Daily National Intelligencer (Washington City [D.C.])
July 2, 1813
Historic newspapers carry the language, views and graphic reporting of their time, including racist content. They are shown to teen and adult profiles.
The text was read from the page scans by machine (OCR), so it has mistakes and its columns may run together. See the pages · About this title · At the Library of Congress
Page 1
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 2
MOUSE OF REPRESE^TATD ES. DERATE OV 3 MR. WEBSTER’S RESOLU tio^s, continued After Mr. OakleY had sat down—Mr. Gros venor rose and spoke substantially as follows Mr. Speaker—l cannot suffer the question m be taken without offering to the House my reasons for supporting the resolutions —in do ing this,, sir. I, like the hon. gentleman from Foulh Carolina, may become warm; yet as I can never admit that such warmth furnishes any licence to him for personal at tack, or im proper language, so I shall claim no such li cence myself, by condescending to imitate bis example. 1 have, Mr. Speaker, adverted to th example of the hon. gentleman, for the purpos of informing him, that boisterous language on this floor by way of defiance, threat or inti midation, will no longer have its wonted effect. 1 wish that hon. gentleman and every other gentleman on this floor distinctly to understand, that their threats have no tenors for us. They pass by us like the idle winds which we, respect not. Sir, I stand here the independent representative of a free people—upon all topics ■which come before this House, I shall ever speak what I do think,” restrained by noth ing but the rules of decorum which are here established, and which it may become every gentleman to observe. I stand upon my own personal right, which I will yield to no man. 1 st^nd upon the freehold of the constitution, from which I will not be driven without a struggle. Sir, I have no doubt that this House has a perfect right to the information demanded by the resolutions. How can we speak or act up on subjects, inseparably connected with our foreign relations, if the executive, the only or gan of communicatioi with other nations, may be suffered at his sovereign will and pleasure to withhold from us all his correspondence By admitting such a course of practice, the President has had the destinies of this nation in his bands —nor is it strange that this House, that Congress and’ the nation have been hurried from one restrictive measure to another, Imd finally into an unnecessary and a wanton war. Sir, I have not the slightest doubt that to this constant habit of executive secrecy, to the garbled extrac s of letters from and to the French government, which deform our journals and deceive the public to the deep darkness which shrouds our intercourse with the arch tyrant more than to any other cause, may be imputed all our present dangers and calamities. Let this House, let this country no longer be forced to feel its way in thick darkness when the ligiu and the day are within its reach. In E gland, it is true “his Majesty can do no w mg”—and when his ministry draw a veil over their conduct, they step boldly forth and demand the confidence of the Parliament and the country, secure in the protection of the king and the majority. But, sir, I am utterly as tonished when I find gentlemen who bluster much about the purity of their republicanism, •who are in an absolute political fever when the theory or practice of that “corrupt, despotic treacherous” nation is even hinted ht, should now wish to introduce here practice precisely similar. The foundation of our whole system of government is responsibility. The President and must of his dependents are by the constitu tion obnoxious to the animadversions of this House. And every official man in the republic is responsible to the people. Let this respon sibility never be destroyed or evaded by suf fering any officer, be he high or be he low to draw a permanent veil over his official conduct —and if Jie attempts it, let this House, plant ing itself upon tile constitution, raise its arm, tear asunder the pernicious covering and ex pose the naked truth to the view of the people. In the pure age of our republic such was the theory and the practice under our constitution. But it is said that no reason is assigned in the'resolutions for the call—no purpose desig nated for which the information is required. Sir, I had considered that this objection was settled forever in the session of 1Z96. The President then refused the information demand ed by the House. Upon this refusal the House passed two resolutions, the one of which I will read Resolved, That it is not necessary to the propriety of any application from this House to the Executive for information desired by them, and which may relate to any constitutional func tions of the House, that the purposes for which such information may be wanted, or to which the same may be applied, should be stated in the application.” On the passage of this resolution, Mr. Madi son and Mr. Gallatin, then members of this House, both spoke and voted in the affirma tive. Can the Executive shrink from the rule which he when on this floor adopted? Or will his supporters here deal to him a measure dif ferent from that which he dealt to the father of his country The principle on which this resolution is lounded, has prevailed here to this day—and strange indeed would it be, if now it should be violated, to shield from its fair operation the very man who originated and established it a m®ng us. Another objection has been started. It seems the resolutions are too categorical and particu lar. Sir, Ido admit that die resolutions are strongly marked with a particular, categorical and even inquisitorial character. From them no casuistry, no art can enable the President to escape. They were thus drawn for no other reason than to preclude all evasion and elusion —to obtain the particular and precise inform ation demanded. I well know, that the ordi nary general form is more proper and. more respectful. But, sir, there may he cases in which mere form must yield to substance and necessily, courtly respect to plain republican sincerity. Is not this precisely such a case At the close of the last session, upon the motion of the hon. gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Goldsborough) a resolution was adopted in the ordinary and general form. Resolved, That the President be requested to cause to be laid before this House the French decree, purporting to be a repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, referred to in his message of the 4ih of Nov. last, together witii such m formation as he may possess, concerning the time and manner of promulgating the same,” X.c. &c. Tkis is the material part of the resolution. What was the reply to this resolution A sim ple communication of the degrading accusation of tiie French minister and that only. Not one word of denial or of comment- Not a murmur of resentment at the foul stigma which the duke of Bassano had attempted to fix on the honor of the Executive and the character of the country. All information that the President might possess relative to the time and man ner oi' promulgating” the decree was refused, or evaded and thereby the blot on our nation al honor was rendered te Hold deeper and blacker Would these hon. gentlemen have us repeat an experiment which issued in such conse quences Would they again adopt a course which would again disappo nt us and disgrace our country? No, sir—ls this information ough: to be obtained, this is the only form, tee oniy manner to obtain it. We must tell the Execu t.ve, without ambiguity and with precision, .-_t vnth every respect compatible with our duty, our objects and our requests. If these i esolutions pass, they must be met with satis factory information, cr with a refusal to c >m unicate. The reply will rest with the Presi dent, and upon him be the responsibility for the form and substance of that reply. Having disposed of the form of these reso iu'ions, I will now proceed to their sub stance. Ait instrument purporting to be a French decree, modifying or repealing the French Ber ■iii and Milan decrees, so far as they violated mir neutral rights, was communicated by the duke of Bassano to Mr. Barlow, our minister in France, on the 10th of May, 1812. This de cree bears date the 24th of April, 1811. It had been concealed for more than one year from he time of its date. Mr. Barlow, conscious that the publication of the decree, at its date, would have saved this country fromimany evils, and astonished at its concealment, demanded of the duke of Bassano whether it had ever been published. The duke replied, that it had been communicated to our minister at France, and sent on to Mr. Serrurier to be communicated to our government. If the duke of Bassano stated the fact correctly, then our government was guilty of concealing the decree. If he stated a falsehood, then his own government i guilty of the concealment, with the full ad dition of duplicity and falsehood. Certainly, the charge of the French minister implicated the honor and the honesty of the Executive of this country. It struck a blow at the integri ty and honor of the government. Yet the Ex ecutive has never publicly denied the foul ac cusation. It is to arrive at truth in relation to this dark and alarming transaction, to acquit the innocent and to hang tlie guilty up a detes table spectacle to the universe, that these re solutions are offered. Let me ask the House, let me ask the nation, is not the object lauda ble—is not the duty important and imperi ous Mr. Speaker—l have not one doubt that if that decree had been published at the time of its date, it would have prevented the present war and ail its calamitous consequences. To establish this position I must solicit the at tention of the House to the facts and events which conducted this devoted nation to its present disastrous situation. After unsucces fully negociating for the repeal of the French decrees and British orders—after a wild and destructive experiment had evinced that the embargo, a measure founded in the grossest political error, continued in obstinacy and end ing in national disgrace and commercial ruin, was equally imbecile abroad and pernicious at home, the government, either sinking from the frowning aspect of the north, or resolving to establish an impartial policy in relation to the two belligerents, assumed what was then call ed its final neutral attitude. The committee of foreign relations of this House, under lie immediate influence of the di rection of the present executive On the 22d of November, 1808, made a report in which was described the situation of the country in relation to France and England, the ground which the administration were about to occu py distinctly pointed out, and the principles of justice and policy, which would influence its conduct towards those nations, fully developed. I beg the attention of the House to a few pas sages in that report. The framers of the report first describe the origin and foundation of the French decrees and British orders—the manner in which they violate American rights; the policy of the embargo, and the efforts made by the Ameri can government to obtain a revocation of those decrees and orders. They then say—“ The effort has been ineffectual. The propositions have been actually rejected by one of the bel ligerent powers, and remain unanswered by the other. In that state of things, what course ought the U. States to pursue Your com mittee can perceive no other alternative but abject and degrading submission—war with both nations—or a continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of commerce.” r J'hey reject the first alternative and then proceed—“ There is no other alternative but war with both nations, or a continuance of the present system for war with one of the belli gerents would be submission to the edicts and will of the other.” Nor can it be doubted, that a measure that would supply exclusively one of the belligerents would be war with the other.” While the decrees of both nations re main unrepealed, the committee here distinct ly state, that any “restrictive measures that would exclusively supply one of the bellige rents, whether of non-intercourse or non-im portation against the one nation, would be ipso facto, war with that nation and submission to the the. edicts and will of the other.” They then consider the question of war and say—“ The present unsettled state of the world, the extraordinary situation in which the United States are placed, and the necessity if war be resorted to of making it at the same time against both nations, and these ’.he two most powerful in the world, are the principal causes of hesitation. There would be none in resorting to the remedy, however calamitous, if a selection could be made on any principle ofjustice, or without a sacrifice of national in. dependence.” Language cannot be plainer. The committee acting, I repeat, under the en tire controul and direction of the executive, distinctly state, that war with either nation, whether by the new fashioned mode of com mercial restrictions, or by the old fashioned mode of fighting,while the decrees of both were in force, would be dishonor, injustice, submis sion, and a sacrifice of national independence— and in direct contradiction to the idea advanced yesterday by the gentleman from South Caro lina in such circumstances neither nation could be, with honor and justice, selected for hos tility. 2*lr. Speaker, this report and all its princi ples, emanating directly from the executive, were adopted by this House and by Congress. The government of the United Slates thereby pledged their honor, their character and their faith to our merchants, to our people, to the bel ligerent nations and to the world, to be go verned in their future pelicy by its provisions, and they never violated that pledge, until the President of the United States issued his in considerate, his false proclamation on the 2d of November, 1810- Soon after this report and its principles were adopted in this House, the embargo descended to (he grave; 1 hope never again to rear its miscreated front’ among us. In pursuance of the principles of the report, on the Ist of March, 1809, an act commonly called the non-intercourse law, was passed, to com mence on the succeeding 20th of May, against both belligerents but in strict accordance with the new and impartial policy of our govern ment, containing a provision that if France or England should so far repeal or modify her edicts, as that they should cease to violate our neutral rights, the fact should be proclaimed by the President, and the act was to cease as to that nation. 't ins act was to expire with the next session of Congress. I pass over the arrangement of the British minister Erskine, the proclamation of .ne President founded thereon, the rescinding f that proclamation, the outrageous conduct of Fi ance upon the pretence of retaliation for hat act, the vile insults heaped upon our go ■ernment by France, and borne with a pati- Ece bordering on pusillanimity, and request your attention to the act of the Ist May 1810. This act was founded on the principles of the report —it was passed just before the expiration of the act of non-intercourse, and was intended to supply its place. It declared that if Great Britain or France should so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President should declare by proclamation, and if the other nation should not, within three months thereafter, revoke or modify her edicts in like manner, then, cer tain sections of the non-intercourse law of March 1809, should be revived against tire na tion, so refusing to revoke or modify.” The sections, thus to be revived, constituted an iron system of non-importation against such nation. Mr. Speaker, from this act this country may date the origin of those sinister events, which now cover her with distress and blood. This is the Pandora Box, whence have escaped all that swarm of disasters which this nation will long remember with tears of blood. It placed the fate of this country, its peace, its prosperity, its happiness, in the hands of men unable to guard and protect them. The constitutional guardians of the people, the immediate centi nels of our honor and independence, shrinking or flying from their posts, surrendered their power, to be exercised by an inefficient execu tive. What a wild field of Gallic intrigue was now presented 1 The imperial magician had now only to seduce or to dupe the executive, and this proud nation would lay prostrate, in the snares of French perfidy and violence. A Gordian knot,” would be fastened upon us, and this last republic be found fighting in the universal battle, side by side, with the veriest tyrant that ever crimsoned the earth with blood. From the moment, that this law was known in France, the work of duplicity began, and it never ceased until all the designs of the French despot were fully accomplished. By the prin ciples of the report, adopted by Congress by the avowed and permanent policy of the go vernment by the non-intercourse law of 1809 by every consideration of “justice, national honor and national independence,” and finally by the express provision of the law of May 1810, on which only be could act, the President was solemnly bound never to issue his proclama tion, until the French government should have, in good faith, repealed or modified her decrees, in relation to American commerce. How was the fact The President waited for no such repeal or modification. He became the dupe of French duplicity and falsehood. In the lan guage of Mr. Russel, then our minister in France, the President was shuffled into the lead where national honor and the law required him to follow.” For the indubitable correctness of these po sitions I appeal to facts. On the sth of August 1810, the duke de Cadore the French minister of foreign relations addressed a note to Mr. Arm strong, then our minister in France, from which I will read an extract—“ I am authorised to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the Ist Nov. they will cease to have effect—it being well understood that in consequence of this decla ration, the English shall revoke their orders in council, and renounce the new principles of blockade, which they have wished to establish, or that the U. States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English.” Sir, this is the instrument, and the only in strument, upon which the proclamation of the President was founded. Upon perusing this letter, its hollow, juggling, jesuitical cha racter is visible and glaring. Unconnected with subsequent events, which stript it of all ambi guity, front its very terms who will dare to say that it revoked or modified the decrees, as required by the act of May preceding. It does not even purport to do this —it has not even the merit of Pythian obscurity—it ought not to^have deceived the weakest under standing—“ It being well understood,” that is, upon condition,” (not in consequence of this revocation, even the juggler himself had not the impudence to call it a revocation,) the English shall revoke, &.c. or America cause her rights to be respected.” What is the plain English of this jesuitical instrument Upon condition that England revokes her de crees, or that America, in case she does not so revoke, proclaims a measure of non-importa tion against her exclusively, then I make this declaration, that my decrees shall be revoked on the Ist November. This is the plain import of this famous let ter. It demanded that the Executive should take the lead where national honor and the law required him to follow.” It demanded as a condition precedent to the absolute revocation of the French decree, that the President, under the law of May, 1810, should procla m a non importation act against England—a measure which, under such circumstances, the commit tee of this House, in 1808, had pronounced to be a a measure of war.” What was the plain duty of the President Surely to resist the demand—at least, to wait until time, and the conduct of France, should strip the “declaration” of its oracular ambi guity. On the contrary, the President, as if eager to bind his country in the toils; as if eager to violate the honor of the nation and thq law, as soon as it was possible issued a procla mation, in which he declared the French de crees revoked or modified; in which he de manded from Britain a revocation of her or ders in council, and in which he announced the act of non-importation against her, if she failed to comply with the demand by the second day of the February succeeding. Never, sir, I venture to say, never was pub lic astonishment greater than upon the 2d of November, when this proclamation was pub lished. And let me solemnly demand, have not sub sequent events demonstrated that, at the time, and long after the date of this proclamation, the Berlin and Milan decrees werem full force against America. 1 will briefly examine the matter, and the American people, even that par ty which has nailed its colors to the mast of the Executive, and resolved, with him, to go to the bottom, shall no longer doubt the weak ness of the President, and the black treachery of bis Imperial Deceiver. f Speech to be concluded in our next.fi) TO THE CREDITORS OF EDWARD ENO, DECEASED. Notice is hereby given, that a dividend of the personal assets of Edward Eno, deceased, will be maxe on Saturday the tenth day oi July next, ensuing, at ten o’clock A. M. at the house of Thomas G. Wright, in Georgetown, district of Columbia, at which time and place, such of the creditors of the deceased as have duly proved and exhibited, or who may duly prove and exhibit their claims, will please to attend to receive their proportions. By order of the Orphans’ Court of Wash ington County. THOS. C. WRIGH F, E tors SAMUEL ROGERS, J ^ecutors. WANTED TO HIRE, A GOOD FEMALE SERVANT. Enquire at this Office. June 29 THE FACTION. TROR THE AURORA. Into what kind of hands the manage ment of the hireling gazette of this ci ty has fallen we do not know—nor is it of any consequence in whose hands it is —because we have seen it bandied about so often, from one blockhead to another, each more despicable than the one who preceded him, that it is not in the least surprising that it should at length have found its natural level.— From its ignorance of the most com mon events of the day, and of the most notorious fsets, we are to presume that it is ambitious of the same kind of fame which the Centinel of Boston has earn ed in its geographical researches, and which certain manufacturers of news, and retailers of reports in this city, are desirous of meriting for their correct’ information, and wise cogitations.— The following is copied from that pa per We have already had occasion to remark that the democrats are not now, nor ever have been, friends to a naval establisnment. Their professions of attachment are no kind of evi dence whatever. It has ever been one of the dirty arts of the predominant party to seize on any popularity besides its own, and mono polize what belongs to others. In this way' the poor president of the United States is com pelled to wear one visage favorable to Alexan der in his message to Congress, and another hostile to him in the petty and insignificant pages of his court gazette. When the admi nistration devolved into the hands of Jefferson, the democrats were entreated, as patriots, to preserve the navy establishment. They were urged to this measure on grounds of honor.— They were remonstrated with on grounds of justice, and met and opposedin the open field of argument. The trials were all in vain. They proved themselves as void of patriotism, and honor, and justice, and argument, as they were destitute of argument. The navy was abandon ed to the hammer of the auctioneer, or the worms of the Potomack, and the little remnant which survived the destruction, was insulted, degrad ed and systematically oppressed. Hostility to the navy” has been charged on the democratic administra tion, with little intermission, since the accession of Mr. Jefferson to the presi dency—this charge, which had its ori gin in the malicious and revengeful breasts of a disappointed and disgraced faction, and in support of which no evi dence could be brought, was suffered to sink almost unnoticed, among other ca lumnies of a similar cast, into public contempt—nor was it attempted to re vive the clumsy imposture, until our na vy had (much to the dissatisfaction of its pretended friends) rendered itself worthy the attention which the govern ment had bestowed upon it, and upheld the character of the nation from the prostration with which it was menaced by the inglorious progress of our arms by land. Hostility to the navy was now charged on the administration with more earnestness than ever—and even its successes were adduced as the proof —in imitation of their friends in our re volutionary war, who could see nothing in the country but rebel rivers” and rebel shores”—“ rebel hills” and re bel dales” —so these very patriotic gen tlemen could discern nothing but feoe ralism in our navy—“ Hull is a federal ist—Decatur is a federalist—Lawrence, Jones, Bainbridge—all federalists—fe deral shifts —-federal commanders—-fede ral crews—and, of course, federal victo ries !—.but as it unluckily happened that the President, Secretary of the Na vy, &c. were democrats —and might pro bably, in the minds of the people, be en titled to some little share in the honor which such splendid victories, and such examples of skill and intrepidity were calculated to confer on them, as well as on the country at large—every art was practised to create a schism between the government and the naval officers— imputations of partiality to the army in preference to the navy were freely laid to the charge of the Executive—every trivial arrangement of the Navy Depart ment was seized upon to excite the jea lousy of our naval officers, and to em barrass the service—but without suc cess. Failing to instil into the minds of our naval herpes that spirit of discon tent and insubordination which are the characteristics of modern federalism— the very victories which have exalted our navy to the highest pinnacle of fame—and torn the laurels from the brows of the men who have achieved what has been called the sovereignty of the seas”—victories which have laid prostrate the fancied invincibility of a navy which had heretofore ranged the ocean only to plunder and destroy, and had uniformly carried discomfiture and disgrace among all who had the temeri ty to arrest its- progress— these victo ries (every thing else failing) have been held up to odium, and the government vilified and abused for its share in ob taining them whilst the victors themselves are, with real federal con sistency, and federal sincerity, held up to the admiration and gratitude of the people. That spirit of rebellion and mutiny, which characterize the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and which it behoves the Congress of the United States to check promptly, firm ly and effectually, not having made its way among our naval heroes, to the sa tisfaction of those who have been hired to instil it— thUirfederalism, from which so much was calculated on, has become suspected —their victories, it has been announced, have conferred nothing but disgrace, splendid” disgrace too—and they are new gravely told that they haze a character to maintain indepen- dent of, and distinct from the govern ment”—the next recommendation will of course be to place themselves under the protection of governor Strong’s cannon, (which be has wisely paraded on Boston common for the defence of Boston harbor) and beg pardon of the New-England priests for the indignity offered to the bulwark of our reli gion,” and crave forgiveness of the Bos ton rebels, for having so materially weakened the only barrier between us and universal dominion.” But to return to the charge of hosti lity to the navy. In examining this charge, let the following assertions be kept in mind The democrats were entreated as patriots, to preserve the naval establishment. They were urged to this measure on grounds of honor. They were remonstrated with on grounds of justice, and met and opposed in the open field of argument. The tria s were all in vain. They proved themselves as void of patriotism, and honor, and justice, and argument, as they were destitute of argument.” Now, one would suppose, that asser tions made with such confidence, ought to contain some semblance of truth that they should at least be founded on something like fact. The democrats must, indeed, have been deadly enemies to the na' y, if they would listen neither to the dictates of patriotism, of honor, or justice— because these being the cha racteristics of democracy, it is most likely that arguments founded on these attributes would be most likely to pre vail with them. But no I they turned a deaf ear to every thing of this kind, and proved themselves (as this writer says) as void of argument as they were destitute of argument”— most admira ble logic—we expect after this no more criticisms will be attempted from that quarter. But then the navy was aban doned to the hammer of the auctioneer.” This is most true—and the only truth contained in the whole article but in stead of being so abandoned by the de mocrats—so far from the democrats be ing exhorted by patriotism, honor, and every other thing dear to them, to pre serve the navy—so far from their being met and opposed in the open field of argument,” &c. the law for selling and dismantling the navy was actually pass ed by A FEDERAL CONGRESS, and UNDJER THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS !AS will appear by reference to the law it self, which will be found in vol. 6, p. 280, laws U S. This circumstance alone is sufficient to shew how hollow are the professions of federalism in regard to a navy—but many examples have occurred since that period to prove that instead of fos tering and encouraging that establish ment, they have taken every opportuni ty tor depressing and annihilating it. There were none who clamored louder for a navy than the federalists of Massa chusetts—the republicans were deter mined to test their sincerity, and upon a proposition being made in the legisla ture ol that state, to build a ship of war, it was opposed and frustrated by these very federalists notwithstanding which, they have the impudence to charge the democrats with hostility to the navy and having themselves, when in power, passed the law for dismantling and dis posing of the greater part of the navy at that lime in ehistence, they now charge the democrats with their own act. Had the writer of the above article known any thing of the laws of his country, he certainly would not have thrown himself so fairly open to the charge of a public falsifier—we must, therefore, in chari ty set it down to that species of ignor ance which holds its sway so uniformly over that press, and which characterizes the prints of that party from one end of the continent to the other. Having now demonstrated that, in stead of the democrats being intreat ed as patriots,” See. to preserve the navy establishment, that the law for abandon ing it to the hammer of the auctioneer” was passed by a federal Congress, Sc ap proved by a federal President; we shall next shew what has been done for the navy since the real friends of the navy and of the country obtained the ascen dency. Agreeably to the law alluded to, for reducing the navy, (which law, let it be kept in mind, was passed during the ad ministration of John Adams) six- fri gates were directed to be kept in ser vice. Those six frigates were accord ing kept in service as long as there was any necessily—and when not in service, were carefully laid up; but none of them were ever sold —and they are in service at this day in addition to which, several sloops of war and smaller ves sels, together with some hundred gun boats, were built and fitted out—laws have been passed to augment the navy to its condition at the time at which the federalists condemned it to the ham mer of the auctioneer and to add thereto four ships of the line and six frigates more—which are now in progress, and will be completed with the utmost practicable speed. Let the public now judge who are and. who are not the friends of the navy. The federal administration put into the hands of iheir successors six frigates and some hulks; and the present demo cratic administration will put into the hands of their successors, at least four ships of the line, twenty frigates, twenty sloops of war, some hundred gun-boats, row gallies, de: and a fleet upon the pikes nearly as formidable as that which pi federal times we had upon the ocean.
Page 3
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 4
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.