Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

hheir nature incompatible ; one the re peal of the prohibitory acta as to Great Britain, without waiting lor the conclu sion of a regular treaty, the other, a pledge or engagement for their con tinuance as to the other powers. Now from the nature of our constitution, which, in this particular, ought to have been attended to by the British govern ment, it is manifest that the executive auth irity could have given no such pledge, that the continuance of the prohibitory acts being a subject of Le gislative consideration, could not have been provided for until the meeting of the Legislature, and that the condition could not therefore but have failed, ci ther in the immediate renewal of,com merce with Great Britain, or in the im mediate engagement that it should pot be renewed vthtc France, ihe British government ought to have acquicsed in. and, indeed, ought to have been s*t isfi-d with the attainment of the impor- i tant object of an immediate repeal of nut-prohibitory law* and with the con sid ration that the other obj -ct, not in mediately attainable, was unneces sary at the time, because the prohibi tion as to Fr.nce was then in force, and b'-canse there was every reason to Infer n:U only from this f»<:t, but from the spirit of tha communications made fn»m time to time md from tlie over tures bt fare submitted to the British government that, without a repeal of the French decrees, our prohibitory laws would be continued in f are a gainst France, and especially, in tlie case of a repeal of the British orders, tvbirh wool fni cess wily render a con tinuance of tlie French decrees doubly obnoxious. But if on this head doubts could have been ent-rtaijud, ins'e tl o< rej cling tlie arrangement, ought not the repeal ing act on onr part to have been met with a suspension at least of the orders in council, until it could have been seen whet'nr the non-intercourse law would or would not have been continu ed against France. Such a suspen sion could not have given, in any point of view, more advantage to the United States, than was given to Great Britain by tlie repeal, which had taken place on then* part. If this reasonable course could not have been substituted f r the disavowal, why was not a final disavowal suspend ed with a proposition, that the arrange ment would he executed hy Great Bri tain. in the event of a compliance on the part of the United St ites with the condition required us to France ? I am not unaware, you may he told, that tlie non-intercourse law of the U. States did not extend to Holland, tho’ so intimately connected with France, and so subservient to her decrees a guin3t neutral commerce. It would not be improper on this oc casion to observe, that this ol»j ction can be the less urged by Great Britain, as she has herself nev. r in her alled god retaliations adhered i ■ the princi ple on which they were i nndrd. Tluis she has from the date of them, until vt-rv lately, dir<-cind them, against the A meric:m trade even to Btissia, al though Bussia h id lu-v r adopted the French detr< es, nor otherwise violated our nrut»'id trade -with (ive.it Britain. So. in her "fill r of April last, she has disrriminatitl. not only between the countries devoted to France by the ties ofb ood, and oth< r p vv is, but b: tween Holland, Westijoaii * and Naples in en forcing her pro'uhiton ordi r against the first and not against the two last. Whilst, therefore, she finds it expedi ent to make these distinctions, she ought to presume, *.h; t w..* too may pM-c-rve equ l propriety in the dis liilctions we have made’. But it mav be of more importance here to compare the British order in Council of April I ist; with the arrange nvent of Aoril, made by Mr. Erskme. It will thence be seen how lit*Hr is the real difference, and how trivial it is wlmn compared to the extensive and serious consequences of the disavowal. Under the order in Council of April all the ports of Europe, except France, Including the kingdom of Italy and Holland with their dependencies, are op: ned t« our commerce. Und r the* arrangement of April, Combined with our act of nun-inter course, all the ports of Europe, except France and her dependencies, includ ing the kin rdom of Italy, would have beeb opened to our commerce. The difF*r<*nce toen is reduced m i Iv to Hull mI. and that again is reduced to the diff-tvnee between a di rect trade t * the ports of Holland, and an indirect trade to Holland, through tiit- neighboring ports of Tonningcn, Ilam'nug, Bremen and Emden. N »w, as the injuring the enemies of IkiVat Britain is the only avowed ob- ject of her inderdictwg order against our trade, let a computation be made of the effect, which this difference be tween the order in Council and the ar rangement could possibly have in pro ducing such an injury. And then let the question i>e candidly answered, whether, laying aside all considera tions of right and justice, sufficient in ducentent could have betn iound in that result for rejecting the arrange ment, and for producing the conse quent embarrassments, as well to G. Britain, as to the United States. If it be necessary, as Mr. Jackson has stated, to set bounds to a spirit of encroachment and universal dominion, which would bind all things to its own standard, and to falsify by honorable and m-.nly resistance an annunciation that all Europe is submitting by de grees, the effort must be feeble, indeed, which is to lie found in the inconve nience accruing to the formidable foe from tlie operation of this order in Council, and especially when we com bine with it the strange phenomenon of substituting for the lawful trade of the United Stales, a trade of British subj cts, contrary to the laws of the adverse party, and amounting, without a specie! licence, in the eye of British law to high treason. 'Huts much for He orders in Coun cil. What lias taken nl-cc with res pect to the case of the Chesapeake will ctni illy engage your attention. You will perceive that throughout the early stages of the corit spnnd, n< e this case w«><* in si.me rts nets impro perly confounded with, in ollie’s im properly separated from that of the or dtrs in Council ; and particularly that that pains had been laktn by Mr. J tekson to substitute verbal and vague observations on the dis vnw d of this part -ftlie arrangement for air-explicit and formal explanation, such as was < bvi< us!y due. It will he seen also that when finally brought to the point, he referred for a justification of the disa vowal to the departure of Mi. Erskine from his instructions without shewing what those instructions were, and to allusions to an expression in the ar- j rangetm.nt without giving to his mean ing the distinctness pre-requisite to a just reply. It appeals, howeAer, that he lays greet stress on the proposal enclosed in bis letter ofthe 27th October, os at once indicating the departure of Mr. Erskine from bis instructions, and os containing the conditions on the basis c>f which he wis raady to enter on .>n adjustment. And front a note from the Secretary of the B;iti>h Legation, it appears that he has complained of not having received an answer to this pro posal, as he had before complained that no answer had been given to his verbal disclosures on this head in his interviews with me. With respect to his intimations in coversation, as they Were preceded by no prop t assignment nf the reasons for not h iving executing the original adjustment, it cannot be necessary to remark that no such notice, as he wished to obtain, could with rny sort of propriety have bi ui taki n of tin m. With r sped to bis written project, it will suffice to remark : Ist, That, besides bis reluctant and indistinct expl9.ll-.uinn of the disavowal ;of the original aujuvment he did not j present in# proposal, lin'd he hud made such progress in his offensive insinna i tion as made it proper to wait the is ! sue of the reply about to be given to it. *nd that this issue had ne'cessa l ily pit', a stop to further com mu locations. i 2d. That although fie had given us to understand that liie ordinary creden tials such alone u%he had delivered, could not bind Ids government in such l a esse, his proposal had neither* been 1 preceded bv nor accompanied with the exhibit! u of other commission or lull i powt v : Nor, indeed, lias he ever giv ; e-n sufficient reason to suppose that he I had any such full power to exhibit in j relation to this particular case. It is 1 true, that in his Icttu of the 23d Octo ber, he has stated an authority eventu (l/u to conclude a Convention between the two countries. Without advening to the ambiguity of the term eventually with the mark of emphasis attached to it, and to other imeertailics in the phraseology, it is clear that the author ity referred to, whatever it may be, is derived from instructions suljict to his own discretion , and not from a patent commission, such as might he proper ly called for. It is true also that in his U tter ofthe 4th of- November, suh sequeot to Ids proposal, lie says he was possessed of a full power in d?le form for the express purpose of concluding a treaty or convention. But it still remains uncertainf whe ther by the treaty or convention to which it related, was not meant an eventual or provisional treaty <>n the general relations between the two countries without any reference to tin Case of the Chesapeake. Certain it is that the British government in fotmei like cases as will he seen by the adjust nient of that part ofthe aff.ir at Nuot ka Sound, which is analogous to this case, did not consider any such distinct full power as necessary ; nor is there the slightest ground for supposing th U Mr. Erskine, although confessedly in structed to adjust this very case of the Clu-snpeake, was furnished with any authority distinct from his credential letter. That Mr. Jackson lias any such commission is the less to be sup posed, as it is but barely possible, that possessing it he should not on some oc casion nr in some form have used a language susceptible of no possible doubt on this point. But proceeding* to the proposal it self. it is to be kept in mind that the conditions firming its basis, are the very conditions for the deviating from which Mr. Erskine’a adjustment was disavowed. Mr. Jackson, if not on •til ers, is on this point explicit. “ I now add,says he, that the deii ition consis ted in not recording in the official do cum nt signed litre the abrogation of the President’s proclamation of the 2d July, 1807. as Well as the two reserves specified in the paper of memoranda epejost d in my official letter to you of the 27th ult.” Considering then the conditions in the proposal as an ultimatum, in what light arc we compelled to view such an attempt to repair the outrage commit ted on the frigate Chesapeake and to lieal the disappointment produced by a disavowal of a previous equitable repar ation ? It is impossible on such an orcesion not to recall to the circumstances which constituted the character ofthe outrage to winch such an ultimatum is now applied. A national ship pro ceeding on an important service, was watched bv a superior naval force en joying at the time the hospitality of our ! ports, was followed and scarcely out of our waters when she was, after an in sulting summons, attacked in a hostile manner ; an I the ship so injured as to require expensive r. pairs, the expedi tion frustrated, a number of the crew killed and wounded, several carried into captivity, and one of them put to death under a military sentence. The three seamen, tlio* American citizens, and therefore.on every supposition de tained as wrongfully as the ship would have been detained, have notwithstand ing remained in captivity between two and three years ; and. it may he added alter it has long ceased to be denied that they are American citizens. Under these rircumst.inces we arc called upon to ransom the captives. Ist. By acknowledging that a pre cauti >nary proclamation, justified by events preceding the outrage, by the outrage itself and by what immedi te ly followed it, was unjustifiable, and t lat a repeal of it vvus properly a con dition precedent to a reparation for the the outrage. And this requisition is n peated, 100, after such an acknowl edgment had been uniformly asserted by this government to be utterly inad missible and, what is particularly re ni iik'ble, at a time when the procla mation, as is well understood, was no longec in 'force- The occasion obvi ously invited a silent assuption of the existing fact, and this would have ex cluded the difficulty heretofore found to be insuperable. [TO UK CONTINUED.] St. LOUIS. November 6. On Monday last, two men heloning to the party which conducted the Man dan chief to h:s nation, arrived here in 43 days from (lie Mandan village.— They sav, they arrived at the village on the 24th of September last, all well, having a passage of 101 days from this place. From the mouth of the Missouri to the village 1C 10 miles, and calculating their being obliged to stop sev-.-.ral days on their journey to pro cure provisions, progressed upwards of twtnty mr>- s p e r day. The men report that they arrived at the Ricaree village on the I2tli Sept, and experienced a considerable degree of hospitality from these people , the Seaux appeared very hostile and noth ing hut fear prevented their stopping the party. These in. n left the hunt ing party about 25 miles above the Manila village on their wav to the hunting ground, at the foot of ihe mountain, they express great appre hension from the Bluckfoot Indians who swarm in tho3e regions, and wh» appear entirely in the interest of the Bnluli (actors, who have trading hou ses on tile Yellowstone river, and other .streams which empty, into the head branches of the Missouri. Messrs. Cook’s, Miller and McClel land who had permission to ascend llie Missouri to its head, were stopped by the Tttons and escaped 6y stratagem, otherwise it w.«s expected they Nvottld have been cut off. These gentwnen ate now trading with the Mahu’s on the river Platte. Messrs. Pierre Chouteau and tw* sons, Auguste son of colonel Auguste Chouteau, Mr. Manuel Lisa and doc tor Thomas, are expected daily ; front them we expect a more particular de tail of the voyage. OHIO, November 23. STATE OF OHIO. It is about twenty years since the first settlement was effected this state. For several years after it com menced a destructive Indian war re tarded its growth* Since that period a rapid emigration from the different states, and ais* from Europe, has great!/ increased the number of the inhabitants and changed the wilderness into a fruitful fit Id. The population of this state is at present rising of two hundred thousand souls. Agriculture is cariied to a great height. Com merce and Manufactures are rapidly increasing. There are four different Banks with large capitals, es tablished—And thirteen public news papers published weekly. •Notice. subscriber having removed t© Savannah, offers his services t© the public in the FACTORAGE AND ; Commission Line, and hopes by strict attention, to render satisfaction to those who may favor him with their business James Bcws. , Oo October 15. 1 65 •( CharlcS Goodwin OF this place having 1 assign ed over to Trustees fortlie benefit of hi* Credited* all his estate} real and per sonal ;we ilie subscribers who have ac cepted the trust,give noticell atvvehavti been putin possession ol the same, .nd requ-st all the said’CiWiitors, tfNfbid a statement of their several deja.JHi to Tbonus Ogicr, esq Charleston, Joseph Hutchinson esq. Augusta, the said Chirks Goodwin or ton idler of us.— As soon as we can m..ke an < stimale of the property and a stan nu m of the de mands igiinst it, we will call a meet ing of the Creditors, of which due no tice will he given, and in the mean lime, vie think it our duty to repeat the former'notice, u.at all those Cred itors who do not come in by toe iCb of January tnxt, will be deprived of uH benefit Under the dt ed.. Leroy Hammond. James Be Town Creek-Mills S. C. ) 25th September, 1809 $ \ 13_* —"— : —•k'r— Scriven Superior Court. * September Term —lßo9. RULE NISI. ON the petition of William Scar. brough, stating, that being pos sessed by endorsement of a note of hand given by Nathaniel Lunday to Thomas Hall, for 10/; 17. 6. dated 27th March, 1792, and made payable on or before the Ist January, 1793; and by said Thomas Ilall endorsed to William Scarbrough ; a copy of which said note, as nearly as the petitioner could recol lect, is annexed to the pe'itieri, and is | filed in the (fficc together with an sffida \it. that the sid note is' lost or mislaid, and other circumstantial proof being hi id before the court, Oli P ERR D y ... That the said note be established asdi- < rected bv the act in such’cast s made and V provided, on the said William Scar- v| hrnugh publishing a notice for the ■ space of six rn-mths in <mt of the puhlic Gazettes of this state, uuless cause be % sin wn to the contrary. True Extract from the Minutes. Jas. Caswell, C. S. C. S C. . September SO. J 2