Jenks's Portland gazette (Portland [Me.]), 1802-02-01 00:00:00

JENKS' PORTLAND GAZETTE.
Appointed to publish the LAWS of the United States, for the District of Maine.
NUMBER 197.]
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1802.
[VOLUME IV.]
Portland,
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1802.
THE NATIONAL JUDICIARY.
In the following column is commenced a debate on the motion made in the Senate of the United States, for repealing the act passed at the last session of Congress, for establishing the Judiciary.
Americans cannot reflect too much on the delusions of Republics, and the causes of their dissolution in every age. The honest citizens of a Republic are generally too susceptible of flattery, without duly considering the character of those who flatter them, and their motives;
THE MAMMOTH CHEESE!
The following Address of the inhabitants of the town of Chebacco presented the 1st of January, to the President:
THE GREATEST CHEESE IN AMERICA—FOR THE GREATEST MAN IN AMERICA.
SIR, Notwithstanding we live remote from the seat of national government, and in an extreme part of our own State, yet we humbly claim the right of judging for ourselves.
Sir, we have attempted to prove our love to our President, not in words alone but in deed and truth. With this address, we send you a CHEESE, by the hands of Messrs. John Leland and Darious Brown, as a pepper of the esteem which we bear to our chief magistrate, and as a sacrifice to Republicanism.
The late triumphant return of Republicanism has more animated the inhabitants of Chebacco, to bear the burdens of government, and treat the character and persons of those in authority with all due respect, than the long list of alien-sedition—naval, and provisional acts, ever did.
Sir, we had some thoughts of impressing some significant inscriptions on the Cheese; but we have found such inconvenience in stamps on paper, that we chose to send it in a plain Republican form.
May God long preserve your life and health, for a blessing to the United States, and the world at large.
Signed by order of all Chebacco, DANIEL BROWN, HEZEKIAH MASON, JONA. RICHARDSON, JOHN WATERMAN, JOHN WELLS, jun. Committee. P. S. The Cheese was made, July 20, 1801.—Weight, 1235 lbs.
THE PRESIDENT'S REPLY.
To Messrs. Daniel Brown, Hezekiah Mason, Jonathan Richardson, John Waterman and John Wells jun. a committee of the town of Chebacco in Massachusetts.
GENTLEMEN, I concur with you in the sentiments expressed in your kind address on behalf of the inhabitants of the town of Chebacco, that the constitution of the United States is a charter of authorities and duties, not a charter of rights to its officers; and among its most precious provisions are the right of suffrage, the prohibition of religious tests, and its means of peaceable amendment.
I received with particular pleasure the testimony of good will with which your citizens, have been pleased to charge you for me; it presents an extraordinary proof of the skill with which those domestic arts, which contribute so much to our daily comfort, are practiced by them, and particularly by that portion of them most interesting to the affections, the care, and the happiness of man.
To myself this mark of esteem from free-born farmers, employed personally in the usual labors of life, is peculiarly grateful, having no wish but to preserve to them the fruits of their labor, their sense of this truth will be my highest reward.
I pray you gentlemen, to make my thanks for their favor acceptable to them, and to be assured yourselves of my high respect and esteem. Jan 1, 1802. THOMAS JEFFERSON.
Senate of the United States, FRIDAY, JAN. 8. JUDICIARY ESTABLISHMENT.
MR. BRACKENRIDGE. It will be expected of me, I presume Sir, as I introduced the resolution now under consideration, to assign my reasons for wishing a repeal of this law.—This I shall do; and shall endeavour to shew.
1. That the law is unnecessary and improper, and was so at its passage; and 2. That the Courts and Judges created by it, can and ought to be abolished. 3. That the act under consideration, was unnecessary and improper, is, to my mind, no difficult task to prove—No increase of courts or judges could be necessary or justifiable, unless the existing courts and judges were incompetent to the prompt and proper discharge of the duties assigned to them.
The document before us shews that at the passage of this act, the existing courts, not only from their number, but from the suits depending before them, were fully competent to a speedy decision of those suits—It shews, that on the 15th day of June last, there were depending in all the Circuit Courts (that of Maryland only excepted) whose docket we have not been furnished with) 1539 suits. It shews that 875 suits of every description have come before those courts, in 10 years and upwards.
But sundry contingent things have conspired to swell the circuit court dockets. In Maryland, Virginia, and in all the southern and south-western states, a great number of suits have been brought by British creditors; this species of controversy is nearly at an end.
In Pennsylvania, the docket has been swelled by prosecutions in consequence of the Western insurrection, by the disturbances in Bucks and Northampton counties; and by the Sedition Act. These I had amount in this State to 246 suits.
In Kentucky non-resident land claimants have gone into the Federal Court from a temporary convenience; because until within a year or two past, there existed no court of general jurisdiction co-extensive with the whole State.
But this same document discloses another important fact; which is that nevertheless all these untoward and temporary sources of federal adjudication, the suits in those courts are decreasing; for from the dockets exhibited (except Kentucky and Tennessee, whose suits are returned up in the aggregate) it appears that in 1799 there were 1274; and in 1800 there were 687 suits commenced; showing a decrease of 587 suits.
Could it be necessary then to increase courts when suits were decreasing? Could it be necessary to multiply judges, when the duties were diminishing? And will it not be justified the more in affirming that the law was unnecessary, and that Congress acting under a mistaken impression, when they multiplied courts and judges at a time when litigation was actually decreasing.
But, Sir, the decrease of business goes a far way in fixing my opinion on this subject. I am inclined to think that so far from there having been a necessity at this time for an increase of courts and judges; that the time never will arrive when America will stand in need of 39 federal judges. Look, Sir, at your Constitution, and see the judicial power there confided to federal courts, and seriously ask yourself, can there be fairly extracted from those powers subjects of litigation sufficient for 6 supreme and 32 inferior court judges?—To me it appears impossible.
The judicial powers given to the federal courts were never intended by the Constitution to embrace, exclusively, subjects of litigation, which could with propriety be left with the State courts. Their jurisdiction was intended principally to extend to great national and foreign concerns. Except cases arising under the laws of the United States, I do not at present recollect, but three or four kinds in which their power extends to subjects of litigation, in which private persons only are concerned.
The Kings bench and Common Pleas, which consist of 4 judges each, entertain all the common law suits of 40/- and upwards, originating among 9 millions of the most commercial people in the world. They moreover revolve the proceedings of not only all the petty courts of record in the kingdom, even down to the courts of Pie-poudre; but also of the court of Kings bench in Ireland; and these supreme courts, after centuries of experiment, are found to be fully competent to all the business of the kingdom.
I will now inquire into the power of Congress, to put down these additional courts and judges. 1. As to the Courts.—Congress are empowered by the Constitution 'from time to time, to ordain and establish inferior courts.' The act now under consideration, is a legislative construction of this clause in the Constitution, that Congress may abolish as well as create these judicial officers;
because, it does expressly in the 27th section of the act, abolish the then existing inferior courts, for the purpose of making way for the present. This construction I contend is correct; but it is equally pertinent to my object, whether it be, or be not. If it be correct, then the present inferior courts may be abolished as co-terminally as the last; if it be not, then the law for abolishing the former courts, and establishing the present, was unconstitutional and consequently repealable.
But, independent of this legislative construction on which I do not found my opinion, nor mean to rely my argument, there is little doubt indeed in my mind, as to the power of Congress on this law. The 1st. section of the 3d article, vests the judicial power of the United States in one supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time, ordain and establish. By this clause, Congress may from time to time establish inferior courts; but it is clearly a discretionary power, and they may not establish them. The language of the Constitution is very different, when regulations are not less discretionary.—For example—"The trial, says the Constitution of all crime, (except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury: Representatives and direct taxes shall be applied according to numbers. All revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives, &c."
It would, therefore in my view, be a perversion not only of language, but of intellects, to say, that altho' Congress may from time to time establish inferior courts, yet when established, that they shall not be abolished by a subsequent Congress possessing equal powers. It would be a paradox in legislation. 2d. As to the judges.—The judiciary department is so constructed as to be sufficiently secured against the improper influence of either the executive or legislative departments. The courts are organized and established by the legislature, & the executive creates the judges.
But because the constitution declares that a judge shall hold his office during good behaviour can it be inferred to mean, that he shall hold his office after it is abolished? Can it mean that his tenure should be limited by behaving well in an office, which did not exist? Can it mean, that an office may exist although its duties are extinct? Can it mean, in short, that the shadow, to wit, the judge, can remain, when the substance, to wit, the office, is removed? It must have intended all these absurdities, or it must admit a construction which will avoid them.
That construction obviously is, that a judge should hold an existing office, so long as he did his duty in that office; and not that he should hold an office that did not exist and perform duties not provided by law.
Such a construction is not only irreconcilable with reason and propriety, but it is repugnant to the principles of the constitution. It is a principle of our constitution as well as of common honesty, that no man shall receive public money, but in consideration of public services. Sinecure offices therefore are not permitted by our laws or constitution. By this construction, complete sinecure offices will be created; hosts of constitutional pensioners will be settled on us, and we cannot calculate how long. This is really creating a new species of public debt; not like any other of our debts, we cannot discharge the principal at any fixed time.
Let me not be told, Sir, that the salaries in the present case, are inconsiderable, and ought not to be withheld; and that the doctrine is not a dangerous one. I answer it is the principle I contend against; and if it is heretodox for one dollar it is equally so for a million. But I contend the principle, if once admitted, may be extended to destructive lengths. Suppose it should hereafter happen, that those in power should combine to provide handsomely for their friends, could any way so plain, easy and effectual present itself, as by creating courts, and filling them with those friends?
The thing I trust will not happen. It is presuming a high degree of corruption; but it might happen under the construction contended for; as the constitution presumes corruption may happen in any department of the government, by the checks it has furnished against it;
There is another difficulty under this construction still to encounter, and which also grows out of the constitution. By the constitution, a new state may be formed by the junction of two or more states, with their assent and that of Congress. If this doctrine, once a judge and always a judge, be correct, what would you do in such an event, with the district judges of the states who formed that junction? Both would be unnecessary, & you would have in a single state, two judges of equal and concurrent jurisdiction, or one a real judge with an office, and another a quasi judge without an office.
Upon the construction also, an infallibility is predicted, which it would be arrogance in any human institution to assume, and which goes to cut up legislation by the roots.—We should be barred from that, which is indulged to us from a higher source, and on subjects of higher concern than legislation, I mean a retraction from, and correction of our errors. On all other subjects of legislation we are allowed it seems to change our minds, except on judicial subjects, which of all others is the most complex and difficult.
I conceive, Sir, that the tenure by which a judge holds his office, is evidently bottomed on the idea of securing his honesty & independence, whilst exercising his office. The idea was introduced in England, to counteract the influence of the crown over the judges; but if the construction now contended for shall prevail, we shall in one mistaken imitation of this our favorite prototype outstrip them; by establishing, what they have not, a judicial oligarchy; for there, their judges are removable by a joint vote of Lords and Commons. Here ours are not removable, except for malfeasance in office, which malfeasance could not be committed, as they would have no office.
Upon the whole Sir, as all courts under any free government must be created with an eye to the administration of justice only; and not with any regard to the advancement or emolument of individual men; as we have undeniable evidence before us, that the creation of the courts now under consideration was entirely unnecessary; and as no government can, I apprehend, seriously deny that the legislature has a right to repeal a law enacted by a preceding one; we will, in any event, discharge our duty by repealing this law; and thereby do all in our power to correct the evil. If the judges are entitled to their salaries, under the constitution, our repeal will not affect them; and they will no doubt resort to their proper remedy: For where there is a constitutional right, there must be a remedy.
After Mr. Brackenridge closed his remarks there was a considerable pause, when the President again read the resolution, and inquired if the house was ready for the question.
Mr. Olcott, of New Hampshire, thought the subject was of so much importance as to merit further consideration. The arguments of the gentlemen from Kentucky, however ingenious, had not convinced him that the law ought to be repealed. It had not risen like a mushroom in the night, but the system on which it rested had been settled after mature reflection. He thought it would be extraordinary before any inconvenience had been discovered, to set such a law aside. For these reasons Mr. O. moved the postponement of the consideration of the question.
Mr. Cocke, of Tennessee. This act is said to be entirely experimental, and it is further said that no inconveniences had arisen under it. He thought serious inconveniences had arisen. The inconvenience of paying 137,000 dollars a year was truly serious; and it was an inconvenience which ought to be got rid of as soon as possible. It was expected that gentlemen opposed to the resolution would come forward with their arguments against it. If however they had no arguments to use, he thought his friend from Kentucky had brought forward reasons so cogent and experimental that the house must be convinced of the propriety of the repeal.
Mr. Dayton, of New Jersey, trusted it was not the disposition of the mover to press a decision to day. He thought it would be improper to postpone the discussion, as gentlemen would thereby be precluded from offering their opinions on the subject. He hoped the motion for postponement would be withdrawn, that other gentlemen might have an opportunity to speak.
Motion withdrawn.
Mr. Jonathan Mason, of Massachusetts, said it would be agreed on all hands that this was one of the most important questions that ever came before a legislature. Were he not of this opinion he would not have risen to offer his sentiments. But he felt so deep an interest in the question and from the respect which he entertained for the district of country he represented, he deemed it his duty to meet the subject, and not be satisfied with giving to it his silent negative.
It was well known, and he presumed it would be readily agreed to, that no people on earth, for the last twenty four years had been so much in the habit of forming systems of government as the people of the United States. Nor had any people been so fortunately situated for cool and correct deliberation. In the constitutions they had formed, it would appear that there had been an uniform concurrence in the establishment of one great prominent feature, and also in the application of one uniform principle to that feature. That the legislative, the executive, and the judicial should form the three great departments of government, and that they should be distinct from and independent of each other. And the more the proceedings and sentiments of the people were examined, the more clearly would it appear that all the new and additional checks created, had been applied to adjust the relative weakness or strength of these several departments of government. The same principle had been observed in the old world, whenever an opportunity presented for forming a constitution, having for its object, the protection of individual

rights. It accorded too with the uniform opinions of the most celebrated historians and politicians both of Europe and America; with the opinions and practices of all our legislatures. Nor had Mr. Mason, ever heard any one hardy enough to deny the propriety of its observance. He well recollected that among the grievances, which had roused us into an assertion of our independence of England it was declared in the instrument asserting that independence "that the crown had the appointment of judges dependent on its will and favour."
From all these circumstances he concluded that the people of America, when they formed a system for their federal government intended to establish this great principle; which in every section, recognized or referred to it.
The constitution, in the construction of the executive, legislative, and judiciary departments, had assigned to each a different tenure. The President was chosen for four years; the Senate for six, subject to a prescribed rotation biennially; the House of Representatives for two years; and the Judiciary during good behaviour. It says to the President, at the expiration of every four years, you shall revert to the character of a private citizen, however splendid your talents or conspicuous your virtue. Why? Because you have assigned to you powers which it is dangerous to exercise. You have the power of creating offices and officers. You have prerogatives. The temptation to an abuse of your power is great. Such has been the uniform experience of ages. The constitution holds the same language to the Senate, and House of Representatives:—It says, it is necessary for the good of society that you should also revert at short periods to the mass of the people, because to you are consigned the most important duties of government, and because you hold the purse strings of the nation.
To the judiciary: What is the language applied to them? The judges are not appointed for two, four, or any given number of years; but they hold their appointment for life, unless they misbehave themselves. Why? For this reason. They are not the depositaries of the high prerogatives of government. They neither appoint to office, nor hold the purse strings of the country, or legislate for it. They depend entirely upon their talents, which is all they have to recommend them. They cannot therefore be disposed to pervert their power to improper purposes. What are their duties? To expound and apply the laws. To do this with fidelity and skill requires a length of time. The requisite knowledge is not to be procured in a day. These are the plain and strong reasons which must strike every mind, for the different tenure by which the judges hold their offices, and they are such as will eternally endure where ever liberty exists.
On examination, it will be found that the people, in forming their constitution, meant to make their judges as independent of the legislature as of the executive. Because the duties which they have to perform, call upon them to expound not only the laws, but the constitution, also; in which is involved the power of checking the legislature in case it should pass any laws in violation of the constitution. For this reason it was more important that the judges in this country should be placed beyond the control of the legislature, than in other countries where no such power attaches to them.
Mr. Mason, challenged gentlemen to exhibit a single instance, beside that lately furnished by Maryland, of a legislative act, repealing a law passed in execution of a Constitution, under which the judges held their offices during good behaviour. In truth, no such power existed, nor was it in the power of any legislature, to circumvent, by a single law to dash them out of existence.
The opinion of Mr. Mason, therefore, was that this legislature have no right to repeal the judiciary law. For such an act would be in direct violation of the Constitution.
The constitution says:—"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."
Thus it says, "the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour." How can this direction of the constitution be complied with, if the legislature shall, from session to session repeal the law under which the office is held, and remove the officer. He did not conceive that any words, which human ingenuity could devise, could more completely get over the remarks that had been made by the gentleman, from Kentucky. But that gentleman says, that this provision of the constitution applies exclusively to the President. He confiders it as made to supersede the powers of the President to remove the judges. But could this have been the contemplation of the framers of the constitution, when even the right of the President to remove officers at pleasure, was a matter of great doubt, and had divided in opinion our most enlightened citizens. Not that he stated this circumstance because he had doubts. He thought the President ought to have the right; but it did not emanate from the constitution; was not expressly found in the constitution; but sprang from legislative construction.
Besides, if Congress have the right to repeal the whole of the law, they must possess the right to repeal a section of it. If so, they may repeal the law so far as it applies to a particular district, and thus get rid of an obnoxious judge. They may remove his office from him.
Would it not be absurd still to say, that the removed judge held his office during good behaviour?
The Constitution says, "The judges, shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished, during their continuance in office." Why this provision? Why guard against the power to deprive the judges of their pay in a diminution of it, and not provide against what was more important, their existence.
Mr. Mason knew that a legislative body was occasionally subject to the dominance of violent passions; he knew that they might pass unconstitutional laws, and that the judges, sworn to support the constitution, would refuse to carry them into effect; and he knew that the legislature might contend for the execution of their statutes. Hence the necessity of placing the judges above the influence of those passions; and for these reasons the Constitution had put them out of the power of the legislature.
Still, if gentlemen would not agree with him as to the constitutionality of the measure proposed, he would ask, was it expedient? Were there not great doubts existing throughout the United States? Ought not each gentleman to say, though I may have no doubt, or hesitancy, are not a large portion of our citizens of opinion, that it would violate the constitution? If this diversity of sentiment exists, ought not the evils under the judiciary law to be very great before we touch it? Ought we not to aim at harmonizing instead of dividing our citizens? Was not the constitution a sacred instrument? An instrument ever to be approached with reverence; an instrument which ought not lightly to be drawn from its halowed retreat, and subjected to the flux and reflux of passion. But where is the evil complained of? This system was established only last session; scarcely had it been yet organized; scarcely had we tried on its very threshold; where then the necessity of being so pointed as to destroy a system lately formed three days ago? Does not this manifest precipitation? Will it not manifest more magnanimity, more rationality, to abide by it until we try it; instead of taking up a pen and dashing it out of existence?
The reason that the suits depending were not so numerous, arose from the nature of the old establishment. That establishment had no parallel. It carried with it the idea of its own dissolution. No set of judges could be found physically hardy enough to execute it. Such was the labour of their duties, that they were denied time for study or improvement. Besides a case was heard at one term by one judge, and postponed for consideration to the next term. At that term another judge appeared, and all the arguments were to be gone over anew; and the same thing might happen again and again. Was this the way to extend justice to our citizens? Was not the delay equivalent to a denial of justice? It was a fact that three fourths of the time of the judges had been taken up in travelling.
It may be true, that the number of suits in the federal courts is lessened; and if the internal taxes are to be swept away, it may be still more lessened, as far as depends upon that source. But is it possible, that suits will go on diminishing as the gentleman seems to think? Is reason so predominant? Is the millennium so near at hand? On the contrary, is not our commerce increasing with great rapidity? Is not our wealth increasing? And will not controversies arise in proportion to the growth of our numbers and property? Controversies which will go to federal tribunals as soon as the judiciary system is fully established.—By the documents quoted by the gentleman from Kentucky, it appears that more business has been lately done in the federal courts, than in any other antecedent time, except in one or two counties in Pennsylvania.
Besides (said Mr. Mason) even if there be not a great pressure of business, had we not better pay the paltry sum of 30 or 40,000 dollars for a system too broad, than have one that is too narrow? Is it not a melancholy consideration, that in many of the European states, the costs are equal to the principal contended for? It would be honorable to the United States to exhibit a different example. It would be honorable to them to hold out an example, even if confined to foreigners, of prompt and efficient justice, though at the expense of 100,000 dollars. Such an example would be a cause for national triumph, and our people would exult in it.
Inasmuch, therefore, as to render the judges respectable, it was necessary to make their appointments permanent as time, labour, experience, and long study, were required to perfect any man in a knowledge of the laws of his country; inasmuch as it has been thought good policy, that the judges should be well paid; and that they should be so well placed as to be divested of all fear, and neither to look to the right or to the left; inasmuch as they should be so placed as to render them independent of legislative as well as of the executive power, he hoped this law would not be repealed.
These were the reasons, which Mr. Mason assigned, as those which would influence his decision. He acknowledged, that he had not entered the House prepared to offer his sentiments; but as the question was about to be put, he had thought it best to offer them, such as they were, rather than to give a silent vote on a subject of such great importance.
Mr. Morris of New York. Mr. President, I am so very unfortunate, that the arguments in favour of the motion have confirmed my opinion, that the law to which it refers ought not to be repealed. The honorable mover has recited his proposition on two grounds.
1st. That the judiciary law passed last session is unnecessary, and
2dly. That we have a right to repeal it, and ought to exercise that right.
The numerical mode of argument, made use of to prove this, is perfectly novel, and commands my tribute of admiration. This is the first time I ever heard the utility of courts of justice estimated by the number of suits carried before them. I have read that a celebrated monarch of England, the Great Alfred, had enacted such laws, established such tribunals, and organized such a system of police, that a purse of gold might be hung up on the high way without any danger of being taken. Had the honorable gentleman from Kentucky existed in those days, he would perhaps have attempted to convince old Alfred, that what he considered as the glory of his reign, was its greatest evil. For taking the unfrequency of crimes as a proof that tribunals were unnecessary, and thus boldly substituting effect for cause, the gentleman might demonstrate the inutility of any institution by a system of reasoning the most fallacious.
But Sir, if with that poor measure of ability which it has pleased God to give me, I march on that ground, which I have been accustomed to deem solid, I should say that in so far as the terror of our judicial institutions prevented the perpetration of crimes, in that same degree are those institutions useful.—This would be my mode of reasoning, but for the wonderful discovery made by the honorable mover of the resolution.
We have been told of the great expense of the judiciary—that it amounted to 137,000 dollars. And thus attributing the whole expense of the establishment to this particular law, it has been assumed in argument that to repeal the law would be to save 137,000 dollars. If the other arithmetical arguments of the gentleman were equally incorrect, his inferences will be entitled to but little attention.
Of this sum, it appears from a report of the Secretary of the Treasury that 45,000 dollars are for the contingent expenses of juries, witnesses, &c. which serves in some measure, to show that it is expected much business will be actually done.
The expense arising under this law, that it is proposed to repeal, amounts to thirty thousand dollars, exclusive of fifteen thousand dollars estimated for contingent expenses, making together 45,000 dollars. But let us not sit at the allowance; throw in a few thousands more, and let the whole be stated at 51,000.—appportion this sum among the people of the United States according to the census lately taken, and you will find that each individual will pay just one cent. And for the insignificant saving of a cent a man, we are called upon to give up all that is valuable to a nation.
One of the great purposes of government is to secure the people from foreign invasion. To be ready to repel such invasion, requires a great revenue, and many officers become necessary to collect it. Such an invasion, however, may or may not take place. If I judge from certain documents laid before us, those who administer our affairs have but little apprehension of that event. If then there be little or no such danger, or if the people be sufficiently secured against it, what else have they a right to ask for in return for their money expended in the support of government? They have a right to ask for the protection of the law in proper courts of justice, to secure the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich, the oppressed against the oppressor. And is this little which they ask, to be denied? Are the means by which the injured can obtain redress, to be curtailed and diminished? Much may be feared from arms.—They may turn their swords against our bosoms, they may elevate a chief to despotic power. But what danger is to be apprehended from an army of judges?
Gentlemen say, recur to the ancient system. What is that system? Six judges of the supreme court to ride the circuit of America, twice a year, and sit twice a year at the seat of government. Without inquiring into the accuracy of a statement made by the gentleman respecting the courts of England, in which, I apprehend, he will find himself deceived; let me ask what would be the effects of the old system here. Cast an eye over the extent of our country, and a moment's consideration will show, that the first magistrate in selecting a character for the bench, must seek less the learning of a judge than the agility of a post boy. Can it be possible, that men advanced in years, for such alone can have the maturity of judgment fitting for the office, that men educated in the closet, men who from their habits of life must have more strength of mind than of body; is it I say, possible, that such men can be running from one end of the continent to the other? Or if they could, can they find time to hear and decide causes? I have been told by men of eminence on the bench, that they could not hold their offices under the old arrangement.
What is the present system? You have added to the old judges seven district, and sixteen circuit judges. What will be the effect of the desired repeal? Will it not be a declaration to the remaining judges that they hold their offices subject to your will and pleasure? And what will be the result of this? It will be that the check established by the constitution, wished for by the people, and necessary in every contemplation of common sense, is destroyed. It had been said, and truly too, that governments are made to provide against the follies and vice of men. For to suppose that governments rest upon reason, is a pitiful solecism. If mankind were reasonable, they would want no government. Hence checks are required in the distribution of power among those who are to exercise it for the benefit of the people. Did the people of America vest all powers in the legisla-
ture? No. They had vested in the judges a check intended to be efficient; a check of the first necessity, to prevent an invasion of the constitution by unconstitutional laws, a check which might prevent any faction from intimidating or annihilating the tribunals themselves.
On this ground, said Mr. Morris, I stand for arrest the victory mediated over the constitution of my country; a victory mediated by those who wish to prostrate the constitution for the furtherance of their own ambitious views. None of those who now urge it; for on his uprightness and their uprightness I have the full reliance; but of those in the back ground, who have further and higher objects.—These troops that protect the out works are to be first dismissed. Those posts which present the strongest barriers are first to be taken, and then the constitution becomes an easy prey.
Let us then, secondly, consider whether we have constitutional power to repeal this law. (Here Mr. Morris quoted the third Art. of the first section of the Constitution.) I have heard a verbal criticism about the words shall and may , which appeared the more unnecessary to me, as the same word shall , is applied to both members of the section.—For it says, "the judicial power, &c. shall be vested in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The legislature, therefore, had without doubt the right of determining in the first instance, what inferior court should be established; but when established the words are imperative, a part of the judicial power shall vest in them.—And "the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour." "They shall receive a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Therefore, whether the remarks be applied to the tenure of office, or the quantum of compensation, the conclusion is equally imperative. After this exposition, gentlemen are welcome to any advantage to be derived from the criticism on shall and may .
But another criticism, which, but for its serious effects, I would call pleasant , has been made: the amount of which is, you shall not take the man from the office, but you may take the slice from the man; you shall not drown him, but you may sink his boat under him; you shall not put him to death, but you may take away his life. The constitution secures to a judge his office, says he shall hold it, that is, it shall not be taken from him during good behaviour; the legislature shall not diminish, though their bounty may increase; his salary, the constitution provides perfectly for the inviolability of his emoluments; but yet we may destroy the office which we cannot take away, as if the destruction of the office would not as effectually deprive him of it as the grant to another person. It is admitted that no power derived from the constitution can deprive him of the office, and yet it is contended that by repeal of the law that office may be destroyed. I not this absurd? It had been said, that whatever one legislature can do another can undo; because no legislature can bind its successor, and therefore, that whatever we make we can destroy.—This I deny on the ground of reason, and on that of the constitution. What! can a man destroy his own children? Can you annul your own contracts? Can you annihilate the national debt? When you have by law created a political existence, can you by repealing the law dissolve the corporation you had made? Why by your laws you give to an individual any right whatever, can you by a subsequent law rightfully take it away? No. When you make a contract you are bound by it. When you make a promise you must perform it. Establish the contrary doctrine and what follows? The whim of the moment becomes the law of the land; your country will be looked upon as a den of robbers; every honest man will fly your shores, Who will trust you, when you are the first to violate your own contracts? The position, therefore, that the legislature may rightfully repeal every law made by a preceding legislature, when testified by reason, is untrue; and it is equally untrue when compared with the precepts of the constitution; for what does the constitution say? "You shall make no ex post facto law."
Gentlemen say the system of the last session is mere hobby. For argument sake it shall be granted; and what then is the language of reason? Try it—put it to the test of experience. What respect can the people have for a legislature that, without reason, meets but to undo the acts of its predecessors? Is it prudent, is it decent even if the law were unwise, thus to commit our reputation and theirs? Is it not highly dangerous to call upon the people to decide which of us are fools? For one of us must be.
And what would be the effect on the injured man, who seeks redress in a court of justice, and whom, by this repeal, you shall have deprived of his right? You have saved him a miserable rent, & you have perhaps utterly ruined him. But the honorable mover of the resolution has told us, not only what is, but what is to be. He has told us not only that suits have decreased, but that they will decrease; and relying on his preconception, informs us that the internal taxes will be repealed; and grounds the expediency of repealing the judiciary law on the annihilation of these taxes. Thus taking for granted the non existence of a law that yet exists, he infers from its destruction, and the consequent cessation of suits under it, the inutility of the judicial establishment. And when he has carried his present point, and broke down the judiciary system, he will tell us perhaps that we may as well repeal the internal taxes because we have no judges to enforce the collection of them.
But what will be the effect of these repeals,

and of all these difficulties from office? I im- peach not the motives of gentlemen who advo- cate this measure. In my heart I believe them to be upright. But they see not the consequen- ces—We are told the states want and ought to have more power. We are told that they are the legitimate sources from which the citizen is to derive protection.—Their judges are, I sup- pose to enforce our laws—Judges appointed by state authority, supported by state salary, and looking for promotion to state influence, or de- pendent upon state party. There are some hon- orable gentlemen now present, who sat in the convention which formed this constitution. I appeal to their recollection, have they not seen the time when the fate of America was sus- pended by a hair; my life for it, if another con- vention be assembled they will part without do- ing any thing.—Never in the flow of time was there a moment so propitious as that in which the convention assembled. The states had been convinced by melancholy experience, how in- adequate they were to the management of our national concerns. The passions of the people were lulled to sleep—state pride slumbered—the constitution was promulgated—and then it a- woke; and opposition was formed—but it was vain. The people of America bound the states down by this compact.
One great provision of the constitution, a pro- vision that exhibited the sublime spectacle of a great state bowing before the tribunal of justice, is gone! Another great bulwark is now to be removed. You are told you must look to the states for your protection; your internal reve- nues are to be swept away; your sole reliance must rest upon commercial duties—in this reli- ance you will be deceived. But what will be the effect of all these changes? I am afraid to say—I will leave it to the feelings and con- sciences of gentlemen. But remember the mo- ment this Union is dissolved, we shall no longer be governed by votes.
Examine the annals of history, look into the records of time, see what has been the ruin of every Republic? the vile love of popularity.— Why are we here? To save the people from their greatest enemy; to save them from them- selves. What caused the ruin of the Republics of Greece and Rome? Demagogues who, by flattery, gained the aid of the populace to es- tablish despotism. But if you will shut your eyes to the light of history, and your ears to the voice of experience—see at least what has happened to your own times. In 1789, it was no longer a doubt with enlightened statesmen, what would be the event of the French revolu- tion: before the first of January, 1790, the only question was, who would become the despot. The word liberty, indeed, from that day to this had been sounded in our ears, but never had any real existence; there is nothing left but the word.
We are now about to violate the constitution. Once touch it with unhallowed hands, sacrifice but one of its provisions, and we are gone. We commit the fate of America to the mercy of time and chance.
I hope the honorable gentleman from Mary- land will pardon me, if from the section of the law which he has cited, I deduce an inference diametrically opposite to that for which he has contended. He has told us, that "the last Congress in reducing the judges of the supreme court from six to five, have exercised the right which is now to be used, and made a legislative construction of this clause in the constitution." But look at the law. It declares, that this re- duction shall not be made, until by death or re- signation only five judges shall remain. Thus, in the very moment when they express the opinion that five judges are sufficient, they acknowledge their incompetency to remove the sixth judge, and thereby make the legislative declaration, that they had not the right now contended for.
[Mr. Morris here noticed some other re- marks which had fallen from the gentleman from Maryland; Mr. Wright, on the construc- tion of the constitution. But as they are sub- stantially comprised in the preceding statement we omit them.]
He concluded by recapitulating his argu- ments: A contract said he, is made between the government and the judge—the President appoints—The legislature fixes his salary—He accepts the office—The contract is complete. He is then under the protection of the constitu- tion, which neither the President nor Congress can infringe. The contract is a solemn one. Can you violate it? If you can you may throw this constitution into the flames—it is gone, it is dead.
[The debate was continued until Friday the 15th inst.—On Tuesday Gen. Jackson spoke in favor of the motion of repeal, and Mr. Tracy, in a very able speech, against it. On Wednesday, Gen. Vaux, and Mr. Stone spoke at length in favor of the mo- tion. On Thursday, Mr. Cooke and Mr. Brackenridge spoke in favor of the motion, and Mr. Olcott, and Mr. Morris, a- gainst it. The National Intelligencer (the Ministerial official paper) says, "The speech of Mr. Morris was unquestionably one of the most splendid specimens of eloquence ever delivered in a deliberative assembly."—On Friday, Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Wright in favor of the repeal, and Mr. Hillhouse against it— At the close of the debate, the question was called for;—at the time an adjournment was moved. This last motion was put, when the numbers were—For it 14. Against it 14. The Vice-President, Mr. Burr, decided in favor of the adjourn- ment; when the question was in all probability taken.]
House of Representatives. WEDNESDAY, JAN. 13. A bill for the relief of John Hobby, late marshall of Maine, was discussed.—It was opposed by Messrs Stan- ley, Bacon, and Emendore; who thought defaulters should be rigorously dealt with to deter others from violating the public confidence reposed in them— Messrs Davis Perkins, Washburn, and S. Smith ad- vocated the bill, as Mr. H. had surrendered all his pro- perty. The bill failed to be engrossed, 44 being in fa- vor of it. The bill for the relief of John Hobby, was passed.
Portland, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1802.
Many articles of minor consideration, are this day omitted, to give place to the interesting debates on the "Judiciary Estab- lishment." Advertisements shall have punctilious attend in the next Gazette.
A letter from Washington states, that the repeal of the Judiciary Law has been determined on in the Sen- ate 15 to 13. Among other questions, addressed to the consciences of the majority, it may be asked, Is this a measure of patriotism or of party spirit? Did it arise from objection to the law, or to the Judges? Pal.
The Senate and House of Representatives of the United States have both passed resolutions permitting Stenographers to be accommodated on their floors.
No very interesting proceedings have yet taken place in the present session of our State Legislature. The valuation business occupies considerable attention.— Mr. Morton made a motion for flattering Mr. Jefferson with an address; but the motion was rejected.
It appears that a choice of Federal Representative in the First Eastern District was not made at the last trial. The votes were, for the Hon. Orchard Cook, 735—Hon. Nathaniel Dummer, 273—Martin Kinley, Esq. 575—and Phineas Bruce, Esq. 120.
The officers of the frigates Chesapeake, (Commodore Truxton) Constitution and Adams, are ordered to re- pair immediately to the city of Washington, and to hold themselves in readiness to sail upon an expedition, it is presumed for the Mediterranean.
We hear that Edward Preble, Esq. of this town, goes on to Washington to take command of the Adams.
The late southern papers contain a Proclamation by the Captain General of Guadalupe, La Croix, now at Dominique, addressed to the citizens of said colony. This proclamation pretty clearly develops the inten- tions of Bonaparte respecting his colonies in the West Indies, which he is determined to place under governors of his own choice. The Proclamation declares all per- sons acting under the present usurpers in Guadalupe, either by sea or land, to be traitors.
The port of St. John's (Antigua) by a late act of the British Parliament, is continued free until the 10th of July, 1805; and that clause of the former act restrict- ing the exportation of European commodities to other British islands is now omitted.
The Bay of Honduras is shut against Americans.
LATEST FROM ENGLAND. By the barque Belfast, capt. Waterman, 35 days from Falmouth for New-York, which touched at New- London, on Friday last, a Falmouth paper of Dec. 12, was received.—The contents are unimportant.—The British and French Plenipotentiaries set out from Pa- ris on the 4th of Dec., for Amiens where the definitive Treaty is to be negotiated. The Duke of Cambridge, is to go from England to Nova Scotia in the spring, and it is said with the appointment of Commander in Chief —At Hamburg, the house of Therry & mer. failed for 1,200,000 mares banco. (Palladium.)
FROM WASHINGTON—Jan. 14. "I inclose to you a copy of a the message from the President of the United States, transmitting a letter to him from the Secretary of State, and an estimate of the sum necessary to be appropriated for carrying into effect the Convention between the United States and the French Republic, in pursu- ance of a resolution of the 8th inst. The estimate is as follows:— Estimate of the expenses necessary for carrying into ef- fect the Convention between the United States of America and the French Republic of the 30th Sep- tember, 1801.
  For captures made prior to the date of the Treaty on which no final condem- nation had then passed, and of which the property was brought into the United States, 137,770   For captures made subsequent to the date of the Treaty, 70,051   For captures, where the property was not brought into the United States, nor any condemnation had, 122,156   For cates of capture not at present known, and for a possible excess of the indemnities to be paid above the esti- mate, say 19,723   Dolls. 350,000 
NOTE. The sum of 2000 dollars per annum, to cover the allowance to an Agent at Paris, to perform the office of soliciting claims for restitu- tion under the Convention, has been included in the general estimate for the service of the year 1802. The repairs put upon the corvette Berceau be- fore her delivery to the French Republic, are not included in the above estimate:—they amount to dolls. 32,839 54 cents.
JAMES MADISON, Sec. of State. "Thus you see, my friend, three hundred and fif- ty thousand dollars are to be paid the French, for their piratical seizures, and other vessels, which our gal- lant and vigilant cruisers have taken: besides a pretty round sum in repairs for the Berceau. But where is the provision, you will ask, for the Mil- lions of property piratically taken by the French?— No where that I know of. Can it be possible that Americans will cheerfully acquiesce in this fla- grant, shameless, injustice?" (Centinel)
The Appointment of ALBERT GALATIN Esq. Secretary of the Treasury, has been confirm- ed by the Senate of the United States, by a majority of two!
In this town, JAMES D. HOPKINS, Esq. Attorney at Law, to Miss MARY B. GILLEY. At Danvers, Capt. Benjamin Jacobs to Miss Sally Poor.—At Salem, Capt. William Fairfield, to Miss Sarah Fowler.
Died. In this town, on the 24th inst THOMAS PAINE, Esq. aged 77. Formerly of Eastham, county of Barnstable. At Falmouth, 25th inst. Mr. James Mose, aged 34— and on the 26th, Mr. Isaac Lobdell, aged 87. For- merly of Plympton, county of Plymouth. At Rochester, Miss Joanna Haskell, aged 32. Pre- ceptress of the Young Ladies' Academy at Woburn— At Stoughton, Mrs. Silence Holbrook, aged 19— At Charleston, Mrs. Hannah Calder, aged 53.—At Bos- ton, capt. Clement Lemon, aged 32.
Port of Portland. Sunday, Jan. 31.—Arrived Ship Eliz. Captain Prince, 35 days from Cork.—Capt. C. Wait, in the ship Nestor, had arrived at Dubl., when Capt. P. failed.
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 ev- ery other evening in the week, at nine o'clock. Feb. 1. 1802. SAMUEL FREEMAN, P. M.
FOR SALE, THE third part of an undivided lot of LAND, situ- ated 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.
TAKEN up adrift, on the 19th ult. a vessel's LONG BOAT.—Any person having lost the same, may have it again by proving proper- ty and paying charges.—Apply to the printer. Feb. 1.
Wholesale and Retail Ware-House, OPPOSITE THE COLUMBIAN TAVERN.
Wakefield & Dobbs, Acquaint their friends and the public, that they have received by the late arrivals from London and Liverpool, a large assort- ment 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 Kersymers. Mixed and plain Forest Cloths, Fearnoughts from 7/6 to 12/6 per yard. Plain and twill Coatings; Striped Elastic Cloths, Orleans; white and colored Baizes, White and black Flannels; Rose Blankets, 7-8 and 4-4 wide Irish Linen, from 2/6 to 7/6 pr. yd. Chintz and purple Calicoes; do. do. Furni- ture; Durants; Calamancos; Jeans; Moreens, Black and blue Sialoons; black Ruffles, Taminy; 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, stripe, and hair cord Dimities, Tambor'd, jacquet, cambric, and book Muslins, 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. Moggagons; Muffs and Tippets, Fancy Feathers and Flowers, Cotton, silk and silver Trimings, Oil Cloths; Irish Diapers, Ladies', Gentlemen's and Youths' English beaver Hats; Straw Bonnets; do. Trimings, Thread, Lace, and Edgings, Black broad and narrow silk Lace, Elegant Lace Shades; do. Veils, Men's plain and striped English and French black Satin; black and blue silk Velvet, Brown Holland, Swandowns from 4/6 to 15/6 pattern Embroidered Silks; Ladies' black Satin, Silk and cotton Suspensers, Fine Thicker and Velveteen; Carpets, & Carpeting Bandannas; fashionable fancy silk Handkerchiefs, Chintz and purple Shawls; cotton and linen Checks, Black and white Italian Crape, White and colored Thread, Plated, gilt, and metal coat and breast Buttons, Twist 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, Allspice, Black Pepper, Lump and Brown Sugar, Bohea, Souchong and Hylon Teas.—Cheap for cash or approved credit. Portland, Feb. 1.
THE Subscriber hereby gives notice to all con- cerned, that having been duly appointed Ex- ecutor of the last will and testament of SETH STAPLES of Turner, in the county of Cumber- land, 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. (3p.) Turner, January 25, 1802.
WHEREAS the subscriber, a short time since, took a bar of iron from the Store of Mr. Zaccheus Han- naford, through mistake, which belonged to another person:— And whereas it has been maliciously reported that said iron was taken with intention of fraud, this is to inform the public, in order to counteract such reports, that said iron was only taken through mistake. As witness, only, to the above, are hereby attested, ZACCHEUS HANNAFORD. JAMES DANIELS.
MEDICAL. THE Members of the county of YORK MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, are hereby notified, that their Semiannual Meeting will be held at Kennebunk, on Wednesday the 30th of February next, at Dr. SAMUEL EMERSON's, at 10 o'clock. A M.—A Discourse will be delivered in public by a member.—A punctual atten- dance is requested. By order of the President, RICHARD HAZELTINE, Secretary. Jan. 3. 1802.
THE Creditors to the Estate and Effects of J. SEPH CONEY, a Bankrupt, are requested to meet at the Commissioner's Office, in Fish- 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 their respective President, on her late voyage to France, and to direct thereon, as they may think proper. JOSIAH TUCKER, ASSIGNEE. Portland, Jan. 23.
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.
A few days grace! YET remain for those who have neglected to become adventurers in the American Lottery.—Oppor- tunities lost, can never be recalled.—Tickets will be for sale by JENKS & CLARK, a very short time longer. Feb. 1. A few tons of Sheathing Paper, and a quantity of excellent Writing Paper, may be had at JENKS & CLARK'S BookStore, Feb. 1.
FOR SALE, At N. Richardson's Wharf, BALES INDIA COTTONS, consisting of Bout- bon, Gurrals, Allat, and Patna Bultas. Pipes 4th proof Barcelona BRANDY, Bags white India SUGAR, Quarter Casks old Lisbon WINES, Boxes dpt CANDLES, Casks fresh RAISINS, 2000 WT. PEPPER, entitled to debenture. RAVENS DUCK, and RUSSIA SHEETING, Trunk GOODS, consisting of LONGCLOTHS, MUSLINS CAMBRICKS, BANDANNA HAND- KERCHIEFS, &c. By JOSHUA RICHARDSON. Portland, Jan. 25, 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 col- lection to Benjamin Chadburn, 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. Am't of Tax, prior to 1797. 1767 1770 1772 1773 1775 1777 Bal. now due.     Edward Arnold, Esq. 60 60 60 40 5   Capt. Richard Lord, 60 60 60 40 3 10   Dea. Benj. Libby, 50 40 60 60 40 12 3   James Parker, 60 40 4   Ralph Farnham, 60 50 40 60 60 40 13 8 4   Barthom Allen, 40   Joseph Sayward, 50 40 60 60 60 40 13 10   Ebenezer Washburn, 33 6 50 40 60 60 60 40 8 16 9   Terah Sprague, 40 50 40 60 60 60 40 7 11 8   Capt. Saml. Bowser, 50 40 60 60 60 40 5 10   Nathan Buel, 50 40 60 60 60 40 13 18   Samuel Kindall, 34 50 40 60 60 60 40 7 7 8   Nathan Guttell, 50 40 60 60 60 40 7 8 4   William Carr, 60 60 40 2   Moses Abbott, 50 40 60 60 60 40 3 10   Elisha Hill, 40 50 40 60 60 60 40 5 5   Daniel Smith, 50 40 60 60 60 40 11   Joseph Peasey, 60 60 40 5 10   John Fall, 50 40 60 60 60 40 5 8 4   Stephen Hardison, 50 40 60 60 60 40 2 11 8   William Grown, 29 50 40 60 60 60 40 1   Richard Heart, 41 6 50 40 60 60 60 40 1   Thomas Kidder, 60 60 40 2 9   John Stevens, 50 40 60 60 60 40 5 6 4   Crispus Bradbury, 60 60 40 6 8   Elisha Plaisted, 60 60 40 2 16   John Holman, 50 40 60 60 60 40 8 9 8   John Lewis, 60 60 40 8 9   Sir William Pepperell, 40 5   Abraham Lord, 60 60 40 2   Isaac Goodwin, 40 2   Zebulon Chandler, 50 40 60 60 60 40 3  
And the said Proprietors voted and assessed a Tax of thirty six dollars, for the year 1799, on each Proprietor's right in said town, and committed the same to the said Andrew Rogers, Esq. to collect. And the whole of said last mentioned Tax now appears to be due and unpaid. And whereas all the above mentioned Taxes have been posted and published by the said Andrew Rogers, Esq. as the Law directs, yet no person has appeared to discharge the same. Therefore, public notice is hereby given. That unless the above mentioned Taxes and in- tervening charges thereon are paid on or before Mon- day the 15th day of March next, so much of the delin- quent Proprietor's Lands, as will be sufficient to dis- charge the said Taxes and intervening charges thereon, will be sold at Public Vendue to the highest bidder on the said 15th day of March, next at 10 of the clock in the forenoon, at the dwelling house of Capt. Abraham Pray Innholder, in said Lebanon. The Vendue will continue and be adjourned from day to day and from time to time as occasion may require.
DOMINICUS GOODWIN, THOMAS RICKER, ANDREW ROGERS, Barnes, Oct. 23, 1801. (Jan. 25—5w)
At a Court of Common Pleas for the county of Cum- berland, begun and held, begun and held at Newgloucester, in and for said county, on the third Tuesday of Octo- ber, A. D. 1801.
ON the petition of BENJAMIN TUKESBURY, and THEOPHILUS THOMPSON, of Falmouth— ELEAZER LAKE and LEVI KNIGHT, of Freeport, in said county, setting forth, That they are in- terested in and are seized as tenants in common with others to them unknown, of two hundred and eight acres of Land in the four hundred and fifty acre squadron, numbered six, formerly in Northarmouth Gore, so called, but now lying within the bounds of the township of Freeport—the said Benjamin owning eighty-four acres, said The- ophilus owning one hundred acres, said Eleazer owning fifty acres, and the said Levi owning forty six acres; the particular meets and bounds of said squadron of Land, are recorded in the new and old proprietors book of records in Northarm- outh; and that they are desirous of holding and enjoying their respective shares in severality; and that partition thereof might be made, and their said shares set off and divided from the remainder from the remainder of said squadron of Land agreeably to the law in that case made and provided—
ORDERED, That the petitioners cause the several persons interested in said estate, and living within the State, or the Attorney of such as are absent and have Attorneys within the State, to be duly notified of said petition by serving them personally with a copy thereof, or leaving a copy at their dwelling house, or last place of abode, or by in- serting the substance of the same three weeks suc- cessively, in one or more of the public newspapers, that they may have opportunity to make their ex- ception to this Court on the third Tuesday of Fe- bruary next, to their granting the same. Attest,

ENIGMA OR RIDDLE.
BEFORE creation, Nature will'd That atoms into form should jar, By me the boundless space was fill'd; On me was hung the first-made star.
[The following Solution of the above, was communicated for this Gazette.]
BEFORE creating Nature will'd That atoms into form should jar; By Naught the boundless space was fill'd; On Naught was hung the first-made star.
COMMUNICATED FOR THIS GAZETTE.
THE ART OF BOTHERING.
Or, a curious order, application, as it was sent to a Tradesman by a farmer's wife, for a SCARLET CARDINAL. SIR—If you please to send me a Scarlet cardinal, let it be full yard long, and let it be full: it is for a large woman: they tell me I may have a large one, and a handsome one, for eleven shillings. I should not be willing to give more than twelve; but if you have any so long, either duvet or cloth, if it is cheaper I should like to have it, for I am not to give more than twelve shillings. I beg you, Sir, to be so good as not to fail me this cardinal on Wednesday, without fail; let it be full yard long, I beg, or else it will not do. Fail not on Wednesday; and by so doing you will oblige
M. WINNS.
P. S. I hope you will charge the lowest price; and if you please, not to send me a duvet one, but cloth, full yard long and full, and please to send it to Mr. Field's, the water-man, who comes to the Bee Hive, at Queenhithe. Pray don't send me a duvet one, but cloth. I have altered my mind, I should not like it duvet but cloth: let it be full yard long, and let it be cloth, and not more than twelve shillings at most, one of the cheapest you have, and full yard long; send two, both of a length, and both large ones, full yard long, both of a price: they be both for one woman; they must be exactly alike, for goodness and price. Fail not on Wednesday, and full yard long [Sport. M. g. Jan. 1800.]
[It being the usual custom of the Roman Governors to advise the Senate and people of such material things as happened in their respective provinces. Publius Lentulus, being President in the days of Tiberius Cæsar, the Emperor, wrote the following Epistle to the Senate, concerning the description of the person of JESUS CHRIST.]
"Conscript Fathers, "THERE appeared in these our days, a Man of great virtue, named JESUS CHRIST, who is yet living among us, and of the Gentiles is accepted for a prophet of truth; but his own Disciples call him the Son of God. He raiseth the dead, and cureth all manner of diseases. A man, of stature somewhat tall, and comely, with a very reverend countenance, such as the beholders may both love and fear: His hair of the colour of a filbert fully ripe, plain to his ears, whence downward it is more orient of colour, somewhat curling and waving about his shoulders. In the midst of his head is a seam, or partition of his hair, after the manner of the Nazarites; his forehead plain and delicate, his face without spot or wrinkle, beaufitied with a comely red; his nose and mouth exactly formed, his beard thick, the colour of his hair, not of any great length but forked; his look innocent, his eyes grey, clear, and quick—in reproving, terrible—in admonishing, courteous—in body well shaped. None have seen him laugh; but many have seen him weep—a man for his singular beauty surpassing the children of men."
ON CONVERSATION.
THERE is no part, perhaps of social life which affords more real satisfaction than those hours which we pass in rational and unreserved conversation. That conversation, however, may answer the ends for which it was designed, the parties who are to join in it must come together with a determined resolution to please and to be pleased.
In the conduct of it be not eager to interrupt others, or uneasy at being yourself interrupted; since you speak either to amuse or instruct the company, or to receive those benefits from it. Give, therefore, leave to speak in turn. Hear with patience, and answer with precision. Inattention is ill manners; it shows contempt; and contempt is never forgiven.
Trouble not the company with your own pri-
vate concerns, as you do not love to be troubled with those of others. Yours are as little to them as others are to you. You will need no other rule whereby to judge of this matter.
Contrive, but with dexterity and propriety, that each person may have an opportunity of discouraging. By observing this rule, every one has it in his power to assist in rendering conversation agreeable; since, though he may not choose or be qualified to say much himself, he can propose questions to those who are able to answer them.
Avoid stories, unless short, pointed and quite a propos. He who deals in them, says Swift, must either have a very large stock, or a good memory, or must often change his company. Some have a set of them, strung together like onions, they take possession of the conversation by an early introduction of one, and then you may have the whole rope; and there is an end of every thing else, perhaps, for the meeting, though you may have heard all twenty times before.
Talk often, but not long. The talent of haranguing private company is insupportable. Senators and barristers are apt to be guilty of this fault; and members who never harangue in the house, will often do it out of it. If the majority of the company be naturally silent, or cautious, the conversation will flag, unless it be often renewed by one among them who can start new subjects. Forbear however, if possible, to broach a second before the first is out, lest your stock should not last, and you should be obliged to come back to the old barrel. There are those who will repeatedly cross upon and break into the conversation with a fresh topic, till they have touched upon all, and exhausted none; economy here is necessary for most people.
Laugh not at your own wit and humor; leave that to the company.
Where the conversation is flowing in a serious but useful channel, never interrupt it by an ill-timed jest. The stream is scattered and cannot be again collected.
Discourse not in a whisper or half voice to your next neighbour. It is ill breeding, and in some degree a fraud: conversation being as one has well observed, a joint and common property.
In reflections on absent people, go no further than you would if they were present. "I resolve (says Bishop Berkeley) never to speak of a man's virtues to his face nor of his faults behind his back." A golden rule! the observation of which would at once strike banish flattery and detraction from the earth.
Direct Advertisement.
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 Ayer, 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 5 columns: Name of Owner, or Occupant, at the time of taking the Valuation; D. Value of each dwelling house; C. Tax on each house; D. Value of lands; C. Total tax on lands. Lists owners such as Burwal Stephen, Barton Isaac, Brown Jesse, etc.
Table with 4 columns: Name, D., C., Total. Lists non-residents such as Sanborn David, jun., Sawyer Saml., Small James, etc.
NON RESIDENTS, TO ME UNKNOWN.
Table with 4 columns: Name, D., C., Total. Lists non-residents such as Baker Charles, Bickford Wm., Chaplin Isaac, etc.
OWNERS UNKNOWN IN STANDISH.
Table with 4 columns: No., Divi., D., C. Lists unknown owners in Standish such as 50, 68, 44, etc.
OWNERS UNKNOWN IN BRIDGTON.
Table with 4 columns: No., Divi., Range, D., C. Lists unknown owners in Bridgton such as 3, 1, 2, 84, etc.
Philip Eastman, Collector, 7th District, 2d Division.
Fryeburg, Jan. 25, 1802. 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.
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.
Blanchard & Hastings, Nos. 123 & 124, Orange-street, SOUTH END—BOSTON,
HAVE constantly for sale, a large and general assortment of Crockery, Glass, & China Ware which they will sell on the lowest terms for cash or approved credit. Dec. 28, 1801.
Advertisement.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.
THE subscriber has agreed with all the settlers, seated on his back Lands, and sold Lands in the same quarter to numerous and respectable Emigrants from the States southward, on principles promising them great prosperity, and the establishment of harmony and good order throughout that fertile region. He conceives therefore, that this is the proper moment to announce in the most public and solemn manner, that in future no usurpation of his Lands will be tolerated.
As the Land is, and will be surveyed into Lots, no hope of impunity will arise from any supposed secrecy in the offence. Every regular settler has bound himself to discontinue and discover such lawless persons—it would be deemed madness among farmers to suffer a wolf to enter and remain among their sheep; much more so would it be for regular settlers after having legally engaged to pay a valuable consideration for their Lands, to suffer an audacious usurper to enter and remain amongst them, scattering the seeds of discord, misery and insurrection with both hands.
Any person therefore, who shall in defiance of this notice, and in defiance of the laws, usurp Lands of the subscriber, will be prosecuted for the damages that may ensue; suffer the utter loss of his labor and fixtures, and forfeited Land at any price whatever.
But the young, industrious and orderly Yeomanry and Artificers throughout New-England, are invited to view the Lands of the subscriber, lying west of Penobscot River, and extending to within 15 miles of Penobscot River, and contiguous to a line, on which it is contemplated to open and establish a Turnpike Road from river to river.
These rich Lands are considered by impartial judges—soil, situation and climate combined—as affording as many at least, if not more advantages, to young agriculturists, than any other within the United States.
These Lands are to be sold for actual and immediate settlement, either for money or upon credit.
A perfect title and deeds of warranty will be given on payment.
TIMBER and CORD-WOOD Stealers, throughout the Patent, strip and waste men, who instead of honestly cultivating the soil, attempt meanly and fraudulently to gain property by this species of theft, will incur and receive all the punishment, and pay all the damages, which the law shall inflict; and also all those who shall aid and abet them in their unlawful conduct.
HENRY KNOX.
Montpelier, Thomas County, St. George's River, Nov. 17, 1801.
Direct Tax.
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, EIGHTH COLLECTION DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION.
Table with 5 columns: Occupant, Owner, Value of Dwelling, Tax on Dwelling, Value of Lands, Tax on Lands. Lists owners such as Silas Howel, Michael Lunt, William Pr. de, etc.
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.
Feathers & Bed ticking.
FOR SALE, by AARON AUSTIN, at his former stand, next door to the Auction-Office, Fore-street, a large assortment of Sea Fowl Live-Geese, Russis, and Lisbon FEATHERS—Also, ready made BEDS and MATRASSES; best American manufactured BEDTICKING; English do. of all prices. Also, a quantity of INDIGO—The above assortment will be sold as cheap as can be purchased in Boston.
Cash and the highest price given for all kind of SHIPPING FURS. Portland, 1802. (if.)
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.