Norwalk Gazette, Tuesday, January 2, 1827 · page 4

i

, .,..-.. ......-_—......_,.,-.., . ...

.. .- ~.-r-1..

,........ -.

 

- BEIJATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

-Docuin‘é.-its from We Depmtnrent q)"»Sl'!1l’9i l 00-
ooiirpariying the Prssidenl’s Message.)

«‘ ,. it-1,,GA;,-LA-rm to Mr. Caiviirive.

The Undersigned, Envoy Extraotydillairy
and Minister Plenipotentiary of vihe United
States ofArrierica, has the honor to acknowl
edge the receipt of the note ofthe llth irisr

:i(it'lr'essed to him by Mr Canning, His Maj i

csty’s Principal Secretary ofState for For-
eign Affairs. in answer to that of the qpder _
signed of thr tltilh tiltirno, on the subject of
the Order in C0llll|.‘.ll of the 2'(th ofilulg.

The undersigned apprelierids that i re ob-
jec, ofhl, “me 0| me 26th ultimo, may not
have been altogether understood. It was not
his intention to make on that occasion a full
exposition, riruch less to argue in support of
either ofhis own opinions or those of his Gov-
eminent, upon the whole riratter to which the
Order in Council relates. .

His opinion of the character ofthe Colonial
trade did not enter_into the view he was ia-
king of the subject. He is not aware to have
expressed that of his Governiiierit upon any
other point than that ofthe preference it gave
to an arrangeiiieiit by treaty, to regulations
respectively enacted by each Country.

The argiiineirts ascribed to him seem to be
rather inlerences to which he might not have
objected, did he not feel bound to disclairn any
intention on his part to have suggested What
the British Goveruriient ottghtto have done ;_
an expression applicable only to the case, of
an alleged violation of a p0Sl.ll.V6 Of HNPHCG
obligation. _

The object ofthe note of the undersigried
was simply what it purported to be _: to ex
press his regret that, under existriig circuur-
sraiices,tlre Order in Council should have been
issued ; and to avow his iirability to discover
its motive. This has now been lrarrltly aird_
distinctly explained by Mr. Canning. And:
the principal error wlljch pervades the note of
the undersigned, is, that he had supposed that
the intercourse between theUiiited States and
the Colonies of Great Britain was still consi-
dered as beneficial to her; that he was wlroily
unaware that the iiiterdict on that intercourse
in American vessels was founded in _c__ousidei-
atioirs oi a general ii.iture,aiid _corinecied with
an intention not to renew‘, at least for the pre-
sent, the negotiations on this subject.

It is true, that the undersigned had over-
looked tiie fact, that, since the 5th ol'Jarruar-y,
1826, the indirect intercourse was allowed in
Arrierican, and forbidden in British vc-ssels;
and, to that extent, his assertion of a perfect
equality existing between the vessels ol both
nairoris was erroneous ;though, in reality, the
want or equality in that respect may have
been conipeiisared by other restrictions and
charges imposed on American vessels.

'1' no undersigned has it not in his power to
assign the reasons why the provisions of the
act oi"Coiigress, or 18323, rel:-itirrg to that in
direct iiitercoursc, have been continued in
force, alter the curiesporidirig restrictions of
Great Britain had been reiiioved, so tar as re
lated lli foreigir‘i.ouiitries. It is not iiirproba-
bit: that the attentruir of the Goverririieirt oi
the United States liaviug been principally
turned to the general question, whether it
was not most eligible that the trade should
be regulated by treaty, or by the respec_tive
laws ol the two countries, the fact iliat“t'hi's
particular restrictrorr had been thus revoked
by the act or Parliament oi'18£l.'i, may have
escaped its notice.

The corrririuiricatioir nrade in the latter part
of Mr. Cauning"s note or the intentions oi the
British Goverrruierii, would not seem, corisid-
ercd done. to iuipose any other duty on the
undersigned than to trarisiuit it tohis own.-
Butit is accompanied by various observations,
one of which at least has almost the appear-
ance ofa charge against the Government oi
the Uirited States, and it may not be inrproper
for the undersigned to avail hiirisclfol the
opportunity thus afforded, once more to state
the -.iew or the whole subj-. ct, which is enter
{fill};-‘(Il by the U. States.

Great Britain asserts as Cltal’, and undoubt-
ed, the right to give to the United States, or
to wrtliliold from them, the privilege of tra-
ding with her West li.dia colonies, to re-
serve to herself that trade, and generally to
open lllr ports of those colonies to foreign
ports, or to keep tlierri closed, as may suit her
own coiivcirierice, wholly or partially, uncon-
ditionally or if conditionally, on what t'.ondl--
tion she pleases.

As an abstract and general proposition, the
‘right is not denied : but considered purely as
a matter of right, this, wliigli is an attribute
of Sovereignty, applies to all other Territo-
ries as well as to Uoloriies.

Every nation has the abstract right gene
tally, &. not is. reference to her colonies aluiie,
to close or to open her portsto loreigii vessels
or inercliandize, and to grant the irrdulgerrce
wholly or partially, conditionally or uncondi-
tionally. This right has been, and coritiiiues
to be, ext rcised occasionally by every trailer),
in the shape of iiavigatiiin, prolribitoi:g7,“aiid
restrictive laws, operating unequally-on differ-
ent nations. .

 he re 1 distinctions between’ the trade of
foreigners w.th colonies, and that with other
territories, seems to consist not in agreater or
less complete right, but in a dilfererice in the
usage and practice. It has long sincebecii
found that, if commerce with foreign nation!
was advantageous, it was necessary, in order
to enjoy it, to suffer them to participate in it.

That an exclusive monopoly ol the coloni-
al trade was not the best rriode of preserving
colonies, or of promoting their prosperity, is
a recent discovery. But, since the late final
separation ol the greater part of the corrlirreiit
ofAnicrica from the irioiiier countries, and
now that iirore enlightened views prevail, as
respects the remaining colonies, the former
peculiar character ofthe colonial trade is al-
most lost. The abstract right being the same,
and the ancient system of colonial policy hav

- ing been nearly abandorred, it is didicult to

perceive airy striking difference between the
trade with colonies and that with the rirotlier
country.

These are general observations, drawn from
the uridersigrred by the repeated references
to an abstract right, which is not questiorred,
and by the effort to consider still the corri-
merce with colonies as essentially differing
froriievery other. But-tlieiiitercourse bo-
tricen the United States and the British West
Iiidics, has in fact always been considered by
boili parties as ofa peculiar character, which
distiirguislied it from every other species" of

colonial trade; and the declarations of the.

United States to participate in that com-
rirerce, are ofa much earlier date than Mr.
Cannirrg seems to have been aware of.

As earlyas the year 1788, the Government
lol Great Britain,deviatirig from that princi-
plt‘ uftlie vi-olouial system, according to which
liercolonies were prohibited from trading di-
riectly with any other country, allowed her
‘VVest India colonies to trade directly with the
United States of America, in British vessels.
This permission had been coirtinued almost
ivithoiiraiiy interruption till the year 1822,
when a more extensive change intihe colorii-
-;i| policy superseded that partial measure.
And during the European war, Great Britain
found it convenignt [not] occasionally, but
repeatedly, to open her West India ports to
Arriericarr vessels ; at the same tinre that she
was asserting the principle, uniformly denied
by the United States, that a neutral was not
authorised by the laws of nations, to carry on
in time of war a trade with a colony, in which
he was not permitted to participate in time
of peace.

Had Great Britain, adhering to her coloni-
al system, inlerdicted the intercourse alto-
gather, and always, in war as in peace, in
Br. as well as in Ariierican vessels, no claim
on ilrat subject would or could have been ad-'
vanced by the United States. But that trade
having been allowed by Great Britain, it may’
be said, from the beginning. and at all times,
became thereby so far assimilated to that with
her European doriiiriions, that the United
States did ihirrk that they had the same claim
to a participation in both. The serious dith-
culties;i_n which they were involved more than
once, bythe preteirsions of Great Britain, to
adhere to what has been called the rule of the
seven years war, rendered it also questionable
whether it‘inight not be better policy to reject,
in tinre ofwar, a trade which was not allowed
in time ofpeace, or to cl..iinr, in time ofpeace,
that which was allowed in time ofwar.
 Tlie'United States always did believe that

siders a concession, as a boon, was found in
the advantages resulting to her from the trade
itself. And it must not be forgotten,thal she,
as well as all other nations, participate gratu-
itoirsly in the trade of countries, which, as
colonies, were till lately closed to foreigners,
which, had they fallen iirto her hands, would
have still been considered as such, and which,
by their incorporation with the Unitcd_States,
have been thrown open to the woild. Indeed,
had Louisiana belonged to airy other country,
and been its only colony, the admission tlierc-
irr of British vessels and coirrinerce as con-
ieniplated by the act ol Parliaiiierrt of 139:5,
would alone have been suflicieiit to extend to
such coiintiy the privileges offered on certain
conditions by trial act.

Taking all the facts and circums;ances
which have been stated irito consideration, llio-,
Unitcd States have been of opinion iliat they
might, without violating the regard due to the
usages and opinions of others, clairii to treat
on that subject as on that of any other coin-
inercial intercourse, .irid on the basis of equal
and reciprocal coiidirions.

The claim has accordingly been brought
forwai‘d, and considered by bolli parties as it
fit subject for negotiation, from the time when
airy ol a commercial nature first C0mfll8llLC(l
UCHVCED the HVO (IOUl')ll’l8S. , "I" .

An article on that subject made part ofthe
treaty of 1794, but was lourid so Illi.XdL'qU8i(',
and was accoiupanied by such rest-rriitioiis
and corrditions, as to iritliice the U.’ Slates to
reject it at the risk oflosing the whole treaty.

Tire sixth article ofthe uiiiatified Treaty
of 1806, stated that “ the high coiitiactiiig
parties, not/raving been able to arrange at
present, by treaty, airy coinirieicial interciit'irse
betweeri the territories of the United States.
and His l\vlajcsty’s Islands and Ports in the
Wesi lirilies, agree that, unless that subject
shall be regulated iii a satisfactory rnairrrcr,
each of the parties shall remain in the corri-
plete possession ofits rights in respectto such
an iritcrcourse.” A similar reservation or
iiglrts tirade part ofthe Convention of 1815,
renewed and prolonged in 1818.

In the iregotratroii or 1818, and in every
subsequent one relating \0 the colonial itiler-
coursc, the tleteriiiinairon ol the United States
to conclude no arrangeineni unless founded
on afair reciprocity, has been distinctly a-
vowed. Tire undersigned had always under-
stood, that however differing as to the extent
ofthe intercourse and other irnportaiit points,
that basis had not been objected to on the
part of Great Britain.

_“*-“Every article indeed proposed then or since
by her, has the appearance oftliat character:
8:. the preamble of the coiinter—project offer-
ed on the 4th ufJurie, 1324, by the British
Plerirpotentiaries, states, that “ His Britanriic
Majesty and the United States of America,
being desii'ot.is_ to regulate, by mutual agree-
iiierit aiid"or—i;pjirrciples ofjust reciprocity, the
trade now open under their respective laws,
between the United States and the British
Colonies in North America, and the West
indies, have,” &r.c.~

_ The third proposed article again declares it
-‘to be “ the desire and intention of the high
contracting parties to place the trade in ques-
.ion on ujboting qfjusf reciprocity.”
 . It is beireved ihatthc dilficulties which have
prevented an arrangement saiislactory to built
parties, have been wholly uiicoiinected with
questions of abstract right : that they irray,
especially at first, have arisen in part from a
reluctance, on the part of Great Britain, to
depart too widely from her colonial policy ;
trial, so far from being due to airy objection
to the principle of reciprocity, they had lately
originated principally in a mutual apprehen-
sioii tliattlie proposal.~;.ofthe other party were
a departure hour that principle. The failure
of an atteinpi to make air amicable arrange
irierit, left each party to pursue its own course.
And the natural cor.-sequence has been, that
the measures adopted by either may not have
been always satisfactory to the other; that
occasionally they may have been carried be
yorid what the occasion required. A discus-
sion of all that has been duge in that respect
on both sides, would at present he unprofita-
ble. '.l‘lie undersigned will confine his obser-
vations to those enactments which appear to
have been most obnoxious to Great Britain,
ariil are to be found iii the Act of Congress "of
18923. '

The first is the provision ofthat act, where-
by discriminating duties on British vessels and
inercliandize, coming from the British Colo-
iries, were not to cease, until it was ascertain-
edgtliat no higher duties were levied in the
sa-iil"‘lColonies, on American vessels and mer-
chandize, than upon British vessels and like
merchandise imported from elseivhere, that l

the compensation for what Great Britain con- '

I

Q

is to say, from other British territories, as well
as from other countries. That provision might
appear unusual St. tinobjectionable, Lut might.
have been expected. ' v "

The principle was implied in the article
proposed by the American Plenipotentiaries
in 1818, at which time the object was expli-
citly stated and discussed: and it was dis-
tiiicily expressed in another article proposed
by the United States, as supplementary to the
Convention of l8i8,and delivered on the 18th
June, 1819, to Lord Castlereagh by Mr.Rirsb.

Prior to tlretirne when ‘protect"irig duties
were laid irpon American produce, imported
into the British West Indies,the U. States had’
made proposals, intended either to prevent‘
that contingerrcy, or to -reserve the right of
countervailing the protetcing by discriminat-
ing duties. After the protecting duties had
been acttially laid by the actofParliarnent of
i822, they did, on the same ground, continue
those alien duties, which, on account of the
other provisions of that act, would otherwise
have been revoked.

-‘That claim, on their part, was at all tithes
considered as inadmissible by the British Go-
vernment. It was always said -that every
country had a right to protect its own pro-
duce, that Great Britain would protect that
-t,l'f.‘?lier Colonies, that the demand of America
was no nrore founded in reason or usage, than
-ifihe "British Government should ask that the
sugar of her Colonies should be placed by the
United States, as respected duties, on the
same footing as thatof Louisiana.

To this it was answered, that the general
principle advanced. by Great Britain was-un-
questionable ; but that-, so long as she regula-
ted the Colonial trade on principles different
fr. those which she applied to the commerce
"with her European territories, so long as she
did not treat them as integral parts, brit as de-
pendencies ofher empire, the United States
niirst necessarily consider them, in a corn
niercial poiirt of view, as distinct countries.

lllr. Canning has deemed it necessary to
say, that it cannot be_. supposed that Great
Britain had precluded herself from extendiirg
to other nations the privilege oftradiirg with
the British West Indies, in the first instance
granted in efl“ec't exclusively to the U. States:
a supposition which certainly never was made.
And he has added, that the question was now
no longer, as,in 1820 or 1822., between the U.
States and~G'reat Britain, but between her and
all the iiatidns ofthe old and new world, to
all of whom she has tendered access to her
colonies. «Whether this last measure should
produce any change in the policy of Great
Britain towards the United Ssatesfrs of course
a question for her to decide. As respects
them, so far from thinking themselves affect-
ed by the opening ofthe British Colonies to
other foreigir nations, so far from considering
this as interfering with their commerce, or, iii
any way, as a subject of apprehension, they
have hailed that measure as an iiriporrant step
towards tliat._erit.ire freedo.-ii oftrade. which it
is their interest and their avowed wish should
lrecorne universal. And considering that the
British Colonies had been thus in a corrrrrrer-
cial point of view nearly assimilated to the
mother country, and might no longer be view-
ed as distinct countries, it became one of the
principal motives for authorizing the under
signed to desist from the ground" heretofore
?2SSllllle(l, on the subject of the protecting dri-
iies laid by Great Britain on the produce of
the United State s, imported into her colonies,
and iliereby to remove the principal obstacle
which hard, till then, prevented an amicable
arrangerrrerit on the subject of the Colonial
trade. It is hardly necessary to add, that the
instructions which gave that atrtlrority, were
drawn at a time when there was not the least
expectationou the part of the Governrneirt
of the United States, that it was intended by
that ofhis Majesty’s to interdict the inter-
course, and to decline the renewal of iiegotia-
iions on that poiirt.

Tire other erracttnent of the act of Congress
of 18°28, on which Mr. Canning has especially
ariirnadverted. is that which forbids airy Brit-
ish vessel, unless having come directly from
;he British West India Colonies,to clear from
‘ii port ofthe United States, to any of those
Colonies. It is said-that this right has been
denied to Great Britain by the United States,
not perhaps in contradiction to the letter, but
iirrdoirhtedly in deviation from the spirit ofthe
treaty of 1815. Such serious charge the un-
dersigned is bouiidt't;a.repcl.

Tire argument adduced in support of that
assertion, rests on the gratuitous supposition
that the privilege which, before the Conven-
tion ofl815, British vessels coming from oth-
er ports than the British West India Colonies,
enjoyed, to clear from a port ofthe United
States to those Colonies, was a right instead
ofa permission, which indeed was not grant-
ed to them especially, but which they had in
common with all other vessels, from whatever
port they might have come. The U. States
hail the undoubted right to grant or to with-
hold that permission, and in that, as in every
other case where the right was not restricted
by treaty,_to regulate the intercourse in for.
eign vessels between their own and foreign
territories, ofevery description, as suited their
coriveuience. And this general right, which
existed before the Convention of 1815, was
by that cpmpact preserved expressly 85 willi-
oiit exception as respected the intercourse
between the U. S and the Br. West Indies.
The indirect intercourse alluded to is so
intimately connected with the trade in gene-
ral, that a reservation. whereby the U. States,
whilst allowed to forbid the direct intercourse,
would have been bound to permit it to be car-
rred on indirectly in British vessels, would
have been.useless and nugatory. Since Brit-
ish. having in this respect a decided advan-
tage over‘Ameri.can vessels, on account ofthe
circuitous voyages which .bey may make from
Euglaiid to the United States, and thence to
the West India Colonies, it was precisely the
branch of trade against which it was irrost iin
portant for the U. S. to preserve the right.

That right was actually eirforced under this
American navigation act ol‘18l8, without be-
ing objected to, or being rriade a bar to nego-
tialions. VVhen the general restrictions of
this act were repealed by the act of 1823, this
particular provision was in substance retain
ed; and the iiirdersigncrl urideistaiidsthat his
'.Vlajesty’s Mitiister at Washington objected to
it, not as being a deviation from the Conveir
tion, but because he erroneously believed that
it had not its counterpart in the acts of Par-
liairrent their in force. In 189.4 that provis-

lion appears to have been adverted to by the
British Plerripotentiaries, only for the pur- I‘
pose of remarking that it confined British

vessels to-aidlrect trade in the same manner

 

as ‘American vessels were restricted by‘ the
act of Parliament, and even to a greater de--
gree. _

It may be here observed. that neither thisi
nor any other provision of the act of Con-
gress of’l823. would at this time have inter .
posed any obstacle to the favourable issue Of
a ne _ociation upon the intercourse between
the United States and the British Colonies.‘
But, as’ respects the preliminary condition,
without which the British Government can
not consent to enter into any renewed D8.‘
gociation on that subject, the undersigned is
at a loss how to construe it. It cannot seri-
ously be expected by his Majesty’s Govern
nierrt that the United Srates, even if it had
not been mentioned as a prelirriiiiary condi-
tion, should repeal their restrictions on Brit-
ish vessels, when rot only the intercoiirse is
altogether prohibited in Anrericari shipping,
but when they are with frankness informed
that a renroval oftliat iriterdict will not, as a
matter of course, follow such repeal on their
part. What renders that allusion to a repeal
ofthe enactments ofthe act of 1823, still less
intelligible, it perhaps only affords an addi-
tional proof that both Governriients may oc-
casionally overlook some of the provisions
contained in the laws of the other, is, that it
is provided by the sixth section of that act,
that it shall cease to operate ifat any time the
intercourse in Arnerican vessels should be
proliibited by a British Order in Council, or
act of Parliament, and that, in sirch case, the
Acts ofCongress ol'18l8 and 1820 shall revive
and be in full force, That contingency‘ has
actually taken place. As a natural conse-
qiierice ofthe Order in Council, the act of
i8$3»c_eases to be thelaw of the United States
after the tsr of December’ next. Arid the
act" which Mr. Canning allows to have been
justified, will again revive.

.The intercourse, direct and indirect, will
then be prohibited by the laws of both couri-
tries. VVhere there is no commerce, there
can be no discriminating or other duties.-
The two countries will again be placed, as re
spects that intercourse, in the same situation
in which they were before the act of Parlia-
ment of 18822, and that ofCongress of 189.3.

Iftlrere is any difference, it will consist in
this: the right ol'Great Britain both to decline
to negotiate, and to coniirrue her iriteri.lict ol
the intercoiirse, even if the United States
should accede to the conditions of the act of
Parliament ofl8Q5, is incoirtestible. The
undersigned begs leave, however, to suggest,
that an act excluding the United States from
a trade open to the rest of the world, is, as a
permanent measure, ofa different character
from a general exclusion ofall foreign nations.

The undersigned requests Mr. Canning to
accept the assurance ofhis high considera-
tion. ALBERT GALLATIN.

Upper Seymour Street, Sept. 22, 18536.

~ [To be Cantt°nued.]

 

THE MILITIA.—We are glad to find in
the late report ofthe Secretary of War, some
evidence that the attention of the proper de-
partment has been at length turned to the sub-
ject of a different organization of the militia.
The useless and expensive modes at present
practiced in the states ought long ago to
“have giveir place to a more effective system,
or to none at all. The Secretary says-

"From our present happy posiiioir in regard
to Europe, and from the no less fortunate re-
lations tnaintained with our neigbbors,ii would
.ipp_ear that keeping up a sy.-item ofthe militia
so extensive as the p.-esent, and biirtlicnsonie,
without any advantage, to a large portion of
our citizens, was altogether unnecessar_v.—
A different organization therefore, by \‘| hicli
a million and a half of our uiost useful citi-
zens would be relieved from the unprofitable
pageantry of military parade, for 5 or 6 days
in a year, constituting so irijirrious a draft on
their industry, must be one which cannot fail
to be Well received by the American people.”

BANK NOTE TABLE.

New Humps/ii're—al! notes 1 per cent dis.

Jlfassachu-selts—all' notes I to.3 per ct. dis.

.Muirie -Wiscassett, Hallowel, Augusta
Kennebec-and Castine Banks broken-—iill oth-
er banks 1 per cent discount.

Rhoda 1sland——all banks 1 to 2 good.

Vermont—all good——l to 92 per ct. discount

C0imecticut——all good, with the exception
ofEagle and Derby Banks.

N E W-YORK.

N. Y. city banks par l Geneva 1
Albany banks par l Central B.Ch.Val’y.1
Troy banks par l Chenango l

Mohawk bank 1 l Waslr’ii. ZSL Warren
Lansingburg par | Jefferson County
Newburg 1 | Rochester

Branch at Ithica 1 l Dutclicss County
Orange County 1 | Ontario

Catskill

ls:-tetsn

1 | Green County uric
Columbia--Hudson] l Auburn 1
Middle District 1 | Niagara 5
Utica 1 | Plattsburg 75

NEW-JERSEY.

State b’k. at Newark, I Com’l. B. at Ainboyl
Elizabethtowrr, Pat- | Trenton banking co.l
ersorr.i\:’Iorristowri,8z. | Farmer’s,Mt.Holly 1
New Brunswick par l Cumberland 1

State B.atTrentou 87 | N.J.i\lan.&Lbk.Co.par

do at Camden 1 | Weehawk

Jersey Bank broken | Franklin broke
Newark 1 | Monmouth par
Sussex 1 | People’s bank par
New Brunswick 1 I Lombard broke.
Salem steam iirill 1 Hoboken Grazing

Wasliiiigton Coiiipairy par

9:,-=-NEW BooKs.<-:3

KETCHES of North Arrrericaii Indians,

9. vols. 12 mo.; Picture of Greece, in
1825, Q vols. I2 urn. ; English Life, or Man-
ners at Home, in four Pictures, 9 vols. 12 mo.;
Stranger ofthe Valley, an American Tale, 2
vols. 12 mo.; ’I‘onnerv.rnte, or the Adopted
Son of America ; modern Travels, 2 vols. 122
um. ; Fielding’s Journey 8:. Voyage; History
ofthe Pirates ; Cecll’s Sixty Narratives ;—
History ofGeoige Desmond; Peter Schle-
milil, with Plates by Cruicksharrk ; Robbins’
Journal ;Durarrd’s Journal; Butler’s Hedi-
bras ; Musical Biography ; Buck’s Theolog-
gical Dictionary; Pilgrim’s Progress ;-—
.'\l"Firrgal—Kcy to Knowledge; Cowp«:r’s
Poems ; Milton’s Works ; Magazine of Wit :_
Songstcr; Sorigster’s Companion, 8t.c. just
rec’d at the Bookstore and Library South or ;
the Bridge. ~- P. PRICE.

Post-Office Notice.

HE Subscriber has with much incnrrveri-[5
ience and many losses, been in the prac-
tice of charging the postage on letters, news-
papers, &.c taken from this oflice. In justice
to himself he is constrained to discontinue
the practice, and gives this public notice that
from andafter the first day ofJanuary next,
no letters will be delivered without payment
on delivery, unless to those who shall have
paid in advance ; and that one quarters ad-
vance will be required on postage on News-
papers,this being in conformity to instructions

from the Post master General.

W. M. BETTS.

Post Office. Norwalk, Dec. 25, 1826. 44_

 

r,
IJMRVEY E. HOYT
No. 2, East part of Mairz-Street,

RESPECTFITLLY acqiiaints his friends

and the public generally, that he still
continues to maniifactiire in the-very best
manner, SADDLES, BRIDLES, HAR-
NESS, TRUNKS, CAPS, PORTMAN‘.
TEAUS, HOLSTERS, and VALICES;
together w h every other article in his line of’
business.

He has also for sale-, W'hips, Spurs,
Sleigh Bells, and a very choice selectioiicf
Brass and silver plated, potted, and Japaned
Hard Ware, Buffalo R«ibes,8Lc. &c. allof
which may be obtained on as moderate terms
as at airy similar establishment.

*,,* Old articles promptly attended to.
Wanted, C.9TTl.E’S HAIR.
Norwalk, Jan. Zr], 1827. 45

NEW 8r. CHEAP ESTABLISHMENT.

 

HE Subscribers having purchased a good
assortment of CARHIAGES and
HORSES, solicit the patronage of their for-
mer friends, and request them to call at the
house of Hrgzexun Wrii't'r.ocK for any VE-
HICLE which they may choose for convey-
ance to any part of the country, and they can
be accommodated on as reasonable terms as

at any other Livi-ry Stable in the county.

Trying is the Naked Truth.
KEELER, \\-'rir'i'r.ocK, 3:. Co.
Norwalk, Dec. 19, I826. 45

Ata Court of Probate holden at Norwalk,
Dec. 11. 1826.
NOTICE is hereby ordered to be given to
all persons interested in the estate of
David Hubbcll, late of Mobile. State ofAla-
barna, deceased. represented insolvent, that
coriiniissioners to receive, examine and adjust
the claims against said estate, will be appoint-
ed at the Probate Office in said Norwalk. on
the first Monday of February next, at” ten
o’clock, A. M. when those concerned may be
heard therein. 43* VV.M.BE'1‘trs,-Iuilge.

FOR SALE A’I‘ AUCTION
- YIIHE Dwelling House, Barn
and other out buildings,
with ‘2 1-9. acres of land adjoin-
- ‘ ing, formerly the residence of
JV'aZh.im Beers, dec’d, about halfa mile from
the Bridge. The sale to take place at the
house of Hezekiah VVhitlock, on Thursday,
the 4th day of January next, at 1 o’clock, P.
M. . STEPHEN SMITH, Exec’r.
Norwalk, Dec. I8, I326. SW 43

Boards, Shingles, &.c.
STREET 6!. JAMES

AVE for sale at their Ya-tl,llie following
kinds ofLUMBEB., cheap.
200,000 very superior Catskill Shingles
102,000 best warranted Albany do
15,000 feet 1st 82. 2d quality clear Boards
12,000 feet lst &. 2d do do 1 1-4,
1 1-2, and 2 inch“ Plank. ‘
20,000 feet first and 2d quality Siding
30,000 ft. corninou St. irrercht’ble Boards
400 yellow 8t. and wiiiie pine Plank
Q00 Scautling, btc. Scc.
The above Lumber is mostly seasoned, and
fit for rise. Dec. 18. r8326. 43

LAST CALL IN THIS WAY.
DWARD H. STREET requests all per-

sons indebted to him by Note or Book
account, to call at the. Store formerly occu-
pied by him. and pay the same by the 18th
day ofJairuary next 189.7, or they certainly
will have some cost made on the sziiire.

A Farm for Sale
N the town of Bedford, two
miles east of the vilagee, coir-

iaining eighty acres, with a
 House St. barn. Said Farm has
,,,, ,,q,,_,l pi-oportioir ofincadow, plow, and
woodland. For ftrrtlrer particulars enquire,
ofthe subscriber. 44 _Jose1>ii .‘vlr1.Lr;rt.

FOR SALE

FAl{.ai, coniarniirg about
- 104 acres of Laird, lying lfl'
 New Canaan, about two miles.
west or trio meeting house, and about 7 miles-
rmiir the Landing, where rirarket boats ply
almost every day to N. York. On said Farm.
is a good two story ilwellirig lioirse, almost-
uew ; also, a large barn. Said Earth is Wcll
p,,,p,,,-,',,,,,ed luv plow, iireadow, pasture, and
wood Land, is very haiidsonreljy be pleasaritly
situated, lying on both sides of the‘ road. and
is very conipact,_.-t well of excellent and never
faili-rig water within a few feet of the (l0ur‘,wel-l‘
watered with springs. If said Farm is not

 

 

 

 

-disposed of before tlie.6tlr day of Murrzh next,
it will on that day be sold at public Veudue.

For further particulars inquire ofthe subscrii
be; living on the premises.’ \
4 Wrx.r.r.ur Wszenz.

Nor-walk, January 1,1827. , 45
50 Tons- Plaster,
FOR SALE. BY S. -1- FROST.

N. Canaan, Fairfield County, Dec. 18,