National Intelligencer. (Washington City [D.C.]), Vol. 13, No. 1942, Ed. 1 Saturday, February 27, 1813 Page: 2 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 21 x 14 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CONG-RUSS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DERATE ON THE BILL
For the regulation of Sea?nen on board
the Public Vessels and in the Mer-
chant service of the United States.
[continued-]
Mr. PEARSON—I am opposed, Mr. Chair-
man, to striking out the first section of this
bill. I trust the decision of the committee'will
be in opposition to the motion now under con-
sideration—not, sir, because I am satisfied with
the provisions of the bill in its present form,
but because the leading principle, if I under-
stand it, is correct and important, and the de-
tails are. susceptible of such modifications, as to
give us some reasonable assurance of availing
ourselves of the benefit of the principle. In
deed, so ardent is my desire for peace—so fatal
do I consider the continuance of this war to
the best interests if not the absolute safety of
the country, that I should deem it a positive
•rime not to advocate any measure which had
a tendency, however slight, to that object, not
inconsistent with the nation’s rights. With
this view, I may be induced ultimately to vole
for this bill in its present imperfect and ques-
tionable shape ; should the House even refuse
to adopt those modifications, which are neces-
sary to give effect to the professed principle of
the bill and which are in my judgment indis-
pensable to reconcile the manifest inconsisten-
cy between its several sections
In declaring the inclination of my mind to
vote for this bili, in the crude form in which it
is presented, I beg to be understood as going
upon a sort of forlorn hope, for the issue of
which I am not responsible. The incorrect
conclusion which the gentleman from Tennes-
see (Mr. Grundy) has drawn from the remarks
which I had the honor of submitting some
weeks ago on the bill for raising 20,000 addi-
tional troops, renders it necessary for me to
state the substance of the project I proposed,
and the extent of the pledge, as the gentleman
terms it, which I gave. I did state, sir, as my
impression, that this war could be terminated
Vt iih honor and advantage to the nation with-
out a further appeal to force. This opinion
was aided by the fact of an arrangement on the
question now in dispute, having been entered
into by our commissioners Messrs. Monroe and
Pinckney with the British government in the
year 1806, which in the opinion of these gen-
tlemen, in my opinion, and I believe the opi-
nion of a large portion of the American people,
Was both honorable and advantageous to the
U. States; and as we had no evidence ofdif
ferent principles or claims being now advancer*,
by the British government, it was fair to con
elude, that an arrangement at least equally ad
vantageous could still be obtained. On this
b.-sis I bottomed my project of passing a law
for the exclusion of British seamen from our ma-
ritime service and following up the lasv, using
it as an instrument, by fair, candid and liberal
negotiation. On this basis I ventured the as-
sertion, or pledge if the gentleman pleases,
*4 that >f G. Britain will not be satisfied to ar-
range this subject fairly, so as to exempt us
from the abuse of the prac' ice of impressing
from our vessels, when such security as is in
<t>ur power to give a d such as she ought to ask
is given her, that her seafaring subjects shall
not be < j&pu-ved in our public or merchant ves-
sels ; then we shall have a cause of war, (and
bt united in it) more worthy of the energies of
this nation.” This is the pledge I gave ; I now
repeat it, and only wish the gentlemen had the
inclination and the power of binding myself
and the nation for its redemption. The gentle-
man did ask me what I considered an essential
right for winch l would contend—my reply was,
that the protection of native American citizens
was such a right. I will go further, by extend-
ing this right to naturalized citizens whilst
they remain within our jurisdiction, and in all
cases where protection can be given to them
not inconsistent with the claims of their native
sovereign. But how the gentleman has brought
himsell to the belief, that the mere passage of
this bill is to work the effect of placing the
contt st in which we arc- engaged on die is-
sues I have stated, is to me perfectly inconceiv-
able. Ifhe wish s to avail himself of my ad-
missions, let him adopt my entire-propositions ;
go the whole length required, and his claims
will be better founded. .This, however, the
gentleman and his friends are not willing to do.
They tell us at the thresholdgand l regretted to
hear it, that this bill is not intended as a step-
ing stone to negociation. If this is the case,
then indeed, sir, my hopes are much disap-
pointed, and the goodly prospects which the
first introduction of this bill inspired, must
vanish—for if it is not intended as an instru-
ment for negociation-, it is perfectly useless and
must remain a dead letter on your statute book.
1 agree perfectly with the gen leman from Ten-
nessee, in the view he has taken of the advan-
tages likely to result from the adoption of the
principle of the bill under consideration; con-
sidering it solely as a general and permanent
regulation, totally disconnected with the pres-
ent involved state of the country. But those
advantages can only be applicable to and re-
sult from a state of peace—it is therefore idle
to be legislating for futurity—for a state of so-
ciety which does not exist—unless, indeed, our
acts tend to hasten the period when and when
alone they can be effectual. In whatever light
other gentlemen may consider the object of this
bill, and the object of introducing it at this
time, I cannot, but consider it either as a mea-
•sure of p idfeation, or as a mere sxhbition of
pacific professions calculated to strengthen the
declining popularity of the war and its authors.
The gentleman from Tennessee has entered
his protest against holding out false colors, in
recommending the adoption of this bill—1 will
not_it would ill become me to question the
sincerity of the gentleman, the more so as he
has expressed his willingness to admit of vari-
ous modifications to the details of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention, nor is
it the proper time, to pass in review the several
sects, oi this bill & point out their inconsistency
and defects. I will, however, remark generally,
that the regulations and penalties are insuffici-
ent to secure its faithful execution. The first
and 2d sections are at variance with each other,
and the eighth section calculated to produce
difficulties—totally unessential to gourselves
and not free from constitutional objections.
I therefore admonish gentlemen, if they wish
to avoid the imputation of deception, on the
very face of their proceedings, to amend the
bill so as to reconcile the first and second sec
tiers. As those sections at present stand, the
first excludes from our maritime service ail
foreigners who shall not have been naturalized,
or have commenced a course of naturalization
at the time of this law going in o effect, arvd
shall have remained wi'hinthe territorial juris-
diction of the U. S. for the space ot 5 years. A-
greeably to my construction ot the s cond sec-
tion (and I doubt not it is the correct construc-
tion) not only the two descriptions of fore ign-
ers before stated, but all those who m.iy at
any time hereafter he naturalized are allowed the
same privilege. Trie sections are therefore at
war with each djner, and it is for gentlemen to
determine which they will adopt and which
reject. 1 contend they are bound to reject the
2d section, for it will be recollected, in the
made to the British government since the de-l said in the report which accompanied this bill
claration of war, almost every gentleman of that the flag shall protect those who sail under
the majority who spoke on the subject availed it, yet in the same breath all those are exclud-
himself of the unauthorised proposition, which ed from it whom our enemy contends are not
Mr. Russell tells us;he made to Lord Castle- entitled to be thus protected
course oi" the discussions this session in rela^
lion to the pacific advances, as they are termed*
reagh, viz. that all British seamen should be ex-
cluded from our public and commercial service,
except such as ,had already been naturalized.
Gentlemen have given on various occasion their
approbation to this proposition, and brought it
in aid of their arguments as a legitimate execu-
tive act. I require then that you seal your ap-
probation of that alledged proposition by mak-
ing the provisions of the bill co-extensive with
it. If you do not, you condemn that which
you heretofore professed to approve.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Tennes-
see (Mr. Grundy) contends that no distinc-
tion exists, that none ought to be made, as to
the extent of privilege or prohibition between
native Sc naturalized citizens. This posi-
tion is in a great degree correct, and whilst
the two descriptions of persons remain with-
in the jurisdiction of our laws, they are equal-
ly entitled to protect ion ; and I should very
reluctantly give my assent to any law, which
had for its object the abridgement of one sin
gle right or privilege which naturalized citi-
zens now enjoy a*d have been accustomed to
exercise; nor do I contend for the exclusion
of those already naturalized, from the maritime
service of the U. S. My feelings are against
such a course ; 'he sentiment of the country is
against it; and the individuals themselves, from
the long enjoyment of the right, would think
themselves abandoned. Moreover, the incon-
siderable number of persons of that descrip-
tion in our sea service, will pr vent it from
being a question of serious import, if this
country and Great Britain are disposed to ac-
commodate the differences which unfortunate-
ly exist. But, sir, if the question is to be de-
cided on abstract principles of national or so-
cial law, whether one nation can, by any con
tract, expressed or implied, with a na-
tive citizen of another nation, totally dissolve
the political obligations wh ch existed
between such citizen and his native state
—it must be determined against such a right.
I contend that all civilized nations do recognize
material distinctions between their native and
adopted eitizens.—Distinctions which arise
from the nature and first principles of society
—principles which impose obligations and du-
ties paramount to constitutional or written law,
and without which nations could not exist
and individuals would be always insecure.
These great principles are on the part oTthe
nation protection, and on the part of the citizen
allegiance; and as it is admitted that a nation
cannot denationalize at pleasure its citizens—
so neither can the citizen by any act of his
own, or by consent with a foreign government,
expatriate himself and become to all intents
and purposes an alien in relation to his native
state. Nor do these principles interfere with or
contravene the naturalization laws of our owr.
or any other country, which are merely muni-
cipal regulations in 'he nature of a contract be-
tween tlie individual and the naturalizingcoun-
try, subject at all times to the superior claims
of the native country, when the citizen leaves
the adopted nation or places himself in the
power of his native sovereign. We all know
that Great Britain denies the right of expatria-
tion—we also know that her naturalization
laws are expressed in the same or broader terms
than our own. How is it then possible to
reconcile this apparent inconsistency with-
out resorting to those great first principles of
civil society which I have stated? By doing which
all is rendered clear and intelligible. I am also
authorised to state that the same doctrine is
held by our own courts, and may be illustrat-
ed by a plain case—suppose a native American
citizen, possessing real estate in this country,
where aliens are not entitled to hold real estate,
should go to E'gland and there become natu-
ralized ; would he, by thus being naturalized
in a foreign country be considered in all re-
spects as an alien and his lands subject to con-
fiscation as in case of aliens ? I presume
there can be no difficulty in deciding that the
person thus situated would not be considered
an alien, & were he to return to this country he
would enjoy his lands, receive the protection of
the government and be obliged to perform the
duties of a citizen.
It is unnecessary to say more on this part of
the subject, or to further demonstrate the in-
correctness of the gentleman’s position, (hat
there is no distinction between native and na-
turalized citizens. I hope we shall seldom be
under the necessity of making a distinction;
but it is important that we should know" our
duty, and always if possible do right.
Mr. Chairman—the eighth section of this bill
is peculiarly objectionable. It is inconsistent
with the idea so much insisted on, that this
measure is intended as a beneficial, permanent
regulation ; because you trust to the conveni-
ence or good pleasure of other nations, whether
it is ever to have any effect or operation what-
soever. You exhibit the strange spectacle of
an independent nation depending on foreign
governments for the effect of laws which you
say are intended as general and permanent and
not arising out of the particular circumstances
of the country. As a measure of pacification,
it is altogether unnecessary ff may prove inju-
rious—unnecessary because we never havecom-
plained of the employ even of our seamen by
other nations—the superior inducement to men
in our employ is the bestsecurity for their ser-
vices—and nothing but the continuance of your
wretched restrictive system can drive them
from their country. It may and in all probabi-
lity will prove injurious ; because G. B. will
not formally abandon the right of in.p easing
from on board neutral merchant vessels, in
consideration of that kind of security which is
given by this bill, that none of her subjects
shall be on board—she will not thus barter
away the right of expatriation, against which
she has so long and invariably contended—and
unless she is extremely desirous of putting an
end to this war, which we ourselves have de-
clared, she may not be disposed to exclude
from employ those American seamen who have
voluntarily entered the service and may wish to
continue.
In point of principle this section is also high-
ly objectionable, and is the very opposite ex-
treme of all those doctrines about personal
rights, with which we have been so repeatedly
assailed by gentlemen in the majority. We
here require other nations to exclude our na
live citizens from their maritime service. Have
gentlemen well considered the extent of this
principle ? Do they recollect the maxim, tha<
what we do by another we ourselves do ? 1
ask then if we have the right not only of deny
mg to our citizens the privilege of expatriau. n,
but of loco-motion— the right of leaving thi
country in time ot peace, ai d seeking such tem-
porary employ in otjier countries as their in-
clination or interest may point out? If we
cannot do this, we cannot procure it to be
done through the instruuientaluy of others.
If you admi this power in the government
over the citizen, all your fine theories about
personal rights vanish. You admit more than
G B. has ever contended for—more than 1
deem correct and more tiian is necessary or
proper as a peace ojt* ring. If indeed this war
was commenced or prosecuted tor any thing
like the principle here involved—the fact is,
no principle is in contest, and if there were,
we give it up by this bill-—for although ij 18
I had intended, sir, to comment more at length
on the extraordinary nature and character of
this war, but the gentleman from Virg-ini
(Mr. Nelson), who preceded me, has rendered
it unnecessary—particularly as his exposition
is entitled to more weight from the circum-
stance of his having been an advocate for I hi
declaration of war. That gentleman has cor-
rectly stated that the continuance of this war
exhibits a phenomenon to the world. “ Ask,”
says he, “ any man for what we are fighting,
and he cannot tell you. Is it far the right of
prohibiting British seamen ? We disclaim any
such right. Is it for the protection of Ameri-
can seamen ? Great Britain does not deny our
right. It is then solely for the abuse in the ex-
ercise of those rights, and in the practice of
both nations -wrong has been done to each
other. G. Britain has a right to her seamen,
and in the severe contest in which she is and
has long been engaged with France, she re-
quired their services. The unlimited employ
which we give to them operated injuriously
to that goyernment. On the contrary, in the
exercise of the right of impressing lier own
subjects, America!) citizens often by design or
mistake become tlje victims—thus the question
solely turns on tie abuse of acknowledged
rights.”
This I understood to bedlie substance of the
argument of the'hdn. gentleman from Virginia.
It is unanswerable—and it is the duty of this
House, as. far ks depends on them, to remedy
this abuse and,then ,$top. The misfortune has
been, in all the negociations and discussions
on this subject, we have been eternally involv-
ing fine spun disquisitions about principle, with-
out seeking a remedy for practical abuse.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. G.) has
resorted to an argument in favor ot this bill,
which I doubt not will be irresistible with ma-
ny of his political frjends, and which devclopes
but too plainly its ijeal object. He has stated
'hat he does not believe it will lead to peace.
I say it cannot become a permanent regulation,
because its operation is made to depend on a
state of peace. But, says the gentleman, it
will place the opposition, clearly in the wrong
—strengthen the powers that be, and give po-
pularity to the war. For myself, sir, the gen-
tleman is perfectly w elcome to all the benefit
which he may anticipate from such an argu-
ment. I can assure gentlemen of the majority
that it is not for the love of opposition but
from a sacred consciousness of duty that my
name is so frequently recorded against them ;
and whenever they may do right, whatever be
their motive, I hope not to be found in the
opposition. They ought, however, to recollect,
that real virtue brings with it its own reward
—that the merit of, a good act is much impair-
ed by an incorrect or unworthy motive,
therefore hepe that those who hold in their
hands the destinies of the nation, will be actu-
ated not so much by the de-ire of placing oth
ers in the wrong, as by the superior and laud-
able desire of doing what is right, regardless
of consequences. Motives of action, which
spring from the allurements of place and power
(in a government so equally and happily con-
stituted as this) can seldom or never be felt
by those who are really qualified to adminis-
ter its public concerns, who are entitled to
public confidence. I.disclaim those influences
on myself—and were the country in ihe enjoy-
ment of its wonted peace, or could I perc eive
in the virtue and wisdom of those who govern,
the prospect of its ultimate safety and prospe-
rity, I would willingly retire from the turmoil
of this assembly, and seek for quiet in more
humble scenes.
WASHINGTON CITY.
SA TURD AY, FEBR UARY 27.
THE PROGRESS OF THE WAR.
Since the war began we have made
two campaigns, one by land and one by
sea. By sea w^ have not merely been
successful—this would be a term hot
strong enough to express what has hap-
pened. When.we entered.upon the
war, our commerce, it was predicted,
would be entirely swept from the ocean ;
while our gallant little navy—gallant as
we all know it to be—it was also pre-
dicted must inevitably be swallowed up
by the devouring superiority of the
British ; and, indeed, in this latter be-
lief almost every one seemed to join.
Be it also remembered, that in debate
in the House ©F Commons, on the 2d
of November, Mr Canning charged the
ministry with having conducted the war
against this country upon a principle ot
forbearance, in expectation of a peace ;
upon which Lord .Castlereagh instantly
disclaimed any such principle, declar-
ing that the war had been conducted
against us “ with all the means, both
naval and military, which the country
could have spared from other objects.”
And Mr. Robinson said on the same
side, that “orders had been given to
sweep the seas of all American ves-
sels.” Notwithstanding these efforts
and these orders, what has been the re-
sult ? Our commerce has suffered only
p rtially, probably not double ot what it
woulu have suffered in the same time
during what the English used to call a
state of peace towards us ; while our
gallant little navy has exhibited a series
of rapid, uninterrupted and brilliant tri-
umphs, such as have never been surpass-
ed in the annals of any nation. The ex-
tremest liifiits of the western ocean have
been in a blaze with our glory ; and the
patriot of America has beheld With gra-
titude, admiration and almost astonish-
ment the flag of the greatest, most ex-
perienced, most, tremendous naval pow-
er the world ever saw, struekj time after
time, to the-stars and stripes of thisnev
people. Had our campaign by lane
been as triumphant as that upon the
ocean—had it succeeded in but an infe
rior degree—we should have exhibited
achievements in arms such as not the
most powerful military nation upon the
earth, neither France, nor England, nor
Rome, nor Greece, could probably boast
in so short a time upon both the ele-
ments. To have been successful upon
both, would, indeed, have swelled our
gratification to the utmost pitch, and
have rendered, thus early, the Ameri
can name, if possible, more illustrious
in war than it was distinguished by for
bearance in peace ; but, perhaps, to have
expected this from a country just
emerging from thirty years of peace,
would have been too much. Upon the
ocean we have had our triumphs in
overflowing, in glorious measure; far
beyond what we ourselves had ever
imagined—far beyond what our haugh-
ty enemy could ever have dreamed was
possible. Our successes by land, we
trust, are to come.
There is another view of this subject
we would hold up to some of our worthy
federal friends in the East. It is a fa-
vorite opinion with some among this
class, that in this wicked war against
innocent and injured Britain, the will
of Heaven is against us Aye, it stands
very well with this pious, patriotic
opinion, that in four short months (the
Guerriere was destroyed in August and
the Java in December) Great-Britain,
upon the very element where for so
many years she had been robbing us of
our citizens and our property—upon
this highway of nations, and with all the
world as spectators—should have seen
her national flag already four times en-
countered and four times chastised and
humbled ; its giant strength grappled
and more than half its reputation torn
away by the new fledged skill and spon-
taneous valor of the seamen of this in-
fant, long-suffering, abused republic.
Does this mark the blessings of Heaven
upon the foe ? or, does it point to a just
retribution from the hand of Him who
holds the waters and the winds, and be-
fore whom the mighty are levelled ?
It has been remarked that the gallant
Bainbridge gained his victory on the
day of the great festival in New-York
in honor of the three that had preceded
it; and we would beg leave to remind
the reverend clergy in New-England,
that the very day on which the gallant
Hull first humbled the domineering
blood-stained flag of Britain, and dis-
solved the fell magic of its invincibility,
was that which had been se- apart by
our national rulers as a day of adoration
and prayer to the Throne of Grace,
when our humble supplications for pro-
tection and success were seen to be co-
incident with the first signal overthrow
of our enemy upon the deep.* A peo-
ple who make war under the banners of
justice against a nation that has long
oppressed, insulted and plundered them,
will never, with humility we hope it, be
long abandoned of the Most High.
We congratulate the nation—we con-
gratulate our republican friends in eve-
ry part of the Union, on our trophies by
sea. The historian .will dwell upon
them as transcending in splendor all the
achievements of our glorious revolution
during a period so short, and after-ages
will look back upon them as illustrating i
the fame of the administration under
which they were won. The national
blood which runs in the veins of our
brave tars, gives life also to our sol-
diers. They feel alike the energy of
freemen and the invigorating impulses
of a good cause. A little more discip-
line, and we shall soon witness the same
noble deeds by land and by sea.
To the nation which can take grim In-
dians to its alliance, thereby being in-
strumental to the inhuman butchery o’
the captive and the maimed, the day of
retribution on all sides must, we hum-
bly think, arrive.
* Captain Hull fell in -with the Guerriere on
the 19th of August; but the nautical day begins
at 12 at noon, so that the last half oj the day he
engaged her run into the 20th, the national fast
day. _ _
The Senate yesterday re-considered
their vote of the preceding day for post-
poning till May the bill regulating the
employment of foreign seamen in the
armed vessels and merchant servic of
the U. States, and ordered the bill to
be read a third time ; every federal
member voting against it.
The bill for an Extra Session in M y
wants only the signature of the Presi
dent of the U. States to become a law
The House of Representatives have
refused, after along debate , to postpone
indefinitely the bill prohibiting the use
if foreign licences on board vessels of
rne United States. It will probably
pass the House. A bill of like import
passed the House a day or two ago, but
was rejected in the Senate.
Copy ef a letter from Brig. Gen. Win* 1
Chester, now a prisoner of war, to
the Secretaiy of War.
Malden, Jan. 23rf, 1813.
Sir—A detachment from the left
wing of the North-Western Army, un-
der my command, at French Town, on
the River Riasin, was attacked on the
22d inst. by a force greatly superior in
number; aided by several pieces of ar-
tillery. The action commenced at tho
dawn of day ; the piquet guards were
driven in ; and a heavy fire opened on
the whole line, by which a part thereof
was thrown into disorder; and, being
ordered to retire a small distance, in or-
der to form on more advantageous
ground, I found the enemy doubling our
left flunk with force and rapidity.
A destructive fire was sustained for
some time; at length borne down by
numbers, the few of us that remained
with the party that retired from the
lines submitted. The remainder of our
force, in number about four hundred,
continued to defend themselves with
great gallantry, in an unequal contest
against small arms and artillery, until I
was brought in as a prisoner to that part
of the field occupied by the enemy.
At this latter place, I understood that
our toops were defending themselves in
a state of desperation, and was in-
formed by the commanding officer of
the enemy, that he would afford them
an opportunity of surrendering them-
selves prisoners of war ; to which I ac-
ceded. I was the more ready to make
the surrender from being assured, that
unless done quickly, the buildings adja£
cent would be immediately set on fire,
and that no responsibility would be ta-
ken for the conduct of the savages, who
were then assembled in great numbers.
In this critical situation, being desi-
rous to preserve the lives of a number
of our brave feilows, who still held out,,
I sent a flag to them, and agreed with
the commanding officer of the enemy*
that they should be surrendered prison-
ers of war, on condition of being pro-
tected from the savages, allowed to re- .
tain their private property, and having
their side arms returned to them. It,
is impossible for me to ascertain with -
certainty the loss we have sustained iii
this action, from the impracticability of
knowing the number who have made
their escaped.
Thirty-five officers and about four
hundred and eighty-seven non-commis-
sioned officers and privates.are prison-
ers of war. A list of the names of the
officers is herewith enclosed to you-
Our loss in killed is considerable.
However unfortunate may seem the
affair of yesterday, I am flattered by a
belief, that no material error is charge-
able upon myself, and that still less cen-
sure is deserved by the troops I had the
honor of commanding.
With the exception of that portion of
our force which was thrown into dis-
order, no troops have ever behaved
with more determined intrepidity.
I have the honor to be, with high
respect, your obedient servant,
JAMES WINCHESTER.
Brig. Gen. U. S. Army.
Hon. Secretary at War. "
A list of officers taken at French-Town^
January 22d, 1813,
James Winchester, Brig. General
William Lewis, Lieut. Colonel
James-Overton, jun. Aid-De-Camp
George Madison, Major
James Garrard, jun. B Inspector
John McCilla, Adjutant
Tolland Keen, Quarter-Master
John Todd, Surgeon.
CAPTAINS.
Richard Hightower, John Hamilton,
Bland W. Ballard, Sami. L. Williams,
Coalman Cholier, Uriah Sabrie,
Henry James, Ii chard Bledsoe,
Soseph Kelly.
LIEUTENANTS.
Caleb Holder, Ashton Ganard,
Byran Rule, Wm. Moore,
Wm. M. McGuire, J hn Higgins,
ENSIGNS.
Lynden Comstock, James Mundy,
Wm. O. Butler, James H: rron,
Win. Nash
J*
Thomas Chin,
Jos. Harrow, Jos. Mooring,
John W. Nash, Wm. Fleet,
John Botts, George Cardwell.
Total 35, prisoners at Malden.
The Indians have still a few prisoners in their
possession, which I have reason to hope will
be given up to Col. Proctor at Sandwich;
JAMES WINCHESTER,
Brig Grn. U■ States Arm
Copies of letters from Captain Evans
co man ding the Frigate Chesapeaket
to the Secretary of the JVavy.
United States’ Frig ’e. Chesapeake,
SIR— at Sea, Jatiua v 12,1813.
Ydu will receive this by the Bri-
tish ship Volunteer, which we c ptur-
eci this morning, on her passage to the
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
National Intelligencer. (Washington City [D.C.]), Vol. 13, No. 1942, Ed. 1 Saturday, February 27, 1813, newspaper, February 27, 1813; Washington, District of Columbia. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth996074/m1/2/: accessed May 20, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .