The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1805-03-29 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. V.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. DCXCVIII.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, MARCH 29th, 1805.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
IMPEACHMENT. OF JUDGE CHASE.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1805.
[Continued.]
JOHN THOMSON MASON sworn .
Mr. Randolph. It has been contended on the part of the respondent, that the quo animo , or the animus quo determines the guilt or innocence of an action; now, if the quo animo with which he went down to Richmond to execute the sedition law, can be shown, it will have an important bearing on his conduct. I will therefore to ask the witness this question: Did you ever hear Judge Chase, previous to the trial of Callender, utter any expression, and if any, what was it, on the subject of Callender's prosecution, or respecting the book called the Prospect Before Us ; did he say that the counsel at the Virginia bar were afraid to press the execution of any law, and particularly the sedition law; did he say he had a copy of that book, or what did he say? State the circumstances particularly?
Mr. Mason. The question refers to circumstances of which I have but an indistinct recollection, and which happened in a way, which renders it extremely unpleasant on my part to relate them. Judge Chase presided in the circuit court held at Annapolis in the spring of the year 1800; during the term a man by the name of Saunders, was tried for larceny and found guilty. After sentence was passed upon him, he was taken out of court to receive it. The press of the people being very great, the Judges and myself were detained within the room. Judge Winchester, Judge Chase and myself had a conversation, altogether of a jocular complexion, I think it was just after he delivered his valedictory, but how to connect the circumstances at this time, I do not know. I remember, however, that he asked me my opinion of the book called the Prospect Before Us ; I told him I had not seen it, and from the character I had heard of it, I never wished to see it. He told me in reply, that Mr. Luther Martin had sent a copy to him, and had scored the parts that were libellous, and that he would carry it to Richmond with him as a proper subject for prosecution. There was a good deal of conversation besides, but I do not recollect it. There was one expression, however, that he used, which just occurs to my memory, and which I will repeat, that before he left Richmond, he would teach the people to distinguish between the liberty and licentiousness of the press. He said that he was as sincere a friend to the liberty, as he was an enemy to the licentiousness of the press. There was a sentiment, he expressed, which I cannot undertake to give in his precise words, that if the commonwealth or its inhabitants were not too depraved to furnish a jury of good and respectable men, he would certainly punish Callender. I do not precisely recollect the words—I never repeated this conversation before, and seldom or ever after it occurred, thought of it.
JOHN HEATH sworn .
During the trial of J. T. Callender, I attended at the court in Richmond as one of the bar. I had occasion to apply to the court for an injunction. The motion not having been decided upon, I went round to Crouch's, where Judge Chase lodged, and found him in his chamber alone, in which I thought myself very fortunate—We then talked over the application I had made the day before for an injunction; while talking on it, Mr. David M. Randolph, the then marshal, stepped in with a paper in his hand. The judge accepted him, and asked what he had in his hand. He said that he had the panel of the petit jury summoned for the trial of Callender. This was after the indictment was found by the grand jury. After Mr. Randolph had mentioned that it was the panel of the petit jury that he had in his hand, Judge Chase immediately replied, have you any of those creatures called democrats on the panel?—Mr. Randolph hesitated for a moment, and then said that he had not made any discrimination in summoning the petit jury. Judge Chase laid, look it over, Sir, and if there are any of that description, strike them off. This is all I know of this affair.
WEDNESDAY, February 13.
JAMES TRIPLETT sworn .
Mr. Randolph. I wish to know whether you ever heard previous to, or dur-
ing the trial of Callender any expressions used by the respondent judge Chase, manifesting an hostility towards J. T. Callender, and what were those expressions?
Mr. Triplett. I recollect to have had a conversation with judge Chase on our passage in the stage down to Richmond. A book was handed to me by him, and I was asked if I had read it. I was asked whether I had ever seen him (Callender) I told him, I never had seen him. There was a story recited about the arrest of Callender by a warrant of a magistrate under the vagrant act of Virginia—I recollect that the judge's reply was "it is a pity you have not hanged the rascal."
Mr. Randolph. Was there any other expressions of this nature used, after you got to Richmond?
Mr. Triplett. I did not hear any thing particularly; but I think the judge did say something about the government of the United States showing too much lenity towards such renegades. I do not recollect any other conversation passing between us at that time, until after the court was sitting, when judge Chase was the first who informed me of the presentment being made by the grand jury against Callender. At the same time he informed me that he expected I would have the pleasure of seeing Callender next day before sundown, that the marshal had that day started after him for Petersburg.
Mr. Randolph. We wish you, as well as your memory serves, to state not only the substance, but the exact expressions used by the judge.
Mr. Triplett. I will state them as well as my memory serves me. Some time after this conversation, I met the judge at the place where he boarded; he said that the marshal had returned without Callender, and used this expression, I am afraid we shall not be able to get the damned rascal at this court.
Mr. Randolph. You say a copy of this book was handed to you by judge Chase. Did you read it, Sir?
Mr. Triplett. I read several passages of it.
Mr. Randolph. Were they marked?
Mr. Triplett. I saw several passages marked; but by whom I do not know.
Mr. Randolph. Do you remember any particular passages that were marked?
Mr. Triplett. I do not. I have stated every thing I recollect; but if the gentlemen have any questions to ask I am ready to give them an answer.
Mr. Martin. I will ask how many days you resided at the same house with the judge?
Mr. Triplett. I think, six days.
Mr. Martin. Do you recollect whether my name was not marked on the book, which judge Chase handed to you?
Mr. Triplett. I do not.
Mr. Harper. Can you state the day of the month, or of the week, when this last conversation passed?
Mr. Triplett. I think it was Sunday, but I am not positive. I made no minutes, as I never expected to be called upon to answer enquiries of this kind.
Mr. Harper. How long was it after the first conversation with the judge, when he mentioned that the marshal had gone after Callender?
Mr. Triplett. I do not precisely recollect. It was not, I think, so much as three days—I do not think it was so much as two days; but I cannot be positive, after so great a length of time has elapsed.
Mr. Harper. Do you recollect who travelled with you in the stage from Dumfries to Richmond?
Mr. Triplett. I cannot recollect—The stage was much crowded from Dumfries to Fredericksburg; and there was a passenger taken in at Stafford court house.
Mr. Harper. Well, Sir, how was it from Fredericksburg to Richmond?
Mr. Triplett. I do not particularly recollect; but there were passengers repeatedly getting in all the way.
Mr. Harper. Did this conversation take place before you reached Stafford court house?
Mr. Triplett. It was after.
Mr. Harper. Was it between Fredericksburg and Richmond?
Mr. Triplett. Yes, Sir.
President. Had you any conversation with judge Chase previous to this interview?
Mr. Triplett. No, Sir.
President. Did you sit together in the stage?
Mr. Triplett. We did the second day, and it was then the conversation passed.
Mr. Hopkinson. When was it, that for the first time, you mentioned this
conversation to any body?
Mr. Triplett. I do not recollect when I mentioned it the first time; but I remember to have communicated it to general Mason on my return to Dumfries.
Mr. Nicholson. Have you since mentioned it to others?
Mr. Triplett. Frequently.
On the suggestion of Mr. Randolph, that Mr. Triplett had fractured his wrist, from which he apprehended serious consequences, he was dismissed with the consent of the counsel for the respondent, from further attendance on the court.
At the instance of Mr. Lee, John Heath, examined yesterday, was again called in.
Mr. Lee. You mentioned yesterday that you made two applications for an injunction. Were they made at the Judge's Chambers, or in court?
Mr. Heath. I mentioned that I made the application to the court, and that it was not then granted—I then stated that I went to the Judge's Chambers the next day before the court met.
Mr. Lee. Who composed the court when the injunction was moved in the first instance?
Mr. Heath. I think, but I cannot be particular, that Judge Griffin was there. He was, however, there the next day.
Mr. Lee. At what time of the day was it that you went to the Judge's Chambers respecting your application for the injunction?
Mr. Heath. It was immediately after breakfast. We generally breakfasted early. Immediately after I waited upon him. I think it was between 8 and 9 o'clock.
Mr. Lee. What space of time were you there?
Mr. Heath. I do not think I was there quite half an hour.
Mr. Lee. Was the bill read by yourself, or put into the hands of the Judge to read it, at the time you made the application at his Chamber?
Mr. Heath. I do not recollect to have presented the bill to the Judge. I am not positive that I had the bill with me. I called upon him for the purpose of learning the reasons why the Judge did not grant the application. [Here the witness related some remarks of Judge Chase on the application for an injunction, which were too indistinctly heard to be reported.]
Mr. Lee. Who were present at the Judge's Chambers at the time you state the conversation took place between Judge Chase and Mr. David M. Randolph respecting the panel of the jury?
Mr. Heath. No other person was present but myself. When I came in I found the Judge alone, and I thought myself fortunate in so finding him. We had been in conversation by ourselves for 8 or 10 minutes before Mr. Randolph came in.
Mr. Lee. Was any person present at the door, or was the door open at the time?
Mr. Heath. I do not recollect that there was; but it appeared to me that as I was going into the house, somebody was coming out; and I found the Judge alone, I am positive, when I entered; and we continued alone until Mr. Randolph stepped in. It struck me there might have been somebody that came in at the main door of the house between the time I was there and Mr. Randolph's coming in; but I am not certain.
Mr. Lee. You say somebody was coming out, when you went into the room. Was it Mr. Randolph?
Mr. Heath. No, Sir. I said there might be somebody coming out, but whether out of his Chamber, or out of another room, I am not certain; but when I entered his chamber I found him alone, and I thought myself fortunate in so finding him.
Mr. Lee. On what day of the week was this?
Mr. Heath. I do not recollect.
Mr. Lee. How many days was it after your motion to the court before you went to the Judge's chambers?
Mr. Heath. I do not recollect—but I think it was a few days after the bill against Callender had been found, and he had been arrested; but as to days, hours and minutes, I do not pretend to recollect them.
Mr. Lee. Am I to understand that it was after Callender appeared in court?
Mr. Heath. I do not say so. It was after Callender was brought forward by the marshal, and a true bill found. I think it was immediately after; but I do not recollect whether a day or two after.
Mr. Lee. Did you go to Judge Chase's chambers on any business more
than that one time?
Mr. Heath. No—I never did more than that one time.
Mr. Chase. It was with the motion?
Mr. Heath. Yes, Sir, it was with the motion.
Mr. Randolph. Did you at any, and at what time, mention this circumstance, and to whom did you mention it?
Mr. Heath. As soon as it happened, I considered the conversation improper, and I thought I had a right to relate it, as I did not visit him as a friend, but as a Judge in his judicial character to perform the duties of his office, and on business which might have been done in open court as well as at his chambers—I mentioned it to Mr. Hugh Holmes, also to Mr. Meriwether Jones.
Mr. Randolph. Do you mean Mr. Holmes, the present Speaker of the House of Delegates of Virginia?
Mr. Heath. Yes Sir.
Mr. Randolph. You state that you mentioned it to Mr. Holmes and Mr. Jones—Did you mention it to any body else?
Mr. Heath. I was so much impressed with it, that I mentioned it to several others.
Mr. Nicholson. Did you say you made this communication to those gentlemen immediately after the conversation occurred?
Mr. Heath. On the very day, and within an hour afterwards; and I have since mentioned it frequently to others—I never kept it a secret.
Mr. Hopkinson. Was this conversation on the day of the trial of Callender, or how many days before?
Mr. Heath. I do not recollect whether Callender was tried that day, I mentioned yesterday that I did not attend the trial.
Question. Did you make your motion at the same term that Callender was tried?
Mr. Heath. Yes, Sir—There were intervals in which motions were made by counsel—During one of these intervals I made my motion for an injunction—Callender had not then been tried; I do not know that when I made the motion the marshal had returned with Callender, but I made it the day before I went to the Judge's chambers.
Mr. Nicholson. Was the conversation before the empanelling of the jury in the case of Callender?
Mr. Heath. Yes, Sir—The marshal came in during the time I was in conversation with the Judge, it appeared to me, to show the Judge what kind of a panel he had.
At the request of Mr. Harper, and with the consent of the Managers, JOHN BASSET, a witness on the part of Judge Chase, was sworn and examined, in consequence of the peculiar situation of his family requiring his immediate return home.
Mr. Harper. Relate the circumstances that took place relative to your being sworn on the jury, on the trial of Callender, and what the application to the court was on your behalf?
Mr. Basset. The circuit court of the United States at which James T. Callender was presented and indicted for a libel, was held on Monday the 2d or 3d of June. I left home in the morning and arrived in Richmond as early as might be expected. On my arrival I saw David M. Randolph, who was standing at a corner of a street; perceiving me, he came towards me; before I alighted from my horse, he informed me that I had been summoned as a grand juror, and that for not appearing, I had been crossed, that it was my duty to go to the court and justify myself for my absence; that he summoned me on the petit jury for the trial of Callender, and that my serving in that capacity would be an apology for my previous absence. I presented myself to the court, but the trial did not come on that day. The second day I attended also. I knew very well that the law under which the traveler was to be tried, was odious to my fellow citizens; I knew it was conceived to be a great oppression to the liberty of the subject, and I believed that great umbrage would be given to the mass of the people by those who should undertake to execute that law. I was weak or wicked enough to be among that class of people called federalists, and I did believe that the law [sedition law] was constitutional. I felt myself bound when called on to be a jury man, to make a declaration of my political sentiments. I made this declaration to relieve the impression on my own mind, and not in order that it should be considered that I declined, in consequence of my political opinions, to serve on Callender's trial, or in any other
case. I thought it possible that I might be excused; but if I was found by the court to stand in a proper relation between my country and the traveler, I would cheerfully serve. My object was to justify my own conduct to myself, and to the whole world. I made use of these expressions, and I believe I repeated the very words, but I am well assured that I shall express the force and efficacy of what I said. I declared to the Judge that my politics were federal; that I had never been the book called the Prospect Before Us , but I had seen in a newspaper some extracts from it; that if the extracts were correctly taken from the book, and if the traveler was the author or publisher of that work, it appeared to me that it was a sedition act; that I had formed and expressed an unequivocal opinion, that the book was a seditious act; that I had never formed an opinion in respect to the indictment, for I had neither seen it nor heard it read. The court considered me a good juror, and I was sworn accordingly. After the trial had been gone through, the jury retired to their room. I informed the jury that I thought we should have the book read through.
The President here stopped the witness, and informed him that it was an useless waste of time to relate what took place in the room of the jury.
The witness, however, continuing the statement he had previously begun, the President desired him to go on, if it were necessary for the public or connecting the testimony he had to give; but to pass over what occurred among the jury as briefly as possible.
Mr. Basset. I told the jury that I thought the book should be read. The jury did not at first agree, but the greater part of it was afterwards read. In respect to the general progress, I will state one point that makes a great impression on my mind; I do not pretend, however, to a superior recollection, especially after a lapse of five years, during which I never dreamt it would be the subject of discussion, but I will give my impressions. The judge, addressing the counsel for the traveler said, when my country invested me with my sacred office, it placed me under an obligation to administer justice according to law; this I am determined to do, and I have done it. I have decided what the law is, but this decision is not conclusive against the traveler: If any exceptions are made by his counsel to my decision, they may be reduced to writing, and if I have committed errors, a superior tribunal shall correct them.
Mr. Randolph. You stated that you had read extracts from the Prospect Before Us in newspapers, before you were impanelled on the jury, which impressed you with the opinion that it was a seditious publication. After reading over the book, did it appear to you to answer that description?
Mr. Basset. I thought it was more libellous than the extracts I had seen.
Mr. Randolph. The extracts and the book did not then correspond.
Mr. Basset. I cannot say. I could not say the extracts were the same with what I read in the book, I only recollect that my impression was that they were the same. I could not then, nor can I now say that they were conformable to the book, but my impression is, that they were the same in substance.
Mr. Harper. Did you mean to say that the contents of the book were more libellous than the extract?
Mr. Basset. I meant to say, that after I had read the book, my impressions were that it was more libellous than I conceived it to be when I read the extracts.
Mr. Nicholson. Did you recollect at what time you arrived in town?
Mr. Basset. I cannot recollect, but I believe soon after the court met—that morning I rose early and rode 22 miles, about four hours' ride.
Mr. Nicholson. Was the book given by the court to the jury?
Mr. Basset. I understood it was delivered by the court to the jury for their inspection, and to compare the extracts from the book, and see whether they were correctly taken, but I do not recollect that the judge particularly called our attention to the book and directed us what was to be done with it, but my recollection is that the book was delivered to us.
Mr. Rodney. Was the indictment read after all the jury were sworn?
Mr. Basset. I do not recollect that the indictment was read till after the jury were sworn.
Mr. Rodney. Had the book given to the jury any passages scored?
Mr. Basset. I think it had.
Mr. Rodney. Do you know whether

A STATISTICAL TABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
   Years. POPULATION. Improved lands, part of 640 millions acres. Averaged price lands. Militia. Navy United States. Seamen. IMPORTS. EXPORTS. Tons, merchant vessels on which duties were collected. Aver. ged labor per day. Averaged wheat per bushel.   Free persons. Slaves increase near 2 1-2 per cent. per annum. Total population, including 1804, Louisiana. Total increase in each year. Persons to each square mile. Cultivated per acre. In their natural state. Emigrants, &c. in 1804. The slaves imported. Merchandise including emigrant's furniture, &c. Domestic produce. Total Exports.     Dollars. Dollars.   1774 1 936 000 500 000 2 436 000 — 2 20 860 000 2 50 — 40 421 300 — — 15 000 3000 17 000 000 6 100 000 6 100 000 198 600 30 60   1784 2 650 000 600 000 3 250 000 — 3 21 500 000 2 25 — 45 541 666 — — 18 000 5000 11 000 000 9 000 000 10 150 000 250 000 50 65   1790 3 232 303 697 697 3 930 000 — 3 30 000 000 2 10 — 35 634 000 — — 25 000 3500 17 500 000 14 200 000 16 000 000 486 890 50 75   1791 3 333 761 714 139 4 047 900 117 900 4 31 000 000 3 20 — 55 677 650 — — 28 000 4000 18 000 000 14 600 000 18 399 203 512 698 60 75   1792 3 438 237 731 000 4 169 337 121 337 4 32 000 000 3 50 — 65 694 889 — — 30 000 5000 22 000 000 15 060 600 21 005 568 567 698 65 80   1793 3 446 417 748 000 4 224 417 125 180 4 33 500 000 4 1 — 95 715 736 — — 33 000 3600 26 000 000 15 420 000 26 011 788 627 670 70 95   1794 3 657 189 766 060 4 423 249 128 632 4 34 000 000 4 50 1 20 737 208 — — 39 900 3500 34 000 000 16 200 100 33 043 725 628 617 100 100   1795 3 771 946 784 000 4 555 946 132 697 4 34 550 000 4 60 1 25 759 324 — — 45 000 3900 48 000 000 18 064 050 46 855 556 747 964 100 120   1796 3 890 124 802 500 4 692 624 136 678 4 35 100 000 4 75 1 40 782 104 — — 51 500 4500 68 000 000 20 024 021 67 064 097 831 900 100 100   1797 4 012 902 820 500 4 833 402 140 776 4 35 600 000 5 1 1 50 805 567 1 124 60 200 3500 52 000 000 24 052 671 51 294 71 876 912 90 150   1798 4 940 404 838 000 4 978 404 145 902 4 36 100 000 5 25 1 60 829 734 13 350 62 300 3800 63 000 000 27 991 413 61 326 411 895 329 85 190   1799 4 273 756 854 000 5 127 756 149 352 5 36 300 000 5 50 1 70 854 626 42 950 63 500 4000 75 500 000 33 162 187 78 665 522 920 000 100 200   1800 4 404 799 876 790 5 281 588 153 832 5 36 800 000 5 50 1 90 878 000 42 970 64 000 3300 71 800 000 31 840 903 70 971 780 972 493 90 200   1801 4 544 800 898 300 5 443 100 158 512 5 37 400 000 5 60 2 1 914 001 20 600 65 000 4000 88 900 000 46 377 792 93 020 515 947 576 80 175   1802 4 662 313 921 000 5 603 313 168 213 5 38 000 000 5 70 2 5 940 000 20 600 65 000 4500 73 000 000 36 182 173 71 957 144 1 003 002 75 130   1803 4 737 412 944 000 5 771 412 168 099 5 38 500 000 5 85 2 10 972 000 18 556 63 500 390 56 000 000 42 205 961 55 800 033 1 107 323 75 125   1804 5 000 100 999 900 6 000 000 238 588 6 38 950 000 6 1 2 15 1 030 000 20 560 64 000 9500 80 000 000 41 477 479 77 699 074 75 135  
the passages marked formed any part of the indictment?  Mr. Basset. I cannot say that I recollect.  M. Campbell. When you were sworn did you understand that the charges in the indictment were taken from the book called the Prospect Before Us?  M. Basset. It was a subject of general notoriety, that the indictment was drawn from the Prospect Before Us.  Mr. Campbell. What authority had you for supposing that the extracts you had read were taken from the Prospect Before Us?  Mr. Basset. I had no authority but the newspapers, they purported that the extracts were taken from the book called the Prospect Before Us.  M. Randolph. Have you any reason to believe that the extracts in the newspapers were not taken from the book?  M. Basset. I firmly believe they were taken from it.  Mr. Hopkinson. Was the book which you took out that which was given in evidence during the trial?  Mr. Basset. Whether it was the book which was furnished by the prosecutor and handed to us by the agent of the court, I cannot tell.  Mr. Hopkinson. At what hour did the court meet?  Mr. Basset. I believe about 10 o'clock.  The President. I understand you as saying that you never saw the book, until you saw it in court.  M. Basset. I am firmly and fully so impressed.  The President. When you were questioned as a juror, I understand you to have said, that if the extracts you had read were correctly given, the matter was libelous; did you say that you had formed an opinion?  M. Basset. No Sir, nor that I had delivered an opinion, but I said that if the traverser was the author of those extracts, he was guilty of a breach of the sedition law. I repeat every expression that is now remaining on my memory. I answered so far as to the fact. The enquiries extended no farther than to making up my opinion on the extracts contained in the newspapers. It had no connection whatever with the book. I do not know that I stated to the court that I had expressed an opinion.  Mr. Harper. Did you make an application to the court to be excused, or did your observations arise from motives of delicacy?  Mr. Basset. If my memory does not fail me I did not solicit the judge to excuse me; the office of a jurymen is no doubt always an unpleasant one, but when I am called upon to perform a duty, I do not shrink from the task. I had some doubts whether my mind was in a proper state to pass between my country and the traverser. It was to remove these doubts that I made the declaration and for no other purpose.  Mr. Lee. On what day of the week was Callender tried?  Mr. Basset. I arrived about 10 o'clock on Monday, and the next day the jury were sworn at the usual time.  M. Bayard. What was the general deportment of the judge to the counsel, and of the counsel to the court?  Mr. Basset. The different colouring through which the same things are seen make some men see things differently from others. My own opinion is that the judge conducted himself with decision unmixed with severity, and that he was witty without being farcical. It was my impression that the Judge wished the prisoner to have a full hearing, that he might be acquitted, if innocent, and found guilty, if really guilty. It appeared to me, that the sole point on which the counsel hoped to have their client was by proving the unconstitutionality of the sedition law, and it appeared to me that
they could not form a reasonable expectation of acquitting him on any other ground—I believe his counsel believed the law unconstitutional, and thought they had eloquence and argument enough to convince the jury of it—I believe they thought the Judge deprived them of their right to address the jury on that point; and that having the cause very much at heart, they were vastly mortified that the court did not permit them to take the course they wished—They appeared to consider themselves as advocating the cause of an oppressed citizen, and they felt hurt at not being allowed the mode of defence which in their opinion the law authorised—In all their arguments they travelled but little way before they came to the point that went to prove the law unconstitutional, and the Judge declared, at every such time, that they had no right to address the jury on that point; that the constitution had made the court the sole Judges of a law as far as it respected its constitutionality—From these circumstances, it is my impression that the altercation between the bar and the court arose solely from the sensibility of the counsel to this particular subject, and from being deprived, as they supposed, of their rights.  The President. What were the particular causes of irritation between the Judge and the counsel?  Mr. Basset. I have stated what I considered the causes—They arose from the counsel adverting to that particular point, and their so frequently doing it occasioned the Judge to elevate his voice, and to pronounce over and over again what he conceived to be the law.  Mr. Rodney. Was the question put by the court, whether you had formed and delivered an opinion on the charges contained in the indictment?  Mr. Basset. My memory on the particular form of the question is imperfect, but I will state my idea of it—I at first thought the question had been put in the disjunctive, or—but I am now persuaded that I was mistaken, so many gentlemen concurring in recollecting that the word and was used, I must believe I was mistaken.  Mr. Rodney. When the question was put, did you not say that you had formed an opinion on the extracts, and did you not express the very opinion which you had formed?  Mr. Basset. I did, and I said that if the book answered to the extracts, I had formed an unequivocal opinion that it was libelous.  Mr. Rodney. And this before you were sworn?  Mr. Basset. Yes, Sir.  The witness was then, from the peculiar circumstances already stated, excused with the consent of the parties from any further attendance on the court; the President observing that although the indulgence was granted in this instance, he hoped it would not be made a precedent for a general practice.  THURSDAY, Feb. 14.  On the request of Mr. Harper, and with the consent of the managers, EDMUND RANDOLPH a witness on behalf of the respondent, was sworn.  Mr. Hopkinson. Were you present at the trial of Callender?  Mr. Randolph. I was present during a short part of the time.  Mr. Harper. What was the general conduct and demeanor of the court towards the counsel. Was it harsh, rough and irritating; or was it mild and facetious?  Mr. J. Randolph. I wish to submit to the court, whether it is proper to put this question in the form proposed. I wish the witness may in stating the conduct of the court, confine himself to specific facts, as much as possible.  Mr. Harper. The general conduct of the court is a matter of fact, and the
particular acts of the court go to shew what that was.  The President here desired the answer to be reduced to writing, when Mr. Harper said that he had no objection to withdrawing the question—Mr. J. Randolph, however, waving any objection to the question, the President desired Mr. Randolph to proceed.  Mr. Randolph. The answer I have to make is very short. Having been absent the greater part of the time, I do not consider myself competent to say what the general conduct of the court was. I recollect that shortly after the trial commenced, I came into court, and sat very near the bench on which the judges sat; I continued there some time, while a portion of the very lengthy indictment was reading—I then went out, and returned to my own house, where I continued until the time when I supposed the reading of the indictment would be finished. Just on my entrance into the lobby of the court, I saw the counsel for the traverser folding up their papers, and retiring from the bar.  Mr. Harper. Were you in court during the time when the previous motions were made?  Mr. Randolph. Shortly after the indictment was found against Callender, I was in court. The only incident, which I recollect to have taken place at that time, was seeing the clerk or the attorney of the district hand up to judge Chase a paper about which I made enquiry of somebody near me, and learnt that it was a warrant or process for apprehending Callender. This is all I recollect previous to the arrest of Callender. When Callender was brought into the court, I stood outside of the crowd, at some distance from the court. I heard a great deal said, but I do not recollect what I did hear. I am, therefore, satisfied that I am incapable of giving a connected statement of what passed at that time. On the succeeding day the trial commenced; but I was not present when the motion was made for a continuance. I have stated already how far I was a witness from that time to the conclusion of the trial.  Mr. Harper. What was the demeanor of the court when you saw the counsel folding up their papers?  Mr. Randolph. I do not recollect any specific facts.  Mr. Harper. What was their general demeanor during the trial?  Mr. Randolph. From the causes I have stated I am not able to answer this question.  Mr. Harper. Have you no general impression?  Mr. Randolph. I cannot say I have.  Mr. Harper. Was there any thing, which struck you as remarkable, improper, or otherwise?  Mr. Randolph. I have no hesitation in saying that I saw nothing that conveyed the idea of corruption.  Mr. Harper. What do you mean by corruption?  Mr. Randolph. I mean an evil intention to oppress the traverser. I speak only of those parts of the trial which I witnessed myself, and I must be understood as knowing little of what passed from my own observation.  Mr. Harper. You say you perceived no evil intent to oppose the party?  Mr. Randolph. I had no idea of the sort.  Mr. Lee. Do you recollect nothing that was said by the court to the counsel, when they were putting up their papers and retiring?  * The introduction of Mr. Randolph's testimony was delivered in so low a voice as not to be heard by the reporter. But it is understood that, in the part not heard, nothing relevant to the charges in the articles of impeachment, was said.
Mr. Randolph. No, Sir, I was at a considerable distance, at the door of the lobby at the time. I have no further answers to make to the questions proposed; I do not think it incumbent on me to relate matters that are irrelevant, or to go into conjectures.  Mr. Harper. We are ready to hear any thing from a gentleman so well skilled.  Mr. Randolph. The reason of my remark is my having understood that I was summoned in relation to opinions delivered by me at the time of the trial.  Mr. Harper. We are sensible that we cannot require them.  Mr. Randolph. was, by consent of both parties, excused from further attendance as a witness.  GEORGE READ sworn.  Mr. Randolph. The witness will please to state what he knows in relation to certain proceedings at a circuit court of the United States held at New Castle, in the state of Delaware, in the month of June, 1800.  Mr. Read. It is incumbent on me to state that several years have elapsed since the transaction, which I am now about to relate, occurred, of course I cannot pretend to say that the language I shall use to convey the sentiments delivered by Mr. Chase is precisely according to what occurred at the time; but the substance of what I relate will be correct. The transactions, to which I presume I am called to testify, took place at a session of the circuit court, held in New Castle, for Delaware district, in June 1800. The court sat two days, viz. on the 27th and 28th day of the month. At that court, Samuel Chase, one of the associate justices presided, and Gunning Bedford, district judge, was associated with him. Judge Chase, as usual, delivered a charge to the grand jury on the first day of the term. The grand jury, after hearing the charge, retired to their chamber; after remaining there for some time, they returned into court, and on being asked whether they had found any bills, or had any presentments to make; they answered they had found no bills of indictment, and had no presentments to make. After receiving this answer, Judge Chase proceeded to observe, as nearly as I can recollect, addressing himself to the grand jury, that he had been informed, or heard, a highly seditious temper had manifested itself in the state of Delaware, among a certain class of people, especially in New Castle county, and more especially in the town of Wilmington, where lived a most seditious printer, unrestrained by any principle of virtue, and regardless of social order; that the name of this printer was—the judge here paused and said, perhaps it might be assuming, or taking upon himself too much to mention the name of this person, but, gentlemen, it becomes your special duty, and you must enquire diligently into this matter. Several of the jurors, I believe, made a request to the court to dismiss them, and assigned as the reasons for their request, that some of them were farmers, and as it was about the time of harvest, they were anxious to be on their farms. The Judge observed that the business to which he had called their attention was of a very urgent and pressing nature, and must be attended to; that he could not therefore discharge them before the next day, when further information should be communicated to them on the subject he had referred to. The Judge then addressing himself to me as district attorney, asked me, as I believe is usual on such occasions, whether I had any criminal charges to submit to the grand jury. I said that none such had yet occurred, and I believed none were likely to occur during that term. Judge Chase continuing his address to me, observed,
you might, by prosecuting proper researches, make some discoveries. Have you not heard of some persons in this state, who have been guilty of libelling the government, or the administration of the government of the United States. I am told, and the general circulation of the report induces me to believe it, that there is a certain printer in the town of Wilmington, who publishes a most scandalous newspaper; but it will not do to mention names. Have you not two printers in that town? I answered that I believed there were. Judge Chase observed that one of them was a seditious printer, adding, he shall be taken notice of, and it is your duty, Mr. Attorney, to examine unrelentingly and minutely into affairs of this nature; times like these require that this seditious temper or spirit which pervades too many of our presses should be discouraged or repressed. Can you not find a file of these newspapers between this time and to-morrow morning, and examine them, and discover whether this printer is not guilty of libelling the government of the United States? This I say, Sir, must be done; I think it is your duty. I observed, as this subject was pressed by the honorable judge, I believed I was acquainted with the duties of my office, and was willing to discharge them. I mentioned that I had not in my possession the papers alluded to by the judge, nor had read them. But that if a file of them were procured, and handed to me, I had no objection to examine them, and communicate with the grand jury on the subject. The Judge then said he was satisfied, and turning to the grand jury, observed, that he could not discharge them, however inconvenient their stay; they must attend the ensuing day, at the usual hour. The Judge then directed that a file of the papers should be procured for me; I understood him to mean the paper called the Mirror of the Times and General Advertiser, though I do not recollect to have heard the title of the paper mentioned during this procedure. A file of those papers was brought to me in the afternoon after the adjournment of the court, by whom they were brought I do not recollect. I examined them, but in a cursory manner, as I was very much interrupted by persons calling upon me. I did not discover during the course of this examination, any libelous matter coming within the provisions of the sedition act. According to what I understood to be the wish of the Judge, I sent this file of papers to the grand jury. Soon after the meeting of the court on the second day, and at the request of the grand jury I attended them in their room. On entering, the foreman of the jury addressed me, and directed my attention to a paragraph in a publication contained in the Mirror of the 21st June, 1800, re-published from the Aurora, a floating, perhaps in strong and pointed language, on the former conduct of Judge Chase. He observed that there was a difference of opinion among the jurors as to the nature of the paragraph—some doubted whether it was a libel or not, and if libelous, whether they had a right to present it to the circuit court. I observed that it was not necessary for me to be very particular in my opinion of the publication, as I did not consider it as coming under the sedition law, though it might be considered as an offence at common law, because Judge Chase had decided that the circuit court could not take cognizance of cases arising at common law. I returned into court, after some time the file was placed before the Judge. Judge Chase asked me what had been done, and whether the grand jury had made any discoveries of libelous matter. I answered none, unless it were the paragraph which related to Judge Chase, which I shewed him, ob-

   Years. REVENUE. EXPENDITURE. MONEY. STOCKS, DEDUCT FROM THE DEBT. LANDS SOLD NATIONAL FUNDS.   Impost on merchandise and tonnage. Total receipts, revenue, &c. Civil list and contingencies. Total Expenditure. Metallic medium. Bank notes in circulation. Number of banks. Banking capital. Nominal public debt. Active sinking fund including reimbursements. Custom house bonds & cash in the treasury. No acres sold to pay the public debt at 2 to 6 dollars the acre. Proceeds of sales.     1774 — — — — 4 000 000 — — — Highest war debt. Dollars. NOTE. — — —   84 — — — — 10 000 000 2 000 000 3 2 130 000 200 000 000 — Bonds are undervalued per estimate. — — —   90 — — — — 9 000 000 2 500 000 4 2 550 000 72 237 301 — — — — —   91 — 4 771 200 — — 16 000 000 9 000 000 6 12 950 000 76 781 953 — — — — —   92 3 443 073 8 771 600 400 458 3 797 436 18 000 000 11 500 000 16 17 150 000 77 124 300 — — — — —   93 4 255 306 6 450 195 436 853 6 479 977 20 000 000 11 000 000 17 18 000 000 78 402 946 2 019 184 6 000 000 — — —   94 4 801 065 9 439 855 446 031 9 041 593 21 500 000 11 650 000 17 18 000 000 79 424 668 2 265 022 8 000 000 — — —   95 5 588 461 9 515 758 417 362 10 151 240 19 000 000 11 000 000 23 19 000 000 84 980 438 3 254 235 10 000 000 — — —   96 6 567 987 8 740 329 507 747 8 367 776 16 500 000 10 500 000 25 19 200 000 83 404 139 3 600 344 11 000 000 — — —   97 7 549 649 8 758 780 540 408 8 625 877 16 000 000 10 000 000 29 19 200 000 81 324 139 4 549 627 12 000 000 A sale at — —   98 7 106 061 8 179 170 664 408 8 583 618 14 000 000 9 000 000 25 19 200 000 11 244 139 5 233 174 12 000 000 Pittsburg — —   99 6 610 449 12 549 381 558 199 11 004 965 17 000 000 10 000 000 26 21 200 000 88 456 938 9 052 252 12 000 000 acres at 268 509 —   1800 9 080 932 12 413 978 895 051 11 952 534 17 500 000 10 500 000 28 21 350 000 89 443 437 9 274 607 12 000 000 268 509 268 509 —   01 10 750 778 12 945 455 692 821 12 973 376 17 000 000 11 000 000 31 22 400 000 88 745 704 10 876 686 13 500 000 398 000 203 509 —   02 12 359 228 14 995 798 596 981 13 270 457 16 500 000 10 000 000 32 23 600 000 87 431 521 12 013 777 14 500 000 738 000 203 509 —   03 10 479 417 10 064 097 526 748 11 258 983 16 000 000 11 000 000 36 26 000 000 98 196 618 14 413 000 15 500 000 918 000 248 509 —   04 — — — — 17 500 000 14 000 000 59 39 500 000 — 16 500 500 1 232 000 2 888 509 — —  
Appropriated by law to the discharge of present and future Public debts.
Stocks drawing interest purchased by the Commissioners of the Sinking Funds with specie by law of the United States of August 1790, with the surplus duties by law of May 1792, with proceeds of the public lands, &c. Dolls. 7,024,450 4,500 lots in the city of Washington, 1,500,000 235 millions of acres of land, limited by law at not less than two dollars per acre, to net in time, Dolls. 470,000,000 Half of the United States Louisiana lands at the same limit may net for posterity, 600,000,000
serving that it did not appear to me to come under the sedition law. Judge Chase acquiesced; and the business was passed over on his part in a very polite and affable manner. I do not recollect any thing further to have passed. I have, however, an indistinct recollection of a conversation between Judge Chase and myself in the room of a tavern before we went into court; in which I understood him to have made a general declaration of hostility against seditious printers.
Mr. Randolph. You said the Judge gave orders to some body to procure a file of newspapers. Do you recollect to whom he addressed himself.
Mr. Read. I do not; but I understood to the bailiff or marshal, or some other officer.
JAMES LEA.—affirmed.
Mr. Rodney. Please to relate to the court, the occurrences which took place at a circuit court of the United States at New-Castle, and whether you were summoned as a grand juror at that court.
Mr. Lea—I was summoned by the marshal of the district of Delaware, as a grand juror at the circuit court held in the month of June, 1800. I attended agreeably to that summons and was qualified as a grand juror. After receiving a charge from Judge Chase we retired to our room, and remained there for some time. There appearing to be no business for us, we returned into our box. The usual question was put to us whether we had found any bills. We said that we had not. After some time Judge Chase addressed the grand jury, and observed that a very seditious disposition had manifested itself in the state of Delaware; in the county of New-Castle, and particularly in the town of Wilmington; that a seditious printer lived in that place, who edited a paper called the Mirror of the Times, and the General Advertiser, who was in the habit of libelling the government of the United States, and that his name was——he said he would not mention his name; but that it was our duty to enquire if any seditious publications had been made; that he would not discharge us that day, nor until we had made the enquiry. Several of the jurors addressed the Judge for leave to return home, stating that they were farmers, and were extremely anxious to be on their farms as it was harvest time. Some conversation passed between Judge Chase and the Attorney of the district, after which he said he could not discharge us until the next day. We returned the next day into court, and after sitting some time in our box we retired to the jury room. A file of newspapers was produced by some persons, and we examined them. We found nothing in them of a libelous nature in our opinion, excepting something relative to Judge Chase; which some of the jury thought came under the sedition law. We sent for the Attorney of the district, to inform us, as to the nature of that paragraph. He told us it did not come under the sedition law. We went into the jury box; when a conversation of some length took place between Judge Chase and the Attorney of the district, after which we were discharged.
Mr. Martin—What time did you come down on the first day?
Mr. Lea—We were up a very short time; perhaps an hour.
Mr. Martin—What time the second day?
Mr. Lea—A good while.
Mr. Martin—What time is the harvest in Delaware?
Mr. Lea—It was the time of hay harvest.
Mr. Randolph—I will ask you, whether you recollect the Judge to have quoted the title of the paper?
Mr. Lea—I recollect that he did.
Mr. Randolph—Was it the same paper that was sent you by the attorney?
Mr. Lea—It was.
JOHN CROW, Sworn.
Mr. Rodney. Please to state what occurred in the circuit court held at New-Castle.
Mr. Crow. I was not in the court house the first day. On the second day, I went into court just after it was opened. I recollect there was some conversation that took place between Judge Chase and the district attorney. The judge asked the attorney of the district if there were any presentments likely to be made that day. The attorney answered, there were none; that on examining the file of new papers, there was nothing found libelous, unless it were some strictures on the judge himself. If that is all, the judge replied, we will take no notice of it. I recollect nothing further. The judge shortly after discharged the grand jury.
JOHN MONTGOMERY sworn.
Mr. Randolph. The subject on which it is understood you are capable of giving some information to the court, is the conduct of Judge Chase at a circuit court of the United States held for the district of Maryland, at Baltimore, in May, 1803, or about that time.
Mr. Montgomery. The point I presume, on which I am called to give testimony, relates to a charge to a grand jury delivered by Judge Chase, at a circuit court where he presided, and Judge Winchester was associated with him. It will not, from the nature of the subject, be expected that I shall be able to detail in the precise language of the Judge, the whole of the charge which was delivered in 1803, at the May term. Though not one of the bar, I was present at the court, and took a chair among the gentlemen of the bar. After the grand jury were impanelled, Judge Chase addressed them. He appeared to address them from a written paper that lay before him. He proceeded in the usual manner to charge the jury as to the duties expected to be performed by them. After he had thus far proceeded in his charge, he mentioned that before the jury retired to their chamber, he would make some observations, and that they would be considered as flowing from a wish for the happiness or welfare of the community. He stated that it was important that the people should be fully informed, particularly at such a crisis; that falsehood was more easily disseminated than truth; and that the latter was reluctantly attended to, when opposed to popular prejudice. I cannot pretend to state the sentiments delivered by the Judge in the order in which they were delivered. I can undertake to state from my recollection, the substance of those he delivered. To the best of my recollection the Judge stated that the administration was weak, relaxed, and inadequate to the duties devolved on it, and that its acts proceeded not from a view to promote the general happiness, but from a desire for the continuance of unfairly acquired power. The language, unfairly acquired power, made a strong impression on my mind at the time, and when the Judge called the attention of the jury to the observations he was about to make, I was prepared to expect something extraordinary from him, as I was at Annapolis, when he pronounced the valedictory address, which Mr. Mason in his testimony took occasion to mention. The Judge stated the violation of the constitution that had taken place by the act of Congress repealing the judiciary act of 1800, and the consequent removal of sixteen judges; that it had made a violent attack on the independence of the judiciary. He also found fault with a law passed by the legislature of Maryland in 1801, the effect of which was the removal of all the judges on the county court establishment; he stated that those acts were a severe blow against the independence of the judiciary; he stated that since the year 1776 he had been an advocate for a representative or republican form of government; that it was his wish that freemen should be governed by representatives chosen by that class of citizens who had a property in, a common interest with, and an attachment to the community; the language might have been in the words of our constitution; he found fault with the law passed by the legislature of Maryland, which he styled the universal suffrage law. He stated, that that also affected the independence of the judiciary, and to the best of my recollection, he explained his ideas in this manner. That every free white male citizen, in the language of the constitution, having the qualification of age and residence, though he had not a property in, an interest with, and an attachment to the community, being suffered to choose those who constituted the legislature, and the judiciary being dependent on the legislature for their support and continuance in office, few characters of integrity and ability, who are competent to discharge the duties of judges, would be found to accept of appointments held on such a tenure. He stated that these measures were destructive of the happiness and welfare of the community; that they would have a tendency to link our republican government into what he called a mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments. When on the subject of the alteration of the state constitution, he stated that the framers of that constitution were men of ability and patriotism; the names of some of whom were honorably enrolled on the journals of Congress, and also, I think he said on the journals of the convention of Maryland; that he had to observe, that the sons of some of those characters which he regretted, were the chief supporters of these destructive measures. He stated that where there were equal laws and equal rights, viz. laws equally administered, between the rich and the poor, in that country there was freedom. But where the administration of the laws was partial and uncertain, the people were not free, and he was apprehensive we were fast approaching to that state of things. He stated that there was but one act remaining to be done, mentioning the act passed by the legislature of Maryland, for the trial of facts and for abolishing the general and appellate court—if that should be adopted, the constitution would not be worthy of further care or preservation. At the close of the judge's charge, he, in an impressive manner, called on the jury to pause, to reflect and when they returned to their homes, to use their endeavors to prevent these impending evils, and save their country. He said that the people had been misled by misrepresentation, falsehood, art and cunning; that by correcting these errors, the threatened evils might be prevented, or words to that effect. With regard to a part of the answer of judge Chase which has been published, and which I have read, perhaps it will not be improper for, and may be expected of me, to mention a fact contradictory to what is stated therein. It is stated in the answer, "The next opinion is, that the independence of the judges of the state of Maryland, would be entirely destroyed if the bill for abolishing the two supreme courts should be ratified by the next general assembly." This opinion, however incorrect it may be, seems to have been adopted by the people of Maryland, to whom this argument against the bill in question was addressed: for at the next session of the legislature this bill, which went to change entirely the constitutional tenure of judicial office in the
state, and to render the subsistence of the judges dependent on the legislature, and their continuance in office on the executive, was abandoned by common consent."
It is true it was abandoned by common consent, but not for the reasons assigned by the Judge in this part of his answer.
Mr. Nicholson—Was the provision for establishing universal suffrage a part of the constitution, at the time Judge Chase delivered the charge?
Mr. Montgomery—It was.
Mr. Randolph—You state that the charge appeared to have been delivered from a written paper which lay before the Judge. Do you mean to be understood, that after going through the first part of the charge on the ordinary duties of a grand jury, the latter part appeared to be delivered from a written paper?
Mr. Montgomery. It appeared to me that the latter, as well as the former part, was delivered in the same manner; the judge keeping his eyes on the paper before him.
Mr. Nicholson. Do you recollect whether the very last part of the charge, when he desired the jury to pause and reflect, &c. was delivered from the written paper?
Mr. Montgomery. It appeared to me as if he delivered himself throughout to the written paper.
(To be continued.)
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, MARCH 29.
Boston, March 20.
New-Hampshire Election.
We have received returns of suffrages for Governor, from 77 towns—in which the votes for Governor Gilman, compared with those given in the last March Election have increased about 80; and the votes for Mr. Langdon increased about 1800—The votes in the 77 towns were, this year, for Governor Gilman 6745; for Langdon 8429—As these returns are collected indiscriminately, from various parts of the state, we feel full confidence that Mr. Langdon is elected Governor of New Hampshire for the ensuing year, by a considerable majority.
New-York, March 25.
TAKING OF DOMINICA CONFIRMED.
Capt. Dehon, who arrived at this port on Saturday, in twenty days from St. Pierre, Martinique, confirms our account of the capture of Dominica by a French fleet from Brest, which consists of the Majestic of 120 guns, two ships of 80 guns, two of 74, three frigates, a Schooner, and two transports, having on board a large body of troops, the number of which he was unable to ascertain. They had burnt down Rosseau, and reduced the whole island, with the exception of one fort, which it was expected would not long hold out. Upon the arrival of the fleet, an embargo of a week's continuance was laid on all vessels in the ports of Martinique, and the Cleopatra failed in two hours after it was taken off.
Capt. Dehon further assures us that he saw the above fleet pass St. Pierre's on its way to Antigua, as he was informed. They expected to be joined immediately by a considerable reinforcement from Toulon consisting of fifteen sail of the line; and intended, as soon
as this junction could be effected, to visit all the British islands in the West Indies. Capt. Dehon pledges himself for the truth of the above information.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in St. Pierre, Martinique dated the 1st of March, to his correspondent in this city, received by the brig Cleopatra.
"A French fleet from Rochefort, consisting of 5 sail of the line, 3 frigates, 2 brigs, with 3500 troops, arrived here the 19th of Feb. and failed the next day for Dominica—They effected a landing at Dominica, and burnt all the houses excepting 4 in the town of Roseau; the merchants did not save their books or papers—The French met with opposition, and found it impracticable to take the island—They evacuated it on the 27th Feb. and failed for Guadalupe with 3 or 9 sail of British merchant ships and several small vessels which they fell in with and captured at Dominica—The merchants and inhabitants at Dominica have lost their all, and must be in a very distressing situation, as they had no intelligence of the arrival of the above fleet in the West-Indies, until they made their appearance off the town.
An embargo was immediately laid upon all vessels in the island of Martinique on the arrival of the French fleet, which lasted for 6 days."
In the ship Hare, from Lisbon, came passenger Joseph Rudemaker, esq. charge des affaires and consul-general from the Regent of Portugal to the United States, who informs us that the Spanish ports are opened; that intelligence had been received of the French fleet having sailed from Toulon, consisting of 15 sail; that the Brest fleet was also said to be out; and that the United States' frigate Constitution, Capt. Rodgers, had left Lisbon three days before the Hare for the Mediterranean.
City Lots for Sale.
THE undermentioned lots of ground are offered for sale, either separately or by squares, on liberal terms either for cash or on credit—they are all free from mortgage or incumbrance, and are subject to no litigation or contest, as the titles are derived by immediate conveyances from the chancellor of Maryland and the commissioners of Washington, to Messrs Henry Pratt, Thomas Witting Francis, John Miller, junior, John Abney and Jacob Baker, trustees of the aggregate fund.  Square No. 54 Lot no. 9 sq 72 Lots no. 2 4 8 10 12 13 14 15 18 19 845 or no. 1 Sq 85 Lots no. 20 21—Sq 103 Lots no. 7 8—Sq 145 Lots no. 2 7 8—Sq 146 Lots no. 1 2 3—Sq 147 Lot no. 4—Sq 163 Lots no. 5 6 7 12 13 14—Sq 158 Lots no. 6 7 10 11 12 15 16—Sq 293 Lots no. 1 2 3 7 8 11 12 13 18—Sq 349 Lots no. 1 2 8—Sq 376 Lots no. 10 16 17 18—Sq 407 Lots no. 3 4 7 8 9 17 18—Sq 487 Lots no. 5 6 7 10—Sq 488 Lots no. 9 12 489 Lots no. 6 9—Sq 491 Lots no. 1 12 16 19 20 24—Sq 493 Lots no. 7 8—Sq 494 Lots no. 8 9 10—Sq 531 Lots no. 3 4 8 11 12 13 14 Sq 533 Lots no. 13 15 16 17—Sq 584 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 21 22 23 24—Sq 588 whole square. Lots no. 590 whole square. Sq 635 Lots no. 1 2 3 5 6 9 19—Sq 638 Lots no. 1 2 3—Sq 639 Lot no. 1—Sq 640 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18—Sq 641 whole square. Sq 642 Lots no. 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19—Batt of 643 Lot no. 2—South of 643 Lot no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 28—Sq 644 Lots no. 1 5 7—West of 645 whole square. Sq 878 Lots no. 16 17 18 19 20—Sq 973 Lots no. 4 5 6 7 8 20 21—Sq 995 Lots no. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18—South of 1019. Lot no. 1 2 4—Sq 1020 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 5 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38—Sq 1021 Lot no. 1—Sq 1022 Lot no. 2—Sq 1023 Lots no. 4 5 7 8 9 10—Sq 1024 Lots no. 1 2 3 7—Sq 1045 Lots no. 9 10 12—Sq 1046 Lots no. 2 14 15—Sq 1047 Lots no. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 20—Sq 948 Lots no. 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  Persons disposed to purchase are desired to apply to THOMAS HERTY, Esq. attorney at law and conveyancer, opposite to Rhode's tavern Pennsylvania avenue.  JAMES GREENLEAF, Agent and attorney to the trustees of the Aggregate Fund.  Washington, New Jersey avenue, Feb. 27—2t&wt

Traveller's Hall.
THE subscriber tenders his sincere thanks to his friends for the very liberal encouragement which they have bestowed on him. He will finish one of his new rooms in a few weeks, which will be large enough to dine near 200 persons at a time, and will shortly after have the remainder of his additional building completed, which will give him a front of near 100 feet, in the most agreeable part of the town, and in the centre of business, being on the highest part of the public square. He has on hand, and has contracted for a constant supply of the best wines, and foreign spirituous liquors imported, and country provisions, stable forage, foreign & state newspapers—and has secured a quantity of liquors sufficient for the use of his table and bar during the season. He assures his friends, and that respectable part of the public who have patronized him, that there shall be nothing wanting which his time or purse will command, to render the TRAVELLER'S HALL a house of entertainment for genteel guests only, equal to any in America.
R. BRADLEY.
Lexington, Kentucky, March 1st 1805. M. B. A stage runs from the TRAVELLER'S HALL to the Olympic Springs in the summer, and to Frankfort during the session of the Legislature. March 27—et3m.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD.
STRAYED from Nottingham a bright forrel gelding upwards of 14 1/2 hands high, his body lengthy, mane and foretop intermixed with white hairs, and inclined to a curly appearance. An evident star in his forehead, a d l believe, a small snip leading from thence to the nose. His gait, a free and elegant pace, rising to a mixed gallop, and in a manner somewhat uncommon to the horse. Some marks of his feet nearly at every step. Some marks of the saddle and harness are to be seen. Shod round when he went off. The above reward will be paid to any person delivering him to JAS G. WOOD. Nottingham, March 27—3t.
100 hundred dollars reward.
STOLEN from the stable of the subscriber, near Baltimore, last night, a large bay horse, about 6 or 7 years old, near 16 hands high, has been entirely used as a carriage horse, and has the hair rubbed off in several places by the harness, particularly on his rump; one of his hind feet lock joints had been hurt when a colt, and appears stiff, is remarkable for not bearing the whip, will kick up his heels when struck, trots very rough and hard, also paces. The thief is supposed to be a tall man, who was seen lurking about the place, had on a drab great coat, and half boots, sandy hair, &c. He also stole an old saddle with plated stirrups, and old bridle. Whoever takes up the horse and thief, and delivers the horse to the subscriber, and convicts the thief of stealing the horse, shall be entitled to the above reward. SAMUEL N. SMITH. Baltimore, 27. March, 1805.
A SALE,
ON Monday the 15th day of April next, a 12 o'clock if fair, if not the next fair day. The subscriber living on the premises, will offer at public sale to the highest bidder, a valuable
TRACT OF LAND,
Containing 275 acres, lying in Charles county state of Maryland, within half a mile of Nanjemoy Creek about one half of the tract is cleared and under a good fence, the other half w. wooded. It abounds in never failing springs of water. The soil is well adapted to tobacco, corn and wheats. The improvements are a large comfortable dwelling house, with other necessary buildings. The neighborhood consists of a general society of people, and the situation is pleasant and healthy. There are two mills for the grinding of grain, near to the said land; one within 1/4 and the other within 3/4 of a mile, with many other conveniences and advantages which it is considered unnecessary to mention in an advertisement, as those inclined to purchase may be more satisfactorily informed by viewing the land, &c. The terms will be made known on the day of sale, or at any time previous thereto by application to JOSEPH ELGIN. March 27—tdf.
PUBLIC SALE.
ON Saturday next the 30th inst. at 5 o'clock in the evening, at Stelle's Hotel, will be exposed to sale, four shares in the stock of the Washington Building Company, part of the estate of James Thompson deceased, terms made known at the time and place of sale by HENRY HERFORD, } Administrators. THOMAS PERRY, } City of Washington, March 27—at.
ES H. VARNER, MERCHANT TAYLOR.
Has received from Philadelphia a handsome assortment of FALL goods, consisting of the best London and French superfine cloths, cashmeres, patent Beaucer's cord, toilettes, fancy and white Marcellies, black and figured silk, moleskins, fancy silk, Marcellies, constitution cords, velvets, Genoa cord, silk and satin Florentines, superfine coating, knopped cloths, with a variety of other articles suitable for the winter season. N. B. Ladies habits, regimentals, and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion. New Jersey avenue near the Capitol, December 10—tf.
One Hundred Dollars Reward.
ON Friday evening the 22nd inst. ROBERT W. PEACOCK, confined in the Jail of Washington County of the District of Columbia, upon a conviction of forgery at December term, 1804, escaped from said Jail. He was before this conviction a practicing Attorney in the City of Washington, and is very well known in Virginia and Maryland, having resided in both. He is a stout man, 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high, about 34 or 35 years of age, looks young of his age, has blue eyes, full face, fair and ruddy complexion, light hair which he wears tied behind. He is also very much inclined to corpulency. Whoever apprehends the said felon, and secures him in any Jail, so that I get him again, shall receive the above reward from DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. March 25—tf.
PROPOSALS
For carrying mails of the United States on the following post roads will be received at the General Post Office until the 20th day of April next.
1 From Washington city to Halifax old c h, once a week, estimated at 240 miles in three days.
Leave Washington every Saturday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Halifax old c. h. on Monday by 8 p. m. Leave Halifax old c. h. every Tuesday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Washington on Thursday by 6 p. m.
2. From Halifax old c. h. Va. to Pickenville S. C. once a week, estimated at 276 miles, in 3 1/2 days.
Leave Halifax old c. h. every Tuesday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Pickenville the next Friday by 10 a. m. Leave Pickenville every Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Halifax old town on Monday by 3 p. m.
3 From Pickenville to Coweta, Indiantown on Chattahoochee river, estimated at 280 miles, in 3 1/2 days.
Leave Pickenville every Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Coweta the next Monday by 6 p. m. Leave Coweta every Tuesday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Pickenville the next Friday by 10 a. m.
4. From Coweta on Chattahoochee to Fort Stoddert once a week, estimated at 246 miles, in 3 1/2 days.
Leave Coweta every Tuesday at 4 a. m. and arrive at Fort Stoddert the next Friday by 10 a. m. Leave Fort Stoddert every Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Coweta the next Monday by 8 p. m.
5. From Fort Stoddert to New Orleans once a week, estimated at 211 miles, in 3 days.
Leave Fort Stoddert every Friday at 2 p. m. and arrive at New Orleans the next Monday by 2 p. m. Leave New Orleans every Tuesday at 10 a. m. and arrive at Fort Stoddert the next Friday by 10 a. m.
NOTE.
The contracts are to be in operation on the first day of May next and are to continue in force until the 1st day of July 1806, on the usual penalties for failures and delays and other conditions. QUEEN GRANGER, Postmaster-General.
General Post-office, March 18. 1805—ta203
STELLE'S HOTEL & CITY TAVERN.
THE subscriber takes this method of thanking his friends and the public for their favors whilst on the Capitol Square and begs leave to acquaint them that having purchased and now occupying the tavern, late Tunnicliff's hotel; which he has commenced enlarging and improving—he respectfully solicits a continuance of the patronage of his friends and the public, assuring them that 'tis his full determination to fit up his present hotel, and so to conduct it, as to merit, he hopes, the preference of the public travelling, as well as those coming to the permanent seat of the Government of our Land of Liberty. PONTIUS D. STELLE. Washington City, March 25—tf.
FOR SALE or RENT.
THE Tavern for some years past occupied by PONTIUS D. STELLE, It is situated on the Capitol Hill, and well calculated for a large and extensive business, the situation is well known. Possession can be had after the 15th of April next—for terms apply to DANIEL CARROLL, of Duddington. Washington, March 21—tm.
ADAM KING, & Co.
AT their wine store in High street George Town, have in addition to their stock of old wines, laid in a large and general assortment of all kinds of Liquors and Groceries suitable to the present season; where bills of any description, in their line, will constantly be filled up on the shortest notice and they flatter themselves, from the quality of their wines, &c. they will be able to give general satisfaction to all those who may think proper to favor them with a call—where all kind of commission business as usual, will be attended to with the utmost attention. George Town, November 5—tf.
THE subscribers have opened a GROCERY STORE in the house near the Capitol, lately occupied by Mr. JAMES D. BARRY—where they have for sale, low, for cash or in exchange for country produce. Genuine Cogniac brandy, Inferior French do. Old Jamaica spirits, Madeira, Sherry, Lisbon, Claret, Brown Sugar, 1st and 2d quality, Loaf and Lump, do. Molasses, Firkin Butter, Mould Candles, Sweet Oil, Spices of different kinds, Fig Blue, Starch, Almonds; Anchovies, } in bottles. Capers, Powder and Shot, Excellent Wine Vinegar, Gin, Whiskey, Hyson, Imperial, Young Hyson. } Tons, fresh, and of superior quality. Salt Herrings in Barrels. PETER HEALY, & Co. Washington October 31—tf.
FOR SALE.
ON the 3d of April next, A. M. By virtue of a deed of trust dated 30th day of November 1804—will be sold at public sale, on the premises, all the right and title of Wm. M'Dono in a two story Brick House (nearly finished) and Lot, situated near the war office, in sq. no. 168, in the city of Washington, and nearly opposite the house occupied by Gabriel Duval, Esq. For the terms and further particulars enquire of THOS. W. PAIRO. At the store at the 7 buildings, March 11—taxp.
PUBLIC NOTICE.
Pursuant to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States of the 28th of February last, I am ready to receive separate proposals, until the first day of May next, for the supply of such articles of Stationary as may be necessary for the service of the said House, at and during the next session of Congress, and also like proposals, for the execution of all the Printing business of the said House, during the same session. The several species of Stationary and Printing wanted, are subjoined to this advertisement, and the proposals must be accompanied with the names and residence of sufficient securities for performance. JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk to the House of Representatives of the United States.
City of Washington, } 11th March, 1805. }
STATIONARY WANTED.
Letter paper, hot pressed, vellum, extra large. Do. do. plain. Folio post, wove and plain. Do. medium size for engraving. Foolscap. Ready made pens, per hundred, and quills per hundred. Best Dutch red wax. Do. black do. Red wafers. Common black sand, in papers, and Water boxes and pounce boxes, per dozen. Inks and sands, per pair. Half pint phials with corks, Low priced folders, Lead pencils, Red tape, in pieces, Ink of the best quality, per gallon. Indian rubber, per bottle. Parchment in skins, per dozen, cut, dressed, and pounced for use, 28 by 32 inches. Office pen knives, and crasing knives.
The supply of these articles must embrace, a possible demand, to the value of 3,500, or 4,000 dollars, for the session. It is desirable that specimens of paper, quills and parchment should accompany the proposals; and, in every instance, articles of American manufacture, of equal quality with, and not exceeding the price of similar imported articles will be preferred. A security equal to 8,000 dollars will be required.
PRINTING WANTED.
slm w o k, per sheet, octavo 300 impression of each sheet. Bills numbered per line, in sheet or half sheet, folio. Figure work, in octavo, and in Rule and figure work, folio, same number Table work, of impressions. Folding and stitching per hundred, for any number of documents exceeding three half sheets, and thence to twenty half sheets, and for all above. Book binding in boards, per folio and octavo, calf, vo volume, marked sheep, } and lettered.
March 13—ep3w
PROPOSALS
FOR PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION, A MAP OF VIRGINIA, Formed from actual Surveys, and the latest as well as most accurate observations.
By JAMES MADISON, D. D. President of William & Mary College.
To which will be added
A MAP
Of the greater part of the state of OHIO, from actual surveys, including the whole of the Virginia Military tract; with all that part of the state west of the Ohio river, to the Indian boundary line. The North-east corner of the map will be ornamented with an intersecting VIEW OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND. The size of the Map will be 5 feet 6 inches in length, and 3 feet 8 inches in breadth. An ingenious and skillful engraver is engaged to execute the work, in a style not inferior to any similar work in the United States.
CONDITIONS.
The price to subscribers will be eight dollars, neatly mounted, colored, and glazed. One dollar, (to lighten the great expense of publication) to be paid on subscribing. To non subscribers, the price will be ten dollars. Copy right secured.
IN offering the above work to the public, the proprietors are sensible that excellence is not often attainable; but with candor and truth, equally remote, from arrogance and partiality, they can say, that they conscientiously believe it has a just claim to the confidence and patronage of the people.
A map of Virginia has been long and anxiously looked for. None has been published, on the plan of the one now offered, for many years.
The labor, expence, and apparent difficulties, in accomplishing so interesting a work, have deterred several from the arduous undertaking. The proprietors, finding that most of the other states had recently given encouragement to similar productions, and entertaining a high sense of the real dignity and importance of Virginia, embarked in the business, from a well grounded belief, that the magnitude and utility of the work, would insure, if accomplished, a remuneration. And while Virginia is powerfully stimulated with the love of science and virtue, they hope and believe she will view domestic productions, which prove pre-eminently useful, with a generous pride.
Those gentlemen who take subscription papers, are requested to return them to the subscriber, in Petersburg, by the first day of May.
The maps will be ready for subscribers, in the course of the ensuing summer. WILLIAM PRENTIS. Petersburg, Feb. 1805.
Subscriptions received by SAMUEL H. SMITH, and by several gentlemen with whom subscription papers are lodged. Feb. 20—tMar. 31
VENDUE.
TO BE SOLD on the 15th day of April next at STELLE'S HOTEL, Capitol Hill—a variety of Household Furniture, consisting of, Beds and Furniture, with a large collection of other furniture, belonging to the Hotel, too numerous to mention—all sums under 100 dollars cash, and above, nine months credit, the purchaser giving approved notes with endorsers, on the bank of this place, or George Town, no article to be removed till settled for. Sale to commence at 10 o'clock. Washington, March 22—tdof
Young Ladies Academy.
MRS. O'REILY respectfully informs her friends and the public that she has removed her academy from Baltimore to Alexandria, where she will receive young Ladies who shall be taught the English and French languages grammatically; writing and arithmetic; history, geography and the use of the globes; music, drawing, and all kinds of work, viz. embroidery in chenilles, gold, silver, silk, &c. comprising figures, historical and ornamental, landscapes, flowers, fruit, birds, &c. maps wrought in silks, chenilles, gold, &c. print work in figures or landscapes; cloth work in fruit, birds, flowers, &c. filigree and varnishing in vases, pyramids, baskets, tea caddies, opers, &c. grotto and shell work, artificial flowers, tambour and dresden, cross stitch, tent stitch, tapestry, &c. bugle and peal work, painting on velvet, gauze, silk, vellum, &c. Her terms are 200 dollars per annum for board and tuition. For music 18 dollars per quarter. Drawing 8 dollars per quarter. Washing 8 dollars per quarter. Every young Lady furnished by Mrs. O. R. with bed and bedding will be charged 4 dollars per quarter. March 3.—tm.
RAGS.
THE highest price CASH, given for clean RAGS, by EDGAR PATTERSON, George town, and SAMUEL STETTENIUS, near the Centre market, Washington March 8—tf.
PUBLIC SALE.
ON Saturday the 13th of day of April next at the dwelling house of the late Col. Charles Beatty, deceased, in George Town, will be exposed to public sale, the whole of the personal estate of the deceased, consisting of household furniture, as beds, tables, chairs, &c. and kitchen furniture, with a variety of mathematical instruments, maps, charts, a negro child, &c. &c. Six months credit on sums over 30 dollars.
C. A. BEATTY, A. RITCHIE, Adm'rs with the will annexed. March 19, 1805—rawgw
THIS is to give notice that the subscribers of Washington county in the district of Columbia have obtained from the Orphans court of said county letters of administration with the will annexed, on the personal estate of Col. Charles Beatty late of said county deceased; all persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscribers, at before the first day of November next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under our hands this 19th day of March 1805. CHARLES A. BEATTY, & AB. RITCHIE, Adm'rs, with the will annexed. March 20—rawgw
NOTICE.
BY virtue of a writ issued Venditioni Expo. has issued from the circuit court of the district of Columbia for the county of Washington at the suit of the President directors and Company of the Bank of Columbia—
Will be exposed to public sale for ready cash on the 21st day of December next, at Wm. Rhodes's tavern in the city of Washington, all the right, title, claim and interest of John P. Van Nels in and to the following property, viz.—Lots no 3 4 5 and 6 in sq no 492 Lots no 5 9 and 10 in sq no 493 Lots no 4 5 6 and 7 in sq 494 Lots no 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 and 13 in sq 535 Lot no 1 in sq south of sq no 463 Lot no 15 in sq no 878 Lots no 5 6 9 and 10 in sq no 874; Lots no 5 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 18 and 19 in sq no 535. Lots no 9 10 12 13 14 15 17 and 18 in sq no 537 Lots 2 3 4 5 15 16 17 18 20 21 and 22 in sq 642 Lots no 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 7 in sq no 537 Lots no 2 and 3 in sq no 577 Lot no 3 in sq no 579 Lots no 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 in sq no 581 Lots no 2 and 18 in sq 583 Lot no 1 in sq north of sq 583 Lots no 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and 27 in sq south of sq no 643 Lots no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 and 28 in sq no 643 Lots no 2 8 and 11 in sq no 794 Lots no 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and 26 in sq no 826 Lots no 6 and 7 in sq no 236 Lot no 11 in sq no 378 and lots no 13 14 and 15 in sq no 491 as laid down in the plan of the city of Washington—The sale will commence precisely at 10 o'clock. DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal. October 29—rawgt
The sale of the above property is postponed to the 24th day of April next, on which day the sale will certainly commence precisely at 10 o'clock. Dec 19—w2.
Bank of Columbia.
THE Board of Directors having this day declared a dividend for the half year ending the 20th inst. at the rate of Eight per cent. per annum. The same will be paid to the Stockholders or their representatives, on or after Wednesday the 20th inst. WILLIAM WHANN, Cashier. March 18—6w
NEW Store.
BY WHOLESALE AND RETAIL. The subscriber informs the public that he has commenced business in the house formerly occupied by
MR. QUINN, F. Street; And has on hand, a general assortment dry goods, Groceries, wines and spirituous liquors.
Porter, Hardware and Curlery, Queenware, China and Glass, Flour, Corn, and Corn-meal, Oats and Chopped rye, Candles and Soap by the box, Country whiskey by the barrel, and a few casks of genuine old Irish whiskey All of which he will sell low for cash or country produce. The HIGHEST prices, given for country produce, CASH. FRANCIS CLARK. Aug. 29—wtf.
JOSEPH WILKINSON, JAMES HEIGHE, JOHN TURNER, Calvert county, Feb. 28th, 1805. wtr A.
The subscribers has just laid
in, and have for sale, at their Warehouse on the New Jersey avenue, near Barry's wharf—a quantity of Superfine FLOUR for family use, Corn, Corn meal, Chopt corn, Oats, Shorts, Bran, Salt, &c. &c. All of which they will sell on reasonable terms for cash. PETER MILLER, BERNETZER ELIASON. Washington, March 15—3t&6w