The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-04-21 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CXXVII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21 st , 1802.
LAST FRIDAY WEEK.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 26.
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."
[MR. NICHOLSON.—Concluded]
But gentlemen have resorted to another part of the constitution, which they say contains the restriction; not indeed in express terms, but by implication. Sir, this doctrine of implication is a dangerous one. A departure from the letter in order to pursue the spirit, may lead to incalculable mischief, and must ultimately destroy the constitution itself. It leaves it to the discretion of every succeeding congress to give to the constitution any meaning whatsoever, that their whim or caprice may suggest; to allow to themselves, and to attach to the other branches, powers never intended to be delegated. We say that we have the same right to repeal the law establishing inferior courts, that we have to repeal a law establishing post-offices, and post-roads, laying taxes, or raising armies. This right would not be denied but for the construction given to that part of the constitution which declares that "the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour." The arguments of gentlemen generally have been directed against a position that we never meant to contend for; against the right to remove the judges in any other manner than by impeachment. This right we have never insisted on; we have never in the most distant manner contended that the constitution vested us with the same power, that the parliament of England has; or that is given to the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Jersey, and some others. Our doctrine is that every congress has the right to repeal any law passed by its predecessor, except in cases where the constitution imposes a prohibition. We have been told that we cannot repeal a law fixing the President's salary, during the period for which he was elected. This is admitted, because it is so expressly declared in the constitution; nor is the necessity so obvious, because at the expiration of every four years, it is in the power of congress to regulate it anew, as their judgments may dictate. Neither can we diminish the salary of a judge so long as he continues in office, because in this particular the constitution is express likewise; but we do contend that we have an absolute uncontested right to abolish all offices, which have been created by congress, when in our judgments their offices are unnecessary, and are productive of a useless expense.
Let us examine the objections which have been raised to this, upon that part of the constitution in which it is said that "the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall receive at stated times a compensation for their services, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." It has already been stated by some of my friends, and I shall not therefore dwell upon it, that the prohibition contained in these words, was of two kinds; the one applying to the legislature and prohibiting a diminution of salary; the other applying to the executive and forbidding a removal from office. The first prohibition our adversaries readily admit, but the second they apply as well to the legislature as to the executive. I should agree to this too, were there any necessity for it, but it is not pretended by us that we have the right to remove from office any officer whatsoever, not only a judge, but even a revenue officer; there would, therefore, be no necessity for imposing a restriction upon congress in relation to a judge any more than in relation to an officer concerned in the collection of the revenue. They are each appointed by the President and senate, but the executive officer holds his place at the will of the President, the judge holds his office during good behaviour, and neither subject to removal by the legislature. The term good behaviour is said to secure to the judge an estate for life in his office, determinable only upon impeachment, for, and conviction of bribery, corruption and other high crimes and misde-
meanors, and that inasmuch as his good conduct is the tenure by which he holds his office, he cannot be deprived of it, so long as he behaves himself well. As our system of jurisprudence has been borrowed from Great Britain, it may not be amiss to refer to the history of that nation, in order to discover whether they have given the same construction to these words, as is now contended for by gentlemen on the other side of the house. It is certain that in England, it has in some cases been considered that the words good behaviour in a commission, confer the office for the life of the officer, provided he shall so long demean himself well; but I do not know that a question has ever arisen there, how far the power creating the office could afterwards abolish it. It appears to me to follow as a necessary consequence, that if I should never have feared a doubt; it is however most clear, that these words have not even in England been thought to give the judges an estate for life in their offices. Antecedent to the accession of William the III rd , all judges were appointed by and held their commissions during the pleasure of the king; but in the reign of that monarch it was declared by the act of settlement, that judges after that time should hold their commissions during good behaviour, removable upon the address of both houses of parliament. The tenure of office then became precisely similar to that of our judges at this time, with the single exception that it was in the power of parliament to remove them; they were to hold their offices so long as they demeaned themselves well, and could secure the good will of the legislature. Yet this was not considered there as an estate for life, because it is well known that their appointments became vacant upon the demise of the crown, and their commissions were no longer in force. It was the settled opinion and uniform practice for sixty years. The judges never ventured to maintain a contrary doctrine, but acquiesced in it from the reign of William the III rd to that of George the III rd . It was not only the practice, but it was recognized by the acts of several succeeding parliaments. For in the first year of the reign of queen Anne, an act of parliament passed, declaring that the judges should hold their commissions six months after the demise of the crown. Here it was decidedly the opinion of parliament, that the judge did not hold his office during life, because it was admitted that the commission was properly annulled by the demise of the crown, and they declared that in future it should continue in force for six months after. This practice of vacating the commissions of the judges for six months after the demise of the crown, was regularly pursued upon the death of Queen Anne, of George the I st and George the 2 nd , without any doubt being entertained as to its propriety. In the reign of George the 3 rd parliament again acknowledged it to have been the settled and established law of the realm, by enacting a particular statute to change it, in which they declared, that the commissions of the judges should not determine upon the demise of the crown, and so the law stands at this day. I have given this as an example to shew that in England the words, good behaviour, did not vest the judges with an estate for life in their offices; but that notwithstanding these words in their commission, in conformity to an act of parliament, they were still subject to the established principle of the common law, that the commissions of all officers in the appointment of the crown were vacated by the death of the reigning monarch. It is a maxim universally admitted, that the common law may be repealed by statute, but it was not considered in England, that a fundamental principle could be repealed in an incidental manner, by declaring, that the commissions of the judges should continue during good behaviour. It is a fundamental principle in every government, that the power having the right to enact a law, has likewise the right to repeal a law. It is the existence of this fundamental principle in our government, which gives to congress the right of repealing their own laws; for the power to repeal is no where expressly vested in them, by the constitution, and it would be absurd to suppose, that when a law is once enacted, it is to continue for ever in force. The act of settlement is as much a part of the constitution of England, as the third article is a part of our constitution; yet the provision in this act which declares, that the judges should hold their commissions during good behaviour, was never considered as destroying that fundamental principle of their government, by which all commissions were vacated upon the demise of
the crown. So in our own country, although the third article of the constitution declares, that the judges of the inferior courts, shall hold their commissions during good behaviour, yet it cannot operate to destroy the fundamental principle of our government, by which congress are authorised to repeal all laws they have enacted, and to abolish all offices they have created. An express statutory provision was deemed necessary in England to prevent the commissions of the judges from being vacated by the demise of the crown, and was accordingly made in the reign of George the 3 rd . An express constitutional provision must be made before congress can be deprived of the right of repealing a law which they have enacted. Until our constitution is amended to this effect, which I hope never to see done, the right to repeal a law constituting an inferior court, can no more be denied than the right to repeal a law establishing a post-road, laying a tax, or raising an army.
Having shewn that in England the tenure by which the judge held his office, was not, of itself, deemed sufficient to destroy a great and leading principle of their government, I will now endeavour to prove that the tenure of office cannot and ought not to produce this effect in the United States. I will not dispute with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold) about the meaning of the word holds , because it equally answers my purpose to say, that the judge shall possess his office during good behaviour. I cannot however agree with him, that the judge holds his office of the people, for he is not appointed by them; besides if he is to hold his office during good behaviour, of the people, a doubt perhaps might arise, whether under these circumstances, even a change of the constitution could affect him. It is true he is not called the President's judge; neither is a minister to a foreign court called the President's ambassador, but the ambassador of the United States; yet it will not be contended, that the ambassador holds his place of the people.
It is necessary to examine whether the tenure by which any officer of the United States holds, or if gentlemen please, possesses his office, can destroy the inherent right of congress to repeal the law by which the office is created. In order to do this, it may be proper to refer to an early period of the political history of the present government. In the year 1789, soon after the government was organized, when congress were about to establish the office of secretary of foreign affairs, then called secretary of state, a question arose whether the officer was to be removed at pleasure by the President; whether by the President and senate who appointed him; or whether he was to hold his place during good behaviour. These different constructions of the constitution were contended for by three different classes of gentlemen, who severally urged, that each was the true meaning of the constitution. A gentleman of distinguished talents at that time representing South Carolina, Mr. William Smith, advocated with very great ability, the opinion, that the constitution had pointed out but one method of removing an officer (by impeachment) and therefore, that he could not be removed so long as he demeaned himself well. Finally, however, a majority agreed, that the true meaning of the constitution was, that the power of removal was of an executive nature, and therefore belonged solely to the President. This construction was adopted & has ever since been functioned by uniform practice. But I will suppose that Mr. Smith's construction had been agreed to, and it cannot be allowed to be extremely plausible, would congress thereby have been prevented from repealing a law by which an executive office had been created, because the officer could only be removed by impeachment? I presume no gentleman will say for. But let us suppose the case as it now stands. Your supervisors who superintend the collection of your excise duties are appointed by the President and senate, and hold their offices under the constitution, not during good behaviour, but during the will and pleasure of the President. The tenure by which he holds his office, is completely beyond the power of the legislature, and they cannot remove him. So long as he can secure the good will of the President, he is to hold his office against the whole world. It is as fixed in relation to the authority of congress, as that of a judge. They both hold their offices independent of the legislature, the one during good behaviour, the other during the pleasure of the President. It is not in our power to remove an excise officer, so long as his office continues, a
ny more than to remove a judge, so long as his office continues. The authority vested in us is entirely legislative, and has nothing to do with the executive power of removal. Yet, is there any man on earth can say that we have not a constitutional right to repeal the laws laying excise duties, by which the office of supervisor is created? And can any one say that we can remove the supervisor in any other manner, than by repealing the law? We do not contend for the right to remove the judge any more than for the right to remove the supervisor, neither of which we can do, each holding his office independent of us; but we allege that the tenure by which either holds his office cannot prohibit us from repealing a law by which the office is created; it is the tenure of office which is now urged against the repealing power of congress; this tenure is completely independent of legislative will, and therefore we are told we cannot pass a law to affect it. I have, however, shewn, that the tenure by which the supervisor holds his office, is completely independent of legislative will, as that by which a judge holds his office, yet no man will be hardy enough to dispute the constitutional right of congress to repeal the excise laws, and thereby to dismiss all the persons holding offices under them. I am aware that I may be told, that the President in giving his sanction to the law, at the same time impliedly signifies his consent to the removal of the officer. But permit me to suppose that the President refuses his signature to the law, and tells you that these officers hold their commissions independent of you, and therefore you have no right to dismiss them; that the constitution authorizes them to hold their places during his will and pleasure, and that it is his will and pleasure they shall continue in office. Here the tenure is as strong and inviolable by the legislative power, as the tenure of the judge; yet congress may, notwithstanding, afterwards pass the law by the concurrence of two thirds, and destroy this sacred tenure of office.
If then the tenure of office in the one case, cannot destroy the right to repeal, why shall it destroy it in the other? Both tenures are equally independent of legislative control, the one securing an estate defeasible by misbehaviour, the other securing an estate defeasible by the will of the President; but neither dependent on congress for continuance in office, so long as the office itself exists. Gentlemen say we cannot do that by indirect means, which we cannot do directly; that is that we cannot remove a judge by repealing this law, inasmuch as we cannot remove him by direct means; but I have proved beyond the possibility of doubt that we may indirectly remove an excise officer by repealing the law under which he was appointed, although we have no authority to remove him in any direct manner. If the principle laid down by Gentlemen is not true in the one case, it cannot be true in the other.
For my own part, Mr. Chairman, I think no doubt can be entertained that the power of repealing, as well as of enacting laws, is inherent in every legislature. The legislative authority would be incomplete without it. If you deny the existence of this power, you suppose a perfection in man, which he can never attain. You shut the door against a retraction of error, by refusing him the benefit of reflection and experience. You deny to the great body of the people all the essential advantages for which they entered into society. This house is composed of members coming from every quarter of the Union, supposed to bring with them the feelings, and to be acquainted with the interests of their constituents. If the feelings and the interests of the nation require that new laws should be enacted, that existing laws should be modified, or that useless and unnecessary laws should be repealed, they have reserved this power to themselves by declaring that it should be exercised by persons freely chosen for a limited period, to represent them in the national legislature. On what ground is it denied to them in the present instance? By what authority are the judges to be raised above the law and above the Constitution? Where is the charter which places the sovereignty of this country in their hands? Give them the powers and the independence now contended for, and they will require nothing more; for your government becomes a despotism, and they become your rulers. They are to decide upon the lives, the liberties, and the property of your citizens; they have an absolute veto upon your laws by declaring them null & void at pleasure; they are to introduce at will the laws of a foreign country, differing essentially with us upon the great principles of govern-
ment; and after being clothed with this arbitrary power, they are beyond the control of the nation, as they are not to be affected by any laws which the people by their representatives can pass. If all this be true; if this doctrine be established in the extent which is now contended for, the Constitution is not worth the time we are spending upon it. It is, as it has been called by its enemies, 'mere parchment.' For these judges, thus rendered omnipotent, may overleap the constitution and trample on your laws; they may laugh the legislature to scorn, and let the nation at defiance.
To me it is a matter of indifference by what name you call them—I care not whether it be kings or judges. Arm them with power and the danger is the same. For myself I have no hesitation in declaring that it would rather be subjected to the absolute sway of one tyrant, than to that of thirty; as I would prefer the mild despotism of China, to the hated oligarchy of Venice, where the vilest wretch was encouraged as a letter informer, and the lion's mouth was ever gaping for accusation.
I must now be permitted to turn my attention to various authorities which gentlemen have introduced, and which I presume they thought would fully establish the position they have taken. I deem it peculiarly fortunate for us, Sir, that although volumes have been ranacked, though heaps of newspapers and pamphlets have been resorted to, the journal of the convention itself has been produced as authority, yet the whole furnishes not a single argument, not one solitary idea to prove the unconstitutionality of the measure now under consideration. They have been read, it is true, with much apparent triumph, and have afforded gentlemen an ample opportunity to display their eloquence and ingenuity, but certainly have no bearing on the question.
The first of these authorities is of a very high nature, not only because it is the decision of a court of judicature, but because that decision was made by men whose talents are acknowledged, and whose characters command universal respect. Let the case, however, be fairly stated, and it will be found to bear no analogy to the subject now before us. I shall refer to the same pamphlet which has been quoted on the other side of the house, and as before there can be no difference between us as to facts. We find in page 24, that by the constitution of Virginia the two houses of assembly were to appoint by joint ballot, judges of the supreme court of appeals and general court; judges in chancery, and judges of admiralty, who were to be commissioned by the governor, and to continue in office during good behaviour. In the 25th page it is said, that by the bill judicial system of Virginia one general court was constituted with common law jurisdiction; one court of chancery, and one court of admiralty; and by the law the judges of these three courts were declared to constitute the court of appeals; but as such, had no commissions given to them. In 1737 the legislature passed a law creating a system of circuit courts, and declared that the above named judges should execute the duties of circuit judges, in addition to their duties as judges of the other courts. This law the judges refused to execute as unconstitutional, because they laid the legislature had no right to impose new duties upon them without giving them additional salary. This is a plain and simple statement of the case, with the decision of the court, and I am astonished that any man should attempt to apply it to that now under consideration. We do not propose to add new duties to those now performed by the circuit judges; but we propose to take from them all duties whatsoever, so that the two cases are not at all analogous. Indeed the opinion be a found one (and I certainly shall not undertake to question it) it clearly proves that the law of last session was unconstitutional, because that law imposed new and more arduous duties on the judges of the district courts of Tennessee, Kentucky and Maryland. It might likewise prove the bankrupt law to be unconstitutional, because it imposed a great variety of additional duties on the district judges throughout the United States. The bill now under consideration does not add new duties to those of the judges of the supreme court and the judges of the district courts, but replaces both in the situation in which they were prior to the passage of the law which we are now about to repeal. I must say therefore that this authority falls altogether.
Another decision of the same judges has likewise been adduced to prove the unconstitutionality of the present bill, (Continued on last page)

WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1802.
On Saturday last arrived in this City
The late statement of votes for governor of Massachusetts gives Mr. Strong 23,517 - for Mr. Gerry 14,893
On Saturday the Vice-President of the United States withdrew from the chair of the Senate for the remainder of the session, whereupon the Senate elected Abraham Baldwin President pro tem.
A writer in the last number of the National Intelligencer, under the signature of Veritas, has attempted to invalidate the statements in the preceding number of that paper, respecting the probable causes of the result of the Massachusetts election for governor, by denying their truth. The denial, however, rests upon no stronger basis than the bare denial of an anonymous writer, and is entirely unfounded. At the time the paragraph in question was printed, the ascertained votes for governor were fewer than at the preceding election. By the then ascertained votes, and by none other would the writer be governed, unless he had been misled, which in all honesty is acknowledged not to have been the case, with the prophesying talent of Veritas, who, in order to tell a tale, as exalting at one day, resorts to facts of subsequent occurrence. When that paragraph was written the votes for Boston, Concord, Cambridge, Charlestown, Roxbury, Dorchester and Dedham, and none other were known at this place, and the aggregate of those votes were 5,663; the aggregate at the antecedent election was 5,797, constituting an excess of the latter above the former of 134 votes; the writer was therefore justified in laying the votes given on the present election was inferior to those given on the last.
Equally vague, baseless and unjust is the denial by Veritas of any recent deprivation of the right of voting in the State of Massachusetts. He says, "no law has ever been passed, or attempted to be passed in that State, to alter or impair the constitutional qualification of the voters." Now, reader, compare with this triumphant declaration the following facts. The constitution of Massachusetts fixes the qualification of electors. Under that constitution for many years, the freemen of Massachusetts voted. Within the past year the legislature of Massachusetts, a small majority of which was federal, passed a law directing the electors to form lists of the freemen entitled to vote, which lists were handed to the select men, who are also in general federal, and who, it is understood, were vested by the same law with the right of correcting that list, altering, as they pleased, the lists, and then the prescriptions of the constitution on what they may, here is conclusive power; which power has been used to the deprivation of rights hitherto exercised. Veritas appeals to the Boston Federalist to support his statement. That authority, pursued, as it often is, must have convinced him, (for it is presumed that he has perused the paper he quotes) of the fallacy of his own assertion; for it says expressly,
"Two or three years since, the Federalists groaned incessantly at the obstruction in our elections of unqualified voters. To remedy the evil, a law has been passed, favourable to all parties in the legislature, and which we believe the democrats have claimed the honor of originating. But as it is suspected from a careful scrutiny of the names, that the result of Monday's election will show on which side the unqualified voters have heretofore been counted; it is now denounced as unconstitutional, and an infringement on the rights of suffrage!"
The reader will remark that the fact of deprivation is fully conceded, though connected with opinions which are not believed to be true.
The Boston Gazette, also a federal print, says,
   1802. 1801.     Boston 3,870 3,929   Concord 183 170   Cambridge 332 326   Charlestown 407 452   Roxbury 383 383   Dorchester 272 268   Dedham 198 249   5,663 5,797   5,665   132  
From the Gazette of the United States, printed at Philadelphia. "It is, indeed, most lamentable, that
such should be the facility, so strong the party rage and passion, and so manifest the want of principle, exhibited, by the majority, in our national council, that the people can no longer look up to them with respect and confidence. It is truly degrading to the feelings of every high minded American to observe the ignorance and baseness which have become so predominant in our legislative assembly, as that, such proceedings should have taken place. But such are the facts, and so shameful has been the conduct of the ministerialists, that men of sense, of the same party, have, sensibly felt the disgrace, and even Smith and Duncanson perceived, that an impartial report of the congressional proceedings, would cover their party with the contempt of the country."
The Editor of the National Intelligencer has too great a respect for himself, and his readers, to descend to personal invective; his still greater respect for truth, however, constrains him to pass a few observations on the above paragraph; and he would claim the insertion of them in those federal prints which shall have inserted the paragraph which gave rise to them, did he not know, from the experience of what he has seen, that the expectation that such a claim will be attended to is as visionary as it is just.
The debates in the House of Representatives have been given in the National Intelligencer with the utmost impartiality; and it is believed that all the debates, of sufficient importance to merit a detailed statement, have been presented, except the first debate in relation to salaries. This was not given, because the Editor was prevented, by indisposition from attending the house on the day on which it took place. The discussion, however, was returned on a subsequent day; and the debate, which then took place, has been faithfully given.
There is no doubt that much conversation has been had in the House, in which the public are little interested, and of such a nature as it has seldom, if ever, been usual to publish. It is believed further, that during the present session there has been a greater portion of such conversation than at any antecedent session. This has principally arisen from the peculiar and unprecedented manner in which almost every measure of importance has been opposed. Instead of meeting the liberal measures fairly on the ground of arguments, incidental motions have been made in all cases but two; such as a motion to postpone generally, or to postpone one subject to take up another, or an attempted incorporation of extraneous matter, or a frequent call for information already before the house, whereby the discussion on the main question has been improperly precipitated. On all these incidental points, long conversation has ensued, chiefly confined, it is true, to the federal side of the house. As far as these discussions regarded principle, they have been given, and the reader will find that of the mass of debate published in the National Intelligencer, nearly twice as much has been given on the federal as on the republican side. It is presumed that this will, to an candid mind, be a complete indication of impartiality.
Let the ample details given in the National Intelligencer be compared with the mutilated fragments, and gross caricatures, inserted in too many federal prints, and the unprejudiced mind will remain at no loss to form a decision on the relative impartiality of each.
The fact is, that the cause of republicanism, and as the Editor of the National Intelligencer firmly believes, the cause of those who at present administer the federal government, require nothing but truth to triumph. On the prevalence of truth they have both risen, and while they rest on that rock, they may bid defiance to the open force or secret stratagem of their opponents.
DIED - At Woburn, in Great Britain, March 27, the most noble Francis, Duke of Bedford, Ate. 37. He was the richest peer in England; and the leader of the whig interest therein. He is succeeded in his titles and estates by his brother Lord John Russell.
DIED - At Charleston, the 30th ult. in the 59th year of his age, the honorable ADANUS BURKE, one of the chancellors of the state of South-Carolina; and some time since a member of Congress. The Charleston City Gazette of the 2d inst. contains a biographical sketch of Mr. Burke, drawn up with much judgment, and is evidently the production of no common hand - from which we extract the following:
"Mr. Burke was a native of Galway in Ireland." "Fired with an ardent love of liberty, at an early period of life he abandoned his professional pursuits in a neighbouring country, and joined the American army with that zeal and fervid spirit, which ever characterized the energies of his undaunted soul." "and never swerved from the straight line of a republican soldier, till the glorious object of the contest was secured and America free."
"His integrity was stern, erect, inflexible; his sense of honor lofty and heroic; his love of honesty and truth strikingly conspicuous; his reputation
for all ages may last. His enemies were like those of other men, but his friendships were eternal. In the great and interesting qualities necessary for the latter, he was inferior to no man. Diffimulation and deceit stood aloof, at an immovable distance from his presence. Gifted by nature with an intellect strong, capacious and penetrating, and aided by a vigorous memory, his knowledge was profound. His acquirements, as a scholar, were extensive, classical and erudite. In the walks of history and jurisprudence, and the regions of elegant literature, his attainments were equal and commensurate. He possessed that various information which constitutes the highest accomplishment of the mind. These were always directed to the amelioration of the social order and the happiness of his fellow men."
[N. T. Pap.]
A letter from Rotterdam, dated Feb. 28, handed to the editor of the Evening Post, contains the following information:
"The East-India company in Holland have given instructions to the Governor of Batavia, that neutral vessels may be admitted free until further account shall be received by him of the signature of the definitive treaty, when he will conduct himself according to his discretion."
"The company have sold fifteen millions lb. of Java coffee, to the merchants in Holland, to be delivered in Batavia, at 4 1-2 stivers per lb. payable, one third cash, at the closing the contract; one third in Batavia; and one third on its arrival in Holland; to be imported in Dutch vessels only. The company in consequence of this sale, and as part of the terms, have entered into liquidation with the merchants, not to sell more Java coffee annually than ten millions weight. So that American vessels coming from Batavia laden with this species of coffee, will not probably be hereafter permitted to make an entry in Holland."
"It is further said, that such has been the credit of our government in Holland, that while the loan negotiated there under the late administration, bearing an interest of 5 per cent. was at 98, their own loan, bearing the same interest, was only 75. It is, however, added, that a certain public character having lately, in passing through the country, intimated that it was in contemplation by our executive to abolish the whole internal revenue, some little solicitude had begun to manifest itself as to the consequences."
Extract of a letter from London, dated 1st March, 1802.
"The following is a paragraph of a letter, which I have this moment received from a friend in Paris, under date of the 22d of Feb. It is important and should be made known in America."
"It is determined that a colony shall be settled in Louisiana and Florida. General Bernadotte is to have the command; its departure will perhaps depend on the accounts expected from St. Domingo; preparations are now making for this expedition. I understand the Indians adjoining Florida have agents now here, for the purpose of making treaties with this country, to unite themselves with the troops or settlers that may be sent from hence."
"The establishment of this colony is said to be a darling object, and it will be pursued with ardour, unless the difficulties that may arise at St. Domingo, should derange the present plan."
Lancaster, April 14. On the 1802. On the 30th ult. the senate of this state adopted the following:
Resolved, That the senate will proceed, on the second Tuesday in December next, to the trial of Alexander Addison, President of the courts, within the fifth district of Pennsylvania, on the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, by the house of representatives, in their name, and in the name of the people of Pennsylvania; and that the Speaker be directed to issue process, requiring him, the said Alexander Addison, to attend on the day last aforesaid, to answer to the articles of impeachment aforesaid; and that the said process be served on him, and a copy of the said articles of impeachment be delivered to the said Alexander Addison, forty days before the day appointed for his trial; and ordered, That an extract of the foregoing be transmitted to the house of representatives.
Philadelphia, April 13.
Advices are this day received from the Havana, which announce that the court of Madrid have granted permission for the exportation of specie, free of duty, from the Spanish dominions, for the purchase of shipping. This information we derive from an authority, next to official.
The foregoing intelligence we presume is of considerable magnitude to the merchants of the United States; as in consequence of the peace in Europe, we are in possession of a great surplusage shipping, which hereby we shall be enabled to dispose of to advantage.
New York April 16. RUMORS OF NEWS. Capt. Barnett, arrived here last evening, in 19 days from Antigua, reports, that the day before he failed, news reach-
ed that place that an embargo had been laid on all vessels at Martinique and Dominigue, and one was hourly expected at Antigua, in consequence of some late advice received at Martinique, by a British packet.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Martinique to his correspondent in this city, dated 26th March, 1802, received via Sag Harbor.
"I wrote you a few days ago, via Alexandria, since when the Trent frigate has arrived express from England, directing the commanders in chief to be on their guard. Private information by this vessel lays that in consequence of the truing conduct of the French legation, and the reluctance discovered by the Dutch and Spanish Ambassadors to cede Ceylon and Trinidad to Great Britain, Lord Cornwallis had given in his ultimatum, that he would return to his court if they did not decide in 24 hours. We have six sail of the line just arrived to strengthen our position to windward."
Boston, April 10.
By the Minerva, Cpt. Barber, the John Adams, Capt. Woods, and the Galeb, Capt. Hinckley, arrived since our last from Great-Britain, we have received regular files of London papers to the 3d March inclusive; but they do not contain a paragraph of interesting intelligence.
The definitive treaty of peace had not been signed, and when it would be, was merely matter of conjecture. There were not, however, any appearances of preparation for a rupture; and the delay of the signature of the treaty was considered as arising from the tardy nature of the negotiation.
Alexandria, April 16.
The fisheries on Potomac river have been more bountifully abundant this month than was ever heretofore known. The draughts of shad and herrings at the principal landings (Chespeans, the White Horse, Warburton, the Teer, &c.) have been universally great, and the quantity of the fish remarkably good. Herrings fell as cheap at this market (fresh from the boats) as a dollar per thousand, and shad from two to three dollars per hundred. At Warburton landing a few days past, there was the greatest haul of large white perch, perhaps ever known in America - above ten thousand were taken from the sein, after letting numbers away by lifting the sein.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1802.
The House went into committee of the whole - Mr. Nicholson in the chair, on the bill to amend the act fixing the compensation of officers employed in the collection of duties on imports and tonnage.
This bill allows certain compensations to collectors of ports, provided the clear annual receipt does not exceed 5,000 dollars. A motion was made to strike out 5,000, for the purpose of introducing 4,000 dollars.
It was contended that this latter sum was sufficient compensation to any collector; that it greatly exceeded most of the compensations allowed to the federal officers; and that as money was appreciating it became necessary to reduce the salaries of officers generally.
In reply it was observed, that very few collectors would receive, so large a sum as 5,000 dollars; none other than those of New-York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and perhaps Charleston; that the responsibility attached to these officers was greater than that attached to any other, as in some instances two millions of dollars passed through their hands; that the temptation to violate duty was proportionably great; and that from these considerations it became the government to afford them a liberal compensation; and that the sum was considerably below that heretofore allowed.
The question was taken on striking out 5,000 and lost - ayes 26.
Mr. Stanley moved to strike out that part of the bill, which deducted from the compensations made to the collectors of Newbern, and Edenton, the sum of 250 dollars, heretofore allowed beyond their fees.
For this motion he assigned several reasons; among which were, the inadequacy of the compensations, viz. about 1600 dollars, to the duties performed, which were notwithstanding the small amount of duties, very burthensome, owing to the smallness of the cargoes imported; and their being greatly inferior to the compensations allowed to the collectors of Wilmington and Petersburg.
Mr. S. Smith informed the committee, that the principle on which the several compensations had been graduated was, that when the gross emoluments exceed 2,000 dollars, the salary heretofore allowed by law, in addition to the emoluments, should be withdrawn. This was the fact in relation to the ports of Newbern and Edenton; and as the duties in each of these ports did not
exceed 45,000 dollars, the compensation seemed adequate; he was however far from being tenacious, and would have very little objection to a vote of the House which should increase it.
Motion lost - ayes 23. The committee rose, and reported the bill without amendment.
Mr. Southard renewed the motion to strike out 5,000 dollars, for the purpose of inserting 4,000 (the same motion made in committee,) and assigned substantially the same reasons above stated.
Messrs Stanley, Bacon and Smilie, delivered a few observations for, and Mr. Huger, against the motion, which was taken by yeas and nays on the call of Mr. Southard, and lost - yeas 31 - nays 40.
Mr. Goddard moved an amendment, providing that no collector should be allowed a greater sum for clerk hire than the amount of his own emoluments. Lost - ayes 26.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
The bill making appropriations for the Navy for the year 1802, was read the third time, and passed without a division.
The House went into committee of the whole, on the bill to amend the judicial system of the United States - Mr. S. Smith in the chair.
The first section prescribes, that there shall be one session of the supreme court, to be held in every year at the city of Washington in the month of February. Mr. Bayard moved to strike out one session, and insert two sessions.
This motion gave rise to considerable debate, in which Messrs Bayard, Griffith, Dennis, Henderson, T. Morris, Daws, and Goddard, supported; and Messrs Nicholson, Elmerdorf, R. Williams and Holland, opposed it.
The question was then taken, and the motion lost - ayes 25.
Mr. Bayard moved to strike out the 3d section, which prescribes, that the next session of the supreme court, shall be held in February. Motion lost - ayes 23.
The times of holding the circuit courts in Virginia, were, on the motion of Mr. Randolph, altered to the 22d days of May and November.
TUESDAY, April 20, 1802.
Mr. Bacon reported a bill relating to a claim of Comfort Sands and others, which was read twice.
Mr. Bacon moved that it be postponed till the 3d Monday of November - Carried.
Mr. Lewis presented two messages from the President:
1. Enclosing a letter from the Director of the Mint, respecting the injurious effect of an abolition of that establishment, on the officers and clerks employed therein, and recommending an extra compensation being allowed them. - Referred.
2. A report from the Secretary of State, on Spanish spoliations, made in pursuance of a resolution of the house of the 8th of January.
Both messages were ordered to be printed.
An engrossed bill, amending an act fixing the compensations of officers employed in the collection of duties on imports and tonnage, was read the third, and on the question, shall the bill pass? Mr. Stanley, considering the compensation of 5,000 dollars too high for any collector, and the compensations in other respects as unequal, moved the reconsiderment of the bill. - Motion lost - Yeas 21.
The bill then passed without a division.
The house again went into committee of the whole, Mr. S. Smith in the chair, on the bill to amend the judicial system of the United States.
Mr. Davis moved to amend the 4th section, by constituting an additional circuit, to be called the 7th circuit, composed of the states of Kentucky and Tennessee; his object being that the circuit court therein should be composed of the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee. Motion carried - Ayes 40.
Other amendments were made affecting the details of the bill.
NOTICE.
THE public are hereby cautioned against the false of my house on Square No. 432, on Pennsylvania Avenue, advertised by Samuel Baker, on the 27th instant, he, the said Baker, not having complied with the contract alluded to in his advertisement; nor has he complied with the tenor of an arbitration had on the occasion. The circumstances leading to the same will be made known by application to
JOHN HARRISON. April 14, 1802. cp3t
FOR SALE.
An excellent Blacksmith, together with his wife and three likely children, to wit, two boys, 10 and 8 years of age, and a girl four. The woman has been employed altogether in washing and ironing. An examination of the blacksmith's work will be his best recommendation. To save unnecessary applications the price of the family is 1,400 dollars.
V. DETTON. Stafford, March 8, 1802. Lawf

[From the American Literary Advertiser.]
We are happy in being able to announce to the public a great acceleration in the conveyance of the mail, on the main line from Washington City to Boston, which must prove highly advantageous to our citizens in general, and in an especial manner to the commercial part of the community.
Heretofore, the communication between these places has required eight days and five hours, and this has been esteemed expeditions. At present, the mail leaves Washington at one o'clock in the morning; arrives at Baltimore, 11 o'clock, forenoon; leaves Baltimore, 1 do. afternoon; arrives at Philadelphia, 11 o'clock next morning; leaves Philadelphia, 1 do. afternoon; arrives at New-York, 8 o'clock next morning; leaves New-York, 11 do. do. arrives at New-Haven, 5 o'clock next morning; leaves New-Haven, 12 o'clock an hour; arrives at Hartford, at 2 o'clock the same day and proceeds for Boston, where it arrives at 3 o'clock next evening being four days and fourteen hours. It returns in four days and eleven hours.
The applause of the public is fully due to the indefatigable citizen at the head of the Post-office department, and the success of his exertions demonstrates that with proper attention to the improvement of the roads, we may view with the Europeans, in the expedition and perfection of the mail establishment.
In a comparatively new country, and under a new government, improvement of this kind must be progressive: it requires a bold and independent mind to design, and an energetic hand to execute them.
When Mr. Granger entered upon the duties of his office, many imperfections and improprieties were in practice in the department over which he was to preside.
The want of expedition in the conveyance of the mail on the main line: The conveyance of the mail on the outside of the carriages; exposed to robbery, subjected to the weather, and to be trampled on, to the material injury and in many cases, destruction of its contents:
The occupancy of many important Post-offices by editors, and in many cases where there were two or more in the same place; this giving one the power and exposing him to the temptation of detaining the intelligence from others of the trade till it appeared in his own paper, and authorising him to use the privilege of franking a pecuniarily advantageous to a printer, in many other respects than franking his own paper to subscribers:
The occupancy of offices in some instances by persons who rendered them useless to themselves, by favouring them out to others; who in their turn would shift the actual duties of the offices upon clerks; while
Some important offices were in possession of those who held other offices under the United States, and in time of war, under the State in which they lived; which is contrary to the spirit of our constitution, impolitic, and incongruous with the genius of a free people.
Happily many of those evils are removed, and it is confidently hoped, that the work of renovation and improvement will cease only with their total eradication.
For Sale,
A NEAT FRAME House and Lot, on New-Jersey Avenue, square 690: sixteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bow window, a parlour and closet back on the second floor, two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches from running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabouts. For terms apply to
JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. March 5, 1802.
FOR SALE,
LOOKING-GLASSES & FURNITURE.
The subscriber respectfully informs the public, that he has just received from New-York various kinds of Looking-Glasses, from 5 to 70 dollars each. Also card tables, bureaus, &c. of an elegant and fashionable make. He continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of ornaments for chimney-pieces, door caps, mantelpiece pieces, metal tables, &c. &c.
GEORGE ANDREWS. April 14, 1802.
NOTICE.
WAS committed to the jail of Washington county-District of Columbia, a negro Man by the name of JESS, who belongs to Peyton Way of Georgia; is five feet eight inches high, has a scar on each side of his nose, and his back much scarred. The owner of the above slave is desired to come, prove property, pay charges, and take him away; or he will be sold for his fees agreeable to law.
DANIEL C. CRENT, Marshal of the district of Columbia. April 14, 1802.
[By Authority.]
AN ACT
To authorize an advance of money to Samuel Dexter.
BE it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America, in congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby authorised and directed to advance out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, the sum of five hundred dollars to Samuel Dexter, for the purpose of assisting him in defraying the expenses of the suit of Joseph Hodgdon against him in the circuit court of the district of Columbia, he, the said Dexter to be accountable for the same.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. APPROVED, April 14, 1802. TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.
AN ACT
Declaring the assent of Congress to an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, therein mentioned.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the assent of Congress is hereby given and declared to an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, intitled "An act to amend and reduce into one, the several acts of Assembly for improving the navigation of Appomattox river, from Broad-way to Pocahontas bridge."
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. APPROVED, April 14, 1802. TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.
AN ACT
For the relief of Thomas K. Jones.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the collector for the port of Boston and Chatham be, and he hereby is authorised to issue to Thomas K. Jones, the debentures for the drawback of the duties on ten pipes of wine imported by said Jones, in the ship Juno, captain Thomas Dingley, and exported on the fifteenth day of June last, in the ship Enterprise, captain Healy, for Havana, on full and satisfactory proof being made to the said collector, of the actual quantity of wine in the said pipes, at the time of their being shipped, as aforesaid: Provided, that every other requisite shall have been complied with, agreeably to law, for the obtaining the said drawback.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. APPROVED, April 14, 1802. TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.
AN ACT
To revive, and continue in force, an act, intitled, "An act to augment the salaries of the officers therein mentioned," passed the second day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That an act intitled "An act to augment the salaries of the officers therein mentioned," be, and the same is hereby revived, and continued in force, for and during the term of two years, from the commencement of the present year.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. APPROVED, April 14, 1802. TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.
AN ACT
To amend an act intitled, "An act to retain a further sum on drawbacks, for the expenses incident to the allowance and payment thereof, and in lieu of stamp duties on debentures."
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the second section of the act intitled, "An act to retain a further sum on drawbacks, for the expenses incident to the allowance and payment thereof, and in lieu of stamp duties on debentures," will not be deemed to operate upon unregistered ships or vessels owned by the citizens of the United States, at the time of passing the said act, in those cases where such ship or vessel, at that time possessed a sea letter, or other regular document issued from a custom-house of the United States, proving such ship or vessel to be American property.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever satisfactory proof shall be made to the Secretary of the Treasury, that any unregistered ship or vessel
was, in fact, the property, in whole, of a citizen or citizens of the United States, on the thirteenth day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred, that the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby authorised and directed to cause to be issued to such ship or vessel, a certificate, which shall entitle such unregistered ship or vessel to the same privileges which are hereinbefore granted to unregistered ships or vessels owned by citizens of the United States, and carrying a sea letter, or other regular document issued from a custom-house of the United States, before the passing of the said act, intitled, "An act to retain a further sum on drawbacks, for the expenses incident to the allowance and payment thereof, and in lieu of stamp duties on debentures."
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. APPROVED, April 14, 1802. TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.
AN ACT
For the relief of Paolo Paoli.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be allowed and paid to Paolo Paoli a subject of his D. M. majesty, or to his lawful attorney, out of any monies in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, the sum of seven thousand and forty dollars, and fifty-five cents, being the amount of damages and costs of suit, awarded by the circuit court of Pennsylvania, in favor of the said Paoli, as owner of the Schooner Amphitheatre, against William Maley, commander of the public armed vessel, the Experiment, belonging to the United States, for the capture and detention of the said Schooner; on condition that the said Paoli, or his lawful attorney, shall cause to be entered on the records of the said circuit court, an acknowledgment of his receipt of the sum aforesaid, in full satisfaction of the judgment rendered against the said Maley in the premises.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. APPROVED, April 14th 1802. TH: JEFFERSON.
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR,
COLICITS 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, callicoes, swadlins, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His meritorious 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.
NOTICE.
Three Cents, a peck of potatoes, and the Sweepings of the jail. REWARD. FOR apprehending and securing William O'Connor, an Irishman who was born in the County of Tipperary, who absconded from the Washington county jail, District of Columbia, on Saturday evening the 10th inst. I have reason to believe he has gone to Baltimore, where his family resides. Any person that will bring the above-named runaway to the jail aforesaid, shall receive the above Reward; but no charges paid, by ROBERT MCLEAN, Gaoler. April 16, 1802.
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 sites 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 sold into small 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.
The members of the Associated Presbyterian Society and others, are hereby informed that from an unavoidable circumstance, the Rev. ROBERT ANNAN, who was expected to preach at the Treasury on the next Sabbath will not attend until the Sabbath after, the 9th day of May.
HATS.
THE Subscriber has received per the General Hunter from Liverpool, an elegant assortment of men, boys, and children's Hats, which he will sell very cheap for cash. ALEX. M'CORMICK. April 21, 1802.
WANTED,
A LOAN of from one to two thousand dollars, to be secured by a mortgage of improved real property; the title to which is unquestionable, and unincumbered. For particulars apply to THOMAS HERTY, Conveyancer, near the Treasry Department. April 21, 1802.
Ten Dollars Reward.
STRAYED from the subscriber on the 14th instat, a dark bay mare between 5 and 6 years old, about 14 hands high, with a small white star in the forehead, thick mane and tail, her fore top cut short, canter and trotts. She was seen in the afternoon of the same day following a gentleman riding a white creature on the Pennsylvania Avenue. She was also seen at the Potomac bridge, about sunset of the same day in company with two other stray creatures. Whoever will take up and deliver the said mare to the subscriber, shall receive the above reward. BROTHARN & BYUS, Greenleaf's Point. April 21, 1802.
Robbery!
ON the night of Saturday the 17th instat, the house of the subscriber was entered by some villain or villains, between the hours of twelve and five o'clock in the morning, who took from there a doubled case silver watch with sunk wheels and capped, No. 7544 maker J. Jackson, London. Also, six silver tea-spoons, marked D. O with an M in the centre on the top, with sundry other articles. Whoever delivers the above articles to the subscriber, and secures the perpetrator or perpetrators to condign punishment, shall be liberally rewarded. DAVID OGILVIE. April 21, 1802.
Public Sale.
Will be exposed to Public Sale for ready cash only, on the 20th instat, at the dwelling House of Anthony Addison, TWENTY valuable negro slaves, consisting of men, women and children, and a tract of land known by the name of Barnaby Manor, containing one thousand acres; late the property of the said Addison. Taken by virtue of two writs of fieri facias, issued from the general court at the suit of William Stewart, and one at the suit of Nathaniel Washington for the use of George Hawkins. The sale to commence precisely at twelve o'clock. THOMAS MAGGILL, Sheriff. April 21, 1802.
City Hotel,
BROADWAY, NEW-YORK. THE Subscriber most respectfully informs his friends and the public, that the above Hotel will be opened on the first of May ensuing, when their patronage is earnestly solicited. He avails himself of this opportunity to return his sincere and grateful thanks to those societies, parties, and gentlemen who have given him their support, and assures them that a continuance of their favors will be a stimulus to future exertions to please; and that the utmost attention shall be given for their comfort and accommodation. Boarding may be had by the day, week, month, or year. Families travelling, may be elegantly accommodated with lodging and fitting rooms; and, if preferred, have dinners, &c. in their apartments. The Hotel being so well known, it is almost useless to say, that it is situated in one of the most healthy and pleasant parts of the city; commanding an extensive view in every direction, not only of the city itself, but also of the Narrows, the North and East Rivers, the state of New-Jersey, York and Long-Island, &c. &c. A handsome coffee-room will be fitted up in the principal story; where gentlemen may have tea, coffee, chocolate, soups, and refreshments in general, at the shortest notice. All the leading newspapers in the union, will be regularly taken in. Public dinners and suppers, in a plain or elegant style either for large or small parties. Also, beef steaks, oysters, &c. regularly furnished. An ordinary every day, at half-past 2 o'clock, by the public's obedient servant, JOHN LOVETT. N. B. Rooms to let by the month or year. April 21, 1802.
For Sale,
A Quantity of SHELL LIME, on the most reduced Terms. apply to Brotharn & Byus, Young's wharf. April 16, 1802.
Water Lot for Sale.
A VALUABLE Lot on the Eastern Branch, midway between South Capitol Street and the Eastern Branch in the Georgia Avenue. No situation can excel this in point of convenience to a wholesale merchant, being near the junction of the canal and the waters of said branch. The price will be moderate for each if early application is made—title indisputable. FOR SALE, upward of 1,000 lots in the best situations in the City. Enquire of Thomas Herty Conveyancer, near the Treasury Department. April 9, 1802.
Benjamin Henry,
RESPECTFULLY informs the citizens of Washington, Georgetown, and the vicinity, that he will exhibit his NEW MODE OF OBTAINING LIGHT, in a variety of
THERMO LAMPS,
At Mr. Thompson's new brick house, Pennsylvania Avenue, on Friday evening next, from 5 to 8 o'clock, and will continue every evening until the 18th May. Tickets to be had at the door; price one dollar, to admit a gentleman twice, or one and bring a Lady. April 14, 1802.
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 BENJAMIN SINGLOFF, 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.
FOR SALE.
On Monday the 17th day of May next, will be sold at Vendue, at Mr. Semmes's Tavern, George-Town.
ALL those tracts or parts of tracts of land called Scotland and Barbadoes, lying on the navigable waters of the Eastern Branch, containing 200 acres more or less, about half this land in wood, mostly cleared. Mr. Henry Smith lives on the premises, and will show them. At the same time the store and lot at the corner of High and Bridge Streets, at present occupied by Mr. James Doyle, and the square where Mr. Bayly now lives, adjoining to Col. Deering and Mr. Charles Lowndes, which will be divided into small lots. On the premises are a small though comfortable frame house, kitchen, stable, and smoke house; the situation of this property must make it a desirable object. The terms are more negotiable at the bank of Columbia, at 6, 12, and 18 months, with interest.
Will sell at private sale, a mill, millseat, and 42 and an half acres, of land, lying on Rock Creek, within one mile of Georgetown and the City of Washington; its situation with its other great advantages must render it truly valuable. This property will be sold on very moderate terms, if speedy application is made.
And on a credit of 1, 2, and 3 years with interest, all those lands called Pradford's Rest and Batchelor's Forest, lying in Montgomery county, containing 531 3/4 acres; this land will be divided into lots to suit purchasers, if not sold before the first day of August next, it will then be sold at Public Sale, at the house where Mrs. Lynn formerly lived, on terms which will then be made known. I will also sell a number of lots in eligible situations in the City of Washington. For the terms of any or all the above property, please to direct to the subscriber. WALTER MACKALL. Benedict, March. 29, 1802.
WALTER MACKALL.
In Council, Annapolis, Feb. 8, 1802. Ordered, That the act to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and the qualifications of voters, passed at the session of the general assembly of this state be published twice in each week; for the space of three months, successively, in the Maryland Gazette, at Annapolis; the Federal Gazette, at Baltimore; and the Museum, at George-Town; the National Intelligencer; the paper at Easton; Barreges's paper, at Frederick-town, and in the Washington Spy. By order, NINIAN PINKNEY, CL.
An ACT to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and qualifications of voters.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That every free white male citizen of this state, and no other, above twenty-one years of age, having resided twelve months in the county next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, and every free white male citizen of this state above twenty-one years of age, and having obtained a residence of twelve months next preceding the election in the city of Baltimore or the city of Annapolis, and at which he offers to vote, shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote by ballot in the election of such county or city, or either of them, for delegates to the general assembly; electors of the Senate, and sheriffs.
And be it enacted, That all & every part of the constitution and form of government of this state repugnant thereto, or inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall be and the same are hereby abrogated, annulled and made void.
And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the general assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election as the constitution and form of government directs, that in such case this act, and the alteration of the said constitution contained therein shall be considered as a part, and shall constitute and be valid as a part, of the said constitution and form of government, to all intents and purposes, any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. February 19, 1802.

(Continued from first page)
which is equally inapplicable with the other; but perhaps it may be found in the end, to apply more forcibly to the judiciary system of last session. The same author from whom our opponents have derived their information, tells us (in page 30) that after the judges had refused to do the duties of circuit judges as just mentioned, "the legislature apparently acquiescing in their decision," new modified the law, and established a separate court of appeals, the judges of which were to be elected by the joint ballot of the two branches, agreeably to the constitution. The former judges, who had before jointly performed the duty of judges of the court of appeals under a law of the state, were relieved from the further discharge of it, and six of them were elected judges of the new court of appeals now created separately; others being appointed in their places as judges of the court of chancery, general court and court of admiralty. This law they likewise declared to be unconstitutional, not because a act which had been enacted by them was abolished (for the court of appeals was expressly established by the constitution) but because in their own language it was "an amendment from the whole bench of judges of appeals, and the appointment of new judges to the same court." Now, sir, I see that this very proceeding which the judges of Virginia declared to be unconstitutional, was the effect of the judiciary bill which it is now proposed to repeal. For by the former system the judges of the supreme and district courts of the United States were made judges of the circuit courts, and continued to hold them until they were "relieved from the office" of judges of the circuit courts by the law of last session. So that this decision cannot apply to the bill now on the table, but is directed with great force to that passed by our adversaries early last year, and which it is our intention to repeal.
I have been thus concise in the examination of these two opinions, because it was only necessary to show the points in dispute, to convince the most prejudiced mind that they could have no bearing on the present question. They may indeed serve to show that the judges themselves authorized to declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional; but this is by no means the question before us, although it has been dragged into the discussion.
While I am on this part of the subject, I will endeavor to prove that the last Congress set as an example of abolishing courts and vacating the places of judges, although gentlemen who were then in the majority, now contend that a similar proceeding on our part will be unconstitutional. The 24th section of the judiciary act of last session declares "that the district courts of the United States in and for the districts of Tennessee and Kentucky, shall be and hereby are abolished;" and by the same section it was provided that the jurisdiction of those courts should be afterwards vested in and exercised by the circuit courts of Tennessee and Kentucky respectively. The question necessarily arising is, what was the effect of abolishing these courts? I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion the offices of the judges were likewise abolished. It is true that by the 7th section it is declared that the circuit court of the sixth circuit shall be composed of a circuit judge, and of the judges of the district courts of Tennessee and Kentucky, thereby retaining them in office, and as gentlemen say not affecting their independence. This point I shall remark on presently, but will now confine my observations to that part of the law which abolishes the district courts.
The words judge and court are correlative terms, and by the constitution are inseparably connected with each other; for in no part of the constitution do we find any other judges spoken of than judges of the supreme and inferior courts. A court may be composed of one or more judges; as the district court is composed of one, and the supreme court of six judges. It is the legal name of one man, or of a body of men in their collective capacity, vested with certain powers, authority and jurisdiction to be exercised by them agreeably to the established laws of the country, as the word Congress was under the confederacy, the political name of a body of men in their collective capacity, vested with legislative powers to a certain extent. When you abolish the court, you take from the persons composing the court all the powers vested in them as a court; as when the old Congress was abolished, they were divested of all powers vested in them as a Congress. When the district court of Kentucky was abolished, the gentleman who was then judge, was no longer judge of the district court, for there was no such court in existence. I would ask then of what he was the judge? for the idea of a judge without a court is an absurdity.
I trust I shall not be told that he was judge of the district of Kentucky, for the constitution knows of no judge, but the judge either of the supreme or of an inferior court; and a judge of a district, without a court is no where recognized by the constitution. I think therefore, I am warranted in saying that when the district courts of Tennessee and Kentucky were abolished, the offices
of judges of those courts were likewise abolished. This is precisely the effect now contemplated. The bill upon the table if enacted into a law will abolish the circuit courts which were created last year, and will at the same time abolish the offices of the judges of these courts.
But we are told that by abolishing the district courts of Tennessee and Kentucky, the independence of the judges of these courts was not affected, because they were by the same law appointed to hold the circuit court of the sixth circuit. This is the part of the law which the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Thompson) said had violated the constitution, and this opinion, I do without hesitation, concur in. By the 27th section of the act passed last session, the circuit courts then in existence were entirely abolished, and by the 7th section new circuit courts were created. The constitution has given to the President and Senate the power of appointing all judges; both of the supreme and inferior courts; the circuit court of the sixth circuit is an inferior court, and by the constitution the judges ought to have been appointed by the President and Senate. Yet in the face and in violation of the constitution, the legislature of the last session did appoint the judges of the district courts of Tennessee and Kentucky to hold the courts of the sixth circuit, which courts were created anew by that law, and ought to have had their judges appointed by the President and Senate. This, sir, was the measure which the gentleman from Virginia said had inflicted a ghastly wound on the constitution, and not that part of the law, as has been contended, by which the two district courts were abolished.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold) in order to show that we are not authorized to abolish these courts, and thereby to vacate the commissions of the judges, has referred us to the draught of a constitution made for the state of Virginia in the year 1783, by the present President of the United States. It must be remembered, sir, that this is nothing more than the opinion of an individual on a subject not growing out of the constitution of the United States, which was not then formed, and I believe not even dreamed of; but as I feel a high respect for the opinions of this gentleman on all subjects, I shall beg leave to examine that alluded to by the member from Connecticut. And to me it is a matter of some gratification that the man who has been so long and so unjustly the object of federal calumny, should at last receive even this slight retribution from federal authority. In this reference however, the honorable member has been peculiarly unfortunate, for it will be found, that this draught of a constitution, shews the opinion of Mr. Jefferson to have been at that day, precisely the opinion which we now entertain on the subject before us. Happily for the nation, it is not the only instance in which the sentiments of the chief magistrate are in direct opposition to those of the gentleman from Connecticut and his friends. If the gentleman had turned to the book itself, which I now have in my hand, instead of relying on the scraps of anonymous scribblers, who for ought I know, are interested in giving a false coloring, he would not have been imposed on. In the 3d article of the plan of a constitution proposed by Mr. Jefferson, it is declared that "the judiciary powers shall be exercised by county courts & such other inferior courts as the legislature shall think proper to continue or erect; by three superior courts, to wit: a court of admiralty, a general court of common law, and a high court of chancery; and by one supreme court of appeals." This language is very similar to that of our constitution which says that "the judiciary power shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain & establish." Now, sir, the precise point of difference between us is whether it was at that time the idea of the president, that the judges of these inferior courts, who I will say you were likewise to hold their commissions during good behaviour , could be removed from office, by abolishing their respective courts. The plan already alluded to, proceeds to declare that the judges of the court of chancery, of the general court, and court of admiralty shall hold their commissions during good behaviour, and afterwards in the 37th page, provides that "the justices or judges of the inferior courts, already erected or hereafter to be erected, shall be appointed by the governor, on advice of the council of state, and shall hold their offices during good behaviour, or the existence of their courts." This then clearly shows it to have been the idea of the writer, that the inferior courts, which the legislature were authorized to erect, as they might think proper, might afterwards be reduced by the legislature, and the judges displaced, although they were to hold their commissions during good behaviour. As I before said this is nothing more than an opinion on a subject somewhat similar to that before us, and is not directly in point; but as the member from Connecticut thought proper to call it into his aid, I think when it is found to be against him, it may very fairly be thrown into the opposite scale. The gentleman has likewise referred
to the journals of the convention by whom the constitution was framed, and has said a proposition was there made, that the judges should be removed upon the address of the legislature, as in England. As this was not inserted in the constitution he infers that we have not the power. Is it necessary, for again to repeat, that this is a power which we do not contend for? But does it therefore follow that we have not the power to repeal a law? There has been no proposition that we should exercise such a power. We have no complaints against the judges. They may all be, as I know some of them are, men of honor and integrity. We have no desire to remove them and put others in their places, but we wish to abolish a system which in our consciences we believe to be useless and unnecessary, and which is supported at a heavy expense that the nation is neither able nor willing to pay.
But, sir, I believe it has not heretofore been supposed, that a refusal by the convention to grant a power expressly, prevented congress from an exercise of that power. When it was formerly proposed to grant a charter of incorporation to the bank of the United States, it was stated by a member of this house, who had likewise been a member of the convention, (Mr. Madison) that an attempt had been made in the convention to invest congress with this power, and that the proposition was rejected; yet this argument had no effect whatever, for congress did proceed to incorporate the bank, and the incorporation stands at this day. If therefore the present quotation from the journal was in point, we might be excused for suffering it to have no weight with us, as we should at least be justified by the precedent of federal authority. But it bears no analogy to the present question, and ought to have no influence in its decision.
The extracts which have been read from judge Tucker's lecture, from the debates of the Virginia convention, and from the writings of "Publius" are equally irrelevant. They contain some general ideas on the independence of the judiciary, without any definition of that independence, which can possibly affect the bill on the table. The independence of the three branches of government has, in my opinion, been much talked of without being fairly defined, or correctly understood. The powers of our government are distributed under three different heads, and are committed to three different departments. The legislative power extends to the enacting, revising, amending or repealing all laws, as the various interests of the nation may require. The judiciary power confers in an authority to apply those laws to the various controversies which may arise between man and man, or between the government & its citizens, and to pronounce sentence agreeably to the dictates of their judgment and conscience. After the judicial decree, it then becomes the business of the executive, to carry it into effect according to its true intent and conformity to the laws of the land. In all governments, where they have the semblance of freedom, the great desideratum has been, to keep these three branches distinctly separate and distinct, as that the powers of neither should be exercised by the other. Or, in other words, that the legislative powers should never be exercised by the executive or judiciary, that the judicial power should not be exercised by the legislative or executive, and that the executive powers should not be exercised by the legislative or judiciary. But there is no government on the face of the earth, whose history I am acquainted with, in which a total and entire independence has been established. In England the judiciary hold their offices at the will of parliament. In the states of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Georgia, the judges are either elected by the legislature for a limited time, or are subject to removal by them; in New-York, some of the judges are in the same situation; in New-Hampshire, the legislature are authorized to limit the duration of their commissions, and I believe, are in the habit of doing so; and in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the executive is absolutely dependent on the legislature for his continuance in office, being annually or biennially elected. In Tennessee, and in most, perhaps all of the others, both the judiciary and the executive are dependent on the legislature for the amount and payment of their salaries. Yet, sir, in all these states, where we find no such idea of independence as is now contended for, there has been no confusion, no disorder. The people are happy and contented, and I venture to assert, are more free than the inhabitants of any other part of the globe. They are happy, because none can oppress them; they are free, because they have a control over their public agents. But if the public agents of the federal government are to be set above the nation, and are to be invested with the arbitrary and uncontrolled powers which some gentlemen wish on, who can say where they will stop or what bounds shall be prescribed to them? Man is fond of power, is continually grasping after it, and is never satisfied. He is not
therefore to be trusted. Unlimited confidence is the bane of a free government. Those who would retain their freedom, must likewise retain power over their agents, or they will be driven to destruction. I have been taught to believe, that power is never to late, as in the hands of those for whose benefit it is to be employed. I consider it in their hands, when it is delegated to representatives freely chosen by themselves for a short period, and immediately responsible to them for its use. Power in the people, has been well compared to light in the sun; native, original, inherent, and not to be controlled by human means. But power, when once surrendered to independent rulers, instantly becomes a despot, and arms itself with whips and chains—while the people retain it in their own hands, it exalts the character of a nation, and is at once their pride and their security; if they surrender it to others, it becomes restless and active, till it debases the human character, and enslaves the human mind; it is never satisfied till it finally tramples upon all human rights. It is a grant, this surrender of power that I contend; it is this vital principle of the constitution, that I never will yield. The people are the fountain of all power—they are the source from which every branch of this government springs—and never shall any act of mine place one branch beyond their control.
But, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude. I have already said more than I could have wished, but the subject demanded it. The question has become important, and the constitution loudly calls for its decision. I entreat gentlemen, however, to examine calmly this new doctrine of the independence of judges, before they establish the principle that the tenure of office is to prevent the repeal of a law, by which the office is created. It will equally apply to every office under the government, for all are held equally independent of the legislative will. It is no more in our power to remove a next-corrective than a judicial officer, and if we are to be prevented from repealing a law, because we have no right to remove an officer, not only the present expensive judiciary must continue, but the army, and the navy may be increased hereafter, and no future congress will be authorized to reduce them; and the odious excise duties are called upon us for ever. This is an extent, I presume to which no gentleman is willing to go. It may indeed secure the judges in their offices, and afford them the much wished for independence, but it will forever secure the independence of the nation, and render the constitution of no avail. It may leave us the name and the shadow of liberty, but the essence and the spirit of representative government will be totally destroyed.
I therefore cherish the hope, that this constitutional question will be decided by passing the bill upon the table, and that a majority of this house will vote against striking out the 24th section.
To be Sold, A FEW LOTS in Square No. 902, and 933, near the Barracks; at a moderate price for cash—Apply to Benjamin Moore, New-Jersey Avenue, who has for sale Rhode Island Lime, by the cask; and he expects in a few days molasses by the hogshead, to be delivered at any wharf in the city. April 14, 1802. ep3t
Notice is hereby given, TO all persons having claims against Mr. NOBLEY YOUNG deceased, to render them properly authenticated to Robert Brent, in the City of Washington; and all those indebted to him are requested to make payment. BENJ. YOUNG, NICHOLS YOUNG, } Extra. ROBERT BRENT, } April 19, 1802. ep6w
For Sale, A NEGRO WOMAN about 21 years old who is a good Cook, and a complete house servant in every other respect.—Also a large well formed horse, that goes well in a carriage, and pleasant under the saddle.—Enquire at this office. March 4, 1802. epf
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, Cassimere, Swansdown, Toylenets, Velverets, Fancy Cords, Coatings, 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. epf
FOR SALE, OR TO BE RENTED. THE Subscriber will sell or rent, his building on F Street, Lot No. 2, square 289; and give possession on the first day of May. Any person desirous of purchasing or renting the same, may know the terms, on application to Mr. Bond, adjoining the premises, or to the subscriber in Colchester, Virginia. JAMES H. BLAKE. April 19, 1802. 3t
To be Rented, And immediate Possession given. A VERY convenient three story brick house, in a fine airy situation.—Enquire at this office. April 12, 1802. ep4w
For Sale, A NEGRO WOMAN about 38 years of age; she is an excellent Cook, and good washer. For terms apply to the Editor. April 5, 1802. epf
BOARDING. Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol.—Apply to the Printer. March 19, 1802. ep3w
For Sale, Or to be 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. epf
TO RENT, And possession given immediately. A TWO STORY brick house on F Street near the War Office, containing two parlors, six bed rooms, and a kitchen, with an excellent garden, coach house, stable, &c.—The house is newly painted and papered; it was formerly occupied by Mr. Dexter, and lately by Mr. John Brown. Enquire of Clement Dorsey, Esq. George-Town; or of the subscriber, who has for sale a well finished three story brick house opposite the Six Buildings, and a variety of City Lots in the most eligible situations. The above House will be sold for less than any gentleman could build it. The payments will be made easy on the whole of the above property. WILLIAM DYER. April 7, 1802. epf
Building Materials will be taken in part payment. W.D.
Looking Glasses. J. COOK Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Prisms. FOR SALE, At J. Marsh's Store, High-Street, George-Town. THE subjects of the Prints are very interesting, and in superbly gilt frames; and the glasses are of the best qualities, in the most modern and elegant frames, and of any size. They are marked at the lowest cash Prices. March 25, 1802. epf
Public Sale. Will be exposed to Public Sale on the premises at 12 o'clock on Tuesday the 27th instant. A two story brick dwelling house, situate on square No. 432, opposite the new market house, Pennsylvania Avenue, in virtue of a power in me vested by certain articles of agreement executed between me and the present proprietor, John Harrison, for building said House. SAMUEL BAKER. April 12, 1802. epf
WITH respect to the caution of the said John Harrison, I will appear on the premises on the day of sale, and exhibit the contract and the award, and all the papers relative thereto; with a sufficient voucher of the compliance of the same; and will also produce gentlemen of respectability and property to warrant the title; or refund the purchase money; Provided the title should ever hereafter be found insufficient. SAMUEL BAKER. April 16, 1802.
THE MAIL PILOT, Will, during the SUMMER SEASON, LEAVE the Columbian Inn, Georgetown at 5 o'clock A.M. and Mr. William Tunnicliff's, City of Washington, at 6 o'clock, every day; for Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New-York; arrive at Baltimore about three o'clock. Leave Baltimore next morning and arrive at Philadelphia next day at breakfast—Return—Leave Philadelphia at 7 o'clock A.M. and arrive at Baltimore the next day at 6 o'clock A.M. and arrive at Washington at 3 o'clock P.M. Fare and allowance of baggage as usual—All baggage at the risk of the owners. J. H. BARNEY. April 14, 1802. ep4w
N. B. Passengers coming in this line will be sent on to Alexandria, if required, the same evening; and to accommodate my customers a private stage will be sent to Baltimore or Alexandria at a short notice. J. H. B.
WANTED, A BARR and BOOK-KEEPER. A young man, who can come well recommended for the above business, will meet with employ at the Columbian Inn; and generous wages, by J. H. BARNEY. April 16, 1802. ep4w
Miss JONES, First House west of the President's on Pennsylvania Avenue. HAS received a fresh supply of goods amongst which are the following articles, viz. Handmade bonnets, assorted ribbons, straw trimmings, silk and straw cords and tassels; a variety of handsome fans, gauzes, white and colored silks, plaid handkerchiefs, thread, laces, and edgings, lady's gloves, Men's ditto, handsome shawls of various kinds, black and white laced veils, laced clocks, black lace, and a variety of other fancy articles; which will be sold cheap. April 5, 1802. ep3t