objections to such a limitation. With the range given to contraband by her construction of the law of nations, even as acquiesced in by the United States, a stipulation of this sort would be utterly inadmissible.
The last article, in making this city the place for exchanging the ratifications, consults expedition in putting the treaty into operation, since the British ratification can be forwarded at the same time with the instrument itself. And it is otherwise reasonable, that as the negotiation and formation of the treaty will have taken place at the seat of the British government, the concluding formality should be at that of the government of the U. States.
In addition to these articles which, with observations thereon, I am charged by the president to communicate to you as his instructions; he leaves you at liberty to insert any others which may do no more than place British armed vessels, with their prizes, on an equality within our ports & jurisdiction with those of France. This would only stipulate what would probably be done by gratuitous regulations here, & as it would no doubt be acceptable to Great Britain, it may not only aid in reconciling her to principal objects desired by the United States, but may induce her to concur in the further insertion of articles, corresponding with those in the convention of 1800 with France, which regulate more precisely and more effectually, the treatment of vessels of the neutral party on the high seas.
The occasion will be proper also for calling the attention of the British government to the reasonableness of permitting American consuls to reside in every part of her dominions, where, and so long as, he permits our citizens to trade. It is not denied that she has a natural right to refuse such a residence, and that she is free by her treaty with us to refuse it in other than her European dominions. But the exception authorised with respect to the residence of consuls elsewhere, having reference to the refusal of our trade elsewhere, the refusal of the one ought manifestly to cease with the refusal of the other. When our vessels and citizens are allowed to trade to ports in the West Indies, there is the same reason for a cotemporary admission of the consuls to take care of it, as there is for their admission in ports where the trade is permanently allowed. There is the juster expectation of your success on this point, as some official patronage is due to the rights of our citizens in the prize courts established in the West India islands. Should the British government be unwilling to enter into a stipulated provision, you may, perhaps obtain an order to the governors for the purpose. Or if consuls be objected to altogether, it is desirable that agents may be admitted, if no where else, at least in the islands where the vice-admiralty courts are established.
It has been intimated that the articles as standing in the different columns, are to be considered, the one as the offer to be made, the other as the ultimatum to be required. This is however, not to be taken too strictly; it being impossible to foresee the turns and the combinations which may present themselves in the course of the negotiation. The essential objects for the United States
are the suppression of impressments, and the definition of blockades. Next to these in importance, are the reduction of the list of contraband, and the enlargement of our neutral trade with hostile colonies. Whilst you keep in view therefore, those objects, the two last as highly important, and the two first as absolutely indispensable, your discretion in which the president places great confidence, must guide you in all that relates to the inferior ones.
With sentiments of great respect & esteem, I remain, sir, Your most obedient servant, (Signed) JAMES MADISON.
Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, February 14, 1804.
SIR, You will herewith receive the ratification by the president and senate, of the convention with the British government signed on the 12th of May, 1803, with an exception of the 5th article. Should the British government accede to this change in the instrument, you will proceed to an exchange of ratifications and transmit the one received without delay, in order that the proper steps may be taken for carrying the convention into effect. As the same considerations which led to the arrangements settled by it, urge a prompt execution of them, it may be expected that the steps depending on that government will be hastened. As far as your exhortations may be requisite, you will of course apply them.
The objection to the Vth. article appears to have arisen from the posteriority of the signature and ratification of this convention to those of the last convention with France, ceding Louisiana to the United States, and from a presumption that the line to be run in pursuance of the Vth. article might thence be found or alleged to abridge the northern extent of that acquisition.
It may reasonably be expected that the British government will make no difficulty in concurring in this alteration, because
First. It would be unreasonable that any advantage against the United States should be constructively authorised by the posteriority of the dates in question: the instructions given to enter into the convention, and the understanding of the parties at the time of signing it, having no reference whatever to any territorial rights of the United States acquired by the previous convention with France, but referring merely to the territorial rights as understood at the date of the instructions for, and signature of the British convention. The copy of a letter from Mr. King, hereto annexed, is precise and conclusive on this subject.
Secondly. If the Vth. article be expunged, the north boundary of Louisiana will, as is reasonable, remain the same in the hands of the United States as it was in the hands of France, and may be adjusted and established according to the principles and authorities which would in that case have been applicable.
Thirdly. There is reason to believe that the boundary between Louisiana and the British territories north of it, were actually fixed by commissioners appointed under the treaty of Utrecht, and that this boundary was to run from the Lake of the Woods, westwardly in lat. 49, in which case the Vth. article would be nugatory, as the line from the Lake of the Woods to the nearest source of the Mississippi, would run through territory which on both sides of the line would belong to the United States. Annexed is a paper stating the authority on which the decision of the commissioners under the treaty of Utrecht rests; and the reasoning opposed to the construction making the 49th deg. of latitude the northern boundary of Louisiana, with marginal notes in support of that construction. This paper will put you more readily into possession of the subject as it may enter into your discussions with the British government. But you will perceive the necessity of recurring to the proceedings of the commissioners, as the source of authentic information. These are not within our reach here, and it must consequently be left to your own researches and judgment to determine the proper use to be made of them.
Fourthly. Laying aside, however, all the objections to the Vth. article, the proper extension of dividing line in that quarter will be equally open for friendly negotiation after, as without, a gracing to the other parts of the convention; and considering the remoteness of the time at which such a line will become actually necessary, the postponement of it is of little or no consequence. The truth is, that the British government seemed at one time to favor this delay, and the instructions given by the United States readily acquiesced in it. The annexed extracts from Mr. King's and Mr. Gore's letters, will, with that from the department of state, explain this observation.
The fourth article of the convention provides, that the commissioners shall be respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between the two parties, such agreement to be settled at the time of the exchange of ratifications. It has been supposed that the compensation allowed to the commissioners under the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation, who settled the St. Croix boundary, would be satisfactory to the British government; and upon this idea the estimate, of which a copy is inclosed, was framed as the basis of an appropriation to be asked from congress. The president authorises you, therefore, to agree to the sum mentioned therein, viz. $4,444 44 cts. to be paid by each government to the commissioner appointed by itself, the same being allowed the third commissioner, to be paid to him in equal portions by the two governments. Should, however, the British government insist upon a variation of the compensation from the sum above mentioned, you may consent to it, provided it does not exceed $6,666 66 cts. each party contributing equally to the payment, and each commissioner receiving the same sum as his colleagues.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON.
(EXTRACT.) Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe DATED, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, March 5, 1804.
"The treaty of 1794, so far as it relates to commerce, having expired on the 1st day of October last, (that being the date of the preliminary articles) the commercial intercourse between the two countries is left to the regulations which the parties separately may think fit to establish. It may be expected, however, that the friendship and mutual interest between them, will produce a continuance on both sides of such regulations as are just and equal, and an accommodation to those principles of such as, on either side, are otherwise than just and equal. On the side of the United States, their commercial regulations place Great Britain in every respect on the footing of the most favored nation. Great Britain cannot say as much with respect to hers. One instance at least is explained in a letter from this department to Mr. King, of which a copy is enclosed, in which you will see that although the act of parliament to which it refers be no longer a breach of stipulation, it is not less a violation of equality than it is of sound policy. With respect to the British West-Indies, it is not known that the United States are on a worse footing than other nations, whatever want of reciprocity there may be to the liberal regulations of the United States. With respect to the East-Indies, it is understood that the treaty of 1794, by denying to American vessels both the coasting branch of it and a direct intercourse between India and foreign countries, other than America, the United States were in both instances placed on a worse footing than other nations, and even on a worse footing than they themselves enjoyed
prior to the treaty. The expirations of the treaty, and the friendly and favorable equality allowed by the United States to Great Britain in every branch of their trade, ought certainly to restore what the treaty suspended.
These observations are made not with a view to any negotiation whatever leading at the present moment to a treaty on those or any other commercial points, or to discussions which might be misconstrued into a wish to take unreasonable advantage of a critical moment, and to enable you to present the ideas of your government with more precision, to vindicate our commercial policy against misconceptions, and to avail yourself the better of fit occasions for obtaining from the British government such relaxations as may be due to our example, and be calculated to cherish amity and useful intercourse between the two nations.
"In my letter of I stated the reasonableness of admitting American consuls in the dependencies of Great Britain, whenever and wherever the American commerce should be admitted. The principle urged in this case is applicable to the East as well as to the West-Indies. During the last war an American agent was informally at least allowed to reside at Calcutta and take care of the trade of his countrymen. Mr. Jacob Lewis, who was appointed to succeed him, proceeded to London on his way thither, but peace having intervened, his application for an exequatur was refused. It is of great importance to our trade with that country, that such a functionary should be permitted to reside in it; the more so if it be true that the rule forbidding foreign factors to do so be enforced there. Be so good as to sound the British government on this subject, and communicate its sentiments for the information of the President."
Extract of a letter from Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, March 6, 1805.
SIR, The experience of every day shews more and more the obligation on both sides to enter seriously on the means of guarding the harmony of the two countries, against the dangers with which it is threatened by a severance of Great Britain, in her negotiations on the high seas, and particularly in the impressments from American vessels. The extent in which these have been since the commencement of the war, will be seen by the enclosed report required from this department, by a vote of the House of Representatives; and the can for it, whilst negotiations on the subject were understood to be in train, is itself a proof of the public sensibility to those aggressions on the security of our citizens, and the rights of our flag. A further proof will be seen in the motion also enclosed, which was made by Mr. Crowninshield, and which will probably be revived at the next session. This motion, with his remarks on it, appear very generally in the News-Papers, with comments proceeding from a coincidence of the sensibility out of doors with that within. A still stronger proof of impatience under this evil, will be found in the proceedings authorized by an act of Congress just passed, and which is likewise inclosed, against British officers committing on the high seas, trespasses or torts on board American vessels, offences manifestly including cases of impressment.
"In communicating these circumstances, it will occur to you, that whilst they may be allowed to proclaim the growing sensibility of the United States, on the subject of impressments, they ought, by proper explanations and assurances, to be guarded against a misconstruction into marks of illiberal or hostile sentiments towards Great Britain. The truth is, and it may be so stated by you, that this practice of impressments, aggravated by so many provoking incidents, has been so long continued, and so often in vain remonstrated against, that, without more encouragement than yet appears to expect speedy redress from the British government, the United States are in a manner driven to the necessity of seeking for some remedy dependent on themselves alone. But it is no less true, that they are warmly disposed to cherish all the friendly relations subsisting with Great Britain; that they wish to see that necessity banished by just and prudent arrangements between the two governments; and that with this view, you were instructed to open the negotiations which are now depending. It is impossible for the British government to doubt the sincerity of these sentiments. The forbearance of the United States, year after year, and war after war, to avail themselves of those obvious means, which, without violating their national obligations of any sort, would appeal in the strongest manner to the interest of Great Britain, is of itself a sufficient demonstration of the amicable spirit which has directed their public councils. This spirit is sufficiently manifested also, by the propositions which have been lately made through you, and by the patience and cordiality with which you have conducted the negotiation. I might add, as a further proof to the same effect, that notwithstanding the refusal of which we have official information, from Glasgow and Liverpool particularly, to restore American seamen deserting their ships in British ports, the laws of many of the states have been left, without interruption, to restore British deserters. One of the states, Virginia, has even at the last session of its legislature passed an act for the express purpose of restoring such deserters, which deserves the more attention as it was done in the midst of irritations resulting from the multiplied irregularities committed by British ships in the American seas.
"Mr. Merry has expressed some inquietude with respect to the clause in the act above referred to, which animadverts on British trespasses on board American vessels; and his language on several late occasions has strongly opposed the expectation that G. Britain will ever relinquish her practice of taking her own subjects out of neutral vessels. I did not conceal from him my opinion, that the terms "trespass, &c." would be applicable to the impressment of British subjects as well as others, or that the United States would never accede to that practice I observed to him, that every preceding administration had maintained the same doctrine with the present on that point, and that such were the ideas and feelings of the nation on it, that no administration would dare so far to surrender the rights of the American flag. He expressed dissatisfaction also, at the section which requires certain compliances on the part of British ships of war entering our harbors with arrangements to be prescribed by the collectors. He did not deny the right of the nation to make what rules it might please in such cases, but apprehended that some of them were such as the commanders might deem incompatible with their just pretensions, especially when subjecting them to the discretion of so subaltern an authority as that of the collectors, and consequently that the law would have the unfriendly effect of excluding British ships of war, altogether from American ports. He was reminded in reply, that the

collectors were, according to the terms of the section, to be guided in the exercise of their power by the directions of the President; and it was not only to be presumed, but he might be particularly assured, that the directions given, would be consistent with the usages due to public ships, & with the respect entertained for nations in amity with the United States. He asked whether, in transmitting the act to his government, as his duty would require, he might add the explanation and assurances he had heard from me. I answered, that without having received any particular authority for that purpose, from the President, I could safely undertake that what I had stated, was conformable to his sentiments.
"Inclosed is another act of Congress, restraining and regulating the arming of private vessels by American citizens. This act was occasioned by the abuse made of such armaments in forcing a trade, even in contraband of war, with the island of St. Domingo, and by the representations made on the subject of that trade, by the French charge des affaires and minister here, and by the British minister, with respect to abuses which had resulted or might result from such armaments in cases injurious to Great Britain. A report of these representations, as made to the president, is herewith enclosed. The act, in substituting a security against the unlawful use of the armaments in place of an absolute prohibition of them, is not only consistent with the obligations of a neutral nation, but conformable to the laws and ordinances of Great Britain and France themselves, and is consequently free from objections by either. The interposition of the government, though claimed in behalf both of Great Britain and of France, was most pressed in behalf of the latter. Yet the measure, particularly as it relates to the shipment of contraband articles for the West-Indies, is likely to operate much more conveniently for Great Britain than for France, who cannot, like Great Britain, otherwise insure a supply of these articles for the defence of their colonies.
"In the project which you have offered to the British government, I observe you have submitted a clause for securing respect to certificates of citizenship. The effect of this clause, taken as it ought to be, and as was doubtless intended, in context with the preceding clause, is limited to the case provided for in that clause. Still it may be well, in order to guard against the possibility of its being turned into a pretext for requiring such certificates in other cases, that a proviso for the purpose be added, or that words of equivalent restriction be inserted.
Another subject requiring your attention is pointed at by the resolutions of the senate moved by general Smith, on the subject of a British tax on exports under the name of a convoy duty. A copy of the resolution is inclosed. A duty under that name was first laid in the year 1798. It then amounted to half of one per cent. on exports to Europe, and one per cent. on exports to other places, and consequently to the United States. The discrimination being evidently contrary to the treaty then in force, became a subject of discussion between Mr. King and the British minister. His letters to the secretary of state & to lord Grenville, explain the objections urged by him, & the pretexts in support of the measure alleged by them. The subject was resumed in my letter of 5th March, 1804, to Mr. King, with a copy of which you have been already furnished. It was received by Mr. Gore, during the absence of Mr. King on the continent; and if any occasion was found proper by either for repeating the remonstrance against the duty, it appears to have been without effect. Whilst the treaty was in force, the discrimination was unquestionably a violation of its faith. When the war ceased, it lost the pretext that it was the price of the convoy, which giving a longer protection to the American than to the European trade, justified a higher price for the former than for the latter. Even during war the exports are generally made as American property and in American vessels, and therefore with a few exceptions only, a convoy which would subject them to condemnation, from which they would otherwise be free, would not be a benefit but an injury. Since the expiration of the treaty, the discrimination as well as the duty itself can be combated by no other arguments than those, which in the document referred to are drawn from justice, friendship, and sound policy; including the tendency of the measure to produce a discontinuance of the liberal but unavailing example given to Great Britain by the regulations of commerce on our side, and a recurrence to such counteracting measures as are probably contemplated by the mover of the resolutions of the senate. All these arguments gain strength in proportion to the augmentations which the evil has latterly received; it being now stated that the duty amounts to four per cent. on the exports to the U. States. These, according to Cooke's answer to Sheffield, amounted in the year 1801, to about seven and a half millions sterling, and therefore levy a tax on the United States, of about 1,300,000 dollars. From this is indeed to be deducted a sum proportioned to the amount of the re-exports from the U. States. But on the other hand, is to be added the increase of the exports since the year 1801, which probably exceed the re-exports.
With the aid of these communications and remarks, you will be at no loss for the views of the subject most proper to be presented to the British government, in order to promote the object of the resolutions; and the resolutions themselves ought powerfully to second your efforts, if the British government feels the same desire as acts the United States, to confirm the friendship and confidence on both sides by a greater conformity on that side to the spirit of the commercial regulations on this.
I have referred above to the inclosed copy of the motion made by Mr. Crowninshield in the house of representatives. The part of it which has relation to the trade with the West-Indies, was suggested, as appears in his introductory observations, by the late proclamations of the British West-India governors, excluding from that trade vessels of the U. States, and certain articles of our exports, particularly fish, even in British vessels. These regulations are to be ascribed partly to the attachment of the present administration in G. Britain to the colonial and navigation system, partly to the interested representations of certain merchants and others residing in the British provinces on the continent. Without entering at large into the policy on which the colonial restrictions are founded, it may be observed that no crisis could be more eligible for enforcing them, than the present, because at none more than at the present, have the W. Ind. been absolutely dependent on the U. S. for the supplies essential to their existence.
It is evident in fact, that the U. States by asserting the principle of a reasonable reciprocity, such as is admitted in the trade with the European ports of Great Britain, and is admitted even in the colonial trade of other European nations, so far at least as respects the vessels employed in the trade might reduce the British government at once to the dilemma of relaxing her regulations or of sacrificing her colonies; and with respect to the interdiction of supplies from the United States, of articles necessary to the subsistence and prosperity of the West-Indies, in order to force the growth and prosperity of the continental provinces of Nova-Scotia, &c. what can be more unjust than thus to impoverish one part of the foreign dominions, which is considered as a source of wealth and power to the parent country, not with a view to favor the parent country, but to favor another part of its foreign dominions which is rather expensive than profitable to it? What can be more preposterous than thus, at the expense of islands which not only contribute to the revenue, commerce and navigation of the parent state, but can be secured in their dependence by that naval ascendancy which they aid to foster unproductive establishments?
Considerations, such as these, ought to have weight with the British government, and may very properly enter into frank conversations with its ministry on favorable occasions. However repugnant that government may be to a departure from its system, in the extent contemplated by Mr. Crowninshield's motion, it may at least be expected that the trade as opened in former wars, will not be refused under circumstances which in the present, particularly demand it. It may be hoped that the way will be prepared for some permanent arrangement on this subject between the two nations, which will be conformable to equity, to reciprocity, and to their mutual advantage.
I have the honor to be &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON (COPY.) From Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at London. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, April 12, 1805.
SIR, The papers herewith enclosed, explain particularly the case of the brig Aurora.
The sum of the case is, that whilst Spain was at war with Great Britain, this vessel, owned by a citizen of the United States, bro't a cargo of Spanish produce, purchased at the Havana, from that place to Charleston, where the cargo was landed, except an insignificant portion of it, and the duties paid or secured according to law, in like manner as they are required to be paid or secured, on a like cargo from whatever port, meant for home consumption; that the cargo remained on land about three weeks, when it was re-shipped for Barcelona in old Spain, and the duties drawn back, with a deduction of three and a half per cent. as is permitted to imported articles in all cases, at any time within one year, under certain regulations which were pursued in this case; that the vessel was taken on her voyage by a British cruiser, and sent for trial to Newfoundland, where the cargo was condemned by the court of vice-admiralty; and that the cause was carried thence by appeal to Great Britain, where it was apprehended that the sentence below would not be reversed.
The ground of this sentence was, and that of its confirmation, if such be the result, must be, that the trade in which the vessel was engaged was unlawful; and this unlawfulness must rest, first, on the general principle assumed by Great Britain, that a trade from a colony to its parent country, being a trade not permitted to other nations in time of peace, cannot be made lawful to them in time of war; secondly, on the allegation that the continuity of the voyage from the Havana to Barcelona was not broken by landing the cargo in the United States, paying the duties thereon, and thus fulfilling the legal pre-requisites to a home consumption; and, therefore, that the cargo was subject to condemnation, even under the British regulation of January, 1798, which so far relaxes the general principle as to allow a direct trade between a belligerent colony and a neutral country carrying on such a trade.
With respect to the general principle which disallows to neutral nations in time of war, a trade not allowed to them in time of peace, it may be observed,
First, that the principle is of modern date; that it is maintained, as is believed, by no other nation but Great Britain, and that it was assumed by her under the auspices of a maritime ascendancy, which rendered such a rest. The history of her regulations on this subject shows that they have been constantly modified under the influence of that consideration. The course of these modifications will be seen in an appendix to the 4th volume of Robinson's Admiralty reports.
Secondly, that the principle is manifestly contrary to the general interest of commercial nations, as well as to the law of nations settled by the most approved authorities, which recognizes no restraints on the trade of nations not at war, with nations at war, other than it shall be impartial between the latter; that it shall not extend to certain military articles, nor to the transportation of persons on military service, nor to places actually blockaded or besieged.
Thirdly, that the principle is the more contrary to reason and to right, inasmuch as the admission of neutrals into a colonial trade shut against them in times of peace, the legality of which latter relaxation is not known to have been contested, and inasmuch as a commerce may be, and frequently is opened in time of war, between a colony and other countries, from considerations which are not incident to the war, and which would produce the same effect in a time of peace; such, for example, as a failure or diminution of the ordinary sources of necessary supplies, or new turns in the course of profitable interchanges.
Fourthly, that it is not only contrary to the principles and practice of other nations but to the practice of Great Britain herself. It is well known to be her invariable practice in time of war, by relaxations in her navigation laws, to admit neutrals to trade in channels forbidden to them in times of peace—and particularly to open her colonial trade both to neutral vessels and supplies, to which it is shut in times of peace, and that one at least of her objects in these relaxations, is to give to her trade an immunity from capture, to which in her own hands it would be subjected by the war.
Fifthly, the practice which has prevailed in the British dominions, sanctioned by orders of council and an act of parliament, (39 G. 3, c. 98) authorising for British subjects a direct trade with the enemy, still further diminishes
the force of her pretensions for depriving us of the colonial trade: thus we see in Robinson's Admiralty Reports passim, that during the last war a licensed commercial intercourse prevailed between G. Britain and her enemies, France, Spain and Holland, because it comprehended articles necessary for her manufactures & agriculture, notwithstanding the effect it had in opening a vent to the surplus productions of the others. In this manner she assumes to suspend their accustomed commercial restrictions in favor of neutrals. But the injustice and inconsistency of her attempt to press a strict rule on neutrals is more forcibly displayed by the nature of the trade which is openly carried on between the colonies of Great Britain and Spain in the West-Indies. The mode of it is detailed in the inclosed copy of a letter, wherein it will be seen that American vessels and cargoes, after being condemned in British courts under pretence of illicit commerce, are sent on British account to the enemies of Great Britain, if not to the very port of destination interrupted when they were American property. What respect can be claimed from others to a doctrine not only of so recent an origin and enforced with so little uniformity, but which is so conspicuously disregarded in practice by the nation itself which stands alone in contending for it?
Sixthly, It is particularly worthy of attention, that the board of commissioners jointly constituted by the British and American governments, under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794, by reversing condemnations of the British courts founded on the British instructions of November, 1793, condemned the principle that a trade forbidden to neutrals in time of peace, could not be opened to them in time of war, on which precise principle these instructions were founded. And as the reversal could be justified by no other authority than the law of nations, by which they were to be guided, the law of nations, according to that joint tribunal, condemns the principle here combated. Whether the British commissioners concurred in these reversals, does not appear; but whether they did or did not, the decision was equally binding, and affords a precedent which could not be disregarded by a like succeeding tribunal, and ought not to be without great weight with both nations in like questions recurring between them.
On these grounds the United States may justly regard the British captures and condemnations of neutral trade with colonies of the enemies of Great Britain, as violations of right; and if reason, consistency, or that sound policy which cannot be at variance with either, be allowed, the weight which they ought to have, the British government will feel sufficient motives to repair the wrongs done in such cases by its cruisers and courts.
But, apart from this general view of the subject, a refusal to indemnify the sufferers in the particular case of the Aurora, is destitute of every pretext; because in the second place the continuity of her voyage was clearly and palpably broken, and the trade converted into a new character.
It has been already noted that the British regulation of 1798, admits a direct trade in time of war, between a belligerent colony and a neutral country, carrying on the trade; and admits, consequently, the legality of the importation by the Aurora, from the Havana to Charleston. Nor has it ever been pretended that a neutral nation has not a right to re-export to any belligerent country whatever, foreign productions, not contraband of war, which may have been duly incorporated and naturalized, as a part of the commercial stock of the country re-exporting it.
The question then to be decided under the British regulation itself, is, whether in landing the cargo, paying the duties, and thus as effectually qualifying the articles for the legal consumption of the country, as if they had been its native productions, they were not at the same time equally qualified with native productions for re-exportation to a foreign market. That such ought to be the decision, results irresistibly from the following considerations.
First, from the respect which is due to the internal regulations of every country, where they cannot be charged with a tempestuous partiality towards particular belligerent parties, or with fraudulent views towards all of them. The regulations of the United States on this subject, must be free from every possible imputation; being not only fair on their appearance, but just in their principles, and having continued the same during the periods of war, as they were in those of peace. It may be added, that they probably correspond, in every essential feature relating to re-exportations, with the laws of other commercial countries, and particularly with those of Great Britain. The annexed outline of them, by the secretary of the treasury, will at once explain their character, and show that, in the case of the Aurora, every legal requisite was duly complied with.
2d. From the impossibility of substituting any other admissible criterion than that of landing the articles, and otherwise qualifying them for the use of the country. If this regular and customary proceeding be not a barrier against further inquiries, where it may be asked, are the inquiries to stop?—By what evidence are particular articles to be identified on the high seas, or before a foreign tribunal? If identified, how is it to be ascertained, whether they were imported with a view to the market at home, or to a foreign market; or, as ought always to be presumed, to the one or the other as it should happen to invite; or if to a foreign market, whether to one forbidden or permitted by the British regulations; for it is to be recollected, that among the modifications which her policy has given to the general principle asserted by her, a direct trade is permitted to a neutral carrier, from a belligerent colony to her ports, as well as to those of her own country. If, again, the landing of the goods and the payment of the duties, be not sufficient to break the continuity of the voyage, what, it may be asked, is the degree of internal change or alienation which will have that effect? May not a claim be set up to trace the articles from hand to hand, and from ship to ship, in the same port, and even from one port to another port, as long as they remain in the country? In a word, in departing from the simple criterion provided by the country itself, for its own legitimate and permanent objects, it is obvious that besides the defalcations which might be committed on our carrying trade, pretext will be given to cruise as for endless vexations on our commerce at large, and that a latitude and delays will accrue in the distant proceedings of admiralty courts, still more ruinous and intolerable.
3d. From the decision in the British high court of admiralty itself, given in the case of the Polly, Lasky, master, by a judge deservedly celebrated for a profound judgment which cannot be suspected, leaning to
wards doctrines unjust or injurious to the rights of his own country. On that occasion he expressly declares "it is not my business to say what is universally the test of a bona fide importation; it is argued that it would not be sufficient that the duties should be paid and that the cargo should be landed. If these criteria are not to be resorted to, I should be at a loss to know what should be the test; and I am strongly disposed to hold, that it would be sufficient, that the goods should be landed and the duties paid." 2 Robinson's reports, p. 368-9.
The President has thought it proper that you should be furnished with such a view of the subject, as is here sketched; that you may make the use of it best suited to the occasion. If the trial of the Aurora should not be over, it is questionable whether the government will interfere with its courts. Should the trial be over and the sentence of the vice-admiralty courts at St. Johns, have been confirmed, you are to lose no time in presenting to the British government a representation corresponding with the scope of these observations and in urging that redress in the case, which is equally due to private justice, to the reasonable expectations of the United States, and to the confidence and harmony which ought to be cherished between the two nations.
The effect of the doctrine involved in the sentence of the court in Newfoundland, on our carrying trade, will at once be seen by you. The average amount of our re-exports for three years, ending 30th September, 1803, has been 32,003,921 dollars. Besides the mercantile and navigation profits, the average revenue from drawbacks, on goods re-exported for three years, ending 31st December, 1803, is 184,271 dollars, to which is to be added, an uncertain but considerable sum, consisting of duties paid on articles re-exported, after having lost through neglect or lapse of time, the privilege of drawback. A very considerable portion of this branch of trade, with all its advantages, will be cut off, if the formalities heretofore respected, are not to protect our re-exportations. Indeed it is difficult to see the extent to which the apprehended innovation may be carried in theory, or to estimate the mischief which it may produce in practice. If Great Britain, disregarding the precepts of justice, suffers herself to calculate the interest she has in spoiling or abridging our commerce by the value of it to the United States, she ought certainly not to forget that the United States must in that case, calculate by the same standard, the measures which the stake will afford, for counteracting her unjust and unfriendly policy.
I have the honor to be &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON. Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 13th January, 1806.
SIR, The letters received from you since my last, are down to No. 36, inclusive.
The perseverance of the British government in the principle which licences the depredations on our commerce in colonial productions, with the losses already sustained, and still apprehended by our merchants, has produced a very general indignation throughout this country, and makes it necessary that you should renew and extend your remonstrances on the subject. In aid of the means for this purpose furnished by the information and instructions given you from time to time, I forward you an Examination of it just published, in which you will find a variety of facts and views of the British principle and proceedings that may be made to bear against them. I will forward also, in a few days, copies of sundry memorials from the merchants of our maritime cities, explaining the wrongs done them, and the disgust with which they are filled. These, with other documents accompanying them, will assist your endeavours to make on the British government, the impressions which the occasion calls for.
I shall only add at present, that notwithstanding the conviction of the illegality of the British principle, which becomes more and more evident, the more it is investigated, the president so far yields to a spirit of conciliation, as to be still willing to concur in the adjustment on that point authorized in your instructions of January 5th, 1804; but expects and enjoins that you will be particularly careful to use such forms of expression as will furnish no pretext for considering an exception of the direct trade between a belligerent nation and its colonies, as declaratory of a limitation of the neutral right, and not a positive stipulation founded on considerations of expediency.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON. Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, April 23, 1806.
SIR, Your last letter bears date on the 12th of February. Those of the 18th October, 11th, 26th, November, 11th and 23d December, and 28th January, had been previously received.
Congress adjourned the evening before the last. The gazettes before and here with sent, will give you a general view of the proceedings of the session. As soon as the laws passed shall be ready, a complete copy of them will be forwarded. For the present I enclose only a copy of the act shutting our market, after the 15th Nov. next, against certain articles of British manufacture. Notwithstanding the hope that the new ministers of Great Britain bring into the cabinet dispositions more just and favorable to the United States than their predecessors, it was thought more consistent both with self-respect and with sound policy not to allow a change of persons, without an actual or promised change of measures, to arrest the meditated course of remedial provisions. You will not fail, however, by due explanations, to guard the act against the imputation of motives and views of a nature to excite feelings on the other side, unfriendly to a fair estimate of their true interests. You may with confidence affirm, that a resort to such a manifestation of the sensibility of this country to wrongs so long continued, and of late so grievously extended, has been had, with the most sincere reluctance; and that nothing is necessary on the part of Great Britain to smooth the way to perfect cordiality, and to all the beneficial intercourse of commerce, but a redress which the United States are willing to limit to the clearest demands of justice and right. As a proof of their solicitude to bring about a final and amicable adjustment of all points in question between the two countries, and of their readiness to establish the principles of navigation and commerce in a form that will extend the latter, and render the former no longer a source of discord, the measure has been adopted of appointing yourself and Mr. Pinkney, of Baltimore, commissioners extraordinary and plenipotentiary for those purposes. The objects of the appointment, as described in the terms of it, are "to settle all matters of difference between the United States and the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, relative to wrongs committed between the parties on the high seas, or other waters, and for establishing the principles of navigation and commerce between them."
No time will be lost in preparing the instructions for your joint negotiation, and Mr. Pinkney will doubtless not fail to be ready to embark with as little delay as possible.
With great respect, &c. (Signed) JAMES MADISON.
Extract of a letter from Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe. Department of State, May 13th, 1806
SIR, Since my last of the 22d of April, I have received your several letters of the 28th February and 11th March.
This will be put into the hands of Mr. Pinkney, whose appointment jointly with you by a commission extraordinary, has been already communicated, and who proceeds to London with the powers and instructions for carrying the joint commission into effect. This you will find embraces a larger field of negotiation and convention, than fell within the instructions heretofore given you, in your capacity of minister plenipotentiary alone. The commission extraordinary, therefore, will not be without important objects, even if those previously committed to yourself should fortunately have been obtained. Mr. Pinkney carries with him also a commission and letter of credence, as your successor, in case you should persist in your intention of returning after the occasion which suspended it shall be over. A letter of farewell, also, for yourself, goes by him, of the same provisional character.
As the joint commission does not include the subject of the convention of limits, not yet decided by Great Britain as varied by the senate here, it will remain with you alone, or your successor, to continue the endeavors to bring that business to a conclusion.
If any repugnance should be shewn to the era sure of the 5th art. as proposed by the senate, and thereby leaving unsettled for the present, the boundaries in the north-west quarter of the continent, and preference should be given to a proviso against any constructive effect of the Louisiana convention, on the intention of the parties at the signature of the depending convention, you may concur in the alteration, with a view to bring the subject in that form before the ratifying authority of the United States.
I must observe to you, however, that either another proviso, or a clear understanding that the question is open for future settlement, will be proper, in order to supersede intentions which the British government may otherwise found on their possession of the island of Grand Maman, and the silence of the instrument with respect to it. This island is of considerable extent, is clearly within the general limits of the United States as fixed by the treaty of peace, and is understood not to be within the exception made by the treaty of "Islands appurtenant to Nova-Scotia," since all such islands must be either west, east or north of the coast of that province, and within six leagues thereof; whereas the island of Grand Maman is nearly due south of the nearest part of the coast, and is either in the whole or with the exception of a mere point, beyond the distance of six leagues. No just title can therefore be alleged on the British side, and care would have been taken to guard against a pretended one by a clause to that effect, if the facts of British settlement and the exercise of British jurisdiction had been known at the time.
The documents now transmitted will sufficiently explain the subject, and enable you to annex a proper clause to the convention. One of these documents will give you a view at the same time of a late case in which an American vessel bringing plaster of paris from Nova-Scotia to the United States, was condemned. In strictness of law the condemnation may have been not objectionable, but considering the continuance of the trade for a length of time, and the official sanction added to the usage, the case makes a very strong appeal to the usage and liberality of the British government. The dependence of the British settlements in that quarter, on supplies from the United States more essential to them than plaster is to us, suggests other considerations not unworthy of attention. These, however, will be brought most advantageously into view in one of the branches of the joint negotiation.
The latest intelligence from France states, that Bonaparte was on the eve of leaving Paris to head an army of 200,000 men for the purpose of penetrating Africa. It is said to be his purpose totally to subvert the government of Algiers and the other Barbary states. If this information be correct, we presume one of his leading views is to possess himself of the immense treasures which have been there hoarded up for centuries, which have been long since estimated at a hundred millions of dollars. Nat. Int.
There is no news; & believing nothing more interesting to our readers, we have presented them with all of Mr. Madison's letters to Mr. Monroe up to the joint mission. A more valuable body of dissertation on the rights of neutrals and the interests of the U. S. was never before condensed in the same space. Mr. Monroe's to Mr. Madison concludes this 2d Part.—John Smith is acquitted in the Senate, 19 to 10.—The H. of R. have passed the military bill for raising 6000 troops, &c.—A resolution has been offered, authorising the President to suspend the embargo law in the event of a peace in Europe, or of a change in their measures respecting neutrals.—The committee for that purpose have reported that Congress may adjourn on the 25th inst.—Particulars in our next. ENQUIRER.
* But one very short letter is omitted.
Department of State, April 8, 1808. To Merchants and others wishing to forward Letters to Europe, are informed, that a vessel, under the orders of the government, will sail from Baltimore on the 20th of this month, or as soon thereafter as possible, which will deliver at L'Orient and Falmouth, all such Letters as may be respectively consigned to those Ports, or to other places through the same.
The Postage on the Letters must be paid to Baltimore. Collector of Customs, Richmond.
ATTENTION!!!—The Members of the RICHMOND RIFLE VOLUNTEERS, are hereby noticed to appear on the Capitol Square to-morrow morning precisely at 10 o'clock, A. M. in uniform, without arms. By order of the Captain. BENJ. TURNER, 1st Sergt.
April 15. [U]
By virtue of eight deeds of trust executed to the subscribers by Thomas Cheatham, will be sold to the highest bidder, for ready money, before the door of the Eagle Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on Tuesday the tenth day of May next, or so much thereof as shall be sufficient to raise the sum of three hundred and ninety-three pounds, ten shillings and four pence, due by the said Thomas Cheatham to James Gam-mall, John Likly, Peter Meadock and Walter Ewing McCray, together with interest thereon from the first day of March, 1804, including expenses of sale, &c. the following eight Tracts of LAND, to wit:
One tract containing one hundred and ninety eight acres eighty-nine poles—part of the tract called King's land slashes formerly belonging to James Wardrope, dec'd.
One do. containing 66 acres nineteen poles.
One do. containing one hundred and twenty three acres twenty-nine poles.
One do. containing one hundred and forty five acres, one hundred and forty two poles.
One do. containing one hundred and forty two acres ninety one poles.
One do. containing one hundred and forty-eight acres seven poles.
One do. containing two hundred and fifty three acres, one hundred and nineteen poles.
One do. containing five hundred and sixty one acres eleven poles. JAMES BROWN.
April 15. WILLIAM TEMPLE.

POLITICAL.
NEW-YORK, April 6.
GENERAL MEETING.
At an uncommonly numerous and respectable meeting of the Republican Electors of the City and County of New-York, called together by public notice from their committee, held at Martling's Long Room, on Tuesday evening, April 5, 1808—WILLIAM FEW in the chair, A. C. VAN SLYCK, Secretary—the following resolution was unanimously passed—
Resolved , That this meeting highly and unreservedly approve of the conduct of the President and government of the United States in the late representations to, and negotiations with the governments of Great Britain and France;—that in our opinion the general administration of the union has manifested as great a degree and spirit of conciliation as is consistent with the violated honor and independent rights of their country, and that in the present critical and interesting situation of our affairs, they are entitled to our gratitude and warmest support.
Resolved , That we also decidedly and unreservedly approve of the proclamation of the President of the United States, of the 2d July last, and also of the embargo which has been recently laid upon American vessels, because in the present exigency of affairs, when the rights of neutrals are entirely disregarded by belligerent powers, and no security whatsoever is allowed to their commerce or their flags; it would have been in the highest degree impolitic and unsafe to have suffered the property of our fellow-citizens to be exposed to the depredations of foreign nations, or our government by the rash and imprudent enterprises of individuals without its authority and consent, liable to be called upon with demands of indemnity and protection, and the channels of negotiation obstructed with additional difficulties.
Resolved , That the President and Government of these United States, in their negotiations with the late special minister of Great Britain, by consenting to separate the particular question of reparation for the attack upon the frigate Chesapeake from the general subjects of negotiation in relation to impressments and captures, and in affording to such minister a general declaration and assurance, that upon receiving an adequate satisfaction and apology for the outrage, the proclamation of the President should be revoked, has proceeded to every reasonable and even justifiable length for the preservation of peace, and if unfortunately and against our ardent wishes it should happen, that negotiation should eventually terminate without a settlement, the king and ministry of Great Britain must be answerable for the consequences, while we, relying with firm conviction upon the justice of our cause, will support our country and our government against the aggressions of any foreign nation, with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Resolved , That the frank and satisfactory communication which has been made by the President to both houses of the Congress of the United States, and published at his request for general information, of the instructions to our ministers, and the correspondence which has taken place in our respective negotiations with Great Britain and with France, completely justifies the confidence which has been reposed in him, and expressed towards the President, and entitles him to the thanks and approbation of his country.
Resolved , As the opinion of this meeting, that harmony among republicans in their elections, is at all times desirable, and particularly so at the present important crisis in our public affairs.
Resolved , That it appears to us both reasonable and consistent with the principles we profess as republicans, that when a difference of opinion arises among ourselves, in regard to particular men, that the minority should give up to, and acquiesce in the opinion of the majority, whenever such opinion has been fairly ascertained.
Resolved , That we prefer principles to men; because principles are immutable and unchangeable; and always the same, whether applied to an individual state or the U. States.
Resolved , And this meeting recommend, that the republican electors of the different wards of this city meet on Friday evening next, to appoint a committee of seven for each ward, as a committee of nomination, and that they meet respectively at the following places for that purpose, to wit:
 1st Ward, at Ford Cutter's  2d do. Martling's  3d do. Coleman's Tav Fair-st.  4th do. Pierson's Tav. Wm. st.  5th do. Wm. Mooney's  6th do. J. Lyon's Tav. Mott. st.  7th and 10th do. Darel Tier's  8th do. J. Brown's Bowery  9th do. Anthony Smith's 
Resolved , And it is recommended, that the committee of nomination so to be appointed by the electors of the several wards of this city, meet to execute the purposes of their appointment on Tuesday evening next, the 12th inst. at Martling's long room at 7 o'clock P. M.
Resolved , That the proceedings of this meeting be published in the American Citizen, the Public Advertiser, and Mercantile Advertiser.
Wm. FEW. Chairman. A. C. VAN SLYCK, Secretary.
April 6.
From the New-York Public Advertiser.
COMMUNICATION.
TORY AND FEDERAL ATTACHMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The information which is intended by this communication is, with a view to detect a shameful evasion of the embargo law, which has for some time past been practised by Nova-Scotia tories and federalists in this city.
An enormous quantity of flour has been already sent to Passamaquoddy—not for the use of those who live on the territory of the United States, but for the express purpose of aiding the British at Halifax and the West-Indies.
There is now in this port two vessels British bottoms; it is intended that they shall be laden with flour principally, and to clear out for Passamaquoddy.
Is it not shameful in the highest degree that men should exist among us so base—so hostile to the wise and judicious measures of the government? It is. They deserve to be exposed. There are flour merchants in this city profiting by this violation of the laws, making their thousands of dollars, while others, with patriotic zeal, suffer immense loss. The collector of this port may, if he thinks proper, have an interview with the writer. AMERICANUS.
NEW-YORK, April 5, 1808.
FROM SPAIN.
The following important intelligence from Spain was yesterday received from a gentleman of this city—having been communicated to him in letters from Cadiz of the 18th February.
The affairs of Spain continued to grow worse. The French decrees were rigorously put into execution; so much so that an American vessel, that had been detained at Cadiz for the breach of the Milan decree, had been pronounced a good prize.
French troops of the conscription of 1809 were to occupy all the sea coast of Spain; and to be supported at the expense of that power. The whole number of these troops already entered Spain and Portugal amounted to 60,000; the greater part of which were at Salamanca, and round Madrid. A
great part of the Spanish troops had been sent into Portugal.
The Prince of Peace was still in power. It is not true, as reported, that the Prince of Asturias had been appointed Generalissimo of the French and Spanish armies—Neither is it true, that the French & Spanish armies were going to besiege Gibraltar.
By a new decree, the holders of English manufactured goods were obliged to deliver them to a commission appointed for that purpose—and it was expected another decree would be passed to condemn them.
The greatest rigor was observed against those who held correspondence with the English;—Five persons had been detected at Algeciras and hung.
The favorable weather in Spain had given hopes that the ensuing harvest would be abundant; which circumstance had prevented the rise in the price of flour.
Bonaparte had laid Portugal under a contribution of 20,000,000 dollars!—which enormous sum he ingeniously proposed to them to raise by robbing the churches of the whole of the plate, and two thirds of the church revenues. In consequence of this requisition, the VALES REALES of Spain had risen to 3 per cent. which at the latest date were at 57 per cent.
CASE OF JOHN SMITH. SENATE UNITED STATES.
The Senate resumed, at about 11 o'clock, the consideration of the case of John Smith.
Mr. Key proceeded with the testimony on the part of Mr. Smith, and read the depositions of Thomas Rawlings, Jacob Foubie, Wm. McFarlane, Richard Southgate, Ethan Stone, Samuel T. Brown, Pallas P. Stewart, D. L. Kearney, Ephraim Morgan, Jacob Burnett, Arthur St. Clair, jun. George Russell, Nathaniel Nicholls, John Armstrong, Isaac G. Burnett, Nicholas Longworth, James Laurie, B. Chambers, Stephen McFarland, Griffin Yeatman, and Barnett Hastings, to discredit the testimony of E. Glover.
Mr. Harper then, in order to present a connected view of the whole testimony, read the depositions of Peter Northrop, Nathan Platt, Gershon Somers, Henry Botts, Philip Nicholson, Josiah Fairchild, Sampson Burch, Jonathan Goodall, Timothy Shepherd, Bennet Perry, H. Footter Gideon Boxford, Michael Partis, Samuel Beers, Moses Boxford, Mox K. Bowditch, Asa Chapman, Adios Beers, Truman Beers, David B. Beers, David Beers, John Bennett, G. Hansford, Henry Rice, Josiah Hansford, Benjamin Hall, R. Griffin, — Watkins, Wm. Watkins, Joshua Webster, John C. Hodgkiss, Wm. Andrews, R. Baldwin, in support of the character of Elias Glover.
Mr. Key said he would in the next place, proceed to adduce evidence relative to the affidavit of Peter Taylor. Although the counsel, he said, of Mr. Smith, did not consider the evidence of Peter Taylor, of Colonel James Taylor, and others, as proving any thing material against Mr. Smith; yet they would be able to show, that it abounded with mistakes. With regard to Peter Taylor, they should not question his general character, but they would offer evidence to show that the circumstances and situation in which he was placed were not such as entitled his testimony to credit; they would show that he had testified to what were not facts—
They should prove this by his own declarations, as well as by those of others.
Mr. Key then read the deposition of Peter Taylor, lately taken at Marietta, and the depositions of Dudley Woodbridge, John Brough, and Morris B. Belknap.
Mr. Harper said that among the charges against John Smith, was his having expressed to Col. Taylor sentiments unfavorable to the Union. Although they might contend that such a charge, if substantiated, contained nothing of criminality, they were not disposed to rest the defence on that ground. They denied the charge. In saying this, they did not believe that Col. Taylor had intentionally misstated the expressions of Mr. Smith. They would, however, adduce the testimony of a man who was present at the conversation alluded to, who considered it very different from Col. Taylor, viz.—Dr. John Sellman, a man of respectable character, both as to veracity and knowledge.
Mr. Harper then read the depositions of Dr. John Sellman, and Gen. Henry Carberry.
The last point, Mr. Harper said, on which they would adduce testimony, was relative to the journey of Mr. Smith to Frankfort, where he had an interview with Col. Burr, and they would show that his objects & motives, in taking it altogether, regarded the transaction of his own personal concerns.
The counsel then read the depositions of Joseph Taylor, John Jordan, jun. Thomas Hart, Daniel Bradley, Alexander Parker, and James Kelly.
When the Senate adjourned about the usual hour to Monday.
MONDAY, April 4. Various depositions were read, as well such as had been transmitted to the Senate, as such as were offered on the part of Mr. Smith.
TUESDAY, April 5.
Mr. Harper read the depositions of Jos. H. Brett, Jno. T. Moore, Gabriel North, Erastus Root, C. Keiser, Isaac G. Burnett, David Zeigler, Jno. Bradford, Jacob Broadwell, Joseph Van Horne, Samuel Hildridge, George Williamson, M. Williams, William Goforth. Messrs. Van Rensselaer, Jer. Morrow, Tallmadge, Bacon and Davenport, of the House of Representatives, and Mr. Tiffin of the Senate, were then examined, and attested to the general respectability of character of several of the witnesses from whom depositions had been received on the part of Mr. Smith.
About 12 o'clock Mr. Key commenced a speech, which he concluded about four o'clock, when the Senate adjourned.
WEDNESDAY, April 6. Messrs. Russell, and Gardenier, Representatives from New-York, were examined as to the credibility of several of the deponents on the part of Mr. Smith.
When Mr. Harper concluded the defence of Mr. Smith in a speech of about three hours length.
THURSDAY, April 7. Mr. Anderson moved to postpone the consideration of the report in this case until to-morrow, to give the members an opportunity to collate the new testimony offered.
This motion was lost.
Mr. S. Smith offered a resolution requesting the President to lay before the Senate the letter of Judge Nimmo to him, the letter of Mr. Smith, covering the depositions of himself and his son, and such other papers as may be in the possession of the Executive touching any alleged connection between Mr. Smith and Burr's conspiracy.
This motion was agreed to, subject to the understanding that it should not interrupt the progress of any discussion which might arise on the report.
Mr. Anderson, having expressed his surprise at the attempt to precipitate a decision, and declared his inability to take that full view of the subject (which he desired to do,) before to-morrow, on motion of Mr. White, its further consideration was postponed until to-morrow.
In the course of the remarks, which fell from Mr. Giles, he observed that he considered Elias Glover as so completely discredited, that he desired no further information to make up his opinion.
FAIRFIELD RACES.
THE FAIRFIELD RACES
will commence on the 2d day of May, and continue four days.
1st DAY —The Fairfield Jockey Club Cup, value thirty guineas, free for all ages, the horses being bona fide the property of a member of the Club—Distance two mile heats.
2d DAY —The Jockey Club Purse of $ 500—four mile heats.
3d DAY —The Proprietor's Purse of $ 250—three mile heats.
4th DAY —The Annual Sweep Stake, five subscribers, $ 100, free for all ages—three mile heats. Weights as follows:—Aged horses 133 lbs. 6 years old 128, 5 do. 118, 4 do. 106, 3 do. 90; mares and geldings allowed 3 lbs.
The Fairfield Course will be in elegant order. The subscriber has, at considerable expence, erected a handsome two story dining house and judges stand, communicating with each other, on a plan which cannot fail to give satisfaction.
The dining house and booths in the field are to be rented. The Treasurer thinks it unnecessary to remind the members of paying up their back arrearages, as so little attention has been paid to former notices of this kind.
E. SMOCK, Treasurer & Proprietor. For sale, two thorough bred Brood MARES—One with an elegant colt by her side, by the famous imported Horse Arch Duke—the other heavy in foal by the celebrated Horse Florizel. The blood of those Mares are equal to any in the state—they may be had low for cash or on a short credit. E. S. [lawtr]
NOTICE , to the creditors of James and Alexander Dunlop—That on Saturday the 30th day of April next, at 9 o'clock A. M. the subscribers will proceed at the Compting Room of Henry Hovey, in this city, to make a dividend of the funds in their hands, arising from a deed of trust executed to them by Alexander Dunlop, the surviving partner, and duly recorded in the General Court.
The several creditors will be particular in lodging their claims with H. Hovey, duly established, before the day limited for payment—and where, from the remote residence of any of the creditors, it shall be inconvenient to give personal attendance, they will use the precaution to appoint an attorney in fact, for the purpose of subscribing to the terms of the said deed of trust, and also of receiving the dividend.
For the information of those concerned, the following clause is extracted from the said deed. But it is hereby declared and fully to be understood, that if any creditor or creditors of the said James and Alexander Dunlop shall refuse to accept the provisions of this deed of trust, and shall institute any suit or suits against the said Alexander Dunlop as surviving partner, that then, and in every such case, the person or persons so refusing, shall be barred of, and excluded all benefit arising from the provisions of this trust, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for the said trustees to proceed to make a dividend of the money coming to their hands under this trust, between all amongst those only, who shall consent to rest their claims upon the provisions contained in this deed: the property and effects hereby conveyed, being all to which the said Alexander Dunlop is entitled, either as surviving partner or as an individual.
WM. LONG, } Trustees. HENRY HOVEY, } SAML. MCRAW, } Richmond, March 8, 1808. [cp30A.]
LAND FOR SALE —The subscriber offers for sale that valuable Tract of LAND in Amherst county, now in the occupancy of Thomas Coppedge. This Land lies on Buffalo River, two miles from New-Glasgow and one from the Oaks; and from its contiguity to those places, with the advantage of the Lynchburg road running through it, is equalled by few stands in the upper country for a tavern or private entertainment. There is on this land a very commodious one story dwelling house 32 by 18, two rooms below and two above, a good kitchen, smoke house, barn, corn house and stable, and a number of never-failing springs of excellent water; also a variety of excellent fruit trees. This tract contains two hundred and twenty-five acres, and is bounded on two sides by Buffalo River, and one by Tribulation Creek, affording a good portion of low grounds and several mill seats and distilleries. The payments, which may be had in November next, the other half in two equal annual payments. For price and other particulars, application must be made to the subscriber living in New-Haven, Rockingham county, Virginia, or Thomas Coppedge on the premises. MATTHEW WATSON. [law4w4]
REMOVAL —We have removed our Counting House to the House immediately below and contiguous to the one we have hitherto occupied, where we have for sale, Mucovado Sugar by the hhd. or bbl. Sherry Wine in quarter casks, and a few cases old Claret, of superior quality. ROBERT ALLAN POLLOCK & Co. March 8. [cpf]
BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION BUSINESS —The subscriber respectfully offers his services to his friends and the public, in the above line of business and solicits their patronage. G. GREENHOW. Dec. 15. [oawtf.]
AT PRIVATE SALE , at the subscriber's Auction Store—First quality green Coffee, Mucovado and Loaf Sugars, Molasses, old Madeira and London P. Tennesse Wine, Holland Gin, Demijohns, Glass-ware in boxes, containing tumblers, wine-glasses and decanters; and an assortment of the best quality DUTCH BOLTING CLOTHS. M. M. MYERS. March 25. [f6]
THE CAROLINE JOCKEY CLUB RACES will commence at the Union Tavern on the 20th April next. 1st DAY —A play of pay post Sweepstakes for 3 years old Colts & Fillies, 6 subscribers at $ 30 each. 2d DAY —The Jockey Club Purse—There are 52 subscribers at $ 3 each; the necessary expenses attending the races will be drawn from this purse—distance 3 mile heats. 3d DAY —The subscription of the Proprietor of the Course of 30 dollars, with the toll of that, and the preceding day's entrance, 10 dollars each, 2 mile heats. Weights agreeably to the Rappahannock Jockey Club. PHILIP SAMUEL, Sec'y. Caroline, March 25. [120thA.]
THE TAPPANANNOCK RACES will commence on Wednesday the 25th of May, 1808. 1st DAY —The Jockey Club Purse of four hundred dollars, four mile heats. 2d DAY —The Jockey Club Purse of three hundred dollars, three mile heats. 3d DAY —A Sweepstake for three years old Colts and Fillies, two mile heats, one hundred dollars entrance; the subscription will remain open until the 25th May. Weights as follows:—Aged horses 130 lbs. 6 years old 120 lbs. 5 do. 110 lbs. 4 do. 100 lbs. 3 do. 90 lbs. 86 lbs. under three years, a feather. Mares and Geldings allowed 3 lbs. In consequence of the following resolution of the Club, there is no doubt the members will be punctual in paying their subscription, as the money on each day will be placed in the hands of the Judges. Resolved , That the Secretary shall have the Rules of the Club printed and furnish each member with a copy, and that a list of the members shall be handed in to the Club on the first day of each race, to be read in the dining room, stating who has and who has not paid their subscription. ARTHUR S. BROCKENBROUGH, Secretary and Treasurer. March 25. [ept25thM]
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD —A runaway about the 1st instant from the service of Mr. William Rawleigh (to whom he was hired) a black man named JACKSON, a house carpenter by profession, of thin consumptive appearance, about forty years of age, five feet eight or nine inches high. From circumstances attending his elopement, it is believed he intends making his way to one of the eastern states and has been provided with false papers of freedom. I taken within the state and delivered me here or secured that I get him, I will give fifty dollars, or if taken out of the state, one hundred dollars. ROBERT GAMBLE, Jun. Richmond, Dec. 29. [eptf]
RICHMOND TILE MANUFACTORY —The subscriber having procured the exclusive right to manufacture in this and several other states Harrowd's much improved Patent Tile for covering roofs, and at considerable expense erected the necessary buildings, &c. for carrying on that useful business extensively, now offers to supply, at short notice, any quantity that may be required, at the moderate price of thirty five dollars per thousand, delivered at his Factory. He can with confidence, founded on actual experiment, in the covering of about 20 houses in this city, assert, that houses can be covered with this tile as cheap in the first instance, as with shingles of the first quality; and when the security against fire, the difference of insurance, the durability and particular construction of those tile to resist the most penetrating rains and snows are considered, he cannot doubt of meeting with considerable encouragement. It requires only the examination of a well covered roof to convince the most prejudiced mind of their superiority to any other tile heretofore made, or to the best of slate, and will cost less than the latter, after paying the expense of water carriage to almost any part of this continent. Particular attention will be paid to orders from other towns, and in all cases where they are shipped, he will deliver them whole and sound, along side the vessels, at the expense of cartage only to the purchasers. Any person skilled in the art of tiling, will put on those tile with great facility, but where they cannot be procured, he can engage a few here who have had some experience, and will go a moderate distance, if the job is of sufficient magnitude and their travelling expenses paid. BENJAMIN DUVAL. Richmond, March 22. [cp2w&1awtf.]
N. B. I wish to sell Patent Rights in several other States. B. D.
THE subscriber having obtained a licence, will immediately commence the practice of LAW in the county courts of Hanover, King William and King and Queen, and in the district court of King & Queen. WILLIAM H. ROANE. Hanover, April 8. (4)
PURSUANT to a deed of trust, executed to us by Elisha Estes of the county of Amherst, for the purpose of securing a debt therein particularly mentioned, we will sell to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the dwelling house of said Estes, on Thursday the twenty-eighth instant, a tract or parcel of LAND, lying or being in the aforesaid county of Amherst, on the head waters of Rucker's-run, and containing by survey 573 acres, and adjoining the lands of Abraham Warwick, Thomas Statham, William Breedlove and others, it being the same land wherein the said Elisha Estes now lives. Although we believe the title to this land indisputable, we will only convey the title vested in us as trustees, and against the claim of any claiming under us. JO MOORE, } Trustees. JAMES VIGERS, Jr. } Warmminster, April 5. (cp3wp)
MILLINARY —Mrs. DAVIDSON has just received a case of handsome spring BONNETS, with sundry other articles in the fancy line. Richmond, April 5. [eptf]
SALE BY AUCTION. IRON WORKS —The following LANDS will be sold together or in separate parcels to suit purchasers, at Public Auction, at Mr. Chase's Vendue Warehouse, in Baltimore, on SATURDAY the 14th day of May next, at 12 o'clock: 23,343 acres of LAND, more or less, consisting of different surveys adjoining each other, lying in Bath and Botetourt counties, in the state of Virginia, on the Cowpasture river, which empties into James River. There is on the above Lands, a great abundance of Iron Ore, of the best quality, to be obtained with very trifling expence, near navigable water, and situations suitable for erecting furnaces and forges. The annexed certificate of Adam Clackner, (an experienced man of good character) is referred to for further particulars. The first named subscriber has also been on the Lands and examined the situations, on the river for furnaces and forges, and is of opinion that the annexed certificate is in every respect correct.
The terms of sale will be 5000 dollars cash, and for the residue of the purchase money an extended credit will be given. The titles are believed to be unquestionable. The Patents may be seen by application to the subscribers. JOSIAS PENNINGTON, N. BRICE. Trustees of the Patente.
CERTIFICATE. I hereby certify, that in the year 1803, I examined the Ore banks on the above mentioned lands, and found the ore to be of a very superior quality, and in very great abundance. The ore banks consist of three mountains, and such is the facility of getting the ore, that in my opinion one man will be able to raise as much as will supply one furnace. The proper place for a furnace is not more than 1/2 of a mile from the banks, and for a forge that may be worked with four hammers; about 5 miles distant on a good road, there is also an abundance of wood to supply the furnace and forge, and a large quantity of White Limestone near the furnace seat. I am of opinion that there are two good seats for forges, (exclusive of the above mentioned) each to act with one hammer, within 1/2 of a mile of the furnace upon the whole, I solemnly declare, that in my opinion (and I have been for many years acquainted with the qualities of ore, and the proper management of Iron Works) the above property has more advantages in every respect, for the establishment of Iron Works than any I have ever seen. ADAM CLACKNER. March 25. [cp. 15]
SIMPSON MORRIS , opposite the Eagle Tavern, respectfully informs the public that he still continues selling off tender cost and charges till the whole of the stock is sold and wishes the public not to lose this opportunity as goods are daily raising. The stock consists of the following articles, viz. 7-8 and 4-4 Irish Linen, Kenting, Linen and Cotton Cambrics, a large assortment of India & British Muslin, corded and cambric Dimity, a large assortment of silk & cotton Hose, Ladies silk Gloves, Damask Silk Shawls, Black twilled Sarcenets, Florentine silk, printed Calico, Linen & Cotton Chequees, Linen & cotton Cambric hdkfs. white & Black French laces, white and colored Marseilles and Janes, India Cotton and Wildboar, Bennet's patent Cord, Cassimere, Broad Cloth, Flannels, Dressing Boxes, and a number of other articles too tedious to enumerate. April 5. [cp2m]
PURSUANT to a deed of trust, executed by George Loving to me, and recorded in the County court of Amherst, for securing a debt therein expressed, I will sell to the highest bidder, for ready money, at the dwelling house of said Loving, on Thursday the 30th day of May next, two male Negroes, to wit: Harry and Guy, and one Negro Woman named Sisy, or so many of them, as may be sufficient to pay the aforesaid debt and interest, and the necessary expenses attending the execution of this trust. I only warrant title to those negroes against myself and those claiming under me. RICHARD POWELL. Warmminster, April 5. (cp4wv)
FIFTEEN DOLLARS REWARD —Ran away from the subscriber, living in New-Kent county, on 6th March last, a Negro Man named GIBSON, about five feet 9 or 10 inches high, sallow complexion, he lips a little in speech, has rather a pleasing countenance, and had on when he went off dark Virginia Cloth clothing, he is 22 or 23 years old and very likely. It is probable that he has gone up James River in some of the boats, and may be lurking about Cumberland or Goochland, where he has some acquaintances, and I believe some relations at Mr. Thomas Wilkinson's in Cumberland. The above reward will be given, if delivered to me in New-Kent or to Mr. Joshua Crump living in Richmond, and ten dollars to secure him in any jail so that I get him again. JOHN P. CRUMP. New-Kent, April 5. [eptf]
THE MILLING BUSINESS which has heretofore been carried on under the firm of LANDS & WEBSTER, was dissolved on the first instant. THOMAS & AMOS LADD, ISAAC WEBSTER. March 18. [tf]
A LIBERAL price will be given for an unexceptionable Male COOK—One of a middle age would be preferred—Enquire of Prosser and Moncure. April 5. [cpf]
FOR SALE —By virtue of a deed of trust executed to the subscriber, by Richard E. Armstrong, to secure the payment of a debt due to Richard Gambill, will be sold to the highest bidder, for ready money, on Saturday the thirtieth day of April inst. before the door of Thomas Willis, in the town of Milton, one half acre LOT with its improvements, in said town. No. 28, being the same Lot sold by said Gambill to said Armstrong, as per deed of record in the county court of Albemarle. Acting as trustee for others, will only convey the title vested in me as such. DAVID ANDERSON, Trustee. Milton, April 5, 1808. (oaw3w.)
CANNON BALL & GRAPE SHOT —Proposals will be received at this office for a quantity of Cannon Ball and Grape Shot for 24 pounders, and Cannon Ball and grape or Canister Shot for 6 pounders, to be delivered on navigable water in the state of Massachusetts. Also, for a quantity of the same articles in the state of New Jersey or New-York. Also, for a quantity of the same articles in Virginia or Maryland. The election to have the ball and shot cast in iron moulds or otherwise, is desired, as the articles must be perfectly globular & smooth, & for that purpose, will undergo a strict inspection before receipt or payment. Dimensions of the several kinds of ball and shot will be given. TENCH COYE, Purveyor Of Public Supplies. Philadelphia, March 22, 1808. [law4w4]
ADVERTISEMENT —I forewarn all persons whatever from trading or taking an assignment for a bond now in the hands of Mr. George Williamson of Powhatan, Exor. of Jacob Williamson, dec'd. The bond was given by Mrs. Hannah Williamson to William T. Walcutt of Prince Edward, for the amount of 30 pounds, and the bond dated the third day of January, 1803, and the bond was due the third day of January, 1808. GEORGE EGGLESTON, Executor of Hannah Williamson. March 15. [law6w4]
BLANKS, OF EVERY DESCRIPTION, FOR SALE AT THIS OFFICE.