Philadelphia, May 17,
tyierssting correspo.xdence,
X ELATIVE TO Tltl AFFAIRS OF
FRANCE and THE UNITED STATES.
The fcllutviig. correftandence, eomprifing the
rnnji i mportaht of the ducumtnts contained in
the President's message to Ccngrefs of I Qt/j
'January lafl, if perused with candor and
attention, mtifi fatisfy every independent A
merican of the sincere, aSive anil unceasing
efforts of our government t> maintain invio
late the rights of France, refullingfrom the
duties of neutrality, the lazu of nations and
cxifling treaties t undmofl completely vindicates
cur nation from the unjufl reproachet and
' complaints of the French Directory and its
agents.
' A government which required only a I'.now
" ledge ut the TRUTH to juflify jtf meal'urcs, couU
•' not but be anxious to have this (ully and frankly
" difplayeA"
FXISIDENT'S MESSAGE, JAN. 19, '9*.
Letter from Mr. Randolph to Mr. Fatichct.
_ ( Continued from Monday's Gazette.)
' lie firit part of your fifth allegation,
which implies VThnt the United States quit
" the neutrality which they profefs by sub
" fenbing through an excels of clrcumfpec
" lion (management) to an order, like the
proclamation" has been jult anticipated.
F» the second part, which affcrts that we also
quit the neutrality, which we profefs by
heing unable to maintain our treaties we an
(■.ver that although to the best of our ability
and understanding we have maintained our
treaties, yet if any occasional or real inability
h?s been (hewn this cannot be ttansformed
into a renunciation of neutrality. Prove to
us that this supposed inability has sprung
from an unfriendly motive ; that it has not
beon infeparablc from the infancy and situa
tion of our government ; that it could have
been remedied by'any expedient at our com
mand, except war or reprisal or the fore
runners of both ; then and not till then, will
it be incumbent upon us so to account for it
further. •' I hat wc have been obliged to
" abandon our relations exclusively to Eng
" land" (as in the third place you have af
firmed* is a question of fadl between us.
We deny it. l'he American navy cannot
yet dispute the ocean ; but American rights
have not been relinquilhed. Of the time,
mode, and ftyleofinforcing them, the United
States are thefole judge.
1 liroughout your letter, you have dispers
ed allufionsto the late treaty of the United
States with Great Britain. To this, as to
a centre, the whole series of your observa
tions has tended, and we arc taught from one
passage at last, to view it as a prelude to re
prefentatiorrs, which you meditate to the
French republic.
That treaty has been communicated from
the department of State, only to the chief
magistrate of the Union. But it will not be
conceived, that reasons peculiar to the cafe,
caused their reserve. We were acquainted
with no duty towards foreign nations, which
/hould lead us to infringe the usage of sus
pending the publication of treaties, until the
ratifications have been exchanged ; or to im
part tethern more than has been already im
parted to tbe committee of public fr/ety in
i'ranee by our envoy in- London through
our minister in Paris. Yes, Sir, you fay,
that you demand justice only : justice you
shall have ; and 1 repeat in the name of the
President the promises, which I admjt my-'
felf to have often made to you, that our i
treaties with France ftjall be sacred. No
ration upon earth can controul our will, un
less preceeding engagements be violated. To
save the rights of the French republic was
an ultimatum in the initru&ions to our en
*oy : the President and Senate are the final
arbiters whether the treaty (hall exifl. It is
with tbem to pronounce,with whom treaties
shall be made, and upon what terms ; -they
will doubtless move under the awful tefponfi
bility attached to the guatdianfhip of nation- j
al honor, faith and independence*
Tile President is willing to fuperadd any
orders, which can with propriety be expedled
from him, for the execution of our treaties
with France } if any such can be suggested
beyond those already given. Every charge
which] can be brought against the govern
ment, we (hall meet at the proper fealon, and
-in the armour of political integrity. We
confide that the wisdom and magnanimity of
the French republic which refitted past ma
chinations to disturb our harmony, will re
ceive with caution suspicions, which may
hereafter be thrownon our fidelity. For her
happiness we pray, and may our connexion
be perpetual.
1 have the honor to be,
Witb the greatest refpeft and esteem,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant.
EDMUND RANDOLPH.
[TRANSLATION-]
Joseph Fauchet, Minister Plenipotentiary of
the French Republic r.eartbcUnitedStates,
to Mr. Randolph, Secietary of State of
the United States.
Phdadelphia, tbe toth Pratrial, year
of the French Republic, one and indivi
sible, (Bth June, 1795.)
SIR,
Yonr letter of the 29th of May was re
ceived by me oa on the zd inft. The differ
ent fubjefts therein dii'cuffed, meriting ihe
most ferioui consideration, I have taken some
time to prepare an answer which I (ball now
with all the caador the fubjett requires.
In the fit ft place I (hall observe, that
in writing my letter of the id of May in
coofequence of a croud xf cbmpfainto which
were brought to me, I had not proposed to
myfelf a plan so extensive as that you have
pursued in'your difpatcb. It is observed that
in order to give a motive for the conduit of
the Executive io every circuraftance that
might infringe the infereft of France, you
have united under a single view my former
and my present reprefentatioos. I (hall now 1
ctnmunicalc to you, freely, what tbe whoL' 1
of your letter appears to e. force the re
flexions its objedk has otherwise suggested.
What, Sir, is in quellion between us, and
tipon what can we reft our difcuflions ? Up
on the prescriptions of poGtive rentrafls or
tfce genera! laws of nations. France being
in a (late of war, considers America as" a neu
tral and an allied power. In the fir ft situa
tion (lie has rights common to all the bellige
rent powers ; in the second (he has particular
rights which (he is entitled to by treaties,
Bnd which America can allow her without
cealing 10 be ntutral. If therefuie, on the
one hand, positive engagements giving us
right to certain privileges have been neglefl
etS or execwed with indifference ; if on the
other certain rights cemmon to all are be
come doubtful as. to us, by too much moder
ation in regard to the adls of other powers ;
I would fay if you* neutrality has been re
drained by their arbitrary decilions, my com
plaints have been founded : for it is that to
which they have been 'educed ; they relt
upon fatt alone : and I require it to
be observed that I have hitherto avoided
touching ihe latter point, and that latterly 1
have spoken on it with all Jhe'circumfpeftion
and regard that could be desired, although
my inftruflions oblige me constantly to alk
what weafures the United Stales take for the
efficacious support of the neutrality of their
flag.
After having reviewed the different parti
cular cases upon which I hare compiaiaed,
permit me to give an opinion whifh has
weight with Jse, -which is, that it is impofii
ble for me among the conftrudions given to
that part of the treaty to discover the inten
tion of the two contrasting parties. By the
treaty of alliance, France relinqui/hed her for
mer neighboringpoffeffions to the northward of
the United States in which Jhe had parts of
great convenience during her wars. By the'
treaty of amity and commerce signed the
fame day, fne conceived that (he assured to
herfelf some advantages as an indemnification
in the ports of the United States themfelv>«
of wbich (he had in part deprived her ene
mies. This latler treaty has never said that
there (hould be given an asylum to capturing
vejfels coming with their prizes, it fays that
asylum (hall not be given to any vejet having
made prizes. Permit me, Sir, 10 (ay that
this is not a cottflruaion but an addition whith
you give to the treaty, which are different
things. According to this addition it were
fufficient when I complain of the repairs
made to the Thetis, to reply that (he had a
right to them.
From these forced conftru&ions it refuhs
that the belligerent powers raise pretentions
which were not looked far,and acknowledge
themselves that the meauing of our treaties
appear to them obfeure. The correspond
ence which took place on this fubjeft be
tween you and the minister of Great Brit
ais, is very important to confuk on this
point. Have not you yourfelf been struck
with this avowal of Mr. Hammond, that the
treaty fpecifies only the conduft to be obser
ved towards the capturing vessels, and fays no
thing if tbe prizes ? What trouble had you
in urging your conftru&ion when you an
swered him—" I hope, Sir, that you will
not interpret the article so literally as to pre
tend that it refufes asylum -to capturing vef
feels, for it exclude* ever y veflel which (hall
have made prizes of the French," without
doubt, .ur, that is fhf true conftru&ion, eve
ry thing becomes clear when that is main
tained ; the capturing vessel as well as her
prize are not admitted into your ports.
As to the reft, Sir, as have observed,
a difference of opinion "between the agent of
a power and the government to which he is
sent, is not by any means conclusive. I ad
e.re , w ' t k a '' m y heart, with you, to the
principles contained in the part of Mr. Jef.
ferfon's letter which you cite ; but I obfervc
that there i 3 no reason to make me the re
proach you seem to infinnate. I ought to
infill on my manner of -conftruffion, and pre-
it to you under all its forms as long as
you do not inform me that the President can
not admit my observations. Now you have
done so, I (hould content myfelfwith referr
ing them to the French government.
(To be continued.)
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES,
Teufday, May 16.
Mcffrs. Coit Varnum, Williams, Dent,
Harnlpn, Hartley and Baldwin, appeared
from the minutes to be the newly clefted com
mittee of Elections.
l'ourneig members, via. Messrs. Schure
man and Silinickfon, from New-Jersey ; Mr.
Sumpter, from S. Carolina, and Mr. Trigg,
from Virginia, were qualified and took their
feats.
A message from the Senate informed the
houle that they had appointed the Rev.
Biftiop White as their Chaplain, to inter
change weekly with the Chaplain to be ap
painted by that house.
Mr. Sitgreaves wished that the chuGngof
a Chaplain for that house might be the order
of the day for to-morrow.
Mr. Macon believed it was not necessary
that any notice (hould be given for the
purpnfe ; it might be the order for any day
on which the gentleman chose to bring for
worrl the fubjeft.
The Speaker said the notice-was not nectf
fary, but was not improper to be given.
(t being near twelve o'clock, the Speaker
observed, that it had been usual on similar
occasions to the present, to fend a message to
the Senate,to inform them that the House is
now ready to attend them in receiving the
communication of .he President, agreebly to
his appointment ; such a message was agreed
to, and sent accodingly.
Soon after the menkbers of the Senate
entered, and took the feats assigned them j
and a little after twelve, the President of the
United Slates entered, and took the chair of
the Speaker (which he vacated on the en
trance of the Senate, the President and Clerk
of the Senate bemg placed on the right hand
of the Chair, and the Speaker of tbe House
of'RepnkbUtifees and the Clsik oiiiLe left).
After lining a moment, he ipl'e, and deliver
ed the following Speech :
(See Tejlerdafs Gazette,)
Having concluded his Speech, after pre
fentinga copy of it to Prefidcnt of ihe Sen
ate, and another to the Speaker of the
of Hepreleniativcs, the Prcfident retired, as
did alio the members of the Senate ) and the
Speaker having resumed I.is Chair, he read
the Speech : After which, on motion, it
was ordered to be committed to a committee
of the whole to morrow. Adjourned.
For the Gazette of the United States.
MR. .FENNO,
■ WHILE lam writing, the state of things
may be so much changed, in the European
world, that a compleat and correfpemdent
change will be necessary in the United
States. It must, therefpre, be kept in
mind, that I write with special reference
to the present appearance of Europe.
In my communication which was pub
lished in your paper of Monday, Bth inft.
I alked the question, " What benefit is pro
posed by fending an envoy to France ? For it
'will certainly be acknowledged, unless
some good can be fairly deduced from the
mcafure,Ahe propriety of its adoption will
at least be doubtful.
Etiquette, it is said, requires it, and
why ? JJecaufe an Envoy Extraordinary
was sent to Great-Britain in 1794.
, If the difference of circumstances is not
understood, and a clear diltinftion between
our lituation then and no-M, is not acknow
ledged, I must confefs my intelleft must be
disordered, and my discernment gone. I
think a part of the difference in circum
stances has been pointed out in the com
munications I have made; and that the
fyltem adopted by the French government,
which is manifeft from all their late as well
as fornter proceedings, is incompatible
with any benefits which may or can be ex
peftcd to arise from the million contempla
ted. In addition to the existing state of
things, lince I began these papers, the
French government, or rather the Directo
ry, have publiihed a decree, in confirma
tion and extension of their former system.
They have, by this decree, modified the
treaty of France and the United States of
Feb. 6, 1778, with that of Great-Britain
and the United States of 1794, commonly
called Jay's Treaty, so as to place to their
own benefit the whole and every part of
each; and after having thus modified them,
without consulting any other party, have
ordered " this Treaty," as they emphati
cally stile it, to be inserted in the bulletin
(or Journal) of the laws.
Take a candid view of their whole con
duft, and what does it ftgnify to talk of
etiquette ? Every body knows, that mere
form or ceremony in diltinftion from sub
stance, is meant by the word " etiquette."
Can the mere form of Envoy Extraordina
ry produce m the French government a to
tal overthrow of their whole system, as it
refbefts the United States ? Will they
make us compensation for the piracy com
mitted on our trade, and peaceably give
up all their highfounding claims upon us,at
the fight of this magical Envoy ? Such a
beliefborders so strongly on ilonfenfe, that
I cannot believe any man of information
entertains an idea, of the kind. Will the
French government abandon the warmest
with of their hearts,to destroy the commerce
and navy of G. Britain, if we fend them
an Envoy > The objeft ofG. Britain in their
depredations on our commerce in '93 and
'94, was to starve France ; this they were
forced to abandon, as untenable by the law
of nations; and this they gave up—in the
compromise effefted by Jay's treaty.} But
this was far enough from being the result
of etiquette on the part of Great-Britain.
The objeft of the French government is
to destroy the commerce, of Great-Britain,
and to make all the neutral nations in Eu
rope, and the United States, subservient
to this objeft. And the events of war
abroad, or internal changes at home, and
not etiquette, must change them in this
darling objeft.
Do not the French complain of our
Treaty with G. B. as- not only an injury
to them generally, but as a special breach
of the 17th article of their treaty with us ?
In this point of view, an Envoy cannot be
serviceable, but with powers to ftiape this
btifinefs to their liking—this can as well
be effefted by Mr. Pinckney.
Is the French Direftory capable of form
ing one or more treaties into such lhape,
as perfeftly tofausfy their own wilhes, and
adapt them to their own circumstances,
without consulting any other party, as they
have done with the two treaties mentioned
above? If so, the fending an Envoy will
be, I acknowledge, a mere matter of eti
quette; but for my life I cannot fee any
benefit relulting from it.
This lalt decree of the French Direftory
of March 2d, 1797, is so remarkable that
it claims particular notice.
They remind " all French citizens, that
the treaty, concluded on the 6th February,
1778, between France and the United
States, has been, on the terms of the se
cond article, modified of full right, by
that which has been concluded at London
on the 19th Nov. 1794, between the Unit
ed, States of America and England."
The people of the United States will
please to observe, that the complaints of
the French Government have been aimed
chiefly at this very treaty ; their partizans
here have comglained that Mr.
Jay's treaty has injured the French, and
broke our Faith with them. Take notice,
on the Tecond of last March the Direftory
fay, the treaty of Nov. 1794, this fame
treaty so complained of, has of full right
modified their treaty with us,' and they
now take all the advantages of both—on
what ground i In virtue of the 2d article
of their treaty with us, which is in these
words, viz.
Themcft Christian King and theUnir
ed State; engage,mutually, not to grant any
particular favor, in refpeft of commerce and
navigation, which lhall not immediately be
come common to the other party, who lhall
enjoy the lams (ivor, freely, - cor »"
cession was freel)* nvute; or on allowing
the 1-ime compensation, it' the concefcipn
was conditional." Tiis discovery,
by the Direftory the id of la.ll March, sets
ail this matter right.
What are we to think of such loud anil
reiterated complaints about a treaty, and
the injuries it inflicted on the French, when
we find, £y the declaration of ihe#:refto
ry, that the benefits given to the English,
in terms, and by force of an express pro
vision, immediately attach themselves to
France? If this coilftruftion is just, and
who lhall dare contradift it, the necessity
of an Envoy cease his iftain bufinels
was to effeft a violation of the treaty with
Great-Britain, or at lealt a modification of
that with France, so as to place them on
the fame tooting. Bat this we fee is done
b.yithe Direftory, and solemnly recorded
among their laws.
Is there an antifederalift hardy enough
to complain any more of Mr. Jay's treaty ?
I hope not.
Some few sentiments on the proper con
duct with France, (hall be offered in my
next.
A FRIIND TO TRUTH.
May 16, 1797.
OPINION OF
Chief "Jufiice Ellfworth,
In a cafe refpetting British debts, lately
determined in the Circuit court of the
United State! for North Carolina dif
trift.
It is admitted that the bond on which
this suit is brought, was executed by
the defendant to the plaintiffs; and
that the plaintiffs have not been paid.
But the defendant pleads, that since the
execution of the bond, a war has exifled,
in which the plaintiffs were enemies ; and
that during the war, this debt was con
fifcated, and the money paid into the
of the date. And the plaintiffs
reply, that by the treaty which terminated
the war, it was llipulated, that " creditors
on either fide, Ihould meet with no law
ful impediment, to the recovery of
bona fide debts heretofore contrasted." ,
Debts contradled to' an alien, ,are not
extinguilhed by the intervention of a
war with his nation. His remedy is sus
pended while the war lasts, because it
would be dangerous to admit him into the
country, or to correspond with agents in
it: and also because a transfer of treasure
from the country to his nation, would
diminilh the ability of the former, and
increase that of the latter, to prosecute the
war. But with the termination ofhoftilities,
these reasons and the suspension of the re
medy cease.
As to the confifcation here alledged,
it is doubtiefs true, that enemy's debts
so far as consists in barring the creditor,
and compelling payment from the debtors
for the ufeof the public, can be confifcated:
and that on principles of equity, though
perhaps not of policy, they may be. For
their confifcation as well as that ofproperty
of any kind, may ferveasan indemnity for
the expences of war, and as a security
against future aggreflion. That such
confifcations have fallen into disuse, has
resulted not from the duty which one
nation, independent of treaties, owes to
another,, but from commercial policy,
which European nations have found a
common, and indeed a llrong interest in
supporting. Civil war, which terminates
in afe verance of empire, does perhaps less
than any other, juftify the confifcation of
debts: because of the special relation and
confidence subsisting, at the time they
were contrasted, and it may have been
owing to this consideration, as well as
others, that the American states, in the
late revolution, so generally forbore to
confifcate the debts of British fubjefts.
In Virginia, they were only sequester
ed ; in South-Carolina, all debts to whom
soever due were excepted from confifca
tion ; as were in Georgia, those of " Bri
tilh merchants, and others residing in
Great-Britain. And in the other states,
except this, I do not recalled that British.
debts were touched. Certain it is that the
recommendation of Congress on the fub
jeft of confifcation, did not extend to
them.—North-Carolina, however, judg
ing for herfelf, in a moment of severe
pressure, cxercifed the sovereign power of
palling an aft of confifcation, which ex
tended, among others, to the debts of the
plaintiffs. Providing, however, at the
fame time, as to all debts which ihould be
paid into the treasury under that aft, that
they would indemnify the debtors, Ihould
they be obliged to pay again.
Allo wing then that the debt in ques
tion was in faft and of right confifcated
can the plaintiffs recover the treaty of
17*83?
The 4th article of that treaty is in the
following words. " It is agreed that the j
creditors on either fide ihall meet with no |
lawful impediment to the recovery of j
the full value in ftcrling money, of all I
bona fide debts heretofore contrasted."
There is no doubt but the debt in ques
tion was a " bontf fide" debt, and theretofore
contrasted/. e. prior to the treaty. To
bring it within the article, it is also requi
site that the debtor and creditor Ihould have
been on different fides, with reference to
the parties to the treaty, and as the defend
ant was confeffedly a citizen of the United
States, it mult appear rhat the plaintiffs
wcrefubjefts of the king of Great-Britain ;
and it is pretty clear, from the pleadings
and the laws of the state, that they were io.
It is true that on'the 4th of July 1796,
when North-Carolina became an indepen
dent state, they were inhabitants thereof,
though natives of Great-Britain; —and
they might have been claimed and holden j
as citizens, whatever were their sentiments
or inclinations. But the state afterwards
in 1777, liberally gave to them with others 1
similarly circumltanced, the option of
taking an oath of allegiance, or of de
parting the state under a prohibition to
return, wjt v . the indulgence of a time to
fell their ettates, and colleft and remove
their effeft.\ They chofc the latter;
and ever zf'.er adhered to the i;in? of
Crreat Britain, and inufttherefore .be re-
I garded 2s on the British fids. ¥
It is alfc pertinent to the enquiry, whe
i ther the debt in question be within the b£»i
forft recited article, to notice an objeftion
| which has been stated by the defendant's
[ counsel, viz. that at the date of the treaty,
i what is now sued for as a debt, was not a
. debt, but a nonentity payment havinj
been made, and a difchargc effected, under
the aft of confifcation : and' therefore that
, the stipulation concerning debts did not
; reach it. ,
In the firft place, it. is not true that in
; this cafe there was no debt a't the date of
i the treaty. A debt is creatdd by contrast,
r and exists till the contrast is performed.
, Legislative interference, to exonerate a
. debtor from the performance of his contrast,
whether upon or without conditions, or to J
take from the creditor the protection of *
t law, does not in ftrifinefs, deltroy the
debt, though ft may, locally, the remedy
for it. The debt remains, and in a so
. reign country, payment is f. equently en
forced.
Secondly, it was tnanifeftly the design
of the stipulation, that where debts hid
been therefcrc'contraHed, there ftionld be no
bar to their recovery, from the operation
of laws pasTed subsequent to the contrast.
And to adopt a narrower conftruftion,
, would be to leave creditors to a harder fete
than they have been left to, by any modern
treaty.
Upon a view then of all thecircumftances
of this cafe, it mult be considered as one
withhr* the stipulation, that there ftiould be
" no lawful impediment to a recovery.
And it is not to b? doubted, that impedi
ments created by the aft of confiscation, are
lawful impediments. They mult therefore
be dilregarded, if the treaty is a rule of de
cision. Whether it is so or not, remains to
be considered. - *•
Here it is contended by the defendant's
counsel, that the confifcation aft has not
been repealed by the state ; that the treaty ,
could not.repeal or annul it: and therefore
that it remains in force, and secures the de
fendant. And further, that a .repeal of it
would not take from him a right veiled, to
Hand discharged.
As to the opinion, that a treaty does not
annul a statute, so far as there is an interfer
ence, it is unsound. A statute is a decla
ration of the public will and of high autho
rity : but it is controulable by the public
will subsequently declared. Hence the
maxim, that when two ftatutej are opposed
to each other,, the latter abrogates the for
mer. Nor is it material, as to the effedt cf
the public will, what organ it is declared
by, provided it be an organ constitutionally
authorized to make the declaration. A
treaty when it is in faft made, is, with re
gard to each nation that is a party to it, a
national aft an ex predion of the national
wilt, as much so as a llatute can be. And
it does, therefore, of necessity, annul any
prior llatute so far as thfere is an interfer
ence. The fuppoiition that the public
can have two wills at the fime time, re
pugnant to each other, one exprefcd by
a statute, and another by a treaty, b ab
surd. y
The treaty now under consideration was
made, on the part of the United States, by
a Congress composed of deputies from each
state, to whom were delegated by the arti
cles of confederation, expressly, " the foic
and exclusive right and power of entering
into treaties and alliances;" and being ra
tified and made by them, it became a com
plete nationel aft, and the law of every
state.
If however, a fnbfequent fanftion of thk
state was at all neceifary to make the treaty
law here, it has been had a,nd repeated.
By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was
declared to be law in this Hate, and ,the
courts of law and equity were enjoined to
govern their decisions accordingly. And
in 17891 wa s adopted here the present con
' ftitution of the United States, which de
clared, that all treaties made, or which
should be made, under the authority of the
United States, (hould be the supreme la\v
of the land; —and that the Judges in every
state (hould be bound thereby;—any thing
in the constitution or laws of any state to
the contrary notwithstanding.—Surely then
the treaty is now law in this state, and the
confifcation aft, so far as the treaty inter
feres with it, is annulled.
Still it is urged, that annulling the con
fifcation aft, cannot annul the defendant's
right of difclUEge, acquirpd while the aft
j was in force.
J It is triie that the repeal of a law does
not make void what has been well done un
der it, butis also true, admitting the right
; here, claimed by the defendant, to be as
substantial as a right of property can be, that
he may be deprived of it, if the treaty so
requires.—Ft is juftifiable and frequent, in
I the adjuftntent of national differences, to
concede for the fafety of the state, the rights
of individuals. And they afterwards in
demnified or not, according to circumstan
ces. What is molt material to be here noted
is, that the right or obstacle in queltion,
whatever it may amount to, has be>n create
ed by law, and not by the creditors. It
comes within the description of "lawful
impedimentsall of which, in this cafe,
the treaty, as I apprehend removes.
Let judgment be for the Plaintijff.
CHARLESON, April 31.
From the Patriate Fmncais of yeltcrday,
A letter from the Cape, received by the
post, announces that the revolters and difcon.
tented, of all cdour» and of all kinds, who
were at the Tannery, had advanced to Petit
Anfe.of which they made themselves matters,
and from which they threatened to march
againlt the Cape j that consternation and a
larm existed to a great degree in that city, all
' commuuicr.tien with which was cut off ; that
1 it could not obtain fnificient provisions for
its consumption j the inhabitants were rediw
cedtohalfa ration, and this pittance could
not lad longer than 15 days, at the end of
which time they must die of hunger, if not
aken before.
.1.0 ccr*