The Kentucky gazette (Lexington [Ky.]), 1799-01-24 00:00:00

OBSERVATIONS
ON JUDGE ADDISON'S CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY, ON THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.
(Continued from our last.)
WHEN speaking of the sedition bill, the judge says, "no law seems to have been resisted in congress, with more vehemence and passion, by those who opposed all the measures adopted as measures of defence, against the hostile spirit of France. And out of doors it has been attacked with sullen rancor, as a death wound to the progress of that detestable system of slander, which has been pursued with such malignant industry, and calamitous success, against every measure of the administration. And yet, strange as it may seem, this law does not create any new offence; for every thing forbidden by it, appears to me to have been before, an offence at common law." — That I may meet the judge upon the fairest ground, I will for argument sake, admit that his position is right, and that every thing forbidden by that law, was before an offence at common law. But before I can admit that this affords any justification of the sedition bill, passed by congress, it will be proper to ascertain, 1st. What law it is, which is styled the common law ; and 2d. How far, and where it is binding, or has any force as law. The term itself, is borrowed from the English law. Black, says, "The municipal law of England, or the rule of civil conduct prescribed to the inhabitants of this kingdom, may, with sufficient propriety be divided into two kinds; the unwritten, or common law; and written or statute law. The unwritten law, includes not only general customs, or the common law, properly so called, but also the particular customs, of certain parts of the kingdom; and likewise, those particular laws, that are by custom observed only in certain courts or jurisdictions. When I call these parts of our law the unwritten law, I would not be understood as if all those laws were at present merely oral, or communicated from the former ages to the present, solely by word of mouth. It is true indeed, that in the profound ignorance of letters, which formerly overspread the whole western world, all laws were entirely traditional; for this plain reason, because the nations among which they prevailed, had but little idea of writing. But with us at present, the monuments and evidences of our legal customs, are contained in the records of the several courts of justice, in books of reports, and legal decisions, and in the treaties of the learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down to us, from the times of highest antiquity. However, I therefore stile these parts of our law, unwritten law, because their original institution and authority are not set down in writing, as acts of parliament are, but they receive their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and immemorial usage, and by their universal reception, into out the kingdom." The same author after having specified a great many privileges, principles and proceedings, which depend upon the common law for their support, amongst which he declares are "the several species of temporal offences, with the manner and degree of their punishment," adds, "all these are doctrines that are not set down in any written statute or ordinance, but depend merely upon immemorial usage, that is, upon common law, for their support." The same author also says "and indeed it is one of the characteristic marks of English liberty, that our common law depends upon custom; which carries this internal evidence of freedom along with it, that it probably was introduced by the voluntary consent of the people." He also quotes the following passage from another writer, "for since, says Julianus, the written law binds us for no other reason but because it is approved by the judgment of the people, therefore those laws which the people have approved without writing, ought also to bind every body. For where is the difference, whether the people declare their assent to a law by suffrage, or by a uniform course of acting accordingly." The same author also declares, that "particular customs" constitute a
part of the common law, and that to make a particular custom good, the following is a necessary requisite, "that it have been used so long, that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. So that if any one can shew the beginning of it, it is no good custom. For which reason no custom can prevail against an express act of parliament; since the statute itself is a proof of a time when such a custom did not exist." And Blackstone also declares "that the decisions of the courts of justice, are the evidence of what is common law; but where the common law, and a statute, differ, the common law gives place to the statute, and an old statute gives place to a new one." From these positions and definitions of Blackstone, it must be evident, that there can be no such law in the United States, considered as one general government, as the common law, because there is no law in the United States, which has received the binding power and force of law by long and immemorial usage, and by its universal reception, as law throughout the United States. And as no such law, whose existence depends on immemorial usage, can exist in the federal government, which is not yet ten years old; the common law cannot constitute any part of the law of the United States, unless it become so by its being a part of the law of each of the states, at the time of the adoption of the federal government; or by its being declared to be a part of the law of the United States, by the federal constitution. The law of each state in the union, prior to the adoption of the federal constitution, consisted of the common law, such acts of the British parliament as were in force there, and the state constitution, and the acts of its legislature. The common law then was only one of three pillars, on which the law of each state was built, and it was also the weakest of the three; because it ceased to have any efficacy as law, as soon as it was clearly contradicted by either of the others. If therefore, the common law became a part of the law of the United States, because it was a part of the law of the individual states, the other two parts of the law of those states, must also have become, for the same reason, a part of the law of the United States. But it may be said, that these other two parts of the law of each state, were dissimilar in the different states, and therefore could not become a part of the law of the United States, which must be one and the same, in every part of the United States; whereas the common law of every state, being the same, it might with propriety, and actually did for that reason, become the common law of the United States. The facts assumed in this argument, are not true; and if they were true, they would not warrant the conclusion drawn from them. The British statutes as far as they were adopted to the same period, by the different states, made their laws so far exactly similar; and as many of the same statutes were actually in force in all the states, if a sameness of law, in any particular, in all the states, would make the same thing law in the United States, these statutes as far as they had been adopted by all the states individually, would also have been a part of the law of the United States; but this certainly is not the case, because it is not pretended that any British statute, constitutes a part of the law of the United States. The acts of the state legislatures are various, and in many instances probably contradictory, but still in some particulars they must agree in all the states; I ask then, whether an act which had been adopted in every state in the union, prior to the commencement of the federal government, was for that reason a law of the United States? It will be admitted, that it was not. How then does it happen that two thirds of the laws of the different states, I mean those declared to be so by British or state statutes, should not be a part of the law of the United States, although they were the same in all the states; and yet, that the remaining third — the common law of these states, should be a part of the law of the United States, because it was a part of the law of the different states? This would be giving efficacy to the inferior instead of the superior part of the law; to
that which was only admitted to be law, because it was presumed that the people once consented to it, rather than to that to which their assent could be proved: and arbitrarily to reject two thirds of the laws, common to all the states, at the same time that the remaining third was adopted, because it was common to all the states. Besides, this inconsistency might follow, if the United States should recognize the common law in each state, and reject all the statutes in force in those states, they might admit a principle as the common law in the United States, after it had ceased to be law, in any of the individual states, in consequence of its having been changed by statute, in all of them. But admitting for a moment that a sameness of the common law in all the states, would, if it existed, make it also the law of the United States, it can be shown, beyond a possibility of doubt, that no such sameness does exist in the common law, in any of the different states; and if so, the argument derived from that sameness, must fall to the ground, with the supposed fact, on which it was founded. All statutes, as far as they are inconsistent with the common law, have changed and repealed the common law; and all statutes which are not merely declaratory, do make alterations of some kind or other, in what was before the law; but the acts of the British parliament, are in force in the different states, up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others, to that of a different king. A state then which recognizes the British statutes to the 4th year of James the 1st, also recognizes the common law of England, as it stood unaltered by statute, to that time; but a state which recognizes the British statutes to the 1st of Charles the 1st, recognizes the authority of the common law of England, only as it stood unaltered by statute, at the last mentioned period; thus the common law, would be as different in these two states, as all the statutes passed between the 4th of James the 1st, and the 1st of Charles the 1st, could make it. Besides, as "the decisions of the courts of justice in each state, are the evidence of what is the common law in each state," every person acquainted with the difference of opinion which will exist on legal questions, between judges as well as other people, may form some idea how many contradictory decisions, and those in important points, must have been given in a century or two, in the courts in all the states; more especially, as they have had no one common supreme court, to revise their judgments, and by that means make them consistent: and as far as these decisions were contradictory, they must have caused a difference in the common law, in the different states.
But the great difference which has been made in the common law in the different states, has proceeded from the changes which have been made in it, by the acts of all the legislatures of the different states, from the time of their first settlement. Let a lawyer examine the alterations which have been made in the common law in England, by statutes passed by the parliament of that country, since the 4th of James the 1st, and then calculate how many he supposes would be made in the same time, by all the legislatures of the different states, having the same power with the British parliament to make changes in the common law, and he may form some idea, how materially different the common law must have been in the different states, at the time of the adoption of the federal government. As therefore the common law is by these means or some of them, materially different in all the states, how can there be any common law in the United States? How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? and if the common law is not the same in any two of the states, shall the common law of either, and of which be declared to be the common law of the United States? What length of time will it take the judges,
even after the rule is established, admitting it to be possible to establish one, to make themselves acquainted with the common law of those states, whose common law is to be the common law of the United States; and after they have acquired this knowledge, how long will it take them, in the course of their decisions, to make this law known to the citizens of the United States; and what are those citizens to do until it is made known, for an established rule of action, in all those important points, which depend upon the common law, whencever it is in force as law? Let judge Addison solve these difficulties; and it is certainly incumbent on him to do it, as they arise out of the doctrines laid down by him in his charge. Further, if the common law of any of the states as such, is the common law of the United States, as no particular part of it is, or can be designated as being so, in preference to the other parts of it, the whole of the common law of those states, must be a part of the law of the United States, or none of it is to; and then if the common law can give the courts of the United States jurisdiction on one offence, it must equally give them jurisdiction of all offences made so by the common law; and as Blackstone tells us, that "the common law settles the several species of temporal offences, with the manner and degree of their punishment," the courts of the United States would by this doctrine have cognizance of all other common law offences, as well as libels, and might try all murderers, thieves, &c. &c. If this doctrine, that the courts of the United States have a common law jurisdiction, is law, it would have followed as a necessary legal consequence, that upon their being established, they would have had a right, and have been obliged to proceed according to the common law rules and regulations; because it is a principle at common law, that every new court must conform to the old established regulations which have from time immemorial been used in other courts of a similar jurisdiction, unless a statute directs the contrary. But when Congress established its courts, it was to sensible that they could have no common law jurisdiction; and that they would have no common law regulations to govern them, that it not only expressly pointed out all the objects of their jurisdiction, but also particularly directed all the rules and regulations by which they should proceed. This must afford the most satisfactory evidence, that Congress at that time thought, that the common law doctrine of jurisdiction, was not applicable to the courts of the United States. But, besides the common law doctrine of jurisdiction, which is now claimed for the courts of the United States, the common law establishes also, the doctrines of prerogative, forfeiture, &c.; and if the common law has sufficient efficacy to give jurisdiction to the judicial power of the United States, where it is not given by statute; it must also have efficacy enough, to give to the executive of the United States, all the powers which it declares shall belong to the executives of the different states; and if the common law can do this, we live under the most complicated, and slavish government, which can exist. If the powers given to the different branches of our government, are made to depend upon the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, we shall always know where to look for their authority, and the limits of it; and who to blame and punish, if improper powers are given to, or usurped by them. But if the extent of their powers, is to depend upon implication and construction, or upon what is called the common law of the United States, whose existence or extent cannot be ascertained, and must therefore depend upon the pleasure of the judges, we have nothing secure, and there are no limits to the arbitrary powers which may be usurped by the courts, and which they may corruptly declare to belong to the other branches of the government. If it should be said, that if you do away the common law powers, you must also do away the common law privileges, which rest on the same foundation,
(See last page.)

AN ADDRESS To a "LAWYER who does not wish to be a JUDGE."
SIR, WHILST the enemies to administration are ardently engaged in the field of political investigation, in defence of the principles they have assumed, let them not think, that the friends to government are unmindful of the range they have taken. — They estimate your own, and the talents of your partisans, with those emotions of respect, which merit inspires; and whilst they condemn your cause they regret the exhibition of political depravity, in characters of learning and reflection. — But sir, they are no longer impelled to entertain the same feelings when in those respectable personages, they discover the loss of candour and the want of impartiality.
As a writer of some celebrity, on the side of democracy, you have taken up your pen to invalidate two laws which were formed by the wisdom and authority of the supreme council of the nation; and whilst you are engaged in this task, beneath the hope of inspiring the veneration of your country and the memory of posterity, you appear to forget that time unravels the secret impulses of the human heart, and that none but the purest motives deck the monument of the patriot.
To you, therefore, sir, I communicate this address; and submit to your consideration, some animadversions relative to the practice and professions of the partisans of democracy.
As you are a lawyer, and ought consequently, to know the different revolutions which have taken place in the science of law, as I have reason to believe you are a native of the state of Virginia, and too conspicuous there to have been unmindful of its legislative acts, permit me sir, to exhibit to your review an extract of an act originally passed in 1785, revised and re-enacted in 1792, and at this moment in full and complete force, in a state which gave you birth, in a state, one of the most theoretically democratical in the union.
"It shall and may be lawful for the governor with the advice of the council of state, to apprehend and secure, or cause to be apprehended and secured, or compelled to depart this commonwealth, all suspicious persons, being the subjects of any foreign power or state, who shall have made a declaration of war, or actually commenced hostilities against the said states, or from whom the president of the United States, shall apprehend hostile designs against the said states; — Provided Information thereof shall have been previously received by the executive from him. And in all such cases the governor with the advice of the council of state shall and he is hereby empowered to send for the person and papers of any foreigner, within this state, in order to obtain such information as he may judge necessary."
"All sheriffs and jailors shall receive such suspicious persons, whom by warrant from the governor they shall be commanded to receive, and them in their prisons or custody to detain or transport out of the commonwealth, as by such warrant they may be commanded. — And all others, the good citizens of this commonwealth, shall be aiding and assisting in apprehending, securing or transporting any such suspicious person when commanded by warrant, or proclamation of the governor, or required by the sheriff or jailor, to whose custody such suspicious persons may have been committed. — Every person acting under the authority aforesaid, shall be indemnified from all suits to be commenced or prosecuted for any action or thing done by virtue thereof, and may plead the general issue and give this act in evidence: saving always to the merchants of any foreign state, betwixt whom and the United States of America, war shall have arisen, and to their families, agents and servants found in this commonwealth, at the beginning of the war, the privileges allowed by law."
It requires sir, a very small share of penetration to discover that this act contains within it, all the dangers to liberty, if not a greater proportion of injustice than what are pretended to exist under the alien and sedition laws of the United States. — It not only authorizes the president of the United States and the governor of Virginia to apprehend, secure and transport a defendant, on actual information, but
they are vested with similar authority on mere suspicion. I shall not make any further remarks on the foregoing act; or enter into a minute detail of the existing difference between this legislative proceeding of the Virginia assembly and the acts of congress. The act itself is a living monument of the duplicity of the democratical faction; and that whilst its partisans profess themselves the genuine friends to liberty and the sacred rights of person, "they advocate principles that would have disgraced the age of gothic barbarity, and establish a code, compared to which, the ordeal is wise and the trial by battle is merciful and just."
Thirteen years have passed during which time, the above act must have frequently laid upon the table of the Virginia assembly; and not a sentence has been heard from the most violent partisans of Democracy, to counteract a law similar in its nature and tendency, to those which have recently given a display to their keenest resentment — shrouded in the secret impulses of party spirit, or some more illiberal principle, this act has never been brought forward as dangerous to liberty, but has been permitted to recede so far from animadversion, as never to have been repealed.
When a state so eminently distinguished for its professions of genuine freedom, as that of Virginia, makes principle its guide, it is natural sir, to look for candour, and impartiality — it is natural to expect, that the same sentiments, which at one period engaged it in defence of its rights, would have the same operation at another — it forms its plan of principles and binds itself to its direction by the injunctions of moral and political duty. — Whether the state of Virginia has been regulated by those sacred obligations, in the course of its political career, and whether there has not been a diversity between its practice and professions, will appear in the following extract, from resolutions recently entered into by the assembly of that state.
"That the general assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming violation of the constitution, in the two late cases of the alien and sedition acts, passed at the last session of congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the federal constitution."
If the act mentioned in the foregoing part of this address had never existed, or had escaped the attention of the political enquirer. The professions expressed in the above resolution would have given to Virginia a semblance of uniformity, of patriotism and watchfulness. It would at least have taken one number from the long catalogue of examples, where a difference is to be discovered between her professions of equitable principles and her practice of tyrannical encroachments. But the act lives in the memory of every active partizan of democracy in the state; & whilst they assemble to express their displeasure against the proceedings of the general government, the record of their own legislature, gives the lie to the purity of their professions.
From what source can this diversity of practice and profession originate? Is the state of Virginia so completely lost to reason, as to think that her illicit train of practice, will be shrouded in the specious semblance of patriotism, from the observation & censure of the world? If we take a view of her system of government, her code of laws, and examine the various departments of her political economy, we shall have ample reason to proclaim "that the state of Virginia is the last in the union, which should arrogate to itself the prerogatives of censure." Since the period of her political existence she appears never to have cast a retrospective eye to her own situation, in the scale of empire; but to have been the first to cast an odium on the measures of the general government. The smallest supposed encroachment on the liberties of the people, became the object of her immediate attention. The generating principles of dissatisfaction and resentment, had a coeval existence with her political establishment; and the rancor has been transmitted down with increasing violence, to the present period. If she had have been inspired by the same principles of duty
to herself, which has marked her opposition to the alien and sedition bills, she would have exercised a degree of consistency, less criminal. It has been the want of this, in her legislative proceedings, which has inspired our suspicions, and given rise to conjectures which that cannot fail to end in condemnation. Why not use the same exertions to correct the manifold imperfections in her own systems of policy, which she has condemned in the government of the United States? Why conceal the iniquities of her own assembly, and declare war against the measures of congress? The acts of each are nearly similar; and whilst she endeavors at this time to invalidate the one, she has permitted thirteen years to pass, without a murmur against the other.
It would, however, be illiberal to suggest, that notwithstanding the various imperfections which exist in the policy of Virginia, she had not a right to have scrutinized the measures of the general government. This right is inherent, and essentially belongs to all the states; but the partisans of democracy should recollect, that whilst they pass resolves to censure the proceeding of other governments, the reprobation would come with a better grace from patriots who had revolutionized their own. They might then have stood upon the theatre of politics, and exhibited a scene worthy of their profession, and worthy the patronage of their country.
ARISTIDES.
Lexington, January 24.
Having for a considerable time past received our latest intelligence by the southern mail; and as that mail arrives at this place on Wednesdays, we have changed our days of publication to Thursday, in order to give our readers the news as early as possible after we receive it.
A TANYARD.
THE subscribers have opened a Tan-Yard, in the town of Versailles, which they are determined to carry on in the best manner possible. Cash, Merchandize, or Saddlery, will be given for all kinds of Hides. — They will also take hides to be tanned on the shares. Those who will be so good as to favor them with their custom, may depend on being satisfied.
S. WILKINS, WM. REID.
Versailles, Jan. 16. 1799. tf
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living on Cane run, Fayette county, a black Mare, 13 and a half hands high, about 8 or 9 years old; has a star in her face, has two saddle spots, branded on the near shoulder IG, had on about a 6s bell, with a double collar sewed with a whang. Posted and appraised to 30 dollars.
WENDAL TROUT.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living half a mile from Horine's mill on Shawanee run, Mercer county, a bay Horse, about 5 feet 1 inch high, about 7 years old, branded on the near jaw, shoulder, side and buttock T, shod before, appraised to 24l.
Also, a bay horse, 5 years old past, about 14 hands and a half high, a star near hind foot white, shod all round, appraised to 20l.
JAMES M'CULLOUGH.
October 29, 1798. tf
HENRY HYMAN, GOLD & SILVER SMITH, CLOCK & WATCH MAKER, (FROM LONDON.)
BEGS leave to inform his friends and the public, that he has served a regular apprenticeship to the above business, in Great-Britain, that he has opened shop in Lexington, in the house of Mess. Robert and Andrew Porter, where he intends working in the above lines, in all their branches. Those who may please to employ him may depend on the utmost punctuality and reasonable terms.
Lexington, January 21st, 1799. tf
NOTICE.
ALL persons are hereby cautioned against taking an assignment on a bond which I gave to Alexander Sloan, for sixty pounds, dated the 14th of June, 1797 — also three bonds, of thirty pounds each, and one of sixteen pounds ten, all of the same date; which said bonds I am determined not to pay, as the said Sloan has failed to comply with his contract with me.
ROBERT ELDER.
January 21st, 1799. tf
WANTED, A quantity of good clean ASHES,
Delivered at Mr. A. F. Saugrain's, Lexington. JAMES M'COUN.
ON-AWAY on the 13th inst. Jonathan Hatter, an apprentice, bound to the rope-making business, about sixteen years of age, four feet eleven inches high, had on when he went away, a drab colored out side jacket and waistcoat, and leather overalls, has a down look. — Any body that will return the said boy, shall receive five shillings reward. I forewarn all persons against harboring or trusting the said apprentice.
DAVID DODGE.
Lexington, January 22d, 1799. 3t.
TWO DOLLARS REWARD.
LOST, or taken off my horse, who broke from Capt. Marshall's tavern, Lexington, on Friday the 4th inst. a saddle, nearly new, with a blue cloth, and leather pad, which has a hole in the forepart, about the size of a round ninepence, the saddle was girthed with a girth and surcingle, the stirrups not fellows, nor plated — whoever delivers the saddle to the subscriber, or gives information so that he gets it again, shall receive the above reward.
GABRIEL TOMPKINS.
January 21st, 1799.
NOTICE.
A GENERAL meeting of the citizens of Fayette county, is requested, at the meeting house near Bryan's station, on Saturday the 26th day of January, at 11 o'clock, for the purpose of adopting some mode of forming a general ticket, of proper persons, to represent this county in convention.
Fayette, Jan. 14th, 1799.
TOWN LOTS FOR SALE.
TO be sold to the highest bidder, on Tuesday the 5th day of February next, (being court-day) about Forty Valuable Lots, In the town of Richmond, in Madison county — The terms to be made known on the day of sale, by the
TRUSTEES.
Richmond, 8th Jan. '99. J Mtp 2t
Ready Money
GIVEN FOR GOOD CLEAN MERCHANTABLE WHEAT, Delivered at my Mill, three miles below Lexington.
THOMAS LEWIS.
September 29th, 1798. tf
CASH & MERCHANDIZE
WILL BE GIVEN BY THE SUBSCRIBER, FOR TOBACCO.
All those indebted to him are requested to make immediate payment.
JAMES WIER.
December 24th, 1798. tf
FOR SALE,
THREE PAIR OF French-Bur Mill Stones.
WELL cleaned Merchantable Hemp, Tobacco or Superfine flour, will be received in payment.
THOMAS HART.
1st January, 1799. tf
N. B. A quantity of HEMP is wanting, for which, Nails, Iron or any kind of Merchandize, will be given — or Cash, payable in six months from the delivery.
THE SUBSCRIBER,
Has just returned from Philadelphia, with a large and very general assortment of MERCHANDIZE, consisting of Dry Goods, Groceries, Hard Ware, Cutlery, Queen's Ware, &c. &c.
Also an assortment of BOOKS, consisting of Divinity, Law, History, School, Music, Copperplate Copies, &c.
A large assortment of Ladies' Morocco, Stuff, Leather Shoes and Slippers — all of which will be sold low for Cash.
"All those indebted to him by bond, note or book account, are requested to make payment on or before the first day of September next. — A compliance with this request will be gratefully remembered by WILL. LEAVY.
Lexington, Aug. 13, 1798.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living in Montgomery county, near Springfield meeting house, a bay horse, 14 years old, 14 hands and a half high, branded on the near shoulder thus M, and on the near buttock D, both hind feet white, some saddle spots, a star in his forehead, appraised to 15 dollars.
JAMES M'CLANATHEN.
October 19, 1798.
NOTICE
pointed by the court of Garrard county, will meet on the first day of March next, if fair, if not, the next fair day, on Back creek, at the big spring where Samuel Rice formerly lived, there to perpetuate the testimony of sundry witnesses concerning the improvements of John Bruce, assignee of Thomas Pettit, and do such other acts as the law directs.
JOHN BRUCE.
Garrard county, January 1th, 1799. tf
We have once again to apologise to our advertising customers, for the omission of a number of advertisements. — Want of paper has prevented our giving a supplement — they shall be attended to in our next.

By Last Evening's Mail.
RICHMOND, December 20. Extracts from the journal of the house of delegates, Monday December 17. A motion was made, that the house do come to the following resolutions, Resolved, that the assembly of Virginia will co-operate with the authorities of the United States, in maintaining the independence, union and constitution thereof, against the hostilities or intrigues of all foreign powers whatsoever; and that although differences of opinion do exist, in relation to internal and domestic measures; yet a charge that there is party in this commonwealth, under the influence of any foreign power, is unfounded and calumnious.
Resolved, That the general assembly do, and will always behold with indignation, depredations on our commerce; insults on our citizens; impressions of our seamen; or any other injuries committed on the people or government of the United States by foreign nations. Resolved, Nevertheless, That our security from invasion, and the force of our militia render a standing army unnecessary; that the policy of the United States, forbids a war of aggression; that our whole reliance ought to be on ourselves, and therefore that while we will repel invasion at every hazard, we shall deplore and deprecate the evils of war for any other cause.
And the said resolutions being twice read, were, on a motion made: Ordered, to be referred to the committee of the whole house on the state of the commonwealth.
CHARLESTON December 17.
Charles Pinckney, late governor, is elected to represent this state in the senate of the United States, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of the hon. John Hunter, and again for six years after.
This appointment by a South-Carolina legislature, apparently is a triumph of Jacobinism, and in fact a state degradation.
That a sycophantic Jacobin, should represent this state in the federal senate, when men of talents, integrity and virtue are among us, is lamentable, and must lead the rational and honest friends of their country's weal, to look into the causes of such an event.
Porcupine! to your guardianship he is committed—watch over him, altho' scarcely worth your attention; and acquaint us with his low intrigues; occasionally.
December 17.
Letters from the Havana, received on Saturday, by the late arrival from there, state, that on the morning of the 16th November, the Baltimore sloop of war, capt. Phillips, and her convoy, which left this on the 24th of October close in with the Moro, fell in with a British squadron, consisting of one ship of 98 guns, two of 74, and two frigates, under the command of commodore Loring, which brought the Baltimore and several of her convoy to; they made a prize of the brig Norfolk, and sent her off; then took fifty-five men out of the Baltimore, and threatened to take all the rest who had not protections. He treated the American flag, their letters say, with great indignity. While the sloop was detained, the commodore's treatment to capt. Phillips was very decent; but some of his officers were very assuming and indecent, when on board the Baltimore; when captain Phillips was released they returned fifty of his men, and kept five. They searched the trunks of two gentlemen, who were passengers on board the Baltimore, and took from one of them, who was going there for the benefit of his health, several letters of introduction; and his passport.
We understand, that a representation of this affair was drawn up at the request of capt. Phillips, and is forwarded to the northward.
December 18.
By the arrival of capt. Newton, from Antigua, we are informed, that about the 18th November last, a small squadron belonging to the United States, consisting of the Montezuma, capt. Murray, of 24 guns; the brig Norfolk, of 18 guns; and the Schooner Retaliation of 14 guns; were cruising off the island of Guadalupe; they learnt that two American vessels had been taken, and were under the forts; one a brig from Philadelphia, the other a Schooner; they made an attempt to retake them, and succeeded in getting possession of the brig.—As they came out, they saw two large ships in the offing; not knowing of any French vessels being in those seas, they supposed them to be English, in consequence of which, the Retaliation fired for them, and was immediately captured: the Montezuma and Norfolk, finding this, made sail, and were fortunate enough to escape.
The Retaliation is the Schooner lately called the Grable, which was captured from the French by capt. Decatur.
TAKE NOTICE
THAT I gave a bond to Thomas Carlan, in 1798:—the bond I have nearly paid off—the balance I am determined not to pay, as the said Carlan will not come to a settlement with me, and there is another person that has a claim to a small part of the land I gave this bond for. RICHARD TAYLOR.
Ten Dollars Reward
FOR apprehending and securing Thomas Fletcher, who deserted from a detachment of recruits under my command at this place, on the 31st of December, 1798. He was born in Wythe county, in the state of Virginia, nine years of age, six feet two inches high, dark complexion, smooth face, black short hair and black eyes—took with him one pair regimental woolen overalls, one shirt, a striped fusticot coat, nearly worn out and a short clouded nankin coat.
JONA. TAYLOR, Lieut. 4th regt. Commdg. Winchester, Rendez. (Kentucky.)
FOUND
ON the road leading from Georgetown to Lexington, a RED MOROCCO POCKET BOOK, containing sundry papers, and two rings, which appear to be the property of Messrs. Smith and Campbell, of Scott or Woodford county.—The owner may get information by applying at the office of the Kentucky Gazette. January 10th, 1799.
GINSENG.
A GENEROUS price will be given in merchandise for a quantity of good well dried GINSENG BY the subscriber in this place, and OTHO BEATTY & Co. in Frankfort, from this time forward, until the middle of March next. C. BEATTY. Lexington, January 10, 1799.
The Subscriber
RESPECTFULLY informs the public in general and his friends in particular, who have been kind enough heretofore to favor him with their custom, that he has moved a small distance north of the court house, on the same street where he formerly lived, where he will keep the sign of the
AMERICAN EAGLE,
And is very commodiously situated to accommodate travellers, boarders, and such as may please to call on him. His furnishing his house and stables from the produce of his own plantation, together with his steady attention in the line of his business, will enable him to keep at least a regular and plentiful supply; he hopes therefore, to be able to do full justice to those who may favor him with their custom, as to merit a continuance of their favors. JOHN HUNTER. Georgetown, January 12th, 1799.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, on Chaplain fork, Nelson county, a bay horse with a star in his forehead, about fourteen hands one inch high, eight or nine years old, appraised to 161. WILLIAM MORGAN. May 14, 1799.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, upon the waters Dry run, Scott county, a black colt, two years old, branded on the near shoulder DH, off hind foot white appraised to 81. SAMUEL DEHAVEN.
HOUSES FOR SALE.
WILL be sold at public auction, at the court house in Lexington, on the 11th of February next, being court day, on a credit of three months, that elegant and commodious house (in which Mr. Benjamin S. Cox formerly lived) and lot, situate and fronting on High-street, being four poles in front, and extending back to Water-street 13 poles.—On that part of the lot, fronting Water street, is erected a large stone house, a principal part of the carpenter work in said house completed. A stone spring-house, with an excellent and never-failing spring.—This property is very valuable, and in point of situation, is equal, if not superior, to any in Lexington. An indisputable title will be made to the purchaser. JAMES MORRISON. Lexington, January 10th, 1799.
FAJETTE COUNTY, November court of Quarter Sessions, 1798. Percival Butler complainant. AGAINST James Wilkinson, John Fowler and James Blair, defendants. IN CHANCERY.
THE defendant James Wilkinson, not having entered his appearance agreeable to law, and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this court that he is no inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the complainant by his counsel it is ordered that the said defendant do appear here on the second Monday in March next, and answer the bill of the complainant, that a copy of this order be forthwith published in the Kentucky Gazette for two months successively, and some Sunday immediately after divine service, at the door of the Presbyterian meeting house in the town of Lexington, and another copy to be posted at the door of the court house of this county. (A Copy.) Teste. LEVI TODD, CLK. F. C.
FAJETTE COUNTY,
Court of Quarter Sessions, November, 1798. John Luke, complainant, AGAINST George Kyger, defendant, IN CHANCERY.
THE defendant not having entered his appearance agreeable to law and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of this court that he is no inhabitant of this state: On the motion of the complainant by his counsel, it is ordered that the said defendant do appear here on the second Monday in March next, and answer the bill of the complainant; that a copy of this order be forthwith published in the Kentucky Gazette, for two months successively, and some Sunday immediately after divine service, at the door of the Presbyterian meeting house, in the town of Lexington, and another copy to be posted at the door of the court house in this county. A copy, Teste. LEVI TODD, C. F. C.
THE subscriber earnestly requests all persons indebted to him, either by bond, note, or book account, to make payment on or before the 1st day of January next,—Those who fail to comply with this notice, may be assured that their accounts will be put into the hands of proper officers for collection. JOHN M. BOGGS. December 9th, 1798.
TAKE NOTICE,
THAT I shall attend with the commissioners appointed by the county court of Montgomery, on the 18th of February 1799, at a noted place known by the name of Fife lick, on Red river, in said county, to establish the beginning and certain calls in an entry of 400 acres of land, in the name of Joel Collins, then and there to perpetuate the testimony of certain witnesses and to do such other acts as shall be deemed necessary and agreeable to law. STEPHEN COLLINS. January 3d, 1799.
TAKE NOTICE,
THAT I shall attend with the commissioners appointed by the county court of Clarke, on the 19th of February 1799, at the Mouth of Copperas creek, known generally by the name of Brush creek, on Red river, in said county, to establish the beginnings and certain calls of two entries made in my own name, one for 500 acres beginning at a ford on Red river, about half a mile above Copperas creek, the other for 200 acres, beginning 20 poles below the mouth of said creek, on said river, then and there to perpetuate the testimony of certain witnesses and to do such other acts as shall be deemed necessary and agreeable to law. STEPHEN COLLINS.
TAKEN up by the subscriber, living near Bethel meeting house, a brown horse, 7 years old, 14 and a half hands high, a small star in his forehead, some saddle marks, a small bell on with a leather strop and buckle; appraised to 181. HUGH MULDROUGH. October 17.
A CAUTION.
I DO hereby forewarn all persons from taking an assignment on a bond given by me to John Emerson, of Green town, for 300l. dated the 20th day of December, 1797, one half payable on the 20th day of last March and the other half on the 20th day of last November, with a credit on the bond for different payments to the amount of 166l. 12s; as the balance due on the said bond is attached in my hands. SAMUEL COOPER. December 31, 1798.
PARIS DISTRICT.
October term, 1798. Edward Worthington, complainant, against Daniel Callaghan, John Tittle, Hugh Miller, and Benjamin Harrison defendants. IN CHANCERY.
THE defendant Daniel Callaghan not having entered his appearance herein agreeably to the act of assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth; on the motion of the complainant by his counsel, it is ordered that the said defendant do appear here on the third day of the next term, and answer the complainant's bill, and that a copy of this order be inserted in the Kentucky Gazette two months successively, another posted at the court-house door of Bourbon county, and published at the front door of the Presbyterian meeting-house in Paris, some Sunday immediately after divine service. (A Copy.) THOMAS ARNOLD, CLK.
A LIST OF LETTERS.
REMAINING in the Post Office Lexington, which, if not taken out in three months, will be returned to the General Post-Office, as dead letters. A—Casper Adams, Lexington. Nathaniel Asby, do. Geo. Adams, do. Samuel Ayres, do. Eliza Allen, on the waters Hickman, near Lexington. Mrs. Allen, Lexington. Capt. William Allen, do. Burten Alston, do. B—Monsieur De Baritrop, Lexington. John Breckenridge, do. William Bryant, near do. John Blanton, do. Robert Brooks, Georgetown. Henry Brock, near Lexington. Robert Boggs, near do. Capt. John Bell, South Elkhorn. Mr. Bowls, Georgetown. Joseph Ballenger, between Lexington and Danville. C—Geo. Clark, Lexington. Jacob Claar, do. James Colquhoun, do. D—Reuben Dridge, care of Dr. Ridgely, Lexington. Dr. Amasa Delano, Mount-Sterling. K. Elizabeth Dent, Lexington. F—Walter Fentwick, at Mr. Cow's Lexington. Joseph Fenwick, do. do. Dr. Charles Freeman, Lexington. Dr. James C. Freeman, do. Henry W. S. Field, near do. G—Saml. Greenup, near Lexington. Mrs. Gray, near do. Thomas Glasgow, Kentucky. James Gay, Stoner, Clarke county. Col. John Grant, Lexington. John Graham, near do. H—George Hamilton, Lexington. Thomas Henderson, Gran's station, near do. Alexander Hall, Lexington. James G. Hunter, care of John Jordan, do. John Hollingsworth, Lexington. John Hawkins, clerk of Scott county. Adam House, Harrison county. William Hamilton, near Lexington. Samuel Henderson, ditto. Lewis Hiat, Woodford. IJ—Thomas Irvin, near Lexington. Robert Johnson, near Georgetown. Capt. Benjamin Johnson, Scott county, care of Geo. M. Johnson, Lexington. Francis Jones, Lexington. K—Rev'd. Saml. Keen jun. at Mr. Keen's, near Georgetown. John Kennenburg, Fayette county, K. John Kent, care of Maj. Bedinger, lower Blue licks. David Kilpoun, lower Blue licks. Maj. Joseph Kennedy, Madison county, Michael or William Kenning, care of Samuel Campbell, Lexington. L—James Lowery, Lexington. John Leyburn, merchant, do. Samuel Lowery, do. Samuel or William Logan, near do. Capt. Charles Lewis, do. Jacob Lettich, care of George Adams, do. James Lemon, Georgetown. M—James M'Keehan, near Lex. Humphrey Marshall, Fayette. Col. Thomas Marshall, Woodford county. William Mason, living at Mr. Carmah's Georgetown. William Mellegin, care of the revd. Mr. Rankin, Lexington. James M'Coon, Lexington. John M'Nair, do. Thomas M'Clain, do. Wm. M'Camart do. James M'Gell, care of Captain Purdies, Springfield. Martha Martin, Kentucky. Stephen Miller, near Millerburg. Adam Boyd M'Corbie, near Lexington. Col. Wm. M'Key, Gilbert creek, Lincoln county. Peter Marther, Clarke county. N—Thomas Newberry, Lexington. Thos. Neven do. O—Waller Overton, near Lexington. P—Col. Robert Patterson, Lexington. Asa Pauley, living at Mr. Alexander's, Woodford county. Rev. Mr. David Proffit care of rev. Rankin, Lexington. John Phillips, Bourbon county, Cane ridge, Elkhorn. Q—Tunhall Quarles, Woodford county. R—John Rarris, Lexington. George Robertson jun. near do. George Robertson, do. do. Stephen Riddle, Woodford county. John Rattcliff, from Virginia, Lexington. Capt. George Robards, near Lexington. James Richardson, Kentucky. John Robertson, Lexington. Daniel Rasher, do. George Ramsey, Black's old station. S—Lieut. William F. Smith, Lexington. William Scott, do. Frederick Shivel, do. John Smith do. Amelia Smith, do. John A. Sceffer, do. William Spottwood, care of John Scott, do. John Stout, Fayette county. William Sanders, Clarke county, Grassy lick. Samuel and John Scott, Kentucky. William Sanderson, care of John M'Nair, Lexington. Ozwell Smith, saddle tree maker, near do. Anthony Souland, care of John Watkins. T—Charles Tatham, Lexington. Matthew Tombs, care of John Mansfield do. John Thornton jun. do. John A Tharp, K. Jabez M. Tepton, care of Green Clay, Madison county. Henry Turpin, Garrard county. Benjamin Tumin, near Winchester, Clarke county. John Tedlock, Madison county. V—Vanpradeclies, Lexington. John Vance, near do. W—George Weigart, Lexington. Dr. John Watkins, do. James Watson, do. Matthew Wiggins, do. John Williamson, do. Aaron Woodroof, do. Col. Benj. Wailey, Fayette county. Robert Wilson near, Lexington. George Wilson, do. do. Thomas Wilson, Garrard county. William Weible, near Lexington. Richard Wade, Madison county. William Ward, Scott county. JOHN W. HUNT P. M. Janury 1st, 1799.
NOTICE,
THAT application will be made to the next General Assembly, to add a part of the present county of Fayette to the county of Jessamine, by a line, beginning at the place mentioned in the law for dividing Fayette county, near Allen's land, and to run with the line of Woodford to where said line comes to South Elkhorn thence, up South Elkhorn, to above where Lewis Craig's old mill stood, about forty poles; thence a direct line to the 12 mile tree near Shotwell's on the Hickman road; and thence, a direct line to the six mile tree from Lexington on Tait's creek road; thence, a South East course, to Kentucky river: And that part of Fayette county which lies between the above line and the present bounds of Jessamine county, to be added to Jessamine county. And also a petition for incorporating the town of Lexington.
BLANK DEEDS
For Sale at this Office

SACRED TO THE MUSES.
THE PATRIOT.
Truth for his motto, Virtue for his friend, His Country's happiness his only end— To Freedom and her friends, he'll firm adhere, Tho' frauds and factions, shake the solid sphere.
ANECDOOTE.
As George III. was walking on the quarter deck of a first rate man of war, with his hat on, a sailor asked his mate who that lubber was, that did not doff his peak to the admiral? Why, the king, says Jack. Well, king or no king, retorts the other, he's an unmannery dog. Why where should he learn manners? replies Jack: he never was out of sight of land, in all his life.
(Continued from the first page.)
I deny the position; because, independent of the express declaration on this subject contained in the federal constitution, it follows as a necessary consequence from the nature of that government, that although no power was given by it, unless it was expressly given; that every privilege was retained by it, which was not expressly parted with. But that clause in the constitution which expressly "reserves to the people the powers not delegated to the United States," renders all reasoning upon this subject unnecessary; for that clause would be totally nugatory, if the United States, or any persons acting under their authority, had common law powers, over and above those delegated to them by the constitution; because the constitution would then by no means fix and ascertain the boundaries of their powers, so as to show what were delegated to them, and what were reserved to the states or the people.
It remains, therefore, only to enquire, whether the common law has been declared to be a part of the law of the United States, by the federal constitution.
Nothing can be more self-evident, than that the people of the United States, had a right to declare, by what laws they would be governed; and it is equally clear that they can have made no declaration on this subject, unless it is to be found in the federal constitution. That constitution declares, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Here we find a clear, certain and accurate description of every kind of law which was to be binding on the people of the United States; a description which includes in it, not only those things then in being which should be considered as law but also, all those acts which might afterwards become law; and yet this enumeration does not contain one word of the laws of any of the states, much less of the common law, which is only a part of the law of any one of the states, and which is different in every state. A judicious writer expresses himself thus on this subject: "Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term as defined in the codes of the several states, would be as impracticable, as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide. It is not precisely the same in any two of the states; and varies in each with every revision of its criminal laws." It is also remarkable, that although the common law of England, at least in part, was in force in all the present states of America when they were colonies, yet, upon the declaration of independence, it was judged necessary to declare in each state, either by its constitution or by an act of its legislature, that that common law, should constitute a part of the law of the state.
Upon the whole, I consider myself as being well warranted in asserting, that the common law, as such, makes no part of the law of the United States; and therefore, that if all the offences enumerated in the Sedition Bill, before the passage of that bill, were offences in the different states at common
law, that this did not justify Congress in passing this bill, by which they are declared to be offences against the United States, and are made cognizable by, and punishable under the sentence of the courts of the United States; because this is not one of the cases specified, in which Congress has power to legislate; because it is not one of the offences which they have authority given them to pass laws for the punishment of; because it is not one of those cases of which the constitution authorizes them to give their courts cognizance; and because the constitution expressly forbids their passing any law on the subject.
A LAWYER. Who does not wish to be a Judge.
(To be continued.)
STATE OF KENTUCKY.
Washington District, set.
November term, 1798.
Gary L. Clarke, complainant,
Against Joseph Cankling Jan. and William Lloyd, Thomas Lloyd, Abigail Lloyd, Betsy Lloyd and Thomas Lloyd, heirs and representatives of Samuel P. Lloyd deceased, defendants.
In Chancery.
THE defendants not having entered their appearance agreeably to an act of assembly and the rules of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that they are not inhabitants of this commonwealth—On the motion of the complainant by his attorney, it is ordered that the defendants appear here on the third day of our next term and answer the complainant's bill: And that a copy of this order be inserted in the Kentucky Gazette or Herald for two months successively; another posted at the door of the court-house of Mason county: and that this order be published some Sunday, at the door of the Baptist meeting house in Washington.
A Copy Test, FRANCIS TAYLOR, c. w. d. c.
STATE OF KENTUCKY.
Washington District, set.
November term, 1798.
Backner Thruston complainant,
AGAINST John Nicholson, and Robert Morris, and John Grayham, George Grayham, and Richard Grayham, infant heirs and representatives of Richard Grayham dec and Humphrey Marshall, and George Rogers Clarke, defendants.
In Chancery.
THE defendants not having entered their appearance agreeably to an act of assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the defendants John Nicholson, Robert Morris, George Grayham and Richard Grayham, are not inhabitants of this commonwealth—on motion of the complainant by his attorney, it is ordered that the said defendants appear here on the third day of our next term, and answer the complainant's bill: and that a copy of this order be inserted in the Kentucky Gazette, or Herald, for two months successively, another posted at the door of the court house in Mason county, and that this order be published some Sunday at the door of the Baptist meeting house, in Washington.
A Copy. Teste, FRANCIS TAYLOR, c. w. d. c.
STATE OF KENTUCKY.
Washington District, set.
November term, 1798.
Joseph M'Goffin & Son, complainants,
Against Bertrand Ewell, Jesse Ewell, Leroy Ewell and Thomas Waller, defendants,
In Chancery.
THE defendants not having entered their appearance agreeably to an act of assembly and the rules of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that the said defendants Bertrand Ewell and Jesse Ewell are not inhabitants of this commonwealth—On motion of the complainants by their attorney, it is ordered, that the said defendants appear here on the third day of our next term, and answer the complainants' bill: And that a copy of this order be inserted in the Kentucky Gazette or Herald for two months successively; another posted at the door of the court-house in Mason county; and that this order be published some Sunday at the door of the Baptist meeting house in Washington.
A Copy. Teste, FRANCIS TAYLOR, c. w. d. c.
STATE OF KENTUCKY.
Washington District, set.
November term, 1798.
Gary Bryan, complainant,
AGAINST John Nicholson, Robert Morris, George Grayham, John Grayham, Richard Grayham, Humphrey Marshall, and George Rogers Clarke, defendants.
In Chancery.
THE defendants, John Nicholson, Robert Morris, George Grayham, and Richard Grayham, not having entered their appearance agreeably to an act of assembly, and the rules of this court, and it appearing satisfactorily to the court that they are not inhabitants of this commonwealth—on the motion of the complainant by his attorney, it is ordered that the said defendants appear here on the third day of the next term, and answer the complainant's bill; and that copy of this order be inserted in the Kentucky Gazette, or Herald, for two months successively, another posted at the door of the court house of Mason county, and that this order be published some Sunday at the door of the Baptist meeting-house in Washington.
A Copy. Teste, FRANCIS TAYLOR, c. w. d. c.
STATE OF KENTUCKY.
Washington District, set.
November term, 1798.
James Lamberton, complainant,
Against John Macbir, trustee and Thomas Waring, Robert Rankins, Simon Kenton and William Roe, mortgagess, and Robert Meek and Mary his wife, James Wood and Caty his wife, John Wood and Mary his wife, and Alexander Smith and Anne his wife, heirs of Nathaniel Allen, dec. defendants,
In Chancery.
IT appearing to the court, that the order to advertize, formerly had herein, has not been published agreeably to a rule of this court, and the said defendants James Wood and Caty his wife, John Wood and Mary his wife, Alexander Smith and Anne his wife, and Mary Meek still appearing to be no inhabitants of this commonwealth, and they not having entered their appearance agreeably to an act of assembly and the rules of this court—On the motion of the complainant, by James Hughes his attorney, it is ordered, that the said defendants appear here on the third day of our next term and answer the complainant's bill: and that a copy of this order be inserted in the Kentucky Gazette or Herald for two months successively; another posted at the door of the court-house of Mason county: and that this order be published some Sunday, at the door of the Baptist meeting-house in Washington.
A copy. Teste, FRANCIS TAYLOR, C. W. D. C.
FOR SALE,
ALL the lands belonging to John Cockey Owings, in this state.—Also his share in the Iron Works—for terms apply to B. VANPRADLLES, atty. in fact for John Cockey Owings.
TOBACCO MANUFACTORY.
THE subscriber informs his friends and the public in general, that he continues to carry on the manufactory of tobacco, in all its various branches, equal to any in this state, nearly opposite lawyer Hughes's, on Main street, where he intends to have a quantity ready for sale, wholesale and retail. Those gentlemen who please to favor him with their custom may be supplied on the shortest notice. A considerable credit will be given, when purchased wholesale, by giving bond with approved security.
JACOB LAUDEMAN. Lexington, Jan. 15, 1798.
Five Dollars Reward.
WAS stolen or broke out of my stable in Lexington, on Thursday night, the 29th December last. a likely sorrel mare 14 and a half hands high, 7 or 8 years old, with a small star and snip, both hind legs white, branded thus W. on the near shoulder and buttock, but not very plain, her tail pretty bunchy, has the appearance of being worked. Whoever will deliver said mare to me shall receive the above reward and reasonable charges.
H. MILVAIN. Lexington, March 9, 1798. tf
JUST PUBLISHED,
The Kentucky Almanac, For the year of our Lord 1799.
JAMES B. JANUARY.
HAS removed his Store to the house adjoining the sign of the Bellaloe, kept by John M'Nair—where he has opened a very handsome assortment of
GOODS,
Suitable to the present and approaching season.
He has also for sale, a quantity of RED-CLOVER SEED, Of this year's produce and the growth of Kentucky—a large quantity of SALT, IRON & CASTINGS, Assorted.—But,
LISTEN!
Those indebted to him, must pay off their respective balances on or before the 1st of February.
December 21, 1798.
NOTICE.
ALL persons indebted to me, are requested to make immediate payment to James Hughes, attorney at law, who is authorized to collect the debts due to me, and from the collections to make payment to my creditors.
MELCHOR MYERS, Butcher. Lexington, December 23d, 1798.
As the creditors of Melchor Myers are very pressing, and some of them have obtained judgments, no indulgence can be given to those of his debtors, who do not immediately make partial payments at least. I will all his creditors to furnish me with their accounts, in order to enable me to apportion the money I may receive.
JAMES HUGHES.
Lexington, December 23d, 1798. sw
Woodford county, December 22d, 1798. THE partnership of Crittenden and Turpin, is this day dissolved by mutual consent, those having any demands against the same, are desired to come forward and have them adjusted, and those indebted to make immediate payment to John Crittenden in whose care the books and papers will be left during the absence of Thomas Turpin; Those who do not pay their respective balances before the first of February may expect suits to be commenced against them.
JOHN CRITTENDEN. THOMAS TURPIN.
Five Dollars Reward.
LOST on the 12th instant, between Young's mill, and my house, seven miles from Lexington, near the Hickman road, a red Morocco POCKET BOOK, with a number of papers of importance to me, but of no account to any other person that I know of; together with a bond given by Robert Roles to the subscriber, for the sum of £44. dated 1796, and a judgment obtained in Culpeper court, Virginia, against a Thomas Jones, for the sum of £50. and costs in my favor with a number of other bonds and accounts too tedious to mention. Any person giving information so that I get it, shall receive the above reward by me.
JAMES OWENS.
Dec. 24, 1798. tf
ALEXANDER PARKER,
HAS JUST IMPORTED FROM PHILADELPHIA, And now opening, on Main street, opposite the court house, a very extensive
Assortment of Dry Goods,
Groceries, Hard Ware, Glass, Queens & China Ware;
which he will sell on moderate terms for Cash. Lexington, Sept. 24, 1798.
To be Exchanged,
A YOUNG STRONG HEALTHY NEGRO WOMAN, USED to house work, for TWO YOUNG NEGROES, GIRL OR BOYS.
sw Enquire of the Printer.
NOTICE
IS hereby given to the several persons in the state of Kentucky, who are indebted to Messrs. JOHN FIELD & SON, merchants in Philadelphia, to call on the subscriber and settle their respective debts—and they are hereby forewarned from making any payments to Charles W. Jones, the former collector for Field and Son, as all powers heretofore given him, are revoked and no payment made to him after this date, will be allowed, the subscriber being now the only legally authorized agent.
THOMAS TODD, Frankfort, December 26th, 1798.