The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1805-07-29 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. V.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. DCCLXIX.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, JULY 29, 1805.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
FROM THE MISSISSIPPI HERALD.
AT a meeting of the inhabitants of Claiborne county, on the 25th of April, (Agreeably to previous arrangements,) captain William M'Caleb was called to the chair—when the following address to his excellency Robert Williams, was proposed and agreed to by the meeting:
To his Excellency, Robert Williams, Esq. Governor of the Mississippi Territory.
SIR, WE the underigned inhabitants of the county of Claiborne, urged on by inclination, and prompted by duty, take the earliest opportunity of tendering to your excellency the homage of our sincere respects. Dissatisfied as we have been with the past, and looking forward with so much solicitude to the future, it will not be thought surprising should we be found among the first to congratulate you, and felicitate ourselves, on an event so favorable to our wishes.
The general reports that we have received of your excellency's firmness and moderation, and charitable disposition, lead us to consider the commencement of your administration as a new and fortunate era in our public affairs. We are persuaded we shall not see your administration marked by political acrimony, and that illiberal intolerant disposition, (manifested towards a certain class of our fellow citizens) which were prominent and highly characteristic features of the preceding one. The fanaticism of that administration introduced a policy of government, founded on arbitrary distinctions, which from our local situation, can have no application. A system of government founded on such principles, and guided by such policy, must be condemned by the just, the moderate and discerning; and lamented by all those who feel a common concern for the dignity of our government and the happiness of the people.
The opinion which common fame has induced us to form of your excellency's views and intentions bids us to hope that party spirit, which has been introduced, and so industriously cherished by our last leaders, and that odious partiality to a particular sect, created by the blind and mistaken zeal of these men, will not, we are persuaded, enter into, or be adopted & incorporated by you, in your administration; nor will you form a part of your system of government; nor will it receive your countenance or support; nor will we hereafter have the mortification to see a large and respectable portion of our fellow citizens laid under a proscription as wicked as it is arbitrary, impolitic, despotic, and intolerant. No, sir, we fondly anticipate and expect to see realized in your administration, wisdom, goodness, and strength, cemented by the love and cordial co-operation of the people.—We expect to see the bickering and jarring of party spirit, (which has heretofore been encouraged and fanned by those who ought to have been the first to unite parties in brotherly affection, union of sentiment and co-operation of exertion for the public weal,) eternally silenced and buried in a lasting and uninterrupted oblivion by your administration. That hereafter an attachment to particular sentiments in politics, differing only in immaterial and speculative points (for we "are all federalists, all republicans,") will not be considered by you as the necessary qualifications to office, regardless of every other consideration that ought to have weight and influence in appointments. Merit, capability, and personal worth, we are persuaded, sir, by you will be made the touchstone of promotion. By this test only we expect to see those selected whom you will should act with you in the discharge of the various and complicated functions of the government.
Having thus expressed freely our opinions of the past, and our expectations and generous confidence in the views and intentions of your Excellency, we have nothing to add, but our serious wishes, that you may so be able to conduct the government, that it may be honorable to yourself, and that you may (together with the love of your people) possess a conscience free from self reproach, and an honest fame.
[Signed by the most respectable inhabitants of Claiborne county.]
REPLY.
To Messrs. Wm. M'Caleb, and Joshua G. Clarke.
GENTLEMEN,
I receive, with due respect, the address you have this day presented to me
in behalf of yourselves and the inhabitants of Claiborne county, expressing your approbation of my appointment to the government of this territory.
It is a matter of serious concern for a community to be dissatisfied with the administration of its government, more so, if there be just cause. But with a free and enlightened people as you are, it is to be expected that constitutional measures alone, will always be resorted to for relief, and that too with firmness, moderation and respect.
I give you assurance, gentlemen, of my greatest solicitude not to disappoint the reasonable expectations of any portion of my fellow citizens in the course of my administration, and for which I have nothing more to pledge, than a determination to adhere to a conscientious discharge of the duties of my office—the best security against self reproach.
ROBERT WILLIAMS.
May 20, 1805.
PROTEST.
Made by the late capt. Isaac Bridges of Andover, his mate and crew, before the American Consul at Fayal. This worthy, but unfortunate man, died of his wounds at said Island, on the 18th April last, after languishing 19 days in extreme distress. It may be some satisfaction for his friends to learn that the honors paid him at his interment exceeded any thing of the kind ever witnessed at Fayal. Their Excellencies the Governor and grand judge, all the military and civil officers, foreign consuls and merchants—in short, all the respectable people of the place, filled with emotions of pity for the unhappy fate of the deceased, and fired with indignation against the privileged assassin who was the author of it, composed the melancholy procession.
Anno Domini, 1805.
Consular Office, District of Fayal, April 2, 1805.
BE it made known and made manifest unto all persons whom these presents may concern, that on this present day, the 2d of April, in the year of our Lord, 1805, at the lodging house of Isaac Bridges, master of the brig Hannah, of Newburyport, where I, John Street, Vice Consul for the United States of America, at the islands of Fayal and Azores, came at his request, he the said capt. being unable to appear in my consular office, declared that he sailed from Newburyport on the 13th of March, in the said brig, found and staunch, for these islands, loaded with American produce, and other articles not prohibited by any treaty between the belligerent powers; that nothing material occurred during his voyage till the 30th of said March, in lat. 39, with a heavy sea running, which caused the vessel to take much water, he, the said captain Bridges, observed a vessel at the stern; that a short time after the said vessel fired a gun to leeward; he, the said captain, immediately showed his colours, and took in sail, to let him come up, and soon observed that said vessel was an English cutter. At half past 1 P. M. he hailed capt. Bridges, and ordered to send his boat on board him, but the sea being very turbulent, he, the said Bridges, observed to said cutter, that his boat was too small, and at the same time he would not trust himself in it, particularly not knowing how to swim, and that if they wished to reach his brig they might come and do it at their own peril. They returned in answer, that if he, the said captain, should not leave his boat out, they immediately would fire on him, and said captain Bridges observing such obstinacy, told them fire and be damned, and that he knew the neutral laws and the treaty between England and the United States. Soon after, said cutter fired several muskets upon him, said Bridges, though he had the main-top-sail on the cap aback, the fore-top-sail clued up; by and by the said cutter came round said brig Hannah, and fired a second time, musket and great guns, and at the third time that the fired, he, the said Bridges, received two very severe wounds in his thigh and groin, and his life being in great danger, in consequence of said wounds, he, the said captain, desired me to take his protest, as he does protest against the barbarous proceedings of the captain of the said cutter, whose name he declares to be Philip Le Roux, and said cutter Providence, of London, not only for his life, but for all loss, costs, and damages whatever, that said brig may sustain in the disposal of her cargo, which he also declares to be under his consignment and care. All of which, being solemnly sworn on the holy evangelists of Almighty God, by said Isaac Bridges, his mate, Joseph Gazneau, Philip Pepple,
Anthony Robert, William Brown, John Colere, mariners, to be truth.
Isaac Bridges, captain. Joseph Gazneau, mate. Philip Pepple, } Anthony Robert, } mariners. William Brown, } John Colere, }
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23.
MR. MARTIN, continued.
When Judge Chase arrived at Philadelphia he had the advantage of perusing the notes of Judge Peters and the district attorney, relating to the former trial; he thereby became well acquainted with all the points at that time made by the counsel for Fries; and Mr. Lewis has sworn, that all the points which were intended to have been made before Judge Chase, had been made at the former trial. Why then should the court either wish, or be obliged to hear counsel again on the law? In two previous cases the law had been settled.—Judge Paterson, a gentleman of the first abilities, mild and amiable, whom no person will charge with being of a vindictive oppressive, disposition, and who certainly has more suavity of manners than any honorable client had, after a most patient and full hearing, where eminent counsel attended, decided the law as was decided by the respondent. Judge Iredell, whose encomium has been most justly given us by the managers, a gentleman of great legal talents, than whom no worthier man has left this for a better world; and who, while living, honored me with his friendship, after having heard Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, and after full and patient investigation, gave, in the case of Fries himself, a similar decision; in both which opinions Judge Peters perfectly coincided. Under these circumstances, Judge Chase, who had no doubt of the propriety of those decisions, to prevent waste of time when there was so much business to transact, and to facilitate the business, thought it best to inform the counsel on each side, that the court considered the law to be settled, and in what manner. For which purpose they delivered to the clerk three copies of their opinion, one for the counsel on each side, the third to be given to the jury, when they left the bar. On this subject, Mr. Lewis, in his testimony, said it was to be given to the jury when the counsel for the United States had opened, or after he had closed the pleadings, but he believed the last. Mr. Rawle is clear that it was to be given to them, when the case was finished, to take out with them.
No gentleman on behalf of the impeachment has denied the correctness of this opinion. But the criminality of the judge, is, we are told, not in the opinion itself, but in the manner and the time in which it was given.
Was there any thing improper that the opinion should be reduced to writing? Why are opinions given? Surely to regulate the conduct of those to whom given; for this purpose they ought to be perfectly understood, and in no degree subject to misconstruction; delivering the opinion, in writing, greatly facilitates these objects; if therefore it was proper to give an opinion, it was meritorious to reduce it to writing, and Judge Chase, in so doing, most certainly acted with the strictest propriety. And, unless a court of justice is bound to sit and hear counsel on points of law, where they themselves have no doubts, before they give their opinion, my honorable client could not be incorrect in delivering it at the time when it was delivered. If the opinion was proper, how, I pray, could any injury be done to Fries by its being delivered? The honorable managers say, it was intended to influence the jury. In the first place, this assertion is not supported by the evidence. When the paper was thrown on the clerk's table, not one word was said of its contents; nor did the court declare any opinion on Fries's case. They only determined the indictment correct in point of form, and not liable to be quashed. They determined that the overt acts stated were overt acts of treason, if Fries had committed them, but whether Fries had committed those acts remained for the jury to determine upon the evidence; as to that part of the case the court gave no opinion. But the honorable managers have told us that Judge Chase must have known what were the facts in the case, because they had been disclosed in the former trial. And I pray you, sir, if he had that knowledge, could it alter the law in the case, or render the declaration of what the law was, more improper? But, as a new trial was granted, the judge could not know what additional evidence might be brought forward to vary the case from its former appearance.
Nor did, sir, the judge's conduct, either improperly influence, nor was it intended so to influence, the jury. No
copy of the opinion would have been taken but for the conduct of Mr. Lewis, and no testimony has been offered to show the least probability, that one single jurymen ever saw the copy, or knew one word of its contents. Nay, sir, it is proved, that Judge Chase took uncommon pains to prevent any of the jurors from being prejudiced against Fries; for, although a great number of criminals indicted for sedition, submitted to the court before Fries was put upon his trial, the judge would not permit one single witness, who was summoned against Fries, to be examined on the submissions, least the jury, by an examination, which would have been, as to Fries, ex parte , might take up prejudices against him. This, Mr. President, was an act of the judge that carries with it the most convincing proof, that he had no wish to oppress Fries, or to prevent him from having an impartial trial; and I pray that this circumstance may be deeply impressed on the mind of every member of this honorable court.
But if the opinion had been publicly read and known, how could it have injured Fries? He was to have an impartial trial. What is the meaning of these expressions? It is a trial according to law and fact, in which, if he is proved innocent, he shall be acquitted; if guilty, convicted. If then the opinion was agreeable to law, it could not prevent, it could not interfere with his having an impartial trial. If in any case a person is acquitted, when the facts are clearly proved, and the law is against him, it must be because he has had a partial, not an impartial trial.
I again ask, sir, ought the court, who were perfectly satisfied with respect to the law, and who considered it settled by previous decisions, in which they perfectly concurred, to have wasted perhaps several days of the public time before they gave their opinion, in listening to Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, exerting all the powers of eloquence and of sophistry to mislead their judgment? Nor did even Judge Chase give his opinion without the full consideration of the arguments of each of these gentlemen, in the very case of Fries. On his arrival, it is admitted by the managers, that he became perfectly acquainted with the proceedings in the former trial, as to the legal questions which had occurred, from the notes of Judge Peters and of the district attorney; and this honorable court have had an opportunity of witnessing with what precision that gentleman takes down the substance of proceedings on a trial.—Judge Chase had an opportunity of examining and considering the arguments used by Messrs. Lewis and Dallas, at the former trial, on the different legal questions then brought forward, the authorities produced, and the applicability of those authorities. He there saw every thing that the great legal knowledge and high talents of those gentlemen, indulged to the utmost extent, and heard with the greatest patience, had produced in favor of Fries. And he had the opportunity of calmly and deliberately considering the whole of these arguments and authorities in his chamber. And having done this, where would be the propriety of spending day after day in listening to the same arguments orally repeated in court, which he had read in his closet, the merit of which he had there coolly discussed, and deliberately decided?
But the managers say that this ought to have been done. That, though the court had no doubt of the law; and, although it is not contended but that the opinion given is correct, yet it was the duty of the court to have patiently listened to the counsel, and suffered them to exert all their eloquence, their ingenuity and sophistry, to pervert their judgment, and lead them into error, to prevail over their understanding, and obtain from them an erroneous opinion. And yet in the same breath, we are told by one of the honorable managers, (Mr. Campbell) that if a Judge gives an erroneous opinion, the presumption is that he doth it from corrupt and criminal motives; and that on impeachment, it is necessary that he should prove the uprightness and integrity of his intentions.
Thus, then, they insist, that if a Judge, intelligent, sensible, well acquainted with the law, doth not indulge counsel in their attempt to lead him into error, he is to be impeached for it. And, if the Judge should listen to counsel against his well formed opinion, and by their ingenuity be led to give up his better judgment, and pronounce an erroneous opinion, he is to be impeached for that also!
Nay, it is expressly said, that the more completely the law is considered to be settled, the more absolutely necessary it is that the criminal's counsel should be permitted to argue the law to the court, and to contend against the law so settled. Thus, then, I suppose, if a person is tried for an assault and battery, the prisoner's counsel must be indulged by the court, and that under pain of impeachment, in spending as much time as they please, in endeavoring to convince the court, that to come up behind an innocent, inoffensive man,
and fracture his skull with a bludgeon, doth not amount to an assault and battery;—or, if a person is tried for a burglary, his counsel must also, under the same penalty, be indulged in the endeavor to convince the court, that to break into a dwelling house in the night time, and steal therefrom is not the offence of burglary.
But the honorable managers do not stop even here. They say, that even had Judge Chase indulged the counsel of Fries with all the length of time they might think proper, in an endeavor to pervert the judgment of the court, and their endeavor had proved unsuccessful, the court was further under pain of impeachment, after they had correctly declared the law to the jury, to suffer the counsel to take up as much more time as they pleased, in endeavoring to mislead the Jury, by impudently and insolently, in the face of the court, attempting to impress them with the idea that the court, though acting under a solemn oath, and having no interest to mislead them, had given an erroneous opinion; and, to induce them to receive the law from the counsel themselves, acting not under similar obligations, but whose fame and whose fortunes might be materially benefitted by deceiving the Jury,—from counsel whose every interest might be to pervert justice.
All which indulgence, the court, it seems, is also equally bound to give to the counsel in endeavoring to mislead the Jury, and pervert justice, in the cases I have before mentioned of assault and battery, or burglary, or in reality, of any other offence, however incontestible the principles of law in such cases may be. Such are the constitutional rights, which criminals and their counsel, we are told, possess; the constitutional right, if possible, to impose upon the court; and, if they fail there, the constitutional right to impose upon the Jury; in other words, the constitutional right to pervert justice!
Nay, we are told the more manifest the guilt, the more indisputably criminal the offence is, the more necessary that he should enjoy these constitutional rights; and so it would be, if the constitution intended, as seems to be the idea of the managers, that guilt should go unpunished; since such offenders can have no chance to escape, unless justice be perverted, through the ingenuity of counsel operating upon the ignorance, the passions or the prejudices of Judges, or Jurors.
The managers have, consistent with the above idea, which they seem to have adopted, exclaimed, "what good could counsel do to Fries, after the court had decided the law? As to the facts there were no dispute. Under such circumstances, to assign counsel to him, was mockery, was insult."
In reply, I will admit, that Fries's case was such, that counsel could not render him much service, but this was not the fault of the court, it was the fault of the case itself, it was because the law was clearly against him, and because the evidence indisputable proved, that he had committed acts, which brought him within the law.
In such cases, what is the duty of the counsel, whether assigned by the court, or employed by the prisoner? It is to advise the prisoner to plead guilty, and throw himself upon the mercy of his country, instead of taking up the time of the court, and creating expense by a Jury trial; but such advice, however agreeable to the constitution of our country, would not, I admit, agree very well with the constitution of a lawyer, as thereby he might occasionally lose large fees extorted from a criminal, fed on the vain hope that the eloquence and chicanery of his lawyer might procure his acquittal contrary to law, and contrary to evidence.
But counsel may be of service to a criminal however guilty he may be, and has duties which he may correctly perform; the counsel may with propriety avail themselves of any defect in the indictment or other proceedings; they may take care that the panel of jurors are legally and impartially returned; they may direct the prisoner as to his challenges to jurors; they may take care that no incompetent witnesses are sworn, and that no improper testimony is given; they may in any questions of law, not considered settled, be heard, and have the questions decided; in fine, they may take care that the prisoner has a fair trial; but when all this has been done, if agreeably to law, and clear undoubted evidence, the prisoner is guilty, it is the duty of the counsel to submit his client's case to the honest decision of the jury, without any attempt to mislead them; & this, whether the counsel are appointed by the court or employed by the criminal. Thus lawyers in Maryland are in the habit of conducting themselves in such cases, and thus ought lawyers, who respect themselves, and have a regard for their own characters, to conduct themselves in all places.
I have heard so much, Mr. President, in this case, about the constitutional rights of criminals to have counsel; and that the counsel should argue to the Jury upon the true construction of the law,

against the direction of the court; and, that the jury have the right to decide the law without regard to such direction; and finding also, that this article of impeachment, as well as the arguments in support of it, appear to be grounded on these principles, that I have been almost induced to suppose I had mis-read the eighth amended article of the constitution, but on turning to it, I find that the constitution secures to the criminal the assistance of counsel, to see that his trial is fairly and correctly conducted, but has not given to the person charged with an offence, or to his counsel, if he is guilty, any constitutional rights, for the purpose of his evading punishment by the imposition of counsel, either on the court or the jury.
Whatever may have been the practice, I have ever considered it contrary to the duty of counsel, either in civil or criminal cases, to exert their abilities in attempting to procure a decision, which they are conscious is unjust. The duty of a lawyer is most certainly, in every case, to exert himself in procuring justice to be done to his client, but not to support him in injustice.
Having made these observations on the relative duties of the court and counsel, let me advert a moment to the conduct of Mr. Lewis, as appears from his own testimony. When my honorable client delivered at the Clerk's table, the copy of the opinion designed for the defendant's counsel, having taken it in his hand—without opening it—without reading one word—Mr. Lewis contemptuously threw it from him, publicly declaring, that "he would never contaminate his hand by receiving into it a prejudiced opinion, in any cause where he was concerned, from any Judge whatever." What insolence! Would to God no lawyer may ever contaminate his hand in a more disgraceful manner, than by receiving therein a sensible, correct, legal opinion, in a cause about to be tried, at whatever time it may be delivered to him!
He also informs us, that he declared to the court, that he never had, nor ever would so far degrade himself as a lawyer, as to argue a question of law, in a criminal case, before the court. What arrogance! Sir, the most eminent, the most respectable lawyers both in England and America, have been in the constant habit, not only of arguing questions of law in criminal cases before the court, but in modestly submitting to their decision, without ever considering it as lessening their consequence. I have long been at a loss, sir, for the enmity the state of Pennsylvania has shown for its bar, and the desire of its citizens to get rid of their lawyers; but if such is the manner, in which the lawyers conduct themselves to their courts—if they, when they are employed in a cause, claim the constitutional right, uncontrolled by the court, instead of furthering justice, to pervert it; I wonder no longer why the citizens of that state wish to be freed from them; and will readily join in the sentiment, "the sooner the better." I will go further, and say, if their courts submit to such conduct, and think themselves bound to be the passive witnesses of such perversion of justice, it is not much matter how soon they also get rid of their courts, for they might as well be without them.
The principles which have been advocated in support of this article, are subversive of the whole order of things; instead of lawyers being the officers of the court, subject to their control, and amenable for the propriety of their conduct; the Judges must be the menial, degraded instruments of the lawyers, and must suit their conduct, not to propriety and justice, but to the pleasure of any haughty, overbearing lawyer, possessing abilities and popularity, and that too under the hazard of being impeached and turned out of office, if his principles should, on any occasion, render him resistive, or, in the language of the testimony, if he should "take the stand."
And here, Mr. President, I hope I shall be indulged with some enquiry as to this "prejudiced opinion;" which Mr. Lewis seems to think has such a contaminating, polluting tendency to the hand of a lawyer, and of which he was so apprehensive, that he would not retain it for a moment. I confess, I feel myself here at a loss to know exactly what the witness meant by a "prejudiced opinion" on the law. I should suppose that the expression, if it can in any instance be correctly applied, must mean the same as to prejudge the law; which, if used to signify any thing improper, must be confined to the case where a person forms an erroneous opinion of the law, without using all due means to acquire correct information.
To prejudge any case, I consider as meaning, that a person without competent knowledge of facts, hath formed an opinion injurious to the merits of the case. If the term prejudication is used in this sense, there is no pretence that my honorable client gave a prejudiced opinion in the case of Fries; for it is not alleged that the opinion given was not strictly legal and correct. Neither Mr. Lewis nor Mr. Dallas have ever attempted to hazard their characters by suggesting the contrary, nor have the honorable managers taken that ground; they do not contest its propriety. Should they in their reply, I shall cheerfully rest that question upon the well known legal abilities of Judge Iredell, Paterson, my honorable client, the associate Judges, who concurred with them, and the legal knowledge of this honorable court.
But if by a prejudiced opinion, is meant, that the Judge, from his great legal knowledge, and familiar acquaintance with the law, as relative to the doctrine of treason, particularly levying war against the United States, had formed
ed a clear decided opinion that the facts stated in the indictment against Fries, if proved, as laid, amounted to treason, I will readily allow that I have no doubt my honorable client had thus prejudged the law, not only before Fries was brought to trial, but before he had committed the treason for which he was tried. But if this manner of prejudging law is thought improper, nay, criminal, in a Judge, a prejudication, which is nothing more than an eminent and correct knowledge of the law, why I pray are gentlemen of great talents, and high legal attainments, sought for in your appointments of Judges? How, sir, are they to free themselves from this obnoxious prejudication of the law, and acquire the contended fitness for the trial of a cause, but by forgetting all that legal knowledge, which had been a principal inducement to their appointment? If I understand the gentlemen, to gratify their ideas, we ought to have Judges, who, when they take their seats on the bench to preside at the trial of a criminal, should not have one single legal idea relative to the offence about to be tried, but should have their minds exactly in that state, in which, some ingenious metaphysicians tell us, the human soul is when first united to the body, like a pure unsullied sheet of white paper, ready to receive any impressions which may be made upon it.
Well, be it so, and let us consider the trial of Fries as if it had been conducted on that principle. The Judges, with their minds like this white sheet of paper, were to sit still, and suffer the counsel to scrawl thereon whatever characters they pleased,—to blot and blurr it, until they were perfectly satisfied. After this ceremony, the Judges, examining the impressions thus made upon the antecedent clean sheet, were from these, and these only, to form their opinion of the law. And this opinion, having been thus formed from nothing but what occurred during the trial, and after the jury were sworn, would not be called a prejudiced opinion, and therefore I presume would be perfectly satisfactory to the honorable managers. So far we should have done very well as it related to the trial of Fries. But next day another criminal is to be tried for a similar offence; Messrs. Lewis and Dallas are not his defenders. Getman has selected Mr. Tilghman for his counsel. How, I pray you, are the Judges to be qualified to preside with propriety in this trial? Yesterday they gave a solemn determination in Fries's case upon the same question of law which now must come forward in the case of Getman. Mr. Tilghman was not then heard. The opinion, then given, is, as to Mr. Tilghman and his client, as much a prejudiced opinion, an opinion as contaminating to the hand of a lawyer to receive, and as highly criminal for a court to give, as was the opinion given by my honorable client. What can be done? The minds of the Judges are no longer a pure unsullied sheet of paper. Yesterday, in the trial of Fries, they had been scrawled upon and sullied by Lewis and Dallas; the impressions still remain. I, sir, can think of no remedy in this difficulty, except that the judges should be supplied with a reasonable quantity of India rubber, or something which shall answer in its place, with which they might wipe off and erase every impression which had been made the day before by Lewis and Dallas, during the trial of Fries. And thus once more take their seats on the bench for the trial of Getman, with minds again like clean sheets of white paper, ready to be again scrawled over, again to be blotted and blurred, at the pleasure of Mr. Tilghman, and from these scrawls, blots and blurs, and from these alone, to take their impressions as to the law, and form their decision as to Getman's case, without regarding, or even remembering the decision they had given the day before. And in this manner to proceed in every case that might come before them successively in their judicial capacity!
If, sir, Judges are to be censured for possessing legal talents, for being correctly acquainted with the law in criminal cases, and for not suffering themselves to be insulted, and the public time wasted, by being obliged to hear arguments of counsel upon questions which have been repeatedly decided, and on which they have no doubt; I pray you let not our courts of justice be disgraced, nor gentlemen of legal talents and abilities be degraded by placing them on the bench under such humiliating circumstances! Put let us go to the corn fields, to the tobacco plantations, and there take our Judges from the plough, and the hoe. We shall there find men enough possessed of what seems to be thought the first requisite of a Judge, a total ignorance of the law! That degradation, which no gentleman of merit and abilities could endure, they will not feel.
In reply to my observation made by my very respectable colleague who opened our defence, and which I have endeavored to enforce, "that, if the opinion given by the court was correct, Fries could receive no injury thereby, though Messrs. Lewis and Dallas had not been suffered to argue against that opinion, because the opinion ought, notwithstanding, to have been the same, one of the honorable managers hath said, that had Judge Chase sentenced, Fries to death without the verdict of a jury; had he decided the fact as well as the law; and he says he might have done the one with as much propriety as the other, it might have been urged in the same manner in defence of the Judge, "that is was of no consequence to Fries, that the fact being clearly against him, had he been tried by a jury, the jury must have found him guilty, and then the Judge must have done what he did, sentence him to death."
This argument is totally fallacious. By the constitution and laws of the Unit-
ed States, the criminal has a right to demand that the facts shall be decided by a jury. This the court cannot refuse if the criminal requires it. Was a Judge to refuse the criminal the trial of the fact by a jury, he would violate a well known legal and constitutional right of the criminal. But as the criminal has a right that the jury should determine questions of fact, so do the principles of jurisprudence equally declare it to be the right of the court to decide questions of law; and the constitution in no part, contravenes this right; it no where says that the Judges must be ignorant of the law, and take their impressions from the counsel of the criminal, or that it is the right of counsel to be heard where the court has no doubt of the law, or to argue to the jury that the law is contrary to the direction of the court, or that the jury should have a right to decide the law contrary to such direction. Hence, therefore, there is this great distinction between the two cases; in the first the court only exercises their own rights, infringing no right of the criminal; while in the last, the court would act in direct violation of his well known legal and constitutional rights. But though the criminal has the constitutional right to have all facts decided by a jury, he may waive this right, in which case the court may pass sentence without the intervention of a jury, as where the criminal demurs to the indictment, and rests upon his demurrer, or where he pleads guilty, in which cases, the court, without the intervention of a jury, proceeds to pass sentence according to law, and the nature of the offence.
In the opening of our defence, it has also been urged, that if there was any impropriety in the conduct of the court, respecting the trial of Fries, on the first day, it was amply compensated by the conduct of the court on the second day, in having called in the written opinions, and the copies which had been taken, and given the counsel liberty to proceed in such manner as they should think proper.
In answer to this the honorable managers have replied, that it was then too late. The mischief, that had been done the first day, was irretrievable; the sin, that day committed, was inexcusable; Nay, one of the managers has told us, that the excuse is as absurd, as would be the excuse of a person, who, having thrown a firebrand into combustibles, and set the whole neighborhood in a blaze, should attempt to excuse himself by saying "he had again got into his possession, and extinguished the brand, with which he had kindled the fire, although the conflagration was still extending, and consuming every thing before it;"—a most happy simile.
But let us examine wherein was the mischief so irretrievable—the sin so inexcusable? neither more nor less, than in this, that as the written opinions only contained the impressions on the minds of the Judges, the destruction of that written opinion would not prevent the same impressions remaining on their minds; and those impressions would be as difficult to remove, after the opinions were called in, as before. It is all very true; but how came the Judges to have on their minds those impressions? Not from having committed them to paper, but from their correct knowledge of the law. And how were those impressions to be removed? Certainly by no means, unless that correct knowledge of the law could also be removed. To accomplish which, I know of no means that could be used, unless the Judges could have been supplied with a quantity of our India rubber, or with a few barrels of the waters of Lethe, with the one to rub out and efface from their minds all their legal knowledge, or by copious drafts of the other, to wash it away. But, sir, I have not made, nor shall I make any use of the proceedings of the second day as an excuse for any impropriety of the court on the first; I only consider them as incontestible proofs, that the court had no other object in view, on either of those days, than conscientiously to discharge their duty, by giving Fries a fair and impartial trial, that if he was guilty he might be punished—if innocent, acquitted. I deny that the court was guilty on the first day, of any impropriety; I take higher ground, and have contended, and do contend, that the conduct of the court on the first day, was correct and proper, and during the whole trial I find nothing improper in their conduct, except their almost humilifyingly soliciting the counsel of Fries to do their duty, instead of committing them to goal for the impropriety of their conduct, which the court ought to have done; but even in this, the court has afforded the strongest proof of their solicitude that Fries should have every legal and constitutional benefit of counsel at his trial.
Reflect, also, that at the time when Mr. Lewis thus contemptuously dashed from his pure hand the contaminating opinion, he had not read a single word, nor received the least intimation of its contents, nor did he know its contents until long after; and yet he instantly formed the determination not to appear for Fries, and to advise their client not to accept the assignment of any other counsel, should the court offer it. Whence this conduct? How did he know the opinion was not favorable to his client? His conscience told him it was not. His own great legal knowledge confirming to him the truth. He well knew the law; he was acquainted with the correct decisions which had been before given. He well knew the great legal knowledge of the Judge, who on this occasion presided; he was certain my honorable client could not but concur with his brethren. He acknowledges they had no hope to change the opinion of the court, and that they had not the vanity to suppose that the jury would, under their influence, decide the law
contrary to what the court should direct; therefore that they had no hopes of the acquittal of their client by the jury on the trial, whatever services they were permitted to render him; and therefore, as the only chance, which they had to save his forfeit life, they assumed that line of conduct, which has been disclosed in the evidence. When Mr. Lewis, in giving his testimony, mentioned, "Judge Peters asked us on the next day whether if the court had got into a scrape the first day, the counsel would not let the court get out of it." "No," said Mr. Lewis, "we were determined not to let them get out of it, as the only means to save our client's life," and in the conclusion of his testimony, he repeated that they were actuated in their conduct, from considering it the only chance they had to save the life of their client, and not from any other motive. And Mr. Dallas also observed in his testimony, that when the court, on the second day pressed them to continue their services as counsel of Fries they refused, determined not to depart from the policy they had adopted, and to withdraw, as the most probable means of benefitting their client.
I shall conclude what relates to this article by observing, that the conduct of Fries's counsel to the court, on that trial, was such as nothing can excuse. It can only be palliated by the reflection that for his crimes he was liable to suffer death. Feelings of humanity and compassion, independent of interest, might excite in their bosoms an earnest anxiety to save his life, this may serve to mitigate censure; but even those feelings, however amiable, ought not be gratified at the expence of national justice, nor by an endeavor to stamp upon Judges of uprightness and integrity the dishonorable charge of partiality and oppression. I fear, sir, I have been tedious on this article; but it will be considered that, whatever may be my own sentiments of the futility of any part of these charges, I cannot determine how far this honorable court may correspond with me in sentiment. Nor can I do otherwise than treat, as of consequence, any charge brought forward by the honorable House of Representatives, or not consider it as being of importance.
I will now, Mr. President, proceed to those articles which arise out of the trial in Virginia; and I find it stated in the beginning of the second article, that my honorable client went there prompted by the same shameful spirit of persecution and injustice; the truth of which I am ready to acknowledge, after having satisfactorily proved that at Philadelphia he had not shown in any manner whatever a spirit of persecution and injustice, but had acted with uprightness and integrity; and that his greatest fault on that occasion was, that he did not commit the counsel of Fries to the public jail for their insolent, their arrogant, their contemptuous behaviour to the court; and I flatter myself that I shall be able to show that my honorable client acted with the same uprightness and integrity in the case of Callender as I have shown he acted in the case of Fries.
The second article goes on to charge Judge Chase with over-ruling the objection of John Basset, who wished to be excused from serving on the Jury in the trial of Callender, and causing him to be sworn, and to serve on the said jury, by whose verdict Callender was convicted.
This article requires a discussion of the law relating to challenges of jurors, and whether Mr. Basset was legally sworn on that jury. And here again as well as in the case of Fries, I meet with the most perfect novelties, for except in those trials I never heard of jurors, when called to be sworn, examined on oath whether they had formed; or formed or delivered, or whether they had formed and delivered an opinion on the subject about to be tried. And here also let me observe that there is no just grounds for the charge that Judge Chase from partiality administered the oath differently in Callender's case from the manner in which he administered it to the jurors in the case of Fries, for Mr. Rawle, referring to his notes taken at the time, hath told us that in the case of Fries, one or two of the first jurors were only asked whether they had formed an opinion; after which the question was put, whether they had formed or delivered an opinion, but ultimately the question asked was, whether they had formed and delivered an opinion, which question was put to the greater part of the jurors; so that the interrogatory ultimately fixed upon in the case of Fries is the same which was put to all the jurors, who were interrogated in the case of Callender.
I have, Mr. President, been in the practice of the law for thirty years.—Before the revolution I attended, two or three years, the two counties on the Eastern Shore of Virginia—Sussex county in Delaware—and Somerset and Worcester in Maryland; since the revolution I have constantly attended the general courts on the Western and Eastern Shores of Maryland, and the civil and criminal courts of Baltimore county—and for about six years several other counties in Maryland. In the whole course of my practice, I have never known a single case either civil or criminal, in which the jurors have been, when called to the book, demanded to answer upon oath either of the aforesaid questions, which the defendant's counsel requested to be put to them.
If either party choose to challenge a juror for favor, on account of declarations made by the juror, the only ground for it is that he has used expressions showing his determination to decide for one party or the other without regard to the evidence or the law. In which case the party makes his objection to the particular juror, specifying the expressions
uttered by the juror indicative of such improper determination, and produces witnesses to establish his objection; for the juror cannot be examined on oath to substantiate the charge—and, unless by mutual consent, the objection made must be decided, not by the court, but by triers. And the only matter to be decided is whether the juror has made any declaration of a design to give a verdict one way or the other, whether right or wrong: for if the juror made the declarations from his knowledge of the facts in the case, this would be no cause of challenge, nor any objection to his being sworn on the jury. And as the juror himself against whom such objection is made cannot be examined on oath, it follows of course he cannot be challenged for having formed an opinion, but only for having delivered it, as third persons cannot know of an opinion being formed but by its having been delivered. And as I have observed already, even the delivery of an opinion is no cause of challenge, if it appears to have been founded upon the juror's knowledge of facts, and not from partiality—in consequence of this principle of law, it can be no objection against a juror being sworn, even though he should have the most perfect knowledge of every fact relative to the issue, to try which he is about to be sworn;—on the contrary, the principal reason assigned why trials ought to be by jurors from the vicinage is the presumption that they will be best acquainted with the facts which will be put in issue for their decision.
Suppose a person, summoned as a juror to try an indictment for assault and battery, or any other offence, had seen the offence committed and perfectly knew the offender, it would be no cause of challenge against the juror, nor could he for that reason be rejected at the trial—on the contrary the law considers him the better qualified to serve in that case as a juror in consequence of that knowledge. If in the instance I have put, such juror had declared that the criminal had committed an assault and battery, and that he was determined to find him guilty, this declaration being founded on the knowledge of the juror as to the truth of the case would be no ground for challenge—to support a challenge, the juror must shew an intention to act partially thro' favor or malice. It is therefore no objection to a person serving as a juror because he is also a witness.
And so far is it from being the case that a juror's knowledge of the law, or his having declared his opinion of the law arising in the case to be tried, should be a cause of challenge, that, if two or more persons are indicted in the same indictment for the same offence, and one is tried and convicted, a juror, who served on that trial may be sworn on the subsequent trial of the other person joined in the indictment, and cannot be challenged, although as to the law arising in the case he had not only declared his opinion, but even declared it on oath in the former trial. So also, is the case of a Judge, whether he is to decide the law only, as in jury trials, or the law and fact both, as here in the case of impeachments; his knowledge of the facts in the cause is no objection to his acting as a Judge, and he may be called on to give testimony, and yet give his decision in his judicial capacity. In support of these principles in addition to the authorities adduced by my very respectable colleague (Mr. Key) I will trouble this honorable court with Brookes abridgment Title, Challenge pl. 90, where he says, it is a cause of challenge to the favor if the juror has declared that should he be empanelled he would give a verdict for the plaintiff.
This authority shews that a declaration, as I have contended, must have been made; but I shall now also shew, that as I have before stated, the declaration must be made from motives of partiality, that is, from favor or ill will, to the one or the other party. For this purpose I will read 2d Hawkins, chap. 43 sec. 28. "It hath been allowed a good cause of challenge on the part of the prisoner, that the juror hath declared his opinion before hand, that the party is guilty, or will be hanged, or the like. Yet it hath been adjudged, that if it shall appear the juror made such declaration from his knowledge of the cause, and not out of any ill will to the party, it is no cause of challenge." This doctrine is as old as the seventh of Henry the sixth; during whose reign it was determined, that though a juror had said twenty times, that if he was sworn, he would give his verdict for one of the parties, yet if he said this from the knowledge which he had of the matter in dispute and the truth of the case, such juror was indifferent; but if he said this from any affection to the party, the juror in that case was favorable, and thus Judge Babington directed the triers; see Brooke's abrid. Title, Challenge pl. 55.
In Viner's abrid. 21 vol. pa. 265, we find the same principle recognised. It is there stated that "if a juror says twenty times that he will pass for the one party, this is not a principal challenge, for it may be that he speaks it for the notice which he has of the thing in issue, and not for affection." A decision in the seventh of Henry sixth, and another in the twentieth of the same king are referred to; and the authority from Brooke, Challenge, pl. 55, before mentioned, is in the note introduced with approbation.
In 2 Hawkins Cap. 43, sec. 29, we find in confirmation of the positions I have taken, the law thus declared. "It hath been adjudged to be no good cause of challenge, that the juror had found other persons guilty on the same indictment, for the indictment is in judgment of law several against each defendant,

for every one must be convicted by particular evidence against himself." The same principle is established by the decisions in 4 vol. State Trials, pages 141 and 175 (which he turned to and read,) 2 vol. State Trials 255, 256, also showing that though a person is a witness in the cause, it is no reason he should not serve as a juror, and also that the knowledge which a juror may have of the case to be tried by him, is no disqualification. It also shows how questions of this nature are to be tried.
And to prove that the knowledge of the facts to be decided doth not in any degree interfere with the right of a judge to decide in the case, and that any member of this honorable court might be sworn as a witness and yet give his decision in the cause, I will read an authority from State Trials, vol. 2, page 632, where Lord Stafford, on his trial, puts this question to the court, "If I shall name any of the House of Lords as my witnesses, can that exempt them from being judges?" The answer given by the Lord High Steward was "no my lord, if your lordship has any witnesses among my lords here, they may well testify for you, and yet remain still in the capacity of your judges, for my lord of Stafford had a great many witnesses, who were peers."
Thus, though in this instance the judges had to decide both the law and the fact, the knowledge of any one of them in no respect formed an objection to his deciding as a judge.
I have said also that a juror cannot be examined on oath to prove that he has made any declaration which would be a good cause to challenge him for favor. To support this position, I will trouble the honorable court with two authorities. The first, from Leach's edition of Hawkins 2d vol. page 589 in the note. In the text it is mentioned as a cause of challenge, "that a juror hath said the prisoner is guilty, or will be hanged or the like, &c." In the note it is stated that the prisoner shall not examine a juror, concerning such matter, on a voir dire, because it sounds in reproach.
The second, from Cooke's case, 1 Salk. 153, where it appears that Cooke being indicted for high treason, offered to ask the jurors when called, in order challenge them, "if they had not said he was guilty, or would be hanged." And, by the court: "this is a good cause of challenge, but then the prisoner must prove it by witnesses, not out of the mouth of the jurymen."
With these observations I shall rest the question as to what disqualifies a juror, and shall proceed to examine whether Basset was improperly or illegally sworn upon that jury which tried Callender. I have shown that he might not only have formed, but delivered an opinion respecting the conduct of the criminal, and yet that unless his declarations tended to prove that he did not mean to give a just and impartial verdict, but to decide against propriety and right, he was competent to be sworn on the jury. The question which was put to the jurors by the court, no law required to be put, nor was any of the jurymen bound by any law to answer the question—and the judge was perfectly correct, when he said, upon the counsel insisting that the indictment should be read to the jurors, and that they should then be asked if they had formed or declared an opinion as to the charge in the indictment, that the court had already indulged them beyond what they were entitled to by law.
[TO BE CONTINUED.]
RAGS.
THE highest price CASH, given for clean RAGS, by EDGAR PATTERSON, George town, and SAMUEL STETTEN US, near the Centre market, Washington March 8—tf.
TO LET,
A HOUSE near the Navy Yard in an excellent stand either for Dry Good or Grocery store. For terms apply to the subscriber near the premises.
GUSTAVUS HIGDON. July 19—3t
To be Let or Sold,
THE white FRAME HOUSE on 13th street near Tyber Creek—the situation is pleasant and the terms low; enquire of Samuel Hutchinson near the Seven Buildings, or Wm. Yeates, pump maker, at Alexandria. 3t
ELIAS B. CALDWELL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, HAS removed his Office, to the house lately occupied by Mr. LAW, on Capitol Hill. Washington, July 16—tf
RAGS.
The highest price, in Cash or Books, will be given for any quantity of clean Linen and Cotton RAGS, by Rapine, Conrad and Co. Capitol Hill. June 24—
Runaway Negro.
WAS committed to the jail of Frederick county, Maryland, on the 19th day of May last past, as a runaway, a negro man named JIM, who says he is the property of a certain John Chew Thomas. He is about 23 years of age, five feet three inches high; has thick lips and long wool: His left hand and wrist have been considerably injured by a wagon. His clothes are, a striped gingham sailor-jacket, a fustian-down waistcoat, white cassimere small clothes, woollen stockings, an old fur hat, and a muslin shirt. His owner is desired to release him, or he will be sold for his jail fees agreeably to law.
GEORGE CREAGER, Sheriff of Frederick County. June 18th—1805—18gw.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, JULY 29.
SUPERIORITY OF HEDGES.
CONCLUDED.
IN considering the direct effects of these two different species of fencing on individual interest, two views may be taken; that which immediately affects the individual during his own life time, and that which ultimately affects his children. A man, who commences the cultivation of land at the age of twenty, will generally make his calculation on a prospect of living forty years, although the ordinary chances of life are against him. Should he live forty years, he will at the expiration of that time have saved by substituting hedges in the room of fencing 6,268 dollars. The saving to his children will be still greater; a saving which will be equivalent to a fortune, as appears from the results already stated.
Although the estimates made, on the basis of compound interest, are unquestionably the only true and correct ones; yet, it may not be unuseful to ascertain the results that would flow from the allowance of simple interest only. Even from this view it will appear that hedges are entitled to a most decided preference. On this basis the comparative expenses of fencing and hedging will be as follows:
   Dollars.     The original expense of the hedge will be 1620   Of the fence 1500   Balance in favor of fence 320   At the end of 20 years, fence will have cost 4,160   hedge do 3,564   Balance in favor of hedge 596   At the end of 40 years fence will have cost 7,280   hedge do 5,508   Balance in favor of hedge 17,72   At the end of 60 years, fence will have cost 11,700   hedge do 7,452   Balance in favor of hedge 4,248   At the end of 80 years, fence will have cost 16,120   hedge do 8,396   Balance in favor of hedge 7,724   At the end of 100 years, fence will have cost 20,540   hedge do 11,340   Balance in favor of hedge 9,200  
There can be no doubt, we apprehend, after this view of the vast superiority of hedges to common fences, that the substitution of the former in the place of the latter will be a source of great pecuniary benefit to every man that makes it. It may be added that the hedge, once made, is productive of much less trouble as well as expense, and that it is in a high degree ornamental.
Hedges are likewise enforced by another strong reason. To be supplied with the materials for keeping up a good fence, generally requires at least one tenth part of the land; and creates the necessity of preserving this proportion of land in wood, which in most instances being the most fertile part of the farm diminishes in a greater ratio than the proportion it bears to the whole farm its productive capacity. Hedging would, therefore, in effect, add more than a tenth part to the quantity of arable land, and in a higher degree increase its actual value.
Let us now turn our attention to this subject in its national aspect, and contemplate, under this view, its effects. It is here that all our interest will be excited by the grandeur of the view, and by the immensity of the effect that will be produced by the general use of hedges in lieu of fences.
The whole land enclosed in the United States may be estimated at thirty millions of acres. The fencing of this with posts and rails will cost as follows:
   Dollars.     Original cost 390,000,000   Cost at the expiration of 20 years, including original cost and simple interest and renewal of fence 1,248,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 40 years 1,794,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 60 years 3,198,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 80 years 4,670,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 100 years 7,010,000,000   While the Hedge, substituted in the room of the fence will cost   In the first instance 480,000,000   Cost at the expiration of 20 years, including original cost and simple interest 1,951,000,000  
   Ditto at expiration of 40 years 1,527,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 60 years 2,208,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 80 years 2,779,000,000   Ditto at expiration of 100 years 3,355,000,000   The gain, therefore, to the United States by hedging would be,   Dollars.   At the end of 20 years 197,000,000   Ditto 40 ditto 167,000,000   Ditto 60 ditto 995,000,000   Ditto 80 ditto 1,891,000,000   Ditto 100 ditto 3,655,000,000  
This result, although so astonishing as almost to defy belief, is not the less true. It does follow, if there be truth in figures, that there would be a gain in the space of one hundred years of six thousand six hundred and fifty-five millions of dollars, or an annual gain of above sixty six millions. This immense sum, thus liberated from the object to which it is now devoted, would be applied to the improvement of the soil, to the erection of good dwelling houses, barns, stables, and whatever contributes to the prosperity of the farmer. Computing the number of families inhabiting the thirty millions of acres at 700,000, each family would have gained during the preceding century the sum of nine thousand five hundred dollars. All these calculations are made on the basis of simple interest; but the solid increase of wealth being in the ratio of compound interest, the real gain would greatly exceed the foregoing result.
The necessary effect of substituting Hedges in the place of fences would be a great diminution in the price of timber, either for building houses, for the purposes of fuel, or trade, and no inconsiderable diminution in the regular price of produce generally. For, as we have seen, a large portion of the belt lands of the country being reclaimed from the unproductive state in which they now are, a given quantum of labor applied to their cultivation would add considerably to the mass of produce raised; and the permanency of the hedge, and the little time required to keep it in order, would in a great degree lessen the mass of labor at present employed in making and repairing common fences, which occupies certainly more than a tenth part of the whole mass of labor.
Many more interesting views might easily be taken, demonstrative of the vast importance of this subject, considered either in its aspect on national or individual interest. But these could not be taken without laborious calculations, and without the more difficult treatment of a subject, which, from the length and complexity of the discussion, might frustrate in many cases a patient perusal. The facts already laid before the reader, with the results to which they inevitably lead, will make a strong impression upon every mind not wedded to a dangerous scepticism against the utility of every thing that wears the face of innovation. They certainly ought, and it is hoped, they will command the serious attention of those, who considering our delinencies as placed in our own hands, consider it their duty, as they make it their delight, to contribute their efforts to develop the resources of their country. They realise, at every moment of their existence, that their country only requires a full development of her resources, and the consequent accomplishment, on a liberal scale, of the great improvements, of which it is so peculiarly capable, to be the happiest, as it is already the freest on earth.
The following is an official account of the number of deaths at Gibraltar, during the prevalence of the epidemic fever there last fall:
   Officers 54   Soldiers, 864   Soldiers wives and children, 164   Inhabitants, 4864   Total 5946  
A Novelty—Yesterday a man by the name of Durant, for a wager of fifty dollars sailed from the Flymarket wharf to and from Brooklyn, in a small ship of only 7 feet in length, of his own construction, and completely rigged by himself. Besides the man, this little vessel had fifty pounds ballast. The man was placed midship, and had tiller ropes round his arms to steer by. The wind being fresh from the southward, the sails of the little ship were all filled; and, with her streamers flying, made a handsome appearance. The novelty of the circumstance drew crowds of people to the wharves. (N. Y. paper.)
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Huntingdon, to his friend in Lancaster, dated March 25, 1805.
"A coal mine was, some years since, discovered upon the lands of Samuel Riddell, Esq., on the Raystown branch of Juniata, about 25 miles South-west of this place; which promises fair to be a source of great profit to the proprietor, and convenience to the inhabitants of this river."
"In the course of the last spring, some persons, in the neighborhood of the mine, obtained permission to dig coal, which they carried down the river; and, although the greater part of what they
dug was taken from the surface of the bank; and, through want of care, mixed with slate and gravel; the character given of the coal was such, as to encourage Mr. Riddle to employ an experienced miner, who has lately opened the mine to a considerable extent, and has discovered a second stratum of pure coal, running in a horizontal line, of the thickness of 10 feet and upwards. "From this mine, 2 laborers, with a cart and a pair of oxen, dig and carry to the river 120 bushels per day."
"Several boatmen have, for some weeks past, been engaged in preparing crafts to carry the coal to market, and 4 or 5 arks will be in readiness to set out, for Harrisburg and Columbia, with the first flood."
"I understand that Mr. Riddle sells the coal to the boatmen, upon the bank, at 7 or 8 cents per bushel. What price they will be able to afford it at, in Columbia, I cannot say; but, as the neighborhood of the mine abounds in excellent timber for arks, which can be built at a trifling expense, I have not a doubt but that, if such encouragement were given, as to induce the boatmen of the neighborhood generally to engage in the trade, the citizens of Lancaster could, in the course of the next season, procure an abundant supply, upon very moderate terms."
New York, July 24.
Capt. Smith, of the brig Bellona from Martinique, informs us that an English cartel which had arrived at Fort Royal from Barbadoes reported that intelligence had been received there, that Lord Nelson had fallen in with the French fleet, and captured four sail of the line. Capt. S. also informs that it was reported at Fort Royal, that five sail of American vessels, one of them a 20 gun ship, from St. Domingo, were captured and carried into Guadalupe.
By the sloop Venus, capt. Pratt, we have received a file of Charleston papers to the 17th inst. inclusive, from which we have made the following extract:
Charleston, July 15.
A letter received by a gentleman in this city from a respectable character in Santo Domingo, dated the 25th of June, states that it was reported there, that the French and Spanish fleets had taken the Cape and Port au Prince; and that the brigands had retreated to the mountains with great loss, without burning these cities.
COLUMBIAN ACADEMY.
THE quarterly examination at the Columbian Academy, will take place on Monday and Tuesday next—the junior scholars will speak in public at the Academy on Tuesday afternoon at 4 o'clock—and those most accustomed to speaking, will deliver orations and dialogues, at Semmes's Tavern, on Wednesday evening at 7 o'clock. The company of ladies and gentlemen is requested. Gerge Town, July 27—1t
Four Dollars Reward.
STRAYED or stolen, from the Commons of this city, a RED COW, with a small white spot at the end of the tail; she has a large head, long horns, short legs, and a long body. The above reward will be paid to any person, giving information of her to the owner (so that he may get her again) by applying at the Marine Barracks. Washington July 29—3t
Forty Dollars Reward.
RANAWAY from the subscriber on the 8th April 1805, a small negro man named NACE, 21 years old, about five feet high, dark complexion, a small scar on his upper lip, quick spoken: had on when he went away an ozanburg shirt, striped cotton round over jacket, white dimity waistcoat, striped cotton pantaloons and a straw hat, but no doubt he has changed his dress by this time: he was seen at the fishing landings on the Potomac a few days after he left home; probably he might get a passage in a fishing vessel to Baltimore or elsewhere. Whoever apprehends and secures the said negro man in any jail, or brings him home, so that I may get him again, shall be entitled to the above reward, including what the law allows. THOMAS MUDD, Prince George county, near Piscataway Maryland—July 29—w3t
PUBLIC SALE.
ON the first Monday in November next will be held a Public Auction, on the premises at the hour of eleven o'clock A. M. all those Lots of ground, No. 18 and 26 which were allotted and set apart for JAMES WIGFIELD of Washington county, District of Columbia, situated near the foot of the Eastern Branch Bridge, and vested in me in virtue of a deed of trust from said Wigfield. Terms of SALE CASH
BENSON L. MCCORMICK, July 29—1wtN.
Twenty Dollars Reward.
RANAWAY from the subscriber's plantation near this place, on Monday the 10th of June, PHIL, Who commonly calls himself Phil Brice, a dark mulatto, aged about twenty four years, five feet eight or nine inches high, remarkably polite, speaks quick (though with difficulty) when spoken to, his clothing unknown. Having acquaintances in Baltimore, Alexandria and the City of Washington, I think it probable he has gone to one of those places. The above reward will be paid to any person who shall bring him home, or ten dollars for lodging him in any jail, so that I get him again. WM. B. BEANES, Upper Marlborough, July 12—6t
PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE
AND MYER'S CITY TAVERN.
THE Subscriber respectfully acquaints his friends and the public in general, that he has removed from his old tavern stand, to the adjoining houses on the Pennsylvania avenue, lately occupied by Mrs. Wilson as a boarding-house, and Mr. Woodward's tavern, in which he is now opening a complete hotel. This stand is probably not excelled by any in the city, either for the accommodation of travellers or boarders; being at a convenient and almost equal distance from the Capitol, the President's House, and Public Offices; near the Theatre, Messrs. Way's Printing Office, and Centre Market; opposite the office of the National Intelligencer, and adjoining Mr. Duane's book-store. These houses contain twenty six lodging rooms with fire places, exclusive of dining bar, assembly, and coffee rooms, servants apartments, &c. The celebrated ridge-spring, is conveyed in pipes to the yard of this hotel, where it supplies the whole neighborhood with flowing, cool water, to which the general health of the part of the city has in a great measure been attributable. The building of the hotel now erected is considerable; more however will be completed before the meeting of Congress.
I now beg leave to inform my friends with confidence, that my prices shall be as heretofore, even adjoining with Pennsylvania tavern rates, as a preparation as my elbow room has increased my disposition to please shall be enlarged: I therefore respectfully hope the continuance of a share of the public patronage.
SOLOMON MYER.
Washington, July 24, Independence the 30th year—3tamt
I will sell upon a liberal credit, the following valuable property.
MY plantation on St. Charles's branch, containing 800 acres, about three miles from Upper Marlboro, and not more than one from Patuxent River.
Few plantations in Prince George's County combine greater advantages, or offer an inducements than with better prospects of profit.
The situation of the dwelling house is elevated, pleasant and remarkably healthy—The spring water, fine and abundant—The arable land extremely favorable to the growth of Tobacco, Corn and all kinds of small grain. The meadows, sure to remunerate, are extensive, and with proper management will produce two hundred tons of Hay annually—This plantation abounds with fire wood, rails and fine timber, so distributed that little labor is required in making the necessary repairs, and much can be spared in the vicinity of a good market towards refunding the purchaser his money. In 1803 it produced 23,000 lb. of tobacco, with only 11 hands, the product would have been greater the next year, but for the succession of uncommon frosts. The dwelling, out houses, four tobacco houses and four quarters, are in good repair, and the plantation abounds with fruit trees.
The purchaser may be furnished with the negroes on it about 20 in number, twelve of whom are working hands and of them eleven are men. Mules, horses, about sixty head of cattle, a waggon, a cart, and every necessary for carrying on said plantation.
Strawberry Hill, containing 180 acres with two miles of Upper Marlboro, on the post road leading from thence to the City of Washington. The soil is remarkably fertile and nearly one third may be made good meadows. The buildings are sufficient for a small family, who, with care and industry, would be sure to reap, on land, so congenial to the growth of tobacco, corn, small grain and grass, the full benefit of their labor.
Its situation renders it a pleasing retreat to a gentleman of fortune, disposed to take the advantages it promises to health, and amuse himself with the cultivation of a small rich plantation, in a genteel neighborhood, at the distance of about 12 miles from the seat of the general government, to which the road is very level, and nearly equal to a turnpike.
Four hundred acres of land about 2 miles from Hancock in Washington County Maryland. About 40 acres of this land is cleared, and a small house on it; the balance heavily timbered, well watered and level, the post road from Hancock to Allegany passes through it; near the road about the centre of the land is a fine spring, well calculated to turn a saw mill, or to carry on a Distillery; timber may be easily taken from this land to Hancock, and from thence floated to the city of Washington, where it always commands a handsome price.
A Lot in the City of Washington, sq. 652. No 12 fronting 173 feet 7 inches on South North Street, and 55 feet 3 inches on half Street West.
WM. B. BEANES, Upper Marlboro, July 10—10w.
ENTERTAINMENT
FOR Man and Horse.
THE subscriber takes this method to inform the public, and particularly those travelling to the City of Washington, that he has opened a house of entertainment opposite the Branch Bank of the United States, where travellers shall be well accommodated on the most reasonable terms.
THOMAS THORPE, July 3—1awtf.
FOR SALE,
ONE HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND, in a healthy situation near Hugh's bridge on Rock Creek, and near also to Mr. Leonard Jones's and Charles Jones's mills. It is about eight miles from George Town, from whence there is a good road. If not sold at private sale before the 20th of August next, it will be on that day exposed to public sale on the premises if fair, if not on the next fair day. Mr. Wm. Carroll on Rock Creek will show the land and give any information to persons wishing to purchase. ROBERT BRENT, Washington, July 17—w20Aug.

ORDERED, That the act to provide for the trial of facts in the several counties of this state, and to alter, change and abolish, all such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to the general court and court of appeals, be published twice in each week for the space of three months in the Maryland Gazette at Annapolis; the American Telegraph and the Federal Gazette at Baltimore; the National Intelligencer; the Republican Advocate and Bartgis's paper at Frederick-Town; Green's paper at Hagerstown, and in Smith's and Cowan's paper at Easton.
By order, NINIAN PINKNEY, Clerk.
AN ACT
To provide for the trial of facts in the several counties of this state, and to alter, change and abolish, all such parts of the constitution and forms of government as relate to the general court and court of appeals.
BE it enacted by the general assembly of Maryland, That this state shall be divided into six judicial districts in manner and form following to wit: St. Mary's, Charles and Prince George's counties, shall be the first district; Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne's and Talbot counties, shall be the second district; Calvert, Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties shall be the third district; Caroline, Dorchester, Somerset and Worcester counties, shall be the fourth district; Frederick, Washington and Allegany counties shall be the fifth district; Baltimore and Harford counties shall be the sixth district; and there shall be appointed, for each of the said judicial districts, three persons of integrity and sound legal knowledge, residents of the state of Maryland, who shall previously to and during their acting as judges, reside in the district for which they shall respectively be appointed, one of whom shall be styled in the commission chief judge, and the other two associate judges, of the district for which they shall be appointed; and the chief judge, together with the two associate judges, shall compose the county courts in each respective district; and each judge shall hold his commission during good behavior, removable for misbehavior on conviction in a court of law; or shall be removed by the governor, upon the address of the general assembly, provided that two thirds of all the members of each house concur in such address; and the county courts, so as aforesaid established, shall have, hold and exercise, in the several counties of this state, all and every the powers authorities and jurisdictions, which the county courts of this state now have, use and exercise, and which shall be hereafter prescribed by law; and the said county courts established by this act shall respectively hold their sessions in the several counties at such times and places as the legislature shall direct and appoint, and the salaries of the said judges shall not be diminished during the period of their continuance in office.
II. And be it enacted, That in any suit or action at law hereafter to be commenced or instituted in any county court of this state, the judges thereof, upon suggestion in writing by either of the parties thereto, supported by affidavit or other proper evidence, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county court of the county where such suit or action is depending, shall and may order and direct the record of their proceedings in such suit or action to be transmitted to the judges of any county court within the district for trial, and the judges of such county court, to whom the said record shall be transmitted, shall hear and determine the same in like manner as if such suit or action had been originally instituted therein; provided, nevertheless, that such suggestion shall be made as aforesaid before or during the term in which the issue or issues may be joined in the said suit or action; and provided also, that such further remedy may be provided by law, in the premises, as the legislature shall from time to time direct and enact.
III. And be it enacted, That if any party presented or indicted in any of the county courts of this state, shall suggest in writing to the court in which such prosecution is depending, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in such court, it shall and may be lawful for the said court to order and direct the record of their proceedings in the said prosecution to be transmitted to the judges of any adjoining county court for trial, and the judges of such county court shall hear and determine the same as if such prosecution had been originally instituted therein; provided that such further and other remedy may be provided by law in the premises as the legislature may direct and enact.
IV. And be it enacted, That if the attorney general, or the prosecutor for the state, shall suggest in writing to any county court, before whom an indictment is or may be depending, that the state cannot have a fair and impartial trial in such court, it shall and may be lawful for the said court, in their discretion, to order and direct the record of their proceedings in the said prosecution to be transmitted to the judges of any adjoining county court for trial, and the judges of such county court shall hear and determine the same as if such prosecution had been originally instituted therein.
V. And be it enacted, That there shall be a court of appeals, and the same shall be composed of the chief judges of the several judicial districts of the state, which said court of appeals shall hold, use and exercise, all and singular the powers, authorities and jurisdictions, heretofore held, used and exercised, by the court of appeals of this state, and also the appellate jurisdiction heretofore used and exercised by the general court; and the said court of appeals hereby established, shall sit on the western and eastern shores for transacting and determining the business of the respective shores, at such times and places as the future legislature of this state shall direct and appoint, and any three of the said judges of the court of appeals shall form a quorum to hear and decide in all cases pending in said court and the judge who has given a decision in any case in the county court, shall withdraw from the bench upon the deciding of the same case before the court of appeals; and the judges of the court of appeals may appoint the clerks of said
court for the western and eastern shores respectively, who shall hold their appointments during good behavior, removable only for misbehavior on conviction in a court of law; and in case of death, resignation, disqualification or removal out of the state, or from their respective shores, of either of the said clerks in the vacation of the said court, the governor, with the advice of the council, may appoint and commission a fit and proper person to such vacant office, to hold the same until the next meeting of the said court; and all laws passed after this act shall take effect, shall be recorded in the office of the court of appeals of the western shore.
VI. And be it enacted, That all and every part of the constitution and form of government which relates to the court of appeals and the general court, or the judges thereof, or that is in any manner repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this act, be and the same is hereby repealed, abrogated and annulled upon the confirmation hereof; provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to authorize the removal of the clerks of the respective county courts being in commission at the time of the passing of this act, in any other mode or manner than that prescribed by the constitution and form of government.
VII. And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the general assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election, as the constitution and form of government directs, that in such case this act, and the alterations and amendments of the constitution and form of government therein contained, shall be taken and considered, and shall constitute and be valid, as a part of the said constitution and form of government, to all intents and purposes, any thing in the said constitution and form of government to the contrary, notwithstanding.
May 31—2aw3m To be Sold, Or exchanged for other property in the City, or its vicinity. TWO valuable and contiguous TRACTS of LAND in the state of Kentucky, the one containing 6880 acres, and the other 6234 acres, by late survey. They are under old and indisputable titles of more than twenty years, and situate in a populous county, adjoining flourishing settlements. All taxes thereon have been duly paid. Apply to the subscriber, JOHN BECKLEY. City of Washington, July 17—epam
BOOT-MAKING. JOHN MINCHIN, boot maker, from Philadelphia, respectfully acquaints his friends, former customers, and the public, that he has recommenced his business in all its various branches, at his established stand, where he will thankfully receive all orders in his line, which he will endeavor to execute with punctuality and satisfaction. He has on hand gentlemen's boots of all kinds, dress and strong shoes—Wanted, a number of men to make strong shoes, and a few boot men—Also two apprentices to the above business. New Jersey Avenue, July 17—eptf.
TO BE SOLD, AT PUBLIC VENDUE, At Gadsby's Hotel, in Alexandria, on Monday the 16th day of September, at 12 o'clock at noon. ALL that TRACT of LAND late Presly Thornton, Esquire's, situated in Northumberland county, Virginia, lying immediately on the Potomac river. The following description is given of this property by persons well acquainted with it:—“It contains 2,500 acres, 1,200 acres of which are the most valuable low grounds on the river, between 3 and 400 acres heavily timbered, and the remainder very high land extremely productive. The soil of this tract is equal to any in the state for the cultivation of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy, and small grain of all kinds. On this tract are a large commodious Brick Mansion House and two Offices, a large Brick Stable, valuable Barn, Cow House, and many other out houses. The Orchards and Garden contain a variety of valuable fruit trees, and the waters abound with excellent fish and oysters. It is situated about a day's sail from Baltimore Alexandria and Norfolk. There are two good mill seats for grist and saw mills on the estate, and plenty of cedar and chestnut timber, for which an excellent market may be found at the city of Washington.” The terms of sale are—one fourth cash, one fourth in one year, one fourth in 18 months, and the residue in two years from the day of sale. The payments to be secured by bonds, with mortgages on the premises, and to be on interest from the day of sale. For further information, application may be made in behalf of the subscriber, Thomas Robinson, to Richard Peters, jun. attorney at law in the city of Philadelphia, or to William Lewis, in the same city, (Philadelphia.) THOMAS ROBINSON, W. LEWIS. June 19—eptSep.16
Ten Dollars Reward. WAS missed on Sunday, the 5th of May a double cased silver Watch, maker's name Crothwaite, Dublin, and in the outer case was a watch paper with Mr. Parker's name of Philadelphia.—Whoever will bring the said watch to the office of the National Intelligencer, shall receive the above reward, and no questions will be asked. May 10.—tf.
STELLE'S HOTEL & CITY TAVERN. THE Subscriber takes this method of thanking his friends and the public for their favors whilst on the Capitol Square and begs leave to acquaint them that having purchased and now occupying the tavern, late Tunnicliff's hotel; which he has commenced enlarging and improving—he respectfully solicits a continuance of the patronage of his friends and the public; assuring them that 'tis his full determination to sit up his present hotel, and so to conduct it, as to merit, he hopes, the preference of the public travelling, as well as those coming to the permanent seat of the Government of our Land of Liberty. PONTIUS D. STELLE. Washington City, March 25—tf
To Printers. FOR SALE. A Fount of Pica, entirely new, weighing 567 pounds, cast by Binny & Ronaldson, of Philadelphia, and sent to this city by mistake. Apply to A. & G. WAY, Printers. Pennsylvania Avenue, near the Centre Market. Washington City, July 15—tf. N. B. If the above fount should not be disposed of in two weeks from this date, it will be returned to the Founders.
PUBLIC SALE. IN virtue of an order issued from the hon. court of Calvert county, will be offered at public sale, on the 28th day of August next, (if fair, if not, the first fair day thereafter) at the late mansion of Benjamin Ward, deceased, at the hour of 12 o'clock, a valuable plantation, containing 184 acres of Land, lying on the Chesapeake Bay, in Calvert county. The improvements are a small dwelling house, kitchen, tobacco house, corn house, and other out houses; a large orchard of fine fruit. This fertile spot has every advantage, it abounds in heavy timber, and has a great proportion of rich low ground, capable of being made into meadow at a very trifling expense. The soil is extremely rich—tobacco, wheat, rye, and Indian corn, grow with little labour—the neighbourhood affords a society of very genteel and friendly people—places of worship surround it—convenient to mills, and a ware house for the inspection of tobacco within two miles of the premises. This Land will be laid off in small parcels, or sold all together, as may best suit purchasers.—Bond with approved security will be required, carrying interest from the day of sale, payable in two equal payments, the first in 12, and the last in 18 months from the day of sale. WM. M. CARCAUD, DAVID L. WREMS, CHAS. WILLIAMSON, Commissioners. July 3—ep8w
SCHOOLS. MR. & MRS. GARDINER, respectfully acknowledge the favorable support with which their schools have been honored by the citizens of Washington, and will continue their endeavors to merit that honor. They have engaged a teacher of the FRANKLIN LANGUAGE to attend daily. TERMS. Mrs. G's School. MR. G's School Needle work, English, French, writing, arithmetic, and Elocution. 8 Dollars per qtr.
July 22—3t
On a liberal credit. THE subscriber will dispose of at private sale, his estate called Chichester, lying on the eastern branch, immediately on the city of Washington. This tract of land containing 697 acres is laid off in lots from 83 to 144 acres for the convenience of purchasers. Plats of the estate and the terms of sale are in the hands of colonel Mason at the navy yard, and Charles Wayman of George Town. The lots will be shown by Mr. Wedden, living on the premises, near the Eastern Branch bridge. ANTHONY ADDISON. Barnaby, 14th June 1805—tf
Fifty Dollars Reward. RANAWAY on the 9th inst. from the subscriber's farm near Frederick Town, (Maryland) a dark mulatto fellow named MOSES,
But commonly called LANHAM, He was raised near Piscataway and sold by a Mr. Burrells to the late James Marshall, deceased, of Frederick county. Lanham is about thirty years of age, nearly six feet high, stout and very active, fond of spirituous liquors, has been accustomed to working aboard shipping, likewise in a brick yard and is well acquainted with the management of horses and with the ferrying business; he is a very artful fellow, and I expect he has obtained a pass and will pass under the name of Samuel Beall. He had on and took with him an osnaburg shirt & trowsers, a blue cloth coat with a black silk velvet cape bound with silk ferreting, a black hat near nearly new, a pair of shoes nearly new, an old drab furcoat, with sundry other clothing not recollected; he has a scar under one of his eyes but it is not recollected which, somewhat hard of hearing and round shouldered. From his acquaintance in the city of Washington I suppose he has made for that place or some other seaport. Whoever takes up and secures said fellow in any jail so that I get him again shall receive if taken ten miles from home eight dollars, if twenty miles sixteen dollars, if thirty miles twenty dollars, if fifty miles thirty dollars, and if a greater distance the above reward with all reasonable charges if brought home. JOHN L. HARDING. N. B. Masters of vessels and others are cautioned against harboring said runaway at their peril. July 16—1m
HISTORY Of the West Indies : A WORK in the contents of which every citizen of America must be interested, whether devoted to business, or desirous of information through the medium of amusement. A new & revised edition of Mr. EDWARDS'S History of the West Indies, with a third volume, (completed by its amiable author a short time previous to his death) has lately been published in London. This third volume contains the interesting and important history, with a large Map of the island of St. Domingo, or Hispaniola, as also that of Tobago; likewise a history of the war in the West Indies from its commencement in 1723, and a tour of Sir William Young through several of the islands. It is accompanied by a highly finished portrait of Mr. Edwards, a history of his life written by himself, and a prefatory advertisement by Sir WILLIAM YOUNG, Baronet, M. P. F. R. S. &c. under whose editorship it has been given to the public.
The subscriber, impressed with a sense of the great importance a general knowledge of the history, civil and commercial, of the West Indies, must be to every citizen of America, and of the great celebrity of the above work, proposes to print it by subscription, and respectfully offers the following for public patronage and encouragement.
Proposals for Printing, From the London copy, 3 volumes quarto, THE HISTORY, CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL, Of the British Colonies in the West Indies. BY BRYAN EDWARDS, ESQ. F. R. S. A. S. Containing, with a variety of other matter:— A political and topographical survey of the sugar islands. A comprehensive account of the ancient and present inhabitants, agriculture, productions, laws, government, constitution and commerce. An historical review of the slave trade; including observations on the character, genius, dispositions, and situations of the enslaved Africans. An historical review of St. Domingo, comprehending an account of the former government of the French part of that island, its political state, populations, productions, and exports; a narrative of the calamities which have desolated the island ever since the year 1789; and a detail of the transactions of the British army in that island. Also, a tour through the islands of Barbadoes, St. Vincent, Antigua, Tobago and Grenada, by Sir William Young, Baronet, &c And A history of the war in the West Indies from its commencement in 1793, &c. &c
CONDITIONS. It will be printed in four volumes, large octavo, on a perfectly new and beautiful type, and on a handsome large medium paper, agreeable to a specimen, which may be had at the subscriber's Book Store. The price to subscribers to be three dollars the volume, in boards; each volume to be paid for on delivery. With the last volume will be given an ATLAS, (without any additional price) containing the following maps, viz. 1 A large general map of the West Indies. 2 Map of Jamaica. 3 Barbadoes. 4 Grenada. 5 St. Vincent. 6 Dominica. 7 St. Christopher's. 8 Nevis. 9 Antigua. 10 Virgin islands. 11 St. Domingo, or Hispaniola. 12 Tobago. To prevent disappointment or complaint, it is now promised, that on the publication of the second volume the subscription price will be advanced to three dollars and a half the volume, and on the publication of the last volume the price will be again enhanced. With the last volume, besides the Atlas, will be given an elegant engraving of the celebrated author. Also a list of the subscribers names. The London copy of the foregoing work in three volumes cannot be sold in America, in boards, under sixty dollars. JAMES HUMPHREYS.
Subscriptions are received by said Humphreys at his book-store the corner of Second and Walnut streets, and by the principal Booksellers through the Union. Philadelphia, July 15—
Pursuant to a decree of the Court Chancery, I shall sell at Public Auction in the town of Piscataway, on Tuesday the 6th day of August next, ALL the real estate (not heretofore sold) of Thomas Clagett, Esq. late of Prince George's county deceased, containing about the quantity of eleven hundred acres, of which that handsome well improved lot in the town of Piscataway is a part. Two hundred and twenty-five acres of good forest land part of Marlow's resurvey, being about three miles from Piscataway—eight hundred and fifty acres, part of several different tracts, commodiously adjoining each other on Piscataway creek, about a quarter of a mile from the Tobacco Warehouse, on the navigation of Potomac river—This is a valuable tract of land, and will be sold in one body, or divided into lots as may best suit those who wish to purchase. These lands will be sold on a credit of four years, payable in four equal annual installments, the purchaser or purchasers giving bond with approved security to the trustee on interest from the day of sale—on the chancellor's ratifying the sales and the whole of the purchase money being paid (and not before). The trustee by a good deed, will convey and transfer to the purchaser or purchasers and his or their heirs, the land to him, her, or them sold, free, clear, and discharged from all claims of the heirs of the aforesaid Thomas Clagett. THOMAS DUCKETT. Prince George's county, June 14—copstat
In Chancery, June 28, 1805. ON application of Alexander Contee, trustee for the benefit of the creditors ofinaldo Johnson, an insolvent debtor of Prince George's county, it is ordered; that the first day of November next be the time limited, before which the creditors of the saidinaldo Johnson are to exhibit their claims to the said trustee; provided a copy of this order be inserted three successive weeks in the National Intelligencer and Baltimore Telegraph, before the 18th day of August next. A true copy, SAMUEL H. HOWARD, R. C. C. July 17—w3t
STRAY HORSES. A PAIR of BAY HORSES which have the appearance of Carriage Horses are at Mr. Taylor's farm near this city. The owner is requested to apply for them. July 24—3t
District of Columbia, County of Washington, to wit:
UPON the Petition of DAVID ASTIN an insolvent debtor confined in jail, in the county of Washington, in the district aforesaid, praying relief under the act of Congress entitled “An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia.” It is ordered that notice of his application be given to his creditors, and that on the 29th day of July inst. at 9 o'clock, A. M. at the court room in the Capitol the oath of an insolvent debtor, will be administered to the said David Astin and a trustee appointed agreeably to the said act, unless sufficient cause then and there be shown to the contrary. It is ordered that this notice be published in the National Intelligencer, and Washington Federalist twice prior to that time. By the hon. Wm. Cranch, Assistant judge of the circuit court. WM. BRENT, Clk. July 24—2t
ADAM KING, & Co. AT their wine Store in High street George Town, have in addition to their stock of old wines, laid in a large and general assortment of all kinds of Liquors and Groceries suitable to the present season; where bills of any description, in their line, will constantly be filled up on the shortest notice and they flatter themselves, from the quality of their wines, &c. they will be able to give general satisfaction to all those who may think proper to favor them with a call—where all kind of commission business as usual will be attended to with the utmost attention. George Town, November 5—tf
CHARLES H VARDEN, MERCHANT TAYLOR. Has received from Philadelphia a handsome assortment of FALL goods, consisting of the best London and French superfine cloths, cassimeres, patent Sennet's cord, toillettes, fancy and white Marselles, black and figured silk, moleskins, fancy silk, Marselles, constitution cords, velvets, Genoa cord, silk and satin, Florentines, superfine coating, knapped cloths, with a variety of other articles suitable for the winter season. N. B. Ladies habits, regimentals, and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion. New Jersey avenue near the Capitol, December 10—tf
In the case of THOMAS DAVIS an Insolvent Debtor. SIX months from and after the first day of July next is limited and appointed for the creditors of the said Davis to bring in and exhibit their claims to the Trustee. It is also ordered that this notice be published three times before the first day of August next in the National Intelligencer. By order of the honorable William Cranch. URIAS FORRESTER, Clk. 21st June, 1805.
The subscriber being appointed Trustee in the above case of Thomas Davis requests all persons having claims against the said Davis to exhibit them without delay—Also all persons indebted to the said Thomas Davis, prior to his taking the benefit of the act of insolvency to make immediate payment to SAMUEL SPEAKE. July 24—3t
District of Columbia, Washington county, to wit:
UPON the Petition of WILLIAM KING an insolvent debtor confined in jail in the county of Washington in the district aforesaid, praying for relief, under the act of Congress, entitled “An act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia.” It is ordered, that notice of his application be given to his creditors, that on the fifth day of August next at 9 o'clock A. M. at the court room in the Capitol, the oath of an insolvent debtor will be administered to the said William King and a trustee appointed agreeably to the said act, unless sufficient cause then and there be shown to the contrary. It is also ordered that this notice be published twice in the Washington Federalist, National Intelligencer, and a Baltimore paper prior to that time. By the honorable Wm. Cranch, Assistant Judges of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. WM. BRENT, Clk. July 26—2t
Twenty Dollars Reward STRAYED or stolen from the subscriber on the night of the 4th inst. two BAY HORSES, one a large bay six years old, one of his eyes appears to be injured, his tail bobbed very short, had all round; the other an old horse, with two white hind feet, several white saddle spots, has a switch tail, which has been lately cut at the ends; the first accustomed to the carriage, trots & paces, the second made use of as a road horse, trots only, but paces badly, very lately had all round. As I am satisfied they have been stolen, I will double the reward, on conviction of the thief or thieves, and on getting the horses. DANIEL CARROLL of Dedn. July 12—F&Wpm.