text: EE LN N A i e o eomend 0 o ' 4 o dd RSTIE o s eN N W e TT Tk ; \ - - ‘:\" ¥ ’ gs > v_:':.ﬁ-:-‘?:"::“ T e .::‘- \i.‘;ﬁ. ‘..IW 4 g {{(7 - % < = se G N N/ ZalEr b ; e ’ A : :—=}*=’J’€{'t* sN WY 95707 g * A i s . . \ e e e=bWP o ™ T 2 » % . B | * . Al P y i y et 2 : W e S NE LLT : s . - ; . 7 ¢ - : N L e | POPETSY - & . 2 4 - _‘___,’_‘_‘.;} : N 1 "':,;,.._.-"-;.-fﬁ ; ) e . / e o /‘M ' B=2 : 2 E = » B -\3“’,::‘s%:_;_l&.."_?_?_’__;:?' Rt -:' ; ’ : e g ;’ . - e Y ’ 2 s = T o . b » . 2 v [ No. 25,—Voz. LIIL] POR?"SMOUTH: ( New-Hampsaire) PusLisHeD BY PEIRCE & GARDNER, PriNTERS TO THE STAT;, AND PR;;f;ans OF THE .LAWS OF ‘Tém New Spring and Summer GOODS. el R R~ Fuf? received and now opened at DRAPER'’S CHEAP CASH STORE, a very exienfive variety of the molt Fofhionable, Fancy, and Staple, PIECE GOODS, adapted to the pr:cfcnt & approaching fealon. AMONG WHICH ARE, LADIES elegant Mantles and 6 4 damask Shawls; black lace, Nett, for shades; black lace Veiling; elegant white lace Veiling; Spider net; fine leno and spider net Muslins; linen Cambrics; fancy Muslins; 4-4 and 6 4 cambric ditto. 3 4-4 and 6 4 plain and figured book & Jacquard ditto. Variety of washable Plaid Lustres; shaded taffeta and groom brown Ribbons; Sattin Groom and figured taffeta do. do.; elegant patch Furnishings; low priced Copperplates. A great variety of Pink & dark plaid Ginghams; 7 8 and 4 4 London Chintzes, light colours with small figures; white thread and cotton Laces & Edgings; common and cambric Dimities; black Laces. A great variety of Parasols, with walking canes; Lehigh cran Flats; cane and willow ditto; chip Flats; Raw Bonnets and Hats; figured Sattins, suitable for Bonnets; pink, buff, green, blue, and white Sarcensets; fine white linen and cotton Pocket Handkerchiefs; 3 fancy silk Handkerchiefs; 6-4 twilled cotton Shawls; 6-4 lace cambric and muslin Shawls; pink, blue, buff, salmon, purple and white Cambrics; 7 8, 4-4 and 6 4 black Cambrics, of a good quality; India black. Lutefrings; Florence do.; 6 4 twisted Cambric; blk. Modes and Crapes; black and green peau de soie Sattins; Italian tan Silks; Imperial Raw Trimmings; gown Patterns; black and coloured silk Velvets; black tabby do.; Ladies and gentlemen’s silk and cotton Hosiery; Gentlemen’s fashionable Marcellaires Quiltings; Ladies lace and picnic Gloves and Mitts; English and French kid Gloves, all colours; silk and kid habit Gloves; men’s beaver do.; silk chambray Muffins; black silk Florentine, very nice. Variety of Coquelicot; dark, blue, and other fashionable Calicoes; 1 trunk low priced Calicoes; English Diapers; diaper table Cloths; Irish Linens; British shrinking Cottons. A% assortment of Fans from 3 cents, to $1.75; Tortoiseshell and common hair Combs; plain blk. Lutefring Ribbons, a scarce article Gold ear Hoops; gown Trimmings; silk Cords; Ladies kid Shoes, cheap; Grandcurtains; English yellow Nankins; Nankinets; Italian black and colored sewing Silks; silk Umbrellas; cotton ditto; 44, 54 and 6 4 Oil Cloths; Bandanna and Madras Handkerchiefs; superfine Broad Cloths and Casimir; Particularity of Kidderminster Carpetings, of the newest patterns; Gentlemen’s super Hats; low priced do. from 1 %0 4 dollars; Velvets and Velveteens; silvered Cords; gentlemen’s Leghorn and willow Hats; Suspenders; blue and yellow Nankins, superior quality; Madras Stripes; Cushions; blue India Cottons; cotton Checks; fine Shirting, and low priced India Cottons, &c. &c. &c. May 17, 1808, Liverpool SALT. 200 Hogsheads coarse Liverpool Salt available, for Sale—apply to ¥ THOMAS SHEAFE’S Store. May 17, 1808. NEW GOODS. Oliver Briard Has juff received a great variety of Spring and Summer GOODS, NOMPRISING almost every ar- C ticle usually enumerated in the most lengthy Piece Goods advertise ment, which are offer’d for sale at a small advance for cath, or va&pprovcd_ credit, at Store N° 2, Market fircet, mear the Parade. =~ Foy - N.B. zélperfon‘s .to\whom he. s indebted are requefled to redder their demands for settlement ; and all thofe who are indebted to him, whose Aixm of credis sdx pirady oe requel Portsmouth; May 17,1808, fow] ° DOCUMENTS . COMMUNICATED TO CONGRESS. o i SONTIOROL L Papers relative to French Affairs. Extract from a h‘}t‘;- to My. Moenroe from Gen ' : eval Arm'ﬂrang. Paris, 3th Fuly, 180%. Sir—% The accouuts‘you have had of recent eaptures made by French privateers of American v*ilels under cover of the decree ¢f November last, are not correét. At least if such cap tures have been made, I know noth ing of them. The only captures I have at any time heard of; were those made from Porto Ferrajo. - They are by no means of recent date, and have all (I believe) been redressed by the couucil of prizes. Two of these caf _es, to which I attended personally, re ceived decisions equally favorable and prompt. Interest and damages were given to the plaintiffs, and 1 know not why decisions, equally favorable, should not have been given in the oth er cases. I have within a week been informed by Mr. Erving, that he had reason to believe that a French priva teer, then in a port of Spain, had plun dered American thips, either going to or coming from England, of dry goods, to the amount of 300 dollars. Before anything could be done in Spain for the recovery of these goods, the ship went to sea, and professively for the purpose of returning to the port of her armament. Believing her to have arrived there, I put all the evidence I possessed before M. Decres who closes his answer with the following assurance: “Your excellency may be assured that as far as it depends on me, the captains of these vessels, or their owners, shall obtain, if there is ground for it, a prompt and full reparation.” I quote this to show you, that there is no disposition in the ministers of this government to sanction, or protect those enterprises upon our commerce. From the uses you may be able to make of the facts, and their relation to your question generally, I subjoin a brief exposition of the construction now given to the November decree. It was, you know, admitted by both ministerial and judicial authorities, that this decree did not infringe the provisions of the treaty of 1800, between the United States and France. Still it was contended that vessels (of the U. S.) coming from any port of Great Britain since the date of the edict, could not be admitted to entry in the ports of France. This rule, without some qualifications, was likely to become mischievous, and accordingly obtained the following modifications, and hopes to obtain a further modification, which will render it perfectly harmless. These changes took place as circumstances arose to produce them, for though the necessity for them was both foreseen and represented, it was only upon real, not upon hypothetical cases that the ministers of his majesty were willing to act. Vessels leaving ports of the United States before a knowledge of the arrest had been promulgated there, are not subject to the rule. Vessels not coming directly from a British to a French port, are not subject to the rule. The cargoes of vessels coming directly from a British to a French port and offered for entry, on proof that the touching of the ship in England, &c. was involuntary, are put in deposit or sequestration, until his majesty shall have decided on the sufficiency of the proof offered; or they are at once given up to the consignees on their giving security to abide by the decision which shall be ultimately taken by the emperor in their respective cases. The vessels can go out freely, and without impediment of any kind. The former rule, which this is an improvement of, was, that ships as well as cargoes, coming under the description, should be sequenced, &c. The further alteration which I have asked for is, the establishment of some principle which shall regulate the kind and degree of proof required with respect to the alleged application of a force majeure, and my own opinion is, that this may best be found in the greater or less correspondence which shall exist between the cargo when shipped in America, and that arrived here. If the correspondence be complete, the evidence ought to be considered as complete also, since they have not in Great Britain for the purposes of commerce, and not being there for these purposes, the inference is fair, that their going there at all was involuntary. This is a rule the ministers will consent to, whether his majesty will do so also, will be known in a few days. He is expected here about the beginning of August. Paris, September 13, 1804, I have submitted, sir, to his majesty the emperor and king, the doubts of his excellency the minister of marine and colonies, on the extent of some of the provisions of the imperial decree of November 21st, 1806, which has declared the British Islands in a state of Blockade; the following are the indications of his majesty on the point in question. 1. Can armed vessels, under the imperial decree of the 21st of November last, seize in neutral vessels, either English property or merchandize proceeding from the manufactures of the English territories? His majesty notified me, that since he had not thought proper to express any exception in his decree, there is no ground to make any in the execution, with respect to any thing whatever. 2. His majesty has not decided the question whether French armed vessels may possess themselves of neutral vessels going to or from England, although they have no English merchandize on board. 3. On the question whether French armed vessels are subject to the deduction ordered by the sixth article of the decree of November 21, his majesty has declared that the provision of that article was not susceptible of any restriction; that is to say, that the deduction must take effect on the proceeds of all confiscation of merchandize and property, which has been, or may be, pronounced in execution of the decree, without regard to the place of seizure or character of the captors. You will be so good, sir, as to notify these decisions to the council of prizes, to have them entered in the registers, and to acknowledge the receipt of my letter. Accept, &c. &c. the Grand Judge, Minister of Justice, Signed: REGNIER. Procureur General Imperial of the council of Prizes. — Pavris, 24th September, 1807. Str—You will have this moment learned, that a new and extended construction, highly injurious to the commerce of the United States, was about to be given to the imperial decree of the 21st of November last. It is therefore incumbent upon me to ask from your excellency an explanation of his majesty’s views in relation to this subject, and particularly whether it be his majesty’s intention, in any degree, to infringe the obligations of the treaty now subsisting between the United States and the French empire ? I pray your excellency, &c. &c (Signed) JOHN ARMSTRONG. His excellency the minister of foreign relations. Fontainebleau, October 7, 1807. Sir—You did me the honor on the 24th of September to request me to send you some explanations as to the execution of the decree of blockade of the British islands, as to vessels of the United States. The provisions of all the regulations and treaties relative to a state of blockade, have appeared applicable to the existing circumstances, and it results from the explanations which have been addressed to me by the imperial prosecutor general of the council of prizes, that his majesty has considered every neutral vessel, going from English ports, with cargoes of English merchandize or English origin, as lawfully seizable by French armed vessels. The decree of blockade has been now issued eleven months; the principal powers of Europe, far from protesting against its provisions, have adopted them; they have perceived that its execution must be complete, to render it more effective; and it has seemed easy to reconcile these measures with the observance of treaties, especially at a time when the infractions, by England, of the rights of all maritime powers render their interest common, and tend to unite them in support of the same cause. Accept, &c. &c.; (Signed) CHAMPAGNY. H. E. General Armstrong, Paris, November, 1807. Sir—It was not till yesterday that I received from Mr. Skipwith a copy of the decree of the council of prizes, in the case of the Horizont. This is the first unfriendly decision of that body under the decree of the 21st of Nov. 1806. In this case, and on the petition of the defendant, the court has recommended the restoration of the whole. “Cargo. I did not however think proper to join in asking as a favor, what I believed myself entitled to as a right. I subjoin a copy of my note to the minister of foreign affairs. And am, sir, your most obedient humble servant. John Armstrong. Mr. Madison, October 12th, 1807. Six—The document to which these ob servations are prefixed will inform your ex cellency—that an American ship trading under the protcétion of the laws of nations and of particalar treafies,and fuffering (hip wreek on the cozlt of Francé, has fecently been seized by his majelty’s officers, and ad ju._dged by his council of 'ptizc! as follows, YlizZ. : 3 : R Aoy A AR % Our council puts at liberty the Ameri can veflel, the Horizon, shipwrecked on the goth of May lift, ncar Morlaix, and'con fequently orders to the amount «f the sale legally made of the wreck of said vessel, to ~ gether with the merchanuize of the carge, ~which according to an estimate madeiin pre sence of the overseers of the administrations of the marine and custom houle, shall be acknowledged not to proceed cither from | English maaufaturés or territory, shall be | reitored to Capt. M'@lure, without deduc ing any other cxpénces but those relative to the sale. | “ And with respect to the other merchan. Here is an open and unqualified admission that the ship was found within the rules prescribed by the convention of 1800, that according to these rules, her cargo and her self ought to have been restored, and that such would have been the fact but for the operation of the decree of the 21st of November 1806. In the letter your excellency did me the honor to write to me on the 7th of October last, you thought it "easy to reconcile the obligations of this decree, with the preservation of those arising from treaties." It was not for me to examine the means by which this reconciliation was to be effected. They no doubt fully existed, and yet exist, in his majesty's good pleasure, and taking for granted this fact, I saw in the opinion nothing but proofs of a friendly disposition, and pledges that this was not to be either wantonly destroyed or diminished. How inauspicious however to its authority and the consolation derived from it, is this recent act of the council of prizes? An act which explicitly acknowledges the opposite characters and conflicting instructions of these two instruments, and which of course must, after it, considerations the most serious to the government of the U.S. The second reason of the council is that the decree declaring British merchandise good prize, had principally in view captures made on the high seas, but that the question whether shipwrecked goods ought to be restored or confiscated having always been judged under the 14th article of the regulation of the 26th of July, 1778. And according to their character (that might have rendered lawful, or have even commanded their seizure at sea) there is no room to introduce in this case any new distinction which, however philanthropic it may appear, has not as yet been adopted as a rule by any maritime nation. The doctrine refuted in this passage, and which inculcates the duty of extending protection to the unfortunate is not new to his majesty’s council of prizes. They have themselves sanctified it by their decision of the 5th of March, 1800. By that decision they restored an enemy’s ship on the single reason that she had been compelled to enter a French port by stress of weather. It should equally fail, says the attorney general, “in respect to myself and the council, before whom I have the honor to represent the government, were I not to maintain a principle, consecrated by our laws and by those of all nations. In all circumstances, let the loyalty of the French government serve as the basis of your decisions. Prove yourselves at once generous and just; your enemies will know and respect your magnanimity.” Such was the principle adopted by the council in the year 1800, and in the case of an enemy’s ship, yet we are now told that this very principle so honorable to the court, to the nation, and to human nature, is utterly unknown to all maritime peoples. And on what occasion do we hear this? When an enemy’s ship is again thrown on the French coast? No, it has been reserved for the wreck of a neutral and friendly vessel! For a ship of the United States. ARTICLE ### From the beginning, since that act sprang from his wisdom, a straightforward interpretation of a doubtful point, Two Dollars Per Annum. But as a declaration of an anterior and positive disposition. A distinction is here attempted to be taken. In between the interpretation of a doubtful point, and the declaration of an anterior and positive rule. This distinction cannot be maintained; for if the rule had been positive, there would have been no occasion for the declaration; neither the minister of marine nor the council of prizes could have had any doubts on the subject; the execution of the decree would have been prompt and peremptory; nor would a second action on the part of his majesty after the lapse of 12 months have been necessary to give operation to the first. Need I appeal to your excellency’s memory for the facts on which these remarks turn? You know that doubts did exist—you know that there was, under them, even much hesitation in pronouncing—you know that as late as the 6th of August I fought an explanation of the decree in question, and that even then your excellency (surely a competent and legitimate organ of his majesty,) did not think yourself prepared so to give it—the conclusion is inevitable—his majesty’s answer transmitted to the court of Paris, on the 18th of September following, through the medium of the grand judge, was in the nature of an interpretation, and being so, could not without possessing a retroactive equality apply to events many months anterior in date to itself. The 4th reason of the council, and the last which enters into my present view of the subject, is, that though one of the principal agents of his majesty had given a contrary opinion, of which the council had at one period partaken, this opinion being that of an individual could not (whatever considerations its author may merit) balance the force of his majesty's decision. Mal declaration given in the name of his majesty himself — and that if the communication of this opinion, had as alleged, given room to and served as a basis for many American shipments, and particularly of the one in question; this circumstance, which may call for the indulgence of his majesty, in a case in which the constitution is entirely to the advantage of the state, does not prevent a council, rigid in its duty, to pronounce in conformity to the decree of the 21st of Nov. and of the declaration which followed it. It would appear from the paragraph, that not finding it easy to untie the knot, the council had determined to cut it. Pressed by the fact, that an interpretation of the decree had been given by a minister of his majesty, himself specially charged with its execution, the council would now escape from this fact, and from the conclusion to which it evidently leads, by alleging — 1. That at no time has the council partaken of the opinion given by the minister; and 2. That the opinion being that of an individual, could not possess either force or the authority of one truly ministerial. It appears to me, as I think it will to your excellency, that the council have in these statements, been less correct than is usual to them on similar occasions, if, as they now assert, they have never partaken of the minister's opinion. If they have never even hesitated on the question, whether the decree of November did, or did not, derogate from the treaty of 1800. Why, I ask, suspend the American cases generally? Or why decide as they did in the case of the Hibernia! If I mistake not, we find in this case, the negotiation of the very principle laid down by the minister of marine. The action given on the 24th of December, 1865; was private, not public; or in other words, that it was the interpretation of the 72nd, November that of the minister—and as such cannot be weighed against the more recent declaration coming immediately from his majesty himself. On the comparative weight of these declarations, I shall say something, never shall I have more to repel the first part of the insinuation, that the winner's declaration was that any of the individual claims to submit to your excellency my letter of the 20th of December, 1865, claiming from the minister an official interpretation of the decree in question and his answer of the 24th of the same month, giving to me the interpretation demanded. To your excellency who as late as the 21st of August last, considered the minister of marine as the natural organ of his majesty's will, in whatever regarded the decree afore said, and who actually applied to him the interpretation of the council of prizes, and the reasoning founded upon it cannot but appear extraordinary, and will satisfy me in request. 