Gazette of the United-States. (New-York [N.Y.]), 1789-09-05 00:00:00

Gazette of the United States.
[No. XLII.]
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1789.
[Published on Wednesday and Saturday.]
THE TABLET.—No. XLII.
"The good and bad qualities of men are so blended, that it cannot be exactly known, where one ends and the other begins. This creates a source of uneasiness and jealousy among the people, and makes them extremely at a loss how to manage the distribution of praise and blame."
THERE is no situation in which men can be placed, where it is more difficult to ascertain their real motives of conduct, than when they are speaking of public affairs. However diversified may be the tempers of men, however opposite may be their pursuits, they seem generally to be agreed in this one point; that the concerns of the government might be managed better than they are.
Every man supposes he possesses a good share of public spirit. While patriotism is the pretence, it is a very plausible cover for ignorance, ill-nature and self-interest. There are so many mischiefs resulting from the deception which is imposed on the world, by the false colors which the passions and characters of men assume, that I could wish my readers would call their attention to a little self-examination. Several persons of my acquaintance often meet in a club to discuss political subjects; and whenever I fall in their company I have observed, they are fond of shewing their patriotism by pointing out some of the errors of the government, and suggesting hints of improvement. I should be wanting in candor if I imagined all their observations were dictated by sinister views. Men, who support an unblemished reputation in the private walks of life, are entitled to some degree of indulgence, when we are construing the motives of their conduct relative to public transactions. Under this persuasion, I will mark the outlines of some characters, who I perceive have some influence in forming and controuling the popular opinions and wishes. The result will prove that men without any bad intentions often mistake the public good, and excite clamour and uneasiness when no cause exists.
INFELIX is a man who, in many respects, possesses real worth and excellence. He is only bad in appearance. Any one, who passes an hour with him, will go away dissatisfied; but upon a more intimate acquaintance many good qualities may be discovered. It is to be regretted, that so worthy a man often makes himself and others unhappy, by the irritability of his temper. From a natural restlessness of spirit he is so habituated to murmur and fret, that no character or event escapes the strokes of his peevishness. When he is speaking of public men and measures, one would imagine, he is the inveterate enemy of both. But there is not any man, whom it would be more difficult to draw into any deliberate act of sedition; and there are few men, from whom the community derives more substantial benefit. With an incessant spirit of complaint, he pays his taxes and performs other duties required of him, in better season than any of his neighbors, and with as little captiousness as he eats his dinner. This cast of temper may rather be called ill-humour than malice, and keeps a man habitually uneasy without provocation or design. It strikes at no determinate object, but rails indiscriminately at the times. Such a man is always discontented with present objects, without giving any reason why he is so; and wishes alterations, without being able to tell what they should be.
If I remonstrate with my friend INFELIX and urge him to check his fretfulness, he will scarce allow that he has a complaining spirit. When he has been, for several hours, throwing censure on public affairs, if he is told of it, he recollects little or nothing of the matter. He means no harm and really feels no enmity. Still, however, he is a dangerous associate. Many of his acquaintance believe he is a zealous patriot. They do not consider that he is constitutionally prone to murmur; and are apt to ascribe to a cool reflection, those remarks, which involuntarily flow from a habit of impatience and disgust.
I have another friend called BENEVOLUS, from whom, it would be imagined, the public tranquillity had nothing to fear. He never speaks with any degree of spleen and resentment; and has such an habitual serenity of mind as to be the favorite companion of all his acquaintance. But strange as it may appear, BENEVOLUS sometimes shakes the confidence of his friends, in the public proceedings. From a strong desire to see the affairs of the community proper, he beholds with too lively sensibility every occurrence that counteracts so benevolent a wish. The truth is, he thinks too favorably of mankind, and is led to expect more than events will authorize. As he has no just ideas of human nature, when he perceives instances of imperfection in any indi-
viduals, he is apt to suppose other men are less liable to frailty. In short, he never suspects any errors in any person until he actually discovers them. BENEVOLUS, though a well disposed man, is a very weak one. His knowledge is not so extensive as his motives are pure. He has so defective a discernment, that he cannot distinguish between public misfortunes and public errors. His want of sagacity prevents his tracing disorders to their proper source: and makes him charge upon individuals those evils which result from the inherent nature of society. He will not complain with bitterness, but mildly expresses the pain he feels that public officers have so little patriotism and integrity. BENEVOLUS is perfectly honest in his principles and confines all his assertions within the limits of truth. The defect of his understanding exposes him to mistakes; and makes him inadvertently the dupe of men worse than himself. This good man, while he fervently wishes well, often does ill to the government.
(To be continued.)
NEW-YORK, SEPTEMBER 5, 1789.
SKETCH OF PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS.
In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES,
SATURDAY, AUGUST 29.
IN committee of the whole—Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.—
DEBATE on the JUDICIAL BILL—continued.
On motion to strike out the third section.
MR. MADISON. It will not be doubted that some judiciary system is necessary to accomplish the objects of the government; and that it ought to be commensurate with the other branches of the government. Under the late confederation it could scarcely be said that there was any real legislative power. There was no executive branch; and the judicial was so confined as to be of little consequence. In the new Constitution, a regular system is provided. The legislative power is made effective for its objects; the executive is co-extensive with the legislative, and it is equally proper that this should be the case with the judiciary. If the latter be concurrent with the state jurisdictions, it does not follow that it will for that reason be impracticable. It is admitted that a concurrence exists in some cases between the legislative authorities of the federal and State governments; and it may be safely affirmed that there is more both of novelty and difficulty in that arrangement than there will be in the other.
To make the state courts federal courts is liable to insuperable objections. Not to repeat that the moment that is done, they will from the highest down to the county courts, hold their tenures during good behaviour, by virtue of the Constitution. It may be remarked that in another point of view it would violate the Constitution, by usurping a prerogative of the Supreme Executive of the United States. It would be making appointments which are expressly vested in that department, not indeed by nomination but by description, which would amount to the same thing. But laying these difficulties aside, a review of the constitution of the courts in many States will satisfy us that they cannot be trusted with the execution of the federal laws. In some of the States, it is true they might, and would be safe and proper organs of such a jurisdiction: But in others, they are so dependent on the State legislatures, that to make the federal laws dependent on them, would throw us back into all the embarrassments which characterized our former situation. In Connecticut the judges are appointed annually by the legislature, and the legislature is itself the dernier resort in civil cases. In Rhode-Island, which we hope soon to see united with the other States, the case is at least as bad. In Georgia even under their formed Constitution, the judges are triennially appointed, and in a manner by no means unexceptionable. In Pennsylvania they hold their places for seven years only. Their tenures leave a dependence, particularly for the last year or two of the terms, which forbid a reliance on judges who feel it. With respect to their salaries, there are few States if any, in which the judges stand on independent ground. On the whole, Sir, I do not see how it can be made compatible with the Constitution, or safe to the federal interests to make a transfer of the federal jurisdiction to the State courts, as contended for by the gentlemen who oppose the clause in question.
Mr. JACKSON.—Sir, the importance of the question induces me to trouble the committee so far as to answer one of the arguments made use of in the opposition, and which I think necessary (to do away the impressions they may have made) should be answered. The gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts, (Mr. Sedgwick) has carried the nation to the highest pinnacle of glory, and in a moment hurled it down to its lowest pitch; and has laid the loss of national faith, credit, and honor to the want of an energetic judiciary.—Every good citizen will with him deplore the abject state we have been brought to; but, Sir, do his arguments hold good here? I am of opinion and it is evident they do not.—Under our old form of government Congress had no compelling judiciary—no power of reversing the decrees of the State Judges; but is it contended that they have or ought to have none under the present system? It is allowed, Sir, that Congress shall have the power in its fullest extent to correct, reverse or affirm any decree of a State court; and assuredly the supreme court will exercise this power. How then can our national faith or honor be injured by striking out the clause in future? It must be obvious to the gentleman himself that his fears are groundless: For the supreme court will interfere and keep the State judiciaries within their bounds. That authority will tell them, thus far shall ye go, and no farther, and will bring them back when they exceed their bounds to the principles of their institution.
Another gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Ames) has advanced a position I cannot agree with; he has said that the State courts will, nor cannot take cognizance of laws of the Union, as it would be taking up matters without the bounds of their jurisdiction, and interfering with what was not left to them. Sir, I answer that gentleman with the words of the Constitution, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, &c. shall be the supreme law of the land"—this supersedes in power any State laws:—The judges are bound to notice them as the supreme law, and I call on the gentleman to know, as a professional man, if a criminal was tried for a capital offence under a State law and could justify himself under the laws of the Union, if the State judges could condemn him? Sir, they would forfeit their oaths if he was not acquitted;—this however he has admitted in his argument in some measure. If there was no jurisdiction, neither could they notice the law. I acknowledge that the gentleman has used many specious arguments; but as they rest chiefly on this ground, I think they are done away.
The gentleman (Mr. Madison) from Virginia, has advanced that by leaving this power in the hands of the State judiciaries, or by joining their concurrent authority, you establish them as inferior jurisdictions. If the gentleman will turn to the 11th and 25th sections, he will find both those positions established, and what fell from the gentleman from Massachusetts concerning jurisdiction is likewise answered. The State courts by the former are acknowledged to have concurrent jurisdiction in a large extent, where the United States or an alien are a party, or between citizens of one State and those of another. And if the jurisdiction is acknowledged in some points, it must be supposed to be so in the fullest extent. By the 25th, Sir, they are again fully established, and therefore they are now by the present system in every light as fully, agreeably to the gentleman's argument inferior jurisdictions, as they possibly could be by the principles of the gentleman from New-Hampshire. And here Sir, I will advert to the general arguments, used by the gentlemen in opposition, of the necessity of power to enforce the laws of the Union and support the national existence and honor. Sir, I am opposed in some degree to this clause. For the extent of its power, even supposing the district and circuit courts abolished, swallows up every shadow of a State judiciary. Gentlemen have therefore no reason to complain of the want of federal judiciary power, for the clause declares, "That a final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of law, or equity, of a State in which a decision of the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty, or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States; and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of such their validity; or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty or statute of, or of a commission held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or exemption specially set up, or claimed by either party under such clause, of the said constitution, treaty, statute or commission; may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the supreme court of the United States." Sir, in my

Opinion, and I am convinced experience will prove it, there will, nor can be no suit or action brought in any of the State courts but may under this clause be reversed or affirmed by being brought within the cognizance of the supreme court. But should there be some exceptions for the present, yet Sir, the precedent is so forcible, for it goes so far as even to admit of constructions that under some construction or other, of some of the articles, those articles will in time be totally lost. Sir, let us look at the court of exchequer in England—Revenue trials at first engrossed its whole attention—from a series of fiction there is now no personal action but from construction may be brought with in their cognizance—It is only to suggest, and very seldom true that the plaintiff is a kings debtor and the action is well grounded—Yet there they have counter checks and another resort—here the supreme court is final. Sir, the gentleman from South-Carolina [Mr. BURKE] was right in declaring a resident on lake Erie might dragged to New-York for trial, as that on the Oconee to Savannah. Nay, Sir, I know not how far in time a man might not be dragged from the Oconee to be tried in North-Carolina; for one part of the bill, without specifying the spot, declares that the circuit courts shall have power to hold special sessions for the trial of criminal causes at their discretion. On those considerations I hope the House will not adopt the present system until the milder one is tried. It is calculated to harrafs and foment the people, without answering any essential purpose.
(N. B. In Mr. Jackson's speech in our last, middle column, 14 line instead of "the first he has brought forward," read the first I shall notice and instead of "the first privilege of every government," read the first principle of every government.)
Mr. SMITH (S. C.) All the difficulties and inconveniences which the gentlemen have started as arising from the establishment of a district court arise from the government itself. All the objections made to this court apply equally against having any national judicature. Indeed if they had any weight they would as forcibly apply against the very institution which the gentlemen patronize, viz. a court of admiralty and piracy. If there is to be this perpetual clashing of jurisdictions between the federal and State courts, this eternal jarring between their respective officers, will not these embarrassments exist under any judicial system which the ingenuity of man can devise? Will they not take place under the establishment proposed by the other side; and will the mere alteration of the court from a district to a court of admiralty and piracy remedy the evil? But these objections come too late; a national government is established—the judicial power is a component part of that government, and must be commensurate to it. If we have a government pervading the Union, we must have a judicial power of similar magnitude: We must establish courts in every part of the Union. The only question is, which is the plan best calculated to answer the great objects we all have in view, the carrying the judicial powers into operation with the least inconvenience to the citizens. This double system of jurisprudence is unavoidable; it is as much a part of the Constitution as the double system of legislation; each State has a legislative power, and the Congress has a legislative power, both operating on the same persons, and in many cases on the same objects: It is infinitely more difficult to mark with precision the limits of the legislative than of the judicial power: No one however disputed the propriety of vesting Congress with a legislative power over the Union, and yet that power is perhaps more liable to abuse than the judicial. It has been indeed contended in some of the State Conventions that Congress ought not to be intrusted with direct taxation; and it is remarkable that the same obstacles were urged against that power which are now suggested against this institution. It was then said that federal and State taxes could not operate at the same time without confusion; it was then facetiously asked, whether the Congressional and the State collector who had seized a horse for the payment of taxes were to divide him between them; it is now asked with equal piquantry, whether the marshal of the district court and the sheriff of the State court who have taken the same debtor in execution are to cut him in halves.—It was then answered, that if the State collector seized the horse first, he will have the first satisfaction: It was also shown that there are frequently in the same State, State taxes, county taxes, and corporation taxes, and that these never occasioned any clashing or confusion: It may now be answered that there are at present in some of the States, State courts, county courts, and corporation courts; and that these are found convenient, and unaccompanied with the clashing so much apprehended. They keep within their particular spheres, and have their limits ascertained. But, in answer to one supposition allow me to state another: Suppose a State sheriff and a county sheriff should seize the same debtor, would he be parcelled out between them? would not the execution which was first-served take effect? Is not this the practice at present, and will it not be so under this system? It is very easy for gentlemen in the warmth of their imaginations to suppose a varie-
ty of cases, and to raise a multiplicity of objections against any system of jurisprudence whatever: They will all be more or less liable to some objection on the score of inconvenience, but they are submitted to by good citizens who are sensible that they are the surest means of protecting their property, reputations and lives. After all that has been said, it does not appear that we differ so widely as was imagined, for the gentlemen who advocate the motion, concede the necessity of some inferior federal court in each State: this clause does nothing more than establish an inferior federal court in each State. What then do gentlemen object to? If it is the name of the court, that may be altered—if it is the frequency of holding them, it will be very easy to amend the clause in that respect; but why move to strike out the clause altogether, when it is granted on all hands that there must be such a court. The objection to the extent of jurisdiction is premature, and ought to be reserved for the clause which ascertains the jurisdiction; if upon an investigation of that clause, it shall appear that it ought to be restricted, that will be the seasonable time for moving to strike out the exceptionable part, but really at present gentlemen are making objections to one clause which, from their own concessions, apply altogether to another. As to several other observations, which relate to the time of holding the courts, and the mode of drawing jurors, it is unnecessary to reply fully to them at present, because it would be improper to run into a discussion of the detail, while the question is on the principle of the system. I am no less opposed to the time of holding the courts and the mode of drawing jurors, provided by the bill, than the gentleman from whom the objection came, and I shall add my endeavors to his, to effect an alteration in these points; but this is not the proper time, we are now on the principle, whether there shall be a district court; The same answer will apply to the objection that the juries and witnesses will be unnecessarily harrafsed; every care will be taken to accommodate these courts to the convenience of the citizens of each State.
Several other difficulties have been urged as growing out of this plan of jurisprudence; a candid discussion will remove and obviate them. It has been said, that the bill provides a number of appeals from the State to the supreme court, through the district and circuit courts, and that the suitors may be persecuted with appeals carried on from one court to another, through four different courts. An attentive examination of the bill is a sufficient answer to this objection: There is no appeal from the State to the district court, and only a power of removal in certain cases of a federal jurisdiction from the State to the circuit court: neither is there any appeal of fact from the district to the circuit court, but in admiralty causes, and these cannot be afterwards carried up to the supreme court but where the value exceeds 2000 dollars.
It has been said that under the idea of vicinage, a man may be dragged far from his friends to trial from Georgia to North-Carolina; but it must be remembered that there is a Constitutional provision, that the criminal shall be tried in the State where the offence is committed, and the bill is conformable to the Constitution in this respect. It has been observed that the Constitution is no bar to vesting the State courts with federal powers, for the words "such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time establish," imply that Congress may not institute them, and if they are not instituted, these powers must of course remain with the State courts: In reply to this argument it is to be observed, that the words, "such inferior courts, &c." apply to the number and quality of the inferior federal courts, and not to the possibility of excluding them altogether: It is a latitude of expression empowering Congress to institute such a number of inferior courts, of such particular construction, and at such particular places as shall be found expedient: In short in the words of the Constitution, Congress may establish such inferior courts as may appear requisite. But that Congress must establish some inferior Courts is beyond a doubt: In the first place, the Constitution declares that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in a supreme and in inferior courts. The words "shall be vested" have great energy, they are terms of command; they leave no discretion to Congress to parcel out the judicial powers of the Union to State judicatures, where a discretionary power is left to Congress by the Constitution, the word "may" is employed, where no discretion is left, the word "shall" is the appropriate term; this distinction is cautiously observed. Again, the Supreme Court in two cases only has original in all others it has appellate jurisdiction; but where is the appeal to come from? Certainly not from the State courts; it must come from a federal tribunal. There is another argument which appears conclusive: The Constitution provides that the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts shall hold their commissions during good behavior and shall receive salaries not capable of diminution, and it further provides that the judicial power of the Union shall be vested in a
Supreme and inferior courts; that is in a Supreme and inferior courts whose judges shall are to their commissions during good behaviour and are to possess salaries not liable to diminution. Does not then the Constitution in the plainest and most unequivocal language preclude us from allotting any part of the judicial authority of the Union to the State judicatures? The bill, it is said, is then unconstitutional, for it recognizes the authority of the State courts in that clause which empowers the Supreme Court to overturn the decisions of the State Courts when those decisions are repugnant to the laws or Constitution of the United States. This is no recognition of any such authority, it is a necessary provision to guard the rights of the Union against the invasion of the States. If a State court should usurp jurisdiction of federal causes, and by its adjudications attempt to strip the federal Government of its Constitutional rights, it is necessary that the national tribunal should possess the power of protecting those rights from such invasion. The committee have been told that this multiplication of courts, and of appeals will distress the citizens; and the number of appeals in Great Britain have been alluded to. I have always heard that there is no country in the world where justice is better administered than in that country; to its excellent and impartial administration the prosperity, freedom and civil rights of its citizens have been attributed: Were appeals too much restrained in this country, I much question whether a great clamor would not be raised against such a restriction: The citizens of a free country, when they lose their cause in one court, like to try their chance in another: This is a privilege they consider themselves justly intitled to, and if a litigious man harrafses his adversary by vexatious appeals, he is sufficiently punished for it by having the costs to pay. By limiting appeals to the Supreme Court to sums above 1000 dollars, as is proposed, the poor will be protected from being harrafsed by appeals to the Supreme Court. There is one more observation which requires an answer:—It was said that the juries, might be dragged from one end of a State to another; provision is expressly made against this in the bill; it is there enacted that the juries shall be so drawn as to occasion the smallest inconvenience to the citizens. After having very maturely considered the subject and attentively examined the bill in all its modifications, and heard all that has been alleged on this occasion, I am perfectly convinced that, whatever defects may be discovered in other parts of the bill, the adoption of this motion would tend to the rejection of every system of national jurisprudence. [The remainder of this debate in our next.]
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2.
A petition from the citizens of Philadelphia respecting the permanent and temporary residence of Congress was read. The petition of the creditors of the United States residing in the city of Philadelphia, was referred to the committee of ways and means. Mr. VINING then brought forward his motion respecting the validity of the Jersey election, in a new form, viz. "Resolved, that James Schureman, Lambert Cadwallader, Elias Budinot, and Thomas Sinnickson, were duly elected and properly returned members of this House." Mr. SHERMAN made a number of observations in support of the validity of the election. Mr. SMITH (S. C.) spoke on the same side. The following is the substance of his argument: This is a subject which requires considerable attention. I confess I had doubts yesterday. I have since made up my opinion. It appears to me the matter turns on the construction of the law of New-Jersey. In the first place the law admits of a construction that the returns ought to be made, and the election announced on the third of March. It admits of another construction, that the election ought not to be declared, till all the returns from all the counties in the State were made. We must give the law a reasonable construction. It appears from the preamble, that the election should be declared the third of March, because it mentions that the Constitution should begin to operate on the fourth of March, and the preamble implies that the election should be made known at that time. There is no particular time prescribed when the returns shall be made; but it appears that there is a reference to the practice and usage of the State. Now by the law regulating the election of the representatives in the State Legislature, there appears to be no time limited for the returns of the election. It appears also that this construction was given by the seven counties who made their returns previous to the fourth of March. It appears also, that the Governor had this in idea by summoning the Council. These observations were made yesterday, and they had weight on my mind. In answer to this construction it may be said, that it is done away by the act which declares that the Governor and Council shall cast up the votes from the whole of the returns of all the counties, and therefore the fourth of March was not the proper time, unless the returns were all then made, which it is probable was contemplated at the time of the passing of the law. It will appear that absurdities will follow from either of the constructions. If you take the first, it might so have happened that no county may have made the returns. Would it then have been required that the Governor should declare the election? or that the Governor should decide on the votes of one county, if only one had returned? On the other hand to wait till all the returns had been made would be equally absurd, because it would be in the power of one county to defeat the election. The question then is, whether the executive power has not a discretion; and whether he ought not to exercise that discretion to carry the law into execution?—If this is admitted, another question arises, whether the executive exercised that discretion in a justifiable manner. It appears that the Governor, previous to the third of March, summoned the council and laid before them the returns on that day. But it seems also that the Governor thought it probable that all the returns would not then be made—As on the third of March, there were only the returns of seven counties made: As it was merely matter of construction, it appears to me that the Governor and Council had a right to exercise their discretion, in postponing the determination for such a reasonable time as would allow the returns to be sent in; and that this is one of those cases where the executive may properly interpose its authority.

ty where the law is dubious, and yet must be carried into operation. Some latitude must be given to the executive in similar cases—were it denied the executive authority would be almost useless. The Governor when he summoned the Council, observed that the returns would probably be made the third of March, and upon that presumption did he summon them. The next question is, whether the Governor should not have prorogued the determination till all the returns were made? I think not, for the reasons before stated; it is sufficient if he waited a reasonable time, so that the returns might have all been made: Twelve out of fifteen were actually made: Congress were assembled, and a very reasonable time had been allowed: The Governor was then justified in announcing the election.
It may be said that this discretionary power might be abused, because the governor might watch the opportunity when his friends were highest on the list, and then close the election. True, such abuse was possible, and were it proved, would be a good ground of setting it aside; but all power is liable to abuse; the returning officers have it in their power to commit abuses at all elections, yet they must be trusted; it does not appear that the governor acted unfairly—on the contrary, he seems to have consulted the interests of his state, by sending its representatives in proper time to Congress, and at the same time receiving the suffrages of his fellow citizens, as long as was consistent with the public good.
The question on Mr. VINING's motion was carried in the affirmative.
A message was received from the President of the United States informing the House that he had approved and signed the bill for regulating the coasting trade, and the treasury bill.
The House then took up the amendment of the Senate to the bill for establishing the compensation of the members of Congress.
The first amendment was to strike out the first paragraph to the bill, and to insert instead thereof a clause providing that the Senators and Representatives should have six dollars a day till the year 1795, when the compensation of the Senators should be seven dollars a day, and that the allowance for travel should be six dollars for every twenty miles.
Mr. JACKSON opposed very warmly both the principle of the amendment and the manner in which it was introduced.
Mr. SEDGWICK also objected to the form of the amendment, but took this opportunity to press the principle of the discrimination between the pay of both Houses. He was supported by Mr. Ames.
Mr. TUCKER reprobated the form of the amendment as indecorous, since it proposed to the house a measure which it would be disgraceful in them to adopt, viz. the subjecting their successors to a discrimination and an inferiority which they would not themselves submit to.
Mr. JACKSON considered the amendment as a measure of deception, to take the House in by a specious semblance in the Senators of a disregard to their personal interest.
On the other side, the argument was chiefly confined to the general principle, and the old ground was travelled over. Several alterations, by way of amendment, were attempted to the amendment of the Senate, but the amendment itself seemed so constructed that any partial alteration appeared impossible with consistency.
The general question for concurrence was at length taken, and negatived by a large majority. Adjourned. [Daily Advertiser.]
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3.
The engrossed bill for suspending the operation of a clause in the collection law till the first of August next, was read a third time and passed.
A letter from the Governor of Georgia was read, which enclosed an accurate statement of the imports, exports, amount duties, &c. of that State, for the year 1788.
The bill to provide for the punishment of certain crimes committed against the United States, was read a second time, and referred to a committee of the whole House—to be the order of the day, next Monday week.
In committee of the whole on the subject of a permanent residence for the general Government.
The resolution submitted by Mr. SCOTT on Thursday last, was read: viz. That a place ought to be fixed on for the permanent residence of the general Government, as near the centre of wealth, population and territory, as is consistent with the convenience of the Atlantic navigation, having also due regard to the western territory.
Mr. GOODHUE rose, and observed that the above resolution is indefinite, as it specifies no particular place—the eastern and northern members, said he, have been averse to taking up this business the present session, considering the weight of public business to be transacted previous to the adjournment; but their judgment being overruled by a late vote, they have since made up their minds upon the subject, and agreed not only with the spirit of the resolution before the committee, but have gone further, and fixed on the place; they are of opinion that on the eastern banks of the river Susquehanna, Congress should fix its permanent residence; and that until the particular spot should be determined on, and the proper buildings erected, the seat of the general government should be at the city of New-York. He then introduced a resolution to that effect.
The discussion of this subject being an expected event, a crowded hall and galleries testified the public solicitude.—The debate was ingenious, pathetic, and animated—the most profound attention was given.
Several amendments were proposed and negatived: But one moved by Mr. LEE for striking out the former part respecting “the Susquehanna,” and inserting “the Patowmac,” occasioned a prolongation of the debate till near 4 o'clock, when the committee rose, without deciding upon the original motion, or the amendment,—and the House adjourned.
FRIDAY, SEPT. 4.
Mr. HEISTER presented a petition from the invalid soldiers of the State of Pennsylvania, representing that the State has stopped the payment of their pensions, and praying relief—read, and referred to a special committee, consisting of Mr. Heister, Mr. Wadsworth, and Mr. Gilman.
The several petitions from pensioners, which have been presented to the House, on motion of Mr. Partridge, were referred to the above committee.
tee—which was also instructed to take up the subject generally, and to report a bill.
The committee, to which was recommitted the report on the letter received from the Post-Master General, brought in a new report, in substance, as follows: Resolved, that until further provision can be made, the Post-Office be conducted agreeable to the ordinances of the late Congress, and that the contracts be made conformably thereto. In committee of the whole, on the order of the day.
Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.
The resolve introduced by Mr. GOODHUE yesterday in the following words was read: Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that the permanent seat of the government of the United States, ought to be at some convenient place on the east bank of the Susquehanna in the State of Pennsylvania; and that until the necessary buildings are erected for the purpose, the seat of the government ought to be at New-York.—Mr. LEE proposed to amend this resolution, by striking out the first part to introduce a clause which provided that the permanent seat of government should be on the Patowmac.—The debate was on this amendment, which continued till near four o'clock, when the question being put, it was negatived; as were also several others, and the question on Mr. GOODHUE's motion was finally carried in the affirmative.
Mr. FITZSIMONS then proposed the following, viz.
Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that The President of the United States be authorised to appoint commissioners, to examine and report to him the most eligible situation on the east bank of the Susquehanna, for the permanent seat of the government of the United States. That the said commissioners be authorised, by and with the advice of the President, to purchase such quantity of land as may be thought necessary—and to erect thereon within years, suitable buildings for the accommodation of the Congress, and of the officers of the United States.
That the Secretary of the treasury, together with the Commissioners so to be appointed, be authorized to borrow a sum not exceeding dollars, to be repaid in years with interest at the rate of per cent. per ann. payable out of the Duties on Impost and Tonnage; to be applied to the purchase of the land, and the erection of the buildings aforesaid.
And that a bill ought to pass in the present session, in conformity with the foregoing resolutions. Which being read was laid on the table.—After which the committee rose, and the chairman reported progress. Adjourned.
Want of room prevents our inserting a sketch of the interesting debate on this subject, this day.
EMIGRATION.
BY dire misfortune driven to despair, To southern climes our hardy sons repair; There in a land of fire, disease, and slaves, Where the FIRST PLANTER is the man of graves, Where fevers, agues, fogs and dews destroy, And aid grim Death the Sexton to employ, The wretched victims find when 'tis too late, Their native clime affords a milder fate.
ADDRESS TO THE PUBLIC, —FROM AN OLD FRIEND.
I HAVE always been a friend to America: It is my native country—and till very lately I have had no cause of complaining—every body has been pleased with my deportment, and have thought themselves happy in the nearest and most intimate acquaintance with me; but some how or other, there is a real or pretended indifference arisen of late—what it is owing to, I will not say; but so it is, that since a certain vagabond crew of brazen face cheats were beat out of countenance, and were shunned by all honest people, as they ought to be—I say, since that time, I have been a sufferer: Perhaps it is owing to my having been seen in bad company now and then; but this it is impossible to avoid, as the world goes: However, the fact is, that I have sunk in the general estimation, some say ten, others twenty per. cent. My family consists of a variety of ages and sizes; and we all have our weight and importance regulated; and claim our respective dues and ranks in society. We have done no injury to the public: We behave as well now as we did twenty years ago—and why we should not be estimated as highly is perfectly unaccountable to our whole family.
Some old servants* among us complain very bitterly of a certain shopkeeper, who under pretence of our inferior value, is locking us up for transportation, by which he will clear more than twenty per. cent. and indeed we shall all be for packing off bag and baggage, if we cannot be valued according to our intrinsic merit.
It is our invariable custom to fix in those places where we can purchase the most, with the least.
If these hints do not have proper weight given them, you shall hear another chinking before we take our final departure.
SILVER COIN.
* Shillings without a head.
THE LATEST ACCOUNTS FROM EUROPE, STATE—
That every thing was in a state of fermentation in France—and that the military had refused to draw the trigger upon their countrymen when ordered by the Count D'Artois, in Paris:—That the Duke of Orleans omits no opportunity to acquire popularity:—That forty of the principal clergy had joined the Commons—and that the Tiers Etat were continually receiving accessions of numbers to their party:
That the Russians and Swedes are cutting throats, the former have taken a 44 gun ship from the latter—but that the Swedes had gained the advantage in an engagement by land.
That the Turks and the Allies are frequently engaged—and the former as usual routed with
horrible slaughter—Two Pachas having lately fallen into the hands of the Imperialists:
That the Emperor of Germany is not dead, but recovers slowly—and was to take the field in May—and that in all probability the campaign will be a bloody one:
That the budget had been opened by the British minister in parliament—and some additional taxes proposed—among others, an EXCISE ON TOBACCO AND SNUFF: That the trial of Warren Hastings is not finished—nor is there a prospect of its being very speedily terminated.
TROUBLES IN BRABANT.
The following are the articles proposed by the Emperor to the Commons of Brabant, and which they having refused to accede to, have been divested of all power.
Article 1. A fixed subsidy to be guarded as in Flanders.
Art. 2. Fifteen towns in the provinces to send Members to the States, instead of the three chief towns only.
Art. 3. The wishes of two Orders forming the majority to carry the consent of the third.
Art. 4. The council of Brabant to seal and publish the edicts, regulations, &c. in the usual form.
These being all refused the Emperor has revoked all the charters of liberties granted to the people of Brabant.—Their archives and treasure chests have been sealed up by his officers, and a committee is appointed to manage the cash accounts of the province.
It is easy to perceive how arbitrary this law is.—The Noblesse and Clergy dare not refuse their consent to the Emperor's will; and if the above articles were agreed to, the Commons would in fact become nothing more than proclameurs of the laws agreed to by the other two Orders.
NEW-YORK, SEPTEMBER 5.
It has been remarked, that since the outcry was raised about the Copper Coin, the Silver has depreciated in value, and what is entirely unaccountable upon any just principles, quarters, eighths, and sixteenths of dollars of the old stamp, are depreciated by many into pistareens, half pistareens, &c. The dollars and parts of dollars of this description, are really worth a premium upon the value of the new dollars, as is well known.
Money is so very plenty, and the fruits of the earth are so very scarce, that it cannot be wondered at, that the solid coin should be so little esteemed!
Coppers with the jersey stamp, are now current at two for a penny: It is to be hoped, that the mint masters will be so moderate as not to glut the market.
The period assigned for the present session of Congress is drawing to a close. Perhaps some, and indeed most of the public creditors expected that in the course of this session, the public debt would have been a subject of contemplation. However, had they carefully estimated the objects that were to be previously accomplished, they could hardly have supposed that so few months would have brought our national legislation to so advanced a stage of the business, as that of PUBLIC CREDIT. Every reflecting man must be convinced, that a good system of finance presupposes a well-established, operative government. If attempts are too soon made to fix appropriations, it is a thousand chances to one, but that the calculations will be so fallacious, as to throw embarrassment and uncertainty over the face of public affairs. Some data resulting from an experiment must be obtained before the important subject of appropriation can be safely introduced and finally decided.
The debates on the subject of a permanent seat of government reflect the highest honor on the abilities of the several speakers. Great justice was done to the arguments on both sides, and the spectators, who were uncommonly numerous, expressed their approbation of the candor, and their admiration for the talents that were displayed on this interesting occasion. We will not pretend to determine how far it was policy to introduce the question at the present moment; but we can affirm that it has been ably and honorably conducted.
There appears at the present day to be the happiest disposition among all classes to give all due honor to our civil rulers, and to pay a prompt obedience to the laws: This indication is among the most auspicious presages of our country, for without domestic peace, and tranquility, no art or profession can be pursued with any degree of satisfaction—“the hope of reward sweetens labor,” but if that hope is embittered by fear and anxiety, left the restless sons of anarchy and discord should blow into a flame the coals of strife and party rage, and thus check the operations of law and government, the hand of the diligent is unnerved, languor and idleness succeed, and society is rendered less eligible than a state of nature.
Nature and art are combining to render the United States a great and happy people under the auspices of the New Government.—Providence is crowning the year with its bounty: The vegetable world pours forth its treasures in luxuriant profusion—a more plentiful season was perhaps never known—“the valleys are covered with corn, and the hills rejoice on every side”—health in general pervades our cities and towns—commerce from a thousand sources pours her rich treasures into our lap—arts and husbandry are daily receiving additional improvements—in these our inventions are unparalleled. What gives the finishing tint to the portrait is, That our Country is free—our earnings our own—protected by a wise, a just and equal constitution of government.
The people of France never appeared in a more exalted point of view than at the present important crisis. As friends to the equal rights of human nature, Americans cannot be indifferent spectators of their glorious exertions in the cause of liberty—and as allies and friends they cannot but with them a compleat triumph, in establishing a free constitution of government.
A correspondent wishes to enquire what personage is meant by the letter writer from Frederickburg in your last, under the terms our PRESIDENT—whether he means the President of a College in Virginia, or of any particular club of which the letter writer is a member; for as there are or may be more than one person of the same name who may lose a parent, his account is too indefinite to be understood. Q.
ARRIVALS. NEW-YORK.
Wednesday, Sloop Lady Haley, Tillinghast, Rhode-Island, Schooner Sincerity, White, Baltimore, 10 days. Sloop Herbert, Colley, Norfolk, 6 do. Sloop Dolphin, Carpenter, Savanna, 8 do. Brig William, Mastin, Madeira, 42 do. Thursday, Brig William, Harrison, Dublin, 75 do. Brig Hull Packet, Lawrance, Hull. Sloop —, Dominick, St. Augustine, —. Sloop St. John, Nixon, St. Thomas, 18 do. Sloop John, Lowndes, St. Croix, 18 do. Schooner Nancy, Clark, Baltimore, 7 do.

The RIGHT CONSTITUTION of a COMMON-WEALTH EXAMINED, (IN CONTINUATION.)
THE example of Paulus Æmilius is equally hostile to our author's system, and equally friendly to that which we contend for. The first consul of that name, the conqueror of Illyricum, in 533, although he returned to Rome in triumph, yet, at the expiration of his office, he was cited before the people, in their tribes, and accused of having converted part of the spoils to his own use. Æmilius had great difficulty to escape the condemnation which his colleague suffered. This great patrician and consul commanded, and was killed at the battle of Cannæ. His son, of the same name, whose sister Æmilia was married to the great Scipio, distinguished himself by avoiding those intrigues, solicitations, cares, and other artifices, practised by most candidates, even at this time, 562. His pains were employed to make himself esteemed by valour, justice, and ardour in his duty, in which he surpassed all the young men of his age. He carried the ædileship against ten competitors, every one of whom was so distinguished by birth and merit as afterwards to obtain the consulship. By his wife Papiria he had two sons, whom he procured to be adopted into the most illustrious houses in Rome; the eldest by Fabius maximus, five times consul and dictator; the younger by a son of Scipio Africanus. His two daughters were married, one to a son of Cato the censor, and the other to Tubero. In 563 he gained a complete victory over the Lusitanians, in which he killed them eighteen thousand men, and took their camp, with thirteen hundred prisoners. In the offices of ædile, and of augur, he excelled all his contemporaries in the knowledge and practice of his duty: and military discipline he carried to greater perfection than had ever been known: nevertheless, when he stood for any office, even in those virtuous times, there was always an opposition; and he could not obtain the consulship till after he had suffered several repulses. Why? Because his virtue was too severe; not for the senate, but the people; and because he would not flatter and bribe the people. Before the end of the year of his first consulate he fought the Ligurians, and gained a complete victory over them, killing more than fifteen thousand men, and making near three thousand prisoners, and returned to Rome in triumph: Yet with all his merit, when he stood candidate, some years after, for the consulate, the people rejected him; upon this he retired to educate his children. He was frugal in every thing of private luxury, but magnificent in expences of public duty. Grammarians, rhetoricians, philosophers, sculptors, painters, equeries, hunters, were procured for the instruction of his children. While he was thus employed in private life, in 583, fourteen years after his first consulship, the affairs of the Republic were ignorantly conducted, and the Macedonians, with Perseus at their head, gained great advantages against them. People were not satisfied with the conduct of their consuls of late years, and began to say, that the Roman name was not supported. The cry was, that the command of the armies must no longer be given to faction and favor. The singular merit of Æmilius, his splendid services, the confidence which the troops had in his capacity, and the urgent necessity of the times for his wisdom and firmness, turned all eyes upon him. All his relations, and the senators in general, urged him to stand candidate. He had already experienced so much ingratitude, injustice, and caprice, that he shunned the present ardor, and chose to continue in private life. That very people who had so often ill used him, and rejected him, now crowded before his door, and insisted on his going to the forum; and his presence there was universally considered as a sure presage of victory, and he was unanimously elected consul, and appointed commander in Macedonia. He conquered Perseus and his Macedonian Phalanx, and in the battle he formed Fabiuses and Scipios to be the glory and triumph of his country after him. He plundered the immense wealth of Macedonia and Epirus: he plundered seventy cities, and demolished their walls. The spoils were sold, and each soldier had two hundred denarii, and each of the horse four. The soldiers and common people, it seems, had little of that disinterestedness for which Æmilius was remarkable. They were so offended at their general for giving so little of the booty to them, and reserving so much to the public treasury, that they raised a great cry and opposition against his triumph; and Galba, the soldiers, and their friends among the plebeians, were determined to teach the great men, the consuls, generals, &c. to be less public-spirited—to defraud the treasury of its wealth, and bestow it upon them: they accordingly opposed the triumph of this great and disinterested general, and the first tribes absolutely rejected it. Who, upon this occasion, saved the honour, justice, and dignity of the republic? Not the plebeians but senators. The senators were highly enraged at this infamous injustice and ingratitude, and this daring effort of popular licentiousness
and avarice, and were obliged to make a noise, and excite a tumult. Servilius, too, who been consul, and had killed three and twenty enemies who had challenged him in single combat, made a long speech, in which he shewed the baseness of their conduct in so striking a light, that he made the people ashamed of themselves; and at length they consented to the triumph, but to all appearance more from a desire to see the show of Perseus laden with chains, led through the city before the chariot of the victor, than from any honest and public spirited design to reward merit. The sum which he caused to be carried into the public treasury on the day of the triumph was one million three hundred thousand pounds sterling, and caused the taxes of the Roman people to be abolished. At his death, after the sale of part of his slaves, moveables, and some farms, to pay his wife's dower, the remainder of his fortune was but nine thousand three hundred and seventy-five pounds sterling. As he was descended from one of the most noble and ancient houses of Rome, illustrious by the highest dignities, the smallness of his fortune reflects honor on his ancestors as well as on himself. The love of simplicity was still supported in some of the great families, by extreme care not to ally themselves with luxurious ones; and Æmilius chose Tubero, of the family of Ælii, whose first piece of plate was a silver cup of five pounds weight, given him by his father-in-law. These few families stemmed the torrent of popular avarice and extravagance.
EUROPEAN ACCOUNTS, BY LATE ARRIVALS.
ST. PETERSBURGH, MAY 15. The son of General Kameskoy, who commands the army in Moldavia, arrived here yesterday with the news, that on the 27th of April, General Derfelden compelled the Turks to retreat to within twenty versts of Brailla, near Macksumene, on the river Sireth. In this action 400 of the enemy were killed, and a considerable number drowned. A Pacha of Two Tails, who commanded in Moldavia, was taken prisoner, with about 100 men, one piece of cannon, and three standards.
A second Courier arrived this day from General Kameskoy, with an account that on the 30th April, General Derfelden had attacked the enemy in the camp near Galata, on the Danube, and that after an obstinate engagement of more than three hours, he had totally defeated them. Fifteen hundred Turks were killed, and a Pacha of Three Tails, with a considerable number of officers, and above 1000 men taken prisoners. The camp, with the artillery, standards, &c. fell into the hands of the conquerors, whose loss amounted only to 60 men killed, and 100 wounded.
VIENNA, MAY 30. Intelligence has been received that the Grand Vizir, with an army of 100,000 men has left Ruschuck, and is advancing along the banks of the Danube, towards Cladova, in Servia.
LONDON, JULY 1. According to advices from Gibraltar, the arrival of Admiral Peyton's cruisers inform, that the States of Barbary, Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, Barca, &c. are making much more formidable naval preparations than were ever before known at any period of time whatever; all in aid of the Ottoman Porte in its war against the two Imperial Courts. It was even said that these conjoint forces are meant to attack some of the Imperial or Tuscan ports in Italy.
By the last advices from Madras, we learn that General Meadows was on his way from Bombay, to succeed Governor Campbell, but that he had not then arrived.
General Meadows is to be succeeded by General Abercrombie, in the government of Bombay.
Much praise is due to Sir Archibald Campbell, for the excellent state of defence in which he has left the Carnatic. The disposition of the troops stationed in that province, is such as does honor to his military skill, while it effectually secures, at the same time, that province from the sudden inroads of Tippoo Sultan.
July 2. An attempt is said to have been made on the life of Monf. Neckar, by poison! The Minister however, happily discovered the matter in time to prevent its effects; for the dish which he had tasted, upon further trial, killed a dog; and some snuff, which had been conveyed into a box before him, in a few minutes destroyed another animal!
In the last attempt, the artifice was this:—The box was a fac simile of Mr. Neckar's, and it was placed, according to that gentleman's custom, on the mantle-piece. He had a narrow escape, for the box was in his hand, when he discovered his own in his pocket!!!
It is needless to add, that Mr. Neckar is now on his guard; his chief food is hen's eggs, which Madame Neckar sees boiled in her own room.
The spirit of the people, now urged on by desperation, seems capable of the most daring attempt. The Tiers Etat, of the Commons, as they are proud to call themselves, are prevailing more and more. The only question now is,—whether the soldiery will or will not adhere to the Court. If the army prefer the interests of their fellow-citizens to those of the Crown, there is an end to the despotism of the French Monarch!
ABRIDGEMENT of the STATE of POLITICS for last week. FRANCE.
AMIDST the various figures that fill up the political scenery for this week, the most conspicuous in that kingdom seem now to be ripening fast to some catastrophe. We wait, in anxious suspence, for the eventful issue. The Third Estate, equal in number to the Nobility and the Clergy united, have assumed to themselves all the powers of the States General.—They have endeavored to convert their decrees into laws, which they have printed, published, and distributed in the provinces. Detachments, to speak in the military style, which must soon be too powerful, from the Nobility and Clergy have joined their corps: and thus a foundation is laid for a civil war, which, it now appears, is altogether inevitable: for the order of the Nobles, formidable by their numbers, wealth, high spirits, and connections in the army, have sent a remonstrance to the King, in which they express their resolution to maintain the prerogatives of the Crown, and the prerogatives of their own order. This body, rendered compact and indivisible by a military spirit and a sense of honor, presents a front of opposition that is not to be appalled by threats, nor easily cajoled by concessions. The French nation is therefore divided into two great parties; or rather they have fallen into two divisions. The King, under the influence of Mr. Neckar, and the Commons form one division; the great body of the Nobility and the Clergy the other. In these circumstances an appeal will naturally be made to the army. It is said that several gentlemen of the army have caught the infection of freedom, as well as the mass of the people. The French regiments that served in America, in the late war, are particularly distinguished, as might have been naturally expected, by their zeal for liberty. Were this enthusiasm general among the military gentlemen, the matters in dispute would be settled at once. But this, we have been assured by private intelligence, which we cannot doubt, is by no means the case. The great part, by far, of the officers of the army, commissioned and non-commissioned, dependent on the crown for their subsistence, their consequence in society, and their future views, see with jealousy the rising power of an order of men whom they were accustomed to treat with insolent contempt. And though the present Monarch, Louis XVI. leans towards the Commons, they consider this as a dereliction of the Royal Prerogatives; as a temporary phrenzy which cannot be lasting. They make a distinction, in short, between the person of the Sovereign, whose sentiments and inclinations are uncertain, and the Throne, which they consider as fixed and permanent.
EAST-INDIES.
By late advices from India, we have been informed, that our affairs in that quarter wear a flourishing aspect, though there be a pretty general dissatisfaction among the servants of the Company, as might be expected, at the rigorous reforms carried on by Lord Cornwallis. In a political view it may be questioned, how far it is prudent, before the powers of our government be more accurately defined, and our authority more firmly rooted in India, to dry up the resources by which individuals acquire fortunes; or to discourage men of family and spirit from entering into the Company's service. Presents and perquisites are natural in Asia.
THE NATIONAL MONITOR.—No. XVIII.
Combine ye sons of freedom, ah, combine, The people are invincible who join; Factions and feuds will overturn the State, Which UNION renders flourishing and great.
AT the commencement of the revolution, UNION was the word.—We justly considered this as the great axis on which our political existence turned. Our experience verified the idea; for,
'Twas UNION sav'd us in the trying hour."
Can it be thought less important that we should be as fully impressed with this important sentiment now? It cannot.—This led us to empire and independence.—This has given us a CONSTITUTION, the glory of this western region, and the envy and admiration of the world. UNION alone can preserve and perpetuate this inestimable jewel—without which FREEDOM is but a name.—Laws, and government being perhaps more necessary to its preservation, than they are for the security of life and property.—The Constitution has passed a fiery trial, and like gold has come forth with additional lustre—it is now the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND"—that great uniting bond that holds the States together, and on which all our hopes of national happiness and glory depend.—Let us then view with abhorrence and indignation, every attempt to sow the seeds of jealousy, distrust and disunion among ourselves—every effort to injure, deface, or depreciate the merits of the Constitution. In an especial manner let us spurn every attempt to sully the reputation, wound the feelings, or destroy the usefulness of those patriotic characters, which THE PEOPLE have appointed to administer the new Government. There are persons in every community whose element is confusion—but for the people to countenance such incendiaries, is to set their own house on fire.
Published by JOHN FENNO, No. 9, MAIDEN LANE, near the Owego-Market, NEW-YORK.—[gold. pr. an.]