The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1804-01-16 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IV.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. DV.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY JANUARY 16th, 1804.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
DR. SIBLEY'S LETTER, (Concluded.)
The lands on Red river alone are capable of producing more tobacco than is now made in all the United States, and at less than one fourth part of the labor; and in all Louisiana, I think more than ten times as much cotton might be made as in the United States. The extreme fertility of this country, the vast quantities of meat, beef, pork, tobacco, sugar, &c. which it would yield, independent of the disposal of vast quantities of vacant lands, under no claims, render the acquisition of it to the United States of importance almost exceeding calculation.
The western boundary of Louisiana is not ascertained, and there are various opinions about it. The jurisdiction of the Governor of Louisiana at present ends, and that of the Spanish province of Texas begins. About miles west of the port of Natchitoches, on the Red river; and it does not appear that there ever was any agreement between the governments of France and Spain, concerning it. This is a matter of considerable importance; for wherever the line is, it must run through a remarkably rich and fertile country; and a few miles either way of so long a line, is of consequence.
In Louisiana (as in all Spanish countries) the Roman Catholic religion is the only one tolerated. Some among them (who are strongly attached to that religion) have expressed to me their fears, that when the American government is established over them, they will not be permitted to worship as they please; but I have assured them their fears are groundless. They are quite happy with their priest at Natchitoches, who was formerly an abbot in France, and is one of the few who, during the late disturbances there, saved his life by flying to England, though not without a broken back, which is still crooked. I had lately a kind of argument with a person, that could not well be settled without reference being had to the bible. One was accordingly produced from the bottom of a trunk, where it had been hid. I expressed my surprise at the circumstance of its having been secreted, and was told, that all the priests who had lived among them before Father Pavia (the present one) had made it a practice to bury all the bibles they could find, telling the people, they ought to know no more about religion, than what they (the priests) chose to tell them. That though Father Pavia had not destroyed any bibles since his residence among them, they were suspicious that he would not always continue to shew them such lenity in this respect. But that in fact, his predecessors had made such havoc among the bibles, there were but few left in the country.
There is a family, by the name of Messier, now living in the village of Natchitoches, consisting of three brothers and two sisters, with whom I am well acquainted, having been frequently called to visit all of them in a medical capacity. Their father was formerly Governor here, and afterwards Governor of St. Antoine, where he died; their mother was a daughter of the Duke of Orleans, of the royal blood of France, which has prevented any of the present family from marrying. They are all strong republicans, and are highly pleased with the cession of Louisiana to the United States. They draw an annuity from their mother's family estate in France.
The two sisters conduct with great propriety, are esteemed and respected for their virtues, and are good christians. The eldest brother is a man of real worth, strict in his morals and very independent in his circumstances. The two younger brothers are somewhat flighty: one of them has been banished from Louisiana on account of his republican principles, but has got back again.
I could add many more remarks concerning this truely fine country; but I have already too far exceeded the limits of a letter. Owing to the very hasty manner in which this sketch was drawn up, I am aware that there are probably many errors in it, as relates to grammatical diction, &c. but with respect to the substance of it, I believe it is perfectly correct.
I have, from the best materials and information I could obtain, sketched a map of the southern part of Louisiana, and the country to the westward of it as far as the river Grand; which I believe may have some pretensions to accuracy.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, JOHN SIBLEY.
CONGRESS.
House of Representatives.
THURSDAY, January 5.
Debate on Mr. Randolph's motion for the appointment of a committee of enquiry into the official conduct of SAMUEL CHASE.
Mr. J. Randolph said, that no people were more fully impressed with the importance of preserving unspotted the fountain of justice than the citizens of these states. With this view the constitution of the United States and of many of the states also, had rendered the magistrates who decided judicially between the state, and its offending citizens, and between man and man, more independent than those of any other country in the world, in the hope that every inducement, whether of intimidation or seduction which could cause them to swerve from the duty assigned to them might be removed. But such was the frailty of human nature, that there was no precaution by which our integrity and honor could be preserved, in case we were deficient in that duty which we owed to ourselves. In consequence, Sir, said Mr. Randolph, of this unfortunate condition of man, we have been obliged, but yesterday, to prefer an accusation against a judge of the United States who has been found wanting in his duty to himself and his country. At the last session of congress a gentleman from Pennsylvania did, in his place, (on the bill to amend the judicial system of the United States) state certain facts, in relation to the official conduct of an eminent judicial character, which I then thought, and still think, the House bound to notice. But the lateness of the session (for we had, if I mistake not, scarce a fortnight remaining) precluding all possibility of bringing the subject to any efficient result, I did not then think proper to take any steps in the business: Finding my attention however thus drawn to a consideration of the character of the officer in question, I made it my business, considering it my duty, as well to myself as those whom I represent, to investigate the charges then made and the official character of the judge, in general. The result having convinced me that there exists ground of impeachment against this officer, I demand an inquiry into his conduct, and therefore submit to the House the following resolution:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the official conduct of SAMUEL CHASE, one of the Associate Justices of the supreme court of the United States, and to report their opinion, whether the said Samuel Chase hath so acted in his judicial capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House.
After the motion made by Mr. J. Randolph had been read from the chair,
Dr. MITCHILL said before the question was taken he should be glad, from the novelty and serious nature of the proposed measure, to hear a statement by his friend from Virginia of the reasons in detail on which it was founded.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH observed, that when he was up before he had stated that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) had, in his place, at the last session of Congress, given a description of the official conduct of the officer, to whom the resolution referred, which he considered the House bound to notice. It could not be conceived that the gentleman would have said before the House a statement, the facts of which were not supported by his own knowledge, or by evidence on which he could place the utmost reliance. He did not conceive this to be a time to decide whether the information exhibited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was or was not correct. At present an enquiry alone was proposed. If it should be made, it must result either that the conduct of the judge would be found to be such as not to warrant any further proceedings on the part of the House, or such as would require the interposition of that authority, which, as the immediate representatives of the people, they alone possessed. If on enquiry the committee shall be persuaded that the judge has not exceeded his duty they will so report: If, on the contrary, they find it such as to require the interposition of the House, they will recommend that course of proceeding to which the House alone is competent. With respect to the facts which had come to his knowledge, Mr. R. said, they were
such as he did not wish to state—he preferred its being done by witnesses who were most competent to do it correctly.
Mr. ELLIOT. I am as deeply convinced as the gentleman from Virginia, that the streams of justice should be preserved pure and unspotted. I am also sensible that the judicial department ought to attach to itself a degree of independence, a great degree of independence. I am of opinion, that this House possesses no censorial power over the judicial department generally, or over any judge in particular. They have alone the power of impeaching them; and when a judge shall be charged with flagrant misconduct, and when facts are stated which shall induce them to believe those charges true, I shall be at all times prepared to carry the provisions of the constitution into effect in virtue of which great transgressors are punishable for their crimes. The basis of this resolution is, that a gentleman from Pennsylvania at the last session stated that the judge named in it, had been guilty of improper conduct. Of these charges I am uninformed, and every new member must be uninformed. It is astonishing to me that we are called upon to vote for an enquiry into the character of a judge, without any facts being adduced to shew that such an enquiry should be made. If the resolution passes in its present form, it appears to me that we shall thereby pass a vote of censure on this judge, which neither the constitution or laws authorise. If the judge be guilty, I should suppose the first step proper to be taken would be for some person aggrieved, or for members having personal knowledge, to exhibit facts on which the House may act. I can never consent, because the gentleman from Virginia, or any other gentleman, says there are facts which have come to his knowledge that induce him to think an enquiry ought to be instituted, to vote for it, unless those facts are first stated. I can never agree to any act which shall in this manner, without the exhibition of proof, impose censure or suspicion on a judge. This course may be perfectly parliamentary; but it strikes me as altogether unprecedented. I shall, therefore, until some facts are adduced, resist every attempt to impose a censure upon the conduct of any public officer.
Mr. SMILIE. If the gentleman from Vermont had commanded a little patience, he would have perceived the remarks which he has just made to have been altogether unnecessary; he would have perceived the necessity imposed upon me, by the observations of the gentleman from Virginia, of stating those facts to which that gentleman alluded. It must be seen that these proceedings contemplate the possibility of an impeachment.
It will be recollected by gentlemen who were in Congress at the last session that I was then led to give a statement of facts respecting the conduct of judge Chase on a particular occasion. That statement was not made, with a view to an impeachment. A bill had been introduced to change the districts of the circuit courts of the United States; when I discovered that Mr. Chase was assigned to the district of Pennsylvania, I felt interested in having him transferred to another district, considering that his previous conduct had rendered him obnoxious to the people of that state. These circumstances I stated to the House, and was in consequence called upon to assign my reasons why judge Chase was obnoxious to the people of Pennsylvania. This is the history of the business so far. I am now called upon to state the facts which I mentioned on that occasion—This I shall do briefly.
A man of the name of Fries was prosecuted for treason in the state of Pennsylvania. Two of the first counsel at that bar, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas, without fee or reward, undertook his defence. I mention their names to shew that there could have been no party prejudices that influenced them. When the trial came on the judge behaved in such a manner that Mr. Lewis declared he would not so far degrade his profession as to plead under the circumstances imposed upon him. Mr. Dallas declared that the rights of the bar were as well established as those of the bench; that he considered the conduct of the judge as a violation of these rights, and refused to plead. The facts were these: The judge told the jury and the counsel that the court had made up their minds on what constituted treason, that they had committed their opinion to writing, and that the counsel must therefore confine themselves to the facts in the case before the court. The counsel replied that they did not dispute the facts, but
they were able to shew that they did not constitute treason. The end of the affair was, that the counsel retired from court, and the man was tried without counsel, convicted and sentenced to death.
After this the attorney general wrote a letter to Messrs. Dallas and Lewis, requesting them to furnish their notes and opinions for the use of the President. They drew up an answer, in which they stated that the acts charged against Fries did not amount to treason, but were only sedition; and that they were so considered in the British courts. This letter was read to me by Mr. Dallas. After receiving the letter the President pardoned the man.
Mr. J. CLAY. This debate appears to me to arise from causes the most extraordinary and such as we are not accustomed to hear argued on this floor. The gentleman from Virginia has made a motion justified by his own knowledge as well as that of my colleague; and this motion is opposed in a most extraordinary manner. I believe this is the first instance in which a motion to appoint a committee of enquiry into the official conduct of a public officer has been opposed. We are told by the gentleman from Vermont that this House has no right to pass a censure on a judge; and that judges should be highly independent. I am afraid that, unless great care be taken, the doctrine of judicial independence will be carried so far as to become dangerous to the liberties of the country. This motion does not, however, affect the character of the judge. Let it also be recollected that if the reputation of the judge be at stake, the reputation of this House also is implicated. I consider this House as the constitutional guardians of the morality of the judiciary. Whenever even suspicion exists as to that morality, a committee of enquiry should be appointed. For the pure administration of justice is surely more important than the reputation of any particular judge. I am sorry my colleague thought it necessary to make any statement of facts to the House. I believe that more important facts than he has mentioned will be stated by witnesses. I believe likewise the reputation of the judge will be better preserved by the appointment of a committee, than by assertions made on this floor by particular members not responsible elsewhere for what they allege.
With regard to my opinions in this case, whatever my political impressions may be, they are entirely unbiassed. I have heard facts stated, but I cannot say they have been satisfactorily proved to my mind. There are other charges equally reprehensible. Under these circumstances, I ask if the character of the judge is not more implicated by a discussion of his official conduct on this floor, than by appointing a committee to obtain facts. If he is guilty of the facts alleged against him, no gentleman will say that he is not impeachable. If he is only suspected of them, there ought to be a committee, that if guilty he may be impeached, and if innocent, be freed from the imputation thrown upon him.
Mr. R. GRISWOLD. Gentlemen will acknowledge that this is a subject of great importance and delicacy. No one will doubt but that we ought to execute our duty so as to preserve the fountains of justice pure, and that we ought at the same time to treat the important character of a judge, or of any other high officer, with respect. I do not know but that this mode of procedure is warranted by precedent. But if it is, it is unknown to me. As the resolution now stands, I do not think it perfectly correct. The honorable gentleman from Virginia says he is acquainted with facts that warrant the proposed enquiry. The question is whether the House ought to be governed by the opinions of any one member. We know not what those facts are; the gentleman declines stating them. I do think, as the subject now strikes me, that the conviction of any one member of the propriety of this measure, cannot warrant the interposition of the House. Instead of taking the individual opinion of a member, it ought to be stated that certain facts exist, which, if proved, will justify an impeachment. I do not know whether these ideas are not incorrect, having never before contemplated, or had a suspicion that such a motion would be made.
As to the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I do not consider them as entitled to much weight. If the facts stated by him were of his personal knowledge, they would undoubtedly merit attention. But he merely states that which he has received from others, and which amounts to nothing
more than that the judge refused liberty to the counsel to argue a point of law after it was decided, and confined their argument to facts. In so doing, the judge may have erred, but it was an error of judgement, for which he cannot be impeached. No lawyer will, perhaps, say that it was not the province of the judge to decide the law, and that he has not the right to prevent counsel from arguing it after his mind is made up. But this information is not of the knowledge of the gentleman. Are we then to institute an enquiry into the conduct of a high officer of the government merely on hearsay? This has never been done under our government. In the late case of Judge Pickering, proof was furnished by the affidavits of witnesses testifying certain facts. I do not therefore consider it correct to proceed to enquire on the opinion of any gentleman. The proper course is first to have proofs which will justify ourselves to our own consciences in making the enquiry. For we ought not to touch the character of a judge, unless we are satisfied from facts that there is good reason for an investigation into his conduct. Gentlemen will not say that making an enquiry into the official conduct of a judge does not touch his character.
Gentlemen say if this committee find the conduct of the judge to have been correct, they will make a report to that effect; but it does not follow that the report will contain all the evidence adduced, and suspicion may still rest on the character of the judge, and that some facts may not be stated, which, if stated, would shew his misconduct. Whereas if the business be brought generally before the House, on the exhibition of certain facts, the public will be enabled to decide whether they warrant impeachment or even suspicion. With this view of the subject, I am of opinion, that it will be best to delay acting in this affair, until facts shall be disclosed which will justify the step now proposed to be taken. I have as high a respect for the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia as for that of any other member on this floor; but I doubt whether we can justify our votes on the opinion of any single member; facts alone ought to govern our opinions. I, therefore, for the purpose of considering the course most proper to be pursued, move a postponement of the further consideration of the motion until to-morrow.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH. Were I the personal enemy of the gentleman who is the object of this resolution, I should take precisely that course which the gentleman from Connecticut, on this occasion, seems more than half inclined to take. That gentleman wishes the resolution to lay until to-morrow, in order that he may have time to consider whether he can bring himself to refuse the enquiry altogether. He says that he cannot, or rather—for he speaks doubtfully—he thinks he cannot see the propriety of instituting an enquiry without evidence. What evidence? Nothing short of legal proof—testimony on oath. And what is the object of the resolution? To acquire that very evidence. If we had the evidence; to what purpose make enquiry? As however the evidence cannot be had without enquiry, and the gentleman will not grant the enquiry but upon the evidence, it is plain that, if we take the course which he recommends, we must go without both. Will gentlemen offer objections against enquiry which are applicable only to impeachment? If an impeachment were moved they would have a right to call for evidence. But what is the object of the present motion? merely to enquire whether there exists evidence which will justify an impeachment. But this enquiry we are told cannot be instituted on mere hearsay, although we have the declaration of a member in his place. What would be said of a grand jury who being informed by one of their body that A or B could testify to the fact of a murder being committed within their jurisdiction, should refuse an application to the court to have them summoned—and because they cannot find a bill of indictment unsupported by evidence, should reject that evidence which might be within their reach. I profess not that tenderness of conscience which has been displayed by the gentleman from Connecticut. My conscience teaches me to acuse no man wrongfully, but to deny enquiry into the official conduct of none, however exalted his station; and I had supposed from his practice that the gentleman held the same opinion. For it will be recollected that on the eve of the close of the last session, he had himself insisted an enquiry which went to impeach the conduct of some of the first officers of the

Government. No one on that occasion stepped in between the demand for an inquiry and those officers implicated in it? No enquiry was made, and it precluded any further proceeding on the part of the House; since the charges which had been attempted to be brought forward would not bear examination. Mr. R. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays.
Mr. GREGG said he should vote against the postponement and in favour of the resolution. The case was somewhat new, but he perceived no impropriety in giving it the same direction with all the other business originated in the House. What is this committee to be appointed for? To investigate facts, and report them to the House. Was it not most proper that gentlemen whose characters were implicated should have, in the first instance, facts stated privately before a committee, than that parts of their character should be immediately brought into view before the House? He recollected one fact not yet alluded to in debate. In 1792 after the army, under the command of General St. Clair, was defeated, great dissatisfaction arose, and the character of the commander was implicated. The idea was that the expedition had not been conducted with propriety. The business was brought before Congress. It was understood at that time, whether justly or not Mr. Gregg would not pretend to say, that the commander in chief could not be tried by a court martial. Congress therefore took up the business and appointed a committee of enquiry, who went through a lengthy examination of the subject. Mr. Gregg mentioned this precedent that gentlemen might turn their attention to it.
Mr. R. GRISWOLD. I had hoped that the language used by me, when I was up before, would not have led gentlemen to suppose that I was acting as the friend or the enemy of judge Chase. I am acting in neither capacity. I am acting only as a member of this House, who ought to be anxious on an occasion of so important a nature that course which is most consistent with propriety, that course which results from the duty this House owes the nation, and that duty which they owe the character of a judge. I did appear to me that it was not correct to call the character of a public officer into question, unless some necessity should first appear. No facts are presented on this occasion. The gentleman from Virginia has said that he is in possession of facts, or of something, that makes him believe that an enquiry is proper; but he does not choose to communicate those facts. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has given us his information. The question is whether it is proper on these light suggestions to institute a solemn enquiry into the character of this judge. It appears to me that we ought not to throw any imputation on the character of any officer without evidence that such an enquiry is necessary. The case mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gregg) does not apply. Dissatisfaction existed in the country and in this House on the events of a campaign; an enquiry was instituted; but what was its object? The committee were appointed to enquire into the general causes of the failure of the expedition; they were not instructed to enquire into the character of a particular officer.
The gentleman from Virginia has referred to another case, when he says we were ready enough to institute an enquiry, and has left it to be inferred that the enquiry was made without any previous proof of its necessity. But certainly on that occasion enquiry was not made without proof. I suppose the enquiry alluded to was that which related to the conduct of the commissioners of the sinking fund. It was instituted on a report made by them, and which we thought was not satisfactory. The resolution offered was adopted, and enquiry was made, the result of which is well known to every gentleman. It follows, therefore, that there are no precedents adduced, which apply to the present case.
It is my wish that the proceedings of this House may on this occasion be perfectly correct, and that we may not be precipitated into the adoption of this resolution without due consideration. If it is correct to vote an enquiry in all cases, where a member rises on this floor and desires it, it is correct to vote it in this case. In this case, a gentleman rises and says he is satisfied an enquiry ought to take place. The question is whether it is proper to enquire on the suggestion of a member? If it is proper without facts being adduced, then it will be always proper to enquire whenever any member requires it, and it will be also proper whenever any individual citizen requires it. This course I have never thought correct. On the contrary I think some facts ought to be previously presented to establish the necessity of an enquiry before it is voted. In the case of judge Pickering a very different course has been pursued. The appointment of a committee of enquiry originated from a message of the President. We find in February, 1803, the House received the following message. "The enclosed letter and affidavits exhibiting matter of complaint against
John Pickering, district judge of New Hampshire, which is not within executive cognizance, I transmit them to the House of Representatives, to whom the constitution has confided a power of instituting proceedings of redress, if they shall be of opinion that the case calls for them."
This message was referred to a committee, with the accompanying papers, furnishing evidence of the necessity of an enquiry. But the course pursued to-day is very different. A gentleman gets up, and moves an enquiry into the conduct of judge Chase, and says that he is of the opinion that it ought to be made. This course, I think, is incorrect. Some facts ought first to be adduced—I repeat it, I am on this occasion neither the friend or the enemy of judge Chase. I am the friend of this House; I with their proceedings to be correct, and I hope they will not do hastily what they may hereafter regret.
Mr. DENNIS. The only question now before the House is whether they will postpone the consideration of the motion on the table. I cannot but express my surprise that the gentleman from Virginia should oppose this motion. When several gentlemen have declared that they are not prepared to vote on his resolution. Gentlemen ought to recollect that, according to our rules, on all motions which require the concurrence of the two Houses, one day's delay is necessary. Although this resolution is not of this kind, yet it surely is not of inferior importance.
I believe that the gentleman alluded to by the motion would rather court than shrink from, an investigation of his official conduct. I believe also that it has become necessary from the discussion of this day that an investigation should take place. I am not therefore prepared at this time to say whether I shall not ultimately vote for an enquiry. But it appears to me that the course proposed is inverting the natural order of things, inasmuch as it institutes an enquiry not growing out of facts, but for facts. I believe also that the facts stated, if authenticated, will furnish no ground for impeachment. Circumstances attending his motion show that the gentleman from Virginia does not consider them as a sufficient ground for an impeachment. The refusal to hear the point of law discussed was the act of the court. Mr. Chase did not sit alone on the bench. Another judge must have been associated with and have concurred with him. If so, why does not the resolution allude to the other judge? Why select one judge when both are equally implicated in the charges?
I believe the most parliamentary way would be for a gentleman to state in the form of a resolution the grounds of impeachment, and then to refer such a resolution to a select committee for investigation. In this mode the House may correctly institute an enquiry and send for persons and papers. This is the only parliamentary mode of proceeding. In every case where impeachments have been made the facts have been stated in a resolution concluding with a motion for an impeachment. The House possess no censorial power over the judges, except as incidental to the power of impeachment. If gentlemen are possessed of facts, why not state them in the form of a resolution, and move an impeachment. Then if the facts appeared to me to warrant an impeachment, I would not object to their going to a select committee, though I believe the most proper course would be for the House to send for persons and papers, and to examine for themselves. But it is extremely novel and unprecedented for the House, without facts, to institute an enquiry into the character of a high officer of the government.
May they not in the same way extend their enquiry into the conduct of every judge in the United States, without stating any facts on which the enquiry is founded? For these reasons I shall vote for postponing the further consideration of this motion for one day, on account of the importance and delicacy of the subject, and the serious deliberation it is entitled to. I do not know whether, if sufficient time is allowed for consideration, and I shall be convinced that this course is consistent with parliamentary usage, I shall not be in favor of an investigation.
Mr. ELLIOT. When the Yeas and Nays are called, I shall on every occasion rise in favor of taking them. I with the votes I give in this House entered on the Journal, and known to every citizen of America. The more I contemplate the course pursued on this occasion, the more extraordinary and unprecedented it appears to me. The gentleman from Virginia rose, and after an elegant exordium, stating that the streams of justice should be preserved pure, and other fine things, told us that he had received information of facts that convinced him that an enquiry ought to be made into the conduct of a judge. Suppose the gentleman on facts known to himself, had stated his opinion, that an enquiry ought to be made into the conduct of the President of the United States. We have the same right to impeach the President as a judge. If the enquiry would be improper in the one instance without facts
being adduced, it would be equally so in the other. For we possess no censorial or inquisitorial powers over the conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court. If judge Chase has been guilty of misconduct, let it be stated. If that misconduct be of a private nature let the House assume the character of a grand jury, hold private sittings, receive evidence, and determine whether the judge shall be impeached or not. The gentleman asks, whether a grand jury in the case of a charge of murder can send for persons. Undoubtedly they can; but did the gentleman ever hear of their appointing a committee to enquire, whether a man charged with a partial offence, ought to be indicted? We are called on as the grand inquisitors of the nation, to appoint an inquisitorial committee to get evidence; for it is granted that as yet we have none. I believe that no committee of this nature ought to be constituted without previously ascertaining facts that will warrant the delegation of such great powers. No accusation even is before us. But we are called upon to appoint a committee to look one up; a committee to be invested with power to send for persons and papers; a committee to enquire in private. I will never consent to the appointment of such a committee, until facts that will justify the enquiry are stated.
The facts adduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if proved, could not induce me to believe that the judge is impeachable. I may suspect that his conduct was erroneous and improper, but I cannot conceive it proper to impeach a single judge for the act of the court. Believing, therefore, this course unprecedented, unparliamentary and replete with improprieties; believing it novel; believing that in an affair of so much consequence we ought not to proceed with precipitation; believing that we are entitled to demand one day to reflect upon it, I am proud on this occasion to record my vote in favor of the postponement until to-morrow; and if it were for a week, I should with equal pride and pleasure vote for it.
Mr. HOLLAND moved an adjournment.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH said, that considering a motion to adjourn equivalent to a postponement for a day, he moved the taking the Yeas and Nays on it.
The question of adjournment was accordingly taken by Yeas and Nays and passed in the negative—Yeas 52—Nays 62.
The question of postponement recurring—
Mr. HUGER considered the course contemplated by the resolution as improper, unparliamentary and unprecedented. To make up his mind on the course proper to be pursued, he was in favor of the postponement.
Mr. HOLLAND observed, that he had moved an adjournment to allow those gentlemen time for reflection who had not yet made up their minds on the propriety of the motion. He was himself of this number. Having been allowed no time for reflection, he did not feel perfectly satisfied with the appointment of a committee of enquiry before any facts had been substantiated. Desiring further time to form his judgment and seeing no occasion for precipitation he should vote in favor of a postponement.
Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL. I will not at this late hour detain the House with the expression of my ideas in detail. I am as desirous as any member of this House that the streams of justice should flow pure and unsoiled, as on their purity depend the safety and liberties of the people of the United States. But when we are about to enter into measures for preserving them clear, we owe it to ourselves to preserve order in our conduct, and to act in such a manner as we shall be able to justify to our constituents. Every member of this House on such an occasion ought to be as cautious in his proceeding as a judge in delivering his opinions; least while we are condemning the conduct of the judge, we ourselves go astray from our duty. For this reason I am against the adoption of a measure which may throw a censure upon a character invested by the United States with high authority, until I am convinced we have sufficient grounds for doing so. The resolution on the table can have but one object, to wit: The direction of an enquiry whether sufficient evidence can be procured to authorize an impeachment. I conceive that this House cannot proceed in any other way. I am therefore of opinion that before the vote for an enquiry there ought to be probable grounds that facts exist that authorize an impeachment, and that evidence can be procured of their existence. I am not prepared to say from any thing which has been adduced that such evidence does exist. I conceive that until probable grounds are shewn we ought not to authorize such a procedure, inasmuch as it may establish a precedent that we may in later regret, a precedent which will put it in the power of any member to move and obtain an enquiry into the conduct of the President, a judge, or any other officer under the government. Under these circumstances
I am not prepared to say this is the regular course of proceeding. I do not profess to have much knowledge of parliamentary proceedings, and have therefore waited before I expressed my opinions to hear such precedents as gentlemen could adduce. Having heard none, I conclude none exist.
I conceive that the act of this House in voting for a committee of enquiry is equivalent to the expression of the opinion that they have evidence of the probable grounds of the guilt of the judge. The gentleman from Virginia has told us that the powers of this House are in some degree like those of a grand jury. I agree that they have all the powers of a grand jury; and it is on this ground that I deny the power now contended for. I say that a grand jury has no right to send for testimony. They have only a right to receive testimony from any one of their body, and to receive such witnesses as the court may send them. If then there be evidence in the present case, let us act upon it, even though it be ex parte, and although that might, perhaps, be going too far.
I repeat it, I have heard no statement, satisfactory to my mind, that there are probable grounds for proceeding in this business. It is true, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made a statement; but that statement appears to me to depend not so much on facts as on opinions; and it is not my wish to decide on the propriety of the conduct of the judge until the facts are before us. It is certain that a judge has a right to control court, and to say when his mind is made up, while it is also his duty to hear the allegations that shall be made.
In addition to the reasons for a postponement I am also in favor of it, because whenever a sincere desire exists to gain information, which can only be done by allowing further time, I shall always be in favor of it, when no material injury can result from the indulgence.
Mr. MOTT. I am in favor of the postponement, because I will time for consideration, and because I am against the resolution itself. I think it is improper to go into such an enquiry before specific charges are laid before the House, when it will be proper for the House to consider whether those charges are sufficient to sustain an impeachment; then it will be proper to proceed, and not till then. No charges have yet been laid before the House; we have only been told by one member that he is satisfied sufficient grounds exist.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH was sorry to be obliged to trespass again on the patience of the House, but the direct application made to him by the gentlemen from Tennessee and South Carolina imposed upon him the necessity of stating his reasons for proceeding in, what they were pleased to term, so precipitate a manner. They ask, why not have laid the resolution on the table by way of notice to the House? Because, if, (said Mr. R.) I cannot in a matter of extreme delicacy make the opinion of other gentlemen the standard of my own action. I should have conceived the character implicated in the resolution, as having just cause of complaint against me, had I not been ready to decide in a moment on it, and did I not press its immediate decision. I should have deemed it an act of cruel injustice to have hung the enquiry over his head, even for a day. I should have expected the reproach of setting suspicion afloat whilst I avoided examination into them—for I should have deferred it, had I pursued the course which gentlemen wish to adopt. I can see no difference between hanging up this motion for a day or a year, but the mere difference of time. What is the object to be obtained? Do we wait for evidence, or any information, which will assist us in forming a correct opinion? Not at all—To-morrow the question will recur upon us—"Is it proper from what has already appeared to institute an enquiry into the conduct of this officer?" and this we are as competent to decide, at this moment, as at any future day. When however gentlemen consider a resolution to make enquiry the same as an enquiry already had, I am not surprised at finding myself opposed to them in opinion. I repeat that all their arguments are applicable to a motion of impeachment only. But it seems that no precedents have been adduced and time's wanted to hunt them up. Gentlemen should recollect that but two cases of impeachment have taken place under this government; one of a senator from Tennessee, the other of a district judge of New Hampshire. By what precedents were the proceedings in these cases regulated? How is it possible in a government, hardly in its teens, where new cases must daily occur, as its various functions are called into exercise, to find precedents? It did so happen, in the case of the senator from Tennessee, that the information, on which his impeachment was grounded, came from the Executive. But suppose that information had not been communicated by the executive? Would that have precluded all enquiry? Suppose too, in the case of Mr. Pickering, that
no information had been received from the executive, and that a gentleman from New Hampshire had risen and said, "However painful painful the task, I deem it my duty to state the conduct of the judge of the district, in which I reside, has been such as renders him unfit for the important station which he holds, and I therefore move for an enquiry into his conduct"—would the House have denied the enquiry? Will they rely altogether on the attorney of the district whose interest it is to be well with the judge, and whose patience must be worn out with his misconduct before he will undertake to call the attention of government to it. Are gentlemen aware of the delicate situation in which those officers are placed? Suppose information had been given to a member, of the malfeasance of a judge, by a person, who should say—it is not pleasant to originate accusations—those who come forward in these cases undertake an invidious task—whilst, therefore, I with my name not to be mentioned, I shall be ready, when called upon, by proper authority, to give my testimony. Thus is a hypothetical case, but one by no means improbable. Would it not be a point of honor not to expose the name of the informant.
But, say gentlemen, the charge is of a general nature—Whilst I do not admit the force of this remark, supposing it to be correct, I deny that it is a general charge. The enquiry is general, but it is founded on a statement made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I made no other statement—I have said that I believed there existed grounds of impeachment. What they are I shall not state here. They may be those exhibited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania—or they may be others. Will gentlemen assert that the statement of facts made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will not, if true, warrant an impeachment? What does it amount to? A person under a criminal prosecution, having a constitutional right to the aid of counsel in his defence has, by the arbitrary and vexatious conduct of the court, been denied this right—Such is the nature of the charge. Has it come to this? that an unrighteous judge may condemn whom he pleases to an ignominious death—without a hearing—in the teeth of the constitution and laws—and that such proceedings should find advocates here? Shall we be told that judges have certain rights, and whatever the constitution or laws may declare to the contrary we must continue to travel in the g-cart of precedent and the injured remain undressed. No, Sir, let us throw aside those leading strings and crutches of precedent and march with a firm step to the object before us.
As to the motion of postponement, Mr. R. said, it was of little consequence to him, whether it prevailed or not; on a charge of specific malfeasance, he thought it impossible to refuse an enquiry. Whatever should be the result he should rest satisfied with having discharged his duty to the House and to the nation. Believing the circumstances to demand enquiry, he had made it.—Without circulating whispers of reproach he had given the person implicated that opportunity of vindicating his character, which he himself should require if he stood in the same unfortunate situation.
FRIDAY, January 6. Mr. SMILIE. When the motion, now under consideration was made yesterday, I should have felt surprised at the course which the debate took, had I not often witnessed such things in former times. It seems to be considered as improper that a gentleman should bring forward a motion for an enquiry into the official conduct of a public officer and expect the House to comply with his request unless he should at the same time produce such evidence as shall prove the facts charged. If this course of proceeding be correct, I have ever been in error. What does the gentleman from Virginia ask? Suppose he has taken exception to the conduct of the judge from some facts which have come to his own knowledge. Under such circumstances it will be allowed that it is the duty of the House to make the enquiry. When the question shall be whether an impeachment shall be preferred, it will be proper that evidence should be produced. But now only a committee is asked for, to receive evidence, and to determine whether it be such, as in their opinion will afford grounds for an impeachment. It is impossible for me to conceive any way that can be pursued which will be more favorable to the person whose character is implicated than that which is proposed. It is merely to enquire whether such facts can be sustained as will afford grounds for an impeachment. Certainly in this stage of the business it is not necessary to produce evidence to the House, as the House are not competent to receive testimony, which a committee is. It is a rule of this House that so much respect is due to a member that if he states that he possesses information proper to be communicated to the House, but which in his opinion ought not to be done but with closed doors, that in such case the doors shall

he had without any vote of the House. Surely then, on the request of a member for a committee of enquiry, that measure ought to be adopted. This, in my opinion, is the best course that can be pursued for the person implicated. There is, it is true, thereby expressed an opinion of some one member that this judge has done wrong. So far his character is implicated; this is the only possible way in which it is implicated. The committee are to enquire whether there are grounds for an impeachment or not. If they report that there are not grounds, the accusation will be dismissed; and if the report is that there are grounds, the House will at once perceive the necessity of taking this step to ascertain their existence.
Another ground of resistance is taken. It is said there are no precedents for this proceeding. I believe that all precedents must have had an origin; and that one body has as good a right to establish them as another. Our government is young, and only two cases of impeachment have occurred under it. Most of our precedents respecting parliamentary proceedings are borrowed from England, and if precedents are necessary in this affair, we must resort to that country for them. My opinion is that they are not necessary; and that common sense and the reason of the thing are all that are necessary to guide our decision in this case. There is, however, in the British annals no deficiency of precedent. The first I shall mention is to be found in the case of the Earl of Strafford. I may be told that this precedent was established in turbulent times; I may also be told of the improper mode of proceeding. I do not pretend to vindicate the whole course of procedure. I think it was wrong. But with regard to the first stages of the business, I believe them to have been correct. It will be seen that in that instance a more direct mode was pursued than is proposed in the present case.
The precedent I allude to will be found in Hume's History, vol. 2, page 242. That historian says, "A concerted attack was made upon the earl of Strafford in the House of Commons. It was led by Pym, who after expatiating on a long list of popular grievances, we must inquire, added he, from what fountain these waters of bitterness flow; and though doubtless many evil counsellors will be found to have contributed their endeavours, yet is there one who challenges the infamous pre-eminence and who by his courage, enterprise and capacity, is entitled to the first place among these betrayers of their country. He is the earl of Strafford, lieutenant of Ireland, and president of the council of York, who in both places and in all other provinces where he has been entrusted with authority, has raised ample monuments of tyranny, and will appear from a survey of his actions to be the chief promoter of every arbitrary council. Many others entered into the same topics, it was moved that Strafford should be impeached. Lord Falkland alone though the known enemy of Strafford, entreated the House not to act with precipitation. But Pym replied that delay would blast all their hopes, without further debate the impeachment was voted and Pym was chosen to carry it up to the Lords."
In this case, it does not appear that any evidences were called for; a member of the House of Commons got up and declared his opinion of that officer, and at the same session an impeachment was voted. This course of proceeding is very different from that now proposed.
I will now refer to a more modern precedent, which at the time does not appear to have been objected to. It occurred in the reign of George I. and will be found in Russell's Modern Europe, vol. 4, page 393.
"A new parliament was called, in which the interest of the whigs predominated, and a secret committee chosen by ballot, was appointed to examine all the papers, and enquire into all the negotiations relative to the late peace, as well as the cessation of arms, by which it was preceded."
"The Committee of Secrecy prosecuted their enquiry with the greatest eagerness; and, in consequence of their report, the Commons resolved to impeach lord Bolingbroke, the earl of Oxford, and the duke of Ormond, of high treason."
One circumstance is worthy of attention. A cause of dissatisfaction at the conduct of the judge has undoubtedly prevailed. Whether he be wrongfully accused I will not say. But the dissatisfaction is manifest; for the representatives of two respectable states lately come forward and opposed his being assigned to circuits which embraced their states. This single fact ought to make an impression on the House.
It is all-ged that there is no proof before the House. But one thing is notorious, is universally known. It is this, that this man (Fries) was tried before that judge for his life, and was tried without being heard. This fact cannot be disputed. When we consider the importance of the life of a citizen, and know that such an event has taken
place, is it not the duty of the only body competent to enquire into the fact. With other gentlemen I believe that the fountain of justice ought to be kept pure; I believe also that judges are like other men, and that like them they are subject to the common frailties of human nature; and I do believe that when the frailties of human nature produce such effects, the House cannot be justified to themselves or their country without making an enquiry. Our duty to our country calls for it; our duty to the man whose character is implicated also calls for it. If innocent, a proper regard to his character claims it; and his friend from Maryland informs us that he will rejoice at this opportunity of coming forward and vindicating himself. I then the enquiry be equally necessary for placing the character of the man upon its proper footing and for preserving the purity of justice, how can the House resist it?
MR. DENNIS said he had only expressed an opinion that such an investigation would be rather solicited than avoided by Judge Chafee.
(To be continued.)
In the case of ZEBULON WARNER a bankrupt.
Whereas a commission of BANKRUPTCY founded on the act of Congress passed on the 4th day of April in the year eighteen hundred, entitled "An act to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States" has been awarded against Zebulon Warner of the district of Columbia, dealer and chapman and he being declared bankrupt is hereby required to surrender himself to the commissioners in the said commission named, or the major part of them on the 19th day of December next, and at 10 o'clock in the forenoon of each day at the house of William Rhodes in the city of Washington and to make a full disclosure of his whole estate and effects, when and where his creditors are to come prepared to prove their debts, at the second sitting to choose assignees and at the last sitting to assent to or dissent from the allowance of his certificate, all persons indebted to the said bankrupt or who have any of his estate or effects in their hands are not to pay or deliver the same to any person not appointed by the commissioners but give notice to
LEWIS FORD, Sec. to the commissioners. December 5, 1803-163
Romulus Riggs, & Co. Has just received at their Store, a few doors from the Union Tavern. A large quantity of Carpets and Carpeting, Cotton and Merino counterpans, Fine Irish linens, and long lawns. Fine English hats, & c. cotton and worked hosiery, India, cambric, & plain cambric muslins, Chintzes, silks and colored muslins, and many other seasonable articles. A quantity of TRINKS, and a few BOXES of CHINA, all of which will be sold at their regular low advances. Geo. Town, Jan. 10, 1804-1634w
In Chancery, Jan. 7, 1804. Smallwood's creditors against His Heirs.
WHEREAS several claims exhibited against the estate of general William Smallwood, deceased, have not been accompanied by sufficient vouchers, and therefore not passed, although not absolutely rejected; and a long time hath elapsed without any thing on their part done—it is at the instance of the trustees, who are anxious to close their trust, adjudged and ordered, that no claim in this court shall be passed after the first day of September next, against the said estate, but that the chancellor will, on application, decide on any of said claims, before the said day. This order is however to have no effect, unless it be published at least twice in the Maryland Gazette, and at least twice in each of three weeks in the National Intelligencer before the first day of March next. It is further ordered, that on the examination or hearing of any of the claims aforesaid, deposition before a single magistrate shall be received in evidence. Such other testimony as is receivable by the orphan's court, is usually required by the chancellor. true copy. Tell. SAMUEL HARVEY HOWARD, Reg. Cur. Can. Jan. 16-163w
SLOUGHTON'S GENUINE BITTERS. Faithfully prepared at the original warehouse London. TO make any observations here, upon the superior quality of these bitters to any ever offered for sale, is needless; suffice it to say, that they have stood the test of approbation a great number of years. Gentlemen, who prefer bitters, will find them an elegant and wholesome preparation; and far preferable to the trash generally offered under that name. It is now for the first time, imported in quart bottles, as well as vials, which will reduce the price near one half. Sold by Rapine, Conrad and Co. Capitol Hill, Washington, John March, George Town, Robert and J. Grey, Alexandria, and A. Buck, Frederickburg, Virginia. November 7-163w
NOTICE. IS hereby given, to the creditors of John William Lytton, a bankrupt, that his final certificate of discharge, will be granted on the 6th of February next, at ten o'clock, A. M. at Sable's Hotel, in the city and county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, unless cause be then and there shown to the contrary. W. CRANCH, Assistant Judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia. Jan. 16-26
WASHINGTON CITY
MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 1804.
The Senate of the United States have fixed the 21 day of March for the trial of JOHN PICKERING.
On the 23d ult. the following resolution was unanimously adopted by the house of representatives of Kentucky:
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, That the governor of this state be requested to correspond with the governors of the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, to ascertain the practicability of obtaining legislative assistance from those states in opening the Falls of the river Ohio, or cutting a canal around the same; and the amount of the sums which those states will pay for either of those purposes.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1804.
A message was received from the President of the United States, submitting the annual report of the Director of the Mint.
A report was received from the Secretary of the Navy, containing a statement of monies expended for the support of the Marine corps since its organization.
A report was also received from the Secretary of the Treasury complying with a resolution of the House requiring information in relation to the state of the fund for the relief of sick and disabled seamen.
A communication was received from the governor of Ohio, enclosing the ratification by that state of the Amendment to the constitution respecting the mode of electing a President and Vice-President.
Mr. Varnum stated that some imperfections existed in the articles of war, now in force, and moved the appointment of a committee to revise the rules and articles for the government of the army of the United States. Agreed to.
Mr. Eppes stated that a motion, submitted by him some time since, to enquire into the expediency of discontinuing the office of commissioner of loans, had been referred to the committee of ways and means, who had reported against the discontinuance of the office. That report had been disagreed to by the House. He therefore moved that the committee of ways and means should be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill for the discontinuance of the office of commissioner of loans in the several states, and to provide for the discharge of those duties.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. John C. Smith, from the committee of claims, reported a bill to make restitution to the owners of the Danish brigantine Henrick.
The House went into a committee of the whole on the bill, who reported it to the House, who agreed to the same, filled up the blank with the appropriation of 40,000 dollars, and ordered the same to a third reading on Monday.
The bill for the relief of the captors of the Mo-riff armed ships, M. Ishouda and Mirboka, was read the third time and passed.
The bill appropriating 8,594 dollars as prize money to the officers and seamen of the John Adams, and 5,000 dollars to those of the Philadelphia, to be distributed in the proportion prescribed by law.
A message was received from the Senate, stating as a high court of impeachment, stating the manner in which subpoenas shall be served on witnesses in the case of John Pickering.
A message was also received from the Senate, stating that they have passed the bill to incorporate the Columbian Library Company, with an amendment to strike out the third section. Referred to a select committee of five members.
The House again went into committee of the whole, on the bill further to amend the act laying a direct tax—Mr. Varnum in the chair—Some amendments were made and reported, which the House took up and acted upon.
A motion was made to recommit the bill to a select committee. Negatived—Yeas 28.
The question was taken by yeas and nays on the motion of Mr. G. W. Campbell, to strike out the 6th section of the bill, and passed in the negative—Yeas 31—Noes 80.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday.
NOTICE
IS hereby given to the creditors of James McDonald a bankrupt, that his final certificate of discharge will be granted on Monday the 16th January inst. at 10 o'clock A. M. at the court house for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia, unless cause be then and there shown to the contrary. WILLIAM GRANCH, Assistant Judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia. Jan. 6-35
National Intelligencer.
AMERICANS!
The event, for which we have all looked with so much solicitude, is at length realised. LOUISIANA is a part of the union—The acquisition is great and glorious in itself; but still greater and more glorious are the means by which it is obtained. In them are developed the energy and justice of a republican government, and its perfect competency, with the least practicable injury to others, to redress the wrongs and to secure the rights of the nation it protects. Never have mankind contemplated so vast and important an accession of empire by means so pacific and just, and never, perhaps, has there been a change of government so agreeable to the subjects of it. May the example go forth to the world, and teach rulers the superiority of right to violence!
To the firm and temperate conduct of the legislature, to the enlightened and energetic measures of the Executive, and to the commanding and supporting sentiment of the nation, we owe this splendid era in the annals of our country. The virtues and talents of those who produced it will receive the admiration of posterity: ours they already possess.
This, fellow-citizens, is an appropriate occasion for joy. Cold must be the heart, that is not animated by the completion of this event. Every doubt has vanished; the country is ours. Our brethren in the west are exulting in the new ties that unite them to us. LET US TOO REJOICE, that we are free, that we are happy, and that this great event promises to make them as free and happy as ourselves.
The following official papers were received last evening, by the Natchez mail:
Natchez, December 31. The following letter was received by the last Mail.
New-Orleans, Dec. 20.
SIR, I have the pleasure to inform you that on this day the city of New-Orleans and its dependencies were amicably surrendered to the United States—and on this occasion I pray you to receive my sincere congratulations.
Accept assurances of great respect, from your obedient servant, Wm. C. C. CLAIBORNE. Hon. Cato Went, Secretary of the M. T.
PROCLAMATION.
By his Excellency WILLIAM C. C. CLAIBORNE, Governor of the Mississippi Territory, exercising the powers of Governor General and Intendant of the Province of Louisiana.
WHEREAS, by stipulations between the governments of France and Spain, the latter ceded to the former the Colony and Province of Louisiana, with the same extent it had at the date of the above mentioned Treaty in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it ought to be after the Treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other states; and whereas the government of France has ceded the same to the United States by treaty duly ratified, and bearing date the 30th day of April, in the present year, and THE POSSESSION OF SAID COLONY AND PROVINCE IS NOW IN THE UNITED STATES, according to the tenor of the last mentioned treaty; and whereas the Congress of the United States, on the 31st day of October in the present year, did enact that until the expiration of the session of Congress then sitting, (unless provisions for the temporary government of the said territories be sooner made by Congress,) all the military, civil and judicial powers exercised by the then existing government of the same, shall be vested in such person or persons, and be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct, for the maintaining and
protecting the interests of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion; and the President of the United States has by his commission bearing date the same 31st day of October, invested me with all the powers, and charged me with the several duties heretofore held and exercised by the Governor General and Intendant of the Province:
I have therefore thought fit to issue THIS MY PROCLAMATION, making known the premises, and to declare, that the government heretofore exercised over the said province of Louisiana, as well under the authority of Spain as of the French Republic, HAS CEASED, and that THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS ESTABLISHED over the same; that the inhabitants thereof will be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States; that in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the religion they profess; that all laws and municipal regulations which were in existence at the cessation of the late government, remain in full force, and all civil officers charged with their execution, except such as whose powers have been specially invested in me, and except also such officers as have been entrusted with the collection of the revenue, are continued in their functions, during the pleasure of the governor for the time being, or until provision shall otherwise be made.
And I do hereby exhort and enjoin all the inhabitants and other persons within the said province, to be faithful and true in their allegiance to the United States, and obedient to the laws and authorities of the same, under full assurance that their just rights will be under the guardianship of the United States, and will be maintained from all force or violence from without or within.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand. Given at the city of New-Orleans the 20th day of December, 1803, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 28th. WILLIAM C. C. CLAIBORNE.
Extract from the orders of General Wilkinson, given at the Camp of the American Troops, on the left bank of the Mississippi, near the City of New Orleans, Dec. 17, 1803. Parole Columbia.
THE operation before us, however simple or safe, will require much self denial and restraint, to preserve that regularity, decorum and order, which we owe to our reputation, to the rights and sensibilities of those whom we are to cherish, and to the character of our country: the General, therefore, claims most earnestly the co-operation of the gentlemen of his command, for the maintenance of an uniform system of vigorous subordination & discipline, without which the confidence of government may be abused, the beneficent views of the executive of the United States defeated, and the honor of the whole corps indelibly sullied.
In the course of political events we behold a polished people (strangers to our manners, our laws and our language,) call into our arms. Bait our pride and our glory, to receive them into the great family of our happy country, with cordial embraces, and by the generous hospitality and solid sympathy which are every where due to the stranger, let us dispel the apprehensions of the timid, banish the suspicions of the credulous, and confirm the confidence of all, in the clemency, the wisdom, and the justice of the American Republic.
The General will applaud the meritorious soldier, who receives the Louisianian as his brother; and he flatters himself the sentiment will be universal, but should he be disappointed, he will expel from the corps and mark with infamy the wretch, who may resist the impulses of the richest and most magnanimous emotions and affections of the human heart.
The persons and the property of the inhabitants of every rank and every species, are to be held in sacred respect—and whoever may dare to injure the one, or violate the other, will be brought to speedy and condign punishment.
The articles of war are to be read to the troops at morning parade to-morrow.
Certified to be conformable to the original.
By order of the General. D. WADSWORTH. Aid-de-Camp, pro tem.
Ten Dollars Reward.
DESERTED from on board the frigate Congress, on the 12th inst. JAMES MANLEY, a seaman about 5 feet 7. GARRITT MARTEN, a German, about 5 feet 9. WILLIAM COMBFORD, about 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high. Whoever will apprehend said deserters & deliver them to captain John Collins Superintendent of the Navy Yard, Washington, shall receive the above reward and all reasonable charges. Jan. 16-35

PROPOSAL
For carrying the United States mails on the following post roads will be received at the General post office in Washington city, until the 1st day of February next inclusive.
From Wilmington Delaware, by New Castle, St. Georgetown, Cantwells bridge, Duck Creek, Dover and Frederica, to Milford, three times a week.
May 1, to November 1.
Leave Wilmington every Monday Wednesday and Friday at 11 a.m. and arrive at Dover the same days by 9 P.M. Leave Dover every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Milford by 10 a.m. Returning —Leave Milford every Wednesday, Friday and Monday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Dover by 8 p.m. Leave Dover every Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday at 3 a.m. and arrive at Wilmington by 8 p.m.
November 1, to May 1.
Leave Wilmington every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Dover by 6 p.m. Leave Dover every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Milford by 11 a.m. Returning —Leave Milford every Wednesday, Friday and Monday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Dover by 7 p.m. Leave Dover every Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Wilmington the same days by 6 p.m.
2. From Milford by Georgetown, Trap, Snowhill, Horntown and Drummond, to Northampton c. h. once a week.
Leave Milford every Tuesday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Georgetown by 6 p.m. and at Northampton c. h. the next Friday by 6 p.m. Returning —Leave Northampton c. h. every Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Georgetown on Monday by 8 p.m. Leave Georgetown on Tuesday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Milford by 11 a.m.
3. From Wilmington by Christiana-bridge, Middletown, Warwick, Sassafras and Georgetown, to Cheltenham Twice a week.
Leave Wilmington every Tuesday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Cheltenham by 8 p.m. Leave Cheltenham every Wednesday and Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Wilmington by 8 p.m.
4. From Cheltenham by Churchhill, Centreville, Queenston and Kent Island to Annapolis twice a week.
Leave Cheltenham every Wednesday and Saturday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Centreville by 10 a.m. and arrive at Annapolis the same days by 8 p.m. Returning —Leave Annapolis every Tuesday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Centreville by 2 p.m. Leave Centreville at 3 p.m. and arrive at Cheltenham by 8 p.m.
5. From Centreville to Easton twice a week.
Leave Centreville every Wednesday and Saturday at noon and arrive at Easton by 7 p.m. Leave Easton every Tuesday and Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Centreville by 1 p.m.
6. From Romney by Springfield, Frankfort and Cresapburg to Cumberland once a week.
Leave Romney every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Cumberland by 6 p.m. Leave Cumberland every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Romney by 6 p.m.
7. From Fauquier c. h. by Acquia to King George c. h. once in two weeks. Leave King George c. h. on Saturday by 6 p.m. Leave King George c. h. every other Wednesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Fauquier c. h. on Thursday by 6 p.m.
8. From Tappahannock to Richmond c. h. once a week.
Leave Richmond c. h. every Thursday noon, and arrive at Tappahannock by 6 p.m. Leave Tappahannock every Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Richmond c. h. by noon.
9. From Inglesville by Tazewell c. h. or Jeffersonville, Russell c. h. and Lee c. h. to Cumberland Gap once in two weeks.
Leave Inglesville every other Tuesday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Cumberland Gap the next Saturday by 3 p.m. Leave Cumberland Gap at 4 p.m. and arrive at Inglesville the next Thursday by 6 p.m.
10. From Suffolk by Everetts Bridge, Gates c. h. Edenton, Lee's Mills, Plymouth and Washington to Newbern twice a week.
Leave Suffolk every Monday and Friday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Edenton on Tuesday and Saturday at 1 p.m. Leave Edenton at 2 p.m. and arrive at Plymouth on Wednesday and Sunday by 6 a.m. Leave Plymouth at 6 1/2 a.m. and arrive at Washington the same days by 6 p.m. Leave Washington at 7 p.m. and arrive at Newbern on Thursday and Monday by 4 p.m. Returning —Leave Newbern every Tuesday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Washington by 5 p.m. Leave Washington at 6 p.m. and arrive at Plymouth on Wednesday and Saturday by 4 p.m. and arrive at Edenton on Sunday and Thursday at 9 a.m. Leave Edenton at 9 1/2 a.m. and arrive at Suffolk on Monday and Friday by 9 a.m.
11. From Wilkesville by Speed and Wilson's store, Walden's store, Sterling
ville and Normanton to Mount Tirzah once a week.
Leave Wilkesville every Saturday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Mount Tirzah on Monday by 11 a.m. Leave Mount Tirzah at 1 p.m. and arrive at Wilkesville on Tuesday by 6 p.m.
12. From Wilkes c. h. to Ash c. h. in North Carolina once a week.
Leave Wilkes c. h. every Monday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Ash c. h. by 6 p.m. Leave Ash c. h. every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Wilkes c. h. by 6 p.m.
13. From Fayetteville by McFallville Windfieldville and Chasaw c. h. to Camden once a week.
Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Camden on Thursday by 8 p.m.
Leave Camden every Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Fayetteville on Sunday by 8 p.m.
14. From Jonesborough by River Bridge and New-Lebanon to N. W. River Bridge once a week.
Leave Jonesborough every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at N. W. River Bridge on Wednesday by 3 p.m.
Leave N. W. River Bridge every Wednesday at 4 p.m. and arrive at Jonesborough on Thursday by noon.
15. From Jonesborough to Elizabethton in Tennessee once a week.
Leave Jonesborough every Monday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Elizabethton at 9 a.m.
Leave Elizabethton every Monday at noon, and arrive at Jonesborough by 4 p.m.
16. From Knoxville to Burrsville once a week.
Leave Knoxville every Monday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Burrsville by 11 a.m.
Leave Burrsville every Monday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Knoxville by 8 p.m.
17. From Nashville in Tennessee by Franklin, Occocheepee, McIntoshville to Grindstoneford once a week.
Leave Nashville every Tuesday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Grindstoneford the next Monday by 8 p.m. Returning —Leave Grindstoneford every Tuesday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Nashville the next Monday by 8 p.m.
18. From Grindstoneford by Greenville, Huntston, Washington, and Natchez, to Fort Adams, or Lottus Heights, once a week.
Leave Grindstoneford every Tuesday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Natchez by 7 p.m. Leave Natchez on Wednesday at 8 p.m. and arrive at Fort Adams by 8 p.m. Returning —Leave Fort Adams every Sunday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Natchez by 7 p.m. Leave Natchez every Monday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Grindstoneford by 8 p.m.
19. From Charleston by St. George's and Orange c. h. to Columbia, once a week.
Leave Columbia every Monday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Charleston on Thursday by 10 a.m.
Leave Charleston every Thursday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Columbia on Sunday by noon.
20. From Washington by Burris's, Lexington, Athens, and Clarkburg to Jackson c. h. once a week.
Leave Washington every Tuesday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Jackson c. h. on Wednesday by 6 p.m.
Leave Jackson c. h. every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Washington on Friday by noon.
NOTES:
1. The Postmaster General may expedite the mails and alter the times of arrival and departure at any time during the continuance of the contracts, he stipulating an adequate compensation for any extra expence that may be occasioned thereby.
2. Fifteen minutes shall be allowed for opening and closing the mails at all offices, where no particular time is specified.
3. For every thirty minutes delay (unavoidable accidents excepted) in arriving after the time prescribed in any contract, the contractor shall forfeit one dollar; and if the delay continues until the departure of any depending mail, whereby the mails destined for such depending mails, lose a trip, an additional forfeiture of five dollars shall be incurred.
4. Newspapers as well as letters are to be sent in the mail; and if any person making proposals, desires to carry newspapers, other than those conveyed in the mail for his own emolument, he must state in his proposals, for what sum he will carry with the emolument, and for what sum without that emolument.
5. Should any person making proposals desire an alteration of the times of arrival and departure above specified, he must state in his proposals the alterations desired, and the difference they will make in the terms of the contract.
6. Persons making proposals are desired to state their prices by the year. Those who contract will receive their pay quarterly in the months of August, November, February and May, in one month after the expiration of each quarter.
7. No other than a free white person shall be employed to convey the mail.
8. Where the proposer intends to
convey the mail in the body of a stage carriage, he is desired to state it in his proposals.
9. The Postmaster General reserves to himself the right of declaring any contract at an end whenever three failures happen which amount to the loss of a trip each.
10. The contracts for the above routes are to be in operation on the first day of April next, and are to continue in force for one year.
GIDEON GRANGER, Postmaster General. General Post Office, Wash- ington City, Nov. 23, 1803. } Jrn. 4—tf
CAUTION.
WHEREAS in the month of September last, money was obtained from two gentlemen of my acquaintance in the states of New Jersey and Delaware, by a person who assumed the name of James Nicholson, and called himself my brother, I have thought proper to state, with a view of explaining any other impositions of a similar nature which have may been practised, & to prevent such as may be attempted hereafter, that for the last four years, my brother James Nicholson has been but little in the United States, and that he failed from Philadelphia in the month of April last for Canton, where it is presumed he now is. One of the letters in which application for money was made, is in my possession, and is a palpable forgery—Prayers in the middle states may possibly render a service, by inserting this advertisement in their papers.
JOSEPH H. NICHOLSON. Jan. 11.
To the Public.
PROPOSALS are offered, and preparations are making, for publishing a Newspaper, twice a week, in the City of New Orleans, to be entitled,
"THE UNION, Or New-Orleans Advertiser and Price-Current."
From which it is proposed that a Country Paper should emanate once a week.
Conditions of the country paper: 1. "The Union" will be published every week, on a sheet equal in size and quality to the daily papers in the Atlantic cities, printed with a suitable type.
2. The price of "The Union, or New-Orleans Advertiser and Price-Current," will be five dollars a year, to be paid half-yearly in advance.
3. The publication of this paper will commence as soon as the materials, which are now on their way to New-Orleans, can be received.
The objects of this paper are—to communicate to our fellow-citizens of the United States, early accounts of the important occurrences in New-Orleans and Louisiana; to disseminate such statistical information of that newly acquired territory as may come within our knowledge; to convey to the distant merchant and planter, a correct list of the prices of the principal articles of produce and merchandise, offered for sale in New-Orleans; and generally to diffuse such information as falls within the province of a newspaper and price-current.
The politician, the merchant, and he who seeks for general information, must alike be impressed with the importance of a well conducted press, upon correct principles, at this important point of the union: Under these impressions, with great deference we submit the above proposals to our liberal and enlightened fellow-citizens.
J. LYON & CO. THE EDITORS. Jan. 11. N.B. Subscriptions to the Union received at the post office Washington city.
For Sale or Rent.
A convenient two story Dwelling HOUSE, in the city, situated in a most remarkable pleasant situation, opposite the twenty buildings, and commanding a view of Alexandria, there is a very convenient kitchen, a small garden, and office with it. Any other particulars, may be known by applying to the subscriber, residing near the Navy Ye 1.
RICHARD FRAZER. Jan. 4—
CITY TAXES.
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Appeal
On contested valuations of property under the several acts of the corporation relating to the valuation of property, will meet on Monday the 23d inst. at the office of the Treasurer of the city and continue their meetings for two weeks thereafter, to whom all and every person who feel aggrieved by the late assessment of property in the city, may apply for redress.
ROBERT BRENT, Mayor, of the city of Washington. Jan. 13—123
CHARLES VARDEN,
TAYLOR, FROM PHILADELPHIA.
HAS received from Philadelphia an elegant assortment of the best quality Superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, Silk Florintines, Black and fancy silk moleskin velvet, white & figured Marseilles, Swandowns, Toilmettes, Velveteens, Fancy cords, Coating, &c. 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, the second House from the Capitol Square. November 8. 1803.
NOTICE.
THE Inhabitants of Washington city and all others concerned are hereby informed, that the assessment by order of the corporation of Washington for the year 1803, is now complete, and that the tax on real and personal property must be paid at the City Treasurers office on or before the first day of March next. The owners of slaves and dogs are also informed that the tax on the same must be paid on or before the first day of February next.
WASHINGTON BOYD, City Treasurer. Jan. 13—5124W
Public Sale of Lots, In George Town and the City of Washington.
THE executors of the estate of Anthony Holmead deceased, will offer at public sale, at the Union Tavern in George Town, on Monday the 30th instants 37 lots in Holmead's addition to George Town, many of them in eligible situations—Also several lots in the city of Washington, in squares 48, 49 and 62. The terms, which will be moderate, will be made known on the day of sale.—The sale to begin at 12 o'clock. Any person wishing to view any of the above lots, will be shown them on application to the subscriber.
JOHN HORMEAD. Jrn. 4—tf
S. THOMEE.
BEGS leave to inform his friends that he has removed his store from George Town to King street Alexandria, where orders in his line will be executed with punctuality and dispatch. Orders left at Mr. March's Book store will be duly attended to.
GILDING AND ENAMELLING ON GLASS, A few doors above the Washington tavern—Looking glass and picture frames made and regilt.
NEEDLE WORK
Framed in the handsomest manner, and names done on glass.
S. THOMEE, as a stranger being determined to establish in the line of his profession, solicits that encouragement alone which he trusts the reasonableness of his charges and his affinity to business may entitle him to.
Window cornices handsomely gilt, and every thing in his line done to please the fancy of the owner equal to any imported.
N.B. He has some glasses and prints for sale on low terms.
Jan. 9—ep3m
FOR SALE.
THE Plantation on which I live, containing about 600 acres of valuable land. The improvements are, an exceeding good dwelling house two stories high, 42 feet long, by 36 feet wide, with a passage through the middle, three rooms below, and four above stairs, with five places in all but one, and a dry sweet cellar, the size of the house, in which is a capital vault with two rooms, and above is a fine airy pantry. A kitchen 36 by 18, two stories high, with a kitchen and laundry below, and lodging rooms for servants above. A washing house, meat house and dairy and in short every necessary improvement for the accommodation of a family, and a very fine collection of grafted and budded peach trees of the most approved kinds, chiefly from Princes nursery on Long Island, which are just beginning to bear. This property is situated in a healthy genteel neighborhood, about four miles from the city of Washington, five from Alexandria. Nearly one half is in wood and timbered, and the residue arable and meadow land; of the latter, there are about 50 or 60 acres under the Icythe and more may be easily laid down. Perhaps no tract of the same size, abounds more in fine springs, there being a never failing stream in every field, besides an abundant one which runs through the meadow and from which the greatest part of it may be watered. For terms apply to the subscriber on the premises.
OVERTON CARR. September 19. eptf
NOTICE.
ALL who are indebted to the estate of John Crookshank deceased are requested to make immediate payment to, CHARLES GLOVER, Admr. George Town, Nov. 25—tf
JOHN COX
Has just received a quantity of American manufactured Bed Tickens warranted to hold the down of the feathers, which will be sold by the piece at the manufacturers prices, and by retail at a very small advance—Also sewing, darning and tambouring cotton, with a quantity of chintzes and calico, which he will sell lower than the regular importer can afford to sell at. Elegant thread lace, fox, bear, and martin skin muffs and tippets, handsome paper hangings, with almost every other article in the dry good line, both fanciful and substantial, which he will sell at his usual low prices for cash, or in exchange for tobacco and flaxseed. For flax seed he will allow 11s. 3d. per bushel. Also a few handsome double barrel fowling pieces. George Town, Dec. 23—2m
FOR SALE.
PURSUANT to the Will of the late Patrick Henry, a Tract of Land, lying on both sides of Falling river, in Charlotte county, Virginia, and containing about 1800 acres. This Land is in general poor, but contains a bank of Iron Ore, supposed to be the best, of any known in that part of the country. It lies on an excellent stream, a branch of Roanoke river, within four miles of its mouth, from whence is an easy and safe navigation. There are water-falls, stone and timber on the Land for all the purposes of an Iron Work; in the midst of a fine corn country; and about 400 acres of the Land is valuable for its soil. For further particulars inquire of Mr. RANDOLPH, of the House of Representatives. The terms will be made easy to the purchaser by EDMUND WINSTON, Exr. of Patrick Henry. Puckeringham county, Ver. Dec. 23—tf.
TO RENT,
And immediate Possession given,
A Two story Frame House, in the City of Washington, situated on N. F street, square 224—containing 4 rooms beside two garret rooms, piazza and pantry, kitchen, floor room, &c. with a good garden—lately occupied by Mrs. Lee, adjoining to Mr. Xaupie's store—Also that convenient two-story frame on same square, late in possession of Dr. Tabs, opposite to which Robert Peacock, Esq. lately resided—consisting of 6 rooms, and two garret rooms, piazza and balcony to fourth floor, cellar with dry well, kitchen, carriage house, stable, an excellent garden, with every convenience for the reception of a genteel family. For particulars enquire at Mr. Rhode's tavern, Mr. Xaupie's store, or to the subscriber REDMUND PURCEL. January 13, 1804—tf
A GREAT BARGAIN.
THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS will be taken and payment made easy, to the purchaser, for the following valuable property free from any incumbrance whatever.
A SET of saw mills working two saws—a grist mill with two run of stones and bolting machine, also a cotton and rice machine complete all worked by water, also one saw mill about 200 yards from the former and on the same dam, now about finishing that will work from two to fourteen saws under the same roof—this mill is injured for three years after being completed—they now being in good repair and the whole in a progressive way of improvement. with about ten thousand acres of land all adjoining and immediately contiguous to the mills, on which are several valuable farms. The timber for mill site are inexhaustible and unexceptionably good—they are situated on the waters of Drowning Creek ninety seven miles from George Town South Carolina, to which place the lumber is carried being raised at the mills without the trouble of hauling, a valuable convenience. The stream is equal if not superior to any in the states of North or South Carolina—the grist mills command a custom of times of 30 or 40 miles around them. The situation at the mills is high, pleasant and very healthy, on which is a good two story house with piazza, a good kitchen, stable, carriage and harness houses and other necessary out buildings with a new store house completely finished, it being an excellent stand for a country store. Application to be made to the Subscriber at Millville near Lumberton in North Carolina, or for any information respecting the premises, to SAMUEL D. PURVIS at the city of Washington.
WM. NORMONT. Millville N. C. Dec. 12.
N.B. Any part of the above property will be sold as may best suit a purchaser. Dec. 23—tf
NOTICE.
AGREEDLY to a deed of trust from the late Mr. John Beall, the fishbeir will offered for sale, by public auction, at Mr. Dougherty's in Bladenburg, on the Saturday the 21st of January next, at one o'clock, All the right and title of Mr. Beall, to several tracts of land, conveyed by him for the benefit of his creditors. These lands are not more than a mile and a half from the town of Bladenburg, and contain about 240 acres, on which are a good dwelling house, a large barn & other useful houses. Also a few acres of valuable meadow. The land will be sold clear of dower—cash required for one third of the purchase money, and bonds with approved security, for the other two thirds, payable in one or two years, with the interest from the day of sale.
BEN. LOWNDES, Trustee. Dec. 30—eptf
LOST,
THE following described certificates of funded three per cent stock issued by the Register of the Treasury in the name of Jacob Bietamer of Amsterdam, for the renewal of which application is intended to be made at the proper office No. 3113 dated 23th October 1791 for 12,419 53 3/4 per cent stock. No. 3500 dated 23d November 1791, for 7 900 No. 6271, dated, 7th December 1792, for 831 41 No. 1201 dated, 5th December 1792, for 8 749 29 Dolls. 30,000 00 ROBERT GILMOR, & Sons. Dec. 28—ep7w
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR
HAS just received an handsome supply of fall goods, which he is determined to sell and make upon the most reasonable terms, and in the best and most fashionable manner, and greatest expedition.
Pennsylvania Avenue, near the President's Square and Capitol Hill, seventh house from the Capitol. Oct. 14. tf
NOTICE.
ALL those indebted to the late firm of Redmond and Garrett Barry of this city are requested to make immediate payment to the subscriber, and those who have claims against said concern are desired to bring in their accounts properly authenticated for adjustment.
GARRETT BARRY, surviving partner of Redmond & G. Barry. Jan. 2—6t
Ten Dollars Reward.
STOLEN from the plantation near Upper Marlboro, on Saturday night the 29th October—an iron grey HORSE, about fourteen hands one inch high, seven years old, stout made, trots and gallops only on the road, is rather dull and goes heavy, having been broke to the plough—he has lately been retrained about the head and ears. Any person giving me information so that I get him again shall receive the above reward, and if brought home all reasonable charges paid by, BENJAMIN ODEN. November 21—tf
Ten Dollars Reward.
STOLEN off the Race ground on Wednesday evening last, a likely Sorrell MARK, faddle and bridle; the faddle is about half worn with plated stirrups, and a new bridle; the mare is eight years old; about fourteen hands high. Passes trots and gallops; shod before; the outcides of both hind feet a little worn by dragging them when rode; has a small star in her forehead, there is a scar on the off shoulder that resembles the letter T. Whoever delivers the above described mare, faddle and bridle, to Mr. JOHN W. PRATT near the six buildings in the city of Washington will receive the above reward and all questions asked. November 14—wtf