Newspaper Page Text
Georgia Republican,
iMU
ST ATF INTELLIGENCER
nr 1 TON and MORSE.
SAVANNAH, March 28, 18r 5
fey* In pursuance of the laP
WiU and Tefta-ntn’ of George Haift deeeafed,
will be fold r public lale, at the Exchange |
n the city ofSavannah, on the day < t |
March next, ail that lot of ground, situate
in Whitaker street known in'he plan ‘f Sa
vannah by the number y (five) Htathc* at,
Tytliaig Deckarward.
Condition! of i'ale, Ca(h before Execution
of Title.
JOSEPH MACHIN, Ex'tor,
■f'etruary 18 ts 49
ALL those who hove dc
--p-Vinff th; efla'e nf Thotnat Bourke,
•too out;, will prelent tnern to
JAN'K rtC L, HKE, Adv’trix
March ij l S5
V STORE, TWO lIOOMS, J.AKGE
YARD, STABLE AND CHAIR
HO'. SE, or’he Btr re feparue, to b re t*d
’• icorvrni'n fitnation. Apply to the fbi.i
----t
—— ■ ■ W .
1 ire Wood for Pale.
Apnl ts
JOHN WATERS. ‘
• L"’-i?rV*q .. rs yfr
V\A. perfom having ‘demands afrair.ftlfce
eltatc of THOMAS N E f'HKKCCI Pi
di cealm w .11 render them in to r<? fubfcrifitr,
. alnn£h,
CHARLES HARRIS.
’ . Adini..iflrator.
• , 7-fc-mfy.
NOTICE.
iift/c iating jfiy claim agenj! the
SHIP ANtv
ate re;j t~fted to p.efen: them immediate!) fr
fettle hi’ at to
Hoe C? Duv!i.
Jan- 3i- 43 ts
GooJs,
SALT,
Crates'of CROCKERY, well a'l„rt
ed for reiailers
C ?.fes of Cx I.- A S r> * vV A R ts. , confitt
. itig of tumbler', wines, decante,*,
efewits tff felt cellars ; they art
. Well packed and the boxes of a
c-gnveuitnt lize.
I’LiILS of al lizes.
Dunhand American GUNPOW
DER,
Dutch MNSERDOJL. GRIND
_ b'i ONES.
kLi’’ RN or tundmill S I'ONKS, 23
niches diamyar,
SHOE I HREAD ; writing ai.d
Wrapping PARER.
AVhi'cand Brown PLATILLAS.
Hdfpini MATTKD FLASKS, pr
groce.
EOUL k LNG CLOTHS New. 1. 2.
S 4 N S •
-> ue, brown, and Oznaluirghs
threads.
OUN< E TURi ADfl, affortej.
V At ERS Sbt\ l F S snd pcr.-ci’s,
Bigclc CRAPE; VELVLT J<IR
BANDS.
BejtfAis LACt, DEMIJOHNS ;
GIN CASES.
Mill Stone l (1 cal Cullens) viz.
j-feet diiMTietsr 5. b & 7 in. thick
J do. 8 in. di.,m. 12 to 1 j do. do
4 do. 8.. dn 12 to 15 Jo. Jo.
See... For Lie by
CLids 13 o i ton, <?< c.
Feb. 25, ts. r £ .
“UNION SOCIETY,
‘ lhe UNION SOCI
-1. ETY'are tp meet at the FU*
■uire on Monday the-firi! day of April next,
F*Eci,>ri.v at ten o’clock in the forenoon
it being the Qulnerl/ meeting preparatory
to ihe A nmvc i far/. r
Fc-rer S. Laffirtc, ‘Sjcretary.
March 15 60
Aii elegant Pna?Tt>N tor
Sile ty . J. BOLTON.
March *5 ft so
btores to Let.
Store* No. i & j. Commerce Row
to let, apply to
K. & J, Bolton.
March if 60. <n.. *
Tax COLLECTORS SALES.
O.V AIO A’/) <4l 1 §;b day May next
will be told at the Court Home in
the City of Savannah before the Lour, of
lO and 2 o’clock, the following preset or
as murk thereof at cfi 'll be sufficient to dis
charge the ‘Taxes due t!je> eon, for t heJ jf-
U wing sea end cos U
a4O Acres Land in Chathr.ni
Coa.uy, returned as the proper
ty of the elta;e of Benjamin Fox,
tax due for year iSct 4a. 62c.
O.te half or undivided n.oiety
of 600 Ac res Land, in two trails
in M’lr.tolh County, formrriv
John Grays, adjoining George
ETLnulh and Hugh Clark, near
Sapcio'bridge poin.ed out as tfie
property 01 Stcptien files, tax
rboi ar.u iSoj - -154 U. jSc.
loe Acres pine Land in Lt
fuigham County, returned as the
property ot Andrew Snider tax I
Ikii illci - - oed. eo r-2c. 1
JAMES ALGEd, T. C. C. C. i
Mjtrifh :c 59
fTtg! Cour of Tmpcachmenf ’
ANSWER of SAMUEL CHASE. ,
(•JonhHU'J.J
1
Laftiy, this refpoid- nt is charged un
der this artiile, with an “ indeceiK fo
licilude, rranifefted by him, for the con
viction of the acenfed. unbecoming even
a public prosecutor, but highly disgrace
ful to the charafter of a juJge, as it was
subversive of juftice.’* Thi* i* another
charge of which it is impoflible to give
a prccife refutation, and to a general de
nial of .vhtch, this refoondent mult there
fore confine liinifeif. He uemts that he
felt any filicituiie whatever for the con
viftion of the travcrftr; other than the
genera! wifli natural to every friend cf
truth, decorum and virtue, tiiat persons
guilty of such offence!, a? that of which (
the traveller flood indicted, Ihould be J
brought to punifhmeut, for the fake o f
f ’ am; He has no nefttation to ac-
that his iuditriiatton was
ltrongly excited, by the atrocious and
ipiofligate iibcl which the traverser wa,
: charged with having written and pubiifli
■ ed. I his 1 idignaliou, he believes, wa3
j felt by every vir.uo's a"d honorable jypp
in the community, of ivc-y partv, who’
uad icau the book in question, or become
acquainted with its contents, H>w pro
P< b it was fi't, wdl nppc.tr front th.
book ttfelf, which this refpondrnf has
ready to produce to t his honorable court ;
i from the par’s of it incorporated into the
j n.dittment nov. under confidtraiion ;
I aud from foinc further txtraftx cootani
|cd in the paper marked exhibit No. 6,
which this refporident prays leave to
.make part oi this his anfwcr. He ad—
jtr.t.a, audit can nevci be to him 1 fub
ijc.A of felt reproach or a canlo of re
‘gret, that hi partook largely in this
genera! indignation, but he denies that
;it :n any manner influenced iiis conduct
I towards the rruverfer, which was regn
. luted by a coufcientious regard to hr
j duty and the laws. lie moreover con
! tends, that a font, tube to procure th.
conviction or the tiaveiler, however un
becoming his character as a judge, would
not have been an offence, had he felt it ;
unless it had given rile to tome mifeou
duft On iis part. Intentions and fee
lings, unless accompanied by actions, do
not conlßtute crime3 in tin's country ;
where the guilt or innocence of men is
not judged of by their willies and foil i
tudes, but by their conduct and its mo
tives. And this retpondent thi.ik3 it i:
his duty, on this occaflon, to cuter iiis
solemn proteit againfl the introduction
in this country, of those arbitrary princi
ples, at once the offspring and the inftui
mems of defpotihn, which would make
“ higi; crimes and inifdcmeanoiV’to con
flit in “ rude and contemptuous expres
sions,” in “ vexatious interruptions of
counfcl,” and in the manifeltations of
“ indecent foiicitade” for the conviction
of a tnotl nvnrtriOrus offender. ouch con
dll ft * no doubt, improper and unbe
coming in any person, and much mere
io i1 a judge ; but it is too vague, too
uncertain, nut too susceptible of forced
interpretations, according to the impulle
of palfloii or the views of policy, to be
admitted into the class of punishable of
fences. Under a system of law whole cer
tainty and preciiion in the definition of
crimes, is its greatest glory, and the
greatelt privilege of those who live under
its fvvay.
I o coacludiag his defence againfl those
charges contained in the fourth article of
impeachment, he declares that ins whole
conduit in that trial, was regulated by a
ft;ict regard to the piiucqilcN of law, aud
by a*i tinned define to do jutlice between
the United States aud the party accuted.
He felt a flngere with, on the one hand,
that the traverser might eftablith his in
noccnce, by thole fair anl fuflicient means
which the law allows ; auet a determina
tion, on the other, tiiat he Ihould nst,
by lubtcifuges and frivo.ous pretences,
fpoi i with the jullice of the country,
and evade that puniihment of wnich, ts
guilty, he was io proper an objtft.
Thelc intentions he u conliilcnt. vi'ere le
gal and laudible ; and if, in any part of
his conduft, he iwerved iron; this line, it
was an error of his judgment and not of
his heart. 1
And the said refpbuder.t for p'ea. to
the laid fourth art.cle of impeachment,
faith, that he ia not guilty, of any high
crime and imfdemcanor, as m and by the
uid fourth oi tiers is allildgcd again ft;
him, ind tin.- he prays, n.ay be enquired
ot by this honorable court, in such man
ner as ia.v and ..ft:cc fti.ll item to re
quire.
i The fifth article of impeachment
enurges tins rcfpoudeiit, with having
awarded “2 capias agamlt the body of
the suits James Thomplon Callender, in
dicted lor ail offence not capita!, where
upon the laid CalicoJer was arrefied and
committed to cl use custody, contrary to
law in that talc made and provided.”
‘ This charge > reftod, lit, on the att
of Congress of .September 24th, 1789,
entitled, “ an ?.£t 10 eftablifti the judi
cial courts o* t,*c Uinted States, I'’ 1 '’ by
which it i ei acted •* tl.nt for any
crime or offence agiinft the Unitto
Slates, the nifenccr may be arrested, im
pnloned, or b.iiitd, agreeably to the u
|iaal mode of procels, in tiie ltitc where
iuch offender miy be found.” And
idiy, on a law of the state of Virginia,
which is said to provide. “ that upon
pTfJttUimr.t by apy grand jury, of ns oi
iicc r.ot cap’t it (he court fliuil order the
ci<r& to iliu- AjU'MTiint agajnft the- per
‘•OS or Mtluul lo offending, to appea,
and answer law h pielcatinent at the *r.v.
court.” It is contended, tu support oi
thin charge, that the act of Cos ug ref
above mentioned, made the date law the
rule 0 1 procee.:..ig, t-id th:t the fl-.. .
!a / was violated by iff dug a capias’
a^a : ift Cailendvr, r.tflead of a fufniiinni.
The firft observation to be made on
this part of the case it, that the date of
the law of Virginia is liot mentioned in
the article. Avery material omifEon !
For it cannot be contended, that by
the adt of Congress in question, which
was passed for establishing the lawa of
the United States, and regulating their
proceedings it was intended to render
these proceedingsdependent on all /u
----ture adts of the date legislatures. Tire
intention certainly was, to adopt, to a j
certain limited extent, the regulations j
exilting in the ftrtes at the time of i
the acl. Confequentiy, a law j
of Virginia, passed after this can
have no operation on the
under it. But byteferring to the law
jof Virginia in question, it will be found
to bear dale on November t3th, 1*92,
more t ,an three years after this aft of
by which it is laid to have
been adopted. Bat the omiliion of the
| date 01 this law oi Virginia, is riot the
! n M material o'-'.vfight which has been
made in -citing iL Its title is “An
act directing tbe method of procee
ding againfl free perlous. charged with
cc.-ain grimes,” and it
f'.ftjjiu zMi, ‘•**■ That upon ptci-nt
miuie by tjie gran.’ jury, of an
ottence r.ul the court fnali
and r the gerk to ufue 3 itvmmons, or
. j o’hcr p. -per ptucefi, againfl the perloii or
1 perfous lu preleifled, to appear
anlwcr at the next court.” It will be
observed that th.f/ wc ds, “or ot’ ..
, proper proccls,” which leave it peifeaiy
~in tiie difercuou ot tile court what
| proctli iha i lour, provided it be loci, ,
! is p oper for bringing the offender to
, ariwer to tlie prelcntrnent, are omitted
in this a’'tide of imiicacliineot.
Iron tin ie w.irus it is j'erfeftlv tnu
mxei-, tiiat law of Virginia, admt
'v'"o * l to apply, did not oiier a sum-
ithui, to be ill-led Dut left it p.rfcftiy in
| the diferetion of the court to iffne a
jt u VUUOils, or other proccis as they
pai ild judge proper. It is therefore,
I a fuffieiciit aufwet’ tc this article to uy,
; that tins relpondent confldtred a capias
j a. the proper proeefs, and th.srr fore or.
j and -red it toiffue j which he admits that
I tie did, immediately after the prefent
[ u.er.i was lound againfl the said Cal’ in
! uer, by the gi'-and jury,
j Ibis he is informed, and exoefts to
| jirove, lias Oecn the eoniiruftioii of this
Caw by the courts of Virginia, and their
I general •praftjcC Indeed it would be
j matt flrange, it any other eoullruCtion 01.
1 j-raitiee had beet: adopted. There are
many offences, hot capital, which ar of
a vuy dangerous tendency, and on winch
: very fcverc puniihment is inflifted by
1 the laws of Virginia; and to enaft by law
tiiat in all such cates, however notorious
or profligate th| offenders might be, the
courts ftioidd he obliged, after a preffnt
ment by a granO jury to proceed againfl
them by f-j’r.mop'i ; would be to er.aft,
that at faou as tfici- guilt was rende ed
extremely probable, by the presentment
of a grand jury, they ihould receive rtgu
hr notice, to escape from punithment Ly
fl‘ght or concealment.
it rriil also nppesr, as this refpondeat
believes, by a reference to the laws and
pi act c: of Virginia, into which he has
mr.de all the enquiries which circuinftan
•ces and the jhortnefs of time allowed him
for preparing his anfp.er, would permit,
j that all the cases in which a lummoiis is
: considered as the only proper proctfs
| are cases of petty offences, which on the
’ presentment of a grand juty, are to be
■ tiied by the court in a summary wjy,
1 without the intervention of a petit jury.—
! I'hcrefoic, these provilions had no ap
-1 plication to the caH of Callender, which
could be no otherwise proceeded on than
by indiftmetif, and trial on the indift
tnent by a petit jury.
It muff be recollefted that the aft of
Congrcfs of September 24th, 1789,
enafts, fettior. 14, “ that the courts of
the United States, (hull have power to
iffne writs ot tcire facias,habeas corpus, Isf ,
all other ivrits not specially provided for
by statute, winch may be nectflary for
the ejtercife of their respective jurifjic
tions, and agreeable to the principles and
usages of laws.” Confequentiy, th;cir
cuit court, where the proceedings in
question took place, had power to itl'ue a
capias againfl the traverser, on the p:e
fentmpt, unless the state law. abv
mentioned governed the case, and con
tained something to restrain the ifluing
cl that writ in such a case. This respon
dent contends, tor the reasons above sta
ted, that this date law neither applied to
the case, nor contained any ihing to pre
vent the ifluing of a capias, if it had ap
plied.
Thus it appears that this refpondeut,
m ordering a capias to issue agamft
Callender, decided corredlly, as it cer
tainly was his intention to do. But he
claims no other merit than that of up
right intention m this dcciSon: for
when he made the decision, he was utter
:y ignorant that such a law exilted in
Virginia ; and declares that he never
heard of it, till this article was reportti
by a committee of the Hoofe of repr- Ten
tative*, during the present lciuon of <3on
erefs. This law was not mentioned on
1 the trial either by the counsel oi the tra
verter or by judge Gritfin, who certainly
..ad much better opportunities of know
ing it than this reiponder.t, and who, no
Jwubt, would have cited it had tney
tuown it and conhdercd it as applicable
o the case - This nJpordent well
enow* that in a criminal v.c •- ignorance
it the law cxcute* no man in offending i
igamtl it; but this maxim apptie* not to I
.he decision hi a judge ;in whom ignor-f
?. , t \ , 1• , .
tne .aw general v-;a.c j
be a di’qucbi.-jtiju ur thir ci—'i
tuougo net a crime 1 bat iguorc.ic— oi a
particular aft of aff.-rabiy, or a fla'.e
where he was an utter tranger, run ft be
considered as a very pardonable error;
especially as the eounfel for the pnfoner
to whole case that law is supposed to have
applied, forbore or omitted to cite it ;
and as a judge of the state, always resi
dent in it, and long converfaat with its
local laws, either forgot this law, or con
quered it as inapplicable.
Such is the anfwcr, which this refpon*
| dent makes to the fifth article of impeach
jment. if fle erred m this case, it was
1 thro’ ignorance of the law, and sure.
j ! y. ignorance under such circumstances,
j connot be a crime, much less a high
! crime and misdemeanor, for wHeh h;
‘eughttobe removed from his ofljec.
; If a judge wu impeachable for acting
1 eg— ill law from ignorance ouiy, it woujd
’ f Tow, that lie would be punished in the
fame manner for deciding againfl I3 v
willfully, and f w r deciding againfl it tniv>’
iniltakc. In other words, there would
• be no ditlinftioi oetween ignorance and
ande r -gn between error and cirruption.
] And *ht flu.” rfp jncent, tor pica to
i lnc attic e of impeachmeni,
, .alt.i, that he 15 rof guilt;-o? ft..l WC ■
i enme and mifd-mear.or, as in and'by the
1 said 04th article ailedged a£r n in-fl hint ;
•” ‘L:: l e r ~a!.-K, in ■■ fcj •.•’aunx J,-
1 oy this Honorable court, m such cua iner,
;as law an< iuflice fltad free tbec’ to
*
J. lie flxrh article of iinpeaebment al
*d, S, th:. .(-fpori ;!t} “wi’llin
j tent to opprtfs and procure the convic
jtioa of the said f-mes Thoniyfoa Caileii
, ■ cr, <’id, at the court aforefuid, mlc aud
( adjudge the said Callender to trial, du
ring the term at which be, the f?id Cd!-
Umkr was pnf.pted aud iudifted, con
trary to the law n that case made and
p**r*v,'ert, r *
imo cnarge also, is founded, tfl, on
tnt aft of Couorctsof Sept 24th, iy°9,
abovi Mentioned, wnich cnafts, ieftmn
4, “ tiiat the laws of rhe fcveral futts,
except where the erw ftitution treatics,
or flututea of the United States (hall
otherwise provide, fhcl* be regarded as
the rules of decision, in trials at tommn
tvw ) in the courts of tlie (h ired States,
in cases where-they apply,” and sndhr,
on a law of the flats of Virginia, .which
’* i,l Ppoßfl to provide, “ that iA cases
not capita! the offender fht.ll not he
hcjii to anfwcr any presentment of a
gran-a jury, until the court next pre-
I ceding (h; t, during which such prtfent
j incut fhali have b. en made.” This law,
lit .s contenued, is made the rule of Jeci
ff.on by the above mentioned act of Con -
grefs, and was violated by the refufal to
continue the case of Callender till the
next term.
in anfwcr to this charge this refpon.
.•nt declines, thar.he wa** the time of.
making tr.e above mentioned deciiion,
wholly ignorant of any such law of Vir
gNL as that in qticflion, that no such
W was adiiuceu or mentioned by the
c0u.1,1.1 of Callendey, in of their
moti.) 1 f>r a contnruiuce ; neither when
tiiey firft made it, bei/sre this reiju.-ndent
O.f.c'l alone ; n--r when they renewed it,
! alter judge Griffin had taken his feat in
comt : that no such law was mentioned
oy judge Griffin ; who concurred in
overruling the motion for a continuance
orurri.ig on the trial ; which he
coii.d not have done hid he known that
such a law exifled, or considered it as
applicable to the case ; and that this re,
(poudeit never heard of any such law,
untilphe articles of impeachment now
under consideration were reported, in the
cou: fe of the present session of Congrcfs,
by a coamittee of the House of Rtprc
fenta lives. ’
Ajudge is certainly board to use a!!
proper and rcafonable means ot obtaining
j a knowledge of roe laws which* he is
appointed to admiuifter ; bat after the
use of iuch meaii6, to overlook, roifuu
deriland, or remain ignorant of feme
particular law, is at all times a very par
donable error. It is much more so in
the caleefajudge of the lupremc court
of the United States, holding a circuit
court in a particular state, with which
he is a stranger, and with the local laws
of which he can have enjoyed but very
imperieft opportunities of becoming ac
quainted. It was forefeen by Congress,
in eftabhlhing the circuit courts of the
1 Ututed States, that difficulties and in
conveniences muff frequently arise- from
this lourcr, and to obviate such difficul
ties it was provided, that the diitritt
judge of each fiate, who having been a
resident of the state and a practitioner in
its courts, had all the ncceffary means
of becoming acquainted with its local
laws ; Ihould form a part of the circuit
j court in his own Hater The judge of the
| supreme court is expe&ed, with reafoa,
Ito be well versed in the general laws; but
I the local laws of the Hate form the pecu
liar province of the diHridt judge, who
j may be juitly confldered as particularly
t rcfpoiilible for their due observance. It
m the case in question, this refpnndent
overlooked or rr..£co allured any loead law
of the llate of Virginia, which ought to
have governed the calc, it was equally
over!’>oked and mifuuderHoad, not onlv
by the prisoner's counsel who made the
motion, and whose peculiar duty it was
to know the law and bring it into the
view of the court, Lat a!f> by the diiria
judge, who had the tuft opportunities ai
icnpwiug and underit indiug it, • and in
whom nevertneieis, this overtigiu or mis
lake is considered as a venal err white
ii this rtfpondcqt it is made ahe ground
of n critniaai charge.
This respondent further Hates, that
after the mod diligent a id .ne mo \ exten J
live cco .i y which the tunc avowed for
r pi: . ... t.da n.if.vcr- r.t-i, hr!
.j r -i.id *l l la vof Vfl.;i-.m. wb -ii!
pr*V.y c Kift y tha: 11 ;u cases c.spi*
tal, the ctfciid.T ihall not be bttp to an*
fwer a.iy presentment of the grand jnrf,
until the court next fucceeJtng ; hat cj*
ring which such presentment (hall base
been made ” This principle he fuppafe*
to be an inference drawn by the author*
of the articles of impeachment, from the
law of Virginia mentioned in the anfwcr
*0 the preceding article, the law of No
vember 15- n I 79*> “flucli providrs
“ that upon preferment made by ;oe
grand jury of ■an offence not capital, cite
court fhali order the clerk to issue 3 f--,.-i.
mons, or other proper proeefs, ato., fl
the person or persons so presented. to .-
pear and anfwcr such presentment a;
nut court.” This law he co.tcitve
docs not warrant the inßre.icc so drav’ii
flora it, because is (peaks of pretfni,.,eutr
and not of imuSnents, which at. r! y
I IFcrent things ; sod is, as he is infor.died,
coined by practice and conitrtiftLu in
Jta; state of Virginia, to cases offinai
otfeaceft, .woicii are lt be tried by “A-C
court itfclf upon ti.e presentment, wK> *
lout an indictment or the intervenaon of
• petit jury. But for cases, like that of
! U:!le..der, where an indictment mufl tuU
jl.w tbeofeieer.-nvnt, i’ Alv. roa j e
ji>-ov,Uti. Further, the fl ale iaw , >re
I d lifted by the übovemc nioned est of
N ■>. .V.H-cf.:,ci i.,., i„ T
(court,, of the United States, only
J eafea where they appiv.’* Wh-?b r ’ ! -*y
a,.?’ . y w- di’i particular case, u
qneflion ot law. to htd tcided by the couit
woere ftirh caf. is pe Hiii , and*;, eirqr
i y* maJcuij, the is not a cn.pe, nor
j even an offence, unicfs it can be ffjiwu to
h_-Vv proceeded from improper motive*.
Hus refpoiiueirt 13 of opinion, that the
aw )„ q icitiou. did not uuply so the case
1 C.il.iVvkr, fortiie rcnlonv ltated
and there fort that it would liave been hia
I duty, f,j difri V n-J it. even i.ad :t beea
| raa Je known to mm oy the count'd f u r
j t tic traverser.
(To be Continued.)
CrIALT S r ON j Mt-ch 2T,
, Haamtow, of the fnifti
Marq-i's of Huntiy, arrived V e**
icidry u(un)iug from St. Tho
• nas’ s , brings the important in*,
rai .aauoi] oi tlm movai of three >
lir.et)/ bat tie ihips and five f r j.
a - £ T aon nocr of troops,
fro n Bteft, at Dominique. Af.
ter taking p-ff.in.m of me to&a
ot Kofleau, where it was said
they found 1 tonhderable quan- 7
tuy of property, and levcrai of
toe homewr.rd bound Bntifh
.hips lying there, the French
fqujdron hid again failed, and
tt vyos jeporced, had also taken
the I (land of St. Kitts. The re
port xh the capture of this Jaft.
Island, however, was not credit
ed ul St. I no.aas’s. 1 nree days
after capt. Hamilton failed, he
Spoke a brig 10 d.y# from Mar
tinique, for New-York, the cap
rain of which informed him, that
he had touched at Dominique,
and found it in pofielfjon of the
Frencn troops—he also confir
med the account of the. failing
0; ?ne Jqjadron, bot its destina
tion was kept ftcret.
March 22,
Important.
Just as We were putting our paper to
press, capt liaily arrived in the Ichooner
Adventure, 21 days from Martinique.
1 ne accoucis which we hav* received
from ckpt. Baiiy, are, that a fquadroa
from Rochelle, arrived at Martinique os
the 19th February, having on board, re
port Hated, from five to tight thousand
troops. An embargo was immediately
laid on all the fhipping in the harbour ;
and the fquadroa failed again the next
day
The firft account received by their? o
perations was, that the French troopsjiad
cifeded a landing at Roffeau (Domicico)
about eleven o’clock on the night of the
23d, February. The Britifti governor
immediately retreated, with. t]ae. pwicipaf
part of his troops, to prince Ruperts
fort, and the adjacent woods. An
attempt was made the next day by
the French to dislodge the Britifhfrom
lhe Fort; Th;3 proved uniucceffful—
and the governor, having eolle&cd.
ah his forces,made a gallant sortie, .and
compelled the French to retten :o the
town with the loss of fixhundrol men,*
Failing in their attempt to get pof%
, fcffio "°f lhe principal fort, the French
troops embarCeaor. the 25 th, o a board
thar fhipr, aud taking with them 14
fad of Bntifh homeward bound veffeU
which thcy found lying there, proceed,
ed a fticrt diilance, and commenced
th- bombardment of the town. Thev
they continued this for two davi
wnen haring reduced Roffeau to * a
heap of nu„,, t h* fl cet faded, it w „”
St - cwr,<> >*"‘-
A C t.
ihe BrittDj forces at Rofi- au gij
not amount to one men,
Ihe embargo at Muriawae was
continued for ten and ays- 1
The fodowinj i6 a m oI tU Fftn
quedron naadeu us by captmj, £-
° e sn*rrem, 7 i ; L'l.xhx J-
ns l. a