been made; that in fact, the farmer's has been a more lucrative trade than any other: that this, however, cannot be from the data I have before laid down, is quite clear, and were I addressing myself to any one but a man whose principles, independence, and repeated integrity have uniformly claimed my admiration, and I am persuaded will always justify my esteem, I should be disposed to say, that he had made an attempt to prop a weak and falling system by an unmanly appeal to the preju lices of the weak and inconsiderate many From what I have al ready nonced, it must be of necessity deduced, that all radesmen and manufacturers will obtain for the commodities they vend a fair profit, and that this profic will not be greater with one class than another, but as nearly as can be on an average, the same. To produce, however, this equality of profit, it is apparent that no tradesman or manufacturer will ever possess a greater quan tity of the merchandise in which he deals, than he finds to be vendible, because otherwise his profits would be reduced by a stagnant capital, from which no advantage would be derived Now it appears to me, that the interests of society do not require that any merchant should keep by him any quantity of merchandise beyond the ordinary demand, except with respect to the article of CORN; and here an exception arises which is clear, palpable, and rational to the understanding Almost all other articles of merchandise depend, in respect of their plenitude, upon human industry; but the supply of corn depends in a great measure upon the temperature of seasons; and it, passeth the foresight and understanding of the most skilful, to prevent the ravage and destruc tion of an unpropitious summer, But in almost all other species of merchandise, the scarcity may be either dispensed with, or accommodated by a succedaneum; but not so with corn; human existence depends upon the abundance of the supply of this esculent, and for any continuation of time, no discovery of man can anticipate or prevent the calamities of an insufficiency. It is quite manifest and unquestionable therefore, that there should be always on hand a considerable greater quantity of corn than can be consumed by the ordinary demand for food; but by whom is this quantity to be raised? By whom kept to alleviate, or rather preclude the miseries of squalid famine? Are we to look for it in the granaries of our patriots? Will the farmers hoard it? Does each individual, with a cautious prudence, like the ant, accumulate it for a

season of scarcity? How then is this superabundance to be preserved ?-The means have been discovered-the superabundance* finds a market in the distilleries-what is the beneficial consequence resulting from this? Why the season of scarcity arrives ; the use of the distilleries is suspended, and the proportion of corn intended for that market, is turned into the current, that with a well-timed supply, will support the hero and the less-valiant, the philosopher and the tyro; and the impending gloom is dispelled by the invigorating rays of a genial sun. When the reverse of the picture is consi, dered, and we behold desponding and hopeless countenances; when we see the purple hue of youth precipitated into the sombre mask of wrinkled age, the flushed glow of humanity may be excused, if it betrays any considerable jealousy at any purposed political regulation, which may prematurely occasion the reality of the misfortune, from which we shrink with horror, even in a visionary contemplation. I find I have been guilty of a digression; but I will now resume the subject, which is nearly concluded. If it be necessary that this superauity of corn should exist, and if it cannot exist without a market, which in years of plenty will take it off the hands of the farmer, where is that market to be found, if the use of distilleries should be suspended ?The prohibiting the consumption of the still will, I admit, produce the consequence which you seem, Sir, to approve, namely, cheapness in the price; but in intelligible language, this word "cheapness"

must

be construed, injury to the farmer; because if the present price, only yields a fair profit in relation to other vendible commodities, a less price, or cheapness, must be a reduction below a fair profit, and the consequence will be, upon the data before laid down, that the farmer will exchange the superabundant production of corn for the growth or manufacture of a commodity that will yield in its sale an increased profit. These are the principles, Sir, that I was anxious to have clearly understood; and if you feel that they are founded in candour and truth, I am persuaded you will adopt them in the investigation. of the momentous question, whether it be wise and prudent to prohibit the distillation from corn, and adopt the use of sugar?—I am, &c.-W. F. S.Lincoln's Inn, Monday, May 2, 1808.

* By superabundance I uniformly mean the surplus after satisfying the demand for food.

WOODCOCKS AND SNIPES. SIR; As the sentiments which are delivered by you upon political subjects have always great weight, and in general deservedly so with the public, I am anxious to remove the ill impressions which the communications on woodcocks and snipes, which was inserted by you, has very likely produced. Notwithstanding you and one of your correspondents have treated this matter slightingly, I conceive that it is entitled to serious consideration. I object to making woodcocks and snipes game, for all the reasons which may be adduced against the game laws; but as their injustice is not called in question at present, it would be irrelevant to state those reasons. I think that it will not be denied, that animals of every description, as well those which are denominated game as the others, were given to all mankind; and, therefore, to restrict in any manner whatever, when the common good does not require it, a person from doing with them what he chuses, is an unjust violation of his natural rights: then, does the public, welfare require that a large majority of mankind should be excluded from killing woodcocks and snipes, by making those animals game?The only reason which has been urged by the advocates of the game laws in their favour, which appears to me to deserve much attention, does not apply to woodcocks and snipes. That reason is, that those animals, which are now included in the game laws, would very soon be all destroyed, if every person were per mitted to kill them at his pleasure. Without combating this argument, but which I think I could do with success, it will be sufficient for my purpose to state, that no such apprehensions need be entertained on account of woodcocks and snipes, since a fresh supply of them arrives every year, and if they are not destroyed, they will all go away early in the spring.

-It has been

stated by you, that you do not know any right which will be abridged by the making of woodcocks and snipes game, as far as relates to any amusement of the people; from which observation I infer that your opinion is, that the people have no right at present so to amuse themselves. Now, although it cannot be denied that to go upon the land of another person, upon any pretence whatever, without the leave of the owner, is contrary to law, and subjects the offender to an action of trespass, yet it never was intended that the law should be enforced in such cases as going upon the land for the purpose of killing woodcocks and snipes, where no substantial injury is com

mitted; and the law, to guard against such vexatious proceedings, whenever damages for trespass are awarded by a jury to a less amount than 40s., makes the plaintiff pay his own costs of suit, unless notice has been given to the defendant not to come upon the land. Besides, consent is always virtually given in such cases, and I should not expect to have an action brought against me merely for shooting woodcocks and snipes, sooner than for cutting a twig from a hedge, or taking up a stone which lay under my foot in a path. But who would scruple to do those acts, or think that he acted wrong in doing them, although, in strictness of Law, he committed a trespass? When there is an intention to do an injury upon the land, it is a wrongful act; when there is no such intention, it is not so. Birds of every des scription, which are not what the law terms reclaimed, that is, made tame, or secured from escaping, are the property of the public, and the public have, properly speaking, a right to look for them upon the pige land of any individual, if by so doing, they do not commit any real injury on it, although, in strictness of law, a trespass may be committed. If a stranger left open a gate between a field of yours, in which there was a flock of sheep grazing, and a field of your neighbour's, in which there was a cop of turnips intended for seed, in consequence whereof the sheep entered the turnip field, and were doing great damage, and you passed by and saw them in the act, should you scruple to go in and drive them out, although you in strictness of law, did commit a trespass by so doing? This shews that it not only is not always wrong, but that it is meritorious in some cases to commit trespasses.—You appear to think, that the owner of land has a right to go upon it in pursuit of game when there is a tenant in possession of it without trespassing; but I apprehend that this is not the case, unless a reservation is made of the right.right.You also state, that unqualified persons are already prevented from shooting woodcocks and snipes, with the consent of the person in possession of the land, as completely as this dreaded law can make them; if this is so, the law must be passed merely from wantonness, and on that account ought to be rejected; for laws wantonly passed, are certainly tyrannical and unjust; it is shewing the rod unnecessarily. But I do not think that this proposed law will not form an additional obstacle to the shooting of woodcocks and snipes, by unqualified persons. Your reasoning is this: "to go a shooting woodcocks and snipes without a spaniel, or dog of some sort, is

what no body thinks of;" (yet I myself have many times done it) "to be seen out with dog and gun, the law takes as proof of being in pursuit of game; being in pursuit of game, subjects the unqualified pursuer to the penalty of five pounds," &c. &c. Now, I always understood, that whether the defendant was in pursuit of game or not, was a fact to be collected, in all cases, by the evidence produced; for I do not know of any act of parliament, which presumes, that a person being out with a dog and gun, without any other evidence being adduced, is in pursuit of game, and subjects him to the penalty. Then, what jury, or what justice. of the peace, would say that a person was in pursuit of game, who was found sporting with a dog and gun in places where woodcocks and snipes, particularly the latter, are generally found, those places not being the resorts of game I also object to the contemplated act, because the people will be thereby deprived of the practical knowledge of the use of fire-arms. If, as it ought to be, the government of this country is founded on the affections of the people, the motives for the use of fire-arms by them should be as numerous as possible; then every peasant would be a soldier trained to arms, prepared to defend his country in the hour of necessity. But, it has been the policy of this country, an odious policy, which had its foundation in tyranny (and to which Blackstone thinks the game laws owe their origin and chief support), to prevent the people from being acquainted with the use of fire-arms. I hope that this measure has, not that object in view. For these reasons I think, that the proposed act to include woodcocks and snipes in the game laws, if passed, will unnecessarily deprive the people of one of their most manly, healthful, and rational amusements, and unnecessarily take away one of their few remaining natural rights. But I hope that the ministers of this country have pronted better by the dreadful example which has been afforded them, by these tyrannic governments of Europe, who have brought destruction upon themselves by their unjust violation of the rights of the people.-R. R.—30th April, 1808.

ADDRESSED TO HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES SULLIVAN, GOVERNOR OF THE SAID

STATE.-Dated City of Washington, Feb. 16, 1808.

(Concluded from page 736.j

I trust, Sir, any one who knows me, will charge it to vanity when I say, that I have some knowledge of public men and of public affairs and on that knowledge, and with solemnity, I declare to you, that I have no confidence in the wisdom or correctness of our public measures: that our country is in imminent danger: that it is essential to the public safety that the blind confidence. in our rulers should cease: that the state legislatures should know the facts and reasons on which important general laws are founded; and especially that those states whose farms are on the ocean, and whose harvests are gathered in every sea, should immediately and seriously consider how to preserve them. In all the branches of government, commercial information is wanting; and in "this desert," called a city, that want cannot be supplied. Nothing but the sense of the commercial states, clearly and emphatically expressed, will save them from ruin.-Are our thousands of ships and vessels to rot in our barbours? Are our 60,000 seamen and fishermen to be deprived of employment, and, with their families, reduced to want and beggary? Are our hundreds of thousands of farmers to be compelled to suffer their millions in surplus produce to perish on their hands; that the president may make an experiment on our patience and fortitude, and on the towering pride, the boundless ambition and unyielding perseverance of the conqueror of Europe? Sir, I have reason to believe that the president contemplates the continuance of the embargo, until the French Emperor repeals his decress violating as well his treaty with the U. States, as every neutral right and until Britain, thereupon recals. her retaliating orders. By that time we may have neither ships nor seamen: and that is precisely the point to which some men wish to reduce us. To see the improvidence of this project (to call it by no harsher name, and without adverting to ulterior views) let us look back to former years.-Notwithstanding the wel-ounded complaints of some individuals, and the murmurs of others notwithstanding the frequent executive de clarations of maritime aggressions committed by G Britain, notwithstanding the outrageous decrees of France and pain, and the wanton spoliations practised and executed by their cruizers and tribunals, of which sometimes hear a faint whisper;-the com

merce of the U. States has hitherto prospered beyond all example. Our citizens have accumulated wealth; and the public reverue, annually increasing, has been the president's annual boast.-These facts demonstrate, that although G. Britain, with her thousand ships of war, could have destroyed our commerce, she has really done it no essential injury; and that the other belligerents heretofore restrained by some regard to national law, and limited by the small number of their cruizers, have not inflicted upon it any deep wound. Yet in this full tide of success, our commerce is suddenly arrested: an alarm of war is raised: fearful apprehensions are excited: the merchants, in particular, thrown into a state of consternation, are advised, by a voluntary embargo, to keep their vessels at home. And what is the cause of this mighty but mischievous alarm? We know it in its whole extent. It was the unauthorized attack of a British naval officer on the American frigate Chesapeake, to search for and take some deserters known to have been received on board, who had been often demanded, and as often refused to be delivered up. As was expected by all considerate men, and by the president himself (as I have before observed) the British government, on the first information of the unfortunate event (and without waiting for an application) disavowed the act of its officer-disclaimed the principle of searching national armed vessels - and declared its readiness to make suitable reparation, as soon as the state of the case should be fully known. Under such circumstances, who can justify this alarm of war? An alarm which greatly disquieted the public mind, and occasioned an interruption of commerce extremely injurious to our nerchants and sea-faring citizens.-I will close this long letter by stating all the existing pretences (for there are no causes for a war with G. Britain).-1. The British ships of war, agreeably to a right claimed and exercised for ages

right claimed and exercised during the whole of the administration of Washington, of Adams, and of Jefferson; continue to take some of the British seamen found on board our merchant vessels, and with them a small number of ours, from the impossibility of always distinguishing Englishmen from citizens of the U. States. On this point our government well know that G. Britain is perfectly willing to adopt any arrangement that can be devised, which will secure to her service the seamen who are her own subjects, and at the same time exempt ours from impressment.-2. The merchant vessels of France, Spain, and Holland, be

ing driven from the ocean, or destroyed, the commerce of those countries with one another, and with their colonies, could no longer be carried on by themselves. Here the vessels of neutral nations came in to their aid, and carried on nearly the whole com. merce of those nations. With their seamen thus liberated from the merchant service, those nations, in the present and preceding wars, were enabled to man their ships of war; and their neutral vessels and seamen supplying their places, became in fact, though not in name, auxiliaries in war. The commerce of those nations, without one armed ship on the sea appropriated for its protection, was intended thus to be secured under neutral flags, while the merchant vessels of G. Britain, with its numerous armed ships to guard them, were exposed to occa sional captures. Such a course of things G. Britain has resisted, not in the present only, but in former wars ; at least as far back as that of 1756. And she has claimed and maintained a right to impose on this commerce some limits and restraints, because it was a commerce which was denied by those nations to neutrals in time of peace; because it was a commerce of immense value to the subjects of her enemies; and because it filled their treasuries with money, to enable them to carry on their wars with G. Britain.-3. The third, and only remaining pretence for war with G. Britain, is the unfortunate affair of the Chesapeake; which having been already stated and explained, I will only remark here, that it is not to be believed that the British governnent, after being defeated, as before mentioned, in its endeavours to make reparation in London for the wrong done by its servant, would have sent hither a special envoy to give honourable satisfaction, but from its sincere desire to close this wound, if our own government would suffer it to be healed.—Per· mit me now to ask, what man, impartially viewing the subject, will have the boldness to say that there exists any cause for plung ing the U. States into a war with G. Britain? Who that respects his reputation as a man of common discernment, will say it? Who that regards the interests and welfare of his country will say it? Who then can justify, who can find an excuse for a course of conduct which has brought our country into its present state of alarm, embarrassment, and distress? For myself, Sir, I must declare the opinion, that no free country was ever before so causelessly, and so blindly, thrown from the height of prosperity, and plunged into a state of dreadful anxiety and suffer ing. But from this degraded and wretched

situation it is not yet too late to escape. Let the dispatches from our minister in France be no leger concealed. Let the president perform the duty required of him by the Constitution, by giving to Congress full information of the state of the union in respect to foreign nations. Above all, let him unfold our actual situation with France. Let him tell us what are the demands and proposals of her ruler. Had these been honourable to the U States, would not the president have been eager to disclose them? That they are of an entirely different nature, that they are dishonourable, that they are ruinous to our commercial int sts, and dangerous to our liberty and independence, we are left to inter-I hope, Sir, that the nature and magnitude of the subject will furnish a subiicient apology for the length and style of this letter. Prhaps some may deem it presumptuous thus to question the correctness of the proceedings of our government. A strong sense of duty, and dis tressing apprehensions of national ruin, have forced the task upon me. To some, the sentiments which, in the sincerity of my heart, I have expressed, may give offence; for often nothing offends so much as truth. Yet I do not desire to offend any man. But when I see the dangerous extent of executive influence; when I see the great council of the nation called on to enact laws deeply affecting the interests of all classes of citizens, without adequate information of the reasons of that call; when I observe the deceptive glosses with which the mischiefs of the embargo are attempted to be palliated, and posterior events adduced as reasons to justify the measure; when I know that the risks of continuing their commercial pursuits against all known dangers can and will be more accurately calculated by our merchants than by our government; when, if any new dangers to commerce were impending, of which our merchants were uninformed, but of which the government obtained the knowledge through its minister at Paris, or elsewhere, it was plainly the duty of the executive to make those dangers known to Congress and the nation; and since if so made known, the merchants and sea-faring citizens would for their own interests and safety, have taken due precautions to guard against them; and as it hence appears certain that an embargo was not necessary to the safety of our seamen, our vessels, or our merchandize :"-when, Sir, I see and consider these things, and their evil tendency; in a word, when I observe a course of proceeding which to me appears calculated to mislead the public mind to public ruin, I

years.

The 12th, enacts, that a person claiming exemption upon payment of the smaller fine, shall sign a declaration of the amount of his income.

The 13th, on engaging to serve without pay in volunteer corps, part of the fine to be remitted.

The 14th, inflicts a penalty on such persons on being returned non-effective.

The 15th, persons refusing to swear that they have not insured against fine, to forfeit the amount.

The 16th, Quakers not to be enrolled, but to pay certain fines according to the property of such personз.

The 17th, enacts, that where the persons. voluntarily enrolling themselves shall amount to the number to be enrolled by ballot under any apportionment in any such parish, then no ballot shall take place in such parish.

The 18th, gives a bounty to persons enrolling themselves voluntarily.

The 19th, enacts, volunteer corps may transfer themselves into local militia.

The 20th, volunteers to swear that they have no other bounty.

The 21st, allowances for necessaries.

The 22d, persons serving to be entitled to uch exemptions as the volunteers now have. The 23d, persons, insuting for providing substitutes, or volunteers, subject to penalty. The 24th, prescribes the mode of officer. ing the corps.