Norfolk gazette and publick ledger (Norfolk [Va.]), 1807-09-16 00:00:00

TRIAL OF AARON BURR.
OPINION
Of the Court, on the motion to arrest the evidence, delivered on
MONDAY, August 31.
[Concluded from our last.]
In conformity with the principle and with authority then, the prisoner at the bar was neither legally nor actually present at Blannerhasset's island; and the court is strongly inclined to the opinion that without proving an actual or legal presence by two witnesses, the overt act laid in this indictment cannot be proved.
But this opinion is controverted on two grounds. The first is, that the indictment does not charge the prisoner to have been present.
The second, that although he was absent, yet, if he caused the assemblage, he may be indicted as being present, and convicted on evidence that he caused the treasonable act.
The first position is to be decided by the indictment itself. The court understands the allegation differently from the attorney for the United States. The court understands it to be directly charged, that the prisoner did assemble with the multitude and did march with them. Nothing will more clearly test this construction than putting the case into a shape which it may possibly take. Suppose the law to be that the indictment would be defective unless it alleged the presence of the person indicted at the act of treason. If upon a special verdict facts should be found which amounted to a levying of war by the accused, and his counsel should insist that he could not be condemned because the indictment was defective in not charging that he was himself one of the assemblage which constituted the treason, or because it alleged the procurement defectively, would the attorney admit this construction of his indictment to be correct? I am persuaded that he would not, and that he ought not to make such a concession. If, after a verdict, the indictment ought to be construed to allege that the prisoner was one of the assemblage at Blannerhasset's island, it ought to be so construed now. But this is unimportant, for if the indictment alleges that the prisoner procured the assemblage, that procurement becomes part of the overt act and must be proved as will be shown hereafter.
The 2d position is founded on 1 Hale 214, 238 and 1. East 127.
While I declare that this doctrine contradicts every idea I had ever entertained on the subject of indictments, since it admits that one case may be stated and a very different case may be proved, I will acknowledge that it is countenanced by the authorities adduced in its support. To counsel or advise a treasonable assemblage, and to be one of that assemblage, are certainly distinct acts, and therefore ought not to be charged as the same act. The great objection to this mode of proceeding is, that the proof essentially varies from the charge in the character and essence of the offence, and in the testimony by which the accused is to defend himself. These dicta of Lord Hale therefore, taken in the extent in which they are understood by the counsel for the U. S. seem to be repugnant to the declarations we find every where, that an overt act must be laid, and must be proved. No case is cited by Hale in support of them, and I am strongly inclined to the opinion that, had the publick received his corrected, instead of his original manuscript, they would not have been restrained in their application to cases of a particular description, laid down generally, and applied universally to all cases of treason, they are repugnant to the principles for which Hale contends, for which the elementary writers contend, and from which courts have in no case, either directly reported or referred to in the books, ever departed. These principles are, that the indictment must give notice of the offence, that the accused is only bound to answer the particular charge which the indictment contains, and that the overt act laid is that particular charge. Under such circumstances, it is only doing justice to Hale to examine his dicta, and if they will admit of being understood in limited sense, not repugnant to his own doctrines, nor to the general principles of law, to understand them in that sense.
"If many conspire to counterfeit, or counsel or abet it, and one of them doth the fact upon that counselling or conspiracy, it is treason in all, and they may be all indicted for counterfeiting generally within this statute, for in such case, in treason, all are principals."
This is laid down as applicable singly to the treason of counterfeiting the coin, and is not applicable by Hale to other treasons. Had he designed to apply the principle universally he would have stated it as a general proposition, he would have laid it down in treating on other branches of the statute, as well as in the chapter respecting the coin, he would have laid it down when treating on indictments generally. But he has done neither. Every sentiment bearing in any manner on this point, which is to be found in Lord Hale, while on the doctrine of levying war, or on the general doctrine of indictments, militates against the opinion that he considered the proposition as more extensive than he has declared it to be. No court could be justified in extending the dictum of a judge beyond its terms, to cases in which he has expressly treated, to which he has not himself applied it, and on which he as well as others has delivered opinions which that dictum would overrule. This would be the less justifiable it there should be a clear legal distinction indicated by the very terms in which the judge has expressed himself between the particular case to which alone he has applied the dictum, and other cases to which the court is required to extend it.
There is this clear legal distinction. "They may (says judge Hale) be indicted for counterfeiting ge-
nerally." But if many conspire to levy war, and some actually levy it, they may not be indicted for levying war generally. The books concur in declaring that that crime cannot be so indicted. A special overt act of levying war must be laid. This distinction between counterfeiting the coins, and that class of treasons among which levying war is placed is taken in the statute of Edward 3d. That statute requires an overt act of levying war to be laid in the indictment, and does not require an overt act of counterfeiting the coin to be laid. If in a particular case where a general indictment is sufficient, it be stated that the crime may be charged generally according to the legal effect of the act, it does not follow, that in other cases where a general indictment would be insufficient, where an overt act must be laid, that this overt act need not be laid according to the real fact. Hale then is to be reconciled with himself, and with the general principles of law, only by permitting the limits which he has himself given to his own dictum, to remain where he has placed them.
In page 238, Hale is speaking generally of the receiver of a traitor, and is stating in what such receiver partakes of an accessory. 1st. "His indictment must be special of the receipt, and not generally that he did the thing, which may be otherwise in case of one that is procurer, counsellor or consenter."
The words "may be otherwise" do not clearly convey the idea that it is universally otherwise. In all cases of a receiver the indictment must be special on the receipt, and not general. The words "may be otherwise in case of a procurer, &c." signify that it may be otherwise in all treasons. It may be otherwise in some treasons without contradicting the doctrines of Hale himself as well as of other writers, but cannot be otherwise in all treasons without such contradiction, the fair construction is, that Hale used these words in their restricted sense; that he used them in reference to treasons, in which a general indictment would lie, not to treasons where a general indictment would not lie, but an overt act of the treason must be charged. The two passages of Hale thus construed, may perhaps be law, and may leave him consistent with himself. It appears to the court to be the fair way of construing them.
These observations relative to the passages quoted from Hale, apply to that quoted from East, who obviously copies from Hale, and relies upon his authority.
Upon this point Keeling 26, and 1st Hale 626, have also been relied upon. It is stated in both, that if a man be indicted as a principal and acquitted, he cannot afterwards be indicted as accessory before the fact. Whence it is inferred, not without reason, that evidence of accessory guilt may be received on such an indictment. Yet no case is found in which the question has been made and decided. The objection has never been taken at a trial and overruled, nor do the books say it would be overruled. Were such a case produced its application would be questionable. Keeling says, an accessory before the fact is quodam modo , in some manner guilty of the fact. The law may not require that the manner should be stated, for in felony it does not require that an overt act should be laid. The indictment therefore may be general. But an overt act of levying war must be laid. These cases then prove in their utmost extent no more than the cases previously cited from Hale and East. This distinction between indictments which may state the fact generally, and those which must lay specially, bears some analogy to a general and a special action on the case. In a general action, the declaration may lay the assumpsit according to the legal effect of the transaction, but in a special action on the case, the declaration must state the material circumstances truly, and they must be proved as stated. This distinction also derives some aid from a passage in Hale, 625, immediately preceding that which has been cited at the bar. He says, "If A. be indicted as principal and B. as accessory before or after, and both be acquitted, yet B. may be indicted as principal, and the former acquittal as accessory is no bar."
The crimes then are not the same, and may not indifferently be tried under the same indictment. But why is it that an acquittal as principal may be pleaded in bar to an indictment as accessory? If it be answered that the accessory crime may be given in evidence on an indictment as principal, but that the principal crime may not be given in evidence on an indictment as accessory, the question recurs, on what legal ground does this distinction stand? I can imagine only this. An accessory being quodam modo a principal, in indictments where the law does not require the manner to be stated, which need not be special, evidence of accessory guilt, if the punishment be the same, may possibly be received; but every indictment as an accessory must be special. The very allegation that he is an accessory must be a special allegation, and must show how he became an accessory. The charges of this special indictment therefore must be proved as laid, and no evidence which proves the crime in a form substantially different can be received. If this be the legal reason for the distinction it supports the exposition of these dicta which has been given. If it be not the legal reason, I can conceive no other.
But suppose the law to be as contended by the counsel for the United States. Suppose an indictment charging an individual with personally assembling among others and thus levying war, may be satisfied with the proof that he caused the assemblage. What effect will this law have upon this case?
The guilt of the accused, if there be any guilt, does not consist in the assemblage, for he was not a member of it. The simple fact of assemblage no
more affects one absent man than another. His guilt then consists in procuring the assemblage, and upon this fact depends his criminality. The proof relative to the character of an assemblage must be the same whether a man be present or absent. In the general, to charge any individual with the guilt of an assemblage, the fact of his presence must be proved. It constitutes an essential part of the overt act. If then the procurement be substituted in the place of presence, does it not also constitute an essential part of the overt act? Must it not be proved? Must it not be proved in the same manner that presence must be proved? If in one case the presence of the individual makes the guilt of the assemblage his guilt, and in the other case the procurement by the individual makes the guilt of the assemblage his guilt, then presence and procurement are equally component parts of the overt act, and equally require two witnesses.
Collateral points may, say the books, be proved according to the course of the common law, but is this a collateral point? Is the fact without which the accused does not participate in the guilt of the assemblage, if it was guilty, a collateral point? This cannot be. The presence of the party, where presence is necessary, being a part of the overt act, must be positively proved by two witnesses. No presumptive evidence; no facts from which presence may be conjectured or inferred, will satisfy the constitution and the law. If procurement take the place of presence, and become part of the overt act, then no presumptive evidence, no facts from which the procurement may be conjectured or inferred, can satisfy the constitution and the law. The mind is not to be led to the conclusion that the individual was present by a train of conjectures or inferences, or of reasoning; the fact must be proved by two witnesses. Neither where procurement supplies the want of presence, is the mind to be conducted to the conclusion that the accused procured the assembly, by a train of conjectures or inferences, or of reasoning; the fact itself must be proved by two witnesses, and must have been committed within the district.
If it be said that the advising or procurement of treason is a secret transaction which can scarcely ever be proved in the manner required by this opinion; the answer which will readily suggest itself is, that the difficulty of proving a fact will not justify conviction without proof. Certainly it will not justify conviction without a direct and positive witness in a case where the constitution requires two. The more correct inference from this circumstance would seem to be, that the advising of the fact is not within the constitutional definition of the crime. To advise or procure a treason is in the nature of conspiring or plotting treason, which is not treason in itself.
If then the doctrines of Keeling, Hale, and East, are to be understood in the sense in which they are pressed by the counsel for the prosecution, and are applicable in the United States; the fact that the accused procured the assemblage at Blannerhasset's island must be proved, not circumstantially, but positively by two witnesses, to charge him with that assemblage. But there are still other most important considerations which must be well weighed before this doctrine can be applied to the United States.
The 5th amendment to the constitution has been pressed with great force, and it is impossible not to feel its application to this point. The accused cannot be truly said to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," unless the indictment shall give him that notice which may reasonably suggest to him the point on which the accusation turns, so that he may know the course to be pursued in his defence.
It is also well worthy of consideration, that this doctrine so far as it respects treason, is entirely supported by the operation of the common law which is said to convert the accessory before the fact into the principal, and to make the act of the principal his act. The accessory before the fact is not said to have levied war.—He is not said to be guilty under the statute.—But the common law attaches to him the guilt of that fact which he has advised or procured, and as contended, makes it his act.—This is the operation of the common law, not the operation of the statute. It is an operation then which can only be performed where the common law exists to perform it. It is the creature of the common law, and the creature presupposes its creator. To decide then that this doctrine is applicable to the United States, would seem to imply the decision that the United States, as a nation, have a common law which creates and defines the punishment of crimes accessory in their nature. It would imply the further decision that these accessory crimes are not, in the case of treason, excluded by the definition of treason given in the constitution. I will not pretend that I have not individually an opinion on these points, but it is one which I should give only in a case absolutely requiring it, unless I could confer respecting it, with the judges of the supreme court.
I have said that this doctrine cannot apply to the United States, without implying those decisions respecting the common law which I have stated, because, should it be true as is contended, that the constitutional definition of treason comprehends him who advises or procures an assemblage that levies war, it would not follow that such adviser or procurer might be charged as having been present at the assemblage. If the adviser or procurer is within the definition of levying war, and, independent of the agency of the common law, does actually levy war, then the advisement or procurement is an overt act of levying war. If it be the overt act on which he is to be convicted, then it must be charged in the indictment, for he can only be convicted on proof of the overt acts which are charged.
To render this distinction more intelligible, let it be recollected that although it should be conceded, that since the statute of William and Mary, he who advises or procures a treason may in England be charged as having committed that treason by virtue of the common law operation which is said, so far as respects the indictment, to unite the accessory to the principal offence and permit them to be charged as one, yet it can never be conceded that he who commits one overt act under the statute of Edward, can be charged and convicted on proof of another overt act. If then procurement be an overt act of treason under the constitution, no man can be convicted for the procurement under an indictment charging him with actually assembling; whatever may be the doctrine of the common law in the case of an accessory offender.
It may not be improper in this place again to advert to the opinion of the supreme court and to show that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrine now laid down. That opinion is that an individual may be guilty of treason "who has not appeared in arms against his country; that if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object, all those who perform any part however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors."
This opinion does not touch the case of a person who advises or procures an assemblage, and does nothing further. The advising certainly, and perhaps the procuring, is more in the nature of a conspiracy to levy war, than of the actual levying of war. According to the opinion, it is not enough to be leagued in the conspiracy, and that war be levied, but it is also necessary to perform a part; that part is the act of levying war. That part, it is true, may be minute, it may not be the actual appearance in arms; and it may be remote from the scene of action, that is from the place where the army is assembled, but it must be a part, and that part must be performed by a person who is leagued in the conspiracy. This part however minute or remote constitutes the overt act of which alone the person who performs it can be convicted.
The opinion does not declare that the person who has performed this remote and minute part may be indicted for a part which was in truth performed by others, and convicted on their overt acts. It amounts to this and nothing more, that when war is actually levied, not only those who bear arms, but those also who are leagued in the conspiracy, and who perform the various distinct parts which are necessary for the prosecution of war, do in the sense of the constitution levy war. It may possibly be the opinion of the supreme court that those who procure a treason and do nothing further are guilty under the constitution; I only say that opinion has not yet been given; still less has it been indicated that he who advises, shall be indicted as having performed the fact.
It is then the opinion of the court that the indictment can be supported only by testimony, which proves the accused to have been actually or constructively present when the assemblage took place on Blannerhasset's island, or by the admission of the doctrine that he who procures an act may be indicted as having performed that act.
It is further the opinion of the court that there is no testimony whatever which tends to prove that the accused was actually or constructively present when that assemblage did take place. Indeed the contrary is most apparent. With respect to admitting proof of procurement to establish a charge of actual presence, the court is of opinion that if this be admissible in England on an indictment for levying war, which is far from being conceded, it is admissible only by virtue of the operation of the common law upon the statute, and therefore is not admissible in this country unless by virtue of a similar operation; a point far from being established, but on which, for the present no opinion is given. If, however, this point be established, still the procurement must be proved in the same manner and by the same kind of testimony which would be required to prove actual presence.
The second point in this division of the subject is the necessity of adducing the record of the previous conviction of some person who committed the fact alleged to be treasonable.
This point presupposes the treason of the accused, if any has been committed, to be accessory in its nature. It's being of the description according to the British authorities, depends on the presence or absence of the accused at the time the fact was committed. The doctrine on this subject is well understood, has been most copiously explained, and need not be repeated. That there is no evidence of his actual or legal presence is a point already discussed and decided. It is then apparent that, but for the exception to the general principle which is made in cases of treason, those who assembled at Blannerhasset's island, if that assemblage was such as to constitute the crime, would be principals, and those who might really have caused that assemblage, although in truth the chief traitors, would in law be accessaries.
It is a settled principle in the law that the accessory cannot be guilty of a greater offence than his principal. The maxim is, accessorius sequitur naturam sui principalis ; the accessory follows the nature of his principal. Hence results the necessity of establishing the guilt of the principal before the accessory can be tried. For the degree of guilt which is incurred by counselling or commanding the commission of a crime, depends upon the actual commission of that crime. No man is an accessory to murder unless the fact has been committed.
The fact can only be established in a prosecution against the person by whom a crime has been perpetrated. The law supposes a man more capa-

ble of defending his own conduct than any other person, and will not tolerate that the guilt of A shall be established in a prosecution against B. Consequently, if the guilt of B depends on the guilt of A, A must be convicted before B can be tried. It would exhibit a monstrous deformity indeed, in our system, if B might be executed for being accessory to a murder committed by A, and A should afterwards, upon a full trial, be acquitted of the fact. For this obvious reason, although the punishment of a principal and accessory was originally the same, and although in many instances it is still the same, the accessory could in no case be tried before the conviction of his principal, nor can he yet be tried previous to such conviction, unless he requires it, or unless a special provision to that effect be made by statute.
If then, this was a felony, the prisoner at the bar could not be tried until the crime was established by the conviction of the person by whom it was actually perpetrated.
Is the law otherwise in this case, because in treason all are principals?
Let this question be answered by reason and authority.
Why is it that in felonies however atrocious, the trial of the accessory can never precede the conviction of the principal? Not because the one is denominated the principal and the other the accessory, for that would be ground on which a great law principle could never stand. Not because there was in fact a difference in the degree of moral guilt, for in the case of murder committed by a hardy villain for a bribe, the person plotting the murder and giving the bribe, is, perhaps, of the two the blacker criminal; and, were it otherwise, this would furnish no argument for precedence in trial.
What then is the reason? It has been already given. The legal guilt of the accessory depends on the guilt of the principal; and the guilt of the principal can only be established in a prosecution against himself.
Does not this reason apply in full force to a case of treason?
The legal guilt of the person who planned the assemblage on Blannerhasset's island depends, not simply on the criminality of that assemblage. If those who perpetrated the fact be not traitors, he who advised the fact cannot be a traitor. His guilt then, in contemplation of law, depends on theirs, and their guilt can only be established in a prosecution against themselves. Whether the adviser of this assemblage be punishable with death as a principal or an accessory, his liability to punishment depends on the degree of guilt attached to an act which has been perpetrated by others, and which, if it be a criminal act, renders them guilty also. His guilt therefore depends on theirs, and their guilt cannot be legally established in a prosecution against him.
The whole reason of the law then relative to the principal and accessory, so far as respects the order of trial, seems to apply in full force to a case of treason committed by one body of men in conspiracy with others who are absent.
If from reason we pass to authority, we find it laid down by Hale, Foster, and East, in the most explicit terms, that the conviction of some one who has committed the treason must precede the trial of him who has advised or procured it. This position is also maintained by Leach in his notes on Hawkins, and is not, so far as the court has discovered, any where contradicted.
These authorities have been read and commented on at such length that it cannot be necessary for the court to bring them again into view. It is the less necessary because it is not understood that the law is controverted by the counsel for the United States.
It is, however, contended, that the prisoner has waived his right to demand the conviction of some one person who was present at the fact, by pleading to his indictment.
Had this indictment even charged the prisoner according to the truth of the case, the court would feel some difficulty in deciding that he had by implication waived his right to demand a species of testimony essential to his conviction. The court is not prepared to say that the act which is to operate against his rights, did not require that it should be performed with a full knowledge of its operation. It would seem consonant to the usual course of proceeding in other respects in criminal cases, that the prisoner should be informed that he had a right to refuse to be tried until some person who committed the act should be convicted, and that he ought not to be considered as waiving the right to demand the record of conviction, unless with the full knowledge of that right he consented to be tried. The court however, does not decide what the law would be in such a case. It is unnecessary to decide it because pleading to an indictment in which a man is charged as having committed an act, cannot be construed to waive a right which he would have possessed, had he been charged with having advised the act. No person indicted as a principal can be expected to say I am not a principal, I am an accessory; I did not commit, I only advised the act.
The authority of the English cases on this subject depends in a great measure on the adoption of the common law doctrine of accessory treasons. If that doctrine be excluded, this branch of it may not be directly applicable to the treasons committed within the United States. If the crime of advising or procuring a levying war be within the constitutional definition of treason, then he who advises or procures it must be indicted on the very fact, and the question whether the treasonableness of the act may be decided in the first instance in the trial of him who procured it, or must be decided in the trial of one who committed it, will depend upon the reason, as it respects the law of evidence, which produced the British decisions with regard to the trial of principal and accessory, rather than on the positive authority of those decisions.
This question is not essential in the present case, because if the crime be within the constitutional definition, it is an overt act of levying war, and to produce a conviction ought to have been charged in the indictment.
The law of the case being thus far settled, what ought to be the decision of the court on the present motion? Ought the court to set and hear testimony which cannot affect the prisoner, or ought the court to arrest that testimony? On this question much has been said—much that may perhaps be ascribed to a misconception of the point really under consideration. The motion has been treated as a motion confessedly made to stop relevant testimony, and in the course of the argument, it has
been repeatedly stated by those who oppose the motion, that irrelevant testimony may and ought to be stopped. That this statement is perfectly correct, is one of those fundamental principles in judicial proceedings which is acknowledged by all and is founded in the absolute necessity of the thing. No person will contend that in a civil or criminal case, either party is at liberty to introduce what testimony he pleases, legal or illegal, and to consume the whole term in details of facts unconnected with the particular case. Some tribunal then must decide on the admissibility of testimony. The parties cannot constitute this tribunal, for they do not agree. The jury cannot constitute it, for the question is whether they shall hear the testimony or not. Who then but the court can constitute it? It is of necessity the peculiar province of the court to judge the admissibility of testimony. If the court admit improper, or reject proper testimony, it is an error of judgment, but it is an error committed in the direct exercise of their judicial functions.
The present indictment charges the prisoner with levying war against the United States, and alleges an overt act of levying war. That overt act must be proved, according to the mandates of the constitution and of the act of congress by two witnesses. The presence of the accused has been stated to be an essential component part of the overt act in this indictment, unless the common law principle respecting accessories should render it unnecessary; and there is not only no witness who has proved his actual or legal presence; but the fact of his absence is not controverted. The counsel for the prosecution offer to give in evidence subsequent transactions, at a different place and in a different state, in order to prove what? The overt act laid in the indictment? That the prisoner was one of those who assembled at Blannerhasset's island? No; that is not alleged. It is well known that such testimony is not competent to establish such a fact. The constitution and law require that the fact should be established by two witnesses, not by the establishment of other facts from which the jury might reason to this fact. The testimony then is not relevant. If it can be introduced, it is only in the character of corroborative or confirmatory testimony, after the overt act has been proved by two witnesses, in such manner that the question of fact ought to be left with the jury. The conclusion on that in this state of things no testimony can be admissible, is so inevitable, that the counsel for the United States could not resist it. I do not understand them to deny, that if the overt act be not proved by two witnesses so as to be submitted to the jury, that all other testimony must be irrelevant, because no other testimony can prove the act. Now an assemblage on Blannerhasset's island is proved by the requisite number of witnesses, and the court might submit it to the jury, whether that assemblage amounted to a levying of war, but the presence of the accused at that assemblage being no where alleged except in the indictment, the overt act is not proved by a single witness, and of consequence all other testimony must be irrelevant.
The only difference between this motion as made, and the motion in the form which the counsel for the United States would admit to be regular, is this. It is now general for the rejection of all testimony. It might be particular with respect to each witness as adduced. But can this be wished, or can it be deemed necessary? If enough is proved to show that the indictment cannot be supported, and that no testimony unless it be of that description on which the attorney for the United States declares himself not to possess, can be relevant, why should a question be taken on each witness?
The opinion of the court on the order of testimony has frequently been adverted to as deciding this question against the motion.
If a contradiction between the two opinions does exist, the court cannot perceive it. It was said that levying war is an act compounded of law and fact, of which the jury aided by the court must judge. To that declaration the court still adheres.
It was said that if the overt act was not proved by two witnesses, no testimony in its nature corroborative or confirmatory, was admissible or could be relevant.
From that declaration there is certainly no departure. It has been asked, in allusion to the present case, if a general commanding an army should detach troops for a distant service, would the men composing that detachment be traitors, and would the commander in chief escape punishment?
Let the opinion which has been given answer this question. Appearing at the head of an army would, according to this opinion, be an overt act of levying war; detaching a military corps from it for military purposes might also be an overt act of levying war. It is not pretended that he would not be punished for these acts, it is only said that he may be tried and convicted of his own acts, in the state where those acts were committed, not on the acts of others in the state where those others acted.
Much has been said in the course of the argument on points, on which the court feels no inclination to comment particularly, but which may, perhaps not improperly, receive some notice.
That this court dares not usurp power is most true.
That this court dares not shrink from its duty is not less true.
No man is desirous of placing himself in a disagreeable situation. No man is desirous of becoming the peculiar subject of calumny. No man, might he let the bitter cup pass from him without self-reproach, would drain it to the bottom. But if he has no choice in the case; if there is no alternative presented to him but a dereliction of duty not the opprobrium of those who are denominated the world, he merits the contempt as well as the indignation of his country who can hesitate which to embrace.
That gentlemen, in a case the most interesting, in the zeal with which they advocate particular opinions, and under the conviction in some measure produced by that zeal, should on each side press their arguments too far, should be impatient at any deliberation in the court, and should suspect or fear the operation of motives to which alone they can ascribe that deliberation, is perhaps a frailty incident to human nature; but if any conduct on the part of the court could warrant a sentiment that they would deviate to the one side or the other from the line prescribed by duty and by law, that conduct would be viewed by the judges themselves with an eye of extreme severity, and would long be recollected with deep and serious regret.
The arguments on both sides have been intently and deliberately considered. Those which could
not be noticed, since to notice every argument and authority would swell this opinion to a volume, have not been disregarded. The result of the whole is a conviction as complete as the mind of the court is capable of receiving on a complex subject, that the motion must prevail.
No testimony relative to the conduct or declarations of the prisoner elsewhere, and subsequent to the transactions on Blannerhasset's island can be admitted, because such testimony, being in its nature merely corroborative, and incompetent to prove the overt act in itself, is irrelevant, until there be proof of the overt act by two witnesses.
This opinion does not comprehend the proof by two witnesses that the meeting on Blannerhasset's island was procured by the prisoner. On that point the court, for the present, withhold its opinion for reasons which have already been assigned; and as it is understood from the statements made on the part of the prosecution that no such testimony exists. If there be such let it be offered and the court will decide upon it.
The jury have now heard the opinion of the court on the law of the case. They will apply that law to the facts, and will find a verdict of guilty or not guilty as their own consciences may direct.
THE PUBLICK LEDGER. WEDNESDAY EVENING, SEPT. 16, 1807.
By the arrival of Capt. Ferguson's packet in 28 hours from Baltimore arrived last evening, we received papers containing London advices to the 9th of August.
The most prominent article is the Treaty between Russia and France, in which Prussia is included so far as to dispose of some of her territories, tho' she is not named as a party. Nothing is said of Sweden, whose conduct and that of Great Britain with respect to the grand expedition to the continent, appears to be little short of insanity. What advantage can be expected by the employment of 30,000 British troops on the continent at this moment, we cannot perceive. The army of Gen. Brune if not then in sufficient force, would soon be reinforced with such numbers from the grand army as would overwhelm all opposition. If there was any thing to be inferred from the apparent intimacy between sovereigns, it might be expected that the most cordial friendship subsists between the Emperors of Russia and France.
With respect to our affairs, we remark that in the House of Lords, a demand was made by Lord Holland on the ministers in that house, for an explanation of the affair of the Chesapeake, to which Lord Hawkesbury made the same, or a similar declaration, to that made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. Every thing that we can perceive having the appearance of authority, indicates a friendly disposition. The President's proclamation had been received, and officially communicated to the British government. But the period at which this communication was made, was such as not to afford an opportunity of learning what effect it produced in England. While however the ministers, and a very great proportion of the nation hold friendly sentiments, the ministerial papers in that, like those in this country, assume a very high & unconciliatory tone. Pamphlets have been published in which the conduct of this government towards that, for many years back, is examined with great freedom. The scurrility of our presses, and the proceedings of our legislatures, and publick functionaries are censured in the sharpest terms. They declare that the conduct of Britain towards the United States, has been marked with concessions, and relaxations in our favour, in return for which nothing but abuse and injury have been received. War it is contended will be of advantage to England and ruinous to us. These positions are enforced with some ingenuity, of which we shall endeavour to give instances, by extracts from some of those writings. Yet we trust that the good sense of both nations, will not permit pamphleteers, and newspaper writers to govern and direct the interests of two nations, who cannot gain, but must lose by war. It cannot escape observation that all parties appear determined to resist our right to protect their deserters.
The conduct of the President in refusing to confirm a treaty, signed by our ministers, is noticed as a mark of hostility, and a breach of good faith. Upon the whole, we expect this affair of the Chesapeake will be productive of advantage; it has brought matters to that point, which it seems necessary they should arrive at, in order to come to a full and fair explanation of all matters in dispute. Our next advices from England will probably be conclusive, and relieve the publick from a state of uncertainty, scarcely less injurious than war itself.
The British Packet Lady Hobart, arrived at New-York left the following ships of war at Halifax: Bellona, Bellisle, and Ramilies, of 74 guns; Melampus, Ethalion, Acasto, Ferneaux, Sylvia, and Halifax frigates and sloops of war. James Wilson, one of the deserters found on board the Chesapeake frigate, was hung on board the Halifax the 31st ult. He declared in his dying speech that he was born in Yorkshire.
The British ship Lord Duncan, of 900 tons, with 400,000 wt. of Coffee, blew up at Port-au-Prince, on the 22d August. The first officer and one sailor lost. Petion and Christophe were still at war—No signal advantages gained by either lately. Flour was 26 dollars.
NEW-YORK, September 12. POSTSCRIPT.
The fast sailing ship George, capt. Taylor, arrived at this port last evening in 28 days from Greenock. She left there on the 13th of August; and
captain Taylor has obligingly furnished the editor of the Mercantile Advertiser with Greenock papers to the 12th, a file of the London Courier to the 9th, a Liverpool paper of the 6th, and the Clyde Shipping List to the 11th, inclusive. We have availed ourselves of all these resources: but our paper being pre-occupied at the time they came into our hands, our political extracts have necessarily been confined. We have in reserve the treaty between France and Prussia, the 87th bulletin from the grand army, and several other interesting articles, which shall be duly noticed in our next number.
The London papers are crowded with extracts from American papers, relative to the attack upon the frigate Chesapeake, by his Britannic majesty's ships Leopard, which had made a very alarming impression upon the minds of the merchants and manufacturers in England.
The fast sailing ship Robert Burns, capt. Waite, arrived at this port at a late hour last night, in 31 days from Liverpool, and brings London dates to the 8th August and Liverpool to the 10th. Also dispatches from the American legation in London to the secretary of state. When the Robert Burns sailed, the American vessels were hurrying off being in daily expectation of an embargo. A London paper of the 8th says, "that as yet there has been no embargo laid on American vessels."
LONDON, July 30. A considerable number of merchants, engaged in trade to America, yesterday assembled at the London Tavern for the purpose of entering into a consideration of the probable effects which the late action between his majesty's ship Leopard, and the Chesapeake American frigate, may produce upon our intercourse with the United States. Mr. Sanson the Banker, who was called to the chair, informed the company, that he had been favoured with an interview with the secretary of state (Mr. Canning) on the important subject which had occasioned the present meeting, and it was with much pleasure he stated, that the honourable secretary manifested an earnest desire to preserve the most amicable relations between the two countries; but that as no authentic particulars had yet come under the cognizance of government respecting the late unfortunate transaction, it was impossible to enter into a discussion as to its probable consequences. Mr. Sanson, however, had the satisfaction of adding, that in order to maintain a friendly disposition, Mr. Canning had already had an interview with Mr. Monroe, the American minister at which it was mutually agreed, that if the conduct of either of the commanders should be found censurable, the aggrieved state should receive all proper reparation from the other. This information was highly gratifying to the company, and must of course have the same effect upon the publick at large, who may be assured that ministers will neither compromise the honour of their country, nor give any sanction to a wanton attack upon any other state with which we are in amity.
August 4. The differences with America are likely to be adjusted. The right of searching ships of war has never, it is said, been insisted upon by our ministers.
August 7. We understand that orders have been issued to Liverpool and other ports, from the alien office, desiring that all passports granted before and since the embargo be considered as null; and that no foreigners be permitted to leave the country.
August 8. It was yesterday strongly reported that the Swedes and German legion had made a sortie from Stralsund, and killed, wounded, and made prisoners 5000 Dutch and Spanish troops. Government have received no accounts with respect to the sortie, and no advices have been received from the continent this morning.
It was reported yesterday evening, that a general embargo had taken place. The American captains caught the alarm, and no less than twelve of them cleared their vessels in ballast, and dropped down the river immediately. The rumour is unfounded. It is perfectly true however that no passports are granted, and no foreigners permitted to leave the country.
August 9. Yesterday the funds experienced a trifling advance, in consequence of the receipt of the Russian treaty, which, it had been reported, contained articles hostile to the interests of this country. Mr. Jackson's mission to the continent, we are informed, was in consequence of the 13th article of the treaty, which proposes the mediation of Russia to promote a peace between Britain and France. Our ministers, it is stated, have professed a desire for a permanent and equitable peace. Mr. Jackson is instructed to inquire the basis on which France is disposed to treat with us, to enter into explanation of the views of our cabinet, and to create by every honourable means, facilities to negotiations. The emperor Alexander, we are assured, has renewed to our cabinet, declarations of the most cordial and animated friendship.
Yesterday a bag of letters was received at the post-office from Rotterdam, with letters dated on Saturday last. The expeditions from this country occasioned much speculation and alarm in Holland. The garrisons of Alkmar, Medinblick, &c. had been marched to the Helder, and the troops at Flushing had, in like manner, been reinforced by drafts from the neighbouring garrisons, under an apprehension that those places were the objects of our attack.
Dispatches were yesterday afternoon received at the foreign office from the court of Sweden. Their contents have not been transpired.
The expected embargo on American vessels has not yet been adopted, but we are without the means of judging of the cause of this forbearance. We are informed that the American minister yesterday communicated to our cabinet, the Proclamation of the American executive.
STRALSUND. The following is a journal of the events which have taken place before Stralsund, since the Swedes were compelled to shut themselves up in the fortress:—
STRALSUND, July 15. "On Monday hostilities commenced, and yesterday the French were only two miles outside our gates. I stood with a gentleman on the ramparts, near two hours, looking on, for we could see every movement quite distinctly. The French drove on,

and at length drove all the Swedes (no British troops were out), about 8000 returned into the garrison, and we commenced a fire from the town on the French line; thirty were wounded out of the town, and two killed and one officer. We are now shut up in the garrison; there is but little firing to day. The French are now regularly attacking the town, by constructing approaches. The king was out a great deal. I saw him yesterday; saw all the troops come in, the wounded, &c. The transports are detained, and probably the troops will be sent home again; at present they are pushing them on here as fast as possible. In about a week I suppose we shall be bombarded, if the troops don't make a sally; and people here seem to fear if they do, that the French will get in with them, as they have done before at Bois-le-duc, &c. Three regiments of German Legion of Infantry, and one of the cavalry, are here now, about 8000 men; the rest in full march through Rugen, and about 8000 Swedes; it will take 18 or 20,000 men to garrison these works, I find. The cavalry with the enemy are Spanish, the other troops Italians and Dutch. A village was burnt yesterday, just outside the walls, by lightning; we have had a great deal lately.
July 17.
"Lord Cathcart arrived last night at 7 o'clock and is much disappointed at our cooped up condition. Nothing new since yesterday. I have not been able to walk to the ramparts to get a look at the French, all yesterday or to day. Lord Cathcart will now, I think, decide whether we are to return or attack; we expect rather to return."
July 19.
"Stralsund is as full as it can cram, and we can go but a quarter of a mile out of town, our friends the French sticking so close as one and a half English miles off. This is Sunday, but all the churches are full of horses, and the pews are filled with soldiers, bread, cheese, &c."
July 20.
"The French are working at their batteries as hard as they can; a trifling firing is going on to day. The king, I am told, waits the arrival of a messenger from the emperor of Russia, before he does any thing. The piquets of the army are close together. The French are quite round the town."
July 20, 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
"I have just learned that Lord Cathcart to-morrow removes his head quarters to Burgen, the capital of the Isle of Rugen; in all probability we shall go with him; it is said that three regiments of the German Legion now here are also to return to Bergen. The king also leaves Stralsund to-day. To-morrow it is imagined the town will be bombarded or perhaps to-night. They have been sparring at each other all day. Imagine how full this place is, when all the country people, their carts, horses, &c. are driven in from before the enemy, with all the furniture and every thing they could get away."
TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND RUSSIA. From the Royal Hague Current Extraordinary, Tuesday July 28, 1807.
PARIS, July 25.
Yesterday afternoon, at four o'clock, the prince arch-chancellor of the empire laid the two treaties before the senate, which have been concluded with Russia and Prussia. He at the same time made a very impressive and dignified address to the Senate.
Between his majesty the emperor of the French, the king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russians.
His majesty the emperor of the French, king of Italy, protector of the Confederation of the Rhine and his majesty the emperor of Russia, animated with the same interest in putting an end to the devastations of war, have for this purpose, nominated and furnished with full power on the part of his majesty the emperor of France and king of Italy, Charles Maurice Talleyrand, prince of Benevento, his great chamberlain, and minister of foreign affairs, grand cross of the black, and the red Eagle of the order of St. Hubert.
His majesty the emperor of all the Russians has, on his part appointed prince Kourakin, his actual privy counsellor; member of the council of state, and of the senate; chancellor of all the orders in the empire, ambassador extraordinary, and plenipotentiary of his majesty of all the Russians to his majesty the emperor of Austria, knight of the Russian order of St. Andrew, of St. Alexander; of St. Ube; of the first class of the order of St. Wolodimir, and of the second class of the Prussian order of the black and red Eagle; of the Batavian order of St. Hubert; and of the Danish order of Dannebrog, and of the perfect union, and bailiff and grand cross of the sovereign order of St. John of Jerusalem; and prince Demetry Labanoff Van Rostoff, lieutenant general of the armies of his majesty the emperor of all the Russians, knight of the first class of the St. Anne, the military order of St. Joris, and of the third class of the order of St. Wolodimir.
The above mentioned, after exchanging their full powers, have agreed upon the following Articles.
Art. 1. From the day of exchanging the ratification of the present treaties, there shall be perfect peace and amity between his majesty the emperor of the French and king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russians.
Art. 2. Hostilities shall immediately cease at all points by sea or land, as soon as the intelligence of the present treaty shall be officially received. In the meanwhile, the high contracting parties shall dispatch couriers extraordinary to their respective generals and commanders.
Art. 3. All ships of war or other vessels, belonging to the high contracting parties or alien subjects, which may be captured after the signing of this treaty shall be restored. In case of these vessels being sold, their value shall be returned.
Art. 4. Out of esteem for his majesty the emperor of all the Russians, and to afford to him a proof of his sincere desire to unite both nations in the bands of immutable confidence and friendship, the emperor Napoleon wishes that all the countries, towns, and territories, conquered from the king of Prussia, the ally of his majesty the emperor of all the Russians, should be restored, namely, that part of the Duchy of Magdeburg, situated on the right bank of the Rhine; the Mark of Prignitz; the Uder Mark; the Middle and New Mark of Brandenburg, with the exception of the Circle of Kottbus, in Lower Alsace; the Duchy of Pomerania; Upper, Lower, and New Silesia, and the County of
Glatz; that part of the District of the Netze, which is situated to the northward of the road of Drietan and Schneidemuhl through Waldau to the Vistula, and extending along the frontier of the circle of Bromberg; and the navigation of the river Netze and of the canal of Bromberg, from Driesen to the Vistula and back, must remain open and free of all tolls; Pomerellia; the island of Nogat; the country on the right bank of the Vistula and of the Nogat, to the West of Old Prussia, and to the Northward of the circle of Culm; Erme-raud. Lastly, the Kingdom of Prussia, as it was on the 1st January, 1772, together with the fortresses of Spandau, Stettin, Custrin, Glogau, Breslau, Schweidnitz, Neisse, Berg, Kosel and Glatz, and in general all fortresses, citadels, castles, strong holds of the countries above named, in the same condition in which those fortresses, citadels, castles, and strong holds may be at present; also, in addition to the above, the city and citadel of Graudentz.
Art. 5. Those Provinces, which, on the 1st January, 1772, formed a part of the Kingdom of Poland, and have since, at different times, been subjected to Prussia (with the exception of the countries named or alluded to in the preceding article, and of those which shall be described below the 9th article) shall become the possession of his majesty the king of Saxony, with power of possession and sovereignty, under the title of the Duchy of Warsaw, and shall be governed according to a regulation, which shall insure the liberties and privileges of the people of the said Duchy, and be consistent with the security of the neighbouring states.
Art. 6. The city of Danzig, with a territory of two leagues around the same, is restored to her former independence, under the protection of his majesty the king of Prussia and his majesty the king of Saxony; to be governed according to the laws by which she was governed at the time when she ceased to be her own mistress.
Art. 7. For a communication betwixt the kingdom of Saxony and the Duchy of Warsaw, his majesty the king of Saxony is to have the free use of a military road through the states of his majesty the king of Prussia. This road, the number of troops which are allowed to pass at once, and the resting places shall be fixed by particular agreement between the two sovereigns under the mediation of France.
Art. 8. Neither his majesty the king of Prussia, his majesty the king of Saxony, nor the city of Danzig shall oppose any obstacles whatever to the free navigation of the Vistula under the name of tolls, rights or duties.
Art. 9. In order as far as possible to establish a natural boundary between Russia and the duchy of Warsaw, the territory between the present confines of Russia from the Bug to the mouth of the Lassaona shall extend in a line from the mouth of the Lassaona along the towing path of the said river, and that of the Bobra up to its mouth; that of the Narew, from the mouth of that river so far as Sudradz; from Lissa to its source near the village of Mein; from this village to Nutzack, and from Nutzack to the mouth of that river beyond Nurr; and finally along the towing path of the Bug upwards to extend as far as the present frontiers of Russia. This territory is forever united to the empire of Russia.
Art. 10. No person of any rank or quality whatever, whose residence or property may be within the limits stated in the abovementioned article nor any inhabitant in those provinces of the ancient kingdom of Poland, which may be given up to his majesty the king of Prussia, or any person possessing estates, revenues, pensions or any other kind of income, shall be molested in his person, or in any way whatever, on account of his rank, quality, estates, revenues, pensions, income, or otherwise, or in consequence of any part, political or military, which he may have taken in the events of the present war.
Art. 11. All contracts and engagements between his majesty the king of Prussia and the ancient possessors, relative to the general impost; the ecclesiastical, the military or civitbenefices, the creditors or pensioners of the old Prussian government are to be settled between the emperor of all the Russians and his majesty the king of Saxony; and to be regulated by their said majesties in proportion to their acquisitions according to articles 5 and 9.
Art. 12. Their royal highnesses the dukes of Saxe, Cobourg, Oldenburg and Mecklenburg Schweren, shall each of them be restored to the complete and quiet possession of their estates, but the ports in the duchies of Oldenburg and Mecklenburg shall remain in the possession of French garrisons till the Definitive treaty shall be signed between France and Britain.
Art. 13. His majesty the emperor Napoleon accepts of the mediation of the emperor of all the Russians, in order to negotiate and conclude a definitive treaty of peace between France and Britain, however, only upon condition that this mediation shall be accepted by Britain in one month after the exchange of the ratification of the present treaty.
Art. 14. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russians being desirous on his part to manifest how ardently he desires to establish the most intimate and lasting relations between the two emperors, acknowledges his majesty Joseph Napoleon king of Naples, and his majesty Louis Napoleon, king of Holland.
Art. 15. His majesty, the emperor of all the Russians, acknowledges the confederation of the Rhine, the present state of the possessions of the princes belonging to it, and the titles of those which were conferred upon them by the act of confederation, or by the subsequent treaties of accession. His said majesty also promises, information being communicated to him on the part of the emperor Napoleon, to acknowledge those sovereigns who may hereafter become members of the confederation, according to their rank specified in the act of confederation.
Art. 16. His majesty the emperor of all the Russians cedes all his property in the right of sovereignty to the Lordship of Jever, in East Friesland, to his majesty the king of Holland.
Art. 17. The present treaty of peace shall be mutually binding, and in force for his majesty the king of Naples, Joseph Napoleon, his majesty Louis Napoleon, king of Holland, and the sovereigns of the confederation of the Rhine, in alliance with the emperor Napoleon.
Art. 18. His majesty the emperor of all the Russians also acknowledges his imperial highness prince Jerome Napoleon, as king of Westphalia.
Art. 19. The kingdom of Westphalia shall consist
of the provinces ceded by the king of Prussia on the left bank of the Elbe, and other states at present in the possession of his majesty the emperor Napoleon.
Art. 20. His majesty the emperor of all the Russians engages to recognize the limits which shall be determined by his majesty the emperor Napoleon, in pursuance of the foregoing 19th article, and the cessions of his majesty the king of Prussia (which shall be notified to his majesty the emperor of all Russias) together with the state of possession resulting therefrom, to the sovereign for whose behalf they shall have been established.
Art. 21. All hostilities shall immediately cease between the troops of his majesty the emperor of all the Russias, and those of the Grand Seignor, at all points, wherever official intelligence shall arrive of the signing of the present treaty. The High Contracting parties shall, without delay, despatch couriers extraordinary to convey the intelligence, with the utmost possible expedition, to the respective generals and commanders.
Art. 22. The Russian troops shall be withdrawn from the province of Moldavia, but the said provinces may not be occupied by the troops of the grand seignor, till after the exchange of the ratifications of the future definitive treaty of peace between Russia and the Ottoman Porte.
Art. 23. His majesty the emperor of all the Russias accepts the mediation of his majesty the emperor of France and king of Italy, for the purpose of negotiating a peace advantageous and honourable to the two powers, and of concluding the same.
The respective plenipotentiaries shall repair to that place which will be agreed upon by the two powers concerned, there to open the negotiations, and to proceed therewith.
Art. 24. The periods within which the high contracting parties shall withdraw their troops from the places which they are to evacuate, pursuant to the above stipulations, contained in the present treaty shall be executed, will be settled by a special agreement.
Art. 25. His majesty the emperor of the French, king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russias, mutually ensure to each other the integrity of their possessions, and of those of the powers included in this present treaty, in the state in which they are now settled, or further to be settled, pursuant to the above stipulations.
Art. 26. The prisoners made by the contracting parties, or those included in the present treaty, shall be restored in a mass, and without any cartel of exchange on both sides.
Art. 27. The commercial relations between the French empire, the kingdom of Italy, the kingdom of Naples and Holland, and the confederated states of the Rhine, on the one side, and the empire of Russia on the other, shall be replaced on the same footing as before the war.
Art. 28. The ceremonial between the two courts of the Thuilleries and Petersburg, with respect to each other, and also their respective ambassadors, ministers and envoys, mutually accredited to each other, shall be placed on the footing of complete equality and reciprocity.
Art. 29. The present treaty shall be ratified by his majesty the emperor of the French, king of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russias; the ratifications shall be exchanged in this city within the space of four days.
Done at Tilsit, 7th July, (25th June) 1807. (Signed) C. M. Talleyrand, Prince of Benevento. Prince Alexander Kourakin. Prince D. L. Van Rostoff.
A true copy, (Signed) C. M. Talleyrand, Prince of Benevento.
SWEDISH AFFAIRS.
Hamburg, July 17.—Marshal Brune has received the most peremptory and laconick orders to attack the Swedes, and take Stralsund by storm.
"ORDER OF THE DAY."
"Head-quarters, Stettin, July 10."
"The corps of observation belonging to the grand army must prepare for an attack. It will enter Swedish Pomerania."
"An armistice was concluded with Sweden at Schlackow, on the 18th April. Ten days notice was to be given previous to its termination. But as the general had farther conferences, by an additional article the term was extended from ten to thirty days, and this article was signed at Stralsund, on the 29th of the same month."
"Respecting this last arrangement, no difficulty occurred; but his majesty the king of Sweden appeared in Pomerania, took the command of his army, and soon made it appear that it was his view simply to abide by the previous engagement for the term of 10 days. At the same time the Swedish marine appeared in activity before Colberg, and, notwithstanding the armistice commenced hostilities against the French and allied corps which besieged that place. In consequence of this state of things, a correspondence commenced between the generals and his Swedish majesty; and with the view of bringing the points at issue to a conclusion, a conference was proposed at Schlackow, on the Swedish territory."
"Accordingly repaired to Schlackow on the 4th June, accompanied by five or six officers of the staff, and an equal number of orderly gens d'armes. His Swedish majesty's adjutant had apprized me that his majesty was at Schlackow almost without any escort, and with a small suit. Upon my arrival at Schlackow, I found the house of his majesty without guards; but in the court before it I observed a squadron of cavalry drawn up in order of battle. As I was left alone with his majesty, I began to explain to him the cause of the interview; but he interrupted me immediately, and assured me that his determination to abide by the first term of the armistice was irrevocable, and thus made use of his authority to wave the questions which would otherwise have formed the principal object of the conference.—Europe will hear of this with regret, because the laws of honour, and the rights of nations, were equally violated. He even dared to propose to a French general, one of the emperor Napoleon's first subjects to betray his country and his sovereign. He invited him to join the disgraceful colours of a band of renegades, the partizans of the English, insensible to the good of their country, and strangers to glory. This conference also tended to prove, that the king of Sweden partook of the madness of these foreigners, and sacrificed to them the true interests of his own people."
"Since this conference, the king has continued
his hostilities before Colberg, and committed other acts of the same nature before the mouth of the Trave. He has drawn men and money from England; he has collected as many fugitives and deserters as possible; and confident of his own strength, on the 30th of last month he announced the termination of his armistice of ten days, at a time when he might have known the new disposition of Russia and Prussia."
"Of course hostilities with Sweden will recommence on the 13th of this month. We might begin them sooner, because the conduct of the king has exhibited a succession of manifest violations; but it is consistent with the character of our sovereign, equally celebrated for his moderation and generosity, as for his genius and heroism, not to avail himself of the advantage. Europe will not justify this conduct, and will distinguish those who wish to extend the scourge of war."
"The French and allied troops will emulate with each other in discipline and courage; they will never forget that the eye of the emperor Napoleon is upon them, and I am convinced that all of us will merit, by our devotion, the satisfaction of our sovereign."
(Signed) "Marshal BRUNE." ALTONA, July 17, in the Evening. This moment we received advice that 18,000 Dutch troops, under the command of gen. Dumonceau, are on their march through Bremen, to reinforce the army under the command of gen. Brune in Pomerania.
Gazette Marine Memoranda,
ARRIVED.
Ship Courtney, Bryant, 53 days from Liverpool, Salt, William Pennock.
The ships Planter, Moore, and Thomas, Boush, for this port, sailed from London the 19th July.
The Rodman, Wood, hence passed Gravesend the 20th July. The Triton, Coxe, hence for Amsterdam, is detained and sent into Plymouth. The John Adams, Windslow, from this port arrived in the Clyde the 30th July.
The ship Augustus, hence for London, was spoken the 23d ult. on the Grand Bank, out 15 days.—The ship Huntress, the 19th in long. 45, out 17 days.
On Friday, the 18th instant, at 11 o'clock, will be Sold at the Ware House lately occupied by William Nelson, on Maxwell's wharf, a number of Stand Casks, and a variety of other articles, to satisfy Mrs. Helen Read for house rent. Samuel Mosely, Sargeant.
September 16.
A Freight is Wanted For the Sloop JULIA ANN, burthen about 600 barrels, a fine new vessel, now ready to receive a cargo. For terms apply to the master on board, or
Christopher Fry.
September 16.
For LONDON. The coppered Ship STRANGER, Barnaby Swain, master; 100 hogsheads can be taken on freight. For terms apply to Moses Myers.
September 16.
For Charter, The good Schooner GOVERNOR CARVER, Joseph Churchell, master, burthen 1100 barrels, and is ready for the reception of a cargo. Apply to Moses Myers.
September 16.
Fall and Winter GOODS. MACKINDER & WHITE, Have received per the Ship Nabby, from Liverpool, a general assortment of
Cloths, woollen and cotton, Cords, Carpets and Carpeting, Blankets, Irish Linens, and a few boxes coarse Hats afforded, &c. &c.
And expect by the first arrival from London, A supply of fancy and fashionable GOODS, suitable to the season, which they offer for sale by wholesale or retail, on the most reasonable terms for cash or approved paper. Sept. 16.
Stolen or Strayed.
A white Pointer PUPPY, with liver coloured spots, and particularly long ears, about ten weeks old. Any person who will bring him to the subscriber will be liberally rewarded.
Henry Hastie.
September 16.
FALL GOODS.
We have received per the ship Nabby, from Liverpool, a handsome assortment of Woollen GOODS, well suited to the approaching season, and are in expectation of a further supply by the first arrival from London.
J. & W. Southgate.
On hand, a very fine Toned, Grand, and Patent Piano Fortes. September 16.
MAYO MILL FLOUR,
in barrels and half barrels, of new wheat and superior quality for family use—For Sale by Moses Myers.
September 16.
Coarse Liverpool SALT,
For Sale on board the Ship Courtney, capt. Bryant, lying at my wharf. Apply to William Pennock.
Who has on hand, Liverpool Blown and Cadiz SALT. September 16.
One Hundred Dollars Reward.
RAN-AWAY from the Subscriber, living in Nansemond, within one mile of Scott's Landing, a negro man named MOSES, who since he has run off has changed his name to TOM SCOTT, having bought a free negro's pass registered in the Court of Isle of Wight county, by the name of Tom Scott; he is about 25 years of age, black complexion, about 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, rather stout and well made—he has a pleasing countenance when spoken to, and lips in his common talk, but much more so when angry or talks fast; he was brought up on a farm, but as he has been run-away for these four years, he has been employed on board of different vessels, and now has the appearance of a sailor. I understand he was at Norfolk on the 30th last month as a sailor in one of the Baltimore Packets; he has a scar on his right wrist, occasioned by a burn, and a small knot between the elbow and shoulder of the right arm, occasioned by a whip.
As he purchased the free negro's pass as above mentioned, it will appear on examining the pass and the fellow, that there is no mark as mentioned on this fellow in the pass unless they are intended—I forewarn all masters of vessels from carrying the said negro man out of the state, and all persons from harbouring him. I will give the above reward to any person that will deliver him to me, or secure him in Norfolk County Jail.
Ann Carstarphen.
Nansemond County, Sept. 16.

For Charter. The new Ship NABBY, Captain Rider, burthen two hundred and forty tons.
Warren Ashley. For Sale on board said Ship, 700 sacks of SALT, and 25 crates well assorted Earthenware. September 14. tf
For Sale, Freight, or Charter, The excel lent fast-sailing schooner THOMA and HENRY, Thomas Fletcher, master, bur- then 113 tons, now ready for the reception of a cargo.
Also for Freight or Charter, The good Ship GLOBE, Ralph Flaunders, master, burthen 182 tons, and will be ready for the reception of a cargo in four days. For terms apply to Richard Bowden, & Co. September 11. tf
For Freight or Charter, The new Ship MARK & ABIGAIL, bur- then 240 tons, now in order for the receipt of a cargo. For terms apply to the master on board, or C. FRY.
Who offers for Sale, 25,000 feet Boards and Scantling. September 4. tf
For Freight or Charter, The remarkable fine copper fastened Ship MARYLAND, Robert Inott, master, bur- then 400 tons, now on her first voyage, and ready for the reception of a cargo. For terms apply to the master on board, or William Dickson. September 2. 8t
For LIVERPOOL, The Ship LACONA, captain Walker, the greater part of her cargo being engaged, will sail with all possible dispatch—for freight of 100 hogsheads or passage, having good accommodations, ap- ply to the master on board, or Phinehas Dana. August 28. tf
For Charter, The fine new Ship ISABELLA, Abel Lin- coln master, burthen 308 tons, will be ready for the reception of a cargo in three days.— For terms apply to Moses Myers. Who offers for sale, 600 boxes Havanna SUGARS, Landing from on board the ship Cabinet. August 14. tf
For LONDON, The fine American copper bottomed Ship AMELIA, burthen 360 Tons, or 500 Hds. of Tobacco; daily expected from Philadel- phia.—For freight apply to A. Maclure. August 7. tf
Landing from the Elizabeth Margaret, from Teneriffe, 70 hogsheads and 100 quarter casks choice Teneriffe WINE.—For sale by Moses Myers. July 24. tf
The HOUSE on Smith's Point, adjoining Mr. H. Bruner's dwelling-house, and lately in the occupancy of Mr. Robert Smith, is offered for Re- nt; possession may be had immediately. For terms apply at the Ware House of Bruner & Thompson, on Maxwell's wharf. August 12. 1w3w1w
For SALE, 35 punch. Windward Island RUM. Bruner & Thompson. August 19. tf
For Sale on board the Ship Anacreon. 23,000 feet white pine BOARDS, of excellent quality, fit for inside joiner's work, which will be sold low if taken from on board. Apply to William Dickson. September 2. 8t
NOTICE. The subscribers having obtained ad- ministration on the estate of TALIEE O'CONNOR , request those indebted to make payment, and those having claims to render the same immediately. Thos. H. Parker, Fred. Heerman & Son, } Admrs. June 19. tf
For RENT, The Store, Compting-Room & Cellar, at present occupied by Messrs. Wood & Hastings, no. 50. Main-street. Apply to Thomas Willock. August 24. tf
FAMILY FLOUR, of a superior quality in half barrels, for sale by J. & W. Southgate. September 2. 3w
For SALE, Situated in an agreeable and handsome situation in Hampton, on the Main-street, the premises owned and lately occup- ied by the subscriber, consisting of A DWELLING-HOUSE, three stories high, the lower part finished for a store, with out- houses, all in complete order, with a large lot and good gar- den. A liberal credit will be given, and bond and security required.
The House is at present well furnished, and will be rented by the month if not sold, with the Furniture. For terms ap- ply to Mr. William Proby, next door to the premises, or to James Gilbert. Hampton, Sept. 2. tf
At Private Sale, BY S. MARKS, JUN. No. 31, Water-street, corner of Commerce-street, 30 hogsheads Sugar, 10 do. Molasses, 10 do. W. I. Rum, 2 do. Shrub, 9 pipes Cognac Brandy, 10 do. country Gin, 100 bags Green Coffee, 200 boxes mould Candles, Teas, manufactured Tobacco, and Lard. July 13. tf
We want to Purchase, A few Shares of STOCK in the Vir- ginia Bank. Campbell & Wheeler. May 22. tf
To RENT, That commodious TAVERN oppo- posite the Borough Court House, at present occupied by Mr. Thomas Holliday, and possession given the 15th of next month.
Also for Lease, That vacant LOT on Commerce and Little Water-Streets. For terms apply to James Tucker. July 22. tf
FALL GOODS.
Just received by the Ship Nabby, from Liverpool, an exten- sive assortment of Cloths, Woollens, Hardware, and Cutle- ry GOODS, which will be disposed of very low by George M'Intosh. September 14. 1m
Fall and Winter GOODS.
RICHARD & JOHN TAYLOR, Have received by the Ship Nabby, from Liverpool, an ex- tensive supply of WOOLLENS & HARDWARE. And in daily expectation of their assortment of Fancy and Fashionable GOODS, by the first arrivals from London, which they offer for sale by wholesale and retail on the lowest terms, for cash or good paper. Sept. 14 2m
COCKE & SANFORD, Have received by the Ship Nabby, from Liverpool, an as- sortment of Fall and Winter GOODS, Consisting of Cloths of all qualities, Cassimeres, Bennet's patent Coats, Flannels, Blankets, Kendal Cottons, Yarn, Woollen and Cotton Hosiery, Powder and Shot, and a final assortment of Sadlery.
They expect by the first arrival from London, a further supply of fashionable fancy GOODS. September 14. 2m
For SALE, A few hundred pounds of English PRINTING INK, of the first quality.—Also, A few Reams first quality English Footscap PAPER. Apply at the Ledger Office Sept. 17.
GERMAN LINENS, &c.
16 bales coarse Linen, 450 pieces Paper Hangings, 4 do. Ruffa Sheeting, 80 boxes Window Glass, 3 boxes German Rolls, 100 do. Short Pipes, 2 do. Reams Sheeting, 120 do. Spanish Segars, 1 do. fine Flanders do. from 8 to 20 dollars per b. x. 3 do. Platters, 300 doz. empty Bottles, 1 do. fine Dowlas, 200 wt. nailed bottling Wire, 2 do. Table Cloth, 800 do. Glue, 1 do. common Shirt Li- 11,000 best Coffee bags, nen, 4,500 cheap Gunny Bags, 1 do. extra fine do. 5 boxes Tumblers, Decan- 1 do. Bed Tick 2 yards ters, &c. wide, Also, A large invoice of Lace, Jewellery and Dice, Elegant Chessmen, Flautolets and Clarinets, Violins, Bows, and Fifes, Flutes with four and six keys, do. patent lined, Ladies' Dressing Boxes, Toilet Looking Glasses, Shaving Cups, Elegant Writing Desks, Scarlet Plush for Saddles, Seine and Sewing Twine. For Sale by Niemeyer & Von Kapff. September 11. tf
Turk's-Island SALT.
The Subscribers being duly authorised, give notice to merchants and dealers in the above article, that they are ready to contract for the delivery of several cargoes of a choice quality at Turk's-Island, and receive payment by drafts on the United States, at sixty days sight. The present year having afforded a good crop, it is ex- pected the price will be moderate. Ample security, if re- quired, will be given for the due performance of the contracts, and to insure punctuality and the utmost dispatch. Jas. & Thos. Tucker, Commerce-Street September 11. 2w3w
J. MORAN, Has received per schooner Liberty, captain Lewis, from Phi- ladelphia, in addition to his former supply of Groceries and Ship Chandlery, Imperial, Hyson Skin, Young Hyson, and Souchong Teas, of the latest importation, Pepper, Allspice, and Mustard, Leaf Sugar, Chocolate, Soap, Candles, Spermaceti and Paint Oils, Powdered Black Lead, Roll Brimstone and Lampblack, Kedge Anchors, Boat Chains and Hooks, A variety of Hooks and Thimbles, Pump Bolts, Tackle, Barrel and hogshead Can Hooks &c. &c. with an assortment of Tin and Japan'd Ware. And in Store, 1000 bushels Corn, a few hhd. Jam. Sugar, superior quality, a few barrels inferior do. with Coffee, an assortment of Queen's Ware; which, with a variety of other articles for vessels and family use, will be disposed of on mo- derate terms for cash or short credit. September 11. tf
REMOVAL.
WOOD & HASTINGS, Have removed to No. 76, Main street, opposite Market- square, (lately occupied by CATON & VEALE) They have on hand a general assortment of English, India and French Goods. September 11. tf
One Hundred Dollars Reward.
On the 25th of last month, my negro man GERARD ran away from my Mansion plantation, in King-George county, Virginia. He is about five feet and a half high, stout made, when standing appears to bend backwards in the knee-joints, has thick lips, a pimpled face, his complexion of a yellow cast, and a scar in the form of an M, about an inch long on his right cheek. He is upwards of thirty years of age, and a Blacksmith by trade. He ran away many years ago, and was apprehended at Norfolk on board a vessel; and, as he has formerly been somewhat accustomed to going by water, it is probable that he will attempt to leave this state in that way. I therefore hereby forewarn all masters or skippers of vessels from harbouring or employing him. I will give a re- ward of one hundred dollars for apprehending, bringing said negro home, and delivering him to me, provided he shall be apprehended in another state.—Twenty dollars provided he shall be apprehended any where in this state, brought home and delivered to me; and ten dollars in case he shall be apprehended and committed to goal, and information thereof given to me. I would advise the apprehender to watch him carefully while he is in his custody, as he is an arch and deceitful fellow, and might without strict attention effect his escape. Michael Wallace. September 11. 11t
The Subscriber has for Sale, 136 hhd. 14 tierces and 47 barrels Muscovado SUGAR, And a few barrels of COFFEE of the first quality, which will be sold on liberal terms Henry Hastie. July 10. tf
Spring and Summer GOODS.
The subscribers have received by the ship Hunter, from London, their supply of Fancy and fashionable GOODS, which they offer on reasonable terms for cash, or approved notes. Mackinder & White. May 1. tf
For RENT, (and possession given immediately,)
My WHARF and WARE-HOUSES, at present occupied by Mr. John Moore, and others.—It is the best situation in the Borough for a Lumber Yard, and will be let low to a good tenant. Also to Lease, That convenient Lot of LAND, on Commerce and Little Water-Street. For terms apply to James Tucker. May 20. tf
This Day landing from on board the schooner Hulda and Anna, capt. Fitzhugh, from Philadelphia, 8 hogsheads refined SUGAR, 10 pipes Cognac Brandy, 15 quarter chests Imperial Tea, latest importations, 10 hogsheads and 10 barrels Rye Whiskey, 6 pipes and 4 barrels American Gin, 30 boxes Yellow Soap, 9 boxes China.—For Sale by Jennings & Roddey. July 3. tf
NOTICE.
All persons indebted to the Estate of JAMES DICKINSON , deceased, are desired to come forward; and those who have any claims against said Estate, to bring them forward, in order that they may be settled by Mary Dickinson, Exec'tx. Norfolk, Nov. 5.
WHO HAS FOR SALE,
That pleasant place BELL VIEW. It contains TWO HUNDRED Acres, lying on the lower end of Barrett's Neck, Nansemond county, between Nante mond River and Chuckatuck Creek, fronting Newport-News, Hampton Roads, and is about 14 miles from Norfolk by wa- ter. There is on the land two good Dwelling Houses, one of them a two story frame house, 30 feet square, with a Kitchen, Wash House, Smoke House and Dairy, a large new Barn and Stable, and a Carriage House, a Spring House, and a never failing Spring. The other a new Dwelling House, a Kitchen, Quarter, &c. with a large Garden newly built of the best materials, and a good Stable. The land lies high and level, and is mostly covered with fells: it has a ditch and a fence from Nansemond to Chuckatuck, which prevents stock from going off or coming on the land; and is one of the best places for stock or equal to any in the country. The price will hardly exceed the worth of the buildings on the place if applied for soon. The payment will be expected in cash, as the terms will be remarkably low. tf
Liverpool and Cadiz SALT, loose and in Sacks.—Also, 150 crates Queen's Ware, and China of su- perior quality—For Sale by William Pennock. August 26. tf
At the Old CUT-NAIL Manufactory,
corner of Main and Church-streets, the subscriber keeps on hand constant supply, and can furnish at short notice, any quantity of Nails, Flooring Brads and Sprigs, At the following reduced prices, by the Keg—for each only, viz— 8, 10, 12, and 20d Nails and Brads at 7 1/2 lb. 4d. Nails, 9 1-2d 6d. do. 2s. 9d. m. or 11d 8d. do. 2s. 3d. or 12d 10d. do. 2s. 3d. 7 1-2d Sheathing, 4s 6d per M. 6d. Sprigs, 2s 9d 2d. and 3d. do. 2s. 3d
He offers also for cash only— HOOP IRON ASSORTED. Thos. Seaman. May 25. tf
400 barrels Tar, 20,000 pipe Staves, 30,000 White Oak Hogshead do. 50,000 Red do. do. 100 Barrels Flour.—For Sale by L. Mansfield. Portsmouth, May 8. tf
FOR SALE, 50,000 white oak hogshead draw Staves 50,000 red do. 30,000 rough do. 20,000 Cypress Pales 2,000 Cedar and Chinguepin Posts 50,000 building Shingles. Proby, Harman & Co. March 2. tf
NOTICE.
The partnership of B. Nottingham, & Co. is this day dissolved by mutual consent; all those who have demands against the said firm are requested to exhibit them, and all those indebted to said concern are requested to make payment to B. Nottingham, who is fully authorized to settle the same. B. Nottingham, & Co. N. B. The business in future will be carried on by B. Nottingham. July 1. tf
For SALE at my Brew-House, Strong, Table, and Ship BEER, by the hogshead, barrel, and half barrel—and a constant supply of bottled PORTER in packages and by the dozen. And in Store, Wines, Liquors, and Groceries, wholesale and retail. Joseph Hayes. Feb. 13. tf
Forty Dollars Reward,
Will be given to any person who will apprehend and deliver to Warren Ashley, Esq. of Norfolk, or the subscri- ber, two runaway Negro Men, named JEMMY and JEF- FERY, purchased a short time since as part of the Glebe property in Hampton. Jemmy is about 22 years of age, very strong and well built, and about 5 feet 9 inches high.— Jeffery is at least 6 feet high, about 21 years of age, very black and likely. These Negroes absconded from the sub- scriber with a wish to be sold in Norfolk or Hampton, where they have been seen frequently since their having quitted my plantation. All captains and masters of vessels are hereby cautioned against receiving them on board, or employing them in any way. Henry Heffernan. Glebe, Middlesex, July 4. tf
Cash will be given for a few tons of Old Copper, Brass, and Pewter, for the use of my Foundery. Leven Dorsey. Who offers for Sale, 50 Casks CUT-NAILS, assorted, at his Nail-Manufactory, on Town-Point. July 27. tf
To Elizabeth Plume, one of the devisees of William Plume, Esq. deceased; Fortescue Whittle, sole ad- ministrator of William Davies and Mary his wife, and Theo. Armistead.
In a certain suit in equity, instituted in the Superior Court of law and equity, for the district of Edenton, by Wills Cowper against the President and Direc- tors of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, William Plume, deceased, William Davies, deceased, and Theo. Armistead, certain proceedings were had in the said Court, and at March term last, at a Superior Court of law and equity, held at Edenton, in the county of Chowan, in the first circuit of the Superior Courts of law and equity for the State of North- Carolina, (to which court all suits in equity, &c. lately de- pending in the Superior Court of the district of Edenton, where the defendants resided out of the state, were by law transferred) it being suggested by the plaintiff's counsel that William Plume and William Davies were dead, the court directed that the plaintiff have leave to bring in the repre- sentatives, executors, or administrators of the said William Plume, William Davies, by scire facias or otherwise, to de- fend the said suit if they think proper, and that Theo. Armis- tead answer agreeable to the following order of the said court. Therefore, Notice is hereby given to you by the subscriber, attorney of the plaintiff and complainant, that the following order was made at March term, 1807, of the said court, that you the said Elizabeth Plume, Fortescue Whittle, and Ma- ry his wife, may appear and make defence to the said suit at the succeeding term of the said court, which will be held at Edenton on the first Monday after the fourth Monday in Sep- tember next, and you the said Theo. Armistead answer pur- suant to the said order.
J. Hamilton, Attorney for Complainant. Near Edenton, 30th June, 1807.
Wills Cowper, } State of North Carolina, against } first circuit, in equity, The President and Directors of the } Chowan County— Dismal Swamp Canal Co. et al. } March Term, 1807. In this cause it is ordered, that the rule against the defendant the said Armistead be made absolute, unless he file his answer in two months.—The death of Da- vies and Plume being suggested by the complainant, it is or- dered that he have leave to serve the executors, administra- tors, or representatives of the said Davies and Plume, with process of scire facias, to bring them in, and by such means scire facias or otherwise, as he may think proper. A true Copy, (Signed) J. B. Blount, C. & M. C. C.
VIRGINIA, to wit:
At a Chancery District Court, held at the former ca- pitol in the city of Williamsburg, the 28th day of April, 1807, Josiah Riddick, } plf. against } Michael and John Wallace, and Barnet Pulliam, defts. } The defendant, Barnet Pulliam, not hav- ing entered his appearance and given security according to the act of assembly and the rules of this court, and it ap- pearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an in- habitant of this country; on the motion of the plaintiff, by his counsel, It is ordered , that the said defendant do appear here on the first day of next term, and answer the bill of the plaintiff, and that a copy of this order be forthwith in- serted in one of the newspapers published in the borough of Norfolk, for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the former capitol in this city. A copy. Anthony Robinson, C. C. May 18. 2m
For Sale by the Subscriber,
70 crates EARTHENWARE, 12 casks Glassware, 50 groce Bottles, 100 boxes 8 by 10, 42 do. 10 by 12 Window Glass, 90 pieces swilled Sacking, 5 boxes Pipes, 6 hogsheads Philadelphia Leaf Sugar, 6 pipes Cognac Brandy, 1 pipe Madeira Wine, 9 do. Sicily Wine, 12 hogsheads Whiskey, 8000 bushels coarse Liverpool Salt, 3000 do. fine do. 1000 sacks fine do. do. 50 hogsheads Richmond, 100 do. Petersburg Tobacco, 15 bales Cotton, 3750 bushels Corn. Alexander Maclure. July 10. tf
For RENT,
The Store and Dwelling-House, on Market-Square, at present occupied by Messrs. Quemper & Duon. Apply to William B. Lamb.
WANTED,
A few Shares Virginia Bank Stock. April 13. tf
NOTICE.
The assignees of the estate of Gilbert Robertson, and of the estate of James Brown, insolvent deb- tors, give notice pursuant to the act entitled "An act for giving relief in cases of insolvency," to the creditors of the said insolvent debtors, that on the first day of October next, from the hours of ten to one o'clock of that day, at the court- ing-house of Alexander V. Foster, in Washington-street, in the City of New-York, the assignees will proceed to make a division of all the money, which shall have come to their hands of such estates.—Dated this 24th day of June, 1807. James M'Evers, Alex. V. Foster, } Assignees. John Jones, jun. } 3m
THE SUBSCRIBER
Has removed to the brick store at the head of Camp- bell's wharf, fronting said wharf and Wide Water- street, where he offers at wholesale or retail his as- sortment of Groceries and Ship Chandlery,
Among which are 14 hogsheads Muscovado SUGAR, 1 do. and 6 barrels loaf do. 6 do. Antigua, Jamaica, and Grenada Rum, 3 pipes French Brandy, 2 hhd. and 5 bbls Rye Whiskey, 4 barrels Apple Brandy, 1 do. Peach do. 10 bags Coffee, Imperial, Hyson, Young Hyson, and Souchong Teas, Pepper, Pimento, and Nutmegs, Madeira, Sherry, and Port Wines, London and Philadelphia Porter, English Cheese, Bar Iron and Castings, Nail and Spike Rods, German Steel, Powder and Shot, Tar, Pitch & Turpentine, Paints and Oil, black and bright Varnish, Canvas and Cordage, Nails and Spikes. Also just received, 20 boxes Lemons, 12 half bbls. Beef Tongues, 20 kegs Tongues and Sounds, 40 kegs and 2 bbls Salmon, 5 bbls. Mackerel, 15 cases Sallad Oil, 1 cask Currants, 10 boxes Olives, Capers and Anchovies, 6 dozen bottles Cayenne Pepper, 3 do. do. Pickled Peppers, 30 boxes Soap, 20 boxes Candles, 50 barrels Alexandria superfine and fine Flour. John D. Haldane. July 31. tf
Superfine Pilot Bread and Crackers,
made from new Flour, for sale by the subscriber at his Bake Houses on Town Point and Commerce-Street. Stephen Harris. August 19. tf
NORFOLK: PUBLISHED THREE TIMES A-WEEK, BY WILLIAM DAVIS, FOR THE PROPRIETOR, OPPOSITE THE EXCHANGE COFFEE HOUSE Price Six Dollars yearly, in advance.