P II ILA.DEL PHI J, FRIDAY EVENING, O'ctObfr tp. "&ETTER from Mr. PICKERING ' S.rre.'ary .of State, to the ChcHalier DE ■ YRU'fO, En-boy Extraordinary and Mi- . nijler Pknip 6tentiary of bis Catholic Mu jefiy to the United States of- America.' (Conchidtdfront the Pittfburg Gazette.) DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Philadelphia, August Btb, 1797. On thw, as well as on aiother oecafion, Vou have thought fit to'upbraid mc with fliewing to the British minister a degree of fcanc'our, and Confidence \vhich you infinu ate-he does not deferve,*and which, you seem to think, I have withheld from you. Yet, fir, .all the declarations nV.de to me by that minuter, verbally and in writing, touching the points iti corrtroverfy between Von and me, have been verified. As I hai>c already said, yon declared to 1115 that you had juti reaf<Jns for fufpe&ing that an ex pedition was preparing on tfic lakes by the Engliih, in order to attack Upper Louisi ana. Th'e British Tninifter, in the firlt in- ■ ftancf, affnred me that he hs'd no know ledge of it—and his subsequent inquiries ejiabl -d him further to afiure me, that no such expedition had been or was intended by the BritilH go'frermjtent. And I have in another place offered other reasons which confirm the truth of these afluranc.es. Yet you t !1 rnc that the assurance. given me by the British minister, lut without any figne lure, did not inspire the fcrvants of his Ca tholic majeily with the fame blind confidence which it produced inme. I (hall take no other notice of this remark, than to put you right in point of fact. The note of the Britiih minister containing, th? aflfuranEe to which you refer, is not " without a sig nature ." This (like other official notes from that mini Iter) has his signature—his name written -with his own band—at the hesji.of it. Yon declared to " that you knew to a certainty that the English had made pro pofitiona ,to general Clarke, of Georgia, in or<Je r to avail themselves of his influence in that state, together with some other per sons, for making a diversion, or feriou9 at tack against Florida." The British minis ter informed me, that although he knew ncthiag of general Clarke or his expedition from Georgia, a proposition had been made to him (the British minister) for an expedi tion againlt the Florif.as: ,but that he told the projector that he hacPno power to au thorize it: »r.d besides," that there were a mpng other objeflions to the plan, two of great weight—one that the Indians were to be employed—the other, that it would vi olate the neutral rights of the United States. The Britifti minister has since (hewn me an original letter from lord Grenyille, dated the Bth of Inft April, in which he informs th? minister, that if there were no other objeftioas to the plan, the two mentioned him, viz. that it could not be executed | without employing the Indians—anaVith out violating the rights of the United States, would be fufficient to induce the British government to rejett it. This proves, fir, that Mr. Lifton's declarations 011 this point tvere not " vague and unau thentic" as you pronounce them, but in ftri& conformity with truth. As to general Clarke of Georgia, the British minister declared he had never even heard of. him ; and the extra# of the letter from ( Mr. Jackfcn, the diftrid attorney of' Georgia, rtfpefting gen. Clarke and any ] expedition forming there, in behalf of the Enghfo against the Floridas, will incline 1 , every candid inquirer at least to doubt whe ther such a projett has ever been proposed < to him. We shall afterwards fee that Mr. Blount's plot does not appear to have any : connexion with an expedition under gene- 1 ral Clarke. < Thus you fee, fir, that I have not blindly placed a confidence in the British minister : for augkt that has yet appeared, he was 1 entitled to the credit he has received. I return to your letter. You mention ' your communication? to the baron de Ca- 1 rondelet refpedling the intended expedition 1 from Canada : "from that moment, you fay, imperious necessity, and the great principle ' of fclf-defence, made his Catholic majesty's i officers turn their thoughts to objects of a ' more urgent nature than running the boun- i dary line. And- here you introduce " Mr. ' Blount's letter, and the late detested con- « fpiraK', as evincing how far their Conduct i in this rt/peft was ntceflary." It is won-, ' devfut, fir, that you should attempt to make < it be believed that Mr. Blpunt's letter and the late detected conspiracy, had any con- ; neftion with the expedition, which you fug- 1 gefted wa-s preparing 011 the lakes of Cana- 1 da against- Upper Louisiana. All that is 1 yet difcovefred of- Mr. Blount's projeft or < conspiracy, proves that it was to have been 1 formed in one of the states south of the river < Ohio ; and that it was deltined against the < Floridas, and perhaps Lower Louisiana. ; I therefore, feel fiiyfelf, for this and the ] other reasons before exhibited, still warrant- ' ed in conf.dering the fufpeCtad Canada ex- I ptdition amting the pretexts.for delaying to t evacuate the polls, and to run the boundary 1 line : and confequ'ently that your charge, J that I have in this inftanee" palpably at tempted to make groundkfs ar.d unfair im- } preffions on the public mind," is alike un- "c founded and unbecoming your public cha- c rafter to suggest. « In your next paragraph you thus address t me. " Nor do your ill-founded infinuati- f ons flop hei;e : fentimcnts and expreflions c still mora violent, flow from that fame hasty 2 pen." This yaflagc is in perfeft corref- .1 pondence with the general llrain of, your 5 letter. Whether your charge is corre&ly t made, is now to be examined. n I am ready to conlefs that my report f fbtts lligrr.atizcd was, from the pseflure of 1; » I , , huftiVefj, written in hade : but a revision ot j it latisfies mc, neverthdefi, that it is ngt I inaccurate in its flat/merits, j You quote the pa'frag: in my report j which has called forth this reproach ;it is 1 in these words: "That thtSre is but too [ much reason to believe Mr. Ellicott's fuf pgrions well founded, that an undue" influ ence has been txercifed over the; Indians by the officers of 1113 Catholic majesty, to pre pare them for a rupture with the United ' States.'.' Arid then you fay that I mention j the f'nirce of these " dreadful conjectures" to be, a private lett-r from Mr. Sargent, Secretary of the North Western Territory. Here you are extremely incorreft ; as usual when you undertake to recite my concluli ons, and the fails and cifcumftances upon which they are formed. _ It is from " a view of the whole eorrtfpondence" referred to in yny reports of the 10th of June and .I'V'f July—On the intelligence received by the Secretary of War—ind the private letter from colpuel that I drew the conclufiori you have quoted. Mr. Ellicott formed his suspicions on the spot, from what was passing before him ; and he is not a careless or undifcerning ob server. Genefal Wilkinfon fays—" Letters from all quarters announce the discontents and menaring *fpe<sl of the Savages ; two white men have beeri l'ecently murdered on the Ohio belptff the Cumberland ; and the Sa vages beyoofl the Mifiiffippi, aud those who pass Maflac, make no hesitation to avow their jjurpofr for war." he re {?rs to a letter from colonel Hamtramck, who commands the Uuited States troops at Detroit, in which the colonel'fays—l am pretty sure" that both the French and Spaniards have emiflaries among the Indi ans. 1 have it from indubitable authority, that a large belt [by which is meant a Speech] from the Spaniards is now travel ling through the different nations mean ing the nations within the territories of the United States. Colonel Sargent writes, it is true,"a pri vate letter ; but it is to a publicofficer ; and his situation as Secretary and Governor for the time, of the North Western Territory, would render it his duty to be vigilant for its'fafety ; and his charafter vouches for the accuracy of his information ; and you do not cjueftion the truth of any* part of his statement. After mentioning that theSpaniardl wene rc-inforcing their upper posts on the Mifli lippi, that upwards of three. hundred men had arrived at St. Louis and wereercfting formidable works; he adds—" It likewise appears, through various channels, that they are inviting a great number of Indians of the territory (meaning of the United-States, North Weft of the Ohio) to cross th 4 Miffi fippi : And for this express purpose, Mr. an officer in the pay of the crown, made a tour through all this country la ft fall ; since which time "several Indians have been sent on the fani« errand, and generally furnifhed with plenty of cash to defray their expenses"—A large party of Dela wares pas sed down White River about the 6th of May, on their way to the Spanish fide bear ing the national fag of Spain, sent them from St. Louis." Lieutenant Pope, in his letter of May 9th, to the Secretary of War, fays, "There have been several attempts made to draw on the Indians upon my troops : I have fully ascertained this fa<S, and demanded of the Governor to have a principal aftor imme diately brought to punishment, or sent out of the country. He has been sent for, and is now on board one of the Gallics, which is now about descending the riveA"—And, | hr, if you enquire, you will find that this " principal aftor" (Rapelje byname) was one of Governor Gayofo's agents. 1 These, Sir, are the grounds on which I expressed the opinion, That there was but too much reason to believe Mr. Ellicott's suspicions well founded, that the officers of Spain had exercised an undue influense over she Indians to prepare them for ture with the United States. This detail, fir, strikingly shews how little you have understood, and how entirely you have misrepresented my reasoning on this fubjeA. I leave you to reconcile your refledtions on the British Minister and his nation for their inhumanity inemployingthe Indians in the American war, with yourjuf tification of the Spanish officers at this time, in securing the aid of the Indians in your war with the British. " The Spaniards (you fay) have fortified St. Louis and availed themselves ef every'means o-f defence which the country afforded meaning by the ingenious exprefiion every means of defence •which tit country afforded, the employing of the Indians. You are pleased next to charge me, in yoijr customary stile, with " falling into, the molt glaring inconfiflency," because I remark that although, " it may be difficult to fay whether this plan of exciting' the Indians to direst hoflilities against the United States, has been and promoted by any of our own citizens ; yet it is certain that one or more of those citizens have proposed and taken measures to detach the Southern Indians frohi the interests of the United States, an 4 to destroy the influence of , the public agents over those nations, and thus to defeat the great objedts of their appoint ment f, the chief of which is to preserve peace.,' Having quoted this fjaflage from my re port, you ask is it possible to recon "cile such evident contradictions ? On the one hand the Spanish qfficers are those who excite the foythgTn Indians against the Uni ted States, and on the other you quickly 1 follow presuming, with fuffiient foundati on in my opinion, that it may be some citi zens of the United States." Allow me, lir, to ask in my turn, how it was possible for you net to fee thatherethereis no contradic tion ? Is it not very possible that the Spa nish officers might be courting the Chicka faws, who V.ve above the Natchez, with Ja-ge prefentt, aud be preparing the Choc-; tavv9j who dwell along tile Natchez dictrift, , aad the X)elawares, Shawanefe, Minmis, jandtolher tri'oei dwelling in the territory north-weft of the Ohio, for war against the United while Mr. Blount and his a gents were detaching the southern tribes of CheroliteS and Creeks From the interefls of the United States, and eventually to aid the British in an enterprise against the Floridas ? The * Cherokees and Creeks, yon might have seen, were the only Indian nations mentioned in Governor Blount'sletter. And is it not very poffihle, if these two nations' (hould thus he led to war against the Span'ifh possessions, that they might not be excited to tinea hoflilities agaipft the United States ? • j And, therefore, that although Mr. Blount i might contemplate the formeif, he might ab j stain from the latter ? And is it not then [ my cautions manner of speaking of this lat ter, perfect ly corredt ? I am happy to arrive at /durlaft observa tion. And I wish it was not, lifce the reft, exseptionable and iacorreft. These are your words—" Refpedling the last article of your ■ ; report, I have only to observe, that altho' you have confla'ntly assured me that govern ■ ■ ment,had not the lead information refpedl- I ing the fubjeft of my representations, and although the letter of Mr. 'Jackson, as Georgia, appears to coincide with your ideas, neveithelefa tiine has (hewn that 1 have com plied with my duty by not rcpoGng on such assurances. The plot is discovered, and no body any longer doubts the expedition was to have taken place." ] * The expression that " you complied with ; your duty in not reposing on such affuran ' ces" may mean that you thoi», ht the affu ; ranees deceitful, and, therefore, not meriting \ belief. Perhaps you did not intend this. ! Perhaps you meant no more than that the ! government had been " remiss" in its duty, in not pursuing with eagerness the trains of your various fufpiciona. But I mail (hew you that here (as in all other instances) your criminations are void of foundation, in either point of view. The last article of the report refpe&s ge neral Clarke, of Georgia, to whom you laid you knew of a certainty that the English bad made propositions in order to avail themfejves of his influence in that state, with feme other persons, for making a diversion or serious at tack against Floridaand you add that '?yOu do not doubt that in of your information, the executive government will take the proper steps Georgia also '(hould not infringe the of neutrality." Here you confine your requests to Georgia, that (he might not infringe the laws of neutrality: and my letter to Charles Jackson, esquire, the diftrift attorney of that state, (hews that the government took prompt tneafure6 to defeat the projefl of general Clarke and his affoeiates, if such a proieft exjfted. I sup pose none did exist : You acknowledge that the letter from Mr. Jackson coincides with my ideas. Your " certain knowledge" of an intended expedition in favor of the Eng li/h from Georgia agaiyft Florida, under geperal Clarke, you have never supported by a (hadow of evidence. If you possessed any evidence of the fa£l, it would be easy to produce it. What you call your " cer tain knowledge" could reft only on informa tion, or the testimony of others, which might be as falfe or as vague and inconclu sive, as the information about the Canada expedition ; which I hope I have proved, to your never to have existed, even in idea. Yet you declared to me that you had " jujl reasons for fufpedting that expedition was preparing on the lakes and hence how can I avoid concluding, that your " certain knowledge" in one cafe, like your " just reasons" in the other, were without a fufficient foundation. But you fay " The plot is discovered, and nobody any longer doubts that the ex pedition was to have taken place." Strange remark ! Just the reverse of it (hould have beeu made. For although there is a dis covery of Mr. Blount's plot, its extent is by no means afccrtained ; and far from no body doubting, probably every body doubts whether the projefted expedition was to have taken place. It was'not to be undfcr-' taken but in conjunction with a Britiih force —ai\d on the proposal of the expedition to the Britiih government it was totally rejeft ed. Even Mr. Blount, who, if the pro je£t was adopted, expeStd to be at the bead of it, ventures no farther than to fay he be lieved that the plan would be attempted, but if attempted, that it would uot be till the " fall :" and consequently your in March and April, for which, at the expence of decency towards the American govern ment, you take to yourfclf so much credit, had then no just objttl. This zeal of yours is displayed in the information you gave to the baron de Carondelet, in March or A pril, of the expedition supposed to be pre paring in Canada against Upper JLciifiaria.: yet you would now attempt'to juftify this zeal by the plot of Mr. Blount ; although this plot and the Canada expedition were wholly distinct and unconnefted. I (hall conclude this long letter with your eleven positions, which you state with as much .serious formality as if they were all of them important, and all of.them supported by fadls or just reasoning. But the details I have given demoriftrate that these positions are either unfounded, or firaple proportions of not the fmallefl consequence. These are your poiitious addressed to me in your oii'n lipids. " i ft. That on the 27th of Fehruary I ' gave you fufficient particulars refpefling the ' intended expedition, to have attraffced the attention of this government." Aftfwer. I have offered reasons to prove that you gave me no particular t, but only mentioned your suspicions, and that youpro ir.ifed to give me your representations in writing for which, of course, it was pro per for me to wait. " 2. That altho' to this verbal commu nication, I added another in writing on the 2d of March, the PreGdent had not the least knowledge of it on the 9th of the fame. month ; and that without doubt y o u anuft have had very powerful motives to prevent you from communicating it to him." Answer. I have accounted for the delay •in a fatisfaftory manner. I have Ihewn that 1 had abundant reason to conclude your fufpicionsti to be wholly unfounded, and for attaching no fort of consequence to them. The event demonstrates that I was right; and that inflead of very powerful motives, none were needed for a delay of only four or ' five days, or for a mueh longer period ; and that to notice your naked suspicions at all, was not an act of necessity, but of complai sance. ,1 might with justice complain of your delay to answer my letter of the 16th of March, on a fubjeil of very high impor tance to the United States, I mean the eva cu. .ion of the polls. I will not fay, that you were negligent—or " remiss"—but I Will fay that for a whole month you omitted to give trie your (hort and unfatisfadlory anfweri The indifpofuion which' you aflign as the cause of the delay, did not prevent you from writing on othgr fubjetls—nor long from going abroad. " 3. That it does not appeat by the doc uments presented by"the Secretary of War, that government had given orders to the military commandrrs to cause the territory and neutrality of the United States to be refpedted." Answer. I have shown that none were necessary to be given. " 4. That you made to the English min ister a communication which in my opinion you ought not ; and that even if you tho't it necessary, yon delayed doing it for two months, that is from the 27th of February to the 28th of April, although it refpedled a mod urgent and important objeft." Answer. On the 28th of' April, I in formed you by letter that I had communi cated to the Britiih minifler your suspicions of an expedition preparing by the Engli(h agcinft Upper Louiliaaa ; and as for up wards of two months you expressed no dif atisfaftion 011 account of this communica tion, I might well conclude you did uot think it improper. Nay in your letter of July 11 tli, which I am- now answering, you refer with apparent approbation to this ve ry communication, connected with the de claration which accompanied it to the Brit i(h roinifter, that the President could not consent to the march of any troops, either British or Spanilh, through the territory of the United ; and you ccnfider it as a " deter minate difpofitioa" of the AmeVican go vernment oa this point. I have also (hewn, that admitting this communication to Mr. Lifton to be proper, I did not delay doing it for two months nor two weeks ; altho'it refpe&ed at befl but an imaginary projeft. " 5. That the Baron de Carpndelet could very "well have received my letters, without its necessarily following that his had come to hand." Aijfwer. I have (hewn that you did not underftaad my > reasoning an this point ; which went to prove that your answer of the 17th of April to my letter of the 16th of March, about the evacuation of the pods, was wanting in candour. " 6. That the Baron did n6t represent Mr. Ellicott's not writing to him officially as a complaint, but as an observation, and that in fa£l he never liss done it in those terms." Answer. I have (hewn that whether the Baron's afTertion (hould have been called a complaint or an observation was perfaftly im material ; I meant to (hew it was unfound ed ; and this you yourfclf adrriit. " 7. That the proofs you allege to ex culpate Mr. Ellicott refpe£ling his intentions of taking the fort of Natchez by surprise are purely negntive." Answer. I offered only as negative proofs. Yet when one complant or afTer tion against Mr. Ellicott was kuown .and acknowledged not to be true,' the negative testimony of gentlemen likely to be well in formed, would be deemed fufficient to bring another, and in its nature very improbable, complaint or affertian of the fame perfou, in to discredit. ' " 8. That it is not merely pretences, but very powerful reasons which have impeded (the evacuation of the'Pofts, and the ruaning of the boundary line." Answer. The point of view in which I have now exhibited the conduft of the Span ifli governors relative to the evacuation of the posts and <he running of the boundary line IVffiould suppose rjiight convince you that thecaufes which they have offered for. the delay, are mere pretences : the Ameri can citizens, to whom you have appealed, have heen convinced only by reading the printed documents, without any comments. " 9. That the insinuations with which you are willing to persuade the American people that our arming is direfted against them, are unjust as well as unfounded, a3 by Mr'. Blount's letter it is clearly demon strated to be a precaution for the mere pur pose of defence." Answer. The grounds of my suggest ions, which you call " insinuations" are de tailed in this letter, and embrace £OO many fa£ls and circumstances to be abridged : permit rse to deGre you to review them. I (hall only repeat, that nothing is more cer tain than that Mr. Blount's letter has not the remotefl reference to the fufpe£ted Ca nada expedition ; which is ' your only pre tence for reinforcing the polls in Upper Louifiana—for calling the Indians to your aid—for holding the poll's at the Natchez, and Walnut Hilb—and for delaying to run the boundary line. " 10. That you evidently contradict yotrrfelf, when on one hand you are pleaftd to attribute to us the movements of the In dians, and_in the very next paragraph you fhewik might proceed from American citi zens, as it a&ually does, according to Mr. Blount's letter j and that he a&ed with the knowledge and intelligence of the very fame British minifler, in whose private notes, ivifhcutfignature, and perhaps not of his cum hand writing, you place such implicit confi dence;"^ Answer. I have (hewn that there i.ivot a Oiadcw gf coatr.fliclianin roy ■ on this fuEjca ) and par afferfYv; to the contrary mil ft proceed only from \c.ur not tindcrftanding them. You fay il at Mr. Blount adted in this matter with the knowledge asd intelligence of the Brit, lfh mimfter. Ihts is not likely to he true. It is in proof, hy other evidence than the British miniller's notes, that he did not and could not authorize the projefted expedi tion againfl: the Floridas—and particularly that one of his strong obje£tions againfl; it was, that :t contemplated the employing of the Indians ; although he thought it proper to submit the project to the confi deration* and declfion of liis government. Nobody therefore will believe tha.t he authorized Mr. Blount, or was even privy to his measures, for preparing the Indians for war, 'Besides, Dodtor Romayne, who may be presumed to be well Acquainted with Mr. Blount's plot, suggests that it is not the projedt of fered to Mr. Lifton by Chifholm. Theft are his words : " Mr. Blount is totally un known to Mr. Lifton, % and so arc alt his mews." And there is a passage in Mr. letter which countenances the doc tor's assertion, andindicates, that although Chifholm and Blount had some communica tions with each other, yet that their views were not precisely.the fame. Mr. Blount, in his letter to Carey, fays, " Where Captain Chifholm is, I do not know I left him in Philadelphia, in March, aiid he frequently visited the minister and spoke upon the fubje& ; but I believe he will go into the Creek nation by way of South-Carolina or Georgia. He gave out he was going to England ; but I did not be lieve him." These last words afford a pret ty strong proof that they were not aftiivg wholly in concert. Probably Mr. Blount endeavoured to perfur.de Chifholm that he would co-operate in the prosecution of his feberae ; while at the fame time he might have anothor of his own or in concert with dodtor Romayne, and it and ready in the event of things, to make" his advantage of either ; whichever should c&r the best prof-, pedt of fuccefß : Dodtor Romayne, you fee, fays that Mr. Blount is totally unknown to Mr. Lifton : But it is well known that Mr. Blount was your frequent guest, and intimate companion ; and that he was on this inti mite footing with you the whole time »hat you were reprefeiitirig to the gov ernment, your fufpicicms of British expidi tions. \et after the discovery of the con fpira«y was made public, vou formally re queftcd the American government to punish him for so feandalous a crime. But feeing that Mr. Blount was a citizen of Unit ed States, and not a fubjeft of Spain, it would have been decent in you to have left him with his own government without in terposing your advice. But e npecially whert you knew that the President had laid hi* letter before Corfgrefs ; and the twehoufe* were deliberating on the mode' of punifhiog him ; when the investigation had proceeded So far that a ccu\irv>.tee of tSi§wvt£Ma ported a resolution to exjjpl Mr. Bioun® from ( the Senate ; and a committee of th« Hcnfe had reported a resolution that he should be in ptached for high crimes and misdemeanors : For you then to interfere was Angularly impoper j and it was such up ofteDtatious. display o-f zeal, as under all the known uretimflanees, fuggefU mpre than one interpretation. "11. That although in all.your official communications, you have always manifest ed to me that the American j'overnmerit lenew of nothing which iadicated any foun dation for my SuSpicions, Mr. Blount's let ter clearly proves that I was perfectly in the right." Answer. This remark i« pcrfeftly inconse quential ; fpr your communications exhibi ted your suspicions. of projedted expeditions only from Canada and -Georgia; and I have (how*i that Mr. Blount's letter ha 3 no rela tion to either. I thought I had reached the end of your criminations; but ia your concluding para graph you accuse of ao " unj-jft partiality," meaniug, no doubt, towards the British min* ifter and his nation. The details I have gi en in this letter, I trust will abundantly prove that this charge is as unfounded as it. is indecent. Those details verify the repre sentations of the conduit of certain Spanish officers which are given in tny renort ps the 3d of July to the Prcirdent. If the truth has excited any uapleafiint sensations, t'hofdf only are ta blame whose injuroira adts obliged me plainly to declare. Instead of this task, I should have been happy to execute the grateful uffiee of dating to the President the goodfaith and amicable manner in which the officers of his Catholic majesty had executed the treaty of Fricndfhip, limits' and naviga tion between our two-nations. You think also that my report to the Pre sident is not calculated toJlring then the bonds of friendfbip unite Spain and America.— Triendfhip, Sir, cannot fubiift without mu tual confidence; and' confidence springs from fmcerity. But the proceedings of the Spanish officers, which are the fubjedt of this corres pondence, have shaken the confidence of the government and of the citizens of the United States; and my report to the Pre sident only exhibits a Summary of thoTe pro ceedings; pr rather the plain and obviou* conclusions from the authentic fadts and cir cumitances detailed in the documents, then and before presented to his view. And I dare ve&ture to fay, that ayery independent American.has from the Same premises drawn the fame corclufions, t Nothing, Sir, will give truer Satisfaction to the government, and citizens of the Uni ted States than to See such a change in .the proceedings of the Spaoifh officers as will restore confidence. The change would be easy, and the effect certain. Let them "with* draw their troops and garrisons from the terr.' T lories of the United States. Let them commence lindprofecute the ruuning of the boundary line. Let them cease to flop, covtroul or regulate the passage cf our citizens on the Mississippi, feeing these have a right to navigate it with perfek freedom —And lit them cease to fend Agents or Emijfari.i amifig the Indium residing within
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers