supposed breach of the Resolves of the late Provincial Convention; which censure, they apprehend, was grounded on a misconception of the letter and spirit of the prescribed regulations, and therefore beg leave to submit the same, together with a copy of the proceedings of the aforesaid Committee, to the consideration of the honourable Convention.

They beg leave to represent, that for a considerable time past they have been engaged in mercantile transactions, the first as factor for John Glassford and Company, and the other for James Buchanan and Company, at their respective stores on Potomack River, which concerns have chiefly related to vending of Goods for Tobacco, and shipping the same to their principals in Great Britain; that many persons have constantly dealt at their several stores on credit, and have been supplied with such commodities as they imported for sale; in return for which they have received Tobacco payments, and applied the same in loading such vessels as were consigned to them by their constituents. They further represent, that in this commercial intercourse their usual customers have always relied on them to supply their exigencies, and that justice and gratitude prompted them not to abuse the confidence reposed in them, by disposing of their effects to others, in prejudice of those with whom they constantly traded.

That their conduct in this respect is not singular, but conformable to the general practice of those who are engaged in similar traffick, cannot be denied; and they are induced to think that on mature consideration it cannot be deemed an infraction of these Resolves, (which they are anxious to observe,) but justifiable on every principle of reason and justice.

Your petitioners shew, that in the present scarcity of British manufacture, they had not any greater quantity of coarse Linens than was sufficient for the use of those who, for the reasons suggested, they were bound to supply; and that the said Archibald Campbell had engaged all the Osnaburghs remaining in his store to the different customers who frequented it. From hence it will appear, that he could not, consistent either with his express or implied contracts, furnish Mr. Reeder with the articles he requested; the refusal of which is a ground for the late complaint against him.

Your petitioner, Archibald Campbell, also sheweth, that he had received advice of a vessel intended to be consigned to him, and which shortly after arrived, to be laden with Tobacco. That be had no other means of procuring her cargo, than by the sale of Goods to those who usually supplied him with that commodity. If, therefore, he was compelled to receive Cash for his Merchandise, the vessel must have returned without her freight, to the great injury and expense of his employer: add to this, as an obvious consequence of such compulsion, that any rival in trade with a command of Cash, might buy up the Goods of others, and thereby gain an undue advantage in this branch of commerce. It may not be improper further to remark, that in the course of retail dealings, it is necessary to keep an assortment of Merchandise, and that an uncontrolled liberty to the purchaser, and an obligation on the seller to permit him to select all the saleable articles in a store, would be promoting the interest of one at the ruin of the other; nor can a charge of partiality or oppression be with justice alleged against a merchant who is desirous of preferring those who resort to him for general supplies to him whose application is casual, for a scarce and necessary article.

Your petitioners further shew, that they have endeavoured to pay due deference to such regulations as were thought necessary for publick interest, and have contributed with cheerfulness to the general service; they, therefore, feel with the most poignant concern their late (and flatter themselves) unmerited proscription.

They have however the consolation to declare, that if they have erred it was without consciousness of guilt, and hope integrity of intention may not be imputed to them as wilful disobedience. On this subject the discernment of their present judges renders prolixity of argument unnecessary, and to their decision they submit with respectful acquiescence.

On what particular part of the sixth Resolve the Committee have thought proper to ground their sentence, is not certainly known. If conjecture is indulged, the following words may be supposed to comprise the accusation: “That no merchant or other person ought to engross any Goods, Wares, or Merchandise, whatsoever.” As laws should admonish before they condemn, it is difficult to conceive with what propriety this restrictive rule could be applied to the case in question. Engrossing is, in legal idea, an unjust accumulation of property, with an intent to sell it again; which, by enhancing the price, tends to the publick injury. If the acquisition is lawful, one constituent part of the offence is wanting, and the term in the Resolve is not properly applicable. To say that the word may have an extensive import to comprehend what is not expressed, would be to confound language, and entrap the unwary. With submission permit us to observe, that we ought not in these instances to substitute artificial for real conviction, and thereby give footing to a code of polity which may hereafter be turned to the destruction of that manly freedom for which we are now contending. Who can be safe if we resort to subtle and criminal construction as the glossary of common life?

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the proceedings of the Committee may be reconsidered. If they have erred, let concessions, deprecate resentment; it is, however, hoped that a rectitude of intention will shield them from imputed guilt.

At a meeting of the General Committee for the County of St. Mary’s, held at the Court-House in Leonardtown, on Tuesday, the eighteenth day of July, Anno Domini 1775:

Mr. John Reeder, Junior, in the Chair;

Among other were the following proceedings, to wit:

On complaint made by Doctor Henry Reeder against Mr. Archibald Campbell, factor for John Glassford, Esq., and Company, at their store in Leonordtown, for refusing him Goods for ready money, and at the same time declaring, that he would not sell his Goods for Cash, but for Tobacco only:

Resolved, That Mr. Archibald Campbell be required immediately to attend this Committee, to answer unto the matter wherewith charged.

Whereupon, Mr. Archibald Campbell appearing, Doctor Henry Reeder was, by and in the presence of the said Archibald Campbell, examined relative to the complaint as aforesaid made, who proved the fact as alleged to the general satisfaction of the Committee; who thereupon proceeded (after having first heard what Mr. Campbell had to offer in his defence) to take into their consideration the tendency of such a procedure; which, upon being fully debated, duly weighed, and maturely considered, was almost unanimously judged to be a manifest violation of the sixth Resolve of the Provincial Convention, held at Annapolis by adjournment, on the eighth day of December, 1774.

And therefore, Resolved, for ourselves and constituents, That no Gentleman of the Law, from this time forward, ought to bring or prosecute any suit for any debt due to the store of John Glassford, Esquire, and Company, at Leonardtown, of which the said factor, Mr. Archibald Campbell, has the management.

Resolved, also, That the proceedings against the said Archibald Campbell be published in the Maryland Gazette, to the intent that all persons concerned may have due notice thereof.

At the same time, upon complaint made by Captain George Cooke, against Mr. William Lilburn, factor for Mr. James Buchanan and Company, at their store at St. Inegoe’s Warehouse, for acting in a similar manner; which the said William Lilburn, here present, admits to be true:

Resolved, That the said Lilburn has violated the aforesaid Resolve, and that he also be published in the Maryland Gazette, to the intent as aforesaid.

In testimony that the aforegoing is a true copy taken from the Minutes kept for the Committee for the County of St. Mary’s, I have hereunto set my hand, this twenty-second day of July, Annoque Domini 1775.

TIMOTHY BOWTERS, Clerk of the Committee.

[No. 6.]

At a special meeting of the Committee, at the Court-House, on Tuesday, the 13th July, at four o’clock, P. M.