Newspaper Page Text
i fOCfCln (©eo-.0/Ttv
Mimnwcot J]l CScnuncl.
VOL. VI. No. 291]
T hrcc dollars per annumJ PUBLISHED BY GEO: F. RANDOLPH, CO. NORTH BROAD-STREET. (Half m advance
Geo: S . Houston ,
HAS JUST OPENED,
And Offer* fer Sale on the usual term*
nearly opposite the City-Hotel, August*,
A VAKIKTV OF
Dry Goods,
Hardware, Jewellery, &c.
Ciinsisting of the following Articles,
-—VIZ
SUPERFINE Blue, Black,
Drub and mixed CLOTHS,
Blue and Dral> Plains,
Caljicoes, Dimities'and Flannels,
HumWms, Platillas, kc.
Men’s Fine and Coarse Hate,
Ladies Chip Hats and s»U*m-Boat Bon
nets,
5 Trunks assorted Shoes,
Ladies’ and Gentlemen’s Saddlas and
Bridles,
Knives and Forks, Pen-knives, Ra
zors, See.
Waffle Irons, Hammers, Gimhlets, kc.
Elegant Gold Watch Chains & Keys,
Ditto do. Breast Pins 8c Lockels,
Ditto do. Seals and Rings,
Ditto do. Ear Rings, Wires k Knobs,
Elegant Hni rwork Chains fc Breast-pins,
Silver Thimbles and Sleeve Buttons,
Gold & Silver Epaulet!* fc Sword knots,
Dittto Lace and Cord,
Gilt and Steel Watch Chains 8c Keys,
BITTERS in quart, pint and half pint
bottles,
STOUGHTON'* ditto,
Essence of Peppermint,
British Oil, Salts and Sulphur,
Allum, Copperas, Windsor and Castile
Soap,
Lorillitrd’s, Maccoboy k Scotch Snuff,
Tice’s Blacking and Boot-top Compo
sition,
With u variety of Articles too tedious
to enumerate.
ALSO
A Complete Assortment of Fresh
PATENT MEDICINES.
November 2. 72
Lincoln Superior Court,
April Term , 1808.
THOMAS MURRAY")
VS. L RULE NISI. ,
CF.ORGK TVriTTY. J
UPON the petition of Thomas Mur
ray, praying the Foreclosure of
the Equity of Redemption, in all them
two tracts of land, one containing fifty
two acres more or less, the other con
taining live acres, more or less bound
ed by lafndsoo Thins* Murrayfc Sam
uel Davis, & mortgaged by the said Geo.
Twitty, senr. to the said Thomas Mur
ray, on the seventeenth day of August
eighteen hundred and seven, for the
securing the payment of the sum of
one hundred and twenty five dollars,
due by note as expressed in and by the
said mortgage ; And upon Motion of
Mr. Cook, attorney for the petitioner,
IT IS ORDERED , that the principal,
interest and cost due on said mortgage
be paid into court within twelve montns
from this day, OTHER WlSE,the equi
ty of redemption will from thenceforth
be foreclosed, and that s copy of this
rule be served on the said George
Twitty, senr. or published in on; of the
public Gazettes of this state, once a
month for the space of twelve months.
A true Copy from the Minutea.
ABSALOM TATOM, for
A. TATOM, Cl'k
Notice.
IDO hereby caution any person of
persons from trading for or purchas
ing « certain Note given to Fioyd Jar
vis for Seventy-nint Dollars, and per
haps some cents, (signed Willis Bos
tick, for Tolaver Bostick,) dated about
tlia Bth or 10th of October last, paya
ble three months afterdate, which note
was obtained for an unsound, Wind ne
gro, that has siuce been returned
Which not# I am determined not to p*v.
WILLIS BOSTICK.'
November117. 7 o—. !
' • - j
j
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA.
Mr. PINKNEY’S LETTER,
TO MR. CANNING.
( Ctncluded.)
IF it is merely intended (ss I doubt
not it is) to say that I did not make, or
declare my intention to make, my over
ture in writing, before I had endeavor
ed to prepare for it, by personal expla
nations, such « reception as I felt it de
served, and before I could ascertain
what shape it would be most proper to
give to it, or how it would be met by
this government, nothing can be more
correct.
It was my sincere wish that my pro
posal, which I believed to be advanta
geous to Great-BrAlain, as well as hon
orable to the United States, should be
accepted; and, accordingly, I preferred
a mode of proceeding, which, while it
was calculated to avoid unprofitable dis
cussions, upon topics of some delicacy
and great difficulty, would furnish op
portunities for irank and friendly com
munication upon ail the hearings of my
proposal, and lead to the result at which
I aimed, if that result should be prac
ticable, in such wav as, upon mature
reflection,and after a iiberal interchange
of aentiments, should be found to be
moat for the honor of out' respective
governments. These views were laid
before you without reserve, and seem
ed to be approved ; and 1 confess to
you, sir, that when I was afterwards
informed that, if I would obtain an an
swer to my overture, I must make it
;n writing, and that I must not look for
any previous intimation of the nature
of that answer, I did net allow myself
any longer to anticipate with much con
fidence such an issue as I desired.
i he second difference, which your
letter supposes to exist between my
note and verbal suggestions, cannot, I
think, in any view, be very material. I
will say something upon it, however.
My note declares that, if I forbear to
pursue certain ideas through all the il
lustrations of which they &r« suscepti
ble, it is because our-personal confer
ences, as well as the obvious nature of
the ideas themselves, render it unne
cessary. This implies, undoubtedly,
that more had been said in our confer
ences, explanatory of those ideas, than
is to be Lund in the note .itself: and
th3t implication can scarcely he other
wise than true, if l ‘expatiated largely,’
as you very justly say I did, ‘ upon the
consequences of a suspension of the
embargo as to Great-Britain, while it
still continued to be enforced against
France/
The general idea, to which the note
refers, is, that justice and interest con
spired to recommend that you should
take advantage of my proposal. The
particular positions are, that if your or
ders and our embargo should be rescin
ded in the manner suggested, our com
mercial intercourse would be immedi
ately revived; that if France followed
your example, and retracted her de
crees, the avowed purpose of your or
ders would be accomplished; that if
I ranee refused to retract, the Ameri
can embargo, continuing as to her;
would occupy the place of your orders,
and perform their office even better
than they could perform it themselves,
without any of the disadvantages inse
parable from such a system.
It is certain that, in our conversa
tions, I endeavored to prove that these
genaral and particular notions were
founded in truth, by a variety of argu
ments, thrown out in a very desultory
way, with more zeal than precision, and
with that entire freedom which unlim
ited canlidence in your candor, and a
firm opinion that the views of my gov
ernment would derive new titles to res
pect from a full examination, were cal
culated to produce.
I should not deal ingenuously with
you, sir, iI I were to pretend that I
think myself able to recapitulate those
disjointed arguments as they were ac
tually delivered ; and I am quite sure
that i shall consult your gratification,
as well as my own credit, by declining
such an undertaking. But I think I
can state in a condensed.form, what I
intended you should understand; and I
'=ars- l . l -z.- i .‘, i .v-'»- :s--" ■ --..:.rrr -t- 1
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1809.
presume that what I did sat was not ve- i
iy wide of my real impressions.
Upon the footing on which my over
ture would place the justice of the Bri
tish orders, I did not go into much de
tail, at any one of the three interviews
mentioned in your letter. But, com
bining iny unconnected and orc;,sioiial
observations on that point, as they were
made at different times, and more es
pecially as they were afterwards given
and enlarged upon, when I had tin non-
Or to see you cn the 26th G August,
(cf which, however, it is proper to say,
I have only a very scanty memoran
dum) their import will not, perhaps, be
found to be much, if at all, mistaken in
such parts of the following state me nt as
relate to that branch of the subject.
I meant to suggest, then, ‘tbnt upon
your own principles, it would be ex
tremely difficult to decline my proposal;
that your orders inculcate, as the duty
of neutral nations, resistance to the
maritime decrees of France, as over
turning the public law of the world, and
professedly rely upon that duty, and an
imputed abandonment of it, "for tilth
inducement and their justification; that,
of these orders, that of the 7th of Jan
uary, 1807, (of which tile subsequent
orders of November are said, in your
official reply to my note of the 33d of
August, to be only «n extension, “an
extension in operation not in principle”)
was promulgated and carrieu into effect
a few weeks only after the Beilin de
cree had made its appearance, when
the American government could not
possibly know that shell a decree exist
ed, when there liao been no attempt to
enforce it, andwhen.it hud become pro- j
bable that it would not be enforced at I
all, to the prejudice of neutral rights ; i
that the other orders were issued before
the American government, with refer
ence to any practical violation of its
lights, by an attempt to execute the
Berlin decree in a sense different from
the stipulations of the treaty subsisting
between the United States and Franci,
and from the explanations given to ge
nera! Armstrong by the French minis
ter of marina, and afterwards impliedly
confirmed by general Champagny, as
well as by a correspondent practice,
had any sufficient opportunity of oppos
ing that decree otherwise than it did
oppose it; that your oiders, thus pro
ceeding upon an assumed acquiescence
not existing in fact, retaliated prema
turely, and retaliated a thousand-fold,
through tile rights of the United States,
wrongs rather threatened than fell,
which you were not authorised to pre
sume the United States would not them
i selves repel as their honor and interests
required ; that orders, so issued, were,
to say the least of them, an unseasona
ble interposition between the injuring J
and the injured party, in away the most
fatal to the latter; that, by taking jus
tice into your own hands before you i
were entitled to do so, at the expense I
of eVery thing like neutral rights, and
even at the expense of other rights
justly the objects of yet greater sensi
bility, and by inflicting upon neutral
nations, or rather upon the United
States, the only neutral nation, injuries
infinitely more severe and extensive
than it was in the power of France to
inflict, you embarrassed anti confound
ed, and rendered impractuable, that
very resistance which you demanded of
us; that my proposal destroyed all ima
ginable motives for continuing, what
ever might have been the motives for
adopting, this new scheme of warfare;
that :t enabled you to withdraw with
dignity, and even with advantage, what
should not have come between France
and us; that its necessary tendency
was to place Us at issue with that pow
er, or, in other words, in the precise
situation in which you have maintained
we ought to be placed, if it should per
sist in its obnoxious edicts ; that the
continuance o{ our embargo, so modi
fied, wsuld be at least equivalent to i
your orders ; for that, in their most es- :
ficient state, you orders can do no more, :
as regards the United* States, than cut
off their trade with France and the
Countries connected with her; and that
our embargo, remaining as to France
*
i and those countries, would do exactly
tlic same ; that if the two courses were
barely, or even nearly, upon a level in
point ol‘ expediency, G. Britain ought
to he forward to adopt that winch was
consistent with the rights, and respect
ful to the feelings, of others; that my
proposal, .however, had powerful re
commendations, which the orders in
council had not; that it would re-esta
blish, without the hazard of any disad
vantage, before new habits had render
ed it difficult, if not impossible, a traf
fic which nourished your most essential
manufactures, and various other impor
tant sources of your prosperity ; that it
would not only restore a connection va
luable in all its views, but prepare the
way for the return of mutual kindn ss,
for adjustments greatly to be desired,
arid, in a word, for all those consequi n
ccs which follow in the train of magna
nimity and conciliation, associated with
prudence arid justice.
Among the observations, intended to
illustrate my opinion of certain proba
ble and possible effects of the com tir
t'tnt acts which my proposal h«d id
view, were those to which you allude
in the 6th paragraph of your letter
Having stated that renewed roinnu trial
intercourse between Grent-Briudn and
the United States would be th< first ef
fect, I remarked in the progress of the
convert-itch, lb*t th» *.***< !>, «-f PtrTcc
could not prevent that inter, mn*. , ev; n
if France should adhere to them, Al
though Great-Frit, in by In r n,p, n r
naval means, might be - I'h to pr. vi. nt
tile converse of it ; t| >,t the p< wer of
Ffitii! e upon the s, us v.. s in n,< th gi. ?
adequate to mu !; a purpose, ulna ;| it
were otherwise, that it was n I io Le
| supposed that the Uuitrcl States, i -
; suming ibtir lawful con n.irct will, ti is
\ country alter a recall i I th» British or
ders in council, would ink* no im-astires
against systematic intei (options t fll at
coinrni i ce by force and violent e, if su- h
should be attempted.
‘lf, when I was honored with the dif
ferent interviews before mentioned, I
had been able to conjecture the nature
of the arguments, which were to h r, e
an influence against mv prop. s*l,.es I
now find them slated in your answer to
my note, I should probably have vt n
! tured to suggest, in addition to the re
marks actually submitted to your con
sideration, .hut, ♦ if the biockade of the
European continent,' by France and the
powers subservient to or in < • ml inaticn
with her, to which your . a., is, as ‘ a
temperate but determined retaliation,”
were opposed, ‘ has been raised, even
before it had been well established,’and
if‘that system,’ *o opposed, ‘of which
extent and continuity were the vital
principles, has been broken up into
j fragments utterly harmless and con
i terpptible,' there seems scarcely to be
left, in your own view of the subject,
any intelligible justification for persc
! vcranee in such of the retaliatory mea
sures of Grcat-Brituin .is < perate thro*
the acknowledged lights of a power,
confessedly no party to that combina
tion, and ready to lulfii her fair neutral
obligations, if yon wili suffer her to do
so. Under such circumstances, to a
bandnti what is admitted to have lost
its only legitimate object, is not ‘con
cession’; it is simple justice. To
France, indeed, it might be concession.
But it is not France, it is the govern
ment of America, neither subservient
to France nor combined with Fiance, a
third party whose rights and interests
your orders deeply affect, without any
adtquate necessity, according to your
oxvn shewing, that requires their recal;
and that too upon terms, which cannot
but promote the declared purposes of
those orders, if any remain to be pro
moted. 1 say, ‘without any adequate
necessity according to your own shew
ing ;’ for I am persuaded, sir, you do
not mean to tell Us, as upon a hasty pe
rusal of your answer to my note might
be imagined, that those rights and in
; terc*ts are to lie set at naught, lest ‘ a
! doubt should remain to distant times of
: the determination and the ability of
j Grtai-Biiiain to have continued lierrc-
I sistance,* of that your orders may, in
i definitely, give a new law to the ocean,
j lest the motive to their repeal should