The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1807-09-23 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. 103.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1807.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
TRIAL OF AARON BURR.
OPINION of the Court on the motion to arrest the evidence, delivered on Monday, August 31—Continued.
This exposition which seems to be that intended by Judge Foster, is rendered the more certain by a reference to the state trials from which the extracts are taken. The words used by the Chief Justice are "when men form themselves into a body and march rank and file with weapons offensive and defensive, this is levying of war with open force, if the design be public." Mr. Phipps, the counsel for the prosecution afterwards observed, "Intending to levy war is not treason unless a war be actually levied." To this the Chief Justice answered, "Is it not actually levying of war, if they actually provide arms, and levy men, and in a warlike manner set out and cruise, and come with a design to destroy our ships?" Mr. Phipps still insisted "it would not be an actual levying of war unless they committed some act of hostility." "Yes, indeed," said the Chief Justice, "the going on board and being in a posture to attack the king's ships." Mr. Baron Powis added, "but for you to say that because they did not actually fight it is not a levying of war, is it not plain what they did intend? That they came with that intention, that they came in that posture, that they came armed, and had guns and blunderbusses and surrounded the ship twice; they came with an armed force, that is a strong evidence of the design."
The point insisted on by the counsel in the case of Vaughan, as in this case was, that war could not be levied without actual fighting. In this the counsel was very properly overruled; but it is apparent that the judges proceeded entirely on the idea that a warlike posture was indispensable to the fact of levying war.
Judge Foster proceeds to give other instances of levying war. "Attacking the king's forces in opposition to his authority upon a march or in quarters is levying war." "Holding a castle or fort against the king or his forces, if actual force be used in order to keep possession, is levying war." But a bare detainer as supposed by shutting the gates against the king or his forces from within, Lord Hale conceiveth will not amount to treason.
The whole doctrine of Judge Foster on this subject, seems to demonstrate a clear opinion that a state of force and violence, a posture of war must exist to constitute technically as well as really the fact of levying war.
Judge Blackstone seems to concur with his predecessors. Speaking of levying war, he says, "This may be done by taking arms not only to dethrone the king, but under pretence to reform religion, or the laws, or to remove evil counsellors or other grievances, whether real or pretended. For the law does not, neither can it permit any private man or set of men to interfere forcibly in matters of such high importance."
He proceeds to give examples of levying war, which show that he contemplated actual force as a necessary ingredient in the composition of this crime.
It would seem then from the English authorities, that the words "levying war," have not received a technical different from their natural meaning, so far as respects the character of the assemblage of men which may constitute the fact. It must be a warlike assemblage, carrying the appearance of force, and in a situation to practice hostility.
Several judges of the U. States have given opinions at their circuits on this subject, all of which deserve and will receive the particular attention of this court.
In his charge to the grand jury when John Fries was indicted, in consequence of a forcible opposition to the direct tax, Judge Iredell is understood to have said, "I think I am warranted in saying, that if in the case of the insurgents who may come under your consideration, the intention was to prevent by force of arms the execution of any act of the Congress of the U. S. altogether, any forcible opposition calculated to carry that intention into effect, was a levying of war against the U. S. and of course an act of treason." To levy war then, according to this opinion of Judge Iredell, required the actual exertion of force.
Judge Patterson, in his opinions delivered in two different cases, seems not to differ from Judge Iredell. He does not indeed, precisely state the employment of force as necessary to constitute a levying of war, but in giving his opinion in cases in which force was actually employed, he considers the crime in one case as dependent on the intention, and in the other case he says, "combining these facts and this design," (that is, combining actual force with a treasonable design) "the crime is high treason."
Judge Peters has also indicated the opinion that force was necessary to constitute the crime of levying war.
Judge Chase has been particularly clear and explicit. In an opinion which
he appears to have prepared on great consideration, he says, "The court are of opinion, that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection to resist or oppose the execution of a statute of the U. S. by force, that they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war; and the quantum of the force employed, neither increases nor diminishes the crime; whether by one hundred or one thousand persons, is wholly immaterial."
"The court are of opinion, that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the U. S. is not treason, unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution, some actual force, or violence must be used, in pursuance of such design to levy war; but that it is altogether immaterial whether the force used be sufficient to effectuate the object. Any force connected with the intention will constitute the crime of levying of war."
In various parts of the opinion delivered by Judge Chase, in the case of Fries, the same sentiments are to be found. It is to be observed, that these judges are not content that troops should be assembled in a condition to employ force. According to them some degree of force must have been actually employed.
The Judges of the U. S. then, so far as their opinions have been quoted, seem to have required still more to constitute the fact of levying war, than has been required by the English books. Our judges seem to have required the actual exercise of force, the actual employment of some degree of violence. This, however, may be, and probably is, because in the cases in which their opinions were given, the design not having been to overturn the government, but to resist the execution of a law, such an assemblage would be sufficient for the purpose, as to require the actual employment of force to render the object unequivocal.
But it is said all these authorities have been overruled by the decision of the supreme court, in the case of the U. States against Swartwout and Bollman.
If the supreme court have indeed extended the doctrine of treason, further than it has heretofore been carried by the judges of England, or of this country, their decision would be submitted to. At least this court could go no farther than to endeavor again to bring the point directly before them. It would, however, be expected that an opinion which is to over-rule all former precedents, and to establish a principle never before recognized, should be expressed in plain and explicit terms. A mere implication ought not to prostrate a principle which seems to have been so well established. Had the intention been entertained to make so material a change in this respect, the court ought to have expressly declared, that any assemblage of men whatever, who had formed a treasonable design, whether in force, or not, whether in a condition to attempt the design or not, whether attended with warlike appearances or not, constitutes the fact of levying war. Yet no declaration to this amount is made. Not an expression of the kind is to be found in the opinion of the supreme court. The foundation on which this argument rests, is the omission of the court to state, that the assemblage which constitutes the fact of levying war, ought to be in force, and some passages, which show that the question respecting the nature of the assemblage, was not in the mind of the court when the opinion was drawn, which passages are mingled with others, which at least show that there was no intention to depart from the course of the precedents in cases of treason by levying war.
Every opinion to be correctly understood, ought to be considered with a view to the case in which it was delivered. In the case of the U. S. against Bollman and Swartwout, there was no evidence that even two men had ever met for the purpose of executing the plan, in which those persons were charged with having participated. It was therefore sufficient for the court to say that unless men were assembled, war could not be levied. That case was decided by this declaration. The court might indeed have defined the species of assemblage which would amount to levying of war, but, as this opinion was not a treatise on treason, but a decision on a particular case, expressions of doubtful import should be construed in reference to the case itself—and the mere omission to state that a particular circumstance was necessary to the consummation of the crime, ought not to be construed into a declaration that the circumstance was unimportant. General expressions ought not to be considered as over-riding settled principles without a direct declaration to that effect. After these preliminary observations the court will proceed to examine the opinion which has occasioned them.
The first expression in it bearing on the present question is "to constitute
that specific crime for which the prisoner now before the court has been committed, war must be actually levied against the U. S. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiracy to subvert by force the government of our country such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war are distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed."
Although it is not expressly stated that the assemblage of men for the purpose of carrying into operation the treasonable intent, which will amount to levying war, must be an assemblage in force, yet it is fairly to be inferred from the context, and nothing like dispensing with force appears in this paragraph. The expressions are to constitute the crime "war must be actually levied." A conspiracy to levy war is spoken of as "a conspiracy to subvert by force the government of our country," speaking in general terms of an assemblage of men for this, or for any other purpose, a person would naturally be understood as speaking of an assemblage in some degree adapted to the purpose. An assemblage to subvert by force the government of our country, and amounting to a levying of war, should be an assemblage in force.
In a subsequent paragraph the court says, "It is not the intention of the court to say, that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country. On the contrary if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled in order to effect by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, &c. and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose to constitute a levying of war."
The observations made on the preceding paragraph apply to this. "A body of men actually assembled, in order to effect by force a treasonable purpose," must be a body assembled with such appearance of force as would warrant the opinion that they were assembled for the particular purpose; an assemblage to constitute an actual levying of war should be an assemblage with such appearance of force as would justify the opinion that they met for the purpose.
This explanation, which is believed to be the natural, certainly not a strained explanation of the words, derives some additional aid from the terms in which the paragraph last quoted commences. "It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of treason who has not appeared in arms against his country." These words seem to obviate an inference which might otherwise have been drawn from the preceding paragraph. They indicate that in the mind of the court the assemblage stated in that paragraph was an assemblage in arms. That the individuals who composed it had appeared in arms against their country. That is in other words that the assemblage was a military, a warlike assemblage.
The succeeding paragraph in the opinion relates to a conspiracy and serves to show that force and violence were in the mind of the court, and that there was no idea of extending the crime of treason by construction beyond the constitutional definition which had been given of it.
Returning to the case actually before the court, it is said "a design to overturn the government of the U. S. in New Orleans by force, would have been unquestionably a design which if carried into execution would have been treason, and the assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of carrying it into execution would amount to levying of war against the U. S."
Now what could reasonably be said to be an assemblage of a body of men for the purpose of overturning the government of the U. S. in New Orleans by force? Certainly an assemblage in force; an assemblage prepared and intending to act with force; a military assemblage. The decisions therefore made by the judges of the U. S. are then declared to be in conformity with the principles laid down by the supreme court. Is this declaration compatible with the idea of departing from those opinions on a point within the contemplation of the court? The opinions of Judge Patterson and Judge Iredell are said "to imply an actual assembling of men though they rather designed to remark on the purpose to which the force was to be applied than on the nature of the force itself." This observation certainly indicates that the necessity of an assemblage of men was the particular point the court meant to establish, and that the idea of force was never separated from this assemblage.
The opinion of Judge Chase is next quoted with approbation. This opinion in terms requires the employment of force.
After stating the verbal communications said to have been made by Mr. Swartwout to general Wilkinson, the
court says "if these words import that the government of New Orleans was to be revolutionized by force, although merely as a step to or a mean of exciting some greater projects, the design was unquestionably treasonable, and any assemblage of men for that purpose would amount to a levying of war."
The words "any assemblage of men" if construed to affirm that any two or three of the conspirators who might be found together after this plan had been formed, would be the act of levying war, would certainly be misconstrued. The sense of the expressions "any assemblage of men" is restricted by the words "for this purpose." Now could it be the contemplation of the court that a body of men would assemble for the purpose of revolutionizing New Orleans by force, who should not themselves be in force?
After noticing some difference of opinion among the judges respecting the import of the words said to have been used by Mr. Swartwout, the court proceeds to observe: "but whether this treasonable intention be really imputable to the plan or not, it is admitted that it must have been carried into execution by an open assemblage for that purpose, previous to the arrest of the prisoner, in order to consummate the crime as to him."
Could the court have conceived "an open assemblage" "for the purpose of overturning the government of New Orleans by force" to be only equivalent to a secret furtive assemblage without the appearance of force?
After quoting the words of Mr. Swartwout, from the affidavit, in which it was stated that Mr. Burr was levying an army of 7,000 men, and observing that the treason to be inferred from these words would depend on the intention with which it was levied, and on the progress which had been made in levying it, the court say "the question then is, whether this evidence proves colonel Burr to have advanced so far in levying an army as actually to have assembled them."
Actually to assemble an army of 7,000 men is unquestionably to place those who are so assembled in a state of open force.
But as the mode of expression used in this passage might be misconstrued so far as to countenance the opinion that it would be necessary to assemble the whole army in order to constitute the fact of levying war, the court proceeds to say, "It is argued that since it cannot be necessary that the whole 7,000 men should be assembled, their commencing their march by detachments to the place of rendezvous must be sufficient to constitute the crime."
"This position is correct with some qualification. It cannot be necessary that the whole army should assemble and that the various parts which are to compose it should have combined. But it is necessary there should be an actual assemblage; and therefore this evidence should make the fact unequivocal."
"The travelling of individuals to the place of rendezvous, would perhaps not be sufficient. This would be an equivocal act, and has no warlike appearance. The meeting of particular bodies of men and their marching from places of partial to a place of general rendezvous would be such an assemblage."
The position here stated by the council for the prosecution is, that the army "commencing its march by detachments to the place of rendezvous (that is of the army,) must be sufficient to constitute the crime."
This position is not admitted by the court to be universally correct. It is said to be "correct with some qualification." What is that qualification?
"The travelling of individuals to the place of rendezvous," (and by this term is not to be understood one individual by himself, but several individuals either separately or together but not in military form) "would perhaps not be sufficient." Why not sufficient? Because says the court, "this would be an equivocal act and has no warlike appearance." The act then should be unequivocal and should have a warlike appearance. It must exhibit in the words of Sir Matthew Hale speciem belli , the appearance of war. This construction is rendered in some measure necessary when we observe that the court is qualifying the position, "that the army commencing their march by detachments to the place of rendezvous must be sufficient to constitute the crime." In quifying this position they say, "the travelling of individuals would perhaps not be sufficient." Now, a solitary individual travelling to any point, with any intent, could not, without a total disregard of language, be termed a marching detachment. The court, therefore, must have contemplated several individuals travelling together; and the words being used in reference to the position they were intended to qualify, would seem to indicate the distinction between the appearances attending the actual movement of a company of men for civil purposes, & that military movement which might in correct language be denominated "marching by detachments."
The court then proceeded to say,
"the meeting of particular bodies of men, and their marching from places of partial to a place of general rendezvous, would be such an assemblage."
It is obvious from the context, that the court must have intended to state a case which would in itself be unequivocal, because it would have a warlike appearance. The case stated, is that of distinct bodies of men assembling at different places and marching from those places of partial to a place of general rendezvous. When this has been done an assemblage is produced which would in itself be unequivocal. But when it is done? What is the assemblage here described? The assemblage formed of the different bodies of partial at a place of general rendezvous. In describing the mode of coming to this assemblage the civil term "travelling" is dropped and the military term "marching" is employed. If this was intended as a definition of an assemblage which would amount to levying war, the definition requires an assemblage at a place of general rendezvous, composed of bodies of men who had previously assembled at places of partial rendezvous. But this is not intended as a definition for clearly otherwise should be no places of partial rendezvous, if troops should embody in the first instance, in great force for the purpose of subverting the government by violence, the act would be unequivocal, it would have a warlike appearance, and it would, according to the opinion of the supreme court properly construed, and according to the English authorities amount to levying war. But this, though not a definition, is put as an example; and surely it may be safely taken as an example. If different bodies of men, in pursuance of a treasonable design plainly proved, should assemble in warlike appearance at places of partial rendezvous, and should march from those places to a place of general rendezvous it is difficult to conceive how such a transaction could take place without exhibiting the appearance of war, without an obvious display of force. At any rate a court in stating generally such a military assemblage as would amount to levying war, and having a case before them in which there was no assemblage whatever, cannot reasonably be understood in putting such an example, to dispense with those appearances of war which seem to be required by the general current of authorities. Certainly they ought not to be so understood when they say in express terms, that "it is more safe as well as more consonant to the principles of our constitution, that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases, and that crimes not already within the constitutional definition, should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide."
After this analysis of the opinion of the supreme court, it will be observed, that the direct question whether an assemblage of men which might be construed to amount to levying war, must appear in force or in military form, was not in argument or in fact before the court, and does not appear to have been in terms decided? The opinion seems to have been drawn without particularly advertting to this question, and therefore upon a transient view of particular expressions, might inspire the idea that a display of force, that appearances of war were not necessary ingredients to constitute the fact of levying war. But upon a more intent and more accurate investigation of this opinion, although the terms force and violence are not employed as descriptive of the assemblage, such requisites are declared to be indispensable as can scarcely exist without the appearance of war and the existence of real force. It is said that war must be levied in fact, that the object must be one which is to be effected by force; that the assemblage must be such as to prove that this is its object, that it must not be an equivocal act, without a warlike appearance, that it must be an open assemblage for the purpose of force. In the course of this opinion, decisions are quoted and approved which require the employment of force to constitute the crime. It seems extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile these various declarations with the idea that the supreme court considered a secret unarmed meeting, although that meeting be of conspirators, and although it met with a treasonable intent, as an actual levying of war. Without saying that the assemblage must be in force or in warlike form, they express themselves so as to show that this idea was never discarded, and they use terms which cannot be otherwise satisfied.
The opinion of a single judge certainly weighs as nothing if opposed to that of the supreme court; but if he was one of the judges who assisted in framing that opinion, if while the impression under which it was framed was fresh upon his mind, he delivered an opinion on the same testimony, not contradictory to that which had been given by all the judges together, but showing the sense in which he understood terms that might be differently expounded, it may fairly be said to be in some measure explanatory of the opinion itself.
To the judge before whom the charge against the prisoner at the bar was first

brought, the same testimony was offered with that which had been exhibited before the supreme court, and he was required to give an opinion in almost the same case. Upon this occasion he said, "war can only be levied by the employment of actual force. Troops must be embodied; men must be assembled in order to levy war." Again he observed, "the fact to be proved in this case is an act of public notoriety. It must exist in the view of the world or it cannot exist at all. The assembling of forces to levy war is a visible transaction, and numbers must witness it."
It is not easy to doubt what kind of assemblage was in the mind of the judge who used these expressions, and it is to be recollected that he had just returned from the supreme court and was speaking on the very facts on which the opinion of that court was delivered.
The same judge in his charge to the grand jury who found this bill, observed, "to constitute the fact of levying war, it is not necessary that hostilities shall have actually commenced by engaging the military force of the U. S. or that measures of violence against the government shall have been carried into execution. But levying war is a fact in the constitution of which force is an ingredient. Any combination to subvert by force the government of the U. S. violently to dismember the Union, to compel a change in the administration, to coerce the repeal or adoption of a general law, is a conspiracy to levy war, and if the conspiracy be carried into effect by the actual employment of force, by the embodying an assemblage of men for the purpose of executing the treasonable design which was previously conceived, it amounts to levying war. It has been held that arms are not essential to levying war provided the force assembled be sufficient to attain, or perhaps to justify attempting the object without them." This paragraph is immediately followed by a reference to the opinion of the supreme court.
It requires no commentary upon these words to show, that in the opinion of the judge who uttered them, an assemblage of men which should constitute the fact of levying war must be assembled in force, and that he so understood the opinion of the supreme court. If in that opinion, there may be found in some passages a want of precision, an indefiniteness of expression, which has occasioned it to be differently understood by different persons, that may well be accounted for when it is recollected that in the particular case there was no assemblage whatever. In explaining that opinion the whole should be taken together, and in reference to the particular case in which it was delivered. It is however, not improbable that the misunderstanding has arisen from this circumstance. The court unquestionably did not consider arms as an indispensable requisite to levying war; an assemblage adapted to the object might be in a condition to effect it or attempt it without them. Nor did the court consider the actual application of the force to the object as, at all times, an indispensable requisite; for an assemblage might be in a condition to apply force, might be in a state adapted to levy war, without having made the actual application of that force. From these positions, which may be found in the opinion, it may have been inferred, it is thought too hastily, that the nature of an assemblage was immaterial, and that war might be considered as actually levied by a meeting of men, if a criminal intention can be imputed to them by testimony of any kind whatever.
It has been thought proper to discuss this question at large and to review the opinion of the supreme court, although this court would be more disposed to leave the question of fact, whether an overt act of levying war was committed on Blannerhasset's island to the jury under this explanation of the law, and to instruct them, that unless the assemblage on Blannerhasset's island was an assemblage in force, was a military assemblage in a condition to make war, it was not a levying of war, and that they could not construe it into an act of war, than to arrest the further testimony which might be offered to connect the prisoner with that assemblage, or to prove the intention of those who assembled together at that place. This point, however, is not to be understood as decided. It will, perhaps, constitute an essential enquiry in another case.
Before leaving the opinion of the supreme court entirely on the question of the nature of the assemblage which will constitute an act of levying war, this court cannot forbear to ask, why is an assemblage absolutely required? Is it not to judge in some measure of the end by the proportion which the means bear to the end? Why is it that a single armed individual, entering a boat and sailing down the Ohio, for the avowed purpose of attacking New Orleans, could not be said to levy war? Is it not that he is apparently not in a condition to levy war? If this be so, ought not the assemblage to furnish some evidence of its intention and capacity to levy war before it can amount to levying war? And ought not the supreme court, when speaking of an assemblage for the purpose of effecting a treasonable object by force, be understood to indicate an assemblage exhibiting the appearance of force.
The definition of the attorney for the U. S. deserves notice in this respect. It is "when there is an assemblage of men, convened for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object, which force is meant to be employed before the assemblage disperse, this is a treason."
To read this definition without advertting to the argument, we should infer that the assemblage was itself to effect by force the treasonable object, not to join itself to some other body of men, and then to effect the object by their combined force. Under this construction it would be expected the appearance of the assemblage would bear some proportion to the object, and would indicate their intention. At any rate that it would be an assemblage in force. This construction is most certainly not that which was intended, but it serves to show that general phrases must always be understood in reference to the subject matter, and to the general principles of law.
On the division of the subject which respects the merits of the case connected with the pleadings, two points are also made.
1st. That this indictment having charged the prisoner with levying war on Blannerhasset's island, and containing no other overt act, cannot be supported by proof that war was levied at that place by other persons, in the absence of the prisoner, even admitting those persons to be connected with him in one common treasonable conspiracy.
2dly. That admitting such an indictment could be supported by such evidence, the previous conviction of some person who committed the act, which is said to amount to levying war, is indispensable to the conviction of a person who advised or procured that act.
As to the first point, the indictment contains 2 counts, one of which charges that the prisoner with a number of persons unknown, levied war on Blannerhasset's island, in the county of Wood, in the district of Virginia, and the other adds the circumstance of their proceeding from that island down the river, for the purpose of seizing New Orleans by force.
In point of fact, the prisoner was not on Blannerhasset's island, nor in the county of Wood, nor in the district of Virginia.
In considering this point the court is led first to enquire whether an indictment for levying war must specify an overt act, or would be sufficient, if it merely charged the prisoner in general terms with having levied war, omitting the expression of place or circumstance.
The place in which a crime was committed is essential to an indictment, were it only to shew the jurisdiction of the court. It is also essential for the purpose of enabling the prisoner to make his defence. That, at common law, an indictment would have been defective which did not mention the place in which the crime was committed, can scarcely be doubted. For this, it is sufficient to refer to Hawkins, B. 2. ch. 25, sec. 34, and chap. 23, sect. 91. This necessity is rendered the stronger by the constitutional provision that the offender "shall be tried in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," and by the act of Congress which requires that twelve petty jurors at least shall be summoned from the county where the offence was committed.
A description of the particular manner in which the war was levied, seems also essential to enable the accused to make his defence. The law does not expect a man to be prepared to defend every act of his life which may be suddenly & with notice alleged against him. In common justice the particular fact with which he is charged ought to be stated, and stated in such a manner as to afford a reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation, and the circumstances which will be adduced against him. The general doctrine on the subject of indictments is full to this point, Foster p. 149. speaking of the treason of compassing the king's death, says, "From what has been said it follows that in every indictment for this species of treason, and indeed for levying war and adhering to the king's enemies an overt act must be alleged and proved. For the overt act is the charge to which the prisoner must apply his defence."
(To be continued.)
INDEPENDENT WASHINGTON VOLUNTEERS.
THE Members of the Independent Washington Volunteers, are requested to muster on the Parade Ground near the Centre Market, on SUNDAY morning the 27th inst. at Sun rise.
CHARLES JONES, Captain. September 23—
State of Maryland, Saint Mary's county Orphan's court, August 4th, 1807.
ON application by petition, of James Cooke administrator of Richard Jordan late of St. Mary's county deceased, it is ordered that he give the notice required by law, for creditors to exhibit their claim against the said deceased, and that the same be published once in each week for the space of six successive weeks, in the Universal Gazette, Washington Federalist, and American and Commercial Daily Advertiser.
JAMES FORRETT Reg. Wills, for Saint Mary's county
This is to give notice, that the subscriber of St. Mary's county hath obtained from the Orphans court of St. Mary's county in Maryland, letters of administration on the personal estate of Richard Jordan late of St. Mary's county, deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby required to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof to the subscriber, or be over the 25th day of February next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under my hand this 25th day August 1807.
JAMES COOKE, admr. September 4—w6t U.S.
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23.
AT a Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Institution for the education of Youth in the city of Washington, It was resolved that the Election of PRINCIPAL TEACHER for the Western School, be postponed until the 2nd Monday in October next, and that applications for the said place be received by the Secretary until that day.
WASHINGTON BOYD, Secretary to the Board of Trustees. September 23—8t
By virtue of a precept of the Secretary of the Navy of the 12th inst. a Court of Enquiry will be held at Norfolk on the 5th of Oct. in the case of Commodore Barron. The court will be composed of the following officers, viz.
Capt. Alexander Murray, President. Capt. Isaac Hull, and Capt. Isaac Chauncy.
These gentlemen are the same with those, previously appointed, with the exception of Commodore Preble, whose long illness and consequent death prevented the court from sitting at an earlier period.
Extract of a letter from Charleston (S. C.) Aug. 27.
"The Yellow Fever is now raging with great violence here—and few that are attacked escape. The times are precarious and truly alarming—Numbers die daily; and none last more than four or five days after being attacked with this dreadful distemper."
A bill has passed both Houses of the British Parliament making Curacoa a free port to all nations.
His Excellency the governor, has appointed the Hon. Georges Jones senator in the Congress of the United States, in the room of A. Baldwin, deceased. Savannah (Geo.) pap.
NOTICE of the observations of Pacificus and other writers. (CONTINUED.)
"We come now to that part of the remarks of Pacificus which more especially calls for our notice, inasmuch as they are principally strictures on the "Reflections on the comparative effects of a war on the United States and Great Britain," which originally appeared in this Print. Before this notice is taken let us be permitted to make one remark; which is altogether intended for the superficial reader. Those reflections were not predicated on the idea that a war with Britain was in any respects desirable; they were, on the contrary, written under the impression that nothing short of necessity would justify such a war. They were, at the same time, penned under the apprehension that this necessity would exist, and the consequent conviction of the great importance of preparing the nation for so awful an event. While, on the one hand, it was deemed proper to acknowledge the evil of war in its full extent, it was on the other, thought not merely politic but necessary to state our resources for a contest, and the relatively commanding ground on which we should stand. It was admitted that a war would injure both nations: but it was contended that it would injure Britain most; and that consequently, in case necessity should leave us no alternative, we had so reason to fear the issue. It was even hoped that such a temperate exhibition might influence Britain herself, and that she might perceive that a regard to her own interests demanded from her a reparation for the injury we had sustained. It was believed that nothing could present to her this appeal with more force, and insure to it more attention, than the sight of a great nation, ready, in defence of its honor, and in defence of interests essential to its prosperity, to endure every sacrifice, and to embark its undivided resources. This was the view with which these reflections were offered. So far from breathing war, they inculcated peace. For by showing that the American nation were, in case of necessity, ready for war, and determined, in case it began, to wage it with spirit, and had the means of dealing a severer blow than they should themselves receive, a strong inducement, perhaps the strongest and only operative inducement, was presented to Britain, to grant that reparation which she could do without dishonor to herself."
The facts and the principles assumed in the reflections are equally contested by Pacificus. The first are pronounced untrue, and the last unsound. It was said that our means of injuring a foreign enemy were at least four-fold what they were during the revolution, that our circulating specie is ten times as great as it was then, and that we have an established credit, on which the government may draw to almost an unlimited amount—that our navigation is ten times as great, which would probably be converted into letters of marque, that by the extent of their captures would probably yield us a more liberal supply of foreign productions than they at present received through the ordinary channels of trade. Part of this, it will be perceived, is given as matter of fact, and part as opinion. With regard to the former subject, research was made before the facts were stated. Some of the facts were traced to official statements, and others
derived from those best acquainted with the subjects to which they relate. To refer to the several authorities would be to swell these pages to too great a length. Indeed, so far as we have been able to learn the opinions of others, we believe the facts are not contested, except by the particular friends of Great Britain who form too small a portion of the community to merit attention. The following is, however, taken from Blodgett's Statistical Tables, which are principally derived from official documents; & which fully establish the accuracy of the facts stated. At the commencement of the revolution our numbers were only two millions and a half; they are now near seven millions. The number of dwelling houses have increased from 500,000 to 1,250,000. The improved lands have increased from twenty to forty millions of acres, the average value of which has risen from two to six dollars; and a still greater proportionate rise has taken place in the value of the immense tracts of unimproved land. The number of horses has increased from 400,000 to 1,200,000; and of horned cattle from 800,000 to 3,000,000. We have a stock of above ten millions in turnpikes and toll bridges, entirely created since the revolution. The militia have increased from 400,000 to 1,200,000; and our seamen from 15,000 to 70,000. Our tonnage has risen from 200,000 to 1,300,000, our imports from seven to fifty millions, and our exports in nearly a correspondent ratio. Besides all which the government has above one thousand millions of acres of Western lands, none of which are sold for less than two dollars an acre.
It is not a little curious that bold as this writer is in denying our statements, he does not condescend to adduce a single opposing fact. He is contented with a simple negative. He gives us, however, something in the shape of argument as a substitute. Britain is said to have greatly increased her resources—her revenue is said to be three times as great, and her navy twice as numerous as during the revolutionary war. Although this be replete with exaggeration, what does it prove? Her proportionate capacity to injure us? No such thing. The simple question is, of this revenue, gigantic as it is, how much is disengaged? What portion of it can be applied to our injury? Not one dollar, without exposing herself to imminent peril. Why has her revenue increased, but because of the increase of her debt, of her poor, of her civil list, of her navy, constantly employed in defending her possessions which are scattered almost over the world, and of an army at home, which though it numbers a million, does not keep her from trembling at an invasion. With then, though this navy be doubled, and her resources trebled, what does this prove but that she has already strained every nerve, that much further she cannot go without utter ruin, and that the addition of a nation to the long list of her enemies, that should require the exertion on her part of new energies, while it diminished the sources from which they are drawn, would put to hazard her prosperity, her power, her very existence?
The increase of our capital is not denied. It, indeed, could not be denied, without putting to shame whoever should make the denial. Of this increase no place is a better proof than the town of Boston, where Pacificus has written, the property around which has risen at least from five hundred to a thousand per cent. But it is alleged "that all our increased wealth will either be put to hazard and go to enrich our enemy, and enable her to carry on the war, or it has been invested in improving our houses or in articles of luxury."
This is a specimen of the boldness with which this writer hazards assertions not founded on fact. To prove this let it be recollected, in the first place, that our numbers have nearly trebled since the commencement of the revolution: and that with an inexhaustible resource in good lands, the whole of this labor, thus vastly increased, has been employed in clearing the wilderness, in ameliorating the soil, in building comfortable dwellings, in erecting good fences and barns and out houses, and in stocking farms with cattle. Thus much with respect to agriculture. In manufactures there has likewise been a great progress. In breweries, tanneries, forges, sugar houses, &c. &c. immense sums have been expended. This is the principal part of the capital to which we referred, the aggregate of which is vastly beyond that engaged in trade, or seated in towns. It has been out too fashionable in the U. S. in talking of capital to think only of that engaged in trade, and seated in towns. The consideration has been overlooked that we are an agricultural people, and that the consumption of our own produce among ourselves infinitely transcends that which is derived from the foreign world. The mercantile character has been elevated to ideal importance, and the trader has been made to believe that he is the tortoise that sustains the universe. This is the grand error into which Pacificus has himself fallen, or is willing to seduce his readers.
Now, it is a fact, that the whole capital of the U. S. may be lowly estimated at fifteen hundred millions of dollars, of which that which is invested in the towns and in trade does not exceed three hundred millions. Again—the annual consumption of domestic products may be safely estimated at five hundred millions; & while the whole amount of foreign goods does not exceed fifty millions. When, therefore, we spoke of the great increase of national capital, it is most certain, that we had in our view principally that part of it engaged in agriculture and manufactures; and this is that capital which could not be sensibly impaired by war. For will it be
contended that the soil will be less productive, or the domestic products among ourselves less in demand than of war than of peace, or that our manufacturers will not have at least as great a demand for their fabrics? And yet it is on these suppositions, absurd as they are, that the monstrous position of Pacificus is predicated, "that all our increased wealth is put to hazard," &c. Whereas the truth is, that at least nine tenths of this increased wealth cannot be put to hazard by any war which Britain could wage; from which principally springs our comparative invulnerability.
We are told that the ability of the government, in case of necessity, to borrow to an almost unlimited amount is idle. Who, it is asked, will trust the government? Will foreigners, or your own citizens, after the experience of the late war, and after the avowed hostility of southern politicians to public credit?
As to the alleged hostility of southern politicians to public credit, never was there an idler tale propagated by party malice. It has not the least foundation. The South has proved itself more the friend of public credit than the North; for, while the latter has evinced its attachment to it by rapidly increasing the debt, the former has shown her attachment, by its more rapid diminution. To the latter belongs the glory of contracting, to the former that of discharging it. This is the real and only difference. Speculators may murmur at its discharge, but the nation rejoice at it. As to credit, who in private life commands the most credit? He who is over head and ears in debt, or he who owes no man a farthing? He who puts off the payment of his debts beyond the term they fall due, or he who either pays them with punctuality when they become due, or gives his creditors a premium for receiving them before they become due? Answer these questions honestly, and the point at issue is decided. The fact is, that no government on earth has discharged its obligations with more fidelity than the U. S. This is fully re-assured both at home and abroad; and if money shall be wanted, we shall be able to command it to any amount. Those who have it, here or abroad, will be glad to lend it. In such a case the wealth of England itself would flow in upon us; for the government would not be able to repress the disposition of its subjects to invest their resources in safer funds than her own; and should this disposition be wanting, we should have an ample resource among ourselves. The banks with their capital of fifty millions, and the purse of individuals would likewise be opened to supply the public coffers.
The idea of converting our merchantmen into privateers is next laid up to ridicule and we are told that fifty frigates and smaller vessels would completely blockade every port in the U. S.
But, in the ardor of argument, it seems never to have occurred to this writer, that G. Britain with her gigantic navy, or any thing like it from its present employment. If then this resource should fail, the ridicule which Pacificus would turn on his political opponents falls back on himself. The truth is, that no dispassionate man that attends to all the circumstances that would arise out of a war between the U. S. and G. Britain, can deny that 700 letters of marque and reprisal, aided by the naval force of the government, would spread terror among the merchantmen of Britain. These letters of marque would be of various sizes—There is nothing so prevent some of them being a match for a frigate. They would be as capable of being united in fleets as national vessels, and would soon become nearly as formidable. Let then the British attempt the blockade threatened; and we shall see whether such a fleet, aided by national vessels, and by a large number of Gun-Boats, would not in a calm be able to raise the blockade. But if they should prove unequal to this, they would at least compel the enemy to concentrate their strength at a particular point, and consequently disengage the other ports of the U. S. from a state of blockade, and the privateers there would seize the opportunity to go to sea. This is a sufficient answer to this remark. But, is it to be presumed that in such a contest we should stand alone? Is it not next to certain that a large portion of the naval strength of other nations would unite with ours in producing a diversion in the W. Indies? France, Holland, and Spain, now actually at war with Britain, have constantly had a force on our coast. When a union of power with us would give them brighter prospects of success might we not have reason to expect it? What then would become of the fifty British frigates? Add to this, the probability of embarking Russia, Denmark and Sweden on our side. In such a contest they would unquestionably in principle be on our side; and there is every reason to believe that Alexander would have too distinct a conviction of his interests not to engage in it with spirit. Should this be the case, the fifty English frigates would find full employment nearer home. It is true that these are not certainties, but only probabilities; but it is almost always on probabilities that statesmen take their measures; and our government as such might rely upon their occurrence.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)

By an arrival at Boston from Halifax, we learn, that two others of the persons taken out of the Chesapeake, have been tried, and sentenced to receive 500 lashes. One is said to have been born in the West Indies, probably Martin.
Boston Pa.
Capt. Wood arrived at Boston in 32 day from Liverpool, informs, that two days before he sailed, a letter was received there from London, by Messrs. Rathbone, Hughes, and Duncan, advising them of the improbability of an accommodation taking place between England and this country; and recommending the American captains under their charge, to leave port as soon as possible, whether freighted or not. Other letters were received in Liverpool, at the same time, and from different houses in London, which corroborated the above.
Extract of a letter, dated Hamburg, 28th July.
"My last respects of the 23d ult. advised you of the hope we had of our river being freed from the blockade on neutral vessels. I now embrace the earliest opportunity of informing you, that it is now taken off by the British Consul at Altona, granting certificates to all that apply for that purpose, & free goods."
"Our market for furs are likely to be cheaper as many arrivals are shortly expected; fine yellow pankeens are wanted; spices are in great demand, coarse muslins, from the large quantities on hand in Copenhagen, are very dull, but finer sorts are saleable, bandanoses are of slow sale."
CORRESPONDENCE.
It appears, by the report of the trial of Wilson, alias Rufford, that the following correspondence took place between Capt. Humphreys of the Leopard, and Commodore Barron, of the Chesapeake, before and after the attack on the latter frigate, viz.
Captain Humphreys's Card.
"The captain of his Britannic majesty's ship Leopard has the honor to enclose to the captain of the U. States frigate Chesapeake, an order from the hon. vice admiral Berkeley, commander in chief of his majesty's ships on the North American station, respecting some deserters from the ships (therein mentioned) under his command, and supposed now to be serving as part of the crew of the Chesapeake."
"The captain of the Leopard will not presume to say any thing in addition to what the commander in chief has stated more than to express a hope, that every circumstance respecting them may be admitted, in such a manner, that the harmony subsisting between the two countries may remain undisturbed."
ANSWER.
"I know of no such men as you describe; the officers that were on the receiving service for this ship were particularly instructed by the government, through me, not to enter any deserters from his Britannic majesty's ships; nor do I know of any being here."
"I am also instructed never to permit the crew of any ship that I command, to be mustered by any other but her own officers; it is my disposition to preserve harmony; and I hope this answer to your dispatch will prove satisfactory."
(Signed)
JAMES BARRON, Commander of U. S. ship Chesapeake.
After the Chesapeake had struck her colors, Commodore Barron wrote the following letter to Captain Humphreys at sea, 22d June, 1807.
Sir, I consider the frigate Chesapeake as your prize, and am ready to deliver her to any officer authorized to receive her. By the return of the boat I shall expect your answer; and have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant, JAMES BARRON.
ANSWER.
His Majesty's ship Leopard, at sea, June 22, 1807.
Sir, Having, to the utmost of my power, fulfilled the instructions of my commander in chief, I have nothing more to desire; and must, in consequence, proceed to join the remainder of the squadron; repeating, that I am ready to give you every assistance in my power, and do most sincerely deplore that any lives should have been lost in the execution of a service, which might have been adjusted more amicably, not only with respect to ourselves, but to the nations to which we respectively belong.
I have the honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient, Humble servant, S. P. HUMPHREYS.
This is to give Notice,
THAT the subscriber of Saint Mary's county, hath obtained from the Orphan court of Saint Mary's county, in Maryland letters of administration on the personal estate of the Rev. Charles Smoot, late of St. Mary's county, 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 5th day of February next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate.
Given under my hand, this 5th day of August 1807. JAS. EGARTON, Administrator. August 27--U. G. 6w
New Orleans, August 10.
Proceedings at a numerous meeting of the citizens of New Orleans and its vicinity, held at the Coffee House in the city of New Orleans, August 31st, 1807, at five o'clock, in the afternoon. Dr. Watkins opened the meeting, by stating that its object was to express to the President of the United States, the feelings and opinions of the citizens of New Orleans, upon the subject of the late outrages committed upon the dignity of our common country, by a British armed vessel, near the Chesapeake Bay, and the slaughter in cold blood, a number of our fellow citizens, and that too at a time when we had every reason to believe that the two nations were not only in profound peace with each other, but that the most cordial friendship and harmony existed between them. He said that it was well known that in this section of the American empire, there was no great physical force—that such as it was, was unfortunately of late been very much enfeebled and torn asunder by party spirit and opposite views of our own local concerns; but on a great occasion like the present, when the honor, not of the American government alone, but of every man who boasts the glorious privilege of an American citizen, is at stake—he hoped and believed that party spirit would subside; that private animosity would be forgotten; and that the citizens of New Orleans would imitate the noble example of their brethren of Norfolk and Richmond, in preferring to the government of our country, our lives and our fortunes, in defence of that glorious inheritance, left us by our ancestors, at the expence of much of their blood and treasure. The Doctor then observed that it would be necessary in the first place to organize the meeting, by appointing a Chairman and Secretary, and begged leave to propose that Daniel Clarke, Esq. should take the Chair, which was unanimously agreed to. Dr. Watkins was appointed Secretary, and as soon as order was produced, Mr. Livingston rose and offered the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted.
Resolved , That the citizens of New Orleans view with becoming indignation, the conduct of the British naval commanders towards the government of the U. States.
Resolved , If a perseverance in such outrages, or a refusal to disavow and punish them, should render war inevitable, that we will risk our lives and fortunes in support of the just cause of our country.
Resolved , That be appointed a committee to prepare and report an address to the President of the U. States, expressive of our sentiments on this subject.
On Motion—Resolved that the committee to draft an address consist of five persons.
The blank in the 3d resolution was then filled with the following names: Ed. Livingston, John Watkins, Wm. Nott, P. F. Dubourg, and Joseph M c Neil.
The committee having retired, in due time returned with the following address, which, after being twice read, was unanimously adopted.
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
SIR, On ordinary occasions, solemn professions of attachment to our country, and of devotion to its cause, would not only be nugatory, but perhaps suspicious—any unusual display of activity in the performance of the duty of a good citizen, might, without injustice, be ascribed to an overacted zeal, intended to cover disaffection.
But there are circumstances in which a state must depend as much on the warm affection, as the strict duty of its citizens. Such are those of impending war, or suspected insurrection. When insults are received which it would be disgraceful to bear! When treason is supposed to prey on the vitals of the government, and threaten its dissolution! it then becomes every man, in the first case to shew that he feels and is ready to avenge the insulted dignity of his country; in the second, (that he is uncontaminated by the poison which may have infected other members of society; and in both it behoves him not only to support by his acts, but to strengthen and encourage by the expression of his confidence, the constitutional directors of his country's force.
Impelled by these considerations, the inhabitants of the city of New Orleans pray you, Sir, to receive the expression they now make of indignation and wounded pride, at the gross insult offered to our country, by the British squadron in the Chesapeake; of zeal and eagerness to obtain atonement for the injury; of attachment to the U. States, and confidence in the administration of its government.
The confidence is increased by observing that every thing in the power of the executive has been done to assert the dignity of the nation, and shew its deep sense of the aggression—and we cannot suppress the pride we feel in the anticipation that the enemies of our country's honor, and the rivals of its prosperity may soon be taught that a free government is not only just to its friends, but formidable to its foes.—That forbearance is not pusillanimity; and that the Americans of the present day have not degenerated from their ancestors of seventy six.
Our successful, unassisted efforts, during the first years of that glorious struggle, will warn them against the danger of invading our country, and if they remember the daring enterprise of our seamen, they must know that a predatory war will not be wholly passive on our parts. Notwithstanding
the boasted superiority of their navy, their commerce will pass unguarded by our coasts. The high blown credit of their merchants will shrink when no longer inflated by the fictitious capital they have acquired—their manufactures, unsupported by our market, will be crushed by the pressure of taxes. Their colonies cut off from our supplies, will sink into insignificance, or rise in open insurrection. An important member of their empire may perhaps seize this moment to assert its rights and avenge its wrongs. The nation itself, reeling under the burthen of its debt, must throw it off by a dangerous convulsion, or expire under its oppressive weight—and it is not improbable that Britain, humiliated by the first—may be finally ruined by the second—American war.
It is to be lamented that these considerations have not occurred to prevent the injuries, vexations and insults to which we have been exposed.
May they, or others more weighty, operate to procure a full disavowal of the conduct to which we allude! ample retribution for the injuries we have suffered! and above all a speedy and exemplary punishment inflicted on the violators of our honor and repose!
On motion—Resolved unanimously, that the thanks of this meeting, be presented to our fellow-citizens of Norfolk and Richmond, for their spirited and good conduct, in relation to the recent outrage committed by a British Squadron on the dignity of the U. S. near the Chesapeake Bay.
At the Court of the Queen's Palace, the 1st July, 1807, present the King's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
Whereas by an act, made and passed in the forty-fourth year of his majesty's reign, intitled, "An act for authorizing his majesty, in Council, to allow, during the present war, and for six months after the ratification of a definitive treaty of peace, the importation & exportations of certain goods and commodities, in neutral ships, into and from his majesty's territories in the West Indies, and continent of South America;" it is enacted, that from and after the passing of the said act, it shall and may be lawful for his majesty, his heirs and successors, by and with the advice of his privy council, to permit, or to authorize the governors of the islands and territories hereinafter mentioned, in such manner, and under such restrictions, as to his majesty, by and with the advice of his privy council, shall seem fit, to permit, when the necessity of the case shall appear to his majesty, with the advice of his privy council, to require it, from time to time during the present war, and for six months after the ratification of a definitive treaty of peace, the importation into, and the exportation from, any island in the West Indies (in which description Bahama Islands, and the Bermuda and Somer islands, are included,) or any land or territories on the continent of South America, to his majesty belonging, of any such articles, goods, and commodities as shall be mentioned in such order of his majesty, in council, in any ships or vessels belonging to his majesty, in such manner as his majesty, his heirs and successors, by and with the advice aforesaid, shall direct, provided such ships or vessels shall duly enter into, report, and deliver their respective cargoes, and re-load, at such ports only where regular custom houses shall have been established; and whereas, it appears at present to be necessary to permit, for a limited time, subject to be sooner terminated, varied, or altered, as is herein after provided, the importation into, and the exportation from the islands and territories of his majesty in the West Indies, (including the Bahama islands, and the Bermuda or Somer islands) and the islands & territories on the continent of South America, to his majesty belonging, of certain articles, goods, and commodities hereafter mentioned, in any ships or vessels belonging to the subjects of any state in amity with his majesty; his majesty is thereupon pleased, by and with the advice of his privy council, to order, and doth hereby order, that the governors and lieutenant governors of his majesty's islands and colonies in the West Indies (in which description the Bahama islands, and the Bermuda or Somer islands, are included) and of any lands or territories on the continent of South America, to his majesty belonging, and each and every of such governors and lieutenant governors shall be authorised, and they and each and every of them, are hereby authorised to permit, for 12 months from the date hereof, subject to be sooner terminated, varied, or altered, as is herein after provided, in any ships or vessels belonging to the subjects of any state in amity with his majesty, the importation into the said islands, colonies, lands, and territories respectively, of staves and lumber, and also of every kind of provisions (vizt, pork, fish and butter excepted) which are of the growth or produce of the country to which such ship or vessel importing the same shall belong; the exception of fish however, not to be in force in any of the said islands, colonies, lands or territories, in which there shall have been provided a be on fish taken in any part of his majesty's dominions in North America, or on the coasts thereof, by British subjects, to an amount equal to
two skillings a quintal on Cod, and imported in British vessels from any of his majesty's provinces, settlements, or possessions in North America; and also the exportation from the said islands, colonies, lands, and territories respectively, into which supportation of staves, lumber, and provisions aforesaid, shall be made, of rum and molasses, and of any other articles, goods and commodities, whatever, except salt, indigo, cotton, wool, coffee and cocoa; Provided always, that such ships or vessels shall only enter into, report, and deliver their respective cargoes and re-load, at such ports only where regular custom houses shall have been established; and his majesty, by and with the advice of his said privy council, is further pleased to order, and doth hereby order, that notwithstanding any thing herein before contained, the said permission and authority to import and export shall cease and determine, or be varied and altered, before the expiration of the abovenmentioned period of 12 months, at the expiration of six months after the notification in the London Gazette, of any order of his majesty, by and with advice of his privy council, for revoking, varying, or altering such permission and authority, or shall cease and determine at the expiration of six months after the ratification of a definitive treaty of peace.
STEPHEN COTTRELL.
GENERAL NOTICE.
THE BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS, appointed in pursuance of an act of the City Council passed the 30th of May last, having entered on the duties of their office, hereby inform all whom it may concern, that as the superintendence of the execution of all the laws of the council has been assigned to them, they are determined to obtain from every source of information a knowledge of every instance of a non-compliance thereof, and infractions of them; and where a strict compliance is not made, or infractions discontinued, after this notice to prosecute for the same. The Commissioners recommend an attentive perusal of the following laws of the City Council.
First Council.
"An act to establish and regulate markets," passed October 6th, 1802.
"An act for laying a tax on hackney carriages, theatrical and other public amusements," passed 28th October, 1802.
"An act to regulate weights and measures," passed 19th November, 1802.
"An act to provide for the prevention and extinction of fires," passed 10th January, 1803.
"An act for the preservation of foot ways and trees on the streets and avenues in the city," passed March 25th, 1803.
"An act requiring annual licences to be taken out by pedlars and ordinary keepers, and for the keeping of carriages and billiard tables," passed the 25th May, 1803.
Second Council.
"An act supplementary to the act to establish and regulate markets," passed 12th September, 1803.
"An act concerning nuisances, and creating a superintendant of police," passed 20th September, 1803.
"Section 9 of "An act, imposing certain taxes and providing for their collection," passed 12th September, 1803.
"An act supplementary to the act for laying a tax on hackney carriages, theatrical and other public amusements," passed 26th November, 1803.
Third Council.
"An act requiring annual licences to be taken out by ordinary or tavern keepers, retailers and hawkers or pedlars," passed 19th July, 1804.
The 3 and 4 sections of "An act making an appropriation for sinking wells, the erection and repair of pumps, and for the preservation thereof," passed 18th May, 1805.
"An act for the better collection of the tax on private and hackney carriages," passed 10th December, 1804.
"An act amendatory to an act concerning nuisances, and creating a superintendant of police," passed 2d May, 1805.
Fourth Council.
"An act for licencing and regulating auctions in the city of Washington," passed 10th February, 1806.
"An act concerning markets," passed March 29th, 1806.
"An act supplementary to the acts licencing hackney carriages within the city of Washington," passed April 17, 1806.
"An act regulating the weight and quality of bread," passed the 17th April, 1806.
Fifth Council.
"An act supplementary to the act, to regulate weights and measures," passed 2d November, 1806.
"An act to establish a market at the market house on the market square at the Eastern Branch, and for other purposes," passed 28th November, 1806.
"An act to establish the size of brick moulds in the city of Washington," passed 19th March, 1807.
MICHAEL MOURSE, } JAS. H. GILLISS } City DANL. RADINK, } Commissioners. GEORGE COLLAND }
AN ACT.
Making farther appropriation to complete the Tobacco Warehouse.
BE it enacted by the First and Second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That the sum of three hundred dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated out of any monies
in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, to complete the erection of the Tobacco Warehouse, to be expended by the commissioners appointed for that purpose, and under the direction of the Mayor.
Approved, August 23d, 1807.
AN ACT,
Amendatory to the act, entitled, "An act to establish a Market House on the Market Square at the Eastern Branch, and for other purposes."
BE it enacted by the First and Second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That any butcher or other person, occupying a stall in any of the market houses within the City of Washington, contrary to the 4th section of the act, passed on the 28th day of November, 1806, shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten dollars in addition to the price of the licence, to be recovered before a justice of the peace, for the use of the corporation.
Approved, September 12th, 1807.
AN ACT,
Supplementary to an act, intitled "An act providing for the inspection of flour."
Sec. 1. BE it enacted by the First and Second Chambers of the City Council of Washington, That the Inspector of flour shall safely keep, as the property of the corporation, the branding irons provided or to be provided by this act, and shall hold them subject to the order of the Mayor, to be by said Inspector delivered in good order when called for.
Sec. 2. Be it enacted, That a sum not exceeding twenty dollars be, and is hereby appropriated for the purchase of said irons under the direction of the Mayor.
Approved, September 12th, 1807.
POSTSCRIPT.
BURR'S TRIAL. —Our accounts from Richmond embrace the proceedings of the Court on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday last. On WEDNESDAY Mr. Hay moved to commit Messrs. Burr, Blennerhassett and Smith, with a view to sending them to another district for trial for treason, laying one overt act at an island at the mouth of Cumberland river, in Kentucky, and other overt acts at Bayou Pierre in the Mississippi territory. James McDowell was examined. As soon as the witness began to state facts which took place in the Mississippi territory, he was stopped by the counsel of Mr. Burr, who objected to the introduction of any testimony relative to acts committed out of the jurisdiction of Kentucky. Mr. Bets contended that the court had no power to enter into an investigation of the transactions in the Mississippi territory; that the Chief Justice under the act of Congress had power to commit a person accused of a crime in any district of the U. S. for the purpose of his being sent to such district for trial; but that a territory of the U. S. was not a district. His further contention that the acquittal of Aaron Burr for the overt act charged at Blennerhassett's island was a bar to any prosecution for any overt act of the same treason committed at any other place. Mr. McRae replied.
On THURSDAY, Mr. Hay spoke. He was followed by Messrs. Martin and Wickham. Mr. Vire then spoke, to which Mr. Bets replied.
On FRIDAY Mr. Randolph concluded the argument. The Chief Justice then delivered his opinion in writing. He decided, that he had no power to commit for trial in the court for the Mississippi territory, and of consequence that it would be improper in him to go into any enquiry on a subject on which he cannot act; that as to the operation of the autre fois acquit his judgment was not decidedly formed; and that he should therefore hear the testimony relative to the conduct of the accused within the U. S. and should in the mean time reflect farther on this subject.
Several witnesses were then examined as to acts committed in Kentucky, when the court adjourned to Saturday.
AT STELLE'S HOTEL,
Wednesday, September 23, 1807.
By MR. MARTIN,
will be performed a
Grand Fencing Exhibition,
With the Broad and Small Swords by four different Fencing Masters, after which,
MR. FLEURY will dance
A HORNPIPE AND TURKISH DANCE.
And after that a CLARINET CONCERTO by Mr. MALINE, and a FLUTE CONCERTO by Mr. VANIN.
The exhibition will be concluded by a HORNPIPE, By MR. FLEURY.
The MARINE BAND will Play during the performance.
The doors will be opened at half past SIX, and the performance to commence at half past SEVEN.
Admittance, MALE A DOLLAR for grown persons, and for children HALF PRICE.
September 23—17
TENNESSEE COMPANY.
A MEETING of the Stockholders is requested on the first day of November next at MECHANIC'S HALL in the city of New York. A punctilious attendance is requested by all the Stockholders in person, or by attorney, as business of the first importance to the Company.
J. JACKSON, Surviving Trustee. September 23--10x6

EDITORIAL ADDRESS.
In the early part of June the Editor intimated his purpose to retire from the establishment of the National Intelligencer...
But a short time elapsed, from the time of his making known his purpose, before a totally unlooked for aggression...
A considerable time has since passed without any offer being made, which has been considered satisfactory on this ground.
Looking forward to the ensuing session of Congress as probably one of the most interesting since the era of the present government...
More regard will likewise be paid to the mechanical management of the paper. For some time past, the Editor has had to regret the necessary use of an inferior paper...
This is to give notice, That the subscriber of Georgetown in the district of Columbia, has obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington county...
JO3. CARLTON. Georgetown, September 12—taw4w
PUBLIC NOTICE.
PURSUANT to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States, of the 3d day of March last...
FOR THE STATIONERY.
Table with 2 columns: Item, Price. Items include: Very best superfine English letter paper, Best plain letter paper, Best plain solid cut complete, etc.
FOR THE PRINTING.
Table with 2 columns: Item, Price. Items include: For plain work, octavo per sheet, Figure work, do. do. do., Rule and figure work do. do. do., etc.
FOR THE FUEL.
Good found Hickory Wood, delivered in the cellar at the Capitol at Nine Dollars and Seventy-five Cents per Cord.
CHARLES H. VARDEN, Merchant Taylor
New Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia, he has imported by ship Eliza ANN lately arrived at Philad.
PROPOSALS
For carrying mails of the United States on the following routes will be received at the General Post Office until the 15th of October next.
1st. From Petersburg by Harrodsburg, Goldsboro, Drummondburg, Warrenton, Lewisburg, Raleigh, and Averysboro, to Fayetteville, three times a week.
NOTES.
1. The Post master general may expedite the mails, & alter the times of arrival and departure at any time during the continuance of the contracts...
GIDEON GRANGER, Post master general.
General Post-Office Washington city July 31—1807
This is to give notice, that the subscriber hath obtained from the Orphan's court of Montgomery County, in Maryland, letters of administration on the personal estate of Absalom Beddo, late of said county deceased...
JAMES BEDDO, executor.
Sep 14—32
Fifty Dollars Reward
RANAWAY from the subscriber residing in the District of Columbia, on the first of August, 1807, a black man Named MOSES, about five feet 8 or 9 inches high, 25 years of age...
ROBERT ALEXANDER.
Washington, August 19, 1807
LITERARY NOTICE.
WM. DUANE, of Philadelphia, will thank such Book sellers, Printers, and others, as may have had the goodness to collect subscribers for the LIFE & WORKS OF DR. FRANKLIN...
District of Columbia, Washington county, to wit.
In the case of JOHN LONG an insolvent debtor confined in the prison of Washington aforesaid for debt, petition is hereby given to the creditors of the said John Long...
Wm BRENT, Clk.
New & Valuable BOOKS.
JUST received, and now opening, at D. RAPIN'S Book Store on Capitol Hill, a Choice and Valuable Collection of BOOKS and STATIONERY, which he will be happy to dispose of to his friends and customers...
Dr. Rees' Cyclopaedia.
VOL. 5th, Part 1st, or the 9th half volume, is just received and ready for delivery; those who have not had ALL the preceding vols. will oblige by sending for them.
FOR SALE.
A valuable tract of land called Westbury, containing 1464 acres, situated in Anne Arundel County, State of Maryland, at the head of West river 12 miles from Annapolis, and 42 from Baltimore.
For terms apply to William Cooke, Esq. Baltimore, or John Galloway, Esq. West river, or to Henry L. Waddell, Philadelphia.
Charlotte Hall School.
The Trustees of said School will receive applications for an appointment of an Assistant Master in the Latin language, on Thursday the 1st of October next.
Signed by Order,
NEALE H. SHAW, Reg. C. H. S. Cool Springs, September 14—3w.
CAPITOL of the UNITED STATES.
NO Person whatever can be admitted into the South Wing of the Capitol, excepting those actually engaged in the work.
B. H. LATROBE, Surveyor of the Public Buildings of the U. S. September 11—18
20 DOLLARS REWARD.
RANAWAY from the subscriber in August last, a Negro Charles, who is a straight well made black man, about 26 years of age, 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high...
BANK OF COLUMBIA.
The President and Directors having this day declared a Dividend on the Capital Stock of the Bank for the half year ending the 20th inst. at the rate of Eight per cent. per annum.
WILLIAM WHANN, Cashier. Sept. 18—6w
District of Columbia, to wit:
BE it remembered that on the 15th day of August in the thirty second year of the Independence of the United States of America, William CANNON of the said district hath deposited in this office the title of a book...
In conformity to the act of Congress of the United States, entitled, "An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned."
G. DENAULT, Clerk of the district of Columbia.
Treasury Department, United States, April 23, 1807.
WHEREAS the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund at a meeting held on the 23rd day of March 1807, did among other things resolve, that the Eight per cent. Stock, created in pursuance of the several acts of Congress passed on the 16th day of July 1798, and 7th day of May 1800, should be reimbursed on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and nine.
This is therefore to give notice that the principal of the said Eight per cent. Stock will, on surrender of the certificates, be paid on the first day of January 1809, to the respective Stockholders or their lawful representatives or attorneys duly constituted and authorized, either at the Treasury or at the Loan Office, as the case may be, where credits have been given for the amount of Stock respectively held by them.
It is further made known for the information of the parties concerned, that no transfers of the said Eight per Cent Stock either from or to the books of the Treasury, or from or to the books of a Commissioner of Loans will be allowed after the first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eight, and the interest on all certificates of said Stock, which shall not have been surrendered in pursuance of this notification, will cease and determine on the day preceding the day hereby fixed for the reimbursement thereof.
And whereas the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund at their meeting held on the 23rd day of March as aforesaid, did also resolve, that the sum which after making the current payments for the years 1807 and 1808, and after reimbursing the Four and a half per Cent Stock, might remain to complete the annual appropriation of Eight Millions of dollars, for those two years' should, among other purposes, be applied to the purchase of the Eight per Cent Stock at private sale, and that such of the Cashiers of the Bank of the United States, and of its office of Discount and Renewals as the Secretary of the Treasury shall designate, be the agents under his superintendence for making the said purchase.
ALBERT GALLATIN, Secretary of the Treasury.
FOR SALE OR RENT.
THE Subscriber will SELL or RENT the HOTEL, situated on the Capitol Hill and near to the Capitol, at present occupied by Mr. P. D. SERILLE. As this house is well known, it is useless to say more than that it is calculated for a large establishment, and is the first situation as a hotel on a large scale in this city.
DANL. CARROLL of Dudn's. Washington, August 5—2awO
By the Orphans Court of Saint Mary's county—June Term, 1807.
ORDERED that Joseph Edwards, administrator of Stourton Edwards, late of St. Mary's county, deceased, give the notice required by law for creditors to exhibit their claims against the estate of the said deceased, and that the same be published once a week for six weeks, in the Washington Federalist and National Intelligencer.
JAMES FORREST, Reg. Wills for Saint Mary's county.
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 of administration on the personal estate of Stourton Edwards, late of the county aforesaid, deceased.
JOSEPH EDWARDS, Adm. Sept. 18—w6t.