The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1805-02-11 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. V.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. DCLXXVIII.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11th, 1805.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
The answer, and pleas of SAMUEL CHASE, one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the U. States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him in the said court, by the honorable the House of Representatives of the U. States, in support of their impeachment against him, for high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been by him committed.
[Given in the 4th instant.]
This respondent, in his proper person, comes into the said court, and protesting that there is no high crime or misdemeanor particularly alleged in the said articles of impeachment, to which he is, or can be bound by law to make answer; and saving to himself, if now, and at all times hereafter, all benefit of exception to the insufficiency of the said articles, and each of them, and to the defects therein appearing in point of law, or otherwise; and protesting also, that he ought not to be injured in any manner, by any words, or by any want of form in this his answer; he submits the following facts and observations by way of answer to the said articles.
The first article relates to his supposed misconduct in the trial of John Fries, for treason, before the circuit court of the U. States, at Philadelphia, in April and May, 1800; and alleges that he presided at that trial, and that "unmindful of the solemn duties of his office, and contrary to the sacred obligation by which he stood bound to discharge them, faithfully and impartially, and without respect to persons," he did then, "in his judicial capacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust."
This general accusation, too vague in itself for reply, is supported by three specific charges of misconduct:
1st. In delivering an opinion, in writing, on the question of law, on the construction of which, the defence of the accused materially depended: which opinion, it is alleged, tended "to prejudice the minds of the jury against the case of the said John Fries, the prisoner, before counsel had been heard in his favor."
2d. "In restricting the counsel for the said John Fries, from recurring to such English authorities, as they believed apposite; or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions, upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client."
3d. "In debarring the prisoner from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury (through his counsel) on the law, as well as on the fact, which was to determine his guilt, or innocence, and at the same time endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law, as well as the question of fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give."
This first article then concludes, that in consequence of this irregular conduct of this respondent, "the said John Fries was deprived of the right, secured to him by the eighth article, amendatory of the constitution; and was condemned to death, without having been heard, by counsel, in his defence."
By the eighth article amendatory to the constitution, this respondent supposes, is meant the sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States; which secures to the accused, in all criminal prosecutions, the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
In answer to these three charges, the respondent admits that the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, was held at Philadelphia, in that district, in the months of April and May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred; at which court John Fries, the person named in the said first article, was brought to trial, on an indictment for treason against the U. States; and that this respondent then held a commission, as one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the U. States; by virtue of which office, he did, pursuant to the laws of the United States, preside at the above mentioned trial, and was assisted therein by Richard Peters, esq. then, and still district judge of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania; who, as directed by the laws of the U. States, sat as assistant judge at the said trial.
With respect to the opinion, which is alleged to have been delivered by this respondent, at the above mentioned trial, he begs leave to lay before this honorable court, the true state of that transaction, and to call its attention to some facts, and considerations, by which his conduct on that subject will, he presumes, be fully justified.
The constitution of the United States, in the third section of the third article, declares that "treason against the U. States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort. By two acts of Congress, the first passed on the third day of March, 1791, and the second on the eighth day of May, 1792, a duty was imposed on spirits distilled within the United States, and on stills; and various provisions were made for its collection.
In the year 1794, an insurrection took place in four of the western counties of Pennsylvania, with a view of resisting, and preventing by force the execution of these two statutes; and at a circuit court of the U. States, held at Philadelphia, for the district of Pennsylvania, in the month of April, in the year 1795, by William Paterson, esq. then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, and the above mentioned Richard Peters, then district judge of the U. States, for the district of Pennsylvania, two persons, who had been concerned in the above named insurrection, namely, Philip Vigol and John Mitchell, were indicted for treason, of levying war against the U. States, by resisting and preventing by force the execution of the two last mentioned acts of Congress; and were, after a full and very solemn trial, convicted on the indictments and sentenced to death. They were afterwards pardoned by George Washington, then President of the U. States.
In the first of these trials, that of Vigol, the defence of the prisoner was conducted by very able counsel, one of whom, William Lewis, esq. is the same person who appeared as counsel for John Fries, in the trial now under consideration. Neither that learned gentleman, nor his able colleague, then thought proper to raise the question of law, "whether resisting and preventing by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the U. States, be a "levying of war against the U. States," according to the true meaning of the constitution? although a decision of this question in the negative, must have acquitted the prisoner. But in the next trial, that of Mitchell, this question was raised on the part of the prisoner, and was very fully and ably discussed by his counsel; and it was solemnly determined by the court, both the judges concurring, "that to resist or prevent by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the U. States, is a levying of war against the U. States, and consequently is treason, within the true meaning of the constitution." The decision, according to the best established principles of our jurisprudence, became a precedent for all courts of equal or inferior jurisdiction; a precedent which, although not absolutely obligatory, ought to be viewed with very great respect, especially by the court in which it was made, and ought never to be departed from, but on the full-st and clearest conviction of its incorrectness.
On the 9th of July, 1798, an act of Congress was passed, providing for a valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, and an enumeration of slaves throughout the United States; and directing the appointment of commissioners and assessors for carrying it into execution: And on the 4th day of July, in the same year, a direct tax was laid by another act of Congress, of that date, on the lands, dwelling-houses, and slaves, so to be valued and enumerated.
In the months of February and March, A. D. 1799, an insurrection took place in the counties of Bucks & Northampton, in the state of Pennsylvania, for the purpose of resisting and preventing by force, the execution of the two last mentioned acts of Congress, and particularly that for the valuation of lands & dwelling-houses. John Fries, the person mentioned in the article of impeachment now under consideration, was apprehended and committed to prison, as one of the ring-leaders of this insurrection; and at a circuit court of the United States, held at Philadelphia, in and for the district of Pennsylvania, in the month of April, A. D. 1799, he was brought to trial for this offence, on an indictment for treason, by levying war against the United States, before James Ledell Esq. then one of the as-
sociate justices of the supreme court of the United States who presided in the said court, according to law, and the above-mentioned Richard Peters, then district judge of the U. States, for the district of Pennsylvania, who sat in the said circuit court as assistant judge.
In this trial, which was conducted with great solemnity, and occupied nine days, the prisoner was assisted by William Lewis, and Alexander James Dallas, Esqrs. two very able and eminent counsellors; the former of whom, William Lewis, is the person who assisted as above-mentioned, in conducting the defence of Vigol, on a similar indictment. These gentlemen, finding that the facts alleged were fully and undeniably proved, by a very minute and elaborate examination of witnesses, thought proper to rest the case of the prisoner, on the question of law which had been determined in the cases of Vigol and Mitchell above mentioned, and had then been acquiesced in, but which they thought proper again to raise. They contended, "that to resist by force of arms a particular law of the United States, does not amount to levying war against the United States, within the true meaning of the constitution, & therefore it is not treason, but a riot only." This question they argued at great length, and with all the force of their learning and genius; and after a very full discussion at the bar, and the most mature deliberation by the court, the learned and excellent judge who then presided, and who was no less distinguished by his humanity and tenderness towards persons tried before him, than by his extensive knowledge and great talents as a lawyer, pronounced the opinion of himself and his colleague, "that to resist or prevent by force, the execution of a particular law of the United States, does amount to levying war against them, within the true meaning of the constitution, and does therefore constitute the crime of treason;" thereby adding the weight of another and more solemn decision, to the precedent which had been established in the above mentioned cases of Vigol and Mitchell.
Under this opinion of the court on the question of law, the jury, having no doubt as to the facts, found the said John Fries guilty of treason, on the above mentioned indictment. But a new trial was granted by the court, not by reason of any doubt as to the correctness of the decision on the question of law, but solely on the ground, as this respondent hath understood and believes, that one of the jurors of the petit jury, after he was summoned, but before he was sworn on the trial, had made some declaration unfavorable to the prisoner.
The yellow fever having appeared in Philadelphia in the summer of the year 1799, the above mentioned Richard Peters, then district judge of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, did according to law appoint the next circuit court of that district, to be held at Norris Town therein: Pursuant to which appointment, a circuit court was held at Norris Town aforesaid, in and for the said district, on the 11th day of October in the last mentioned year before Bushrod Washington, Esq. then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States & the above mentioned Richard Peters; at which court no proceedings were had on the aforesaid indictment against John Fries, because, as this respondent hath been informed and believes, the commission of the marshal of the said district had expired, before he summoned the jurors to attend at the said court, and had not been renewed; by reason of which no legal panel of jurors could be formed.
On the 11th day of April, A. D. 1800, & from that day until the 2d day of May in the same year, a circuit court of the United States was held at Philadelphia, in and for the district of Pennsylvania, before this respondent, then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, and the above mentioned Richard Peters, then district judge of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania. At this court, the indictment on which the said John Fries had been convicted as above mentioned, was quashed ex officio by William Rawle, Esq. then attorney of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, & a new indictment was by him preferred against the said John Fries, for treason of levying war against the United States, by resisting and preventing by force, in the manner above set forth, the execution of the above mentioned acts of Congress, for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses and the enumeration of slaves, and for levying and collecting a direct tax.
This indictment, of which a true copy marked exhibit No. 1, is herewith exhibited by this respondent, who prays that it may be taken as part of his answer, being found by the grand jury on the 16th day of April, 1800, the said John Fries was on the same day arraigned thereon, and plead not guilty. William Lewis, and Alexander James Dallas, Esqrs. the same persons who had conducted his defence at his former trial, were again at his request assigned to the court as his counsel; and his trial was appointed to be had, on Tuesday the 22d day of the last mentioned month of April.
After this indictment was found by the grand jury, this respondent considered it with great care and deliberation, and finding, from the three overt acts of treason which it charged, that the question of law arising upon it, was the same question which had already been decided twice in the same court, on solemn argument & deliberation, and one in that very case, he considered the law as settled by those decisions, with the correctness of which on full consideration he was entirely satisfied; and by the authority of which he should have deemed himself bound, even had he regarded the question as doubtful in itself. They are moreover in perfect conformity with the uniform tenor of decisions in the courts of England and Great Britain, from the revolution, in 1688, to the present time, which in his opinion, added greatly to their weight and authority.
And surely he need not urge to this honorable court, the correctness, the importance, and the absolute necessity of adhering to principles of law once established, and of considering the law as finally settled, after repeated and solemn decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction. A contrary principle would unsettle the basis of our whole system of jurisprudence, hitherto our safeguard and our best; would reduce law of the land, and subject the rights of the citizen, to the arbitrary will, the passions, or the caprice of the judge in each particular case; and would substitute the varying opinions of various men, instead of that fixed, permanent rule, in which the very essence of the law consists. If this respondent erred in regarding this point as settled, by the repeated and solemn adjudications of his predecessors, in the same court and in the same case; if he erred in supposing, that a principle established by two solemn decisions, was obligatory upon him, sitting in the same court where those decisions had been made; if he erred in believing that it would be the highest presumption in him, to set up his opinion and judgment over that of his colleague, who had twice decided the same question, and of two of his predecessors, who justly rank among the ablest judges that have ever adorned a court; if in all this he erred, it is an error of which he cannot be ashamed, and which he trusts will not be deemed criminal in the eyes of this honorable court, of his country, or of that posterity by which he, his accusers, and his judges, must one day be judged.
Under the influence of these considerations, this respondent drew up an opinion on the law, arising from the overt acts stated in the said indictment, which was conformable to the decisions before given as above mentioned, and which he sent to his colleague the said Richard Peters, for his consideration. That gentleman returned it to this respondent, with some amendments affecting the form only, but not in any manner touching the substance.
The opinion thus agreed to, this respondent thought it proper to communicate to the prisoner's counsel—several reasons concurred in favor of this communication.
In the first place, this respondent considered himself and the court, as bound by the authority of the former decisions; especially the last of them, which was on the same case. He considered the law as settled, and had every reason to believe that his colleague viewed it in the same light. It was not suggested or understood, that any new evidence was to be offered; and he knew that if any should be offered, which could vary the case, it would render wholly inapplicable both the opinion and the former decisions on which it was founded. And he could not and did not suppose, that the prisoner's counsel would be desirous of wasting very precious time, in addressing to the court an offset argument, on a point which last court held itself precluded from deciding in their favor. He therefore conceived that it would be rendering the counsel a service and a favor, to apprise them before hand of the view which the court had taken of the subject; to as to let them
see in time, the necessity of endeavoring to produce new testimony, which might vary the case, and take it out of the authority of former decisions.
Secondly, There were more than one hundred civil causes then depending in the said court, as appears by the exhibit marked No. 1, which this respondent prays may be taken as part of his answer. Many of these causes had already been subjected to great delay, and it was the peculiar duty of this respondent, as presiding judge, to take care, that as little time as possible should be unnecessarily consumed, and that every convenient and proper dispatch should be given to the business of the citizens. He did believe, that an early communication of the court's opinion, might tend to the saving of time, and consequently to the dispatch of business.
Thirdly, As the court held itself bound by the former decisions, and could not therefore alter its opinion in consequence of any argument; and as it was the duty of the court to charge the jury on the law, in all cases submitted to their consideration, he knew that this opinion must not only be made known at some period or other of the trial, but must at the end of the trial be expressly delivered to the jury by him, in a charge from the bench: and he could not suppose and cannot yet imagine, that an opinion, which was to be thus solemnly given in charge to the jury, at the close of the trial, could make any additional impression on their minds, from the circumstance of its being intimated to the counsel before the trial began, in the hearing of those who might be afterwards sworn on the jury.
And, lastly, it was then his opinion, and still is, that it is the duty of every court of this country, and was his duty on the trial now under consideration, to guard the jury against erroneous impressions respecting the laws of the land. He well knows, that it is the right of juries in criminal cases, to give a general verdict of acquittal, which cannot be set aside on account of its being contrary to law, and that hence results the power of juries, to decide on the law as well as on the facts, in all criminal cases. This power he holds to be a sacred part of our legal privileges, which he never has attempted, and never will attempt to abridge or to obstruct. But he also knows, that in the exercise of this power, it is the duty of the jury to govern themselves by the laws of the land, over which they have no dispensing power; and their right to expect and receive from the court, all the assistance which it can give, for rightly understanding the law. To withhold this assistance, in any manner whatever; to forbear to give it in that way, which may be most effectual for preserving the jury from error, and mistake; would be an abandonment or forgetfulness of duty, which no judge could justify to his conscience or to the laws. In this case, therefore, where the question of law arising on the indictment, had been finally settled by authoritative decisions, it was the duty of the court, and especially on this respondent as presiding judge, early to apprise the counsel and the jury of these decisions, and their effect, to as to save the former from the danger of making an improper attempt, to mislead the jury in a matter of law, and the jury from having their minds pre-occupied by erroneous impressions.
It was for these reasons, that on the 22d day of April 1800, when the said John Fries was brought into court, and placed in the prisoners' box for trial, but before the petit jury was impanelled to try him, this respondent informed the above mentioned William Lewis, one of his counsel, the aforesaid Alexander James Dallas not being then in court, "that the court had deliberately considered the indictment against John Fries for treason, and the three several overt acts of treason stated therein: That the crime of treason was defined by the constitution of the United States: That as the federal legislature had the power to make, alter, or repeal laws, so the judiciary only had the power, and it was their duty, to declare, expound and interpret the constitution and laws of the United States: That it was the duty of the court, in all criminal cases, to state to the petit jury, their opinion of the law arising on the facts; but that the jury in all criminal cases were to decide both the law and the facts, on a consideration of the whole case: That there must be some constructive expression of the terms used in the constitution, "levying war against the United States;" That the question, what acts amounted to levying war against the United States, or the government thereof, was a question of

law, and had been decided by judges Patterson and Peters, in the case of Vigol and Mitchell, and by judges Iredell and Peters, in the case of John Fries, prisoner at the bar, in April 1799: That judge Peters remained of the same opinion, which he had twice before delivered, and he, this respondent, on long and great consideration, concurred in the opinion of judges Patterson, Iredell, and Peters: That to prevent unnecessary delay, and to save time on the trial of John Fries, and to prevent a delay of justice, in the great number of civil causes depending for trial at that term, the court had drawn up in writing, their opinion of the law, arising on the overt acts, stated in the indictment against John Fries; and had directed David Caldwell their Clerk, to make out three copies of their opinion, one to be delivered to the attorney of the district, one to the counsel for the prisoner, and one to the petit jury, after they should have been impanelled and heard the indictment read to them by the clerk, & after the district attorney should have stated to them the law on the overt acts alleged in the indictment, as it appeared to him."
After these observations, this respondent delivered one of the above mentioned copies to the aforesaid William Lewis, then attending as one of the prisoner's counsel; who read part of it, and then laid it down on the table before him. Some observations were then made on the subject, by him and the abovementioned Alexander James Dallas, who had then come into court; but this respondent doth not now recollect those observations, and cannot undertake to state them accurately.
And this respondent further saith, that the paper marked exhibit No. 2, and herewith exhibited, which he prays leave to make part of this his answer, is a true copy of the original opinion, drawn up by him and concurred in by the said Richard Peters, as above set forth, which original opinion is now in the possession of this respondent, ready to be produced to this honorable court. He may have erred in forming this opinion, and in the time and manner of making it known to the counsel for the prisoner. If he erred in forming it, he erred in common with his colleague and with two of his predecessors; and he presumes to hope that an error which has never been deemed criminal in them, will not be imputed as a crime to him, who was led into it by their example and their authority. If he erred in the time and manner of making known this opinion, he feels a just confidence, that when the reasons which he has alleged for his conduct, and by which it seemed to him to be fully justified, shall come to be carefully weighed, they will be sufficient to prove, if not that this conduct was perfectly regular & correct, yet that he might, sincerely have considered it as right; and that in a case where so much doubt may exist, to have committed a mistake, is not to have committed a crime.
And this respondent further answering, saith, that the opinion thus delivered to the prisoner's counsel; viz. that "any insurrection or riot of any body of people within the United States, for the purpose of resisting or preventing by force or violence, under any pretence whatever, the execution of any statute of the United States, for levying or collecting taxes, or for any other object of a general or national concern, is levying war against the United States, within the contemplation and true meaning of the constitution of the United States," is a legal and correct opinion, supported not only by the two previous decisions above mentioned, but also by the plainest principles of law and reason, and by the uniform tenor of legal adjudications in England and Great Britain, from the revolution in 1688 to this time. It ever was, and now is his opinion, that the peace and safety of the national federal government, must be endangered, by any other construction of the terms "levying war against the United States," used by the federal constitution; and he is confident that no judge of the federal government, no judge of a superior state court, nor any gentleman of established reputation for legal knowledge, would or could deliberately give a contrary opinion.
If however this opinion were erroneous, this respondent would be far less censurable than his predecessors, by whose example he was led astray, and by whose authority he considered himself bound. Was it an error to consider himself bound by the authority of their previous decisions? If it were, he was led into the error by the uniform course of judicial proceedings, in this country and in England, and is supported in it, by one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence. Can such an error be a crime or misdemeanor.
If, on the other hand, the opinion be in itself correct, as he believes and insists that it is, could the expression of a correct opinion on the law, wherever and however made, mislead the jury, infringe their rights, or give an improper bias to their judgment? Could truth excite improper prejudice? Could the jury be less prepared to hear the law discussed, and to decide on it correctly, because it was correctly stated to them
by the court? And is not that a new kind of offence, in this country at least, which consists in telling the truth, and giving a correct exposition of the law.
As to the second specific charge advanced in support of the first article of impeachment, which accuses this respondent, "of restricting the counsel for the said Fries, from recurring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client," this respondent admits that he did, on the above mentioned trial, express it as his opinion to the aforesaid counsel for the prisoner, "that the decisions in England, in cases of indictments for treason at common law, against the person of the king, ought not to be read to the jury, on trials for treason under the constitution and statutes of the United States; because such decisions could not inform, but might mislead and deceive the jury: that any decisions on cases of treason, in the courts of England, before the revolution of 1688, ought to have very little influence in the courts of the United States; that he would permit decisions in the courts of England or of Great Britain, since the said revolution, to be read to the court or jury, for the purpose of showing what acts have been considered by those courts, as a constructive levying of war against the king of that country, in his regal capacity, but not against his person; because levying war against his government, was of the same nature as levying war against the government of the United States: but that such decisions, nevertheless, were not to be considered as authorities binding on the courts and juries of this country, but merely in the light of opinions entitled to great respect as having been delivered after full consideration, by men of great legal learning and ability."
These are the opinions which he did, on that occasion, deliver to the counsel for the prisoner, and which he then thought, and still thinks, it was his duty to deliver. The counsellors admitted to practice in any court of justice, are, in his opinion, and according to universal practice, to be considered as officers of such courts and ministers of justice therein, and as such, subject to the direction and control of the court, as to their conduct in its presence, and in conducting the defence of criminals on trial before it. As counsel, they owe to the person accused, diligence, fidelity, and secrecy, and to the court and jury, due and correct information, according to the best of their knowledge and ability, on every matter of law which they attempt to advance in argument. The court, on the other hand, hath power, and is bound in duty, to decide and direct what evidence, whether by record or by precedents of decisions in courts of justice, is proper to be admitted for the establishment of any matter of law or fact. Consequently, should counsel attempt to read to a jury, as a law still in force, a statute which had been repealed, or a decision which had been reversed, or the judgements of courts in countries whose laws have no connection with ours, it would be the duty of the court to interpose, and prevent such an imposition from being practised on the jury. For these reasons, this respondent thinks that his conduct was correct, in expressing to the counsel for Fries, the opinions stated above. He is not bound to answer here for the correctness of those principles, though he thinks them incontestable; but merely for the correctness of his motives in delivering them. A contrary opinion would convert this honorable court, from a court of impeachment into a court of appeals; and would lead directly to the strange absurdity, that whenever the judgment of an inferior court should be reversed on appeal or writ of error, the judges of that court must be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, and turned out of office; that error in judgment is a punishable offence, and that crimes may be committed without any criminal intention. Against a doctrine so absurd and mischievous, so contrary to every notion of justice hitherto entertained, so utterly subversive of all that part of our system of jurisprudence, which has been wisely and humanely established for the protection of innocence, this respondent deems it his duty now, and on every fit occasion, to enter his protest and lift up his voice; and he trusts that in the discharge of this duty, infinitely more important to his country than to himself, he shall find approbation and support in the heart of every American, of every man throughout the world, who knows the blessings of civil liberty, or respects the principles of universal justice.
It is only then, for the correctness of his motives in delivering these opinions, that he can now be called to answer; & this correctness ought to be presumed, unless the contrary appear by some direct proof, or by some violent presumption arising from his general conduct on the trial, or from the glaring impropriety of the opinion itself. For he admits that cases may be supposed, of an opinion delivered by a judge so palpably erroneous, unjust and oppressive, as to preclude
the possibility of its having proceeded from ignorance or mistake.
Do the opinions now under consideration bear any of these marks? This honorable court need not be informed that there has existed in England, no such thing as treason at common law, since the year 1350, when the statute of the 25th Edward III, chap. 2, declaring what alone should in future be judged treason, was passed. It is perfectly clear that decisions made before that statute, 450 years ago, when England, together with the rest of Europe, was still wrapped in the deepest gloom of ignorance and barbarism; when the system of English jurisprudence was still in its infancy; when law, justice and reason, were perpetually trampled under foot by feudal oppression and feudal anarchy; when, under an able and vigorous monarch, every thing was adjudged to be treason which he thought fit to call so, and under a weak one, nothing was considered as treason which turbulent, powerful, and rebellious nobles thought fit to perpetrate: is it perfectly clear that decisions, made at such a time, and under such circumstances, ought to be received by the courts of this country as authorities to govern their decisions, or lights to guide the understanding of juries? Is it perfectly clear that decisions made in England, on the subject of treason, before the revolution of 1688, by which alone the balance of the English constitution was adjusted, and the English liberties were fixt on a firm basis; decisions made either during the furious civil wars, in which two rival families contended for the crown; when in the vicissitudes of war, death and confiscation in the forms of law, continually walked in the train of the victors, and actions were treasonable or praiseworthy, according to the preponderance of the party by whose adherents they were perpetrated; during the reigns of three able and arbitrary monarchs, who succeeded this dreadful conflict, and relaxed or invigorated the law of treason, according to their anger, their policy, or their caprice; or during those terrible struggles between the principles of liberty, not yet well defined or understood, on one hand, and arbitrary power, insinuating itself under the forms of the constitution, on the other; struggles which presented at some times the wildest anarchy, at others, the extremes of servile submission, and after having brought one king to the scaffold, ended in the expulsion of another from his throne? Is it clear that decisions on the law of treason, made in times like these, ought not only to be received as authorities in the courts of this country, but also to have great influence on their decisions? Is it clear that decisions made in England, as to what acts will amount to levying war against the king, personally, and not against his government, are applicable to the constitution and laws of this country? Is it clear that such English decisions on the subject of treason, as are applicable to our constitution and laws, are to be received in our courts, not merely as the opinions of learned and able men, which may enlighten their judgment, but as authorities which ought to govern absolutely their decisions? Is all this so clear, that a judge could not honestly and sincerely have thought the contrary? That he could not have expressed an opinion to the contrary without corrupt or improper motives? It is not thus clear, then must it be admitted that this respondent, sincerely and honestly, and in the best of his judgment, considered these decisions as wholly inadmissible, or admissible only for the purposes and to the extent which he pointed out.
And if he did so consider them, was it not his duty to prevent them from being read to the jury, except under those restrictions, and for those purposes? Would his duty permit him to sit silently, and see the jury imposed on and misled? To sit silently and hear a book read to them as containing the law, which he knew did not contain the law? Such silence would have rendered him a party to the deception, and would have justly subjected him to all the contempt, which a conscientious and courageous discharge of his duty, has so unmercifully brought on his name.
With respect to the statutes of the United States, which he is charged with having prevented the prisoner's counsel from citing on the aforesaid trial, he denies that he prevented any act of Congress from being cited, either to the court or jury, on the said trial; or declared at any time, that he would not permit the prisoner's counsel to read to the jury, or to the court, any act of Congress whatever. Nor does he remember or believe, that he expressed on the said trial, any disapprobation of the conduct of the circuit court before whom the said case was first tried, in permitting the act of Congress relating to crimes less than treason, commonly called the sedition act, to be read to the jury. He admits indeed that he was then and still is of opinion, that the said act of Congress was wholly irrelevant to the issue, in the trial of John Fries, and therefore ought not to have been read to the jury, or regarded by them. This opinion may be erroneous,
but he trusts that the following reasons on which it was founded, will be considered by this honorable court, as sufficiently strong to render it possible, and even probable, that such an opinion might be sincerely held and honestly expressed:—1st, That Congress did not intend by the sedition law, to define the crime of treason by levying war. Treason and sedition are crimes very distinct in their nature, and subject to very different punishments; the former by death, and the latter by fine and imprisonment. 2dly, The sedition law makes a combination or conspiracy, with intent to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or the advising or attempting to procure any insurrection or riot, a high misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment; but a combination or conspiracy with intent to prevent the execution of a law, or with intent to raise an insurrection for that purpose, or even with intent to commit treason, is not treason by "levying war" against the U. States, unless it be followed by an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into effect, by actual force or violence. 3dly, The constitution of the United States is the fundamental and supreme law, and having defined the crime of treason, Congress could not give any legislative interpretation or exposition of that crime, or of the part of the constitution by which it is defined. 4thly, The judicial authority of the United States, is alone vested with power to expound their constitution and laws.
And this respondent further answering, saith, that after the above mentioned proceedings had taken place in the said trial, it was postponed until the next day, Wednesday, April 23, 1800; when at the meeting of the court, this respondent told both the above mentioned counsel for the prisoner, "that to prevent any misunderstanding of anything that had passed the day before, he would inform them, that although the court retained the same opinion of the law, arising on the overt acts charged in the indictment against Fries, yet the counsel would be permitted to offer arguments to the court, for the purpose of showing them that they were mistaken in the law; and that the court, if satisfied that they had erred in opinion, would correct it; and also that the counsel would be permitted to argue before the petit jury, that the court were mistaken in the law." And this respondent added, that the court had given no opinion as to the facts in the case, about which both the counsel had declared that there would be no controversy.
After some observations by the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, they both declared to the court, "that they did not any longer consider themselves as the counsel for John Fries the prisoner. This respondent then asked the said John Fries, whether he wished the court to appoint other counsel for his defence? He refused to have other counsel assigned; in which he acted, as this respondent believes and charges, by the advice of the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, whereupon the court ordered the said trial to be had on the next day, Thursday, the 24th of April, 1800.
On that day the trial was proceeded in; and before the jurors were sworn, they were, by the direction of the court, severally asked on oath, whether they were in any way related to the prisoner, and whether they had ever formed or delivered any opinion as to his guilt or innocence, or that he ought to be punished? Three of them answering in the affirmative, were withdrawn from the panel. The said John Fries was then informed by the court, that he had a right to challenge thirty-five of the jury, without showing any cause of challenge against them, and as many more as he could show cause of challenge against. He did accordingly challenge peremptorily thirty four of the jury, and the trial proceeded. In the evening, the court adjourned till the next day, Friday, the 25th of April; when after the district attorney had stated the principal facts proved by the witnesses, and had applied the law to those facts, this respondent, with the concurrence of his colleague, the said Richard Peters, delivered to the jury the charge contained and expressed in exhibit marked No. 3, and herewith filed, which he prays may be taken as part of this his answer.
Immediately after the petit jury had delivered their verdict, this respondent informed the said Fries, from the Bench, that if he, or any person for him, could show any legal ground, or sufficient cause to arrest the judgment, ample time would be allowed him for that purpose. But no cause being shown, sentence of death was passed on the said Fries, on Tuesday the 2d day of May, 1800, the last day of the term; and he was afterwards pardoned by John Adams, then President of the United States.
And this respondent further answering, saith, that if the two instances of misconduct, first stated in support of the general charge, contained in the first article of impeachment, were true as alleged, yet the inference drawn from them viz. "that the said Fries was thereby deprived of the benefit of counsel for
his defence," is not true. He insists that the said Fries was deprived of the benefit of counsel, not by any misconduct of this respondent, but by the conduct and advice of the above mentioned William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, who having been, with their own consent, assigned by the court as counsel for the prisoner, withdrew from his defence, and advised him to refuse other counsel when offered to him by the court, under pretence that the law had been prejudged, and their liberty of conducting the defence, according to their own judgment improperly restricted by this respondent; but in reality because they knew the law and the facts to be against them, and the dispossessing themselves under this pretence, might excite odium against the court, might give rise to an opinion that the prisoner had not been fairly tried; and in the event of a conviction, which from their knowledge of the law and the facts they knew to be almost certain, might aid the prisoner in an application to the President for a pardon. That such was the real motive of the said prisoner's counsel, for depriving their client of legal assistance on this trial, this respondent is fully persuaded, and expects to make appear, not only from the circumstances of the case, but from their own frequent and public declarations.
WASHINGTON CITY. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11. HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8.
The court opened precisely at 12 o'clock.
Present, the Managers, and House of Representatives in committee of the whole:—and,
Mr. Chase, and his counsel, Messrs. Martin, Harper, Hopkinson, and Key.
The cryer, having, agreeably to a prescribed form, notified all those concerned to come forward and make good the charges exhibited against Samuel Chase:—
Mr. J. Randolph, the leading manager, requested that the witnesses, on the part of the prosecution, might be called, to ascertain who were present.
They were accordingly called, to the number of twenty-four, as follows:— those who answered are marked (p)—and those absent (a.)
Alexander James Dallas, p William Lewis, p William Rawle, p William S. Biddle, p Edward Tilghman, p George Read, p James Lea, a John Crow, a Richard Bishop, a John Montgomery, p John Stephen, p Aquila Hall, a Philip Stewart, a John Thompson Mason, p Samuel H. Smith, p Thomas Hall, a John Taylor, p George Hay, p Philip Norborne Nicholas, a William Wirt, p John Harvie, a Meriwether Jones, a John Heath, p James Pleasants, a
Fourteen being present, and ten absent. Of those marked absent, we understand that Philip N. Nicholas is in the city.
Mr. J. Randolph observed, that various considerations, which it was unnecessary to detail, induced him, on behalf of the managers, to move a postponement of the trial till to-morrow, when they hoped to be prepared to proceed therewith.
Mr. Harper said that, on behalf of Judge Chase, he would not object to the motion.
The President informed the Managers, that the Senate acceded to their request and added that the Senate would attend to-morrow at 12 o'clock for the purpose of proceeding with the trial.
At the request of Mr. Harper, the witnesses on the part of Judge Chase were called over, to the number of forty-one, as follows:—those present are marked (p)—and those absent (a.)
Witnesses summoned by Judge Chase: William M. Randall, p David M. Randolph, p Edmund Randolph, a John A. Chevale, p

Robert Gamble, a John Marshall, p John Bassett, p Cyrus Griffin, pick David Robertson, p J. C. Barrett, dead John Hopkins, not found Philip Gooch, not found William Minor, not found James Winchester, p Philip Moore, a Cornelius C.megys, a John Purviance, p Thomas Chafe, p John Stewart, a William Rawle, p Gunning Bedford, p Nicholas Vandyke, p Archibald Hamilton, p Samuel P. Moore, p William C. Frazier, p Edward Tilghman, p Wm. Meredith, p Jasey Ige, p Samuel Wheeler, not found Samuel Ewing, p Walter Dorley, p James P. Boyd, p Nicholas Brice, p Wm. M. Meigs, p William H. Wyndler, p William Gwyn, p William J. Givane, p Edward J. Coale, a John Hall, Jun, p Thomas Carpenter, p  Twenty-seven being present, and thirteen absent, of those marked absent, Edward J. Coale is in the city. Whereupon the court rose.
passed 21st December, 1804, entitled an act to authorise the city council of Charleston with the consent of Congress to impose and levy a duty on the tonnage of ships and vessels for the purposes therein mentioned, which was received, read, and ordered to be referred to a committee of five, that they examine the matter thereof and report the same with their opinion thereupon to the House.  A message from the Senate by Mr. Ouis their secretary, informing that they had concurred in the bill making provision for the support of the military establishment for the year 1805, with an amendment to which they request the concurrence of the House.  Another message was received from the Senate by Mr. Ouis their secretary, informing that they had passed a bill for the adjustment of titles and claims to land in the district of Orleans in the territory of Louisiana, to which they request the concurrence of the House.  The house having resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Gen. Varnum in the chair, the committee attended in the Senate Chamber on the prosecution of the impeachment against Samuel Chase, and after returning to their chamber, the committee rose and reported accordingly.  The House then went into a committee of the whole on the report of the committee of Claims, on the petition of Alexander Scott, respecting the slaves taken by the Cherokee Indians, in 1794. Mr. Dawson in the chair.  After some time spent in considering the same, the committee rose and reported their concurrence in the report of the committee of Claims, that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition and the documents accompanying the same. The report was agreed to by the House, on a division, 55 in favor, and 24 against it.  Mr. Richards reported from the committee of enrollment that they had examined the bill concerning the manner of surveying the public land of the United States, and found the same duly enrolled.  The engrossed bill to appropriate a sum of money for the purpose of building gun boats was read the third time and passed.  Mr. Morrow reported from the committee appointed for the purpose, a bill making provision for the disposal of the public lands in the Indiana territory, & for other purposes, which was read twice and referred to a committee of the whole on Monday.  Mr. Southard said it would be well recollected by the House, that during the last session of Congress, a resolution was introduced into the House, which had for its object, the imposing of a tax of ten dollars on every slave imported into the United States.  A bill predicated on that resolution was brought in, but was postponed, and not finally acted on. Mr. S. said he had waited with an expectation, that some other member would have brought the subject again before the House, but as no member had thought proper to do it, and the session is drawing towards a close, he would move the following resolution.  Resolved, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed on every slave imported into the United States.  Referred to a committee of the whole on Monday next.  Mr. Crowninshield presented a petition from Daniel Clarke of Salem, Mass. stating that in the year 1801, he loaded a schooner for Sr. Jago de Cuba, where the captain died, and the American consul, Mr. Blakely, took possession of the property, and has never accounted with him for the same, that he afterwards commenced a suit at law against the surety of the consul, in New-York, which terminated unfavorably from a mere informality in the bond given to the U. States. The petitioner prays for relief. Referred to the committee of Claims.  Mr. Crowninshield reported from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, on the bill for carrying into more complete effect, the 10th article of the treaty of friendship limits and navigation with Spain, with the amendments of the Senate. The report recommended an agreement to the bill as amended, to which the House concurring, the bill is finally passed.
to obey the orders which he has given me, in a way that showed it was not his intention that the slightest modification should have place either in the mode of transmitting them to you, or in the execution of them, I discharge my duty in notifying to you his resolution that no money shall be advanced on the order of citizen Jerome.  He has received orders, in his capacity of Lieutenant of the fleet, to come back to France by the first French frigate that was returning thither; and the execution of this order, on which the First Consul insists, in the most positive manner, can alone regain him his affection.  But what the First Consul has prescribed me, above every thing, is to order you to prohibit all Captains of French vessels, from receiving on board the young person with whom the Citizen Jerome has connected himself, it being his intention that she shall by no means come into France—and his will, that should she arrive, she be not suffered to land, but be sent back immediately to the United States.  After having thus notified to you those intentions of the First Consul, and having ordered you to attend to the arrangements he has made, it remains for me to invite you to employ, for the perpetuation of the Citizen Jerome, every expedient which your wisdom, your prudence, and excellent judgment shall suggest. I have written him to this purpose, and have represented to him, that the glorious and brilliant career to which his destiny calls him, requires of him a necessary sacrifice, due also to his interest, his personal glory, and the designs of the Hero to whom he has the honor to be related. Explain to him, that having been absent for several years, he little knows the First Consul, whose inflexibility can be compared to nothing but the vastness of his conceptions.—Cherishing important and profound meditations, he considers himself as having no family but the French People; every thing unconnected with the glory and happiness of France, is indifferent to him. In proportion as he delights in exalting and honoring those of his relations who participate those sentiments with him, does he feel coldness for those who do not partake them, or who walk in a different path from that which his genius has traced out for himself. Unwearied fabricator of his own glory, he bewails in secret that he sees not his example followed with the same perseverance by those of his own blood; he is indignant at the obstacles thrown in his way by what he calls their effeminacy; and he declares against beholding them otherwise engaged than in following the steps of his career.  Citizen Joseph, his eldest brother, distinguished by the eminent services he has rendered in his Council, by diplomatic meditations and labors known to all Europe, by the treaties he has concluded, invested with the senatorial robe, and of the first rank in the legion of honor, has seemed to him not yet sufficiently clothed with glory, and wishing to crown him with that for which every one may find instruments in perils, hardships and genius, he has just given him one of the regiments which are to bear into England the National vengeance.  General Louis, General of Division, known until now by military glory, is about to add to it that of the Statesman, and has been just admitted into the Council Section of Legislation.  Citizen Lucien, with the reputation of past conduct, and a fortune perfectly independent, has formed connections repugnant to the views of the First Consul; and the consequence is, that he has just quitted France, and that, obliged to abandon the Theatre of the Glory of his own family, he has exiled himself to Rome, where he becomes the simple spectator of the destinies of his august Brother and the Empire.  These examples will inform Jerome what his brother expects of him, & what he may expect from his brother. Young as yet, & of an age at which the laws authorise not a marriage to which relations have not consented, he has indirectly and rashly contracted one (these are the Consul's words;) he has abandoned the labors which the country required of him; yielding to an irrational passion, he has, without doubt, acted grievously wrong, but his youth shall be suffered to plead his excuse, provided he is wise enough not to disobey the voice which calls him.  Alhamed of his indolence, too long protracted, let him seize the first occasion of returning to share those labors whereof he should have given an example, and he will recover his brother in the head of the State—it is the only means to consecrate the ties which unite them.  As his friend, as devoted to his family, as his superintendant, in fine, in the career which he has embraced, I have a right to expect a quiet hearing from Jerome, and I entreat he will execute the orders he has received, and follow my advice: I see his brother every day, and if I give him no prospect of bending that brother, by a different conduct, it is because, in truth, I have perceived that he is in this respect inflexible.  Jerome is, wrong, said he to me, to fancy that he will find in me affections
that will yield to his weakness; the relation in which I stand to him does not admit of parental condescension, for, not possessing the authority of a father over him, I cannot feel for him a father's affection. A father is blind, and takes a pleasure in blinding himself, because his son & he are identified. They have given and received so much, reciprocally, that they form but one person; but, as to me, what am I to Jerome? What identity can subsist between us? Sole fabricator of my destiny, I owe nothing to my brothers. In what I have done for glory, they have found means to reap for themselves an abundant harvest; but they must not on that account abandon the field where there is something to be reaped. They must not leave me insulated and deprived of the aid and services which I have a right to expect from them. They cease to be any thing to me if they press not around my person, and if they follow a path that is opposite to mine. If I require so much from those of my brothers who have already rendered to many services, if I completely abandon him, who in maturer years has though proper to withdraw himself from my direction, what has Jerome to expect? So young, as yet, and only known by forgetfulness of his duties, assuredly if he does nothing for me, I see it in the decree of fate, which has determined that I ought to do nothing for him.  This is what the hero hath laid and repeated to me in divers conversations. The solemnity of those confidential communications he has condescended to make to me on this subject, has struck me, and I repose them in your bosom, that you may seize the moment and the manner of impressing them on Jerome. What gratitude will be now owe to you if you succeed in persuading him. I know not what degree of resistance you will experience, but let him be well persuaded that it is more from personal attachment than from that duty, that I insist with him on such details. My duty might be limited to transmitting to him the orders and arrangements of the First Consul, but this long effusion can proceed from no other motive but my friendship for him. The Consul would end by forgetting him, and he is occupied by so many great objects, that this oblivion, painful at first, would settle into habit—and this is what I fear.  If the delirium of the passion should render him inaccessible to the voice of reason, you have only one thing to represent to him, which is, that the passions cease, or at least decline, and that in this case the consequence would be endless. Jerome is very young, his life will be long, and I, who know his brother much better than he himself knows him, am certain, that should he not comply with his wishes, he is storing up for himself the most poignant regret.  Moreover, if, unfortunately for Jerome, he should prolong his stay in the United States during the war, if peace should be made before his return, what a grief for him to have passed with a woman a season of dangers. And what regret does he not prepare, even for the woman herself, when humbled by his obscurity, he shall one day impune to her, were it even involuntarily and secretly, at the bottom of his heart, the indolent part to which he shall have been reduced by the passion wherewith she inspired him.  And even if he loves this woman, let him learn, for her sake, to quit her.—Let him return and keep near his brother—he will give him credit for the sacrifice; and from the sentiments of good will and friendship which will thence result, it has not forbidden him to conceive hopes. But let him not bring her along with him; be her accomplishments what they may they would produce no effect, for most assuredly the order is given to prevent her landing, and it would be fresh trouble, and a disobedience too gross of the orders of the First Consul to have any other effect than an irritation extremely unpleasant for what is and ought to be most dear to the heart of Jerome.  I repeat to you, Citizen, I recommend the object of this letter to your careful attention, and to your solid judgement, as to the use you shall make of it; I have entered into no detail on the nature of the illegality of the connexion in question, because I treat this affair in a sentimental manner merely; but I have some difficulty to conceive how the father of the young person hath brought himself to yield to an union; reprobated by our laws, and which the dignity of Jerome's family required should be very maturely considered before it was consented to.  (Signed) DECRETS.
and the career of glory that call upon him.  This day is Published, BY SAMUEL H. SMITH. And for Sale at Ropine's Book-store, PRICE ONE DOLLAR AND A QUARTER.  ADDRESSES OF THE Successive Presidents OF THE UNITED STATES TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, At the opening of each Session, with their answers; from the commencement of the present government to January 1, 1805. Together with the Inaugural Addresses during the same period, and the FAREWELL ADDRESS of George Washington. February 11—
From the solicitations, and at the earnest request of several friends, the Proprietor of the MYSTERY, is induced to postpone his departure until Saturday after- noon, when he positively leaves George town; those therefore who intend visiting this aston- ishing machine, will please to take the present opportunity, as it positively leaves this place, for the West Indies. Independent of its many performances, the proprietor assures the public that a sight of the machine alone will gratify them.  February 11—3t * To be seen at Mr. Knowles' opposite the Union Tavern, George town.
Tucker's Blackstone. May be had for the present at the subscription price of J. MARCH, George-town, Wm. Duane, and Rayne. Conrad & Co. city of Washington J. Kennedy, and Messrs. Gray—Alexandria—Mr. Brundidge, Dumfries—Mr. Henderson, Fredericksburg—Mr. S. Pleasants, and Mr. Prichard, Richmond—Bonafie, Conrad, and Co. Norfolk—Somerville, Conrad & Co. Petersburg—J. Bell, Winchester—J. Swape, Staunton—J. Alberts, and Wm. Somerville, Martinsburg—J. Gales, Raleigh—Bailey and Waller, Charlton—Conrad, & Co. G. Hill, S. Butler, Bon all, Warner and Hannah, Baltimore—the book stores generally in Philadelphia—Messrs. Swords, New York, and C. Bingham B. Ron. February 11—ep4w.
In the case of JOSEPH ENGLISH an Insolvent Debtor. ORDERED that six months from the first day of February next be limited and appointed for the creditors of said English to bring in and exhibit their claims to the Trustee. It is also ordered that this notice be published in the Washington Federalist and National Intelligencer once a month during said term.  By order of the honorable William Crauch, Esq. one of the Assistant Judges of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. URIAH FORSTER, Clk. 28th, January, 1805. The subscriber, being appointed Trustee in the above case of Joseph English requests all those having claims against him to exhibit them without delay. R. PARROTT. Feb. 11.—1am6m.
Charlotte-Hall School. THE Trustees having met this day according to adjournment; and, having considered the great increase of responsibility attached to the duties of the Principal from the flourishing state of the Institution, resolved to raise his salary to 1000 dollars per annum, they then proceeded, by ballot, to an election; and the Rev. George Ralph was unanimously chosen.  The Trustees acquaint the public of this arrangement and that the classes are now open. The Stewards house, also, has been fully repaired and every comfortable accommodation attended to, for the reception of boarders.  Terms for the present year. Tuition, twenty dollars per annum. Board, 23. 7. 6d. Maryland Currency. And 21. 10s. 0d. if bed and bedding be furnished. Payments to be made quarterly and one quarter a way in advance. (Signed.) By order. NEALE H. SHAW, Rog. Feb. 11.—5t
RUNAWAY NEGRO. WAS committed to the jail of Frederick county, on the 18th of October last, as a runaway, a negro man who calls himself, WILLIAM BLAKISTON, and says that he is a free man. He is 5 feet 6 inches high, and about 27 years of age. The clothes which he has on are a brown cloth coat, a wansdown waistcoat, dark cloth overalls, a tow linen shirt, and a wool hat. His owner is desired to come, prove property, pay charges and take him away, or he will be sold for his jail fees agreeably to law.  GEORGE CREAGER, Sheriff of Frederick county. November 16—1am8t
SATURDAY, FEB. 9, 1805. The court was opened precisely at 12 o'clock. PRESENT, the Managers, attended by the House of Representatives in committee of the whole; and Judge Chase, attended by his counsel, as mentioned in the proceedings of yesterday. At a quarter after 12 o'clock, Mr. J. Randolph, on behalf of the managers, opened the impeachment, and in a speech of about one hour and an half in duration presented a general view of the grounds on which it was intended to sustain the several charges exhibited in the articles of impeachment.  Evidence was then adduced in support of the allegations contained in the First article. William Lewis, of Philadelphia, was first examined, and after him, Alexander James Dallas, of the same place; when, at a quarter before 4 o'clock the Senate retired; the President intimating that the trial would be resumed on Monday at 12 o'clock.  [It being our intention to lay before the public in this paper a detailed statement of the proceedings in this important trial, as soon as it can be given with accuracy, we forbear, for the present, offering any sketch of arguments and evidence which, from its conciseness would necessarily be very imperfect and unsatisfactory.]  IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. Mr. Breckenridge in pursuance of instructions from the Legislature of Kentucky at the last session, to her Senators in Congress, laid on the table the following resolution which was read and ordered to lie for consideration.  Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several states, as an amendment to the constitution of the United States; which when ratified by three fourths of the said legislatures shall be valid as part of the said constitution, viz.  ARTICLE. "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to controversies between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under Grants of different states; and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, FEB. 8, 1805. Mr. Nicholson reported a bill supplementary to the act, entitled, an act concerning the district of Columbia, the same was referred to a committee of the whole for Monday.  Also another bill supplementary to the act more effectually to provide for organising the militia of the district of Columbia, which was read twice and referred to the committee of the whole for Monday.  Mr. Lowndes presented to the House the act of the state of South Carolina
From the London Morning Chronicle. JEROME BONAPARTE. THE MINISTER OF MARINE TO M. PICCHON, CONSULAR GENERAL AT NEW-YORK. Board of ———, Paris, the 30th Germinal. 12th Year of the French Republic (20th April, 1804.  I have taken the orders of the First Consul, Citizen, concerning the demand which you made on me for the appointment of an allowance to be granted to citizen Jerome Bonaparte; and bound
The example of Lucien cannot but divert Jerome from imitating his conduct: behold him separated from his brother; but this afflitive separation, afflictive for all the friends of their family, would have much more unpleasant consequences for Jerome, who has yet acquired no personal weight, no fortune, and whose property left behind at Paris has been employed, in part, to pay the bills he has drawn on France. But this motive is nothing in comparison of those more prevailing ones, of the duties

PROPOSALS
FOR
PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION,
A New Work on the principles of Steam Engines to be entitled,
Young Steam Engineer's GUIDE.
By OLIVER EVANS.
TO CONTAIN
A General description and investigation of the principles of the engines used in England where the steam, is used as an agent to form a vacuum, and to act with a power only equal to the weight of the atmosphere.
Also of the new and simple principle discovered by the author, of obtaining unlimited power, and working steam engines with a power equal to five or ten atmospheres, either against the pressure of the atmosphere in the most simple form, or with the use of a vacuum to take out that resistance; and to show why doubling the fuel on the new principle produces about sixteen times the power and effect.
Drawing of the simple and cheap, new form of engines suitable for producing and containing such great power in the least space, and with the least weight, to fit them for various purposes, for which no others would answer.
Tables of the size and proportions of engines of the different powers, from the power of one man to that of one hundred horses, to suit different purposes; with the assistance of a professional English steam engineer of long experience and great abilities, capable of communicating many secrets in the engineering art, that will render the work highly useful, and which are not to be found in any other work.
The author hopes to be able to shew, and demonstrate principles (part of which he has already in use) by the application of which, he can make engines at half the price of those heretofore used; not exceeding one fifth, or perhaps one tenth part of the weight to produce equal power, and which will not require more than one third, or one fourth part of the fuel and which will serve the great purposes of raising water to water our cities, of sawing timber, mahogany and marble stone, grinding malt, paints, chocolate, plaster and turning lathes, &c. in cities—sawing timber on or near navigable waters; grinding grain, drawing mices, working forges and furnaces, where water falls cannot be obtained—propelling boats against the stream, on all our rivers where hand oars are now used, and transporting heavy burdens on turnpike roads, with great advantages over the means by which these things have hitherto been done. He may also touch on several other mechanical and philosophical subjects which may lead to useful discoveries.
CONDITIONS.
The work shall be printed on good paper and neatly bound. But as it will be original and the subject abstruse, and will be extended no farther than the author may be enabled to proceed in, no estimate can be made of the expense of the engravings, nor of the price of the book. He can only say that it will be delivered to subscribers on the lowest terms that can be afforded; and should it exceed Four Dollars a copy, they shall be at liberty to refuse the work.
A list of the subscribers will be annexed. Subscribers for six copies shall receive the seventh gratis.
By virtue of an order from the Orphan's court of Calvert county [state of Maryland] I shall offer for sale on a credit of six months on bond with approved security, at the late dwelling of Benjamin Ward late of said county deceased. Two negro men, horses, cattle, sheep and hogs, with all the household and kitchen furniture, plantation utensils, and also corn, fodder, wheat, and the crop of tobacco now in the house. The sale of the above property will take place on Tuesday the 29th day of January 1805, (if fair or the first fair day thereafter) and commence at 11 o'clock in the forenoon. All persons having claims against the estate of the said Benjamin Ward, are requested to exhibit the same on the day of sale, or they will be excluded in a distribution; and all persons indebted to said estate are requested to make immediate payment to
ZACARIAH WARD, Admr. Calvert Co Jan 9—3w
CHARLES H VARDEN, MERCHANT TAYLOR.
Has received from Philadelphia a handsome assortment of FALL goods, consisting of the best London and French superfine cloths, cassimeres, patent Bennet's cord, toilettette, fancy and white Marseilles, black and figured silk, moleskins, fancy silk, Marseilles, constitution cords, velvets, Genoa cord, silk and satin Florentines, superfine coating, knapped cloths, with a variety of other articles suitable for the winter season. N. B. Ladies habits, regimentals, and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion. New Jersey avenue near the Capitol, December 10—tf
FOR SALE,
By virtue of a deed of trust, executed by Robert Ware Peacock, to the subscriber, for the purposes therein mentioned, will be exposed for sale, at Rhodes's tavern in the city of Washington, on Saturday the 2nd day of March next, at 4 o'clock P. M. for ready money, to the highest bidder, all the right and estate vested in me by virtue of a deed of trust from Robert Ware Peacock, bearing date the 22nd day of June 1804, to part of lot numbered one, in square numbered two hundred and ninety one in the plan of the city of Washington, with the Houses and improvements thereon. Possession to be given on or before the first day of April next ensuing.
JOHN DAVIDSON, Trustee. Washington city, Feb. 1—wtf
American Printed goods.
Calicoes, Shawls, Pocket Handkerchiefs, &c. manufactured by the subscribers near Baltimore, and sold at No. 13 Calvert street.
To remove that distrust often felt respecting new undertakings, and so prejudicial to manufacturing attempts in America, they think it proper to observe, that nothing is wanting in the business to enable good artists to perform their work here as well as in Europe. That they have these artists; that two of the partners were bred to the business in a factory of the best repute carried on by their father, long afterwards by themselves. They trust that while foreign goods are received without a question, an unreasonable suspicion will not prevent their countrymen from giving that trial to their goods, which only can prove their value. Besides a natural doubt, they know that certain interests, national as well as individual, will suggest objections to their undertaking. They have no difficulty in saying, that work of the like kind shall be as well executed here, as in other countries. The colors capable of being fixed, will be found as permanent; the cloths perhaps better substance, and the prices lower than of the imported cottons.
M C CULLOCH & LUNNUN, Baltimore, No. 13 Calvert Street. Sept 17—tf
ROBERT CHERRY.
Has removed his store, to the house of Mr. George Blagden New Jersey avenue on the Eastern Branch, where he has just received (in addition to his former stock) by the Schooner "Island" from Philadelphia a general assortment of groceries and liquors of superior quality, with a few boxes India china of the best quality eighty pieces to the set; all of which he will sell wholesale and retail at the most reduced prices for cash, or in exchange for country produce. All orders in his line will be executed with punctuality and dispatch; he flatters himself from the quantity of his articles he will be able to render ample satisfaction to his friends and all those who may be pleased to favor him with their custom. All kinds of commission business will be attended to with the utmost attention. Washington city Dec. 12—tf
Washington city Dec. 12—tf
The subscribers have opened a GROCERY STORE in the house near the Capitol, lately occupied by Mr. JAMES S. D. BARRY—where they have for sale, low, for cash or in exchange for country produce.
 Genuine Cogniac brandy,  Superior French do.  Old Jamaica spirits,  Madeira,  Sherry,  Port,  Wines, by the quarter cask  Libson,  and case, or smaller quantity.  Claret,  Brown Sugar, 1st and 2d quality  Loaf and Lump, do.  Molasses,  Firkin Butter,  Mould Candles,  Sweet Oil,  Spices of different kinds,  Fig Blue,  Starch,  Almonds,  Anchovies,  Capers,  Powder and Shot,  Excellent Wine Vinegar,  Gin,  Whiskey,  Hylon,  Imperial,  Young Hylon,  Teas, fresh, and of superior quality.  Salt Herrings in Barrels.  PETER HEALY, & Co. Washington October 31—tf
TO PRINTERS.
The subscriber takes Order for Type from the well known Foundry of William Caslin, Jun. and Co. London.—Specimens and list of London prices to be seen at Mr. Geo. W. Riggs, Georgetown.
CHARLES WIRGMAN, No. 215, Market Street, Baltimore Jan. 16. tf.
THE VIRGINIA WESTERN LINE OF STAGES.
The owners of the line of stages now ply ing between Fredericksburg and Char lottsville, return their thanks to the public for their patronage—they beg leave to assure them that no attention shall be wanting to merit a continuation of it, and that that line, will continue to ply through the winter as it has hitherto done through the summer. January 18—w4t
FALL GOODS.
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR, Pennsylvania Avenue, near the Presi dent's Square,
Has just received a very handsome assort ment of Fall Goods. Orders executed with the greatest dispatch and fashion, and on the most moderate terms. Oct. 31—tf
FOR SALE.
A Tract or parcel of land, containing one hundred thousand acres, surveyed in tracts of one thousand acres each, lying on the great Sassafras and St. Mary's rivers in the counties of Wayne and Talbot in the state of Georgia, distant about 40 miles from the town of St. Mary's and the sea. This land is an undivided moiety of two adjoining tracts containing each 100,000 acres, and is remarkable for its extensive forests of large and valuable yellow pine, and the luxuriant growth of natural grass, affording an inexhaustible range of pasturage for cattle. It is also favorable for the culture of cotton, and lies in a very healthy district of country. A great bargain may be had to a purchaser of the whole undivided moiety; for terms of sale apply to JOHN BECKLEY. City of Washington. Sept. 12—tf.
LOST
OF 8 per cent. stock of the United States, Certificate No. 811, dated 20th October 1802, for 400 dollars—One do No. 1115, and one 1116 for 100 dollars each, issued by Joseph Nourse register, in favor of Jenny and Paton of Alexandria, district of Columbia. Notice is therefore given that application is intended to be made at the Treasury of the United States for a renewal of the same. February 4—6 tw
100 DOLLARS REWARD.
RANAWAY, two months ago, about the middle of November, a Negro Man, named TOM DANIEL, five feet ten inches high, black complexion, has lost some of his jaw teeth, very knock-kneed, about 45 years of age. It is supposed that he has made to the northward, and has a free pass. He took with him a gray mare, and is very fond of driving a cart—Apply to RALPH LANE, Centreville, Fairfax county, Virginia. wtf
NOTICE is hereby given to ROBERT BOYES and JAMES BOYES, if now living, children of Robert Boyes, who was the son of the late esq. "Boyes," of Londonderry in the county of Rockingham and state of New Hampshire, deceased; which said Robert the elder left Londonderry aforesaid upwards of thirty years ago, married in Baltimore in the state of Maryland, and removed to Virginia and there died; that, if they will apply to Silas Beton of Salem in the state of New Hampshire, now in the city of Washington, or to Alexander Boyes of Londonderry aforesaid, may hear of some property worth their attention. The several printers of Virginia and Maryland will serve the cause of humanity by republishing the above. Jun. 9
Runaway,
Some time in April last a bright MULATTO WOMAN named FANNY, she is nearly 6 feet high and stout in proportion, thick lips, middling large eyes, very large breasts, bends forward when she stands or walks, quick in speech, and has very large feet, her apparel is not remembered, took with her a large bundle thereof, and it is probable often changes them—I have been informed that she is in the service of a Mr. Thompson in Georgetown, whoever secures her in Washington city jail so that her mistress, Mrs. Sarah Brooks gets her again or will deliver her to the subscriber in Upper Marlboro shall receive Ten dollars and all reasonable expenses paid by SAML. J. COOLIDGE. December 3—8w
This day is published by SAMUEL H. SMITH, —price 50 cents— A DEFENCE of the MEASURES of the ADMINISTRATION of THOMAS JEFFERSON. BY CURTIUS.
Taken from the National Intelligencer BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
WHEREAS by the first article of the terms and conditions declared by the President of the United States on the 17th day of October, 1791, for regulating the materials and manner of buildings and improvements on the Lots in the City of Washington, it is provided "that the outer and party walls of all houses in the said city shall be built of brick or stone." And by the third article of the same terms and conditions it is declared "that the wall of no house shall be higher than forty feet to the roof in any part of the city, nor shall any be lower than thirty five feet on any of the Avenues." And whereas the above recited articles were found to impede the settlement in the city, of mechanics and others, whose circumstances did not admit of erecting houses authorised by the said regulations, for which cause the operation of the said articles has been suspended by several acts of the President of the United States, from the fifth day of June, in the year 1796, to the first day of January next—and beneficial effects arising from such suspensions having been experienced, it is deemed proper to revive the same with the exception hereafter mentioned.
Wherefore, I THOMAS JEFFERSON, President of the United States, do declare that the first and third articles above recited shall be, and the same are hereby suspended until the first day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and six, and that all houses which shall be erected in the said city of Washington previous to the said first day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and six, conformable in other respects to the regulations aforesaid, shall be considered as lawfully erected, except that no wooden house covering more than three hundred and twenty square feet, or higher than twelve feet from the floor to the eve shall be erected, nor shall such house be placed within twenty four feet of any brick or stone house. Given under my hand the twentieth day of December, 1804. TH: JEFFERSON. Dec. 24—1awtA
A Family of Negroes FOR SALE.
The subscribers will dispose of by private sale (pursuant to the will of Ann Digges deceased) the following negroes without dividing any one of the family from the other, viz. GEORGE, aged about 47 or 48 years, stout and healthy, a very handy negro for every part of field work and a good mower, reaper and stacker of grain, &c.— GRACE his wife, aged about 37 years, brought up in a regular family as a house servant, to which she is fully equal, and is a remarkable good seamstress, laundress, and a tolerable cook. Also their two children, one a girl about three years old, and an infant at the breast. Application to be made to THOS. DIGGES of Warburton near Pictavataway, or WM. CARROLL, Rock creek, Montgomery county, Executors. Jan. 30—w5t
The MYSTERY,
The Proprietor wishing to give the citizens of Washington an opportunity of viewing one of the greatest phenomena that has appeared in this New World; has removed that celebrated machine to the city, where it will be exhibited in the house of Mr. GEORGE BLOUNT, Opposite Rhodes's Tavern, Pennsylvania Avenue till Saturday next. Those therefore, who wish to visit this astonishing machine will take the present opportunity; another may never offer, as the proprietor positively leaves the city on Saturday evening. February 6—3t
A Stray Cow.
ABOUT the fifteenth of December last, was taken up by the subscriber, living in the fourth end of the Twenty Buildings, city of Washington, a small Red Cow—her marks are a crop in each ear, about six years old. The owner is desired to come prove property, pay charges and take her away. JOSEPH CLARK. February 4—3t
STONE CUTTERS.
WANTED at the City of Washington, a number of STONE CUTTERS, to whom liberal encouragement is offered, and what is more desirable to young men of aspiring genius, as well as gratifying to those experienced; the work to be done this season is of a kind, superior to any yet done in the United States. Apply to GEORGE BLAGDEN, at the Capitol. January 30.—6t.
ADAM KING, & Co.
AT their wine Store in High Street George Town, have in addition to their stock of old wines, laid in a large and general assortment of all kinds of Liquors and Groceries suitable to the present season; where bills of any description, in their line, will constantly be filled up on the shortest notice and they flatter themselves, from the quality of their wines, &c. they will be able to give general satisfaction to all those who may think proper to favor them with a call—where all kind of commission business as usual will be attended to with the utmost attention. George Town, November 5 tf
ADVERTISEMENT.
THE proprietor wishes to SELL or RENT, on moderate terms, a neat two story framed house, eligibly constructed for the accommodation of a private family. Situated on 11th near F street, about 150 yards from the Bank and nearly the same distance from the Theatre. Persons wishing to purchase or rent, will please to apply to Mr. William Woodward, Pennsylvania Avenue, or to the subscriber. Possession may be had on the 21st day of April next. MARK STOCKWELL. 20th Jan.—2awtf
FOR SALE,
THE subscriber intending to decline his present business, offers FOR SALE two Coaches with venetian blinds, likewise Gigs and Plated Harness, with or without Horses. If not disposed of at private sale, they will be sold at Auction on Saturday the 23rd inst. opposite Stelle's Hotel.—the sale to commence at 12 o'clock. Also for sale, Any quantity of WOOD by the cord. Application to be made to the subscriber at the place formerly occupied by Mr. George Walker, near the Capitol. THOMAS BARWISE. Feb. 8.—tf
NOTICE.
THE Legionary Court of enquiry which met by adjournment the 2d instant, is again adjourned to meet at the Union-Tavern in George Town, the 5th March next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon. As there is business of importance to come before the Court it is hoped the members will be punctual in their attendance. By order, Wm. D. BEALL, Clk.  lt. L. M. D. C. Feb. 8—10t
DISCOVERED a few day since (in the Telegraph) a challenge by Samuel Norwood, Esq. Bonaparte against Democrat—
At Annapolis this fall, I proposed running Democrat against Bonaparte, carrying from 110 lbs to 140 at the discretion of Mr. Norwood; which was rejected. As Mr. Norwood refused the proposition made by me at that time, I am not bound to run the race proposed by him in the Telegraph—Democrat will run Bonaparte over the Annapolis race course, on the third Tuesday in May next, four miles and repeat, for 1000 dollars, play or pay, carrying 126lbs. each; which is the weight they are to carry by the rules of racing, both being seven years last spring—Should Mr. Norwood decline this offer, Democrat will cover mares next spring at the subscribers farm, from the first day of March until the first day of August, at Sixteen dollars each and Fifty cents for the groom. Democrat's pedigree is equal to the pedigree of any horse to be produced, having in him the blood of Medly, Eclipse, Figure, Dove, Godolphin, Arabian, and Mr. Taskin's nilima.
If this proposition is approved of by Mr. Norwood, notice will be given in the Maryland Gazette within forty days from the date hereof. ISAAC TUCKETT. December 21—1awtApr30
Portrait of the President.
THOSE gentlemen who are desirous of obtaining copies of the Portrait of the President, just finished, by REMBRANDT PEALE, are requested to call at his Painting Room at Miss Dalhilde, Pennsylvania Avenue, where the picture can be seen for a few days, during which R. Peale will remain in this city January 31.
IN CHANCERY, Dec. 27, 1804.
Benjamin R Morgan, executor of Benjamin Morgan, deceased.
William Jones, executor of Wm. Slukey, deceased, and William Ringgold, James Ringgold, and Richard Ringgold, executors of James Ringgold, deceased, who was a creditor of the said William Slukey.
The object of the bill is, to establish a claim which the complainant sets up, partly in his own right, and in part as executor of Benjamin Morgan deceased, his testator and father against the estate of the said William Slukey late a copartner in the house of Morgan and Slukey; to compel the production of the books of account of the said house, and to have the full, entire or a ratable proportion of it, paid out of the monies which have been or are due from the sales of the said Slukey's real estate, heretofore made under a decree of this court, for the payment of his debts.
The bill states, that the said Benjamin Morgan & Wm. Slukey deceased were the persons who composed the said house of Morgan and Slukey; that the house, at the dissolution of the partnership was largely indebted to the said Morgan, for goods imported from foreign countries, or purchased here for sale, on his sole credit or with his separate funds; and for debts paid for it by him, out of his private property; that the said Morgan and Slukey, on the 20th Jan. 1785, gave their joint bond to Frederic Pagon, surviving partner of the house of Pagon and Forth of England, for the sum of 5154 3s 8d sterling, which was then due to the latter half from that of Morgan and Slukey, on the balance of their accounts for partnership dealings; that the house of Morgan and Slukey, during the life time of the said Morgan, continued to reduce this debt, by successive payments out of the partnership funds; and that after his death and previous to the 25th of August 1796, Slukey made some further payment to a small amount; so that on the last mentioned day, the balance remaining due for principal and interest, according to a settlement then made with the agent of Pagon, amounted to 1468 6s 8d sterling; for which sum the complainant, relying on the sufficiency of the partnership funds, and of Slukey's private estate, for his indemnification, promised to give his own bonds payable at several times; that on the 4th May 1799 after Slukey's death, he died in compliance with this engagement, execute his several bonds to the said agent, for the abovenominated sum, with interest from August 25th 1796, the day of settlement; one of which bonds, amounting to 500l, he has paid, and is responsible for the rest: That after his later death he could obtain no settlement of the partnership accounts, nor any payment of the sum due to him from the house of Morgan and Slukey, as executor, nor a share of the partnership book, either from Slukey, in his life time, or since his death from his executor, the defendant Jones; who has repaid to the Complainant a part of the sum, for which he gave his bonds as aforesaid to the agent of Pagon; and that the said Jones has removed from this state, to New-York in the state of New-York, where he now resides. On these grounds the relief is prayed.
The defendants James, William and Richard Ringgold have appeared to the bill, and put in their answer; but the defendant Jones has made no answer or appearance, and cannot, by reason of his absence from this state, be served with the process of this court.
It is thereupon ordered, that the complainant cause a copy of this order, to be published once in each of three weeks in the National Intelligencer, before the eighth day of February next; to the intent, that the said Jones may have notice of the complainant's application, and of the substance and object of this bill, and be warned to appear here, in person, or by solicitor, on or before the first day of June term next, to show cause, wherefore a decree should not pass as prayed by the bill.
True copy, Fell, SAMUEL H. HOWARD, Reg. Cur. Can. Feb. 8—1aw3w
To the Refugees from Canada and Nova Scotia,
Take Notice.
THAT all those persons who claim and have located any tract or parcel of land within the state of Ohio, which has been appropriated by Congress for the relief of the Refugees, must pay the tax due, on the same on or before the first Monday in April next, together with the penalty of 25 per cent, to be paid to the Collector in the respective county or counties where the land lies; otherwise in default of each tract will be sold (after thirty days notice) as will satisfy the amount of tax and penalty of 25 per cent for each year in which the payment of the same has been neglected on each and every tract listed in the year 1804 and which were liable to taxation for the four preceding years.
The above advertisement is made by one who feels a lively interest in the welfare of the revolutionary citizens, whose property is implicated as above stated. From like motives, it is hoped that the PATRIOTIC PRINTERS through the United States will give the above a few insertions in their papers.
A Grand Concert
OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC. On the evening of Monday the 11th inst. in Mr. McLaughlin's Ball room. [Beginning at 6 o'clock.] MR. MAURO, Respectfully informs the citizens of Washington, Georgetown, and vicinity, members of Congress, and visiting friends, that although he hath not obtained a sufficient number of subscribers to indemnify the expenses, will nevertheless, relying on their patronage, hold his Grand Concert of Instrumental Music, (the particulars of which have been given in this paper.) Tickets of admission, ONE DOLLAR, to be had of T. W. Paito, 7 buildings, city of Washington, of John Ott, at his drapery shop, and at the bar of the Union Tavern George Town. Feb. 8—2t