The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-03-18 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1159.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24th, 1808.
Debate on the bill for the punishment of treason and other crimes and offences against the United States.
Mr. POPE moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until the first Monday in December next. The President having put the question—
Mr. POPE said that after the very able and ingenious argument of the honorable chairman of the committee (Mr. Giles) who reported the bill, it was with very great reluctance and diffidence that he rose to offer his view of the question.
The bill however assumed a principle entirely new, and went to create offences which had been, he believed, heretofore unknown in the general government or any of the state governments. The importance as well as novelty of the subject, rendered a full discussion of its merits necessary, before the House pronounced a final decision. A sense of duty therefore prompted him, feeling a conviction that the measure was unconstitutional and inexpedient, to express his sentiments on the subject.
Questions of this kind, said Mr. Pope, whatever may be their ultimate fate, answer one good purpose. They invite an examination of first principles—they lead us to explore the foundation of our political fabric, and the boundaries which the people of these states have drawn around the powers of Congress. We should have constantly in view that the people are the fountain of all power, and when we are about to do any act, it is our duty to enquire whether we have received from that fountain any grant of power to authorize it. Before I proceed to investigate the merits of this bill I must beg leave to strip this debate of one subject, with which it has been encumbered, and which I think ought not to have been introduced to play upon the question before us. I mean the judiciary and the independence of judges. Many observations have been made on this subject, the relevancy of which I have not perceived; for whether their independence be retained or diminished, I presume their judicial functions will not be altered. The orbit in which the constitution has destined the judiciary to move will remain the same.
On the subject of the independence of the judiciary I have never indulged much theoretic speculation. My impressions are rather the result of education and habit, than of a thorough examination of the principles on which they are predicated. After the declaration of American independence the people of the several states in forming their constitutions introduced this principle of an independent judiciary; and at the time the federal constitution was adopted, it appears to have been a favorite one with all parties. For my part I have considered the constitution defective in not providing for the removal of judges by address, for any reasonable cause which does not constitute matter of impeachment. The American people have incorporated into their systems of government such features of the British government as were supposed to favor the liberty of the subject.
It seems to have been supposed at the time this subject was before the nation, to be necessary to interpose some barrier to protect the rights of the minority against the persecuting spirit of an overbearing majority, and to secure an accused individual against oppression and injustice from the strong arm of power. The independence of the federal judiciary was deemed a valuable safeguard against the encroachments of the federal government on the rights of the people, and the sovereignty of the states. The value and importance of this principle here was probably estimated in a great measure by its supposed effects in the British government. To protect the weak against the strong; to secure to every man, whatever may be his condition, equal and impartial justice is certainly the legitimate end of every government. To accomplish this great object, it seems to have been thought necessary to give our judicial tribunals such a degree of independence as would enable them to administer justice to all without respect to persons, uninfluenced or overawed by any power or party in the government. Whether this principle is correct in the full extent to which it has been carried by our constitution, it would be perhaps prema-
ture for me now to decide, inasmuch as we have reason to expect that the question will be presented to us in a distinct and independent form. I shall regret to see our judges the tools of an administration, or associated with an opposition for the purpose of embarrassing it. Whenever a judge proclaims the temple of justice by acting the part of a political partisan, he ought to be execrated by every honest man in the nation.
I shall rest here on the present occasion, laying entirely out of view the independence of the judiciary, and will proceed to enquire whether we have the power to legislate as proposed by the bill. The House will please to mark the essential difference between the constitutions of the several states and the constitution of the United States. The former are limitations of power; the latter a special grant of power. The legislatures of the several states have all power not expressly prohibited. The Congress of the United States has no power but what is expressly given. But while I notice this distinction, let it not be understood that I am opposed to fair and liberal construction.
It will not be amiss to retrospect the state of things before the federal constitution was adopted. The states were united by a compact purely federal—the old Congress had no authority to enforce their laws or ordinances by acting upon the people individually. Its acts were binding on the states, and depended on their agency to carry them into effect. This form of government was found by experience to be inefficient, and the present constitution was presented to the view of the American people. This is partly federal, partly national. It authorizes Congress to carry their powers into effect by an agency on the people; and it will be recollected that of this national consolidating feature the people were most jealous, and against it the opposition was principally directed. It was apprehended that this government would accumulate powers by implication until it would swallow up the state governments in one great consolidated empire. It will be recollected that before the present constitution was adopted, the states respectively had power to punish all crimes committed within their respective jurisdictions, and all powers not granted to this government having been reserved to the states and the people, it follows that all crimes are cognizable by the states, except such as are specified in the federal constitution.
In the enumeration of powers granted to Congress the constitution contains the following provision: "To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations." Here a power is expressly given both to define and punish; but when the constitution speaks of the crime of treason a very different phraseology is made use of. It seems to have been deemed necessary to give Congress a power to punish treason, but the framers of our constitution, warned by the history of other nations of the abuses and oppressions which had been committed in prosecutions for this offence, that treasons had been the great engine by which violent parties in free governments had borne down each other, deemed it of importance to the liberties of the people to oppose a barrier to this danger by inserting in the constitution a definition of the crime. This definition is as follows: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." This definition was considered clear, precise and determinate, and certainly intended to be as fixed and immutable as the constitution itself. The constitution then proceeds: "No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." The constitution has not only provided a barrier against legislative tyranny, but by fixing the proof necessary for conviction, has furnished innocence a great security against that odious class of beings, so common in despotic governments, called spies and informers.
The last clause I have read merits particular notice. It gives to Congress power to declare the punishment of treason, but none to define it
In the clause respecting piracies and felonies a power is expressly given both to define and punish. These several parts of the constitution which I have read seem by necessary implication to negative the power of Congress to define this crime. It is certainly our sacred duty to expound this instrument according to the will of those who framed it, as far as that will can be fairly collected; whether then the exposition I have given is ested by the constitution itself or by the sense of the American people after it was framed, and before it was finally ratified, the result will be the same. It is well known that the work called the Federalist was written by several members of the convention that framed this constitution; in one of the numbers comprised in that work the same construction is given to this clause for which I contend; and the author assigns the reasons why power is given to Congress to define piracies, &c. and none to define treason. This exposition of the clause respecting treason is also maintained by col. George Nicholas and Mr. Edmund Randolph, in their speeches in the Virginia convention, and Mr. Randolph, it will be recollected, was a member of the convention who framed this constitution. Still further to corroborate the opinion I have advanced, I will beg leave to read the observations of judge Wilson on this subject in one of his lectures to his students. I rely much on the opinion of judge Wilson; he was also a member of the convention, a man of eminent talents, and if his judgment was under any bias, it was rather in favor of increasing than diminishing the powers of the federal government. He expresses himself as follows:
"Treason is unquestionably a crime most dangerous to the society and most repugnant to the first principles of the social compact. It must however be observed that as the crime itself is dangerous and hostile to the state, so the imputation of it has been and may be dangerous and oppressive to the citizens. To the freest governments this observation is by no means inapplicable, as might be shewn at large by a deduction historical and political, which would be both interesting and instructive; but at present we have not time for it.
"To secure the state and at the same time to secure the citizens; and according to our principles, the last is the end and the first is the means, the law of treasons should possess the two following qualities: 1st. It should be determinate. 2d. It should be stable."
After reciting the observations of the celebrated Montesquieu on the crime of treason, he proceeds:
"In point of precision and accuracy with regard to this crime, the common law, it must be owned, was grossly deficient. Its description was uncertain and ambiguous; and its denomination and penalties were wastefully communicated to offences of a different and inferior kind. To lop off these numerous and dangerous excrescences and to reduce the law on this important subject to a designated and convenient form, the famous statute of treasons was made in the reign of Edward the third, on the application of the Lords and Commons. This statute has been in England, except during times remarkably tyrannical or turbulent, the governing rule with regard to treasons ever since. Like a rock, strong by nature and fortified as successive occasions required, by the able and the honest assistance of art, it has been impregnable by all the rude and boisterous assaults which have been made upon it at different quarters, by ministers and by judges; and as an object of national security, as well as of national pride, it may be styled the legal Gibraltar of England."
In a subsequent part of the same lecture he observes:
"This statute was a safeguard from the arbitrary constructions of courts: It was a shelter from judicial storms, but it was no security against legislative tempests. No parliament, however omnipotent, could bind its successors, possessed of equal omnipotence; and no power higher than the power of parliament was then or is yet recognized in the judicial system of England. What was the consequence? In the furious and sanguinary reign of Henry the 8th, the malignant spirit of inventing treasons revived, and was carried to such a height of mad extravagance, that, as we have seen on another occasion, the learned as well as the unlearned, the cautious as well as the unwary, the honest as well as the vicious, were
entrapped in the snares. Admonished by the history of such times and transactions as these, when legislators are tyrants or tools of tyrants, the people of the United States have wisely and humanely ordained that treason against the United States shall consist, &c. In this manner the citizens of the union are secured effectually from even legislative tyranny; and in this instance, as in many others, the happiest and most approved example of other times has not only been imitated, but excelled. This single sentence comprehends our whole of national treason; and as I mentioned before, is transcribed from the statute of Edward the 3d."
In addition to the opinions which I have cited I will beg leave to add that of judge Tucker, whose learning, ability, and political sentiments entitle it to very high respect. It will be recollected also that the attention of the American people was particularly awakened to an examination of this constitution after it was framed, and before it was ratified. During that period every section, clause & line was strictly scrutinized, and I believe in no instance did the constitution receive the construction now contended for. Before the statute of Edward the 3d, the judges had great latitude of discretion in defining treason, and being tools of the crown, the subjects were harassed and oppressed to such a degree that the lords and commons procured this famous statute of treasons to be passed in order to render this crime so definite and certain that people could understand it, and to bridge the arbitrary discretion of the judges. We are therefore compelled to believe that the wisdom of that parliament as exerted to make as clear and precise a definition of this crime as the English language would enable them. This definition of this species of treason which consists in levying war stood the test of nearly 600 years experience without amendment. If the English courts have in any instances departed from this definition, we must attribute it to the violence of the times in which the decisions were given rather than to any defect in the law. The experience of the world has proved that in all countries the tone of public feeling will in some degree influence all the operations of government, & hence it appears that when a nation is agitated by danger from foreign or domestic enemies the laws are executed with more vigor than in a time of perfect tranquility. Although we have reason to felicitate ourselves that we are exempt from the great evils and oppressions incident to despotic governments; yet I fear that party spirit when it runs high will not only influence the general course of our political affairs, but too often tinge the decisions of our judicial tribunals. I believe however that the evils felt in Great Britain from prosecutions for this crime were produced by the unprincipled pliability of parliament in manufacturing new and artificial treasons, during the reigns of tyrannical princes, and especially that of the celebrated monster Henry the 8th, than to any other cause. If any shades of difference are to be found in the decisions of our own courts, or any contrariety of opinion among learned men on the subject of treason, it is rather to be attributed to the prevalence of party spirit or contrariety of intellect, than to any real defect in the constitutional definition of the crime.
This constitution was framed but a few years after the close of our glorious revolution, when the feelings & prejudices of the American people were very strong against every thing British. Strange then, that those who drafted this instrument in their zeal to guard the people from oppression should have borrowed from a British statute a definition which experience had proved to be defective. Let it be remembered too that the convention who framed it was composed of some of the first statesmen & patriots that ever adorned any age or nation, & we must presume that if they could have devised a better definition, they would certainly have done it. My own opinion is, that every definition of crime should be concise, and that confusion and uncertainty is generally increased by amplification. If however all America has hitherto misunderstood this clause in the constitution, and we have a power to legislate on the subject, and it is expedient to do so, I will cheerfully lend my feeble aid to remedy the evils which are supposed by the committee to exist.
Permit me however first to examine the ground on which this power is claimed. The honorable chairman (Mr. Giles) has told us that our right to declare what act or acts shall a-
mount to a levying of war is derived from that clause in the constitution which gives Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution the powers previously granted, and all other powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States or in any department or office thereof. This is carrying the doctrine of implication much further than has ever been contended for. I have never understood this clause as containing any separate and independent grant of power, but as auxiliary merely. Before we can bottom any measure on this clause, it is necessary to connect it with some power granted to or vested in this government—we cannot surely imply a power to amend defects in the constitution and yet the course of reasoning of the honorable chairman, however plausible and ingenious, if it proves any thing, tends to prove that such a power is implied, and that inasmuch as treason is not sufficiently defined by the constitution, Congress has a right to define it, or which I consider the same thing, to explain the term levying war. If the constitution is defective, it belongs to the people, not to Congress, to provide a remedy. It is our duty to exercise power granted, and not to assume what we may deem necessary for the general welfare. It ought to be remembered that the people have already been alarmed by this doctrine of implication. The treason has been sounded, and they have, at least by implication, evinced their hostility to this latitude of construction. I presume gentlemen will not pretend to derive a power to pass this bill from the supposed expediency of the measure. I recollect to have heard some years ago a sentiment expressed by some character of high standing, whose name I have forgotten, that constitutionality and expediency were convertible terms, very much censured. It is very dangerous to indulge this doctrine of expediency at the expense of the fundamental principles of our government. The plea of expediency is too often resorted to, to justify the greatest outrages. It was on the broad and indefinite ground of expediency that Great Britain seized on the fleet of Denmark, and that the great belligerents of Europe have prostrated the maritime rights of neutral nations. This plea of expediency, when at war with the sacred principles of our government ought never to be used or palliated, but in extreme cases, in times of great public danger. At a moment when a government is agitated and convulsed, when its very existence is at stake, I should perhaps be as little pleased with the squeamish politician who would be sticking for constitutional niceties—but rather be disposed to admire the bold statesman, who would step forth and use the means necessary to dissipate the impending storm. A state of things is possible in all governments, when all the general rules and maxims established for the security of liberty must bend to the supreme law, the safety of the nation. Our constitution has anticipated such a state. But such is not now our situation—we are not legislating for a moment or to meet a particular emergency—we are passing a general permanent law, by which the conduct and trials of our citizens are to be regulated.
The honorable chairman made some observations about cubalistic words, by which he supposed some may have been misled, the drift of which I confess I did not comprehend. I presume that the framers of our constitution would not have used any but appropriate words and phrases. Much has been said about common law and English books, calculated more to prejudice than convince. To ascertain the meaning of any legal or technical phrases we resort to English law books, as we do to an English dictionary and English writers, to ascertain the meaning of any English word or phrase. The reports of the decisions of our own courts will gradually supersede the use of British authorities.
The honorable chairman emphatically asks, what is levying war? And I might in turn inquire what is war, and where do we find the meaning of the term or word? The constitution says, we shall have power to declare war. To ascertain what constitutes war we must resort to different writers on the subject. War may be waged between nations in many different ways. It might take a volume to explain the different warlike attitudes which nations may assume towards each other, and a man may be guilty of levying war in various ways. Levying war is the act or fact which

constitutes the crime of treason—as the killing a man with malice prepense is the act which constitutes the crime of murder. The levying of war is a complicated operation, which may be composed of many subordinate facts, it is the principal fact or result which must be proved or produced by the evidence before a court and jury can convict a man of treason, as killing a man with malice prepense is the principal fact or result which must arise out of the evidence before a man can be convicted of murder. If a man at the head of 50,000, 10,000, 1000 or 500 men should seize on the city of New Orleans, in defiance of the authority of the U. S. all men would consider it a levying of war—in a case of this kind there would be but one opinion. But if only two or three men were to assemble armed, with intent forcibly to overthrow the government of the United States, I presume no man would call this a levying of war—the idea would be ridiculed by the whole nation. The great difficulty is in fixing the line of partition between those acts which amount to levying war and those which do not, but nearly approach it. Crimes of different species are often separated by such delicate shades as to render it difficult to distinguish them; some slight difference is discernible between the opinions of different judges & writers who have undertaken to draw the line of distinction between murder and manslaughter, and in the application of any definition of crime to the variety of cases which happen, a difference of opinion frequently occurs between the most profound judges—neither human wisdom nor human language is competent to define crimes with such certainty and precision as will prevent contrariety of opinion in many equivocal cases which will arise—this perfect uniformity of which gentlemen seem to be in pursuit of, is unattainable—the attempts of the honorable committee however laudable appears to me extremely visionary. In order to guard entirely against this contrariety of opinion, of which gentlemen complain, some scheme must be devised for producing an uniformity of intellect, and compelling all men to view subjects through one common medium—something must be trusted to the good sense of the courts and juries. Some confidence must from necessity be reposed; although the wisdom of this nation was exerted to draw with precision the line of demarcation between the powers of the federal and the powers of the state governments, yet have we been differing about it ever since. There are many acts which all agree we have power to do, and there are many others which all agree we are not authorized to do—but questions frequently occur, about which there is great contrariety of opinion, and which must be settled by the good sense of those who have to decide them. These inconveniences which grow out of the operations of our government were foreseen—they result from the imperfection of all human institutions. How often does it happen that the highest offender against our laws eludes the stroke of justice by the error of the judge, the jury, or the application of those rules and maxims which have been established for the security of liberty. It was expected by the framers of our constitution that those bulwarks which they reared for the protection of innocence, would often afford impunity to the guilty. All our republican institutions are bottomed upon the humane principle that it is better that many guilty persons should escape than one innocent man should suffer. Shall we, because some partial inconveniences have been experienced, prostrate the sacred barriers fixed by the constitution!—No, sir. The wise statesman, the friend to freedom and human happiness, will reconcile himself to them as the lesser evil.
It is, sir, an invincible objection to this bill, that it violates that political axiom in the science of free governments, that the legislative, judicial and executive departments ought to be separate and distinct. It has been hitherto deemed wise to separate the power of interpreting laws from the legislative and executive powers. This maxim pervades all the governments of the union as well as the constitution under which we are assembled. It is a principle for which the greatest statesmen who have figured on the American theatre, and especially those most famed for their attachment to liberty, have professed a sacred regard. If this maxim be recognized it is a question worthy of consideration, whether the first section of this bill, which goes to explain the constitutional definition of treason in its nature, a legislative act, that Congress, every legislative body, has the power to add explanatory sections to any law which they cannot repeal, to govern any other department of the government. Can Congress give a construction to a treaty to govern our judicial courts? Surely such a power was never contended for. By the com-
pact between Virginia and Kentucky when the latter became an independent state, it was stipulated that all titles to land derived from the state of Virginia should be decided by the laws of that state then in force. Great uncertainty and confusion attended the construction of that law in the courts of Kentucky. But I presume it would hardly be contended that the legislature of Kentucky could remedy the evil by a legislative explanation of the law; and why? because it is a law over which it has no control. The executive and judiciary derive their powers partly from the constitution and partly from the acts of Congress. Can it be pretended that Congress has power by a legislative interpretation to direct or control either the executive or judiciary in the exercise of powers derived from the constitution? Certainly not. Each department within its own sphere of action must judge of the constitution for itself.
The people have by the constitution enacted the declaratory part of the law of treason by defining it, giving to Congress power to add the vindictory part by declaring the punishment; these combined constitute the law of treason, by which every man accused must be tried, the interpretation and application of which belongs not to Congress, but to courts and juries. By the first and second sections of the bill we are not only assuming the exercise of judicial powers, but we are abridging the rights of juries. Before any man can be convicted of treason he must be found guilty by a jury of his peers of the act of levying war, and whether levying war is considered a fact or compounded of law and fact, it is equally the province of the jury to decide it, whatever may be the opinion of the court. What are we attempting to do by this bill? Why, sir, we are undertaking to specify what acts shall amount to the fact or act of levying war, or rather declaring what evidence shall be sufficient to convict a man of the crime. A very strange opinion has been advanced by an honorable member of the committee, from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams). He contends that we have a right to give our opinion or exposition of this clause of the constitution, but that courts and juries will not be bound by it, if they should think differently. If this bill, when passed, will not be obligatory, it proves that we have no power to pass it. The constitution declares that the constitution itself and all laws passed in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. According to the opinion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, we might have judicial construction, legislative construction, and executive construction conflicting with each other. This would be a state of confusion and collision which could never have been intended by the wise framers of our happy constitution.
The honorable chairman has, however, controverted this right of the courts to disregard our explanation. I am not disposed on the present occasion to discuss at large the question whether the judicial courts can disregard an act of the legislature which they may deem unconstitutional. I am not an advocate for the power of the judiciary to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, in the latitude in which the proposition is generally stated. I presume that it cannot be pretended that the judges are authorized to erect themselves into a board of censors and ex mero motu by a written declaration to nullify an act of the legislature. But if a question of which they have cognizance is brought before them for adjudication, in a course of legal procedure touching the life, liberty, or property of an individual or individuals, in deciding which it becomes necessary to disregard the constitution or an act of Congress, they must give effect to the constitution, which is the supreme law, flowing immediately from the sovereign power, the people, rather than to the act of a subordinate authority. Every department within its sphere must judge for itself of the constitution and is bound to support it. The exercise of this negative power by the courts results from necessity in the discharge of their judicial functions. A court of justice ought to decide every case according to right, whether that right be deduced from an act of Congress or the constitution. I believe it was generally understood when this constitution was adopted, that the judiciary would when necessary and proper exercise this negative power.
The different departments were expected to check and restrain each other in some instances. But if they violated the constitution, however, perceive the necessity of the stirring or deciding the question at present. If we believe the constitution authorizes the present bill, we ought to presume
judges will entertain the same opinion. The legislature should not, without apparent necessity, bring itself into collision with any other department of the government. A state of hostility between the different departments is very much to be deplored. I consider this instability with regard to fundamental principles extremely unfortunate. It is essential to the happiness of every people and the permanency of every government to have them fixed and settled by a constitution or habit. Great leading principles when once established and understood serve as landmarks to direct those entrusted with the administration of the government, and to warn the people when their important rights are assailed.
One observation has been made in favor of this bill rather specious, but entirely destitute of solidity. We are told that it is necessary to amend the definition of treason to enable people to understand it. I presume no amendment or explanation is necessary for the honest part of the community. By the law of treason, as it now exists, every man is punishable who is guilty of levying war, in whatever manner it may be done; but if we specify the particular acts and declare that those only shall constitute the crime, we thereby enable the villain with more certainty to defy public justice.
There is one consideration which ought to impress itself on the mind of every member of this body. If we assume the power of specifying what acts shall amount to a levying of war, every future legislature can exercise the same power; and hence it will follow that treason instead of being fixed and immutable by the constitution, will always depend on the arbitrary opinion of the party that happens to predominate in the government. Sir, this barrier of the constitution must not be broken down. This once passed and we are afloat on a boundless ocean, without any thing to guide or restrain us, but our own will, whim and caprice.
(To be continued.)
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, MARCH 18.
CASE OF JOHN SMITH.
SENATE—MARCH 15, 1808.
The following is the letter of Mr. Smith, read by Mr. Harper, and addressed to Messrs. Bayard and Giles.
(DUPLICATE.)
Cincinnati, Feb. 12, 1808.
Gentlemen,
After the Senate had resolved to hear my testimony on the first of March, I made without a moment's delay, the best arrangement in my power to collect it. Being fully convinced that my defence would be incomplete without the testimony of witnesses in the states of Connecticut, New York, Kentucky and Ohio, and in the territories of Orleans and Mississippi, and it being physically impossible for me within the short period allowed by the resolution to attend in person at each of those places, I wrote to individuals with whom I was acquainted, and on whose friendship and exertions I thought a reliance could be placed, requesting them to procure the testimony required from five respective neighborhoods, and to forward it without a moment's delay to the seat of government. At the same time it was necessary for me by the resolution under which I acted, to designate the particular days on which the evidence at each place would be taken, and to give reasonable notice of the same to the persons whose testimony might be affected thereby. At this time you know I was at Washington City. My witnesses were dispersed as stated above, and the persons on whom a service of notice was required, were in different parts of the country.
Thus circumstanced, the task before me appeared an herculean one, but the object to be obtained was of infinite moment to myself, my family and my friends, and may I not add, not wholly uninteresting to my country. I therefore did not permit myself to despair for a moment, but made every exertion in my power to put myself in a state of preparation to meet the enquiry on the day appointed. Having arranged the time of taking testimony in different places, written to those by whose aid I expected to procure it, and forwarded notices to the persons who, by the resolution, were entitled to receive them, I immediately set out for Cincinnati to attend in person to the taking of testimony in this state, and in Kentucky, but my journey was so impeded by excessive rains, bad roads and high water, that I did not arrive this place till the evening of the 10th instant, and to increase my embarrassment already too great, it appeared on enquiry that the notice which I had forwarded by mail under cover to the post-master, for Elias Glover, had not come to hand. The appointed by that notice was the 10th instant, it therefore became necessary, as well on his account as my own, to appoint a more distant day, accordingly gave him notice that I
should proceed on the thirteenth inst. to take testimony, and immediately dispatched messengers to bring in my witnesses from Lebanon, Dayton, Hamilton and Laurenceburg. The moment I can obtain the depositions of the witnesses in this quarter which will unavoidably occupy some days, I shall without losing a moment, proceed to Lexington, and from thence to Bellpree and Marietta, on my way to the seat of Government, at each of which places I expect to procure testimony that will be important in my defence. What length of time will be required to complete this tour, God only knows, but I pledge myself that it shall be accomplished in as short a space as is within the power of human exertions, and yet I cannot venture a hope of being so successful as to come at the place of my destination by the first of March. I have contemplated forwarding my testimony by mail as fast as I can obtain it, that as much of it may be before the Senate as shall be possible prior to the day appointed for the investigation, though I dread the consequences that may be expected from the irregularity and uncertainty of the mail, at this inclement season when its progress is so often retarded by bad roads, ice and high water. If such difficulty and unavoidable delay is found to attend the attempt made by myself to obtain evidence in this quarter, what have I not to fear for the exertions of those in other places, who have not the same motives to stimulate them, that I feel. It is truly a painful idea, that a question of such importance to my feelings, character, family and future prospects in the world should be decided in my absence, or even in my presence before I can be prepared to meet it. Knowing, as I do, that nothing is wanting to secure my reputation and establish my innocence before the Senate and the world, but testimony that I can and will procure if indulged with reasonable time. Do not conjecture that I feel the most distant desire of evading the enquiry, or of delaying it one day longer than necessity compels me to request, and justice entitles me to expect. It has been invited by me, and I wish to meet it during the present session, nor can I yet believe there is one solitary member on the floor of the Senate who seeks a sacrifice by hurrying me through the forms of a trial with such rapidity as to exclude the possibility of a defence and thus to cut me off from the hope of every advantage I have calculated on deriving therefrom. Although I might collect much of the evidence in this part of the country, and reach the seat of government with it by the first of April, yet I cannot collect the whole, as some of the witnesses are now absent on business, nor can I reasonably hope to receive returns from my friends to whom I have written in other quarters before the middle of that month, and permit me to assure gentlemen that the facts which I can unequivocally prove by the witnesses in Connecticut, in the northern parts of the state of New York, and at Point Coupee, and in that quarter will compose a most important part of my justification. The season of the year in which I am compelled to collect the evidence required to meet the charges, presents difficulties peculiar to itself, the reluctance with which persons who have a knowledge of facts tending to criminate another, discover their information when they know it will be required and used as testimony; the difficulty of procuring the attendance of witnesses without the aid of compulsory process which has not been allowed me, and particularly when a part of those witnesses are the personal enemies of the party wanting them as is unfortunately my case; the necessity of giving personal and reasonable notice to those who may be affected by the testimony, and of proving before the Senate the actual service of that notice, adding to the uncertainty of finding the witnesses at their usual places of abode, create embarrassments, and delay, not easily to be overcome. But I have said enough to apprise you of my situation, prospects and wishes, and I must rely on your justice and candor for the result, which I cannot but hope and expect will be a reasonable extension of the time heretofore granted.
I am, Gentlemen, Very respectfully, Yours, &c. JOHN SMITH, of Ohio. Honorable J. A. Bayard, and William B. Giles.
The arguments assigned in favor of postponing to a future day the consideration of the report relative to Mr. Smith, principally were, that he had not had sufficient time to obtain testimony, owing to the distance of the scene, and the badness of the roads and weather; that the proposed delay, being within the session, could not be prejudicial to the public interest or that of the state of Ohio, as ample time would still remain for discussion.
On the other hand it was contended that ample time had already been allowed; that it was to be presumed that all the testimony he could procure was already either in the possession of the Senate or of his counsel; that it was but too probable, from the contemplated period of the session when Mr. S. left the city, that it was not his intention to meet an investigation before the Senate; that Congress had already entered the sixth month of their session, and that there was reason to expect that they would not continue to sit more than a few weeks; and that if the motion to postpone prevailed, their attention would, at the close of the session, be distracted by this subject, when business of great national moment would probable claim their whole time.
During the discussion, Mr. Hill house, said he had received an anonymous letter in relation to his conduct in this case, and took occasion to say that he should treat all such improper attempts to influence him with contempt.
Gen. S. Smith observed that he too had received an anonymous letter, which had, however, given him but little concern.
Mr. Adams said, he believed, if they were to compare notes, it would be found that many of the members had been honored with anonymous letters on this business. He, for one, had received anonymous letters, bearing date at Cincinnati and elsewhere. He added that during the session he had received many epistles of this description, and on various subjects, some couched in terms of censure, and others in terms of approbation, neither of which would have any influence on the discharge of his public duty.
MARCH 16.
Mr. Harper, of Counsel for Mr. Smith, offered a memorial, signed by himself and Mr. Key, requesting further time until the first Monday in April. The principal reasons assigned for this request are—
1. The want of due formality in the deposition of George Russell, which went to impeach the credibility of Elias Glover. This deficiency arose from the deposition having been taken without proof of notice to Elias Glover. The counsel intimate their expectation that a deposition with the requisite formalities will be received by the first Monday in April.
2. They state that none of the expected depositions, to prove that the visit of Col. Burr was merely a visit of ceremony or politeness, had been received, which they can ascribe to no other cause than a want of time.
3. The absence of Mr. Smith, and their consequent inability to do justice to his defence, as well from the want of his aid, as from the want of important testimony probably in his possession.
4. The memorial states that on the postponement which took place on the 1st of this month, in consequence of personal conversation with several members of the committee, and particularly the Chairman, one of the counsel (Mr. Key) had informed Mr. Smith that there was no doubt of an indulgence to the 1st of April, and that he might safely regulate his movements so as to be here by that time.
Mr. Harper added that the counsel of Mr. Smith disclaimed any intention unnecessarily to delay this case; and that they pledged themselves, if this indulgence should be granted, to ask no further.
Mr. Adams presumed it was not the intention of the counsel to misunderstand or misrepresent any thing which he had said to him. The facts were these:—On the 1st of March the counsel informed him that Mr. Smith was neither present or ready for his defence. He (Mr. A.) then observed, that if he desired it, he would make a motion for postponement, and asked him to mention to what day he wished a postponement. The counsel replied that it might be a month before Mr. Smith would be ready; but he would prefer a postponement for a shorter time, that if Mr. Smith should previously arrive, the business might be taken up. He (Mr. A.) had certainly no objection to a further continuance; but if the counsel, from anything which he had said, considered the Senate as pledged, he must have misunderstood him.
Mr. Key said he might have misunderstood the gentleman. He did not consider the Senate as pledged; but his impression was that there could be no doubt that further time would be allowed, and under that impression he had written to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Harper said the counsel did not wish to consider any member of the Senate as pledging the Senate. He knew that that could not be the case. That this was, therefore, a mistake, on their part, he admitted. But if it were to be attended with ill consequences, he hoped they would be confined to them, and not fall on Mr. Smith.
Mr. Bradley moved that the further consideration of the case be postponed until the first Monday in April.
Some intimation having been made to limit the postponement to the 1st day of April, Mr. Harper said he would extend the pledge he had made to that day.
On the motion of postponement to the 1st Monday of April, the Senate divided—Ayes 16—Nocs 16.

The President declaring himself in the negative, the question was lost.
Mr. Bayard moved a postponement to the 1st day of April, and supported the motion at some length. [His remarks are generalised in the following summary of the arguments.]
The VICE PRESIDENT said that the remarks of the gentleman who had just spoken made it proper for him to explain the reasons which had induced him to give his casting vote against the motion. When Mr. Smith made his first application for further time it was founded on his affidavit. This was at the time thought essential to justify the indulgence and great weight was attached to it—it was not material what his private sentiments were as to that procedure. Further time has since been allowed to him, and an extension of it had been now asked on the mere suggestion of his counsel without affidavit. With respect to the mistake stated to have been committed by his counsel, he should have been disposed to have given the most liberal decision; had not the counsel attended from the commencement of the business, and seen that there was nearly an equal vote on the previous indulgence, and if this (notwithstanding any conversation he might have had with an individual member) was not a sufficient admonition to be prepared, he knew not what could be. He would add that the prorogation of the business to the 1st Monday of April would be a pledge on the part of the Senate that they would remain in session to that day, as it would operate to the letting Mr. Smith go without a hearing.
The postponement was advocated by Messrs. Bayard, Hillhouse, Pope, Pickering and Giles; and opposed by Messrs. S. Smith, Crawford, Anderson, Moore, and Mitchell.
The advocates of the motion contended that the Senate, having agreed to hear Mr. Smith, it became incumbent upon them to allow him sufficient time to collect the materials for his defence; that sufficient time had not been granted; that the season had been unusually bad for travelling, and that the mail, on which he had in some instances relied, had frequently failed; that the mistake into which his counsel had fallen was extremely natural when it was considered that the disposition of business before Congress generally depended on the chairmen of committees; that if sufficient time were not allowed in this instance, the decision of the members might be exposed to great embarrassment, and some, who on a full disclosure of facts might vote for his expulsion, under such circumstances, might decide otherwise; that in the mere point of economy of time, the delay desired ought to be granted; for that if the case were at present prematurely brought on, the counsel under the delicate circumstances on which they were placed, could not fail from time to time to renew an application for further time, in which, considering the equal vote of the Senate, much discussion would unavoidably arise.
The opponents of the postponement observed that the present case was very different from those generally brought before courts of justice; that all that was necessary for the Senate was to be convinced of the unworthiness of Mr. Smith to hold a seat, to expel him; that notwithstanding time, and in their opinion ample time had been allowed him to make his defence; that all the material evidence from the states, where he had not been in person, was already received, and that it was to be presumed from the depositions received that all the evidence in his power to collect was also received from the other states; that the only material evidence, on which the charges against him were sustained, was that of Elias Glover, Peter Taylor, & Col. James Taylor, and that various depositions relative to them were in possession either of the Senate or the counsel; that under these circumstances, it could only be inferred to be the object of Mr. Smith, by these frequent application for delay, altogether to avoid an investigation before the Senate; that, unless the present time was improved, the session would be so nearly brought to a close, and so much business, probably of the utmost importance, be then pressing for the entire attention of Congress, as altogether to prevent the investigation of this case, or that full and dispassionate examination of it that it became the Senate to make.
They added that, if the Senate proceeded immediately in the consideration of the report, if any thing occurred which made a further delay necessary, it was in their power to, and they, no doubt, would allow further time.
The question was taken by Yeas and Nays on postponement to the first day of April, and carried—Yeas 17—Nays 15; as follows.
YEAS—Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bradley, Gaillard, Giles, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Howland, Mathewson, Mitchell, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith, (N. Y.) Sumner, Thruston, & White—17.
NAYS—Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gilman, Gregg, Kitchel, Maclay, Mitchell, Moore, Parker, Robinson, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (Ten.) & Turner—15.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16.
On this day the bill from the Senate for raising an additional military force underwent amendment in committee of the whole, but was not perfected.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17.
On this day a motion of Mr. Dawson to appoint a committee to enquire at what time it would be proper to adjourn, was after a short debate, ordered to lie on the table.
The following message was received from the President of the United States, and referred to a committee of the whole on the state of the Union.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.
I have heretofore communicated to Congress the decrees of the government of France of November 21, 1806, and of Spain of February 19, 1807, with the orders of the British government of January & Nov. 1807.
I now transmit a decree of the Emperor of France of December 17, 1807, and a similar decree of the 3d of January, by his most Catholic majesty. Although the decree of France has not been received by official communication, yet the different channels of promulgation through which the public are possessed of it, with the formal testimony furnished by the government of Spain in their decree, leave us without a doubt that such an one has been issued. These decrees and orders taken together, want little of amounting to a declaration that every neutral vessel found on the high seas, whatsoever be her cargo, and whatsoever foreign port be that of her departure or destination, shall be deemed lawful prize; and they prove more and more the expediency of retaining our vessels, our seamen and property within our own harbors until the dangers to which they are exposed, can be removed or lessened.
TH: JEFFERSON.
March 17, 1808.
The House went into committee on the report of the committee of Elections on the contested election of Mr. Key; on which however no decision was had.
[A detail of the proceedings of these two days, together with Mr. Key's speech on foreign relations, excluded by other matter, shall appear in our next.]
The Legislature of Delaware have disapproved the Vermont resolution, making the Judges removable on an address.
To the Editor of the Citizen.
The following letter, received by mail, has been communicated to several of the friends of governor Clinton, but finding the opinion it was intended to refute, more extensive than at first imagined; the gentleman to whom it was addressed, conceives he will be justified in giving it publicity through the medium of the press.
Washington, March 5, 1808.
DEAR SIR,
Yesterday I had the honor to receive your letter of the 1st inst. and am not surprised to learn that some of my friends in your city are induced to infer from my silence on the subject of the nomination of candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, made some time ago at this place, and since published in the newspapers, that my name was mentioned for the latter, with my knowledge and approbation. The inference is a natural one, although in the present instance incorrect.
Viewing with great anxiety the critical and alarming situation of our national affairs, and deeply impressed with a belief that it would require the united wisdom and patriotism of the different branches of the government, to avert the dangers which threaten our country, I formed a resolution at the commencement of this important session, not to participate in any conversation touching the ensuing Presidential election, or to express any sentiment or determination respecting it, that might have a tendency to disunion, or any baneful effect on our public deliberations.—This resolution I have hitherto scrupulously observed, and now regret the necessity I feel myself under, of a partial departure from it, in order to remove the false impressions which it seems my silence has occasioned, by assuring my friends, through you, that I never have been directly or indirectly consulted on the subject, either before or since that nomination was made; nor was I even apprised of the meeting held for the purpose, otherwise, than by having accidentally seen a notice or summons to one of the members to attend, from S. R. Bradley, Esq.
However correct and forcible the objections you have stated against this procedure may be, yet as it is a business in which I have had no agency or participation, and over which I can have no control; it might be considered improper in me, situated as I am, to make any comments on it.
I am with great respect and esteem,
Your most obedient servant,
GEORGE CLINTON.
Frankfort, K. Feb. 18.
At a meeting of the members of both branches of the Legislature, at the Eagle Tavern, in the town of Frankfort, on the 17th day of February, 1808, convened for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of designating a suitable and proper character to fill at the ensuing election the important office of President of the United States of America.
On the motion of the honorable Henry Clay, his excellency Christopher Greenup, esq. governor of this commonwealth, was unanimously called to the chair, the honorable Alfred William Grayson, esq. secretary of state for the state of Kentucky, was unanimously appointed secretary to the meeting.
Mr. Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives, then arose, and in an animated speech, called the attention of the Senators and Representatives present to an address to the free men of Kentucky, which he had prepared, and which being read was unanimously approved of and signed by the members present, and is as follows:
TO THE FREEMEN OF KENTUCKY.
Fellow-Citizens,
You have no doubt learned that the illustrious Jefferson declines being a candidate for the presidential chair, at the next election—Whilst we regret the loss of his eminent services, we cannot but admire and approve the motives which urge him to retire; they are an additional evidence of that virtue and patriotism which have always distinguished his useful life.
We are aware, fellow-citizens, that in the choice of his successor it is and ought to be your right to think and decide for yourselves.—We presume not to dictate to you, and we hope that we shall escape the imputation of arrogance when we merely venture to recommend to your consideration, a suitable character in our judgments.
In Mr. JAMES MADISON, the Secretary of State, are, we believe, combined all those qualifications which are requisite for the chief magistrate of the union. His superior talents, his integrity, his uniform adherence to the principles of liberty, and his knowledge of our foreign relations, are pledges that he will persevere in that course of administration, which for seven years past has shed such political happiness on the people of the United States. Entertaining this opinion, we beg leave to call your attention to him as a proper person on whom to bestow, through the electors of this state, your suffrage.
CHRISTOPHER GREENUP,
Governor of the Commonwealth, and President of the Meeting.
ALFRED WILLIAM GRAYSON,
Secretary of State for the state of Kentucky, and Secretary of the Meeting.
GREEN CLAY, Speaker of the Senate.
HENRY CLAY, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Here follow the names of 76 members.
Baltimore, March 15.
Captain Tucker, of the North America, arrived yesterday, in a short passage from Dartmouth, (England) brought no late papers. He informs, that the king's speech, delivered at the opening of parliament on 21st Jan. which he had seen, contained nothing of particular importance relative to this country. It declared a determination to prosecute the war against France, &c. Negotiations for peace were much talked of, however, in England, at the time captain T. sailed. The following official note was politely handed to the editor by capt. T.
The Lady Arabella Packet is arrived at Falmouth, from New-York, in 24 days, and brings an account of an embargo being laid on American vessels within the ports of the United States, advice of which has been received here by me this day.
Given under my hand, Dartmouth, 25th Jan. 1808.
A. HUNT,
Vice-Consul for the U. States.
On the 8th of February a British frigate arrived at Madeira, in seven days from Falmouth, having on board Lord Strangford, former minister at the court of Portugal. She sailed immediately, destined for the Brazils. This frigate, which will be perceived, must have left Falmouth the 1st Feb. had not heard of the embargo being laid in the United States.
Norfolk, March 14.
On Saturday evening a British fleet of 5 sail of the line and a frigate, anchored off our Capes, consisting of the Royal George of 100 guns, N. P. 98, Temeraire 98, Dragon 80, Tonnant 80, Barfleur 72. Under the command of Sir John Thomas Duckworth. This fleet sailed from England on the 17th of January. His Britannic Majesty's consul communicated to the Editor of this paper the following circumstances:
That this fleet sailed in pursuit of the Rochefort squadron, which had escaped from that port composed of the following ships—Majestueuse 120, L. 74, J. 80, Suffren 74, Magnanime 74, J. mapp. 74, Flor. 24 guns, and Surveillante brig.
Admiral Duckworth steered first for Madeira, near which island he spoke a British frigate Comus, capt. Piercy, who informed him that he had been chased a few days before, by a French
line of battle ship and frigate, had nearly been captured. Adm. D. then proceeded to the West Indies, from whence he came to our Capes. The consul further informed us that Sir J. Duckworth has forwarded to him a despatch for Mr. Rose, at Washington, in which he states (we understand from the consul) that the appearance of his fleet so unexpectedly at this juncture, may excite some sensations in the American government, and requests that Mr. Rose would immediately communicate to our government the cause of his coming upon this coast.
These are all the particulars which we are informed of from an authentic source. Report says, and as proceeding from a British officer that there are 300 troops on board this fleet. C. Hamilton was asked if there were any troops on board, he replied not to his knowledge. The number however far exceeds what could be carried in that number of ships.
The Rochefort fleet may probably pay a visit to the Brazils, where they might have effected something if the British admiral had not sent 4 sail of the line with the Portuguese fleet.
Postscript. Just as our paper was ready for press, captain Strong from Charleston favored us with a paper of Wednesday last, from which we have extracted London news to the 16th of Jan. Capt. Strong passed Cape Henry this morning at 10 o'clock. At which time, and during his passage, he saw no ship of war.
We understand that admiral Duckworth stated in a letter to col. Hamilton, that he should not remain more than 48 hours off our capes.
Baltimore, March 15.
ECLAT HIS ORA
OR
HORRORS OF ST. DOMINGO.
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS written by a lady, to Col. BUR, late Vice President of the United States, principally during the command of General Rochambeau, Pte. On. D. H. R.
And other NEW BOOKS.
Among which are the following:
D. C.
Third vol. Chapman's Select
Sp. Echoes, 2 50
Fourth volume, do. 2 50
Reynolds' Moral Guide, 3 00
Blacklock's Poems, 75
Burrow's Columbiad, fine plates, 20 00
Bronson's Gazetteer, new edition, 3 50
Public Characters for 1807, 4 25
Lay of an Irish Harp, by Miss Owenson, 1 00
LIKewise,
The second number Feat. Townsend's American Artillerists
Compendium 2 00
The third number is now in the Press.
Gentlemen wishing to patronise this valuable work, are earnestly requested to call and leave their names at
J. MARCH'S Book Store, George Town.
Where may be had any book that can possibly be procured in New York, Philadelphia or Baltimore, without any advance on the price.
March 18—6t
THE CAPITOL PRIZE.
Ticket No. 6974 was drawn the 36th day in St. Mary's College Lottery, a prize of $30,000 dollars. The ticket was sold at G. and R. WAITE'S Trial for, at Lottery office, corner of Market & Charles street to Mr. Doomin, who understood afterwar's disposed of it to another person in this city. Ticket No. 15,564, which was drawn the second capital prize, 15,000 dollars. Ticket, No. 7,001, which was drawn the third capital prize, 10,000 dollars, and Ticket No. 1977 was drawn the 4th capital prize, 5,000 dollars, were all sold at the same lottery office.
STATE LOTTERY—NEW YORK,
For the promotion of Literature, and for other purposes. Positively commences drawing on the
First Tuesday in April next.
Payment of prizes guaranteed by the state Legislature.
HIGHEST PRIZES.
1 25,000 dollars.
1 10,000 dollars.
2 5,000 dollars.
4 2,000 dollars.
7 1,000 dollars.
And a very considerable number of inferior prizes. Less than two blanks to a prize. The tickets are now offered for sale in a variety of numbers at G. & R. WAITE'S truly fortunate Lottery Offices in New York, at the following prices,
Whole 7 50 Quarters 2
Halves 3 75 Eighths 1
But will in a few days advance in price.
All prizes purchased of G. & R. Waite will be paid by them, and every information relative to the Lottery will be given to distant adventurers gratis.
Prize tickets in the New York and Baltimore Lottery taken in payment.
Orders for G. and R. Waite, taken and punctually attended to, at J. MARCH'S Book Store, High street George Town.
March 18—6t
BANK OF COLUMBIA.
March 18th, 1807.
THE President and Directors having this day declared a dividend on the Capital Stock of the Institution for the half year ending the 30th inst. at the rate of eight per cent per annum, the same will be paid to the stock-holders or their representatives on Monday the 21st. inst or at any time hereafter.
WILL. WHANN, Cash.
w6t.
TAKE NOTICE.
THE Commissioners of the taxes for Prince George's County, will meet at the Court House in Upper Marlborough, on the first Tuesday in April next and continue to sit for twenty days for the purpose of making entry of such alterations as have taken place in the real and personal property in said county since the last meeting.
TRUEMAN TYLER, Clerk.
March 18—w5t.
A Stock of well Assorted HARDWARE, FOR SALE.
THE subscriber wishes to decline the Hardware business, and offers his entire stock in that line at a low advance upon the first cost, to a person wishing to purchase the same, a credit will be given, upon giving approved security.
HENRY INGLE.
March 18—2w1m
MR. JOSHUA B. BOND's celebrate running Horses
FIRST CONSUL,
Will stand this season, at the subscriber's farm in Prince George's county, Maryland, about seven miles from Queen Anne, ten from Bladensburg, the same distance from Upper Marlborough, and about sixteen miles from the city of Washington; at Twenty-Five dollars the season, and one dollar to the groom; but Twenty-One dollars will be received if all sent with the mares; if the money is not sent with the mares it is requested that notes of hand will be sent at that time, given for Twenty-Six dollars payable at the expiration of the season, which will commence immediately, and end the 1st of August. Good pasture will be furnished gratis, as soon as the grass is good, and in the mean time, hay and corn furnished at the common price, for the mares according to order. The utmost care will be taken of the mares, and will not be answerable for accidents or escapes. Consul is of fine figure, beautiful bright bay, with a small blaze in his face, and his hind and swails; full 15 and 12 hands high. It is expected that the stock from Consul and well bred mares, will not be surpassed by the stock from any horse (scarcely) in America, for the turf, carriage, or saddle; or even from Consul and good looking mares, which have none of the running blood; their colts cannot be other than elegant in a carriage or under the saddle.
Such mares as have little, if not any of what is supposed to be running blood in them, may be put to Consul at half price, if they may be sent with the mares.
I should prefer ed by Gentlemen living beyond Bladensburg and Upper Marlborough, who wish to breed from Consul, by giving notice to the subscriber, he can be sent one day in each week to each place, from the first day of April, when there will be any mares to send to him from either of those directions; say Bladensburg on Tuesday, and Upper Marlborough on Saturday.
ISAAC DUCKETT.
March 12, 1808.
PREDIGER OF FIRST CONSUL.
HE was foaled in Philadelphia county, June 1798, got by the noted running horse Flag of Truce, his dam by the imported horse Slender, his granddam from the imported mare Diana, Diana was got by Gl Eclipse, slender was got by King Hero, who produced more runners than any other horse in England, as may be seen by the Racing Calendar, therefore it may in truth be said on the dam side of First Consul, the two great grand sires were the best horses England ever produced. Flag of Truce was bred by Colonel Good of Virginia, and was esteemed the best turf horse in his day, and was the sire to Colonel Taylor's famous running horse Leviathan. First Consul has won either 30 or 22 purses from 100L and 100g, and never started against a horse he did not outrun until the fall he was eight years old—the spring following he won three purses and distanced the field the first day at New Market on Long Island.
JOSHUA B. BOND,
Philadelphia.
March 18—epitM&wtf
THIS is to give Notice, that the subscriber, of St. Mary's county, hath obtained from the Orphan's Court of St. Mary's county, in Maryland, letters testamentary on the personal estate of Mary Jenkins, late of the county aforesaid, deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber, at or before the 25th day of September next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate.
Given under my hand this 20th day of March, 1808.
ATHANASIUS FENWICK,
Executor.
30 DOLLARS REWARD,
FOR apprehending and safe keeping, black MOSES, about 5 feet 10 inches high, about 25 years old; has lost an upper fore tooth, has a rupture near his groin; when sharply spoken to shows submission; his voice is soft and low, his gestures such as has enabled him to deceive those who are acquainted with him. I have had him twice since the 30th of July last; once he broke from the stocks; once from five men on the 26th December last. On the day after he broke Wm. Lee's house, and took therefrom all said Lee's wearing apparel, also a saddle and bridle and a horse from my stable. The horse, saddle and bridle I have recovered, which was taken from him by Mr. Rierson who keeps ferry near Danifries. The principal part of clothing he had with him when he was lodged in Danifries jail, on 30th December last, consisted of home made cloth, which he took with him on the 1st of January last when he broke jail and cleared himself. I suppose he is lurking about George Town or Alexandria. He called himself a freeman, and passed by the name of John Lucas Rierson. It is likely he will take some other. The above reward and all reasonable charges I will pay to any person who will lodge him in any jail, or deliver him to me in Prince George's county.
JOHN PAYNE,
Black Walnut Run,
March 18—19

BY AUTHORITY.
An ACT in addition to the act, entitled "An act supplementary to the act entitled 'An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States.'"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That during the continuance of the act entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," no ship, vessel or boat of any description whatever, owned by citizens of the United States, and which is neither registered, licensed or possessed of a sea letter, shall be allowed to depart from any port of the United States, or shall receive a clearance; nor shall any foreign vessel be allowed to depart from any port of the United States with a cargo destined for another port of the United States, or shall receive a clearance for that purpose, until the owner or owners, consignee or factors of such American or foreign vessel, shall, with the master, give bond, with one or more sureties to the United States, in case of a vessel owned by citizens of the United States, in a sum double the value of the vessel and cargo, and in that of a foreign vessel four times the value of the vessel and cargo, that the vessel shall not proceed to any foreign port or place, and that the cargo shall be re-landed in some port of the United States: Provided , That it shall be lawful and sufficient, in the case of any such American vessel, whose employment has uniformly been confined to rivers, bays, sounds and lakes, within the jurisdiction of the United States, to give bond in an amount equal to two hundred dollars for each ton of said vessel, with condition, that such vessel shall not be employed in any foreign trade during the time limited in the condition of the bond.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That no bond shall be required of boats not masted, or if masted, not being decked, whose employment has been, and shall continue to be confined to rivers, bays and sounds, within the jurisdiction of the United States, and lying within districts which are not adjacent to the territories, colonies, or provinces of a foreign nation, whether such boats be licensed or not, and unless in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, such bond be necessary, and in case the Secretary shall deem such bond necessary, it shall be lawful and sufficient for the owner of the boat, to give bond in an amount equal to thirty dollars for each ton of said boat, with condition that such boat shall not be employed in any foreign trade during the continuance of the act entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States."
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That in every case where a bond hath been or shall be given, to the United States, under this act, or under the act entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," or under the act supplementary to the last mentioned act, with condition that certain goods, wares and merchandise, or the cargo of a vessel shall be re-landed in some port of the United States; the party or parties to such bond shall, within four months after the date of the same, produce to the collector of the port, from which the vessel had been cleared with such goods, wares, merchandise or cargo, a certificate of the re-landing, of the same, from the collector of the proper port, on failure whereof the bond shall be put in suit, and in every such suit judgment shall be given against the defendant or defendants, unless proof shall be produced of such re-landing, or loss by sea, or by capture, or other unavoidable accident.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful to export from the United States, in any manner whatever, any goods, wares or merchandise of foreign or domestic growth or manufacture, and if any goods, wares or merchandise shall, during the continuance of the act entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," and of the act supplementary to the last mentioned act, contrary to the prohibitions of this act, be exported from the United States, either by land or water, the vessel, boat, raft, cart, waggon, sleigh, or other carriage, in which the same shall have been exported, shall, together with the tackle, apparel, horses, mules and oxen, be forfeited, and the owner or owners of such goods, wares or merchandise, and every other person knowingly concerned in such prohibited exportation, shall each respectively forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars for every such offence: Provided however , That nothing in this section contained, shall be construed to prevent foreign vessels from departing from the ports of the United States with the cargo or cargoes which may be on board of the same, when notified of the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, in conformity with the provisions of the said act, nor to take away any power conferred on the President by the last mentioned act, nor to prevent
foreign vessels from furnishing themselves with necessary provisions and sea stores for the voyage, nor fishing vessels from departing with sea stores, salt, and their usual fishing tackle and apparel, in the manner prescribed by the act supplementary to the aforesaid act.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That on the return into the United States of any fishing vessel, such as is described by the second section of the act, supplementary to the act entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," which shall have sailed subsequent to the passage of the last mentioned acts, it shall be the duty of the master and mate to declare, on oath or affirmation, before the collector, whether any part of the fishing fare has been sold during the voyage, and in default of taking such oath or affirmation, the master and mate shall each respectively forfeit and pay one hundred dollars: Provided , That the aforesaid oath or affirmation may be dispensed with so far as relates to the fishery on our own coasts in the customary small vessels.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That all penalties and forfeitures, incurred by force of this act, shall be sued for, recovered, distributed and accounted for in the manner prescribed by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," passed the second day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and may be mitigated or remitted in the manner prescribed by the act entitled "An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties and disabilities accruing in certain cases therein mentioned," passed the third of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and made perpetual by an act passed the eleventh of February, one thousand eight hundred.
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby authorised, if he shall be satisfied by a statement or account current on oath or affirmation of any citizen or citizens of the United States, and such other proof as the nature of the case will admit, or the President may require, that such citizen or citizens have property of value in any port or place without the jurisdiction of the United States arising from property actually without such jurisdiction prior to the 22d day of December last, to grant on application, permission to such citizen or citizens to dispatch a vessel in ballast to such port or place for the purpose of importing into the United States such property: Provided , That bond with sufficient security be given to the United States under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in such a sum as he shall deem necessary, with the following conditions, to wit: that such vessel shall not export from the United States any specie or any goods, wares, or merchandise of foreign or domestic growth or manufacture, necessary provisions and stores excepted, that she shall return (reasonable time being allowed for performing the voyage) to the United States with such property, and that she shall not during the voyage either directly or indirectly be engaged in any traffic, freightage or other employment, and that no goods, wares or merchandise shall be imported in such vessel other than the property for which such vessel shall obtain such permission, or the proceeds of property shipped bona fide by a citizen or citizens of the United States prior to the said twenty-second day of December last: And provided also , That the bond herein directed to be taken, shall not be cancelled, unless the Secretary of the Treasury be satisfied either by the oath of the party or parties to the same, or such other proof as the nature of the case will admit, that the conditions of the said bond have been complied with: And provided further , That the owner or owners, factor or agent, master and mate of such vessel, shall, on her return to the United States, make oath or affirmation that such vessel hath not, to the best of their knowledge and belief, during the voyage for which such permission had been granted, either directly or indirectly been employed in any act contrary to the tenor of such bond.
J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. GEO. CLINTON, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. March 12, 1808. APPROVED, TH: JEFFERSON.
TATISTICAL VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES. Now in the press, and to be delivered in a few days. A new Addition to Blodgett's Statistical Manual, with a continuation of the general Tables up to the present time. Copy rights secured.
March 16—3t PUBLIC SALE. Will be sold for cash at the Navy Yard on Saturday the 19th inst. at the house of Mr. Sarah; the following property, viz. one Carpenter's Chest with a complete set of TOOLS of every description, (they may be assorted in Lots) One book of Architecture, one case of Drawing instruments, and two Squares. March 16—2t
PORTRAITS,
PAINTED IN OIL COLORS. By C. BOYLE, at the Building formerly occupied by Mr. G. Stewart, Pennsylvania avenue. Washington, March 11—tf
THE subscriber has purchased the stock of GOODS lately belonging to Mr. Elisha Riggs, and will be enabled, from the connections of purchase, to dispose of them in the same house on as liberal if not better terms than they were sold before. He expects by Capt. Hand, from Philadelphia this week or the first of next, a handsome Spring supply, which will make his assortment complete. They will be laid in for cash, therefore will accommodate his friends no doubt satisfactorily. JOHN PETER. Georgetown, May 16—4w
NOTICE. THE Subscriber being anxious to settle all his business, has sold his entire stock of goods to John Peter; he therefore requests all those indebted to him to call and pay their accounts, (particularly such as are of long standing, as further indulgence cannot be given them). His Books are removed to the counting house of his brother Romulus Riggs, where all his accounts will be ready for settlement by his assistant Mr. Samuel C. Offut, or ELISHA RIGGS. Georgetown, March 16—tf
PUBLIC SALE. BY Virtue of a decree of the honorable the High Court of Chancery of Maryland, will be exposed to sale on the 30th day of April next at 12 o'clock at the store of Thomas Duvall, a Tract of LAND, containing One Hundred and Eighty Seven acres, called Brashear's Pacoison, the property of John Turner deceased, lying in Prince George's county, about 7 miles from Bladensburg, 10 from the city of Washington, and 25 from Annapolis; about one third in wood, the remainder in a state of productive cultivation. The terms of the above sale are, that the purchaser shall give bond with good security such as shall be approved of by the trustee for paying one half within 9 months, and the other half within 18 months with interest on each payment from the day of sale. GEO. PAGE, Trustee.
THE Creditors of John Turner, deceased, who have not yet exhibited their claims, are hereby notified to bring the same into the Chancery Court, with the vouchers thereof within six months from the day of sale. G. PAGE.
March 16—3w NOTICE. A Dividend will be made amongst the Creditors of the late Mr. Richard Crampfin on Friday the 1st day of April next, at Mr. William Ross's tavern, in Bladensburg. The creditors are requested to attend with their claims legally authenticated, as no respect will be paid to any others, except those known to be justly due by the Administrator. Bonds passed to the subscriber for property purchased at the sales of the deceased's effects last Spring, became all due on the 10th of this month, and unless taken up by Saturday the 19th will be put in suit without respect to persons. THOMAS BOWIE, Adm'r of Rich'd Crampfin. March 16—7t
PUBLIC SALE. BY virtue of a decree of the honorable the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting as a court of chancery for the county of Washington, in the suit of John Roberts and Samuel G. Griffith complainants. Against Benjamin Bryan Defendant. Will be sold at public auction to the highest bidder, on Tuesday the 29th day of March next, at St. Luke's Hotel, in the city of Washington, at the hour of 12 o'clock, M. a lot of ground in said city, in that square designated on the plan of said city by square number seven hundred and forty-three, the said lot being bounded as follows: to wit: Beginning at a point in the line of the west side of N.W. Jersey Avenue, at the distance of one hundred and fifty one feet ten inches from the stone planted at the north east corner of said square, and running thence with the line of the said Avenue twenty-five feet, thence leaving the said Avenue, and with a line at right angles with the line thereof running one hundred feet, then turning in a direction parallel to the line of the said Avenue, and running thence twenty five feet, thence an hundred feet to the point of beginning, containing about two thousand five hundred square feet of ground, together with the improvements thereon erected, and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining. This property is eligibly situated between the Capitol Hill and sugar house, and may be inspected at any time prior to the day of sale. The terms of sale are cash or money to be paid immediately on the ratification thereof by the court. JOHN G. McDONALD, Trustee. 26 Feb. 1808—4w
RASS AND GETTY, HAVE for sale at their store George Town, the following articles just received from Philadelphia, by the Schooner Carolina, Capt. HAND, jun. viz. 30 kegs butter, 20 barrels, New Town, Pippin Apples, 10 do. buck wheat flour, 10 do. cranberries, and 10 do. shell bark hickory nuts. Also a small assortment of very elegant Looking Glasses, Waiters, Trays, polished steel Shovels and Tongs, with cut and brass handles, &c. &c. Jan. 19—9t
BANK OF COLUMBIA, 25th February, 1808. In conformity to the order of the Board of Directors at an Election will be held at Somers' Tavern, in Georgetown, on Monday 21st March next, for twelve Directors, to serve for one year from that day. B order of the President & Directors. WM. WHANN, Cash'r. ent 21st Mar.
FOR SALE, To any gentleman in town or Southward, Two likely young NEGRO Boys, and a Boy, about twelve years old. Enquire of the Editor of the National Intelligencer. March 4—7t
TUNIS CRAVEN HAS removed his entire stock of DRY GOODS from Alexandria to Washington, and is now opening, at his new Store, between the Marine Gunners and Navy Yard Gate, an assortment equal to any in the District; among which are, Wool's best London cloths, Do. double milled & plain cassimeres, Bonnets cords and velvets, Constitution Garrow, hunting, Tra- falgars, and silvery cords, Velvets, Imperial, Brunswick waistcoating, Silk and skins do. Toilnets, swansdown do. Pique and figured Marseilles do. Bearskin coatings, Plush, kerseys, halfhicks, Rose and duff blankets, flannels, Superfine green cloth table covers, Calicoes, figured cambrics, Gingham, silk and cotton chambrays, Furniture Chintz, Cambric and jacobet muslins, India and British book do. India mull-mull figured and plain, Plain and figured lenos, Laced cambrics, Elegant tamboured mulls, Grecian robes and Pelisse dresses, 3-4 damask and raw silk shawls, Damask &c. &c. Camel's hair and swansdown do. Down scarf, Long and short lace sleeves, spider & nett sleeves, Extra long and habit kid gloves, Do. do. silk do. Do. do. raw silk do. Cross-barred and plain Mantuas and interstings, Persians and Medes, Thread and cotton laces, Lace caps and handkerchiefs, Book muslin and leno cap patterns, 4-4-7-8 Irish linens, Long lawns, linen cambrics, Irish diapers, table-cloths, napkins, Cotton counterpanes, Cambric Dimities, Common do. Furniture do. Ladies' and gentlemen's silk, thread, cotton, worsted, lamb's wool & Angola hose, Gentlemen's pantaloons do. Silk cords and buttons, Ribbons, dress threads, Scarlet and other colored bombazets, Hearth rugs, Russia sheeting, tickling wrgs, Osnaburgs, bafts, gurrahs, &c. &c. ALSO, Imperial and young hyson tea of a superior quality in small boxes, to suit families, or by the pound—Also genuine Havana segars. T.C. is determined to sell on the lowest terms. February 3—tf
LINDSAY'S HOTEL. The Subscriber has taken that well calculated house on the Capitol Hill. Late occupied by Mr. Prost formerly by Mr. Stelle—Where he intends to open a Tavern on the 24th October. Those gentlemen who may favor him with their Custom may rely on every attention in the Power of the Public's devoted Servant. GEO. W. LINDSAY. N.B.—EIGHT or TEN BOARDERS may be conveniently accommodated. October 19—4t
CHARLES H. VARDEN MERCHANT TAYLOR, RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia and public in general, that he has just received by a late arrival from Philadelphia, A CHOICE ASSORTMENT
Of superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, single and double milled, superfine Coating, black silk Florentines. Likewise an elegant assortment of Spangle and rich silk Molekins for waistcoats with a variety of other articles suitable for the season. Regimentals and Navy Uniforms made in the most elegant and uniform style of fashion. Richard Horwell's celebrated patent parallel SUSPENDERS, far superior to any hitherto in use can be had on the same terms retail, as at his manufactory. November 27—tf
A GREAT BARGAIN. JOSEPH WHEATON, Broker and Commission Merchant, has put into his hands for sale, at his office in F Street near the Bank, a valuable property in the city of Washington, consisting of 646,453 square feet of city LOTS advantageously situated on the most prominent and valuable streets, and near the Navy Yard and Bridge, and to be had on the most reasonable terms of payment. This great bargain is recommended to gentlemen desirous of securing an early fortune, in this truly growing and flourishing city; the permanent residence and seat of the government of the United States. Other choice property to be had—Houses and Lots—Enquire as above. All kinds of Stocks bought and sold. Wanted to Purchase a few MILITARY LAND WARRANTS Washington city, Dec. 11—tf
HURAS AND BEALL, WOOLLEN drapers, men's merchants, and tailors, New Jersey Avenue, opposite the Secretary of the Navy's, respectfully inform the public that they have commenced business in the above line, where they will endeavor to give satisfaction—they have on hand a fresh supply of the most fashionable goods, suitable for the approaching season, all fresh and of the very best quality. N.B. Regimentals and naval uniforms made in the most elegant and fashionable style with neatness and dispatch. October 23—tf
FOR SALE, To any gentleman in town or Southward, Two likely young NEGRO Boys, and a Boy, about twelve years old. Enquire of the Editor of the National Intelligencer. March 4—7t
By order of the Orphan's Court, will be sold for cash on a credit of nine months, the purchaser giving not with appraised security, with interest from date, all the personal ESTATE of Margaret Roberts late of Montgomery county, deceased, consisting of a number of Negroes, two Houses of Land, a Crop of Corn, Corn Fodder, Hay, Horses, Cattle and Hogs, and other articles too tedious to enumerate. The sale to commence at 10 o'clock on said day and to continue from day to day till all is sold. HENRY ROBERTS, and JOSEPH ROBERTS, Admrs. of Margaret Roberts. February 26—4w
Unensures District of Columbia, county of Washington, to wit: IN CHANCERY, 9th OCTOBER, 1807. Benjamin Stoddert and John Mason, versus Thomas Waters Griffith, John R. Livingston, Jonathan Burrall, G. G. Gault & Doyrey, James C. Montflore, I. I. Piquet and James Davidson.
The bill states that the defendant, Thomas Waters Griffith, was the agent of the house of Taney and Simond for the delivery of a cargo of flour belonging to the said Taney and Simond to the French government. That the French government not being able to pay ready money for the said cargo, the balance due thereon from the said government was placed to the credit of the said Griffith, the agency instead of being placed to the credit of the real owners Taney and Simond. That the debt so due hath been liquidated under the Louisiana Convention in the said Griffith's name, for the sum of one hundred and ninety thousand, two hundred and seventy francs, French money of the value of 35,675 dollars. That the said Thomas Waters Griffith, now residing and for several years past having resided in Baltimore city in the state of Maryland, well knowing all the circumstances mentioned in the complaints said bill, and that the debt aforesaid was liquidated in his name in Paris under the Louisiana Convention was in truth and in fact a debt due to the said complainants as the trustees of Francis Lewis, Taney, and Taney and Simond, did execute a writing transferring all the interest of said Griffith in the said debt to the said complainants as trustees aforesaid. That notwithstanding the above circumstances the said Griffith did employ James C. Montflore of Paris to receive for his own account and use the aforesaid debt, which actually belongs to the said complainants as trustees aforesaid; and the said Montflore did actually receive the bills of the ministers of the United States, on the Treasury of the United States in part payment of the said debt in four sets of bills drawn in favor of said Thomas Waters Griffith, and which bills have been fraudulently endorsed by the said Montflore, with a view as the said complainants believe, to defraud them the said complainants, and under a real or pretended power from the said Griffith and as his attorney to the said I. I. Piquet, who endorsed the same over to John R. Livingston, who has endorsed the same over to Jonathan Burrall, cashier of the Bank of Discount and Deposit at New York, who has endorsed them over to James Davidson cashier of the Branch Bank of the United States in the city of Washington who now holds the same for collection. The complainants further state that four other bills for the balance of the aforesaid claim on the French government liquidated in the name of the said Griffith, but actually belonging to said complainants as trustees as aforesaid, have been drawn in favor of Gault and Doyrey as transferees of Thomas Waters Griffith, for thirty thousand francs French money of the value of 5625 dollars, which said four bills have also been sent to the aforesaid James Davidson, and endorsed over to him for collection in the same manner as in the case of the four other bills first herein recited. That all the aforesaid eight bills of exchange drawn by the American minister at Paris on the Treasury of the United States under the Louisiana Convention for the debt liquidated in the name of Thomas Waters Griffith, are actually the property of said complainants as trustees aforesaid. The object of the said bill is to save and protect the said complainants from the fraud projected against them on the part of the said Thomas Waters Griffith, and his coadjutors, and to obtain a writ of injunction directed to all the before-mentioned defendants, &c. and particularly to the said James Davidson enjoining and commanding him from paying over to any person besides the said complainants the money that may be paid by the Treasury of the United States in virtue of the said bills of exchange, and particularly enjoining the said James Davidson from paying the said money arising from the said bills, or parting with the said bills until the further order of this court in the premises.
It is represented by the complainants that the said Thomas W. Griffith, John R. Livingston, Jonathan Burrall, Gault and Doyrey, James C. Montflore, and I. I. Piquet, defendants in this cause all reside out of the district of Columbia and are not within the reach of the process of this court. It is therefore ordered that the complainants cause a copy of this order to be inserted once each week for six months previous to the first Monday in June next to the National Intelligencer, to the intent that the said defendants may have notice of this application and of the object of this bill and to be warned to appear in this court in person or by counsel on or before the first Monday of June next, to show cause, if any, why a decree shall not pass as prayed. B order, WM. BRENT, Clk. Dec. 14—6t
FOR COACHING, The last coaching season, CHIEFLY, Capt. Suggs, expired on said 10 days. For Freight or Passage on the Captain on board, at the Navy Yard wharf, or to BULLER COCKE. March 11—4t