The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1804-03-12 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
A N D
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. IV.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. DXXXV.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANN.
MONDAY, MARCH 12th, 1804.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
DOCUMENTS.
Accompanying the Report of the committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of SAMUEL CHASE and RICHARD PETERS.
(Continued.)
Ed. Litt. 227. b. England is peremptory, that a jury in a capital case cannot be discharged without giving a verdict; and that they cannot give a privy verdict.
From Foster 25. 28. it appears that the meaning of the expression "can't be discharged," is, that the jury can't be permitted to separate, and the reason, why a privy verdict can't be received, in a capital case, is, far fear of tampering and corruption, which is much stronger than the case of separating before they have agreed.
Burnes Not. 441. A separation, in civil cases, works only a punishment of the delinquent juror; and in misdemeanors, the rule is not 10 St. Tr. 407. strictly enforced, (n.) Harg. Ed. though an able Canning's case. counsel has given a formal opinion, that the separation would be a mistrial even in a misdemeanor.
2 Hale. P. C. 295. 296. The cases put by Hale will be found to admit of a clear explanation, consistent with our present position:
1. The first case is not stated to have been a capital one, and, if it was a capital one, the jury were discharged, in consequence of the separation, and a new jury sworn.
2. The second is either a case of misdemeanor, or of trespass and the whole proceedings were matter of consent.
4 St. Tr. 232. 8. But the law has been adjudged, Harg. Ed. Ld. On the question, Delameres' case "whether after a 3 Inst. 30. prisoner is upon his trial, and the evidence for the prosecution is given, the jury may separate for a time, which is the consequence of an adjournment to another day," the judges of England were decidedly in the negative.
9. And, on the principle of this decision, the Lord High Steward declared, that a verdict and judgment given after such separation, would be erroneous, void, and liable to be reversed.
Hardy's Tr. p. 252. 8. Tookes' Tr. 167 to 171. O'Conner's case. Stone's case. This remains the law of the land, so that there could be neither an adjournment of the court, nor a separation of the jury, in a capital case, till the late trials of Hardy, Tookes, &c. But the alteration then introduced was limited by the necessity that called for it—to an adjournment of the court—not extended to a separation of the jury. Accordingly in none of the instances did the jury separate.
We are, fir, Your most obt. humble servants, (Signed) WM. LEWIS, A. J. DALLAS. Philadelphia, 19 May, 1800. Copy A. J. DALLAS. To CHARLES LEE, Esq. Attorney General of the United States.
(D.) Attorney-General's Office, 19th May, 1800.
GENTLEMEN, I was no sooner favored with your communication, of this date, respecting the case of Fries, than I laid it before the President; who has directed me to return you his thanks, for the trouble, which you were obliging as to take. I am very respectfully, Gentlemen,
Your most obedient humble servant, CHARLES LEE. To William Lewis & Alexander J. Dallas, Esquires. Copy, A. J. Dallas.
Interrogatories on the part of the House of Representatives, to William Rawle, Esquire, upon the inquiry into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, or either of them.
1. Were you present at the trials of John Fries, for high treason in the circuit court, of Pennsylvania in the years 1799 and 1800?
2. Who presided on these trials?
3. What were the circumstances generally which attended them?
4. Were the Counsel for the prisoner, at the first trial, permitted to argue the point, whether the offence charged amounted to high treason?
5. Were they prevented by the court from arguing that point on the second trial?
6. Was the prisoner condemned without counsel being heard in his defence?
7. Did any correspondence pass between you and the executive of the United States on that occasion—if any, of what nature?
8. Is the correspondence now in your possession?
9. Relate every thing within your knowledge that happened at the last trial?
10. Are you acquainted with the circumstances which attended the trial of Thomas Cooper for sedition?
11. Relate these circumstances.
12. Was a subpoena to summon any witness in behalf of the accused, refused? How? and by whom?
The answers of William Rawle to the interrogatories exhibited by directions of the committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, or either of them.
1st. I was present at both the trials mentioned in this interrogatory.
2d. James Iredell, esquire, one of the judges of the supreme court of the United States, and Richard Peters, esquire, judge of the district court of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, presided at the trial of John Fries in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine—Samuel Chase, esquire, one of the judges of the said supreme court, and the said Richard Peters, presided at the trial which took place in eighteen hundred.
3d. To relate all the circumstances which attended these trials would be a very long narrative—I will state those which appear the most material, holding myself ready to give any further information in my power when so required.
At the first trial of John Fries I had applied for and obtained the assistance of Samuel Sitgreaves, esquire, in conducting the prosecution. William Lewis, Alexander James Dallas, and William Ewing, esquires, undertook the prisoner's defence.
The counsel for the prosecution relied on the principles of law laid down by the circuit court, in the case of the United States against Mitchell, (2 Dallas's Reports, 348) relative to the crime of treason.
The prisoner's counsel disputed that doctrine—contended that the offence, if Fries had been guilty of any, fell short of treason, and amounted to no more than a misdemeanor. They relied much on the act passed on the fourteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, entitled "An act in addition to the act intituled an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States."
Twenty-one witnesses were examined on the part of the United States, three on the part of the prisoner. I thought their testimony was not useful to him.
On the ninth day of the trial the charge of the court was given to the jury. Both the judges addressed them—both held, that to assemble in numbers and to endeavor by force or intimidation to prevent the execution of a law of the United States, such assembling and attempts being for general purposes and not of a private, personal or peculiar nature, was a levying war against the United States, and amounted to treason; and that the act of Congress before mentioned could not, if it was intended to, control the constitutional description of treason, but that it was not intended to and did not apply to the case.
The jury at ten o'clock in the afternoon of the same day brought in a verdict of guilty.
A new trial was moved for on the ground of one of the jury having subsequently to his being summoned, and previously to the trial, expressed his opinion on the merits of the case; and also on a supposed incorrectness in returning a greater number of jurors than the venire called for.
This part of the case is correctly stated in the 3rd vol. of Mr. Dallas's reports, page 515; which is only inaccurate in stating that the trial lasted fifteen days.
A new trial was ordered, and the prisoner remanded.
The prevalence of a malignant fever in Philadelphia rendered it necessary to
remove the prisoners, and to hold the October session of the circuit court elsewhere.
In execution of the powers vested in the judge of the district court, by the act of the twenty fifth of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine, judge Peters therefore issued an order to William Nichols, then supposed to be the marshal of the Pennsylvania district, to remove the prisoners, and adjourn the court to Norristown, a county town about seventeen miles from Philadelphia.
This measure took place, and the court was opened there on the eleventh of October, one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine.
But after the court had sat some days, and before the trial of John Fries could be brought on, it was discovered that the commission of William Nichols as marshal, had expired about four months before, and had not been renewed.
The session of the court was of course at an end, as the adjournment to another than the stated place of meeting could only be made by the marshal, under orders from the district judge, and no marshal then existed.
An act for reviving and continuing suits and proceedings in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania, having been passed on the twenty-fourth of December, one thousand seven hundred and ninety nine, the court met at Philadelphia on the eleventh of April, eighteen hundred.
New indictments were sent to the grand jury against all the prisoners.
It is not within my recollection whether Messrs. Lewis and Dallas were again assigned as counsel for John Fries, or whether they were expected to act in pursuance of their former appointment, nor have I any recollection that Mr. Ewing appearing any longer in his behalf.
On the sixteenth of April the grand jury returned the indictment against John Fries a true bill.
Copies of the indictment, of the lists of jurors, and witnesses were furnished him as directed by the act of April the thirtieth, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, and as had been done on the former trial.
It was intended that his trial should come on the twenty second of April.
In the intermediate time, besides a great deal of civil business, Thomas Cooper was tried for a libel on the President, and three French sailors were tried and convicted of murder.
I regret that my recollection of the circumstances which took place on the twenty second in relation to John Fries is not so distinct as I could wish, and that I have not the benefit of notes to refresh it, similar to those which I took on the succeeding day, but to the best of my recollection the following is the substance of what then happened:
Judge Chase handed down to the table, round which the gentlemen of the bar were seated, several papers which he said the court had thought proper to draw up in order that their sentiments on the law, likely to arise in the cases of treason, might be perfectly understood, which would tend to save time; that the counsel on each side were to have one, and the jury to take one out with them.
I am not sure whether Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas were in court at the time, or came in shortly after, but I noticed that Mr. Lewis, with an air of dissatisfaction, hastily looked over the paper and laid it down. Some of the gentlemen present began to copy the papers. It does not occur to my recollection that any thing more was publicly said about it that day—though it possibly may have been. I do not recollect that Fries was in court that day, nor can I at present say why the trial was not brought on that day—but to the best of my recollection, it was not postponed on account of any difficulty arising from the delivery of those papers.
Twenty one persons charged with seditious combinations submitted to the court that day—and the court rose.
Shortly after the court rose, the two judges came round to my house—Mr. Peters expressed his uneasiness at what had passed—his apprehension that the counsel for Fries would not go on, and his wish that the papers could be recalled, and the thing done away. Mr. Chase expressed a doubt whether the counsel would refuse to act on that account. I confirmed Mr. Peters's suggestion, stating my opinion of the independent sentiments and characters of the Philadelphia bar, and add d that I concurred in thinking it would be best to recall the papers. Mr. Chase asked me
if I could get them back. I said I believed I could, and would try. They then both requested me to do so. And after they had gone, I went out and obtained from the gentlemen who had them, two or three of the papers, which I gave to Mr. Caldwell, the clerk of the court.
On the twenty third John Fries was brought up, and I am now enabled to state from my notes, the conversation which took place. I do not say that it is the whole that fell from either bench or bar, but so far as it goes I believe it to be accurate.
When Fries was asked if he was ready for his trial, Mr. Lewis addressed the court, as follows:—If employed by the prisoner at the bar, I should think myself bound to proceed; but having been assigned—Judge Chase interrupted him—you are not bound by the opinion delivered yesterday, but may contest it on both sides. Mr. Lewis proceeded—I understood that the court had made up their minds, and as the prisoner's counsel have a right to make full defence, and address the jury upon the law and the fact, it would place me in too degrading a situation, and therefore I cannot go on.
Judge Chase—You are at liberty to proceed as fully as you think proper—address the jury, and lay down the law as you think proper. Mr. Lewis, I will never address the court in a criminal case on a question of law. He then stated his ideas of the propriety of going into cases before the revolution, (in England) and if precluded from shewing what those cases were, and also from shewing that English judges since the revolution, thought themselves bound by cases before the revolution, which in this country ought not to be, he must decline being concerned as counsel.
Judge Chase—You must do as you please. Mr. Dallas then stated his reasons for also declining to act as counsel for Fries. I have not a particular note of what he said, but he pursued the same course of argument as Mr. Lewis.
Judge Chase then observed—No opinion has been given as to facts in this case. I would not let the witnesses be examined in the combination cases that have been submitted, because I would not let the jury hear them before the trial of Fries came on.
As to the law, I know the trial before took nine days. Common law cases were cited; that of wishing a stag's horns in the king's belly. A man's saying his son would be heir to the crown. Such cases ought not, shall not go to the jury. No cases can come before us on which I have not opinion as to the law, otherwise I should not be fit to preside here.
I have always conducted myself with candor, and I meant to save you trouble.
It is not respectful to the court, nor the duty of counsel to say they have a right to offer any thing they please. What I decisions in Rome, France, Turkey!
No lawyer will say that common law cases are law under the statute of Edward 3rd; nor justify those judges who overlet the statute of William, overruled the necessity of having two witnesses to the same overt act, admitted hearsay, and other things of that kind.
It is the duty of counsel to lay down the law, but not read cases which are not law.
Having thus explained the meaning of the court, you will stand acquitted or condemned to your own consciences, as you think proper to act. Do as you please.
The course will be, the attorney will open the law, state his case, produce his witnesses.
You are now informed that you will be at full liberty to controvert the law of the prosecutors, but the manner in which you shall do it, must be regulated by the court.
Judge Peters—You are to suppose that any thing done yesterday, is withdrawn.
Mr. Lewis—The paper is withdrawn; but the sentiments remain, I therefore, shall not act.
Mr. Dallas expressed the same determination.
A short pause ensued.
Judge Chase then said—You cannot put the court into a difficulty by this conduct, gentlemen. You do not know me if you think so.
Then desiring the avenue to the prisoner's bar to be cleared, he addressed the prisoner thus:
John Fries; do you with other counsel, or are you desirous of going on to trial. The prisoner answered, that he
did not know what was best for him, but believed he would leave it to the court and jury.
I then informed the court that I did not think it proper in a capital case where an incident so new and singular had occurred, to proceed without allowing the prisoner time to consider what was the best course for him to pursue, and therefore would postpone the trial till the next day.
In this the court readily acquiesced, the prisoner was remanded, and other business taken up.
On the next day, April the twenty fourth, John Fries was again put to the bar—he told the court he relied on them for his counsel—to which judge Chase answered—Then by the blessing of God we will be your counsel, and will do you as much justice as those who were assigned to you.
The jury were called—the prisoner challenged thirty-four—the court directed those whom the prisoner passed to be severally asked whether they had ever formed and delivered an opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.
Three of them who answered affirmatively were set aside.
A jury was sworn and the trial went on.
It was conducted with the utmost fairness and regularity. The conduct of the court was marked with tenderness and humanity towards the prisoner. On the evening of the second day, the evidence was closed.
I have no notes of the charge given by the court. To the best of my recollection, it agreed in substance with that given by judges Iredell and Peters on the former trial.
After retiring for two hours, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty.
After the verdict was given in, the court informed the prisoner that if he, or any person for him could point out any sufficient matter to arrest the judgment—they would be heard.
On the second day of May (the last day of the session) he was brought again to the bar with Frederic Heany and John Getman, who had also been convicted of treason, and being severally asked if they had any thing to say why sentence of death should not be passed on them and no cause being shown, sentence was passed on them.
They were all afterwards pardoned by the President of the United States.
4th. The counsel for the prisoner as the first trial were permitted to argue the point stated in this interrogatory.
5th. They were not prevented by the court from arguing that point on the second trial, unless the facts I have stated amounted to a prevention.
6th. The prisoner Fries, was on the second trial condemned in the manner I have already stated, without counsel being heard in his defence.
7th and 8th. No correspondence passed between the Executive of the United States and me upon that occasion.
9th. This interrogatory is answered in my answer to the third.
10th. I am acquainted with the circumstances which attended the trial of Thomas Cooper for sedition.
11. Referring to my introduction to the answer given to the third interrogatory, I will state the material facts to the best of my recollection.
Thomas Cooper was indicted under the act of Congress already mentioned, passed on the fourteenth of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight, for a libel on the President of the United States.
He pleaded not guilty. I intended to have brought on the trial on the sixteenth of April.
Mr. Cooper being called on, said that he was ready to proceed, but at the same time asked Mr. Caldwell, the clerk, if he had issued the subpoena he had ordered for the President of the United States. Mr. Caldwell answered, that he did not—by order of the court.
Mr. Cooper then observed to the court, that the constitution gave no privilege to the President to exempt him from the service of a subpoena, or the necessity of attending as a witness.
A conversation took place between the court and defendant, relative to the privileges of members of the legislature while in session, and of the President of the United States—Judge Peters appeared to differ from judge Chase as to the former: He was of opinion that a subpoena could not regularly be served on a member of the legislature in session; because if he refused to attend while the session continued, he would not be liable to an attachment, and it was impro-

for a court to award process which they could not enforce. He stated the practice of the courts of Pennsylvania to write a letter to the Speaker of the House, requesting the attendance of the member. I do not recollect that Mr. Peters made any observations on the President being liable to be subpoenaed.
The defendant again urged that the attendance of the President was necessary for his defence, and spoke at some length. Judge Chase observed to the defendant, that every person has a right to compel the attendance of any other person in a court of justice—this was as binding by the constitution of the United States as the exemption from arrest in the cases mentioned in it—A citizen has a right to a subpoena against every member of the community. If they can not be attached, the trial may be postponed; but the President cannot be subpoenaed by you in the present trial, because his testimony cannot be of service to you—you cannot call on him to prove that he has acted wrong. I relate this conversation from my notes. The trial was, to accommodate the defendant, postponed till Saturday the nineteenth.
On the nineteenth the trial came on—
Several members of Congress, who I understood had been subpoenaed by the defendant, were in court, but they were not examined as witnesses.
Mr. Cooper conducted his own defence. Every possible latitude was given to him. The court allowed him to read and say whatever he thought proper. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of four hundred dollars, and be imprisoned for six months.
12th. I know nothing further of the circumstance stated in this interrogatory than I have already mentioned.
W. RAWLE.
Monday 30 January, 1804.
Committee met. Present 5 members. DAVID CALDWELL sworn.
Questioned by the Chairman.
1. Were you clerk of the circuit court of the United States, for the Pennsylvania district, when Thomas Cooper was tried and convicted under the act generally called the sedition law?
A. I was.
2. Was application made to you by the said Cooper for a subpoena to summon the President of the United States to give testimony on his behalf?
A. Such application was made to me by Mr. Cooper.
Q. Did you refuse the subpoena?
A. I told him I would show his precept to the court. I handed the precept to the judge in court—he was on the bench—Mr. Peters was sitting by him. I told him that I had delayed issuing the subpoena till I should receive the orders of the court. Mr. Chase told me that I acted very properly in refusing the subpoena, that Mr. Cooper ought to know that the President could not be subpoenaed, he being a party in the cause.
Q. Did Mr. Chase consult Mr. Peters on the subject?
A. Not to my knowledge, and when he gave the decision I believe he had not consulted him.
Q. Did Mr. Chase express any opinion on you on the subject of summoning the President, previous to the above conversation?
A. I never had any conversation with him on the subject before, to my knowledge.
Q. Was any record made of this refusal?
A. There was no record made, but Mr. Chase wrote the word refused upon the precept, opposite to the President's name.
Q. Did the court make any enquiry of Thomas Cooper as to his pecuniary circumstances?
A. After the verdict, and when the court was about to pass sentence, judge Chase enquired of Thomas Cooper what his situation in life was as to pecuniary matters. Mr. Cooper stated them, and Mr. Chase said that some evidence of his situation should be offered to the court; and he asked further, whether the fine was to be paid by himself, or by his party. Mr. Cooper answered, that he never had been employed by a party, either in England, or in this country, and that he never would be. Upon which Judge Peters declared that it was not a question for the court to ask, as it could not be a matter of any consideration with them, by whom the fine was to be paid.
D. CALDWELL.
Interrogatories exhibited on behalf of the House of Representatives of the United States, to George Hay and Philip M. Nicholas, esquires, touching the official conduct of Samuel Chase, esquire.
1. Were you present at the trial of James T. Callender for sedition?
2. When and where did that trial take place?
3. Relate the circumstances of that trial?
2. Did Mr. Chase refuse to the prisoner the testimony of a witness because the said witness could not prove the truth of all the facts set forth, and upon which the indictment was grounded?
Interrogatories exhibited on behalf of the House of Representatives of the United States to George Hay, touching the official conduct of Samuel Chase.
1. Were you present at the trial of James T. Callender for sedition?
Answer. I was present when James T. Callender was tried for a libel on John Adams, then President of the United States.
2. When and where did that trial take place?
Answer. At the capitol, in the city of Richmond, in the State of Virginia, before Samuel Chase and Cyrus Griffin, sitting as judges of the circuit court. It commenced in the month of May, 1800. How many days were employed in the prosecution I do not remember.
3. Relate the circumstances of that trial?
Answer. I will relate those which appear to me to be material.
At the session of the circuit court in May, 1800, an indictment charging Callender with libelling the President of the United States, was found by the grand jury to be a true bill. Process was soon after awarded, by virtue of which he was arrested, in or near Petersburg, and brought into court. The trial, it was understood, was to take place immediately. For this Callender said that he was not prepared. Nor was I, who had undertaken to be one of his counsel, prepared at that time, to discuss the two great questions which were involved in the prosecution. I was ready to argue the point concerning the constitutionality of the sedition law, but not to prove, what I then believed, and still believe to be sound doctrine, that the jury might acquit the prisoner, if they thought the law unconstitutional. An argument on this subject was during the trial hastily compelled; but I was not permitted to deliver it, as will be hereafter stated. A motion therefore was made for a continuance, upon the facts stated in an affidavit, now among the papers filed with the indictment. The substance of it was, that witnesses were absent whose testimony was material, and that documents were wanted which could not be immediately procured. The witnesses were named, the evidence expected from each distinctly stated, and the documents wanted clearly specified. When this affidavit was presented to the court, it was urged by the counsel that the constitution secured to the prisoner a right to process to enforce the attendance of his witnesses. He had also a right, under the constitution, to the assistance of counsel in his defence; but if he were tried, when his witnesses were absent, and his counsel not prepared for his defence, without any default in him, or them, these important provisions in the constitution would be useless.
The motion was instantly over-ruled.
The attorney for the United States was told, that it was unnecessary to reply. Mr. Chase said that it would be a waste of time; that there was no reason for putting off the trial; that as the prisoner did not swear that he could prove all the charges recited in the indictment, his having testimony as to part of them, was immaterial: he must prove all, continued Mr. Chase, and it must appear that he can prove all, or the trial will not be postponed.
In the course of the argument, for the postponement, I took it for granted, as I yet believe I ought to have done, that the fine which might be assessed, would be ascertained by a jury. By the laws of Virginia, fines for misdemeanors are assessed by the jury. (See Virginia Revised Code, p. 112.) Mr. Chase interrupted me, to tell me that I was wrong, that the supposition might be correct as to the laws of Virginia, but that it was a wild notion as applied to the federal court.
When the court had over-ruled the motion for the continuance, the counsel for Callender claimed for him the benefit of that clause of the constitution, which was intended to secure a trial by an impartial jury. The judge (Chase) declared that he would see justice done in that respect. When the jury were about to be sworn, the counsel wished to ask each individual composing it, whether they had formed any opinion concerning the work, called "The Prospect Before Us," from which the matter charged in the indictment to be libellous, was taken. They were not permitted to ask this question. Mr. Chase asked them himself whether they had formed and delivered any opinion, concerning the charges in the indictment. As they had never heard the indictment read, they of course answered in the negative. The jurors stated that they knew not what was in the indictment. Indeed it was hardly possible that they should know; as I believe the indictment was not read in court, until the jury were actually sworn. One of the jury, John Basset, stated that he was unwilling to serve, having made up his mind as to the book called "The Prospect, &c."
but as he acknowledged that he had not formed and delivered an opinion concerning the charges in the indictment, because in fact, he knew not what they were, his objection was over-ruled.
When the trial commenced, Colonel John Taylor, of Caroline, was introduced as a witness for the prisoner. I believe he was sworn. The counsel wished to interrogate him. This they were not permitted to do, until they had stated the points to which his evidence related. They were then obliged by Mr. Chase, to reduce the questions, which they wished to propound to Col. Taylor, to writing, and then to submit them to his inspection, that he might determine whether they should be propounded or not.
Colonel Taylor's evidence was rejected.
The ground of this opinion, as stated by Mr. Chase was this, that Col. Taylor could not prove the whole of one charge. The charge was, the judge (Chase) said, "that the President was a professed aristocrat—that he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest." Proving half, he said, was doing nothing; both facts must be proved. It was contended, on the part of the prisoner, that if it was necessary to prove both facts by the same witness, the charge in both points would be proved by the testimony of Col. Taylor. He would prove that Mr. Adams had professed aristocratical opinions; and that he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest, in the way meant by "The Prospect, &c." by voting against the sequestration law, and the law suspending all intercourse with Great-Britain. The judge (Chase) repeated that the evidence was inadmissible, that the counsel knew it to be so, and that they only wanted to deceive and to mislead the populace.
The counsel, who were associated with me, in Callender's defence, attempted to address the jury on the unconstitutionality of the law, on which the indictment was founded. They were interrupted, and obliged, by Mr. Chase, if not ordered, to sit down. I then addressed Mr. Chase, himself with a view, to satisfy him, that I had a right to discuss this point before the jury. I told him that what I was then about to say, was intended for the court alone. He interrupted me; he asked some question, which was answered: in a very short time, after I had resumed my argument, I was interrupted again by Mr. Chase. How often I was interrupted I know not; but I was interrupted, rudely interrupted several times. Having seen in the course of this trial what I had never seen before, having felt what I never felt before, and what I certainly expect never to feel again, & being impressed with a belief that Mr. Chase was determined to silence me, if he could, my mind was overwhelmed by conflicting sentiments, and I quitted the bar, my client, and the court.
As to the manner observed by Mr. Chase during the whole of this trial, the interrogatories propounded do not seem to require that I should say any thing.
4. Did Mr. Chase refuse to the prisoner the testimony of a witness, because the said witness could not prove the truth of all the facts set forth, and upon which the indictment was grounded?
Answer. This question is already answered.
GEORGE HAY.
The deposition of Philip Norborne Nicholas, taken at the house of the honorable George Wythe Esquire, in the city of Richmond, before the said George Wythe, Esquire, and Joseph Scott, Esquire, commissioners duly authorized by the House of Representatives of the United States, to take the said deposition. The said deposition being taken on interrogatories propounded to said Nicholas by the said commissioners, which interrogatories and the answers to the same are as follows, to wit:
1. Interrogatory. Were you present at the trial of James Thompson Callender for sedition?
Answer. I was.
2. Interrogatory. When and where did that trial take place?
Answer. The trial of James Thompson Callender, on a charge of sedition, took place in the circuit court of the United States for the Virginia district, during the May term of that court, in the year 1800.
Interrogatory 3d. Relate the circumstances of that trial.
Answer. During the May term of the circuit court of the United States, for the Virginia district, in the year 1800, an indictment was sent to the grand jury against James Thompson Callender as the publisher of a work entitled "the Prospect before us"—a great many passages from the work were stated in the indictment and charged on Callender as seditions. The grand jury found the indictment a true bill. Callender was not in custody, but resided at the time in Petersburg; a warrant was issued against him, and some days
afterwards he was arrested and brought to Richmond by the marshal. This deponent having previously formed a determination to appear as one of Callender's counsel, after his arrest, he, together with George Hay, esquire, had a conference with Callender to examine the charges against him, and to ascertain whether he was prepared for his defence. The charges stated in the indictment were very numerous and dissimilar in their kind, and we soon perceived that it would be impossible to be prepared for the defence without the attendance of a number of persons, several of whom resided at a great distance. We were of opinion also that many documents were necessary which it would require time to procure; and the charges were so multifarious, and required a particular examination of so many facts and events of a public nature, that we believed if our evidence was present we could not be prepared during the term to do justice to our client. Under this conviction we advised Mr. Callender to move for a continuance of the cause, and an affidavit was prepared under his directions to found the motion on. This affidavit is filed amongst the papers in the cause in the federal court. It stated that Callender expected to prove by the persons whose names were mentioned in it, certain facts material to his defence; the facts which he expected to derive from each witness were particularly stated in the affidavit. It will appear by a comparison of the affidavit with the indictment, that the facts stated by Callender as being known to his absent witnesses, apply directly to many of the charges in the indictment. Before the motion was finally decided on by the court, they directed the cause to lay over for a few days, and in the mean time that Callender might subpoena such of his witnesses as were within reach. Subpoenas accordingly issued for general Mason, colonel Taylor of Caroline, and Mr. Giles. After the time had elapsed, during which the court consented the cause might lie, it became necessary that we should urge the court for a continuance, as none of Callender's witnesses attended but colonel Taylor, and as this gentleman's evidence, though deemed by us very important, applied only to part of the charges in the indictment. We accordingly renewed the motion, and it was urged with great earnestness, under a conviction that a fair trial could not be had without Callender's witnesses, and that as many of lived at the distance of several hundred miles and the prosecution had originated only a few days before, it was impossible that Callender could have procured their attendance. We thought also that he had a constitutional right to obtain compulsory process to compel the attendance of his witnesses. The court refused to grant a continuance, and judge Chase declared as the reason why the continuance was refused, that Callender had not stated in his affidavit that he could prove the truth of all the charges stated in the indictment; that it was necessary that Callender should prove the truth of all the charges to obtain an acquittal, and that as the witnesses who were absent were to give evidence as to part of the charges only, their absence afforded no good reason for a continuance, and that therefore our motion should be over-ruled. The court having refused to continue the cause, the jury was called, and one of the counsel for the defendant stated to the court, that he wished to ask the juror, who was called to the book, before he was sworn, whether he had formed an opinion on the work entitled "The Prospect Before Us," from which the charges in the indictment were extracted. Judge Chase said no such question should be asked, that the only question which would be allowed was whether the juror had formed and delivered an opinion on the charges contained in the indictment, and that to exclude the juror, he must not only have formed, but also delivered an opinion. The juror answered that he had never seen the indictment or heard it read. The judge directed that he should be sworn in chief. The counsel then asked that the indictment should be read to the juror, which might enable him to decide whether he had formed and delivered an opinion on the charges in the indictment. Judge Chase said the court would not permit this—that they had indulged the counsel as far as they could, and that they ought to be satisfied. It is to be observed that Mr. Basset who had been summoned on the jury, seemed to have considerable scruples at serving, and stated that he had expressed some opinion as to the "prospect before us." Judge Chase however declared Mr. Basset a good juror, and he was sworn and acted as a juror. The jury being sworn and several witnesses having been examined on the part of the United States to prove the publication of the "Prospect Before Us," the counsel for the defendant asked that col. Taylor of Caroline should be sworn. The court decided that col. Taylor should not be examined, for reasons which this deponent will fully detail in answer to the fourth interrogatory. After the exclusion of col. Taylor's evidence, the attorney for the United States spoke at length on the charges contained in the indictment,
and after he had finished, the counsel for Callender commenced their defence. The counsel, who opened that defence, began by stating to the jury the embarrassed situation in which he and his coadjutors stood; that the prisoner during the same term was indicted, arrested, arraigned and tried, and that this precipitation precluded the possibility of obtaining witnesses or making preparation for a subject of such extent. He was here interrupted by Judge Chase, who said he would not suffer anything to be said which reflected on the court. The counsel then attempted to demonstrate to the jury that the act of Congress usually called the sedition act was unconstitutional and void; and the jury were not bound to consider it as law. Judge Chase interrupted the counsel and stated that arguments might be addressed to the court on the right of the jury to consider the constitutionality of the sedition act, but that such arguments should not be addressed to the jury. The counsel then attempted to demonstrate to the court the right of the jury to inquire into the constitutionality of an act of Congress. In the course of the discussion of this point the counsel were frequently interrupted by judge Chase, particularly Mr. Hay, and that gentleman, who spoke last, after having received several successive interruptions from Judge Chase, folded up his papers and declared that he would proceed no further in the discussion. The counsel for the defendant made no further effort at a defence, and retired from the court. The motive which influenced the counsel to abandon the defence, at least the motive which influenced this deponent, was a persuasion that in the absence of many of Callender's witnesses, after the exclusion of col. Taylor's evidence, and the restrictions imposed on the counsel as to the manner of conducting the defence of their client, together with the decision of the court on the points which have been stated, that he could render no possible service to the defendant.
Interrogatory 4th. Did Mr. Chase refuse to the prisoner the testimony of a witness, because he, the said witness, could not prove the truth of all the facts set forth, and upon which the indictment was grounded?
Answer. After the jury in Callender's case were sworn, col. Taylor of Caroline, who attended as a witness, in consequence of a subpoena served upon him on behalf of Callender, was called to the book and sworn in the usual form. Judge Chase at this moment asked, with considerable haste and eagerness of manner, what the counsel expected to prove by the witness? He was informed that they meant to ask him whether Mr. Adams had not avowed in his presence, sentiments inimical to a republican form of government, and whether he did not, whilst Vice-President, give the casting vote in the Senate against the sequestration of British debts, and against the suspension of intercourse with Great Britain. Judge Chase demanded that the counsel should state in writing the questions meant to be asked. The counsel for the defendant opposed this, because, although a number of witnesses had been examined on the part of the United States, no similar requisition had been made with respect to them, because it was contrary to the practice in the state court, and because also it was unreasonable in itself, and calculated to subject every question of fact to the control of the court. Judge Chase, however, insisted that the questions should be submitted to his previous decision. They were accordingly put in writing, and were as follows, to wit:
1. Did you ever hear Mr. Adams express any sentiments favorable to monarchy or aristocracy—and what were they?
2. Did you ever hear Mr. Adams, whilst Vice President, express his disapprobation of the funding system?
3. Do you know whether Mr. Adams did not in the year 1794, vote against the sequestration of British debts, and for stopping all intercourse with Great Britain?
After having examined the questions, judge Chase declared that col. Taylor's evidence was inadmissible. He declared that no evidence could be received that did not justify the whole charge. The charge, said he, is, that the traverser said of the President, he is a professed aristocrat and has proved faithful to the British interest;—now you must prove both points, or you prove nothing; and as your evidence relates to one only, it cannot be received—you must prove all or none. This was in substance, and it is believed the precise words in which judge Chase stated his objection to col. Taylor's evidence. The counsel asked the judge whether they could not be allowed to prove part of a charge by one witness and part by another? To this judge Chase replied, that if the counsel could prove the whole of any one charge by col. Taylor, that they might do it, otherwise they should not examine him. The counsel contended that col. Taylor's evidence applied to the whole of the charge which the judge had stated in his opinion. That they meant to prove by him, that the President had professed anti-republican sentiments, and had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest,

in the sense in which those expressions were used in the Prospect. The judge, however, adhered to his determination to exclude the evidence; and Col. Taylor retired from the court with evident marks of astonishment. It is necessary it should be stated that Judge Griffin sat in Callender's trial as well as Judge Chafe; but throughout the trial Judge Chafe delivered the resolutions of the court, and assigned the reasons on which those resolutions were founded; and with respect to the particular points which have been stated by this deponent, as decided by the court, Judge Chafe delivered the opinions and assigned the reasons which have been attributed to him.
Pa: NORBORNE NICHOLAS. (To be continued.)
WASHINGTON CITY MONDAY, MARCH 12.
We are authorized to state that the frigate John Adams will sail from this place for the American Squadron in the Mediterranean in the course of 3 or 4 weeks. The friends of the officers in the Mediterranean may avail themselves of this opportunity to write or send any small packages.
We have the satisfaction of stating that the Amendment to the Constitution has been ratified by the legislature of Rhode Island. It passed the Senate unanimously; and the House of Representatives by 42 votes to 18.
IMPEACHMENT.
FRIDAY, March 9.
The Court of Impeachment was opened at 12 o'clock, the Managers of the House of Representatives attending.
Mr. Nicholson again stated that the Managers had adduced all the testimony in support of the articles of impeachment, which they considered necessary to substantiate them. On that testimony they therefore rested the prosecution. But, understanding informally, that it was intended to bring forward additional testimony; they reserved the right, after hearing it, of offering such other testimony and remarks as they might consider proper.
On the request of Mr. Tracy, two Senators, Messrs. Olcott and Plumer, of New Hampshire, were examined.
After their examination several of the witnesses, previously adduced, were interrogated:
When Mr. Nicholson addressed the court, and said the Managers of the House of Representatives considered the testimony offered in support of the articles of impeachment to be conclusive and pointed, as to render it impossible for them to elucidate or enforce it by any observations in their power to make. He was, therefore, directed by the Managers to inform the court that they submitted the articles on the evidence offered, entertaining no doubt of full justice being done by the decision of the Senate.
After putting an interrogatory to one of the witnesses previously examined, the doors of the Senate were closed, with the view, it was understood, of deciding on the articles.
We learn that a motion was made to postpone the further proceeding in the trial to the day of
and lost—Yeas 20—Nays 10.—
This motion was supported by Mr. Tracy and Mr. Hillhouse, and opposed by Mr. John Smith (of Ohio) and Mr. Cooke.
Mr. Nicholas moved that the House of Representatives be informed that the Senate will on Monday proceed to pronounce judgement.
A motion was then made to adjourn the court until to-morrow—and carried.
SATURDAY, March 10. The Senate with closed doors, resumed the trial of the impeachment.
Mr. White moved a resolution, stating that, inasmuch as the evidence adduced, in behalf of the House of Representatives was ex parte, and inasmuch as two Senators had testified to the infamy of Judge Pickering, the Senate were not prepared to decide on the articles of impeachment, without allowing the accused further time to appear. [We do not attempt verbal accuracy.]
This motion was rejected—Yeas 10—Nays 19.
The motion of Mr. Nicholas recurring was then agreed to—Yeas 20—Nays 10.
Judgement will consequently be pronounced on Monday (this day).
House of Representatives.
FRIDAY, March 9.
Mr. Smilie offered a resolution, directing a call of the House every morning at 10 o'clock during the remainder of session, connected with a forfeiture
of one day's pay for each neglect of duty.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Rhea (of Tennessee) moved the following resolution, which was referred to a committee of the whole on the bill for the government of Louisiana.
Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision, by law, to declare void and of no effect, all grants for land in the territory of Louisiana, ceded to the United States by the French Republic, by the treaty of the thirtieth of April, in the year eighteen hundred and three, which have been issued by any authority or pretended authority from the government of Spain, subsequent to the treaty of Saint Ildefonso.
The House went into a committee of the whole on the said bill—Mr. DAWSON in the Chair.
Mr. G. W. Campbell moved an amendment to the bill extending the right of jury trial to all criminal cases, and to all civil suits in which the sum in controversy may exceed 20 dollars.
Mr. Sloan said a few words in support of the motion, which was lost—Ayes 20.
[At this stage of the business we attended the trial of Impeachment in the Senate, and cannot with perfect correctness state the further proceedings of the House on the bill. We understand, however, that the new section, sometime since offered by Mr. G. W. Campbell, providing for the election of a legislature by the people of Louisiana, (in stead of their being governed, according to the bill from the Senate, by a council appointed by the President) was disagreed to—Ayes 37—Nays 43.]
Mr. Findley, from the committee of elections made a report, concluding with the opinion that Thomas M. Randolph is duly elected a member of the House.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SATURDAY, March 10.
Mr. J. Randolph moved the taking up for consideration the resolutions offered by him on the claims under the act of Georgia of 1795.
Mr. Elliot moved the order of the day on the bill for the compromise of those and other claims.
Mr. Gregg moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolutions till the first day of December next. He was, he said, perfectly prepared to act on the bill for the settlement of the claims, and to give it his decided negative; and should have no objection to consider the resolutions, but for the lateness of the session, and the great mass of important business that demanded attention.
The Speaker said the motion to consider the resolutions, being first made, must be first put.
It accordingly was put and carried—Ayes 58.
Mr. Jackson then moved a postponement of the resolutions until the 1st Monday in December.
Mr. Stanford enquired whether the question of postponement was susceptible of division; if it were, he desired it to be taken on each resolution distinctly.
Messrs. J. Randolph and Rodney hoped it would be so taken.
Messrs. Varnum, Jackson and Elliot considered the question indivisible.
The Speaker said this was a new point of order. His opinion was that the question was indivisible.
Such being the decision of the chair, the question was put on postponing to the 1st Monday of December the following resolution:
"Resolved, that the legislature of the state of Georgia were, at no time, invested with the power of alienating the right of soil possessed by the good people of that state in and to the vacant territory of the same, but in a rightful manner, and for the public good."
Mr. Rodney rose, and in a speech of considerable length opposed the postponement, and advocated the adoption of the resolutions. In doing this Mr. Rodney entered fully into the merits of the main question, and contended strenuously against any compromise of claims founded in fraud.
He was followed by Mr. Thomas M. Randolph (in his maiden speech) on the same side. He took a bold view of the pretensions of the claimants under the act of Georgia of 1795, depicted in terms of indignant eloquence the fraud of the transaction, and in a strain of nervous argument opposed their allowance. The speech was replete with pathos of language, enlivened by metaphorical illustrations, original, chaste and glowing. It is with a sparing hand that we mingle remarks with the reported proceedings of the House; nor should we on this occasion have deviated from our ordinary track, but for the satisfaction we always feel in endeavoring to draw modest merit from the retirement in which it delights too much to dwell.
Mr. Lyon next spoke at considerable length in defence of the settlement of the claims, and in opposition to the resolutions; intimating his readiness to act on them, and his consequent opposition to their postponement.
Mr. Elliot and Dr. Elmer made concise speeches against the postponement, and in favor of a compromise of the claims.
When the question was taken on postponing the 1st resolution as above stated, and passed in the negative—Yeas 51—Nays 52.
The question of postponement was then put on the following resolution:
"That when the governors of any people shall have betrayed the confidence reposed in them, and shall have exercised that authority with which they have been clothed for the general welfare, to promote their own private ends, under the basest motives, and to the public detriment, it is the unalienable right of a people, so circumstanced, to revoke the authority thus abused,—to resume the rights thus attempted to be bartered, and to abrogate the act thus endeavoring to betray them."
Yeas 52—Nays 51.
The Speaker said he voted with the Nays; and that the postponement was therefore lost.
The question of postponement was then taken, and carried—Yeas 54—Nays 49—on the following resolution:
"That it is in evidence to this House, that the act of the legislature of Georgia, passed on the 7th of January, 1795, intitled "an act for appropriating a part of the unlocated territory of this state, for the payment of the late state troops; and for other purposes," was passed by persons under the influence of gross and palpable corruption practised by the grantees of the lands a tempted to be alienated by the aforesaid act, tending to enrich and aggrandize to a degree, almost incalculable, a few individuals, and ruinous to the public interest."
The question of postponement was next taken, and carried—Yeas 53—Nays 50—on the following resolutions:
"That the good people of Georgia, impressed with general indignation at this act of atrocious perfidy and of unparallelled corruption, with a promptitude of decision highly honorable to their character, did by the act of a sovereign legislature, passed on the thirteenth of February, 1796, under circumstances of peculiar solemnity and final action, and by the people, who have ineluctably engrafted it on their constitution, declare the preceding act, and the grants made under it, in themselves, null and void, that the said act should be expunged from the records of the state, and be publicly burnt, which was accordingly done; provision, at the same time, being made for restoring the pretended purchase money to the grantees, by whom, or by persons claiming under them, the greater part of the said purchase money has been withdrawn from the treasury of Georgia."
"That a subsequent legislature of an individual state has an undoubted right to repeal any act of a preceding legislature, provided such repeal be not forbidden by the constitution of such state, or of the United States."
"That the aforesaid act of the state of Georgia, passed on the thirteenth of February, 1796, was forbidden neither by the constitution of that state, nor by that of the United States."
"That the claims of persons derived under the aforesaid act of the seventh of January, 1795, are recognised neither by any compact between the United States, and the state of Georgia, nor by any act of the federal government."
Finally, The question of postponement was taken and carried—Yeas 54—Nays 51, on the last resolution, as follows:
"Resolved, That no part of the five millions of acres reserved for satisfying and quieting claims to the lands ceded by the state of Georgia to the United States, and appropriated by the act of congress passed at their last session, shall be appropriated to quiet or compensate any claims derived under any act, or pretended act of the state of Georgia passed, or alleged to be passed, during the year 1795."
When the House adjourned.
Philadelphia.
Wednesday morning, March 7.
Accounts were received from Lancaster last evening, that the act for incorporating the Philadelphia Bank had received the governor's signature and is now complete. We also learn, the act for incorporating the Delaware Insurance company, had passed both the Senate and House of Representatives.
The Bank of the United States are organizing a Branch to be established in the city of New Orleans.
New York, March 5.
Massacre at Aux Cayes.—To the passengers in the brig Ann, from Aux Cayes, we are indebted for the following particulars relative to a dreadful massacre at that place:—On the night of the 31st January, a number of armed negroes and mulattoes entered the house of Mr. G. Trux, linguist, and after pillaging all his effects, carried him out of the city, where they massacred him with two others, named Beche and Heorie. On the following day the black general, Gervulouis, who commanded at Aux Cayes published that the murders had been committed by certain revengeful persons without orders. A few hours after the above publication a massacre
commenced; among the unfortunate victims of this night were M. M. Berres, La Gautrage, Vignon, Le Briton, Bertine, Pineau, Laporte de Gavaillon, Marcellan, Malives freres, &c. &c. After all shooting these unfortunate men, they pillaged their houses, and threw their bodies into the sea. The following day the city was comparatively tranquil, but there is reason to suppose that the negroes will ultimately butcher all the French whites within their power. Two Americans have been massacred—Mr. Hare and another.
It was reported at Aux Cayes, that the blacks had massacred all the white inhabitants in the Cape but six, and all but three or four in Port Republican, at which place the powder magazine had blown up, and many had been destroyed by the explosion.
The negroes have substituted for St. Domingo, Haiti, the name which the island originally bore.
A TEN Thousand Dollar PRIZE.
Scheme of a Lottery
For the use of the GERMAN TRINITY CHURCH, In Sixth street, Philadelphia.
N. B. This Lottery is expected to commence drawing immediately after the conclusion of the St. Augustine church, & Lehigh navigation Lotteries; and from the great demand for the tickets in different parts of the Union, there is reason to believe that the price will be raised, considerably before that period.
   Prizes. Number. Dollars.     1 Prize of 10,000 dolls. 1 10,000   1 5,000 1 5,000   1 2,000 1 2,000   1 1,000 1 1,000   4 500 4 2,000   10 300 10 3,000   20 200 20 4,000   35 100 35 3,500   90 50 90 4,500   100 20 100 2,000   6000 7 6000 42,000   1st drawn No. on the 10th day 1 500   1 15 1 500   1 20 1 500   1 25 1 500   1 30 1 500   1 35 1 500   1 40 1 1,000   1 45 1 1,000   1 50 1 1,000   1 55 1 1,000   1st drawn No. on the 11th day, when there shall be only 600 tickets in the wheel. 1 6,000  
6274 Prizes. Dollars....90,000 11726 Blanks.
Considerably less than two blacks to a prize.
The prizes to be paid 30 days after the close of the drawing—Subject to a deduction of 15 per cent.
ADAM PREMR, ANTHONY HOCKEY, CHARLES BOWMAN, Com'rs. Tickets for sale by the sub scribers, at 6 Dollars.
Half tickets 3 25 Quarter tickets 1 75 Prizes in other lotteries received in payment.
GEORGE Taylor jun. No. 85. South Second street.
MATTHEW MOONNELL, No. 82 Chestnut street.
62 Lotteries addressed to either of whom post paid and including the cash, will be duly attended to. March 12—twM.
PATENT RIGHT.
FOR painting rooms, ornamenting ceilings, borders, &c. to represent paper hangings. The subscribers having purchased the patent from John Seely the original inventor, for the district of Columbia, the states of Virginia, N Carolina S Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, the province of Louisiana and New Orleans, will dispose of the same for each place or places within the above limits as may be agreed on. The model may be seen and terms made known by applying to,
Messrs. RICHARD RYLAND, WILLIAM BYRNE, Stocco plasterers, Capitol Hill, City of Washington—Feb. 2—3twtf N. B. Those desirous of blending economy with utility and elegance, will find their account in this invention. Letters post paid and addressed as above will be attended to.
Conveyancer's Office. THOMAS HERTY.
Grateful for past favors, informs his friends and the public, that he continues to prepare CONVEYANCES OF LAND and every other species of DEED or INSTRUMENT in the line of his profession, with legal precision, and on moderate terms, little investigated, &c.
A choice selection of lots on the Pennsylvania avenue and in other desirable situations in the City to lease or sell.
N. B. Herty's Abridgement of the laws of Maryland in 1 vol. and Herty's Digest of the laws of the United States in 2 vol. for sale at the above office.
City of Washington, April 1st 1801
THOMAS M'EVEN, THOMAS HALE & WILLIAM DAVIDSON, who heretofore have transacted business under the firm of Thomas M'Even & Co. will in future use that of M'EVEN, HALE & DAVIDSON. PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 1—tw&uotf
WASHINGTON CITY,
By the ship Manchester, arrived at New-York, London papers are received to the 14th of January; No political event of national importance has occurred since the period of our last intelligence. It was strongly reported in France, and, in a measure, believed in England, that invasion would be attempted in the course of January.
PRIZES In the fourth class of the EASTON DELAWARE BRIDGE LOTTERY,
Authorised by the State of Pennsylvania & N. Jersey are now Paying by Messrs. Bollar & Jordan's Treasurer, and by Edward Mott, Manager—Philadelphia.
Of whom may be had tickets at 3 3/4 dollars, (but which may very soon be expected to advance) in the following unparalleled
   SCHEME OF THE EXTRA CLASS.     2 prizes of 10,000 dolls. 2 20,000 dolls.   2 5,000 2 10,000   4 2,500 4 10,000   5 1,000 5 5,000   10 500 10 5,000   25 300 25 7,500   50 200 50 10,000   100 100 100 10,000   250 50 250 12,500   500 20 500 10,000   10,000 5 10,000 50,000   39,053 blanks, net 4 to a prize. 125,000 Dolls.  
50,000 tickets—to draw 500 each day.
The drawing will commence at the State House, Philadelphia, in October next, at 11 o'clock. The prizes, subject to a discount of 15 per cent. will be paid thirty days after the conclusion of the drawing, if demanded in one year, otherwise forfeited to the use of the bridge.
Part of the prizes determinable as under specified.
Prizes of 500 dollars each, the first drawn ticket on the 1st, 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th, and 60th, days drawing.
Prizes of 1000 dollars each, the first drawn ticket on the 70th, 75th, and 80th day's drawing.
Prizes of 2,500 dollars each, the first drawn ticket on the 85th and 90th day's drawing.
Prize of 5,000 dollars, the first drawn ticket on the 95th day's drawing.
Prize of 10,000 dollars, the first drawn ticket on the 100th day's drawing.
The two prizes of 10,000 dollars, will receive each, in part of payment, 20 bridge shares, at 100 dollars each.
The two prizes of 5,000 dollars will receive each, in part of payment, 10 bridge shares, at 100 dollars each.
The four prizes of 2,500 dollars will receive each, in part payment, 5 bridge shares, at 100 dollars each.
By the completion of this class, which will finish the bridge. Bridge shares will be very valuable stock. The honorable punctuality with which the former part of this lottery has been conducted—the enriched state of the company's funds, which will not be appropriated until the last class is completed—the admirable contrivance of the scheme—the important object for which the proceeds are intended—the great chance of obtaining one of the many handsome fortunes now presented for the small sum of 3 3/4 dollars—with the liberal arrangements made for the convenience of societies, clubs and others, inclined to purchase the tickets, the managing directors themselves will have due weight and influence on the public patronage.
EDWARD MOTT, Manager.
Who will, on receiving the necessary information of the payment of 20 per cent. to his credit in any of the United States branch banks of discount & deposit, with an engagement to pay the residue by four equal instalments in 3, 6, 9 & 12 months from the 1st March next, lend the numbers and deposit any quantity of tickets (not less than 50) in the hands of the treasurer, subject to the purchaser's demand on the punctual payment of the residue of the money; which not being observed, the tickets may be resold, & the money paid. In advance forfeited; or he will, on the purchase money of any number of tickets (not less than 10) being deposited in any of the branch banks above mentioned, immediately forward them to the direction of the purchaser. For any number of tickets less than ten, the cash to be enclosed to the manager; who will, on its receipt, forward them as directed, and on the conclusion of the drawing send the purchasers an account of their success; and such arrangement shall be made that the holders of fortunate tickets, after they have been properly checked, may receive their prizes at the bank they made their payment at. The numerous advantages of this arrangement must be obvious to every person. The payments are made easy, and the purchasers will not be liable to any advance of price, which from the unexampled sales of the tickets, may with confidence be expected to be considerable before the drawing commences. Feb 20—taw8w
A WAITER, A CHAIR & HORSE.
A very handsome Mulatto Boy, about thirteen years old, for his age excellet by few as a waiter—who an elegant double Chair with complete plated harness, new, and an excellent chair or saddle Horse for sale separately or collectively. Enquire of the printer. Feb 22—tw6w
FOR SALE.
A Blacksmith's shop, and tools, situated on F. Street, near Mr. Rhode's tavern, an elegant stand for the business. Any person wishing to purchase may know the conditions by applying to GEORGE BLOUNT, Sadr'ce. Washington City, March 2—wjt

(BY AUTHORITY.)
Scheme of a Lottery. To build an Academy in the city of Richmond.
Table with 2 columns: Prize, Dollars. Includes prizes like '1 Prize—last drawn ticket, having a blank to its number, 20,000' and '1 do. 10,000'.
5,325 prizes, 150,000. 9,675 blanks, not two to a prize. 15,000 tickets at 10 dollars each, 150,000.
This lottery has been authorized by the legislature of Virginia, for the laudable purposes of erecting a seminary of learning in or near the metropolis of this state.
Richmond, March 2—1f. Tickets to be had of Robert Pollard, Esq., John Brockenbrough, jun., Wm. Price, (Reg.) Samuel Pleasants, jun., and William Pritchard.
Dancing School.
PL. DUPOIT professor of Dancing respectfully informs the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Washington and George Town...
FOR SALE OR RENT.
OR will be exchanged for property as eligibly situated in Alexandria. THE two story brick House on the north of the Capitol corner of 1st and B streets...
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR.
HAS just received an handsome supply of fall goods, which he is determined to sell and make upon the most reasonable terms...
CHARLES VARDEN, TAYLOR.
HAS received from Philadelphia an elegant assortment of the best quality Superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, Silk Florantine, Black and fancy silk molekin velvet...
S. THOME.
BEGS leave to inform his friends that he has removed his store from George Town to King-Street Alexandria...
NEEDLE WORK.
FRAMED in the handsomest manner, and names done on glass. S. THOME, as a stranger being determined to establish in the line of his profession...
A GREAT BARGAIN.
THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS will be taken and payment made easy, to the purchaser, for the following valuable property...
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...
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION.
The office of the Washington Association and United States Insurance company is removed to the corner of square No. 226 fronting on the President's square and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Fifty Dollars Reward.
RAN away from the subscriber about the first of November last, a negro man called BILLY BUNDY, about 26 years old, yellow complexion...
TO RENT.
And immediate Possession given, A Two-story Frame House, in the City of Washington, situated on N. F. street, square 224...
HAT MANUFACTURY.
The subscriber informs his customers and the public generally that he has discontinued business in the city of Washington...
NOTICE.
ALL who are indebted to the estate of John Crookshank deceased are requested to make immediate payment to CHARLES GLOVER, Admr.
Valuable Lands for Sale.
PURSUANT to a decree of the honorable the Circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, will be exposed to sale...
THOMAS SWANN, EDMUND J. LEE, GEO. DENEALE,
March 5—1d
Bank of Columbia.
IN Conformity with the charter of this bank, an election for twelve Directors will take place...
NOTICE.
The subscriber hath obtained from the Orphans Court of Calvert county, letters of administration on the personal estate of Daniel Kent...
NOTICE.
THE subscriber hath obtained from the Orphan's court of Prince George's county, in Maryland, Letters Testamentary on the personal estate of Ninian Willett...
NOTICE.
All persons having business with me as agent either for the joint or separate estate of ROBERT MORRIS, JOHN NICHOLSON and JAMES GREENLEAF.
TRINITY CHURCH LOTTERY.
10,000 Dollars the highest Prize. THE scheme contains 12,000 tickets—6,271 of which are prizes—deduction 15 per cent. is expected to commence drawing the ensuing spring.
FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD.
Run away from the subscriber on the 1st inst. a young, likely, and very dark mulatto fellow, named PHIL. He is about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high...
TO BE LET.
And entered upon immediately, a two story BRICK HOUSE in good repair on Twelfth street near Pennsylvania Avenue...
PATENT BARK MILL.
THE subscribers having obtained Letters Patent from the United States, securing to themselves the exclusive right to use and sell to others to be used, a late improvement in cutting and grinding Barks...
Valuable property for Sale.
In virtue of a deed of trust executed and bearing date on the 8th day of January 1798, between ISAAC POLOCK of the first part...
The Celebrated ENGLISH Running Horse CLIFDEN.
WILL stand the ensuing season at the City of Washington, at THIRTY DOLLARS the season, which will commence on the 1st of March...
PEDIGREE.
I Certify, that Clifden was gotten by Alfred out of an own sister to the duke of Queensbury's bay horse Mulberry...
AL LANCE.
Alfred was gotten by Metcham. Rockingham's dam, Purity, by Matchem; Pumpkin, by Matchem; Matchem, by Matchem...
PERFORMANCES.
In the year 1799, at five years old, he won ten times out of his twelve first races, and was seen by the racing calendar, and was unequalled for eight years, except by Buzzard. 1. In 1799, Thursday, Aug. 24, at Wcep-stakes made for Lewes...
six mile course, for 200 gs.; likewise the Yellow mare, for 200 gs. B. C.; also Lord Clermont's Woodcock, D. I. for 200 gs. 1st a sweepstakes of 50 gs. each...
In a letter from Mr. Sturt, member of parliament for Dorsetshire, to Dr. Thornton, he says, "I know of four or five very promising colts of Clifden's get. One in particular of the honorable Lionel Dakers, another of Dr. Barnes's, and I have a yearling in my possession, which I think the finest colt of his age I ever saw."
Mr. Ringgold, at whose farm he stood in Washington county Maryland, says Clifden's colts are the finest he ever saw, in every respect.
Valuable property for Sale.
In virtue of a deed of trust executed and bearing date on the 8th day of January 1798, between ISAAC POLOCK of the first part...
BY AUTHORITY.
Scheme of a Lottery. To build a Catholic Cathedral Church in the City of Baltimore.
Table with 2 columns: Prize, Dollars. Includes prizes like '1 prize of 20,000' and '2 do 10,000'.
Valuable Lands for Sale.
21,000 Tickets, at 10 dollars each, 210,000. The laudable purpose of this lottery—the many very valuable prizes offered, and there not being two blanks to a prize, are considerations which give the managers reason to hope for a rapid sale of the tickets.