The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-03-17 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, Feb. 20, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
Mr. RANDOLPH said, that he did not rise for the purpose of assuming the gauntlet which had been so proudly thrown by the Goliath of the adverse party;—not but that he believed even his feeble powers armed with the simple weapons of truth,—a flag and a bone,—capable of prostrating on the floor that gigantic boaster, armed cap-a-pie as he was; but that he was impelled by the desire to rescue from misrepresentation the arguments of his colleague (Mr. Giles) who was now absent through indisposition. That absence, said Mr. R. is a subject of peculiar regret to me, not only because I could have wished his vindication to have revolved on abler hands, but because he had to-day lost the triumph which, yesterday, he could not have failed to enjoy:—that of seeing his opponent reduced to the wretched expedient of perverting, and mutilating his arguments through inability to meet and answer them. Mr. R. said, that this was the strongest proof which could be given of inadequacy to refute any position. He therefore left to the gentleman the victory which he had obtained over his own arguments;—but whilst he felt no disposition to disturb him in this enjoyment, he hoped he should be permitted to correct some of the misstatements which had been made of his colleague's observations.
In the view which he had taken of the conduct of our predecessors, in the chain of whose measures, the law now proposed to be repealed formed an important link, the funding of the debt of the United States and the assumption of those of the individual states were reprehended. An attempt is made to confound this disapprobation into a design of violating the public faith. Mr. R. denied that one syllable had fallen from his colleague, indicative of a right, or disposition on his part to withhold the payment of any public engagements. Against those destructive measures his colleague had raised his voice; against the fatal and absurd maxim that a public debt is a public blessing he had indeed protested; but not a word escaped his lips, because no such sentiment lurked in his heart, which could be construed into a declaration that the present legislature possessed the false power over the engagements of former legislatures which they possessed over ordinary laws; that of modifying or abrogating them with the same freedom, which had been exercised in their establishment. Since the gentleman had betrayed such peculiar sensibility on the subject of the debt, Mr. R. relied on his support, when a measure should be brought forward for its final and rapid extinguishment, not by a sponge, but by a fair reimbursement of one hundred cents for every dollar due.
On other topics, the Algerine depredations, Indian war, &c. it might as easily be shown that the representation had been equally unfair. He should not dwell upon them, because they were less calculated to make the unfavorable impression on the public mind, which had been attempted on the subject of the debt. He would dismiss them with a single remark,—the uses to which these incidents were applied, and not the events themselves, formed the subject of his colleague's animadversions.
But to the long catalogue of unpopularity which have deprived their authors of the public confidence, the gentleman tells us, he and his friends were "goaded" by the clamor of their opponents. He solemnly assures us, that in the adoption of these measures they clearly foresaw the downfall of their power; but impressed with a conviction that they were essential to the public good, and disdaining all considerations of a personal nature, they nobly sacrificed their political existence on the altar of the general welfare; and we are called upon now to revere in them the self-immolated victims at the shrine of patriotism. These are, indeed, lofty pretensions; and although I shall not peremptorily deny, in this age of infallibility, I may be permitted to doubt them; for I call upon this committee to decide whether, in this day's discussion, the gentleman has evinced that purity of
heart, or that elevation of sentiment, which could justify me in clothing him with the attributes of Curtius or of the Decii.
In the wide range which the gentleman has taken, the question how far the common law of England is the law of the U. S. in their confederate capacity, has been raised. We are told "that in every page, and in almost every line of the constitution; that without it, that instrument is unintelligible and inefficient; that, therefore, it attaches to the constitution. Moreover, that it is the law of the states, by the acknowledged principle, that colonists carry to their newly adopted country, so much of the law of the parent state, as is applicable to their new condition." That the common law is to settle the meaning of common law phrases, few will feel disposed to deny; that when the constitution uses the term "court," it does not mean "jury," and that by "jury," is not intended to express court, seems plain enough to any capacity. But because the common law is to be resorted to for an explanation of these and similar terms, does it follow that that indefinite and undefinable body of law is the irrepealable law of the land? The sense of a most important phrase, "direct tax," as used in the constitution, has been, it is believed, settled by the acceptance of Adam Smith; an acceptance, too, peculiar to himself.—Does the wealth of nations therefore, form a part of the constitution of the United States. Will gentlemen please to specify also, whether that common law which they have adopted for the United States, be the common law as it stood modified by statute in the reign of Elizabeth and James the first, prior to the existence of the act of habeas corpus, divested of all the salutary provisions afterwards introduced at the revolution; or, whether it be the common law of the time of George the second? Whether we are to be governed by the common law of Sir Walter Raleigh and Captain Smith; or that which was imported by Governor Oglethorpe; or on which of the intermediate periods they have chosen as fixing the common law of these states?
I will, especially, to know, whether the common law of libels which attaches to this constitution, be the doctrine laid down by Lord Mansfield, or that which has immortalized Mr. Fox? And whether the jurisdiction thus usurped over the press, in defiance of an express amendatory clause, which must be construed to annul every previous provision, if any such there be, which comes within its purview, be an example adduced to illustrate the position, which I certainly shall never contest, that 'what the constitution does not permit to be done by direct means, cannot, constitutionally, be indirectly effected.' But to reconcile us to this assumption, we are informed, that the principles of the common law are favorable only to liberty; that they neither have been, nor can be existed in the cause of persecution. If I did not misunderstand the gentleman, he said, that no prosecutions had occurred under that law. He has therefore never heard of the case of Luther Baldwin. I speak of the New-Jersey case. Nor that of Williams. Other instances I learn from high authority have taken place in Vermont.
Mr. Randolph apologized for detaining the committee so long on topics irrelevant to the question. He said, he would offer some reasons in favor of the expediency and constitutionality of the bill before them. He had not heard any arguments on this occasion more satisfactory to him, than those urged at the time when the law was passed, in favor of the expediency of the measure. He had waited in the expectation, that gentlemen would endeavour to prove, that the former judges, under a different arrangement, would be inadequate to the duty of holding the circuit courts. A belief that every real objection to the former system might have been obviated by some modification of this kind, had induced him to dissent to the passage of the law, in the first instance. That dissent was recorded on the journals of the House; and so many members of the committee flood in the same predicament, that if a fault of his duty to himself and the House were insufficient to deter him, that fact alone of which the gentleman was himself a witness, ought to have repressed the aspersions which he had cast upon a great portion of the committee, whom he represented as the mere puppets of executive influence, acting upon to convictions of their own, but played off by an invisible, although not unknown hand. Yes, sir, objections to this system are treated as if altogether unheard of until of late, although a very formi-
dable minority have uniformly been found opposed to it. Nevertheless, this is altogether the work of the executive who by the slightest expression of disapprobation could yet arrest the measure and have the constitution. Mr. Randolph said, that he was unacquainted in the ways of majorities; his experience had been very limited, but was he to conclude from these observations, that it was the common law; the uniform usage heretofore of this government for this House to be the mere instrument for effecting the executive will, a chamber for engrossing presidential edicts. It is said, that the document on this subject was one which the executive had no right to lay before the House. When did the right of the President to recommend modifications of the judiciary system cease? Such recommendations had heretofore formed a prominent feature in two successive executive communications, made at the commencement of two successive sessions of congress. Did the right of the executive to recommend, and of congress to act, cease at the precise period when the faultless model of the last session was perfected? Mr. Randolph said, that the gentleman from Delaware had taken such a range and thrown out such a vast deal of matter that, in attempting to reply to some of his observations, he was necessarily led into many defolatory remarks. The present system it seems was necessary from the inevitable corporeal infirmity of the judges: the unavoidable effect of the tedious probation, indispensable to that venerable station.
Let us compare the former practice with the present theory. The judge of one of the two districts into which Virginia had been divided, was contemporary with him at school. He is certainly neither an infans , nor hoary age. His associate from Maryland had been an active and gallant partisan at the siege of Pensylvania during our revolutionary war: not contending, however, under those banners where you would have expected to find a man who occupied so dignified a station under the government of the United States; but fighting the battles of his king: bravely, yet also unsuccessfully contending against that spirit of insubordination and jacobinism, which threatens to sweep from the earth every thing valuable to man, against which the gentleman from Delaware is also eager to enter the lists.—The selections which have been made from either house of congress, seem to have had as little reference to those qualities of age and experience which are said to be indispensable to the judicial character. Upon a subject connected with those appointments, we have been told that the executive had a right to presume a vacancy in all cases where a judge of an inferior tribunal had been appointed to a seat on the bench of a superior court; and that the new office vests, not at the time when the judge is notified of his promotion, nor at the date of his acceptance, but from the date of his commission. Mr. Randolph said, that he certainly did not mean to contend with the gentleman from Delaware on points of law, yet he would put a question to that gentleman. It will readily be conceded, that the vacating of the former office is the condition of the acceptance of the latter. Suppose a judge after the date of his new commission, but prior to his notification, or acceptance thereof, perform a judicial act. Was that act, therefore, invalid? Could his successor on the receipt of his commission exercise the functions of judge, prior to the resignation of the former incumbent? Could any office be at the same time in the possession of two persons? Did not this doctrine imply a right on the part of government to anticipate the resignation of any judge, to compel his assent to an act vacating his office. The new commission under these circumstances either did, or did not, give a claim to its possessor on the office. If it did not, the executive had the right to withhold it. If it did a judge may be expelled from office, without his consent, & provided at any time afterwards he shall acquire the expension is legal. Besides, by what authority does a member of this House hold his seat under an election previous to his appointment of district judge of North Carolina? For this office a commission was issued, as I am credibly informed. But, sir, we shall be told, that the manner in which this affair was transacted ought not to affect our decision. It is with me an irrefragable proof of the incompetency of the law and of court conclusive evidence of the expediency of its repeal.
But the constitution is said to forbid it. And here permit me to express my satisfaction, that gentlemen have agreed
to confute the constitution by the rules of common sense. This mode is better adapted to the capacity of unprofessional men, and will preclude the gentleman from Delaware, from arrogating to himself and half a dozen other characters in this committee, the sole right of expounding that instrument, as he had done in the case of the law which is proposed to be repealed. Indeed as one of those who would be unwilling to devolve upon that gentleman the high priesthood of the constitution, and patiently to submit to technical expositions which I might not even comprehend, I am peculiarly pleased that we are invited to exercise our understandings, in the construction of this instrument. A precedent laid to be quite analogous has been adduced: the decision of the judges of Virginia on a similar question. A pamphlet entitled 'a friend to the constitution' has been quoted. Public opinion informs me, that this is the production of the pen of a gentleman who holds a pre-eminent station on the federal bench. Am I to consider it? If this be understood, it is entitled to high respect; the facts at least must be unquestionable.
The courts of Virginia consisted of one general court of common law, a court of chancery, composed of three judges, and a court of admiralty. The judges of all those courts held their offices during good behaviour, and did, by law, constitute a court of appeals. The general court becoming manifestly incompetent to the extensive duties assigned to it, a system of circuit courts was adopted in 1787, and the judges of the court of appeals were appointed to ride the circuits. This law the judges pronounced unconstitutional, and agreed, unanimously, to remonstrate against it. After lamenting the necessity of deciding between the constitution and the law, and that in a case personally interesting to themselves, they say, "on this view of the subject the following alternative presented themselves; either to decide, the question, or resign their offices. The latter would have been their choice, if they could have considered those questions as affecting their individual interests only."—Yes, sir, and such was the character of those men, that none doubted the sincerity of this declaration. They then go on to declare, that the legislature have no right even to encroach their duties, by a modification of the courts; a privilege for which no one here has contended. In respect much more, it is believed, to the characters of those venerable men, than to this opinion, the legislature did not enforce the new regulations. The law was now modelled, a separate court of appeals established, the judges of which were to be elected by joint ballot, in conformity with the constitution. New members were added to the general court and it was declared to be their duty to ride the circuits. The judges of chancery, of the general court, and court of admiralty who had not been elected, in pursuance of the constitution, judges of appeals, but on whom that duty was imposed by law, were relieved from the further discharge of it. In this arrangement, several of the judges were understood to have been consulted; and on the ballot the six senior judges were elected, five into the court of appeal, and the sixth in the court of chancery. Nevertheless against this law the judges also protested, as an invasion of the judiciary establishment, denying the right of the legislature to deprive them of office, in any other mode than is pointed out in the constitution [impeachment]; but to make way for the present salutary system, they do, in their mere free will, resign their appointments as judges of the court of appeals, and as they do not hold any separate commission for that office, which might be returned, they do order the same to be recorded.
Now, sir, I shall not contend, as I certainly might, and with great reason, that the practice of Virginia must be considered as settling the constitutional doctrine of that state, the opinions of individuals, however enlightened and respectable notwithstanding; under which practice, two chancellors have been removed from their office of judges in chancery, as well as of appeals, and the judges of the general court and court of admiralty also, divested of their seats on the bench of the court of appeals, although a court of appeals was supposed necessary, and was retained in the new system; nor shall I insist on the disparity between the stability of the judicial branch of government in the eye of the constitution of Virginia, and that of the United States respectively, as surely I might. For the constitution of Virginia has a retrospect to pre-existing judicial establishments, which experience had tested, which were allowed to be beneficial, and which it is
contended were sanctioned by it. That of the United States, formed when the confederacy had no such establishments, is altogether prospective in its operation. It looks forward to such establishments as to be created from time to time; in other words, to be modified as experience shall point out their defects. This power being devolved on a body constituted by express unalterable provisions. No, sir, I shall not dilate upon these forcible topics; I will concede, for argument's sake, that the doctrine contended for by the judges of Virginia was the true constitutional doctrine, and will apply it to the bill on your table, having first applied it to the act on which it is intended to operate. Previous to the existence of that act, the duty of judge of the circuit court was performed by the judges of the supreme court, who also constituted a court of appeals, and by the judges of the respective districts. These were judges of the circuit court to every intent and purpose, as completely as the judges of Virginia were judges of appeals. By the operation of the law of the last session, they have been divested of this office and other persons have been appointed to it. Much stress is laid, much ingenuity exercised to take metaphysical distinctions between the court and the office. I will grant, all that gentlemen contend for, that there is a wide distinction—does it affect the case? Does it alter the fact? The late circuit courts were not only abolished—the persons holding the office of judge of those courts no longer hold it; they have neither been impeached, nor have they resigned. They have not even accepted any new appointment inconsistent with it, and by which it became vacant. The function of judge of the circuit court does or does not constitute an office. If it does, then the judges of the supreme and district courts have been deprived of their offices; (the discharge of whose duties, be it remembered, constitutes no small part of the consideration for which they receive their salaries.) If it does not, then the circuit judges are not now above to be deprived of their offices. On the passage of the law of the last session, did we hear any protest against its unconstitutionality from the supreme, or district courts—of any resignations of the office of judge of the circuit court, in order "that a salutary system might take effect." And yet, sir, is not that office as distinct from that of supreme or district judge, as the office of judge of appeals in Virginia, is from that of judge of the general court, chancery, or admiralty? Are not the jurisdictions of those courts separate and distinct? Both never having original jurisdiction of the same subjects; and an appeal lying from the inferior to the superior tribunal, as in Virginia, although the officers of those tribunals may be the same individuals. What then is the difference between taking the office of appellate jurisdiction from the judge who possessed original jurisdiction, or taking the office of original jurisdiction from the appellate judge? How is the independence of the judge more affected by the one act than by the other?
To prove the unconstitutionality of this bill then by a recurrence to the doctrine of the judiciary of Virginia, is to prove the unconstitutionality of the law of which it will effect the repeal. And no argument has been, or in my poor opinion can be adduced to prove the unconstitutionality of the one, which will not equally apply to the other. No, sir, gentlemen are precluded by their own act from assuming the ground of the judges of Virginia; they are obliged to concede that we have the power, because they have already exercised it, of modifying the courts, and here they concede the question. They tell you that this, however, must be to be constitutional a "bona fide" modification. It becomes them to prove then, that this is a mala-fide modification.
Gentlemen have not, they cannot meet the distinction between removing the judge from office for the purpose of putting in another person, and removing an office because its effects or appendages. Suppose the collectors of your taxes held their offices by the tenure of good behaviour, would the abolition of your taxes have been an infraction of that tenure; or would you be bound to retain them lest it should infringe a private right? If the repeal of the taxes would be an infringement of that tenure, & therefore unconstitutional, could you ring all the changes upon the several duties on items, carriages, bills, &c. and because you had retained the men, and any one of these offices, without diminishing his emoluments, abolish the others? Would not this be to infringe the tenure of the office which was abolished, or to which another officer might have been appointed by a

new regulation? Have not the judges in the same manner been deprived of one of their offices, and is not the tenure as completely impaired thereby as if the other had been taken away also? Although it will be granted that the tenure is not so much affected, since with one office he has the salary formerly attached to both. I agree that the constitution is a limited grant of power, and that none of its general phrases are to be construed into an extension of that grant. I am free to declare, that if the intent of this bill is to get rid of the judges, it is a perversion of your power to a base purpose; it is an unconstitutional act. If on the contrary it aims not at the displacing one set of men from whom you differ in political opinion, with a view to introduce others, but at the general good, by abolishing useless offices, it is a constitutional act. The quo animo determines the nature of this act, as it determines the innocence or guilt of other acts. But we are told that this is to declare the judiciary, which the constitution has attempted to fortify against the other branches of government, dependent on the will of the legislature, whose discretion alone is to limit their encroachments. Whilst I contend that the legislature possesses this discretion, I am sensible of the delicacy with which it is to be used. It is like the power of impeachment, or of declaring war, to be exercised under a high responsibility. But the power is denied since its exercise will enable flagitious men to overturn the judiciary, in order to put their creatures into office, and to wreak their vengeance on those who have become obnoxious by their merit. Yet the gentleman expressly says, that arguments drawn from a supposition of extreme political depravity prove nothing; that every government presupposes a certain degree of honesty in its rulers, and that to argue from extreme cases is totally inadmissible. Yet the whole of his argument is founded on the supposition of a total want of principle in the legislature and executive. In other words, arguments drawn from this hypothesis are irresistible when urged in favour of that gentleman's opinion; when they militate against him, they are totally inadmissible. It is said that the bill on your table cannot, constitutionally, be passed, because unprincipled men will pervert the power to the base purposes; that, hereafter, we may expect a revolution on the bench of justice, on every change of party, and the politics of the litigants, not the merits of the case, are to govern its decisions. The judiciary is declared to be the guardian of the constitution against infraction, and the protection of the citizen as well against legislative as executive oppression. Hence the necessity of an equal independence of both. For it is declared to be an absurdity, that we should possess the power of controlling a department of government which has the right of checking us; since, thereby, that check may be either impaired or annihilated. This is a new doctrine of check and balance, according to which the constitution has unwisely given to an infant legislature the power of impeaching their guardians, the judges. Apply this theory to the reciprocal control of the two branches of the legislature over each other and the executive, and of the executive over them. But, sir, this law can not be passed, because the character of the bench is to be given to it by the legislature, to the entire prostration of its independence and impartiality. It will be conceded, that measures, such as have been portrayed, will never be taken, unless the sentiment of the ruling party is ready to support them. Although gentlemen contend that the office of judge cannot be abolished, they are not hard enough to deny that it may be created. Where then, sir, is the check, supposing such a state of things as the gentleman has imagined, (and which he has also declared cannot be conceived) which shall prevent unprincipled men from effecting the same object by increasing the number of judges, to as over rule, by their creatures, the decisions of your courts? Would not public opinion be as ready to sanction the one as the other of these detestable acts? Would not the same evil which has excited such apprehension in the minds of gentlemen be thus effected by means even more injurious than those which they have specified? Without any breach of the constitution an unprincipled faction may effect the end which is so much apprehended from the measure now contemplated to be adopted. I might add, that when the public sentiment becomes thus corrupt, the ties of any constitution will be found too feeble to control the vengeful ambition of a triumphant faction. The rejection of this bill does not secure the point which has furnished matter for so much declamation. Its friends are represented as grasping at power not devolved upon them by the constitution, which, hereafter, is to be made the instrument of destroying every judicial office, for the purpose of reviving them and filling the places with their partisans. I have long been in the habit of attending to the arguments of the gentleman from Delaware, and I have generally found in their converse a ready tactulence, the tell of which they are rarely calculated to withstand. If you are prejudiced from passing this law, left depraved men make it a precedent to destroy the independence of your judiciary, do you not concede that a desperate faction, finding themselves about to be disfranchised from the confidence of their country, may pervert the power of enacting courts,
to provide, to any extent, for their adherents and themselves? And that however flagrant that abuse of power, it is remediless and must be submitted to. Will not the history of all governments warrant the assertion, that the creation of new and unnecessary offices, as a provision for political partisans, is an evil more to be dreaded than the abolition of useless ones? Is not an abuse of power more to be dreaded from those who have lost the public confidence, than from those whose interest it will be to cultivate and retain it? And does not the doctrine of our opponents prove that at every change of administration the number of your judges are probably to be doubled? Does it not involve the absurdity that, in spite of all constitutional prohibitions, congress may exercise the power of creating an indefinite number of placemen, who are to be maintained thro' life, at the expence of the community? But when these cases are cited, you are gravely told that they suppose a degree of political depravity which puts an end to all argument. Here, sir, permit me to state an important difference of opinion between the two sides of this house. We are accused of an ambitious usurpation of power—a design to destroy a great department of government, because it thwarts our views, and of a lawless thirst of self-aggrandizement which no consideration can restrain. Let us not be amused by words. Let us attend to facts. They will show who are contending for unlimited and who for limited authority. The opponents of this bill contend that they did possess the power of creating offices to an indefinite amount, which, when created, were beyond the control of the succeeding legislature. They of course contend for the existence of such a power in the present legislature, for whose exercise there is no security but their self-respect. In other words, that if the present majority should incur the suspicion of the people, they may, as soon as there is any indication of their having forfeited the public confidence, on the signal of their dismissal from their present stations, make ample and irrevocable provision for themselves and their adherents, by the creation of an adequate number of judicial offices. Now, sir, this is a power which we rejected, although it is insisted, that we possess it. We deny that such an authority does exist in us. We assert that we are not clothed with the tremendous power of erecting, in defiance of the whole spirit and express letter of the constitution, a vast judicial aristocracy over the heads of our fellow citizens, on whose labour it is to prey. Who then are, in reality, the advocates of a limited authority, and who are the champions of a dangerous and uncontrollable power? In my estimation the wilful prayer which ever was composed, is that which deprecates the being led into temptation. I have no wish to be exposed myself, nor to see my friends exposed to the dangerous allurements which the adverse doctrine holds out. Do gentlemen themselves think that the persons whom I see around me ought to be trusted with such powers? Figure to yourself a set of men whose incapacity or want of principle have brought on them the odium of their country; receiving in the month of December, the solemn warning that on the fourth of March following, they are to be dismissed from the helm of government—establish the doctrine now contended for, and what may you not expect? Yes, sir, the doctrine advanced by our opponents is that of usurpation and ambition. It denies the existence of one power by establishing another, infinitely more dangerous—and this you are told is to protect thro' the organ of an independent judiciary the vanquished party from the persecution of their antagonists, although it has been shown that by increasing the number of judges any tone whatever may be given to the bench. The theory for which gentlemen contend seems to me farfetched and overstrained. A mighty engine is set in motion, which to all good purposes is ineffectual although formidable in the perpetration of mischief. If however, the people should be of a different opinion, I trust that at the next election they will apply the constitutional corrective. That is the true check, every other check is at variance with the principle that a free people are capable of self government. But, sir, if you pass the law, the judges are to put their veto upon it, by declaring it unconstitutional. Here is a new power of a dangerous and uncontrollable nature contended for. The decision of a constitutional question must rest elsewhere. Shall it be confined to men immediately responsible to the people, or to those who are irresponsible, for the responsibility by impeachment is little else than a name. From whom is a corrupt decision most to be feared? To me it appears that the power which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign; but an extreme case is put; a bill of attainder is passed: are the judges to support the constitution or the law? Shall they obey God or Mammon? Yet you cannot argue from such cases. But, sir, are we not as deeply interested in the true exposition of the constitution as the judges can be? With all deference to their talents, is not congress as capable of forming a correct opinion as they are? Are not its members acting under a responsibility to public opinion, which
can and will check their aberrations from duty. Let a case, not an imaginary one, be stated. Congress violate the constitution by levying the prelevi ; the judicial corrective is applied to: so far from protecting the liberty of the citizen, or the letter of the constitution, you find them outdoing the legislature in zeal; pressing the common law of England into the service, where the sedition law did not apply. Suppose your reliance had been altogether on this broken staff & not on the elective principle. Your priests might have been enchain'd till doomsday, your citizens incarcerated for life, and where is your remedy? But if the construction of the constitution is left with us, there are no longer limits to our power, and this would be true if an appeal did not lie, through the elections, from us to the nation to whom alone, and not to a few privileged individuals, it belongs to decide in the last resort, on the constitution. Gentlemen tell us, that our doctrine will carry the people to the gallows if they suffer themselves to be misled into the belief, that the judges are not the expositors of the constitution. Their practice has carried the people to infamous punishment, to fine and imprisonment, and had they fixed the penalty of death to their unconstitutional laws judges would not have been wanting to conduct them to the gibbet. A case in the supreme court has been mentioned. I certainly do not mean to put my opinion in competition with that of the gentleman from Delaware, on a professional subject; but I cannot agree with him, that the granting of the rule was not an assumption of the jurisdiction. Suppose a motion made in a court of Virginia, for a rule to be levied on the governor of Massachusetts, to the end why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to do a specific act. To my unlettered judgment the acceptance of the motion would be to presume that, if the governor could not show cause, the mandamus might issue. Would not any court reject such a motion on the consideration, that the chief magistrate of another state was not amenable to their jurisdiction? The gentleman from Delaware doubtless recollects, and probably better than I do, for I believe he was a spectator of the trial; the refusal of a suppona to a man under a criminal prosecution (I allude to the case of Cooper in Philadelphia) to be served on the President as a witness on the part of the prisoner. Was that a subject of inferior magnitude to a mere question of municipal regulation? The court, which it seems has lately become the guardian of the feeble and oppressed against the strong arm of power, found itself then destitute of all authority to issue the writ. Was it because of the influence and interest of that persecuted man, or of his connections, that it was unnecessary at that time to exert this protecting power? No, sir, you may invade the prelevi ; the courts will support you, will outstrip you in zeal to further this great object: your citizens may be imprisoned, and amerced; the courts will take care to see it executed: The helpless foreigner may, contrary to the express letter of your constitution, be deprived of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his defence; the courts in their extreme humility cannot find authority for granting it; but touch one cent of their salaries , abolish one sinecure office which the judges held, and they are immediately arrayed against the laws, as the champions of the constitution. Lay your hands on the liberties of the people; they are torpid; utterly insensible; but affect their peculiar interest and they are all nerve. They are said to be harmless unadvising men. Their humble pretensions extend only to a complete exemption from legislative control; to the exercise of an inquisitorial authority over the cabinet of the executive and the veto of the Roman tribunate upon all your laws; together with the establishing any body of foreign laws which they may chuse to declare a part of the constitution. Grant this authority, sir, to your judges, and you will have a constitution, which gentlemen who are such enemies to dumb legislation may indeed approve, because it is the very reverse of that which has been the object of their animadversions. To you it will indeed belong the right of discussing, there ends your power; the judges are to decide, and without appeal. In their inquisitorial capacity, the supreme court, relieved from the tedious labor of investigating judicial points, by the law of the last session, may direct the executive by mandamus in what mode it is their pleasure; that he should execute his functions. They will also have more leisure to attend to the legislature, and for fall by inflammatory pamphlets their decision on all important questions; whilst for the amusement of the public we shall retain the right of debating, but not of voting. A new mode of appeal, that of the sword, has been lately introduced. It is worthy of remark, that the act of this appeal commenced with the downfall of the power of the last administration. The political opponents of that gentleman have set him an example of which I hope he and his friends will profit. They knew that the constitution had been violated. It was no business of speculation, but a plain matter of fact. What was their conduct? They preferred submission to civil dissention. They addressed themselves to the good sense of
the community, and their judgment has been affirmed by the people through the medium of the elections. But, sir, another objection is held up, as fatal to the bill on your table: that it diminishes the salaries of the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee, by repealing the law which increased them. Let us examine this fact. By this very law, the courts of these districts were expressly abolished, the office of judge of those courts was destroyed. The men , it is true, were retained, and a judicial office given them—but an office entirely different from, the former with distinct functions and jurisdiction, and with different salary. We propose to restore those judges to their old offices, by abolishing the new ones, to which they never were constitutionally appointed. If their appointment was however constitutional, I leave it to the committee to decide whether the district judge of Kentucky might not, on the theory of our adversaries, demand both salaries—since you had no right to take away his old office and salary. I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with the gentleman who fills that office; but his reputation is too high to lead me to suppose such a claim possible. I mean no disrespect to him, far from it, in putting this case. Instead, as has been asserted, of rendering the office of judge a sinecure as a pretext for abolishing it, we propose to restore the establishment to its primitive purity: to give the judges both of the district and supreme courts duties to perform—the latter being, it seems, now destitute of any other employment than keeping the consciences of the inferior courts—we mean to restore the district judges to their office of circuit judge, for exercising whole duties they have been amply paid by the public: to restore the judges of the supreme court to the same office of which they have been deprived—not believing a sinecure court of appeals to be desirable. Whence then the clamour that the judicial authority is to be perverted to the vile purpose of wreaking party vengeance. Suppose a case to occur—are not the persons who are to decide of the same political character with the minority? Would that gentleman have any cause to fear the decision of a controversy with a person of a different political complexion because of that difference? Is not the judiciary left precisely in the state in which it was a twelve month ago? Are not the same principles to govern, and the same individuals to decide? It is not, however, on account of the paltry expense of the new establishment that I wish to put it down. No, sir, it is to give the death blow to the pretension of rendering the judiciary an hospital for decayed politicians; to prevent the state courts from being engulfed by those of the union; to destroy the monstrous ambition of arrogating to this house the right of evading all the prohibitions of the constitution and holding the nation at bay. If gentlemen dread the act which we are about to pass they will remember that they have been the means of compelling us to it. They ought to have had the forbearance to abstain from such a measure at such a crisis. They have forced upon us the execution of a painful duty by their own want of prudence. If they wished the judges, like the tribe of Levi, to have been set apart from other men for the sacred purposes of justice, they should have pondered well before they gave to publicans and sinners the privilege of the high priesthood. It is said that there is irrefragable proof in the smallness of the salaries annexed to them, that those offices were not established under any improper bias. If such bias had existed, 10,000 dollars, or a larger sum, might have been given. To execute a proposition of this sort, I believe nerve would have been found wanting. On that, as on another occasion which has been mentioned, we should have had blank notes . This is however triumphantly brought forward as an instance of the want of power in one legislature over the acts of another. The President's salary might have been increased, or that of the judges, to a million or more of dollars; where would be your remedy? I will tell gentlemen; in a refusal of an appropriation. Who would hesitate in such a case? The salary might exceed the annual revenue. This too, is another instance I suppose of the inadmissibility of extreme cases. I should not hesitate, sir, to refuse an appropriation in such a case, and throw myself on the good sense of my country. The example of a mighty nation has been held up as a solemn warning against an act which is said to prostrate the barriers of the constitution; to that example be the decision of this question referred. A government entrenched beyond the reach of public opinion, had for ages been accumulating one abuse upon another; again an authority which time served but to render more intolerable, the nation was compelled to seek refuge in a recurrence to revolutionary principles. And are we, therefore, to sanction a construction of the constitution which claims irresponsibility for public agents? Which allows no remedy for grievances but revolution, and that perhaps when a recurrence to such a measure shall be too late. Who, after such an example ought to contend for a perversion to individual aggrandizement of that power which was delegated for the general good.
I have endeavored, Mr. Chairman, in my poor deft way to repel some of the arguments which have been offered by the gentleman from Delaware. Upon some topics it has been extremely painful to me to dilate; they could not have been avoided; they were obtuded upon me. There is one, however, on which it may be expected I should say something. I believe it unnecessary; the poison carries with it its own antidote. Who could have expected such remarks from that gentleman. If, however, he is now anxious to protect the independence of this and the other house of Congress against executive influence, regardless of his motives, I pledge myself to support any measure which he may bring forward for that purpose; and I believe I may venture to pledge every one of my friends. PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE. Articles of accusation and impeachment against Alexander Addison President of the courts of common pleas in the circuit consisting of the counties of Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, and Alleghany, preferred by the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in their names, and in the name of the people of Pennsylvania, and exhibited to the Senate of the said commonwealth:— Art. I. That the said Alexander Addison, being duly appointed and commissioned president of the several courts of common pleas in the circuit consisting of the said counties of Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, and Alleghany, within the territory of the said commonwealth, while acting as president of the court of common pleas of the said county of Alleghany, on Saturday the twenty-eighth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, in open court of common pleas then and there holden, in and for the county last aforesaid, did after John Lucas, otherwise John B. C. Lucas, also duly appointed and commissioned an associate judge of the court of common pleas of the county last aforesaid, had, in his official character and capacity of associate judge as aforesaid, and as of right he might do, addressed a petit jury, then and there duly impanelled and sworn or affirmed respectively as jurors in a cause then pending, and then and there openly declare and say to the said jury, "That the address delivered to them by the said John Lucas, otherwise John B. C. Lucas, had nothing to do with the question before them, and that they ought not to pay any attention to it"—thereby degrading or endeavoring to degrade and vilify, the said John Lucas, otherwise John B. C. Lucas, and his character and office as aforesaid, to the obfuscation of the free, impartial, and due administration of justice, and contrary to the public rights and interests of this commonwealth. II. That the said Alexander Addison, being duly appointed and commissioned president as aforesaid, did, at a court of quarter sessions of the peace and court of the common pleas holden in and for the county of Alleghany aforesaid, on Monday the twenty second day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one, under pretence of discharging and performing his official duties as president as aforesaid, unjustly, illegally and unconstitutionally claim, usurp and exercise authority not given or delegated to him by the constitution and laws of this commonwealth, inasmuch as he, the said Alexander Addison, president as aforesaid, did, under pretence as aforesaid of discharging and performing the said duties, then and there, in time of open court, unjustly, illegally and unconstitutionally stop, threaten and prevent the said John Lucas, otherwise John B. C. Lucas, also duly appointed and commissioned an associate judge of the said courts, from addressing, as of right he might do, a grand jury of the said county of Alleghany then and there assembled and impanelled, and sworn or affirmed respectively concerning their rights and duties as grand jurymen, thereby abusing and attempting to degrade the high offices of president and associate judge as aforesaid, to the denial and prevention of public right and of the due administration of justice, and to the evil example of all others, in the like case offending. And the said House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting at any time hereafter any other accusation or impeachment against the said Alexander Addison, president as aforesaid, and also of replying to the answers which he the said Alexander Addison, president as aforesaid shall make unto the said articles, or to any or either of them, and offering proof of the said premises or of any of them, or of any other accusation or impeachment which shall or may be exhibited by them as the case shall require, do demand that the said Alexander Addison, president as aforesaid, may be put to answer all and every of the premises, and that such proceedings, examination, trial and judgment may be against him upon him had as agreeable to the constitution and laws of this commonwealth; and the said House of Representatives are ready to offer proof of the premises, at such time as the Senate of the said commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall appoint.

WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1802.
Authentic information has been received here that the High Court of admiralty in England has given sentences of Restitution in favor of the following American vessels and their cargoes, detained, and carried in by British cruisers, and tried by that court, for attempting to enter the blockaded port of Havre, in France:
Edwin, Robert Follanche, master. Five Sisters, J. Lunt, do. Lucy, S. Toppem, do. John, John Chiefer, do. Sophia, F. Driscoll, do. Sophia, Isaac Hands, do. Georgia, J. Landon, do. Juno, J. D. Lawrence, do. Ships and cargoes decreed to be restored, on payment of the captor's costs.
On Thursday afternoon NARSWORTHY HUNTER, late a delegate from the Mississippi Territory, departed this life in the 45th Year of his age. On Saturday noon he was interred in the Presbyterian grave yard in George-town, agreeably to a resolution of the House of Representatives and a notification by them to the Senate, his remains were attended by the National Legislature in the following order.
The chaplain of the Senate & Mr. Balch preceded the corpse. The committee of arrangement, consisting of Messrs. Leib, Davis, Holland, Rutledge, Lewis R. Morris, and Fearing, bore the pall. A few of the intimate friends of the deceased followed. The President of the Senate, preceded by the messenger and attended by the members, came next in order, after whom came the Sergeant at arms of the House of Representatives, bearing the mace followed by the Speaker and the members.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
MONDAY, March 15, 1802. Mr. GREGG, from the committee, to whom was committed the subject of military stores, reported that the quantity of military articles on hand, as stated in a message of the President, is adequate, and that it is inexpedient to make any new appropriations for additional purchases.
Mr. RANDOLPH called for the order of the day on the bill for repealing the internal taxes. When Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the order of the day on the bill for repealing the internal taxes be postponed till tomorrow, for the purpose of previously taking up the resolution moved by him for making compensation for French depredations.
On this motion a debate ensued, which continued till near 3 o'clock. The motion of Mr. Griswold was advocated by Messrs. Griswold, Lowndes, John C. Smith, Dana, Bayard, and Rutledge; and opposed by Messrs. S. Smith, Mitchell, Gregg, Euliss and Bacon. Then the question was taken by Yeas and Nays, and lost. Yeas 33—Nays 54.
In favor of Mr. Griswold's motion, it was principally contended that it became the house first to determine whether any and what indemnity should be allowed for the spoliations of trade, before they revoked taxes, from which the compensation might be to be derived. On the other hand it was contended, that the subject of the repeal of the internal taxes was deeply interesting, and that it became the house at this late period of the session, to come to an early decision—and that if the taxes should be taken off it by no means followed that all indemnity to the merchants would be rejected—that subject was a distinct one, and ought to be discussed by itself.
Those who supported the motion asserted the perfect obligation of the government to indemnify losses which had been incurred under the treaty—while the opponents of the motion forebore to prejudice the claims of the merchants until they came distinctly before the house.
The house then went into committee of the whole.
Mr. VARNUM in the chair: On the bill for repealing the internal taxes. The first section was read as follows:
"That from and after the day of next, the collection of duties on stills and domestic distilled spirits, on refined sugars, licenses to retailers, sales at auction, pleasurable carriages, and stamped vellum parchment and paper, shall be discontinued, and all acts and parts of acts relative thereto shall be and the same hereby are repealed."
When Mr. Dennis moved to strike out the following words: "On refined sugars, licenses to retailers, sales at auction, pleasurable carriages, and stamped vellum parchment and paper." His object being to repeal all the internal taxes excepting those on stills and domestic distilled spirits.
Mr. HUGER called for a division of the question on each of the articles proposed to be stricken out, stating that he should be in favor of some and against others.
The question was then taken on striking out, refined sugars: And lost—Yeas 24— On striking out licenses to retailers: And lost without a division. On striking out sales at auction: And lost—Yeas 25. On striking out pleasurable carriages: And lost—Yeas 22. On striking out stamped vellum and parchment and paper: And lost—Yeas 14—Nays 52. Mr. RANDOLPH moved several amendments, which only affected the details of the bill. The committee then rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again; which was granted—when Mr. Randolph's amendments were ordered to be printed. [The debate hereafter.]
TUESDAY, March 16, 1802. The bill for extinguishing State Balances was read a third time, when Mr. Davis moved its postponement to the 1st Monday in November.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Davis, Bacon, Elmer, and Goddard, who declared themselves adverse to the passage of the bill; and opposed by Messrs. Bayard, T. Morris, Randolph and Nicholson, who declared themselves in favor of the bill.
Mr. GRISWOLD delivered his sentiments against the postponement, declaring, however, his determination to vote against the passage of the bill.
The question of postponement was taken by yeas and nays, and carried. Yeas 48—Nays 42.
The house went into a committee of the whole, General Varnum in the chair, on the bill for repealing the Internal Taxes.
The amendments offered yesterday by Mr. Randolph, and other amendments offered by him, affecting the details of the bill, were agreed to without a division; when the committee rose and reported the bill and the amendments.
The house immediately took up the report of the committee, and agreed to all the amendments except one, with other amendments.
Several additional amendments were suggested, when Mr. Dennis moved to recommit the bill, for amending the details, to the Committee of Ways and Means.
The motion was supported by Messrs. Dennis, Dana, Goddard and Bayard; and opposed by Messrs. Randolph, Smilie and Varnum.
Before the question was taken an adjournment was called for, and carried.
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Friday, February 19. Mr. Jesse Moore, from the committee to whom were referred (on the 21th and 25th of January last, and on the 16th inst.) petitions and documents from Allegheny county, respecting certain acts, done under pretence of official authority, by Alexander Addison, president of the courts of common pleas, within the fifth circuit of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; made report, which was read as follows, viz.
That being firmly persuaded that the peace and much of the happiness of civil society are necessarily connected with the impartial and uninterrupted administration of justice, they have anxiously reflected on the difficulty and importance of the subjects committed to them; that from said petitions and other documents, it appears to them that the said Alexander Addison, while acting as president of the court of common pleas of Allegheny county within the said circuit, did heretofore, at different times, unjustly and by usurpation of undue authority, interrupt and prevent John P. Lucas, an associate judge of the country aforesaid, from fully and freely exercising and discharging his official duty, as such associate; that if the usurpations aforesaid of the said Alexander Addison, be quietly acquiesced in by the legislature, there is reason to apprehend, that the constitutional independence of the associate judges of the courts of common pleas within the said circuit, will be annihilated, and all the utility which the public has a right to expect from their services, prevented or destroyed; that it is in vain that our constitution and laws have established courts consisting of five judges mutually to aid and counsel, or to act independently of each other, as the law, their judgments and consciences should require, if one of them may, whenever agitated by passion or caprice, with impunity assume to himself all the authority to which the whole of them only are competent, and that, to secure the free, uninterrupted and impartial administration of justice, within the said circuit, it is necessary that the legislature, as far as their authority extends, should endeavour promptly to remedy the evils and redress the grievances exhibited in the petitions and documents aforesaid; the committee therefore submit the following resolution, viz.
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare and draft articles of impeachment against the said Alexander Addison, president as aforesaid, for misdemeanor or misdemeanors in office. Ordered to be laid on the table.
REPORT Of the committee, to whom was referred that part of the message of the President of the United States, which relates to naval preparations and the establishment of sites for naval purposes, ask leave to report in part, as follows:
1. Six navy yards have been purchased, as appears by document No. 1. 2. Timber for building eight 74 gun ships has been purchased by contract, part of which has been, and the whole of which is contracted to be delivered at the six yards before mentioned, which, together with the expenses for improvements made, will appear by document No. 1. 3. The Committee are of opinion, that the timber so deposited, with other materials for building, ought to be secured under suitable sheds or stores, in such manner as shall best preserve the same, and under care of proper persons to be appointed for that purpose. 4. Charlestown in Massachusetts, and Norfolk in Virginia, from the improvements already made, and from other circumstances, appear the most eligible places for receiving and repairing the ships in actual service—should any additional improvement in those places become necessary for this purpose, they ought to be made. 5. The ships in ordinary ought, in the opinion of the committee, to remain at Washington. 6. Two of the ships, viz. the Adams and the General Greene, not being constructed upon approved models for ships of war, and going out of repair, ought to be sold under direction of the President of the United States, and the proceeds applied to building or purchasing smaller vessels (if such should be required by the service,) or if he should think it necessary in improvements at Charlestown and Norfolk. 7. The rations of the seamen should be enlarged conformably to the report of the Secretary of the Navy. 8. The Committee further report as their opinion, that the President of the United States should be authorised to employ some suitable person to lay out and direct such works and improvements at Charlestown and Norfolk, and such other places as may be hereafter determined on. 9. And that for improving navy yards, docks and wharves, there be appropriated 50,000 Dollars. And for wear and tear, repairs, and military stores of vessels, &c. 37,666 Dollars. 137,666
STATEMENT OF DUTIES UPON CARRIAGES.
For the conveyance of persons; during the year ending the 31st December, 1801.
Table with 2 columns: State, Dols. Cts. Rows include New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, Georgia, Total.
The above is taken from the official return of the whole duties arising on Carriages in the different states; agreeable to the documents transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury, under the date of the 21st. December last. We have thought it necessary to publish it at this time to counteract the misrepresentations which appear in the tory papers. They are constantly representing that the Southern people, particularly the Virginians, ride in their coaches, and that the tax on Carriages, bears much harder on them, than on the people of the New-England states. For that reason they are determined to have that tax abolished. But what is the fact? Look at the above statement, you will see it proves all they have said on that subject to be absolutely false. For, notwithstanding Virginia contains a much greater number of inhabitants than any other state in the union, yet you will observe Massachusetts pays Dols. 395 34 more of the carriage tax than Virginia. And even this plain state of Connecticut, pays more of the carriage tax in proportion to the number of its inhabitants, than what they style the proud, luxurious, domineering Virginia.
These are facts not to be denied—every man may make the calculation for himself.
Another official document exhibits, a statement of the duties arising on spirits distilled during the year ending on the 31st December, 1800.
Which makes the amount of duties arising therefrom Dols. 139,839 14
Of which the five New-England states pay Dols. 125,501 58 And the eleven states South of Connecticut pay only Dols. 14,337 16 Which is but little more than one ninth part as much as the New-England states pay. Yet the tory papers to deceive you, cry out that the internal revenue is to be abolished, because the Southern people have to pay it; and the whole burdens and expenses of government are to be wholly on the Northern states. What degree of credit is to be given to such declarations, made in the face of official statements, we will leave every candid man to judge. (Mercury.)
NEW-YORK, March 12.
Capt. Ward, who arrived at Boston on Friday last, in a short passage from Cadiz, informs, that the report of the capture of the Tripolitan frigate, by the frigate Philadelphia, had been circulated there; but that the American consul at Cadiz, though in the habit of corresponding twice a week with Gibraltar, had received no information whatever thereof.
Capt. Ward also states, that an order had been received at Cadiz from Madrid, to subject all vessels from the United States to perform forty days quarantine; excepting vessels from New-York and Norfolk, which are not permitted to enter port on any account whatever.
CHARLESTON, Feb. 25, 1802.
A gentleman from Augustine, has favored us with the following account of the depredations recently committed by the Indians, on the settlements near that place:
In September last, a body of the Macheleaky town of Indians, a banditti, led on by that noted fellow Bowles, came across St. Johns river, and took from the plantation of P. Fatio, esq. 43 negroes, whom they carried off to the nation; four of the negroes made their escape, and returned to their master.
About the middle of December last, Amb. Hall, esq. from Connecticut, otherwise called judge Hall, went with fourteen white men as settlers from the Northward to the Musketoes, on the same spot where the late Dr. Turnbull had his Creek settlement, which lands were granted him by his excellency Henry White, governor of East-Florida. About the 1st of January, a party of Indians, in number about thirty, surrounded the house, and placed different guards about the settlement; Tucky Pany, an Indian, and chief of that banditti, addressed himself to capt. Abiythem Hall, brother to judge Hall, and ordered him and his people to remove to St. Augustine, as they had received information from the nation, that they had come with no good intent, but with a view to hurt them on a future day. Capt. Hall reasoned with them, and wished to convince them to the contrary, but in vain. This being about 9 o'clock in the morning, the greater part of Mr. Hall's people were employed in improvements, and in preparing their land for planting. Mr. Hall immediately ordered them to come in, seeing that his reasoning with the Indians had no good effect. Tucky Pany began soon to break open a number of trunks, and distributed out their contents among his banditti, which by that time increased to the number of about eighty men, women and children. Mr. Hall had a number of fuddles, which were the first things taken from him. After plundering, and leaving them destitute of any provisions, they ordered capt. Hall immediately to remove, on pain of death, with his men to St. Augustine. The loss sustained by Mr. Hall on this occasion, is upwards of 3000 dollars.
Towards the latter end of January, a second party of Indians came down to the Matanza, to the plantation of Josiah Du Pont, esq. distant about 80 miles from St. Augustine. Neither Du Pont nor his son was at the plantation, but a man by the name of Wright, who was employed there in making gins to gin out cotton. They stripped Mr. Wright of even his clothes, and then put him under guard of an Indian, and threatened, that if he moved an inch, he would be killed. In the interim they plundered the plantation of nine negroes, all the horses, and such moveables as they could conveniently carry with them. In spite of the vigilance of the guard put over Mr. Wright, he made his escape.
From thence they went about three miles lower on the river Matanza, to the house of a Grecian, named Panulla, a poor man, without an negroes, with a wife and 7 children, they plundered him of every thing, even killed his oldest son, a young man about 23 years old, and took off his wife and children, leaving the old man to deplore his fate by himself.
The Governor, zealous to protect the inhabitants, has formed a body of men to protect them against the ravages of their savage invaders, and has established forts in different parts of his province; he now daily expects a reinforcement of troops from the Havana. It is generally expected, that through the intercession of his excellency Henry White, the unfortunate sufferers will receive
restitution from his Catholic Majesty for their losses.
The inhabitants on the frontiers, in the state of Georgia, being sufficiently guarded against Bowles's depredations, they do not, directly nor indirectly, furnish him with any supplies, wherewith he carries on hostilities; but he receives them from a company of humane men, of Providence, in the Bahama Islands. The result of this business will finally be, that the Creek nation (deluded by Bowles) who have received all aid and assistance from the Spanish government, and by whom they never were interrupted, will now, in all probability, be greatly distressed, and drove back, by which they will lose that peaceable and beneficial traffic they had with their friendly and good natured neighbours.
To the INHABITANTS of that part of Washington county, East of Rock-Creek.
THE situation in which the city of Washington is placed by the cession of Maryland, and assumption of the United States, demands the attention of its inhabitants:—to take this situation into consideration, and make a proper representation to Congress, of our local interests, devolves upon us, therefore, as a duty. And, that the session may not pass without suitable provision being made for our internal government, a meeting will be held at the Capitol, on Monday the 22d inst. at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, for the purpose of choosing a committee to draft a memorial on the subject.
March 16th, 1802.
NOTICE.
In the case of THOMAS WATERMAN, BANKRUPT.
WHEREAS a commission of Bankruptcy is awarded against Thomas Waterman, late of the City and county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, merchant; and the major part of the commissioners having, on due proof and examination declared him a bankrupt, the said Thomas Waterman is hereby required to surrender himself to the commissioners on Tuesday the 30th inst. on Tuesday the 13th day of April next, at 10 o'clock P. M. on each of said days, at the house of William Rhodes, in the City of Washington, innkeeper; then and there to be examined by the said commissioners; and to make a full and fair disclosure and discovery of his estate and effects. The creditors of the said bankrupt are to take notice, that at the second of the said meetings they are to come prepared to prove their debts and to choose an assignee or assignees. All persons indebted to the said bankrupt, or who have any goods or effects of his in their hands, are required not to pay or deliver the same to him, but to give notice thereof, to JOHN HEWITT, Clerk to the Commissioners.
March 17, 1802.
In Council, Annapolis, Feb. 8, 1802.
Ordered, That the act to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and the qualifications of voters, passed at the last session of the general assembly of this state, be published twice in each week, for the space of three months, successively, in the Maryland Gazette, at Annapolis; the federal Gazette, the American and the Telegraph, at Baltimore; the Museum, at George-Town; the National Intelligencer, the paper at Easton; Bartee's paper, at Frederick-town, and in the Washington Spy.
By order, NINIAN PINKNEY, CLK.
An ACT to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and qualifications of voters.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That every free white male citizen of this state, and no other, above twenty-one years of age, having resided twelve months in the county next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, and every free white male citizen of this state above twenty-one years of age, and having obtained a residence of twelve months next preceding the election in the city of Baltimore or the city of Annapolis, and at which he offers to vote, shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote by ballot in the election of such county or city, or either of them, for delegates to the general assembly, elections of the senate, and district.
And be it enacted, That all & every part of the constitution and form of government of this state repugnant thereto, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this act, shall be and the same are hereby abrogated, annulled and made void.
And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the general assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election, as the constitution and form of government directs, that in such case this act, and the alteration of the said constitution contained therein shall be considered as a part, and shall constitute and be valid as a part, of the said constitution and form of government, to all intents and purposes, any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
February 16, 1802. 22v. 3m.

NOTICE.
ON the 10th instant captain Naylor and the subscriber dissolved partnership in the Eastern Branch Ferry, and public House connected therewith.
PASL TALBERT.
March 15, 1802.
Looking Glasses.
J. COOK
Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Prints.
FOR SALE.
At J. March's Store, High-street, George-Town.
THE subjects of the Prints are very interesting, and in superbly gilt frames; and the glasses are of the first qualities, in the most modern and elegant frames, and of any size.
They are marked at the lowest cash Prices.
March 15, 1802.
Public Sale.
On Saturday the 20th inst. will be sold to the highest bidder (if not sold previous by private contract) that well known property in the City of Washington, between the President's House and the Capitol, generally known by the uncommon overflowing of two wells, whose water is excellent, and may be converted to a variety of uses, particularly in the creation of booths of every denomination.
THERE is at present on it a good two story brick house, a good frame kitchen, and a frame that may be converted into a stable. The lot fronts 56 feet four inches South on C Street, runs back to a thirty feet alley 250 feet. It would be superfluous to say anything further, as respects this valuable property, as those who with to purchase, will view it prior to, or on the day of sale. Terms made known on the day of sale.
WM. CLARKE.
March 15, 1802.
Sale at Auction.
Pursuant to a Deed of Trust from Amariah Frost, and Esther his wife, to the subscriber, dated the 23th day of August 1800, will be sold to the highest bidder at Public Auction, on the 23th day of March next at 12 o'clock, at Stella's Tavern, in the City of Washington.
A Lot of Ground.
BEING a moiety of No 17, contained in square No 634, fronting 27 feet 4 inches on North Capitol Street, in said City; adjoining the south wall of the buildings lately erected by General Washington. This spot of ground is considered very valuable from its nearness to the Capitol and pleasant situation commanding an extensive prospect of the City and its vicinity. The title will be made indisputably good, and the terms of sale known at the time and place before-mentioned.
J. G. LADD.
Also will be offered for sale at the same time and place, the remaining part of said Lot No 17, being of the same dimensions as the above, and lying contiguous thereto, unless previously disposed of at private sale.
Alexandria, March 15, 1802.
GENNESSE.
For Sale.
All the Subscriber's Mills, Houses and improved Farms, in the Counties of Ontario and Steuben, in the state of New-York.
To meet the views of the numerous applicants for this valuable property, and to give an opportunity of acquiring it on fair and equal terms, the subscriber offers it for sale at Public Auction, on Wednesday the 15th day of June next, at POWELL'S Hotel in Geneva, on the favorable terms of one fifth cash, and the remainder payable in six annual payments with lawful interest.
The Mills are situated at Hopeton, Lyons,odus, Genesee Falls, Caledonia, Hemlock-Lake, Painted Post, Bath, and Canisteo, several of which are merchant mills, and the greater part of them are erected on the navigable waters leading to Montreal, Albany and Baltimore.
The houses are situated in Bath, Painted Post, Hopeton, Geneva, Lyons andodus, and the improved farms are in the neighborhood of these towns. All of which will positively be sold except the House and Farm occupied by the subscriber, near Bath.
CHARLES WILLIAMSON.
Bath, March 1, 1802.
FOR SALE.
I WOULD sell on reasonable terms, three or four hundred acres of Land, in the centre of my estate at Marlborough, on the Virginia side of the river Potomac, about 45 miles below the City of Washington, and 13 distant from Fredericksburg; the whole constituting a very desirable situation for a substantial Farmer, on a moderate scale. This tract extends for length, from Potomac river across the neck of Accotack creek—it has most beautiful situations on the river for a country seat; it has a fine Lock & Herring Fishery, and a landing that must be very valuable, as it is the only hold water on the Potomac, that can be connected by land carriage with Fredericksburg. The soil is very rich, and it lies very well for cultivation, with a large bank of the richest shell marl—part of it is a most valuable firm marsh, from which 100 to 150 tons of good hay might be annually taken; a portion of this is ditched and drained for timothy. The improvements are an over-sized house, barn and negro quarters. If not before sold by private contract, it will be offered at public vendue on the 20th of May, on the premises. (The seller reserving a bid) deliverable in the fall. Mr. William May, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase.
JOHN F. BERGER.
Annapolis, Feb. 26, 1802.
FOR SALE.
A superb Curricule with plated Harness. ALSO a pair of young, handsome and fleet PONIES, and a capital saddle horse, who never was in harness. Enquire of the Printer.
Dec. 18.
Looking Glasses.
Are now open and for sale, a few Looking Glasses in handsome and fashionable frames, of moderate Large sizes. Ladies or gentlemen wanting such articles, will please apply to Mr. Charles Varden, Capitol Hill. Persons wishing to be supplied with large Pier Looking Glasses, Tables, Ornaments for beds or Windows, Picture Frames, &c. will be waited on in a few days by leaving their address as above.
N. B. Venetian blinds made to any size, and on very moderate terms. March 12, 1802.
I offer for Sale,
A two story FRAME HOUSE and Lot. THE lot is twenty-eight feet front, by one hundred feet deep; it is lot No. 5, on Eleventh Street, and in square 347, between the President's house and Great Hotel, the house is not finished; but a reasonable deduction will be made to any person wishing to purchase the same. It is offered to go to any farther particulars, as any person wishing to purchase the same, can view the premises at any time. Application to be made to the subscriber living on the spot, or to Jasper Jackson, merchant, living in George-Town.
ANTHONY JONES.
March 12, 1802.
For Sale,
A NEAT Frame House and Lot, on New-Jersey Avenue, square 609; sixteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bow window, a parlour and closet back; on the second floor two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches front, running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabout. For terms apply to
JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol March 5, 1802.
Public Auction.
By virtue of an order from the Orphan's court of Prince George county, will be exposed to Public Sale for cash, on the 24th day of March next, at the dwelling of Richard Lamar, in said county.
All the property of Mary Lamar, deceased; consisting of twelve negroes, among which are women, girls, and boys—Also a variety of household furniture.
All persons indebted to the said estate are desired to make payment immediately; and those that have claims against the same, are requested to exhibit them properly authenticated, before the first day of May next, to the subscriber.
JOHN LAMAR, Admr.
Feb. 19, 1802.
NOTICE.
COMMITTED to the Jail of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, as a Runaway, a Negro Woman named CHARLOTTE, about nineteen years of age, five feet four or five inches high. She says she is the property of Lewis St. John, near Battle Town, Frederick county, Virginia.
The owner is requested to come and pay Charges and take her away.
DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. Feb. 5, 1802.
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR,
SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, calimeres, swansdowns, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His unremitting attention shall be given to merit patronage.
Capitol Hill, next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings.
Dec. 7, 1801.
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, Calimeres, Swansdown, Toylennets, Velveretts, Fancy Cords, Coatings, 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.
NOTICE.
Committed to the jail of Washington County, District of Columbia, the following Slaves, viz.
NEGRO Sarah Ann Owens—Committed the 20th February; says she belongs to William Foote, of Alexandria. Has a scar on her breast, is four feet one inch high, supposed to be about 22 years of age.
Also—A dark Mulatto Woman, calls herself Peggy—Committed 23d February; says she belongs to Julhua Power, near Port Tobacco, Maryland. Has a scar on her right arm, occasioned by a burn—is 5 feet 4 inches high, supposed to be about 35 years of age. The owners of the aforesaid slaves are requested to come and pay charges and take them away; otherwise they will be sold for their fees, agreeably to law.
DANIEL C. BRENT,
Marshal of the District of Columbia. March 3, 1802.
For Sale,
Or to To Let, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable.
Dec. 16.
ISAAC POLOCK.
Lands for Sale.
WE will sell that valuable Farm, lying in Prince George county, containing 200 acres more or less, and one other tract containing 150 acres adjoining the above late the property of Richard Beall deceased; those lands are well timbered and watered, and at a small expense there might be made at least 40 acres of meadow. The improvements on the first mentioned land are a good dwelling house, kitchen, new barn, an excellent ran yard, and several other convenient out houses; and the last mentioned land has a new log dwelling house, and other convenient out houses. These lands lie four miles from Bladensburg and ten from the City of Washington. For terms apply to Samuel N. Smallwood at the Washington Navy Yard, or to the subscribers living near the premises.
AZEL BEALL, RICHARD WALKER, Executors. March 1, 1802.
NOTICE.
Will be offered for sale by Auction, on the 18th day of March next, on the premises, one moiety or half part of an excellent frame house in the City of Washington, on Pennsylvania Avenue, between the Seven Buildings and George-Town.
At present occupied by Mr. Watkins, and adjoining the brick house in which Mr. Amariah Frost lives. One half part of the lot will be sold with the house, and Jacob R. Rhodes's title to the same will be conveyed to the highest bidder. This property is taken by virtue of two writs of fieri facias to me directed, issued out of the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Washington, Frederick Betz, against Hugh Boyd, Jacob R. Rhodes, and George Hayward. Terms of sale cash—time of sale 11 o'clock. A.M.
DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal. Feb. 19, 1802.
A Good Bargain!
Will be sold by Public Sale, on Wednesday the 17th of March next, at 12 o'clock on the premises.
A VALUABLE Farm situate on Tom's Creek, near Emmittsburg, Frederick county Maryland; containing about 280 acres, 35 whereof are good meadow, mostly timothy, and well watered—120 acres timber land, and the remainder good farming land. Well adapted for raising grain and clover; there is on said farm a two story log dwelling house and kitchen, a stone milk house, and smoke house; a hill house with two stills and a boiler, and a constant stream of water running through both. A good log barn 64 by 30 feet, a new frame cow house 50 by 30 and other convenient buildings, a large apple orchard, containing more than 600 trees; and a large number and variety of peach and cherry trees. This farm is well watered; every field having a constant stream running thro' it. One thousand pounds will be required to be paid in hand, the remainder of the purchase money in three equal yearly payments if the purchaser will pay the whole in hand, a generous discount will be made. At the same time and place will be offered for sale 280 acres, joining the above; the two have always been one farm, and will be sold separate or together as may suit the purchaser. The day following a large flock of horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, farming utensils, and household furniture, will be sold.
JOHN M. DAYARD.
Feb. 26, 1802.
VALUABLE
LAND FOR SALE.
FOR sale about 4500 acres of land belonging to the estate of Judge Mercer, deceased, and situated in the county of Loudoun, on the waters of Goose Creek, about 40 miles from Alexandria and the Federal City. A large portion of this tract is meadow ground, of good quality, and the soil of the high land is well adapted to every species of produce usually cultivated on land similarly situated in the upper country. Such portion of it as remains uncultivated, affords an extensive and excellent range for stock of every kind. On one part of this land is one of the most valuable mill sites in the state. The supply of water is inexhaustible, and the mill could be erected immediately on the side of the public road leading from Winchester to Alexandria. It is computed that the number of wagons almost constantly travelling along this road, amount to at least 5 or 600. So that a ready market might always be had here, for a very considerable quantity of grain and hay.
It is deemed unnecessary to describe more particularly the many advantages of this tract of land, as it is expected that all persons disposed to purchase, will first view the premises. To accommodate purchasers the whole tract will be divided into lots of 4 or 500 acres each, with as much wood and meadow land to every lot as circumstances will admit. And it is believed that the whole 4500 acres may be so laid off into farms of the above-mentioned size, as to leave in each as much wood and meadow land as would be desired.
The price and time of payment will be made known by the subscribers. Letters directed to John T. Brooke, Fredericksburg, or to James M. Garnett, Laytons, will be answered without delay.
JOHN T. BROOKE, JAMES M. GARNETT, Admrs. Feb. 8, 1802.
For Sale or Rent,
Two three story brick houses in Alexandria completely furnished on King and Columbia Street, with suitable valuable property near the same, possession whereof may be had immediately. This situation for the new and grocery business is equal to any in Alexandria.
For terms apply to Henry Thomas Moore, Alexandria, or to the subscriber.
NICHOLAS VOSS.
Farming Lands for Sale.
THE subscriber would sell about 1000 acres of the tract of Land whereon Dr. John D. Orr at present resides, in the county of Prince William, situated a few miles from the seat of the district Court, and within convenient marketable distance of the Occoquan Mills and Dumfries. It is of the first rate quality of soil, is abundantly supplied with wood and water, and has a large proportion of ground which is in a peculiar manner adapted to the growth of timothy grass.
Also the tract of land adjacent to the above, late the property of Mr. Thomas Swann of Alexandria, together with about 300 acres of woodland, of the above described tract, making about 1550 acres; the quality and advantages being similar to that. The first-mentioned tract will be conveyed to the purchaser free from every encumbrance, a considerable payment in hand will be expected, and the lowest price per acre twenty dollars. Possession to be given the ensuing spring, with a reversion of the growing crop of small grain, but the last-mentioned tract will be sold subject to existing Leases for short terms of years, under fixed covenants guarding against waste and injury of the property, &c. and subject to the purchase money which will be due for the same to Mr. Swann, with interest, in about 9 years. The payment required in hand is the remainder of the amount, about two thousand pounds; and the price per acre is eighteen dollars.
Also the reversionary interest in the Piedmont Tract, situated below the mountain called the Short Hill, in Loudoun county, consisting of several thousand acres, chiefly under Leases to the occupants, and forming perhaps the best settlement in Virginia; of the same extent, extremely well watered; improved with the best meadows and orchards, and peculiarly adapted to the use of the Plough of Paris. This Land will be sold in Lots consisting of one or more tenements, as may best suit purchasers, together with one or more Lots of woodland to be laid off on the S.E. side of the Short Hill for the convenience of any of said tenements that may be fitted for wood. There are several good mill sites upon this tract, which is not more than 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington, and no part of it more than 15 miles from Leesburg. The price per acre will be various, according to the quality and advantages of the Land, and circumstances of the Leases, but an extensive credit will be given by instalments, upon receiving what it may be convenient for the purchasers to pay in hands. It is desired that persons wishing to purchase this property, will signify their intentions before the wood land is laid off.
Also two or three small Farms with every requisite convenience for immediate operation, in the counties of Jefferson and Frederick, and at various prices.
And several valuable building Lots, situated upon the Pennsylvania Avenue, in the City of Washington; some upon square 74, near the Six Buildings, and some upon square 38; besides other very valuable Lots in that City.
Application to be made in person, or by letter, (post paid) directed to Charlottesville, Virginia, to
FERDINANDO FAIRFAX,
Shan. Hill, March 5, 1802.
Land and Houses for Sale.
The Subscriber will sell by private contract, the following valuable property.
TWO TRACTS of Land, in Culpepper county, Virginia, lying on Flat Run, near Rorman's Ford, distant 28 miles from Fredericksburg, and 55 from the City of Washington. One tract contains 700 acres, the other 300; the soil of which is equal to any in the vicinity, and is more particularly productive of grass. They are separated from each other by a never-failing stream, which waters 200 acres of the best bottom land, a great proportion of which consist of mowing and grazing meadow. Of the 700 acres tract, 300 are cleared and in arable order, and 250 of the smaller tract are highly improved. The buildings on the latter tract are commodious, consisting of a roomy dwelling house lately erected, a kitchen, stables, servant's houses, all in good repair; near which are extensive and flourishing orchards of apples and peaches, and a large kitchen garden. On the other tract are an over-sized house, negro cabin, &c. The situation as to health, agreeable society, and convenience to mills, both law and grid, can be exceeded but by few places. They will be sold either together or separate.
Also, in the town of Alexandria, two elegant three story brick houses, situated the one on King, the other on Columbia Street, and 40 by 20 feet each. They are well calculated for private families, and are as well situated as any in the town, for the grocery and flour business.
Also, in the same town, five unimproved lots on King-Street, and three on Patrick-Street, which will be sold or leased, for any length of time, and about one mile from the town, 9 or 34 acres of land, pleasantly situated on the Leesburg road.
He will also sell a handsome and commodious three story brick house, lately finished, in the City of Washington, on F Street, not far from the branch-bank, 28 feet by 40, occupied at present by the Secretary of State; and adjoining thereto, a good framed house, well calculated both for a family and retail store, there being a large floor-room in front, and four other convenient rooms, with a kitchen and stable on the lot.
A framed house, two stories high, 26 feet by 20, on F. Street, directly opposite the branch bank. The above houses are situated in by far the best improved and most pleasant part of the city.
Several unimproved lots, in good situations in the City of Washington, and 7 or 8000 acres land in Kentucky.
The whole and any part of the above described property will be sold on such terms as will render complete satisfaction to purchasers. For the lands in Virginia, on the payment of one third of the purchase money in hand, a credit will be given for the residue, of one two and three years, payable in three equal instalments with interest.
Fifty or sixty negroes will be taken in payment for any part of it.
For further particulars, as to terms, apply to the subscriber or, in his absence to John Hewit, attorney at law, City of Washington, to Robert B. Vols, esq. of Cupper for the lands in Virginia; and to Henry Moore, esq. of Alexandria, for the property in Alexandria.
NICHOLAS VOSS.
Washington, Feb. 26, 1802.
The subscriber respectfully ac-
equaints the public, that he has removed to the corner of Ninth and B Streets, where he continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of Ornaments for Chimney pieces, Door Caps, Frontispieces Metal Safes, &c. which may also be had at his store No. 51, Barclay Street, New-York, and to Mr. Wild's Store, Market Street, Baltimore.
GEORGE ANDREWS.
Who has gold leaf for sale by the package at a book.
May 8, 1801.
For sale, or to be rented.
A House and lot on the Capitol Hill—the lot is 20 feet 2 inches on Delaware Avenue, and about 200 feet deep extending back to a 50 feet Alley. The House is a handsome well finished convenient three story brick house, containing 2 sealed garrets, 5 chambers, 2 parlours—kitchen with a pantry and cellar.
It is directly opposite to the Buildings of WASHINGTON, occupied by Gen. Dearborn, near adjoining to a number of houses belonging to Mr. Carroll, rented to Mr. Dalton and others. From its vicinity to the Capitol, it is well calculated for a private family; or a person attached to the offices of the Federal Legislature.—Adjoining is a lot of about 40 feet front on same Avenue, and running same depth back. (the whole under a good post and rail fence) which, if required would be sold at same time. If rented, the Tenant may have the use of the whole of the lot, which would make an excellent garden, having a South and Eastern exposure, as long as convenient to the proprietor. This property would be sold a Bargain for satisfactory payments, or well situate property in Philadelphia would be taken in exchange.
Apply to Benjamin Burch, New Jersey Avenue or to the Editor of the National Intelligencer—or to Karrick and Percival, Philadelphia.
Nov. 21.
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of land containing 2,500 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, late the residence of PRESLEY THORN ON, 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 orchard 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 grist, or saw-mills on this estate, and plenty of cedar and chert timber, exclusive of the heavy timber, which if sawed up into scantling 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 for 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.
The Arabian Horse The Dey of Algiers.
ARRIVED on the 19th inst. in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Minton, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swan of Massachusetts, now in Europe.
He will stand the ensuing season, at my farm in Montgomery county, seven miles from this town and the City of Washington, and will cover at forty dollars the season (commencing the 1st of March) and one dollar to the groom, the money or an approved promissory note to be sent with the mare.
This beautiful animal was brought from Arabia in the year '98, at four years old; by the late grand bailiff Fromm, or Prussia; into that kingdom, and was purchased at the sale of the bailiff's studs, after his death, at Fribourg, in '99, lieutenant general Frederick baron of Biemar, by whom he was sent to Hamburg to col. Swan, whence he was by that gentleman shipped to America; to attest which, and to prove him to be a genuine Arabian horse, original certificates are in my hands, and may at all times be seen.
The Dey is of full stature for his race, he measures exactly fourteen hands two inches and an half. His colour is early white, with a few brown spots dappled over his neck and shoulders. In figure and bone, it is believed, he will stand the test of the best judgment. He is only eight years old the coming spring. He is of fine presence and carriage; and remarkably vigorous and active.
As it is the wish of his proprietor to display the merits of this horse in his colts—as early, and with as much certainty as possible, by his order, no more than fifty mares will be received this season.
I have excellent and extensive pasture well fenced, adjoining the land, at two shillings and six pence per week. Grain and green clover will be furnished if desired, at moderate prices.—Great care shall be taken of mares, and every justice done them with the horse; but I will be answerable for no accidents or cleaves. If gentlemen at a distance choose to send servants with their mares they shall be provided for on reasonable terms.