The enquirer — Richmond, Va., 1805-03-30 00:00:00, page 2

the parts charged as litielhuis. In fupport of
that opinion I quoted feveral authorities that fa
tisfied my mind. The judge waspleafed totell
■ne, I was miftaken in my application of them ;
but I do not remember his precife words. He
(aid the word “tenor and effect,” did not oblige
the profecutor to give more than the fubftance
af the paper meant to be recited. It is contend
rd, laid he, that the book ought to be copied
verbatim et literatim, I wonder, he continued,
they do not contend for pnuRuatim too.
Mr. Nicholfon. Was tliis obfervaiion addref
fed to the bar i
Mr. Ha\. It appeared to me to he intended
for the people ; for he looked round the room,
when he faid with a farealtic finite, I wonder
they do not contend for punH'iatim too. I re
coiled! alfo, that when Mr. Wirt, who was af
fociated with me as counfel for the traverfer, |
was addrerting the court, he was ordered by
judge Chafe to (it down—in this precife Ian-]
guage, fit do wn. The judge alfo declared that j
the counfel on the part of Callender Ihouid not
addrefs any obfervations to the jury concerning
the un onftitutionality of the fecund fcclion of
the fedition law, in refpedl to profecutions for
libellous publications.
Mr. S. Smith, at this ftnge of the examination
of the witnefs, moved an adjournment of the
Senate to their legidativc apartment.
The motion not being agreed to ;
Mr. Hay proceeded ;—When Mr. Wirt was
arguing from a proportion he had laid down,
he faid the couelufion which followed was per-'
fedlly fyllogiftieal. The judge bowed to him in
a manner I cannot deferibe, and faid “ A non
feqnitur,Jir.” I do net remember any other ex
preffions ufed by the judge calculated to deter
the counfel fro n proceeding in the defence of
J. T. Cullender. Bid I tie. remember that I was
more frequently interrupted by judge Chafe on
that trial, than I have ever been interrupted du
ring the 1 c '. cars I have practiced at the bur. I
do not ftate how ofte n I was interrupted, be
caufe I do not recollet?! ; but I know the inter
ruptions were frequent, and I believed them to
be v ry uuneceflary, not only as they regarded
mylelt, but the counfel who were allociated
with me in the defence.
mr. Randolph• In your teflimony you have !
faid that during the whole ciurfe of the trial
yon *'evvi once heard the voice of judge Gridin.
Were thofe replies and thofe decilions, which
you haw detailed, given hy judge Chafe appa
rently without any confultation with judge
Grflfin ?
Mr. Hay. I dated that I did not hear the
voice of judge Griffin ; but I bv no means
meant it to be inferred that judge Griffin was
not heard by any other perf n—Judge Chafe’s
manner of delivering the opinion of the court
was generally this:—after having dopped, or
interrupted the counfcl for the traverfer, by
telling them to fit down, or that they were mis
taken in the law—Some times, but not every
time, he would look at Judge Griffin, who fat
upon his left hand; and turning to the bar, and
to the audience, he would fay, fuch is the
opinion of the court—I think alfo that I
faw them fpeiking to each other, hut not in
fuch a manner as if they were confulting upon
• a queftion of law.
Mr. Randolph. You faid that the queftion
propounded to Mr. B illet, and the other jurors,
was, “Have you formed and delivered any o
pinion as to the charges contained in the indict
ment.”—Are you certain that the exprefiion
was “ formed and delivered ?”
Mr. Hay. I am as clear on that point as I
am of any thing that ever occurred in the
courfc of my life. 1 have faid that my memo
ry at beft is not a good one ; but fome of the
ocurrences on this trial were fo lingular and no
vel, that they made an unufual imprefiion on
my mind.
Mr. Randolph. When it was decided by the
court that the quefiion, “ Hive you ever form
ed and delivered an opinion on the charges
contained in the indictment,” was the only
proper queftion, was it ftafed by the court, or
requefted by the counfel fur the accufed, that
the indictment might be read.
Mr. Hay. It was requefted by the counfel
thatthe indictment might be read, that the ju
ror might have an opportunity of aicettaining
whether he had made up his mind on the parti
cular charges it contained.
Mr. Randolph. Was the indictment then
read ?
Mr. Hay. It was not then read, nor until
after the jurors were fworn.
Mr. Randolph. You have been, you have
Hated, a practitioner of the law for fixteen
years. Has it been the practice of the courts
in Virginia, or have you ever heard of, or feen,
an in It a nee, where the queftions propounded hy
counfel, were required by the court to be redu
ced to writing, and fubmitted to their in
fpeCtion, before they were permitted to be
Mr. Hay. I never knew of a (ingle inftance;
nor do I remember to have even heard or read
of fuch an inftance. I adted as the profecutor
in the trial of Logwood, charged with counter
feiting notes of the bank of the United States.
The chief jnftice of the United States, who prc
fidedat the trial, made no fuch requifltion, nor
did it ever occur to me, that fuch a thing ought
to be, or could be done.
Mr. Nicbol/on. When you were required to
reduce the queftion* to writing, wai it at the in
ftance of the attorney of the diftridt, (Mr. Nel
fon) or was it by the court.
Mr. Hay. I do not remember that Mr. Nel
fon made any objection to putting the queftion.
The objection was made only on the part of
the court. I reeollcdt that Mr. Nelfon made
one remark as to the witnefs giving teftimony
on what took place in the Scnateeof the United
States.
Mr. Randolph. Upon what ground did the
counfei for the accufeJ adume tlie right of pro
ving the vote which was given in the Senate by
parole teftimony ; to prove fadts done in the
Senate you ftioold have reference to their jour
nal.
Mr. Hay. It will be recoliedted that I dated
that Colonel Taylor came into court at the
time the jury wa« about to be fworn ; and that
the counfei for the traverfer was called upon to
ftatc in writing the q icftions that were to In
put. Tbofe queftions were written without a
ny re fled! ion on my part, a* to the propriety or
legality of proving the vote of the Senate by pa
role teftimony.
The court adjourned at 5 P. M.
Tuesday, Pc-b. 12.
Mr. H/tr in continuation.
A very fliort ftatcmcr.t will clofe the detail
which I h ive to nftke. It was the intention of
the counfei, who appeared in beiialf of the tra
verfer, to have defended him oti the ground of
the unconditionally oft hat fedtion of the law,
commonly called the feditlon law, on which
the indidfment was f >undi-d. The grntlemen
afTociated with me in the defence proceeded
to argue this point. Thevwcrenot permitted
to addrefs the jury refpedting it. 7’be treat
ment experienced by Mr. Wirt on the occafion,
I have already irt fotnc decree dated. I reeol
edt he was interrupted by J. C. at fevcral times,
and particularly at one of thofe times, for the
purpofe of telling him that the doctrine he con
tended for was true, that the jury had the right
to determine on the law as well as the faJl.
Mr. Wirt then went on to date that the confti
tution of the United States w?.s the law « f the
laud. Judge Chafe interrupted him, and laid
there was noneceflity for proving that point, it
was the fuprertie law of the land. Mr. Wirt
then went on to argue that if the jury had a
right to determine the law in this cafe, and if
the conditution was the fuprerwe law, thecon
cluflon was perfectly fyllogidical, that the jury
had a rigid to determine on the conftitutionali*
tv of the law. It was at that time that Judge
Chafe add refled him in the words that I have
mentioned. According to my bed recolleidion
he bowed,and with an air of deriflon, addrcl
ting him, fa*d “ a non fcquitur lir,” Whe
ther Mr. Wirt faid anything more after this in
behalf of the client, I do not recollect ; he did
not however fay much. After Mr. Wirt fat
down, I rofc, add re fled mvfclftothe court, A
dated that 1 addrefled myfelf to the court ex
clufively. I obftrved that I did not wilh to be
heard by the jury, or by the very numerous
aflcmblage that furrounded me. This obfer
vatiou was intended by me as a fort of reply to
lhe obfervation made by thejudge that our de
fence was intended for the people. I did not
attempt to fpeak to the jury on the queftion,
which I wilhed to argue before them. After j*
had gone on for a fhort time, I was interrupt
ed by thejudge, by a queftion which 1 thought
an unneceflary one. 1 will endeavor to ftate it.
1 dated to the couit, in terms as diftinft as my
knowledge of the Englifti language enabled me
to ufe, the fpecific propofition for which I
meant to contend—which was, that the jury
had, according to the laws of the land a right
to ueiermine every queltion necelTary to the
(let ifion of the queltion of guilty or not guiltv.
Judge Chafe alked me whether I laid down
that propofition as true in civil as well as in
criminal cafes—becaufe, if you do, f»id he,
you are wrong. My reply was that I believed
the propofition univerfally true; but it was I
fufticient for my purpofe if it were true as ap- j
plied to criminal cafes. I went on, as well as I'
could, in the argument I intended to urge. I •
\vas again interrupted by the judge. What the
circuinftances were that gave rife to that inter
ruption, my unaided memory will not enable
me to tell, nor do I recoiled* what expreflions
were ufed by him. I have not, fince yefterdav,
taken the liberty of looking at the ftatement, |
which I have in my pocket, of the circumftan
ces that to k place on the trial ; but I know
that I was interrupted more than once, and I
believe more than twice ; but the impreflion on
mv mind was, that to get thro’ the argument, I
ftiould be fubjedted to more humiliation than
any man vindicating another in a court of jnf
tice was bound on any principle to en
counter, and I declined proceeding in my argu
ment.
When the Judge perceived from the move
ments I was making, with my papers, that I
was about to retire, he alked me to go on—I
told him I fhould not go on. He faid, there
■vas no occafion Tor me to be captious—I told
him I was not captious. He then faid, go on,
go on,—you will not be interrupted. I, how
ever, retired from the bar, and, f believe, from
the room where the court was held.
Mr. Randolph. Did any circuinftances oc
cur, in relation to a witnefs brought forward
on the part of the profecution, of an unufual
nature, were any obfervations made by the
court to that witnefs, and what were thole ob
fervations.
Mr. liny. T do not know whether thecircum
ftancr I am about to date is an .anfwer to the
queltion which has been put to me. But I re-^
collect diftiridtlv that a circumftance did occur,
which I thought extraordinary. A witnefs was
brought forward, to prove the publication of
the Profpcft Before Us, who was the very man
employed by Callender to print the work.
Whether the publication could be proved by
any other perf >n than Callender’s agents, I do
not now recollect. But I ftated to the court
that this witnefs was about to do what the con
ftitution authorifed him to refufe to do, and
what he was not required to do by the efta
bliflied rules of law in criminal profecutions,
which was, that no man was bound to deliver
teftimony that would go to criminate himfelt—
and if any thing done by him, implicated him
in the tranfadlion charged againft Callender as
libellous, he was not bound to anfwer, nor
could he he required to anfwer by the court.
Mr. Chafe faid that the opinion I had exprelT
ed was correct; but the witnefs, who had come
forward to give evidence of the publication,
might reft allured that he (hould not be molcft
ed for any part which he might have taken in
the publication. I do not recollect that the
difirkft attorney laid a word on the occafion.
Every thing that was find on that head was faid
liy myfclf, and anfwered hy the court, as I have
ftated. The witnefs was fworn, and gave in his
teftimony, in which he ftated that he was em
ployed by Callender to print the wotk called
tne rroipect Before Us.
Mr. Randolph. The counfel for the accufed
feemed to h ive confidered in this cafe, as well
as in all the others, that the proceedings would
be governed by the aft of the ftate of Virginia,
which in virtue of the aft of Congrefs of 1789,
was the rule of procedure. It appears that
procefs was i(Tiled, fuch as the laws of Virginia
did not authorife. Was there no reference
made by the counfel for the accufed to the aft
of Virginia, to (liew that the procefs was ille
gal, or contrary to law, to rule the party to
trial at the fame term the indiftment was
found ?
Mr. Hay. There was a general, but not a fpe
cific reference to that circumftance. In making the
motion for a continuance, I dated that in conformity
to the law and ufage of Virginia, when a prefent
ment was found, the ordinary procefs was by fum
rnons to the next term, and that during the interval
between ferving the procefs, and the time at which
it was returnable, the accufed was enabled to prepare
and collect matter for his defence. It is extremely
probable that fume other motion would hare been
made, but for an obferration that fell from the judge,
on another part of my argument. I ftated that the
jury were to alfef* the fine according to law ; this
opinion was oppofed and denounced as a wild notion.
Finding that the judge had made up his mind on that
fubjeft, and that the law of Virginia was not confider
ed as obligatory, I had no idea of making any moti
on to the court founded on the doftrine which he had
thus denounced. My opinion before, a! that time,
and at 'h*- prefent time ; the opinion which I expref
fed offic ially on a late occafion, is, that where the
laws (if the United States do not otherwife require or
provide
Mr. Martin faid that he appreh nded this tefti
timony was of no kind of confequence.
Afr. Hay. I was only about to ftate the reafons,
why nothing more was faid on that lubjeft, or a mo
; tion founded on it.
j The Preful nt. The Senate objeft to that fort of
| teftimony. You will pleafe to confine yourfelf as
, much as pnITible to fafts.
Mr. Hay. I only meant to have ftated a faft, that
the exprefs declaration made by the court to the coun
fe. for the accu. d, in relation to the doftrine juft
mentioned, put a flop to my mentioning any idea, or
making any motion founded on that doctrine.
Mr. Ran.lulf'h. I with to ailc the witnefs, who tells
^ u* hc J»a» town fixteen years a praftitioner at the bar,
whether he ever knew an inftanee, in which, in a
cafe Similar to that of Callender, punilhable only by
fine and imprisonment, a capias was ifTued.
Air. Hay. I ought to premife, that this queftion
relates to a branch of jurisprudence which 1 have not
much attended to, although fume time Since I aifted
as a profecutor for the ftate for one of its counties.
I have never known a finglc ir.ftance. In winch a ca
pias has been awarded in the firft inftanee. I believ"
the invariable practice is to blue a Summons, and I
believe it is not cuftomary in Virginia to try a c.uile
at the leconj term, when the party appears and
pleads.
Air. Randolph. If it is not the pr.-ndice at the Se
cond term, do you mean that it is at the firft ?
Air. H.ry. No Sir, the prefentiuent is found at
the firft term ; the Summons iflues returnable to the
next ; at the Second term the ifiue is made up and the
trial comes oil at the Subsequent term—This I believe
is the ordinary mode of proceeding in Virginia.
Mr. R.indo’pb. Finding that the law of Virginia
was not conlidered as applicable, did you move, and
Support the motion by argument, for a continuance,
founded on the alii lavn filed by the accufed.and what
wore thofe arguments ?
Mr. Hay. I do not know whether f can ft ite accurate- '
ly all the arguments urged for a continuance. The
argument was certainly in part founded on the affida
vit of the traverf'tr. He Hated that he wanted docu
ments which he could not inftantaneoufly procure, and
material witneffes who refuted at a <;reat diftance.
lfl recoiled! rightly, 1 dated when Callender was
firft carried into court that f was not prepared to dif
cufs the important queftion whether a jury had a
right to determine on the conllituttonality of i law.
I alf i flared the cafe to he a new one, that a orofecn
tinn for a libel ha I never before occurred in V rgin.a
and that the gentlemen of the bar were not matters of
the fubjetfl ; and that therefore 1 wiihed ti ne to look
into nv *
Mr. CHARLES LF.E was here introduced into
court as counfel for Jud^e Chafe.
Mr. Harper. In your examination in chief you Hat
edthat you defended the caufe and not the man. We
are not capable of underftanding your meaning, and
beg you to explain it. Was it the caufe of Callender.
or was it fome other caufe ?
Mr. Hay. It was the caufe of the conftitution, and
I did not mean tod fend Callender farther than he was
conncded with that caufe.
Mr. Harper. Your ohjeit appears to have been to
(hew that the law under which he was indicted was
unconftitutional ?
Mr. Hay. That was one great caufe.
Mr. Harper Not the foie one ?
Mr. Hay. I had prev.otifly made up mv mind, that
if a ppofecution ft ould take place in Virgin-a under
that law, I for one would ftep forward and offer my
fervices to the perfou who diould be feleded as its
firft victim.
Mr. Harper. You faid that you referred, when ma
king a motion for a continuance, generally to the law
but not fpecifically to the law of Virginia ?
Mr. Hay. My meaning was, that l did not quote
the precife title of the ad, but made a general refer
ence to it.
Mr. Harper. Without citing the particular law ?
Mr. Hay. Without citing it, I made no other than
a general reference to the law.
Mr. Harprr. Do you recoiled, whether on the
fubjed of col. Taylor’s teftimony. Judge Chafe applied
to Mr. Nclfon, the attorney of the diftrid, to deter
mine whether the teftimony Arnold he admitted ?
Mr. Hay. I have fome indillind recolledion of
fome fuch thing.
Mr. Harper. Did not Judge Chafe offer to pofl
pone the caufe for a month or more ?
Mr .Hay. ( have no recolledion of fuch an offer;
it would have been the wi(h of the counfel for the acl
cufed to have obtained that delay. [ know that, in
confequence or an im predion on mv mind, that a poft
ponement could not h- obtained I devo'ed my da vs
and nights to make myfelf acquainted with the fubjed,
previous to the day when the trial came on. I have
no recolledion of fuch an offer ; if 1 had fo uodeftood
it at the time, 1 ftioiild have availed myfelf of it.
Mr. Harper. Did the c'uinfd of Callender afk
for a poftponenient, independently of a continuance to
the next term ?
Mr. Hay. I do not recoiled that they did.
The Prefident. You fav fome conv-rfuion appear
ed to pafs between judge Chafe and j idge Or,Tin ;
did you hear fo much as to underiland the fubltance’
of it ?
Mr Hay. No fir.
Prefident. How then did vou draw th» inference ?
Mr. Hay. From the hufinefs then b r>r th .-m.
Prefident. You fp >ke of a while's ' ■ • by the
name of Rind. Did he appear willin f t > • ve tefti
mony ?
Mr. Hay. He did not apoe,»r nnwWmr. The
objedion to his teftimony was made hr myfelf.
(To be continued.J
NORFOLK, March 26.
Tj'" Capt. Newell, arr:i<r.l here on Saturday lafl
from Bermuda, h<indnd us a paper, from which
we copy the following account of a de fa-rate
and gallant aft ion between an Engird? and a
French frigate. ' Herald.
BERMUDA, March 9.
Wednefday came in from acriti/e, his majef
ty’s fln’p L> ander, Capt. TaP'ot, with the French
frigate La Ville de Mi'an, commanded !>v Mon
fieur de Reymud, Cipitaine de ViifTeau, and
member of the L-gion of Honor, and M r fienr
OiMiet, Capitaine de Fregate, under jurv-mafts,
which fhip had been taken bv *he Leander ;
and alfo with his majefty’s fh'o Cleonatra, riot.
Sir Robert Laurie, Bart, alfo under jurv-mafts,
re-taken by the Leander. A very defperate en
gagement had taken o'ace between the Cleooa
tra and La Ville de Milan, which ended in the
capture of the former, and of which the follow
ing are fome of the particulars, flawed as accu
rately as we have been able to procure them.
About lo o’clock A. M. of the 16th of Feb.
La Ville de Milan hove in fight, and the Cleo
patra gave chafe, hoifting American colours to
induce the other to bring to. La Ville de Mi
lan however continued herconrfe. and the Cl —
opatra, (though under a prefs of fiil) could not
come up with her fo as to bring her to action,
until half pad two o’clock P M. of the 17 h of
Feb. when the aiftion commenced and was con
tinued with great fury on both fide*, within
half a cable’s length. During two hours and a
haft’, the Cleopatra had greatly the advantage,
notwithftanding the great fuperiority of t'»e
force of the enemy, and would «n all probabili
ty have foon obliged the French Ihip to fnrren
der, (having at 3 P. M. (hot away her m lintop
fail yard, 5c her mafia being very mu h wound
ed,) had not the wheel of the Cleopatra been
unfortunately ftruck withafbot, which render
ed it immoveable, and the rudder at the fame
time fo choaked as to he wholly incapable of
dir* efting the movements of the ftiip. The Cle
opatra having fhot a-hcad, was, at the moment
of the wheels being ftruck with the fhot. at
tempting tocrofs the hows of the French fhip,
fo as to rake her, when the enemy (feeing the
accident which had happened, and that (he was
wholly unmanageable,) with th*- wind on his
beam, and a heavy fwell, run his head and bow
fprit over the Cleopatra’? qu irter- lei k, and a
vailing hiir.fclf of his great fuperiority in
numbers, under a tremendous fire from
his mulketry, which almnft cleared the
Cleopatra’s decks, attempted to boird.—
They were however, with the greiteft brave
ry, driven back by th** g?|lant few who yet re
mained to defend the fhip. An at e-rpt was
made tohoift the foretoj-maft ftayfail, and to
fet the fpritfail topfail, in order to get clear of1
the enemy’s Ihip : but the men ordered to do
t*'is duty, were all killed by the mnlkcti y of the
other ihip, and the Cleopatra being now able to
bring only two guns to bear upon the Fre ch
ft'ip, and that with verv little c tie (ft, from her
fuperi ir h ight,and the French mufketry fwcep
j"c tin* decks, the enemy at length fucceedcd
in hoarding, and at a quartet t».«fl five P ,M. (af
ter a fevere and bloodv conflict of nearly three
hours) the Cleopatra was obliged to give over an
ineffectual refinance, and to furrender tofuch a
fnperior force,— tided as it was bv an unfortu
nate accident. After the action the Cleopatra
was a mere wreck, having no m ifts (landing but
her mixenmaft : her fore-maft, maiti-maft and
a!fo her bowfprit, have been fh >t away ; and the
"ext morning the French fhip had no malts
(landing but her fire mnft ; her main-malt and
sni/.en malt having gone over the li.’e.
To form a juft opinion of the very gallant
def nee made by the Cleopatra, in this fevt-.-e
action, with a frigate of fuch fuperior ftrength,
it is only necelTarv to ftate the comparative force
a"d numbers on hoard the two fhips.—I,a Ville
de Milan was laid down fora 74. i.- a fliip of isfoo
tins burthen with 15 ports of a fide upon her
main-deck, upon which the had mounted in the
action 26 French ih pounders, each carrying a
22 pound (hot ; 11 long 9 pound rs upon her
q larter-deck, and 6 Ung 9 oouuders upon her
fore-caftlc : with a crew of 360 men, befides 20
French oticers, and a number of f.tldijrs who
were going paftf tigers to France. The Cleopa
tre mounts 32 t vclve pounders, ami had 199
men in this action: fo that in fixe, number of
men, and weight of metal, La Ville de M ian
was nearly double the force of the Cleopatra.
There were 22 men k;lled and 36 wounded on
ho >rd of the Cl -onatra ; among the latter were
7 o fi -e s. inc'u ling Mr. Mitchell, (the eldcft fan
of fi-Andrew Mitchell.) who was dangeroufly
wounded in the (boulder. We have not heard
how manv were kilieef and wounded on hoard
the French fhip : among the former was Mon
lieur Revnaud. the Captaine de Vniffi.au, and
among thi latter Mons. Gillct, the captain of
th frigate. After the Cleopatra had been ah >ui
a week in the polIVllion of the French frigate, 1
the Leander, cantata Talbot, rneft fortunately
hove in fight, and after a fhort cU :l*e, took both
fhips, (without the letft reliftance on their part,)
and brought them with her into this port. The '
action happened three degrees to the fouthward
of this port.
Francis Gore, Efq. fon of the Earl of Arran,
is appointed Governor of thefe Iflands.
■iwews- is -
SD^mcfric JnttUigcnce,
NEW YORK, March 23.
Captain Tab r informs us that at the time of
his departure the frigate United States 'aptain
Rogers, was at Lifbon, undergoing fome repairs,
and would (hortly leave that port to join our
fquadron in the M • literrauean. Hoftiiities be
tween Great-Britain and Portugal had not com
menced, but fuch an event was confidcrcd as
u. avoidable.—[Merc. Adv.
PENNSYLVANIA.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE AURORA,
Philadelphia, March 21, 1805.
Sin.— In y uir paper of this morning, appears
what •• urports to be a letter of refignatio from
me to the governor, on the 5ch of April, 1304.
It is certain that fuch a letter was prepared by
me, and a few copies ftruck off at a confiden
ts! prefs, one of which would feem to have got
abroad, but without my knowledge or agency.
Bur it was not de'ivered to the Kovernor, aiid
therefore is not to be confidered as a refignafi
on delivered, or accepted, though it contains
the honeft fentiments of my heart on the occa
fion.
Yours,
H. H BRACKENRIDGE.
Poflfcript to my note to the editor or the Aurora
of this morning.
Excufe the trouble I give you, enefofing one
of* • printed copies of which I fpeik, that
which has apoeared not being altogether cor
reift : words are omitted, and my fignature is ad
ded.
Yours,
II. H. BRACKENRIDGE.
March 21, 1805.
' Philadelphia, April fib, 1804.
Ilis excellency Thomas M’Kean, governor of
the flate of Pennfylvania.
I have feen the arid refs of two thirds of each
houfe of the legiflature, for the purpofe of re
moving me from the bench of the fupreme court
of the flate. I know that by the conftitution
ymir excellency is not bound to icmove. But
I ehufe to remove myfdf, and, under thcfe
circuit, fiances, decline to hold the cominilfion
which i had the honor to receive from your ex
cellency.—I have waited the coming or your ex
cellency to the city, to refign it.
The addrefs flates it to be in confequenee of
my letter to the fpeaker of the houfe of repre
sentatives, relative to a judgment of the fu
preme court, in the cafe of Thomas Paffmore,
for a trefoafs on the adminiftration of juflice ;
or, in the language of the law, a contempt. My
fituation was delicate—I had concurred in the
judgment, though the evidence of this before
the committee and the houfe was contradictory,
and not pofitive. But it wa3 the fae‘t, and I
could not, in honor, (land by, and not fuhmit
myf lf to the confequenee. The houfe have
conftrued it a contempt’. But I flatter mvfdf,
that your excellency will think, that on ttie
pirf of th • houfe, there may have been a mifeon
ception .)f the fcope of my letter, or particular
expr. ffions. It was in my mind, as I have ex
orefTyd it, to relieve the adminiftration with the
public, whofe furmife was, though unjufl, that
the committee of the houfe had left me out
through favor and eflctftion. For, coming in
with the republican adminiftration, I was con
(i ler.ri as belonging to it ; not in the decifiops
of the bench, I hope, but in political frsti
inents.—No contempt was intended.
J am Sir, with great refpeifl
your excellency’s moft obedient
Humble fervant.
VIRGINIA.
FROM THE ALEXANDRIA EXPOSITOR.
To the Freeholders of Loudon, Fairfax and
Prince IViltiam Counties•
e//ow-Citi?.ens,
AGREE ABLE to a refolution of the joint
Committee of the Counties eompofing this Con*
greffional diftrkl ; we undertake the pleafing
tnfk of add re fling you on the fubjeft of the ap
proaching election.
THE period is rapidly approaching, whenthr
inftitufion* of our country will require you to
exercife the incflimable right of fiffrage' in the
ehoic- ofa perfon to reprefent von and fpeak
y >ur will, in the great C< Uucil of the nation.
In the exercife of this valu d*le privilege it is
devoutly to be wi.heri, that your choke may
| on a wbo po fie fling ,an underftanding
j capable of difeerning your trsc intcreft and that
nf the Nation at large, is known to feel a zea
lous anti faithful attachment, to thofe princi
ples, an 1 to thofe meafurc s, under the operati
on of which we arc ^ fa peculiarly favored.
Favored we afiuredly are, and in an eminent de
gree ; for while we repof in peace and tran
quility at home, onr commerce is flourilhing
and extending, in a meafurc hitherto m '• o >wp.
We feel few or none of thofe public burdens
which are infeparable from government, and
what is, perhaps not inferior to either of thofe
confiderations, we have the high fatisfadion to
know, that as a nation we command the ref
of all the world.
I hat this is a juft pitftnro none can deny and
finely there can he few thinking inen mini g us
who can wiflt to fee it rev -rfed—To imagine
there were none, would be follv and dclufinu,
elfe whence can How that infuriated hoftilitv
to the admiruftration of the government and ef
pe ially to thofe me ifnres which have produced
thofe h ippy effects, which we. have fo o’ten
witnefled, and fee daily reiterated.—That if re
fultsfrom difapDointed ambition in feme ixftan
ces, it is much to he feared from pride of opi
nion in very many but we are p rfuaded mi.ft
frequently from a pnfillanimo.is fear of in. n.
ring the imputation of verfatalitv—On all oilier
fnbjedts the acknowledgment of error, and the
correction of it, when the judgment is co.u*!
ced, is deemed laudable and even magnani
mous ; but on this unfortunate fnhje.ft, a change
of fentiment is either f« IIv -r crime.
It is tru'y lamentable to obferve, of our f’e*
low Citizens, while fome they approve, a’>.I
many others who are conftrained to a, knowl
edge, that thev can find no Fanltr in the ndnii
niftration of the government yet lending their
aid, to that party, whofc known nbjetf is a ra
dical change in theadmi-i tr ifion. To what ino
tive fitch inconfiftency is attributable we are
wmmjr ai .i iui;> in curricle*
You need not now he informed that thepublic
opinion has at length fettled on col. Wiu.iam
Eli zey of Loudon, as a proper perfon to r-.
nrefent this DiUrkR i»i the enfuing Congrefs of
the United States, nor that h- I:a3 yirl-Vd to re
peated felicitations, and confected to become
a candidate for vour fulfrages at the enfuinr e
Icftion. The private worih and refoiaSubiJity
t>ftuis gentleman’s talents are fu well known to
all of you that the invidious talk of drawing a
cotnparifon between him and his ronv Hitor,
Mr. Jofeph Lewis, is indeed .as iinn<*‘-efTafy .as
it is tinpleafant—we fli.ill therefore endeavor to
give you a flight, hut faithful (ketch of the po
litical characters of thnf.- gentlemen, and leave
you to make your *hoice.
Mr. Lewis is one*.f thofe gentlemen who fti?c
themfrlves Federali**- ; hy which appellation Tif
we miftake not^] is underfiood, nothing more
than a predilection for war, tax s. a pulnkr
debt, enxtenfive patronage, an augmentation ol
the powers of the general gov rnment, by di
minifliing t' ofe of Rate governments, and a
Rrong armed Executive ; for we are pe>fuaded
that no o^e among them, can he found, who
will have the hardy effrontery to fay tha* ’heir
opponents are h fs warmlv attache*! to the Uni
on of the Rates under our admirable cor.Rituti
on, that they are.
We believe it mav he f'.id wit' -at the ha
zard of rontradkRton, that Mr. Lewis ar-oro
vrd and Rill approves of all the me afore a of Mr.
Adams’s adminiRfation, except only his fend
ing fhe laR emhafTV to France, which termina
ted our nnhanpv differences >.vi‘h *ha* power
ful nation, ft will not be doubted that he ap
proved, of all the war mgafures of the late ad
miniRration, of the borrowing of money at ex
orbitant intereR, of the odious Alien and Sedi
tion laws, nor of the appointment of a number
ofufclefs iudgesin the very laR hour of that ad
miniRration.
As foon a® that gentleman took his feat in
Congrefs two years ago. he enliRed himfelf on
the fide of 'mnofition, and has adhered to it,
with an uniformity which cannot fail to prove
his hoRilitv to the prefent adminiRrati* n.
1 When that truly great and good man the pre
fent chief m.aeiRrate of the United States fir't
came to the head of the government, he fuggef
ted to the Legiflature the propriety of retrench
ing our public expenditure, which the prodigal
ity of that adminiRration, for the reRovation of
which, Mr. L. and his friends are fo extremely
folicitous, had rendered enormous. The legif
lature with a promptnefs which does honor to
our country, earlv commenced, the fyfiem of
economy, which had thus been recommended,
and the refult has been, a diminution of our pub—
lie rxprnrp, to tne amount of more than a mil
lion of dollars annually—What was the language
of Mr. Lewis’s friends on this occafion, need
fcarcely be mentioned : the meafure was repro
bated by them ; was (tiled a “ paltry fixpenny
faving,” and the people were told that this was
a part of a fyftem, hy which, the nation was to
he degraded, and the dupendous fabric of orr
conditution and government xvas to be over
thrown—You have now had four years expe
rience, and we call on you to refleCL and then
afk yourfclves if thofe predictions have been ve
rified. This reduction in the public rxnenrr
ln-ing effected ; the govern rent xvifelv judged
that the revenue arifing fr -m exc? Vs might he
difpenfed with, and that the rental dfthe feveraj
laws laying thofe duties, won!.’ r„li-ve *he peo
ple from a great deal of trouble and vexation j
forthe fum arifing from this fou-re wasinconfi
derable, the duties were calculated to check the
progrefs of domedie manufactures, the expence
of collecting was enormous, arid it placed under
the patronage and at the will of »he executive,
no lefs a number than If,7 officers—Thofe law*
were accordingly repealed ; but it was a mea
fure which railed forth all the effirts of Mr.
Lewis’s friends, to defeat it. They could not,
they did not contend, that the taxes were neret
fary, but that it was necefiary that you (hould »e
habituated to taxes inorder that voii di uild learn
how to bear them when they might he nereffa.
ry. This language conveys a charge againdyou,
which we are well aiTured you do not deferve.
During four years of Mr. Adams’s Prefidency^
which Mr. Lewis thinks fo glorious and happv,
an addition was made to the public debt of the
Nation, of more than eight millions of dollarr,
and during the four years of the nrpf. nt admin,
idration, a reduction has Iven effected of l mit
lions and a half of dollars of the principal of t*i«»
public debt befidc intered. This fimple f<'t
one would think, would flidi conviction onthe
mind of every man, of the wifdom and nprigh*.
ntfs of the adminiflration ; and while it has had
that effeCt in every oilier quarter of t!ie tJnf<>n#
it will he trulv lamenfab'e, if our didriCt, im
mediately adjacent to the feat of the govern,
ment, (hould refolve hy the re.eleCrion of Mr,
Lewis, to remain in fullen dupid oopofition.
We nerd not tell you that Col. KHzey, is a
republican in heart and in feutiment, nor that he
is a zealous admirer ami fupportcr of our C >n
ditution, and the government at pr-fent admin,
idered umler it—but we will tt|| you that iuail
refpe.ds, as a politician he is the very reverfe of
Mr. Lewis.
With a firm and well f uinded hope »hat you
will avail yotirfclves of the orefent opoortuni'r
of retrieving the lod character of on- DifHrt,
by attending individually At your few d Couit
Ilotifes without a Angle man being waivir ,
Very refpeCt fully we are Vn-v Oherit. fh r»»«
IFRFMT AH MOORE, A LIPRT RTH‘ 1 *
. HUMPHREY PEAKE, JOHN C. HUNTS "