Virginia Argus — Richmond, Va., 1810-05-15 00:00:00, page 2

I_I
' rywcurtofN lionfi, dhe •orthtarv 'pme-'.
*t.<ar ’hcrre ‘SO&sBtfiv&ie, ■ iVcd.rr ea*|*on;
d&te %aaft, .* ipoc x ‘bonfi Sor i’ac
ipoyweat-af mcnrioT^ ortfh out ■*ettl'rrg
fiosdk dine ®tmS:ti,n^ •w iwTWs^m^ any
gendrnflnr^Q Kodh dtastedf■; ileeviogkto,
tm-; -ftAfoRfonac ortwrfbar nrtie -e»wctor:!
AmbmSR*> »r ;k ts •T^arresotcewipea iTfc e H>e |
*Strad^-4jT «*be wxcvatny at' rjalce&mH'b'
Xruv. ia-iktt: snxiart,*Jer *«iioS *JioT>e,,^.asr
wac ?Wic«e m <fa« <cmk rrf Cay l or w
SfftrcsvJrtxjfracas *t<fi»eflrr«*aiwscauhidh
««,’ *be «jatmignsfi in -the re
qftjrxiiaik :jtf *r 4k e %ce*eei®*r’^Wf«rre ttv. j
ir;vewc»6tt<«* w»i»ch tps*ow Star surprise.*
newrrfic^Tpp*v?ee3nrgr,m<frr»3h;
«yr»&;«H*to •bejprauoi c<"£ <*« an -action afl
4rW' '.V'xr^fTt arponUftic jafitjmem andji
e«vti«e 0*115 x idarjwtrrtt;; x crrc*m»
•atwrcse effitHel f xuSvcwat: tn ory eyes 4».,
4f me dbc prefouerce ao -five l itter aota* :j
»c»!v- %xtv$»a3ai'd[\Tft
3SnJ[*iaR<.w. Code p«- ISsJaflbrdh) M
swrxftiytr cictfaa ^oxc sndoeii that is •!
*»tjoi««:oe to mf sninefj why this
«tf»rse of’proceeding which I recoin- ;
rnosi artast be vdfptod in ah cases *
«ono anv executor** or adim-;
Ttt'itratvxr*^ bond executed since she
VdM'ntarew^ of <kat act, odiidt ex ]
|m»4y declare*, ‘that no security
‘for any executor or administrator
* skali he clvaigiftljie beyond the assets
* «*J tbe testator or intestate by reason!
‘ <*f any omission or mistake in plead.
‘ i-'goc Oie pleading of such execu.
* tor or administrator.” Put the case,
that an executor, who has never re
ceived mote ih:in % IGO of his testator’s
asrt^M <-!>*• « Vac* kic nti>r. lnattontm^ y\r
mismanage-lient, or that of his counsel
cr attca-nies, have mc.de himself per
sonally liable to satisfy judgments a
jpwnst him for demands against his
tsmdtor for g 10,000; can the securi
ties lie charred for more than the
& IOQ.,if ’hat were* in truth,the whole
of the assets? Certainly not! Is it <
not then incumbent on the creditor, ’
when he brings an action against die
accuriues, to shew that assets suflici- j
ent so discharge his debt have come
to the hands of heaiSecutor, and that
he has wasted thero<? Certainly it is :
r.or w :11 it *»e sufficient to shew that the
eaerutor cither by his neglect, or false
pleading, has {nade hiir.stlf liable for
thv debt personally, without shewing
tiiut he actually had -assets, sufficient
to pay the debt, or a part thereof. .
It may he asked, perhaps, how is a
creditor to ascertain the amount of the
assets, w hich have come to the hands
of an executor ? The law, I conceive,
has sufficiently pointed out the me
thod ; it requires the executor to give
bend with condition, ‘to make a
* true and perfect inventory of all the
. * goods, chatties and credits of the
* deceased, wh.ch have, or shall come
4 to the hands, possession, or know
4 ledge -of the executor, or into the
4 hands and possession of any other
* person, for hi on, and the same so
4 made to exhibit into the court grant
* ing the probate [or letters of admi
4 oistratioo, as the case may he] at
% mi It t im«a> tfi nK'llI l-.,*
* required by the court.” (1st Rev.
Code pa. 163 ) His oath, also hinds |
« him to make a true and perfect invcn, j'
tory and also a just account when j
thereto required. [Ibid pa. 162.] If
an executor should unreasonably de
lay to make and return an inventory,
any creditor or other person interest
ed in the estate might, by application
to the court, procure him to be sum*
«r»mic4 to return an inventory. By
this cou:se, v. hich is .conformable to
the practice in England [see Nelson’s
lex testamenuna, pa. 355: Sir, T.
Raym: Hep. 470:£. T. R. 6. Mara
vs. Quin] the amount of the assets
•nay be ascertained; and by the same
course, the account of his executor
si ip, which is also to be exhibited
wlu-n thereto required by the court,
n ay likewise be obtained. And
surely this course is infinitely more
likely to attain the great ends of jus
tice, than to trust to a common jury
to .«d )W.t and settle a complicated ac»
ci/unt of an executor’s or administra
te* \ transactions, in a contest between
a t reditor and the security for the ex*
crotor, or administrator. Or should
a retort to a court of equity be found
netenfcitrjt (nr a discovery of assets,
which may l>e concealed by the execu
tor, ot may have gotten into the hands
of legatees, or others, with the assent
< r connivance of the executor or ad
ministrator, that court might direct
an account, as was done in this court
in the case of Taliaferro and Gaines
v Thornton and wife, [May 5, 1806 I
M. S.J against all parties however re
motely concerned in interest ; the
same course I perceive to have been
intimated by judge Pendleton in the
case of iiufnley vs. Lambert, [I j
Wash; 312;] and White, Whittle, I
Kc co. vs. Banister's executors, [ibid j
ItfB] which I shall notice hereafter,;!
and to have been pursued by the pre„ •
scut chancellor of the Richmond dis
tract *n trrut cTJdsfh ^vs-'WelTo ando
■thers [J Huaaaail JSunf. ;§.<>..] 5
To :rctnca ;twe case <rf tBrw&ton *vsj
the Sports \*lvaaSf jeao't ae*. The court,
procued* to nay,—** It may be ol-y ect-;
that she wet doe* rot prescribe fchar
* •••ccudiK.or «bi»ft «ot go Jtgsnnsi the «e
U<cutitle* aa -the 'first instance ; and!
* 'therefore that rhe achonaas weU*
4 Noughts to which this answer pre-;
4 eents that at is an -established
*'pru»dipU: of consttmcteon, that Where;
4 a. statute has given a memr remedy,!
4 without fwiotrug oat the mode in
4 Winch tfbi* remedy a* to be attained,
4 <iihe<riAes«f ifhe ■commonlaw, and the
* practice«©f the courts, founded apoa
4>che reason of the thing, ehntU be pnr
*•sucAT’ { subscribe rwoutfuBy to this,
as totevoy preceding j xart of the <s
jdziion, vrfctchas repcMledto have been
am»nimous3y given in that important
case. These who object to the delay
Wtwdjl tmeh a course of -proceedrag
must require, wvbold do well to coo*i.
tier that this is an additional remedy
given by ow law against executors j
who, neither by the common law uor
by any statute in England, can he com-'
pelled to give bond and eeouritv for'
their conduct. And the creditor was,
by the common Jaw, as much without
a remedy against the ordinary, (who
was originally in the place of an ad
miuistrator,) as he now is against an
executor in England,under any statute
of that count«y.
For the ordinary, at c'mmon law, might
have disposed of the whole of the imts
tate’s personal chattels, and could not be
compelled to grant administration, nor was
even so much as obliged to pay debts : but
srvcrai ^ pencil
power was given to him to grant the ad
ministration, and to pay »he deb s, he
therefore obliged the administrator to bring
in an inventory, and to see that it was
distributed in payments of debts : and, fi,
nallv, the statu'es required [as our law
does] that (he administrator should give
bond for the faithful peiformance ol his
duty. But the last statute upon this sub
ject, 32 sod 23, Char. 2d, c. 5, was ne.
ver in force *n this country. So that the
retrndy given by our a6ls of assembly is
not, as was contended by Mr, Munford,
a uibsti'ute for the a&idn of debt upon fL
judgment against an'exocu’or suggesting
a devastavit, but, u* was said by the court j
in the c.*>e of Brax on v the Spotlsylva
nia ja tices, an additional remedy *hichi
our law has given to cteditors* legatees,'
and dis’ributees of persons deceased tui
their benefit a dsecurity. Have they then
a right to complain that the/ shall not
be permitted to avail themselves of this
additional remedy against an innocent se.
curity until they shall shew, the na uie
and amount of their claims; that the tes.
tator left assets, to a certain amount, Chat
they came to the hands of the executors,
who have wasted them, and that there was
sufficient thereof to have sa;isfied their
demands, in a due coure of adratniaira.
non r
The only case that I have met with in
the F.nghsh books of an a&ion at' law
brought upon an administration bond a
gainst the securities of the administrator,
is that mentioned in the case ol Cicenside
tr Benson, 3 Atk 2/8 There v.he credi.
tor Benson had bi ought an action again*,
he edministra nx. on a bond ot her hus
jand, the ir.tes ate, fur £ 300, to wfrujit
she pleaded that she had not assets, uhaa j
£ 54, which she paid into court. Benson
ict being satisfied w:th the inventory
nought in by her, procured an assign
__i _r l. __ j _
IIIV1I V Wk Itiw ■VIIUIIII'ltlHWUll MIIU |<ui
it in suit, by bunging three several act
/ns ; one against the administratrix, and
one against each of the securities ; and
assigned for breach that site bad not ex.
hibited a uue and perteCT inventory.
These causes ctune on to Le tried, and
no defence was made by the two securi.
lies, »i,d there was judgment for the plain,
tiff by default
The securities brought a bill against
Benson ihe cieditor, und Mrs. Hudson
lie adrninisiraoix ; wild the relief prayed
p/as, that the defendant the administratrix
might indemnify the plaintiff's for being
sureties in the administration bond, and
for an injunction aga nat Denson the ere.
litor till an accouut should be taken be.
ween (hem and Mrs. Hudson, and dil
ihe should have satisfird Mr* Benson at
far as the assets would go
The counsel for the defendant B*n«on,
further stated ihat the administratrix pica.
Jed tothedefe d im's action that she had
issels only amounting to £, 55, beyond
what she had aheady paid, but the juiv
round t 226 beyond the 55, so tliai the
creditor became entitled to both sums.
I.d. Mardwicke, ch .* said, the admin*
is'ratrix could not then dispute the ver
iict which had been found against her »
nor wan the case of the sureties at all bet.
er* as tbe verdict was obtained against
he admimstra rix, who was the pioper
person to try it]**
That he did not ihink it proper to have
the whole account taken over again, or to
shcr what had been found by the verdict »
and direC\ed an account to be taken on
ly of what was exhibited upon ihe inven
tory ; and the vcidCl to stand as a tecu
riiy for so much a* that should fall short
to satisfy the defendant's pnncipal, and m
teresi on bis bond.
If tbe law of gland had been conform
able >o oor aC\ t>l 179** c 92, seCl i 33,
l Tnia act was first passed in 1785, c 41,
arid bad its commence merit unwary 1st*
Wfl7."3 “dhe latter pat* of this Secret vivdst
have been changed ; for, untlouh edty* i
the sacori.-ies in that casecsu.d only have '
Lcen made «cbarge able Vo .the amount oi.
the a >sett found by the werdicU '■
f
But any pninoiptd <ibge6k in citing fhis
case wa« to shew that in England they j
It neccssa-y to proceed separately
agvinst the administrator am! shear tha a
mount <of the .asset* which have come i«.
.his hands before they sue the sureties?;
-instead of bringing a joint nation against
them srlUfeyfore they have establish .'d ei
ther the ^mmnfof the «v*eta, or the lia
bility of he adtniuiatt alar, a» the plaintiffs
have done in Otis suit} and farther to
stew that that part of the decree which
declares that the wetdidfc against tha ad- 1
minist-ratTix should stand as a security,
only for so much *s the inventory might
VaR short of the payment ofthe crediiorV
ttebt, is according to the spirit of the deci
sioa m Braxton v fSpottsylvania justices}
that the cicditor must pursue the estate1
of the-deceased, until K is exhausted, be .
fore any suit can be brouglit against a
security upon the administration bond.
In the case of White, Whi ti?, Sc co. v
Canisters execu ors-fl • Wash 168 ] Judge
Pendleton in deliver'd* the i-pinioi of the
court said ; ** A‘creditor may at law either
* sue out execution upon a judgment oh .
* vauaed against the exccuto: s» and levy it
‘on the visible property of the testator, it
* any ; or, it none be found,, 3dly he may
4 proceed against the executors, an for u
‘devastavit^ on account of a misappiica.
4 tion of assets ; or 3d!yf a creditor may
4 not know the state of the assets, the a
* mount, nor the claims against -the estate i
4 he mav therefore file his bill in raui>v
* to have a discovery of those matters ;
• and, on that discovery being made, may
'either proceed at law,” [;hat is to say,
upon the executors* bo.id^ as 1 understand
him] “or that court may retain the cause**
[as was done in this court in the case of
i'aluferro 8c Gains v Thornton and Wite
before mentioned] “ and determine the
disputes between the parties.** This
seems tome to be petlc&ly in conformity
to the principles which were supposed to
have been settled in the case of Braxton
v the Spotsylvania justices.
Upon these grounds I am of opinion that
the opinion of the County court in favor of
the defendant upon the point leserved, was
correct; and therefore that the judgment
of the Uistndt court, reversing that judg
ment, ought to be reversed^ and that of
the County court affirmed.
WUHanas, for the appellants, relied on
the case of Braxton v. Winslow, [1 Wash
31] recogniaed in Call v. Ruffin [1 Call ]
333] as having settled the point, that an j
action cannot be sustained on an atiminis. >
tration bond without a previous suit, fixing I
a devastavit, against the executor or ad-!
ministrator. By ano*c to Turnery Chinn j
[1 Hen. 8c Man. J4] it appears that the!
judges consented to reconsider the case
of Braxton v. Winslow s bat no opinion !
was expressed on the point. Tue question j
is therefore not influenced by what fell |
from the bench in the last mentioned case.
But an additional reason may be given !
why a previous suit is m*ne—lutijc-xgain t the j
executor or administrator, to establish a 1
devastavit, betore an action is drought a.
gainst the securities. The law declares
that no security for an executor or admin,
str a tor shall he chargeable beyond the
assetts of the testator or intestate on ac.
count of any omission or mistake in plead,
ing, of the executor or administrator [1 Rev
Code, pa. Iff, §. 33j. ft is therefore res.
sonaable that tne amount of asms wasted t
by the executor or administrator, should
be ascertained by the verdict of a jury, j
before the securities are tilled on.
Munford for the Appellees observed an
omission in the judgment of the District
court. They had failed to enter such judg
ment as the county court ought to have
rendered:—but his court might supply it,
as was done in Muntz vs Hendley, (2 H.
and M 313.) The judgment reversing that
of the county court, be.ng correct, should
‘so far* be affirmed; and the Appellees,
in that event, should recover their costs ;
• being the party Mitisiuntially prevailing.*
In tins case the Verdict was general in
favor of the plaintiffs, as to every thing in
controversy between tn* parties, except
tnc point submitted to the court, wnicn was
‘whether an uction on the administration!
‘ bond could be maintained without shew
‘ ing in evidence in such action a judg- j
* uient in an action of devastavit against
* the administrators.* On such a verdict,
every fact or circumstance wmoh (inde
pendently of Ue implied finding that no
indgment hud been obtained in an action of
devastavit) could justify a decision in fa
vour of the plaintiff, must, be understood
to have been proved :o me jury. Fori vs
Gardner, (l n. 8c M. 73.) We have there
fore a ngnt to presume that, in the origi,.
nal suit brought to establish the debt, a
verdict was found against the d fend mt on !
an issue joined on the plea of piene adininis- j
travit,by which verdict it was a.certameu!
that he had assets sufficient to satisfy the ,
plaintiff 's claim, that [judgment being en*
terrd accordingly,] a writ of fieri facias is.
sued, and was returned nulla bona. The
question propounded by die jury to the
court was wnemer, afier all this nad been
doue# it was necessary for the plaintiff to!
obta.fl another judgment in an action sug
gesting a devastavit, before he could bring (
suit on the administration bond—on wmen
question, 1 contend, me decision of tlie
county court Was erroneous.
The devastavit was sufficiently fixed by
the proceedings in the first action ; so far,
indeed, that the Sht riff, instead of return
ing nulla bona, might hare returned a de
vastavit positively ; in which case ‘ the
plaintiff might have had execution iru_
* mediately against the defendant by capias
‘ ad satisfaciendum, or fieri facias de bo-I
• nw propnis.” 1'idd's J'r. V33] The
Sheriff having neglected to do ibu, the1
pin muff 's remedy, in Kngtand, would have
• been by scire fieri inquiry, or action ot
‘ debt upon Uk judgmeut suggesting 4 de«
•'▼stsUrtfk -r Ibid. It)’*, ttV’TJ. tt br »
tug very qtic«ti»r*fe:e wt;<-•;«er, in tha
cocMry-, nn action «.«» be biou^ht against'
an -aummastiaMr «n tire Mdnilmstrauo
bond, assigning a devastavit as the breach
of ttbe condition^ {lodex** law of Ex.
ecu ors 383] and it beiuq' Certain that,
no -bend nn-l scour tty is there repaired of
an -Executor. The not exhibiting a true 1
inventory., or account^ it seems may be as.
sighed m a breach; {ibid] and in the;
-case of the Archbishop*! Canterbury vs
Waiis, LSslk, 2S l pi. 3, cited in 3 ttac
Abr. p. 499 19uM. Edo. Title Ex*
teuton fee. ££. 11.] a suit was maintain
ed on the bund, at me in stance of a ere.
(Ktor, who assigned as a breach the failing
•te pay him ois debt. But, whether the
last mentioned action ooud have been sup.
ported, if the defendant had made a pro.
per defence^ is doubtful; the *utu uiUes us
ing contradictory. Bee Che cases cited
in Toller p. St>2.j
. la this cuuutry, the proper re needy ap.
pears to be an action on the bond, winch
our act of Assembly directs to be given by
Executors as well as Administrators—the
object of that act appcunnjg to be to sub.
statute the action on the bond fur debt'sug
gesting a devastavit—dace both, suoces.
ively, in the same case, atm rv dent Ik su
perfluous. Tne Bond may tie put in' suit
for the benefit of any person injured ; the de.
vastavii maybe assigned as a - reach of the
condition—and the plaintiff is bound in that
shit to prove every circumstance which it
is incumbent upon him to prove in the o.
ther.
Bat the case of Braxton vs Winslow
£ 1 Wash. 31.] is relied upon as es.
tablistung the position that both actions are
necessary. That case has been frequent,
ly misunderstood, and in the present in
stance is misapplied. The language used
by the court (as expressed by tue Repor.
«uu maCu
curate, but plain enough, when construed,
[as it ought to be,] witn reference to the
subject matter betore them The suit hav* ‘
ing been brought on the administration
bond, without any previous action against
the executor, tlie cntrt decided, [witn
great propriety,] that a previous action
should have b eu brought to establish the
debt and fix the devastuvit=*jut they did (
not mean to decide that two such actions
were necessary. If the latter fiad been ,
thetr meaning, it would not have been au
thority, because the case then nailer con
sideration did not call for a decision of that ,
pomt—foir the principle is weil settled that
opinion* of Jjtigts are authority, so f.»r as
they apply to the cases actually betore
them, and no farther.
The dictum that *n executor shall not
he presumed guilty of a devastavit till it ts
found against him by a verdict, seems to
have b«cn pronounced obiter toly, withou.
being requisite to the decision ot tnat case.
But even admitting it correct, it does not
follow that a verdict in an acuon suggest,
ing a devastavit Wa* intended by tue court ;
•t be equally ed'eciual, aud aU©2
quate to the purposes ol justice, if reuder_
ed on an issue |oiued on tne plea of piene
adminrstravu In the original action, and
coupled with a suusequent fieri facias and
reiurn of nulla bona.
The case appears to have settled noth ng
but that a devastavit ougne to be fi*ed ue
fore an action can ue maintained u:*ine ad
ministration bond. I'he ijuestion suit re
curs, wnat is requisite to fix a devastavit ?
And tuis is answered by the authorities ,al.
ready.cited,as weu asby tne reason ol the
thing—mat a devastavit is fixed, whene
ver it judic.ally appears by the executors i
own admission or the finding of a jar
that lie bad .ssetsj and, by me return a;
a sworn officer, taat he has Wasted or con
ctalcd them.
The truth of the return may indeed be
controverted by tuc defendants in me ac
tiua ou tne ound, but, prim* facie, it fixe-}'
the devastuv t sutfec.en'Jy to warrant the 1
•c.ion. Tue same defence m .y be made—
and ihc sa ne evidence i» adm.siubie on
bom side* IU the action, on tne ixhvJ, as in ,
that suaircalinur ihrr d^v .u; r. F,.* .u...i I
purpose then [but for the benefit oil
Lawyers] shoulu three actions be resort. 1
ed to, when two ms sufficient f If it be I
•aul “ for the protection ot the secur..
ties/' wao are not parties to tne ft: st ac.
lion, 8c ought not to be bound by a judgment
improper./ or collusively obtained against !
the executor, I answer that, neither aiv '
the securities parties to the action of debt I
sugg sting a devastavit. Every objection, j
th relore, to a suit against them in the se.
cond instance, applies equ illy in the third.
The act ot Assembly m favor ol secu-l1
rities. [referred iu by Mr W.Iltams] can I
not have tne clfuct of preventing an action j
on the bond -its plain intention being to ,
provide that, notwithstanding any omissi.
on, or mistake m pleading, of ihe executor
or adm.mstrator, the securities [uud;r the
plea ot conditions performed] uuy ivan i
themselves of any defence winch their
principa; might have resorted toon the plea ,
of fully administered, and winch it may bt '
in their power to substantiate* Its* mean,
mg cannot be that, if tne Executor omit to
make a proper deteace, or be guilty of a
mistake in pleading, no acciou sluli lie a.
gainst Ins securities until a second action,
[ n defending which he raignt be equally
negligeut or unskilful,] snail have bee.,
brougnt aga ust himself. Much less can
it mean mat no action shall lie against the
securities in a case in which the Executor
has positively adm.ued assets, or a juiy 1
have found that he has enough to sat sty
tue plainutl’s claim, and lueieupoii it ap. ,
peats he nas w .sled or conceal.d them,
so that a wr.t of fieri facias could not U;
levied upon them.
Judge Fleming—This case hat been so
fully Stated and mvcsiiga «d by Judgt
Tuccer, that t is unnecess.uy tot
me to add any thing farther than Ut,
observe, that it seems now a settled prin.
ciple, tbxt a creditor ol a deceased person
cannot chtrg-, or have rcco ir»e ag.-ust,
the securities in an executor's or admin,
istration bond, until lie has pursued tue
estate of the testator, or intestate, to tue
utmost extent of the law ; and proved, by
the verdict of a jury, a devastavit on tne
executor, or administrator, as tne cas.
may be ; uud then, no fanner liuu asset,
shall appc.tf to have co.uo into bands.
11 therefore co.idur m tue upiuion that tot
judgment ot the District court be reverr
•r? : and that oF the e 'ant/ ctmti «'&r
c.L
Byfhscnart, unautmoinlv, rT«<!g>> fVv
,ut stuing in iho. came, on 'itcvutim «t
>vi«g iiiter-stril in * volt involving V.it
t.inu* point,] »iv- Judgment of th~ D*tv*tC
j'nrt reverse:!, aad that of thecjau:/ toeoi
illinae.l,
J&itgmta ?Htgu&
• —— » y- - — ----rr.- ^ rr-v^
RICHMOND, %
^ TUE8t>\Y, Mat IS, J8HX
The Federalists triumphed in iheir
assembly Ticket in the City of New*
York by the apostacy of James Cbect
ham. this is the age of Revolutions
;md the age of Apostacy.
The present wars of Ccyttinental Eu
rope began by fcfflirig one Austrian
Princess ; and it seems as if they would
end ia the wadding of another. The
man who should have predicted such 1
a thing fifteen years ngp would have
been accented a madman. What is
lt t0 'T]a ■ we 8,ve the name of human
sagacity? Ami where is the indivi
dual who la reality can see into futurity
much farther than his nose? When
the Freach klled their king, all France
raved fo.f a repujj^* And now cha*
Bonaparte has5,destroyed every thing
like a Republic, all France glorie3 in
his Imperialism. Ought not these facts
to teach us to hold fast what we have
got ; to beware of those who are for
'rilling down our institutions ; and to
mm a ueui ear to the hue aud cry of
revolutionary apostates in our own
:ountryf whose clinquant oratory is
mere jacobin rant i
} It is a melancholy reflection that all
ffie republics "f antiquity have been
ievoured by monarchies. Has this
result proceeded from the intrinsic >
imbecility of republican government,
>r from their parsimony, or from /
popular ingratitude ? It is a fact that
.here is not a salary attached to any
oiSct? in the government of the United
States, which could seduce a man of
exalted talents from the walks of pri
vate life. Men of that class, theo,
-annotbe procured for money to serve
the pub'ic, Aud how few are theptt'
nrho will accept an office from motiyW/
>1 patriotism, when that patriotism »v
-ertuin to subject them to denunciaci~'*
>n and calumny, Jefferson, the glory *v,
?• his age and nation, after all his di*,£r
interested services to his country, is
haunted in retirement by such whip,
iters as Mr, Randolph ; and there are
A nericans who countenance the latter
m h.s ungracious philippics ! May we
aot trace the fall of ancieat republics
;o u source which threatens ours i to
wit: the countenance which the peo<4r
ile too oiten give to Demagogues !
O ir merchants will now be pushirtr
>ut to sea. VVnether they will ever
iifely get back again, is another affair.
Ac a.iy ra.e let them never complain
igiiinit govern.nent. I'/iey would
iuoe it so.
1 iie Spirit of Seventy-Six (a news,
japer published between Washington
md Georgetown, in the District of t
^olambi .i,) a is asserted, iu relation to
ie Haiti more Whig, what is not true.
I’he Whig was originally opposed to
*Ir. Malison’* elevation to the Pre*
lidency ; and, in !act, for a ti ne, w&%
»ne of the wannest advocates of a pre
sence for Governor Clinton. Final
y, however, the Wnig acquiesced in
ns will oi the majori y. fnis fact 13 ^
t >t advanced to dcrogue, in the least,
rom the Whig; but to sh :w how very
IE WILDE RED the Spirit is in its g ra
tes t declarations to the public. fho
anguage ol the Whig is 110 proof that
vlr. xVla lison has lost a single frien 1 ;
t is rather an evidence that thoss who
vere not Irom the first his supporters,
lave s *izsd a very early opportunity
o revive their animosity turough the
nediu n of the press.
It is thought by some political lin
guists, that there is a mistake in Mr,
Randolph's signature Mutius / for, say
:hey, if he niton led that tns uamo
should designate t ie man, as was the
:ustom of the Komans, it ought to be
Mutability which sigaifieth changed*
'tie. O her linguists, differing front
■hose lirst, and judging the stifle of
Mutius, think that the word ought to
>e (Jlutii y from the French) to mute/
11 the birds do on certain occasions.
However, we leave these edifying ape
culttions to those who are better vers
ed in thb language of political aposta
sy than we are.
A correspondent rent irks, that Mr.'
Randolph, as a political plan:, may bo
botanic »ily delineated as (he Ane>nouet
jr wdd Jh very wnion is th is destii ».
ud : “ I'Mj seeds are collected
to an oblong head, and surrounded^ y
with a copious down. The principal
colors in ane atonies are white, red,