The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1804-03-14 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. IV.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. DXXXVI.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14th, 1804.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
Foreign Intelligence.
LONDON, December 13.
A considerable advantage has been obtained over the enemy in the East Indian seas, in a manner wholly unexpected by the public. Immediately after the delivery of the King's Message to Parliament, on the subject of the hostility meditated by France, an overland express was sent to Admiral Rainier, which reached him in the short period of eight days. A French squadron of one ship of the line, and three or four frigates, with several transports, and more than two thousand troops, arrived soon after at Pondicherry, under the command of Admiral Linois. Admiral Rainier had made preparations for receiving this squadron, which he knew to be on the voyage, and, when they arrived, the whole were put under detention, to wait the decision of the question pending between England and France. Thus has the entire naval force of the enemy in that sea fallen into British possession, together with a body of troops, and, doubtless, with many other means of exciting the native Princes to hostility against the English interest.
January 5.
Our troops on the coasts of Sussex and Kent are particularly on the alert. We mentioned yesterday that sudden orders had been received at Haslemere, and at Lewes, in consequence of which the troops had marched to the coast. In the middle of the night on Tuesday, orders arrived at Brighton for the 4th dragoons to be ready to march by nine o'clock in the morning; the troops accordingly marched to the colliery, but whether to Silver Hill or Pevensey we have not yet heard. It was rumoured at Brighton, that the cause of the sudden march was not at all connected with any movements made by the enemy.
Our Dover correspondent states that the wind yesterday was moderate, and perfectly favorable for the enemy to put to sea; which it was expected they would immediately, if they mean to do it at all. It is obvious that Bonaparte will endeavor as much as possible to make the attempt a concurrent one from the Dutch and French ports, from Holland, and from Brest. The temporary release of the latter port from a state of blockade, has afforded him an opportunity of sending the Brest fleet to sea; and a report that it had failed was current last night. We have not however been able to trace it to any authentic source.
January 9.
Saturday's Gazette contains an order in council, prohibiting, for six months, from the 11th inst. the exportation of naval and military stores.
Bonaparte, it is said, has impressed into the service of France, 4,000 Genoese seamen, who are on their way to Dunkirk and Ostend.
Accounts from Vienna mention, that the Spanish and Portuguese ministers have notified the neutrality of their respective nations in the present war. At the same time it seems, that the conditions on which it was obtained, are not publicly known at Madrid.
Mr. Drummond, report says, is to be succeeded as British ambassador, at Constantinople by Mr. Stratton, formerly secretary to the embassy.
A most curious article of news, if true, is the following from the Hamburg Correspondent , which introduces it under the head—“Bank of the Maine.”
“The celebrated senator Sieyes has now frequent conferences with Bonaparte.”
On the 10th of December, Spencer Smith, Esq. extraordinary envoy to the Court of Wirttemberg, left Berlin on his return to Stuttgart.
LONDON, December 9.
The judges have decided on the case of Allett. The majority were of opinion that though the Exchequer bills were no property in which a criminal conviction could be founded, he was guilty of stealing paper, value 39 shillings, the property of the Bank, for which offence he is liable to a sentence of transportation; it is understood that one of the judges were of this opinion, and three that his offence was not cognizable by the statutes. Where the judges are unanimous they declare their opinion of their own accord, otherwise it is never given but on the solicitation of the prosecution or prisoner; so that if either the Bank Directors, or Allett himself, should require the promulgation
of this opinion, sentence will be passed of course: otherwise the prisoner will continue in durance for the remainder of his life.
January 11.
We received this morning at a late hour, the Moniteures to the 1st instant. The following is the intelligence contained in them.
BONAPARTE left Paris on the 30th ult. at six A. M.
BONAPARTE'S MARINE GUARDS.
The First Consul's intention of heading the grand invading expedition in person, does not appear to have been abandoned. The sailors of the Consular guard, are stated to have appeared in Paris on the grand parade fully equipped, in jacket and trowsers, with their cutlasses, canteens, &c. and with pistols in their belts. They are described as active, vigorous and determined men. The First Consul's brother Louis Bonaparte, is stated to have left Paris to take the command of a brigade of cavalry to form part of the invading army.
December 26.
It appears by the following Official Communication made by Lord Hawkesbury to the Swedish Minister, and posted up at Lloyd's on Saturday, that it has been judged expedient to issue orders, for the purpose of preventing all vessels under Neutral Colours from entering any port or place on the coasts, between the Humber and the Downs; with the exception of Yarmouth Roads and the Downs.
“Copy of a letter from his Excellency Lord Hawkesbury, one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to his Excellency Baron Dr. Silverhjelm, his Swedish Majesty's Envoy extraordinary, at the court of Great Britain, by him transmitted to Claes Grill, Esq. his Swedish Majesty's Commercial Agent General.”
“I have the honour of informing you, that in consequence of the peculiar circumstances of the moment, it has been judged expedient to issue orders, preventing all ships under Swedish or other neutral colours from entering any port or place on the coast between the Humber and the Downs, to which places they will be still permitted to resort. I have lost no time in enabling you to make an early communication of the measure which the King has thought fit to adopt, as it is his Majesty's anxious wish that the trade of neutral nations may be subject to the unnecessary impediment or inconvenience.”
I have the honor, &c.
HAWKESBURY.
It appears, by several articles extracted from the German Journals that there are other points of difference between the Emperor and the Elector of Bavaria, than those of a mere territorial nature. The Elector required a short time ago, that the members of the Equestrian Order of the Empire, domiciliated in his territories, should do homage to him as their natural Sovereign. The members refused, on account of their having taken the oath of homage to the Emperor. If the latter, however, chose to release them from that oath, they would then accede to the Elector's demand. In consequence of this refusal, the Elector's troops were sent to do military execution in several of the Castles belonging to the Order. An appeal was made to the Emperor, and the Bavarian Minister at Vienna desired, that if the Imperial Cabinet should interfere in the affair, his Prussian Majesty should also be admitted into the negotiation, in the capacity of mediator. It was a direct attack upon the prerogatives of the Emperor; it required, that an inferior Sovereign, who himself was bound to acknowledge the Emperor as his chief, should be called in to settle a dispute between that chief, and those who had sworn homage to him.
December 29.
A letter from Sweden has been received in Edinburg, which states that the Emperor has determined not to send an Ambassador to replace Count Markoff, and that the coolness between the Russian and French Governments increases daily. The Danes expect a visit from the French; either that the latter will invade Holstein, or seize Lubeck. They may do this; but it is not probable that they will execute their threat of shutting up the Swo'd.
December 30.
Government, we understand, are in possession of advices from Paris of the 11th and 19th inst. The first Consul was then expected to set out immediately for the coast, and no doubt was entertained of the long meditated invasion of this country being very speedily attempted.—Ministers, we are well assured, are in daily expectation of the daring enterprise taking place; and it must be the wish of every true Englishman, that the attempt may not be longer delayed. Of the happy result of the attack, no doubt can reasonably be entertained on our part. The departure of the First Consul from Paris, may have been hastened by a circumstance mentioned in a private letter from thence, of a very recent date. It is positively asserted, that the generals appointed to command the army destined to invade our shores have intimated to the Consul, that the soldiery under their respective commands are fully determined not to embark in the expedition, unless Bonaparte takes the command in person, and accompanies them to the “land of promise.” Such is their confidence in the First Consul as a general, or their distrust of him as a man! Should our fleet be driven from its station off Brest, the troops embarked at that place, it is supposed, will be sent against Ireland. That part of the United Kingdom, however, is now placed in the most respectable state of defence; and its military strength is immediately to receive such additions from this country as will leave but little to be apprehended for that part of the empire.
BANK OF ENGLAND.
The bill restricting the payment of specie by the bank of England, had its third reading in the House of Lords, on the 13th December and passed. In the course of the debate on the subject Lord Grenville though not absolutely opposed to the necessity of the bill, wished to shorten its limitation. He justified the practice of hoarding money at a period like the present. He observed that the bank restriction whilst it diminished confidence in the bank of England notes, increased the circulation of private bankers' notes, which the people took in preference, as for such notes they could make a legal claim of cash. The increase of private paper was therefore very great.
Lord King shewed from the accounts lying on the table of the other house, that the issue of bank notes had increased from £10,500,000 sterling, in 1796 to £17,000,000 at the present day, an increase which he thought excessive. In Ireland he said the circulation was comparatively greater. That the quantity of base coin in that country was such that there was not a single good shilling to be found. It being no uncommon traffic to purchase £100 of the worst kind for £50, and the bill for £80. The charge of want of patriotism against those called hoarders, who preferred gold at present to paper, reminded him of a charge of want of civility made by the French government against those who in that country preferred good louis d'ors to assignats.
Lord Hawkesbury replied and explained that the bill was not brought forward from an opinion on the part of government that the measure was necessary; not at the request of the bank, it was then read a third time and passed.
A London paper of Dec. 14, mentions that a gentleman arrived from France, had communicated to the minister much of the enemy's projects. He stated that from his own knowledge 100,000 men were ready to embark. He brought with him a large packet of papers, among which were correct plans and charts of the coast, and drafts of many plans belonging to the nobility and gentry, which had been distributed among the officers of the army. These drafts were stated to have been distributed by the minister of war by order of Bonaparte.
A letter from Cronstadt to a gentleman in Edinburg, inserted in one of our late London prints, states, that “Russia is vigorously preparing for war, that both Sweden and Denmark will join against France, as it is the intention of Bonaparte to take possession of the entrance of the Sound, to prevent Great Britain from trading to the Baltic.”
PARIS, December 16.
Count Markoff left this capital on the 14th instant, on his return to Petersburg.
During the absence of the First Consul, who intends to inspect the present
state of the warlike preparations, carried on with increased vigour on the coast, his brother-in-law, general Marat, is to have the command in chief of the troops quartered in Paris.
The expedition against England, it is said, will be carried into effect in the month of Jan. The First Consul is still here, but part of his equipage has already been sent to the coast.
Within these few days a courier has been dispatched for Peterburgh, with the answer to a ministerial note of great importance. To all appearance, the evacuation of the North of Germany and Naples is not yet to take place.
Several gunners are about to be established in Paris.
In a late sitting of the council of state, the First Consul professed sentiments very favorable to the liberty of the press. Newspapers and pamphlets are alone to remain subject to the necessary censure.
From the frontiers of Russia, December 18.
According to the intelligence from St. Petersburg, it is now decided that the High Chancellor, Count Von Woronzoff, has on account of his bad health and great age, resigned his employments, and will speedily retire to his estates. His place, however, is not yet supplied, and in the mean time Count Woronzoff is charged with the duties of that department.
LEIPSIC, December 20.
The necessary magazines for the Russian troops, that are assembling on the frontiers of Poland, are now preparing.
From the Mayne, Dec. 20.
Some newspapers contain the following:—
“The Emperor of Russia has made representations to the French government for the evacuation of the Hanoverian States, and at the same time insisted that the King of Sardinia should receive an indemnification for what he has lost, at least to the amount of a third of his former states, and that this indemnity should be given upon the continent of Italy. The Court of Vienna, on the application of that of Peterburgh, appears to have supported these demands. Bonaparte, on the other hand, is said to have decidedly declared that he could not consent to the evacuation of the Hanoverian States till the restoration of peace; and that the indemnification of the King of Sardinia, even if it were agreed to, could not be carried into effect before peace with England.”
The question of the quality of votes in the college of princes, still continues to be the object of negotiation among the different princes of the German powers; it is said, that if this dispute is not speedily settled, France will interfere publicly as mediator. For the rest, it is confirmed, that various states of the empire, in different applications relative to the recesses of the deputation of the empire, depend on the support of the First Consul. People talk of a very important French official note, which will soon be presented to the Diet of Ratisbon. Sieyes, has frequent conferences with the First Consul.
VIENNA, December 17.
According to some accounts, disturbances have broke out at Constantinople.
RATISBON, December 19.
In the Diet of the empire of the 12th December, the Arch Chancellor of the Elector of Bavaria gave a vote, which takes a middle course on the subject of the Catholic and Protestant ascendancy in the College of Princes. He is again allowing a preponderance to the Protestant interest in consequence of the Catholic votes extinguished by the plan of indemnities; but he proposes that the Bavarian representations, as well as the Austrian, shall have each six new votes added to their present weight.
From the Danube, Dec. 10.
On the 16th of this month the ambassador of the elector of Bavaria received dispatches from Munich, upon which he notified that the elector, his master, had ordered the troops which had entered Oberhausen to be withdrawn; that he lamented the circumstances that had occasioned the misunderstanding, and that he was ready to enter into a fair adjustment of the existing differences. It is confirmed that the Bavarian troops had withdrawn from Oberhausen before the Austrian troops ordered to the frontier arrived.
DOCUMENTS.
Accompanying the Report of the committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of SAMUEL CHASE and RICHARD PETERS.
(Continued.)
Monday, 16th January, 1804.
Committee met.—J. T. MASON Sworn.
I was present on the 1st Monday of May, at the circuit court held for the district of Maryland, in Baltimore, and heard Mr. Samuel Chase, the presiding judge in that court, deliver a charge to the Grand Jury who were summoned to attend and did attend that court. In that charge there was much political matter: he spoke of the act of Congress entitled “An act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the courts of the United States; and for other purposes,” as alarming and dangerous in its tendencies, as it went to destroy the independence of the Judiciary. He en-weighed in very strong terms against the amendment made by the legislature of Maryland to their state constitution, by altering that part of it which required that a vote should be possessed of property to the amount of thirty pounds in value, and also expressed in terms as strong, his disapprobation of the proposed amendment to the constitution of Maryland, respecting their state Judiciary, then submitted to the people for their consideration, and in very strong terms recommended it to those whom he addressed to return to their respective homes, and at the approaching elections for the state legislature to exert themselves in preventing the re-enacting in the mode prescribed by the state constitution that law then under the consideration of the people. The room in which the court was held was crowded; there were in it many of my friends and acquaintances, whom I had not seen for some time previous to this, and the ordinary interchange of civilities which passed between us, prevented me from attending to the charge in such a manner as to be able to detail it with particularity, if I had been disposed to do so, which according to my present recollection was not the case. I have seen in the National Intelligencer, edited by Samuel H. Smith, under the date of the 20th May, 1803, an account given of that charge. It appears to me to be, as far as it goes, a correct statement of what fell from Judge Chase on that occasion. I have before said my recollection does not enable me to speak with particularity and certainty. I mean to be hereunderstood as expressing my opinion that it is generally correct. I have also seen in the same paper under the date of the 5th of August, 1803, a publication purporting to be an account given of this charge by Judge Chase himself—upon this I must observe as upon the other, that according to my general recollection of what then fell from the judge, this statement of it is also correct as far as it goes—indeed I do not perceive any substantial difference between the two; if there be a difference it is not my intention to express an opinion which is the most correct.
JOHN T. MASON.
Sworn to before me this sixteenth day of January 1804.
JOHN RANDOLPH, H. Chairman of the Committee appointed, &c.
JOHN CAMPBELL'S Depositions:
J. Campbell appeared before the committee appointed to enquire into the judicial conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the judges of the supreme court of the United States, and Richard Peters, district judge for the district of Pennsylvania, and made oath, that he was one of the Grand Jury summoned to attend the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Maryland, on the first Monday in May last, and was appointed by the court the Foreman of the said Jury.—That a charge was delivered to the Grand Jury by Judge Chase, a part of which he (the deponent) has since seen and read in the National Intelligencer, published on Friday, the fifteenth of August, 1803, and extracted from the Anti-Democrat, edited in Baltimore, and that the said extract, to the best of the deponent's recollection, is a true copy as far as it goes, of the charge delivered by the aforesaid judge to the Grand Jury.—This deponent being asked by the committee, whether he recollects, the judge's having recommended to the Jury, to use their exertions when they returned to

it's time, and at the succeeding election, to prevent the passage of the law for altering the judicial system of Maryland—answers, that he has not a perfect recollection of the words used by the judge in that part of his charge—but believes that judge Chase expressed a hope that the jury would consider the effects of the proposed law, in the same manner that he did, and if so, that they would exert themselves in convincing the people, that the law would be pernicious, and ought not to be passed.
J. CAMPBELL.
January 17th, 1804.
DEPOSITION OF JONATHAN SNOWDEN.
Friday, 3d February, 1804.
The committee met—JONATHAN SNOWDEN sworn—He deposed as follows:
I was accidentally in company (in the public room at Stelle's hotel some time during the sitting of the supreme court last winter) with Mr. chief justice Marshall, judge Washington and judge Chase. The publications of Callender against the character of the President of the United States (Mr. Jefferson) and certain letters which purported to be written by Mr. Jefferson to Callender, became the subject of conversation—and judge Washington said to judge Chase, "Mr. Chase, if you had known this, you would scarcely have fined Callender so high at Richmond" or words to that effect. When Mr. Chase replied, "to tell you the truth if I had known then, as much as I do now, I should not have fined him so high."
JONATHAN SNOWDEN.
Questioned by the Chairman.
This conversation was probably of a jocular nature. Did it appear so to you?
Answer. Judge Chase appeared to me, to be as much in earnest, as any one that I ever saw. The conversation commenced with him, in consequence of a late publication in the Richmond Recorder. The other gentleman might not have been serious. Mr. Washington put the question as if to draw forth Mr. Chase's opinion. I was struck with the conversation, and mentioned it the next day, if I did not, that night, as a very extraordinary expression from a judge.
Question. Were there any other persons in the room?
Answer. Nobody, I think, but the three judges and myself. I am very sure there was nobody else.
Sworn to before me, this 2d day of February, 1804. JOHN RANDOLPH, Chairman.
Interrogatories exhibited on the part of the House of Representatives to George Read, esquire, United States attorney for the district of Delaware, and Robert Hamilton, esquire, late marshal of the said district, in the matter depending before the committee of the House of Representatives instituted to enquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, esquires, or either of them.
1. Were you present at a circuit court of the United States held at New-Castle, in the month of June, 1799 or 1800, in and for the district of Delaware, before Samuel Chase, one of the judges of the supreme court of the United States, and G. Bedford, district judge of the United States for Delaware?
2. Were you present when the grand jury, after having received a charge from the said Samuel Chase, retired to their room, and also when they returned to the bar of the court?
3. Did the said grand jury, through their foreman, upon being asked by the clerk of the said court, whether they had any bills of indictment, or presentments to deliver to the said court, answer that they had not?
4. Did the said Samuel Chase, then and there, in your hearing, observe to the said grand jury, "That he had understood that there was a great deal of sedition in that state; that there was a very seditious printer, who resided in the town of Wilmington, & whose name was"—(but checking himself, said)—"perhaps it might be going too far to mention his name"—or words to that effect—or what other words did he use on that subject?
5. Did the said Samuel Chase then and there further observe that he would not consent to discharge the grand jury on that day, although solicited by several to do so; and did he direct them to attend, on the next day, for the purpose of examining a file of the papers published by the said printer?
6. Did he also order the said district attorney to procure a file of the said papers, to be laid before the said grand jury, and were they then procured by him and laid before them?
7. Did the said grand jury, on the next day, return into court after having examined a file of the said papers, without any bill or presentment, and were they then discharged by the court?
8. Do you know any thing further
relative to the conduct of the said S. Chase, or do you recollect any conversation on the same subject which took place in open court between the said Samuel Chase and the said grand jury, or the said district attorney, or either of them?
9. Relate the same fully and at large, as if you were thereunto particularly interrogated.
10. Did the said Samuel Chase (at any time) express his surprise at the conduct of the said grand jury, and observe that whilst in the federal state of Delaware he could not get a seditious printer indicted, in Virginia he could not only get them indicted, but convicted and punished, or words to that effect?
JOHN RANDOLPH, Chairman of the Committee.
GEORGE READ, attorney of the United States of America in and for the Delaware district, residing in the town of New-Castle in the said district, aged thirty-seven years and upwards, being produced, sworn and examined on the annexed interrogatories exhibited on the part of the House of Representatives, instituted to enquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, Esquires, or either of them, pursuant to a commission issuing forth in that behalf, directed to Nehemiah Tilton and Archibald Alexander, of the county of New-Castle, Gentlemen, or either of them, before the said Archibald Alexander, one of the said commissioners,—deposeth as followeth:
1. To the first interrogatory this deponent saith, that he was present in the character of district attorney of the United States of America in and for the Delaware district, at a circuit court of the said United States, held at New-Castle, on the twenty seventh and twenty eighth days of June, one thousand eight hundred, in and for the said district, by, and before Samuel Chase, one of the judges of the supreme court of the said United States, and Gunning Bedford, district judge of the United States aforesaid for the said district.
2. To the second interrogatory this deponent saith, that he was present in court on the first day of the said court, mentioned in this deponent's answer to the first interrogatory, when the grand jury then and there attending, after having received a charge from the said Samuel Chase as presiding judge, retired to their room, and also when they returned to the bar of the said court.
3. To the third interrogatory this deponent saith, that the grand jury, through their foreman, upon being asked by the clerk the question stated in the third interrogatory, did answer, that they had found no bills of indictment nor had any presentments to make.
4. To the fourth interrogatory this deponent saith, that the said Samuel Chase, did, on receiving the answer from the grand jury, mentioned in this deponent's answer to the "third interrogatory," observe to that body in his hearing: "That he had been informed or heard, a highly seditious temper or disposition had manifested in the state of Delaware, among a certain class of people, particularly in New-Castle county, and more especially in the town of Wilmington, where lived a most seditious printer, unrestrained by any principle of virtue and regardless of social order"—(Here the learned judge paused for a moment, and then observed)—"Perhaps it might be assuming too much to mention the name of this person, but it becomes your special duty, and you must enquire diligently into this matter." That although this deponent will not undertake to say that every word, as here set forth, is precisely what the honorable judge expressed; yet he is perfectly convinced that the language is for the most part, what was used by the said judge, and the ideas conveyed by him at the time, precisely what the context imports.
5. To the fifth interrogatory this deponent saith, that several members of the grand jury on the behalf of themselves and their brethren, did, as soon as the said judge had closed the observations detailed in the answer to the fourth interrogatory, then and there earnestly request the court to dismiss them from further attendance on that duty, mentioning to the court, as a reason for the request, that they were generally farmers, and it being the season of harvest, their personal attention was most requisite on their farms—to which the judge replied, "that the business to which he had called their attention, was of a most urgent and pressing nature and must be attended to, that he could not therefore discharge them until the ensuing day, when further information should be communicated to them on the subject he had referred to,"—or words to that effect—but this deponent did not at the time hear the judge say that his detaining the grand jury was for the purpose of examining a file of papers published by the said printer.
6. To the sixth interrogatory this deponent saith, that immediately after the conversation mentioned in the answer to the fifth interrogatory had been terminated, the said Samuel Chase addressed himself to this deponent, who then also was the district attorney for the said district, and asked him whether he had any criminal charge to prefer to the grand jury; to which this deponent replied, that no indictable offence had come to his knowledge—and he had no reason to believe, that any business of such sort could occur as would require the attendance of the jury during the term—but certainly, Sir, observing judge Chase, you might, by pursuing proper researches, make some discoveries.—Have you no persons in this (Delaware) state who have made it a uniform practice to libel the administration of the government of the United States; I have been told, Sir, (continued judge Chase,) and the general circulation of the report induces me to believe it true, that there is a printer in Wilmington, who publishes a most scandalous and seditious paper—but it will not do to mention names—have you not two printers in that town? To which this deponent answering in the affirmative, judge Chase further observed, that is so, and one of them, if report does not much belie him, is a seditious printer and must be taken notice of: I consider it a part of my duty and it shall, or must be noticed: And it is your duty, Mr. Attorney, to examine minutely and unremittingly into affairs of this nature—the times, Sir, require that this seditious spirit which pervades too many of our presses should be discouraged and repressed. Can you not procure some of this printer's papers, between this time and to-morrow morning, and by strictly examining them, find out whether he has not been guilty of libelling the government of the United States, or some of the officers thereof. This I say, Sir, must be done—I think it's your duty. That this deponent not approving of the manner in which this subject was pressed upon him, then stated to the judge in substance, that he was well acquainted with the duties of his office, and would certainly perform them, but that he had never been in the practice of hunting out offences: that he had not in his possession the papers alluded to by the honorable judge, nor had he read them; if, however, this deponent should be furnished with them, he would make the examination and communicate with the grand jury on the subject. Judge Chase then said he was satisfied, and turning to the grand jury observed, that they could not be discharged, and however inconvenient it was, they must attend on the subsequent day at the usual hour. Judge Chase then directed that a file of the said papers should be procured and laid before this deponent. The newspaper, the files of which were referred to, was then understood to be, that which was filed "Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser;" but the deponent does not recollect that this title of the paper was at the time mentioned by judge Chase; and this deponent further saith, that a file of the said newspapers was procured by some person in the afternoon of that day, after the adjournment of the court, and delivered to him—that after examining the file of papers for some time, he discovered no libellous matter or any publication coming within the provisions of the sedition law—that this deponent, conformable to the directions of the judge, sent on the next morning, the said file of papers to the grand jury then assembled in their room.
7. To the seventh interrogatory this deponent saith, that the said grand jury did, after examining the said file of papers, return into the said court, then convened, and in answer to the usual questions put by the clerk, said through their foreman, that they had not agreed on any bills, nor had they any presentments to make.
8. To the eighth interrogatory this deponent saith, that soon after the said court had convened on the morning of the second day of the said term, this deponent at the request of the grand jury, attended in their room—when the foreman of the jury directing the attention of this deponent to a certain paragraph, in a publication contained in one of the said papers, dated the 21st of June, 1800, and republished from the "Aurora," (a true copy whereof is contained in schedule A, annexed to these answers, and to which the deponent refers) reflecting in very strong and pointed language, on former conduct of judge Chase,—observed there is a difference of opinion among the members of this body, with regard to the nature of that paragraph, whether libellous or not, and although it were a libel, whether it would be proper for the grand jury to present it as such to the circuit court—to which this deponent answered—that he had adverted to the paragraph the preceding day, and further observed, it would not be necessary for him to give an opinion to the jury, whether it were libellous or not, for that in whatsoever light it might be considered, the said court could take no cognizance of the matter of it, as it was not within the provisions of the sedition law, that law not embracing
that law not embracing cases of libellous publications against the judges of the courts of the United States, and so not being cognizable as an offence by those courts by virtue of any act of Congress; the said circuit court could not take cognizance of it, as an offence at common law; judge Chase himself having decided in the circuit court, for the district of Pennsylvania, that the courts of the United States could not take cognizance of offences at common law; in the case of the United States of America against Worrel, 2d Dallas's Reports, 384, with which the grand jury declaring themselves satisfied, this deponent left them and returned into court, and the said file of papers being soon after sent and laid on the table within the bar of the court; judge Chase observing it, asked this deponent what had been done, and whether he or the grand jury had discovered any seditious publications, to which the deponent answered, none of that character which the said court could take cognizance of, unless the said paragraph, which this deponent then submitted to the inspection of judge Chase, were of that nature; and after he had read it, this deponent repeated to the said court the same observations herein before stated to have been made by him to the grand jury on the subject, with which the said court acquiescing, the business was passed over with much apparent good humour on the part of judge Chase; and the grand jury, soon after returning to the bar, were discharged by the court, without finding any bills or making any presentments.
9. To the ninth interrogatory this deponent saith, it containing only matter of reference to the eighth interrogatory, is already answered by the answer to that interrogatory.
10. To the tenth interrogatory this deponent saith, that he doth not remember to have heard judge Chase (at any time) make use of any expressions of the nature alluded to in this interrogatory.
G. READ.
The preceding answers to the interrogatories annexed, were duly taken, sworn to, and subscribed by George Read the deponent, on the thirty-first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and four, before
ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER.
Schedule (A) referred to, in G. Read's answer to the eighth interrogatory.
Extract from the Newspaper filed the Mirror, &c. printed at Wilmington, of the date June 21, 1800.
"For this time we shall dismiss Mr. Pickering, because we have about forty other friends of regular government to bring in review, and to account for themselves before the public, whom they have so long disgracefully flattered, while they betrayed."
"Judge Chase has laid down a doctrine which must cover him with infamy as durable as the history of the man and the transaction—he held up the doctrine that public records were not to be brought forward in a court of justice, though they were alleged to contain truths, which would benefit the country, expose the hostility of persons to the government, or prevent abuses—If this judge's doctrine were to be tolerated, the servants of the people might forever hide the most enormous abuses. We are therefore determined to face the doctrine of this arbitrary judge, and to stand upon the ground of justice and the decision of the people, who have the power of depriving these men of power, who have abused or proved incompetent to the discharge of their trust."
"We hope the day is not far off, when Judge Chase will be impeached for this and other arbitrary acts of his."
The additional deposition of Philip Norborne Nicholas taken before George Wythe and Joseph Scott, Esquires, under authority of the House of Representatives of the United States.
The said Nicholas being asked by the said commissioners what was the general deportment and manner of Judge Chase during the trial of James Thompson Callender, answers—
That the general deportment and manner of Mr. Chase during the said trial, appeared to the said Nicholas to be marked with great violence and precipitation; and that judge Chase manifested a solicitude for the conviction of the prisoner, which, in the estimation of said Nicholas, was improper in a judge sitting in a criminal prosecution. The said Nicholas further states, that the deportment of judge Chase to the counsel, who appeared for Callender, was rude and overbearing, and calculated to prevent that full and free defence, without which it was impossible for them to do justice to their client.
PHILIP NORBORNE NICHOLAS. Richmond, February 7th, 1804.
The additional deposition of George Hay, who being asked, what were the manners and deportment of Samuel Chase, during the trial of James Thompson Callender, deposeth and saith,
That it appeared to him at the time of the trial, & he yet believes that the manners of Mr. Chase were intentionally rude and insolent. The deponent thought and still thinks, that Mr. Chase was determined that Callender should, if possible, be convicted, and that to accomplish this purpose, he endeavored to intimidate, to depress, and to silence his counsel. He interrupted them frequently, with wanton rudeness. He ordered one, if not more, of them to sit down. He charged them with advancing doctrines which they knew to be illegal, and which they advanced, he said, only to deceive and mislead the populace. The patience of the deponent was at length exhausted, and he quitted the court and the cause, under a belief that farther exertions in the defence, would only tend to cover himself with still greater shame, and to subject him to still greater humiliation.
The deponent believes that there did not escape from him during the trial, a word or gesture, that could have given offence to the judge. The conduct of his associates was, he believes, equally guarded: he does not therefore ascribe the insolence of Mr. Chase to irritation, occasioned by the conduct of the bar.
The deponent is under no apprehension, that his judgement has been much misled, by the circumstances attending his own situation. He knows, and can now name men, whose politics then differed from his own, who expressed their abhorrence of Mr. Chase's conduct in terms as strong as language affords. In fact the public mind was very much excited, and apprehensions were entertained by many, that some serious disturbance might take place. Mr. Munroe, then governor of Virginia, was so completely convinced of the danger, that he not only earnestly recommended moderation and forbearance to those who were daily crowding about him, but kept his eye constantly on the capital, that he might be ready to command the peace, at the first appearance of commotion. To him Mr. Chase is probably indebted for the safety of his person during his residence in Richmond.
The solicitude of Mr. Munroe to preserve order, arose from causes totally unconnected with Mr. Chase. The character of the state he observed, had never been tarnished by any opposition to the laws, or any outrage on persons clothed with its authority. The preservation of this character at that period, (May 1800) was in his estimation a matter of infinite importance. He therefore urged and intreated those, who, he supposed, might come into collision with the judge, to be patient, under every outrage.
GEORGE HAY.
Richmond, Feb. 7, 1804.
Interrogatories exhibited on behalf of the House of Representatives of the United States, to William S. Biddle, touching the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, Esquires, or either of them.
1. Were you present at the second trial of John Fries for treason before the circuit court of Pennsylvania, at the spring term of the year 1800?
2. Have you a correct copy of the opinion of the court delivered in writing to the counsel for the prisoner at that trial?
3. How came it in your possession?
4. Are you confident that the copy, which you now produce, is exactly correspondent with the original?
JOHN RANDOLPH.
Thomas Leiper, Mahon Dickerson.
The answers of William S. Biddle to the annexed interrogatories, in the case of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, Esquires.
1. In answer to the first interrogatory this deponent says that he was present at the second trial of John Fries for treason before the circuit court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, in the spring term of the year 1800.
2. In answer to the second interrogatory he says that he has not a correct copy of the whole opinion delivered by the court in writing to the counsel for the prisoner at that trial. That the paper now produced to the commissioners and hereunto annexed, was written by this deponent during the trial aforesaid, and was preserved by him, among other papers, containing important law opinions and cases. That the following extract from said paper, is to the best of this deponent's knowledge and belief, a correct copy of so much of the opinion expressed by the court before the trial of Fries, and delivered in writing, as he understood, to the counsel for the prisoner, viz. "It is the opinion of the court that any insurrection or rising of any body of people within the United States, to attain or effect, by force or violence, any object of a great public nature, or of public and general or national concern, is a levying of war against the United States, within the contemplation and construction of the co-stitution of the United States. On this general position the court was of opinion that any insurrection or rising to resist,

or to prevent by force or violence, the execution of any statute of the United States, for levying or collecting taxes, duties, imposts or excises, or for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, or for any other purpose (under any pretence, whether as that the statute was unequal, burdensome, oppressive or unconstitutional) is a levying of war against the United States within the contemplation." That the remainder of that page of the annexed paper, and the following page to the words "constitute the crime of levying war," contain the substance of the principal points of law stated by the court on that occasion, and that the residue of the contents of said paper annexed, are no part of the opinion of the court, but are authorities and cases added by this deponent for his own use and information.
3. In answer to the third interrogatory he says, that he was at the time of said trial studying law William Rawle, Esq., then attorney of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania. That he attended the circuit court during almost all the trials for treason in that court, in the years 1799 and 1800—and occasionally assisted Mr. Rawle in writing down the testimony delivered on those trials. That the annexed paper (except as to the latter part of it just mentioned) was according to the best of this deponent's recollection and belief, copied by him in court before the commencement of said trial, from a paper which was then circulating around the bar, as the opinion in writing delivered by the court; and immediately after the same was delivered by the court.
4. To the 4th interrogatory he answers, that he cannot at this time recollect with certainty, whether the annexed paper was or was not copied from the original signed by the court, or delivered by them to the counsel, nor can he be positive that he saw the said original paper; but at the time he supposed the paper from which he took said copy was the original opinion delivered by the court, and he still believes it was.
W. S. BIDDLE.
Circuit Court of the United States, April 1800.
CHASE AND PETERS.
It is the opinion of the court, that any insurrection or rising of any body of people within the United States to attain or effect by force or violence any object of a great public nature or of public and general or national concern is a levying of war against the United States, within the contemplation and construction of the constitution of the United States. On this general position the court are of opinion that any such insurrection or rising to resist or to prevent by force or violence the execution of any statute of the United States for levying or collecting taxes, duties, imposts or excises, or for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, or for any other purpose (under any pretence, whether as that the statute was unequal, burdensome, oppressive, or unconstitutional) is a levying of war against the United States, within the contemplation.
Military array or weapons not necessary to constitute a levying of war—Foster 208.
The true criterion is Quo Animo , the people did assemble. When the intention is universal as to effect some object of a general public nature, it will be treason—Foster 210, 211.
To conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, in only a high misdemeanor, but to proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, is a levying of war, and the quantum of force is immaterial, whether by 100 or 1000. Some force or violence must be used in pursuance of the design to levy war, but 'tis immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object. Any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying war.
4 Bl. Com. 81.—Levying war may be done by taking arms under pretence to reform the laws or to remove (public) grievances, whether real or pretended—See 5 B. A. 121—Foster 209, 210.
5 B. A. 121. Salk. 635—5 St. Tr. 27.—Assembling armed with a treasonable design, is an overt act in every case of levying war, though nothing further be done.
Insurrection to raise the price of servants wages, or to break all prisons and let all prisoners at liberty.—3 Inst. 10—Kel. 75, 77—1 Vent. 251.
2 Dall. 316. U. S. v. Vigol. ib. 348. U. S. v. Mitchell.—Defts convicted of treason for an attempt to prevent the execution of the excise law.
Dougl. 570.—Raising a body of men to obtain by intimidation or violation the repeal of a law, is an overt act of levying war.
Foster 215.—Damaree and Purchase, an avowed intent to demolish all meeting houses. This insurrection to be considered as a declaration by the rabble against the toleration act, and an attempt to render it ineffectual by numbers and open force.
W. S. BIDDLE.
Thomas Leiper.
Mahlon Dickerson.
(To be continued.)
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14.
The committee, appointed by the House of Representatives of the state of Pennsylvania, to enquire into the conduct of the three judges of the Supreme court in the case of Passmore, have reported in favor of their impeachment.
COURT OF IMPEACHMENTS.
John Pickering found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and removed from office.
MONDAY, March 12, 1804.
Agreeably to notice given to the House of Representatives, on Saturday, that the court of Impeachments would this day, at 12 o'clock, proceed to pronounce judgment on the articles of Impeachment, exhibited by them, against John Pickering, the Managers attended; and the first article was read.
And on the question—Is John Pickering, district Judge of New-Hampshire, guilty, as charged in the first article of Impeachment, exhibited against him, by the House of Representatives?
It was determined in the affirmative—Yeas 19—Nays 7, as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckinridge, Cocke, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Mackay, Nicholas, Potter, I. Smith, S. Smith, J. Smith, (Ohio) J. Smith, (N. Y.) Sumner, Venable, Wells, Worthington, Wright—19.
NAYS—Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, O'Callaghan, Pickering, Plumer, Tracy, Wells—7.
The same question was put, in the same way, upon the three remaining articles, and decided by a like result.
On the question, Is the Court of opinion that John Pickering be removed from the office of Judge of the District Court of the district of New-Hampshire? It was determined in the affirmative—Yeas 20; Nays 6; as follows:
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Breckinridge, Cocke, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Mackay, Nicholas, Potter, I. Smith, S. Smith, J. Smith, (Ohio) J. Smith, (N. Y.) Sumner, Venable, Wells, Worthington, Wright—20.
NAYS—Messrs. Adams, Hillhouse, O'Callaghan, Pickering, Plumer, Tracy—6.
The court then adjourned sine die .
MONDAY, March 12.
JUDGE CHASE
IMPEACHED.
The House went into committee of the whole—Mr. Varnum in the chair—on the following report:
The committee REPORT—
That in consequence of the evidence collected by them, in virtue of the powers with which they have been invested by the House, and which is hereunto subjoined, they are of opinion.
1. That Samuel Chase, Esq., one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, be impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors: 2. That Richard Peters, district judge of the district of Pennsylvania, hath not acted in his judicial capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House."
On reading the first resolution for the impeachment of Samuel Chase:
Mr. Elliot spoke at considerable length; went fully into a view of the testimony contained in the report of the committee; and concluded with expressing the opinion that judge Chase had not rendered himself liable to impeachment, in any case stated therein, but that of the trial of Callender. From the dispassionate and deliberate consideration of Mr. Chase's conduct on this occasion, though not prepared to ascribe to him corrupt motives, or to view him as guilty of high crimes, he considered him as guilty of misdemeanors for which he was impeachable. On this ground therefore, he should vote for the report.
The question was then taken on agreeing to the first resolution and carried—Yeas 74.
The committee then agreed, without a division, to the second resolution relating to Richard Peters.
The committee rose and reported their agreement to the report of the select committee.
The House immediately took the report into consideration.
The first resolution respecting Mr. Chase having been read.
Mr. R. Griswold observed that in the select committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase there had been no discussion, and no points stated, except those contained in the resolution—No part of the documents, contained in the report, had been taken up and discussed. I would, said Mr. G. myself have undertaken on this occasion to enter minutely into the testimony, were I not of opinion that the sentiments of the House are already formed—I have examined the depositions critically, and I am ready to say that they constitute no grounds for impeachment. But I have been lamentably convinced, by a careful ex-
perience, that nothing which can be said in the case of impeachments will have any effect on this House. I shall therefore, say nothing, on this resolution, at this time; but shall content myself with calling for the Yeas and Nays.
Mr. J. Randolph. Like the gentleman from Connecticut, it is no part of my intention to enter into a consideration of the report of the committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of Mr. Chase and Mr. Peters. On this occasion, as on another, in which I had the honor of being one of those to whom was confided the management of an impeachment, I am willing to rest the decision which I shall give on the testimony before the House. But I think the observations which have fallen from the gentleman from Connecticut require, in justice to himself (for he was a member of the committee appointed on this occasion,) and as an act of justice to that committee for remarks in reply. For what purpose he has made these observations I shall not undertake to determine. From them it would appear as if a division had been particularly invited. The Committee consisted of seven members. On the motion of different members, sometimes in consequence of personal application, at other times by letters addressed to the committee, testimony was ordered to be taken. A day was then appointed for the meeting of the committee; they did meet. At the time appointed for the meeting some gentlemen of the committee were engaged in the character of managers of an impeachment before the Senate. The gentleman from Connecticut, and a gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Huger) also a member of the committee, waited in the library until the other members thus engaged should be in readiness. As soon as they were ready to meet, a message was sent to the library for the two gentlemen. Before this it had been intimated to the managers that the House wanted a quorum. We, therefore, dispatched a message into the House for the two gentlemen. We received no answer. The committee decided the conduct of Mr. Chase impeachable, in relation to the trial of Fries, and the conduct of Mr. Peters not impeachable. In consequence of this decision, five members being present, the chairman was directed to draft the report. The report, however, not being presented, owing to the adjournment of the House, and the committee being unwilling to submit it before it had been considered by all the members of the committee, it was again submitted to the committee, who were summoned, for that purpose, the next morning; when it was reconsidered, and agreed to in the presence of the members previously absent.
Mr. R. concluded by expressing his regret at having troubled the House with so dry a detail; and said he had made it to show, that if there had been no discussion, it was because there was an indisposition on either side to provoke it.
Mr. HUGER.—It was my wish and determination to have avoided saying anything on the present question, and to have contented myself with giving a silent vote—not should I now have risen but for the allusion, which have been made by the gentlemen from Connecticut and from Virginia, to what took place in the committee of investigation. The statements given by both these gentlemen are, as far as they go correct, but I must beg leave to add one or two additional observations on the subject.
The committee had been duly summoned to meet on the morning of the day preceding that, on which the report now under consideration, was presented to this House. Both the member from Connecticut and myself accordingly attended at, or about the usual hour of attendance; but on going to the room, in which we had always met, we found it occupied by the committee, who had been appointed to impeach judge Pickering. Most, I believe indeed, all the gentlemen, except the member from Connecticut and myself, who composed the committee of investigation, were likewise members of this committee, and as they had already met on other business, we of course retired—On my return to the House, I met the honorable chairman at the door, who expressed a wish that our committee should forthwith meet; but on my observing, that most of the members of it were on the committee of Impeachment in the case of judge Pickering, which was then assembled, he proceeded to join them—intimating, if I did not mistake him, as he left me, that he would send me word should our committee meet. I received no message however, nor heard anything further on the subject until a few minutes before the house adjourned, when to my astonishment the gentleman from Connecticut informed me that he had been told the committee had met during our absence, and come to the determination of reporting to the House a resolution recommending the impeachment of judge Chase.
The gentleman from Virginia however, has informed the House that before the committee proceeded to business, one or two messengers had been
sent to summon both my friend from Connecticut and myself, and he had before given me the same information in private.—And most certainly, Sir, I have not the smallest doubt but that this was done—for the assertion of any fact, made by the gentleman from Virginia, will ever receive from me the most ready and implicit belief. It nevertheless, so happened, that neither the member from Connecticut nor myself received the summons, or attended the committee, in which it was determined during our absence, that a report should be drawn up and made to the House, recommending the impeachment of judge Chase. This circumstance did, I confess, surprise me, in the first instance, and until the matter was explained to me. I still regret it; for we had never had any previous discussion in the committee, on the merits of the various charges exhibited against the judge, and I certainly did expect, that each particular case would have been thoroughly sifted and canvassed in the select committee, and a separate and distinct vote taken on each of them before any report was made. Under this impression I had intended to have objected, had I been present, to the committee's coming to any final decision until we had received the deposition of Mr. Robertson from Petersburg; and I had also (as I observed to the committee on the following morning) intended to have requested, that the depositions of Mr. Edmund Randolph, late attorney general of the United States, and some other gentlemen, (whom I had just learned, were present at the trial of Callender) might be taken, for as the only depositions before us in this case, were solely those of the parties immediately and individually concerned, and who were not merely the political opponents of judge Chase, but personally interested; as the propriety of their own conduct in the trial was involved in the question at issue between them and the judge, I did not wish to make up my mind, or give a final vote on a case, in which there was evidently no other than perfectly ex parte evidence before us. The committee, however, having, as has been stated, met during our absence, and decided in favor of an impeachment, I was virtually precluded from making the propositions I had intended.
It is indeed true, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman from Virginia is perfectly correct in stating, "that the whole of the committee met the next day, and the report, as it now stands, was submitted to our final decision, when every individual member was present. He is equally correct in the observation, that the report was open to the objections, which might be offered from any quarter."
But, after five out of seven members, had already on the preceding day decided in favor of the principle it contained, I certainly, Sir, had not the vanity to suppose, that any thing I could say, would effect a change of opinion; and I conceived, that after what had passed, it would be regarded as mere cavil on my part, and only done from a wish to embarrass and create unnecessary delay, to propose, when the question of impeachment was already acted and decided upon, that we should wait for further testimony. I therefore, acquiesced, and, (after having expressed, as above stated, what I should have wished to have been done; and had intended to propose, had I been present in the committee (the preceding day) I deemed it my duty, (as believing the evidence in question before us, to be entirely ex parte) to give in the select committee, as I shall again do on the present occasion, my decided negative to that part of the report, which includes the resolution for impeaching judge Chase.
The question was then taken, by Yeas and Nays, on concurring in the report of the committee, agreeing to the first resolution and carried—Yeas 73—Nays 32.
The report of the committee, in relation to the second resolution, was agreed to unanimously.
Mr. J. Randolph moved that a committee be appointed to appear at the bar of the Senate, to impeach, in the name of the House of Representatives, Samuel Chase of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The motion was adopted, and Messrs. J. Randolph and Early appointed the committee.
Mr. Nicholson moved the postponement, until the first Monday of November, of the bill for the settlement of claims for Georgia lands.
Messrs. Eustis and Jackson opposed the postponement; which was carried—Yeas 59—Nays 49.
TUESDAY, March 13.
A message was received from the Senate, stating their agreement to the resolution of the House for an adjournment of Congress, with an amendment extending the period of adjournment to Monday, the 25th instant.—The House concurred in the amendment.
The House went into committee of the whole—Mr. VARNUM in the chair—on the bill for opening several new land offices in the Indiana territory.—Several amendments were made, when the committee reported the bill.
The House, after considering the amendments, ordered the bill to a third reading.
Mr. Randolph, from the committee appointed to perform that service, reported that they had appeared at the bar of the Senate, and had, in the name of the House, impeached Samuel Chase of high crimes and misdemeanors.
On motion of Mr. J. Randolph, a committee of five was appointed to frame articles of Impeachment, with power to send for persons and papers.
The House went into committee of the whole—Mr. TENNEY in the chair—on the report of a committee on the message of the President relating to public buildings in the city of Washington.
The report concludes with a resolution that an appropriation of fifty thousand dollars ought to be made for prosecuting with the public buildings, to be placed under the direction of the President.
This resolution was agreed to—Yeas 47.
The House took up the report and agreed to it—Yeas 57—Nays 23.
Ordered, that the committee who made the report bring in a bill.
Mr. J. Clay moved a resolution for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the expediency of authorizing the legislature of Pennsylvania to lay a certain tonnage duty on vessels navigating the Delaware, to constitute a fund for improving the navigation of that river.
Mr. Varnum moved a postponement of the resolution to the next session.
Lost—Ayes 18.
When the House adjourned without deciding on the resolution.
RETROSPECT
OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
PERHAPS no period of human existence, has abounded with a greater number of important & interesting events than the Century which has last elapsed. A Review of the principal doctrines, discoveries and improvements in the Sciences during that portion of time, has been lately published in New-York by the learned & ingenious SAMUEL MILLER, A.M. The survey which the author has taken of these branches of experimental Physics is acute and enlarged. Besides, an exhibition of the progress made in Astronomy, Geometry, Chemistry, Medicine and the useful Arts, Mr. Miller has expatiated with great beauty on the advancement of Natural History and Literature, within the hundred years which have just elapsed. The work, which is comprised in two volumes 8vo. is admirably adapted to the use of Colleges and Academies, as well as for private Libraries. To Students it is capable of pointing out the way to knowledge, and to those who have already studied, it will serve as a constant remembrance and common-place-book. This useful and excellent publication, is coming in extensive circulation, and stands only in need of being perused, to engage the favourable opinion of the reader.
Discovery in painting.
It has long been a desideratum in the Art of painting in Miniature, or with water colours, to find something to fix the colours upon which should possess the smoothness and durability of Ivory, but he of greater extent than the breadth of an elephant's tooth. Mr. Archibald Robertson, a distinguished Artist of New-York, has discovered that certain hard and well polished Marbles possess this two-fold quality of receiving water-colours perfectly well, and of being made as long and as broad as the artist pleases. Conceiving this to be a valuable improvement in this polite art, Mr. Robertson has secured to himself the advantage to be derived from it, by a Patent under the United States.
In the case of Jacob Grose an insolvent debtor.
SIX months from and after the first day of January next is limited and appointed for the creditors to bring their claims to the trustee, and that this notice be published three times in the National Intelligencer and Washington Federalist prior to said day.
By order of Wm. Cranch, Esq. assistant Judge of the circuit court of the District of Columbia.
URIAS FORREST, Clk.
Dec. 21, 1803—
Having been appointed trustee in the above case the creditors are hereby requested to exhibit their claims properly authenticated to the subscriber within the limited period.
JOHN THRELKELD.
March 14—31
NOTICE.
THIS is to give notice, that the Subscriber has obtained from the Orphans Court of Prince George county in Maryland, letters of administration on the personal estate of William Magruder late of said county deceased—all persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof to the subscriber on or before the 15th day of September next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from any benefit on the said estate. Given under my hand, this 12th day of March 1804.
A. COVINGTON.
Prince George County March 14—w23.

(BY AUTHORITY.)
Scheme of a Lottery.
To build an Asylum in the city of Richmond.
Table with 2 columns: Prize, Dollars. Includes 1st Prize (last drawn ticket), 2nd Prize (1 do.), 3rd Prize (3 do.), etc.
5,325 prizes, 9,675 blanks, not two to a prize, 15,000 tickets at 10 dollars each, N. B. Prizes subject to a deduction of 15 per cent.
This lottery has been authorized by the legislature of Virginia, for the laudable purposes of erecting a Seminary of learning in or near the metropolis of this state.
Richmond, March 2—tf
Dancing School. P. L. DUPONT professor of Dancing respectfully informs the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Washington and George Town...
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR
HAS just received an handsome supply of fall goods, which he is determined to sell and make upon the most reasonable terms...
CHARLES VARDEN, TAYLOR, FROM PHILADELPHIA.
HAS received from Philadelphia an elegant assortment of the best quality Superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, Silk florantine, Black and fancy silk molekin velvet...
THOME. BEGS leave to inform his friends that he has removed his store from George Town to King-Street Alexandria...
AND REPAIRED ON GLASS. A few doors above the Washington tavern—Looking glass and picture frames made and regilt.
NEEDLE WORK. Framed in the handsomest manner, and names done on glass.
S. THOME, as a stranger being determined to establish in the line of his profession, solicits that encouragement alone which he trusts the reasonableness of his charges and his assiduity to business may entitle him to.
Window cornices handsomely gilt, and every thing in his line done to please the fancy of the owner equal to any imported.
N. B. He has some glasses and prints for sale on low terms.
NOTICE. The subscriber hath obtained from the Orphans Court of Calvert county, letters of administration on the personal estate of Daniel Kent deceased late of said county.
Bank of Columbia. IN conformity with the charter of this bank, an election for twelve Directors will take place and be held at the house of Mr. Joseph Semmes in George Town on Tuesday the 20th March next at the hour of 10 o'clock, A. M.
WILLIAM WHANN, Cashier.
Valuable Lands for Sale.
PURSUANT to a decree of the honorable the Circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, will be exposed to sale, at public auction, for ready cash, on Saturday the 7th of April next...
A TRACT OF LAND, late the property of Robert Alexander, situated upon the Potomac river, adjoining the lands of Mr. Philip Alexander, containing 545 acres...
THOMAS SWANN, EDMUND J. LEE, GEO. DENEALE, Com'rs. March 5—tdof
HAT MANUFACTURY.
The subscriber informs his customers and the public generally that he has discontinued business in the city of Washington, and has opened shop on Bridge street near the Union Tavern...
JOEL FLOWN. George Town, Feb. 17—tf
NOTICE.
ALL who are indebted to the estate of John Crookshank deceased are requested to make immediate payment to CHARLES GLOVER, Adm'r. George Town, Nov. 25—tf
TO RENT.
And immediate Possession given. A Two story Frame House, in the City of Washington, situated on N. F. Street, square 224—containing 4 rooms beside two garret rooms, piazza and pantry, kitchen, store room, &c. with a good garden...
REDMUND PURCEL. January 13, 1804—tf
A GREAT BARGAIN.
THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS will be taken and payment made easy, to the purchaser, for the following valuable property free from any incumbrance whatever.
A SET of saw mills working two faws—a grist mill with two run of stones and bolting machine, also a cotton and rice machine complete all worked by water...
WM. NORMENT. Millville N. C. Dec. 12.
N. B. Any part of the above property will be sold as may best suit a purchaser. Dec. 23—tf
Fifty Dollars Reward.
RAN away from the subscriber about the first of November last, a negro man called BILLY BUNDY, about 26 years old, yellowish complexion, bends forward with his knees, a large scar on or near one of his heels...
LUCY BROOKE. Effex County, Virginia, Feb. 8.—2m.
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION.
The office of the Washington Association and United States Insurance company is removed to the corner of square No. 226 fronting on the President's square and Pennsylvania Avenue.
THOMAS HERTY, Sec'y P. T. Jan. 18—tf.
The Celebrated ENGLISH Running HORSE
CLIFDEN,
WILL stand the ensuing season at the City of Washington, at THIRTY DOLLARS the season, which will commence on the 1st of March, and end on the 10th of August...
Clifden is a horse of uncommonly fine form, above fifteen and an half hands high, of a beautiful deep blood bay, and perhaps the strongest made thoroughbred horse on the continent.
PEDIGREE.
I Certify, that Clifden was gotten by Alfred out of an own sister to the duke of Queenbury's bay horse, Mulberry, which was gotten by Florizel out of Sir James Pennycuick's famous Matchem mare.
ISAAC PICKERING. Foxlease, Hampshire, 18, 1799.
A similar pedigree is given to Dr. Thornton by Sir John Lade, who states that his royal highness the Prince of Wales presented Clifden to him: that he was a good found horse, and won him some thousands on the turf.
ALLIANCE.
Alfred was gotten by Metcham. Rockingham's dam, Purity, by Matchem; Pumpkin, Maiden, Conundrum, Ranthus, Riddle, &c. by Matchem.
Alfred's dam by Snap. Old Medley's dam by Snap; Snapdragon (dam of Old Selima's dam) by Snap; Old Skark's dam by Snap, &c.
Clifden's dam by Florizel. Old Diomed (imported from England, and now standing at sixty dollars a mare in Virginia) by Florizel.
Florizel by Old King Herod. High Flyer by Old King Herod; Woodpecker (sire of Cormorant and Dragon) Magnet (sire of Dare Devil). The famous running mare Mufe, by King Herod.
Clifden's grand dam by Matchem: so that he possesses double close crosses of Old Matchem, which covered at 50 guineas a mare, for the nine last years of his life, twenty five mares by subscription, and died at 33 years of age!
PERFORMANCES.
In the year 1792, at five years old, he won ten times out of his twelve first races, as may be seen by the racing calendar, and was unequalled for eight years, except by Buzzard.
1. In 1792, Thursday, Aug. 2d, a sweepstakes made for Lewes, but run at Brightelmston, wt. 12 st. 3 lb. 4 miles.
Mr. O'Kelly's b. m. Miss Windmill, by High Flyer, rode by himself, Mr. Chichester's g. m. by King Fergus, rode by Lord Barrymore.
Sir John Lade's b. h. Clifden, by Alfred, rode by himself. 2. Lewes, Aug. 9th, a match for one hundred guineas, 12 st. each.
Sir John Lade's b. h. Clifden rode by Lord Barrymore. Mr. Chichester's g. m. by King Fergus, rode by Mr. O'Kelly.
3. Newmarket, first October meeting, same year, Sir John Lade's b. h. Clifden, by Alfred, 5 years old, walked over the Beacon course, on Friday the 5th, and received the 70 gs. Purse.
4. Second October meeting, same year, Monday 15th. Clifden carrying 9 st. 12 lb. beat Sir Charles Bunbury's Playfellow, 4 years old, carrying 7 st. 8 lb. D. I. 50 gs. a c o t on Clifden.
5. Same day he received 10 gs. from Mr. Chichester's Minister, 12 st. each, D. I. 25 gs.
6. On the 17th Clifden carrying 9 st. beat Mr. O'Kelly's Big Ben (imported by the name of Traveller into Virginia) by Eclipse, carrying 8 st. 3 lb. both 5 years old. 50 gs.
7. On the 19th Clifden beat the duke of Grafton's Prunella in a sweepstakes of 25 gs. each, 10 st. wt. and received forfeit from H. R. H. the duke of York's Fire; Sir Charles Bunbury's Amelia; Lord Clermont's Herome; Mr. Golding's Nameless.
8. On the 20th he beat Mr. O'Kelly's Slack across the Flat, 50 gs. 7 to 4 and 2 to 1 on Clifden.
9. On the third October, or Houghton meeting, Monday 29th, he received 40 gs. from Sir Charles Bunbury's Amelia, 100 gs. h. ft.
10. Same day he received 25 gs. from H. R. H. the duke of York's Pyramon. 100 gs. h. ft.
11. Next day, 30th October. Mr. Montaleu's Halkin, by Jupiter, beat for John Lade's Clifden. 100 gs.
12. November 18, Clifden, 5 years old, carrying 8 st. 8 lb. beat Mr. O'Kelly's Exclamation, by Sweetbriar, aged, carrying 8 st. 4 lb. 50 gs.
The last race Clifden ran in 1792 was against the duke of Bedford's large horse Dragon, by Woodpecker. This was an astonishing race, each horse was rode by his owner, and carried 15 st. or 210 lb., over the Beacon course 4 miles and nearly a quarter, for 300 gs. Clifden was beat, but the duke of Bedford rode fifteen stone, and Sir John Lade was obliged to carry about 5 stone dead weight, enough to kill even a good horse!
Dragon never ran another successful race: Clifden, owned by the honorable Mr. Bowes, ran the next year, & beat Mr. O'Kelly's br. g.
carrying above 12 st. each, rode by the owner, over the new course, Lewes, for 100 gs. 5 to 4 on Clifden.
The duke of Queenbury's Mulberry, full brother to Clifden's dam, beat the following horses at Newmarket: Lord Derby's Sir Peter Teazle, over the Beacon course, for 500 gs. and his lordship has since refused six thousand guineas for Sir Peter, as stated in a letter to Dr. Thornton in 1800.
In a letter from Mr. Sturt, member of parliament for Dorsetshire, to Dr. Thornton, he says, "I know of four or five very promising colts of Clifden's get. One in particular of the honorable Lionel Davers, another of Dr. Barnes's, and I have a yearling in my possession, which I think the finest colt of his age I ever saw.
Mr. Kinggold, at whose farm he stood in Washington county, Maryland, says Clifden's colts are the finest he ever saw, in every respect.
Clifden had only 50 mares in Virginia the season before last. The last season they saw his colts and he had 109. Col. Patterson, with whom he first stood, says no colts have been sent equal to Clifden's since the time of Old Janus.
I do hereby certify, That Clifden stood in Chesterfield county at my stable, that he is a remarkable sure foal-getter, and his colts are large and handsome.
Given under my hand this 30th day of January, 1804. THOMAS BRANCH. March 7—3t&w6w
A Mill-Seat and Farms.
SITUATED on Little river, in the county of Slougon at the head of the turnpike road now in its progress, will be offered at public sale to the highest bidder on the premises, on the 15th day of May next (if fair, or on the next fair day.)
The site for a large manufacturing mill being immediately at the fork of the road leading from Snicker's and Aaby's gaps, affords also a most eligible stand for a DISTILLERY, STORE and TAVERN; and the land which is of good quality, is also well adapted to the planter of Paris—has an abundant supply of water and at least 100 acres of bottom fit for meadow.
The tract containing upwards of 900 acres will be sold in large or small divisions to accommodate purchasers; and the terms will be one third of the money in hand upon the receipt of a clear deed free from incumbrances of every kind...
Inquiries respecting the said property may in the mean time be made of Mr. Solomon Barton residing near it. FERDINANDO FAIRFAX. Charles Town, Jefferson county, Virginia Feb. 29—w15M.
PUBLIC SALE.
In virtue and pursuance of an order from the Orphan's court of Prince George's county in the state of Maryland, will be sold, on Friday the 16th day of March on the plantation of the late Benjamin Small deceased, all the deceased's personal property, six months credit will be given for all sums over ten dollars, the purchasers giving bond or note with good security, and for all sums under ten dollars the cash paid on the day of sale, the sale to commence at 11 o'clock. JOHN DUVALI, Executor. Feb. 24—w3t
Fresh Garden Seeds, &c.
THEODORE HOLT respectfully acquaints his friends and the public, that he has received a supply of fresh Garden Seeds, &c. from London, and for sale at his nursery garden, Eastern Branch, near the bridge—consisting of, Peas & beans of various sorts, Early turnip, Early York cabbage, Hamburg Parsley, Buttercup do. Double do. Sugar-pea do. Spinage, Carrot, Anjou do. Parsnip Lettuce, Late Drumhead do. White asparagus, with many others. Green Savoy do. Grass Seeds, Yellow do. Burnet, Early and late Cauliflower, Lucerne, Broccoli sorts, St. Foin, Scotch Kail, White Clover, Tripoli Onion, Bird Seeds, Spanish do. Garden Hoes, various White pickling do. Axes, Early Frame Radish, Dutch Hoes, do. do. Scarlet do. Iron Rakes, do. do. Summer do. Garden Shears, White Turnip do. Garden Reels & Lines Early Frame Cucumber Pruning Knives, ber, Flour Seeds, Roots, Cluster, do. Pots, &c. Long Green do.
Also a collection of Fruit Trees, Flowering Shrubs, Poplars, Asparagus Roots, &c. &c. N. B. An assortment of the Garden Seeds are for sale at Mr. R. Eno's George-town. February 1—cawtf.
A WAITER, A CHAIR & HORSE.
A very handsome Mulatto Boy, about thirteen years old, for his age excelled by few as a waiter—also an elegant double Chair with complete plated harness, new, and an excellent chair or saddle Horse for sale separately or collectively. Enquire of the printer. Feb. 22—tw6w
Valuable Property
FOR SALE.
IN virtue and by authority over a deed of trust and power of attorney, bearing date on the 30th day of May 1801, and duly recorded from Gen. Uriah Forrest to me, and for the purposes therein mentioned, I will on Wednesday the 28th day of March next, if fair, if not the next fair day, sell at public sale to the highest bidder, that beautiful and valuable tract of land (or so much of them as will pay the debt they are bound for) conveyed by the said deed to me, called Pretty Prospect, containing 420 acres...
The terms of payment will be for negotiable notes with approved indorsers, payable at three instalments, to wit, for one fourth part of the purchase money in such notes payable at the end of sixty days after the date thereof, for one half of the remaining three fourths of the said purchase money in such notes payable at the end of six months after the date, and for the residue in such notes payable at the end of twelve months after date.
Should the highest bidder at this sale refuse or neglect to give such notes, with approved indorsers, within one half hour after the said land is cried down to him, his bid will be considered as of no avail and the land will immediately be again set up to sale to the highest bidder upon the terms above expressed, at which second sale, no notice will be taken of any bid that may be made by the person so failing to comply with the terms hereof. JOHN TEMPLEMAN. Feb. 17—wtdof
PATENT MACHINE
For boring Holes in Rocks under water or in any situation and blasting them. THE subscriber having purchased the patent right from Jean Baptiste Aveline, the original inventor, for the counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, Jefferson, Berkeley, Augusta, Rockingham, Hampshire, Hardy and Botetourt in the state of Virginia, will dispose of it to any person or company for any particular object. The model may be seen at any time, and terms made known by A. LINDO, Fred. Co. Vir. Winchester Jan. 18—wtf
Valuable Land for Sale.
The executors of the last will and testament of Anthony Holmead deceased, will sell at private sale about forty acres of Land adjoining the city of Washington at the northern extremity of 20th street west. This land is generally allowed to be one of the handsomest situations near the city, having a beautiful prospect of nearly the whole of the city of Washington, Alexandria and George Town, and any person inclined to purchase this valuable property, will be shown the same, and know the terms by application to the subscriber near the premises. JOHN HOLMEAD. November 11—wtf
A TEN Thousand Dollar PRIZE.
Scheme of a Lottery For the use of the GERMAN TRINITY CHURCH, In Sixth Street, Philadelphia.
N. B. This Lottery is expected to commence drawing immediately after the conclusion of the St. Augustine church, & Lehigh navigation Lotteries; and from the great demand for the tickets in different parts of the Union, there is reason to believe that the price will be raised, considerably before that period.
Table with 2 columns: Prize, Dollars. Includes 1st Prize of 10,000 dols., 2nd Prize of 3,000 dols., 3rd Prize of 2,000 dols., etc.
6274 Prizes. Dollars.....90,000 11726 Blanks. Considerably less than two blanks to a prize. The prizes to be paid 30 days after the close of the drawing—Subject to a deduction of 15 per cent.
ADAM PREMIR, ANTHONY HOCKEY, CHARLES BOWMAN, Com'rs. Tickets for sale by the subscribers, at 6 Dollars. Half tickets 3 25 Quarter tickets 1 75 Prizes in other lotteries received in payment.
GEORGE Taylor, jun. No. 85, South Second Street. MATTHEW M'CONNELL, No. 82 Chestnut Street. Letters addressed to either of whom post paid and inclosing the cash, will be duly attended to. March 12—tw6M.