The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1801-01-12 00:00:00

The National Intelligencer,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. I. WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, NEW-JERSEY AVENUE, NEAR THE CAPITOL. No. XXXI.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, JANUARY 12th, 1801.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 7, 1801.
The House again resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the JUDICIARY BILL, Mr. Morris in the chair.
A considerable number of amendments were offered by Mr. Harper, and approved.
Mr. DENNIS moved an addition to one of the sections, in the form of a proviso, declaring that nothing contained in the act should be so construed as to repeal so much of an act for securing duties on stills, &c. as vests in the courts of the several states a jurisdiction in certain cases therein mentioned.
He made this motion, not with any reference to his own decision, but to try the sense of the committee on the constitutionality of the power thus delegated; which on a former day, had been contested by a gentleman from New-York (Mr. Bird.)
He had himself no doubt of the constitutionality of the power. Under our present system of government, as well as under the confederation, it had been exercised in analogous cases. The old Congress had expressly vested in the state courts the jurisdiction over admiralty cases.
The constitution has empowered Congress to establish judicatories, which might be made the sole organs of decision in certain specified cases; but it had not prescribed that they should absolutely be the exclusive organs. He recollected that in the convention of Virginia, that ratified the federal constitution, the advocates of it urged, as an argument for its adoption, that though Congress had the right of establishing independent judicatories, it was not probable that they would extensively exercise the right; but that they would devolve judicial powers on the state tribunals.
As to the expediency of delegating judicial powers to the state courts, it presented a more difficult enquiry. It was certainly a kind of clumsy affair. Under all other governments the judicial authority was at least co-extensive with the legislative; and in many governments it went beyond it in a decision on cases under the law of nations.
Besides Mr. Dennis discerned no way of compelling state judges to perform their duty; and there appeared to be peculiar hardships in obliging courts and juries supported by particular counties to perform federal duties.
Mr. HARPER had as little doubt of the constitutionality as he had of the expediency of this delegation of power. At present we are not under the necessity of establishing a judicial system as extensive as the powers of Congress. If we were constitutionally obliged to do this, we should be compelled to cover the whole ground, and to institute a great number of new courts.
It is true, that we cannot enforce on the state courts, as a matter of duty, a performance of the acts we confide to them; but we give them the power, and until they refuse to exercise it, we have no cause to complain.
He did not believe this proviso necessary. But as some gentlemen thought it was necessary, he would vote for it.
Mr. BIRD declared himself still of opinion, that the delegation of judicial power to the state courts was unconstitutional. This is denied by the gentleman from Maryland. The argument he makes use of stands thus: He denies the unconstitutionality of the transfer, because we have practised it; therefore we have the power. Is this correct reasoning? Does the practice of a particular thing demonstrate it to be right?
The extreme difficulty of stretching out judicial power in federal tribunals, which
was alleged, was not a question of right, but of expediency. If it were a question of right, then must the question of right, as superior, supersede the minor question of expediency.
Some gentlemen seemed to think, that as soon as Congress passes a particular law, there exists a right and a duty in the state courts to execute it. But our own practice destroys this idea; for all our laws on the subject actually give power to the state courts; the expression is, they may have jurisdiction in certain cases.
It had been asked, whether the laws of the U. State did not bind the state judges. He answered, that they bound them as citizens, but not as judges. Even the gentleman from South-Carolina admits that there is no obligation imposed upon them to act. This furnished a strong argument of the inconsistency of gentlemen, as the judges were neither bound to execute our laws, nor punishable for omitting to execute them.
Further, the institution of a judiciary co-extensive with the other branches of the government, was essential to the due administration of all just plans of civil policy. On the judiciary depended the fair administration of justice. It was an organ of essential use and necessity. It should be attached to the system of which it formed a part, independently of all other systems. As well might the organ of one human body expect to derive support from the organ of another disconnected body, as the federal judiciary expect to gain support from state tribunals. So thought the framers of the constitution; and a contemporary commentator on it has declared that a judiciary co-extensive with the legislature is so natural as not to require argument to support it.
Mr. Bird then went over the same ground with that taken by him in a former debate, to which we refer the reader.
He concluded by declaring that until the point was better cleared of constitutional objections, all arguments of expediency were perfectly futile.
Mr. NOTT said—The simple question was, whether the Congress of the United States had or had not the constitutional right of transferring to the state judicatories the power of trying causes arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. In discussing this question he should not consider the consequences resulting from the decision, for although the consequences might be as his colleague (Mr. Harper) had represented that the judiciary of the United States must be made coextensive with the state judicatories, if this power was not admitted, yet if the constitution was written, so it must be understood. The constitution could not be bent as convenience might require. The decision therefore must be made by the instrument itself.
The constitution provided that the judicial power of the United States should be vested in one supreme court and such inferior courts as the congress might from time to time ordain and establish; and also that they should hold their offices during good behaviour, &c.—Mr. N. said the clause in the constitution requiring inferior courts, was equally imperative with that requiring a supreme court, with this difference only, that the supreme court was limited to one, but the details of the inferior courts were left to congress. The expression inferior courts was a technical expression, as well understood by every lawyer as any in our law books. It meant a court possessed of subordinate powers within the same judiciary system, and necessarily implied a superior court capable of controlling an undue exercise of those powers. That the state legislatures might with as much propriety be called inferior to the federal legislature, or the executive of any state be called a subordinate officer of the President of the United States, as the state courts could be considered inferior courts of the United States.
The words in the constitution were, "such inferior courts as congress may ordain and establish;" and it was not sufficient to say that by giving the power to try causes aris-
ing under the constitution, &c. you quoad hoc made them courts of the United States; for there was an essential difference between ordaining and establishing courts and transferring power to courts already ordained and established. The obvious meaning of the constitution was that the judicial power of the United States should be confided to courts established and organized by their own government.—Besides, Mr. Nott observed it was required that the judges should hold their offices during good behaviour; but this was not the case in the several states; in some, he said, they held their commissions for a limited time; in others during the pleasure of the legislature, and in others they could not hold them after a certain period of life.
There was another objection, he said, to this mode of appointing officers of the United States.—The constitution had provided that the President should appoint all the officers of the United States, not otherwise appointed by the constitution, except congress should by law provide otherwise, as mentioned in the same clause of the constitution. The judges were not, however, of that description of officers contemplated by the constitution, the appointment of whom congress might vest in some other department, and if they were, that power had never yet been exercised by congress. This in effect would be to divest the President of the power given him by the constitution of appointing all officers, and to exercise it ourselves.
The doctrine he contended for would be further obviated by a reference to the second section of the third article of the constitution, expressing the cases to which the judicial power of the United States should extend.—"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state and a citizen thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects."
"In all cases, affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make."
He said there was a marked difference between the words of the constitution relating to the catalogue of cases enumerated in the first part of that section, and those in the latter part of the same. The word all was prefixed to each of the cases first mentioned, down to the words admiralty and maritime jurisdiction inclusive, but was omitted in all the subsequent cases. He could see no reason why that word was added in the former part of the section, and omitted in the latter, except it meant that there was no case of the former description to which the judicial power of the United States should not extend, in fact that the courts of the United States should have exclusive jurisdiction of all those cases, and in the latter their jurisdiction should be concurrent with the State courts.
It was further to be observed, he said, that the first description of cases here enumerated, were such as had received their birth from the constitution and laws of the United States, and could not have existed previous to the establishment of the government, or be such as immediately involved the rights and interests of the general government; but that the latter were such as the individual states might have jurisdiction of, previous to that pe-
riod. He presumed the state courts were not vested with more power under the present constitution than they were before, unless given them by the constitution; nor are they divested of any, unless by the same instrument, or by congress, in pursuance of the power therein given to them. And he had seen no part of the constitution that delegated this power to the State courts, or that authorised congress to do it. It appeared to him that the meaning of the constitution, was to give to the courts of the United States exclusive jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, or laws of the United States, and also, over all cases immediately affecting the general interests, and to refer to the individual states, the exclusive jurisdiction over their own local concerns; and that in cases involving their own interest and the rights of others, they might have concurrent jurisdiction.
It was acknowledged by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. Bayard) that congress had no power to compel the state courts to perform that duty, but that the judges of the several states were bound to obey all the acts of congress. Other gentlemen had observed, that this doctrine would go to deny that the stamp act, or any similar act, was binding on the state judiciaries. On this Mr. N. observed, that the state courts were bound to observe all the constitutional laws of congress. When therefore congress passed a law, that no instrument of writing for the payment of money should be received in any state court as evidence of such debt, unless the same was upon stamped paper, the judges were bound to obey it; but if they should pass a law giving power to any county court within the United States, to try persons guilty of treason against the United States, that law would not be obligatory upon them; nevertheless it would be an act of congress. Mr. N. said, the distinction was between cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and those that did not. His idea might be further illustrated by the act above mentioned (the stamp act). If a person should give a note of hand for an hundred dollars on unstamped paper, with a view of evading that act, he was liable to a penalty; that would of course be a case arising under a law of the United States, and would be exclusively cognizable in the courts of the United States. But an action brought on a note of hand written on stamped paper, is not a case arising under the law of the United States, but arises from the contract itself; and although no note had been given, the contract would nevertheless have existed. The stamp act does not require a contract to be in writing; but if people will have their contracts tested by written evidence, it requires that paper should be stamped.
Mr. N. said, wherever a duty was imposed by law, the person who was guilty of the non-performance of that duty incurred the penalty annexed, and that penalty could be recovered no other way but by indictment unless otherwise expressly provided by the law itself. And how would gentlemen frame an indictment in a state court, to embrace a case that had occurred under a law of the United States. It was essential in every indictment, to lay the offence to have been committed against the law of the state, and to conclude against the peace and dignity of the same. But surely gentlemen would not contend that an offence against a law of the United States was an offence against the law of an individual state, or against its peace and dignity. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) had observed that penalties incurred under the revenue laws were not considered as crimes, but were recoverable in actions of debt. But, said Mr. Nott, merely changing the action or the mode of recovering the penalty cannot alter the nature of the offence, nor the tribunal before whom it is to be tried. It was still a case arising under a law of the United States, and although a debt, it was one in which the defendant not even in contem-
(Continued on last page.)

To the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
THE great charter of American union, peace and liberty, under which you sit, is the happy constitution of the United States. It is easy for your constituents to satisfy themselves, that you will never counteract its explicit injunctions, or intentionally contravene its genuine spirit. It is not impossible that you may soon be required to fulfil one of its most important commands. With a known predilection in the American people, it is probable, that two of the persons intended to divide the ensuing chief magistracy (as incumbent and expectant) may appear to have received equal votes. In such an event you will proceed, under the second article, to make the choice of one of them. It is upon this point that I have taken the liberty respectfully to address you.
Permit me to remark, that the injunction to chuse is explicit, positive, unqualified and absolute. It is a mandatory sentence. It is said that you shall immediately chuse: it is said that you shall chuse out of the two highest and equal candidates: it is said peremptorily, that you shall chuse. It is plain that you may not omit or evade to chuse, and that in performing this responsible duty, you are upon your solemn oaths. As you are directed to chuse out of the two, you cannot in conscience or in duty, take any step with a secret design to defeat the election of both. Two persons are put upon the return, one of whom you are authorised and ordered to chuse. All other persons are excluded from the return. Such excluded persons are not constitutionally in your contemplation; they are not conscientiously in your contemplation. You may not give action to an opinion in favor of other persons, or against the two highest candidates, by taking measures to place the presidency in the hands of the Speaker, or of the temporary President of the Senate, or of a person to be chosen by the legislature, or by new sets of electors. Any wish to that end is a wish to defeat the selection of Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Burr. You are to aim at the selection of one of these in all your actions upon this occasion, as you correctly appreciate the obligations of your oaths and of your duties. Hence it is, that the constitution has made no provision for filling the office of President, in the event of a failure of an election. It prefers to hold the representatives bound to chuse immediately, one of the equal and highest. The only vacancies for which a provision by law is permitted, are, 1st, of removal—2dly, of death—3dly, of resignation—4th, of incapacity, occurring within the four years for which a President and Vice-President were chosen, and during part of which they have served. It is expressly for those cases of vacancy, that provision by law can be made. It is only for those four specified cases, that the law of 1792 has provided. This was in an early stage of the constitution. It is a cotemporary construction of the constitution, made wisely before a vacancy occurred to bias the mind, or excite the passions. It received the assent of Mr. Adams and Mr. Burr, who were both then in the Senate—both learned in our laws. The legislature did not attempt to travel out of the constitution, nor will you deviate from the constitution and from the laws made in pursuance of it. No lawyer in your house will record his yea in favor of the idea, that Congress provided, or could provide, for a vacancy made by non-election, or by any other non-enumerated or unspecified mode, or for any "case" (as the constitution closely expresses itself) but the four cases of "removal, death, resignation and inability." The Speaker or President of the Senate cannot lawfully succeed in case of non-election of a President.
Since then you are required to select one of the two (Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Burr) and since the omission to select one will bring us into a disorganized state, for which there is no legal remedy, it will not be doubted that you will make the selection. The government of the country will become defective in its most important individual, the fountain of all executive, judicial, and military power and authority. You are therefore responsible to accomplish the selection of one of the two. The ship must not be left amidst the innumerable rocks and shoals of the political ocean, without a commander.
Were it to happen, that the constitution were to fail in its execution, the dissolution of the Union would renew the complete and absolute sovereignty of the sixteen states, or place them again under
the old confederation. It is certain, that it has never been expressly repealed. Its operation has been suspended—any repeal of it has been at most virtual. But if the instrument that only appeared to work a virtual repeal is annulled, the confederation act will renovate and become of force, like other laws, under similar circumstances. These may appear to be new and singular ideas; but being made with sincerity and with reference to known principles of law, they ought to convince us, that the failure of a selection of Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Burr will throw us into a situation, whose chances will be uncertain, and may be deeply injurious to tranquility, order and property. Every man habituated to legal investigation well knows, that it is impossible to predict the consequences of the most temperate discussion of any great new case. This is entirely new; for we are bound by a written constitution, which does not allow a recurrence even to the first principles on which it is founded, except in designated modes. Even liberty and property may not be preserved in a manner not intended by the constitution, without a wound to it, whose depths and effects in these jeopardous times no state physician can certainly determine. Let us then be consummately prudent, faithfully sincere, and temperate in our enquiries.
The obligations and duties to make a selection appear to be of the utmost strength and magnitude. It may be useful to consider the course in which that selection should proceed. Mr. Burr would certainly make an excellent President, and every man who voted for his electors, or for himself, will rejoice that he has been placed in the situation expectant, should any circumstance prevent Mr. Jefferson from finishing the term of the Chief Magistracy. But it is proposed to submit the apparent reasons for chusing Mr. Jefferson.
He has filled the office of Secretary of State, and Vice-President under this constitution—his progress to the Presidency is therefore most happily and naturally gradual. In its deliberate course, maturing the stock of knowledge acquired in his libraries, his foreign missions, his offices of Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of the sinking fund, and President of the Senate, he is remarkably prepared for the duties of the Chief Magistracy. None of our concerns can be new to him—he has had frequent occasion to see and consider them all.
The certain intention of the people, whose authority the President exercises, is material on the present occasion. It is true that this intention is not absolutely expressed; but no member of the House of Representatives will doubt that it was intended, even unanimously, by the electors, that Mr. Jefferson should be President. It is equally clear that Mr. Burr would frankly make that declaration. The people voted for the electors, or for the legislatures that chose them, with the same views. It may be asked, why the electors did not drop Mr. Burr in some place. We believe no man will doubt that it was because there was no communication among them on the point, and they expected it would be certainly done in some place. But we repeat that no man will doubt, and Mr. Burr himself will, with an honorable candor, admit, that the people, their legislatures, and the electors, intended Mr. Jefferson to be President, and Mr. Burr to be Vice-President. The spirit of the constitution requires the will of the people to be executed. The will of the people is not doubted by the members of the house—Wherefore it is confidently believed, that they will pursue the views of the constitution, by carrying into execution the will of the people in relation to Mr. Jefferson.
AN AMERICAN.
From Northumberland, Pennsylvania.
WE, the undersigned Inhabitants of the county of Northumberland, request the attention of our neighbours and fellow-citizens to the present address. If the object of it be of sufficient magnitude to justify this voluntary interference on our part, we shall hope to be forgiven: but, if not, we must abide the consequences of our presumption, and console ourselves with reflecting, that we have sincerely meant to promote the public good, by the exercise of a right to which every citizen, in a republican government, is indisputably entitled.
In the legislative system of Pennsylvania, of what use is the SENATE?
We do not mean to draw our conclusions from the proceedings of the present Senate in particular; though we cannot
deny, that the obstinate perseverance of that body, in opposition to the acknowledged rights and known wishes of the people, has suggested this present inquiry. For who can help doubting the utility of a system, wherein two members can successfully resist a decided majority of the electors of the state?
But, although the proceedings of the senate, during its present sitting, have called forth this public expression of our sentiments, we have, for some time, had reason to doubt, whether the machine of government (to use the metaphor of the illustrious Franklin) can proceed more efficaciously, for having one horse to draw before, and two to drag behind.
Nor can we see the consistency of having one set of representatives to express the public will; and another to oppose it: one to build up, and another to pull down. Nor can we divine, why the least numerous and least perfect class of representatives should have it in their power, to controul or paralyse the operations of the rest.
Nor why the partial representatives of public opinion four years ago, should counteract or controul the public sentiment of the present day.
In the election of such a senate, no room is allowed for those changes in the public mind, which more recent facts and more accurate discussion may have reasonably occasioned. Hence the senate, as at present constituted, will ever be liable to be warped by the political prejudices which happened to prevail when they were first elected; and will have a continual tendency to hostile collision with the more recent and more immediate representatives of the people's voice. Such has been, such is, and such will be the case; and hence are the people of Pennsylvania, at this moment, deprived of their due share in the election of the most important magistrate of the Union.
Indeed we cannot help, again, remarking the glaring absurdity of our present form of government, which enables the obstinacy of a single senator, from whatever motives he may act, effectually to oppose the unanimous voice of the house of representatives, and even of the people themselves. Well may the friends of aristocracy exclaim in praise of a system, which furnishes so powerful a check to the wishes of the people, and invests so small a number of men with so dangerous a privilege!
All these objections were foreseen at the adoption of the present constitution. Experience has confirmed them; and added some more facts in support of that grand result of all political history, the basis of all republican government, that power entrusted for too long a period, will certainly be abused.
Nor has experience sanctioned the arguments upon which the present constitution was recommended. Of the four reasons assigned in the address presented by Mr. Gerardus Van Kloof, the principal one was the needless expense of a legislature composed of a single branch. But we have good reason to believe, that this expense, so much complained of, has annually increased under the present constitution, till it has arrived at nearly three times its greatest amount under the last.
We do not pretend to deny, that a second deliberative assembly, and a revision and re-discussion by one legislative body of the recent acts of another, may sometimes be of use. But we see no necessity to invest a Senate with an absolute negative upon the acts of our representatives; nor can we be persuaded, that a deliberative Senate might not be as useful, if chosen for one year, as for four: or if chosen by lot, at the commencement of each session, out of the whole number of Representatives elected. Nor can we help regarding, with an anxious and jealous eye, that secret propensity, too prevalent among a large class of our citizens, to imitate and adopt the complex forms, and anti-republican maxims, of the corrupt system of Great Britain.
We do not dwell on the dangerous facility which so small a body presents to the insidious practices of foreign influence; for we entertain no suspicion of the integrity of men, thus eminently raised by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens.
We forbear also to strengthen our opinions, by any reference to the senate of the Union: although (and with concern we speak it) the history of that body, and of the sessions for the two last years in particular, would furnish facts and arguments in our favor, impossible as we think, to be resisted. Even now, the senatorial doctrine of privilege derived from the impure source of British Aristocracy, and unknown to the federal constitution, is a
open hostility with the freedom of the press, and the trial by jury.
Under these impressions, we call upon our fellow-citizens of this country, to assist in remedying the evil we complain of; if they also are of opinion, with us, that it is an evil: and, at meetings in every township of the county, to sign and transmit to the Legislature of the state, some such petition as the following: which we respectfully submit to their consideration.
Northumberland—John Bull, Daniel Montgomery, Thomas Cooper, Joseph Priestley, jun. William Borham, William R. Cozens, Christopher Dering, Robert Irwin, John Mackey, James Mackey.
Sunbury—Samuel Roberts, Jesse Moore, Jacob McKinney, Jeremiah Simpson, John Simpson, Henry Vanderlice, James Cummings, Solomon Markley, Jacob Haller, Theodore Kiehl, Joseph Alder, Andrew Grove, Jacob Breylogel.
Danville—William Montgomery, William Montgomery, jun. Daniel Montgomery, jun.
Chilisquaque—Thomas Strawbridge, Samuel Bond.
Selin's Grove—Ch. Drum, George Kremer, John Epler.
Milton—Daniel Vincent, Bethuel Vincent, James Dougal, John Cobran, Jared Irwin.
Derrtown—Henry Spyker, John Metzgar, Lawrence Kemble, John Webb, James Duncle, Andrew Albright.
Buffalo and Whitedeer—Samuel Dale, William Chamberlain, John Kelly.
Form of a PETITION To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The petition of the undersigned, inhabitants of the county of Northumberland respectfully sheweth:
That your petitioners impressed with the dangerous consequences of such misunderstandings as they have lately witnessed between the Senate and House of Representatives, beg leave to call the attention of the legislature to the causes of them.
Among these causes, your petitioners cannot but reckon the length of time for which the Senators are chosen. Nor do they see why the people should not have the same annual opportunity of removing a Senator, in the case of members of the other branch of the legislature.
Your petitioners are of opinion, that daily experience hath proved that the agents of the people should be dependant upon the people; and the elections, for a long period, induce the representatives to feel themselves more independent of their constituents, than is consistent with the Public good.
Your petitioners therefore request, that the senate and house of representatives would take the premises into consideration; and adopt such constitutional measures, for remedying the evil complained of, as the wisdom of the legislature shall be pleased to point out.
And your Petitioners will ever pray, &c.
20 Dollars Reward.
RAN away from the subscriber, living in Frederick County, Virginia, a Mulatto boy named Tom, about twenty years of age, of a fluted make, about five feet nine inches high, he has no particular mark.—He will endeavour to pass for a free man.—He has a mother, a black woman, slave to Mr. Frederic Conrad, living in the Federal City; where it is conjectured he will harbour. The above reward will be paid on his being brought home, or ten Dollars if procured in any jail and information given to
A. LINDO.
December, 22, 1803
To RENT.
A Commodious Two Story brick dwelling house on square No. 701—the lot is well inclosed and hath every necessary out house, and is very convenient for a small family—it may be entered on immediately, the terms made known and the premises shown by applying to
BENJAMIN MORE.
Washington, New Jersey Avenue, December 17, 1800.
FOR SALE.
THE Subscriber will sell at private sale, two Three story Brick Houses, adjoining each other, 28 feet front each, by forty feet deep, on Capitol Hill, Lot No. 6. Sq. 686—A fine commodious lot 61 feet front, by 196 feet deep, running back to an alley 30 feet wide, and may be occupied as one or two tenements, they are finished in a plain, but substantial manner, and built of the best materials—a credit of three, six, and nine months, on giving approved notes, negotiable at the bank of Columbia, or Baltimore—apply to Daniel Carrol, or in Baltimore to
HENRY H. CARE. L.L.
Washington, Jan. 5, 1802.

WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, January 12, 1801.
ON TREATIES.
The following RULE passed in SENATE, January 6, 1801:
RESOLVED, as a standing rule, that whenever a treaty shall be laid before the Senate for ratification, it shall be read a first time for information only; when no motion to reject, ratify or modify the whole or any part shall be received.
That its second reading shall be for consideration, and on a subsequent day, when it shall be taken up as in a committee of the whole, and every one shall be free to move a question on any particular article in this form, "Will the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of this article?" or to propose amendments thereto, either by inserting or by leaving out words, in which last case the question shall be, "Shall the words stand part of the article?" And in every of the said cases, the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present shall be requisite to decide affirmatively. And when through the whole, the proceedings shall be stated to the house, and questions be again severally put thereon for confirmation, or new ones proposed, requiring in like manner a concurrence of two-thirds for whatever is retained or inserted.
That the votes so confirmed shall, by the house, or a committee thereof, be reduced into the form of a ratification with or without modifications, as may have been decided, and shall be proposed on a subsequent day, when every one shall again be free to move amendments, either by inserting or leaving out words; in which last case the question shall be, "Shall the words stand part of the resolution?" And in both cases the concurrence of two-thirds shall be requisite to carry the affirmative; as well as on the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to.
Another RULE, passed Dec. 22d, 1800.
RESOLVED, That all confidential communications, made by the President of the United States to the Senate, shall be, by the members thereof, kept inviolably secret; and that all treaties, which may hereafter be laid before the Senate, shall also be kept secret, until the Senate shall, by their resolution, take off the injunction of secrecy.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 9, 1801.
In committee of the whole, Mr. Morris in the chair.
The 48th Section read as follows:
"SEC. 48. And be it further enacted, That each of the circuit judges of the United States to be appointed by virtue of this act, shall be allowed as a compensation for his services, an annual salary of two thousand dollars, to be paid quarter yearly at the Treasury of the United States; and that the salaries of the district judges of Maine, New-Hampshire, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New-Jersey, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee, shall be, and hereby are, augmented to the like sum of two thousand dollars annually, to be paid in like manner."
Mr. GREGG moved to strike out 2,000 and to insert 1600 dollars.
On this motion a debate of several hours ensued; in which the motion was supported by Messrs. Claiborne, Davis, S. Smith, Smilie, and Nicholas, and opposed by Messrs. Otis, Harper, Dennis, H. Lee, Champlin, and Bayard.
This motion was superceded by a motion made and supported by those who were in favor of reducing the salaries, to strike out the whole section, in order to substitute one apportioning the salaries to the services of the federal judges.
On this motion the committee divided, Ayes 40, Noes 43. It was accordingly lost.
A question was then taken on Mr. Gregg's motion to substitute 1600 in the room of 2,000; and lost, Ayes 39—Noes 49.
Mr. DENNIS moved to reduce the proposed salaries of the judges of Kentucky,
and of East and West Tennessee to 1,500 dollars.
Mr. CLAIBORNE moved the reduction to 1,200 dollars.
Mr. DENNIS withdrew his motion.
The question was taken on Mr. Claiborne's motion, and carried, Ayes 46.
(Debate in our next)
Mr. CHRISTIE hoped that the committee would rise, and the house adjourn. As the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Harper) appeared to rule the real on the other side, he trusted he would make no objection.
The committee accordingly rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
Mr. MACON then moved that when the house adjourn, it adjourn till Monday.
Mr. HARPER opposed the motion, which in his opinion arose from a disposition in gentlemen to throw every obstacle in the way of the bill. This was an attempt to procrastinate its progress. He concluded by moving an adjournment in the usual form, whereby the house would be adjourned till tomorrow.
The motion was lost.
Mr. MACON's motion then recurred, on which the house divided. The SPEAKER, having counted the members, declared the motion lost—Ayes 38—Noes 39.
Mr. RANDOLPH said there must be a mistake and desired another count.
The members took their seats, and the house was again divided; when the motion was carried, there being 43 Yeas, 39 Nays.
Then the house adjourned; Yeas 44—Nays 39.
CORRECT Return of votes taken at the late Election for persons to represent New-Jersey in the House of Representatives of the Seventh Congress of the United States.
Table with 4 columns: COUNTY, Gaden, Cox, Imray, Disenport, D. Vroom, Goudis, Helms, South-ard, Mott, Elmer. Rows list vote counts for various counties including Bergen, Essex, Middlesex, Monmouth, Burlington, Gloucester, Salem, Cape-May, Hunterdon, Morris, Cumberland, Sussex.
An act was before the legislature of Virginia on the 14th ult. for making a turnpike road from the head navigation of Potomac river to the nearest western navigation. It is proposed that this turnpike should commence at the mouth of Savage river, which is 21 miles above Fort Cumberland, and about 200 from George-town. A subscription is intended to be opened for 50,000 dollars in shares of 50 dollars each. It was expected that the state of Virginia would subscribe for 50 shares, and the co-operation of Maryland by passing a similar law was not doubted. The important benefits to be derived from carrying this plan into effect will more fully appear from the following preamble of the bill.
"Whereas it is conceived that great advantage would accrue to the trade of Potomac and to this commonwealth generally, by making easy the communication between the head navigation of that river and the nearest western navigation, which would cause the produce of a large extent of the western country to take its course into this channel, instead of going 2500 miles, partly through the dominion of a foreign nation, to a market at New-Or-
leans—And whereas it is represented to this general assembly, that these navigations may be made to communicate by a road of about 40 miles, and that an association of citizens are willing to undertake to make the road if proper legislative encouragement be given by the states of Virginia and Maryland, through both of which the road will have to pass about an equal distance, &c."
Several shocks of an Earthquake have been recently felt in New-Hampshire.
Meetings of citizens to commemorate the triumph of republicanism in the late election of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr, have been held at Philadelphia, Green-burg, Easton, Lancaster and Carlisle, in the state of Pennsylvania.
General Ira Allen, and a French commissary for the National Revenues of St. Domingo, are amongst the passengers in the ship Neptune, arrived at Philadelphia from Bourdeaux.
BALTIMORE, January 9.
A very extraordinary meteor made its appearance on Wednesday night about 8 o'clock, not far distant from the turnpike gate, on the Frederick-town road. Our informant was in a close carriage, and had not an opportunity of observing the meteor itself, but so great was the blaze of light produced by its bursting, that it would have enabled him for the space of one or two seconds to have read common print, notwithstanding the extreme darkness of the night. The servant who drove the carriage, described it as descending like a large bright candle, until it approached within a few yards of the earth, when it expanded without any explosion, and became a luminous body fully the size of a common barrel.
LONDON, November 12.
The alterations in the New Great Seal now finished, and in the custody of the Lord High Chancellor are, that the arms of France are entirely expunged; the arms of England, of Scotland, of Wales, and of Ireland, are quartered; and the arms of Hanover are placed upon the centre of the four quarters. His majesty, in the new seal, instead of being styled "King of Great-Britain, France and Ireland," titles himself simply "BRITANNICORUM REX," KING OF THE BRITISH. This title has a very extensive and appropriate meaning. It includes not only the British Isles, but all subjects in every part of the globe, living under the British dominion. His majesty, in council, has given orders that his titles, arms, &c. shall be altered after the expiration of the present year, in all public instruments, &c. And orders are likewise given to have the arms of all the royal carriages altered as above.
This Day is Published.
TO be Sold at the Office of the National Intelligencer, and at Rapine Conrad and Co. Book-store—price 25 Cents—Also at Michael Roberts's Book-store, George-Town, and by the Editor of the Times, Alexandria.
CONSIDERATIONS,
on the GOVERNMENT of the
TERRITORY OF COLUMBIA.
as they recently appeared in the National Intelligencer under the Signature of Epaminondas.
January 5, 1800.
FOR SALE.
By the Subscriber, near the County wharf, COLOGNE Mill stones, of different sizes late from Amsterdam; German, London, Blister and crowley steel; lug in hogheads and barrels; coffee, bar and rod iron; callings; ten plate stoves complete for use, of different sizes; beef and pork, of first quality, by the barrel; fine and coarse salt; tar, turpentine and rosin; clover seed.
JESSE HOLLINGSWORTH.
Baltimore, January 1, 1801.
RAN AWAY.
FROM the subscriber on Wednesday the 6th inst. an apprentice Girl named Rebecca Wood, 13 or 14 years old, brown skin and bushy brown hair. Took with her among others, the following clothing, viz. a black silk hat, two striped and one calico jackets, three striped, one arannetto coloured, one blue and one black petticoat, one pair of pumps with wooden heels, two pair of blue worsted stockings. Any person that will give Information of said Girl, to the Subscriber in Bladenbourg, so that I may get her again shall receive a reward of two Dollars.
MARY HOFFMAN.
N. B. I do hereby forewarn any person from harbouring or employing said girl at their peril. M. H.
THIS DAY IS PUBLISHED
BY RAPINE, CONRAD & Co.
At the Washington Book-Store, Corner of South B Street & New-Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol
The WASHINGTON REPOSITORY, for the year 1801.
CONTAINING, an Almanac—a bill to establish an uniform system of Bankruptcy throughout the United States—Abstract of the revenue law, list of duties, tonnage, drawbacks and bounties, custom house fees &c. an act to establish a general stamp office, with a list of stamp duties, an act to value property, an act to lay a direct tax, &c.—Offices of the revenue, governments of the U. States.—List of congress, department of state, Treasury, War, Navy and Judiciary, with an account of what is important in each.—Post office establishment, with times of receiving and closing the Mails at Baltimore.—Ministers, Consuls, &c. to and from the U. States.—Government of the State, of Maryland, with a list of the general Assembly. An account of the corporation of the city of Baltimore, with a list of officers, Banks, Insurance company, &c. in ditto, and a variety of other useful matter.—Price neatly bound in the form of a Pocket book, 75 cents.
Speed the Plough, a comedy in five acts, as performed at the theatre royal covent garden; and now performing with universal applause, at the new theatre Philadelphia.—By Thomas Morton, Esq. author of "a cure for the Heart Ache, Way to get Married" &c. &c.—price 25 cents.
An impartial review of the rise and progress of controversy between the parties known by the names of the FEDERALISTS, and REPUBLICANS, containing an investigation of the radical cause of division; and of some of the inordinate or auxiliary causes which have been instrumental in enlarging the breach, and inflaming the minds of the partizans. In a series of letters from a Partaker in the American revolution to a junior citizen.—price 31 cents.
R. C. & Co. Have just received a general assortment of Books in every department of literature, which they will dispose of on the very lowest terms.
Jan. 7, 1801.
Notice is hereby given,
TO the creditors of John Dixon, that a general meeting of the creditors is appointed to be held on the 17th day of February next, at the house of George O'Hara inn-keeper in Morris-Town, in the county of Morris, and state of New-Jersey, at 10 o'clock, forenoon, in order to examine and ascertain the debts due to each creditor; and notice is also given to the creditors aforesaid, that a dividend of the said Dixon's property will be made on the 9th of July next at George O'Hara's aforesaid, at 10 o'clock, forenoon.
WILLIAM CRAMFIELD,
Assignee,
Morris-Town, Dec. 27, 1800.
THE SUBSCRIBER
BEGS leave to inform the Public in general, that he has opened a Beef-steak and Oyster House, on Capitol Hill, City of Washington, in the House lately occupied by Brows and Snowden as a Printing Office, a small distance from the Capitol, where Gentlemen may be accommodated at any hour in the day or Evening, with Beef steaks, Oysters, Sanfages &c. at the shortest notice and on the most reasonable terms. Likewise the Subscriber has taken particular pains to lay in a stock of Good Liquors, and flatters himself that by paying strict attention to the business to Merit the favour of the Public in General.
WILLIAM TONKIN.
December 28.
optf.
WASHINGTON BOOK-STORE.
RAPINE, CONRAD, & CO.
Corner of South B. Street and New-Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol.
HAVE just received, and for sale at the above Store, Letters from Alexander Hamilton, concerning the public conduct and character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States.
Also, just opening, a choice assortment of books in History, Law, Medicine, Divinity, Arts and Sciences, Classics, School books, Novels, Romances Biography, &c. &c.—With a good assortment of super royal, royal, medium, demy, and foolscap writing paper, thick and thin post, blue & common wrapping paper, best Dutch quills, wafers, sealing wax, ink powder, red and black ink black lead pencils, parchment, playing cards, blank books, &c. &c. all which they will dispose of at the very lowest prices.
Public officers and others, who will please to favour them with their custom, may rely on having the strictest attention paid to their orders. Nov. 17th, 1800.
Thomas Carpenter, TAYLOR,
GRATEFULLY acknowledges the numerous favours conferred on him, and informs his friends and the public that he has entered into partnership with CHARLES VARDEN, likewise from Philadelphia, on Capitol Hill, opposite Mr. CARROL's buildings, where, as well as in Pennsylvania Avenue, between the Presidents House and George Town, from their long and extensive experience in Military, Naval and Fancy dresses, and in Ladies habits &c. and from their having procured the best of workmen and materials, the utmost taste and pur quality might be expected.
Two apprentices wanted.
Washington, Dec. 22.

(debate continued from first page.) plation of law had any agency. And to contend that because a penalty is by an act of congress recoverable by an action of debt, therefore they have a right to transfer these cases to the state courts for adjudication, is to say that congress may first give themselves the power to delegate it, and then exercise the power that is acquired.
But said Mr. N. if it is true that congress have a right to impose this duty on the judges of the state courts, they must have the right to compel a performance of it. It was incompatible with the idea of sovereignty, to pass laws and not to have the power and the means of carrying them into execution.
Upon the whole, he had seen no part of the constitution that authorised congress to delegate such power to the state courts, or that authorised the state courts to execute it, and he should therefore vote against the proposed amendment.
Mr. BAYARD considered the question of the delegation of power as altogether misplaced. The proviso moved by the gentleman from Maryland related to the jurisdiction of the state courts, not over offences, but over civil suits, which were brought by the United States for debts arising out of contracts with the individuals indebted to the government. Now, it would puzzle him to say why the state courts should not decide cases in which the United States were a party, as well as in any other description of cases, when it was known that their jurisdiction extended over all actions for debt.
Mr. NICHOLAS desired to know whether there did not exist other laws than the one embraced by the proviso, to which it would be proper to extend its provisions; for which purpose he moved that the committee rise.
Motion lost—Ayes 34—Noes 37.
Mr. BERN, willing an amendment to the bill that would fairly and fully meet the question of constitutionality, recommended to the gentleman from Maryland to withdraw his proviso; in which case he would, at a proper period, present an amendment to that effect. Mr. DENNIS withdrew his motion.
The Chairman then read the 13th section, one clause of which is as follows: “The circuit courts shall have cognizance of all actions, or suits, matters or things cognizable by the judicial authority of the United States, under and by virtue of the constitution thereof, where the matter in dispute shall amount to one hundred dollars, and where original jurisdiction is not given by the constitution of the United States to the supreme court thereof, or exclusive jurisdiction by this act to the courts of admiralty hereby established.”
Mr. NICHOLAS moved to fill the blank with 500, so as to confine the jurisdiction to debts above 500 dollars. Among other reasons assigned by him, he stated, that the estate of Lord Fairfax, with the quit rents due thereon, had been confiscated during the revolution by the state of Virginia; notwithstanding the confiscation, the heirs of Lord Fairfax had sold all their rights (which the assignees contended remained unimpaired) it might be their wish to prosecute in a federal court, expecting to gain advantages in it which could not be had from the courts of Virginia. His object was to defeat this purpose by limiting the jurisdiction of the circuit courts to sums beyond the amount of quit rents, alleged to be due by any individual.
[We understand that the present assignees of the claims of Lord Fairfax are General Marshall, General Lee, and a third individual, and that they maintain their claims under the British treaty.]
The motion was opposed by Messrs. Harper and Bayard.
On the question being taken, it was lost by the casting vote of the Chairman—Ayes 37—Noes 37.
The blank was then filled up with 400—Ayes 41.
THURSDAY, January 8, 1801.
In committee of the whole on the JUDICIARY BILL.
Mr. NICHOLAS moved to add to the 17th section, the following clause of the act, passed September 24, 1789, and now in force, which is omitted in the bill now before the committee: viz.
“Nor shall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made, except in case of foreign bills of exchange.”
Mr. Nicholas stated his object to be to leave the jurisdiction of the federal courts as far as respected debts created by assignment, in the situation in which it now stood.
On this motion a debate of considerable length took place. The supporters of the motion were Messrs. Nicholas, Randolph, and Allston, the opponents, Messrs. Griswold, Harper, Bayard.
Those who supported the motion contended that by giving jurisdiction to the federal courts over assigned debts, a great mass of suits would be transferred from the state to the federal tribunals; that this would be done by a collusive assignment; that it would thereby be in the power of a creditor, by nominally assigning his claim to a citizen of another state or to a foreigner, to bring his debtor into any federal court he pleased, and occasion an increase of trouble and expense; that if any benefit did attach to the creditor by the right of instituting process in a federal court, which was however not granted, that very benefit would violate the established principle of law that the assignee of a debt ought not to be placed in a better situation than the assignor; that when a citizen made a contract with a foreigner, he knew the consequences, but when he made a contract with a citizen, he entertained no idea of inability to the federal courts, and had no idea of being dragged to a distance in case of a controversy with his creditor; that in the Southern states, and particularly in Virginia, this power would be highly injurious; for that in Virginia all bonds were assignable, and a great mass of the debts contracted were in bonds and promissory notes; that if the power were bestowed, it would place the debtor at the mercy of the creditor; inasmuch as the latter would cluse his court, and the former would in many cases be drawn 200 miles from his home, where the debt had probably been contracted, where only were to be found his witnesses, and where a jury could be formed acquainted with his general character; that the power would operate severely to the prejudice of the citizens of North Carolina, as in that state there circulated a paper currency, which was 25 per cent. below par, and which was a lawful tender in the state courts; whereas judgments were given in the federal courts for specie only; the effect therefore would be that the creditor would commence his suit in the federal courts, and by that means obtain 25 per cent. more than was really due to him, as the contracts made in that state were predicated on the depreciated state of the paper currency.
Those who opposed the motion, demanded to know whether a real bona fide debt could not be created by endorsement; whether it was not one of the most common operations among merchants; and whether the person who thus received an endorsement was not as completely and substantially the creditor as the original holder of the obligation? The effect of the amendment would be to shut out from the federal courts all persons of this description, whose claims would be as much affected by local passions and prejudices, as though they had not assigned. It was contended that this was one of the precise cases, for which the constitution had provided; and that the attempt to defeat this essential provision was another evidence of that invariable and unabating disposition to defeat the most important provisions of the constitution; to destroy its energy, and to withdraw from it the respect of the citizens, which on every occasion was manifested by some gentlemen in that house.
The reasons offered in defence of the amendment were declared to be fallacious. There would exist no irrational unfounded predilection of the creditor to the federal tribunals; in most cases the creditor would prefer the state courts; in all cases except those in which he had a strong dread that the undue influence of sinister feelings would bias them. If gentlemen simply desired to restrict suits for demands not bona fide assigned, an express provision could be made to this effect, to which the house would generally agree; for that provision, while it gratified the desires of several gentlemen, would not impair one of the vital principles of the constitution, established on the conviction that an alien did not in the state courts stand upon an equal footing with a citizen.
It was contended that the observations derived from the situation of the state of North Carolina were not correct; as it was not believed that the federal courts could alter a contract from its original form; and that of course in those cases where contracts had been made in paper money, judgment would be given not for money, but in the nature of provisions or some similar way, as no power could exist to deteriorate the contract.
It was not true that the great mass of debts incurred were on bonds or promissory notes; the great mass of debts were in the shape of book debts, which were not transferable.
It was further observed that if a disposition to evade the spirit of the law existed, it would be extremely easy in the creditor, when making his bargain, to obtain a note payable to a person in another state or to an alien; and in this way his object of getting access to the federal courts would be completely effected.
It was further contended that this amendment violated the constitution. By it a citizen of one state had a declared right of suing the citizen of another in the federal courts.
As to the idea of additional expence in the federal courts, if it had any weight, it would as forcibly apply to the creditor as the debtor.
In REPLY it was contended, that facts were stubborn things, and that they established, notwithstanding the ingenious theories of gentlemen, that judgments in North Carolina were actually given in the federal courts in specie, while in the state courts they were given in paper money; and that as to the idea of discriminating between bona fide and mala fide assignments, it would produce one of the most intricate and embarrassing questions that could come before the courts; that in most cases all the knowledge to be obtained must proceed from the party interested in suppressing it; and that in consequence an extensive scene of perjury would be opened by appealing to his oath.
To this remark the opponents of the motion rejoined that the operation would be a very simple one, consisting only in a resort to the equity side of the court to obtain on oath of the assignee a true statement of facts; and this resort had actually been had in Pennsylvania.
The question was then put on agreeing to Mr. Nicholas's motion, and carried. Ayes 42, Noes 27.
Mr. Harper moved to strike out the sections 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, which established a number of distinct courts with admiralty jurisdiction.
On reflection, Mr. Harper said it had been thought advisable at present, not to constitute these new courts, but to establish two or three additional district courts in the most maritime positions, with admiralty powers; for which purpose Mr. Harper would prepare an amendment. Motion carried without a division.
JUST IMPORTED, IN the ship Missouri, via Philadelphia, and now opening for Sale at the Subscriber's Store on New-Jersey Avenue Capital Hill, Square 690.
A General Assortment of Ironmongery, Cutlery, Sadlery, Brass Wares and Building Materials.
Among which are the following Articles. Iron pots, frying pans, chassing dishes, Brass iron and Japand Candlesticks, patent metal tea kettles and sauce pans; japanned tea trays, waiters and Bread baskets, fad irons, wind up Jacks, Sweeping, scrubbing, hearth and shoe brushes; Mathematical instruments, mahogany knife cases, filled with ivory handled knives and forks, Crust stands, ladies dressing cases; mill, pitt and cross cut Saws. 56, 28 and 14lb. Iron weights. Also seale beams to weigh from 5 to 10 cwt. at an end. HENRY INGLE November 24th, 1800.
CABINET AND CHAIR MANUFACTORY. WILSON AND HANDY, HAVE commenced the above business at their shop on New Jersey Avenue between the Episcopal church and Sugar House. As they are confident from the experience they have had in the principal shops in Europe and America, that they shall be able to give general satisfaction to those who will please to favour them with their custom. They have on hands, viz.
Secretary Desks, Portable Writing Desks, Dressing Chests, Card Tables, &c. N. B. Orders from country or city thankfully received and faithfully executed. December 30. 3tw
WILSON AND HANDY, HAVE commenced the above business at their shop on New Jersey Avenue between the Episcopal church and Sugar House. As they are confident from the experience they have had in the principal shops in Europe and America, that they shall be able to give general satisfaction to those who will please to favour them with their custom. They have on hands, viz.
Secretary Desks, Portable Writing Desks, Dressing Chests, Card Tables, &c. N. B. Orders from country or city thankfully received and faithfully executed. December 30. 3tw
WILSON AND HANDY, HAVE commenced the above business at their shop on New Jersey Avenue between the Episcopal church and Sugar House. As they are confident from the experience they have had in the principal shops in Europe and America, that they shall be able to give general satisfaction to those who will please to favour them with their custom. They have on hands, viz.
Secretary Desks, Portable Writing Desks, Dressing Chests, Card Tables, &c. N. B. Orders from country or city thankfully received and faithfully executed. December 30. 3tw
WILSON AND HANDY, HAVE commenced the above business at their shop on New Jersey Avenue between the Episcopal church and Sugar House. As they are confident from the experience they have had in the principal shops in Europe and America, that they shall be able to give general satisfaction to those who will please to favour them with their custom. They have on hands, viz.
JOHN BARNES, FROM PHILADELPHIA, Has just opened for sale the following articles at his store opposite Mr. Semmes's tavern, in Georgetown, a general assortment of Fresh Teas of the first quality, viz. Imperial, Large Hyson, Young Hyson, Hyson skin, Souchong and Bohea. SPICES. Nutmegs, Mace, Cinnamon, Cloves, Four bags fresh Almonds. LIQUORS. Madeira, six years old, Dry Sherry & Port, Brandy, 4th proof Jamaica Spirits, and Holland Gin. COFFEE. Pennington's best refined sugars. With a handsome assortment of gentlemen's fashionable London Hats and trimmings. He has likewise for sale, ten cases well assorted STATIONARY, consisting of writing paper of different qualities, Quills, Wafers, and Ink powder, in packages from 30 to 180 dollars on the most reasonable terms for cash or approved notes. English and American playing cards, Pasteboard per gross, Wrapping paper per ream, A case of 7-8 and yard wide Irish Linen per piece. Nov. 14th, 1800.
JOHN MINCHIN, BOOT MAKER FROM PHILADELPHIA. RESPECTFULLY acquaints his FRIENDS, CUSTOMERS, and the PUBLIC, that he has removed his BOOT AND SHOE MANUFACTORY from near the Eastern Branch, to New Jersey Avenue, on the hill, near the Capitol, where he makes Gentlemen's Boots, Bootees, dress and undress Shoes on the shortest notice, in the neatest manner, and of the best materials. December 3d. 3tw. TO JOURNEYMEN SHOEMAKERS. WANTED, a number of Journeymen Shoemakers, to whom constant employment and good wages will be given.
Kid, Eliot & Co. At the Brick Store opposite BLODGETT'S HOTEL. HAVE received by the Brig UNION, Capt. Leonard, from Liverpool, a large supply of Crockery Ware. Some of which is well assorted in small cases for the country. Also, by the same Vessel. White Lead, ground in oil. Spanish Brown do. Red Lead, Patent yellow, &c. &c. They expect by the Roba and Betsey arrived at Norfolk, an additional Invoice of crockery and a large assortment of Glass ware. All which will be sold at the Philadelphia prices. December 28.
CONVEYANCER'S OFFICE. THOMAS HERTY has opened an office a few yards from the CAPITOL, on the New Jersey Avenue, where he will attend daily till 3 o'clock during the sitting of Congress, and in the afternoon, at his office opposite the LITTLE HOTEL—Conveyances of land, wills, mortgages, leases, assignments, copartnership deeds and dissolutions, marriage settlements and separations, letters of licence and composition, bills of sale of vessels, slaves, and other chattels, bonds of conveyance, and other bonds, powers of attorney, awards, manumissions, partitions, exchanges, petitions, annuities, post obits, seamen's wills and powers, and all other instruments in the above line, are drawn according to the legal import of the same respectively, with the utmost punctuality, accuracy, secrecy, and dispatch, and on moderate terms. Titles investigated, and opinions given where necessary. N. B. Hertys Abridgment of the laws of Maryland, approved and sanctioned by the Attorney General and Legislature of Maryland, may be had at the above office, price Six Dollars neatly bound and lettered; also Hertys Digest of the Laws of the United States, price Three Dollars, neatly bound and lettered. December, 1800. twtf
LOTS FOR SALE, In the City of WASHINGTON. THE SUBSCRIBER offers for Sale a number of valuable Lots beautifully situated between the Capitol and the Eastern Branch. Also a few Lots to be let on lease for ninety-nine years in the vicinity of the Navy yard. WILLIAM PROUT. City of Washington. December 12, 1800. N. B. A few Tons of good Meadow Hay, one Kiln of Bricks, and some Cord Wood. W. P.
Notice is Given THAT I shall attend at the Eastern Branch Ferry on Monday, the 29th inst. for the purpose of renting the Filhing Landing. If any person should want to rent it, with whom I am not acquainted, security will be required. JOHN WALLACE, of Wm. December 22, 1800.
Notice is Given THAT I shall attend at the Eastern Branch Ferry on Monday, the 29th inst. for the purpose of renting the Filhing Landing. If any person should want to rent it, with whom I am not acquainted, security will be required. JOHN WALLACE, of Wm. December 22, 1800.
Notice is Given THAT I shall attend at the Eastern Branch Ferry on Monday, the 29th inst. for the purpose of renting the Filhing Landing. If any person should want to rent it, with whom I am not acquainted, security will be required. JOHN WALLACE, of Wm. December 22, 1800.
Notice is Given THAT I shall attend at the Eastern Branch Ferry on Monday, the 29th inst. for the purpose of renting the Filhing Landing. If any person should want to rent it, with whom I am not acquainted, security will be required. JOHN WALLACE, of Wm. December 22, 1800.