Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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