The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1801-02-02 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. XL.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2d, 1801.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, January 21, 1801.
SEDITION ACT.
Mr. Nicholson said, had he been a member of the house at the time when this bill passed, he should have most assuredly given his opinion that it was unconstitutional and inexpedient, and all that he had heard or seen since that period in the various examinations it had undergone, had not contributed to create a doubt in his mind upon the accuracy of that decision. It had ever been his opinion that a virtuous administration, whose actions flowed from good motives, required not the aid of a statute to defend it from the attacks of slander. The abuse of the power confided by the people, and not its constitutional use, could alone fear the shafts of reproach, and power thus used merited no better fate.
These, Mr. Nicholson said, were his ideas at the period when the bill passed. If its inexpediency was so evident to him at that period, how much more so must it appear at the present time? In order to call this to the view of the committee he would bring to their remembrance the prosecutions which had taken place under it during the two years of its existence, from which he could make it plainly appear that the administration of this law was extremely objectionable.
The first fact he noticed was the arraignment, trial and conviction of a member of the house, who was committed under the care of a severe keeper, to an unwholesome and loathsome dungeon, and the treatment of that member whilst in confinement, in all of which were evinced a party spirit highly unworthy the character this country ought to bear. The next was the case of a printer who was made to stand on his trial, but notwithstanding he pleaded the necessity of producing evidence, which he stated to be material to his defence, time was refused him to procure their attendance. He needed not expatiate, he presumed on the rights of every man to demand, when brought before a tribunal of justice, time to produce witnesses material for his defence, or of the duty of the court to grant every opportunity to afford the means of defence: these were too evident to be opposed. Another instance was that of a trial proceeding, wherein important testimony was asked, but refused, because the person required to give the evidence was an high officer of the government. The accused was told by the judge that he had no right to that testimony.
Another fact had occurred in testimony, stated to be material to the defence, but because it was at a distance, time was refused to produce it, and the trial and judgment proceeded without it.
Another and more fatal instance was that of a printer who died in prison, where he lay convicted under the law. From a view of all these cases, Mr. N. said he must conclude that the administration of this law was extremely objectionable. Although many of these persons were foreigners, yet they had not the less claim upon the justice of the country; it mattered not whether they came from the tropics, from the poles, or whether they first drew their breath in this country; all men possessed an equal right of demanding a free and impartial trial, and to all men alike it ought to be granted.
It was, and might be farther urged, that this act was only aimed at false and malicious libels, tending to defame the government. He granted it, but who were to be the judges? The bench themselves: they perhaps might be the subjects of animadversion, but if not, were the creation of the person aggrieved. By them the materiality of the testimony which ought to go to the jury was to be judged, and therefore the principle that the truth might be given in evidence was but of little importance, if that truth was not suffered to appear.
The gentleman from Connecticut had introduced parts of this law which he supposed could not be objected to. Mr. Nicholson admitted that the cases of insurrection and unlawful combination against the government ought to be provided for, and if the gentleman had proposed a resolution for the continuance of those parts, he would not have objected. No, the objectionable part was that which the people of the country had said, ought not to have been enacted—that part which stifles every investigation into the affairs of government. It was certainly true, that the existence of this law forbade enquiry into the affairs of the government, for who would dare scrutinize the conduct of men in power, when they apprehended that they would be afterwards handled by a court and jury so unlikely to do impartial justice to them? It must prevent men saying what they think, much less what they know.
What, he asked, had the government to fear from untruth? The publication of falsehood must carry the evidence of its own infamy, and would undoubtedly meet its due appreciation. The characters of public men, in whom the people of this country had been wont to repose confidence, need not shrink at the apprehension of the publication of falsehood.
He concluded by expressing his regret that this subject should again be called up to irritate the House; he wished not to have said any thing upon so unpopular a subject, but as it had been introduced, he must inform the committee the resolution should have his most decided negative.
Mr. BAYARD said that after what had fallen from gentlemen, who opposed the revival of the Seditious law, it became necessary for its former friends to support it in their own justification.
He thought from a consideration of the nature of the law and the crimes it was intended to punish, viz. false, scandalous and malicious libels, it was surprising it should meet with any opposition. Is it, he said, no crime falsely and maliciously to assert the government of the country? From the enormity of the offence and the extent of the injury it was necessary to make examples of such offenders in order to deter others. Were he in a despotic country he would feel but little anxiety about this subject, but in this country we stand on different ground. Our government depends much upon the opinion of the people. To mislead or corrupt public opinion is to sap the pillars which support the government and produce its ruin.
Gentlemen say and pretend to think there is no necessity for a law of this kind; that the good sense of the people will prevent the evils apprehended from false publications. It is however found that the most intelligent are deceived in this way. When falsehoods are stated in newspapers as facts and remain uncontradicted, what chance is there for their not being believed? The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nicholson) was himself so far deceived and deluded that he ventured to state to the committee one of those assertions as a fact. This is adduced to shew in a strong point of light the necessity for such a law. Mr. B. had as much confidence as other gentlemen in the good sense, integrity and patriotism of the people when not misinformed. To prevent this is the object of the law; that newspapers may thus be made the channels of truth, punishment is only to be inflicted when known falsehood is maliciously published. Can this be called no crime? Can any one say a man may falsely, wickedly and maliciously publish things with a view to destroy the government and yet not be amenable to justice?
It is allowed that government has power to punish insurrections and even combinations to prevent the execution of the laws. If this may be done should not the instruments of insurrection and illegal combinations also be punished? May we not strike at the root of the evil? May not false publications produce insurrections? In his opinion, there would have been no insurrection in this country, had it not been for the publication of false, scandalous and malicious libels. Unless provided against, the time may come, when the country will be
deluged with evils occasioned by such falsehoods.
The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Nicholson) opposed the law as essentially wrong both in theory and practice. Mr. B. then entered on a review of the cases in which it had been carried into practice. Respecting Callender's trial he knew but little. The doctrine advanced by the court was a very alarming one in the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia. The jury had a right to decide upon the law and the fact, but not upon the constitutionality of the law, the judge was therefore authorised in prohibiting any argument on that point.
He then took a view of the case, in which, it was said, an honorable gentleman of that house, had been fined in a large sum and confined in a loathsome dungeon. What, he enquired, was the object in mentioning that case? A libel was published against the government, a jury of the country declared it to be false, scandalous and malicious; and yet the punishment is complained of as a hardship. As well might we be told of hardship when a felon suffers for his crime; or that it was hardship when a vote was taken for expelling the honorable gentleman from this house.
Will you say that the judge and jury were corrupt? This house by a vote sanctioned their decision. He was convicted by a fair trial, and if the court did wrong so did this house. If the court acting under oath entered so far into party prejudices as to neglect their duty why not impeach the judges? It is improper to cite these authorities when the judges cannot justify themselves. This is a case of real hardship. Why do not gentlemen come forward and impeach the judges if they have done wrong? They are not above the justice of the country. It would be administered even against them. They are said to be under party prejudices. Mr. B. believed they could be trusted. He never suspected them of doing wrong, full evidence should be adduced of it prior to its being believed.
Will gentlemen say there is no chance for an impeachment, because a majority in both houses are biased by the same party prejudices? What is the amount of this argument? Those who think with me are impartial, those who differ from me are under party prejudice. Mr. B. believed the gentlemen opposed to him sincere in their intentions. He also believed the judges were sincere, that they had been correct in their principles. He was warranted in what he said by the charges made against them being groundless.
The charges delivered by the judges have been complained of. The object of the charges has been to inculcate a love of order and good government. This might be party prejudice in the opinion of some gentlemen, if so he must still applaud the judges.
It is said, the law is unconstitutional. He thought a sound mind might be intuitively convinced of the contrary. If such a law is necessary to preserve and continue the constitution, it is constitutional. It is necessary to defend the government from the attempts of assassins. If you allow the government to be brought into contempt, the constitution will become a baleless fabric and in time will vanish away. The right to make such a law he thought was clearly and expressly given in the 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution, which says, Congress shall have power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the U. States, or in any department or officer thereof." In his opinion the law is so essentially necessary, that without it the government would be paralyzed and stripped of all defence. He thought it unnecessary to trouble the house with farther argument as those offered were sufficient in his opinion, he knew of no stronger ones.
Mr. B. was of opinion, that if this law is permitted to expire, the common law will be in force, by which fine and imprisonment are unlimited and truth is not allowed to be given in justification. By
some it is denied to be the law of the land. It ought to be remembered that the common law is the parent not only of the liberty of this country but of England and all Europe. How differently, he said, we feel from what our ancestors did who were ready to spill the last drop of their blood in its defence!—To the common law we owe the trial by jury and many other rights; yet it is reprobated. Is it not the boast even of Virginia? Was it not objected to the constitution in the Virginia convention that it did not recognize the common law? The constitutions of all the states are predicated on the common law, which is made up of the rules of right reason founded on the experience of ages. If courts are not bound by the common law they must be governed by their own arbitrary will. If common law is not binding there is no law and gentlemen surely cannot dream of liberty without law. If we are governed without law, it is despotism, whether government is by the will of one or many. Were we left to the will of courts we should be in a state of uncertainty. We should be liable to suffer from caprice, vice, folly and every weakness. The existence of the common law is of immense importance, without it the constitution would be a mere skeleton devoid of sinews and nerves and incapable of motion.
Gentlemen seem to suppose they have started an insuperable difficulty by asking what period you will fix on for taking the common law, and with or without the modifications of different statutes.
He would take it as taken by the states, with no more difficulties than our ancestors took it. It was no difficult matter to draw the line. He would take it at the adoption of the constitution as modified by the statutes of the states. What objection could be made to this? Was there more cause of alarm at its being adopted by the United States courts than in the courts of the different states, where they love the common law. They cannot surely object to it as it is dispensed in all the courts.
To paralyse the general government and confine all power to the state courts is a system invariably pursued by some gentlemen on this floor. He was not therefore surprised that they should wish it not to be the law of the courts of the United States. We must however, have one of the two alternatives; take the common law or have no law. The courts must be either despotic or bound by the common law.
If a government were given to this territory and a judiciary established, it would be under the common law. Whenever a constitution is formed it is bottomed on the idea of the common law being in existence. The ancient opinion was that the common law was the law of the United States. Now judges are called despots for deciding by it. This is the novel opinion which should be scouted from the floor of the house.
Mr. B. referred gentlemen to the XIth article of the amendments to the constitution, which says, "No fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." Here the existence of the common law is recognised, unless the article is without meaning.
Suppose a man convicted of treason and a motion made for a new trial, must not the determination be by the rules of common law?
In the 3d section of the 1st article of the constitution after defining the extent of judgment, it is said; "but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." It could be only the common law here referred to.
In cases of impeachment how would Senators form their opinion, the constitution has given no direction, as to the manner of conducting them? The common law only could direct.
Persons can be impeached only for offences against the United States. After conviction they may be punished by law, certainly the common law and that part of it which relates to criminal cases.
(Continued on last page.)

the constitutionality and policy of the measure. As little noise had been made with respect to this law in the state he had the honour of representing, as in perhaps any part of the union; yet it certainly had occasioned some uneasiness in the public mind even there: and he was convinced the great majority of his constituents would not willingly see it again renewed at the present time. He would venture even to go so far as to say, that the freedom of speech and of the press, though carried even to a certain degree of licentiousness, was in general deemed preferable by them to any thing like an appearance of restraint on either. Their good sense might lead them to acquiesce in, and perhaps even approve of temporary restrictions in the moment of impending danger, but such restrictions even then would be unpleasant and distressing to their feelings, and excite all their jealousies; nor would they easily reconcile themselves to any thing of the kind in peaceful and common times.
It had been argued that no government depended so much upon public opinion, as our own, and it was consequently necessary to continue these restrictions at all times, as a safeguard against misrepresentation and falsehood. He could not, however, acquiesce in this conclusion: during the eight years of the administration of that great man, who bore so conspicuous a part in forming and carrying into operation the present constitution, as well as during the two first years of the present administration, the government had progressed and prospered, without the aid of any such law. And if the crisis of the moment had two years since called forth an expedient of this kind, it was now at an end, and he saw no reason why we should not allow things to revert to their ancient channel. He was willing, indeed, to admit, that some inconveniences, some mischiefs even did occasionally arise from the unprincipled and unbridled licentiousness of the press. He had had but too much reason to lament the truth of this fact. In the present political state of society, however, these evils, he was inclined to believe, were far more than counterbalanced by the advantages which we reaped from the entire freedom of speech and of the press. He was content, therefore, to take the good with its concomitant evil. For so nice and delicate were the shades of distinction between the licentiousness of the press and a necessary freedom of discussion, that it was upon the whole better perhaps, in times like the present—when the thing would probably work its own cure—to leave the measures of government and its administration entirely open to investigation and animadversion, without attempting to repress the eccentricities and exuberances of public discussion by even an ideal restraint.
Mr. H. begged leave to make one other observation before he sat down. It was evident to all that a change of men was about to take place. It was equally well known, that those who were about to enter into the administration of the government, had on all occasions declared themselves openly and unequivocally hostile to the principles of this act. It was no doubt honorable in those gentlemen, who had heretofore supported this measure, to show their willingness to continue and submit to it, in a change of circumstances, which might enable their political opponents to turn it against themselves. But with what appearance of consistency; with what propriety; upon what principle, could these gentlemen, avail themselves of the provisions of this law. To him it appeared impossible, that they could act under it. If renewed then, it must remain a dead letter. And why load your statute book with laws, which could not be carried into execution, and would of course answer no end.
Upon the whole—the motion appeared to him ill-timed. The measure, it was admitted on all sides, had occasioned much difference of opinion and considerable uneasiness in the public mind. The state of things, which originally gave rise to it, was at an end, and there appeared to be no circumstance, which rendered it peculiarly necessary or expedient to continue the law longer in force. All restrictions of this kind were discordant and uncongenial to the American feelings and wishes. And even, if the law should be continued in our statute book, it would according to all human probability, not be acted upon. Under these impressions, and in this view of the subject, he could have wished, the present motion had not been made, but, at all events he felt himself bound to give it his negative.
(To be continued.)
NEW-YORK, January 26.
A gentleman who arrived in town yesterday from the eastward informs, that a fire broke out in Providence, R. I. on Tuesday morning, and continued till Wednesday evening, which destroyed between 30 and 40 houses.
PHILADELPHIA, January 28.
Yesterday the Centre Square Engine was put in motion, and the waters of Schuylkill were distributed along the pipes of conduit through the streets of Philadelphia. On this pleasing occasion the Mayor and the members of the two Councils attended at the Centre Square. The water was delivered in considerable quantities—and the whole experiment succeeded to expectation. This is a joyful circumstance to the citizens at large, and must be particularly gratifying to those gentlemen of the Corporation who have, through varied and multiplied difficulties, persevered to the completion of an object of the first magnitude, both as it respects the health and convenience of the city.
When the water first issued from the Hydrants, which are placed in various parts of the streets, it was considerably turbid, owing to the filth which had collected in the pipes when they were laid down, and which had never before been discharged—but it very soon assumed a limpid appearance; and there can be no doubt but that for drinking and culinary purposes it will be found infinitely preferable to the water of our pumps.
A number of country men, who happened to witness this first introduction of the water, gaped with astonishment, as at the tenth wonder of the world.—They will speedily return home to communicate the marvellous tidings; and it will be well if they be not dubbed liars, when they come to relate what they saw to their credulous neighbours and friends.
From the Examiner printed at Richmond.
Every day produces new evidence of the great philanthropy, talents and patriotism, of Mr. Jefferson. The letter from that gentleman to his friend in Berkeley which we publish in this day's Examiner, does equal honor to his head and heart; and must convince those who have persecuted him, that he is not an enemy to peace and harmony, but a decided supporter of every principle of representative government, and of liberty.
Few men indeed, who like Mr. Jefferson, had been the object, of eternal slander and reproach, would have manifested as much benevolence and forbearance towards their enemies, as he has done in this letter, which I value the more, because it contains the spontaneous effusions of his heart. It was written in answer to a letter, and solely for the satisfaction of his friends; the Editor obtained a copy, and thought it his duty to make it public.
Copy of Mr. Jefferson's Letter, in reply to one addressed to him, by a citizen of Berkeley.
Monticello, September 4, 1800.
Sir, Your favor of August 26th, has been duly received, and is entitled to my thankfulness for the personal considerations you are pleased to express in it. How far the measure proposed might have the expected effect, you can best judge: however, in the great exercise of right in which the citizens of America are about to act, I have, on mature consideration, seen, that it is my duty to be passive. The interests which they have at stake are entitled to their whole attention, unbiased by personal esteem or local considerations; and I am far from the presumption of considering myself equal to the awful duties of the first magistracy of this country. That there should be differences of opinion among our fellow-citizens, is to be expected always. Men who think freely, and have the right of expressing their thoughts, will differ. It is true that these differences have of late been artificially increased; but they are now again subsiding to their natural level, and all will soon come right, if no acts of violence intervene. The great question which divides our citizens is, whether it is safest that a preponderance of power should be lodged with the monarchical, or the republican branch of our government? Temporary panics may
produce advocates for the former opinion even in this country; but the opinion will be as short lived as the panic, with the great mass of our fellow-citizens. There is one circumstance which will always bring them to rights: a preponderance of the executive over the legislative branch cannot be maintained but by immense patronage, by multiplying offices, making them very lucrative, by armies, navies, &c. which may enlist on the side of the patron all those whom he can interest, and all their families and connexions; but these expenses must be paid by the labouring citizen; he cannot long continue, therefore, the advocate of opinions, which, to say only the least of them, doom the labouring citizen to toil and sweat, for useless pageants.
I should be unfaithful to my own feelings were I not to say, that it has been the greatest of all human consolations to me, to be considered by the republican portion of my fellow-citizens as the safe depositary of their rights. The first wish of my heart is, to see them so guarded as to be safe in any hands, and not to depend on the personal disposition of the depositary: and I hope this to be practicable as long as the people retain the spirit of freedom. When that is lost, all experience has shewn, that no forms can keep them free against their own will. But that corrupt state of mind must be very distant in a country where, for ages to come, unoccupied soil will still offer itself to those who will to reap for themselves what themselves have sown.
Our chief object at present should be, to reconcile the divisions which have been artificially excited, and to restore society to its wonted harmony. Whenever this shall be done, it will be found, that there are very few real opponents to a government elective at short intervals.
Accept assurances of the respect of, Sir, Your very humble servant, TH: JEFFERSON.
Extract of a letter from Providence, to a gentleman in New-York dated 21st inst.
"I cannot describe to you the situation of Providence at this moment—thirty houses and stores have been burnt since 9 o'clock this morning. Among the unfortunate sufferers, are John Corlis, whose store, &c. were consumed, where it first commenced; Samuel Arnold, store; Thomas L. Halsey, do; John T. Clark, do; Green & Barker, do.; J. Olney, do.; James Peck, do. and house and a large number others in that neighborhood, with all the goods. The streets are filled with furniture and damaged goods, and numbers of families turned out of doors. The fire is still raging; and the damage already sustained is computed at 500,000 dollars."
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, February 2. 1801.
The Editor of the National Intelligencer, during the last week, has received so many complaints respecting the irregular receipt of papers by his subscribers that he finds himself unable to reply individually to each.
Complying on his part rigidly with the rules of the department, and making up his packets in such a way as apparently to defy injury from the most careless neglect of them, he is authorised to say that the failure is solely to be ascribed to the post office department.
Neglect and misconduct appear to occur in the whole extent of the line. The papers are destroyed before they reach even Alexandria, Newport, Del. Philadelphia and New-York, all of which are on the main line.
Determined, if possible, to redress an evil of extensive and growing magnitude, he invites information from his subscribers (requesting that letters may be post paid) which information shall be, as that received has been, submitted to the Post Master General.
The federal members of the two houses of Congress gave a dinner on Wednesday last to OLIVER WOLCOTT.
Lt. Gov. VAN RENSELAER, declines standing a candidate for the Government of New-York at the ensuing Election.
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
On the Government of the Territory of Columbia.
No. II.
The next feature in the Bill before the House of Representatives that claims consideration, is the organization of the legislature and the periods for which its members are elected. The House of Representatives is to be composed of members chosen for two years, and the Senate of members chosen for six years. Whatever reasons may recommend the adoption of such principles in a system, whose operation is to affect a great extent of country, under the government of distinct authorities, as in the case of the federal constitution, it is apprehended that no one solid reason can be assigned for the incorporation of such principles into a system, applicable to a small district, not under the government of any distinct authority.
The natural partiality of our citizens to their great system of national policy may have unadvisedly suggested the idea of applying its provisions to the Territory of Columbia. But, if it can be shewn that the circumstances in which the U. S. were at the era of the adoption of the Federal Constitution are widely dissimilar from those in which the District of Columbia, now is, it may rationally be hoped that no mistaken attachment to our federal government will cloud our judgments in a decision on a fit system for the latter.
The constitution of the U. S. arose from the excellence of states having distinct systems of government in the previous and prospective exercise of all powers, excepting those which should be connected with national, and chiefly external purposes.
The District of Columbia, has, it is true, a system of laws; but those laws are entirely at the mercy of Congress and the territorial legislature.
In the union of the several states under the federal constitution, little was required to be accomplished, but that which had not been within the power of the individual states, and of course had not been by them attempted; and beyond all other ends, it was deemed important to establish a system, whose inherent checks should prevent the wanton invasion of state rights. Hence the establishment of a Senate, chosen by the States for six years.
On the contrary in the Territory of Columbia, an immense field of legislation will be opened, that will require the passage of laws that respect, crimes, property, and police.
Many of these laws must be passed; without their existence the territory cannot prosper.
Now the contemplated Senate, chosen immediately for six years, will be a perpetual check upon the adoption of measures, ascertained from experience, to be necessary; and however decidedly the general will of the territory may be expressed in favor of any particular measure, if the Senate, from preconceived ideas, should be opposed to it, it cannot be adopted.
In this feature of the plan we again contemplate effects calculated to sacrifice the interests of Washington.
The present population of Washington is but a fraction of that of the whole district; and of this small population it has been shewn that but a small part will enjoy the elective franchise. So insignificant would be the weight of her present vote at elections that there does not exist a shadow of probability that her own strength would insure to her a single representative in the legislature. The proposed system establishes a governor for three years; a House of Representatives for two years; and a Senate for six years. Each of these departments has a complete control over the other. Whatever, therefore, is done by the legislature must be with the concurrence of all. The Senate existing for six years, and being elected by eight electors, will undoubtedly be influenced by one common sentiment, and act as one man. From this will inevitably result their complete ascendancy.
With this legislature are to originate all systems of taxation and all regulations of police. Washington is a new city, that from the peculiar circumstances attending its situation, requires an immediate and rigid police. If her own wealth, instead of being directed to its legitimate ends, be applied to the general objects of the territory, Washington will inevitably languish, the industry and enterprise of her citizens will be paralysed, and their health probably exposed to the ravages of infectious disease.
As Georgetown and Alexandria are old and established towns, this will not be the case with them. They require nothing in

mediately to be done to promote their prosperity.
The laws passed by the legislature will, from this view, be passed without the participation of Washington. When passed, they will be eternal.
While Washington is every year gaining large accessions of citizens, and even when the period shall arrive in which her numbers will outweigh those of the district, still governed by a Senate chosen for six years, and then renewable by electors, one half of whom must come from the western side of the Potomac, she will exhibit the unprecedented spectacle of the rising metropolis of an extending empire, controlled, not alone in the great objects of legislation and general taxation, but even in the subordinate ones of police, by a small adjacent population, animated certainly by unharmious, and probably by hostile interests.
WASHINGTON.
The SENATE this day recommitted to the same Committee, to whom had been previously referred, the Bill on the Government of Columbia.
The SUPREME COURT of U. S. this day, met in the Capitol, and adjourned without transacting any business.
Declaration of War against Great Britain, by the Emperor of all Russias.
Petersburg, Nov. 15. 1800.
WHEREAS War has for many years desolated the face of Europe and disturbed the tranquility of innocent communities from considerations that cannot be justified by the laws of nature or nations. And whereas the maritime strength of Great Britain has become dangerous to the privileges and liberties of other states, and on sundry unwarrantable occasions violated the rights of neutrality. And whereas the principal support of this overgrown fleet, is derived from my faithful allies, Denmark and Sweden; I hereby proclaim it my solemn determination to co-operate with them for supporting the balance of power in Europe; And to equalize the advantages of weak and unprotected sovereignties. And whereas terms of peace has been offered by the first Consul of the French Republic, that have been shamefully neglected:
I hereby proclaim war against the King of the Britons, and authorise the seizure and detention of all ships, goods and merchandise belonging to his subjects, and a sequestration of all property, having no other object but a restoration of a general peace. I look up to Heaven for the rectitude of my intentions and subscribe this declaration to advance and promote the general interest of mankind. Done at Petersburg this 15th day of November. 1800.
PAUL.
Dumbrowskie, G. Sec.
Kid, Eliot & Co.
HAVE received by late arrivals, a general assortment of Hard ware and Ironmongery, which they offer for Sale at their Store opposite the Great Hotel.
They have also on hand
 Madeira, Sherry & } Wines.  Lisbon  Cognac Brandy.  Jamaica Spirits,  Holland Gin,  Loaf and Brown Sugar,  Tea, Coffee, &c. &c. 
Washington, Dec. 13.
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, entries 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.
CHEAP LUMBER, FOR SALE,
By the Subscriber, on reasonable terms, either by large or small quantities, at his Lumber Yards, the north end of Lamberton, and at the old Sturgeon Pond, above Richards's wharf,
A QUANTITY OF ASSORTED LUMBER, viz.
One and 1-4 inch, 1-1-8, and 1 do. Yellow pine. heart boards—1 inch pannel, 1-1-4 do. for floors, 1 do. common, white pine do—2 do. 7 1-4 and 2 1-2 do planks, 1 do. 5-8, and 2-3 do. boards, black walnut—2 do. plank, 3 do. 1-2 do. pannel boards, bedstead sets, poplar the whole of the above are well seasoned and fit for use—Clear heart pine, and sap pine white oak, and bilthead, hemlock and white pine scantling, assorted—best kind three feet cedar shingles, dressed and undressed, do. two feet white pine do.; do. 18 inch cypress do—cedar rails—Also, white pine sawed rails—shingling and plastering laths, best kind; white oak waggon timber—sap pine planks, sap pine one inch boards, 3-4 cedar, best kind, 3-4 white pine, 3-4 sap pine, seasoned weather boards—A quantity of handsome chestnut pailings, sawed 1 by 3 inches and from 4 to 16 feet long, for garden fence, &c. A quantity of chestnut oak posts, dressed and undressed; a quantity of cherry boards, a quantity of large white oak joice, a quantity of chestnut posts—5000 feet of neat beech scantling for tool blocks—5000 feet of Hickam's scantling for bedsteads; 2 inch white oak plank; 1 inch white oak boards, 3-4 do. do. do.—25,000 feet superior cherry boards and plank, 3,000 do. very clear 2 inch white pine plank, 3,000 do. handsome beater wood bedstead sets seasoned, 100,000 prime North Carolina shingles, a quantity of ash plank, 150 tons plaster Paris, warranted, 3,000 bushels best Virginia pit coal, 200 bushel cleans house sand.
The subscriber intends, establishing a Lumber Yard at the Federal City of Washington, which he will keep regularly supplied as above—Any quantities may be agreed for by contract, deliverable, as the purchaser may wish, provided that the place of delivery may be comatable by water with a navigable vessel—Any quantity that may be ordered for shipping abroad, shall be supplied with punctuality and dispatch, agreeable to order.
Gentlemen who are or may be building—as well as carpenters who may be under or may enter into contracts to build and furnish the materials, will find it well worth their attention to apply as above—Applications may be made by letter (post paid) or otherwise, to the subscriber, or left with Wm. and Anthony M. Buckley, or Benj. W. Morris and Co. merchants, Philadelphia.
Also for Sale or to Let,
A large commodious Dwelling House, with out buildings complete, and from three to seven acres of land—Two small do. with lots thereto. Also, a small Store near the river—All laying in the village of Lamberton.
NATHAN COMBS.
N. B. A Screw Jack to let, that raises from 10 to 40 tons by hand—a constant supply of laiter and Smith's Virginia coal. Lamberton, New Jersey, (on Del.)
January 13, 1801.
Take Notice.
THE partnership under the firm of PHELAN and NOYES, is dissolved this 21st day of January, 1801.
PHELAN & NOYES.
N. B. The business will be continued, as usual by the Subscriber LEVI NOYES Washington, Jan. 21, 1801.
Take particular Notice.
WITH astonishment, I read the dissolution of the partnership of the firm of PHELAN and NOYES, bearing date the 21st Instant, without my consent, and under the peculiar circumstances of my situation. My own property, and that of the creditors to a large amount, being made over for the security of the rent, that of the creditors, the firm is responsible for—Also large sums of money received by Levi Noyes, unaccounted for—While thus situated, I do hereby declare the notification of Levi Noyes, under the firm of Phelan and Noyes, to be illegal and unjust, and that the public take no notice of it—All persons are forbid trusting Levi Noyes on account of said firm. No contracts of whatever nature to be entered into by him, nor conveyance of any species of property, without my special signature is affixed thereto with my own hand.
JOHN PHELAN,
of the firm of Phelan and Noyes, Washington city, Jan. 24, 1801.
John Minchen.
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, Footees, dress and undress Shoes on the shortest notice, in the neatest manner, and of the best materials.
December 3d.
TO JOURNEYMEN SHOEMAKERS.
WANTED, a number of Journeymen Shoemakers, to whom constant employment and good wages will be given.
Boarding & Lodging
MAY Be had, for six or eight Gentlemen, at the WHITE HOUSE, between the City Post-Office, and Pennsylvania Avenue. January 14th, 1801.
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 casks 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.
BY virtue of a decree of the High Court of Chancery, will be Sold at public auction to the highest bidder on the 10th day of March next, on the premises, Lot No. 1. in square No. 744 in the City of Washington, with the Sugar House and materials, and the other buildings on the said Lot erected.
Such part of the purchase money as shall be sufficient to pay and satisfy the debt, interest and costs due by mortgage from James Piercy to Thomas Law (the amount whereof will be made known on or before the day of Sale) is to be paid down the day of sale, or brought into the Court of Chancery on the twenty-fifth day of June next, at the option of the purchaser; and for the residue of the purchase money, with interest, the purchaser is to give bond payable on the 20th day of June 1802 and upon the ratification of such sale by the chancellor (which ratification if made at all will be upon the twenty-fifth of June next) and upon payment of the whole of the purchase money (and not before) a title will be made to the purchaser clear of all claim of the said Law and Piercy or either of them.
JAMES D. BARRY, Trustee.
January 26, 1801.
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, Saddlery, Brass Wares and Building Materials.
 Among which are the following Articles.  Iron pots, frying pans, chafing dishes, Brass irons and Japaned Candlesticks, patent metal tea kettles and sauce pans; japanned tea trays, waiters and Bread baskets, sad irons, wind up Jacks, Sweeping, scrubbing, hearth and shoe brushes; Mathematical instruments, mahogany knife cases, filled with ivory handled knives and forks, Cruet stands, ladies dressing cases; mill, pith and cross cut Saws, 56, 28 and 14lb. Iron weights. Also scale beams to weigh from 5 to 10 cwt. at an end. 
HENRY INGLE
November 24th, 1800.
For Sale.
A Small tract of land containing 150 acres more or less. It is on the road to Frederic about five miles from George Town, and is a high and healthy situation. Terms are one third to be paid on possession being given, the remainder in two yearly payments. Enquire of the printer, or at the Commissioners Office, City of Washington.
If not sold within a month it will be rented on easy terms. January, 28th, 1801.
Conrad & M c Munn
HAVE opened houses of entertainment in the range of buildings formerly occupied by Mr. Law, about two hundred paces from the Capitol, in New Jersey Avenue, leading from thence to the Eastern Branch. They are spacious and convenient, one of which is designed for stage passengers and travellers, the other for the accommodation of boarders. There is stabling sufficient for 60 horses—They hope to merit public patronage.
City of Washington, Nov. 24, 1800.
In Chancery, January 30, 1801.
LEVI BUTLER an Insolvent of Charles county, makes application as a trader, by petition to the Chancellor in writing, praying the benefit of an "act for the relief of Sundry Insolvent debtors". Here is annexed to his petition a Schedule of his property, and a list of his Creditors on Oath, as by the said act is required. The Chancellor is satisfied by competent testimony, that the said Levi Butler hath resided two years in the state of Maryland using the trade of merchandise. It is thereupon adjudged, and ordered that he appear before the chancellor in the chancery office, on the first day of September next, for the purpose of taking the Oath, by the said act required in presence of his creditors, and that by causing a copy of this order, to be inserted in some one of the newspapers of the City of Washington, before the first day of March next, and by serving a copy of this order on so many of his creditors as can be conveniently served therewith before the said first day of March next; he give notice to his creditors to attend on the said first day of August next, for the purpose of recommending a trustee for their benefit, and to lodge with the chancellor, within six months from the time of the last publication (if they shall think fit) their dissent to his being admitted to the benefit of the said act.
Test.
SAMUEL HARVEY HOWARD, reg. C. C. Feb. 1, 1801.
WANTED to purchase a Small farm consisting of one, two or three hundred acres of land—at a convenient distance from this City, with comfortable buildings thereon for the accommodation of a small family. Enquire of the Editor of the National Intelligencer.
Washington, Jan. 26, 1801.
THE SUBSCRIBER, Will Sell or Exchange
FOR approved lands near the Blue Ridge, a valuable tract of land in Northumberland County, two miles from the Court House and near the bank of the Potomac, containing 1163 acres. This tract is divided into two plantations, on the one there is a brick dwelling house 50 by 33 feet conveniently divided, and two brick offices 24 by 16 feet. A Framed house 20 by 16 feet designed for an Overseer, and other out houses.
The conveniencies of this place are equalled by few, and the prospect excelled by none in the state.—The house is situated on a high hill, and commands an extensive view of the Potomac, and the Chesapeake Bay. There is a Creek abounding with the finest Fish and Oysters, which terminates the flat land of this tract, that is navigable for bay craft, and affords an excellent landing place within half a mile of the house. On this part of the tract there is an excellent bearing Apple and Peach orchard, and a variety of other fruit trees. It has a great sufficiency of Oak and Hickory timber, for the use of the plantation, besides a large quantity of pine. On the other plantation there is a framed dwelling house 32 by 16 feet, and a few out houses, such as tenants generally have about them. This part of the tract is as well situated for farming as any lands in Virginia. It is well watered, has a sufficiency of timber for its support, and flourishing young peach and apple orchards.
As it is presumable that no person will make such a purchase without viewing the premises, all that is necessary to add is that Mr. Spencer Ball living thereon will show the whole, and is fully authorised to make sale thereof.
JAMES V. BALL.
N. B. Any person purchasing may be supplied with stock of all kinds necessary and sufficient for the plantation.
January 28, 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 in Upper 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 GANFIELD,
Assignee,
Morris-Town, Dec. 27, 1800.
Mantua-Making.
MRS. DEMPSEY,
FROM NEW-YORK,
BEGS leave to inform the Ladies and Public in general, that she has commenced business in the City, on the New-Jersey Avenue, five doors from Mr. Smith's Printing-Office, where she makes Ladies' Dresses on the shortest notice, and of the newest fashion.
January 16, 1801.
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 on 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 Carroll, or in Baltimore to HENRY H. CARROLL.
Washington, Jan. 5, 1801.
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. CERROL'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 punctuality might be expected.
Two apprentices wanted.
Washington, Dec. 22.
Sarah M c Karaher,
Mantua-Maker and Seamstress, RETURNS her thanks for the encouragement she has met with from the Ladies of this city, and informs them she has removed to the house of Mr. DE FRANCE, within one door of Mr. Smith's Printing-Office. She will either attend Ladies at their own houses, or take in Mantua-Making, or Plain Sewing.
City of Washington, Jan. 16, 1801.
I WILL Sell, or Rent for 2 years, a convenient two story Brick House near the LITTLE HOTEL. Possession may be had on the 10th day of March.
JONATHAN PANCOAST.
Washington, Jan. 20. 1800.

(Continued from first page.)
Again in the same article felony and breach of the peace are spoken of—how are these to be defined? Only by the common law. In defining a breach of the peace there are many nice distinctions.
Mr. B. said he could cite many other cases but they were not necessary. He would however refer gentlemen to the opinions given in the course of legislation which was a fair mode of construction.
Those who first had the government of the United States in their hands proceeded upon the opinion that the common law was the law of the land. In one place they recognize the right of common law remedy. In the act establishing the Judiciary they say, "The circuit courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction in all suits at common law."
Mr. BAYARD concluded by saying, If I am correct in my position that the common law is the law of the land, the sedition law ought to be continued; because it limits and softens the penalties in cases of libels, which are very harsh according to the common law. The gentleman from Virginia has rightly appreciated my motives in wishing to renew this law, when a different administration is to take charge of the public welfare.
Mr. GALLATIN said it had been his intention not to rise again on this subject, but as the gentleman from Delaware had said that if this law is not continued in force the common law will be the law of the land, he would make a few observations. As to the constitutionality of the law; it is alleged to be necessary for carrying into operation certain defined powers of the constitution. Surely this law cannot be necessary to carry into effect these defined powers if the common law will remain in existence according to the gentleman's opinion. He rests much upon the necessity of it to protect the government from slander. Mr. G. supposed the evils arising from this source were not so much to be dreaded as those which would result from the attempt to punish slander. He wished to know what a false, scandalous and malicious libel is. If punishment could be confined to those only who published as facts what was unsupported by truth, he would not think the law improper. It could not, however, be denied, that recourse must be had merely to the opinions of the judges respecting things of very difficult definition.
The gentleman from Delaware had entered largely into the discussion of what had never been denied that the common law is in some measure the law of the land. But after he had paid every encomium to the common law he allowed it to be harsh in respect to libels.
The sedition act says truth shall be given in evidence, the gentleman supposed, that without that provision the judges would be bound to decide by the common law. He thinks too, that it has gone farther by allowing the jury to determine the law and the fact as in other cases. This supposes they had not this right before. Then as to libels the common law is contradictory to its usual allowance.
In a cause of this kind in England a judge gave it in charge to the jury that they were only to enquire whether a certain paper was printed and published by the accused. As well might he in a case of murder tell them they were only to enquire whether the accused had killed the man without any attention to the criminality of his intention.
Mr. G. did not think the courts of the U. States would at once assume jurisdiction over libels according to the common law in case this act was not revived.
The gentleman from Delaware had mentioned the case of a member of this house who had been punished under the Sedition Law, and considered the vote given for his expulsion as a sanction of the decision of the Judge and Jury. In such instances the constitution declared that two thirds were necessary for a decision—This was provided on the principle that such might be the prevalence of party spirit, that a majority would agree to expel without well grounded reasons. The vote was, therefore, a nullity, as two thirds did not agree to it. Mr. G. considered laws of this kind as the means of introducing party views into courts of justice; and that it was only in such cases that any danger of partiality was to be apprehended. Here it is to be apprehended, unless you can suppose judges become different men merely by being placed on the bench. It is also certain that the jury must be composed of one or the other party, and is therefore incompetent to decide upon opinions. He did not suppose them intentionally doing wrong. He asked if any gentleman in the
House would be willing to be tried for a libel by a jury chosen from the members of it who are of different political opinions. He confessed he would not.
The gentleman from S. Carolina had said, that in a certain trial the judge had permitted a book or news-paper to be read altho' it was not legal evidence. This shews that the accused was at the mercy of the judge, since he could not claim it as a right.
The same gentleman had spoken of the impropriety of the president being summoned as a witness. Suppose a person is accused of having written and published a false and malicious libel, in which he states that the president has expressed certain opinions; on the trial he says, I will prove the truth of my assertions—How is it to be done? By printed declarations? No, that is not legal evidence. He cannot summon the president. Thus though truth be on his side, he cannot give it in evidence. This shews how difficult it is to carry such laws into effect without oppression. Thus the provision that truth may be given in evidence is rendered useless.
Finally it is said that as it is upon public opinion our government depends, the public opinion should be guarded from corruption. What he asked, is meant by saying the government depends upon public opinion? Surely, it is not intended to mean, whether there shall be a government or not. It can only relate to the persons who administer the government. It depends wholly on the public opinion, who shall administer the government, but not whether there shall or shall not be a government.
Mr. G. contended that the common law is modified by different governments. To suppose that truth should not be given in evidence was inconsistent with the nature of our government, and if this law did not exist, the common law would be thus modified in this country.
If the existence of this law had been found to correct public opinion it would be well to continue it. In this country, he said, opinions were divided between two sets of men, and the people will vote for those who they conceive will best favour their views. Mr. G. could not see how this law would correct or render pure the channels of information if only certain kinds of libels were punished. How then, he asked has it been executed? Only by the punishing persons of politics different from those of the administration. It has not prevented the corruption of public opinion, according to the explanation which the gentlemen in favour of the law have do themselves given of those words. If the sedition law was adopted only as part of the defensive measures it is no longer necessary.
Mr. Dana said, a principal part of the arguments of gentlemen in the opposition were calculated to prove that the administration of our country was wilfully corrupt. They had told the house that necessary testimony had been refused, and that various abuses of this kind had actually occurred in our courts, which were actuated by a spirit of party, to the great injury of persons not born in this country.
[Mr. Nicholson—I spoke facts: I did not say the administration was wilfully corrupt, these are the gentleman's own words.]
Mr. Dana. There could be no other implication from the gentleman's words, nor was it in the power of human invention to distinguish between a violation of the principles of justice in the manner represented, and a most wilful and gross corruption. As it would be extremely improper to leave so great a charge in this unqualified manner, Mr. D. would proceed to examine the conduct of the judges of the U. States. Who are those judges? Nominated by the president of the U. States, and chosen by the Senate agreeably to the constitution: How long or at whole pleasure are these judges to continue in their high offices? At the pleasure of no man, nor set of men, but during good behaviour. Surely if there be any part of the government, or any set of men in the United States, who were placed above the spirit of party, and beyond the reach of corruption, it is the judges of the United States: and yet, above all others, these are the men charged with a party spirit, and with corrupt principles—these men who are singled out as men of the most profound wisdom and integrity among us, and who are superior to the dread of removal from office, excepting only by impeachment for misbehaviour. Yet this is the substance of the reasons gentlemen assume why this law should not be continued.
Would not prudence dictate, would not justice, that justice which is due to the character of every man, demand that before
these charges would be even suggested, the proof ought to be decisive; that it ought to be "darning?" This has not been produced.
He would not go into the details of the law, but examine it upon general principles. He would admit that there had been much opposition to this law, and that most particularly it had been opposed and condemned by the legislature of one of the largest states in the union. But he was not inclined to judge of a measure, upon the opinions of others; that house ought not to be overawed by the multitude of petitioners, nor by the remonstrances of the legislature of any state whatever; it should act with a spirit of independence.
One of the extravagancies of that state, and many of the people, had been to arraign, to their extremely weak and partial judgment, the common law. The existence of it was altogether denied. That common law which most undoubtedly secured to every individual its most endeared rights, and afforded security against every species of legal oppression, whilst it preserves to the government that protection against the licentious and false slanders which polluted some of the presses of the U. States, and maintained upon established principles, the rights of our jurisprudence and our morality. This was the true character of what was termed the common law.
It would seem to him, Mr. Dana said, that no honest man could wish for a liberty directly incomprehensible to him how a man who held dear the principles of liberty and of good government could attempt to utter falsehoods against the government. The rights of the people and of the press were held up.
How, he would ask gentlemen, could the rights of the people require a liberty to utter falsehood? How could it be right to do wrong? If this was liberty, he had been hitherto totally ignorant of its principles, and wished to remain so. And yet the only crime made by that part of the law, so much the subject of complaint, is the uttering of a scandalous and malicious falsehood, with intent to defame. Most certainly truth is not always the motive of investigating the measures of our government and so far as truth is deviated from, the government libelled, and virulence proportionately becomes clouded by misrepresentation. Could not public opinion become corrupted? Could no falsehood be disseminated that would gain credit from the people? Then how could gentlemen pretend to suppose that truth must overcome falsehood? how could they suppose that misrepresentation and calumny could have no manner of harm? How often are calumnies and falsehoods published against the government; but when is a contradiction of those falsehoods seen in the same paper? No, falsehoods will have their effect, and even if afterwards contradicted, it is not so until the falsehood has had its effect, and at that time the truth avails but little. Thus though upon general principles truth may be said to be an antidote falsehood, truth does not always make its appearance in time to prevent the evil intended by the evil disposed. Suppose the reputation of the government to have been attacked, and the affections of the people weaned from it, of what avail will be the remedy? The poison is swallowed beyond the power of expulsion, even by the most powerful antidote. If this then be true, and that it is, is indubitable; a check ought to be provided in due time, whilst yet its qualities may completely prevent any possible harm.
And what danger, Mr. Dana asked could result from this law? As he observed before, it was not the will of the judges, those arbitrary party spirited characters, that could convict. No, every cause is submitted to a jury of twelve honest men, who are sworn to decide upon the fact, and the security is so great that if but one man out of the twelve should be of opinion that the person arraigned is not wilfully an offender, and that he has not traduced the government falsely and maliciously, he must be acquitted of the indictment.
What better barriers to the liberty of an individual can be presented than this? The only answer gentlemen can give is that the juries are packed. But he would, ask whether the juries were not returned as fairly in this as in other cases under the laws of the land? If then there was an evil, it was not solely applicable to this law, but to all laws, and to the general principles upon which juries were selected. He could scarcely conceive that men of character, under the solemnity of their oath, could act so unprincipled.
Upon the whole he could see nothing but unfounded arguments in opposition to this law, and that gentlemen had no other
way to get rid of their dilemma but by charging the courts and juries with corruption. And when men began to charge with evil design the sanctuary of justice, it was time to bid adieu to all public happiness and every hope to enjoy the blessings of freedom.
Mr. Huger acknowledged that he had been somewhat surprised, when the report of the committee of revival and unfinished business was first made, and found it to be their wish to renew and continue in force this act, so well known by the appellation of the sedition law. It had been generally understood, he thought, on all hands, that this act would be allowed to expire in peace, and without further notice, on the 3d of March next. As the subject, however, was again brought forward, he was happy to perceive that gentlemen were inclined to treat it with calmness and moderation. There appeared indeed no great anxiety in the committee to enter largely into the discussion of this question—neither did he feel himself any strong inclination to do so. But as he should in the present instance probably vote in opposition to the sentiments of most of those with whom he was usually in the habit of acting, he would beg leave to state some of the reasons which led him to differ from them on the present occasion. He felt some little pain, however, he acknowledged, at the idea of dissenting from and acting in opposition to his friends on this important and interesting question, because no man had a stronger conviction than himself, of the general correctness of their political views and principles, or was more persuaded of their honest intentions and patriotic views.
Mr. Huger said he would not enter into an investigation of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this law. The gentlemen who preceded him had not done it, and it would become him less to do so: for although it was true, he had never given it the sanction of his vote, yet if he felt any doubts as to the constitutionality of this law, it would certainly come with a very ill grace from him to urge them at this late day and in the present state of things.
Waving then, the question of constitutionality, Mr. H. called upon gentlemen to shew the expediency or necessity of renewing this act, and continuing it longer in force. For his part he had heard nothing, nor could he see any reason, which led him to think such a measure either expedient or necessary at the present moment. Granting that congress possessed the constitutional power of laying some restrictions on the licentiousness of the press, and of punishing libels, yet it certainly does not follow of course, that they must necessarily, at all times and on all occasions, carry that power into operation. In time of imminent danger; in the midst of a great crisis, it might be proper to avail ourselves of such a power. And such indeed was the state of things, when this law was originally enacted. Our country was at that time threatened with foreign and perhaps domestic war. We had to guard against the machinations of an artful and well disciplined foe, who was endeavouring to rouse up our citizens against the government, and would no doubt have availed themselves of every possible means to mislead the public mind, and to spread abroad falsehoods, which might have had the most direful and fatal effects, before it was possible to detect and expose them. At that time, & in the then state of things, he was one of those who was for exerting every nerve, and bringing into operation every means in our power to defeat the schemes of our enemies, and repel the impending danger. Taking it therefore, as one of the measures adopted at that awful period, and regarding it as a part of the general system of defence then deemed necessary, he had always been inclined to view it with a favourable & partial eye, but the state of things was now actually changed. The smiles of peace had again visited our shores, and a convention had lately been concluded, which he trusted, would finally put an end to all our differences with the French nation. Why then renew or continue longer the provisions of this act, when the storm, which gave rise to them, is blown over?
There was another point of view in which the subject presented itself to Mr. H. and which would greatly influence his vote on the present occasion. Without going so far, as to assert with some gentlemen, that nine-tenths or even two-thirds of our citizens had declared themselves decidedly opposed and hostile to this act, he would venture to say, without any fear of being contradicted, that there certainly was a very great difference of opinion and contrariety of sentiment, both as to
(Continued on second page.)