The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-03-01 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCV.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, February 18, 1802.
DEBATE
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
[CONTINUED]
Mr. GILES said, that he felt some degree of apprehension, that in the course he deemed it necessary to take in the discussion of this question, some observations might fall from him, which might not be in strict harmony with the feelings of some gentlemen of the committee. He should regret, however, if a compliance with a sense of duty should produce that effect. He said, therefore, that he wished to apprise gentlemen, that he intended to direct his observations as much as possible to the effects and tendencies of measures; and that when he was constrained to speak of the views of gentlemen, it would be with respect to what he conceived to be their opinions in relation to the general interests; and not to private gratifications. He said, it was natural that men should differ in the choice of means to produce a given end, and more natural that they should differ in the choice of political means than any other; because the subject presented more complicated and variable objects, out of which to make a choice. Accordingly a great portion of the human mind has been at all times directed towards monarchy, as the best form of government to enforce obedience and ensure the general happiness; whereas another portion of the human mind, has given a preference to the republican form, as best calculated to produce the same end; and there is no reason for applying improper motives to individuals, who should give a preference to either of these principles; provided in doing so, they follow the honest dictates of their own judgments. It must be obvious to the most common observer, that from the commencement of the government of the United States, and perhaps before it, a difference of opinion existed amongst the citizens, having more or less reference to these two extreme fundamental points; and that it manifested itself in the modification or administration of the government, as soon as it was put into operation. On one side it was contended, that in the organization of the constitution, a due apportionment of authority had not been made amongst the several departments. That the legislature was too powerful for the executive department; and to create and preserve a proper equipoise, it was necessary to infuse into the executive department by legislation all artificial powers compatible with the constitution, upon which the most diffusive construction was given; or, in other words, to place in executive hands all the patronage it was possible to create, for the purpose of protecting the President against the full force of his constitutional responsibility to the people.—On the other side, it was contended, that the doctrine of patronage was repugnant to the opinions and feelings of the people; that it was unnecessary, expensive and oppressive, and that the highest energy the government could possess, would flow from the confidence of the great mass of the people, founded upon their own sense of their common interests. Hence what is called party in the United States, grew up from a division of opinion respecting these two great characteristic principles, patronage, or the creation of partial interests for the protection and support of government, on the one side.—On the other side, to effect the same end, a fair responsibility of all representatives to the people; an adherence to the general interests, and a reliance on the confidence of the people at large, resulting from a sense of their common interests. A variety of circumstances existed in the United States, at the commencement of the government, and a great number of favorable incidents continued afterwards to arise, which gave the patronage system the preponderance, during the first three Presidential terms of election; notwithstanding it was evident, that the system was adopted and pursued in direct hostility to the feelings and opinions of a great portion of the American people. The government was ushered into operation under a vast excitement of federal fervor, flowing from its recent triumph on the question of adopting the constitution.—At that time a considerable debt was afloat in the U-
nited States, which had grown out of the revolutionary war. This debt was of two kinds; the debt proper of the United States, or engagements made by the United States in their federal capacity; the other, the state debts, or engagements entered into by the respective states for the support of the common cause.
The favorers of the patronage system readily availed themselves of these materials for erecting a monied interest; gave to it a stability, or qualified perpetuity, and calculated upon its certain support in all their measures of irresponsibility.
This was done not only by funding the debt proper of the U. States, but by assuming the payment of the state debts, & funding them also; and it is believed, extending the assumption beyond the actual engagements of the states. Hence the federal axiom, that a public debt is a public blessing.—Shortly after this event, an Indian war sprang up, he would not lay by what means; in consequence of which an army was added to the list of patronage; the Algerines commenced a predatory war upon the commerce of the United States, and thence a navy formed a new item of patronage. Taxes became necessary to meet the expenses of this system, and an arrangement of internal taxes, an excise, &c. &c. still swelled the list of patronage. But the circumstance which most favored this system, was the breaking out of a tremendous and unprecedented war in those countries of Europe with which the United States had the most intimate relations. The feelings and sympathies of the people of the U. States were so strongly attracted by the tremendous scenes existing there; that they considered their own internal concerns in a secondary point of view. After a variable conduct had been pursued by the United States in relation to these events, the depredations committed upon commerce and the excitements produced thereby, enabled the administration to indulge themselves in a more decisive course, and they at once pushed forward the people to the X. Y. Z. of their political alphabet, before they had well learned and understood the A. B. C. of the principles of the administration.
Armies and navies were raised, and a variety of other schemes of expense were adopted, which placed the administration in the embarrassing predicament, either to violate their faith with their public creditors, or to resort to new taxes. The latter alternative was preferred, accompanied with other strong coercive measures to enforce obedience. A land tax was laid for 2,000,000 of dollars. This measure awakened the people to a sense of their situation; and shook to the foundation all those federal ramparts which had been planned with so much ingenuity, and erected around the executive with so much expence and labour. Another circumstance peculiarly favourable to the advocates of executive patronage was, that during the two first presidential terms, the chief executive magistrate possessed a greater degree of popularity and the confidence of the people than ever was, or perhaps ever will be, again attached to the person occupying that dignified station. The general disquietude, which manifested itself in consequence of these enterprising measures, in the year 1800, induced the federal party to apprehend, that they had pushed their principles too far, and they began to entertain doubts of the result of the presidential election, which was approaching. In this state of things it was natural for them to look out for some department of the government, in which they could intrench themselves in the event of an unsuccessful issue in the election; and continue to support those favourite principles of irresponsibility, which they could never consent to abandon. The judiciary department of course, presented itself as best fitted for their object, not only because it was already filled with men, who had manifested the most indecorous zeal in favour of their principles, but because they held their offices by indefinite tenures, were not subject to periodical appointments, and of course were further removed from any responsibility to the people, than either of the other departments. Accordingly on the 11th of March 1800, a bill for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States was presented to the house of representatives. This bill appears to have had for its objects, 1st, the gradual demolition of the state courts by encroaching the number, and extending the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 2d, To afford additional protection to the principles of the then existing administration by creating a new corps of judges of continuing political opinions. This bill however was not passed into a law during that session of congress, perhaps from
an apprehension, that it would tend to encrease the difficulties which other measures had before excited, and therefore operate unfavourably to the approaching presidential election. At the next session after the result of the election was ascertained, the bill, after having undergone some considerable alterations, was passed into the law now under discussion. This law, it is now said, is inviolable and irrepealable. It is said, the independence of the judges will be thereby immolated. Yes, sir, this law is now considered as the sanctuary of the principles of the last administration, and the tenures of the judges as the horns of inviolability within that sanctuary. He said, we are now called upon to rally round the constitution as the ark of our political safety. Gentlemen, discarding all generalising expressions, and the spirit of the instrument, tie down all construction to the strict letter of the constitution. He said it gave him great pleasure to meet gentlemen on this ground; and the more so, because he had long been in the habit of hearing very different language from the same gentlemen. He had long been in the habit of hearing the same gentlemen speak of the expressions of "the common defence and general welfare," as the only valuable part of the constitution, that they were sufficient to obliterate all the specifications, and limitations of power. That the constitution was a mere nose of wax, yielding to every impression it received. That every "opening wedge," which was driven into it, was highly beneficial, in severing asunder the limitations and restrictions of power. That the republican form secured, meant any thing or nothing. It gave him therefore great pleasure at this time to obey the injunctions of gentlemen in rallying round the constitution as the ark of our political safety, and of interpreting it by the plain and obvious meaning and letter of the specified powers. But, he said, as if it was always the unfortunate destiny of these gentlemen to be upon extremes, they have now got round to the opposite extreme point of the political compass, and even beyond it. For, he said, they not only tie down all construction to the letter of the instrument, but they tell us, that they see, and call upon us also to see written therein, in large capital characters, "the indefinite independence of judges;" which, to the extent they carry the meaning of the term, is neither to be found in the letter or spirit of that instrument, or in any other political establishment, he believed, under the sun. Mr. Giles said, he rejoined that this subject was now to be discussed; he thought the crisis peculiarly auspicious for the discussion. He said the European world, with which the United States have the most relations, is now tranquillized. The tremendous scenes of blood and revolution, which had agitated that portion of the globe, had at length subsided into profound peace; and had left mankind, in silent amazement, to retrospect the wonderful events which were passed; and he hoped, with calm deliberation to improve the lessons they had furnished for the benefit of mankind in time to come. The interests and sympathies, which the people of the United States felt in these events, no longer turn their attention from their own internal concerns; arguments of the highest consideration for the safety of the constitution, and the liberty of the citizens, no longer receive the short reply, French partisans! Jacobins! Disorganizers! And although the gentleman from North Carolina, fees, or thinks he sees the destructive spirit mount in the whirlwind and direct the storm; let him be consoled by the information, "that all these our actors are mere spirits and are dissolved into thin air." Yes, sir, these magical delusions are now vanished, and have left the American people & their congress in their real persons, and original American characters, engaged in the transaction of American concerns.
Upon taking a view of our internal situation, he observed, although party rage may not be done away; it may be said, its highest paroxysm is past. And although the gentleman from New York, (Mr. T. Morris) yesterday observed, that the President had commenced a system of persecution; so ignorant he said, he was of the existence of such a system, that he could not conceive to what the gentleman alluded. It is some time, Mr. Chairman, since a member of this House, and sundry printers throughout the United States, have been amerced and imprisoned to appease the vengeance of an unconstitutional sedition act, merely for publishing their own sentiments, which happened to be unpalatable to the then existing administration! It is some time, sir, since we
have seen judges who ought to have been independent, converted into political partisans, and like executive millionaires pronouncing political harangues throughout the United States! It is some time, sir, since we have seen the zealous judge, stoop from the bench to look out for more victims for judicial vengeance! It is some time since we have seen the same judicial impetuosity drive from the bar, the most respectable counsel, who humanely proposed to interpose between a friendless and unprotected man, and the judicial vengeance to which he was doomed! It is some time, sir, since we have seen the same judicial zeal extending the provisions of the sedition act, by discovering that it had jurisdiction of the lex non scripta, or common law! It is some time, since we have seen the chief executive magistrate dooming to humiliation 'in dust and ashes' a great portion of the American people! Yes, sir, these terrific scenes are past. These noisy declamations, and this judicial zeal, are hushed into silence by the audible pronunciation of the public will. He said, we may even indulge the hope, Mr. Chairman, that our pulpits will not much longer be converted into political forums; and that the meek and humble teachers of the christian faith, instead of stirring up all the angry and destructive passions of the human mind, will ere long, once more condescend, to teach those precepts of humility, forbearance and toleration, taught them by their divine preceptor. Those precepts so essential to the discovery of truth, by pre-disposing the mind to deliberation and reflection.
The present Executive pursuing the general good, and supported by the general confidence, stands not in need of these artificial aids. He invites inquiry. He knows, that the highest encomium, which can be bestowed upon his administration, would flow from a correct understanding of his motives and his conduct. Instead of calling in the aid of sedition acts; to the defamatory scribblers, who appear to increase in numbers, and in impudence, in proportion to the desperation of their cause, and their security from punishment, he has said, 'let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety, with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.' Under these auspicious circumstances, he said, he proceeded to the discussion of the important question before us with pleasure, conscious that he was subject to error; and knowing, that if he did err, it was his interest to be corrected; confident also, that there was a mass of intelligence and calm reflection at this time in the people of the United States, competent to detect the error, and apply the corrective. Impressed with these sentiments he differed widely in opinion with the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Henderson) who had said, 'that if the bill upon your table should pass into a law, he would not heave a sigh or drop a tear upon the instantaneous demolition of the whole constitution.' The sooner it was done the better. Sir, this gentleman and his associates in political opinions, have termed themselves 'lovers of order.' Is this an evidence of the practice, we are to expect from those gentlemen, under their professions so long, and so loudly made to the people of the United States? Cannot that gentleman find some reason to regret that sentiment, in the confidence due to the intelligence and patriotism of a great portion of his fellow citizens, who differ with him on that point? Or do the gentleman and his political associates claim with presumptuous vanity, not only the appellation of the exclusive 'lovers of order,' but also the monopoly of all the intelligence and patriotism of the nation? He had too much respect for gentlemen, to suppose they would place their pretensions on this ground. He begged pardon of the committee for this digression. He had been compelled to it from the course the debate had taken, and particularly from the indecorous attacks made on the President of the United States. He said, he would now proceed to examine whether the repeal of the judiciary law of the last session of congress would in any respect violate that salutary and practicable independence of the judges, which was secured to them by the constitution. He said the term independence of judges of the judiciary department, was not to be found in the constitution. It was therefore a mere inference from some of the specified powers; and he believed in the meaning of gentlemen, and to the extent they carry it, the term is not to be found either in the spirit, general cha-
racter, or phraseology of any article or section of the constitution. He meant to give the constitution the most candid interpretation in his power, according to the plain and obvious import of the English language. He should discard in his interpretation, the terms "common defence and general welfare," which had been resorted to by some gentlemen. He considered these words as containing no grant of power whatever, but merely the expression of the ends or objects to be effected by the grants of specified powers. He therefore protested against drawing any aid whatever from them in his construction of the instrument. He said he had read through the whole constitution to enable him to form his opinion upon this question, for fear there might be in some hidden corner of it, some provision, which, might demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the present bill; and if so, although he should lament such a provision, he would instantly give up the bill. But his researches had terminated in a different result. He said he found from the general character of the constitution, that the general will was its basis—the general good its object—and the fundamental principle for effecting this object, was the responsibility of all public agents, either mediately or immediately to the people. He said the context of the constitution would demonstrate the two first points, which he begged to read.
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common Defence, promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our posterity, Do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Here we find the constitution founded upon the will of the people; and the object declared to be, the good of the people. Through the whole body of the constitution may be discerned the responsibility of all public agents, either mediately, or immediately, to the people. This responsibility results, 1st, from the division of authority into different departments—2d, From a specification and limitation of the authorities of all and each of the departments—3d, From periodical appointments of the public agents. The first clause declares there shall be a Congress, to whom the business of legislation is confided. This Congress is to consist of a House of Representatives to be chosen by the people immediately, and responsible to them at the end of every two years; and a Senate to be chosen by the legislatures of the different states, who are chosen by the people; one third of the Senators to be chosen every two years, and responsible at the end of every six years. The Executive power is vested in a President, who is chosen by electors who are chosen for that express purpose by the people, and responsible at the end of every four years. The President may be considered as immediately responsible to the people, although chosen through the medium of electors: Because it is found in practice, that the electors are constrained to avow the vote they intend to give before they are chosen, and the people have generally made their elections with a view to that object.
Thus then, are formed two departments, their powers specified and defined, the times for exercising their powers fixed, and indeed a complete organization for the execution of their respective powers without the intervention of any law for that purpose. A third department, to wit, the Judiciary department, is still wanting. Is that formed by the constitution? How is that to be formed? It is not formed by the constitution. It is only declared that there shall be such a department; and it is directed to be formed by the other two departments, who owe a responsibility to the people. Here there arises an important difference of opinion between the different sides of this house. It is contended on one side that the judiciary department is formed by the constitution itself. It is contended on the other side, that the constitution does no more than to declare that there shall be a judiciary department, and directs, that it shall be formed by the other two departments under certain modifications. Article 3. sec. 1. the constitution has these words, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts, as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Here then the power to ordain and establish inferior courts is given to Congress in the most unqualified terms, and also to ordain and establish, "one supreme court." The only limitation upon the power of congress in this clause, consists in the number of supreme courts.

to be established; the limitation is to the number of one, although that is an affirmative and not a negative expression. The number of judges—the affixation of duties—the fixing of compensations—the fixing the times when, and places where the courts shall exercise their functions, &c. are left to the entire discretion of congress. The spirit, as well as the words of the constitution, are completely satisfied, provided one supreme court be established. Hence, when all these essential points in the organization and formation of courts are entrusted to the unlimited discretion of congress, it cannot be said, that the courts are formed by the constitution. For further restraints therefore upon the discretion of congress, the remaining part of the same section must be consulted. Here he begged leave to remark, that he had often felt a veneration for the wisdom of the fathers, who formed this constitution, considering the difficulties they had to encounter, resulting from the various local prejudices and local interests of the different parts of the United States, and the vast variety of opinions, which the subject presented, it was almost wonderful to conceive how they should have hit upon a system so admirably calculated to protect and to promote the general interests, when administered according to its original meaning and intention. He could not go so far, as to say, it was perfect. It admitted, like other human productions, it was stamped with the common liability of man. That he wished however, to see no radical changes in its principles. He wished to hand it down to posterity with those amendments only, which experience should suggest, and which would grow out of the continually varying state of the nation. He said it was not only remarkable for the wisdom of its arrangements, but the correct and technical mode of expression. The part of the section now to be examined, was an example of the justice of both these remarks. The words are, “The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
The first part of this sentence respects the relationship between the executive and the judiciary departments. It respects judges or officers of the courts, who are appointed by the president. The last part of the sentence respects the relationship between the legislative and judiciary departments. It respects the creation of offices, the fixing the compensation of the officers or judges, and their continuance in office. These are the peculiar attributes of the legislative department. Accordingly the most correct and technical words are used in relation to both these objects. The term hold their offices during good behaviour , relates merely to the executive department. The term hold , is the common technical word, used to convey the idea of tenure. Tenure requires two parties. The one granting , the other holding or receiving the grant . Let the enquiry be made, of whom do the judges hold? The constitution furnishes the answer, of the President. One of the most obvious rules in the construction of instruments of writing is, that the whole of it must be taken together, & not one particular part by itself. The following words will be found in the 2d section of the 2d article of the constitution. “And he, to wit: the President, shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.” In the 3d section of the same article are these words, “And shall, to wit, the President, commission all the officers of the United States.” These three sentences contain the relationship between the executive and judiciary departments so far as respects the objects of the present discussion.
To ascertain the real meaning and import of these sentences, they should be read in connection with each other, excluding therefrom all intermediate words not immediately bearing on the subject. In that case the constitution would read thus. “He (to wit) the President shall nominate and appoint the judges of the supreme court and all other officers of the United States, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. The judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour.” It may be now asked, if this case of the judges of the supreme and inferior courts be not, an obvious exception out of the general Presidential discretion of appointing and commissioning all officers of the United States during pleasure? After the government has been in operation above twelve years, and the principle of commissioning all executive officers during pleasure has been practised upon during the whole of the period by the executive, as well as the legislative department, the propriety of that practice is for the first time now become questionable. It is said that the right to commission during pleasure, is by implication. It is readily admitted that there are no express words in the constitution to that effect; but the inference from the words which are there, is almost as strong as the words themselves, if they had been inserted. The President is authorised without limitation to ‘commission all the officers of the United States.’ The question arises, by what tenure? The reply is,
according to his pleasure, or discretion. It was not difficult to foresee, that if the President was fully empowered to commission as he pleased, he would please to commission during his pleasure. The legislature has no more control over an officer who holds an executive commission during the pleasure of the President, than over a judicial officer holding his office during his good behaviour. The remedy given by the constitution being the same in both cases (to wit) impeachment. Nor is there any reason why the office of the one should be less subject to the discretion of the legislature than the office of the other, and it seems to be universally agreed, that although the legislature cannot deprive an executive officer of his office in any other way than by impeachment during the continuance of such office, yet the office itself is always subject to be abolished. The same reasoning will hold with equal force respecting a judge and a judicial office. The reason why the executive is prohibited from the removal of a judge, is to secure to the judge a complete independence of the President, who is not responsible for the discharge of judicial duties; but the removal is perfectly correct in the case of an executive officer, because the President is highly responsible for the due discharge of executive duties. The legislature is not responsible for either, and of course stands in the same constitutional relation to both. This appears obvious from furnishing to the legislature the same means of removing both, as will appear by the 4th section of the 2d article in the following words. “The President, Vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office by impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors.” He now begged to call the attention of the committee particularly to the last clause of the sentence, which ascertains the constitutional connection between the legislative and judicial departments, so far as it respects the limitation of the legislative, in the exercise of the power committed to it, for the organization of the judicial department. He should place particular emphasis on these words of the constitution in the exposition he proposed to make. The words are ‘and shall at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation which shall not be diminished, during their continuance in office.’ The first part of this section having given to congress the power of creating courts, ascertaining the number of judges, &c. these last words may be considered as containing explanations and limitations of the general power of congress; as was the foregoing part of this sentence a limitation of the general executive power. And accordingly the most correct terms are used for limiting legislative discretion, and explaining its objects; according to the words of this sentence, the judge is to receive a compensation, for his services. To whom are these services to be rendered? To the people; for the benefit of the people. Who is to judge of the necessity or utility of these services? The constitution has ordained, that congress, or in other words the representatives of the people, shall be the tribunal. Suppose there should be no services required, none for the judge to perform, or that congress should so think and determine. Is the judge entitled to compensation? He is not. The condition of service for the benefit of the people, is the express consideration upon which the compensation accrues. No service is rendered; the competent tribunal says, there is none required, of course, no compensation accrues. The judge is entitled to receive more. On this point, an obvious and most important difference of opinion exists between the two sides of the committee. On one side it is contended, that the office is the vested property of the judge conferred on him by his appointment, and that his good behaviour is the consideration of his compensation, so long therefore as his good behaviour exists, so long his office must continue in consequence of his good behaviour, and that his compensation is his property in virtue of his office, and therefore cannot be taken away by any authority whatever, although there may be no service for him to perform. On the other side it is contended, that the good behaviour is not the consideration upon which the compensation accrues; but services rendered for the public good; and that if the office is to be considered as a property, it is a property held in trust for the benefit of the people, and must therefore be held, subject to that condition, of which congress is the constitutional judge. Mr. G. said, considering the boundary line between these conflicting opinions, to be the boundary line between offices held for public utility, and offices held for personal favor, he could not bestow too much attention upon this part of the discussion; for if the construction gentlemen contended for should prevail, in vain have the framers of the constitution with so much jealous circumspection erected so many ramparts against the introduction of some of these offices in the government of the United States. A sinecure office is an office held without the condition of service; often for past services already compensated; often for present favor, without the condition of any service. For the purpose of excluding from the federal government all sinecure offices, the fathers who formed the constitution have through every part of it connected services and compensation, and they
ought never to be separated in construction. The 6th section of the 1st Art. is in these words, ‘The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services to be ascertained by law, &c.’ and so far has this principle of the rendition of service been carried; that the service of the senate and representatives is to be rendered every day, and unless they do daily render service, they are not entitled to their day's compensation. In the 1st section of the 2d Art. of the constitution are these words, ‘the President shall at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, &c.’ in the 3d Art. 1st. section, are these words, ‘and shall (to wit, the judges shall) at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, &c.’ In the 41st Sec. of the act under which the judges claim their compensation are these words, ‘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, &c.’ These expressions all demonstrate the importance of coupling the service and compensation of office. But the jealous caution of the framers of the constitution did not stop at choosing the best affirmative expression for excluding this doctrine of sinecure offices, they also applied negative restraints.
In the 9th section of the first article of the constitution, are these words, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” In the same section, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.” If then services rendered for the public benefit, be the essential consideration, upon which the compensation does accrue to the judges; if the congress be the proper tribunal for pronouncing upon the necessity or utility of such service, and if they decide that no such service is necessary or useful; the judge sustains no injury in not receiving the compensation; because he does not comply with the condition on his part, nor does he sustain a hardship thereby; because it must be presumed that he understood the conditions attached to his office at the time of his acceptance. It has been admitted by all gentlemen that congress is the constitutional tribunal for deciding, respecting the services to be performed. They admit that congress may modify the courts, diminish or add to their duties, alter the terms of their sessions or make any other arrangements respecting them which do not go to take away or diminish their compensations. It is to be observed that there is not one of these powers specified in the constitution, they are therefore necessary inferences from the paramount power, “to ordain and establish,” and the power of repeal or to take away all the services to be performed, is as necessary an inference, as either of the others, and has uniformly resulted from every other specified power in the constitution. From this part of the sentence, therefore, it is deducible; that the only restraint upon the general power given to congress in the first part of the section to ordain and establish courts, is that the compensations of the judges, should not be lessened during their continuance in office—not during their good behaviour. And in this part of the sentence the correct phraseology of the constitution is worthy of observation. In speaking of the executive attribute, (to wit) the appointing and commissioning officers, the term good behaviour is used. In speaking of the legislative attribute (to wit) the creation of offices and fixing compensations, the term, during their continuance in office , is used. The reason for this variation of expression is obvious. It was known that the office might be discontinued and the judge continue to behave well, the limitation was therefore applied to the office, and not the good behaviour, because if the office should be discontinued, which is clearly implied in this expression, it was not the intention of the constitution that the compensation should be received, no service in that event being to be rendered. From this interpretation of the constitution all the departments are preserved in the due exercise of their respective functions for the general good, without any of the mischievous and absurd consequences resulting from the opposite construction. It is admitted that the first part of this section expressly vests congress with the general power to ordain and establish courts; and if there had been no other restriction, the consequent power to unordain, or abolish. The restriction relied upon is not a restriction in express words; there are no words in the constitution, prohibiting congress from repealing a law for organizing courts. The restraint contended for, therefore, is by implication, and that implication to say the least, not expressly connected with any legislative attribute. Is it right? Is it a correct interpretation? That when a power is given in express words for the most important purposes, that it should be restrained or prohibited by implication? Can so much inattention and folly be attributed to the framers of the constitution, as would result from the supposition, that if it was their intention that a law growing out of one of the specified powers, in contradistinction to all others, should be irrepealable when once passed, that its extraordinary principle would be left to more implication? Such a supposition would be the highest injustice to the
superior intelligence and patriotism of those gentlemen, manifested in every other part of the instrument—No, Sir, They would have made notes of admiration. They would have used every mark, adopted every caution, to have arrested and fixed the attention of the legislature to so extraordinary a principle.
They would have said, legislators! Be circumspect! Be cautious! Be calm! Be deliberate! Be wise! Be wise not only for the present. But be wise for posterity! You are now about to tread upon holy ground. The law you are now about to pass, is irrepealable! irrevocable! We are so enamoured with the salutary and practicable independence of the English judiciary system, that in infusing its principles into our constitution, we have stamped it, with the proverbial folly of the Medes and the Persians! If this principle had been introduced into the constitution in express words, it would have formed an unfortunate contrast to all other parts of the instrument; yet gentlemen make no difficulty in introducing that principle by construction, which would have appeared so stupid and absurd if written in express words in the body of the instrument. But there is no such language in the constitution. Let us see what is the language of that instrument. “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as congress may from time to time, ordain and establish.” Here then instead of cautioning the legislature that a law for the organization of courts when passed, can never be repealed, it contains an invitation to a revision from time to time. It contains an intimation, that the subject is new and difficult, and an injunction to ordain and establish your courts from time to time, according to the results, which an experience of the system alone could suggest. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hemphill) observed that the character of irrepealability was not exclusively attached to this law, and attempted to furnish instances of other laws of the same character. He instance a law for the admission of a new state into the union.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) had given a proper reply to that remark; the strongest instance the gentleman gave, was of a law executed; after the new state is admitted into the union, in virtue of a law for that purpose, the object of the law is answered. The state admitted has no stipulated duties to perform on its part; no services to render; in the case before the committee the law is in a state of execution, and the judges have services to render on their part which the competent tribunals may determine to be neither useful nor necessary. A law for the appropriation of money to a given object, may be adduced as an instance; the money is applied; its object is answered; the law may be said to be irrepealable; or, in other words, the repeal would produce no effect. That is not the case of the law in question. Mr. G. said, he had no doubt but that the framers of the constitution had particular reference to the British act of parliament of William the 3d, for the establishment of the independence of the judges in that country, in framing the section for the establishment of the judicial department in the United States; and it is not a little remarkable, that whilst gentlemen in one breath speak of the independence of the English judges, as the boast and glory of that nation, in the next breath they tell us that by the repeal of the present act, the independence of the judges here would be implicated. Let this subject be examined. In the 3d chapter of the first book of Blackstone's commentaries, the independence of the English judiciary is fully explained. He begged to read the exposition of that commentator on that subject.
“And, in order to maintain both the dignity and independence of the judges in the superior courts, it is enacted by the statute, 13 W. III. c. 2. that their commissions shall be made (not, as formerly, durante bene placito , but) quam diu bene se gesserint , and their salaries ascertained and established; but that it may be lawful to remove them on the address of both houses of parliament. And now, by the noble improvements of that law in the statute of Geo. III. c. 23. enacted at the earnest recommendation of the king himself from the throne, the judges are continued in their offices during their good behaviour, notwithstanding any demise of the crown (which was formerly held immediately to vacate their seats) and their full salaries are absolutely secured to them during the continuance of their commissions; his majesty having been pleased to declare, that “he looked upon the independence and uprightness of the judges, as essential to the impartial administration of justice; as one of the best securities of the rights and liberties of his subjects; and as the most conducive to the honor of the crown.”
Now, Sir, under the doctrine contended for by the repeal of this law, let us see whether the judges of the United States are not more independent than the judges of England. In the first place Congress has the power of originating, abolishing, modifying, &c. the courts here. The parliament in England have the same power there. Congress cannot remove a judicial officer from his office, so long as the office itself is deemed useful, except by impeachment, two thirds of the Senate being necessary to a conviction. In England judges can be removed from their offices, although the offices may be deemed useful, by an address of a majority of the two houses of parliament.
Here then is one essential advantage in favor of the independence of the judges of the United States. Congress cannot diminish the compensation of the judges here, during their continuance in office. In England the parliament may diminish the compensation of the judges at their discretion, during their continuance in office. Here then is another obvious advantage in favor of the independence of the judges of the United States; whence it is then, that we hear of the independence of the English judiciary, as being the boast and glory of that country, and with justice too, and at the same time, hear the cry of the immolation of the independence of the judges of the United States; when under the interpretation of the constitution by the favorers of the repeal, the judges here are more independent than the English judges? It can have no other object than to excite a popular clamor, which, if excited at all, can have only a momentary effect, and will be dissipated as soon as the subject shall be thoroughly examined and understood. But it appeared to him, that if gentlemen really do value the independence of the judges, they have taken an unfortunate ground in the interpretation of the constitution. Under their construction, the judges may be placed not only in a dependent, but a ludicrous point of view. Gentlemen admit that Congress may constitutionally increase or diminish the duties of the judges; give or take away jurisdiction; fix the times of holding courts, &c. saving therefrom the salaries of the judges. Under this admission, Congress may postpone the sessions of the courts for eight or ten years, and establish others, to whom they could transfer all the powers of the existing courts. In this case, the judges would be held up to the people as pensioners, receiving their money and rendering no service in return; or Congress might convert them into mere courts of piepoudre, assigning them the most paltry duties to perform, and keep them continually in session, in inconsequential places; whilst new courts could be erected to perform all the essential business of the nation. This would be taking down the high pretensions assigned to the judges by the gentleman from N. Carolina (Mr. Henderson) of being formed into a permanent corps for the purpose of protecting the people against their worst enemies—themselves; and degrading them into pitiful courts of piepoudre, rendering little service, and receiving large compensations. And this would be the case, if party purposes were the object, and not the general good. According to his construction, these absurd results could not take place, unless by a virtual breach of the constitution. Because, he contended, that service and compensation were correlative terms; and that there ought always to be a due apportionment of service to compensation. This he considered as the plain and sound interpretation of the constitution, and the moment it is departed from, infinite absurdities ensue. He intended to have taken another view of this subject as it respects the relative influence of the law of the last session, and the proposed repeal upon this question; but the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) has put this subject in so much stronger point of view than he could do, that he would refer to his remarks thereupon, observing only that he had no doubt but that the law of the last session, now proposed to be repealed, was in every respect as much opposed to the doctrine of gentlemen, as the contemplated repeal could be. The sections of the law particularly alluded to, are the 24th, in these words, “And be it further enacted, That the district courts of the United States, in and for the districts of Tennessee & Kentucky shall be, and are hereby abolished;” and the 27th, in these words—“And be it further enacted, That the circuit courts of the United States heretofore established, shall cease and be abolished.”
He said he would now examine some of the consequences of the doctrine against the repeal, and see if it can be recommended from that consideration. First as it respects the judicial department. Its first effect is to produce a perpetual increase of judges and salaries, without any practicable mode of reducing them. This is inconsistent both with the general sentiment of the people and the constitution, that requires that no compensation shall be received, without an equivalent service rendered.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania supposes that there would be as much danger that a corrupt legislature would give an enormous sum, say 200,000 dollars to one judge, as to increase too great a number of judges. Yet he says the legislature is restrained in express words from lessening the salary, and infers from that circumstance, that it is also restrained from lessening the number of offices. Mr. G. made from it, the direct contrary inference. If there be neither a power to lessen the sum nor abolish the office, there is no remedy for the evil the gentleman suggests. It is an incurable mischief. There is therefore a necessity for a power to abolish the office, as a remedy against the enormous abuse of giving so large a sum without the rendition of equivalent service. And as express words were deemed necessary to limit the discretion of congress against diminishing the sum, so would there have been greater necessity for express words to limit the discretion of congress against the abolition of unnecessary offices.
Mr. G. said, that according to a sound rule of interpretation, where a general grant of power is made, and one limitation to the general power, is expressed—

the expression of that limitation is an exclusion of all intention to make any other limitation whatever, by inference or implication. And this rule will apply to all other cases put by gentlemen, where there is an express limitation of legislative authority. But the most important consequence from this doctrine is, that it erects the judges into a body politic, and corporate, in perpetual succession, with essential, and controlling powers, over the other departments.—And for what purpose? The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has informed us, "to protect the people against their worst enemies"—themselves! This is the real exposition of the object in very few but emphatical words. As the inducement to the adoption of this principle, gentlemen have reminded us of the fate of a foreign country, of the violent passions which agitate popular assemblies, of the age, experience, the unassuming talents and unambitious virtue of judges. He said the judges were selected from their fellow-citizens, and he presumed, possessed the same human propensities. He said all men love power, and in general, those love it best who know best how to use it. Let us apply this remark to the judges of the United States.
Very shortly after the establishment of the courts, the judges decided that they had jurisdiction over the states in their sovereign capacity. Did this, in the judges, seem unambitious? The states thought it did not. It happened that during the revolutionary war, the state of Massachusetts had issued certain obligatory bills, which were made transferable, and which were outstanding without any provision for their payment—suits were instituted on these bills—the court determined to bring the great state of Massachusetts, and not Virginia, on its knees, not at the feet of justice, but policy. Upon the representation of Massachusetts, an amendment was made to the constitution of the United States, declaring that the constitution should not be construed to extend to authorizing the courts to arraign and pronounce judgment against states which had not consented to give up their sovereignty. Thus this unambitious project of the judges was prostrated by a constitutional interpolation. He read the amendment in the following words: "The judicial power of the United States, shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." The judges have determined that they are judges in the last resort upon the constitutionality of your laws. He proposed not to discuss this question, because he did not think it pertinent to the question before us. He only mentioned it to show their unlimited claims to power. The judges have determined that their jurisdiction extends to the lex non scripta , or common law. Does this, in the judges, seem unambitious? This law pervades the whole municipal regulations of the country. It is unlimited in its object, and indefinite in its character. Legalize this unassuming claim of jurisdiction by the judges, and they have before them every object of legislation. They have every mandatory process, or process leading to a mandamus, into the executive cabinet, to examine its concerns. Does this, in the judges, seem unambitious? Now, Sir, examine and combine the extraordinary pretensions to power, legalize them, and you have precisely that body politic and corporate, which gentlemen deem so important in the United States "to protect the people from their worst enemies—themselves!" (Mr. Henderson of North Carolina.) He said he should not resort so frequently to this expression, but that he did consider it as the candid and correct exposition of the object of gentlemen opposed to the repeal. It was the doctrine of irresponsibility against the doctrine of responsibility. The latter, he had endeavoured to show, characterized the constitution of the United States. It was the doctrine of despotism, in opposition to the representative system. It was an express avowal, that the people were incompetent to govern themselves. This he believed to have been the great characteristic difference from the commencement of the administration of the government to the present day. It indeed there be a political corps necessary to interpose between the people, and themselves, he considered the judiciary corps supported by the doctrines on this floor, well calculated to effect that object.
He said he would now examine the consequence of the doctrine against the repeal, as it respected the legislature. He said it would have a direct tendency to impair the responsibility of the representatives to the people. He could not illustrate this observation better, than by giving the history of the law proposed to be repealed.
The first bill for changing the organization of the courts of the United States, was reported to the House of Representatives the 11th March 1800; after undergoing some discussion and amendment, it was recommitted and reported again the 31st March 1800; on the 14th of April it was postponed by a majority of two votes. At this time the presidential election was approaching, and the result uncertain. The bill upon which the law in question was founded, was reported to the House of Representatives 19th December 1800, and passed that House the 20th January 1801. It was read in the Senate 21st January 1801, and passed the 7th of February 1801. At this time the presidential election, so far as it respected
the then existing president, was ascertained.
Mr. G. said he proposed to be particular in ascertaining the facts respecting the passage of this law and its execution, because gentlemen had complained that rumors had gone into circulation respecting its passage and the appointments under it, not warranted by the facts; a sense of justice had therefore induced him to make the strictest enquiry into the dates and facts, and the result of that enquiry upon his mind, had been as unfavorable to its advocates, as any impression which had been made by the rumors complained of. He said at the time of passing the law no complaints had been presented to Congress against the competency of the former system—not even a memorial from the bar of Philadelphia. He believed the former system to have been amply competent. The business indeed had very much declined; he observed that in the spring of 1799, the whole number of causes instituted, exclusive of Maryland and Tennessee, amounted to 703, besides 78 criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania. In the fall of 1800 there were instituted only 355; without any information however on this point, the bill was passed. On the 13th of February 1801, it was approved by the President. On turning to the journals of that day it will be found that the House of Representatives was not engaged in the ordinary business of the session. They were engaged in the extraordinary business of electing a President.
In a note made on that day on the journals, will be found a message from the President in these words: "A message was received from the President of the United States by Mr. Shaw his Secretary, notifying, that the President did this day approve, and sign an act which originated in the House of Representatives, entitled an act to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States." Upon examining the journals themselves, he said he found an entry in these words, "The time agreed upon by the last mentioned vote being expired, the states proceeded in manner aforesaid to the twenty-ninth ballot; and upon examination thereof the result was declared to be the same." Mr. G. said, need I remind gentlemen, now present, who were agents in the exciting scenes, of the extraordinary situation of Congress at that moment. When in the House of Representatives the ordinary business of legislation was suspended, a permanent session decreed, when lodging and subsistence were furnished the members within the walls of the chamber, when even a sick bed was introduced to enable its patient to discharge a sacred duty.—Need I awaken the recollection of our fellow-citizens, who were looking with indignant anxiety on the awful scene, beholding their representatives urged by the most tempestuous passions, and pushing forward to immolate the constitution of their country? No, Sir, the awful scene is freshly remembered! And what was its object? To prevent the fair and known expression of the public will in the highest function it has to perform.—In the choice of the chief executive magistrate of the nation. In this state of things, when all confidence amongst the members of this house was lost—in the highest paroxysm of party rage, was this law ushered into existence. And now its advocates gravely tell us to be calm, to guard against the danger of our passions. They tell us at the same time, that the law they have passed is sacred, inviolable! irrepealable! Does it merit this extraordinary character from the circumstances which accompanied its passage? It does not.
Let us examine how this law was carried into effect. Members of the legislature, who voted for the passage of the law, were appointed to offices, not indeed, created by the law, the constitution having wisely guarded against an effect of that sort; but to judicial offices previously created; by the removal or what was called the promotion of judges from the offices they then held, to the offices newly created, and supplying their places by members of the legislature, who voted for the creation of the new offices. In this substitution however it appears, that no respect was paid to another provision of the constitution. The 6th section of the 1st Art. of the constitution contains these words, "no person or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office." If vacancies had existed in the previously existing judicial establishments, the appointments of the members of the legislature, might not be considered as a direct breach of this provision in the constitution; but this was not the fact, no vacancies did exist. It was necessary, to make provision for members voting for the law, that vacancies should be made by the removal or promotion of the then existing judges. This was done under this authority in the constitution. 2d section 2d Art. and he (to wit) "the President of the United States, shall, nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, and other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, &c." again, "the President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by
granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." How did the then President exercise the power in the present case? He did not wait until the vacancies should happen. He attempted to make vacancies, by what, he called, the promotion of judges, although they held their commissions of him "during good behaviour," and without waiting to know whether the judges would accept the promotion or not, upon which event alone a vacancy could accrue; he proceeded to appoint and actually commission members of the legislature to offices, then actually held by other commissions granted to other persons. What was the effect of this procedure? That two persons held commissions to perform the same duties, although one person only was authorized by law to discharge those duties; whilst the office, where the promotion was refused, remained vacant. This was actually the case, in several of the districts of the United States. This subject will be put into a still stronger point of view by examining the journals of the senate, which he was sorry to do for that purpose. When discussing the bill in question in the senate, he found this entry on their journals, "on motion to strike out the whole of the bill after the words (from and after,) section 11 line 2d, for the purpose of inserting as follows, (to wit) substitute for the bill." On the question to agree to this motion, it passed in the negative—yeas 13—nays 17. He observed amongst the nays, the names of Mr. Green, of Rhode-Island; and Mr. Read, of South-Carolina. Both these gentlemen received appointments in virtue of the promotion of judges under this law. If these gentlemen had voted on the opposite side of the question, the law would never have been in existence. He mentioned this circumstance not to impugn the motives of any gentleman, but, to demonstrate the temptation held out to the members of the legislature under the doctrine contended for against the repeal of this law. The refusal of the present President to correct what was called a mistake in Mr. Green's appointment, having excited some clamor, it was necessary to put that subject in a correct point of view.
It seems that in filling up Mr. Green's commission, the word "circuit" instead of the word "district," was inserted; it is presumed by mistake. If the commission was intended for the circuit court, it was a breach of the constitution, in its most obvious letter. If it was intended for the district court, it was void ab initio ; because at the date of the commission, no vacancy had happened, and the President's right to appoint depended on that precedent condition, and he therefore in making the appointment, attempted to exercise a power he did not possess. It must be obvious to every gentleman, that Mr. Green's accepting the commission under all the incidents attending the case, could furnish but a negative recommendation of Mr. Green in his application for that or any other appointment. Upon a review of the history of the law in question according to the doctrine of its advocates; the temptation to the legislature, to make permanent, irrevocable provision for themselves must be obvious to every impartial observer. If when a judicial establishment be once made, it becomes irrevocable, how easily would it be, for a legislature, combined with the executive to compensate themselves for the loss of the confidence of their constituents, by following the example before us? By erecting a new tier of judges, holding out to them additional emoluments, and by filling up the vacancies occasioned by their promotion with the members of the legislature.
This operation would be most likely to take place when the representatives had lost the confidence of their constituents, and of course less likely to be influenced by considerations of public good. Again, in, the insecure system thus established would have the advantage of all other similar systems existing in the world; because if in other countries the insecure system has become oppressive to the people, they have the consolation to recollect, that the evil may be lessened by the competent authority; but according to the doctrine upon which the system is bottomed in the United States, no remedy can be applied to the mischief by the union of all the responsible agents of the people.—How, Sir, would the framers of our constitution lament, after all the care and circumspection they had used to exclude this system entirely from the practical operation of the government, that the constitution itself should be made the instrument of its introduction, and its permanent irrevocable establishment? And this too at the moment of an expiring administration; when the passions of men just parting from power, were breaking down every impediment which stood in the way of attaining their object! Upon the whole, therefore, it appears, that this doctrine of the irrepealability of laws derives no consideration from the consequences which naturally flow from it.
Mr. G. said, that having exhausted so great a portion of the time and attention of the committee, in discussing the constitutional question, which had been made the cardinal point in the debate, he proposed to confine himself to very few observations upon the expediency of the contemplated repeal. He said he took it for granted that the former judicial system was competent to the discharge of all the judicial business in the United States; but if that should be denied, he
thought it demonstrable from the document before the committee. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) had intimated a doubt whether the President had acted correctly in favoring us with the document; he should only observe in reply, that the constitution imposed a duty upon the President from time to time, to give to Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he said that the number of suits in the courts of the U. States must always be very small from the limited objects of their jurisdiction; this will appear by reading the 2d section of the 3d article of the constitution, limiting their jurisdiction. The whole expense of the existing system is 137,000 dollars, of which 40,000 or 50,000 dollars may be attributable to the new system; the estimates differing between these two sums. Whether the expense be estimated either according to the service to be rendered, or by comparison with any other system, it appeared to him to be enormous. He examined the document before us by way of ascertaining the relative view of expense and service, and also the competency of the former system, to the discharge of the business. He would not, however be responsible for precise clerical accuracy in his addition, which has also been deemed a subject worthy of criticism against the President of the United States. But if it be within 25 per cent of being correct, it will demonstrate, 1st, that the former courts were competent to the business; 2d, that the number of causes bear no proportion to the expense of the institution.
He said he would present to the view of the committee, the whole number of causes instituted at the respective sessions of the courts from the spring of 1796, to the spring of 1801. He had fixed upon the year 1796 because the business began then to increase under the influence of the British treaty.
In all the circuit courts of the United States, except Maryland and Tennessee, the whole number of causes of every description instituted in the spring of 1796, were 224, fall 192—1797, spring 481, fall 397—1798, spring 325, fall 397—1799, spring 703, exclusive of 93 criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania, fall 456—1800, spring 461, 70 criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania, fall 355—1801, spring 350—making the common calculation of suits settled between the parties without trial, dismissals, abatements, &c. &c. and it would appear that the whole number of judgments against solvent persons, would hardly compensate the expense of the institution. It also appears that the number of causes left to be tried, could easily be decided by the six former judges.
He said upon looking over the number of suits in the eastern circuit, it appeared to him strange, that the members representing that part of the country, should insist upon increasing the expense of the system, when the courts have there scarcely any business to attend to; and that gentlemen in the southern states, where the business was greater, should be willing to lessen the expense. He said he never heard the smallest complaint in the state he represented respecting the incompetency of the former courts to discharge the business in that state. He believed they had always gone through the docket, whenever they attended, and as far as his own observations went, that was the fact. He said, it appeared strange to him, that new courts and new expenses should be called for in other parts of the United States, when the old courts were competent to the business in that state, where the business has been considerably more than in any other state, although it is now very much declined, and probably will decline still more. In the courts of Maine, West Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and West Tennessee, no suit at all had been instituted in June last.
Under the view of the subject thus presented, he considered the late courts as useless and unnecessary, and the expense, therefore, was to him highly objectionable. He did not consider it in the nature of a compensation, for there was no equivalent rendition of service. He could not help considering it as a tribute for past services—as a tribute for the zeal displayed by these gentlemen in supporting principles which the people had denounced. He thought the federal maxim always was "millions for defence, not a cent for tribute." He could not consent to tax the people even one cent, as a tribute to men, who disrespected their principles.
Another objection he had to the new organization of the courts was, their tendency to produce a gradual demolition of state courts, by multiplying the number of courts, increasing their jurisdiction, making bonds or obligatory bills assignable with the privilege of bringing suits in the name of the assignee, &c. &c. or as gentlemen say, bringing federal justice to every man's door; the state courts will be ousted of their jurisdiction, which he thought by no means a desirable event. Under this consideration alone, and under the conviction he felt, of the inutility of the courts, he should vote for the repeal.
Mr. G. concluded by observing, that upon the whole view of the subject, feeling the firmest conviction, that there is no constitutional impediment in the way of repealing the act in question, upon the most fair and candid interpretation of the constitution. Believing that principles advanced in opposition, go directly to the destruction of the fundamental principle of the constitution, the responsible
ity of all public agents to the people; that they go to the establishment of a permanent corporation of individuals invested with ultimate cenorial, and controlling power over all the departments of the government, over legislation, execution, and decision, and irresponsible to the people; believing that these principles are in direct hostility with the great principle of representative government; believing that the courts formerly established, were fully competent to the business they had to perform, and that the present courts are useless, unnecessary and expensive; believing that the supreme court has heretofore discharged all the duties assigned to it in less than one month in the year, and that its duties could be performed in half that time; considering the compensation of the judges to be amongst the highest, given to any of the highest officers of the United States, for the services of the whole year; considering the compensation of all the judges greatly exceeding the services assigned them, as well as considering all the circumstances attending the substitution of the new system for the old one, by increasing the number of judges, and compensation, and lessening their duties by the distribution of the business into a great number of hands, &c.—whilst acting under these impressions he should vote against the motion now made for striking out the first section of the repealing bill.
[To be continued.]
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1802.
We this day with pride present to our readers the speech of Mr. GILES, contending ourselves with saying, that it is a fortress, which neither declamation or loquility can shake.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
FRIDAY, Feb. 26, 1802.
A message was received from the President of the United States, including returns, additional to those already presented, of the number of suits instituted or depending in the Circuit Courts of the United States, also a correction of errors in the preceding statement, arising in part from a want of correctness in the returning officers, and in part from the faulty analysis made at the opening of Congress.
The Message concludes with a recapitulation, whereby the following appear to be the totals of causes instituted and depending.
Instituted. Depending. Corrected statement, 8,358 1,629 Former statement, 8,276 1,539 Difference, 88 90
[Thus the mighty error , about which so great a clamour has been raised, shrinks into nothing; for with the addition of 69 depending suits in Maryland received since the presentment of document No. 8, the above balance constitutes the difference between the number of suits exhibited by the former, and by the corrected statement.]
SATURDAY Feb. 27, 1802.
Mr. NICHOLSON concluded his speech in favor of repealing the judiciary act of the last session, about half past two o'clock. He was followed by Mr. Dennis, on the other side, who spoke till six o'clock, when Gen. Smith spoke till half past seven in favor of the repealing act.
A motion was then made that the committee should rise, which was supported by Messrs. Hill, Huger, Dana, Bayard, Macon, Holland, Griswold, Bacon, Claiborne, and Plater; and opposed by Messrs. Allison, Giles, and Smither.
At 8 o'clock the question was taken, Yeas 46—Nays 43.
The committee rose, and asked leave to sit again; on granting which there was a division, Yeas 48—Nays 37.
Sale at Auction.
On Saturday the 20th, of March next, will be sold at Public Vendue, at Rhodes's Tavern.
A LOT of ground in the City of Washington, known on the plat of said City, of Lot No. 14, in square 100, 246, containing 336 square feet. The situation is amongst those which are considered the most valuable, being in the neighborhood of the Navy Yard; and but a short distance from the Capitol. The sale to commence at 11 o'clock A. M. when the terms will be made known by.
AZARIAH GATTON. cpst
Lands for Sale.
WE will sell that valuable Farm lying in Prince George county, containing 400 acres more or less, and one other tract containing 150 acres adjoining the above late the property of Richard Beall deceased; those lands are well timbered and watered, and at a small expense there might be made at least 40 acres of meadow. The improvements on the first mentioned land are a good dwelling house, kitchen, new barn, an excellent tan yard, and several other convenient out houses, and the last mentioned land has a new Log dwelling house, and other convenient out houses. These lands lie four miles from Hagerstown and ten from the City of Washington. For terms apply to Samuel N. Smallwood at the Washington Navy Yard, or to the subscribers living near the premises.
AZRI. BEALL. } Executors. RICHARD WALKER, } March 1, 1802. cpaw

A Good Bargain!
Will be sold by Public Sale, on Wednesday the 17th of March next, at 12 o'clock on the premises.
A VALUABLE FARM situated on Tom's Creek, near Emmitsburg, Frederick county Maryland; containing about 280 acres, 35 whereof are good meadow, mostly timber, and well watered—120 acres timber land, and the remainder good farming land, well adapted for raising grain and clover; there is on said farm a two story log dwelling house and kitchen, a stone milk house, and smoke house; a full house with two stills and a boiler, and a constant stream of water running through both. A good log barn 64 by 30 feet, a new frame cow house 50 by 30 and other convenient buildings, a large apple orchard, containing more than 600 trees; and a large number and variety of peach and cherry trees. This farm is well watered; every field has a constant stream running thro' it. One thousand pounds will be required to be paid in hand, the remainder of the purchase money in three equal yearly payments. If the purchaser will pay the whole in hand, a generous discount will be made. At the same time and place will be offered for sale 220 acres, joining the above; the two have always been one farm, and will be sold separate or together as may suit the purchaser.
The day following a large stock of horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, farming utensils, and household furniture, will be sold.
JOHN M. BAYARD.
Feb. 25, 1802. ep4w&U.G.
FOR SALE.
I WOULD sell on reasonable terms, three or four hundred acres of Land, in the centre of my estate at Marlinton, on the Virginia side of the river Potomac, about 45 miles below the City of Washington, and 13 distant from Fredericksburg; the whole constituting a very desirable situation for a substantial Farmer, on a moderate scale. This tract extends for length, from Potomac river across the neck of Accotack creek—it has most beautiful situations on the river for a country seat; it has a fine Rock & Herring Fishery, and a landing that must be very valuable, as it is the only good water on the Potomac, that can be connected by land carriage with Fredericksburg. The soil is very rich, and it lies very well for cultivation, with a large bank of the richest fish marle—part of it is a most valuable firm marl, from which 200 to 150 tons of good hay might be annually taken, a portion of this is ditched and drained for timothy. The improvements are an overseer's house, barn and negro quarters. If not before sold by private contract, it will be offered at public vendue on the 20th of May, on the premises, (the seller reserving a bid) deliverable in the fall. Mr. William Play, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase.
JOHN F. MERCER.
Annapolis, Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w.
Land and Houses for Sale.
The Subscriber will sell by private contract, the following valuable property.
TWO TRACTS of Land , in Culpepper county, Virginia, lying on Pat Run, near Roman's Ford, distant 28 miles from Fredericksburg, and 55 from the City of Washington. One tract contains 700 acres, the other 200; the soil of which is equal to any in the vicinity, and is more particularly productive of grain. They are separated from each other by a never-failing stream, which waters 200 acres of the best bottom land, a great proportion of which consists of mowing and grazing meadow. Of the 700 acres tract, 300 are cleared and in arable order, and 250 of the smaller tract are highly improved. The buildings on the latter tract are commodious, consisting of a roomy dwelling house lately erected, a kitchen, stables, servant's houses, all in good repair; near which are extensive and flourishing orchards of apples and peaches, and a large kitchen garden. On the other tract are an overseer's house, negro cabins, &c. The situation as to health, agreeable society, and convenience to mills, both saw and grist, can be exceeded but by few places. They will be sold either together or separate.
Also, in the town of Alexandria, two elegant three-story brick houses, situated the one on King, the other on Columbia street, and 40 by 20 feet each. They are well calculated for private families, and are as well situated as any in the town, for the grocery and flour business.
Also, in the same town, five unimproved lots on King street, and three on Patrick street, which will be sold or leased, for any length of time, and about one mile from the same town, 9 3/4 acres of land, pleasantly situated on the Leesburg road.
He will also sell a handsome and commodious three story brick house, lately finished, in the City of Washington, on F street, not far from the branch bank, 28 feet by 40, occupied at present by the Secretary of State; and adjoining thereto, a good framed house, well calculated both for a family and retail store, there being a large store-room in front, and four other convenient rooms, with a kitchen and stable on the lot.
A framed house, two stories high, 26 feet by 20, on F. street, directly opposite the branch bank. The above houses are situated in by far the best improved and most pleasant part of the city.
Several unimproved lots, in good situations in the City of Washington, and 7 or 8000 acres land in Kentucky.
The whole and any part of the above described property will be sold on such terms as will render complete satisfaction to purchasers. For the lands in Virginia, on the payment of one third of the purchase money in hand, a credit will be given for the residue, of one two and three years, payable in three equal installments with interest.
Fifty or sixty negroes will be taken in payment for any part of it.
For further particulars, as to terms, apply to the subscriber or, in his absence to John Hewit, attorney at law, City of Washington, to Robert B. Voss, esq. of Culpepper, for the lands in Virginia; and to Henry Moor, esq. of Alexandria, for the property in Alexandria.
NICHOLAS VOSS.
Washington, Dec. 26, 1802. 2awtf
NOTICE.
THE members of the Washington Building Company, are requested to be punctual in their attendance at their stated monthly meeting to be held at Lewis Morin's Tavern, Pennsylvania Avenue, on Monday evening next, at 6 o'clock; on business of great importance to the institution.
THOMAS HERTY, Sec'y.
Feb. 26, 1802. ep2
NOTICE.
THE Sale of the brick house and lot No. 10, in square 728, in the City of Washington, near the Capitol on East Capitol Street, which was to have taken place this day, is postponed on account of the inclemency of the weather, but will certainly be exposed to public sale, at Tunnicliff's Tavern, near the premises on Tuesday the 16th day of March next, at 4 o'clock in the evening, on a credit of three, six and nine months. Negotiable notes with approved indorsers, payable at the Bank of Columbia, or at the Branch Bank in the City of Washington, to be given at the time of the sale, when possession will be given, and an indisputable title will be made to the purchaser on receiving the first payment.
SAMUEL TYLER.
Feb. 26, 1802. 4t
The Arabian Horse
The Dey of Algiers.
ARRIVED on the 19th inst. in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Mason, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swan of Massachusetts, now in Europe.
He will stand the ensuing season, at my farm in Montgomery county, seven miles from this town and the City of Washington, and will cover at forty dollars the season (commencing the 1st of March) and one dollar to the groom, the money or an approved promissory note to be sent with the mare.
This beautiful animal was brought from Arabia in the year '98, at four years old, by the late grand balliff Brown, of Prussia, into that kingdom, and was purchased at the sale of the balliff's studs, after his death, at Fehrbellin, in '99, lieutenant general Frederick baron of Bismarck, by whom he was sent to Hamburg to col. Swan, whence he was by that gentleman shipped to America; to attest which, and to prove him to be a genuine Arabian horse, original certificates are in my hands, and may at all times be seen.
The Dey is of full stature for his race, he measures exactly fourteen hands two inches and an half. His colour is a racy white, with a few brown spots dished over his neck and shoulders. In figure and bone, it is believed, he will stand the test of the best judgment. He is only eight years old the coming spring. He is of fine presence and carriage; and remarkably vigorous and active.
As it is the wish of his proprietor to display the merits of this horse in his colts—as early, and with as much certainty as possible, by his order, no more than fifty mares will be received this season.
I have excellent and extensive pasture well fenced, adjoining the land, at two shillings and six pence per week. Grain and green clover will be furnished if desired, at moderate prices—Great care shall be taken of mares, and every justice done them with the horse; but I will be answerable for no accidents or escapes. If gentlemen at a distance choose to send servants with their mares they shall be provided for on reasonable terms.
CHARLES C. JONES.
George-Town, Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w
N. B. The Dey will be shown every Thursday for some weeks to come at the Union Tavern in Georgetown, and at Mr. Stell's Tavern, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
IN COUNCIL,
Annapolis, January 20, 1802.
ORDERED, That the resolution of the last session of the assembly respecting the debtors of the state, be published in the Maryland Gazette, at Annapolis; the Federal Gazette, the American, and the Telegraph, at Baltimore; the Museum, at George Town; the National Intelligencer; Barges' Gazette, Hager's Town, and the paper at Easton, three times in each week for the space of three weeks successively for information; and all delinquent debtors are notified, that unless they make satisfactory payments to the treasurer of the Western or Eastern shore (as the case may be) on or before the tenth day of March next, suits will be commenced against them indiscriminately.
By order,
NINIAN PINKNEY, Clerk.
BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
December 31, 1831.
Resolved, That the Governor be and he is hereby authorized, by and with the advice and consent of the council, to direct suits to be commenced against such of the debtors to the state as he may think proper, and appoint an attorney or attorneys to any particular suit or suits to be directed to be brought: Provided, That all debts due to the state shall be paid to the treasurer of the Western or Eastern shore, and to no other person or persons whatsoever.
Resolved, That on the application of the governor to the treasurer of the Western shore, it shall be the duty of the said treasurer, and he is hereby required, to furnish the governor with correct statements of the debts due to the state.
By order,
WM. HARWOOD, Clerk.
BY THE SENATE.
December 31, 1801.
Read the first time and ordered to lie on the table.
By order,
JOHN B. DUCKETT, Clerk
BY THE SENATE.
December 31, 1801.
Read the Second time and amended to.
By order,
JOHN B. DUCKETT, Clerk.
COALS.
hickory and oak wood, all of a superior quality, to be sold low for cash, at Redmond and Garrett Barry's new wharf. Also 12 cases of hollow glass, and 14 liquor travelling cases.
Jan. 27, 1802. ep1m
BOLTING CLOTHS.
A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF BOLTING CLOTHS
Of the best qualities and latest importations, are kept for sale by OLIVER EVANS , at the corner of Market and Ninth streets, Philadelphia, and
By OLIVER & EVAN EVANS ,
With BOHN and SLINGLUFF , at the corner of Market and Howard streets, Baltimore, Also, with DEAN & GARDNER , Union street, Alexandria.
The book entitled the YOUNG MILL-WRIGHT and MILLER'S GUIDE , may also be had at the above places.
Jan. 29, 1802. ep4w&kop4w
Public Auction.
By virtue of an order from the Orphan's court of Prince George county, will be exposed to Public Sale, for cash, on the 24th day of March next, at the dwelling of Richard Lamar, in said county.
All the property of Mary Lamar, deceased; consisting of twelve negroes, among which are women, girls, and boys—Also a variety of household furniture.
All persons indebted to the said estate are desired to make payment immediately; and those that have claims against the same, are requested to exhibit them properly authenticated, before the first day of May next, to the subscriber.
JOHN LAMAR, Adm'r.
Feb. 19, 1802. ep3w
NOTICE.
Will be offered for sale by Auction, on the 18th day of March next, on the premises, one moiety or half part of an excellent frame house in the City of Washington, on Pennsylvania Avenue, between the Seven Buildings and George-Town.
At present occupied by Mr. Watkins, and adjoining the brick house in which Mr. Amariah Frost lives. One half part of the lot will be sold with the house, and Jacob R. Rhodes's title to the same will be conveyed to the highest bidder. This property is taken by virtue of two writs of fieri facias to me directed, issued out of the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Washington, Frederick Btz, against Hugh Boyd, Jacob R. Rhodes, and George Hayward. Terms of sale cash—time of sale 11 o'clock. A.M.
DANIEL C. BRENT,
Marshal. ep5
CHARLES VARDEN,
Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia.
GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of,
Best superfine cloths, Cassimeres, Swansdown, Toylenettes, Velverettes, Fancy Cords, Corings, Flannels, &c. N.B. Regimentals, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies' Habits, made in the neatest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice—Washington City, New-Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Rapine's book store.
Dec. 16, 1801. ep5f
To Rent,
4nd possession given immediately, A TWO STORY BRICK HOUSE, North front of the President's House, CONTAINING
TWO Parlours and four Bed-rooms, with Garden, &c. It is convenient to the Public offices, and may be had furnished or unfurnished, with or without board, on reasonable terms, to an agreeable tenant. Enquire of the Printer, or on the premises. Also,
Wanted Employment,
For a YOUNG MAN, who would engage as an assistant in a store, having kept one of his own, of course accustomed to it. Would act as Steward and superintend a plantation, or the like—would make himself useful in any situation.—Enquire of the Printer hereof. November 25. 3tawtf
FOR SALE.
THE subscriber is authorised to sell a tract of land containing four hundred acres, lying in Prince George county, on Oxen Run, adjoining the district of Columbia, and about two miles from the City of Washington, with a good road to that part of the Eastern Branch over which a bridge is to be built.—This land is healthy and abounds with springs of excellent water.
There are between twenty and thirty acres of meadow ground, with a fine stream through it, which may be prepared for timothy at a small expense, and at least two hundred acres in wood and timber. The wood itself will more than pay for the land. The cleared land, except a small part indeed, is of an excellent quality, and has on it a large tobacco house, and several houses suitable for the accommodation of labourers. This land has on it some elegant situations for country seats, commanding a view of the river and the city. If this land be not sold at private sale, before the 16th day of March next (and if it be, timely notice will be given) it will on that day, if fair, if not, the first fair day thereafter, be sold to the highest bidder on the premises. The greater part of the purchase money will be required down; a credit of three months will be given on the balance, the purchaser securing the punctual payment of the balance at the expiration of that time. Persons disposed to make a private purchase, may know the terms by application to Wm. Cooke, of Baltimore Town, or Mr. James F. Leitch of Manchester, Virginia, Mr. John Addison at Greenbergh, near the City of Washington, or to the subscriber in the city of Washington.
PHILIP T. BAKER,
Attorney for J. Addison. Jan. 18, 1802. epis
For Sale,
Or to To Let, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable.
ISAAC POLOCK.
Dec. 16. ep5f
The Subscriber
RESPECTFULLY informs the public, that he has removed from George-Town to the fountain Inn, near Rhodes's City Tavern. Where he is furnished with a good boiler, carriage house, and stable for eighteen horses, and every thing in his line to render the accommodation of travellers agreeable.—The strictest attention will be paid by
CHARLES ROGERS.
N. B. Ten or fifteen gentlemen can get board and lodging on moderate terms. Dec. 23. ep5f
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR,
SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, cassimeres, swansdowns, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His unremitting attention shall be given to merit patronage.
Capitol Hill, next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings. Dec. 7, 1801. ep5f
TO THE MERCHANTS Of George-Town and Alexandria.
A GENTLEMAN of experience in business intends going to the West Indies the ensuing Spring, and will have leisure to transact any commission business that may be confided to his care.
His credentials will be unexceptionable.—Any gentleman wishing further information, will be attended to by addressing a line to A. Z. and left in the care of the Editor of the National Intelligencer. Jan. 29, 1802. 2aw4w
NOTICE.
COMMITTED to the Jail of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, as a Runaway, a Negro Woman named CHARLOTTE, about nineteen years of age, five feet four or five inches high. She says she is the property of Lewis St. John, near Battle Town, Frederick county, Virginia. The owner is requested to come and pay Charges and take her away.
DANIEL C. BRENT,
Marshal of the District of Columbia. Feb. 5, 1802.
GEORGE WALKER,
REQUESTS those who may have any claims against him, that have not yet come to his knowledge, to bring them in for immediate settlement; and informs those who are indebted to him, that no longer indulgence than the 15th of next month will be given.
He has yet remaining on hand for sale, six hundred and thirty-six of the very best of the lots arising from the tract of land of which he was fee simple proprietor before the City of Washington was laid out; and which lots are situated on the Eastern Branch near to where the bridge is about to be built; extending from thence over the high ground on each side of the Pot Road, north east of the Capitol.
The recording clerk's office here, will show the title to be good. He will let for a reasonable rent, about 80 acres of land, inclosed at the north end of his plantation, and within ten minutes walk of the Capitol; containing a large barn and two good stables, two large orchards of choice fruit, a new garden, two good springs, and the use of an excellent well of water convenient, with a small dwelling house which will be erected in a few weeks hence. This place is well calculated for gardening, a dairy and a livery stable.
He also wishes to let a two story frame house calculated for a store, on square No. 728. And will sell or let, a barn 50 feet by 25, on square No. 919, East Capitol Street. Washington, Feb. 17, 1802. ep5f
VALUABLE
LAND for SALE.
FOR sale about 4500 acres of land belonging to the estate of Judge Mercer, deceased, and situated in the county of Loudoun, on the waters of Goose Creek, about 40 miles from Alexandria and the Federal City. A large portion of this tract is meadow ground, of good quality, and the soil of the high land is well adapted to every species of produce usually cultivated on land similarly situated in the upper country. Such portion of it as remains uncleared, affords an extensive and excellent range for stock of every kind. On one part of this land is one of the most valuable mill seats in the state. The supply of water is inexhaustible, and the mill could be erected immediately on the side of the public road leading from Winchester to Alexandria. It is computed that the number of wagons, almost constantly travelling along this road, amount to at least 5 or 600. So that a ready market might always be had here, for a very considerable quantity of grain and hay.
'Tis deemed unnecessary to describe more particularly the many advantages of this tract of Land, as it is expected that all persons disposed to purchase, will first view the premises. To accommodate purchasers the whole tract will be divided into lots of 4 or 500 acres each, with as much wood and meadow land to every lot as circumstances will admit. And it is believed that the whole 4500 acres may be so laid off into farms of the above-mentioned size, as to leave in each as much wood and meadow land as would be desired.
The price and time of payment will be made known by the subscribers. Letters directed to John T. Brooke, Fredericksburg, or to James M. Garnett, Laytons, will be answered without delay.
JOHN T. BROOKE,
JAMES M. GARNETT,
Adm'rs Feb. 8, 1802. ep5f
Public Auction.
Will positively be sold at the ferry on the premises, on Monday the 15th of March next, on terms that will then be made known.
All that tract of land, known by the name of Blue Plains, containing near 500 acres, on which Mr. William Bayly now lives. This property has been so frequently advertised and described, that it is supposed useless particularly to describe it; suffice it to say, it combines more advantages than any tract of its size in the United States. A good and indisputable title will be made upon receipt of the purchase money.
WALTER MACKALL,
Trustee. Feb. 22, 1802. 2aw4w
The subscriber respectfully acquaints the public, that he has removed to the corner of Ninth and B streets, where he continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of Ornaments for Chimney pieces, Door Caps, Frontispieces, Metal Safes, &c. which may also be had at his store No. 51, Barclay street, New-York, and to Mr. Wild's store, Market street, Baltimore.
GEORGE ANDREWS.
Who has gold leaf for sale by the package or book. May 2, 1801. 1y
NEW STORE.
THE Subscribers most respectfully inform the Public in general, and their friends in particular, that they have just opened an assortment of
Dry Goods,
SUITABLE FOR THE SEASON, On the Pennsylvania Avenue, between the President's Square and the Seven Buildings, which they purpose to sell low for cash.
ALSO,
A few casks of Cut Nails.
SHARPLESS & SMITH.
November 25. ep3
For sale, or to be rented.
A House and lot on the Capitol Hill—the lot is 20 feet 2 inches on Delaware Avenue, and about 190 feet deep extending back to a 30 feet Alley. The House is a handsome well furnished convenient three story brick house, containing 2 sealed garrets, 5 chambers, 2 parlours—kitchen with a pantry and cellar.
It is directly opposite to the Buildings of WASHINGTON, occupied by Gen. Dearborn, near adjoining to a number of houses belonging to Mr. Carroll, rented to Mr. Dalton and others from its vicinity to the Capitol, it is well calculated for a private family; or a person attached to the offices of the Federal Legislature.—Adjoining is a lot of about 40 feet front on same Avenue, and running same depth back (the whole under a good post and rail fence) which, if required would be sold at same time. If rented, the Tenant may have the use of the whole of the lot, which would make an excellent garden, having a South and Eastern exposure, as long as convenient to the proprietor. This property would be sold a Bargain for satisfactory payments, or well situated property in Philadelphia would be taken in exchange.
Apply to Benjamin Dureh, New Jersey Avenue or to the Editor of the National Intelligencer—or to Karrick and Percival, Philadelphia. Nov. 21. 2f
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of land containing 2,500 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, late the residence of PRESLEY THORNION, Esq. Seventeen hundred acres of which are of the most valuable kind of low grounds on the river; between three and four hundred acres heavily timbered, the remainder is wavy high land extremely productive. The soil of this tract