The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1805-03-04 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. V.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. DCLXXXVII.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
MONDAY, MARCH 4th, 1805.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
SPEECH OF MR. J. RANDOLPH
On the opening of the Impeachment against SAMUEL CHASE.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 9.
MR. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, It becomes my duty to open this cause on behalf of the prosecution. From this duty, however incompetent I feel myself to its performance, at all times, and more especially at this time, as well from the very short period which has been allowed us to consider the long and elaborate plea of the respondent, as from the severe pressure of disease, it does not become me to shrink. The station in which I have been placed calls for the discharge of an important public trust at my hands. It shall be performed to the best of my ability, inadequate as I know that ability to be, when I speak of the short period which has been allowed us, I hope not to be understood as expressing, on our part, any dissatisfaction at the court which has been pursued, or any wish to prolong the time which has been allotted for trial. We are sensible of a disposition in this honorable court to grant us every indulgence which we ought to ask, and when their attention is called to the precipitate hurry of our preparation, it is only to offer, on behalf of an individual, perhaps, a weak apology for the weak defence which he is about to make of the cause confided to his care. A desire for the furtherance of justice and the avoidance of delay, but, above all, an unshaken conviction that we stand on impregnable ground, induce us on this short notice to declare that we are ready to substantiate our accusation, to prove that the respondent is guilty in such manner as he stands impeached.
It is a painful but indispensable task which we are called upon to perform:—to establish the guilt of a great officer of government, of a man, who, if he had made a just use of those faculties which God and Nature bestowed upon him, would have been the ornament and benefactor of his country, would have rendered her services as eminent and useful, as he has inflicted upon her outrages and wrongs deep and deadly. A character endowed by nature with some of her best attributes, cultivated by education, placed by his country in a conspicuous station, invested with authority whose righteous exercise would have rendered him a terror to the wicked, whilst it endeared him to the wise and good;—such a character, presented to the nation in the light in which he now stands, and in which his misdeeds have made it our duty to bring him forward, forms one of the saddest spectacles which can be offered to the public eye. Bane is that heart which could triumph over him.
I will now proceed to state the principal points on which we mean to rely—and which we expect to establish by the clearest evidence. In doing this I shall be necessarily led to notice many of the leading statements of the respondent's answer. We will begin with the first article. (Here Mr. R. read that article.) The answer to the first of these charges is by evasive insinuation and misrepresentation, by an attempt to wrest the accusation from its true bearing, the manner and time of delivering the opinion, and the intent with which it was delivered, to the correctness of the opinion itself, which is not the point in issue. And here permit me to remark, that if the Managers of this impeachment were governed only by their own conviction of the course which they ought, necessarily, to pursue, and not by the high sense of duty which they owe to their eminent employers, they would have felt themselves justified in resting their accusation on the admissions of the respondent himself. It is not for the opinion itself, that the respondent is impeached; it is for a daring inroad upon the criminal jurisprudence of his country—by delivering that opinion at a time and in a manner (in writing) before unknown and unheard of. The criminal intent is to be inferred from the boldness of the innovation itself, as well as from other overt acts charged in this article. The admission of the respondent ought to secure his conviction on this charge. He acknowledges that he did deliver an opinion in writing , on the question of law [which it was the right and duty of the jury to determine, as well as the fact] before counsel had been heard in defence of John Fries, the prisoner. I must beg the assistance of one of the gentlemen with whom I am associated, to read this part of the answer. (Mr. Clark according-
ly read the reply of Mr. Chase to this charge.) We charge the respondent with a gross departure from the forms, and a flagrant outrage upon the substance of criminal justice, in delivering a written, prejudicated opinion on the case of Fries, tending to bias the minds of the jury against him before counsel had been heard in his defence. The respondent (Page 12, of the answer) admits the fact, for he knew that we are prepared to prove it. But he artfully endeavours to shift the argument from the real point in contest, to the soundness of the opinion itself, which, however questionable (and of its incorrectness I entertain no doubt) it is not our object, at this time, to examine. For the truth of this opinion, and, as it would seem, for the propriety of this proceeding, the respondent takes shelter under precedent. He tells you, Sir, this doctrine had been repeatedly decided, on solemn argument and deliberation, twice in the same court, and once in that very case.—What is this, but a confession, that he himself hath been the first man to venture on so daring an innovation on the forms of our criminal jurisprudence. To justify himself for having given a written opinion before counsel had been heard for the prisoner, he refers to the example set by his predecessors, who had delivered the customary verbal opinion, after solemn argument and deliberation. And what do these repeated arguments and solemn deliberations prove, but that none of his predecessors ever arrogated to themselves the monstrous privilege of breaking in upon those sacred institutions, which guard the life and liberty of the citizen from the rude inroads of powerful injustice. The learned and eminent judges to whose example he appeals, for justification, decided after , and not before a hearing. They exercised the acknowledged privilege of the bench in giving an opinion to the jury on the question of law, after it had been fully argued, by counsel, on both sides. They never attempted by previous and written decisions, to wrest from the jury their undeniable right, of deciding upon the law as well as the fact, necessarily involved in a general verdict, to usurp this decision to themselves, or to prejudice the minds of the jurors against the defence. I beg this honorable court never to lose sight of the circumstance, that this was a criminal trial, for a capital offence, and that the offence charged was treason . The respondent also admits, that the counsel for Fries, not meaning to contest the truth of the facts charged in the indictment, rested their defence altogether upon the law, which he declared to have been settled in the cases of Vigol and Mitchel: a decision which although it might be binding on the court, the jury were not obliged to respect, and which the counsel had a right to controvert before them, the sole judges, in a case of that nature, both of the law and the fact . I do not deny the right of the court to explain their sense of the law, to the jury, after counsel have been heard;—but I do deny that the jury are bound by such exposition. If they verily believed that the overt acts charged in the indictment, did not amount to treason, they could not without a surrender of their consciences into the hands of the court, without a flagrant violation of all that is dear and sacred to man, bring in a verdict of Guilty. I repeat that in such a case the jury are not only the sole judges of the law, but that where their verdict is favorable to the prisoner, they are the judges without appeal. In civil cases, indeed, the verdict may be set aside and a new trial granted,—but in a criminal prosecution, the verdict (if not guilty) is final and conclusive. It is only when the finding of the jury is unfavorable to the prisoner, that the humane provisions of our law, always jealous of oppression when the life, or liberty, of the citizen is at stake, permits the verdict to be set aside, and a new trial granted to the unhappy culprit. When I concede the right of the court to explain the law to the jury in a criminal, and especially in a capital case, I am penetrated with the conviction that it ought to be done, if at all, with great caution and delicacy. I must beg leave to take, before this honorable court, what appears to my unlettered judgment, to be a strong and obvious distinction. There is, in my mind, a material difference between a naked definition of law, the application of which is left to the jury, and the application, by the court, of such definition to the particular case, upon which the jury are called upon to find a gene-
ral verdict. Surely, there is a wide and evident distinction between an abstract opinion upon a point of law, and an opinion applied to the facts admitted by the party accused, or proven against him. But it is alleged, on behalf of the respondent, that the law in this case was settled, and upon this he rests his defence. Will it be pretended by any man that the law of treason is better established than the law of murder?—What is treason as defined by the constitution? Levying war against the U. States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. What is murder ? killing with malice a forethought, a definition at least as simple and plain as the other. And because what constitutes murder has been established and settled through a long succession of ages and adjudications, has any judge for that reason, been ever daring enough to assert that counsel should be precluded from endeavoring to convince the jury that the overt acts, charged in the indictment, did not amount to murder? Is a court authorized to say, that because killing with deliberate malice is murder, therefore the act of killing, admitted by the prisoner's counsel, or established by evidence, was a killing with malice prepenſe, and did constitute murder. I venture to say that an instance cannot be adduced, familiar as the definition of murder is even to the most ignorant, numerous as have been the convictions for that atrocious crime, where counsel have been deprived of their unquestionable right to address the jury on the law, as well as on the fact. Much less can an instance be produced, in any trial for a capital offence, where they have found themselves anticipated in the question of law by a written opinion, to be taken by the jury out of court, as the landmark by which their verdict is to be directed. I have always understood, that, even in a civil case, when the jury carried out with them a written paper, relating to the matter in issue, and which was not offered, or permitted to be given in evidence to them, it was sufficient to vitiate their verdict, and good ground for a new trial. This written opinion of the court delivered previous to a hearing of the cause, is a novelty to our laws and usages. It would be reprehensible in any case, but in a criminal prosecution, for a capital offence, and that offence treason , (where, above all, oppression and arbitrary proceedings on the part of courts are most to be dreaded and guarded against) it cannot be too strongly reprobated, or too severely punished.
What would be said of a judge who in a trial for murder, where the facts were admitted (or proved) should declare from the bench, that whatever argument counsel had to offer, in relation to the facts, may be addressed to the jury, but that they should not attempt to convince the jury that such facts came not within the law, did not amount to murder, but that every thing which they had to say upon the question of law, should be addressed to the court, and to the court only. Can you figure to yourselves a spectacle more horrible?
We are prepared to prove, what the respondent has in part admitted that he "restricted the counsel of Fries from citing such English authorities as they believed apposite and certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed material to their defence;" that the prisoner was debarred by him, from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury (through his counsel) on the law, as well as the fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give—and that he attempted to wrest from the jury their undeniable right to hear argument, and (consequently) to determine upon the question of law which in a criminal case it was their sole and unquestionable province to decide. These last charges, [except so far as relates to the laws of the U States] are impliedly admitted by the respondent. He confesses that he would not permit the prisoners counsel to cite certain cases, "because they could not inform but might deceive and mislead the jury." Mr. President, it is the noblest trait in this inestimable trial, that, in criminal prosecutions, (where the verdict is general) the jury are the sole judges, and (where they acquit the prisoner) the judges without appeal, both of law and fact. And what is the declaration of the respondent but an admission that he wished to take from the jury their indisputable privilege to hear argument and determine upon the law, and to usurp to himself that power, which belonged to them, and to them only? It is one of the most glorious attributes of jury
trial, that in criminal cases (particularly such as are capital) the prisoner's counsel may (and they often do) attempt "to deceive and mislead the jury." It is essential to the fairness of the trial, that it should be conducted with perfect freedom. It is congenial to the generous spirit of our institutions to lean to the side of an unhappy fellow creature, put in jeopardy, of limb, or life, or liberty. The free principles of our governments, individual and federal, teach us to make every humane allowance in his favor, to grant him with a liberality, unknown to the narrow and tyrannous maxims of most nations, every indulgence not inconsistent with the due administration of justice. Hence, a greater latitude is allowed to the accused, than is permitted to the prosecutor. The jury, upon whose verdict the event is staked, are presumed to be men capable of understanding what they called upon to decide, and the attorney for the state, a gentleman learned in his profession, capable of detecting and exposing the attempts of the opposite counsel to mislead and deceive. There is moreover the court, to which, in cases of difficulty, recourse might be had. But what indeed is the difficulty arising from the law in criminal cases, for the most part? What is to hinder an honest jury from deciding, especially after the aid of an able discussion, whether such an act was a killing with malice prepenſe, or such other overt acts set forth in an indictment, constituted a levying of war against the United States—and to what purpose has treason been defined by the constitution itself, if overbearing arbitrary judges are permitted to establish among us the odious and dangerous doctrine of constructive treason? The acts of Congress which had been referred to on the former trial, but which the respondent laid he would not suffer to be cited again, tended to shew that the offence committed by Fries did not amount to treason: That it was a misdemeanor, only, already provided for by law and punishable with fine and imprisonment. The respondent indeed denies this part of the charge, but he justifies it even (as he says) if it be proved upon him. And are the laws of our own country (as well as foreign authorities) not to be suffered to be read in our courts, in justification of a man whose life is put in jeopardy!
I will now proceed to the second article—the case of Bassett, whose objection to serve on Callender's jury was overruled by the judge, who stands arraigned before this honorable court. In the 9th page of the respondent's answer it is stated, that a new trial was granted to Fries, "upon the ground (as this respondent understood and believes) that one of the jurors, after he was sworn, had made some declaration unfavorable to the prisoner." It will be remembered that both the trials of Fries preceded that of Callender. Upon what principle then, could the respondent declare Bassett a good jurymen, when he was apprized of the previous decision in the case of Fries by his brother judge, whom he professes to hold in such high reverence, and by whose decision, on his own principles, he must have held himself bound? For surely the same exception to a jurymen, which would furnish ground for a new trial, ought to be a cause of setting aside such juror, if it be taken, previous to his being sworn.
From the respondent's own shewing [page 31, of the answer] it appears, that the question put to the jurymen generally, and to Bassett among others, was, whether they "had formed and delivered any opinion upon the subject matter then to be tried, or concerning the charges contained in the indictment. And here let me refer the court to the question which the respondent put to the jurors in the case of Fries, (p. 24). It was, "whether they had ever formed, or delivered any opinion as to his guilt, or innocence, or that he ought to be punished?" How is this departure from the respondent's own practice, this inconsistency with himself to be reconciled? In the one case the question is put in the disjunctive; "have you formed or delivered? In the other, it is in the conjunctive," formed and delivered; besides other material difference in the terms and import of the two questions. Wherefore, I repeat, this contradiction of himself? But Mr. President, we shall be prepared to prove that the words "subject matter then to be tried" were not comprised in the question propounded to Bassett, or to any of the other jurors. The question was as will be shewn in evidence "have you ever formed and delivered any opinion concerning the charges contained in the indictment?"
And it is remarkable that the whole argument of the respondent upon this point, goes to justify the question which was actually put, and which he probably expected we should prove that he did put, rather than that which he himself declares to have been propounded by him. Such a question must necessarily have been answered in the negative. Bassett could never have seen the indictment:—and although his mind might have been made up on the book, whatever opinion he might have formed and delivered as to the guilt of Callender, or however desirous he might have been of procuring his conviction and punishment, still, not having seen the indictment, he could not divine what passages of the book were made the subject of the charges, and by the criterion established by the judge, he was a good juror. But if the juror's mind was thus prejudiced against the book and the writer, was he, merely because he had not seen the indictment, competent to pass between him and his country on the charges contained in it, and extracted out of the book? And even if the question had been such as the respondent states, yet being put in the conjunctive, the most invertebrate of the travellers who was artful, or cautious enough to forbear the expression of his enmity, would thereby have been admitted as competent to pass between the traveller and his country in a criminal prosecution.
The 3d article relates to the rejection of John Taylor's testimony. This fact also is admitted, and an attempt is made to justify it, on the ground of its "irrelevancy," on the pretext that the witness could not prove the whole of a particular charge. By recurring to "The Prop- & Before Us," a book, which with all its celebrity, I never saw till yesterday, I find this charge consists of two distinct sentences. Taken separately the respondent asserts that they mean nothing; taken together, a great deal. And because the respondent undertook to determine (without any authority as far as I can learn) that col. Taylor could not prove the whole, that is both sentences, he rejected his evidence entirely, for "irrelevancy." Might not his testimony have been relevant to that of some other witness, on the same, or on another, charge? I appeal to the learning and good sense of this honorable court, whether it is not an unheard of practice (until the present instance) in a criminal prosecution, to declare testimony inadmissible because it is not expected to go to the entire exoneration of the prisoner? Does it not daily occur in our courts, that a party accused, making out a part of his defence by one witness and establishing other facts by the evidence of other persons,—does it not daily occur that the testimony of various witnesses sometimes to the same, and sometimes to different, facts, does to relieve and support the whole case, as to leave no doubt of the innocence or guilt of the accused, in the minds of the jury, who, it must never be forgotten, are, in such cases, the sole judges both of the law and the fact. Suppose for instance that the testimony of two witnesses would establish all the facts, but that each of those facts are not known by either of them. According to this doctrine the evidence of both might be declared inadmissible and a man whose innocence, if the testimony in his favor were not rejected, might be clearly proved to the satisfaction of the jury, may thus be subjected by the verdict of that very jury to an ignominious death. Shall principles so palpably cruel and unjust be tolerated in this free country? I am free to declare that the decision of Mr. Chase, in rejecting col. Taylor's testimony, was contrary to the known and established rules of evidence, and this I trust will be shown by my learned associates, to the full satisfaction of this honorable court, if indeed they can require further satisfaction on a point so clear and indisputable. But this honorable court will be astonished when they are told (and the declaration will be supported by undeniable proof) that at this very time neither the traveller, his counsel, or the court, knew the extent to which col. Taylor's evidence would go. They were apprized, indeed, that he would shew that Mr. Adams was an aristocrat and that he had proved less viceable to the British interest, in the sense conveyed by the book,—but they little dreamt that his evidence if permitted to have been given in, would have thrown great light upon many other of the charges. There is one ground of defence taken by the respondent, which I did suppose a gentleman of his discernment would have sedulously avoided. That although the traveller had justified

nineteen out of twenty of the charges, contained in the indictment, if he could not prove the truth of the twentieth, it was of little moment, as he was, "thereby, put into the power of the court." Gracious God! Sir, what inference is to be drawn from this horrible insinuation. In justification of the charges contained in the fourth article, the respondent, unable to deny the fact, confesses (pa. 41) that he did require "the questions intended to be put to the witness to be reduced to writing, and submitted to the court," in the first instance (as we shall prove) and before they had been verbally propounded. And this requisition, he contends, it was "the right and duty of the court" to make. It would not become me, elsewhere, or on any other occasion, to dispute the authority of the respondent, on legal questions, but I do aver that such is not the law, at least in the state in which that trial was held, nor do I believe that it is law any where. I speak of the United States. Sir, in the famous case of Logwood, whereat the chief justice of the United States presided, I was present, being one of the grand jury who found a true bill against him. It must be conceded that the government was as deeply interested in prosecuting the career of this dangerous and atrocious criminal, who had aimed his blow against the property of every man in society, as it could be in bringing to punishment a weak and worthless scribbler. And yet, although much testimony was offered by the prisoner, which did, by no means, go to his entire exculpation, although much of that testimony was of a very questionable nature, none of it was declared inadmissible; it was suffered to go to the jury, who were left to judge of its weight and credibility, nor were any interrogatories to the witnesses required to be reduced to writing. And I will go farther, and say that it never has been done before, or since Callender's trial, in any court of Virginia, (and I believe I might add in the United States) whether state or federal. No Sir, the enlightened man who presided in Logwood's case knew that, although the basest and vilest of criminals, he was entitled to justice, equally with the most honorable member of society. He did not avail himself of the previous and great discoveries, in criminal law, of this respondent;—he admitted the prisoner's testimony to go to the jury; he never thought it his right, or his duty, to require questions to be reduced to writing;—he gave the accused a fair trial, according to law and usage, without any innovation, or departure, from the established rules of criminal jurisprudence, in this country. The respondent also acknowledges his refusal to postpone the trial of Callender, although an affidavit was regularly filed stating the absence of material witnesses on his behalf; and here again the ground of his defence, is in my estimation, good cause for his conviction. The dispersed situation of the witnesses, which he alleges to have been the motive of his refusal, is, to my mind, one of the most unanswerable reasons for granting a postponement. The other three charges, contained in this article, will be supported by unquestionable evidence. The rude and contemptuous expressions of the judge to the prisoner's counsel;—his repeated and vexatious interruptions of them;—his indecent solicitude and predetermined resolution to effect the conviction of the accused. This predetermination we shall prove to have been expressed by him, long before, as well as on his journey to Richmond and whilst the prosecution was pending,—besides the proofs which the trial itself afforded. The 5th article is for the respondent's having "awarded a capias against the body of James Thompson Callender, indicted for an offence not capital, whereupon the said Callender was arrested and committed to close custody, contrary to law in such case made and provided;"—that is, contrary to the act of Assembly of Virginia, recognized (by the act of Congress passed in 1789, for the establishment of the judicial courts of the United States) as the rule of decision in the federal courts, to be held in that state, until other provision be made. The defence of the respondent embraces several points:—That the act of Virginia was passed posterior to the act of Congress, (viz. in 1792) and could not be intended, by the latter, to be a rule of decision. Fortunately, there is no necessity to question (which we might well do) the truth of his position. It may be necessary to inform some of the members of this hon. court that, about twelve or thirteen years ago, the laws of Virginia underwent a revision;—all those relating to a particular subject, being consolidated into one, and the whole code, thereby, rendered less cumbrous and perplexed. Hence many of our laws, to a casual and superficial observer, would appear to take their date so late as the year 1792, altho' their provisions were, long before, in force. The 28th section of this very act on which we rely, the court will perceive to have been enacted in 1788, one year preceding the act of Congress. ( Virg. laws, chap. LXIV. sect. 28. pa. 106. NOTE b. Pleasants's edition. ) Here Mr. Randolph read the act referred to. "Upon presentment made by a
grand jury of an offence not capital, the court shall order the clerk to issue a summons, or other proper process, against the person so presented, to appear, and answer such presentment at the next court, &c." But the respondent aware no doubt of this fact, asserts that the act not being adduced, he was not bound to know of its existence, and that he ought not to be censured for the omissions of the traveler's counsel, whose duty it was to have cited it on behalf of their client;—and this objection, with the preceding ones, which I have endeavored to answer will equally apply to the 6th article. Sir, when the counsel for the traveler were told by the judge at the outset, when they referred to a provision of this very law, "that such may be your local state laws, here in Virginia, but that to suppose them as applying to the courts of the U. States is a wild notion," would it not indeed have been a wild experiment in them to cite the same law with a view of influencing the opinion of a man, who had scornfully contemned the idea that he was to be governed by it. Unwilling however to rest himself now, on the ground which he then took, the respondent justifies himself by declaring that he complied, altho' ignorantly, with this law, by issuing that other proper process , of which it speaks, that is a capias. But that other process must be of the nature of a summons, notifying the party to appear at the next term; and will any man pretend to say, that a capias taking him into close custody and obliging him to appear not at the next but at the existing term, is such process as that law describes? Sir, not only the law but the uniform practice under it, as we are prepared to shew by evidence, declares the capias not to be the proper process. But it is said, that this would be nothing more than notice to the party accused to abscond, and therefore ought not to be law. Sir, we are not talking about what ought to have been the law; that is no concern of ours—the question is what was the law. But the impolicy of this mode of proceeding is far from being ascertained. It is a relief to the innocent who may be in a state of accusation. It saves the expence of imprisoning the guilty, and if they should prefer voluntary exile to standing a trial, is it so very clear that the state is thereby more injured than by holding them to punishment, after which they would remain in her bosom to perpetrate new offences. Remember,—this proceeding is against petty offenders, not felons.—It does not apply to capital cases; to felonies, then, capital, for which our law has, since, commuted the punishment of death, into that of imprisonment at hard labour. For further defence against the 6th article, the respondent takes shelter under this position: That the provision of the law of the U. States establishing the judicial courts relates only to rights acquired under state laws, which come into question on the trial, and not to forms of process before the trial, and can have no application to offences created by statute, which cannot with propriety, be termed trials at "common law." We are prepared to shew that the words "trials at common law" are used in that statute, not in their most restricted sense, but to contra-distinguish a certain description of cases from those arising in equity, or under maritime, or civil law. I will pass over the seventh article of impeachment, as well because I am nearly exhausted, as being content to leave it on the ground where the respondent himself has placed it. It would be impossible for us to put it in a stronger light, than has been thrown upon it by his own admission. The 8th and last article remains to be considered. (article read.) I ask this honorable court whether the prostitution of the bench of justice to the purposes of an hussings is to be tolerated? We have nothing to do with the politics of the man. Let him speak and write and publish as he pleases. This is his right in common with his fellow citizens. The press is free. If he must electioneer and abuse the government under which he lives, I know no law to prevent or punish him, provided he seeks the wonted theatres for his exhibition. But shall a judge declaim on these topics from his seat of office. Shall he not put off the political partizan when he ascends the tribunal—or shall we have the pure stream of public justice polluted with the venom of party virulence? In short, does it follow that a judge carries all the rights of a private citizen with him upon the bench and that he may, there, do every act, which, as a freeman, he may do elsewhere, without being questioned for his conduct? But, Sir, we are told that this high court is not a court of errors and appeals, but a court of impeachment, and that however incorrectly the respondent may have conducted himself, proof must be adduced of criminal intent, of wilful error, to constitute guilt. The quo animo is to be inferred from the facts themselves; there is no other mode by which in any case it can be determined, and even the respondent admits that there are acts of a nature so flagrant that guilt must be inferred from them,
if the party be of sound mind. But this concession is qualified by the monstrous pretension that an act to be impeachable, must be indictable. Where? In the federal courts? There not even robbery and murder are indictable, except in a few places under our exclusive jurisdiction. It is not an indictable offence under the laws of the U. States for a judge to go on the bench in a state of intoxication—it may not be in all the state courts. But it is indictable no where, for him to omit to do his duty, to refuse to hold a court? and who can doubt that both are impeachable offences and ought to subject the offender to removal from office? But in this long and disgusting catalogue of crimes and misdemeanors (which he has in a great measure confessed) the respondent tells you he had accomplices and that what was guilt in him could not be innocence in them. I must beg the court to consider the facts alleged against the respondent in all their accumulated atrocity;—not to take them, each in an insulated point of view, but as a chain of evidence indissolubly linked together, and establishing the indisputable proof of his guilt. Call to mind his high standing and character, and his superior age and rank, and then ask yourselves whether he stands justified in a long course of oppression and injustice, because men of weak intellect, and yet feebler temper—men of far inferior standing to the respondent, have tamely acquiesced in such acts of violence and outrage? He is charged with various acts of injustice, with a series of misconduct so connected in time and place, and circumstance, as to leave no doubt, on my mind at least, of intentional ill. Can this be just fied, because his several associates have at several times and occasions barely yielded a faint compliance, which perhaps they dared not withhold. Can they be considered as equally culpable with him whose accumulated crimes are to be divided amongst them, who had given at best but a negative sanction to them. But, Sir, would the establishment of their guilt prove his innocence? At most it would only prove that they too ought to be punished. Whenever we behold the respondent sitting in judgment, there do we behold violence and injustice. Before him the council are always contumacious. The most accomplished advocates of the different states whose demeanor to his brethren is uniformly conciliating and temperate, are to him, and him only, obdurate, perverse, rude, and irritating. Contumacy has been found to exist only where he presided. Mr. President, it appears to me that one great distinction remains yet to be taken. A distinction between a judge zealous to punish and repress crimes generally, and a judge anxious only to enforce a particular law whereby he may recommend himself to power, or to his party. It is this hideous feature of the respondent's judicial character, on which I would fix your attention. We do not charge him with a general zeal in the discharge of his high office, but with an indecent zeal in particular cases, for laws of doubtful and suspicious aspect. It is only in cases of constructive treason & libel, that his zeal breaks out. Through the whole tenor of his judicial conduct runs the spirit of party. I could cite the name and authority of a judge of whom if I might be permitted to speak, I would say, that he was no less a terror to evil-doers than a shield to the oppressed. In a commendable zeal for the faithful execution of the laws, he has never been surpassed, neither in tenderness to the liberty of the citizen, nor the liberty of the press, nor trial by jury. [Here Mr. R. read the following passage from Tucker's Blackstone, vol. 4. p. 350.] "But it is not customary nor agreeable to the general course of proceeding (unless by consent of parties, or where the defendant is actually in goal) to try persons indicted of smaller misdemeanors at the same court in which they have pleaded not guilty, or traversed the indictment. (What follows is subjoined in a note:) And this is the practice in Virginia, but in the case of the United States against Callender, in the federal court at Richmond, May 1800, a different course was pursued, although the act of Congress (1 Cong. 1 Sep. chap. 20. Sect. 32.) may be interpreted otherwise. This is the very act and section on which we rely. I have endeavored, Mr. President in a manner, I am sensible, very lame and inadequate, to discharge the duty incumbent on me; to enumerate the principal points upon which we shall rely, and to repel some of the prominent objections advanced by the respondent. Whilst we confidently expect on his conviction, it is from the strength of our cause, and not from any art or skill, in conducting it. It requires so little support that (thank Heaven) it cannot be injured by any weakness of mine. We shall bring forward in proof, such a specimen of judicial tyranny, as, I trust in God, will never be again exhibited in our country. The respondent hath closed his defence by an appeal to the great searcher of hearts for the purity of his motives. For his sake, I rejoice, that, by the timely exercise of that mercy, which, for wise purposes has been re-
posed in the executive, this appeal is not drowned by the blood of an innocent man crying aloud for vengeance,—that the mute agony of widowed despair and the wailing voice of the orphan do not plead to. Heaven for justice on the oppressor's head. But for that intervention, self accusation before that dread tribunal would have been needless. On that awful day the blood of a poor ignorant, friendless, unlettered German, murdered under the semblance and color of law, sent without pity to the scaffold, would have risen in judgment at the Throne of Grace, against the unhappy man arraigned at your bar. But the President of the United States by a well timed act, at once, of justice and of mercy, (and mercy like charity covereth a multitude of sins), wrested the victim from his grasp, and saved him from the countless horrors of remorse, by not suffering the pure crime of justice to be dyed in the innocent blood of John Fries. (By Authority.) BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS a treaty between the United States of America and the united tribes of Sac and Fox Indians was concluded and signed on the third day of November one thousand eight hundred and four, and was duly ratified and confirmed by the President of the United States on the twenty fifth day of January following, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, which treaty is in the words following, to wit: A treaty between the United States of America and the united tribes of Sac and Fox Indians. Articles of a treaty made at St. Louis, in the district of Louisiana, between William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory and of the district of Louisiana, superintendent of Indian affairs for the said territory and district, and commissioner plenipotentiary of the United States, for concluding any treaty or treaties which may be found necessary with any of the north western tribes of Indians of the one part, and the chiefs and head men of the united Sac and Fox tribes of the other part. Article 1. The United States receive the united Sac and Fox tribes into their friendship and protection, and the said tribes agree to consider themselves under the protection of the United States and of no other power whatsoever. Article 2. The general boundary line between the lands of the United States and of the said Indian tribes, shall be as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point on the Missouri river, opposite to the mouth of the Gasconade river; thence in a direct course so as to strike the river Jefferson at the distance of thirty miles from its mouth, and down the said Jefferson to the Mississippi, thence up the Mississippi to the mouth of the Ouisconsin river, and up the same to a point which shall be thirty six miles in a direct line from the mouth of the said river, thence by a direct line to the point where the Fox river (a branch of the Illinois) leaves the small lake called Saukagan, thence down the Fox river to the Illinois river, and down the same to the Mississippi. And the said tribes for and in consideration of the friendship and protection of the United States which is now extended to them, of the goods (to the value of two thousand two hundred and thirty-four dollars and fifty cents) which are now delivered, and of the annuity herein after stipulated to be paid, do hereby cede and relinquish forever to the United States, all the lands included within the above described boundary. Article 3. In consideration of the cession and relinquishment of land made in the preceding article, the United States will deliver to the said tribes at the town of St. Louis, or some other convenient place on the Mississippi, yearly and every year, goods fitted to the circumstances of the Indians, of the value of one thousand dollars (six hundred of which are intended for the Sac's, and four hundred for the Fox's) reckoning that value at the first cost of the goods in the city or place in the United States where they shall be procured. And if the said tribes shall hereafter at an annual delivery of the goods aforesaid, desire that a part of their annuity should be furnished in domestic animals, implements of husbandry, and other utensils convenient for them, or in compensation to useful artificers who may reside with or near them, and be employed for their benefit, the same shall at the subsequent annual delivery be furnished accordingly. Article 4. The United States will never interrupt the said tribes in the possession of the lands which they rightfully claim, but will on the contrary protect them in the quiet enjoyment of the same, against their own citizens, and against all other white persons who may intrude upon them. And the said tribes do hereby engage that they will never sell their lands or any part thereof to any foreign power, nor to the citizens of the United States. Article 5. Least the friendship which is now established between the United States and the said Indian tribes should be interrupted by the misconduct of individuals, it is hereby agreed that for injuries done by individuals no private revenge or retaliation shall take place, but instead thereof complaint shall be made by the party injured to the other, by the said tribes or either of them to the superintendent of Indian affairs or one of his deputies, and by the superintendent or other person appointed by the President, to the chiefs of the said tribes. And it shall be the duty of the said chiefs upon complaint being made as aforesaid to deliver up the person or persons against whom the complaint is made to the end that he or they may be punished agreeably to the laws of the state or territory where the offence may have been committed; and in like manner if any robbery, violence or murder shall be committed on any Indian or Indians belonging to the said tribes or either of them, the person or persons so offending shall be tried, and if found guilty punished in the like manner as if the injury had been done to a white man. And it is further agreed, that the chiefs of the said tribes shall to the utmost of their power exert themselves to recover
horses or other property which may be stolen from any citizen or citizens of the United States by any individual or individuals of their tribes, and the property so recovered shall be forthwith delivered to the superintendent or other person authorized to receive it that it may be restored to the proper owner, and in cases where the exertions of the chiefs shall be ineffectual in recovering the property stolen as aforesaid if sufficient proof can be obtained that such property was actually stolen by any Indian or Indians belonging to the said tribes or either of them, the United States may deduct from the annuity of the said tribes a sum equal to the value of the property which has been stolen. And the United States hereby guarantee to any Indian or Indians of the said tribes a full indemnification for any horses or other property which may be stolen from them by any of their citizens, provided that the property so stolen cannot be recovered and that sufficient proof is produced that it was actually stolen by a citizen of the United States. Article 6. If any citizen of the U. States or other white person should form a settlement upon lands which are the property of the Sac and Fox tribes upon complaint being made thereof to the superintendent or other person having charge of the affairs of the Indians, such intruder shall forthwith be removed. Article 7. As long as the lands which are now ceded to the United States remain their property, the Indians belonging to the said tribes shall enjoy the privilege of living and hunting upon them. Article 8. As the laws of the U. States regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes are already extended to the country inhabited by the Sauks and Foxes, and as it is provided by those laws that no person shall reside as a trader in the Indian country without a license under the hand and seal of the superintendent of Indian affairs or other person appointed for the purpose by the President: The said tribes do promise and agree that they will not suffer any trader to reside amongst them without such license; and that they will from time to time give notice to the superintendent or to the agent for their tribes of all the traders that may be in their country. Article 9. In order to put a stop to the abuses and impositions which are practised upon the said tribes by the private traders, the United States will at a convenient time establish a trading house or factory where the individuals of the said tribes can be supplied with goods at a more reasonable rate than they have been accustomed to procure them. Article 10. In order to evince the sincerity of their friendship and affection for the U. States and a respectful deference for their advice by an act which will not only be acceptable to them but to the common Father of all the nations of the earth—the said tribes do hereby solemnly promise and agree that they will put an end to the bloody war which has heretofore raged between their tribes and those of the Great and Little Osages. And for the purpose of burying the tomahawk and renewing the friendly intercourse between themselves and the Osages a meeting of their respective Chiefs shall take place, at which under the direction of the above named commissioner or the agent of Indians residing at St. Louis an adjustment of all their differences shall be made and peace established upon a firm and lasting basis. Article 11. As it is probable that the government of the United States will establish a military post at or near the mouth of the Ouisconsin river and as the land on the lower side of the river may not be suitable for that purpose the said tribes hereby agree that a fort may be built either on the upper side of the Ouisconsin or on the right bank of the Mississippi, as the one or the other may be found most convenient, and a tract of land not exceeding two miles square shall be given for that purpose. And the said tribes do further agree that they will at all times allow to traders and other persons travelling thro' their country under the authority of the U. States a free and safe passage for themselves and their property of every description. And that for such passage they shall at no time and on no account whatever be subject to any toll or exaction. Article 12. This treaty shall take effect and be obligatory on the contracting parties as soon as the same shall have been ratified by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said William Henry Harrison and the said Chiefs and head men of the Sac and Fox tribes have hereunto set their hands and affixed their seals. DONE at Saint Louis in the district of Louisiana, and on the third day of November, one thousand eight hundred and four; and of the Independence of the United States the twenty-ninth. (Signed) Wm. Henry Harrison, (L. S.) Laiyuvina, or Laiyuvina, his X mark, (seal.) P. Shepaha, or the Giger, his X mark, (seal.) Quashquame, or Jumping Fish, his X mark, (seal.) Outchquame, or Sun Fish, his X mark, (seal.) Ashshquaxquia, or the Bear, his X mark, (seal.) In presence of (the words "a branch of the Illinois," in the third line of the second article, and word "forever," in the fifth line of the same article being first interlined.) Wm. Prince, secretary to the commissioner. John Griffin, one of the judges of the Indiana Territory. J. Buff, maj. arty. U. S. Amos Stoddard, capt. corps artillery. P. Choutau. Ch. Gratiot. Aug. Chouteau. Vigo. S. Warrell, Lt. U. S. artillery. D. Delaunay. Sworn Interpreters. Joseph Barron, Hypolite Bolon, his X mark. ADDITIONAL ARTICLE. It is agreed that nothing in this treaty contained shall affect the claim of

JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED
ON THE IMPEACHMENT AGAINST SAMUEL CHASE.
ON FRIDAY the Chamber of the Senate was opened at noon; and the extensive galleries were in a few minutes filled with a crowded auditory. The deep interest, which had attended this important trial from its earliest stages, and had continued, without abatement, though its whole progress, was now wrought up to the highest pitch.
In this state of the public feeling the Senate entered the court room at about half past 12 o'clock. In a few minutes after Mr. Tracey, a Senator from Connecticut, for some days past confined to his house from illness, came in, under marks of severe indisposition, and with a smelling bottle in his hand.
The President (Mr. Burr), having given directions to the peace officers to seize no one who should in any wise disturb the proceedings, rose, and addressing himself to the members of the court, said—
GENTLEMEN, You have heard the evidence and arguments adduced on the trial of Samuel Chase, impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors: you will now proceed to pronounce distinctly your judgement on each article. Mr. Secretary, read the First Article.
Mr. Otis, then read the First Article, when the President rising, addressed in alphabetical order, to each member of the Senate, who also rose, the following question—
Mr. —, How say you; Is Samuel Chase, Esquire, guilty, or not guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor, as charged in the Article of Impeachment last read.
To which question each Member answered guilty, or not guilty. The several remaining Articles were read in succession, and the same course pursued as on the First.
After the whole had been gone through, which occupied about two hours, the President directed all the votes to be called over, to avoid any mistake in the record. This having accordingly been done by the Secretary;
The President rose and said, on the First Article sixteen gentlemen have pronounced guilty, and eighteen not guilty; on the second Article ten have said guilty, and twenty four not guilty; on the third Article eighteen have said guilty, and sixteen not guilty; on the fourth Article, eighteen have said guilty, and sixteen not guilty; on the fifth Article, there is an unanimous vote of not guilty; on the sixth Article, four have said guilty, and thirty not guilty; on the seventh Article, ten have said guilty, and twenty four not guilty; and on the eighth Article, nineteen have said guilty, and fifteen not guilty.
Hence it appears that there is not a constitutional majority of votes finding Samuel Chase, Esquire, guilty, on any one Article. It, therefore, becomes my duty to declare that Samuel Chase, Esquire, stands acquitted of all the Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives against him.
Whereupon, The Court immediately rose, at about half past 2 o'Clock.
The following is a table of the votes given on the several Articles:
Table with 9 columns: Art. 1 to Art. 8, and a final column for totals. Rows list names of Senators (Adams, Anderson, Baldwin, etc.) and their votes (guilty or not guilty) on each article.
APPOINTMENTS. Approved by the Senate. ROBERT SMITH, Attorney General of the United States... JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, Secretary of the Navy... GENERAL HULL, Governor of the territory of Michigan... GENERAL ORDERS. The gallant behavior of the officers, seamen and marines of the squadron in the action of yesterday with the enemy's batteries, gun boats and corsairs, claim from the commodore the warmest approbation and praise he can bestow. Capt. Stewart of the Siren, captain
any individual or individuals who may have obtained grants of land from the Spanish government and which are not included within the general boundary line laid down in this treaty.
NOW therefore to the end that the said treaty may be observed and performed with good faith on the part of the United States, I have caused the premises to be made public, and I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office, civil or military, within the United States, and all others, citizens or inhabitants thereof, or being within the same, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said treaty and every clause and article thereof.
DONE at the city of Washington, the twenty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord (L. S.) one thousand eight hundred and five, and of the Independence of the United States of America, the twenty-ninth.
TH: JEFFERSON. By the President, JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State.
MR. SMITH, A querulous article appeared in your paper of Friday, it seems it was intended as a vindication of Mr. Findley's character, I am sorry for his character—and I lament the manner in which it is attempted—
He assumes it to be meritorious that he called on me in a peaceable manner, and he considers it as a matter of reproach that I would not assert what I knew to be false upon his authority. I really am sorry for Mr. Findley.
He did call upon me, and in a placid manner, commenced a conversation, in which he took an opportunity to state two things which were totally destitute of foundation; one of these, that I had received some information by letter from a gentleman from whom I never received a line on any subject—I assured him of his mistake.
He then assured me that he knew the letter in the Aurora, concerning his vote on the Yazoo resolution, was written by a certain member of Congress—I assured him that was impossible because I had written it myself.
This peaceable old gentleman then forgot his decorum, & demanded of me that I should contradict what I knew to be true upon his authority; I with as much courtesy as I am capable of, begged leave to decline, that act; because the journals of the last and present session were my authority; but I offered him the opportunity of shewing the mistake, [if there was any] in the journals, and that I would publish what he should subscribe his name to, on the subject—he neither declined nor assented to this; but told me I should hear from it;—but I suppose the paper of Friday is the report.
I do not accuse Mr. Findley of behaving with indecorum—the disparity of our years renders considerations of that kind absurd. But I never knew that the votes of a member of Congress, old or young, were objects which should not be discussed or animadverted upon—and I had considered the yea's and nays, as entered on the journals of Congress of last session, p. 405, 406, not only as very sufficient authority, but better authority than that of any man whose votes were antipodes on the same question.
With Mr. Findley's private character I did not meddle—I with great humility presume that his public conduct is a fit subject for animadversion—on that point only have I touched Mr. Findley's character, and on that has he attempted to set up a defence. I am sorry for his manner of attempting it, it only aggravates what he would palliate—b-side it comes too late, it comes as they say in Ireland, "a day after the fair"—for, to use another Irish figure—"the burying's gone by."
WM. DUANE.
JUST RECEIVED.
Price 3-16ths of a Dollar. And for sale at the Book-store of Mr. Wm. Duane, Pennsylvania Avenue.
A SERMON
"On the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the general or last judgment." Delivered the 25th December, 1804, before both Houses of Congress in the city of Washington, from the 13th verse of the XCVI Psalm.
BY JOHN HARGROVE. Minister of the New Jerusalem Church, Baltimore.
"Now it is allowed us to enter Intellectually into the mysteries of our holy faith." SWEDENBORG. March 4.—3t
FOUND,
At the Theatre one evening, (immediately after the performance of Mr. McGinnis) a single cased silver watch. The owner may have it again by paying costs, and proving property, on application to the Printer. March 4.—3t
veils and for the annoyance they gave the enemy.
Lieut. Laurence of the Enterprize, and Lieut. Reed of the Nautilus (commanding those vessels in the absence of their captains) merit the commodore's thanks for their active exertions in towing out and protecting prizes.
The commodore deeply regrets the death of Lieut. James Dacanay, who nobly fell at the moment he had obliged an enemy of superior force to strike to him.
Lieut. Bainbridge's conduct in pressing into the harbor and engaging the enemy, and his conduct through the action, merits and receives the commodore's thanks.
Lieut. Trippe will please to accept thanks for the gallant conduct which distinguished him in boarding, capturing and bringing off one of the enemy's gun boats of superior force.
I have now to tender my warmest thanks to the lieutenants, sailing master, marine officers and other officers of the Constitution for the prompt support I received from them.
The conduct of the officers, seamen and marines of the squadron, have not only in the action of the 31 inst. but on every other occasion merited the highest encomiums.
Given on board the U. S. ship Constitution, at anchor off Trinoli, the 4th day of Aug. 1804 (Signed,) EDWARD PREBLE.
The following is the address of the officers of the squadron under command of commodore Preble on his giving up the command of the Mediterranean squadron to commodore Barron.
To EDWARD PREBLE, Esq. late commander in chief of the American forces in the Mediterranean.
SIR, We the undersigned officers of the squadron late under your command, cannot in justice suffer you to depart without giving you some small testimony of the very high estimation in which we hold you as an officer and commander. It is under these impressions, Sir, that we beg leave to assure you that your supercedure in a command in which you have acquired so much honor to yourself and country, is by us deeply regretted, notwithstanding we feel assured that the measure was dictated by necessity.
As you are about to return to your native country, we all join most cordially in wishing you a pleasant passage, and sincerely hope that our countrymen may generally bellow on you that meed which your important services so richly deserve, and believe us sincere in saying that we shall largely participate in any future event that may add to your fame or happiness.
We have the honor to be, with the highest respect and esteem, your obedient servants.
Syracuse Harbor, 4th Nov. 1804. Stephen Decatur, jun. Frigate Captain, Charles Stewart, master and commandant. Brig Syren. Isaac Hull, master and commandant. Brig Argus. Isaac Chauncey, master and commander. Frigate John Adams. John Smith, master and commander. Brig Vixen. John H. Dent, Lieut. Schooner Nautilus. Thomas Robinson, Lieut. Schooner Enterprize.
Charles Gordon, Lieut. Joseph Tarbell, Lieut. Samuel Elbert, Lieut. Charles Morris, Lieut. Nath. Harden, master. Hechete I. Reia Lieut. Dan. S. Dexter, Lieut. John Hall, captain of marines. Robert Greenleaf, Lieut. of marines. Jas. Wells, surgeon. N. Norris, purser. P. Leonard, chaplain. Edward Bennet, Lieut. J. B. Nicholson, Lieut. Marmaduke Dove, master. John Darby, purser. Jas. Lawrence, Lieut. Joseph Bainbridge, Lieut. J. Thorn Lieut. Thos. McDonough, Lieut. Seth Cartee, master. Lewis Herman, surgeon. Michael Carroll, Lieut. Jos. I. Maxwell, Lieut. Wm. Burrows, master. Robert Spence, Lieut. Samuel R. Marshall, Surgeon. Sybrant Van Schaick Lieut. John Johnson, Lieut. of marines. Tim. Winn, purser. N. T. Weems, surgeon. John W. Doisey Surgeon. L. Griffin, surgeon.
Officers of the John Adams. Officers of the Enterprize. Officers of the Siren. Officers of the Argus.
John Trippe, Lieut. Wm. Coane, Lieut. Rich. Butler, master. J. Graham, surgeon. Geo. Wath. Reid, Lieut. Chas. Ridgely, Lieut. Stephen Cassin, master. Jas. Tootell, purser. G. Jacques, surgeon. Ralph Izard, Lieut. J. M. Halwell G. Marcellin, J. Green, purser.
Commodore Preble's answer to the above address of the officers.
To captains Decatur, Stewart, Hull, Smith, and Chauncey. Lieuts. commandants Dent and Robinson, and other officers late under my command.
GENTLEMEN, I have this day been honored with your esteemed favor of the 4th instant, and as I have been in the highest degree gratified by the support I have received from you in a difficult and dangerous service, so am I equally flattered by your approbation of my conduct as commander of the squadron; and be assured that I should always consider my reputation as an officer secure while my views were seconded by that talent and intrepidity for which you stand eminently distinguished.
As it respects my supercedure, I can only say that I could not have been more gratified than by being allowed to command you, till the present war was brought to a conclusion: but rank must be attended to; and when a measure is impelled by necessity, it becomes the duty of an officer to submit with cheerfulness: this I do, convinced as I am, that you will serve your country under my successor with the same ardour as heretofore.
There can be no question but your country will be gratefully impressed by your exertions; and be assured gentlemen it is with sincerity that I reciprocate your obliging wishes for my future fame and happiness.
I have the honor to be, With the highest respect, Your obedient servant, EDWARD PREBLE. Syracuse, November 6th, 1804.
Congress closed their session last evening about 10 o'clock. A great mass of business was transacted in the few last days; of which we shall give early details.
This Day, at 12 o'clock, the PRESIDENT takes the oath of office, when it is expected he will deliver an INAUGURAL SPEECH.
[The following is inserted by request.] Mr. Randolph having informed Mr. Jackson that he had misapprehended what he said in debate on the Georgia claims at the last session (which has never been published), and Mr. R. having declared that what he really said was to the following effect, viz, "That if when the Indian title to the lands in question should be extinguished, and intruders under the act of Georgia of 1795, should attempt a settlement contrary to law, (a reason urged by some in favor of compromise) he (Mr. R.) would extend the strong arm of government, and drag them from the lands of the United States, would spend the last dollar, and sacrifice the last life before he would submit to the usurpation," Mr. Jackson has no hesitation in admitting upon this information, that he may have mistaken Mr. R's expressions.
Philadelphia, Feb. 27, 1805.
The United States' Frigate JOHN ADAMS, Capt. Chauncey, (Commodore Preble and Consul O'Brien and family on board) from the Mediterranean, arrived at Sandyhook on Saturday last. Capt. Newman of the ship Laura, arrived at New York, spoke her on Saturday last, and informs, that there are a number of Turks on board.
NOTICE.
A Gentleman of a good character, and qualified to teach English and Latin, may meet with an eligible situation, by application to the teacher of the academy in Alexandria. March 4.—3w
This day is Published, BY SAMUEL H. SMITH. And for Sale at Ropine's Book-store, PRICE ONE DOLLAR AND A QUARTER.
ADDRESSES OF THE Successive Presidents OF THE UNITED STATES, TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS,
At the opening of each Session, with their answers; from the commencement of the present government, to January 1, 1805. Together with the Inaugural Addresses during the same period, and the FAREWELL ADDRESS of George Washington. February 11—

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
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 interesting 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, nearly 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, expense, 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 its accomplishment 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. 32
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, Madera, } Wines, by the quarter cask Sherry, } and cask, or smaller quantity. Lisbon, } Claret, } Brown Sugar, 1st and 2d quality Loaf and Lump, do. Molasses, Firm 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, Hylon, } Teas, fresh, and of superior quality. Imperial, } Young Hylon, } Salt Herrings in Barrels. PETER HEALY, & Co. Washington October 31—tf
ROBERT CHERRY. HAS removed his store, to the house of Mr. George Blagden New Jersey Avenue on the Eastern Branch, where he has just received (in addition to his former stock) by the Schooner Hyland from Philadelphia a general assortment of groceries and liquors of superior quality, with a few boxes India china of the best quality, eighty pieces to the set; all of which he will sell wholesale and retail at the most reduced prices for cash, or in exchange for country produce—All orders in his line will be executed with punctuality and dispatch; he flatters himself from the quality of his articles he will be able to render ample satisfaction to his friends and all those who may be pleased to favor him with their custom. All kinds of commission business will be attended to with the utmost attention. Washington city Dec. 12—tf
NOTICE. THE Legionary Court of enquiry which met by adjournment the 2d instant, is again adjourned to meet at the Union-Tavern in George-Town, the 5th March next, at 10 o'clock in the forenoon. As there is business of importance to come before the Court it is hoped the members will be punctual in their attendance. By order, Wm. D. BEALL, Clk. J. L. M. D. C. Feb. 8—10t
TO THE PUBLIC. DURING the present year, J. Ogilvie will continue to instruct youth in the city of Richmond. In addition to the various branches of literature and science heretofore taught in his school, his pupils will have an opportunity of studying the higher branches of mathematical science, a more extensive course of natural philosophy, the dead languages, and the French and Spanish languages. In reaching the higher branches of Mathematical science and the dead languages, J. Ogilvie will be assisted by Mr. Wood of this city, whose superior proficiency and skill in Mathematical and Physical science eminently entitle him to public patronage. The French and Spanish languages will be taught by Mr. Bonnadil, with whose ability and qualifications is the line of his profession, the citizens of Richmond are sufficiently acquainted. These arrangements, whilst they will considerably diminish J. Ogilvie's emoluments, will greatly enlarge the utility of the school. The principal advantages of schools conducted by a single teacher, are, the principal and uninterrupted pressure of exertion, the dissipation of thought amongst such a variety of studies as almost to preclude the possibility of pre-eminent skill or proficiency in any one department of knowledge, and the consequent imperfection and incompleteness of the course. These disadvantages will be radically obviated by the preceding arrangements. Thus modified and extended, the plan of education which will be pursued in this school, will embrace probability, as comprehensive and complete a course of literature and science as can be reasonably expected in a seminary, so totally destitute of every sort of extrinsic support. The school will be opened on the second Monday in January. P. S. Mr. Wood will teach the arts of drawing and painting, to such young gentlemen as may be desirous to acquire some knowledge and skill in these highly elegant and useful accomplishments. February 18 1 m.
American Printed goods. Calicoes, Shawls, Pocket Handkerchiefs, &c. manufactured by the subscribers near Baltimore, and sold at No. 13 Calvert Street.
To remove that distrust often felt respecting new undertakings, and so prejudicial to manufacturing attempts in America, they think it proper to observe, that nothing is wanting in the business to enable good artists to perform their work here as well as in Europe. That they have these artists; that two of the partners were bred to the business in a factory of the best repute carried on by their father, long afterwards by themselves. They trust that while foreign goods are received without a question, an unreasonable suspicion will not prevent their countrymen from giving that trial to their goods, which only can prove their value. Besides a natural doubt, they know that certain interests, national as well as individual, will suggest objections to their undertaking. They have no difficulty in saying, that work of the "like kind" shall be as well executed here, as in other countries. The colors capable of being fixed, will be found as permanent; the cloths perhaps better substance, and the prices lower than of the imported cottons. M C ULLOCH & LUNNUY, Baltimore, No. 13 Calvert Street. Sept 17—tf
FALL GOODS. THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR, Pennsylvania Avenue, near the President's Square, HAS just received a very handsome assortment of Fall Goods. Orders executed with the greatest dispatch and fashion, and on the most moderate terms. Oct 31—tf
TO PRINTERS. THE subscriber takes Order for Type from the well known Foundry of William Caslin, Jun. and Co. London—Specimens and list of London prices to be seen at Mr. Geo. W. Riggs, Georgetown. CH R LES WIRGMAN, No. 215, Market-Street, Baltimore. Jan. 16. tf.
Tucker's Blackstone. May be had for the present at the subscription price of J. MARCH, George-town, Wm. Duane, and Rapine, Conrad & Co. city of Washington J. Kennedy, and Messrs. Gray's Alexandria—Mr. Brundige, Dumfries—Mr. Henderson, Fredericksburg—Mr. S. Pleasants, and Mr. Prichard, Richmond—Bonfaie, Conrad, and Co. Norfolk—Somerville, Conrad & Co. Petersburg—J. Bell, Winchester—J. Swane, Staunton—J. Alberts, and Wm. Somerville, Martinsburg—J. Gales, Raleigh—Bailey and Waller, Charleston—Conrad, & Co. G. Hill, S. Butler, Bonall, Warner and Hannah, Baltimore—the book-stores generally in Philadelphia—Messrs. Swords, New York, and C. Bingham Boston. February 11—ep4w
CHARLES H. VARDEN, MERCHANT TAYLOR. Has received from Philadelphia a handsome assortment of FALL goods, consisting of the best London and French superfine cloths, cassimeres, patent Bennet's cord, toilenettes, fancy and white Marseilles, black and figured silk, molekins, fancy silk, Marseilles, constitution cords, velvets, Genoa cord, silk and satin Florentines, superfine coating, knapped cloths, with a variety of other articles suitable for the winter season. N. B. Ladies habits, regimentals, and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion. New Jersey Avenue near the Capitol, December 10—tf
BURR & HAMILTON. Museum of Wax-Work. MOULTHROP AND BISHOP, Respectfully acquaint the Ladies and Gentlemen of George-Town, that they have opened at the house of Mr. Semms, a new collection of WAX-FIGURES, superior to any ever exhibited in America, among which are the following characters:
COLUMBUS, The first discoverer of America, in Princely Robes. A striking likeness of the late General Washington. A striking likeness of Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States. BUONAPARTE, Represented at the battle of Marengo. The Beauty of America, represented as being far superior to any Physionomy ever exhibited. The Beautiful Coquette, represented up to Nature. The Sleeping Beauty. Virginias, the Roman Soldier, slaying his daughter to preserve her from the hands of Appius Claudius, in defence of her Virtue. The Zealous Father frowning upon the wantonness of his daughter with her gallant. And a number of other figures. Music on a elegant Organ. Admission for grown persons, Half a Dollar children half price. The Museum will be opened from nine in the morning until nine in the evening, Sundays excepted. Feb 27—3t.
Lombardy Poplars, &c: SEVERAL hundred handsome Lombardy Poplars, a variety of Fruit trees of different sorts, Flowering shrubs &c. &c. and also a variety of garden seeds of his own saving last year, for sale by THEO. HOLT, Eastern Branch Washington. T. H. Daily expects a large and extensive assortment of tools, garden, grass and flower seeds, garden tools, &c. &c. per ship Proteetress, arrived at City Point from London. Feb 27—3t.
FOR SALE, THE subscriber intending to decline his present business, offers FOR SALE two Coach-houses with venetian blinds, like-wise Carts and Plated Harness, with or without Horses. If not disposed of at private sale, they will be sold at Auction on Saturday the 23d inst. opposite Steele's Hotel.—The sale to commence at 12 o'clock. Also for sale. Any quantity of WOOD by the cord. Application to be made to the subscriber at the place formerly occupied by Mr. George Walker, near the Capitol. THOMAS BARWISE. Feb. 8—tf
The above sale is postponed until Monday the 5th of March. T. B.
By virtue of a decree of the honorable the chancellor of Maryland, the subscriber will sell at public sale, on the premises, on Friday the 15th day of March next, that valuable plantation formerly owned by Allen Quynn, esq. deceased, consisting of the following tracts of land, to wit: Young's Chance, Dunkin's Luck, Hambleton, Hill's Good Luck, Timber Neck, Brompton and part of Wardrope, supposed to contain 1000 acres of land. It is situate on South river, about 4 miles from Annapolis, and the new road to the city of Washington passes thro' it. It has the benefit of a valuable ferry attached to it, over which the mail stage from Annapolis to Washington and George town pass. There are valuable improvements consisting of two large brick dwelling houses and one frame dwelling house, with barns, tobacco houses, and every necessary out building. The land is in general extremely fertile, and well provided with wood and timber. There are extremely good orchards, both peach and apple, extensive and regularly laid out. There may always be had great abundance of fish and oysters. A more particular description is unnecessary, as those inclined to purchase will view the premises and judge for themselves. The terms of sale are bond with approved security to be given for the payment of the purchase money in four equal annual payments from the day of sale. Possession will be given immediately except of a part now under lease to Mr. Nicholls, and which part will be shown at the day of sale, when an accurate plot will also be prepared of the whole land. It will be sold entire or in parcels as shall be judged most advantageous and most convenient to purchasers. On payment of the purchase money a clear and unquestionable title will be given. JOHN JOHNSON. Feb 25—
10 & a 1-2 CENTS REWARD. RANAWAY APPRENTICE. ON the 20th of December last, named JOSEPH STEPHENS; when he went away had on a blue cloth jacket and trowsers, a round hat and short black hair, and the mark of a cut on his thumb, and he is about five feet six inches high, a little round shouldered, his father says he is about twenty years of age. Whoever delivers the said apprentice to the subscriber shall receive the above reward. JOHN KEDGLEI, Plaisterer. City of Washington, March 1—3t
Thirty or forty likely NEGROES, Will be offered for sale for ready money at Loudon March court, on the first day of the court, before the door of Mr. Jones, Int-keeper in Leesburg; where due attendance will be given by the subscriber. WILLIAM BYRD PAGE, Trustee of F. Fairfax. Jefferson county, Feb. 18—tdof
PUBLIC SALE. BY virtue of a decree of the circuit court of the district of Columbia for the county of Washington, in the suit of Samuel Speake complainant, against Joshua Gregg, defendant in chancery, will be sold to the highest bidder at public auction on Saturday the sixteenth day of March next, at the Union Tavern, in George Town, all that part of two lots of ground in Thomas Deales addition to George Town, known and distinguished by the numbers one hundred and thirty-four and one hundred and thirty-five, beginning for the first part at sixty feet southerly, from boundary number thirty seven on Washington street and running eastwardly parallel with Dumbarton street sixty feet, then southwardly parallel with Washington street sixty feet, to lot number one hundred and forty-four, then westwardly with said lot to Washington street, then with said street northwardly to the beginning, being and intended to be the half of said lot—beginning for the second part of lot number one hundred and thirty-five, being the south half of said lot number one hundred and thirty-five, and adjoining lot number one hundred and thirty-four, at the end of the third line of lot number one hundred and thirty-four, and running reverse with said third line sixty feet, then eastwardly parallel with Dumbarton street sixty feet, then southwardly parallel with Washington street sixty feet, then to the beginning, it being and intended for the south half of the above described lots, with the improvements thereon. The sale will commence at 4 o'clock P. M. The terms of sale, ready money, or money to be paid immediately on the courts ratifying the same, the time of which ratification will be notified in the same papers in which the sale is advertised, after the report of the said sale shall be made to the court, which report will not be made until the court commences their next sitting, for the county of Washington. HENRY WHETCROFT, Trustee. February 15—3w
Fifteen Dollars Reward. RANAWAY from Thomas King, some time in October last, a Negro Woman, named FAME, whom I had hired to him for one year, near the Eastern Branch, in Prince George's county, Maryland, 5 feet high, very black, small featured, and her face scarred very much, and has a great defect in one of her eyes, occasioned by the small pox; 38 years of age, when spoken to she has a down look, one of her upper teeth broken out—Her clothing, when she went off, was blue striped country cloth; but in all probability she will endeavour to alter it. She has been seen in the city since she ran away. She has obtained a free pass from a certain Charity Shorty, who has obtained her freedom, and this Negro Fame passes under the said pass as a free woman. If taken up out of the district of Columbia the above Reward will be paid, on delivering her to me, or securing her in any gaol, by applying to me, in Charles county, Maryland, or to Mr. Samuel Speake, of the city of Washington; or if taken up in the district ten dollars. All persons are forewarned harbouring or employing the said Negro Woman, Fame. MASSEY SIMMS. February 18, 1805. 4w
THIS is to give notice that the subscribers of the city of Washington, have obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington county in the district of Columbia, letters of administration on the personal estate of James Thompson, late of Washington county aforesaid, deceased; all persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscribers, at or before the 19th day of August next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of said estate. Given under our hands, this 19th day of February 1805. HENRY MERFORD, } Administrators. THOMAS HERTY, }
IN pursuance of an order of the Orphan's Court of the county of Washington in the district of Columbia, will be sold at public sale on Monday the 11th day of March next at the house of Mr. Daniel Keely, tailor, at the Navy Yard, all the personal property of the late James Thompson, deceased; consisting of groceries, shops, household furniture, &c. &c. The sale to commence at 11 o'clock. All sums under twenty dollars, cash; for sums above that amount a credit of six months will be allowed upon the purchasers giving bond with approved security, bearing interest from the day of sale. Feb. 23—3t
DISCOVERED a few day since (in the Telegraph) a challenge by Samuel Norwood, Esq. Bonaparte against Democrat—At Annapolis this fall, I proposed running Democrat against Bonaparte, carrying from 110 lbs to 140 at the discretion of Mr. Norwood; which was rejected. As Mr. Norwood refused the proposition made by me at that time, I am not bound to run the race proposed by him in the Telegraph—Democrat will run Bonaparte over the Annapolis race course, on the third Tuesday in May next, four miles and repeat, for 1000 DOLLARS, play or pay, carrying 125lbs. each; which is the weight they are to carry by the rules of racing, both being seven years old. Should Mr. Norwood decline this offer, Democrat will cover mares next spring at the subscribers farm, from the first day of March until the first day of August, at Sixteen dollars each and Fifty cents for the groom. Democrat's pedigree is equal to the pedigree of any horse to be produced, having in him the blood of Medley, Eclipse, Figure, Dove, Godolphin, Arabian, and Mr. Talkin's Silima. If this proposition is approved of by Mr. Norwood, notice will be given in the Maryland Gazette within forty days from the date hereof. ISAAC DUCKETT. December 21—tawtApr30
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 Shiley and Jacob Baker, trustees of the Aggregate Fund. Square No. 54 Lot no. 9 iq 72. Lots no. 2 4 8 10 12 13 14 15 18 iq 84 Lot no. 1 sq 85 Lots no. 20 21 22—sq 163 Lots no. 7 8—sq 145 Lots no. 1 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 238 Lots no. 6 7 10 11 12 13 15—sq 293 Lots no. 1 2 3 7 8 11 12 13 18—sq 349 Lots no. 1 2 3—sq 376 Lots no. 16 17 18—sq 07 Lots no. 3 4 7 9 17 18—sq 487 Lots no. 5 6 7 10—sq 488 Lots 8 9 12 14 489 Lots 5 6 9 sq 471 lots 10 11 12 16 19 20 24—sq 493 Lots no. 7 8—sq 494 Lots no. 8 9 10—sq 531 lots 8 9 11 13 13 14 sq 533 Lots no. 13 15 16 17—sq 584 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 21 22 23 24—sq 388 whole square. Half of 590 whole square—sq 635 Lots no. 1 2 3 3 6 9 19—sq 638 Lots no. 1 2 3—sq 639 Lot 10 11—sq 640 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18—sq 641 whole square—sq 642 Lots no. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 19—Bast of 643 Lot no. 2—South of 643 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 28—sq 634 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 993 Lots no. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18—South of 1019 Lots no. 1 2 4—sq 1020 Lots no. 1 2 3 4 5 8 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38—sq 1031 Lot no. 1—sq 1022 Lot no. 2—sq 1023 Lots no. 4 5 7 8 9 10—sq 1024 Lot 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 1048 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 Rhodes's tavern Pennsylvania avenue. JAMES GREENLEAF, Agent and attorney to the trustees of the Aggregate Fund. Washington, New Jersey avenue, Feb. 27—3t&wtf
New Books FOR SALE, BY Rapine, Conrad, & Co. NEAR THE CAPITOL. CARD's history of revolution of Russia to the accession of Catharine the first, including a concise review of the manners and customs of the 16th and 17th centuries, Good's members of the life and writings of the Rev. Alexander Geddes, The Anti Gallican, or Standard of British Royalty, Religion and Liberty, Young's analysis of the principles of Natural Philosophy, Webster's Natural Philosophy, Leslie on the nature and propagation of Heat, Segur's history of the reign of Frederick II. King of Prussia, 3 vols. Gardiner's literary, political and economical Essays 2 vols. Naval Chronicle, 11 vols. complete, Witsman's Travels in Egypt, Rosseau's original Correspondence, not before published, 2 vols. Burdin's Medical Studies, 3 vols. Murray's Materia Medica, 2 vols. Chemistry, 2 vols. Elements of Seamanhip, 5 vols. Morris's treatise on Brewing, Little's Poems, Poetical Register for 1802, 2 vols. Flowers of Literature, 2 vols. Amasaqua, or the American Foundling, 2 vols. Chances, 3 vols—Heliadora, 3 vols. Depraved Husband, 2 vols. Picture from Life, 2 vols. Zofora—Woman of Feeling, 4 vols. Life of a Lover, 6 vols. by Sophia Lee, author of the Recreys, &c. Unexpected Legacy, 2 vols. Modern Faults, 2 vols. Dutchess of La Vallier, 2 vols. by Madame Genlis, Confession in Elysium, 5 vols. St. Clair of the Isles, 4 vols. Benton's Apology for the Methodist's, Kotzebue's Travels from Berlin through Switzerland to Paris, 3 vols. Lewis' (Charles Lee) Comic Sketches, The Pic Nic, 2 vols. Segur on the condition and influence of Women in society, 3 vols. The Revolutionary Plutarch, exhibiting the most distinguished characters in the recent annals of the French Revolution, 2 vols. Memoirs of a Family in Switzerland, 4 vols. Murry Houle, 5 vols. by Mrs. Parsons, The Watch Tower, 5 vols. Theodosius De Zulvin, the Monk of Madrid, a Spanish Tale, by the author of Graivilie Abiey, 4 vols. Southy's translation of Amadis de Gaul, 4 vols. Monsieur Potte, by the author of My Uncle Thomas, &c. 3 vols. an Essay on the art of Tempering, with rules for the exercise of that arduous study, Aiken's (Dr.) Letters on English Poetry, Cavalli's Natural Philosophy, 4 vols. Richmond's Elements of Philosophy. James on Bilious Diseases, Johnson's history of the progress and present state of Animal Chemistry, 3 vols. Russell's history of the Mathematics, Fellow's Guide to Immortality, 3 vols. Black's Chemical Lectures, 2 vols. Fuseli's Lectures on Painting, delivered at the Royal academy, in 1801, Original Sonnets on various subjects, by Ann Seward, The American Gardener, being a practical work by the late David Veid Heburn, for many years gardener to gen. Mason February 20 1804. m&3w A FEW Hundred bushels of white, well burnt SHELL LIME, will be sold for cash, at 16 DOLLARS a ton bushels, if applied for immediately, the 100 quantity than 100 bushels will not be sold at this price. Apply to CON. CONNINGHAM. November Cash will be given for WELL cleaned BARLEY.