The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-06-28 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. II
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCLVI.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, JUNE 28th, 1802.
Print In Advance.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday March 1, 1802.
DEBATE
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the courts of the United States."
(Mr. Dana continued)
The President indeed may put his negative upon acts of congress. The senate may refuse to advise and consent to an appointment where the president has made a nomination. The judiciary may say, that unconstitutional acts are not obligatory. But these powers of the respective departments in relation to each other, are not what is meant by this principle of responsibility. The president is responsible on impeachment and at elections. The members of congress are responsible at elections, if not on impeachment. The judges individually are responsible on impeachment, where they may claim the right of justifying themselves against any accusers; as to them, there are no periodical elections. The principle of responsibility is applicable where persons can meet and answer the charges which may be made against them for their official conduct. This may be done by gentlemen, if they think proper, at elections, particularly where such proceedings are customary; they may know the time and place for hearing, and for deciding as to their conduct; and they may prepare their answers to charges however vaguely exhibited. In cases of impeachment, there are formed articles of charge, a regular trial, and ample opportunity for defence. But, upon the plan of the present bill, the judges are to be divested of their offices, without being either accused or heard. The bill strikes at the collective body, under a vague idea of their being responsible; and yet there is not a single charge against them, and if there were, they have no opportunity of answering for themselves, before the men who undertake to decide against them. There is nothing, in the constitution, to warrant such a responsibility as this.
The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. S. Smith) spoke of the acknowledged power of impeachment as rendering it vain to talk of the independence of judges. He appeared to consider such a responsibility as destructive of this independence. Another advocate of the bill, a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) spoke of the responsibility of impeachment as amounting to nothing in practice. To arrive at a just conclusion, it may be proper to take an intermediate course between these two extremes of opinion. When we speak of an independent judiciary, the correct meaning is, that this department should not be particularly dependent for existence, on the executive or on the legislature. This relative independence is perfectly consistent with the principle of personal responsibility. With respect to the departments of government, their general independence of each other is a common security of them all. But the several judges individually ought to be responsible on impeachment for ill behaviour. The mere act of impeachment does not destroy the reputation. A person might be impeached for party purposes; officers have been dismissed on this account; but no man can pay with justice, that they merit reproach merely for this.
It is a decisive reason against admitting the power now claimed over the judiciary, if they are to judge whether the acts of congress are conformable to the constitution. This, however, has been denied by several of the gentlemen who advocate the present bill. It is said, that this question must be decided by congress. And gentlemen would now decide, for the first time, that the constitutional validity of the acts of congress is to be determined only by the result of elections, and that the judges, as composing a constitutional department have nothing to do with such questions. We say, if congress can pass any acts at pleasure, and there can be no judicial opinion as to their validity, congress might destroy the supreme court altogether. As to this power of destroying judges, there is no difference in the principle, between those of the supreme and those of inferior courts. The officers of the judiciary of the supreme court have been established by act of congress. That act may be totally repealed as well as the act now in question. The present bill, therefore, in its principle, is a claim of power in congress to divest the
judges of the supreme court of their offices. This is a more serious claim of power than has been advanced before. Whatever may have been said of former administrations, they never claimed to command the whole powers of the government through the legislative body. Whatever might be said on other topics, whatever questions might be made about the constitutionality of measures, there was one principle constantly admitted; and that was, to consider the judges of the United States, while behaving well, as placed beyond the reach both of the legislature and the President. This gave a security to all parts of the community against unconstitutional measures. For the judges being independent of the legislative and executive departments, might in the faithful discharge of their duty, refuse to give effect to acts contravening the constitution. It was not pretended, that congress, with the president, were authorized at pleasure, to deprive the judges of the means of subsistence, by abolishing their offices.
It is for the judges faithfully, to administer justice according to the constitution and laws. No menacing power should exist, to bias their decisions by the influence of personal hopes and fears.
They are undoubtedly to give effect to acts of congress in pursuance of the constitution. But the constitution, which granted to congress their legislative powers, is the supreme law; and the judges, from the very nature of the case, must pronounce on the validity of acts of congress, as compared with the imperative provisions of the constitution. When they are called to decide a cause, if they find on the one side an act of congress, and on the other side the constitution of the United States, when they find these placed in opposition to each other, what is their duty? Are they not to obey their oath, and judge accordingly? If so, they necessarily decide, that your act is of no force; for they are sworn to support the constitution.
This is a doctrine coeval with the excellence of our government, and has been the uniform principle of all the constitutional authorities. The contemporaneous use of terms, the undisturbed practice under the constitution, have settled the principle. These determine the sense of the constitution, by which we should now be guided.
Sir, it is not a new opinion in this country, that the judges have authority to decide against an act of congress if unconstitutional: This was the opinion, which was practiced upon in the year 1792. A question arose from the act of the 23d of March, 1792, respecting invalids. The act has been mentioned already. The judges in the three circuits, determined it was unconstitutional; and communicated their opinion to the first President of the United States, who laid the subject before congress.
From the journals of the house it appears, that the President sent a message on the 16th of April, 1792, with a statement of the opinion of the judges attending the circuit court in New-York. The statement as sent to the house by the President, has been found in the clerk's office. It is a copy, certified by Tobias Lear, Secretary to the President of the United States.
At a stated circuit court of the United States, held for the district of New-York, at the city of New-York, on Thursday the 5th day of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, at ten of the clock anti meridiem.
Present The honorable John Jay, esquire, chief justice of the United States.
The honorable William C. Cushing, esq. one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States.
The honorable James Duane, esq. judge of the district of New-York.
The court proceeded to take into consideration the following act of the congress of the United States, viz. An act to provide for the settlement of the claims of widows and orphans barred by the limitations heretofore established, and to regulate the claims to invalid pensions.
The act, which is that of the 23d of March, 1792, is then recited at full length. It is unnecessary to read it now; and I will proceed to the opinion of the court.
The court were thereupon unanimously of opinion, and agreed.
That by the constitution of the United States, the government thereof is divided into three distinct and independent branches; and that it is the duty of each, to abstain from, and oppose, encroachments on either.
That neither the legislative nor the executive branches can constitutionally
affix to the judicial any duties, but such as are properly judicial, and to be performed in a judicial manner.
That the duties assigned to the circuit courts, by this act, are not of that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such; inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and inspection of the secretary at war, and then to the revision of the legislature: Whereas, by the constitution, neither the secretary at war, nor any other executive officer, nor even the legislature, are authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.
As therefore the business assigned to this court by the act, is not judicial, nor directed to be performed judicially, the act can only be considered as appointing commissioners, for the purposes mentioned in it, by official instead of personal descriptions.
That the judges of this court regard themselves as being the commissioners designated by the act, and therefore as being at liberty to accept or to decline that office.
That as the objects of this act are exceedingly benevolent, and do real honor to the humanity and justice of congress, and as the judges desire to manifest, on all proper occasions, and in every proper manner, their high respect for the national legislature, they will execute this act in the capacity of commissioners.
The remainder of the opinion relates to extending the session of the court for the term of five days, and need not be read at this time. The judges agreed, that the legislature had a right to extend the session, and that the direction of the act, as to this particular, ought to be observed.
On the 21st of April 1792, the president sent another message, with the copy of a letter communicating the opinion of the judges attending the circuit court in Pennsylvania.
I have the copy as laid before this house. Permit me to read it. SIR, To you it officially belongs to take care that the laws of the United States be faithfully executed. Before you, therefore, we think it our duty to lay the sentiments, which, on a late painful occasion, governed us with regard to an act passed by the legislature of the union.
The people of the United States have vested in Congress all legislative powers granted, in the constitution.
They have vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress shall establish, the judicial power of the United States.
In is worthy of remark, that in Congress the whole legislative power of the United States is not vested. An important part of that power was exercised by the people themselves, when they obtained and established the constitution.
This constitution is the supreme law of the land. This supreme law, all judicial officers of the United States are bound, by oath or affirmation, to support.
It is a principle important to freedom, that, in government, the judicial should be distinct from, and independent of, the legislative department. To this important principle the people of the United States, in forming their constitution, have manifested the highest regard.
They have placed their judicial power not in Congress but in courts. They have ordained that the judges of those courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour; and that, during their continuance in office, their salaries shall not be diminished.
Congress have lately passed an act to regulate among other things, the claims to invalid pensions.
Upon due consideration, we have been unanimously of opinion, that, under this act, the circuit court held for the Pennsylvania district could not proceed:
1. Because the business directed by this act is not of a judicial nature. It forms no part of the power vested, by the constitution, in the courts of the United States, the circuit court must, consequently, have proceeded without constitutional authority.
2. Because if, upon that business, the court had proceeded, its judgments (for its opinions are its judgments) might, under the same act have been revised and controlled by the legislature, and by an officer in the executive department. Such revision and control we deemed radically inconsistent with the independence of that judicial power which is vested in the courts, and consequently, with that important principle which is so strictly observed by the constitution of the United States.
These, Sir, are the reasons of our conduct. Be assured that, though it becomes necessary, it was far from being pleasant. To be obliged to act contrary, either to the obvious directions of Congress, or to a constitutional principle, in our judgment equally obvious, excited feelings in us which we hope never to experience again. We have the honor to be, with the most perfect consideration and respect, Sir, your most obedient, and very humble servants,
(Signed) { James Wilson, John Blair, Richard Peters. Philadelphia, 18th April 1792. The President of the United States.
On the 7th of November 1792, the President sent a further message, communicating the opinion of the judges attending the circuit court in North-Carolina. Their opinion was against the act as being unconstitutional. The reasons for this opinion were given in a letter addressed to the President. I have before me the copy of the letter, as it was sent by the President to this house. It is dated Newbern, N. Carolina, June 8, 1792.
It is signed { Jas. Iredell, one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States.
Jno: Setgrevs, judge of the United States, for the North-Carolina district.
The reasons for their opinion against the act are stated at considerable length. The opinion of these judges is substantially to the same effect with that of the judges in the two other circuits. A part of the letter may be read, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour. In assigning their reasons for being against the act as unconstitutional, it is the first position, That the legislative, executive and judicial departments are each formed, in a separate and independent manner; and that the ultimate basis of each is the constitution only, within the limits of which each department can alone justify any act of authority.
The question if any question could be made, about the authority of the judges to decide respecting the constitutionality of the acts of the legislature, was now placed directly before Congress and the President of the United States. What was done by them on this subject? Another act relative to invalids was passed by Congress, and approved by the President on the 28th of February 1793. This act prescribed new regulations for ascertaining the claims to invalid pensions. And the third section directed, that no person, who was not on the pension list before the 23d of March, 1792, should be entitled to a pension, unless he complied with these regulations. It contained, however, a clause for saving to all persons their rights founded upon legal adjudications under the former act. And there is one provision in the same section, which is particularly observable as it respects the present question.
It is in these words: "It shall be the duty of the Secretary at War, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, to take such measures as may be necessary to obtain an adjudication of the supreme court of the United States, on the validity of any such rights claimed under the act aforesaid, from the determination of certain persons styling themselves commissioners."
The force of this provision will be instantly perceived on recollection, that the judges in some of the circuits had agreed to act as commissioners under the act of the 23d of March, 1792.
We will now attend to what was done in consequence of the injunction laid on the Secretary at War, by this second act relative to invalids. From the journals of the house it appears, that the Secretary made his report to Congress on the 21st of February, 1794. The original report has been filed in the clerk's office.
The Secretary of War respectfully reports to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States,
That by the act passed the last session of Congress, entitled "An act to regulate the claims to invalid pensions," it was made the duty of the Secretary at War, in conjunction with the Attorney-General, to take such measures as might be necessary, to obtain an adjudication of the supreme court of the United States, on the validity of the rights claimed by invalids (under the act entitled "An act to provide for the settlement of the claims of the widows and orphans barred by the limitations heretofore established, and to regulate the claims to invalid pensions," passed March 23d, 1792,) by the determination of certain persons styling themselves commissioners."
That in obedience to the said act, an unsuccessful attempt was made, in August last, to obtain an adjudication of the supreme court, upon the claims of
the invalids, as will appear by the report of the Attorney General, herewith submitted—No. 1.
That such adjudication however has been recently obtained, and that the determinations of the commissioners were held to convey no legal right to the invalids claiming under them; a will appear by the report of the Attorney General herewith annexed, No. 2.
All which is humbly submitted to the Senate and the House of representatives of the United States.
H: KNOX, Secretary of War. War Department, 7 February 21st, 1794. S
No. 1. Copy of a letter from the attorney general of the United States, to the Secretary of War—dated
Philadelphia, Aug. 9th, 1793.
In consequence of our arrangement, I moved the supreme court of the United States, on Tuesday last, for a mandamus to be directed to you as secretary at War, commanding you to put on the pension list one of those who had been approved by the judges, acting in the character of commissioners. The decision of one case would have involved every other. But two of the judges having expressed their disinclination to hear a motion in behalf of a man who had not employed me for that purpose, and I being unwilling to embarrass a great question with little intrusions, it seemed best to wave the motion until some of the invalids themselves should speak to counsel. To this end, I beg leave to suggest the propriety of a letter from your office to such of the invalids as have been certified to be proper for pensions, and perhaps it may be well to intimate the turn which the affair has taken and I have just mentioned. It was very unlucky, that although one of the invalids was in court when I made the motion, and heard the difficulty, he omitted to notify himself to me until the court had risen, and it was too late.
I have the honor to be, &c. (Signed) EDM. RANDOLPH. No. 11.
Report of the attorney general to the Secretary of War—dated
Philadelphia, Feb. 17th, 1794.
Sir,
I have to report, that in consequence of measures taken to obtain a decision of the supreme court of the United States, upon the validity of the adjudications of certain persons, styling themselves commissioners, under the act of the 23d of March, 1792, that court has this day determined (in the case of Yale Todd) that such adjudications are not valid.
I have the honor to be, &c. With great regard, Sir,
Your most obedient Servant, (Signed) Wm. BRADFORD. The Secretary of War.
We here find that the authority of the judges to decide questions arising under the constitution, was fully recognized. The first President of the United States, the Congress, and the judges of the supreme court, all concurred in the opinion by their official proceedings. And it is well known, that many of those who were members of the general convention, or of state conventions, which agreed to the constitution.
In 1796, the authority of the judges to decide as to the constitutionality of acts of congress was further recognized. A question, respecting the constitutionality of the act laying a duty on pleasure carriages, was brought forward from Virginia. The attorney of the United States for that district had filed a bill, in the circuit court, against Daniel Lawrence Hylton, for not paying the duties on a number of carriages, as required by the act. The material facts in the cause were agreed. The defence was, that the act was unconstitutional. Judgment was rendered against the defendant in the circuit court. The cause was carried to the supreme court of the United States, by writ of error. I have a certified extract from the minutes of the supreme court, stating the whole proceedings before that court. The error, for which a reversal of the judgment of the circuit court was prayed, was assigned to be, "that judgment ought to have been rendered for the defendant, and not for the plaintiff; whereas the same was rendered for the plaintiff, there being no law binding on the citizens of the United States, upon which the judgment could be rendered." This assignment of error shews, that the constitutionality of the act of congress was the point in controversy. But if there could be any doubt as to this fact, it is clearly established by an agreement which appears on file. It is in these

wards. I agree, that the writ of error, Daniel L. Hylton against the United States, which is now depending before the Supreme Court of the United States, be heard and determined at the approaching session of that court. I certify this agreement, that the cause may not be continued on my account; my object in continuing the law upon which the cause depends, being merely to ascertain a constitutional point, and not by any means to delay the payment of a public debt."
DANIEL L. HYLTUN.
Virginia, January 25th, 1796.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in this cause, and thereby decided in favour of the validity of the act of congress. Three gentlemen were engaged to assist the attorney general, as counsel in behalf of the United States. One of these gentlemen was from Virginia; another, from Pennsylvania; and another from New-York. It was a cause of peculiar interest and expectation. The constitutional validity of the act of congress, for raising revenue, was to receive a final decision before the highest court in the United States.
On examining the annual statement of receipts and expenditures for 1796, it appears, that the sums paid to the three gentlemen, for their professional assistance, amount to nearly a thousand dollars. (The specific amount was 968 dollars and 66 cents.) There is no room to question, that all this was well understood at the time. The statement was printed and laid before congress. The payment to the gentleman from Virginia (whose name is first mentioned in the statement) is especially said to be for his fees as agreed with the attorney general, for arguing the cause before the Supreme Court in February term 1796, respecting the constitutionality of the act imposing duties on carriages.
You here find, the principle was so fully admitted that the constitutionality of a revenue law was submitted to the decision of the Supreme Court; and with the full knowledge and sanction of congress, the sum of nearly a thousand dollars was paid to counsel, on behalf of the United States, for assisting the attorney general in defending the act as constitutional.
The principle, therefore, which is now disputed has been settled for years. It is the established principle of the constitution.
What then is the question under debate? It is a question between the whole people of the United States, on the one part, and their delegated authorities on the other. Shall the constitution continue to be what the whole American people have made it, or shall it be whatever the congress and President may choose?
Say gentlemen, Congress must be answerable at the period of election. This is all admitted. But why would you take the whole control of their power merely on elections? On our part, it is said, let there be all the security which elections can give! but let there be at the same time the further security of the judicial power! If there can be no regular decision of constitutional questions by judicial authority, if there can be no check except elections, what effectual check will finally exist? Why would you diminish the number of securities for the public liberty? This is too precious to be exposed to needless hazard, by abandoning any of the means established for its preservation.
While I speak of liberty, Sir, let me not be misunderstood. I do not mean a liberty, the love of which is nothing but a general hatred of control. I mean the liberty which is guided by wisdom, and venerates the maxims of integrity. This is the liberty which should be valued as the political pearl of great price. But it is said, no man will consent to throw away his liberty, and be a slave. Would you therefore leave him no security for his liberty, except elections? Ought there to be no other constitutional barrier against usurpation? Whence is it, that so many of the nations of the earth, after breaking their chains have had them riveted again? Others, before ourselves, have had the right of elections: others have enjoyed the fruit of their industry; they have had public virtue; they have had personal integrity, and wisdom. But to how many of them have their liberties been lost! The French had their elections, perhaps as free as ours; but, we see, they have lost their liberty.
What, Sir, is the fair import of this language about elections? The principle, as far as it is correct, can amount to no more than this, that the majority should control the affairs of government, and that the elections ascertain the sense of this majority. Apply then the principle to this house! How are the representatives
apportioned among the several states? A majority of the whole number of free inhabitants in the United States do not elect a majority of the representatives. The owners of slaves, besides other advantages allowed them in the constitution, are privileged to have a greater voice in elections than the free inhabitants who hold no persons in servitude. The state which owns the greatest number of slaves derives a preponderating influence in this house, from having the representatives apportioned according to the whole number of free inhabitants, and three fifths of the persons holden in slavery.
Where then is the constitutional security, for the states whose free inhabitants cultivate their own soil, against the states where the tillage of the earth is the task assigned to their slaves? Compare the multitude of slaves to the fourth of the Delaware or Potomac, with the small number to be found in any of the states to the north! What is there to counterbalance the advantage given to the states where the slavery of the blacks is most prevalent? The constitutional security is not to be found in the result of the elections, according to the present rule of apportioning representatives. A security might be found in a judicial body, composed of men venerable for their virtue and talents, and placed beyond the reach of this house.
For such a security the constitution was understood to have made provision, when it was ratified in the several states. By what right can you now rescind the compact?
Will gentlemen say, the government cannot go on, if there should be this check against unconstitutional acts? This might be pronounced a bold assertion, when it is remembered, that the government has gone on, and gone on for twelve years, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers, with this principle uniformly admitted in practice, any of the people being at liberty as freemen to object, in court, against any act as unconstitutional; and yet laws have been enacted, and carried into full effect.
If any unconstitutional act is passed, what must be done, for relief against it, according to the plan of gentlemen who advocate the bill on the table? Under all the disadvantages to which the free inhabitants of certain states are liable, in consequence of the number of representatives allowed for three fifths of the slaves, will gentlemen explain in what mode any of those inhabitants are to obtain relief? Must persons be subjected to the operation of an unconstitutional act until the period of elections comes round, and in the mean time, be sending from state to state with a view to influence the electors not to vote for such representatives again?
Instead of all this suffrance, instead of all these efforts, which may at length be found wholly ineffectual for obtaining redress, especially under the present apportionment of representatives, why may not the injured citizen appear before wise and upright judges, and present to them the constitution of his country, and receive from their decision that relief to which he is justly entitled? While there are judges who are dependent on no party, but dependent on the fidelity with which they exercise their functions, men of learning and wisdom, who are placed under no bias from persons in power, but act according to the impulse of duty alone, I should suppose, that they might be trusted to expound your laws, and guard the constitution. Such an establishment is every man's guard against despotism. It is the protection of integrity against violence. It affords a covert against the tempest of party. It is the strength of the feeble against the mighty. Here the honest man might appear with confidence, assured that in trial and in judgment, truth and justice, and these alone, will prevail. Although covered by political clamour, with the opprobrium of guilt, while meriting by his conduct the honors of virtue, he might stand alone, strong in his innocence, and put to confusion an host of accusers.
Yet such an establishment is now complained of as an evil. Those who make the complaint, indeed come forward in the humble guise of respect for the wishes of the people, and claim to hold a control at pleasure over the judges. But who are such novices as to be regardless of the event of compliance with their views? When gentlemen arrogate to themselves a power never claimed before in the United States, it ought to teach them, and others to be cautious. Gentlemen at least ought to hesitate, and reflect, that those who framed and adopted the constitution, and have practiced under it, knew something of its true import. It is now supposed doubtful
on this subject, where should we look for the rule of construction, if not to contemporaneous opinions and usage? Usage forms the standard of language. And whatever might be thought of the phraseology of the constitution if now introduced for the first time, yet the sense in which it is known to have been understood, when adopted, and for a period of years immediately subsequent, is that sense of the constitution which we are bound to support.
A number of interesting questions might be expected to arise, when the constitution was formed. They were to be expected from the nature of a system intended to unite in one government a variety of states, each of which were to retain their particular powers. When the system changed from the terms of the confederation to those of the constitution, the riches and the forces of the United States were to be placed directly within the command of the government; and the several states were no longer to have an equal voice in congress, as before. But there were, at the same time, various restrictive provisions, in the constitution, which appear framed to guard against evils that might be apprehended from the change of system. Restrictions were imposed on the powers of congress, and the respective states. Some of the restrictions, undoubtedly, were to guard individuals against public oppression; and some to guard the particular states against the government of the United States, or against each other. Controversies were known to exist between particular states and others might be expected to arise, as well as controversies between a state and the United States. The parties in such controversies would be powerful, each might put armed forces in motion. When provision was to be made for questions of this nature, who could hesitate to acknowledge the importance of establishing an impartial tribunal, beyond the immediate control of either party!—A tribunal, the constitution of which might inspire general confidence, and thereby prevent the recourse to a very different mode of deciding conflicting pretensions. And how were the restrictions on the powers of congress to be rendered effectual, except by the intervention of such a tribunal? In what other mode, could a fair construction of the constitution be uniformly secured to the respective citizens and to the several states? This impartial tribunal, independent of party, and placed beyond suspicion of undue influence, should be formed into a supreme court, vested by the constitution with power to decide in the last resort. Will you say that congress may give a construction to the constitution? So too, a state legislature may give it; and there might be as many constructions as there are state legislatures. Will you then say, that the state legislatures shall submit without reserve, to any construction that may be given by congress? The members of the state legislatures are bound to support the constitution: and may they not judge of their duty as well as yourselves? Will you force them to submit? Remember, the particular states divide the power of the militia with the government of the United States. With respect to the acts of congress, and of the state legislatures, as compared with the constitution, and with respect to the acts of particular states, when in opposition to each other, who shall decide questions so interesting as these? The constitution has provided for having them determined by a supreme court of the United States. But if this court can be put down at pleasure by congress, if the judges of the United States can be divested of office as often as parties change, what will be said by the several states? Will they not be naturally led to attend to the great disproportion between states, and the consequent power of one over the other? Virginia, for example is extensive, and to add to her influence in this house, there are to be representatives allowed for three fifths of the slaves. With all the preponderance of such a state, could a small state place a reliance on the decisions of this house, where the interests of the two states should be in competition? So too, if a judicial controversy should arise between the preponderating state and one of the smaller members of the union, will the small state have equal confidence in the decision of the judges, if they may at any time be divested of office by act of congress? No, Sir! In common sense it will be understood, that the power which may displace the judges at pleasure, and thereby deprive them of subsistence, can be master of the decisions. Establish then the principle of this bill, and who will be the lords of the judiciary? If this principle should be ultimately established, you may look for such lords to the south of the Potomac—You may look for them among the masters of the three hundred thousand slaves that flock the plantations of Virginia.
The establishment of an impartial tribunal to decide on the fundamental principles of the government, is totally unknown under the British monarchy. The opinion of Sir William Blackstone is express, that in one and the same nation, when the fundamental principles of their common union are supposed to be invaded, the only tribunal to which the com-
plainants can appeal is that of the field of battles—the only process by which the appeal can be carried on, is that of intestine war. Sir, it was because there was no such impartial tribunal to check the progress of usurpation, that the appeals to arms have been made in England, 'one monarch was sent to the scaffold, and another was hurled from his throne.' It was not to weep over a fallen monarch, that these examples were mentioned by my friend from North Carolina, (Mr. Stanley). It was to seize the spirit of history, and to remind us of the instruction to be derived from its lessons. It was to prove that when there are great and powerful parties in a country, with arms at command, if there is no impartial tribunal to decide between them, the violence of their prejudices, when provoked, will prompt them to make the extreme appeal.
Sir, is it possible, in the nature of things, that injustice should result from allowing the judges of the United States to be independent of the legislature. If they are once appointed to office, and you have no power to displace them, will not they regard to reputation influence them to do what is right? If they are men of talents, if they understand their duties, and are perfectly secure of being in office, so long as they behave well; if when in office they are rendered completely independent of the party by which they were appointed, there can be but little cause of apprehension respecting the decisions of the judge, whatever may have been the particular politics of the man. Place any gentleman of professional ability in such a situation, and he will know and feel, that he has an official reputation to support, and while he is free from any dependence on party, he must be weak indeed if he will sacrifice his character and rights of office, by submitting to be but the tool even of the party by whose influence he was appointed.
In the course of observations which have been made by some of the advocates of the present bill, there has been mention of what could be done in the case of extreme events. I hope, none of the opposers of the bill have any idea of doing any thing unbecoming his situation, or injurious to the country. But it is not the part of wisdom to be blind to the tendency of measures. It therefore cannot be improper to reflect on the probability, if there is no independent judiciary, of seeing the states at length brought into collision. Unless there is a common tribunal which they will believe to be impartial, and to which they resort for settling the constitutional distinctions between their respective powers in a satisfactory manner, what must be the event but a return to the state of things under the confederation; or a worse, as my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Henderson) has depicted? Reflect on the rival pretensions of different states before the adoption of the constitution! Their rivalries and interfering claims were producing animosities which menaced the country with civil discord. And what enmity is more direful? Adversary to the scenes of the revolutionary war, especially in those parts of the country where the inhabitants were most divided in political views, and were arranged against each other under the well known names of the different sides which they espoused? When they were thus divided into hostile parties, was not their animosity far more violent than is known in any contest against a foreign power? When the nearest friends become open enemies, are they not of all deemed the most bitter? So when the people of the same country are rent asunder by the violence of civil dissensions, and are armed to contend against each other, are they not then their worst of enemies? And is there no danger of a condition of things like this? From this evil, it is peculiarly the duty of those entrusted with the government to endeavour to save the people. An impartial tribunal, in which all may confide, is a great constitutional security against such a calamity. This security, my friend from North Carolina (Mr. H.) is zealous to preserve.
We have been told of officers of the revolutionary army who knew how to fight, and could fight again. When gentlemen tell us what they can do, we should not be unwilling to believe that such is their opinion. But would it not be better for the country to maintain the judges of the United States in office, and pay their compensations annually, rather than hazard a decision of this kind? When gentlemen speak in such a manner, do they expect all who are against them to be crushed in an instant? Sir! There are also men who fought in the war of our revolution, who think this bill unconstitutional, men who have given as decisive proofs of their military spirit and talents as any on the other side. Can it be the wish of gentlemen, that these gallant defenders of the country should be arrayed against each other? Say, they have their officers! Have gentlemen also considered, what are their various means for so serious a trial? If they would have us judge, are they prepared to say, what is the amount of their strength?—what
is the population of those parts of the country on which they rely—what is the number of the free men, which they might think expedient to be sent from home? What is the whole number fit to bear arms?—what their state of equipment, and discipline?—and what there resources for supporting troops in the field? Are their armies already prepared? Since so much has been said about this very undesirable resort, let me observe, that to the north of the Hudson, there is a single division of militia, respecting which perhaps it is not too much to say, that, if, with a conviction of its being their public duty, and on the call of proper authority, they should be assembled complete in arms, for the defence of their constitutional rights against usurpation, they would not easily be subdued by force which could soon be sent against them, from the south by the present administration. They are commanded by a gentleman who is now a member of this house. But, Sir, let me not be understood to say there would be any disposition to rebellion in that section of the country to which I allude in general, although they should believe the present bill if passed, to be an infraction of the constitution of the United States. To say this would not be doing justice to their character. No, Sir! whatever unconstitutional measures may be adopted, whatever powers may be assumed over the constitution, gentlemen may rest assured, with respect to that portion of the country, in any event of the opinions of the inhabitants, that there will not be a rebellion.
In making these remarks, I speak of the tendency of measures. The principle, Sir, of an impartial tribunal to decide questions respecting the fundamental rights of the society, and government, is an original of this country. When adopted in the United States, it was a novelty in the history of nations. The experiment thus far has been successful. To have established this principle of constitutional security is the peculiar glory of the American people. It enables the respective parts of the country to assert their constitutional rights, and at the same time secures internal tranquility. If you now destroy it, will not the people of particular states have cause to complain, that they have been deceived in the event, and that their property and liberties are not secured according to their just expectations? When the constitution was adopted, was it not right to expect, that the observance of it would be guarded by the judicial authority, which might hold in check the legislature and the executive, if ever they should unfortunately be disposed to overleap the established barriers? Without this, what is the protection for the feeble states, if any of the large and powerful states should influence Congress and the President to concur in unconstitutional acts, and to raise armies, and draw forth the treasure of the United States, to confirm their usurpations? The union of the states, according to the true principles of the constitution, is highly, very highly, to be prized, as it interests the whole American people. You might talk of this union as a blessing, after the constitutional security, which renders it precious, should be utterly destroyed. But there might then be many, who will feel, that the empty sound, although retained, is such a blessing as but afflicts them with the recollection of their ruined hopes.
IMPORTED
In the Robert from Liverpool, and now opening for Sale at the Subscriber's Store, New-Jersey Avenue, Capital Hill, City of Washington—
A general assortment of Ironmongery, Cutlery, Sadlery and Brass Wares.—Spades and Shovels, Sheet Iron, Tin in Boxes, Brass Kettles, Corn Hoes, Nail, Glue, Sacks, Hinges and Screws, Carpenter's planes, Saws, Braces and Bits, Screw drivers, &c. Knives and Forks, Crut Stands, Iron Wire, Brushes, Smiths Hammers, Files, Vices, Screw plates, &c. Razors, Penknives, Spoons, Japanned Tea Trays, Waiters and Bread Baskets,—a few sets of gentlemen's tools in chests, and a variety of articles too tedious to particularize. Also, 2 cases of Kirtland's firing guns, which will be sold very low for cash or approved notes.
H. INGLE. June 28, 1802. aw3w 1 wtf
STUD COLTS.
So much injury is sustained by the inhabitants of the City of Washington, in consequence of the owners of Stud Colts having turned them loose in the Commons, that the injured persons have determined to put the law in force by shooting every stud colt found on the common after this day. 28th June, 1802.

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1802.
APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT.
JOHN MASON, of George-Town, Brigadier General of the Militia in the district of Columbia.
DANIEL CARROLL BRENT, of the city of Washington, Colonel Commandant of the 6th Legion of Militia in the district of Columbia.
NATCHEZ, May 30th, 1802.
On the 3d instant, the legislature of this territory commenced its first session at the town of Washington, and on the succeeding day his Excellency the Governor made the following communication to the two houses:
Fellow-citizens of the Legislative Council, and
of the House of Representatives,
I am persuaded that an early attention to several subjects of legislation will be promotive of public good; but, being aware of your solicitude to render the present session as short as duty to your constituents will permit, I shall forbear to recommend any business which can be safely postponed.
The act which provided for the publication of the laws and journals of the legislature, will not, I fear, prove fully commensurate to that object; from a want (probably) of types, or of sufficient assistance, the public printer has progressed so slowly in the work, as to evidence the necessity of making further, and better provision upon this subject for the future. The speedy and certain promulgation of the proceedings of each succeeding assembly is an act of justice to the government and to our constituents; it would afford the means of general information, and would prevent the surest barrier against the effects of misrepresentation and misconception.
A revision, in part, of the act, regulating the judicial department seems to me expedient. Our experience under this system, has not been sufficient to ascertain the extent of its merits or demerits; in theory it is believed well adapted to the legal situation of the territory, and to the administering of justice between man and man; that the details of the bill are defective, is indeed certain, for perfection in a subject so complex is not within the reach of human wisdom; but its inaccuracies will best be discovered in the progress of its operation, and the necessary corrections may then, with greater certainty be applied. You will, however, find it indispensable to make a different and more convenient arrangement of the times for holding the courts. The superior court for Adams district, and the court for Jefferson county follow to close in succession, that they will probably be in session at one and the same time, and the superior court for Jefferson district, and the election for representatives to the general assembly commence on the same day; these interferences (if suffered to continue) will create general inconvenience to the citizens, and may produce an obstruction in the streams of justice. You will also find it advisable to make a more just apportionment of the number of jurors, to be returned from the different counties to the superior court; at present each inferior court is directed to nominate thirty-six jurors to the superior court, a regulation which may prove somewhat burthensome to the smaller counties.
While on the subject of the judiciary, permit me to observe that it will be wise policy to consider with deliberation and candour every good-intended objection which may exist to the system. In a free government the wishes of every part of the community, as far as it be practicable and consistent with the general good, ought to be consulted, for that administration will always be the most honorable and happy, which in the greatest degree attaches the affections of the people.
The prevalence of the small-pox at New Orleans, and our constant commercial intercourse with that port, exposing this territory to imminent danger of receiving the contagion, a general alarm has prevailed among the citizens for several weeks past. The want of authority has prevented me from taking the measures I felt calculated to guard against the introduction of this pestilence; at any time it might prove distressing, but at this season of the year, when the people are so generally and necessarily engaged in agricultural pursuits, it would indeed be a great misfortune.
Two attempts have been made to avail ourselves of that valuable discovery in medicinal science, the vaccine or cow-pox, but I am sorry to inform you that the virus which was procured, not being genuine, or having lost its virtue from age, the first attempt failed of success, and it is yet doubtful whether the issue of the second will prove more fortunate.
It remains for the legislature to determine, how far it may be proper to pass a general health law, and what powers ought to be vested with the executive, to prevent the introduction of the small-pox, or other infectious diseases; a law
upon this subject, was passed under the ill grade of government, and remains unexecuted, but upon inspection, its provisions will be found too imperfect, to remain as a permanent regulation.
Fellow-citizens of the Legislative Council, and of the House of Representatives,
Among the objects of general concern which properly arrest the attention of the legislature, there is one of high importance which has not yet been attended to in this territory; I mean a system of public education, and I should be sorry to see the functions of the first legislature chosen by the people concluded, until some provision was made upon this interesting subject.
Every government which aims at the general welfare and happiness, ought to direct its views to the advancement of literature, as the most efficacious means; but the very preservation of a republican government, in its genuine purity and energy, depends upon a diffusion of knowledge among the body of society.
A people involved in mental darkness become fit subjects for despotic sway, but when informed of their rights, they will never fail to cause them to be respected by the public authorities.
I am sure in point of literary resources, this territory is well enabled to defray the expense of literary institutions. The rapid and uncommon growth of wealth among us will indeed be a blessing, if it should be accompanied in a like ratio with mental improvements. But if wealth be not used as an instrument to promote knowledge and rational refinement, there is danger that it may produce luxury and vice in the rising generation, and become the means of corruption, both public and private.
I submit, therefore, for consideration, the propriety of extending your legislative cares to the education of our youth. A seminary of learning, established at some situation central to the population of the territory, fostered by the government, and placed under the direction of a well selected board of Trustees, would I flatter myself become a fruitful nursery of science and virtue.
At this seminary our youth would be collected into one community, and would form those early ties of intimacy, which would bind their hearts in union and friendship through life.
I shall reserve for special messages, some other matters, which it is proper to lay before you, and will conclude my present communication, with assurances of my entire confidence in your patriotism, and of my faithful co-operation in every measure, which promises to advance the interest of the Mississippi territory.
WILLIAM C. C. CLAIBORNE. May 4th, 1802.
SPEECH
Of Governor Gilman to the Legislature of New-Hampshire, delivered June 5th.
Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives.
Deputed by our fellow-citizens, and assembled at this time fixed by this Constitution, for the purpose of transacting such business as the public good may require, it must be a pleasing circumstance to contemplate the general prosperity which is so apparent throughout the state.
Although our own internal affairs is the principal object for which we are assembled; yet being intimately connected with other states by our federal union, and having interests which may in some measure be affected by the conduct of other nations, it may perhaps be useful to consider their circumstances in some respect.
Under these impressions, permit me to congratulate you on the late general peace in Europe. Whatever partial effects it may have on the interests of some of our citizens, yet it must be highly pleasing to the benevolent mind, that a stop is put, at least for the present, to the calamities of war which have so long raged amongst several of the European powers. And as it respects our own country, have we not reason to rejoice, that our neutrality has been so far maintained, as to prevent our becoming a party in the contest, notwithstanding the threatening appearances at sundry times?
In another view, it may be useful to contemplate the late war in the European world. What are the real advantages gained thereby? Perhaps some one of the nations may be aggrandized, others depressed—but may we not ask, whether it is probable that the cause of genuine liberty will be advanced, and the happiness of mankind promoted, by these extraordinary changes? Whatever effects the arts and intrigues of any of the powers lately at war, may have had in our country, or from whatever other causes it has arisen, it is a lamentable fact, that we have been much divided in opinion respecting the political affairs of our common country. If we could improve the present time, when a general pacification has taken place among European nations, in such a manner as should tend to restore union, and
harmony of sentiment and conduct respecting our own affairs, it would be making a happy use of it.
The consequence of our present free system of government, must greatly depend upon the opinions, habits, morals, and religion of the great body of the people; how important is it then, that they should have correct information respecting the conduct of men whom they invest with authority, and respecting the measures of their government?—Whoever attempts to misrepresent, or deceive in these respects, whether through the now much abused "liberty of the press" or otherwise, should be considered an enemy to the liberties of the country.—Whatever difference in opinions may be entertained respecting other means necessary for preserving our political rights and privileges, this should not prevent our united endeavours, as legislators and magistrates, to do whatever may be in our power, both by precept and example, for the suppression of licentiousness and immorality, and for the promotion of useful knowledge, virtue and religion.
As all systems of political government have defects, it is wise to examine those to which ours are most exposed—Instability, respecting the measures to be pursued, is an evil to which we are much exposed, we ought to be extremely cautious in this respect. One national government is at present extended over a large territory, and our population is rapidly increasing; can it then be wise, is it safe that the energies of government should be lessened?
As similar causes produce similar effects, it may not be useful for the citizens of our country seriously to consider the causes which have ruined those republics which have gone before us? And is not this, more, especially the duty of those who are invested with authority, that they may be particularly guarded against those evils?
A strong attachment to our present free system of state, and national governments, and to the welfare of my fellow-citizens, has induced me often to make known my political sentiments; and recent transactions of our national government, have had a strong tendency to confirm me in opinions which I have heretofore expressed.
A letter from his excellency the governor of North Carolina, with certain resolutions of their legislature, proposing alterations in the constitution of the United States, as it respects the manner of choosing electors of President and Vice-President, and Representatives to Congress, will be laid before you, and will undoubtedly have all that consideration which the importance of the subject requires.
Permit me to recommend to your attention the inspection laws of the state, and particularly as they respect the articles of beef and pork for exportation. It appears to me highly probable, that the interest both of the farmer and exporters may be promoted by amending the present laws on this subject.
By an act regulating weights and measures, passed December 12th, 1797, the operation of which was postponed from time to time, but became of force in December last, a sealer was to be appointed in each county, and to procure standards at the expence of the state; but there has not been any money appropriated for the purpose.
Whatever laws and regulations you may think proper to pass, will, so far as may depend on me, be duly attended to.
It will be a pleasing duty to me, to unite with you, in measures calculated for the preservation of the peace, liberty and safety of our fellow-citizens, and for promoting their lasting happiness.
JOHN TAYLOR GILMAN. State of New-Hampshire, June 5th, 1802.
ANSWER OF THE HOUSE.
[The committee, consisting of Messrs. Blattell, Hunt, and Hutchinson, appointed to draw an answer to the Governor's Speech, reported the following:]
We, the Representatives of New-Hampshire, impressed with a due sense of the importance of the office to which you are again called, beg leave to congratulate you on an event, so grateful to our feelings; and permit us to add, that we consider it as the surest proof of the general information, good sense, and patriotism of the citizens of the state.
The prosperity of our citizens, affords a flattering prospect of the advantages resulting from a free government faithfully administered.
Our internal affairs unquestionably demand our first attention; and we are happy in believing, that few, if any, alterations of the existing laws, will be judged necessary.
We have sincerely lamented the distressed situation of the fairest part of the European world; it is therefore with peculiar satisfaction we are informed of a universal peace.
In taking a retrospective view of the late important transactions of other people and governments, with the consequences resulting therefrom, we entertain a grateful sense of the wisdom of those elected to fill the highest offices of the state and United governments, in a
voiding those evils which at some periods appeared inevitable.—We have witnessed the restless disposition of men—the zeal and intemperance with which they have laboured to effect changes—that, in accomplishing their several favourite schemes, crimes, the most revolting to human nature, have been sanctioned by those who, influenced by party spirit, have been the friends and lovers of good order and justice. Recent events will prove the danger of innovation upon established systems; and that it is not infrequent to find, after the effusions of phrensy are passed, a whole people fighting to regain the station which they had inconsiderately abandoned.
As the difference of sentiment, which has lately prevailed in our country, arose from the hostile state of nations now at peace; we fondly hope, that we, who had the prudence to prevent our rashly involving ourselves in their disputes, may now suffer the effects to die with the cause.
Believing, as we do, that useful knowledge, virtue and religion form the basis of our government, we feel it peculiarly incumbent on us to cherish every mean that can promote these important objects.
Though we consider the natural increase of our population as the most favourable of the events, we feel a pleasure in considering that the shift of power has never induced the United States to aim at territorial conquest.
We shall esteem it our duty carefully to attend to those particular objects pointed out in your communications; and shall cheerfully unite with your excellency, in adopting those measures calculated to promote the welfare of our fellow-citizens.
The Suppressed Book.
At DUANE'S Book Store, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington City.—Just received for Sale—
A FEW Copies of the History of John Adams's administration; which was suppressed by Mr. Burr.
Also—A separate pamphlet, containing a narrative of the transactions of the suppressed.
The History is a large 8vo volume price in boards 2 dollars; bound 2 dollars 50 cents. The narrative 37 1/2 cents.
At the same store a collection of Books English and French of recent importation, at the prices considerably lower than before the peace in Europe. A beautiful Quarto Edition of the Bible in 2 vols, large type elegantly printed.
Stationary of all kinds at Philadelphia prices.
Also—The fourth number (and the three preceding) of LUTHER MARTIN'S, Historical Romance—and the answer of Mr. R. R. Keene.
Fifteen Dollars Reward.
WAS Stolen from the commons in City of Washington, on Tuesday the 17th inst.—A bright bay Horse rising 6 Years Old, about fourteen hands 3 inches high, with a star in his forehead, black main tail and legs, his tail bobbed, trots and canters well, and is a remarkable fast walker.
Whoever returns said Horse to the subscriber, shall receive five dollars and ten dollars for securing the thief so that he may be brought to justice.
JAMES MATHERS, Junr. City of Washington, June 28, 1802.
NOTICE.
By virtue of a writ of Fieri Facias, issued out of the circuit court of the district of Columbia for the county of Washington, will be exposed to public sale on Wednesday the fourteenth day of July next, at Rhodes's City Tavern.
THE right, title and interest of TRADY HOGAN, to one framed house together with one moiety of lot No. 17, in square 377, on which the said house is built—Also one feather bed, one pair sheets, bolster, pillows and coverlet. Taken as the property of Thady Hogan, and sold to satisfy three executions in favor of Robert Brown. The sale to commence at eleven o'clock in the forenoon—Terms cash.
DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal. June 25, 1802.
Mrs JONES,
First House west of the President's, Pennsylvania Avenue,
HAS received in addition to her former stock, an elegant assortment of goods with the latest fashions—to be sold at the most reasonable prices. June 25, 1802.
To Rent,
A THREE story brick house on Pennsylvania Avenue, west of the Seven Buildings. Possession may be had the 25th inst. For further particulars enquire of EBENEZER ELIASON, Ebbensburg; or Samuel McIntire, near the premises. June 21, 1802.
NOTICE.
THERE will be sold at public sale, for cash, on the 17th day of July next, at the dwelling of Richard Lamar, Prince George county, Maryland, four Negroes, viz one woman, two lads or boys, and a girl, the property of Mary Lamar, deceased, of said county, by me
J. LAMAR, Adm'r. June 28, 1802.
May 24, 1802.
Notice is hereby given,
THAT separate proposals will be received at the office of the Secretary for the Department of War, until the expiration of the 31st day of July next ensuing, for the supply of all rations, which may be required for the use of the United States, from the 1st day of October, 1802, until the 30th day of September 1803, both days inclusive, at the following places, viz:
 First—At Niagara, at Detroit, at Michilimackinac and at Fort Wayne.  Second—At Cincinnati and St. Vincennes.  Third—At Fort Mafie, near the mouth of the Ohio, and Kaskaskia.  Fourth—At South West Point, Tellico, Knoxville, and on the road from Nashville to the line between the Chickasaws and Choctaws, and any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of Tennessee.  Fifth—At the Chickasaw Bluffs, Natchez, Fort Adams, Mobile, and on the road from Natchez to the boundary line between the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and at any place in the Chickasaw or Choctaw country, between Bear Creek and Natchez.  Sixth—At Fort Wilkinson, at Cockspur Island, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of Georgia.  Seventh—At Charleston, at Beaufort, at Savannah, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the States of South and North Carolina.  Eighth—At Norfolk, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of Virginia.  Ninth—At Fort M'Henry, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of Maryland.  Tenth—At Fort Meigs, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the States of Pennsylvania, New-Jersey and Delaware.  Eleventh—At Fort Jay, at West Point, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of New-York, excepting Niagara.  Twelfth—At Fort Trumbull, at Fort Wolcott, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.  Thirteenth—At Fort Independence, (Boston harbor) and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of Massachusetts, the district of Maine excepted.  Fourteenth—At Portsmouth, at Portland, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the State of New Hampshire and district of Maine. 
A RATION to consist of eighteen ounces of bread or flour, or when neither can be obtained, of one quart of rice, or one and one half pound of fluted or bolted Indian meal, one pound and a quarter of beef, or three quarters of a pound of pork, one gill of rum, whisky or brandy, and at the rate of two quarts of salt, four quarts of vinegar, four pounds of soap, and one pound and an half of candles to every hundred rations. The price of the several components of that ration as well as substitutes and alternatives, must be specified.
The rations are to be furnished in such quantities, as that there shall at all times during the term of the proposed contract, be sufficient for the consumption of the troops at Michilimackinac, Detroit and Niagara, for six months in advance; and at each of the other posts on the western waters, for at least three months in advance, of good and wholesome provisions, if the same shall be required. It is also to be permitted to all and every of the commanders of fortified places, or posts, to call for at seasons when the same can be transported, or at any time in the case of urgency, such supplies of like provisions in advance, as in the discretion of the commander shall be deemed proper. It is to be understood that the contractor is to be at the expence and risk of issuing the supplies to the troops, and that all losses sustained by the deprivation of an enemy, or by the means of the troops of the United States, shall be paid for by the United States, at the price of the article captured or destroyed, on the deposition of two or more creditable characters, and the certificate of a commissioned officer, ascertaining the circumstances of the loss, and the amount of the articles for which compensation shall be claimed.
The privilege is to be understood to be reserved to the United States of requiring that none of the supplies which may be furnished under any of the proposed contracts, shall be issued until the supplies which have been or may be furnished under contracts now in force, have been consumed; and that a supply in advance may be always required at any of the fixed posts on the sea board or Indian Frontiers, not exceeding three months.
HENRY DEARBORN, Secretary of War. May 31, 1802.
Benjamin G. Orr,
HAS just received from Philadelphia by capt. Hand, and now offers for sale at his store in Jefferson Street, in addition to his former extensive assortment of liquors, groceries, &c. &c.
 Old and genuine Madeira } Wines.  And Sotone  Hare's best porter in bottles,  English cheese,  Raspes and macaroni snuff,  Pine flavored and fresh, imperial, hyson, and young hyson teas,  China in sets for tea, and by the doz  As usual he has on hand fluted and herrings in barrels, of the best preservation and lowest prices; and hammered and cut nails of all sizes.  June 25, 1802.

SUPERINTENDANT'S OFFICE, Washington, June 19, 1802. In pursuance of the directions of the Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to abolish the Board of Commissioners in the City of Washington and for other purposes," and by virtue of the act of the Assembly of the State of Maryland, entitled "A further Supplement to the act concerning the Territory of Columbia, and the City of Washington," the lots mentioned in the inclosed list (many of which are amongst the best lots in the city) will be exposed to sale by Public Auction at this office on Monday the 30th day of August next. The sale will commence at ten o'clock A. M. and be continued by adjournment. The terms of the sale will be, The purchaser to pay the purchase money, or before ten o'clock on the next day of sale. In cases of default in payment as aforesaid, the purchaser will be deemed void, the lots to be resold, without other notice, and the defaulters may afterwards be rejected as bidders during the sale. THOMAS MUNROE, Superintendent.
List of Lots in the City of Washington referred to in the above advertisement, viz.
No. 2 in square No. 1, no 2 in sq 2, no 3 in sq north of sq 4, no 2 4 6 23 in sq 5, no 1 7 8 in sq 6, no 1 3 in sq 7, no 2 3 8 12 in sq 14, no 2 2 3 12 13 14 15 16 17 in sq 17, 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 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
THOMAS MUNROE, Superintendent. June 23, 1802. ep30A
LOOK HERE! Lands, Houses and Lots, for Sale. I offer for sale the valuable tract of land called Prospect, containing 16 - 1/2 acres, bordering on the city of Washington, and nearly north of the capitol—On this property are four beautiful residences, commanding a view of the city, Georgetown, Alexandria, Potomac river, Eastern branch, and the adjacent country—To accommodate purchasers, this tract, if desired, will be divided into four Lots, each having its entrance. Also, a tract of 403 acres, called the Vale lying on the waters of Rock creek, a small distance above Mr. Isaac Pierce's mill, the greater part in wood. I likewise offer for sale, from 2 to 6 cents the square foot, 80 Lots in Beatty and Hawkins's addition to Georgetown. I will also sell a number of water lots, fronting the town, and on the causeway, that connect the town with the city of Washington—and the two large brick dwellings on the water side, at present occupied by Charles Beatty, and his son C. A. Beatty. As no person will buy, without viewing the premises, I think it unnecessary to give a description of these properties. Apply to CHARLES BEATTY, Georgetown, June 23, 1802. 3t
Summer Establishment.
MAIL PILOT. Will in future leave the Washington Tavern, Alexandria, every morning at 5 o'clock, and arrive at John H. Barney's, at the Columbian Inn, Georgetown, to breakfast at 7 o'clock, and then proceed on to Baltimore, where it will arrive at 5 o'clock in the evening at Mr. Peck's Columbian Inn, and regularly on to Philadelphia, so that persons travelling in this line may be sure of no hindrance on their way. Being provided with as good horses and carriages as any on the road, we solicit a share of public patronage, and confidently expect that such as favor this line of stages with their custom will find the accommodations equal, if not superior, to those provided by any others. Returning—It leaves Baltimore every morning at 6 o'clock, and arrives at Alexandria the same evening. Enters for Alexandria taken at Georgetown, at J. H. Barney's Stage-office. PETER HEISKELL, -7- H. BARNLY. Alexandria, June 14, 1802. ep1M
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of land containing 2,000 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, late the residence of PRESLEY THORNION, Esq. Seventeen hundred acres of which are of the most valuable kind of low grounds on the river; between three and four hundred acres heavily timbered, the remainder is wavy high land extremely productive. The soil of this tract is equal to any in the State for cultivation of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy, and small grain of all kinds. On this tract are a large commodious two story brick mansion house and two offices, a large brick stable, a valuable barn, cow house and many other out-houses, all in good repair. The orchards and garden contain a variety of valuable fruit trees, and the waters abound with excellent fish and oysters. It is situated about a day's sail from Alexandria, Baltimore or Norfolk—There are two good mill sites for grain, or sawmills on this estate, and plenty of cedar and chestnut timber, exclusive of the heavy timber, which if felled up into scuttling will command a price in the City of Washington, nearly equal to the value of the land. The terms will be made easy to the purchaser or purchasers, and the tract will be divided into two or more plantations if necessary.—Apply to RICHARD PETERS, junr. No. 85, Walnut-street Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Nov. 11. ep1f
CITY HOTEL, BROADWAY NEW-YORK.
THE subscriber most respectfully informs his friends and the public, that the above Hotel will be opened on the first of May ensuing, when their patronage is earnestly solicited. He avails himself of this opportunity to return his sincere and grateful thanks to those societies, parties, and gentlemen, who have given him their support, and assures them that a continuance of their favors will be a stimulus to future exertions to please; and that the utmost attention shall be given for their comfort and accommodation. Boarding may be had by the day, week, month, or year. Families travelling, may be elegantly accommodated with lodging and fitting rooms; and, if preferred, have dinners &c. in their apartments. The Hotel being so well known, it is almost useless to say, that it is situated in one of the most healthy and pleasant parts of the city; commanding an extensive view in every direction, not only of the city itself, but also of the Narrows, the North and East Rivers, the State of New-Jersey, York and Long-Island, &c. &c. A handsome coffee-room will be fitted up in the principal story; where gentlemen may have tea, coffee, chocolate, soups, and refreshments in general, at the shortest notice. All the leading newspapers in the union, will be regularly taken in. Public dinners and suppers in a plain or elegant style either for large or small parties. Also, beef steaks, oysters, &c. regularly furnished. An ordinary every day at half past 2 o'clock, by the public's obedient servant, JOHN LOVETT. N. B. Rooms to let by the month or year. April 21, 1802. ep1f
To be Let, On the 1st of July next,
A HANDSOME and well-finished three story brick house, with a brick kitchen adjoining the same, and an excellent pump of water in front of the house, situated on F street, a few doors east of the bank—For further particulars, apply to the subscriber on Pennsylvania Avenue, near the market, or to Mr. Webster on the premises. ROBERT BROWN. Washington City, May 10, 1802. 12W6W.
FOR SALE, LOOKING-GLASSES & FURNITURE. The subscriber respectfully informs the public, that he has just received from New-York various kinds of Looking-Glasses, from 5 to 50 dollars each—Also candle tables, bureaus, &c. of an elegant and fashionable make. He continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of ornaments for chimney-pieces, door caps, frontispiece pieces, metal lathes, &c. &c. GEORGE ANDREWS. April 14, 1802. ep1f
Thomas Carpenter, TAYLOR. HAS just received an elegant and fashionable assortment of summer goods, consisting of London superfine cloths and cassimeres; India, Manchester, and silk striped nankeens; cotton cassimeres, boglepoor, Bengal elegant white chord for pantaloons, white and coloured marcelles, janes and satin croisers, silk ginghams, black and other coloured striped laces, &c.—All which he will make up on the most reasonable terms, and in the most neat and fashionable manner—Pennsylvania Avenue, west of the President's square. May 24, 1802. ep1f
For Sale,
A two story frame House, nearly finished, situate and fronting on south N street on sq. 700, adjoining the premises of Mr. R. Frazier. The house is twenty-five feet front, fifteen feet deep, a parlor and passage below, stairs in the passage, the lower floor ready for plastering; the materials on the spot. The second floor nearly ready. The house occupies the whole of the front and runs back ninety five feet to a twenty feet alley, under a lease of ninety-nine years, renewable forever. Should the above property not be sold by private contract before the 28th day of July, it will then be offered at public sale. For further information enquire of Mr. Thomas Herty, or James Vanlanter, New-Jersey Avenue. June 21, 1802. ep1f
CHARLES VARDEN, Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia,
GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of, Best superfine cloths, Cassimeres, Swansdown, Toykennets, Velvets, Fancy Cords, Costings, Flannels, &c. N.B. Regimentals, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies Habits, made in the neatest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice—Washington City, New-Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Rapine's book store. Dec. 16, 1801. ep1f
TO RENT,
And possession given immediately, A TWO STORY brick house on F street near the War Office, containing two parlors, six bed rooms, and a kitchen, with an excellent garden, peach house, stable, &c.—The house is newly painted and papered; it was formerly occupied by Mr. Dexter, and lately by Mr. John Brown. Enquire of Clement Dorsey, Esq. George-Town; or of the subscriber, who has for sale a well finished three story brick house opposite the Six Buildings, and a variety of City Lots in the most eligible situations. The above House will be sold for less than any gentleman could build it. The payments will be made easy on the whole of the above property. WILLIAM DYER. April 7, 1802. ep1f
Building Materials will be taken in part payment. W.D.
Fifty Dollars Reward,
For apprehending and returning the following Criminals, who broke the Jail of this place and escaped therefrom on the Night of the 6th of June, 1802, viz.
DANIEL, Henekey, an Irishman, stout, jolly fellow, has a scar on his right arm and shoulder, is a noted villain, has broke this and Alexandria Jail twice, is about five feet 7 or 8 inches high, supposed to be about 35 or 40 years of age. Charles Houfman, a Dutchman, is about 50 years of age, 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, has a number of scars on his back and is a lucky fellow. Thomas Naylor, born in Virginia, slender made fellow, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, about 19 or 20 years of age. William Pickerson, an Englishman, bred to and follows the sea, is a noted villain, is supposed to have a mark from a whipping he received at the public post of this place, is about 25 years of age and 6 feet high. A Negro woman named Mille, born in Virginia, stout made, 5 feet 2 or 3 inches high, 25 or 30 years of age. Whoever will take up and return the above named Criminals, shall have the above reward—or 20 dollars for either, if returned to ROBERT MCLEAN, Gaoler, for DANL. C. BRENT. Marshal of the District of Columbia. Washington City, June 8, 1802. 9t
For Sale,
A NEGRO WOMAN about 38 years of age; she is an excellent Cook, and good washer. For terms apply to the Editor. April 5, 1802. ep1f
Tennessee Company.
THOSE interested in the Company, and who have not signed the deed of trust, are hereby notified, that the subscriber will attend at the city of Washington on the 20th of December next, to give them an opportunity of complying with this regulation of the company. JAMES STRAWBRIDGE. May 26, 1802. 12W12D
PROPOSALS
For carrying the Mails of the United States on the following Post Roads, will be received at the General Post Office in Washington City, until the 13th day of July next, inclusive.
25. From Rutland by Castleton, Fairhaven, Benlow, Orwell, Shoreham and Addison to Vergennes, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 A M arrive at Fairhaven by 10 A M. Leave Fairhaven at noon, and arrive at Vergennes on Tuesday by 2 P M. Returning—Leave Vergennes every Wednesday at 6 A M, arrive at Fairhaven on Thursday 6 A M and at Rutland by noon.
26. From Rutland by Clarendon, Tinmouth, Danby, Dorset, Manchester, Arlington, Shaftsbury, Bennington, Lansdown and Troy to Albany, twice a week. Leave Rutland every Monday and Thursday by 8 A M, arrive at Bennington on Tuesday and Friday by 7 P M. Leave Bennington on Wednesday and Saturday by 6 A M and arrive at Albany same days by 5 P M. Returning—Leave Albany every Monday and Thursday at 9 A M, arrive at Bennington same days by 7 P M. Leave Bennington, Tuesday and Friday at 6 A M, and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday and Saturday by 3 P M.
27. From Rutland, by Shrewsbury, Salt-Alt and Reading, to Windsor, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 a m, and arrive at Windsor on Tuesday by 10 A M. Returning—Leave Windsor every Tuesday at 2 p m, and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday by 7 p m.
28. From Rutland, by Cavendish, Chester, Rockingham, Bellows Falls & Westminster, to Walpole, N. H. once a week. Leave Rutland every Thursday at 6 p m, and arrive at Walpole on Friday by 10 a m. Returning—Leave Walpole every Friday at 2 P M, and arrive at Rutland on Saturday by 6 P M.
IN MASSACHUSETTS.
30. From Newburyport, by Amesbury to Haverhill, once a week. Leave Newburyport every Monday at 5 A M, and arrive at Haverhill by 11 A M. Returning—Leave Haverhill every Monday at 1 P M, and arrive at Newburyport by 7 P M.
31. From Boston, by Chelsea, Lynn, Salem, Beverly, and Manchester, to Gloucester, three times a week. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, by 6 A M, and arrive at Gloucester by 6 P M. Leave Gloucester every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 6 A M, and arrive at Boston by 6 P M.
32. From Boston, by Charlestown, Medford, Woburn, Burlington, Billerica, Chelmsford, Tyngsboro, Dunstable, Amherst, N. H. Francisstown, N. H. Washington, N. H. and Clermont, N. H. to Windsor, Vt. once a week. Leave Boston every Saturday at 5 A M, arrive at Amherst by 8 P M, and at Windsor the next Tuesday by 10 A M. Returning—Leave Windsor every Tuesday at 2 P M, and arrive at Amherst on Wednesday by 7 P M. Leave Amherst on Thursday at 4 A M, and arrive at Boston by 8 P M.
33. From Salem to Marblehead six times a week. Leave Salem every day, Sunday excepted at noon, and arrive at Marblehead by 1 P M. Leave Marblehead every day at half past two o'clock P M, and arrive at Salem by half past 3 P M.
34. From Billerica by Tewksbury, Dracut, Pelham, N. H. and Winchendon to Londonderry, N. H. once a week. Leave Billerica every Monday at 5 A M, and arrive at Londonderry by 11 A M. Leave Londonderry every Monday at 1 P M, and arrive at Billerica by 8 P M.
35. From Boston, by Cambridge, Lexington, Concord, Acton and Littleton, to Groton twice a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday and Saturday at 5 A M, arrive at Concord by 11 A M, and arrive at Groton by 5 P M. Returning—Leave Groton every Monday and Thursday at 5 A M, arrive at Concord by 11 A M. Leave Concord at 1 P M, and arrive at Boston by 7 P M.
36. From Groton, by Townsend, Athol, New-Ipswich, Jaffrey, Marlboro', Keen and Chesterfield, N. H. to Brattleboro', Vt. once a week. Leave Groton every Thursday at 5 A M, and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 10 A M. Leave Brattleboro' on Friday at 2 P M, and arrive at Groton on Saturday by 9 P M.
37. From Concord by Acton, Boxboro', Harvard and Lancaster, to Leominster, twice a week. Leave Concord, every Wednesday and Saturday at 1 P M, and arrive at Leominster by 7 P M. Leave Leominster every Monday and Thursday at 6 A M, and arrive at Concord by 11 A M.
38. From Leominster by Westminster, Templeton, Gerry, Athol, New-
Salem, Wendell and Montague, to Greenfield, once a week. Leave Leominster every Thursday at 3 A M, and arrive at Greenfield by 7 P M. Leave Greenfield every Saturday at 5 A M, and arrive at Leominster by 7 P M.
39. From Worcester, by Boylston to Lancaster, once a week. Leave Worcester every Wednesday at 6 A M, and arrive at Lancaster by 11 A M. Leave Lancaster same day at 1 P M, and arrive at Worcester, by 6 P M.
40. From Boston, by Roxbury, Dedham, Medfield, Medway, Bellingham, Mendon, Uxbridge, Douglas, Thompson, C. Pomfret, C. Ashford, C. and Tolland, C. to Hartford, C. once a week. Leave Boston every Monday at 9 A M, and arrive at Hartford, on Wednesday by 5 P M. Leave Hartford every Thursday at 8 A M, and arrive at Boston on Saturday by 4 P M.
41. From Boston, by Dedham, Wrentham, Attleboro', Providence, R. I. Scituate, Plainfield, C. Norwich, New-London, Lyme, Saybrook, Killingworth, Guilford and Braintree, to New-Haven, three times a week. From November 1, to May 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 8 A M, and arrive at Providence by 6 P M. Leave Providence every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 A M, and arrive at New-London by 8 P M. Leave New-London every Wednesday, Friday and Monday, at 4 A M, and arrive at Providence, by 8 P M. Leave Providence every Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday, at 4 A M, and arrive at Boston by 4 P M. May 1, to November 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 5 A M, arrive at Providence by 2 P M. Leave Providence same days by half past 2 P M, and arrive at New-Haven on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, by half past 2 P M. Returning—Leave New-Haven every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at half past 5 A M, arrive at Providence on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, at 7 A M. Leave Providence in half an hour and arrive at Boston by 3 P M.
41. From Boston by Milton, Comp-ton, Easton, Taunton, Berkley and Free-town to New-Bedford three times a week in summer, and twice in winter. May 1, to November 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 9 P M, arrive at Taunton on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, by 1 P M, and at New-Bedford by 8 P M. Returning—Leave New-Bedford every Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, at 9 P M, and arrive at Taunton on Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 11 A M, and at Boston by 8 P M. November 1, to May 1. Leave Boston every Wednesday and Friday, at 9 A M, and arrive at Taunton in half an hour and arrive at New-Bedford, on Thursday and Saturday, by 8 P M. Returning—Leave New-Bedford every Monday and Wednesday at 9 A M, and arrive at Taunton by 8 P M. Leave Taunton in half an hour, and arrive at Boston, on Tuesday and Thursday by 8 P M.
42. From New-Bedford to Nantucket three times a week in summer, and twice in winter. May 1, to Nov. 1. Leave New-Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 4 A M, and arrive at Nantucket the same days, wind and weather permitting. Returning—Leave Nantucket every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, at 4 A M, and arrive at New-Bedford the same days. November 1, to May 1. Leave New-Bedford every Friday and Monday at 6 A M, and arrive at Nantucket same days. Leave Nantucket every Saturday and Tuesday, at 6 A M, and arrive at New-Bedford same days, when the wind and weather will permit.
43. From Boston by Dorchester, Milton, Randolph, Bridgewater, Raynham, Taunton, Dighton, Somerset and Swansea to Warren R. I. once a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 2 P M, and arrive at Warren on Friday by 9 A M. Leave Warren every Tuesday at 7 A M, and arrive at Boston on Wednesday by 11 A M.
44. From Boston by Dorchester, Milton, Quincy, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Hanover, Pembroke, Duxbury and Kingston to Plymouth, twice a week. Leave Boston every Tuesday and Friday, at 6 A M, and arrive at Plymouth by 7 P M. Returning—Leave Plymouth every Monday and Thursday at 6 A M, and arrive at Boston by 7 P M.
45. From Plymouth by Sandwich, Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Harwich Chatham, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet, Bellingham and Truro, to Provincetown, once a week. Leave Plymouth every Wednesday at 6 A M, and arrive at Sandwich by 10 A M. Leave Sandwich at 11 A M, and arrive at Provincetown on Friday by noon. Returning—Leave Provincetown every Friday at 3 P M, and arrive at Plymouth the next Sunday by 6 P M.