The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-01-09 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
VOL. 4.]
RICHMOND, SATURDAY, JANUARY 9, 1808.
[No. 74.]
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
DISSOLUTION OF CO-PARTNERSHIP. The Co-partnership of Taylor & Brown was by mutual consent, dissolved the 31st December last. All persons having claims against the concern will apply for settlement to James Brown, jun. who is authorised to receive all monies due thereto. JAMES BROWN, JR. Richmond, Jan. 5, 1808.
THE AUCTION & COMMISSION BUSINESS will in future be carried on by the Subscriber in the tenement heretofore occupied by Taylor & Brown, which is well calculated for the reception of a large quantity of goods. He has on hand for sale, both for cash and on credit, a large assortment of GROCERIES: Amongst which are, 15 months old } ANTIGUA RUM, New, } Brown and loaf Sugar by the hhds. and barrels, Imperial, Ryon and Young Hyson Teas, Coffee, Jamaica Brandy, Pennsylvania Whiskey, Salem Sacks, 9 years old Brazil Wine in hhds. First quality Madeira in pipes, hhds. & qr. casks, Sherry Wine, &c. &c. &c. And a quantity of Dry Goods suitable for the season. JAMES BROWN, JR. Jan. 5. (19)
LANDS FOR SALE. —The subscriber offers for sale, the following Tracts of LAND, in which, to persons making early application, he will give great bargains: One tract of 1300 acres, lying in Buckingham, which is advantageously situated for trade, being two or three miles from Scott's Manufacturing Mill, and five from New-Canton. This Land is very valuable, having on it 900 acres of woods, nearly all of which is good tobacco Land; there are also very good improvements, such as are well calculated for the accommodation of a family, and a sufficiency of cleared land, to employ 10 or 12 hands advantageously. This tract will be shown to any person inclined to purchase, by Capt. Peter Guernant, now resident on the land. One tract on Randle's creek, of 409 acres, the greater part of which is fresh and will produce good wheat and corn; it joins the lands of Col. Wilson and Mr. Gilley Lewis. One other tract, in the neighborhood of New-Canton, of 212 acres, being a moiety of a tract owned by Mr. Maurice Langhorne. Another tract in Powhatan, of 300 acres, known by the name of Gibraltar. These Lands will be offered for sale at very reduced prices, which may be known, during my absence, by application to Col. William Daniel of Cumberland, who is authorised to contract for them. The title will be made by me on my return from Kentucky, which will probably be between the 10th and 20th of February next. WADE MOSBY. Powhatan, Dec. 4. (Fut.)
IN CHANCERY. A quarterly court, continued and held for the county of Prince Edward, November the 17th, 1807. Martha Deshazor, Compt. against Zachariah Rice, Executor of John Deshazor, decd. John Deshazor, Zachariah Rice, guardian of James Deshazor, Martha Deshazor, Susanna Deshazor, Wm. Deshazor, Polly Burgess, lately Polly Deshazor, Elizabeth Panton, late Elizabeth Deshazor, and John P. Burgess, husband of the said Polly Burgess. THE defendant William Deshazor, not having entered his appearance and given security according to an act of the General Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the complainant, by her counsel, It is ordered , That the said defendant, William Deshazor, do appear here on the first day of February next, and answer the complainant's bill, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some one of the public newspapers printed in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and also posted at the front door of the Court-House of this county. A Copy. Teste, F. WATKINS, c. c. Dec. 4. (FBw.)
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. [Gawt.]
FOR SALE, a few prime tracts of Military LAND, in the state of Ohio. Bank Shares wanted—Apply as above. Dec. 15. [Gawt.]
SEVENTEEN SLAVES. —By virtue of a deed of trust executed to the subscriber, by William Laurence, in his life time, and admitted to record in the General Court, at the June term, 1804, to secure the payment of a sum of money therein mentioned, due to William Fenwick, will positively be sold, at Louisa court-house, on the 11th day of January next, being Louisa court day, seventeen valuable SLAVES. Among them are several house Servants, a very good Shoemaker, regularly bred to the business, a good Seamstress and a good Hostler—Also, six Beds and Furniture, four Horses, thirty Hogs, and twenty head of Cattle.—By the consent of Mr. Fenwick, at the request of the Adm'r of the decd. a credit of six months will be given to the purchasers of the Negroes, upon their executing bonds to the subscriber with good security, and like-wise giving him a deed of trust on the Negro or Negroes purchased, and on real property to secure the punctual payment of the money when it becomes due; the other property will be sold for ready money. The subscriber will convey his title as trustee, which he believes to be indisputable. DAVID BULLOCK. December 12. [Iaw4w.]
EDUCATION. —My school will be open for the reception of students the ensuing year about the first of February; in which will be taught, English Grammar, Latin, Geography, History, Euclid's Elements, Elocution, Book-keeping, Reading, Writing and Arithmetic. The price for tuition will be twenty dollars for the term, to be paid half yearly in advance.—Board may be had on reasonable terms in the neighbourhood. RICH'D. M. SEGAR. Middlesex, Dec. 24. (Iaw4w.)
NOTICE. —On the 10th of last month, Elijah Kirky delivered to me in Orange county, on his way from Woodford county, Kentucky, a MARE, which he requested me to deliver to a son of a widow Watkins in Goochland; I carried her to the widow Watkins's, her sons being from home, and not likely to return for some months, she refused to receive her. The right owner is requested to call on me for her six miles above Columbia in Fluvanna county. BENJAMIN SEAY. Jan. 7. [Iaw3w.]
FOR SALE, that large, valuable and well built Brick Lumber-ouse, lately the property of Messrs. Wm. McKenzie & Co. 30 feet front, 50 feet deep, and three stories high, situated on the back street leading from the Basin, nearly opposite to the house lately occupied by Mr. John Henry. The terms will be liberal and convenient to the purchaser. Apply to TAYLOR & BROWN. Nov. 20. (Iaw4f.)
LOST, between Hanover Court House, and the Eagle-Tavern, in the city of Richmond, this day, a red Morocco Pocket-Book , with Bank Notes, to the amount of ninety-five dollars—one fifty dollar note of the U. States' branch at Savannah, No. 5503—two twenty dollar notes of the Virginia Bank, and a five dollar, the numbers of the three last not now recollected; with two Bonds of Warner L. Wormaly's of a thousand dollars, given to Robert B. Gaines of King and Queen, one of five hundred due the first of January 1810, and the other also of five hundred dollars due in January 1811, with sundry other papers that can be of no service to any person but the owner. Who ever will deliver the said Pocket-Book with the ninety five dollars and all the other papers that were in it when lost, to Mr. Poitiaux of this city, or to the subscriber residing in King William near Hanover Courthouse, shall receive twenty dollars. THOMAS CARY NELSON. Richmond, Dec. 23. [Zawtf.]
WANTED, AN ASSISTANT AT THE RICHMOND FEMALE ACADEMY.—Mrs. BYRD is desirous of getting a Lady of good moral character and capable of teaching English and Arithmetic, to assist her in tuition, and also in taking care of the young ladies entrusted to her superintendence. To such a person she will give a reasonable salary, besides her board, and lodging at the academy, including fire, candles and washing. Richmond, Jan. 7, 1808. [Zawtf.]
BY virtue of a deed of trust, executed by Josiah Bingham and Elizabeth his wife to the subscriber, bearing date the 26th September, 1807, and recorded in the H. court, to secure the several sums of money and interest therein mentioned, will be sold on the premises, to the highest bidder, for ready money, the House and Lot on Shockoe Hill now occupied by said Bingham, on the twentieth day of this present month. JOHN F. PRICE, Trustee. Richmond, Jan. 7. (Iaw4d.)
A GREEABLE to a deed of trust, executed to John James Lewis and Matthew Henderson, by John Henderson, will be exposed to sale, for ready money, before the door of Elijah Garth's Tavern in the town of Charlottesville, one Bay Horse, with a blaze face, on the first Monday in February next, being Albemarle court day, in order to satisfy said trust. JAS. LEWIS, MATTHEW HENDERSON. Charlottesville, Jan. 7. [Iaw3w.]
THE SUBSCRIBER having purchased the patent-right of erecting, using, &c. (within the greater part of this state southward of the bay) one of the truest, best and most expeditious Nail-cutting Machines that has ever been introduced into this state, by which much superior nails are made: any person residing within a sufficient distance from this place, who is desirous of purchasing such a machine, may have one at the same price that was given by the subscriber; and for a reasonable consideration may likewise possess an exclusive right of working it within any such district as may be agreed on. Richmond, Dec. 15, 1807. At McCall's Manufactory on the Basin of the Canal, are sold Nails of a superior quality, at the following prices:—and where also to be had, bar and hoop iron, Nail-Rods, &c. &c. WROUGHT NAILS.
 Spikes, 40, 30 and 20 nails, 12 3/4 per lb.  12 nails, do. 13  10 do. do. 14  8 do. do. 14 1/2  6 do. do. 15  4 do. do. 16  3 do. do. 17   CUT NAILS & BRADS.   24, 20, 12 and 10 brads, 11 per lb.  8 do. 11 1/4  6 nails, 12 3/4  4 do. 13  3 do. 14   [Iaw4f.]
WILL BE SOLD, at public auction, on the 18th day of January next, at the door of the Eagle-Tavern, ninety-two thousand, seven hundred and thirty acres of western LANDS, lying in the counties of Montgomery, Harrison and Kentucky. A credit of one, two, three and four years will be allowed, if satisfactory security shall be given. SAMUEL GREENHOW. Richmond, Oct. 7. (Gawt.)
EDUCATION. —The subscriber offering his unfeigned thanks to those gentlemen who have manifested their confidence in him as a Teacher, proposes to continue his school at the same place the ensuing year. In this seminary youth will be instructed in the Greek, Latin and English Languages, Geography and the use of the Globes, the Elements of Geometry, with practical Surveying; Also, the Elements of Natural Philosophy, Writing and Arithmetic, Vulgar, Decimal and Analytical. The price of board, tuition, washing, bedding and fuel, will be an hundred dollars for the term, paid quarterly in advance, to commencing on the first of January and end about the tenth of December following. THOMAS NELSON. Humanity Hall, Forks of Hanover, Dec. 22. [Iaw4w.]
BOARDING SCHOOL. —EDWARD LAW, for the purposes to take the management of a school, in Hanover, 10 miles from Richmond and 2 from Mason's Mill. The situation is very healthy. He will take 8 boarders only, from 6 to 13 years of age, and a few pupils from the neighbourhood. Board, tuition and washing will be 100 $ for the term, which will begin on the 15th Instant and end on the 25th of December following; and 20 $ for tuition only. In both cases quarterly payments in advance will be required. Great pains will be taken to improve his pupils in learning and virtue. There will be two vacations of 15 days each, one in the Spring and the other in the Fall, for which no deduction will be made. Those who are not acquainted with him and may wish to place children under his care, may wish to apply to James Gowan, Esq. of Hanover and David Bullock Esq. of Richmond, for any information, which they may desire. Jan. 5. [Gw.]
WILL positively be sold, on Saturday the 30th of January, 1808, on the premises, one tract of LAND, lying in the county of Albemarle, containing 270 acres, be the same more or less, about three miles from Charlottesville and adjoining the lands of Henry Williams, George Dovers and others: Also, the following Slaves, to wit:—James, Jude, Sukey and Joe, by virtue of a deed of trust executed to the subscribers, by Claudious Buser, decd. in his life time, and committed to record in the district court of Charlottesville, to secure a sum of money due from said Buser, decd. to Will. Gault, acting as trustee, will only convey title vested in us as such. DAVID ANDERSON, BENJAMIN BROWN, } Trustees. Albemarle, Dec. 29. (Zaw3w.)
PROPOSALS for carrying the MAILS of the United States on the following post-roads, will be received at the General Post-Office until the 14th day of February next. 1. From Fredericksburg by Orange c. h. Milton and Charlottesville to New-York once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 8 p. m. and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday by 6 p. m.—Leave Charlottesville at 7 a. m. and arrive at New-York by 11 a. m.—Leave New-York every Friday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Charlottesville by 5 p. m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Sunday by 10 p. m. 2. From New-York by Wanesboro' to Staunton once a week. Leave Staunton every Friday at 6 a. m. and arrive at New-York by 11 a. m.—Leave New-York every Friday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Staunton by 6 p. m. 3. From Richmond by Goochland c. h. Columbia, Rising Sun and Milton to Charlottesville once a week. Leave Richmond every Tuesday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Charlottesville on Thursday by 6 p. m.—Leave Charlottesville every Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Richmond on Monday by 11 a. m. 4. From Lancaster by Elizabethton, Middle-town, Karrisburg, Carlisle and Shippensburg to Chambersburg 3 times a week.—Leave Lancaster every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 p. m. and arrive at Chambersburg on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 10 p. m.—Leave Chambersburg every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 a. m. and arrive at Lancaster by 12 p. m. 5. From Chambersburg by McConnells town, Bedford, Somerset and Greensburg to Pittsburgh three times a week. Leave Chambersburg every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Somerset on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 9 p. m. and arrive at Pittsburgh on Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday by 10 a. m.—Return, Leave Pittsburgh every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Chambersburg the next Friday, Monday and Wednesday by 8 p. m.
NOTES. 1. The contracts for the three first mentioned routes are to be in operation on the 1st day of April next, and to continue in force one year. Contracts for the two last routes are to be in operation on the 1st day of July next and continue until the 30th of September 1809. 2. The contractor will be subjected to the usual penalties for delays and failures, which will be specified in the contracts. GIDEON GRANGER, Post-Master General. General Post-Office, Jan. 7. [Zawbw.]
FOR SALE. —By virtue of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber by Butler Bradburn, to secure the payment of a debt to Wm. Galt, will be exposed to sale at public auction, for ready money, on Saturday the 23d of this present month, instant, at Thomas Wills' in the town of Milton, a well improved LOT in the said town; it's an advantageous situation for a carriage or wagon maker, there being on the lot a large work shop, a good blacksmith's shop and a well finished dwelling house; acting as trustee, will only convey the title vested in me as such. DAVID ANDERSON, Trustee. Jan. 7. [Zaw3w.]
FOR SALE. —By virtue of a deed of trust, executed to the subscriber by Goodman Barkdale, to secure the payment of a debt to William Galt, will be exposed to sale, at public auction, for ready money, on Saturday the 30th this present month (January) at Claudious Ruster's plantation, whereon Christian W. Baker now resides, a tract of LAND lying in the county of Albemarle, containing one hundred and twelve acres and a half, being the same land said Goodman Barkdale purchased of Douglas Barkdale: Also, two negro Girls, Maria and Morning, or so much of the aforesaid property as will be sufficient to discharge the debt, interest and cost aforesaid; acting as trustee for others, will only convey the title vested in me as such. DAVID ANDERSON, Trustee. Milton, January 7. [Zaw3w.]
FOR SALE. —By virtue of a deed of trust executed to the subscriber by Wm. Holland, to secure the payment of a debt due Wm. Galt, will be exposed to sale at public auction, for ready money, on the 20th day of January, 1808, a tract of LAND containing one hundred and seventy-five acres, be the same more or less, lying in the county of Fluvanna; acting as trustee will only convey the title vested in me as such. DAVID ANDERSON. Jan. 7. [Zaw3w.]
VALUABLE LAND FOR SALE. —On Wednesday the 10th day of February next, will be exposed to sale, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at Goochland court-house, the tract of LAND whereon Edward Bolling at present resides, lying on James river, in the county of Goochland, about three miles above the court-house, containing by estimation one thousand acres, be the same more or less, or so much of the said tract as shall be sufficient to discharge the following sums of money; the payment whereof has been secured by three several deeds of trust on the said land, executed by said Bolling as follows, to wit: One executed to Frederick Harris and William Miller, bearing date the 14th day of July, 1806, for the purpose of securing the payment of a sum of money due to John L. Harris & Co. the balance whereof amounting to between two hundred and fifty and two hundred and sixty pounds has been assigned to Charles Smith: One other executed to Charles F. Bates and Wm. Miller, bearing date the 20th day of October, 1806, for the purpose of securing to Frederick Harris the payment of five hundred and nine pounds with interest thereon from the 1st day of November, 1806; and one other executed to William Miller and Joseph Shelton, on the 22d day of June, 1807, for the purpose of securing to Frederick Harris the payment of fourteen hundred and sixteen dollars, due the 1st day of November last; all of which deeds have been duly recorded in the county court of Goochland. A sufficiency of the said land will be sold in pursuance of the aforesaid deeds of trust, to satisfy the sums of money aforesaid or the balances remaining due thereof, together with all interest accruing thereon, and the costs attending the drafting and recording said deeds, and of advertising and selling said land, by THE TRUSTEES. Jan. 7. [Iaw4d.]
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, Dec. 29.
[Proceedings continued from our last.]
Mr. Livermore said, if any observation had fallen from him impeaching the candor of the gentleman from N. Carolina, he would retract it, for he had seen as much candor in the conduct of that gentleman as of any other within these walls. It was true he had called for candor on this subject, in which he was so nearly interested; he conceived that the feelings of some gentlemen might be different from the feelings of his constituents, and he had called upon gentlemen candidly to consider the subject. He agreed with the gentleman as to the construction of the law; for every person concerned should put such a construction on a law as the words implied. Mr. L. thought they were now going too hastily on this subject; he had been of the same opinion when the embargo law was under consideration, and in every stage of it.
He thought they should not hastily have passed the law; and he had contended that there was no necessity for that precipitation which had prevailed, for taking a leap in the dark, when every consideration should have induced them to pause and proceed with deliberation. And the House were now proceeding on this bill without having had time to consider it; the committee of Commerce and Manufactures had reported, and the House was called upon implicitly to follow them, without further light on the subject. The gentleman had said that the same argument would apply to sailors as to fishermen; that they also might throw off their allegiance to the U. S. This was the very thing Mr. L. had contended in conclave, and would have contended for if longer, had not his voice been drowned by the noise which was made, and the determination which was manifested to prevent debate. The colossal power of a majority had put down the still small voice of reason and had declared that strength alone should reign. While he had a right to give his voice, Mr. L. said, he would argue against measures brought forward and pressed on so precipitately, when grounded on false or fallacious grounds. It seemed as if it had been determined to run headlong into them without giving reason time to operate. If the present law were to be passed in this manner, in a few days perhaps gentlemen would come forward with a proposition to amend this, as this was a proposition to amend the former. From the short time which he had to consider the measure in its present form (though he had revolved the general measure and its ill effects repeatedly in his mind) he had not sufficient to consider the different provisions of the bill. He therefore moved that the committee rise and obtain leave to sit again.
Mr. Love pressed the decision of the question on the amendment, and opposed the motion for the rising of the committee. There was now no question of policy or impolicy of an embargo to be considered; the only question was, to secure that part of the citizens of the U. States, who obtained a livelihood by fishing, from infractions of the general provisions of the law. Why should they deprive the fishermen of their wonted occupation, if they gave proper security that they should not touch at a foreign port? This was a plain question on which every one could decide.
Mr. J. Montgomery observed that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Livermore) had done well in allowing the gentleman from N. C. a claim to candor, for his conduct ever did evidence his liberality. But were not other gentlemen entitled to the same allowance? Mr. M. was not much acquainted with the gentleman from Massachusetts, but he should conceive from the language he had used, that the other gentlemen whom he had pronounced against others, recoiled upon himself. What did the gentleman mean by the colossal power of the majority?—Where did this exist to the exclusion of the still small voice of reason? Mr. M. had seen no evidence of it in this House during the discussion of the law which the gentleman had alluded to. If that gentleman had a particle of candor in his composition, he would appeal to whether liberality and forbearance were not the order of the day? What was the conduct of the majority on that evening when language was used unworthy of a Representative or a citizen? They manifested a forbearance at which he had been astonished. While he was up, Mr. M. said he would take occasion to notice a letter which had appeared in New-York and other papers, purporting to be a letter from a member of Congress, bearing date the 19th of December. Mr. M. could not believe that any gentleman on the floor could use such language as was contained in that letter. What member would rise in his place and tell the House that they were under French influence, knowing that he must that no such influence existed? What man would tell the House that French influence guided them, and that they in consequence of it were acting in conclave? What man would express his abhorrence of their proceedings and tell them that their conduct was infamous? Mr. M. could not conceive that any man who could use this unprincipled language would be entitled to a seat on this floor. No; he would not believe that this letter could be written by a member of Congress; he must pronounce it a foul, base, and unprincipled calumny.
The law of embargo was now passed; it was the duty of every man to rally around the measure, and of Congress, to make such amendments as would render it complete. It was now a late hour, but he thought the principle under consideration should be decided before they adjourned.
[The following is the letter alluded to.—It originally appeared in the N. Y. Evening Post, and is pronounced by the republican prints of New-York the production of Mr. Gardener. It will be remarked, from its date, that it was written while the injunction of secrecy still remained in force. "Washington, Dec. 19th, 1807. "Dear Sir, "Yesterday we received a message from the President of a confidential nature. We immediately closed our doors, and they are
still closed. Of course I am not permitted to inform you either what the President has communicated to us, or what we have done in consequence of it. But I may be permitted to tell you we are doing no good . I fear we are about to plunge the nation into the most dreadful calamities—unnecessarily and wantonly—I am now more than ever persuaded that there is but too much FRENCH INFLUENCE. And it is well that those who succumb to it, should act in secret . This is the reason, and I pledge myself to you, almost the only reason why we sit with closed doors . Our deliberations no more require secrecy at this moment, than they would when we were debating on the subject of fortifications. Nay, sir, this is in my opinion, violating the great rights of the people, by sitting at this moment with closed doors . I cannot express to you in terms sufficiently strong, my abhorrence of what we are doing, and the manner in which we are doing it." The motion for the committee to rise was negatived. Ayes 32.
Mr. Milnor said the House was now very thin, and it was desirable, that on measures of so much importance they should have a full expression of the opinion of the House. When the original embargo law was passed, a large number of members were present; it was then wished to postpone the bill, and in vain urged that there had not been sufficient time maturely to digest it. The present bill contemplated an amendment to the act; and as it had been but a very short time before the House; he hoped they should have further time to consider it. He was not prepared to vote for this amendment; for although he might be in favor of fishermen pursuing their usual employment, the licence for that purpose should be so restricted as to render evasion impossible. True, he did not vote for the law laying an embargo, but since it did exist, he wished that it should be carried into full effect, that there should be no evasion; and he sincerely wished it might answer the purposes contemplated by the gentlemen who first proposed it. He understood that one of the principal objects of the embargo was to preserve our seamen; now he did not think that if a free and unrestrained licence was granted to fishermen, it would be the means of drawing out a large proportion of our seamen, and thus expose them to impressment by the British. This was one great reason which would induce him to vote against the amendment: he was not, however, prepared to decide, and wished further time to digest it; he considered it a matter of more importance than most gentlemen seemed to be aware of. If every vessel in the United States was at liberty to take out a fishing licence, it was necessary to guard the privilege by strong restrictions and large security. As the bill under consideration now stood, it expressed that band with sufficient security should be given; this loose and undefined expression would put it in the power of the officers of the revenue to connive at evasions. He was opposed to the amendment under consideration, and voted to the section as it now stood.
Mr. Smith hoped the committee would at least decide on the amendment; when it might be proper to rise and resume the subject to-morrow morning; and at the same time he thought the bill should pass as soon as possible. When gentlemen were talking on this subject, he wished them to consider whether other classes of citizens were not equally affected by this measure as fishermen. He wished the House to recollect that the measure which it had been obliged to adopt, subjected the whole agricultural interest to great inconvenience, and did not affect commerce only? Would they have ever had a contest with Great-Britain or France, but for the carrying trade? They would not. Had not their table been loaded with petitions from these men for years past, calling upon Congress forcibly to take some measure for the protection of their men and vessels? Had not this been the class of men who had called most loudly for energetic measures, and should they now enjoy an exemption while all other classes suffered deprivation? He hoped not. With respect to seamen he entertained an opinion different from that which had been expressed by some gentlemen; he thought they had too much patriotism to go into foreign service; they had been tried and found worthy of trust, and would be found so now. The House had been told that these men, thrown out of employment, would be obliged to beg in the streets for subsistence. Mr. S. said such would not be the case; the man who in this country wanted bread, must be a man who did not deserve it. If men could not find subsistence on the water their country was blessed with an abundant soil. What did gentlemen mean by opposition to measures now adopted? Did they intend to give up all claim to our rights as an independent nation? or did they mean to make a stand against oppression? If they meant to contend that the power of making money was more valuable than our national rights, let them openly express it. What measure would they propose as a substitute to that which had been adopted? They had not submitted any other when this was under consideration. He hoped he should be clearly understood as conveying the idea that whilst he was willing to do justice to the mercantile interest of the country, and grant them any protection which was consistent with the honor and interest of the country, they must not look for exclusive privileges; they must partake of the general stock, and suffer the same privations as other parts of the community.
Mr. Quincy said that fishermen and merchants whom the gentleman last up had confounded together, were totally distinct classes of people. The object of the embargo was expressed in the message of the President of the United States, and it had no other object than that. The allowing fishermen to go about on the coast and banks to obtain a livelihood (the only way in which they could support themselves) was not at all within the object for which the President had recommended an embargo. Gentlemen had recited that they could obtain a livelihood on the water. Would they then deem this industrious class of distress and want, by a deprivation only means of subsistence? Mr. Milnor moved that the

should rise. He believed that no gentleman wished to deprive any particular class of citizens of their occupation; but merely to secure the general embargo from infraction; and this they would do more effectually after further consideration.
The committee then rose and obtained leave to sit again.
Mr. Bassett presented the following resolutions, which he considered of importance, and wished to put in a way of being considered.
Whereas the Constitution of the United States provides, that no officer of the government shall be eligible to a seat in either House of Congress, thereby establishing the genuine republican principle, that the members of the representative body should be exempt from every improper bias. And as it is the bounden duty of the representatives of the people to give the fullest effect to constitutional principles:
Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law to prohibit the officers of government from making any contract, on behalf of the United States, with any person being a member of either House of Congress, or with any other person for his or their use.
Resolved, That every contract hereafter to be made on the part of the government of the United States, shall contain a clause or condition to render the contract absolutely void, if the contractor should be elected a member of either House of Congress.
Resolved, That any officer, infringing the foregoing provisions, ought to be punished by removal from office, and incapacity of ever after holding any office.
These resolutions were referred to a committee of the whole on Monday next.
WEDNESDAY, Dec. 30.
On motion of Mr. Newton, the House resolved itself into committee of the whole, on the bill supplementary to the act laying an embargo.
Mr. Quincy's motion for amendment, being yet under consideration.
Mr. Newton said, that as considerable difficulty had yesterday arisen on the consideration of the bill, from the clause respecting fishermen not being sufficiently explicit, if the gentleman from Massachusetts would withdraw his motion, he would propose a new section as a substitute to the first.
Mr. Quincy said he had no particular preference for any form, if he obtained his object, and withdrew his motion for adding a proviso, when
Mr. Newton moved to strike out the first section of the bill; which being agreed to.
Mr. Newton moved the insertion of a new section, to the same effect as the other, but in somewhat different terms.
Mr. Macon, to settle the principle at once, moved to strike out that part making an exception in favor of fishing vessels.
This motion was negatived—Ayes 25.
The new section moved by Mr. Newton was then agreed to without a division.
The bill then progressed by paragraphs. In the course of its consideration, many verbal amendments were made, not materially affecting the principle of the bill, on which a desultory conversation took place. The two most material amendments proposed are hereafter noticed.
The fourth section, imposing a penalty & forfeiture on all foreign vessels which shall during the embargo "take on board any specie or goods" other than provisions, &c. being under consideration.
Mr. Macon did not wish to encumber this law for explaining the former law with provisions in themselves impracticable; he therefore moved to amend the section by striking out the words in italic, relative to specie—as he believed it would be utterly impracticable to enforce that prohibition.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Marion, Pitkin, Dana, Macon, and Quincy, & opposed by Messrs. Crowninshield, Newton, and Taylor.
The advocates of the motion generally contended for it on the ground of expediency; that if the exportation were not permitted, citizens indebted in foreign countries could not pay their debts when they became due, as they were already prohibited from sending produce; that the denial of the right to export specie would operate very severely on these merchants, as they must either lose their credit, or pay an enormous premium for bills of exchange, which would be above par, which less some merchants, supposing that the present state of things would not continue for any length of time, would suffer rather than risk the destruction of their credit abroad, and of course of their business—that money was useful only when in circulation, and accumulated millions in the country would be a loss to the community; that such a prohibition would afford an opportunity for speculation, so much money being locked up in the country, dollars would become much below par in value, whereas a premium of 3 and 4 per cent. had been heretofore given for silver to send to the East-Indies or China; that the general restriction on specie supposed to be implied in the former law would affect only the master, commander, or owner, while every other person concerned as sailors, &c. could not be prevented from carrying it on board; that an idea had been thrown out that this permission to export would indulge the merchant and affect the planter injuriously, which was not correct, for it would be impossible to prevent this money going out of the country in some way; if it was possible to prevent its exportation from the ports of the United States, it would exude through the channel of the neighboring provinces. It was also contended, that it was totally impracticable to prevent the exportation of specie; that the most powerful monarchies in the world had in vain attempted that object; that the small bulk in which specie could be conveyed, would render it impossible to prevent its exportation; that such prohibitory laws generally had an effect contrary to that intended; and the experience of other governments had proved, that from the moment such a law was enacted, specie became more and more scarce, till it could scarcely be procured at all.
Those who opposed the motion, and of course advocated the restriction of exportation of specie, contended that it was highly expedient to prohibit the exportation, because if it were allowed, foreigners alone would be benefited by it, as they could bring goods from the West-Indies or elsewhere, & carry specie in return; in reply to the hard-ship on merchants, which was complained of, it was said that while planters and farmers were suffering by their produce having no value, or no value, it would be allowable to export specie, because they would otherwise have to pay on money due by them in foreign countries. [Mr. Newton denied that bills of exchange would increase in value from the embargo; the effect of a permission to export specie would be, that
they could bring their produce or manufacture into this country, and take away specie in return, while by the general embargo our produce was rotting in stores, and could not be exported; that the prohibition of the exportation was no doubt implied by the law laying the embargo, though it would be well if it should be here expressed, as this law was intended to give the other a more effectual operation. In reply to the assertion of the impracticability of enforcing a law prohibiting the exportation of specie, it was contended that although foreign powers had prohibited the exportation, it had been under a penalty merely of perhaps 10 or 15 per cent. on the amount, while the present law contemplated not only the forfeiture of vessel and cargo concerned in the infraction of the law, but besides imposed a personal penalty for every offence of the kind; that the case of other nations therefore did not apply to this; that the prohibition could as easily be carried into effect on specie as on goods; the revenue officers being faithful and seeing the laws strictly enforced; that it would be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to put an inspector on board every foreign vessel in port, and to retain him on board till such vessel sailed, to prevent the law from being infringed; that the small space occupied by specie would not afford so great an opportunity as was imagined of conveying it clandestinely away, for although there was by the general laws of the United States, a heavy duty on the importation of watches and jewelry (which occupied as little compass as least as specie) there were very few, if any instances of their being smuggled into the country.
The question being taken on Mr. Macon's motion for striking out the prohibition on exporting specie, was negatived—Ayes 24.
Mr. Mumford offered the following as a proviso to be added to the 6th and last section (which extends the time for obtaining drawbacks):
And that the term now allowed by law for the payment of all bonds on goods, wares and merchandise imported into the United States shall be, and the same is hereby extended for and during the term of six months beyond the time specified on said bonds.
Considerable objection being made to this by several gentlemen on the ground of its being too extensive and the difficulty of fixing a precise period for the extension of the time when these bonds should become due, and also from the great injury which the revenue would sustain from such a measure.
The above amendment was so modified, as to extend the payment of the bonds beyond and during the continuance of the act laying an embargo.
This motion was negatived, ayes 13.
The bill having been gone through the committee rose and reported it to the House.
A message was received from the President of the United States, on Indian affairs, and referred to the committee on military & naval establishments.
THURSDAY, Dec. 31.
Mr. Thomas moved that the resolution moved by Mr. Randolph should lie on the table.
But a motion made to consider, was agreed to.
Mr. Randolph said as it appeared by the declaration of the gentleman from New-Orleans, that he did possess information, and as the House had a right to it, he wished the Speaker or some other gentleman to inform him of the manner in which it might be obtained.
[No order being taken on this point.]
Mr. Taylor moved that the resolution be committed to a committee of the whole, not on to-day or to-morrow, but at a distant day, that time might be afforded for consideration.
After debate, Mr. Taylor withdrew his motion.
Mr. Gardenier moved that it be referred to a select committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c.
Mr. Marion, moved to strike out that part of this motion giving power to a select committee to send for persons, papers, &c.
Mr. Nelson made a motion to adjourn, which was negatived.
Mr. Smilie moved to postpone further proceedings on this subject till Monday: on which motion the yeas and nays being called for by Mr. Randolph, were 68 to 40.
On the foregoing motions a very lengthy and somewhat desultory debate ensued of about 3 hours. The debate turned on many incidental questions, amongst which, whether Congress had a constitutional right to request the President to cause the proposed enquiry to be made? To this it was answered that Congress had as much right to make this request as to request the President to lay before them public papers, either of which requests he might refuse. It was also said, that in making this request, the House could not command more attention than was due to a respectable individual.
It was doubted whether a member could be called upon to give information in his seat, or at the bar of the House? In answer precedents were produced of cases in which members of the House had been interrogated at the bar.
It was also contended, that if delivered in his place, the communication would be liable to commentary or reply by any gentleman who might think proper to discuss it in the same manner as any other speech.
It was made a question whether this information could be more properly received by a committee of the whole, or a select committee, or by the House? It was said on this that it had heretofore been the course of procedure to empower chairmen of committees in such cases to administer oaths; that in the House a member could be compelled to give information if the House thought fit, but in committee of the whole he could not be compelled; that if information or evidence were to be received in the House, it would perplex their proceedings, by loading the table and journals with interrogatories, &c.
It was questioned whether it were proper to decide it now, to refer it, or to postpone it? On these points there appeared to be a great diversity of opinion, some thinking that the evidence which they had received was sufficient to induce them to pass the resolution without further consideration, being a mere request to the President to enquire; others wished farther time and more evidence previous to giving their vote on the subject, considering it of great importance; others were in favour of a reference to a committee, to consider all the foregoing points as well as the propriety of the main resolution; some wished this committee to have power to send for persons and papers, to report to the House their opinion on the subject, together with evidence, believing that positive and satisfactory evidence should be produced before they adopted this resolution, and as it was impossible to understand precisely the evidence now produced from the mere reading of it; other gentlemen wished it referred to
a committee without power to send for persons, papers, &c. as they conceived the House did not possess power to enforce their orders in such case, General Wilkinson being a military and not a civil officer, whom the President alone had power to remove.
None of these points were decided either directly or by implication.
In the course of this devious discussion the succeeding observations on the main subject were made by different gentlemen.
Mr. W. Alston had heard nothing in the documents read to-day impeaching the character of Gen. Wilkinson more than what the newspapers throughout the Union had teemed with for two years, except indeed a letter from Mr. Power; and who was Mr. Power, or what credibility could be attached to anything emanating from him? Every person in the U. S. who could read knew his character. He was opposed to coercing evidence on considering a resolution proposing an enquiry, even if he were in favor of the enquiry.
Mr. Smilie thought the debate which had already taken place on a reference totally improper. He had heard sufficient evidence on this subject to convince him that such an enquiry was necessary; he did not think that there could be any further doubt on the subject. The House could not try Gen. Wilkinson, he must be tried by another tribunal. They owed it to the country and to Gen. W. himself to request an enquiry, and he hoped there would not be a dissentient voice on the question of agreement to the resolution. He could not give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Gen. Wilkinson, but he thought it absolutely necessary that an enquiry should be had.
Mr. Gardenier was satisfied of the impropriety of proceeding on the consideration of any question of importance too hastily, more especially in a case so materially affecting an officer of high rank in the United States. He wished to have time to consider fully before he could vote on a subject of as much magnitude as this; they should not act from first impressions. If the subject were referred to a committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c. the testimony on the subject would come before them in a proper shape, and not with the inaccuracy which must always attend information given in this manner, but in a condensed form in which its force might be fully felt. He did not wish to be precipitated into an enquiry too soon; neither did he wish an enquiry to be made because it was due to Gen. Wilkinson. If this enquiry was courted by, and this motion intended as a favor to Gen. W. he was astonished that it had not been brought forward before. There certainly had been ground enough shown for an enquiry into his conduct; but if Gen. W.'s conduct had so far evinced his purity as not to excite in the administration even a suspicion against his character, if no enquiry had been made on the charges which had resounded from every part of the union. Mr. G. did not wish now, merely for the sake of doing justice to that officer, to press an enquiry which the Executive had not thought proper to make. Neither did he wish rashly to decide on this question, because in doing this they would add the weight of their accusation to the cries of the whole nation; the united force of which no individual could repel.
Mr. Chandler said this was a subject which had been long before the nation, and with which they were all well acquainted: if that officer were innocent it was due to himself and his friends, that an enquiry should be made; if he were guilty it was due to the U. States. The evidence produced was sufficient on which to ground an enquiry, and he was ready to decide without further time.
Mr. Nicholas had no doubt but an enquiry ought to be made; after what had been heard, if General Wilkinson were the lowest officer of the U. States, he should be of opinion that an enquiry ought to be made, but he doubted whether this was a question on which they were now prepared to decide. For this reason he had seconded the motion for referring the resolution to a select committee who would consider whether this subject properly came under cognizance of the House; he considered the House as a mere legislative body except in the single case of impeachment. He was not prepared to say what was proper to be done with this resolution, but its first impression was against acting on it. It would open doors for receiving complaints of the misconduct of any officer; he did not think this power was lodged in the House, and he had no wish to assume powers which did not pertain to them. As to the question whether there should be an enquiry or not, no man could doubt. An enquiry must be made. Would it be said that an officer of importance should be suffered to be retained by a man who had received a pension from a foreign government? He thought it could not; and therefore he wished an enquiry to be made into the truth of this charge.
Mr. Burwell was decidedly opposed to reference to any committee whatever. It seemed to be the universal opinion that an enquiry ought to be had on the conduct of the commander in chief of the army of the U. States; and it was highly important that the subject should be acted upon speedily. If the nation was (as appeared probable) to be involved in war, it was necessary that the commander in chief should possess the confidence of the army, the people, and the government.
Mr. Johnston said the good people of Kentucky were interested in this subject. Many reports to the prejudice of Gen. Wilkinson existed there; nothing more certain had appeared against him, but the people entertained doubts on the subject, there were circumstances which they wished to be investigated; if nothing could be found against him, the sooner his innocence was known, the better. Knowing this he should not hesitate to give his vote in such a manner as to dispose of the subject most speedily. The investigation was due to the people, and to the man himself.
Mr. Macon said if ever there had been a time since the year 1783, in which it was particularly necessary that those persons in office should have the confidence of the government and of the people, that time had arrived. Could it be expected after hearing the information which had been produced that the people would have confidence in Gen. Wilkinson? It was as important that the commander in chief should be free from suspicion as that the President or House of Representatives should be unsuspected. The commander in chief during the American revolution was irreproachable; calumny never assailed him, and he of course enjoyed the full confidence of the people. The evidence which had been this day read, they were told had neither been before the grand jury or the court at Richmond, and there was certainly sufficient on which to ground an enquiry.
Mr. Taylor observed, that he accorded with those gentlemen who had asserted, that in this important crisis it was of the highest
importance, that the character of the commander in chief of the armies should stand fair and unimpeached; that on the first and hasty view he had taken of the subject, it had appeared a sufficient motive for making the request to the President, as expressed in the resolution; but from the ideas expressed from different parts of the House, he had been led to consider the proposed measure in a new and different point of view. The gentleman from Virginia had given the House certain information, and on that information had founded his resolution. It was true that this resolution contained nothing which would impeach any other person than the General; but gentlemen had called on the delegate from Orleans for information corroborating the statement of facts he had given; and the delegate had stated that he had at divers times given information to the Executive, & at other times endeavored to give it to the Executive, but that department had turned a deaf ear to his communications on the subject. The resolution then after this assertion, that the executive had turned a deaf ear to the subject, assumed a new character—it before done this; that as you have not heretofore done your duty, we the representatives of the people now request you to do it. Was the House prepared thus to publish to the nation their want of confidence in the executive, upon the exparte testimony which is now before them? Were they prepared now to interfere thus with a department of the government, which in this instance they had not constitutionally a right to control—and to say, as that department had not done its duty, they would assume to themselves the important charge of taking care that the public shall suffer no injury? He hoped not. He hoped that neither the important crisis alluded to by gentlemen, nor the necessity of the case itself, or their sense of justice towards the gentleman accused, could draw them into such a commitment of themselves, in opposition too, to the declared sentiments of a great majority of the nation, who had recently declared that this Executive had deserved well of its country.
Gen. W. might be guilty or he might be innocent. Mr. T. had his own opinions, perhaps prejudices on this subject. When the constitution or the mandate of a tribunal which had competent authority to compel him, should demand of him a publication of those opinions, he should give them; but like the delegate from Orleans, he would not volunteer the affirmative vote of this House, for if such vote should be taken, it would be volunteering; he should not vote with them; he believed that the Department of State was by the constitution free of their control, in respect to the proposed measure. They might, and he hoped would send the papers or documents, in the hands of the mover, to the executive, without any resolution on the subject. When they had given the information, they had fulfilled their duty. But, as respected the Gen. himself, would he stand the same chance of acquittal by a court of enquiry or court martial, or by executive scrutiny, when the poise and weight of an accusation from this House was set against him? He was for giving this officer fair play and the advantages of a fair and impartial trial.
Mr. Randolph said the gentleman last up was mistaken in supposing that the evidence which he had laid before the House had been offered to the President of the U. S. and rejected. Nor was this at all a question of confidence or otherwise in the Executive, and he was astonished that any gentleman should attempt to convert it into a question of that sort. It was no such question. A member in his place had offered to the House a copy of an order of Spanish governor (or rather a translation of which the original could be produced) to pay 9640 dollars to general Jas. Wilkinson; he had also offered a copy of a letter, certified by the governor of Natchez, and immediately after governor of Louisiana, which, unless possibly forged, established beyond a doubt the fact of the guilt of this commandant, not under the articles of war, for it had been this day suggested to Mr. R. that an officer was not amenable to military law for an offence committed so long ago—nor did he say under the common law or statute law—but that sort of offence which incapacitated that officer from the situation which he, now held, and from which the President of the U. S. alone was competent to remove him. What did they ask the President of the U. S. to do by passing this resolution? To enquire; they left the mode of conducting that enquiry to his discretion. It was to enquire merely, and sure if it was a strange doctrine to say that asking the President to enquire respecting the conduct of persons in high office under him, was an expression of diffidence in the Executive. Far from it; if any thing it would show a confidence in the executive, expressing a conviction that he would institute an enquiry, and upon the result of that enquiry do what was proper to be done. And what had this to do with diffidence in the executive? They would make a question of adjournment before long, a question of confidence; or on every question which came before the House would sound this tocsin, this whoop of want of confidence. The gentleman from New-Orleans did not say that he had given evidence to the President of the U. S. and that the President had rejected it, if he understood him aright; he thought the gentleman said, that filing as he did an office of trust under the government of the U. S. he had given that department of government with which he corresponded to understand that he possessed information of an important kind touching this character, and that he had received no intimation from that department of a wish to receive it, and had therefore been discouraged from communicating the information which he possessed. The knowledge which that gentleman possessed related to information which the House had not yet heard, and not to that which Mr. R. now had in his hand; to that information which he hoped the House would use its authority (but respectfully) to compel that gentleman to give. If the House acted on this subject at this time, could it be said that they acted from information of the gentleman from New-Orleans who had given none? If overtures to give information had been neglected, what had that to do with the information which Mr. R. had in his place laid before the House? The question was extremely simple.
Had they power (to which he was astonished to hear an objection) to make this request? If they had, had they seen sufficient ground on which the prayer of the request should be granted? If they had the right to make the request and he had laid before the House substantial ground for an enquiry, there was an end to all other questions on the subject. In the prosecution of the present business it would perhaps be found peculiarly difficult to produce proof—and why? Because in taking possession of New-Orleans, the committee—and (who were they? He wished to reflect upon that)—suffered the country to be ran-
sacked; even papers relating to land titles were taken away; and it must be believed, and could not be doubted, that if one of those commissioners found in the archives of the former government, in the Spanish bureau, far lost to a sense of his own safety, as not to destroy such evidences as far as in his power. Fortunately, enough had been preserved to establish that point beyond all possibility of doubt; and it remained for the House to say whether it constituted a sufficient ground for enquiry or not. Whatever might be the decision of the House, said Mr. R. I shall respectfully submit; but be the decision what it may, I shall conceive a great object which I had in view in bringing this subject forward, to be completely answered.
Mr. Clark said that the information which he had heretofore attempted to convey, did not particularly relate to the subject now before the House. He then knew that various attempts had been made by the Spanish government to detach the Western country from the Union; he had thought it incumbent on him, holding a commission under the U. S. to state these facts to the Executive. When first he had the honor of being presented to the Executive, he had twice attempted to state these facts to him who either did not or would not understand him, and changed the subject; at this he naturally felt hurt, and had not renewed personal communication on the subject. Some time subsequent to this, when the French were preparing to take possession of Louisiana, believing that they would discover those who were before attached to foreign government and secure them in their interests, he had thought it a duty incumbent on him to write to the Secretary of State as the constitutional organ of communication, and had stated his grounds of suspicion. He had twice attempted to make this known, and had officially written to learn whether he was understood. Of these letters no notice had been taken. He had then stated that the proofs in his possession might not be sufficient for conviction, but if time were allowed proof sufficient might be procured.
Mr. Thomas asked at what time these communications had been made?
Mr. Clark. To the President of the U. S. in 1802; to the Secretary of State in 1803.
Mr. Sloan said, that altho' he could not consistently with the rules of order impeach the motives of the member who brought forward this resolution, he could question the propriety of passing it; the papers now adduced in evidence in his opinion amounted to no more than what had long before appeared in news-papers. He said that Gen. W. had been formerly charged with mal-conduct before this House; Mr. S. said at that time he had declared that from what appeared, he considered Gen. W. as deserving well of his country; that he had not discovered any cause to change his opinion; but contrary-wise considered the various charges and insinuations as arising from malice or envy against him for having acted as the savour of his country. From what the gentleman from Virginia had last said, it appeared that this resolution was to rest on the question whether there were sufficient evidence of guilt in that officer before the House to require an enquiry to be made. Would not the House by passing this resolution, say that this was the case, and would it not be throwing the whole weight of the House of Representatives of the United States against him? It undoubtedly would. As yet nothing had appeared to induce Mr. S. to change his opinion, and till there was, he should oppose every proposition of this kind.
THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, JANUARY 9, 1808.
A SKETCH. VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. HOUSE OF DELEGATES, TUESDAY, Dec. 5. (Debate Continued.)
Mr. Tucker observed, that he had only a few additional remarks to offer on this occasion; and that he should solicit the attention and indulgence of the House only for a few moments. The gentlemen from Orange and King & Queen had declared, what he himself had never doubted, that they were not disposed to denounce any man. He was pleased to discover, that gentlemen were not willing to erect the present motion into a test of republican principles. When he had heard it insinuated in that House, that there were to be no neutrals, he began to apprehend that such inefficient anathemas were only exhibited to the House for the purpose of depressing the independence of members. Such threats would be or influence the decisions of his understanding.
According to the gentleman from King and Queen, this measure had been canvassed in this state for at least eighteen months. That gentleman was certainly mistaken. The people may have canvassed the policy of an embargo, but not of this particular embargo. The measure which has been agitated among the people, was one of a different description from that which had been imposed by Congress. It solely comprehended the vessels of the U. States, and not the vessels of the powers of Europe. The house would permit him to remind them of the old republican policy; that we should shut up our own vessels, but leave the market open for our produce. He had derived it as a leading maxim, from the old Republicans of this country, that the great agricultural interests were not to be sacrificed to the interests of commerce. Gentlemen were much mistaken in supposing that at this time of the year, the embargo was productive of no injury to our farmers. Had it been imposed at any other period of the year, it would have principally fallen on those who had brought us into this situation. What was still more unfortunate, this embargo falls still more oppressively on ourselves than on our adversaries. The crops of this country are all on land. But what was the situation of Great-Britain? They have already exported and disposed of their manufactures, and the British manufacturers are relieved from its pressure. Before the spring importations are to be made, the embargo will probably be taken off. And who then will feel it? For the manufacturers will feel it; but we shall have left its pressure. As Mr. Ross is now arrived on our shores, would it have been better to have first ascertained what were the chances of peace, and had his mission terminated successfully, would not that crisis have been the proper season for an embargo?
Gentlemen may say that the people of this country were prepared for this energetic measure in June last. But do gentlemen make sufficient distinction? If they were prepared for an embargo at that time, shall we assert that they had decided in favor of this particular embargo? And if this was a proper

In June, when we had little of our band, is it therefore eligible at this time when all the pores of our country are open? He had seen in a newspaper...
We are called upon, he observed, to deliberate on the resolutions now on the table, respecting the conduct of the Government in laying an embargo. Before we adopt the policy of that measure, which is stamped with our approbation; and although we have not, and cannot have all the action on this point, which could be had, yet as we are called upon to express our opinion on the embargo, we must examine the propriety of it.
But that this energetic step on the part of our government, was a proper one, at a proper time. As the gentleman Frederick had questioned both these points, he would proceed to examine that gentleman's arguments and objections, as such as possible.
P. then proceeded. The gentleman told you, that after the attack on the Chesapeake, he was in common with all our fellow citizens, in favor of energetic measures. He would have convened Congress, laid an embargo, and perhaps even declared war. I must confess, sir, I would not have been prepared to strike a blow: As the act of Admiral Berkeley, was not officially known to our government, to have been prepared by the British ministry, it could not have been done with our own dignity, and with the usages of civilized nations, to enquire if such the fact. It would afterwards be time to pursue other measures. Such has been the policy of Government, and such it has been sound policy.
But the gentleman says, that as our government did not at first adopt energetic measures, it did adopt a different policy, they ought to pursue it. This is true, if circumstances continue the same. But will he say, that if circumstances change, there should be no change of policy? Policy is governed by circumstances. Is not then, our situation now, different from what it was, when the policy of the gentleman talks of, was adopted? At that time, we had a minister at London, and had some reason to expect his negotiation would be successful. We did not certainly know whether Admiral Berkeley was authorized by his government; and if he was, it was uncertain, but that the unjust pretensions of Great-Britain would be abandoned. What is the case now? The negotiation has been broken off. It is clearly ascertained, that Great-Britain, who interpolated new doctrines into the law of nations, refused to abandon them. And we are to be abused for a while, with the shew of negotiation? The ground on which we stood there is changed, and our policy has of course changed with it.
So far then, as to the gentleman's general argument about the continuance of the system originally adopted. I now proceed to examine his specific objections, to the particular provisions of this embargo, and to the time of enforcing it. He argues, that if an embargo was now at all expedient, it ought not have been such an embargo as the one laid. His objection to it is, that it is too general—it ought either to have extended to our own vessels alone—and permitted the trade of foreign vessels, or that it should have permitted the trade of all foreign vessels but British. Let us examine each hypothesis.
Suppose our own vessels alone had been embargoed? The gentleman from Orange, as correctly said, they would have roamed in our ports, or rather been transferred to foreign merchants, for a very small and inadequate consideration. Our seamen in want of employment, and finding it in foreign (principally British) service, would have deserted us. The British, masters of the ocean, would have monopolized our trade, by laying a line of frigates from the Bermuda's to the banks of New-Foundland, they would have intercepted every foreign vessel going to, or returning from our ports. Their own vessels under the protection of their powerful navy, would have been the only ones seen in our ports. Thus we should have been rendering Great-Britain an essential service, when we intended to do her an injury. She could have laughed at the policy, which defeated itself, and instead of abandoning her arrogant pretensions, she would have been invited to new aggressions.
The other supposition would have been productive of similar evils. If British vessels alone had been embargoed or prevented from sharing our trade, her armed vessels would either have prevented the entrance into our ports of all foreign vessels inclined to trade with us—or then the permission would have been nugatory, or she would have waited the return of such vessels loaded with our produce and seized them to supply her West-India Islands—and then the exemption of British vessels would have been without effect, and the admission of other foreign vessels pernicious. But has the gentleman from Frederick, forgotten that there was another reason for laying this embargo? Does he not know that it was not intended to operate alone against the British, but the French too? Does he recollect the documents submitted to Congress, when that measure was recommended? The Decree of Bonaparte, and his own commentary upon it, are at least as gross a violation of the rights of neutrals, and the law of nations, as any that the British have ever committed. It was therefore a wise policy not to have excepted from the operation of the embargo all foreign vessels except British, because it would have been nugatory or pernicious, and because the embargo was not directed against England alone.
The gentleman from Frederick has told us an objection to the time of laying the embargo, that the agricultural interest is now sacrificed to the commercial. But, sir, do not both merchants and farmers equally suffer? If the one cannot sell, the other cannot buy. The merchant loses his profits, unless trade is carried on—unless he has the power of purchasing and of selling again. And let me ask, at what time can an embargo be laid, without immediately injuring the mercantile as well as agricultural interest. Every class in society, sir, feels its operation, but for the good of their country will submit to it.
shipped off to foreign ports—and their manufactures are received. Why, sir, this is the very reason that now, is the most proper time for laying this embargo. It is because we have our produce in our own ports, that an embargo will do most injury to the common enemy. If Jamaica, Martinique, &c. had been supplied already, if they had been filled with our provisions previously exported to them, where would have been the necessity, where the propriety of an embargo? It would have been then better to have waited, until their stock was consumed and until they wanted another supply.
But it is said that this embargo cannot last long. It will do much injury for a time to ourselves, and be productive of no lasting benefit. I answer that this is mere conjecture, without any proof to support it. If the circumstances of our country continue the same, it is fair to infer, the embargo will continue. If they alter, we shall have either peace or war. If peace, it is not probable the embargo will have lead to it? Will not foreign nations rather acquiesce in our rights, than provoke all the consequences of a continued embargo? If war, foreign nations will be in a worse situation at the commencement of it, than if no embargo had been laid, for they or their dependencies will want provisions; and we shall be in a better, because our produce will be here, for our own consumption.
I must again, sir, lament that the gentleman from Frederick had not until to-morrow to deliberate upon this subject. I could have wished that he might have had every advantage in this argument, to have been derived from reflection, or the information of others, that he might have had time to marshal his objections and shape his course. Perhaps he would then have been able to have urged objections to the embargo, more solid, & more ingenious than those he has just brought forward. And if this had been the case, if he had convinced my mind on the subject, or had even produced a doubt which I could not satisfy, I would have voted against that part of the preamble as it stands, if every member in this house had denounced me for it.
Before I sit down, Sir, I cannot help expressing my approbation of these sentiments of generosity and forbearance towards each other, which gentlemen have just expressed on a occasion, in explanation of their previous remarks. So far am I from denouncing my worthy friend from Frederick, for having differed with me on this occasion, that I am willing to believe him actuated by the most conscientious motives. The purity of his heart will always render his vote a conscientious one—and it will induce him to return to us, on other questions, which do not like the present meet the dissent of his judgment.
Mr. Pope observed, that it would seem from the course of this discussion, that the House were now deliberating on the propriety of laying an embargo. But this measure was already taken. He had seen but few of the farmers since it was passed. Those few had told him that their flour was low in value; but he had told them that this measure was calculated to bring our enemy to our feet. They declared that they were willing to make any sacrifices for their country; to half starve themselves, if they could but starve them. The President had been for many weeks accused of a want of spirit; but now of it, it is impossible for him to do any thing to please them. If he declares in favor of war, they are for peace. If he advocates war, it is then that they raise the war-whoop. Congress have now taken most dignified and energetic measures; these may reduce the price of our wheat, tobacco and bacon; but what of that? We shall reduce our proud enemy to a state of starvation, to the same state to which they a few years ago attempted to reduce a great nation. If a robber on the highway to become the prey of all the voracious band? Are we not afraid that if we venture upon the ocean, our proboscis may be bitten off? There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to honor; neglected, consigns us to misery and disgrace. The war is just; the cause is popular, and under the assistance of divine providence, it will be sure to terminate as successfully as the last one. Mr. Jefferson had formerly predicted, that the time would come when we should be all Federalists, all Republicans. That time has already arrived. That party have felt for the indignities of their country, and have joined us.—But what should he say of that third party; that little minority; little indeed; that little Spartan Band? They have interposed upon us; they are the whippers in the Republican party; and never had he blushed for the name of Virginia, before last winter, when the resolutions of that house had been voted out of the Senate.—Was it too much, however, to expect that even this party would join the Republicans on this great question?
Mr. Foushee (Henrico) asked, what had been stated as a sufficient ground for striking out this part of the preamble? It was because some of the members of Congress had voted against the embargo. But this was one of the grounds on which he peculiarly wished to vote for it. It was because a minority in Congress had opposed it, and that minority was so large that he considered it as necessary, that this house should declare their opinions.
The question was then taken on striking out the last sentence. Ayes 19. Nays 153. Absentees from the House 24. The question was then taken on the whole preamble and carried. Ayes 157. Nays 13.
LETTER THE FIRST. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER, SIR.
Much has been written and said on the subject of our present dispute with Great-Britain. Though as far as I have seen or heard, the arguments that have been presented to the public are all on one side of the question. But, Sir, I would not have you infer perfect unanimity from this silence. I, for one, oppose the popular vote, both on the ground of Right as well as Policy, and if I mistake not, there are many others, (some of them too, of high standing in society) who are of my way of thinking. I have been long hoping that some of these gentlemen, who were well qualified for exhibiting themselves before the public would come forward and endeavor to rescue the country from the ruin which threatens it, but as either from a cowardly prudence or no less disgraceful idleness, they have hitherto kept aloof; and the danger of war is hourly increasing, I have even resorted to make the attempt myself, though I am little in the habit of writing, and every way unworthy to appear by the side of those elegant correspondents who occasionally grace your columns with their cogitation.
tures of Lucius, Junius, Themistocles, and the like. As all our complaints against Great-Britain may be comprehended under the im-
pression of our seamen, or the interruption of our trade, let us examine these subjects and see how far her claims are warranted by the principles of law and common sense. The sailors who are impressed by the British from on board our vessels are either British subjects whom we have naturalized, or native American Citizens. As to the first, I have heard all my life, that "once a British subject and always a British subject." This is laid down as law in all those English writers whom we every day consult to inform us what is right and what is wrong. The principle is founded in nature, is recognized by all enlightened nations, and is peculiarly sanctioned by the usages of this country; for example, when one of our negroes runs away and enters into another man's employ, the master is not bound by the contract, on the contrary, he can claim the slave wherever he finds him, and volens , carry him home. I will give a still stronger illustration, which moreover has the advantage of being founded on fact. Last summer a gentleman in my neighbourhood, not having sufficient employment for his slaves, with whom he was rather overstocked, suffered them to roam about the country and get a living as they could. But having occasion for them to raise his mid-dam, which an approaching inundation threatened to carry away, he went in search of them, and found them with a farmer who had hired them to get in his harvest. It was in vain the farmer urged that the owner should have his slaves at home; that if they had not offered themselves to do his work, he could have procured others, perhaps have found means within himself; and that if his grain was left exposed in the field, it would infallibly be spoiled. The owner of the negroes contented himself with saying in answer to all this, that they were his property and he was not bound by their contracts. The farmer still resisted, but the other had taken the precaution to bring a constable with him, who immediately took them into custody and carried them off. This I conceive, Sir, to be a case precisely parallel, and it is brought home to every man's business and his bosom, as Lord Bacon says. With what propriety then can we refuse to deliver up the British subjects we may have employed when their master demands them? If a shadow of doubt upon this subject remains on the mind of any one of your readers, I refer him to the masterly and convincing arguments in the King's late proclamation.
But some people who admit that the English have a right to admit their subjects wherever they find them, and that it is highly censurable in us to harbour or employ them, complain that under the pretext of taking their own men, they often take ours. Several answers may be given to this charge. It is a principle of law, Sir, that if one throws his gold into another man's crucible, he loses it, both as a punishment for his folly, and to guard against the fraud of claiming more than had belonged to him. But I believe that the captains of men of war seldom avail themselves of the advantages which this rule of law gives them. They generously wave it and aim only at taking their own fellow subjects of whom they may every where rightfully possess themselves. But in doing this they must necessarily sometimes commit mistakes. They are guided by certain national characteristics which though in general to be relied on, now and then mislead. If a sailor has a big belly and rosy face, they rationally infer him to be an Englishman, if red hair and high cheek bones, a Scotchman, thick legs, an Irishman. And since Mr. Moore published his last book of poems and notes, they usually examine a man's mouth, and if he has not lost more than half his teeth before he is five and twenty, they know him to be an European. This seemed at first to afford the most certain criterion of the place of birth, but some of our Yankee sailors, who happened to have teeth like Europeans, were detected in pulling them out, to save themselves from impressment, since which, to prevent the fraud from spreading among their own subjects, they require authenticated certificates of when and how a sailor has lost his grinders. Thus have our cunning Yankees outwitted themselves. Those who lose their liberty for having the distinguishing marks of an European must throw the blame on nature, and not on those who are honestly misled by her; though to say and do the truth, when a man hangs out false colors, and as it were, belies his own country, justly deserves to lose his protection. Again, Suppose a man born of white parents was by some whim of nature, to have the hair, features and complexion of a negro. Most assuredly he would be liable to all the disabilities of a negro. He would neither be eligible to the legislature, or allowed to give testimony against a white man. From all of which it appears, Sir, that this charge, so far as it is warranted by facts, may be either excused on the plea of necessity, or justified on the principles of law.
Let us now see if their interdictions of our trade are a whit more righteous. It is acknowledged, Sir, that a neutral has no right to furnish a belligerent with the means of carrying on the war. If he does, he forfeits his neutral character, and is liable to be dealt with as a party. But the author of that profound work called, "War in disguise," has demonstrated that it is to this very trade that Bonaparte owes his ability and inclination to continue the war, and that by carrying him the products of the West Indies we are his most efficient auxiliaries. I will here anticipate an objection in the threshold of my argument. It may be cautiously asked, 'who is the author of this War in disguise, and whence does he derive his authority?' Sir, I understand he is a Mr. Stephenson, who is a lawyer of great eminence and who of course would not hazard an opinion that was not sound law. Besides, Mr. Randolph, who we know is as cautious in expressing his sentiments as he is cool in forming them, has publicly declared that the book in question contained the only true doctrine. Nor are we without testimony of Mr. Stephenson's honesty. His preface shows that the policy he advocated would militate against his interest, and his encomiums on Mr. Randolph are equally evidences of his candor and his judgement. To be sure, I once heard a wagish fellow remark, it was like saying to Mr. R. "Tickle me and I'll tickle you." But your ways are not worth minding. They will say anything for the sake of a jest.
But Sir, we are not compelled to resort to that able treatise, to prove the value and importance of our trade to Bonaparte. A single fact puts it out of doubt. Why, Sir, I am told he drinks fifteen or twenty cups of coffee in a day; and a gentleman of my acquaintance, who is fond of ingenious theories, maintains that if it had not been for this stimulating beverage, with which we have so liberally supplied him, he never would have thought of crossing the Alps and Rhine to hector over his neighbors as he has done. Can it then be pretended that we are acting the part of honest and impartial neutrals in carrying the French, Dutch and Spaniards coffee and Sugar when they could not get a pound without our assistance? I imagine, Sir, if you were engaged with one at nasty cuffs and a bystander were every now and then to ply your antagonist with a dram, you would hardly consider him an indifferent spectator; and if we will bottle-holder to Bonaparte we must take the consequence.
Thus, Sir, I think I have demonstrated (if there is certainly in law, or truth in logic) that, so far from our having any just cause of complaint, we are in fact the aggressors in every instance, and that we have been practising the stale trick of being the first to cry thief. But Great-Britain, since she has had a ministry of more than ordinary sagacity, seems to have found us out, and the awful day of reckoning is rapidly approaching. The din of arms may be already heard from afar, and soon we may expect to see War, grim-visaged War, with Beggary and Nakedness, Robbery and Murder at his heels, stalking over the land, and carrying every where wasie and desolation. This alarming view of the subject has set me about devising some plan by which our difference with Great-Britain may be amicably adjusted, and after much labor and anxiety, I think I have discovered one, which, if promptly adopted, may restore our former good understanding and long preserve it uninterrupted and unimpaired.
Let the number of seamen required for the British navy be apportioned between that country and this according to the number of their inhabitants respectively. Let an estimate of our seamen and shipping be made to determine their relative proportion, and let every vessel on entering our ports be required to deliver to the collector her full quota, properly secured by handcuffs, and on pain of forfeiture of vessel and cargo. As soon as the whole number are raised, let our Executive notify the British government of it, know of them how and when they will receive the seamen, and request of them that all further impressments of our men should cease. There is every reason to think that Great-Britain would accede to this regulation, for by receiving the men she wanted in large numbers, she could distribute them to more advantage, and moreover be spared the trouble of lying in wait for our vessels and picking up only two or three at a time. And we should be still greater gainers by the plan. For we should probably not be required to furnish many more men than are now taken from us, and our vessels would not be left short-handed on the ocean, as has often happened of late. And it would be a kind of voluntary tax, for you know, Sir, if the owners of the vessels did not wish to part with their men, they need not come into port; and as to the sailors themselves, it can make little difference whether they go to sea in one ship or another, but so far as there is any, it is in favor of the largest and strongest, as men of war commonly are. Besides, if there was any inconvenience in this levy, it would be felt chiefly the first year, as it would take a number comparatively small to fill up the vacancies of those who died in battle, by flogging, some sickness, or other natural accidents.
have so liberally supplied him, he never would have thought of crossing the Alps and Rhine to hector over his neighbors as he has done. Can it then be pretended that we are acting the part of honest and impartial neutrals in carrying the French, Dutch and Spaniards coffee and Sugar when they could not get a pound without our assistance? I imagine, Sir, if you were engaged with one at nasty cuffs and a bystander were every now and then to ply your antagonist with a dram, you would hardly consider him an indifferent spectator; and if we will bottle-holder to Bonaparte we must take the consequence.
Thus, Sir, I think I have demonstrated (if there is certainly in law, or truth in logic) that, so far from our having any just cause of complaint, we are in fact the aggressors in every instance, and that we have been practising the stale trick of being the first to cry thief. But Great-Britain, since she has had a ministry of more than ordinary sagacity, seems to have found us out, and the awful day of reckoning is rapidly approaching. The din of arms may be already heard from afar, and soon we may expect to see War, grim-visaged War, with Beggary and Nakedness, Robbery and Murder at his heels, stalking over the land, and carrying every where wasie and desolation. This alarming view of the subject has set me about devising some plan by which our difference with Great-Britain may be amicably adjusted, and after much labor and anxiety, I think I have discovered one, which, if promptly adopted, may restore our former good understanding and long preserve it uninterrupted and unimpaired.
The next regulation I would propose is to put a total and immediate stop to all countries at war with G. Britain. This, Sir, I consider as a master stroke of policy. It would be killing two birds with one stone, for by condensing our trade within a smaller compass we should have a redundancy of seamen, and consequently be more able to furnish our stipulated quota to the British, and we should get rid of commerce which has been the most fruitful source of our disputes. It is pleasing to remark how admirably these regulations play into one another, since by taking the seamen from the merchants we shall compel them to curtail their trade, and by restricting our trade we shall find it easier to get men. I wish I could always see the different parts of a law pull together in this way. By confining our commerce to a single channel, we should acquire that experience and skill which an undivided attention gives in every thing. At present we trade with every nation in the world and in every species of commodity, tho' the folly and awkwardness of a Jack of all trades has become even proverbial. Besides, sir, as G. Britain no longer trades with any other nation than this, it is as little as we can do to shew her a similar preference.
Such, sir, are the features of the scheme I would recommend to my countrymen for averting the evils of war. Its adoption would put us in a better situation than we have ever been in before, and I am persuaded that G. Britain will never make a treaty with us but upon some such basis. I may be deceived by a parent fondness, but I have sanguine hopes that it will meet with the approbation and support of the sober and thinking part of the community, and more than one able advocate in Congress, tho' I confess I have had my doubts of that body, since they slurred over that salt-petre business so shamefully.
G. Tucker. SOLOMON SPEAKING.
Extract of a letter from a member of Congress to a gentleman in this city, dated Washington, January 3, 1808.
"No nomination of President and Vice-President has yet been made.—It is probable that a meeting for that purpose will take place in eight or ten days—it is said (but for the truth of the sentiment being advanced I do not vouch) that Col. Monroe declared while in Washington, that those who expected to detach him from his old friends were totally unacquainted with his real character; that he would not be placed in any situation which could justify the idea that he himself intended, or that he countenanced those who calculated on such a separation.—From what I have heard, Mr. Madison (if a caucus is held) will be nominated with the almost unanimous voice of the Republicans, New-York alone excepted."
It is supposed by those who have taken the trouble to investigate this subject, that in the caucus N. York will be unanimous for Clinton.—That Vermont will give him one vote, Massachusetts two, New-Hampshire one, Georgia two, Kentucky one, Pennsylvania four, and Virginia four, making in all 32 votes.—That Delaware and Connecticut being entirely federal will not attend.—That all the other votes will be for Madison. I do not believe it is yet known who will be the Vice-President.—It seems to be generally understood that Mr. Clinton will not again serve in that station.
not feel himself more responsible to W. Ellison than to Col. Burr or sergeant Dumbarton. To this Wilkinson sent an answer filled with invective and abuse.—The answer was returned to him by J. Randolph without being read. On the 31st December Wilkinson posted J. Randolph in a hand-bill, in these words:
HECTOR UNMASKED.
"In justice to his character, I pronounce John Randolph, Esq. to be a malicious, scandalous, insolent, prevaricating palteroon."
"JAMES WILKINSON."
"This hand-bill was stuck up in different parts of the city of Washington on the morning of the 31st December, and about 1 o'clock on the same day, J. Randolph rose in his place in the House of Representatives and made the motion which you have seen in the National Intelligencer."
"The enclosed pamphlet containing Wilkinson's first letter and the answer, together with the documents submitted to the House of Representatives, has since been printed. The second letter of Gen. Wilkinson, I understand, is not printed, because it was returned without being read.—Gen. Wilkinson has since addressed a letter to his Secretary at War, calling for an enquiry into his conduct which will immediately take place. It is said by the friends of Gen. Wilkinson that he will be able to establish by incontrovertible evidence, that the money received by him was due for tobacco and flour; that he obtained from the Spanish government the privilege of trading to Orleans, and that the whole produce of Kentucky passed through his hands until he failed as a merchant; that there remained a balance due to him as late as the year 1803, which was at that time paid to him."
"The Yazoo claim has again made its appearance under the auspices of the government of Massachusetts. The company presented to the Legislature of Massachusetts, a memorial at their last session, which memorial is forwarded to Congress at the request of the Massachusetts Legislature by the governor of that state. It will experience the same decided opposition and rejection as heretofore."
"Mr. Rose, the British minister has not arrived. It is understood here that in the absence of the collector of Norfolk he has had a correspondence with his deputy; he required the deputy to say whether the frigate would be treated with hospitality. It seems, however, that the real difficulty is the law passed after the murder of Peacock, requiring armed vessels to report themselves. A compliance with this law galls the English pride, and being a law, its provisions cannot be dispensed with."
[We have heard another account: that as soon as the information reached Washington, the President directed that the Statua should be received on the ground of a friendly vessel. We have not examined the law referred to.]
ON THE SURRENDER OF COPENHAGEN.
(FROM AN ENGLISH PAPER.)
The glory of Albion is crimsoned with shame, And the field of her might is the bourne of her fame; Her giant strength blesses the Nations no more, And the race of the sun of her honor is o'er. Like an Eagle she soar'd in the youth of her pride, And her joy was the battle of Freedom to guide; As the fate-bearing lightning she sped on the wind, And her young in the shade of her pinions reclined. Her haunt was the rock, and she clung in dismay The Vulture and Wolf from her eyrie away; And when the wild tempest howl'd hoarse o'er the wave, Her delight was the weak from its fury to save. But her giant strength blesses the nations no more, And the race of the sun of her honor is o'er, She had tasted of blood; and her anger hath hurl'd The flame-shaft of woe o'er a desolate world: O England! when mercy, soft, murmur'd her prayer, And begg'd thee the life-blood of nations to spare, Thy soul was for war, and thy haughty boast, Chas'd the seraph of peace from thy merciless breast. The scrap of peace from thy fury had fled, In the gloom of the North she had pillow'd her head, But thy vengeance pursued her—bewildered with care, She awoke to fierce havoc, in groans and despair! O bring not the laurel wreath, constant to fame, And read not Heaven's concave with shouts of acclaim, When the spoil and the plunder shall rise on the wave, The plunder of friends and the spoil of the brave! For the triumph which liberty hallowed is fled, And the might of the tyrant hath raged in its stead, And chang'd is the radiance that stream'd o'er the heath, To the warning of Nations—the meteor of Death. Erratum in Mr. Barbours's Speech, published in our last paper: for "rigle" read "higle."
"ANTI-PHOCION" No. II. in our next, if possible.
A GREABLY to a decree of the county court of Hanover, will be sold at Hanover Town, to the highest bidder, on Tuesday the 19th inst. if fair, if not, the next fair day, on twelvemonths credit, a valuable BLACKSMITH, a Woman & a Girl, belonging to the estate of William Cock, Jan. dec'd. Bonds with approved security will be required by the COMMISSIONERS. Hanover Town, Jan. 9. [ep3]
WILL be sold to the highest bidder, on the premises, on Friday the 5th day of February next, the tract of LAND in Amherst county on which Cornelius Thomas, late of that county resided, It lies about four miles from the town of Warm Springs, and contains 2200 acres. Great part of it is tobacco land, equal in quality to any land in that or any other county in this state; some fine meadow land and a plenty of timber; a tolerable mill on a never-failing stream, 80 acres cleared and in order for cropping. I will sell the whole together or in lots to suit purchasers. My terms are one fourth in cash, and the balance in one, two, and three years. Bonds with approved security, or a deed of trust on the land will be required. REUBEN B. PATTESON, Attorney in fact for Cornelius Thomas. Buckingham, Jan. 9. (law4w4t)
DR. FENDALL, OPERATOR UPON TEETH, has just arrived in this place, and may be consulted every day, during his stay, at the Eagle-Tavern. Dr. Fendall cures the scurvy in the gums, be it ever so inveterate, in a short time; loosens loose teeth, by making the gums grow firm up to them, renders teeth white and beautiful; prevents their decay; keeps such as are so, from becoming worse, even to old age; fills up those that are hollow with gold or lead, which will not only render them useful, but prevent their aching and further decay; extracts teeth and stumps with ease; makes and fixes artificial teeth, without extracting the remaining stumps; either with pivots, ligatures or springs, in such a manner as to be useful and highly ornamental. His Cornish Antiseptic Dentifrice, for preserving the teeth, gums, sockets, &c. and superior to all others both in elegance and efficacy to any other, is sold by the Doctor.
As Dr. Fendall's continuance in this place is uncertain, those ladies and gentlemen who wish to employ him, will please to make their application. Any persons wishing to employ him at their residence, will please to pay for a line, to his lodgings.

REPORT Of the Committee appointed to inquire into the facts relating to the conduct of JOHN SMITH, a Senator of the United States, from the state of Ohio, as an alleged Associate of AARON BURR.
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. DECEMBER 31st, 1807.
Mr. ADAMS, from the committee appointed on the 27th of November last, to enquire whether it be compatible with the honor and privileges of this House, that John Smith, a Senator from the state of Ohio, against whom bills of indictment were found at the circuit court of Virginia, held at Richmond in August last, for treason and misdemeanor, should be permitted any longer to have a seat therein, and to inquire into all the facts regarding the conduct of Mr. Smith, as an alleged associate of Aaron Burr, and report the same to the Senate—submitted the following REPORT:
Your committee are of opinion, that the conspiracy of Aaron Burr and his associates against the peace, union, and liberties of these states, is of such a character, and that its existence is established by such a mass of concurring and mutually corroborative testimony, that it is incompatible not only with the honor and privileges of this House, but with the deepest interests of this nation, that any person engaged in it should be permitted to hold a seat in the Senate of the U. States.
Whether the facts, of which the committee submit herewith such evidence as under the order of the Senate, they have been able to collect, are sufficient to substantiate the participation of Mr. Smith in that conspiracy, or not, will remain for the Senate to decide.
The committee submit also to the consideration of the Senate, the correspondence between Mr. Smith and them, through their chairman, in the course of their meetings. The committee have never conceived themselves invested with authority to try Mr. Smith. Their charge was to report an opinion relating to the honor and privileges of the Senate, and the facts relating to the conduct of Mr. Smith. Their opinion indeed cannot be expressed in relation to the privilege of the Senate, without relating at the same time to Mr. Smith's right of holding a seat in this body; but in that respect the authority of the committee extends only to proposal, and not to decision. But as he manifested a great solicitude to be heard before them, they obtained permission from the Senate to admit his attendance, communicated to him the evidence in their possession, by which he was implicated, furnished him in writing with the questions arising from it, which appeared to them material, and received from him the information and explanations herewith submitted as part of the facts reported. But Mr. Smith has claimed as a right, to be heard in his defence by counsel, to have compulsory process for witnesses, and to be confronted with his accusers—as if the committee had been a circuit court of the United States. But it is before the Senate itself, that your committee have conceived it just & proper that Mr. Smith's defence of himself should be heard. Nor have they conceived themselves bound in this inquiry by any other rules than those of natural justice and equity, due to a brother senator on the one part, and to their country on the other.
Mr. Smith repents himself on this inquiry as solitary, friendless, and unskilled, contending for rights which he intimates are denied him; and the defender of senatorial privileges which he seems apprehensive will be refused him by senators, liable so long as they hold their offices to have his case made their own. The committee are not unaware that in the vicissitudes of human events, no member of this body can be sure, that his conduct will never be made a subject of inquiry and decision before the assembly to which he belongs. They are aware that in the course of proceeding which the Senate may now sanction, its members are making out a precedent which may hereafter apply to themselves. They are sensible that the principles upon which they have acted, out to have the same operation upon their own claims to privilege, as upon those of Mr. Smith; the same relation to the rights of their constituents, which they have to those of the legislature which they represent. They have deemed it their duty to advance in the progress of their inquiry with peculiar care and deliberation. They have dealt out to Mr. Smith, that measure, which under the supposition of similar circumstances they would be content to find imparted to themselves, and they have no hesitation in declaring, that under such imputations, colored by such evidence, they should hold it a sacred obligation to themselves, to their fellow senators, and to their country, to meet them by direct, unconditional acknowledgement or denial, without seeking refuge from the broad face of day, in the labyrinth of technical forms.
In examining the question whether these forms of judicial proceedings, or the rules of judicial evidence ought to be applied to the exercise of that censorial authority which the Senate of the United States possesses over the conduct of its members, let us assume as the test of their application, either the dictates of unuttered reason, the letter and spirit of the constitution, or precedents domestic or foreign, and your committee believe that the result will be the same; that the power of expelling a member, must in its nature be discretionary, and in its exercise always more summary than the tardy process of judicial tribunals.
The power of expelling a member for misconduct, results on the principles of common sense, from the interest of the nation, that the high trust of legislation should be invested in pure hands. When the trust is elective, it is not to be presumed that the constituent body will commit the deposit to the keeping of worthless characters. But when a man, whom his fellow-citizens have honored with their confidence, on the pledge of a spotless reputation, has degraded himself by the commission of infamous crimes, which become suddenly and unexpectedly revealed to the world, defective indeed would be that institution, which should be impotent to discard from its bosom, the contagion of such a member; which should have no remedy of imputation to apply, until the poison had reached the heart.
The question on the trial of a criminal cause, before the court of common law, is not between guilt and innocence, but between guilt and the possibility of innocence. If a doubt can possibly be raised either by the ingenuity of the party or of his counsel, or by the operation of general rules in their uniform application to particular cases, that doubt must be decisive for acquittal, and the verdict of not guilty, perhaps in nine cases out of ten, means no more than that the guilt of the party has not been demonstrated in the precise, specific and narrow forms prescribed by law. The humane spirit of the laws multiplies the barriers for the protection of innocence, and freely admits that those barriers may be abused for the shelter of guilt. It avows a strong partiality favorable to the person upon trial, and acknowledges the preference that ten guilty should escape, rather than that one innocent should suffer. The interest of the public that a particular crime should be punished, is but as one to ten, compared with the interest of the party, that innocence should be spared. Acquittal only restores the party to the common rights of every other citizen; it restores him to no public trust; it invests him with no public confidence; it substitutes the sentence of mercy for the doom of justice, and to the eyes of impartial reason, in the great majority of cases, must be considered rather as a pardon than a justification.
But when a member of a legislative body lies under the imputation of aggravated offences, and a determination upon his cause can operate on the removal of him from a station of extensive power, of important trust, this disproportion between the interests of the public and the interest of the individual, disappears; if any disproportion of interest of an opposite kind. It is not better that the Senators should be members of this body, than that one innocent man should suffer
expulsion. In either case, no doubt, the evil would be great. But in the former it would strike at the vitals of the nation; in the latter it might, though deeply to be lamented, only be the calamity of an individual.
By the letter of the constitution, the power of expelling a member, is given to each of the two houses of Congress, without any limitation other than that which requires a concurrence of two-thirds of the votes, to give it effect.
The spirit of the constitution is perhaps in no respect more remarkable, than in the solicitude which it has manifested, to secure the purity of the legislature, by that of the elements of its composition. A qualification of age, is made necessary for the members, to ensure the maturity of their judgment—a qualification of long citizenship to ensure a community of interests and affections between them and their country—a qualification of residence to provide a sympathy between every member and the portion of the union, from which he is delegated—and to guard as far as regulation can guard against every bias of personal interest, and every hazard of interfering duties, it has made every member of Congress ineligible to office which he contributed to create, and every officer of the union incapable of holding a seat in Congress. Yet in the midst of all this anxious providence of legislative virtue, it has not authorised the constitutional body to recall in any case its representative. It has not subjected him to removal by impeachment—and when the darling of the people's choice has become their deadliest foe—can it enter the imagination of a reasonable man, that the sanctuary of their legislation must remain polluted with his presence, until a court of common law, with its pace of snail, ascertain whether his crime was committed on the right or on the left bank of a river—whether a puncture of difference can be found between the words of the charge and the words of the proof—whether the witnesses to his guilt should or should not be heard by his jury, and whether he was punishable, because present at an overt act, or intangible to public justice because he only contrived and prepared it. Is it conceivable that a traitor to that country which has loaded him with favors, guilty to the common understanding of all mankind, should be suffered to return unquestioned to that post of honor and confidence, where in the zenith of his good fame, he had been placed by the esteem of his countrymen, and in defiance of their wishes, in mockery of their fears, surrounded by the public indignation, and inaccessible to itself, pursue the purposes of treason in the heart of the national councils? Must the assembled rulers of the land listen with calmness and indifference, session after session, to the voice of notorious infamy, until the sluggish step of municipal justice can overtake his enormities? Must they tamely see the lives and fortunes of millions, the safety of present and future ages, depending upon his vote, recorded with their's, merely because the abused benignity of general maxims may have remitted to him the forfeiture of his life?
Such, in very supposable cases, would be the unavoidable consequences of a principle which should offer the crutches of judicial tribunals, as an apology for crippling the congressional power of expulsion. Far different, in the opinion of your committee, is the spirit of our constitution. They believe that the very purpose for which this power was given, was to preserve the legislature from the first approaches of infection—that it was made discretionary because it could not exist under the procrastination of general rules. That its process must be summary because it would be rendered nugatory by delay.
Passing from the constitutional view of the subject, to that which is afforded by the authority of precedent, your committee find, that since the establishment of our present national legislature, there has been but one example of expulsion from the Senate. In that case, the member implicated was called upon in the first instance, to answer whether he was the author of a letter, the copy of which only was produced, and the writing of which was the cause of his expulsion. He was afterwards requested to declare whether he was the author of the letter itself, and declining in both cases to answer, the fact of his having written it was established by a comparison of his hand writing, and by the belief of persons who had seen him write, upon inspection of the letter—in all these points the committee perceive the admission of a species of evidence, which in courts of criminal jurisdiction would be excluded, and in the resolution of expulsion the Senate declared the person implicated guilty of a high misdemeanor, although no presentment or indictment had been found against him, and no prosecution at law was ever commenced upon the case.
This event occurred in July, 1797. About fifteen months before that time, upon an application from the Legislature of Kentucky, requesting an investigation by the Senate, of a charge against one of the members from that State, of perjury, which had been made in certain newspaper publications, but for which no prosecution had been commenced, the Senate did adopt, by a majority of 16 votes to 8, the report of a committee, purporting that the Senate had no jurisdiction to try the charge, and that the memorial of the Kentucky legislature should be dismissed. There were indeed very sufficient reasons of a different kind assigned in the same report, for not pursuing the investigation in that particular case any further, and your committee believe that in the reasoning of that report, some principles were assumed and some inferences drawn, which were altogether unnecessary for the determination of that case, which were adopted without a full consideration of all their consequences, and the maceuary of which was clearly proved by the departure from them in the instance which was so soon afterwards to take place. It was the first time that a question of expulsion had ever been agitated in Congress, since the adoption of the constitution. And the subject being thus entirely new, was considered perhaps too much with reference to the particular circumstances of the moment, and not enough upon the numerous contingencies to which the general question might apply. Your committee state this opinion with some confidence, because of the sixteen senators, who in March 1796, voted for the report dismissing the memorial of the Kentucky legislature, eleven, on the subsequent occasion in July, 1797, voted also for that report, which concluded with a resolution for the expulsion of Mr. Blount. The other five were no longer present in the Senate. Yet if the principles advanced in the first report, had been assumed as the ground of proceeding at the latter period, the Senate would have been impotent of jurisdiction upon the offence of Mr. Blount, as they had supposed themselves upon the allegation against Mr. Marshall.
Those parts of the fifth and sixth articles, a mandatory to the constitution, upon which the report in the case of Mr. Marshall, appears to rely for taking away the jurisdiction of the Senate, your committee suppose can only be understood as referring to prosecutions at law—to suppose that they were intended as restrictions upon powers expressly granted by the constitution to the legislature, or either of its branches, would in a manner annihilate the power of impeachment as well as that of expulsion. It would lead to the absurd conclusion that the authority given for the purpose of removing iniquity from the seats of power, should be denied its exercise, in precisely those cases, which most loudly call for its energies. It would prevent the singular spectacle of a legislature vested with powers of expelling its members, of impeaching, removing, and disqualifying public officers, for trivial transgressions beneath the cognizance of the law, yet forbidden to exert them against capital or infamous crimes.
Those two articles were in substance borrowed from similar regulations contained in that justly celebrated statute, which for so many ages has been distinguished by the name of the great charter of England. Yet in that country, where they
are recognized as the most solid foundations of the liberties of the nation, they have never been considered as interfering with the power of expelling a member, exercised at all times by the house of commons; a power which there however rests only upon parliamentary usage, and has never been bestowed as in the constitution of the United States, by any act of supreme legislation. From a number of precedents which have been consulted, it is found that the exercise of this authority there has always been discretionary, and its process always far otherwise compendious, than in the prosecutions before the judicial courts. So far indeed have they been from supposing a conviction at law necessary to precede a vote of expulsion, that in one instance, a resolution to demand a prosecution, appears immediately after the adoption of the resolution to expel. In numerous cases the member submits to examination, adduces evidence in his favor, and has evidence produced against him, with or without formal authentication; and the discretion of the house is not even restricted by the necessary concurrence of more than a bare majority of the votes.
The provision in our constitution which forbids the expulsion of a member by an ordinary majority, and requires for this act of rigorous and painful duty, the assent of two-thirds, your committee consider as a wise and sufficient guard against the possible abuse of this legislative discretion. In times of heat and violent party spirit, the rights of the minority might not always be duly respected, if a bare majority could expel their members, under no other control than that of their own discretion. The operation of this rule is of great efficacy, both over the proceedings of the whole body, and over the conduct of every individual member. The times when the most violent struggles of contending parties occur, when the conflict of opposite passions is most prone to excess, are precisely the times when the numbers are most equally divided; when the majority amounts to two-thirds, the security in its own strength is of itself a guard against extraordinary stretches of power; when the minority dwindles to the proportion of one-third; its consciousness of weakness dissuades from any attempts to encroach upon the rights of the majority, which might provoke retaliation. But if expulsion were admissible only as a sequel to the issue of a legal prosecution, or upon the same principles and forms of testimony, which are established in the criminal courts, your committee can see no possible reason why it should be rendered still more imbecile, by the requisition of two-thirds to give it effect.
It is now the duty of your committee to apply the principles which they have here endeavored to settle and elucidate, to the particular case on which the Senate have directed them to report. The bills of indictment found against Mr. Smith, at the late session of the circuit court of the U. States, at Richmond, (copies of which are herewith submitted,) are precisely similar to those found against A. Burr. From the volume of printed evidence communicated by the President of the U. States to Congress, relating to the trial of Aaron Burr, it appears that a great part of the testimony which was essential to his conviction upon the indictment for treason, was withheld from the jury, upon an opinion of the court, that Aaron Burr, not having been present at the overt act of treason alleged in the indictment, no testimony relative to his conduct or declarations elsewhere, and subsequent to the transactions on Blenheim's island could be admitted. And in consequence of this suppression of evidence, the traverse jury found a verdict "that Aaron Burr was not proved to be guilty under that indictment by any evidence submitted to them." It was also an opinion of the court that none of the transactions of which evidence was given on the trial of Aaron Burr did amount to an overt act of levying war, and of course that they did not amount to treason. These decisions forming the basis of the issue upon the trials of Burr, anticipated the event which must have awaited the trials of the bills against Mr. Smith, who from the circumstances of his case, must have been entitled to the benefit of their application: they were the sole inducements upon which the counsel for the U. States, abandoned the prosecution against him.
Your committee are not disposed now to question the correctness of these decisions on a case of treason before a court of criminal jurisdiction. But whether the transactions proved against Aaron Burr, did or did not amount, in technical language, to an overt act of levying war, your committee have not a scruple of doubt upon their minds that but for the vigilance and energy of the government, and of faithful citizens under its directions, in arresting their progress, and in crushing his designs, they would in a very short lapse of time, have terminated not only in war, but in war of the most horrible description, in war once foreign and domestic. As little hesitation have your committee in saying, that if the daylight of evidence, combining one vast complicated intention, with overt acts innumerable, be not excluded from the mind by the curtain of artificial rules, the simplest understanding cannot but see what the subtlest understanding cannot disguise, crimes before which ordinary treason wilts into virtue—crimes of which war is the minimum feature. The debauchement of our army, the plunder and devastation of our own and foreign territories, the dissolution of our national union, and the root of interminable civil war, were but the means of individual aggrandizement, the steps to protected usurpation. If the ingenuity of a demon were tasked, to weave into one composition, all the great moral and political evils, which could be inflicted upon the people of these states, it could produce nothing more than a texture of war, dismemberment, and despotism.
Of these designs, a grand jury, composed of characters as respectable as this nation can boast, have upon the solemnity of their oaths, charged John Smith with being an accomplice. The reasons upon which the trial of this charge has not been submitted to the verdict of a jury, have been shown by your committee, and are proved by the letter from the attorney of the U. States, for the district of Virginia, herewith reported. And your committee are of opinion, that the dereliction of the prosecution on these grounds cannot in the slightest degree remove the imputation which the accusations of the grand jury have brought to the door of Mr. Smith.
Your committee will not permit themselves to comment upon the testimony which they herewith submit to the senate—nor upon the answers which Mr. Smith has given as sufficient for his justification. Desirous as the committee have been that this justification might be complete—anxiously as they wished for an opportunity of declaring their belief of his innocence, they can neither control nor disable the operation of the evidence upon their minds, and however painful to their feelings they find themselves compelled by a sense of duty paramount to every other consideration, to submit to the Senate, for their consideration, the following resolution:
Resolved, That John Smith, a senator from the state of Ohio, by his participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr, against the peace, union and liberties of the people of the U. S. has been guilty of conduct incompatible with his duty and station as a senator of the United States. And that he be therefor, and hereby is expelled from the Senate of the U. S.
TO PRINTERS—FOR SALE, on very reasonable terms: About 500 wt. of BURGEONS, and 500 of BREVIER: The same Type on which the Esquire was lately printed.
NOTICE—All persons indebted to the late Alexander Banks, dec'd. of Manchester, are hereby requested to come forward and discharge their accounts as speedily as possible: and those persons having claims against the estate will bring in their claims properly authenticated, when provision will be made for their discharge, by ROBERT GRAHAM, Adm'r. of the estate of Alex'r. Banks, with the will annexed. Manchester, Dec. 31.
PUBLIC SALE—On Saturday the 20th day of January ensuing, will be sold, at the plantation of the late Alexander Banks of Manchester, the entire stock of Cattle, Corn, Fodder, Hay, Plantation Utensils, &c. Terms of sale—Cash for all sums under 20 dollars, over twenty dollars, six months credit, the purchaser giving negotiable notes with approved endorsers, payable at the Bank of Virginia. ROBERT GRAHAM, Adm'r. of the estate of Alex'r. Banks, with the will annexed. Dec. 31. (tds.)
SALES of Valuable Property—On Monday the 15th day of February ensuing, will be exposed to public sale, at the late dwelling house of Alexander Banks, deceased, a variety of Household & Kitchen Furniture, three or four likely Negro Men, a few excellent milch Cows, two Horses, a small Waggon and Gear, &c. &c. Terms of sale—Six months credit for all sums over fifty dollars, the purchasers giving negotiable notes with approved endorsers, payable at the Bank of Virginia. R. GRAHAM, Adm'r. of the estate of Alex'r. Banks, with the will annexed. Dec. 31. (tds.)
YOUNG NEGROES FOR SALE—Will be sold to the highest bidder, for cash, at Durrell's tavern, in Petersburg, on Wednesday the 13th January next, 25 young NEGROES. They are all young and likely, and consist of men, women and children. Should the above mentioned day be unlikely, or a sufficient number of purchasers from any cause not attend on that day, the sale will be continued from day to day till the whole are disposed of. JAMES DABNEY. Gloucester C. H. Dec. 24. (tds.)
FOR SALE—The subscriber is desirous of selling his PROPERTY in this City. The purchaser will be accommodated with time if required, on giving satisfactory security. SAM'L. GREENHOW. October 7. [H]
FEMALE EDUCATION will be continued at Mount-City, the ensuing year, under the direction of Miss Terrell; who will teach Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, English Grammar and Geography. The school will be opened on Monday the 18th January. Terms—For Board and Tuition, each finding her own bedding, $100 per annum, paid quarterly in advance; and as provisions will be made in due time for the reception of boarders, no deduction can be made for entering a boarder after a part of the first quarter has elapsed, nor for the necessary vacation. HUMPHREY HILL. Caroline, Dec. 17. [154]
JUST RECEIVED, a general assortment of DUTCH BOLTING CLOTHS, of superior quality—For sale by J. DARMSDATT. Oct. 23. [H]
MORE CHEAP GOODS—JOHN KING, again respectfully informs his customers & the public, that he has just received, by the late arrivals from Philadelphia and New-York, a general assortment of Fashionable and Seasonable GOODS, which are now opening at his Store, the second door below the Eagle-Tavern; where they may be had upon as good terms, for cash, as at any other place in the City. November 6. [epitf]
FOR SALE, 121,000 acres of LAND in Kentucky county, in the forks of Great Sandy river: 24,000 do. in Tazewell county, on the waters of Clinch river: 20,000 do. in the county of Wythe, on Reed and Peak creeks: 1,000 do. in Randolph county, on the waters of Cheat river: Also, 30,000 acres of Virginia Land Warrants. The above will be sold very low, and great accommodation given in the payments. To RENT, a Brick House, on Shockoe-Hill, in a good neighborhood, and possessing every accommodation for a family. THOS: NORVELL. Dec. 19. [H]
KIRBY, DRAKE & TAYLOR—Have just received by the late arrivals from London & Liverpool, in addition to their Fall Assortment, 1 bale London superfine Cloths and Cassimeres, 20 do. Kendal Cottons, 2 do. Carpets and Carpeting, 4 boxes 4-4 Irish Linen, 1 do. Diapers, Lawns and Sheetings. All of which will be sold low for cash or on a short credit. Dec. 15. [epitf]
TEACHER, who can teach the Latin and French Languages, the English grammatically, Arithmetic and Geography, who wishes a healthy situation in the country, may obtain an advantageous situation upon liberal terms; for further information, any person who wishes employment of that kind, is referred to the Editor of the Esquire. Dec. 15. [H]
Will be sold at the Bell Tavern in this city, on the 18th day of this month, fifteen likely NEGROES, consisting of men, women and children. The terms of sale, twelve months credit, the purchaser giving bond with security to be approved by the scribe, to carry interest from the date if not punctually paid. WM. PRICE, JOHN F. PRICE. Richmond, Jan. 7. (epids)
NOTICE—All persons are hereby forewarned against taking an assignment of three bonds executed by the subscriber, and payable to Wm. M'Kenzie of the city of Richmond, each for the sum of twenty-three hundred and seventy-nine dollars, forty-four cents, say $2379 44—the said bonds having been given for the payment of lands in the state of Ohio, bought by the subscriber of Mr. M'Kenzie, part of which it appears is lost by the interference of prior right or older locations; and being determined to pay no part of the said bonds till equity decides what proportion of them Mr. M'Kenzie is entitled to. JNO. BAIRD. Petersburg, Jan. 7. [24]
ENGLISH KID SHOES—Just received and for sale by Dodge & Cobb, 3 trunks Ladies' & Misses white, black, figured and lace pattern KID SHOES, of Jackson's manufacture, London; Also, Gentlemen's best superfine London HATS. Jan. 7. [H]
BANK OF VIRGINIA—The President and Directors of the Bank have this day declared a dividend of four per cent for the last six months, which will be payable on the 15th inst. JOHN BROCKENBROUGH, Cashier. Jan. 4. 1808. [3]
TO RENT—Four Commodious TENEMENTS, near the Armoury—FOR HIRE, Two SAWYERS J. E. HARVEY. Jan. 2. [epitf]
CASH SALES—To be sold, for ready money, in pursuance of a deed of trust from David Ross, esq. bearing date on the 3th day of July, 1806 & recorded in the general court, in order to raise the sum of $50,000 and upwards, and the charges and expenses of sale—Those well known MILLS with the appurtenances, in the city of Richmond, called the Columbian Mills. Two undivided third parts of the Deep Run Coal Pits, in the county of Henrico, containing about 1750 acres, more or less. Two undivided third parts of the Terfield, containing about one hundred acres. Two undivided third parts of the Dover Coal Lands, in the county of Goochland, containing about ninety acres, which three several tracts of Coal Land were held in partnership between the said David Ross, and James Currie, deceased. The Columbian Mills and Appurtenances, are subject to a ground rent to Samuel Overton; and the said Mills and two tracts of Coal Land, first mentioned, are pledged for the security of sundry sums of money, due to Mrs. Frances Tabb and Wm. B. Giles, Administrator of John Tabb, dec'd. a large proportion of which, is stated by the said Ross to have been paid, and other estates are pledged for the balance. For further information on this subject, persons inclined to purchase, are referred to the said Ross, or it may be obtained on application to the subscribers. The sales will take place at the Eagle-Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on Wednesday, the 20th of January, 1808. E. W. ROOTES, } Trustees. WILSON ALLEN, } [epitf]
WILLIAM TEMPLE, has received by ship Herschell from Liverpool, and C. by ship London, an extensive supply of MERCHANDIZE, suitable to the present and approaching season, which he will sell low. Oct. 19. [H]
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD—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 escape, it is believed he intends making his way to one of the eastern states and has been provided with false papers of freedom. If 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. [epitf]
JOHNSON and REAT, Jewellers & Silver-smiths, Richmond: a few doors above the Bell-Tavern, and just opposite col. Maye's new building; they leave to inform the inhabitants of Richmond, Manchester, and their Vicinities, that they have on hand a large supply of Work, composed of the latest Fashions, viz. An elegant assortment of pearl and topaz Broochs, Pins, Finger Rings and Bracelets, plain gold & of nearly all patterns, Miniature Settings, mourning and fancy Lockets, Ear Rings, mourning and fancy, coral, gold, pebble and glass Beads, gold and gilt Chains, mourning and fancy, gold mounted Necklaces, plain and ornamented Combs, pearl and tortoiseshell Sagar Boxes, Dicks, Pen Knives and Scissors: a general assortment of silver Spoons and Ladles, Scissor Chains, Humble, Pencil Cases, Pens, Spectacles, Tooth Picks, Ink Stands, Snuff boxes and Tweezers, Morocco Pocket Books and Thread Cases: Also, silver and plated Table Ware, consisting of Coffee, Tea and Milk Pots, Bread Baskets, Sugar Dishes, Castors, Tumblers, Salt Stands and Candlesticks; and a number of other articles too tedious to enumerate: All of which they offer to their friends on the most moderate terms that can be afforded. Orders from any place will be thankfully received and speedily dispatched. December 4. [epitf]
JOHN ALCOCK, informs his friends and the public at large, that he has just received, and is now opening, next door to Messrs. Prosser & Moncur's vendue, a large assortment of Merchandize, consisting of the following articles:—Carpenters and Joiners Tools, iron and steel Locks & Hinges, for house work and cabinet ware. Also carry on my Cabinet Manufactory, as usual, adjoining the fire insurance office, and have on hand three thousand dollars worth of furniture, finished in the best workman-like manner and in the newest fashion. Also, Windsor Chairs. I will sell all of the above goods, very low for cash, or good paper at a short date. Sept. 5. [epitf]
THE subscribers having formed a connection in the Grocery line, under the firm of BRIDGES & ROBERTSON, they now offer for sale at their Store on the corner of the street leading to Byrd's warehouse, and opposite to Messrs. Jno. & Robt. Gamble, jr's.—A general assortment of GROCERIES—among which are Antigua Rum, Soap, Candles, Holland Gin, Rice, Spanish Indigo, 4th of Cognac Brandy, Northern Cheese, Raspberry ditto, Best Spanish Sugars, London particular Madeira Wine, Hibbert's Porter and Port, Sherry & Teneriffa, Brown Stout, Iffé ditto, Country Iron, Best green Coffee, Nail and spike Rod, Brown & Loaf Sugar, Pickled Salmon, Best Chocolate, F. G. Gun-powder in Imperial, kegs, Hyson, Raisins, Almonds, Young Hyson & Pepper, Ginger, Souchong, Queens-Ware, &c. &c. Which they will dispose of on liberal terms for cash, country produce, or on the usual credit to punctual customers. JAMES BRIDGES, WM. ROBERTSON. Richmond, Dec. 4. (H)
By virtue of a deed of trust from David Ross and Thomas Norvell to the subscribers, bearing date the 4th day of December last, and of record in the Honorable the General Court of this Commonwealth; will be exposed to sale on Friday the 19th day of next month (December), before the door of the Eagle Tavern, in the City of Richmond, at public auction, for ready money, for the purpose in the said trust deed mentioned, five tracts or parcels of LAND in the county of Fluvanna, adjoining each other, containing in the whole three thousand one hundred and eighty acres, be the same more or less, it being the same lands conveyed to the said David Ross by John Granberry and Susanna his wife, Littleton W. Tazewell and Ann S. his wife, and Michael W. Hancock. Also, one other Tract in the counties of Montgomery and Botetourt, called Fort Lewis, containing two thousand six hundred acres, be the same more or less. WM. C. WILLIAMS, } Trustees. JOHN PROSSER, } Richmond, Nov. 30.
The sale of the above property is postponed by consent of the parties interested, until Thursday the 14th of next month, then to be sold before the door of the Eagle Tavern. WM. C. WILLIAMS, JOHN PROSSER. Dec. 29. [epitf]
NOTICE!!—The subscriber purports leaving this City in the course of a few days, has determined to dispose of the whole or any part of his stock now remaining on hand at a very reduced price; which consists of a large and superb assortment of Mahogany Furniture, Mattresses of all kinds and sizes, Paperhangings, Window Blinds, Fringes, Tassels, Cords, &c. &c. W. HAIGHT. N. B. Those who feel inclined to purchase, will apply opposite the City Tavern, on the main street. Dec. 31. [H]