Jenks's Portland gazette (Portland [Me.]), 1802-02-08 00:00:00

JENKS' PORTLAND GAZETTE.
Appointed to publish the LAWS of the United States, for the District of Maine.
NUMBER 198.]
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1802.
[VOLUME IV.]
Portland,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1802.
The debate in the Senate, on the Judiciary Establishment, is continued in this day's Gazette, in which are given the speeches of Gen. Jackson, of Georgia, and the Hon. Mr. Tracy, of Connecticut. In our next we shall give the speech of Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina; who, so generally voting with the democrats, has been so far divested of prejudice as to speak impartially on the important subject in debate, and induced to "tell the matter candidly."
PATE OF THE JUDICIARY ESTABLISHMENT.
From Washington, Jan. 20.
In Senate.—Jan. 19.—The debate on Mr. Breckinridge's resolution for repealing the Judiciary was continued in the Senate by Messrs. White, Chipman, Wells and Calhoun, all of whom were opposed to it.
Mr. Calhoun read in his place, a resolution which he would offer to the Senate if Mr. Breckinridge's resolution should not be agreed to. It was in substance as follows:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to revise and amend the judiciary system passed the last session of Congress. He mentioned that he would have offered this as a substitute for the one which had been under consideration, but that would not be in order.
Mr. Dayton said the idea of the gentleman from South Carolina was too valuable to be lost, he therefore moved to amend Mr. Breckinridge's resolution by striking out the word "repealed" and inserting "revised and amended."
The question was taken by yeas and nays.—There appeared for the amendment, Messrs. Calhoun, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hildreth, Howard, J. Mason, Morris, Osgood, Sheafe, Tracy, Wells, White.—Against it, Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Beckenridge, Brown, Cooke, Elery, Franklin, T. Foster, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumpter, Wright.—Yeas 13.—Nays 15.—Thus the amendment was rejected.
The question on the resolution was then put and carried, 15 to 13.—The yeas and nays and yeas on the former question being just reversed on this.
The President on the 6th ult. sent to the Senate, a list of the appointments which he has made during the recess, and now proposes for permanent appointments. The following is an analysis of it:
 17 Cases of resignation, declining to accept promotion, or death.  1 of expiration of their commissions, not re-appointed.  21 of vacancies left unfilled by the former administration.  48 of dismissals for federal principles.  2 of removals on grounds of special propriety. 
The town of Amiens, in France, was celebrated before the revolution for its manufactures in linen and woollen cloth, which, it is said, employed 30,000 people. This ancient town is remarkable for having been taken by the Spaniards in '97, by the following singular stratagem. A number of soldiers, disguised like peasants, were conducting a cart loaded with walnuts, and let a quantity of them fall from the machine just as the gate was opened, & while the unsuspecting guard were busy in gathering up the nuts, the Spanish army entered and took possession of the town. It was retaken by Henry the Fourth. Amiens is on the road from Calais to Paris, 75 miles north of that city.
"Brockhoff Livington, who not long since shot a fellow citizen dead in a duel, has by the democratic government of New-York been recently appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court in that State."
We have lately heard the best of all possible reasons alledged to the high price of milk and butter, "that the grass was so high, the cows were lid, and could not be found to be milked."
(Lond. pap.)
Dr. Barton, of London, has discovered a method of mixing vital air with wine, in sufficient quantities to produce a very efficacious remedy in all kinds of fevers, nervous, affections, and cases of pregnancy.
Professor Callisen, of Copenhagen, has read at a meeting of the Royal Academy of Medicine, a treatise, in which he proves that the external application of boiling water, in cases of internal inflammation, produces a more speedy and effectual relief than blisters.
Portsmouth, Feb. 2.
Mr. Asa Shaw, an ingenious mechanic at the South part of the town, has contrived a press screw, on a new principle, which bids fair to be of general utility to Farmers, Packers, Tobacco-rolls and Book Binders.
The screw of this press runs into the follow—or as Book binders and Printers term it, the platten, and rests on four iron rollers which play round on a plate of iron. The strength of one man with this screw, is equal to at least four of the common ones now used. To Book binders we think it will save the laborious but necessary task of beating. The press is now standing in Mr. Luke Leighton's shop, South end, where any person who will take the trouble of calling, may see it.
Laws of the United States.
SEVENTH CONGRESS of the United States: at the first session, begun and held at the city of Washington, in the territory of Columbia, on Monday, the seventh of December, one thousand eight hundred and one.
An Act for the apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to the second enumeration.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That from and after the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and three, the House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected agreeably to a ratio of one member for every thirty-three thousand persons in each State, computed according to the rule prescribed by the Constitution, that is to say: Within the state of New-Hampshire, five; within the state of Massachusetts, seventeen; within the state of Vermont, four; within the state of Rhode-Island, two; within the state of Connecticut, seven; within the state of New-York, seventeen; within the state of New-Jersey, six; within the state of Pennsylvania, eighteen; within the state of Delaware, one; within the state of Maryland, nine; within the state of Virginia, twenty-two; within the state of North-Carolina, twelve; within the state of South-Carolina, eight; within the state of Georgia, four; within the state of Kentucky, six; and within the state of Tennessee, three members.
NATHANIEL MACON, Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
ABRAHAM BALDWIN,
President of the Senate pro tempore.
APPROVED JAN. 14, 1802.
TH: JEFFERSON,
President of the United States.
Senate of the United States,
JANUARY 12.
DEBATE ON THE JUDICIARY—CONTINUED.
MR. JACKSON of Georgia. I rise with an impression of awe on the present question: for we must tread on constitutional ground, which should not be lightly touched on, nor too hastily decided. Every step we take ought to be well examined, and our minds confirmed before we give that vote which cannot be recalled, and which will fix a principle on legislative construction which perhaps will prevail as long as we remain a nation.
In the early days of this discussion, I had a most determined to say nothing, and am at present determined not to say much; but a justification or the vote I shall give, has impelled me to offer my reasons for it to the State I represent; and I have made up my mind definitely, to vote for the resolution before you if I cannot be otherwise convinced.
I conceive that the subject requires from us a legislative construction. That construction may as well, and indeed better, be now made, than will undoubtedly hereafter be a clashing of powers; I, therefore, think it is much better to decide it now, when the injury is felt, than to defer it to take root until it shall exert a different and more violent decision than that of a deliberative body.
The reasons for the resolution have been so ably stated, and strongly enforced by the gentleman from Kentucky who moved it, as to the expediency and the burthen of the expenses on the present system that I shall say little about them.
The expenses however of the judiciary establishment, I deem the least important consideration attached to the subject. Yet, I do not agree with the gentleman who has spoken, that the expense is trifling. The gentleman from New-York had held up the insignificance of a cent a person, and had told us of Alms's purse, which no one dared to take away. Let that gentleman calculate twelve cents to a family, and he will see that each family would pay 12 cents; a sum however insignificant to the pocket of that gentleman, that might furnish a comfortable meal to a poor family. With the gentleman from Kentucky, however, I contend that the principle is as much settled by one cent as by a million. And this observation becomes inculcatingly dangerous, if it is to be drawn into a precedent on every new project or improper measure, that it costs but a cent a person. And as to the remarks about A fed, I might retaliate upon the gentleman, and say, that at that day 12 cents might have been a year's salary for a judge.
We have been asked, if we were afraid of having an army of judges. For myself I am more afraid of an army of judges under the patronage of the President, than of an army of soldiers. The former can do us more mischief. They may deprive us of our liberties, if attached to the executive, from their decisions; and from the tenure of office contended for, we cannot remove them; while the soldier, however he may act, is enlisted, or if enlisted, only subsisted for two years; whilst the judge is enlisted for life, for his salary cannot be taken from him. [See 12 division, 8 Sec. 1 Art. Con.] It is said these evils will not happen. But what security have we for the truth of this declaration? Have we not been sedition laws? Have we not heard judges crying out through the land, sedition; and asking those whose duties it was to inquire, is there no sedition here? It is true, the sedition law has expired with the last administration, and he trusted it would not exist or at least be acted on, under the Virtuous Jefferson. But hereafter if it should exist, your judges, under the cry of sedition and political heresy, may place half your citizens in irons. I thank God that no such law now exists, or is likely to exist. I thank God, that we are not now under the influence of an intolerant clergy, as is evident from their abuse of the President; and that we are not under dread of the patronage of judges, is manifest from their attack on the Secretary of State. And I trust that we shall long keep this patronage off, by not factious the religious persecution of the clergy on the one hand, or the political violence of the judges on the other.
But I will forbear making any further remarks of this kind, and go into an examination of the constitutional grounds.
[Gen. Jackson here quoted the 3d Art. 1st Sec. of the Constitution.]
Here then are two tribunals. First, The Supreme
Court, the creature of the Constitution, the creature of the people; the other, the inferior jurisdictions, the creature of the legislature. And notwithstanding the play of gentlemen upon the words shall and may , they are in meaning essentially different. The word shall applied to the supreme court, is imperative and commanding, while the word may , applied to the inferior courts, is discretionary, and leaves to the legislature a volition to act or not to act as it sees fit.
Again, why are the peculiar and exclusive powers of the supreme court designated in the following section of the constitution, but because the constitution considered, that tribunal as absolutely established; while it viewed the inferior tribunals as dependent on the will of the legislature. And that this was the case was evident from the conduct of the supreme court on the Pension act, which that court had some time since declared unconstitutional, and which declaration, he was convinced, would not have been hazarded by an inferior tribunal.
But does this conclusion rest on judicial power alone? Is it no where else found under other heads of constitutional power? Yes, Sir, under the legislative head of power, which is the first grant of power made by the constitution.—For by the 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution, after enumerating the powers of laying taxes, &c. it is declared in the 9th division thereof, "to extend to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme court." Here then is a legislative power given expressly to that body, without restriction or application to any other branch of the national government. Let those lawyers who hear me, decide, on the construction of all grants or deeds, if two grants be made in the same deed, to different powers or persons, if the first does not exclusively vest it?
Is there a single argument that can be assigned to oppose this conclusion of the constitution? Do not the observations of gentlemen, who insist upon permanent tenure of the judicial office, place the creature above its creator, man above his God, the model above its mechanic? A good mechanic when he constructs a machine, tries it; and if he does not succeed, he either mends or throws it away. Is there not the same necessity for acting in the same way with the inferior tribunals of the judiciary, which is no other than the mechanic of the legislature?
But upon the principles of gentlemen, the law, which creates a judge, cannot be touched—the moment it is passed, it exists, to the end of time. What is the implication of this doctrine? To alter or amend what may greatly require alteration of amendment, it is necessary to return to the creator, and to inquire what his creator is. My principle is, that the creator is the people themselves; that very people of the United States, whom the gentleman from New-York had declared themselves to be the guardians of, to save the people themselves from their greatest enemies; and to save whom from destroying themselves, he had invoked this house. Good God, said Mr. J. is it possible that I have heard such a sentiment, in this body? Rather should I have expected to have heard it founded from the despot of Turkey or the despot of Siberia, than to have heard it uttered by an enlightened legislator of a free country, and on this floor!
But let us examine how we are to get at the creator. Look to the constitution, and see how it is to be amended. It can only be amended on the recommendation of two thirds of both houses; or on the application of two thirds of the states, a convention shall be called, who are to propose amendments, afterwards to be ratified by three fourths of the states.
There is here, then, required two thirds of both houses of Congress. Can this two thirds be found now, or is there any probability of its being found for twenty years to come, who will concur in making the necessary alterations in the judiciary system, that are now, or may hereafter be required? On this subject, there are as many opinions as there are persons on this floor. I have, indeed, never found two persons precisely agree. How then can we expect three fourths of the legislatures of the several states to agree, when we cannot agree among ourselves? There is, in fact, no amendment, which could reach the case, and exhibit to view all the requisite and necessary regulations for such an extent of country.—Such an attempt must form a volume, a constitution by itself, and after all fall short of the object.
I am clearly, therefore, of opinion, that if the power to alter the judiciary system vests not here, it vests no where. It follows, from the ideas of gentlemen, that we must submit to all the evils of the present system, tho' it should exhibit all the horrors of the inquisition.
But gentlemen say, the United States embrace a vast extent of territory, from 1500 to 1700 miles in length. What is the inevitable deduction to be drawn from this fact? Why, that system which is to apply to this extent of country, embracing different laws and different habits, will require frequent alteration; whereas, if we are tied down to a system of inferior tribunals once formed, we cannot even touch the plan of the judicial system of the little District of Columbia. Nor can we touch the inferior jurisdictions in the North Western Territory, or in the Mississippi Territory, in both of which the systems were acknowledged to be adapted only to present circumstances, and in the last of which the right of Georgia were implicated. It follows, that whatever these rights may be, the system is sacred; and as to the Mississippi Territory, it is grounded on this doctrine, notwithstanding the claim of Georgia, her jurisdiction is totally lost. To revert to the federal law. If the doctrine supported now were true, then had the federal law been incorporated as a system by itself, an inferior tribunal, and officers, been attached to it, would it have been perpetually tacked to the constitution; that law under which so many of our citizens had been imprisoned, for writings and speakings, and one among others for wishing that the wadding of a gun had been lodged in a certain Presidential part.
The gentleman had dwelt on the inconveniences and evils of the old system, and had particularly condemned that part of it, which, as he termed it, converted the judges into post boys. But I will appeal to the gentleman, if in England where so much business is done, there are more than 12 judges, and whether those judges do not ride the circuit. And why shall our judges not ride the circuits? Shall we have six judges sitting here to decide cases which require a knowledge of the laws, the morals, the habits, the state of property, of the several states? Would not this knowledge be much better obtained by their riding the circuits and in the states themselves, making themselves acquainted with whatever relates to them and the cases of appeals to come before them. It has been remarked, that one of the greatest political evils that could befall a people, was the existence of large judiciary bodies. To illustrate his ideas, he had influenced the Parliaments of France. If the spirit, which last session gave existence to sixteen new judges, continued, who could say by what number they would be limited? They might indeed soon become, what they had been likened to, an army of judges.
I do not wish to be severe in my remarks on the conduct of the late administration. I admire the private character of Mr. Adams.—But I do believe the succession of his political acts tended ultimately to secure the in, and a reach at powers to, a particular person or favorite family.
If I wished to bestow on Mr. Jefferson this mass of patronage, which I contend this horse of officers bequeaths, I should be in favor of the bill that is now moved to repeal; out as a political person, I am no more for Thomas Jefferson than for John Adams. When he acts according to my opinion, right, I will support him; when wrong, oppose him—and I trust a majority on this floor, will act in the same way.
A gentleman from Massachusetts has asked if suits will go on diminishing, and if the Millennium is so near at hand—Sir, different opinions are held on this subject, for some suppose the Millennium to have arrived long since, and others that it may arrive, and others again that it never would arrive; but there is one thing certain, the more courts you have, the greater temptation there is for litigation, and more suits or rather evils will flow from them. Law itself is but a necessary evil; for if mankind were perfect—were it not for their frailties and passions, there would be no occasion for it; and lawyers are a greater evil, although he acknowledged, a necessary one.—They seldom scourge litigious suitors, who swarm in our courts; and there are here as well as in every other country, persons fond of law and of prosecution, rather than not be in courts at all, they would d read their lawyers, as I have been formerly told of a man who applied for advice and was informed he had no ground of action, to bring, than a spite action. The state courts are open and competent to most of the inferior court business, and it ought to be thrown in that channel as much as possible.
With respect to the usefulness of the additional judges created by the act of last session, it was perhaps unnecessary to add any thing to what had been so ably observed by the gentleman from Kentucky. But I will state for the information of the Senate, that in the Southern States of Georgia, South and North Carolina, a ground of great litigation is removed, one which had originated at least age since. Miller and Co. has obtained a patent for a spinning machine, God knew where it came from, but I believe neither of them invented it, so as to make those states tributary to them, and embroil them in disputes. South Carolina had purchased the patent for 50,000 dollars and had therefore dried up this source of litigation in that state.
The recovery of British debts, too was nearly over. This had been a fruitful source of litigation. Our citizens had been sued, and their late hard earnings of property had been seized to satisfy British demands, whilst their former property had been taken from them by British arms during the war.
I am surprised to hear the cry, that our liberties and the constitution are endangered, from the quarter from which it is now urged. When such remarks had been made by those gentlemen with whom I generally acted on former occasions, the instantaneous cry was against demagogues, who by artfully inflaming the passions of the people against the government, wished to break down the constitution.
A gentleman had talked about a victory mediated over the constitution. Not by the President. Not by us. By whom then was it mediated? Was it by the House of Representatives? Or was it by the people themselves—the same people whom we were to save from their greatest enemy, themselves? For my part, I believe in the mediation of no such victory. Sooner for my part than participate in it, by voting for this resolution, if I thought it would have such a tendency, I would cut off my hand or cut out my tongue. I respect and love the constitution, and my great wish is with father Paul, to cry out as respect, it, who perpetua .
MR. TRACY (Connecticut). Feeble as I am, I have thought it my duty to offer my sentiments on this subject. Owing to severity of indisposition, I have not been in my place nor have I heard any of the discussion. This circumstance will be my apology, if in the remarks I shall make, repetitions shall occur on the one hand, & apparent inattention to arguments on the other.
Having been a member of this government during several years, and being impressed with the difficulties attending the formation of a judiciary system, I have thought proper to give a concise history of legislative proceedings on this important subject. Permit me to say, Sir, that the first institution of such a system, must be an experiment. It is impossible to ascertain until tried, the effects of a system co-extensive with the vast territory of the United States, and which ought to be adapted to the different laws and habits of the different states.
Soon after the first law was enacted, as early as the year 1793, and I believe sooner, complaints were made of the system of circuit courts. The union then being divided into three circuit, and two of the six judges, were obliged to attend each court, if one judge failed, all the business of course was continued to the next term. Judges complained of the distance they had to travel, and suitors and lawyers complained of delays. In 1793, if my memory is correct, the law passed allowing one judge to attend with the district judge in each district, with some other modifications not important in the present view of the subject. If by reason of distance, badness of roads, sickness, or any other accident, this one judge failed of attendance, or if he and the district judge differed on any point, a delay was occasioned.
If the same judge attended the same circuit at the next term another delay, and so on, till experiment taught us that some alteration in the system was requisite. It will be recollected, that the judges had to travel over this extensive country twice in each year, and to encounter the extremes of both heat and cold. Of this they complained; but this was not all—the business was not done!
At several sessions of Congress, the subject of the circuit courts was before them; committees were appointed by both houses; and in more than one communication of the executive at the commencement of sessions, a revision of the system was recommended. I cannot on memory detail the exact particulars, or order of time; but in the speech made by the president on the opening of the session, 1799, the subject is stated as follows:—To give due effect to the civil administration of government, and to ensure a just execution of the laws, a revision and amendment of the judiciary system is indispensably necessary. In this extensive country, it cannot but happen, that numerous questions respecting the interpretation of the laws, and the rights and duties of officers and citizens must arise. On the one hand, the laws should be executed, on the other, individuals should be protected from oppression; neither of these objects is sufficiently assured, under the present organization of the judiciary department of the executive, unless the subject to your serious consideration. Although this subject had been recommended before, and committees had contemplated a revision and

alteration of the system, I do not remember, that a bill had ever been presented to either house of congress until 1799. In that session, a bill was reported similar in its features to the act which passed last session. It might have been acted upon in the house of representatives; of this however, I am not confident—but I recollect it was printed, and the members of both houses had it before them—and at the last session with some alterations and amendments, it was enacted into a law. I believe all parties wished for a revision and amendment of the system, in respect to crime courts; the difference of opinion was principally this; some supposed an increase of the judges of the supreme court of such a number, as would render the duties of the circuit practicable for them, and provided for the completion of business, would be the best amendment; and others thought the law, as it passed, was preferable.
I acknowledge, that in deliberating upon this subject, we always assumed the principle, that the establishment of courts was important to protect the rights of the people; we did not fear an army of judges, as has been hinted by the gentlemen who was last up (Mr. Jackson.) In this opinion we might be mistaken, but we were honest in our professions; although some believed, that more of the business of the U. S., might be confided to the state courts; yet it is not within my recollection, that the question was considered in any measure a party question. I am confident, that at the session of 1799, and for a long time before that, the friends of this law, which eventually passed last winter, could not, nor did not, contemplate any change of administration. A revision of the system was long a subject of deliberation; we believed an increase of circuit judges, to the number requisite to perform the duties, would be an inconvenient increase of the supreme court; and though it was desirable for the judges of the supreme court to see the people and be seen of them, yet, the preference was given to the system now proposed to be repealed. We supposed it would be an evil to increase the number of judges of the supreme court to 13, 15 or 17. A court which is to act together, should not be numerous; on this subject, all men have agreed; here may be danger of an "army of judges," as the gentleman says; for although in Great Britain the twelve judges are sometimes called to give an opinion; yet no man will feel equal confidence in a tribunal of judges for the business of a court, consisting of many, as of few; from three to five, the good sense and experience of all nations has declared to be about the proper number; and we thought it conducive to the general good, to establish tribunals in such manner, as to carry justice to the door of every man.
In this modification of the system, the jurisdiction of the circuit court has been extended, as it respects the sum in demand, at which they are to take cognizance, and as it respects the duties which arise concerning the title of lands, and exclusive jurisdiction is given of all cases, committed within 30 miles of their place of session. The intention was to initiate a prompt execution of justice, and experiment alone can tell the wisdom of the plan.
Take it to be a found rule, adopted by all wise and deliberate bodies, not to repeal an existing law, until experiment shall have discovered errors, or unless there is a vice apparent on the face of the law, as that justice shall require an immediate destruction of it. Has there been time to gain information by experiment? No man will pretend this as a justification of the repeal; for the little time the law has been in force, so far as I have obtained any knowledge upon the subject, it has gained credit.
Another maxim in legislation I think is correct, not to give up a law in existence, which is convenient about extensive and important concerns of the community, and about which there is a necessity of enacting some law; without being clearly what can be substituted for it, and that the substituted has manifest advantages. This resolution leads to no result but a repeal. I have stated the errors of the former system of circuit courts, and if experience is an objection to the present system, as I have heard urged out of doors, the same or nearly as much must be incurred, if we increase the number of judges of the supreme court, to effect a reform in the circuit court. Why repeal this law then and leave us without any, or without any adequate to its purpose?
Is this system so very vicious, that it deserves nothing but abhorrence and destruction? It costs us a little more than thirty thousand dollars, and by it the number of circuit judges is increased to fifteen; and by it likewise is contemplated reducing the number of supreme judges to five, when it can constitutionally be done. Is the expense an object, when by that expense we extend the jurisdiction of a court over this vast extensive growing country, and carry law and protection to every man? This country is in a singular condition, a great tract of unsettled lands is peopling with rapidity, and numerous immigrations increase our population far beyond its natural increase; it is not of importance, that courts should be located among them, early to correct the restless spirit which is frequent in new and scattered settlements? And are not the emigrations composed of such as require the prompt assistance of the law, to preserve among them regularity? Punishment, to us, and to all good men should be a strange word, but to prevent crimes, is the work of God—I speak to gentlemen who have many of them graced the judges bench, and adorned the professional robe they have worn, and am therefore not obliged to be particular; that I may be understood; a word to the wise will be sufficient. A judiciary in a national point of view is absolutely necessary, and an extension of it to every national purpose is equally necessary. To depend upon state courts, not under obligations, nor amenable to you, besides having so much business allotted to them by the respective state as they can accomplish, and depending upon them and not on us for existence; will require only to be mentioned, to be exploded. Locating your judges in various parts of the country, by them promulgating the national laws, which it is well known has been a subject of great difficulty, and giving them daily opportunity of mixing with people, not well disposed to order and law; may prevent disorders, and insurrections, and save millions of expense, which pecuniary savings will be the least of the important events arising from such a system.
But it will probably be said, the courts have not business to employ them; and the documents received from the executive will be produced in evidence. And it may further be said, the president has in his message, recommended a repeal of this law.—The words of the message are, "The judiciary system of the United States, and especially that portion of it lately erected, will of course present itself to the contemplation of congress—and that they may be able to judge of the proportion which the institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several states, and now lay before congress, an exact statement of all the causes decided since the establishment of the courts, and of those that were depending when additional courts and judges were brought in to their aid."
Is this a recommendation to repeal?—Suppose for argument sake it is. Let us look at this "exact" statement. In the recapitulation, 19th page of doc-
ument 8, there appears to have been instituted 8476 suits, and pending when this court went into operation, 1539—But on further inspection, it will be found Maryland is entirely omitted, this omission is unaccountable, since the means of knowledge were so near at hand. 119 causes undecided in Tennessee; 134 in North Carolina, and 331 in Virginia, are omitted; making in the whole an error of 5 or 600 causes.—In addition to this the number of suits in New York are not stated correctly by the statement of the attorney when he made the return, and not one is carried out as pending in the recapitulation; and the return of Massachusetts is incorrect on its face; so that nothing more than conjecture can be derived from this "exact" statement. The president is usually more correct, and how this peremptory language in the message corresponds with the document, every man can see for himself. I am not disposed to attribute intentional error to any man, much less to the executive; but in point of fact the statement amounts to nothing, we may just as well imagine without it as with it, how many suits were pending at the institution of the new courts.
But I acknowledge that the number of suits pending is not in my mind any criterion upon which a correct judgment may be formed of the utility or necessity of courts, or to say the most of it, it forms but one ground of judgment, and that not a very conclusive one. In a country thinly settled, it is frequently as important to establish courts, as in a more populous country; and as this government is situated, it may be more so; and yet the number of suits will bear no proportion. Why did we establish courts in our territorial government but on this principle?
A number of courts properly located will keep the business of any country in such condition as but few suits will be instituted; and courts badly organized will discourage suitors and there will be but few actions returned. From the number of suits alone, there can be no sound judgment formed.
But there is another objection to the repeal of the judiciary law, which to my mind is conclusive; I mean the letter and spirit of the constitution.
In the formation of every government in which the people have a share in the administration, some established and indisputable principles must be adopted. In our government, the formation of a legislative, executive and judiciary power, is one of the controvertible principles, and that each should be independent of the other so far as can be fraudulently permitted, is equally controvertible. Will it be expected, that I should quote Sidney, De Lolme, Montesquieu, and a host of elementary writers to prove this assertion? There is probably no conflict of opinion upon this subject. When we look into our constitution of government, we shall find in every part of it a close and undeviating attention to this principle. Our particular form is singular in its requirements, that full force and operation be given to this all important principle. Our powers are limited, many acts of sovereignty are prohibited to the national government, and retained by the states, and many restraints are imposed upon state sovereignty. If either, by accident or design, should exceed its powers, there is the utmost necessity that some timely checks equal to every exercise should be interposed. The judiciary is established by the constitution for that valuable purpose.
In the British government the legislature is omnipotent to every legislative effect; and is a perpetual convention for all every constitutional purpose. Hence it is easy to discern the different part which must be assigned to the judiciary in the two kinds of government.—In England the executive has the most extensive powers; the sword or the military force; the right of making war, and in effect the command of all the wealth of the nation, with an unqualified veto to every legislative act.—It is therefore rational for that nation to preserve their judiciary completely independent of their sovereign. In the United States the caution must be applied to the existing danger; the judiciary are to be a check on the executive, but most emphatically to the legislature or the union, and those of the several states.—What security is there to an individual, if the legislature of the union or any particular state, should pass a law making any of its transactions criminal which took place anterior to the date of the law? None in this world but by an appeal to the judiciary of the United States, where he will obtain a decision that the law itself is unconstitutional and void, or by a resort to revolutionary principles, and exciting a civil war. With a view to these principles, and knowing that the framers of our constitution were fully possessed of them, let us examine the instrument itself. Article 3d. Sect. 1st. "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour; and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Are there words in the English language more explicit? Is there any condition annexed to the judges' tenure of office, other than good behaviour? of whom shall your judges be independent? we are led to an erroneous decision on this, as well as many other governmental subjects, by constantly recurring to Great Britain. That their courts should be independent of their sovereign is an important object; he is the fountain of honor and power, and can do no wrong; our president, at least for several years past, has been considered the fountain of dishonor and weakness, and if there was any maxim upon the subject, it was that he could do no right. Of course the great object of the independence of the judiciary must here have reference not only to our executive, but our legislature. The legislature with us is the fountain of power. No person will say that the judges of the supreme court can be removed, unless by impeachment and conviction of misbehaviour; but the judges of the inferior courts as soon as ordained and established, are placed upon precisely the grounds of independence with the judges of the supreme court. Congress may take their own time to ordain and establish, but the instant that is done, all the rights of independence attach to them.
If this reasoning is correct, can you repeal a law establishing an inferior court, under the constitution? It will be said, that although you cannot remove the judge from office, yet you can remove his office from him? it is murder prohibited, and may you shut a man up, and deprive him of subsistence, till he dies, and this not to be denominated murder? the danger in our government is and always will be, that the legislative body will become reflexive, and perhaps unintentionally break down the barriers of our constitution. It is incidental to man, and a part of our imperfections, to believe that power may be safely lodged in our hands. We have the wealth of the nation at command, and are invested with almost irresistible strength; the judiciary has neither force nor wealth to protect itself. That we can with propriety modify our judiciary system, so that we always leave the judges independent, is a correct and reasonable position; but if we can, by repealing a law, remove them, they are in the worst state of dependence.
I have exhausted myself, and I fear, the patience of the Senate, and regret exceedingly that my introduction prevented me from a better preparation upon this important question. I have attempted to show, that the establishment of a judiciary system for this country, is and must be attended with difficulties, and that the legislature have taken such measures as to a majority of them appeared most reasonable, after much attention to the subject, to cure the evils of the old system, by the substitution of a new system.
And let it be remarked that the law now under consideration, although it modified our courts, is strictly guarded against a violation of the principles I have here contended for. The supreme court is to consist of five judges after the next vacancy shall happen; and the district judges of Tennessee and Kentucky are associated with a circuit judge, to perform the duties of circuit judges which duties it is well known they performed ever since the district courts were established; and in the clause which increases their salaries they are styled the district judges; and all the alterations made in their circumstances, is an increase of duty, and of salary. I have attempted to show the primary necessity of rendering the judiciary of this confederated government, completely independent, not only of the executive, but especially of the legislature.
And by adverting to the words of the instrument itself, I have attempted to show, that the judiciary are secured, so far as words can do it, as well from a circuitous removal by repealing the law constituting the court of which they are judges, as by any direct removal.
I am strongly impressed with the magnitude of this subject: perhaps the whims of a sick man's fancy have too much possessed me, to view it correctly; but, I apprehend the repeal of this law will involve in it the total destruction of our constitution. It is supported by three independent pillars; the legislative, executive and judiciary; and if any rude hand should pluck either of them away, the beautiful fabric must in all probability ruin.
The judiciary is the centre pillar, and a support to each by checking both; on the one side is the sword, and on the other the wealth of the nation; and it has no inherent capacity to defend itself. These very circumstanced united may provoke an attack, and which ever power prevails to so far as to vest in itself directly or indirectly the power of the judiciary by rendering it dependent; it is the precise definition of tyranny, and must produce its effects. The Goths and Vandals destroyed not only the government of Rome, but the city itself; they were savage, and felt the loss of neither, but if it be possible there can be an intention, like the son of Mæna, with his strength, without his godliness, to tumble the fabric into ruins, let it be remembered it will crush in one undistinguished ruin, its perpetrators, with those whom they may call their political enemies.
I most earnestly entreat gentlemen to pause and consider; I apprehend the repeal of this act will be the hand writing on the wall, stamping Mene Tekel upon all we hold dear and valuable in our constitution. Let not the imputation of instability, which is cast upon all popular bodies, be verified by us; in adopting laws to day, and repealing them to morrow, for no reason, but that we have the power, and will exercise it.
This constitution is an invaluable inheritance! If we make inroads upon it and destroy it, no matter with what intentions, it cannot be repaired, we shall never have another.
FRIDAY, JAN. 22. JUDICIARY LAW.
The committee appointed for that purpose, reported a bill for repealing the act of the 13th February, 1801, for new organising the Judiciary of the United States.
The act is a short one; and is confined to a repeal of the above act, and a restoration to the courts under the old system of the business by it confided to them.
It was read the first time, and ordered to be printed.
House of Representatives.
MONDAY, JAN. 13.
A statement of the value of the Exports to Italy, Gibraltar, and Barbary Powers, for five years preceding Sept. 30, 1801, was received from the Secretary of the Treasury.
FRIDAY, JAN. 22.
A bill for the protection of American commerce and seamen, in the Mediterranean and adjoining sea, was read a third time, and passed without a division.
This bill authorizes the President to equip the national vessels against Tripolitan corsairs—to seize and capture Tripolitan vessels—and to authorize their capture by private American vessels.
The House went into committee of the whole on the bill for altering the act to lay and collect a direct tax.
Mr. Rutledge moved, that the committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reducing the duties on brown sugar, coffee and bohea tea.
The motion produced a debate which occupied the remainder of the sitting, during which the previous question was moved.
On the previous question being taken, as follows: "Shall the main question be put?" It was carried in the negative—Yeas 45—Nays 49.
MONDAY, JAN. 25.
Several petitions were presented by collectors of the direct tax for additional pay.
The committee of Ways and Means were directed to report on the subject of the impost and tonnage duties. The motions for particular instructions respecting the repeal of the duties on salt, brown sugar, coffee, and bohea tea, were negatived.
Legislature of Massachusetts.
BOSTON, TUESDAY, FEB. 2.
The Gorham Ministerial Fund Bill passed to be enacted.
MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
Agreeably to alignment the order of the day was called up—which was the motion for the reconsideration of the question decided on Tuesday last, on a motion for an address to the President, offered by Mr. Morton, of Dorchester. We were not present when the discussion commenced this day. We learn, that Mr. Morton withdrew his former motion, and again asked leave to lay on the table, a specific proposition, in writing, which if adopted was to serve as the groundwork of a communication for an address to the President. He gave his reasons at large for the measure. It is not in our power to give an accurate outline of the debate which arose
on this proposition; and which occupied the attention of the house for four hours. It was evidently the wish of those opposed to the address contemplated, to come to a silent vote on the subject.—It appeared from what afterwards fell from them, that they considered a pledge of confidence as improper until the sanction of experience should be passed on the administration; that the measure was not called for by any legislative duty, nor any emergency from the existing state of things; and that it was premature, considering how recently the Legislature of Massachusetts, by the Electors of President and Vice President, had expressed the public sentiments as it respects Mr. Jefferson.—But the opposers of the proposition, were charged with being reduced to the dilemma of silence by having nothing to urge against it. This insinuation forced them to a free discussion of Mr. Jefferson's claims to confidence, founded on his political life; in which many of the speakers declared they had seen nothing which was calculated to inspire confidence; but rather mistrust and apprehension. Those in favour of sustaining the motion of the gentleman from Dorchester, were warm in their encomium on the talent, patriotism, and wisdom of the President; they urged that the measure of an address was sanctioned precedent; and that they wished an opportunity to show to him, and the world, that he possessed their entire confidence. The leading topics of controversy so often discussed in the newspapers, were recited and dwelt upon, with spirit on both sides of the House.—At length to get rid of the subject for the session Col. Fisher, of Westborough, moved, that a vote be taken that no further consideration of the question of an address should take place during the session. This being a motion of reference was prior in its nature: and on this question the yeas and nays were called for. Those who voted for the subject thus subsiding, were considered as opposed to addressing; the others, as friends to Mr. Morton's proposition.
The yeas and nays on Colonel Fisher's motion were:—Yeas 141—Nays 91—Majority 50.
Which may be stated, as against addressing the President.
THURSDAY, FEB. 4.—FORENOON.
An order was received from the Senate directing the Solicitor General to institute inquests of office against James Carter, Benjamin Coombs, Samuel Jackson, Ephraim Judd, Isaac Nason, James Hodgkins, Michael Welcom, Stephen Safford and Joshua Small, justices on a tract of land disclaimed by the Proprietors of Bakerstown, which was assigned to John Brigham and others, upon certain conditions.
A bill to incorporate Joshua Shaw and others, to build a bridge across New Meadow River, was read twice, and Tuesday next, 11 o'clock, assigned for the third reading. In the interim committed to Messrs. Hill, Ely and Taylor, of N.
The Secretary delivered the following Message from the Governor:
Gentlemen of the Senate, and
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives.
Two Indians of the Passamaquoddy Tribe are now here to solicit the aid of the Legislature in preventing trespasses on the township of land which has been relinquished to them by the State; and to request the assistance of the government in building for them a house for public worship, at Pleasant Point, where they now reside. The Secretary will lay before you two letters which relate principally to these subjects.
CALEB STRONG.
Council Chamber, Feb 4, 1802. A petition for the incorporation of the Plantation of Prospect, was committed
By the Mail.
BALTIMORE, JAN. 25.
DEATH OF TOUSSAINT.
A gentleman belonging to a respectable mercantile house of Alexandria, now in this town, received a letter from his partner last night, dated the 21st inst. which says, "I am sorry to inform you Toussaint is no more. He has been caught by the blacks and burnt alive." The letter mentions nothing further on the subject; but from the gentleman's connexions in trade at Cape Francois, there is no doubt but his information is from the most unquestionable source. His letter probably came by the way of Norfolk, where capt. Ferguson, whose packet left there on Tuesday last, states that the same report of Toussaint's being burnt, was current, though not generally credited.
Toussaint was probably way-laid by some of Moyer's party, in his usual tour from the Cape to Port Republic, which he mostly made without any guard. And as a retaliation for the death of their General, and to prevent, as they suspected, betraying them to the whites, it is not unlikely that they have inflicted this savage and excruciating torture.
Should this news unfortunately be true, a ferocious resistance will be made to the troops embarked for that colony, and much blood will be shed before the blacks can be subdued.
BOSTON, FEB. 4.
IMPORTANT.
Extract of a letter from a respectable gentleman in the Havana, to his friend in this town, dated January 14 1802.
"No vessels have been admitted to an entry here, since the 24th ult. The number is about fifty sail; but last evening it was agreed, that they should all be admitted to an entry—and I should think, from this, that there will not be any difficulty in vessels being admitted to, for some time, provided, they have the Spanish Consul's Certificate on their invoices, which is indispensably necessary."
MR. RUSSELL—I wish that you would publish in your next paper; that the Secretary of State has received information, that Eliphalet Carr, of Cape-Port, Massachussetts, and that Abijah Stedson and John Puddy, residence and place of birth unknown, in the United States, were impressed on board the British ship of war Tremendous , at the cape of Good Hope. Care will be taken by the Secretary of State to have them liberated, on his receiving the necessary documents by which their persons may be identified, and their being citizens of the United States made certain.
The publishers of newspapers in this state, will oblige the distressed by publishing the above.
B. LINCOLN, Collector.
John Church, Esq. of Co. k, is appointed Consul to the U. S. of America.

Portland, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1802.
EUROPEAN DATES
As late as Dec. 21. have been received at this port, by the Eliza , capt. Prance who arrived last week, from Cork (Ireland.)
PARIS, NOV. 30.
His Excellency Mr. R. R. Livingston, Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America, arrived, with his family, at Nantes, on the evening of the 29th. He lodged at the Hotel de France, where the Prefect immediately waited upon him, and gave him and his suite an invitation to dinner.
DEC. 2.
LEGISLATIVE BODY.
Citizen Rederer, Counsellor of State, brought up the ratification of the treaty concluded with the U. States in America.
In these ratifications, said he, the American Government has required the suppression of the 2d article of the Treaty, which refers to a future day the claims of France for the re-establishment of the privileges secured to France by the old treaties, and it has, farther demanded, that the late convention made between these two powers should be limited to eight years; saving, however, a liberty to prolong it. This limitation of the convention to eight years, is fitting for two nations whose commercial relations will experience great changes before that time. The French Government has, in consequence, consented to that ratification; it has consented also to the suppression of the 2d article, to abandon its privileges which it might be able to claim in virtue of former treaties, and has not confined itself to this, but the French should be treated in America upon the footing of the most favored nation; but in stipulating, expressly, that France should be exempted from any demands for indemnities which the United States might make against her on account of prizes made upon American commerce—demands which might amount to many millions of livres. The Sitting rose.
The French Tribunal ratified the American Treaty by 84 votes to three.
Events of merchantmen have failed from Holland for the Mediterranean, and from Bordeaux for the West-Indies and the Maritima.
Three ships of the line were to sail from Holland about the last of November, with troops, for St. Domingo from thence to proceed to take possession of the Dutch Islands which are to be restored. The British have agreed to furnish transports to convey a certain number of French troops to the West Indies.
The Stadholder is in Germany, seeking some suitable establishment for himself and family.
About the 9th of December a severe storm was experienced in the British Channel.
M. Otto, has been appointed by the French Premier Counsellor Minister Plenipotentiary to the British Court. Some conceive the appointment temporary, that the object is intended for Joseph Bonaparte, and that M. Otto will yet be appointed Minister to the United States.
FROM WASHINGTON—Jan. 25.
The new Judiciary Bill will be debated to-morrow in the Senate. Messrs. Ogden and Ross, two federal members, have taken their seats. The number on each side is now equal. The Vice-President must decide."
Messrs. Russell & Cutler, of Boston, have issued Proposals for publishing a CONGRESSIONAL REGISTER, to contain the debates of both houses of Congress—the communications of the President—and the Reports of the Heads of Departments—with an Appendix, in which will be added such Public Papers as may be necessary to a correct view of the proceedings and proceedings of the present administration.—This work must be highly important, and is of a nature to demand universal support in the Northern States. Subscriptions received at this office.
The Aurora says that Richard Cutts, Esq. has resigned his seat in Congress. This we think to be a mistake.
Can any man divest himself of party-prejudice, read the speech of Gen. Jackson (inserted in this day's paper) and say it is not one of the most pitiful attempts at reasoning and oratory that ever was exhibited in a grave, deliberate assembly. He surely must have forgotten the character of the body to which he addressed himself, and must have supposed that he was haranguing a mob.
The Gen. calculates "revenue souls in a family," if each of which pay a cent it will amount to "a sum," says the Gen. which however insignificant to that gentleman (Mr. G. Morris) would furnish a very comfortable meal to a poor family."
The usual calculation is seven to a family tho' possibly the Gen. who is from Georgia had in his "mind's eye" a black family, in which case, supposing them to be fed on Rice or Indian Corn, a cent a piece might be alleged to furnish a family of slaves on a Georgia Plantation, "a very comfortable meal."
The General's supposition that "revenue cents might in the time of Alfred have been a year's salary for a judge," shows the profound wisdom and learning of the orator. What can we think of the intellects of a man, who talks of a few judges, "under the cry of sedition and political heresy, putting half the citizens of the United States in irons." The General surely must have imagined himself full speaking to the "mulatto boys," who attended his embarkation for New-York. N. York 1802.
Married,
At Charlestown, Mr. Ebenezer Larkin, to Miss Mary Howe.—At Providence, Mr. Henry Farnham, to Miss Nancy Newell, both of Boston.—At Salem, Mr. Joshua French, to Mrs. Mary Ruck.—At Boston, Mr. Edward Johnson, to Miss Zebiah Gore.
Died,
In this town, Mr. Joseph Sylvester, aged 59 years. At Wallingford, Con. Aaron Lyman, Esq. aged 94; Mr. Edward Collins, aged 92.—At Concord, (N. H.) Mrs. Anna Stickney, aged 70.—At Ipswich, Mrs. Ruth Wade, aged 87.—At Roxbury, Widow Elizabeth Noles, aged 61.—At Newton, Mr. Thomas Upham, aged 35.—At Boston, Miss Nancy Emerson, aged 20, late of Royalston; Mr. Joseph Howe, jun. aged 23.
BENKS' PORTLAND MARITIME LIST.
PORT OF PORTLAND. A letter from capt. Lowell of this port, mentions his having spoke in lat. 30, lon 59, the brig Alexander , of Kennebec.—She was bound to Frenchem's Bay to load, but being blown off the coast, put away for St. Martins.
The industry, Chandler, of Pepperellboro' was spoke Jan. 30, lang. 48, 90 days out.
Brig William Crombie , of this port, was at St. Martins Jan. 2, for St. Martins in 10 days.
French Spoliations.
THE sufferers by French Spoliations, in Portland, and its vicinity, are requested to exhibit their claims at the Maine Fire and Marine Insurance Office , to the subscribers, who were appointed a Committee for the purpose, at a meeting held on the 4th inst.—stating the names of the Vessel, the owners, and the master's name, with the amount of Property captured, at the real cost or value at the time, stated in gross—together with such circumstances as they may think useful in establishing their claims.
DANIEL TUCKER, HUGH M'LELLAN, THOMAS WEBSTER.
Portland, Feb. 6, 1802.
Nathan & Company, FURRIERS,
JUST arrived from London, will give the best price, and ready money, for all kinds of FUR-SKINS, at Gen. Cobb's Tavern, sign of the Eagle , Fore-street; Portland, Jan. 8, 1802.
Cotton Yarn.
ALMY & BROWN, in Providence, State of Rhode-Island, being principally concerned in the most extensive COTTON MILLS on the continent, have for sale a large assortment of COTTON YARN, suitable for Warp or Filling; and also of two and three thread Yarn suitable for knitting or weaving Stockings, both bleached and unbleached; equal in quality to any in America. They are enabled to supply their customers and others who may want, on as low terms as any persons in the United States, and on short notice. Orders from every part of the country will be duly attended to by addressing by post or otherwise, to the subscriber.
ALMY & BROWN.
Providence, 18 Mo. 1802.
John Taber & Son,
NO. 8, MUSSETT'S ROW, KEEP the aforesaid Yarn constantly for sale, by the Bundle, at the same prices as at the Manufactory, with only the expense of transportation. Portland, 2d Mo. 8, 1802.
Wholesale and Retail Ware-house, OPPOSITE THE COLUMBIAN TAVERN.
Wakefield & Dobbs,
Acquaint their friends and the public, that they have received by its late arrivals from London and Liverpool, a large assortment of Merchandise—Among which are,
 BLACK, dark blue, olive, drab, brown, scarlet, and fashionable mixed London and Yorkshire fine and superfine Broadcloths.  Black, white, dark blue, buff, scarlet, drab, brown and mixed Kerseymeres.  Mixed and plain Forth Cloths, Peascodths from 2/6 to 12/ per yard.  Plain and twilled Coatings; Striped Elastic Cloths, Orleans; white and colored Bazes.  White and black Flannels; Rose Blankets, 7/8 and 4/4 wide Irish Linen, from 3/6 to 7/6 pr. yd.  Chintz and purple Caicoos; do. do. Furniture, Durants; Calamacoos; Jeans; Moreens, Black and blue Shaloon; black Russells, Tammy; white and colored Mullinets, Black worsted Gaiters.  A large assortment of Men's, & Women's worsted, lambs wool, gauze, white & colored cotton, black and white silk Hosiery.  Tape, fringed, and hair cord Dimities, Tambor'd, jacquet, cambric, and book Mullins, Black cambric do.  Men's beaver, worsted, and silk Gloves, Ladies' extra white and colored kid and silk do.  Ladies' English colored Kid Shoes, Black and colored Morocco do.  Mouseloups; Muffs and Tippets, Fancy Feathers and Flowers, Cotton, silk and silver Trimmings, Oil Cloths; Irish Diapers.  Ladies', Gentlemen's and Youths' English beaver Hats; Straw Bonnets; do. Trimmings, Thread, Lace, and Edgings, Black broad and narrow silk Lace, Elegant Lace Shawls; do. Veils, Men's plain and striped English and French black Satin; black and blue silk Velvet, Brown Holland; Swandown from 8/6 to 15/; pattern Embroidered Silk; Ladies' black Satin, Silk and cotton Suppers, Fine Thickset and Velveteen; Carpets, & Carpeting Bandannas; fashionable fancy silk Handkerchiefs, Chintz and purple Shawls; cotton and linen Checks, Black and white Italian Crapes, White and colored Thread, Plated, gilt, and metal coat and breast Buttons, Twill do.; linen and cotton Pocket Handkerchiefs, Bordered Lawn do.; camels hair Shawls, Tapes and Bobbins; shoe and quality Bindings, Cotton and silk Umbrellas, Gold and gilt Brooches; white and colored Beads.  Tea Trays, Waiters, Bread Baskets, Scissors, Razors, Pocket and Pen Knives, Knives and Forks, Desert do. Chapel Needles, Thimbles, Pins, Tea-pots, Coffee Mills, Slates, Candlesticks, Combs, Cut and Wrought Nails. 
Cognac Brandy, Holland Gin, St. Croix Rum, Madeira Wine, Box and Cask Raisins, Almonds, Figs, Nutmegs, Mace, Cloves, Cinnamon, Rice, Ginger, Chocolate, Indigo, Mustard, Aspic etc. Black Pepper, Lump and Brown Sugar, Bobs, Souchong and Hyson Teas.—Cheap for cash or approved credit. Portland, Feb. 1.
Cornelius Wing,
No. 3, FISH-STREET, OPPOSITE JONES' ROW.
HAS lately opened an handsome assortment of DRY GOODS—consisting of low priced, middling, and superfine blue Broadcloths; various colored middling and superfine Broadcloths and Kerseymeres; common and superfine Swandowns; an assortment of Rose Blankets; a good assortment of Silk Handkerchiefs; Cotton do. Pocket do.; various sized cotton Shawls; black camels hair do.; Mullins, Mullinets, Dimity, and black Mullins; a large assortment of various figured Chintzes; Checks; Brown Holland; red, green and yellow Baizes and Flannels; Coatings; Rattens; Lambkins, various qualities of Hosiery; Ruffles; Bombazines; Serges; India Cottons; Ravens Duck; bellows; Umbrellas; Men's and Boy's Hats; Shovels and Tongs; Iron Candlesticks; Japan do. and Lamps.—An assortment of Buttons, Twill, Silk, and thread.—A few pieces of Lustrings, and Mouseloups.—All which he offers at Wholesale or Retail, at reasonable prices, for cash or approved credit. Portland, 12th Mo. 28, 1801. (6w)
TAKEN up drift, on the 19th ult. a well-timbered BOAT.—Any person having lost the same, may have it again by proving property and paying charges.—Apply to the printer. Feb. 1.
MAINE, &c.
NOTICE is hereby given to the Creditors of WILLIAM FENNELLY, a Bankrupt, that Wednesday the second day of March next, is appointed for hearing any objections to the allowing the Certificate of Discharge to said Bankrupt; and that the hearing will be at the Court-house in Portland ; at which time and place any of the Creditors of said Bankrupt may appear, if they see fit, and be heard upon their objections.
DAVID SEWALL, Judge of District Court. York, Feb. 1, 1802.
THE subscriber having been duly appointed Assignee to the Estate and effects of SIMON MAYO, a Bankrupt—hereby calls on all persons indebted to or who hold any of the said Bankrupt's property to pay and deliver the same over to the subscriber without delay. Portland, Jan. 18, 1802. LEMUEL BRYANT.
THE Creditors to the Estate and Effects of J. SEPA CONEY, a Bankrupt, are requested to meet at the Commissioner's Office, in Fifth-street, on Saturday the 30th day of January instant, at ten o'clock A. M. to see if they will consent to the payment of an half of the charter of Schooner President, on her late voyage to France, and to direct thereon, as they may think proper. Portland, Jan. 23. JOSIAH TUCKER, Assignee.
THE POST-OFFICE at Portland, is shut on the several evenings of the week, at the hours hereafter mentioned, viz.
Every Sunday evening at six o'clock (being opened one hour previous to that time, for the purpose of making up the letters which it may be judged necessary to put into the Office on that day.)
Every Saturday evening, at eight o'clock—and on every other evening in the week, at nine o'clock. Feb. 1. 1802. SAMUEL FREEMAN, P. M.
Strayed
FROM the subscriber, in December last, a dark red Mare COLT, two years old, black main and tail, small white spot on the forehead, some white on one of her hind feet, round the foot-lock.—If any person has taken up said Colt, or will give information for that the owner may get her again, shall be rewarded for their trouble. North Yarmouth, Feb. 8. SAMUEL MASON.
FOR SALE,
THE third part of an undivided lot of LAND, situated on the easterly side of Union Wharf, containing 108 feet front.
Also, for sale, a hundred thousand BRICKS; and a sufficient quantity of STONE, for a Cellar.
For particulars inquire at the Store of capt. David Smith, on Union Wharf. Portland Feb. 1.
FOR SALE,
At N. Richardson's Wharf, BALES INDIA COTTONS, consisting of Bourbon, Gurrah, Allat, and Patna Bales. Pipes 4th proof Barcelona BRANDY, Bags white India SUGAR, Quarter Casks old Lisbon WINES, Boxes dip CANDLES, Casks fresh RAISINS, 2000 WT. PEPPER, entitled to debenture. RAVENS DUCK, and RUSSIA SHEETING, Trunk GOODS, consisting of LONGCLOTHS, MUSLINS, CAMBRICKS, BANDANNA HANDKERCHIEFS, &c. Bobs, Fine and superfine FLOUR—Baltimore. By JOSHUA RICHARDSON. Portland, Jan. 25, 1802.
A few tons of Sheathing Paper, and a quantity of excellent Writing Paper, may be had at JENKINS & CLARK'S bookstore, Feb. 1.
Henry Wheeler,
HAS for sale, at his shop near the Hay-market, a good assortment of WESTINDIA GOODS & GROCERIES, cheap as at any shop in Portland.
N. B. Those who are indebted to said WHEELER, or to the estate of JAMES LARRABEE, deceased, are again requested to make payment. Portland, Jan. 18, 1802.
TWO YOUNG HORSES,
CAME into the inclosure of the subscriber, in the month of November last. One of a deep red color, and the other light red. The owner or owners may have them again, by paying charges. EPHRAIM LUNT. Falmouth, Jan. 18, 1802.
STRAYED.
FROM the subscriber, a red MARE, with a white stripe in her forehead—about 14 hands high—four years old. If any person has taken up said Mare, or will give information for that the owner may get her again, shall be rewarded for their trouble. Jonathan Paine, Jun. Portland, Jan. 18.
THE Estate of EBENEZER GOVE, late of Edgecombe, in the county of Lincoln, Mariner, deceased, being represented insolvent, and the subscribers appointed Commissioners to receive and examine all claims of the several Creditors to said Estate—hereby give notice, that they shall attend for that purpose at the late Dwelling-house of the aforesaid Ebenezer Gove, in said Edgecombe, on the first Tuesday of the six following months, from two to six o'clock in the afternoon. MOSES DAVIS, WILLIAM PATTERSON, Commissioners. Edgecombe, Jan. 19, 1802.
THE Subscriber hereby gives notice to all concerned, that having been duly appointed Executor of the last will and testament of SETH STAPLES of Turner, in the county of Cumberland, Yeoman, deceased; has taken upon himself that trust and given bond as the law directs; he therefore requests all persons who are indebted to said deceased's estate, to make immediate payment; and those who have any demands thereon to exhibit the same to JOSIAH STAPLES, Executor. N. B. He will attend to the settling accounts the first and third Tuesdays of the three following months, at the house of the deceased. (3m.) Turner, January 25, 1802.
NOTICE is hereby given, that the subscribers have been duly appointed Executors of the last will and testament of JOHN STINSON, late of Georgetown, in the county of Lincoln, Esquire, deceased; and have undertaken that trust by giving bond as the law directs.—All persons, therefore, having demands against the estate of said deceased, are desired to exhibit the same for settlement; and all indebted to said estate, are requested to make immediate payment. DAVID GILMAN, EBENEZER DELANO, WILLIAM STINSON, Executors. Georgetown, Jan. 20, 1802.
Public Auction.
To be sold, without reserve, At the Store lately occupied by Mr. F. POSE, Middle-street, On WEDNESDAY next, 10 o'clock, A.M. The whole Stock of a Company LATELY DISSOLVED.
Consisting of a variety of articles—Among which are, IRISH Linens, Shawls, Silks, men's and women's Hats, cloth and leather Shoes, Flannels, Calf-skins, Broadcloths, Calamancoos, Durants. LIVERPOOL WARE.
Iron Wedges, Thimbles, Hinges, Axes, Nails, Brads, Spectacles, Shovels and Tongs, one Iron Grate, Scales and Weights, Tin Measures, &c.
N. B. Credit will be given to those who purchase to the amount of 100 dollars.
Nathan Bond, Auctioneer. Portland, Feb. 8, 1802.
ONE OR TWO THOUSAND Empty Bottles;
Are wanted—for which cash will be given. Inquire at the Store of I. & W. M'LELLAN, Fifth-street, Portland. Feb. 8.
DIRECT TAX.
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, ELEVENTH COLLECTION DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION.
PURSUANT to an act of Congress, passed the fourteenth of July, 1798, entitled, "an act to lay and collect a Direct Tax, within the United States,"—will be sold at public Sale at the dwelling house of Benjamin Hooper, jun. in Biddeford, on Monday the fifth day of April next, at ten of the clock, A. M. so much of the under described estate, consisting of dwelling houses and lands as will satisfy the taxes due thereon, together with costs and charges, in the law directed; unless said taxes and charges should be paid before that time.
   D. Houses. Houses. Value of Tax on each Value of Total tax   D. C. D. C.     John Fairfield 550 1 65 1191 43   Olaf & Ralph Emery 300 60 3503 2   Capt. James Lane 300 60 1703 4   Dominicus Scammons 250 50 1851 93   John Davis 200 40 390 10    BENJAMIN HOOPER, jun. Collector. Biddeford, February 4, 1802.
WHEREAS the proprietors and owners of the late common and undivided lands in the town of Lebanon, in the county of York, have been assessed and taxed in sundry lists, and formerly committed for collection to Benjamin Oldham, Esq. and Dr. Moses Carr, deceased, and William Rogers, Esq. resigned—And the Balance due on said Taxes are now committed to Andrew Rogers, Esq., to collect by a vote of said proprietors—and the following sums now appear to be due and unpaid, to wit:
   Proprietors Names. Bal. of Tax prior to 1767 1. d. s. 1. d. s. 1. d. s. 1. d. s. 1. d. s. 1. d. s. Bal. now due.     Edward Arnold, Esq. 1767 60 60 60 40 5   Capt. Richard Lord, 1770 60 60 60 40 3 10   Deac. Drey Lilly, 1772 50 40 60 60 60 40 12 3   James Parker, 1773 60 40 4   Ralph Farnham, 1775 60 50 40 60 60 40 13 8 4   Barthol Allen, 1777   Joseph Saward, 50 40 60 60 60 40 13 10   Ebenezer Blissell, 33 6 50 40 60 60 40 8 16 9   Terah Sprague, 40 50 40 60 60 40 7 11 8   Capt. Jonas Bowler, 50 40 60 60 60 40 5 10   Nathan Blodget, 50 40 60 60 60 40 13 18   Samuel Kindal, 34 50 40 60 60 40 7 7 8   Nathan Gubtail, 50 40 60 60 60 40 7 8 4   William Gerrish, 60 60 60 40 2 10   Moses Abbott, 50 40 60 60 60 40 3   Elisha Hill, 40 50 40 60 60 40 5 5   Daniel Smith, 5

AN INDIAN TALE.
From Sir William Jones' Palace of Fortune.
NEXT to the shrine advanc'd a reverend sage, Whose beard was hoary with the frost of age; His few grey locks a sable fillet bound, And his dark mantle flow'd along the ground...
* A metaphor taken from the Custom, which prevails among the Mohammedans, of turning their faces, when they pray, towards the Temple of Mecca.
From the New-York Commercial Advertiser.
NUMBER XVI.
To the President of the United States.
SIR,
FROM the foregoing view of the nature and tendency of your principles, I proceed to consider some particular instances of your administration.
The first act of yours which I shall notice, is, your withholding from Mr. Ray Greene, his commission as judge of the district court of Rhode Island, and making a new commission to Mr. Barnes. The circumstances of the case are these: Mr. Greene was a Senator from the State of Rhode Island, and near the close of the session of the last Congress, was nominated by President Adams, to be the Judge of the District Court in that State. The Senate confirmed the nomination. As the places of Senator and Judge are incompatible, the commission was not made out for Mr. Greene, till the last day of the session, and not being completed at the time Mr. Greene wished to leave Washington, he requested a friend to bring on the commission, and left the place. When the commission arrived, it was perceived that the President's secretary had made a mistake, in filing a blank with the word Circuit instead of District—which would have commissioned Mr. Greene to be Circuit Judge, instead of District Judge. The commission, of course, was removed to the President, you being then in office, for the purpose of being corrected: but instead of rectifying the error, and commissioning Mr. Greene, according to his appointment, you retained the commission, and appointed Mr. Barnes to the place of Judge of the District Court. The question is, whether this act was not a violation of the constitution?
The words of the Constitution, Art. 3. Sec. 1, declare that, "The Judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall at stated times receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office!"—That these words exclude from the President the power of removing a judge of the Courts of the United States on any pretext or for any reason whatever, is beyond a doubt. One main question in the case, which may admit of controversy, is, whether a nomination to office by the President, and a confirmation of that nomination by the Senate, complete the appointment so that the person is effectively in office, before he has received his commission from the President. From the construction and spirit of the constitution, I contend that the concurrence of the President and Senate in naming to office, completes the act of appointment; that the commission to be issued in pursuance of that act follows of course, as an executive duty, and is no more than an evidence of the appointment, and a communication to the officer of the authority which is derived solely from the previous act of the President and Senate. The words of the constitution make the previous nomination of the President and the subsequent advice and consent of the Senate, necessary to every appointment. The authority of an officer results from this joint act, in every case except that of a vacancy happening during the recess of the Senate; and in this case, the powers of an officer, commissioned by the President alone, cease with the next session of the Senate. This is a full proof that the constitution intended the powers of an officer to be derived only from the concurrent act of the President and Senate.
But this point will be more obvious, if we consider the words which authorize the President to grant commissions. The words are, the President "shall commission all the officers
of the United States." The word shall is imperative; it stands in the constitution with the full force of a command to the President, leaving him no option or discretion. The phraseology of the whole sentence implies, that the person nominated by the President and assented to by the Senate, are in fact officers of the United States, before they receive their commission. The President "shall commission all the officers," which words are equivalent to these—"the officers appointed by the President and Senate shall receive commissions from the President." The clear import of the words is, that the appointed, are officers in office, by the appointment, and these officers, the President is commanded to commission. And if this is the true construction of the words, the President, by withholding or refusing, or neglecting to grant, a commission, in pursuance of an appointment, violates the constitution.
That this is the true construction may be inferred from another consideration. Of every official act of government, there must be a record, to which an appeal can be made in case of controversy, and which by itself is legal evidence of such official act. In the case of designation to office, the nomination of the President and the assent of the Senate, are matters of record—they stand on the journals of the Senate, as a part of their official acts; and to these journals alone can the President resort, to know who is, or who is not appointed. The President's nomination alone is no appointment when the Senate is in recess; and the journals of that house are the records of their acts on which the President proceeds in granting commissions. In the case before us, Mr. Greene had been nominated by the Chief Magistrate—to this nomination the Senate had assented—both these acts were recorded and remained as evidence, and the only recorded evidence of the appointment. As therefore the President derives his only evidence of appointment from these records, either from inspection, or from information received through the Secretary of the Senate, he has no authority to grant commissions without being furnished with this evidence. From this statement, the inference is unavoidable, that the President cannot govern himself by any rule of commissioning officers, except by the official determinations of the Senate—he cannot depart from that rule—he must for he is expressly commanded to—commission all the officers which he finds on the records of the Senate to have been appointed; unless in cases where he has the power of removal.
Another view of this subject will present it in a strong light. A clause in the constitution authorizes Congress, if they see fit, to vest the appointment of inferior officers, in the heads of departments or the courts of law. Suppose Congress had vested the appointment of Marshals in the Supreme Court, without a nomination from the President. In this case the appointment must proceed from the court, and the commission from the President, who is directed to commission all officers of the United States—But, in each case, there could be no question, that the designation, or choice of the court, would constitute an absolute appointment, although the commission must proceed from the President—The court must notify its appointment to the President, and he must of course issue a commission in pursuance of that appointment. It would be a part of his executive duty, which he could not omit without violating the constitution, and subjecting himself to a liability to impeachment.
This reasoning cannot be varied by an error in the form of the commission. It would be the most monstrous doctrine imaginable, to maintain that the mistake of a Clerk or Secretary can defeat an act of the Executive Council. The records of the Senate are an evidence of the fact, and it is the duty of the Chief Magistrate, to pursue the appointments and carry into effect the real acts of that body. If a mistake occurs in the forms, it is his duty to rectify it.
In vain will your friends urge as an apology for your conduct, that Mr. Greene was one of those who received his appointment just at the close of your predecessor's administration, and that it was indecent thus to fill offices with men in whom you could not have confidence. I reject every suggestion of this sort. Truth—justice—principles—Constitution—these are the guides of upright rulers, who have a single eye to the public welfare. It was the duty of your predecessor to proceed in his nominations, and in every part of his executive duty, in the same manner as though he had been to remain in office. And in designating the men who were to fill offices, he could not constitutionally take into consideration the principles of his successor. The constitution rejects the idea that officers are the "agents" of the Chief Magistrate; while propriety, impartial justice, true policy and public opinion frown with indignation on the suggestion.
From these observations, it appears, that Mr. Greene was constitutionally appointed Judge of the District Court—and being so appointed, and not removable at your pleasure, it was your constitutional duty to commission him.—His first commission, not pursuing the appointment, was void—but the appointment was valid, and at this
* An office and the duties annexed to it, in any executive branch of government, have, like a corporation, perpetual existence. They do not change or vary, with the possessor. The Constitution and the laws are their basis—the public welfare, their object. Hence the extreme absurdity of considering a subordinate officer, as the agent of his superior. This idea is false, and will lead to public mischief without limitation or remedy. A republic, whose object is the public good, administered avowedly, for the benefit of parties, is a frightful monster, whose existence must be as short, as its birth is unnatural.
moment Ray Greene is the constitutional Judge of that Court. Your withholding his commission appears to be a direct disobedience of the injunction in the constitution, requiring the President to commission all the officers of the United States; and your appointment of another man to the office, is a departure from the path of duty, prescribed by the constitution. If these facts and principles are well founded, which I will not assert, but which I must at present believe, the inference is unavoidable—you are liable to impeachment.
DIRECT TAX.
SEVENTH COLLECTION DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION, IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS.
PURSUANT to an act of Congress passed the 14th of July, 1798, entitled, "An act to lay and collect a direct tax within the United States,"—will be sold at public sale at the dwelling house of Benjamin Dyer, innholder in Standish, on Monday the fifth day of April next, at 10 of the clock A. M. so much of the under described estates, consisting of dwelling houses and lands, as will satisfy the taxes due thereon, together with costs and charges as the law directs; unless said taxes and charges should be paid before that time.
Table with 7 columns: Name of Owner, or Occupant, at the time of taking the Valuation; Value of each dwelling house; Tax on each house; Value of lands; Total sum; No. Div. It lists various owners and their tax details.
NON RESIDENTS, TO ME UNKNOWN.
Table with 2 columns: Name of Lot; Value of Lot. It lists various lots and their values.
Table with 4 columns: Name; No.; Div.; Value. It lists owners unknown in Standish and their respective values.
OWNERS UNKNOWN IN STANDISH.
Table with 4 columns: Name; No.; Div.; Value. It lists owners unknown in Bridgton and their respective values.
OWNERS UNKNOWN IN BRIDGTON.
Table with 4 columns: Name; No.; Div.; Value. It lists owners unknown in Frysburg and their respective values.
Frysburg, Jan. 25, 1802.
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, EIGHTH COLLECTION DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION. NOTICE is hereby given, by virtue of an act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, entitled "An Act to lay and collect the Direct Tax, within the United States"—The following taxes assessed on the respective Houses and Lands, to which they relate, became due and payable on the 7th day of April, 1800, of which the said reputed owners, possessors, or occupants of said Houses and Lands, have been notified by the Collector in manner directed aforesaid; yet said taxes remain unpaid in said District, viz. Falmouth, in the county of Cumberland.
Table with 7 columns: Occupant, Owner, Value of Dwelling, Tax on Dwelling, Value of Lands, Tax on Lands, Total. It lists tax details for Falmouth.
And that so much of the above described property as will pay the respective taxes assessed thereon, with costs and charges, will be sold at public vendue, at the dwelling-house of SAMUEL STAPLES, innholder, in Gorham, on Thursday the first day of April, 1802, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, unless prevented by previous payment.
THOMAS M'LELLAN, Collector.
Gorham, Jan. 25, 1802.
Partnership Dissolved.
THE partnership of DEARBORN & BECKETT, was dissolved on the 18th inst. by mutual consent. All persons having accounts open with said firm, are requested to make an immediate settlement.
SIMON DEARBORN, WILLIAM BECKETT.
Portland, Jan. 25, 1802.
THE Copartnership of WASHBURN & COOK, was dissolved on the first day of this month, by mutual consent.
RUFUS WASHBURN, SILVANUS COOK.
Portland, Jan. 17, 1802.
THE partnership of MOODY & ILSLEY, Partners, &c. is this day by mutual consent dissolved:—All persons having demands on said firm, are requested to call and settle the same; and those who are indebted, to make immediate payment, to either of the subscribers.
NATHANIEL MOODY, HOSEA ILSLEY.
Portland, January 1, 1802.
This Gazette,
is printed every MONDAY Morning, by WILLIAM JENKS, JUN. for the publisher, ELIEZER A. JENKS, at the Printing Office, No. 7, Fifth-street, opposite Jones Row, Portland; where Subscriptions, Communications, Advertisements, articles of News, &c. are received with attention.
The price is ONE DOLLAR AND FIFTY CENTS a year, exclusive of postage. As this GAZETTE has the largest and most extensive circulation of any paper in Maine, it is highly advantageous for Advertisements, which will be inserted reasonably, and in a conspicuous manner.
Printing,
Ornamental and plain, executed at said Office, in a handsome manner, and at the shortest notice, by WILLIAM JENKS, JUN.