The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1803-02-28 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. III.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCCLXVIII.
FOR DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28th, 1803.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
United States, District of Columbia, and County of Washington, to wit:
In Chancery, January, 1803.
James Barry, Complainant.
vs.
Charles Ross, John Simpson, John Craig, James Crawford, William Read, William Read, Matthew Pearce, George Plumstead.
Defendants.
Bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Complainant's bill in Chancery, filed January 10th, 1803.
Proceedings in the House of Representatives, on the report of a select Committee, for making provision for the payment of certain militia of Georgia, engaged in the defence of that State in 1793 and 1794.
The following report, made by the Secretary of War, was read:
REPORT.
The Secretary of War respectfully reports to the House of Representatives of the United States,
THAT in obedience to their resolution of the 3d of April, 1802, relative to the claims of the State of Georgia, for militia services, the Secretary has taken measures to obtain all such documents as relate to the subject, some of which were not received until the month of January, past.
In the course of an examination of the various documents, the following facts appear, which with the circumstances attending them, are considered as affording the best view of the subject, of what it is susceptible at this distant period of time. The muster and pay-rolls received from Lieut. Col. Constant Freeman, who acted as agent of the war department in Georgia, at the time the services were principally performed, are offered as evidence of services actually performed by the militia of that State, for which compensation is claimed, amounting in the whole to the sum of 142,555 dollars and 29 cents; of which sum 13,152 dollars and 63 cents appear by the rolls to be due to such corps as were specially authorized by the executive of the United States, for services subsequent to 1793; the remaining sum of 129,403 dollars and 66 cents, is for services which were not considered by the executive of the United States, nor by the agent of the war department as fully authorized by the general government, and for which no payments have been made.
Sundry letters from the Secretary of War are offered as the principal grounds on which a decision may be made relative to the latter claims. On the 27th of October, 1792, the Secretary of War wrote to the Governor of Georgia, and gave him a discretionary power as to the force he should think proper to employ, in case sufficient evidence appeared of the hostile intentions of the Creeks against the frontiers of the State.
On the 30th of May, 1793, the Secretary wrote to the Governor and authorized him to raise and organize one hundred horse and one hundred militia foot, to be armed and paid by the United States, which force, in addition to the regular troops then stationed in Georgia, and a suitable number of spies and small scouts, was considered as competent to the defence of the frontier; and directed that whatever force might be employed, should be regularly mustered.
On the 10th of June, 1793, the Secretary wrote again to the Governor, and informed him, that if the State was invaded, or in imminent danger of being invaded, the measures which he (the Governor) had taken, might be considered as indispensable, that he was the judge of the degree and duration of the danger, and would proportion the defence to exigencies—that the President had the fullest confidence, that when the danger which had induced the Governor to call out such large bodies of militia, should subside, that he would reduce the troops to the existing state of things. A letter of the same date as the last, was written to the Governor of South Carolina, informing him that the President of the United States having received authentic information of the unprovoked and cruel outrages of the Creeks on the frontiers of Georgia, requested that he would, in case of a serious invasion by the Indians, and on the request of the Governor of Georgia, direct such parties of the militia of South Carolina to march to the assistance of Georgia, as the case might require, for the expense of which the United States would be responsible.
On the 19th of July, 1793, another letter from the Secretary of War to the Governor of Georgia, states, as no information had been received at the seat of government of any late depredations of the Indians, and as there was reason to hope that they would be brought to a sense of their crimes and induced to give up some of the authors thereof, the directions given in the letter of the 30th of May, still ought to operate—Capt. Constant Freeman is mentioned as having been appointed agent for the war department, who would regulate the issues
of public property to the troops which might be in service.
On the 5th of September, 1793, a letter was written by the Secretary of War to Captain Constant Freeman, by which he was directed not to concur in any measures at the expense of the United States for invading the Creek country. And on the 22d of February, 1794, another letter was written by the Secretary of War to the Governor of Georgia, from which it appears that the President of the United States had been induced to believe that a greater number of troops had been employed than was necessary—and the Governor was informed that the general government would not, except in case of an actual invasion, be pledged for the expenses, if in future any number of troops should be employed, which exceeded the force that the President had previously authorized, viz. one hundred horse and one hundred foot. He is also informed, that it was expected that the militia were to be paid by the United States, it would be necessary that returns, muster and pay rolls should be made and delivered to Captain Freeman, the agent of the war department, in order that the whole cost might be submitted to Congress, as the only authority competent for deciding on what proportion of the expenses should be defrayed by the United States.
By a letter of the date of the foregoing, addressed by the Secretary of War to Mr. Habersham, collector of the customs in Georgia, who also had acted as an agent of the war department, he is informed that the number of militia, which had been supplied in the State of Georgia at the expense of the United States, appeared by his representations to the war department, to have greatly exceeded the number contemplated, and that one hundred horse and one hundred foot, in addition to the continental troops, were considered as adequate to the protection of the frontiers against small parties of Indians, and that orders had been given for that number to the late Governor, dated the 30th of May, 1793, which number the President of the United States consented might be kept up on certain conditions mentioned to the Governor. Mr. Habersham was then directed not to furnish supplies, without particular orders from the proper department, to any greater number than one hundred horse and one hundred foot.
Copies of many other letters and extracts of letters, are among the documents, which are not considered by the Secretary of sufficient importance to require particular notice.
From the preceding exhibition of facts, and from the other less important documents, and the circumstances connected with the subject, it appears that the actual services performed by the militia of the State of Georgia, in the course of the several years to which this enquiry is directed, for which payments have not been made, amount in the whole, according to the rolls delivered to the agent of the war department, and by him transmitted to that department, to 142,555 dollars and 29 cents. That such part of said services, as were performed under the immediate direction of the executive of the United States, amounts to 13,152 dollars and 63 cents—that from October, 1792, to May, 1793, the Governor was, by direction from the executive of the United States, to employ such force, as in his opinion should be necessary—that from the 30th of May to the 10th of June, there was a suspension of his discretionary authority, and on receiving the letter of the 10th of June, he was again authorized to act altogether at his own discretion, as to the number of troops he should employ; and until he received the letter of the 19th of July, 1793 he was authorized by the executive of the general government, to employ such force, as he should judge necessary for defensive protection, and that from the general tenor of the direction, of the executive of the United States, he probably considered the United States as responsible for the expense. Whether the Governor exercised the power confided to him, by the executive of the general government, with sufficient caution or not, must depend on mere opinion. When the situation of the State of Georgia, at that period, is considered, having a thinly inhabited frontier, of about four hundred miles in extent, bordering on numerous hostile and warlike Indian nations, and threatened with a general invasion from one of the most powerful, which was actually committing frequent depredations on the frontier inhabitants, it is not improbable but that the Governor might have been induced
to believe, that a greater number of men were necessary for the protection of the frontiers, than would have been considered needful by persons remote from the scene of action. At the time when these services were performed, a hostile disposition pervaded the greater part of the Indian nations, within the United States; a peace was then existed between the United States and the numerous tribes of Indians, in the country north west of the Ohio, and predatory war was carried on between the territory south east of the Ohio, now the State of Tennessee, and the Cherokees, the expenses of which were principally defrayed by the United States—troops were kept in pay at the expense of the United States, on the frontiers of South Carolina.
As it would be impracticable at this time to ascertain with precision, what number of troops was really necessary to have been kept in service at different periods, in the State of Georgia, and as the opinion of the executive of the United States, appears to have varied on the subject in respect to the degree of danger, with which that State was threatened, and as the suspension of the Governor's discretionary power between the 27th of October, 1792, and the receipt of the Secretary's letter of the 19th of July, 1793, was but of ten days duration, it is considered by the Secretary, that the services of the whole of the militia, called out by the Governor of Georgia, in the year 1793, do constitute a just claim upon the United States, for pay up to the time in which the said troops could have been disbanded, after the receipt of the said letter, of the 19th of July; which probably could not have been effected earlier than the 1st of September; and when it is considered that they were spread over an extensive country, it may be doubtful whether the necessary arrangement could have been made and carried into execution, at so early a period.
Under a full view of all the circumstances relating to the subject, the Secretary respectfully submits to the consideration of Congress, whether justice would not require an admission of the claims for all services performed for defensive protection in the year 1793, up to the 1st of October of the same year, for which regular pay and muster rolls have been received, and whether the admission of the claim for like services, for which muster and pay rolls have been received, for the other three months of the year 1793, would not under all circumstances, do less injustice, than would result from a rejection of that part of the claim. The services for which pay and muster rolls have been received, up to the end of the year 1793, amount to 95,971 dollars and 23 cents, exclusive of the sum of 13,152 dollars and 63 cents, due to the particular corps and spies, specially authorized subsequent to the year 1793.
What weight should in this instance be given to the provision in the constitution "that no state shall make war unless in case of invasion, or of such imminent danger as will not admit of delay," which is referred to by the Secretary of War in his statement to the President of the United States (as per document marked letter K) and which the State of Georgia may consider as authorizing her claims, is submitted to the determination of Congress.
H. DEARBORN. War Department, Feb. 3d, 1803.
Mr. Early.—Mr. Chairman, Believing that the claim which is now the subject of consideration depends upon facts but little understood by the committee, I must beg their indulgence, whilst I endeavor by a recurrence to a train of documents to explain and establish its justness. It is a claim for services of the most meritorious kind performed in defence of an exposed part of the union. They were performed under circumstances which called for the interpolation and aid of the government itself, and in the exercise of an almost unlimited discretion delegated by the executive of the United States to the Governor of Georgia.
It will be recollected that at the period during which these services were performed the whole frontier of the United States was in a state of alarm. A general confederacy existed between the Indian tribes residing within our Territory, the object of which was an union of hostility against the white inhabitants. A regular warfare was carried on in the Territory North West of the Ohio, by agents under the immediate orders of the Federal Executive. An irregular war-
fare prevailed between the inhabitants residing in the now State of Tennessee and the Southern Tribes; and the people in the State of Georgia were roused to action by the irresistible principles of self preservation. This State was lined by a frontier nearly four hundred miles in extent, thinly settled and immediately in the neighbourhood of two of the most numerous and warlike nations whose settlements were strung along its whole length. Actual hostility quickly roused the people of that country to a full view of their situation. The whole frontier was subjected to inroad, thefts & massacres; & the innocent inhabitant laid himself down to rest at night under an awful apprehension that before his eye could meet the morrow's sun, his ears would be assailed by the war whoop or the fire of the savage foe.
In this situation of affairs, communication was made by the Governor of Georgia to the department of War, stating the existing exigencies and requesting instruction as to the mode of meeting the impending evils. In the month of October 1792, the Secretary of War writes to the Governor an answer in the following terms. "If the information which you may receive, shall substantiate clearly any hostile designs of the Creeks against the frontiers of Georgia, you will be pleased to take the most effectual measures for the defence thereof as may be in your power, and which the occasion may require." Here, Mr. Chairman, it will be perceived there was given to the Governor of Georgia a complete discretionary power to call into the field such a number of troops as the occasion might render necessary for the defence of the frontiers. He was constituted judge of the occasion, and judge of the extent of the force which that occasion might render expedient. In conformity with the ample powers thus possessed, he called out and employed in defensive protection the militia, whose claims are now under investigation.
The danger to which our settlements were exposed did not cease. Such was the spirit of hostility which at that period governed the Indian tribes that wherever our frontier was left unprotected, there the unfortunate inhabitants became a subject of slaughter. The troops of course were retained in service. But on the 30th of May 1793, the Secretary of War writes to the Governor of Georgia directing the force which should in future be destined for the defence of the frontiers to be reduced to one hundred horse and one hundred foot, in addition to the regular establishment already in that country;—prohibiting at the same time any offensive operation, and recognizing the power of the State authority to call out any adequate force in cases of actual invasion or such imminent danger thereof as would not admit of delay. This letter is considered by the present Secretary of War in his report to Congress, to have counteracted the orders given on the 27th of October in the preceding year, and to have suspended the exercise of the discretionary power given to the Governor by that letter. So early, however, as the 10th June following, including a space of only ten days, another letter is written by the Secretary of War, from which it appears that before the date of his last of the 30th of May, a communication had been made by the Governor of Georgia, but which had arrived at the War Office after the dispatch of that of the 30th of May. This communication from the Governor had given information of new attacks of the Indians and a continuation of their hostile disposition. And in the answer from the War Department of the 10th of June the Governor of Georgia is told that "The State of Georgia being invaded or in imminent danger thereof, the measures taken by your excellency may be considered as indispensable. You are the Judge of the degree of danger and of its duration, and will undoubtedly proportion the defence to exigencies."—It is important to remark here that this letter was written under full knowledge on the part of the War Department of what had been done by the Governor of Georgia in relation to the force which had been called into the field, and under a further knowledge of the exigency which had given rise to the measures. This knowledge was derived from the communication of the Governor of Georgia just then received.
On the 19th day of July, however, a letter written from the War Department, which is considered by the present Secretary as putting an end to any further discretion on the part of the Governor.
Forty Dollars Reward.
Run away on the 1st of January, from the Subscriber living in Charles County, near Port Tobacco, A MULATTO MAN, named CHARLES.
FORMERLY the property of Mr. JOHN L. LOVETON, Esq. of Prince George's County, about 32 years of age, 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high—of a long slant, with black hair, red whiskers and beard, and a high forehead, freckles on his face and hands, and when recited or spoken to, has a slow voice, and bars his eyes very frequently—his knees inclining inwardly. On examination there will be found scars on his back, occasioned by the lash. He has a brother the property of Mr. John Loveton, just of George Town, another the property of Mr. Levan Moore of Montgomery county—took away with a green cotton jacket with sleeves, a country cloth overalls with stripes—a hat worn at the brim, an anas-brig shirt, and other clothing not sufficiently recollected to be described—Whoever apprehends the said fellow, and brings him home to me shall receive the above reward.
HENRY H. HAWKINS. Feb. 11. law3w.
TAKE NOTICE.
I WILL sell five hundred and fifty acres of Land whereon I live, in Fairfax county, within five miles of the court house, and within twenty of the City of Washington, Alexandria, Dumfries, and twelve of the Occoquan mill, it is a healthy situation, the land fertile, and has about two hundred acres of wood to cut, there is a great proportion of white and red oak, poplar and hickory timber—There is nearly one hundred acres of prime land for meadow, I will give six months credit for one fourth of the purchase money—twelve months for the other quarter, eighteen for the third, and two years for the last payment, a purchaser will find me on the premises.
THOS POLLARD. Feb. 27th. 4t.
NOTICE.
Will be sold, on the premises, to the highest bidder, for cash, on Thursday the third day of March next, at 11 o'clock, A. M.—
A LOT of Ground in the City of Washington on Square numbered 950, fronting 15 feet on G street, and 50 feet on 9th street, each being a little cell of the Marine Barracks.
This lot is offered for sale to satisfy a debt due to me by HENRY DUNLAP of George Town. The title is indisputable.
ALEXANDER MCCORMICK. Feb. 18th 1803. 4t.

verner. The present claim therefore to be as favourably reported for, for services performed by troops called into the field by the Governor of Georgia in the exercise of that discretionary power given him by the letter of the 27th of October, and taken from him by that of the 19th of July following, allowing a reasonable time for disbanding the troops after the receipt of the fame.
Mr. Chairman—There is a leading feature which marks these claims, and to which it is important to direct the attention of the committee as to a polar star. It is—that they are for services confined exclusively to defensive protection . The discretionary powers vested in the Governor of Georgia were restricted alone by this object. To this object were they all directed. I will not at this time enter into an inquiry as to the soundness or humanity of that policy on the part of the general government which with respect to all the Southern frontier has kept up a steady opposition against offensive operations. But I will observe that the experience of all America has proven that such operations produce as against Indians the only effective tranquility; and that the inhabitants of the southern frontier have never yet received a satisfactory explanation why this description of operations was so sedulously pursued by the general government and at enormous expense too, in relation to the north western country, but strictly and sternly interdicted as to themselves.—We, Mr. Chairman, were tied down to defensive measures. A frontier 400 miles in extent was in all its points exposed to hostile inroad and to the depredations consequent upon savage warfare. 'Tis vain to judge of this by the rules applying to civilized nations. If any gentleman in this committee shall undertake to do so, he will involve himself in an act of signal injustice. Savages are not in the habit of collecting themselves into one army and uniting their force against any particular point. No Sir. They divide themselves into small parties—they extend themselves along the whole line of frontier—each party watches for its time and its particular place of attack. You never know which point is most in danger or at what time there is most reason to expect an attack. The whole line of frontier therefore was in imminent danger of invasion which does not admit of delay, in all Indian warfare;—An imminent danger too which never ceases to exist so long as a spirit of hostility prevails.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, was our situation. A situation the exigencies of which were to be provided for and to be met. To effect this ample powers were delegated to the governor of Georgia. He was constituted the judge of the occasion,—of the degree of danger,—of the quantum of force,—and of the duration of the necessity. He was authorized, may directed to call out any number which the situation of things might require. This authority and this direction he pursued. Four hundred miles of exposed frontier were to be defended. Could this be effected by one hundred horse and one hundred foot? I appeal to the understanding of every gentleman upon this floor and urge the question whether such a force was adequate to the exigency? I feel confident of receiving an answer in the negative. What then was to be done? Was the governor of Georgia to stand an idle spectator of the murder of his fellow-citizens and of the ruin of his country. Suppose, Mr. Chairman, that notwithstanding the wide discretionary powers with which he was possessed, he had not chosen to take upon himself the responsibility of calling into the field an adequate force, and the Indians had ravaged the country and laid our towns in ashes, how would he have stood acquitted to his country? How would he have answered for the ruin of our settlements and the carnage of our inhabitants? Give me leave to say Sir, that he would have received the execration of mankind, and would have deserved the death of the scaffold.
All governments are bound to defend their inhabitants. If it be inconvenient to do so, it is right to compensate those who can yield the wanted protection. In the present case that protection was afforded not immediately by the government itself, but by individuals called upon for that purpose by one who as to that occasion was the agent of the government. Is there any proof that he abused the discretion given him? On the contrary does it not appear that the occasion for his exercise thereof existed in necessity. But admit he did abuse it. Are the soldiers who performed the service, and who were bound to yield obedience under all the penalties of military law, are they to suffer? Suppose the individual when ordered out had refused obedience, would he have escaped punishment. It is known he would not. Is there then a principle to be established which will deprive a man of his right to compensation for services which he is not at liberty to refuse to perform? We are told that the state of Georgia ought to pay them. I answer No, Sir. The obligation to obedience was not to state authority. The penalties of disobedience would not have been inflicted un-
der state authority. All the ties in which the soldier was bound were to the federal government. It had constituted an agent in Georgia with full powers. That agent had exercised his powers and incurred an expenditure. This expenditure must fall upon the principal.
The manner of wording the discretionary powers given to the governor of Georgia could leave no doubt on the minds of those who engaged in the service that they would be paid. There is upon the face of the correspondence between the War-Department and the governor of Georgia an implied promise of payment. It is a safe principle to construe the acts of governments in matters of contract by the same rules by which you would construe the acts of individuals. Put then the case of an individual, who at a distance from his home receives information that his house needs repairs; he writes to some one in whom he reposes confidence, authorizing and requesting him to cause such repairs to be made as in his opinion may be necessary; the work is done and the owner when informed of the extent and price refuses payment under a pretext that the repairs done were greater than necessary; would any tribunal hesitate to compel a payment to the full amount? And shall the magnanimity of the government refuse to direct itself by the most obvious principles of justice, because it possesses the power of refusal. If the discretion given by the war department was too great, the blame rests with that department. If the agent of the government abused the trust reposed with him, the fault is there. In any event and in every view the soldier is innocent. Many of the officers who commanded the militia relying upon the faith of the government, and confiding in its justice, became responsible for large sums of money for necessary arms and clothing, furnished the troops. Distress and embarrassment have been their lot.
There is another view of this subject which is considered by the claimants as being conclusive against the government. It appears from a recurrence to the documents before the committee that the agent for supplying the troops in Georgia, (John Habersham) upon inspecting the letter of October 1792, was impressed with a belief, that the troops called into the field, by the Governor were authorized by that letter, and that it became his duty to order the contractors to furnish them with the necessary supplies. That he accordingly did.—And it is important in the inquiry to direct the attention of the committee to the conduct of the government in relation to that part of the transaction. Two years afterwards, when the Government of the United States had become possessed of complete knowledge as to all the circumstances attendant upon the occasion,—had become informed of the number of troops which had been in service, the length of time during which they had served,—the degree of necessity which had given rise to the draft, the contractor was paid for all the supplies which had been furnished. I will not say Mr. Chairman, that the opinion of the agent when he directed the supplies, is conclusive against the Government: But I will say Sir, that these troops were either in the service of the United States, or they were not in that service. If they were not the general government had no right to supply them, or what is the same thing, pay those who did. What nation ever supplied an army in the service of another power without a special contract for that purpose. The very act of settling with the contractor was then a complete acknowledgment on the part of the general government that the troops were in her service.—But it has been alleged by a former Secretary of War, Mr. M'Henry, in a report made by him upon this subject, that the unauthorized act of an agent cannot bind the principal. I grant the position, but say that the subsequent conduct of the principal in the case now under consideration, was an acknowledgment on the part of that principal, that the act of the agent was not unauthorized. For if unauthorized the government was bound and in justice to the community ought not to have defrayed the expenditure incurred by the agent's order. The doctrine of the honourable Secretary goes in its consequence to impeach the general government of a high breach of trust in appropriating a portion of the public fund to improper objects.—And as some influence has been created against the claim now before the committee, by the opinion of that officer, it is fair to observe that, a preceding Secretary at least equal in talents and considerably superior in knowledge upon military subjects, has given an opinion that these claimants ought to be paid. I mean Mr. Pickering. (Here Mr. Early read a document containing Col. Pickering's opinion.)
But Mr. Chairman, I understand that it has always weighed much in this house in matters of claims to shew precedent. Fortunately for those who are now appealing to the justice of the government, there are precedents strongly in their favor. I allude to the case which arose from services performed by militia in the state of Tennessee. They are distinguished in the documents of this house by the names of White's, Ore's and Johnson's
case. These were services performed too in the same year with our own. These Sir, were services of offensive operation carried on in the face of positive order to the contrary previously received from the department of war. I beg the attention of the committee to this fact. (Here Mr. E. read a statement of the case from the documents of the house, proving that they were cases of offensive operation , and strictly forbidden by the War department.) And yet Mr. Chairman, these services have all been paid for years since, under a conviction on the part of the government that they had been rendered necessary by the existing state of things. Will not equal justice be extended to the militia of Georgia? Shall the Councils of American incur the foul charge of partiality? Shall the distant and exposed Southern frontier settlements continue to supplicate the protection of their parent, and continue to meet with cold repulse? Why Mr. Chairman; wherefore is it that favour is to be perpetually extended to some and not to others. The people of my country have hoped, Sir, that the age of favour had passed by. They have in times past been compelled to look on in bitter regret at that policy which led to the expenditure of more than four millions of dollars for the protection of a particular Territory. When they themselves were bleeding at every pore, undefended by the government. But they hope the hour of equal justice has arrived.
It is of the first importance to attach to the Government the militia of the country, they are its bulwark—its natural defence. But this can never be effected unless you possess their confidence.—The uncertain situation of the American affairs in relation to foreign nations renders this an object of the first magnitude at the present moment.—If hostility is meditated from abroad, let gentlemen recollect at what point the first blow must be made. The very first soldiers who must take field, will be the same men who are now suing for justice for past services. They have once before left their home—they have fought your battles—they have given peace to the Country.—But they are not paid. They are attached to the Government but refuse them justice, and I will not pledge myself that they will remain lo-
TO BE SOLD, At Public Sale, on Thursday the tenth of March, The Subscriber's life estate, in that valuable FARM, known by the name of the Walnut Tree Farm, situate on the south side of the river Potomac, about four miles below Alexandria. This farm contains 360 acres, of which about 100 are in wood, and the rest arable. The buildings consist of a two story brick house, handsomely finished, and a two story frame kitchen adjoining the house; a two story frame house for an overseer; a frame quarry capable of accommodating 15 or 20 persons; and a large well built barn, with granaries, stables, and an extensive shed for cattle. The beauty and salubrity of this situation is exceeded by none on the river Potomac. The arable land is divided into convenient fields, and the soil is good for the production of small grain.—There are on the premises a thriving young orchard of apple and peach trees and about 40 acres of wheat in the ground.
The extent of this farm on the river (being more than a mile) affords an opportunity for an industrious farmer to collect large quantities of manure, and the excellent FISHERY attached to it, on which are two very good and convenient fish houses, most greatly enhance its value.
At the same time will be sold on the premises (if not disposed of before at private sale) upwards of twenty NEGROES together with the stock of Horses, Cattle, Sheep and farming utensils on the place.
The terms of payment to be cash for all sums under one hundred dollars, from one to two hundred dollars sixty days credit; and for all sums above two hundred dollars, one half in sixty, and one half in ninety days, the purchaser giving approved notes negotiable in the Banks of Alexandria or Columbia.
TOBIAS LEAR. Feb. 25. eptioM.
NOTICE. In the case of Frederick Conrad, Bankrupt.
WHEREAS a commission of Bankruptcy under the act of Congress, entitled "An act to establish an uniform system of Bankruptcy throughout the United States," hath been awarded against Frederick Conrad, of the City and county of Washington, merchant and trader—And whereas the major part of the Commissioners in said commission named, have declared the said Frederick Conrad, Bankrupt within the meaning of said act of Congress—he is hereby required to surrender himself to the said commissioners in said commission named, or the major part of them on the ninth day of March next, on the twenty first day of said March, and on the tenth day of April next, at the hours of 4 o'clock, P. M. on each of said days, at the Public Court of Washington County—then and there to make a full and fair disclosure and discovery of his estate and effects—At the said meetings, or any of them, the creditors of the said Bankrupt, are required to prove their debts—at the second, to choose an assignee or assignees of his estate—and at the third to assent or dissent from or to his certificate—All persons holding any of the property of the said bankrupt, or who are indebted to him, are hereby required to pay and deliver the same to
J. C. DENT, Sec. To the Commissioners. February 22th. } 1803. saw 3w
WANTED, One or two Boys to learn the BOOT and SHOE-MAKING Business—Apply to JOHN CROOKSHANK. George-Town, Jan. 19, 1803.
Senate of the United States.
MONDAY, Feb. 14, 1803.
After the Senate had finished its deliberations upon the legislative business before it, Mr. Rofs rose and said:
That although he came from a part of the country where the late events upon the Mississippi had excited great alarm and solicitude; he had hitherto forbore, the expression of his sentiments, or to bring forward any measure, relative to the unjustifiable, oppressive conduct of the officers of the Spanish government at New Orleans. He had waited thus long in the hope that some person more likely than himself, to conciliate and unite the opinions of a majority of the Senate, would have offered efficacious measures for their consideration. But seeing the session now drawing to a close, without any such proposition, he could not reconcile a longer silence, either to his own sense of propriety, or to the duty he owed to his constituents. He would not consent to go home without making one effort, however feeble or unsuccessful, to avert the calamity which threatened the Western country. Present appearances he confessed, but little justified the hope, that any thing he might propose would be adopted; yet it would at least afford him some consolation hereafter, that he had done his duty when the storm was approaching, by warning those who had power in their hands of the means which ought to be employed to resist it.
He was fully aware that the executive of the United States had acted; That he had sent an Envoy Extraordinary to Europe. This was the peculiar province, and perhaps the duty of the president. He would not say that it was unwise in this state of our affairs to prepare for remonstrance and negotiation, much less was he then about to propose any measure that would thwart negotiation, or embarrass the president. On the other hand he was convinced that more than negotiation was absolutely necessary, that more power and more means ought to be given to the president, in order to render his negotiations efficacious. Could the president proceed further, even if he thought more vigorous measures proper and expedient? Was it in his power to repel and punish the indignity put upon the nation? Could he use the public force to redress our wrongs? Certainly not. This must be the act of congress. They are now to judge of ulterior measures. They must give the power and vote the means to vindicate in a becoming manner the wounded honor and the best interests of the country.
Mr. R. said he held in his hands certain resolutions for that purpose, and before he offered them to the senate he would very fully explain his reasons for bringing them forward and pressing them with earnestness, as the best system the United States could now pursue.
It was certainly unnecessary to waste the time of that body in stating that we had a solemn explicit Treaty with Spain; that this Treaty had been wantonly and unprovokedly violated, not only in what related to the Mississippi, but by the most flagrant, destructive spoliations of our commerce on every part of the ocean, where Spanish armed vessels met the American flag. These spoliations were of immense magnitude, and demanded the most serious notice of our government. They had been followed by an indignity and a direct inroad of our treaty relative to the Mississippi which bore an aspect not to be dissembled or militated.
To the free navigation of that river we had an undoubted right from nature, and from the position of our Western country. This right and the right of deposit in the island of New Orleans, had been solemnly acknowledged and fixed by treaty in 1795. That treaty had been in actual operation and execution for many years—and now without any pretence of abuse or violation on our part, the officers of the Spanish government, deny the right, refuse the place of deposit and add the most offensive of all insults, by forbidding us from landing on any part of their territory;—and shutting us out as a common nuisance.
By whom has this outrage been offered? By those who have constantly acknowledged our right and now tell us that they are no longer owners of the country!!! They have given it away—and because they have no longer a right themselves; therefore they turn us out who have an undoubted right! Such an insult, such unprovoked malignity of conduct, no nation but this would affect to mistake. And yet we not only hesitate to the court which interest and honour call us to pursue, but we bear it with patience, tameness, and apparent unconcern.
Sir, said Mr. R. whom does this inroad of the treaty, and the natural rights of the country most intimately affect? If the wound inflicted on national honour be not sensibly felt by the whole nation is there not a large portion of your citizens exposed to immediate ruin by a continuance of this state of
things? The calamity light upon all those who live upon the western waters. More than half a million of your citizens, are by this cut off from a market. What would be the language, what would be the feelings of gentlemen in this house, were such an indignity offered on the Atlantic coast? What would they say if the Chesapeake, the Delaware, or the bay of New York were shut up, and all egress prohibited by a foreign power? and yet none of these waters embrace the interests of so many as the Mississippi.—The numbers and the property affected by shutting this river is greater than any thing that could follow by the blockade of a river on the Atlantic coast. Every part of the union was equally intitled to protection, and no good reason could be offered why one part should be less attended to than another.
In the last year goods to more than the value of two millions of dollars, had been carried into the western country. These goods were purchased on credit. The consumption of that merchandise afforded a revenue to our treasury of more than three hundred thousand dollars. The sale of western public lands was counted upon as producing half a million of dollars annually. Large arrearages of internal taxes were due from that country. The people had just emerged from an Indian war. They had overcome the most frightful obstacles which ever presented themselves in the settlement of a new country, and altho' yet in their infancy, we might promise ourselves an honorable and a vigorous manhood, if they were protected, as we had led them to expect—after a little while their strength and faculty of self preservation would be complete. Certainly they yet needed the kind fostering hand of their parent States. But if that be now withdrawn, where is the revenue on which to calculate? How can they pay for your lands? How can they discharge the arrearages of taxes? How can they pay your merchants in Baltimore, or Philadelphia? They cannot go to market—They have no resources but the produce of their farms. You suffer the Spaniards to lock them up. You tell them that their crops may, may rot on their hands, and yet they must pay you their debts and taxes.—Is this justice? Will it be submitted to? These men bought your lands in confidence that the Spanish treaty would be maintained—all sales since the date of the treaty—now you suffer a wanton violation of it without making an effort to remove the obstruction, and yet tell them they must pay you! This cannot be expected. It would not be the rule between honest individuals, for the seller of an estate suffering an eviction of the purchaser when he might and could prevent it, would not be permitted to recover the purchase money.
If it comports with your calculation of interest or convenience to submit tamely to this outrage, and to witness the ruin of one part of your country for the sake of peace in the residue, surely your ideas of justice will compel you to absolve the western people from all obligation to repay what it would ruin them to advance. Will you prosecute them in your courts? Will you sell their little all by your public officers? Will you not be content with the loss of all the lively hopes that they had entertained of gaining a new fortune and another name in the wild but auspicious new countries of the west? Is it not enough that their day is darkening and closing at noon? Surely it cannot be thought reasonable to exact an impossibility. It is undeniable that in their ruin many of your merchants on the Atlantic coast will be inevitably involved. Great as this evil may be (and certainly it is of immense magnitude) yet the loss of the affections of a whole people, the destruction of enterprise of hope, and of industry, through all the western world is infinitely greater.
It may be said that this is an overcharged description of the evil-side of our affairs without offering any remedy.
Mr. R. said that was far from his intention, and he would now examine that subject because to his mind the remedy was obvious.
The experience of all time has proved that with nations, as well as with individuals, submission to aggression and insult uniformly invites a repetition and aggravation of the mischief. To repel at the outset is more easy, as well as more honorable for the injured party.
Fortunately for this country there could be no doubt in the present case—our national right had been acknowledged and solemnly secured by treaty. The treaty had been long in a state of execution. It was now violated and denied without provocation or apology. Treaty then was no security. This evident right was one, the security of which ought not to be precarious, it was indispensable that the enjoyment of it should be placed beyond all doubt. He declared it therefore to be his firm and mature opinion that so important a right would never be secure while the mouth of the Mississippi was exclusively in the hands of the Spaniards. Caprice and enmity occasion constant interruption. From the very position of our country, from its geographical shape, from ma-

ives of complete independence, the command of the navigation of the river ought to be in our hands.
We are now wantonly provoked to take it. Hostility in its most offensive shape has been offered by those who disclaim all right to the soil and the sovereignty of that country—an hostility fatal to the happiness of the western world—why not seize then what is so essential to us as a nation? Why not expel the wrong doers? Wrong doers by their own confession, to whom by a seizure we are doing no injury. Paper contracts or treaties have proved too feeble. Plant yourselves on the river, fortify the banks, invite those who have an interest at stake to defend it—do justice to yourselves when your adversaries deny it—and leave the event to him who controls the fate of nations.
Why submit to a tardy uncertain negotiation, as the only means of regaining what you have lost—a negotiation with those who declare they have no right at the moment they strip you of yours—they deprive you of yours?—When in full view you will negotiate with more advantage. You will then be in a condition to keep others out.—You will be in the actual exercise of jurisdiction over all your claims;—Your people will have the benefits of a lawful commerce. When your determination is known, you will make an early and an honorable accommodation with any other claimant. The present possessors have no pretence to complain for they have no right to the country by their own confession. The western people will discover that you are making every effort they could desire for their protection. They will ardently support you in the contest, if a contest becomes necessary.—Their ALL will be at stake, and neither their zeal nor their courage need be doubted.
Look at the memorial from the legislature of the Mississippi Territory now on your table.—That speaks a language and displays a spirit not to be mistaken. Their lives and fortunes are pledged to support you. The same may with equal truth be asserted of Kentucky, Tennessee, and the western people of Virginia and Pennsylvania. Is this a spirit to be repressed or put asleep by negotiation?—If you suffer it to be extinguished, can you recal it in the hour of distress when you want it? After negotiation shall have failed, after a powerful, ambitious nation shall have taken possession of the key of our Western Country and fortified it;—after the garrisons are filled by the veterans who have conquered the east—will you have it in your power to awake the generous spirit of that country and dispel them. No—Their confidence in such rulers will be gone—They will be disheartened, divided, and will place no further dependence upon you. They must abandon those who lost the precious moment of seizing and forever securing their sole hope of subsistence and prosperity—they must then from necessity make the best bargain they can with the conquerors.
It may be added that the possession of the country on the east bank of the Mississippi will give compactness, and irresistible strength to the United States, and in all future European wars we shall be more dreaded and of course be more courted and respected than we can ever hope to be without it—on that score therefore our security will be increased by this measure.
Suppose that this course be not pursued. Let me warn gentlemen how they trifle with the feelings, the hopes and the fears of such a body of men as inhabit the western waters. Let every honorable man put the question to himself how would half a million round him be affected by such a calamity, and no prompt measures taken by the government to redress it—These men have arms in their hands; the same arms with which they proved victorious over their savage neighbors—They have a daring spirit; They have ample means of subsistence; and they have men disposed to lead them on to revenge their wrongs. Are you certain that they will wait the end of negotiation? When they hear that nothing has been done for their immediate relief, they will probably take their resolution and act. Indeed from all we have heard there is great reason to believe that they will, or that they may have already taken that resolution.
They knew the nature of the obstruction—they knew the weakness of the country. They are sure of present success—and they have a bold river to bear them forward to the place of action. They only want a leader to conduct them, and it would be strange, if with such means and such spirit a leader should not soon present himself.
Suppose they do go, and do chase away the present oppressors, and that in the end they are overpowered and defeated by a stronger foe than the present feeble possessors. They will never return to you, for you cannot protect them. They will make the best compromise they can with the power commanding the mouth of the river, who, in effect has thereby the command of their fortunes. Will such a bargain be of light or trivial moment to the Atlantic states. Bonaparte will then say to you, my French West India colonies and those of my allies, can be supplied from
your colony of Louisiana, with flour, pork, beef, lumber, and every necessary. These articles can be carried by my own ships, navigated by my own sailors. If you on the Atlantic coast wish to trade with my colonies in those articles, you must pay fifteen or twenty per cent of an impost. We want no further supplies from you, and revenue to France must be the condition of all future intercourse. What will you say to this? It will be vain to address your Western brethren, and complain your commerce is ruined, your revenue dwindles, and your condition is desperate. They will reply that you came not to their assistance in the only moment you could have saved them—That you balanced between national honor and sordid interest, and suffered them to be borne down and subdued at a time when for a trifle you could have secured the Mississippi; that now their interest must be consulted, and it forbade any assistance to you, when following in the same train which had overwhelmed them. If the evil does not immediately proceed the full length of disunion, yet the strength, unity of exertion, the union of interest will be gone. We are no longer one people, and representatives from that part of the country in our public councils, will partake of the spirit and breathe the sentiments of a distinct nation; they will rob you of your public lands; they will not submit to taxes; they will form a girdle round the southern states which may be denominated a foreign yoke, and render the security of that country very precarious as to its peace and past connections. Indeed every aspect of such a state of things is gloomy, and alarming to men who take the trouble of reflecting upon it.
But Sir, said Mr. R. I have heard it suggested that another mode has been contemplated for getting rid of this crisis in our affairs. If we remain perfectly quiet and passive, shew no symptoms of uneasiness or discontent; if we give no offence to the new and probable masters of the Mississippi; may be they will sell it! To me it is utterly incredible, that such an effect would flow from such a conduct. They might possibly sell it if they found us armed, in possession, and resolved to maintain it. They would see that even conquest would be a hard bargain, of so distant a country; our possession would be evidence of a fixed resolution.—But when we have no army, no military preparation, no semblance of resistance, what would induce them to sell? Sell, Sir! for how much?—Why Sir, although there is no information before this house, of any terms, yet I have seen it stated in the newspapers, that those who now pretend to claim that country may be persuaded to sell, by giving two millions of dollars to certain influential persons about the courts.
Here Mr. Wright of Maryland called Mr. Rofs to order and said that he thought it improper to debate upon confidential information which in his opinion should be kept secret.
Mr. R. denied that there was any confidential information in that house. The Vice President said there was no confidential information before the Senate, that he recollected, and that he perceived nothing improper or out of order in what had been said.
A Valuable Farm for Sale.
BY virtue of a decree of the Chancellor of Maryland, had in the case of WM. H. DORSEY, Complainant, against JOANNA and PETER CASANAVE, infant heirs and ANN CASANAVE and NICHOLAS YOUNG, administrators of PETER CASANAVE, Defendants—The Subscriber will on Friday the 18th day of March next, offer for Sale at public auction, the plantation or Farm called "Fair Hill," and the adjoining Tract of Land called "George the Third" containing in the whole about 450 acres. The said Lands will be sold together. This Land is advantageously situated, being about 18 miles distant from George Town, and about 8 miles from Montgomery Court House. The Land is of good quality, and has more than a plentiful supply of Wood and Timber. The improvements upon it are costly, being a large and convenient dwelling house, Brick stable, and other necessary outbuildings. The Sale will take place at 12 o'clock at the dwelling house at Fair Hill, at which W. H. Dorsey formerly resided.
Terms of Sale.—The purchaser to pay to the subscriber the sum of 1350 £ current money, immediately on the ratification of the Sale. And give bond with security to be approved by the Chancellor to pay the residue of the purchase money within six months from the day of sale, with interest from the date. After ratification of the sale and receipt of the whole purchase money, a conveyance will be made by the subscriber to the purchaser of aforesaid property and his or her heirs of all the right, title and estate of the petitioner and of the dependants or either of them hereto.
SAMUEL BROOKE, Trustee.
N. B. One quarter of an acre including the family burial ground at Fair Hill is excepted from the L.E.
Feb. 22, 1803. ept18M.
FOR SALE,
A Blacksmith, who is a prime workman, and his WIFE, an excellent Washer and Ironer. Enquire of the Painter. Feb. 21. 7t.
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
February 25, 1803.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolutions respecting the indisputable right of the United States to the free navigation of the Mississippi, together with the proposed amendment thereto, and a division was called for and the question was taken on striking out the first resolution, offered by Mr. Rofs, as follows:
Resolved, That the United States have an indisputable right to the free navigation of the river Mississippi, and to a convenient place of deposit for their produce and merchandise in the island of New-Orleans.
It passed in the affirmative—Yeas 15 Nays 11.
The Yeas and Nays were as follows. YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckinridge, Clinton, Cocke, Ellery, T. Foster, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, Stone, Sumter, Wright—15.
NAYS—Messrs. Dayton, Hillhouse, Howard, J. Mason, Morris, Olcott, Plumer, Rofs, Tracy, Wells, White—11.
On the question shall the remaining resolutions be struck out as follows;
That the late infraction of such their unquestionable right, is an aggression hostile to their honor and interest.
That it does not conflict with the dignity or safety of this union, to hold a right so important by a tenure so uncertain.
That it materially concerns such of the American citizens as dwell on the western waters; and is essential to the union, strength and prosperity of these states, that they obtain complete security for the full and peaceable enjoyment of such their absolute right.
That the President be authorized to take immediate possession of such place, or places, in the said island, or the adjacent territories, as he may deem fit for convenient, for the purposes aforesaid; and to adopt such other measures for obtaining that complete security as to him, in his wisdom, shall seem meet.
That he be authorized to call into actual service, any number of the militia of the states of S. Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or of the Mississippi territory, which he may think proper, not exceeding fifty thousand, and to employ them, together with the military and naval forces of the union, for effecting the objects above mentioned.
That the sum of five millions of dollars be appropriated to the carrying into effect the foregoing resolutions; and that the whole or any part of that sum be paid or applied on warrants drawn in pursuance of such directions as the President may, from time to time, think proper to give to the Secretary of the treasury.
It passed in the affirmative—Yeas 15 Nays 11.
The Yeas and Nays on this question were the same as on the above question.
The question on the resolutions of Mr. Breckinridge was then taken, and carried unanimously in the affirmative, Yeas 25—as follows;
YEAS—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckinridge, Clinton, Cocke, Dayton, Ellery, T. Foster, Hillhouse, Howard, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, S. Mason, Morris, Nicholas, Olcott, Plumer, Rofs, Stone, Sumter, Tracy, Wells, Wright—25.
That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorized whenever he shall judge it expedient, to require of the executives of the several states to take effectual measures to organize, and equip, according to law, and hold in readiness to march at a moment's warning, 80,000 effective militia, officers included.
Resolved, That the President may, if he judges it expedient, authorize the executives of the several states to accept, as part of the detachment aforesaid, any corps of the volunteers, who shall continue in service for such time not exceeding six months, and perform such services as shall be prescribed by law.
Resolved, That dollars be appropriated for paying and subsisting such part of the troops aforesaid, whose actual service may be wanted, in defraying such other expenses as, during the recess of Congress, the President may deem necessary for the security of the territory of the United States.
Resolved, That dollars be appropriated for erecting, at such place or places on the western waters as the President may judge most proper, one or more arsenals.
Messrs. Breckinridge, Jackson, and Sumter were appointed a committee to bring in a bill or bills pursuant to the above resolutions.
On Friday Mr. Breckinridge reported a bill conformably to the resolutions.
In the account of the proceedings of the Senate, in our last, it was incorrectly stated that the debate took place on Mr. Breckinridge's resolution. The debate really was on striking out Mr. Ross's resolutions, and turned principally on them.
The mistake arose from the dissimilar mode of transacting business, pursued by the two Houses.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, February 28, 1803.
The Senate of the United States have, with becoming firmness, resisted the war measures attempted to be forced upon the country. The resolutions of Mr. Rofs have been virtually rejected by the substitution of those offered by Mrs. Breckinridge. Thus have measures calculated to inflame the passions of the nation, to sow discord among them, and to destroy that harmony between the executive and legislative departments of the government, so eminently necessary at this crisis, been nipped in the bud. The discussion of these war measures has been wisely permitted to be public, that the American people, in whose hands the destinies of the Empire are, may distinctly perceive who are their friends, and who their enemies. Fortunately they are well informed no less as to men than as to measures. Party violence has already developed itself, and they have seen that in its rage patriotism perishes. The men, who last session, menaced us with convulsion and the prostration of our constitutional compact, now urge us to war. They failed in the first, and they will not succeed in the last. In appreciating the motives of the war party, let the people recollect that James Rofs, who introduced the propositions, has ceased to represent the state of Pennsylvania; that Jonathan Mason, who advocated them, is no longer the representative of Massachusetts; and that Governor Morris is about to retire to private life, after having lost the confidence of his constituents. Whom then do these gentlemen represent? Not the people of America. And yet, after a removal from power and an unequivocal forfeiture of the public confidence, they would, if they could, hurry us into war. Their conduct is an impressive attestation of the superiority of the representative system; it shews conclusively that a responsible people is the strongest bulwark of their rights.
The speech of Governor Morris was extravagant beyond measure, and was from the beginning to the end a libel upon republican governments. The sentiments he avowed were such as every genuine American will resent. "Sir," said he (addressing himself to the chair) the moment you have a civil war, it requires no prophecy to say your liberties are gone." Where is the enlightened citizen, who believes in the superiority of the republican to the monarchical system, that will not reject a sentiment so derogatory to truth and to the energies of a government founded on equal rights? Never did a people exist less likely to be embroiled in civil war. But should the period of civil war arrive, we venture to pronounce that neither the sword of usurpation nor the intrigues of party will make an effectual stand against the will of the nation, expressed by the voice, and carried into effect by the arms of millions. In other countries the physical force may be on the side of tyrants; here it is wielded by freemen. Uproar may rage for a day. But the good sense of the nation will put it promptly down. Here is our strength. We are happy in the enjoyment of equal rights, and the madman who unfurls the banner of rebellion cannot find within the limits of the union malcontents enough to keep the field for a day.
The great length of our details prevents other than a very concise notice of the most important proceedings of the House of Representatives.
On Friday the bill for the reduction of the Marine Corps was taken up in committee, and agreed to—and a resolution passed, after a long debate, directing the printing of documents containing a statement of the expenditure of the Quarter Master General for several past years; and the contingencies of the War and Navy Departments for the same period.
On Saturday the House passed to a third reading the bill for the reduction of the Marine Corps.
Died at Philadelphia, Thomas Wignell, manager of the Theatre at that place.
MANDAMUS.
On Thursday last the Chief Justice declared the opinion of the court, on the motion of C. Lee, for a rule to show cause why a Mandamus should not issue to compel James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States, to deliver to William Marbury, and others, their commissions of the peace, for the district of Columbia.
The questions considered by the court in delivering their opinions, were—
1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2d. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3d. If they do afford him a remedy, is it by a Mandamus issuing from this court? On the first point it was the opinion of the court, that such right did exist;
2dly, That he was entitled to a remedy—but on the third question, it was determined, that the act of Congress giving the power to the supreme court, to issue a writ of Mandamus in such a case, was unconstitutional, and consequently void. The rule therefore was dismissed.
The Debate on the Mississippi in the Senate of the United States.
This important Debate, is now transferring to publication in a pamphlet, and will be published with all convenient dispatch by WILLIAM DUANE, at his Bookstore in Washington City, and at Philadelphia.
No other Reporter having taken Notes of the whole of this Debate it is preferable that it is fair to say that no other report can be furnished of the whole.
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of Land on Acquia Creek in the County of Stafford and State of Virginia, containing 103 Acres—it adjoins Mr. Daniel C. Brent's Richland tract, is one mile from Poquoson River, 12 from Fredericksburg, and 48 from the City of Washington. The Land is level and the soil of a good quality, is uncommonly well adapted to the growth of wheat, and Indian corn, it has on it an excellent house, a good barn and some other small houses, a good apple orchard, a flour quarry on the bank of the creek, from which stones may be conveyed to market at less expense than from any other in that part of the country; eight or ten acres of valuable meadow Land, and several of the best fishing shores on that creek, one of which, and four acres of land are rented for 32 pounds per annum. On the opposite side of the creek are large banks of the richest shell marl, by which the whole of this land might, with little expense, be rendered very fertile, it being nearly surrounded by the creek—the marl might be carried in boats to almost any part of it. The tract is supposed to have a sufficiency of timber on it, but should the purchaser with it, he may be supplied with any quantity of the proprietor's wood land on the opposite side of the creek, not exceeding fifty acres at a moderate price. The facility of conveying produce to Alexandria and the City of Washington from this farm must render it an advantageous possession to any person residing in either. For terms apply to Mr. PHINEAS JANNEY of Alexandria or to the editor of this paper.
205 acres of land, for 2500 dollars—the payment as follows, viz:
One thousand dollars on the first day of September next, and two equal annual payments for the balance, or two thousand paid on the first day of September next will be received as a full payment, and an indispensible title made when the money is received.
Should the wood land on the opposite side of the creek be required, the price of that will be 20 dollars per acre, to be paid in three equal annual payments. Possession of the whole will be given on the first day of January next.
Feb. 28. atw3w.
NOTICE.
The Inhabitants of the City of Washington (which includes all that part of the City south of Pennsylvania Avenue and west of 6th street west) and others holding property in said district, are hereby informed that the Subscriber will attend for the purpose of receiving their taxes at Mr. Rhodes Tavern from the first day of next month (every day Sunday excepted, from 3 o'clock P. M. till 6 o'clock P. M.) to the 31st thereof. It is hoped early attention will be had to this notice, as the law requires the tax shall be paid within one month from the date of notice, otherwise their property will be subject to distress and sale which will be very disagreeable to the subscriber.
WASHINGTON BOYD, Treasurer of the City of Washington. Feb. 28. 2aw6w.
NOTICE.
This is to give Notice, that the Subscribers of Washington City, have obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, letters of Administration on the personal estate of JOHN MCCARTY, late of the City and County of Washington deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof to the subscribers, at or before the 26th day of August next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate.
Given under our hands this 24th day of February A. D. 1803.
REDMOND BARRT, } Adstr's. MICHAEL SCOTT. }
N. B. Such persons who have in their possession, books or other property of the deceased will please to deliver them to the administrators without delay.
R. B. M. S. taw3w.
Washington County, Feb. 23, 1803.
By the Orphan's Court.
ORDERED, on application of Redmond Barry and Michael Scott, Administrators of John McCarty, that they give notice in the usual form, by advertisement inserted twice a week for three successive weeks in the National Intelligencer, a paper in the City of Washington, for the creditors of the deceased to exhibit their claims against the estate.
Ordered further, that the said Administrators sell at public auction, all the goods, chattels and personal property of the deceased contained in the inventory return made by them in the following manner: They that give two weeks notice in the paper aforesaid of the time, place and terms of sale—that the same be sold for cash in all cases where the bid shall not exceed twenty dollars; and that on all sales where the bid shall exceed that sum, a credit of six months shall be given—taking bonds or notes for payment with good security, on interest from the day of sale.
Test, Jno. HEWITT, Reg. Feb. 25. aaw3w.