The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1807-06-24 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. 1044.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1807.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
TRIAL OF COL. AARON BURR.
SATURDAY, JUNE 13th.
Mr. Burr thought it proper to mention, that his counsel had understood, that a supplemental charge had been written by the court: that it had been put into the hands of the attorney of the U. S. and that it was to be shown to his own counsel, before it was delivered. From the want of time, however, or from some other cause, it had not yet been submitted to his counsel. The court had yesterday requested a copy of his propositions, that they might judge of their application; and it satisfied on that point, that they might give additional instructions to the jury. His counsel had complied with the request; and though it was not possible for the court at first to have perceived whether a supplemental charge was necessary, yet it had now appeared from the whole course of the argument, that each of his propositions would come before the grand jury. If the court was satisfied on the law, they would of certainty instruct the jury on such points as seemed inevitably to come before them. But if they had any doubts on the law, they would certainly require an argument; and that he was then ready to demonstrate the truth of each of the propositions which he had submitted. He should make no remarks on the consumption of time, of which gentlemen made so many complaints; he should only observe, that three weeks ago he was ready to argue these points. But he was even willing to limit the time to be employed upon the present argument; even to a certain number of minutes; he was even willing to argue the points in the way of notes submitted to the court.
Chief Justice stated that he had drawn up a supplemental charge, which he had submitted to the attorney for the U. S. with a request that it should also be put into the hands of Col. Burr's counsel; that Mr. Hay had however informed him in the conversation which he had just had with him, that he had been too much occupied himself to inspect the charge with attention, and deliver it to the opposite counsel; but another reason was that there was one point in the charge which he did not fully approve. He should not therefore deliver his charge at present; and should reserve it until Monday. In the mean time Col. Burr's counsel would have an opportunity of inspecting it; and an argument might be held on the points which had produced an objection from the attorney of the U. S.
Mr. B. Randolph. Is it the wish of the court that the argument should be carried on orally or in writing?
Chief Justice. I am willing to hear the remarks on both sides, in writing.
Mr. Hay objected to this method from the excessive labor which it would impose upon them either way.
The Chief Justice declared that it was perfectly indifferent to him.
Mr. Martin assured the court that it was perfectly convenient to him to argue the point either orally or in writing.
Mr. Wickham stated, that the attorney for the U. S. wished to object to certain propositions which Col. B. had submitted to the court; that he was ready to go into this discussion immediately; that the attorney for the U. S. preferred an argument orally before the court to one in writing; and that this was in fact the very course which Col. Burr's counsel had first recommended. M. W. hoped that this supplemental charge would be given to the jury, before the witnesses were sent up—that the counsel for the prosecution preferred the contrary, but certainly the most improper course.
The Chief Justice observed that the court would also have wished that the charge should have been delivered before the witnesses were sent up: but that it was almost indifferent to him, whether the testimony was submitted to the grand jury before or after the delivery of the charge; that it was often the custom for the petit jury itself to hear the testimony before the law was expounded; and the same practice might extend to the grand jury; for it was extremely easy for them, after they had heard the testimony to apply the instructions of the court and distinguish those parts which were admissible from those that were not so. It was not for instance absolutely necessary for them to know, previous to the delivery of the charge, that two witnesses were necessary to prove the overt act even before a grand jury. When the charge had been delivered, that principle would apply to the testimony which they had actually heard; and though it was desirable that the charge should precede the testimony, yet it was not so essential as to interrupt the proceedings.
Mr. Randolph conceived it far more important to give the supplemental charge before than after the exhibition of the testimony: that with one set of principles on their mind, the grand jury would frequently ask questions in
one point of view, which they would not under other impressions; & that the supplemental, like the original charge, ought to precede the evidence.
Mr. Martin observed, that there was this considerable difference between a grand and a petit jury, that when any doubt arose about the propriety of testimony before the petit jury, court would be present and ready to decide; but the grand jury has not the same aid of the judgement of the court in selecting the testimony.
The Chief Justice said, that the necessity of giving a supplemental charge at this time, was not so manifest; as in his original charge he had expressed his ideas on the nature of Treason: That he flated this crime to consist in an actual "levying of war," and that of course, the grand jury would have to enquire into the existence of overt acts: that from this statement, it would readily occur to the jury, that no matter what suspicions were entertained, what plans had been formed, what enterprises had been projected, there could be no Treason, without an overt act: and that without some overt act, no crime of Treason had been committed.
The discussion of this question was at length waved; when the Chief Justice delivered the following opinion on the motion to issue a subpoena Duces Tecum directed to the President of the U. S.
The object of the motion now to be decided is to obtain copies of certain orders understood to have been issued to the land and naval officers of the U. S. for the apprehension of the accused; and an original letter from Gen. Wilkinson to the President in relation to the accused, with the answer of the President to that letter, which papers are supposed to be material to the defence. As the legal mode of effecting this object, a motion is made for a subpoena duces tecum to be directed to the President of the U. S.
In opposition to this motion a preliminary point has been made by the counsel for the prosecution. It has been insisted by them that, until the grand jury shall have found a true bill, the party accused is not entitled to subpoena or the aid of the court to obtain his testimony.
It will not be said that this opinion is now for the first time, advanced in the U. S.; but certainly, it is now for the first time advanced in Virginia. So far back as any knowledge of our jurisprudence is possessed, the uniform practice of this country has been to permit any individual who was charged with any crime, to prepare for his defence, and to obtain the process of the court, for the purpose of enabling him to do so. This practice is as convenient, and is as consonant to justice as it is to humanity. It prevents in a great measure, those delays which are never desirable, which frequently occasion the loss of testimony, and which are often oppressive, that would be the inevitable consequence of withholding from a prisoner the process of the court, until the indictment against him was found by a grand jury. The right of an accused person to the process of the court, to compel the attendance of witnesses, seems to follow necessarily from the right to examine those witnesses, and wherever the right exists, it would be reasonable that it should be accompanied with the means of rendering it effectual. It is not doubted, that a person who appears before a court, under a recognizance, must expect that a bill will be preferred against him, or that a question concerning the continuance of the recognizance, will be brought before the court. In the first event, he has the right; & it is perhaps his duty to prepare for his defence at the trial. In the second event, it will not be denied that he possesses the right to examine witnesses on the question of continuing his recognizance. In either case, it would seem reasonable that he should be entitled to the process of the court, to procure the attendance of his witnesses.
The genius and character of our laws and usages, are friendly, not to condemnation at all events, but to a fair and impartial trial; and they consequently allow to the accused the right of preparing the means to secure such a trial. The objection that the attorney may refuse to proceed at this time, and that no day is fixed for the trial, if he should proceed, presents no real difficulty. It would be a very insufficient excuse to a prisoner who had failed to prepare for his trial, to say that he was not certain the attorney would proceed against him. Had the indictment been found at the last term it would have been in some measure uncertain
whether there would have been a trial at this, and still more uncertain on what day that trial would take place—yet subpoenas would have issued returnable to the first day of the term, and if, after its commencement, other subpoenas had been required, they would have issued returnable as the court might direct. In fact all process to which the law has affixed no certain return day, is made returnable at the discretion of the court.
General principles then, and general practice, are in favor of the right of every accused person so soon as his case is in court, to prepare for his defence, and to receive the aid of the process of the court to compel the attendance of his witnesses.
The constitution and laws of the U. S. will now be considered for the purpose of ascertaining how they bear upon the question.
The 8th amendment to the constitution gives to the accused in all criminal prosecutions, a right to a speedy and public trial, and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.—The right given by this article must be deemed sacred by the courts, and the article should be so construed as to be something more than a dead letter.—What can more effectually elude the right to a speedy trial than the declaration that the accused shall be disabled from preparing for it, until an indictment shall be found against him? It is certainly much more in the true spirit of the provision which secures to the accused a speedy trial, that he should have the benefit of the provision which entitles him to compulsory process as soon as he is brought into court.
This observation derives additional force from a consideration of the manner in which this subject has been contemplated by Congress. It is obvious by the intention of the national legislature, that in all capital cases the accused shall be entitled to process before indictment found. The words of the law are, "and every such person or persons accused or indicted of the crimes aforesaid (that is of treason or any other capital offence) shall be allowed and admitted in his said defence to make any proof that he or they can produce, by lawful witness or witnesses, and shall have the like process of the court where he or they shall be tried, to compel his or their witnesses to appear at his or their trial, as is usually granted to compel witnesses to appear on the prosecution against them."
This provision is made for persons accused or indicted. From the imperfection of human language it frequently happens that sentence which ought to be explicit are of doubtful construction, and in this case the words "accused or indicted" may be construed to be synonymous, to describe a person in the same situation or to apply to different stages of the prosecution. The word or may be taken in a conjunctive or a disjunctive sense. A reason for understanding them in the latter sense is furnished by the sect. itself. It commenced with declaring that any person who shall be accused and indicted of treason, shall have a copy of the indictment, and at least 3 days before his trial. This right is obviously to be enjoyed after an indictment, and therefore the words are "accused and indicted." So with respect to the subsequent clause which authorises a party to make his defence and direct the court on his application to assign him counsel. The words relate to any person accused and indicted. But when the section proceeds to authorise the compulsory process for witnesses, the phraseology is changed. The words are "and every such person or persons accused or indicted," &c. thereby adapting the expression to the situation of an accused person both before and after indictment. It is to be remarked too, that the person so accused or indicted is to have "the like process to compel his or their witnesses to appear at his or their trial as is usually granted to compel witnesses to appear on the prosecution against them." The fair construction of this clause would seem to be that with respect to the means of compelling the attendance of witnesses to be furnished by the court, the prosecution and defence are placed by the law on equal ground. The right of the prosecutor to take out subpoenas or to avail himself of the aid of the court in any stage of the proceedings previous to the indictment, is not controverted. This act of Congress, it is true, applies only to capital cases; but persons charged with offences not capital have a constitutional and a legal right to examine their testimony, and this act ought to be considered as declaratory of the common law in cases where this constitutional right exists.
Upon immemorial usage then, and upon what is deemed a sound construction of the constitution and law of the land, the court is of opinion that any person charged with a crime in the courts of the U. S. has a right, before as well as after indictment, to the process of the court to compel the attendance of his witnesses. Much delay and much inconvenience may be avoided by this construction, no mischief which is perceived can be produced by it.—
The process would only issue, when according to the ordinary course of proceeding, the indictment would be tried at the term to which the subpoena is made returnable, so that it becomes incumbent on the accused to be ready for his trial at that term.
This point being disposed of, it remains to enquire whether a subpoena Duces Tecum can be directed to the President of the United States, and whether it ought to be directed in this case.
This question originally consisted of two parts. It was at first doubted whether a subpoena could issue in any case to the chief magistrate of the nation; and if it could, whether that subpoena could do more than direct his personal attendance; whether it could direct him to bring with him a paper which was to constitute the gist of his testimony.
While the argument was opening the attorney for the U. S. avowed his opinion that a general subpoena might issue to the President but not a subpoena Duces Tecum . This terminated the argument on that part of the question. The court, however, has thought it necessary to state briefly the foundation of its opinion that such a subpoena may issue.
In the provisions of the constitution and of the statute which give to the accused a right to the compulsory process of the court there is no exception whatever. The obligation, therefore, of those provisions is general; and it would seem that no person could claim an exemption from them but one who would not be a witness. At any rate, if an exception to the general principle exists, it must be looked for in the law of evidence. The exceptions furnished by the law of evidence (with one only reservation) so far as they are personal, are of those only whose testimony could not be received. The single reservation alluded to is the case of the king. Although he may perhaps give testimony, it is said to be incompatible with his dignity to appear under the process of the court. Of the many points of difference which exist between the first magistrate in England and the first magistrate of the U. S. in respect of the personal dignity conferred on them by the constitution of their respective nations, the court will only select and mention two. It is a principle of the English constitution that the king can do no wrong, that no blame can be imputed to him, that he cannot be named in debate.
By the constitution of the U. S. the President as well as every other officer of the government, may be impeached and may be removed from office on conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors.
By the constitution of Great Britain the crown is hereditary and the monarch can never become a subject.
By that of the U. S. the President is elected from the mass of the people, & on the expiration of the term for which he is elected, returns to the mass of the people again.
How essentially this difference of circumstances must vary the policy of the laws of the two countries in reference to the personal dignity of the executive chief, will be perceived by every person. In this respect, the first magistrate of the union may more properly be likened to the first magistrate of a state—at any rate under the former confederation; and it is not known ever to have been doubted, that the chief magistrate of a state might be served with a subpoena ad testificandum .
It is in any court of the U. S. it has ever been decided, that a subpoena cannot issue to the President, that decision is unknown to this court.
If upon any principle, the President could be construed to stand exempt from the general provisions of the constitution, it would be because his duties as chief magistrate demand his whole time for national objects. But it is apparent that this demand is not unremitting, and if it should exist at the time when his attendance on a court is required, it would be shown on the return of the subpoena, and would rather constitute a reason for not obeying the process of the court, than a reason against its being issued. In point of fact it cannot be doubted, that the people of England have the same interest in the service of the executive government, that is, of the cabinet council, that the American people have in the service of the executive of the U. S. and that their duties are as arduous and as unremitting. Yet it has never been alleged that a subpoena might not be directed to them.
It cannot be denied, that to issue a subpoena to a person filling the exalted station of the chief magistrate, is a duty which would be dispensed with much more cheerfully than it would be performed; but if it be a duty the court can have no choice in the case.
If then, as is admitted by the counsel for the U. S. a subpoena may issue to the President, the accused is entitled to it of course; and whatever difference may exist with respect to the power to compel the same obedience to the process, as if it had been directed
to a private citizen, there exists no difference with respect to the right to obtain it. The guard furnished to this high officer to protect him from being harassed by vexatious and unnecessary subpoenas, is to be looked for in the conduct of a court after those subpoenas have issued, not in any circumstance which is to precede their being issued.
If in being summoned to give his personal attendance to testify, the law does not discriminate between the President and a private citizen, what foundation is there for the opinion, that this difference is created by the circumstance that his testimony depends on a paper in his possession, not on facts which have come to his knowledge otherwise than by writing? The court can perceive no foundation for such an opinion. The propriety of introducing any paper into a case as testimony, must depend on the character of the paper, not on the person who holds it. A subpoena Duces Tecum then may issue to any person to whom an ordinary subpoena may issue directing him to bring any paper of which the party praying it has a right to avail himself, as testimony; if indeed that be the necessary process for obtaining the view of such paper. When this subject was suddenly introduced, the court felt some doubt concerning the propriety of directing a subpoena to the chief magistrate, and some doubt also concerning the propriety of directing any paper in his possession, not public in its nature, to be exhibited to court. The impression, that the question which might arise in consequence of such process, were more proper for discussion on its issuing, was then strong in the mind of the judges, but the circumspection with which they would take any step, which would in any manner relate to that high personage, prevented their yielding readily to those impressions, and induced the request that those points, if not admitted, might be argued. The result of that argument is a confirmation of the impression originally entertained. The court can perceive no legal objection to issuing a subpoena Duces Tecum , to any person whatever, provided, the case be such as to justify the process.
This is said to be a motion to the discretion of the court. This is true. But a motion to its discretion, is a motion not to its inclination, but to its judgement, and its judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.
A subpoena Duces Tecum , varies from an ordinary subpoena only in this, that a witness is summoned for the purpose of bringing with him a paper in his custody. In some of our sister states whose system of jurisprudence is erected on the same foundation with our own, this process, we learn, issues of course. In this state it issues not absolutely of course, but with leave of the court. No case, however, exists, as is believed, in which the motion has been found, on an affidavit, in which it has been opposed. It has been truly observed, that the opposite party can regularly take no more interest in the awarding a subpoena Duces Tecum , than in the awarding an ordinary subpoena. In either case he may object to any delay, the grant of which may be implied in granting the subpoena, but he can no more object regularly to the legal means of obtaining testimony, which exists in the mind, than in the papers of the person who may be summoned. If no inconvenience can be sustained by the opposite party, he can only oppose the motion in the character of an amicus curiae , to prevent the court from making an improper order, or from burdening some officer by compelling an unnecessary attendance. This court would certainly be very unwilling to say that upon fair construction the constitutional and legal right to obtain its process to compel the attendance of witnesses, does not extend to their bringing with them such papers as may be material in the defence. The literal distinction which exists between the cases, is too much attenuated to be countenanced in the tribunals of a just and humane nation. If then, the subpoena be used without enquiry into the manner of its application, it would seem to trench on the privileges which the constitution extends to the accused; it would seem to reduce his means of defence, within narrower limits than is designed by the fundamental law of our country, if an overstrained rigor should be used with respect to his right, to apply for papers deemed by himself to be material. In the one case the accused is made the absolute judge of the testimony to be summoned; if in the other, he is not to judge absolutely for himself, his judgement ought to be controlled only so far as it is apparent that he means to exercise his privileges, not really in his own defence, but for purposes which the court ought to discountenance. The court would not lend its aid to motions obviously designed to manifest disrespect to the government, but the court has no right to refuse its aid to motions for papers to which the accused may be entitled, and which may be material in his defence.
The observations are made to show the nature of the discretion which may be exercised. If it is apparent that the

papers are relative to the case, or that for state reasons, they cannot be introduced into the defence; the subpoena duces tecum would be useless; but if this is not apparent; if they may be important in the defence; if they may be read at the trial; if they may be a part of the records of the judicial proceedings of this country, if in a case of such serious import as this, the accused should be denied the use of them?
The counsel for the U. S. take a very different view of this subject and insist that a motion for process to obtain testimony, should be supported by the same full and explicit proof of the nature and application of that testimony, which would be required on a motion which would delay public justice; which would arrest the ordinary course of proceeding, or which would in any other manner affect the rights of the opposite party. In favor of this position, has been urged the opinion of one, whose loss as a friend and as a judge, I sincerely deplore; whose worth I feel, and whose authority I shall at all times greatly respect. If his opinion was really opposed to mine, I should certainly revise, deliberately revise the judgement I had formed: But I perceive no such opposition.
In the trials of Smith and Ogden, the court in which Judge Paterson presided, required a special affidavit in support of a motion made by the counsel for the accused for a continuance and for an attachment against witnesses who had been summoned and had failed to attend.
Had this requisition of a special affidavit been made as well a foundation for an attachment as for a continuance, the cases would not have been parallel; because the attachment was considered by the counsel for the prosecution merely as a means of punishing the contempt, and a court might certainly require stronger testimony to induce them to punish a contempt than would be required to lend its aid to a party in order to procure evidence in a cause. But the proof furnished by the case is most conclusive, that the special statements of the affidavit were required solely on account of the continuance.
Although the counsel for the U. S. considered the motion for an attachment merely as a mode of punishing for contempt, the counsel for Smith and Ogden considered it as compulsory process to bring in a witness, and moved a continuance until they could have the benefit of this process. The continuance was to arrest the ordinary course of justice, and therefore the court required a special affidavit, showing the materiality of the testimony before this continuance could be granted. Prima facie evidence could not apply to the case, and there was an additional reason for a special affidavit. The object of this special statement was expressly said to be for a continuance.
COLDON proceeded. "The present application is to put off the cause on account of the absence of witnesses, whose testimony the defendant alleges is material for his defence, and who have disobeyed the ordinary process of the court. In compliance with the intimation from the bench yesterday, the defendant has disclosed, by the affidavit which I have just read, the points to which he expects the witnesses who have been summoned will testify."
"If the court cannot, or will not issue compulsory process to bring in the witnesses who are the objects of this application, then the cause will not be postponed."
"Or if it appears to the court that the matter disclosed by the affidavit might not be given in evidence if the witnesses were now here, then we cannot expect that our motion will be successful. For it would be absurd to suppose that the court will postpone the trial on account of the absence of witnesses whom they cannot compel to appear; and of whose voluntary attendance there is too much reason to despair, or on account of the absence of witnesses who if they were before the court, could not be heard on the trial." (Page 12)
This argument states unequivocally the purpose for which a special affidavit was required.
The counsel for the U. S. considered the subject in the same light. After exhibiting an affidavit for the purpose of showing that the witnesses could not probably possess any material information, Mr. Sandford said "It was decided by the court yesterday that it was incumbent on the defendant, in order to entitle himself to a postponement of the trial, on account of the absence of these witnesses, to show in what respect they are material for his defence. It was the opinion of the court that the general affidavit in common form would not be sufficient for this purpose; but that the particular facts expected from the witnesses must be disclosed, in order that the court might, upon those facts, judge of the propriety of granting the postponement." (Page 27.)
The court frequently treated the subject so as to show the opinion that the special affidavit was required only on account of the continuance; but what is conclusive on this point is, that after deciding the testimony of the witnesses to be such as could not be offered to the jury, Judge Patterson was of opinion, that a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue ought to be granted. He could not have required the materiality of the witness to be shown on a motion, the success of which did not in his opinion, in any degree depend on that materiality; and which he granted after deciding the testimony to be such as the jury ought not to hear. It is then most apparent that the opinion of Judge Patterson has been understood, and
that no inference can possibly be drawn from it, opposed to the principle which has been laid down by the court. That principle will therefore be applied to the present motion.
The first paper required, is the letter of Gen. Wilkinson, which was referred to in the message of the President to Congress. The application of that letter to the case, is shown by the terms in which the communication was made. It is a statement of the conduct of the accused made by the person who is declared to be the essential witness against him. The order for producing this letter is opposed.
1st: Because it is not material to the defence.
It is a principle universally acknowledged, that a party has a right to oppose to the testimony of any witness against him, the declarations which that witness has made at other times on the same subject. If he possesses this right, he must bring forward proof of those declarations. This proof must be obtained before he knows positively what the witness will say, for if he waits until the witness has been heard at the trial, it is too late to meet him with his former declarations. Those former declarations, therefore, constitute a mass of testimony which a party has a right to obtain by way of precaution, and the positive necessity of which, can only be decided at the trial.
Is it with some surprize an argument was heard from the bar, insinuating that the award of a subpoena on this ground, gave the countenance of the court to suspicions, affecting the veracity of a witness who is to appear on the part of the U. S. This observation could not have been considered. In contests of this description the court takes no part; the court has no right to take a part. Every person may give in evidence, testimony such as is stated in this case. What would be the feelings of the prosecutor, if in this case the accused should produce a witness completely exculpating himself, and the attorney for the U. S. should be arrested in his attempt to prove what the same witness had said upon a former occasion, by a declaration from the bench, that such an attempt could not be permitted, because it would imply a suspicion of the court that the witness had not spoken the truth? Respecting so unjustifiable an intposition but one opinion would be formed.
The 2d objection is, that the letter contains matter which ought not to be disclosed.
That there may be matter, the production of which the court would not require, is certain; but that in a capital case the accused ought not, in some form, to have the benefit of it, if it was really essential to his defence, is a position which the court would very reluctantly deny. It ought not to be believed, that the department which superintends prosecutions in criminal cases, would be inclined to withhold it. What ought to be done under such circumstances presents a delicate question, the discussion of which, it is hoped, will never be rendered necessary in this country. At present it need only be said, that the question does not occur at this time. There is certainly nothing before the court which shews, that the letter in question contains any matter, the disclosure of which, would endanger the public safety. If it does contain such matter, the fact may appear before the disclosure is made. If it does contain any matter which it would be imprudent to disclose, which it is not the wish of the executive to disclose, such matter, if it be not immediately and essentially applicable to the point, will, of course, be suppressed. It is not easy to conceive, that so much of the letter as relates to the conduct of the accused, can be a subject of delicacy with the President. Every thing of this kind, however, will have its due consideration on the return of the subpoena.
3dly. It has been alleged that a copy may be received instead of the original, and the act of Congress has been cited in support of this proposition.
This argument pre-supposes that the letter required is a document filed in the department of state, the reverse of which may be and most probably is the fact. Letters addressed to the President are most usually retained by himself. They do not belong to any of the departments. But were the fact otherwise, a copy might not answer the purpose. The copy would not be superior to the original, and the original itself would not be admitted, if denied, without proof that it was the hand writing of the witness. Suppose the case put at the bar, of an indictment on this letter for a libel, and on its production it should appear not to be in the hand writing of the person indicted. Would its being deposited in the department of state make it his writing or subject him to the consequence of having written it? Certainly not. For the purpose of shewing the letter to have been written by a particular person, the original must be produced and a copy could not be admitted.
On the confidential nature of this letter, much has been said at the bar, and authorities have been produced, which appear to be conclusive. Had its contents been orally communicated, the person to whom the communications were made could not have excused himself from detailing them so far as they might be deemed essential in the defence. Their being in writing gives no additional sanctity, the only difference produced by that circumstance is, that the contents of the paper must be proved by the paper itself, not by the recollection of the witness.
Much has been said about the disre-
spect to the chief magistrate which is implied by this motion and by such a decision of it as the law is believed to require.
These observations will be very truly answered by the declaration that this court feels many, perhaps peculiar motives for manifesting as guarded a respect for the chief magistrate of the union as is compatible with its official duties. To go beyond these would exhibit a conduct which would deserve some other appellation than the term respect.
It is not for the court to anticipate the event of the present prosecution. Should it terminate as is expected on the part of the U. S. all those who are concerned in it should certainly regret that a paper which the accused believed to be essential to this defence, which may, for aught that now appears, be essential, had been withheld from him. I will not say that this circumstance would in any degree tarnish the reputation of the government, but I will say that it would justly tarnish the reputation of the court which had given its sanction to its being withheld. Might I be permitted to utter one sentiment with respect to myself, it would be to deplore most earnestly, the occasion which should compel me to look back on any part of my official conduct with so much self-reproach as I should feel, could I declare on the information now possessed, that the accused is not entitled to the letter in question, if it should be really important to him.
The propriety of requiring the answer to this letter is more questionable. It is alleged that it most probably communicates orders showing the situation of this country with Spain, which will be important on the misdemeanor. If it contains matter not essential to the defence and the disclosure is unpleasant to the executive, it certainly ought not to be disclosed. This is a point which will appear on the return.
The demand of the orders which have been issued, and which have been as alleged, published in the Natches Gazette, is by no means unusual. Such documents have often been produced in the courts of the U. S. and the court of England. If they contain matter interesting to the nation, the concealment of which is required by the public safety, that matter will appear on the return. If they do not and are material, they may be exhibited.
It is said they cannot be material because they cannot justify any unlawful resistance which may have been employed or meditated by the accused.
Were this admitted, and were it also admitted that such resistance would amount to treason, the orders might still be material because they might tend to weaken the endeavor to connect such overt act with any overt act of which this court may take cognizance.
The court, however, is rather inclined to the opinion that the subpoena in such case ought to be directed to the head of the department in whose custody the orders are, and the court must suppose that the letter of the secretary of the navy which has been stated by the attorney for the U. S. to refer the counsel for the prisoner to his legal remedy for the copies he desired, alluded to such a motion as is now made.
The affidavit on which the motion is grounded has not been noticed. It is believed that such a subpoena as is asked ought to issue if there exist any reason for supposing that the testimony may be material and ought to be admitted. It is only because the subpoena is addressed to those who administer the government of this country, that such an affidavit was required as would furnish probable cause to believe that the testimony was desired for the real purposes of defence, and not for such as this court will forever discountenance.
When the chief justice had concluded his opinion, Mr. McRae addressed the court to the following effect:
I hope, sir, that I have misunderstood an expression, which has just fallen from your honor; but the opinions of those gentlemen, who are near me, completely confirm my own conceptions. Your honor has declared, if I mistake not, that "if the present prosecution terminates as is wished, on the part of the U. S." I hope, sir, that nothing has appeared in my conduct, nothing in the conduct of the gentlemen who are associated with me on the present occasion, and nothing in the conduct of the government, to produce such a conviction in the breast of the court. Permit me, sir, to assure this court, if we feel any sentiment at all, that it is one of a very different description. The impression which has been thus conveyed by the court, that we not only wished to have A. Burr accused, but that we wished to convict him, is completely abhorrent to our feelings. We trust that it has rather accidentally fallen from the pen of your honor, than that it is your deliberate opinion. We wish for nothing, sir, but a fair and competent investigation of this case. It is far from our wishes, that A. B. should be convicted but upon the most satisfactory evidence. And let me assure this court, that nothing would more severely wound my feelings, than if you or if any other man should suppose it possible that I myself or the gentlemen with whom I am associated, or the government which we have the honor to represent, should at all events desire the conviction of the prisoner.
The Chief Justice replied, that it was not his intention to insinuate that the attorneys for the prosecution or that the administration, had ever wished the conviction of col. Burr. whether he was guilty or innocent; that his assertion was this: gentlemen had so often and so uniformly asserted that col. Burr
was guilty, and they had so often repeated it before the testimony was perceived on which that guilt could alone be sustained, that it appeared to him probable, that they were not indifferent on the subject.
Mr. McRae begged leave to point out to the court a considerable difference between the opinions and wishes of the counsel for the prosecution: that from the testimony which they had examined, they thought it extremely probable that A. B. was really guilty; but that this was very different from wishing to find him guilty or to convict him at all events.
Mr. Hay observed that his own conscience was satisfied with the course which he had pursued in this business; that he should attempt to secure the same sentiment by his future deportment; and provided he enjoyed that satisfaction, he was completely indifferent to the opinion of others; and he should certainly pursue his own judgment. He asked whether he might not send up the witnesses to the grand jury?
Mr. Burr then pressed upon the court the necessity of giving the supplemental charge; that it would be of considerable benefit in instructing the jury to separate what was proper in the evidence from what was improper; that if the charge was not delivered for several days, the jury might in the mean time be receiving very false impressions; and that their mind might be so completely involved in these impressions, that it would be impossible for them to separate them from their decisions, even after the delivery of the charge. He conceived that the court ought either to prevent the witnesses from going to the grand jury or to deliver its supplemental charge. The chief justice replied that on Monday morning he would deliver the charge, if all the necessary preliminary points could be settled.
Mr. Hay then requested the clerk to swear four of the witnesses. Tho's Truxton, William Eaton, Benjamin Stoddert and Stephen Decatur were accordingly sworn and conducted to the jury room.
Mr. Burr hoped that the court would immediately take up the supplemental charge to the jury. What was the objection which the attorney for the U. S. has submitted to your honor, and on which you seemed to entertain some doubts?
Chief Justice. It is, whether the statute of Edward IV. was now in force in this country.
Mr. Randolph. We are ready on that point, sir.
The clerk then proceeded to call four other witnesses to the book; but when Erick Bollman appeared, Mr. Hay addressed the court to the following effect:
Before Mr. Bollman is sworn, I must inform the court of a particular, and not immaterial circumstance. He, sir, has made a full communication to the government of the plans, the designs and views of A. Burr. As these communications might criminate Dr. Bollman before the grand jury, the President of the U. S. has communicated to me this pardon (holding it in his hand) which I have already offered to Dr. Bollman. He received it in a very hesitating manner; and I think informed me that he knew not whether he should or should not accept it. He took it from me, however, as he informed me for the purpose of taking the advice of counsel. He returned it in the same hesitating manner: he would neither positively accept nor refuse it. My own opinion is that Dr. B. cannot under these circumstances possibly criminate himself. This pardon will completely exonerate him from all the penalties of the law. I believe his evidence to be extremely material. In the presence of this court I offer this pardon to him, and if he refuses, I shall deposit it with the Clerk for his use. Will you, sir, (addressing himself to Mr. Bollman) accept this pardon?
Mr. Bollman. No, I will not, sir.
Mr. Hay then observed that Dr. Bollman must be carried up to the grand jury with an intimation that he had been pardoned.
Mr. Martin. It has always been Dr. B's intention to refuse this pardon; but he has not positively refused it before, because he wished to have this opportunity of publicly rejecting it.
Erick Bollman, Wm. Duane, Peter Taylor, and — Albright were then sworn by the clerk.
Mr. Martin did not suppose that Dr. B's pardon was a real or effectual one; if he made any confessions before the grand jury they might find an indictment, which would hold against him; nor could he be an effectual one, before it was plead to an indictment in open court.
Mr. Hay enquired whether Dr. B. might not pass on to the grand jury.
The Chief Justice asked, what would be the difference between sending him now and some time hence, when the question about his pardon shall have been settled.
Mr. Hay replied, that he was anxious to introduce his evidence before the grand jury in a chronological order, & that if Dr. B's was suspended, it would make a chasm in his arrangement:—however it was of very little consequence to him, whether he was sent now or some time hence.
Chief Justice. What is the particular point before the court?
Mr. Martin. Dr. B. is not pardoned, and no man is bound to criminate himself.
Chief Justice. What precedents have you?
Mr. Martin. I am prepared to show, that a party even possessed of a pardon, is still indictable by the grand jury, unless he has pleaded it in court.
Mr. Hay. Sir, may we send the other witnesses to the jury?
Chief Justice. Certainly. Mr. Bollman may in the mean time be suspended.
Four other witnesses were then sworn.
Mr. Hay. I now propose to send Dr. Bollman to the grand jury. At this time the marshal entered, and Mr. Hay informed the court, that the grand jury had sent for the article of the constitution and the laws of Congress relating to treason and the midemeanor.
Jacob Dunbar was sworn and sent to the grand jury.
Some desultory conversation here ensued between the bar and the court respecting Dr. B. when Mr. Hay addressed the opposite counsel. Are you then willing to hear Dr. B. indicted? Take care in what an awful condition you are placing this gentleman.
Mr. Martin. Dr. Bollman, sir, has lived too long to be alarmed by such names. He is a man of too much honor to trust his reputation to the course which you prescribe for him.
The Chief Justice. There can be no question but Dr. B. can go up to the jury;—but the question is, whether he is pardoned or not. If the executive should refuse to pardon him, he is certainly not pardoned.
Mr. Martin. But there can be no doubt, if he chooses to decline his pardon, that he stands in the same situation with every other witness, who cannot be forced to criminate themselves.
Some desultory conversation here ensued—when Mr. Hay observed that he should extremely regret the loss of Dr. B's testimony; he believed it to be material; he trusted that he should obtain it, however reluctantly given; the court would perceive that Dr. Bollman now possessed so much zeal, as even to encounter the risk of an indictment for treason. Whether he should appear before the grand jury under the circumstance of a pardon being annexed to his name, might hereafter become the object of a distinct arrangement. In the mean time he might go up without any such notification.
Counsel for Mr. Burr acquiesced.
Chief Justice. Whether he is really pardoned or not, I cannot at present declare,—I must take time to deliberate.
Mr. Hay. Categorically then I ask you, Mr. Bollman, do you accept your pardon.
Mr. Bollman. I have already answered that question several times. I say no: and I repeat that I would have refused it before, but that I wished this opportunity of publicly declaring it.
Mr. Hay. If the grand jury have any doubts about the questions that they put to Dr. B. they can apply to the court for instructions. I assert, sir, that Mr. Bollman is a pardoned man. I wish the opposite counsel to prove that he is not. I therefore move, sir, that he be sent up to the grand jury, certified by you that he is pardoned. I make this motion, that gentleman who wish to discuss the question, may have an opportunity of producing their arguments.
Mr. Williams, counsel for Mr. Bollman. There are 3 questions to be decided,—1. Whether a witness is bound to answer any questions which tend to criminate himself, or afford a clue to evidence for that purpose?—The operation of a pardon, whether it changes the question, but in this case it having been refused, the court cannot notice it.—Who is to be the judge, the witness or the court as to the propriety of answering the question?—
On the first question Mr. W. laid down the following proposition—1. The rule of law is that no man shall be bound to answer any question which shall accuse himself—1. Mc'Nal's ev. 256. 2. Haw. c. 46.—2. He shall not be bound to answer any question which shall accuse himself of a misdemeanor—1. Mc'Nal: 256.—3. He shall not be called upon to calumniate himself—1. Mc'Nal: 256. 2. Sta. T. 822, 1035, Tabshorough's case—4. He is not to defame himself—1. Mc'Nal: 256. 258. 2. Sta. T. 439.—5. Not to answer ensnaring questions—Mc'Nal: 256.—6. To ask a man if he is a Roman Catholic, is not permitted—Mc'Nal: 257. 9. Sta. T. 414. 2. Dougl: 593.—7. Not bound to answer any question which tends to criminate himself—Mc'Nal: 257. 4. Sta. T. 605, 606.—8. The case of Goosely in this court upon the trial Reynolds, was called who had been acquitted, the day before the grand jury.—50. 1 Black. Ress. 27.
As to the 2d question, the rule of law is the same, even if the man be pardoned.—1. A witness, although pardoned, shall not be bound to calumniate himself, for the pardon having placed him in Statu quo , no question shall be asked him which shall tend to make contemptible or do away the benefit of the pardon—1. Mc'Nal: 256. 2. Sta. T. 822 1035.—If bound to acknowledge himself acquainted with any treason, he was guilty of a very high misdemeanor, and therefore do away any benefit from the pardon.—But court cannot notice pardon, by Sta. for if under great seal and accepted, yet it would be error in Court to allow it if not pleaded.—2. Haw. Ch. 87 Sec. 59. Sec. 64, 65. 5. Bac. 294.—If party only entitled upon pleading it, then if he refuses, court cannot take notice of it.—Here party refusing, court must say not pardoned, for until it is pleaded, party liable to be punished.—For if he pleads not guilty, the court will not allow him to plead it afterwards—2. Haw. ch. 37 sec. 59. Bac. 294.
As to the 3d question, the witness must be the judge of necessity.—1. Because he can only know what the answer is, and the bearing it will have.—2. If the court to decide, they must know, what would be the answer, and to get that from the wit. to criminate himself; which I have shown he is not bound to do.

It is objected that by this means, no witness would give evidence against the accused. It may be answered, 1. The refusal is upon oath, because he affirms that to answer it would be to incriminate himself. 2. You have some obligation on him to answer that truly, as to speak truth upon any other subject. 3. If he perjures himself, in that he would certainly do it to get clear of giving evidence against accused. 4. It is his privilege not to answer any question having that tendency. 5. This rule is upon the following authorities. The court in a case in 1743, in 4. Sta. T. 414 note states, to wit, "if you think it will criminate yourself, you need not answer it." 1 McNall, 257. 8. It is put to the witness and not to the court, because he knew what was to be the answer—if it be objected that nothing is evidence against him, which he may say on his oath, the answer is that it has been otherwise decided. 2 Dougl. 593.
Mr. Martin would merely suggest a few additional authorities; among these were 5 Bac. p. 295—2 H. Wilkins ch. 37, p. 59. 60, 65. Mr. M. contended that these authorities demonstrated that there were two kinds of pardon in England: one by Parliament and the other by the Great Seal; that the first exempted an individual from the cognizance of the court as to the particular crime for which he might stand charged; but that the latter was no bar to a judicial prosecution; and was not indeed effectual until it had been pleaded and allowed in court. Mr. M. also quoted an authority from Salkeld to show in corroboration of Mr. Wickham's position that no witness however exempted from the charge and necessity of criminating himself; however responsible to that account to the law; can be made to discredit himself by his own testimony.
Mr. Williams also quoted another authority to the same effect from p. 258 of McNally's evidence.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)
PROPOSALS
Will be received at the NAVY YARD until Saturday the 27th inst. for a supply of FRESH WATER to the Navy in ordinary for six months, to commence the 1st of July. THOMAS TINGEY. Navy Yard, Washington, June 20—at
RUN-AWAY.
COMMITTED to the jail of Washington county in the district of Columbia on the 9th inst. as a run away, a black fellow calling himself WILLIAM BUTLER , but has since confessed his right name to be PRINCE and says he belongs to Daniel McCarty of Maryland; but that he eloped from John Benaugh of Stafford county, Virginia. He appears to be about 30 years old; is very black, stout made, is 5 feet 4 1/2 inches high, his back much marked with the whip, and has a final scar over his right eye; he has on a white nankin pair of trowsers, cotton shirt, and no other clothes with him.
The owner of said slave is desired to release him, or he will be disposed of as the law directs.
CAITWRIGHT TIPPETT,
keeper of the prison in Washington Co. district of Columbia. June 23—w3t
RUN AWAY NEGRO.
Was committed to the jail of Kent county, on Wednesday the 3d inst. as a run away negro BOB , who is between 40 and 45 years old, 5 feet 10 or 11 inches high, and has a scar on his chin. His clothes are a coarse roundabout blue over jacket and trowsers, and a coarse linen shirt. His owner is desired to release him, or he will be sold for his jail and other fees, agreeably to the laws of Maryland. RASIN GALE , sheriff of Kent county. Said Bob says he belongs to Mr. Furlow, Green county, State of Georgia. June 24—w5t
This is to give Notice,
THAT the subscriber of the city of Washington in the district of Columbia hath obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington county, letters of administration on the estate of Samuel Baker late of said county deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof to Henry Purdie of the said county, on or before the first day of January next they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate, those indebted to the deceased are desired to make immediate payment to said Henry Purdie. JANE BAKER , adm re . June 24—3t
FOR SALE,
A VALUABLE tract of LAND containing 217 acres, situated in Montgomery county and State of Maryland, about 7 miles above Georgetown, on the river road, and within a mile of the navigation of Potomac river. This land is very valuable, not only on account of its eligible situation, but also for the quantity of meadow land, and timber thereon. A great bargain may be had in this property, and a credit given till the 30th of November next for two thirds of the purchase money, and a very long credit for the residue, the payments being properly secured, and upon the first payment's being made an unexceptionable title will be given, agreeably to the decision of the Chancellor of Maryland.
Also for Sale,
A LOT with the improvements thereon in Washington city, fronting on F. street a few doors east of the Branch Bank—on this lot are two comfortable framed buildings, one two stories high, with a piazza to each story, the other a single story. This property will be sold either for cash or on a credit, as may best suit the purchaser. JAMES H. BLAKE. Alexandria, June 19—w6t
WASHINGTON CITY,
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24.
The Citizens of Washington, disposed to celebrate the ensuing ANNIVERSARY of National Independence, are requested to meet at Stelle's Hotel, on Friday evening, at 7 o'clock, to make the necessary arrangements.
Forty-eighth article of the Spanish Ordinances, published for the new Tribunal of Admiralty, of which the Prince of Peace is the chief.
Foreign vessels shall contribute in the ports of Spain, and adjacent islands, the same sums that shall be exacted of Spanish vessels in the ports of the powers to which they belong, in any manner whatever; and this same reciprocity shall be observed henceforward, so that the contribution shall augment or decline in the same degree, as the powers to whom the vessels belong, shall respectively raise or diminish that on Spanish vessels.
Trial of Aaron Burr.
On Wednesday an argument of considerable length was had on the admissibility of Mr. Wyllie's evidence, on which the court declined giving their opinion until the next day.
Mr. Burr and his counsel stated that there was much testimony in the hands of the prosecutor, obtained by improper means. He said he could substantiate the charge against Judge Toulmin, Mr. Jackson, a representative in Congress, and Gen. Wilkinson of having improperly obtained letters from the post-office. After a short conversation Mr. Burr waved this point for the present, and moved the court for an attachment against certain persons for improper means used for procuring testimony while the case was pending, and mentioned the same individuals as guilty of this offence.
Mr. E. Randolph said he meant to have moved for an attachment against Gen. Wilkinson for compelling persons to give affidavits, who he knew were to be witnesses, and of illegally forcing by military authority persons from New Orleans to Norfolk.
On this intimation a warm discussion ensued between the opposite counsel, & the proceedings of the day were closed by notice that such a motion would be made the next day.
On Thursday the Chief Justice delivered a written opinion as to the propriety of a witness answering questions which might convict himself.
The opinion concludes as follows: "The court is therefore of opinion, that the witness may answer the question now propounded."
"The gentlemen of the bar, will understand the rule laid down by the court to be this."
"It is the province of the court to judge, whether any direct answer to the question which may be proposed, will furnish evidence against the witness."
"If such answer may disclose a fact which forms a necessary and essential link in the chain of testimony, which would be sufficient to convict him of any crime, he is not bound to answer it, so as to furnish matter for that conviction."
"In such a case, the witness must himself judge what his answer will be, and if he says on oath that he cannot answer without accusing himself, he cannot be compelled to answer."
Mr. Wiley being interrogated, replied, he did not understand the part of the letter in cypher.
Mr. Hay then put the following question:
"Mr. Wiley, do you know whether or not this paper was written by Col. Burr or by his directions?"
Answer.—The part in cypher, was wrote by Col. Burr.
Mr. Hay then moved, that the paper go to the Grand Jury as they had sent for it.
Mr. Batts objected to the motion, and contended that the materiality of the paper to the present case, ought first to be shewn to the court, before the paper could be sent.
The court were of opinion, that the paper ought to be deciphered in court to prove its relevancy, before it could be sent to the grand jury.
The grand jury came into court about two.
Mr. John Randolph, the foreman of the grand jury, thus addressed the court—"May it please the court, one of the witnesses under examination, has answered certain questions touching a letter in cypher. The grand jury understand, that a letter of the same description is in the possession of the attorney in the court, and they wish to have that letter in order to ascertain whether it be the original or a copy of the same." The letter in cypher was accordingly, after some discussion by the counsel on both sides, delivered to the grand jury.
The Court then adjourned. On Friday, Col. Burr rose and stated to the court, that the process which was obtained for the President of the U. S. last Saturday, was served upon him on Monday morning; but a verbal answer was only given, signifying that an answer to the notification of the process, would be returned through some other channel. Col. Burr therefore observed, if nothing was heard in the course of the day from the attorney for the prosecution, that to-morrow morning a motion would be made for enforcing the process of the court.*
Mr. E. Randolph rose to make the motion, of which he gave notice on Wednesday, and said he held in his hand certain depositions as grounds for
issuing an attachment against General Wilkinson.
An altercation ensued between the opposite counsel on going into the argument, which was suspended by the wish expressed by the court to inspect the affidavits, and that the argument should proceed the next day.
Mr. Hay desired leave to submit certain interrogatories to the witnesses examined by the grand jury; but, after a short conversation, waved making any motion to that effect—when the court adjourned.
* We understood that on the 18th inst. a regular return was made at the instance of the President, to the subpoena duces tecum, enclosing the orders of the War and Navy departments in relation to Mr. Burr, and stating that the letter of general Wilkinson was either in the hands of the Attorney general, or Mr. Hay, the former of whom had been written to on the subject.
On the 19th inst. the grand jury had examined thirty-three witnesses; seventeen remained to give their testimony. It was expected the grand jury would determine on the indictments yesterday.
The foregoing abstract is formed from the Argus and Virginia Gazette of Saturday last. We failed to receive the Enquirer.
We prefer giving the details attending the trial of Aaron Burr at length to filling our columns with European events of but little importance. Various arrivals bring down our London dates to the 9th of May, and Amsterdam dates to May 8th.
The latest accounts from the Grand Armies are to the 24th of April, when the French headquarters were still at Fickenstein, and when a general engagement was daily expected. Immense reinforcements had joined both armies.
Admiral Duckworth had returned into the Archipelago with 69 killed and 219 wounded.
The English Parliament was dissolved on the 28th of April, and the new Parliament is to meet the 22d of June.
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in the Western country, dated May 28.
"A few weeks since, the publication of what general Adair calls his statement of facts, fell into my hands. I have since taken some pains to ascertain how far his statement was correct. I enclose you the result of my enquiries thus far, more shall be forwarded when obtained. I shall make no comment on the enclosed questions, but leave it to the reader to make his own inferences."
"Why did General Adair pass thro' the Chocktaw country without passing?"
"Why did he move with such rapidity in the most inclement season of the year?"
"What was his object in saying that he spent two or three days looking at lands in the settlements of Tombigbee, when he only staid one night, and that in the very extreme habitation on the frontiers within musket shot of the Indian boundary, lamenting too that he had lost his way, and employing a guide to reconduct him to his direct route?"
"Whence arose his friendship to Joseph Collins, that he took such a journey, at such a season, on a visit of courtesy?—Dear General, this same Joseph Collins is very well known in the Western world!"
"How did the General know that there was no truth in the stories which Doctor White and family had heard respecting Colonel Burr?"
"Does the General remember the anxiety which he shewed, and the regret he expressed, at the absence of a gentleman whom he expected to see in the Chickasaw nation? Does he remember what he wrote to that same gentleman? And can he, or will he be so good as to inform the public how he knew that Colonel Burr wanted to see that same gentleman at Bayou Pierre and Natchez?"
"I enclose you also an affidavit of Colonel Collier, which appears to corroborate the testimony given by Gen. Eaton respecting the views of Colonel Burr."
Extract of a letter from Judge Toulman to Silas Dinsmore, Esq. dated Wakfield, 6th May, 1807.
"You wish me to relate to you the conversation which I had this morning with Mr. Edward Gattin relative to General Adair. He informed me that the General came to his house on the Chickasawhay or Paskagola, accompanied by a servant, last winter, and was about to proceed by the new road on the line to the mouth of Pearl river, and from thence to New Orleans, but not being able to cross the river, and being in great haste, he prevailed on Mr. Gattin to take charge of his horses and to lend him a boat to descend the Paskagola, in order to proceed to New Orleans without loss of time. On Mr. Gattin's observing to him that his horses were much reduced, he stated that it was owing to the great expedition with which he had travelled, as it was then but a fortnight since he left Nashville, in the state of Tennessee. He requested that his horses might be taken very good care of, and observed that he should apply himself or send for them in the course of a few weeks. He staid but a few hours, and then went down the river, accompanied by his negro alone."
"F. S. In compliance with your request that I would state what Mrs. White (the lady of Doctor White, at the mouth of the Paskagola) mentioned to me, I would add that she spoke of General Adair as being in great haste to proceed to New Orleans,—that he said, I think, that he must charter a vessel on purpose to take him on, if no other means of proceeding offered,—but that an opportunity to obtain a passage fortunately presented itself the day after he got to Doctor White's house. He mentioned that he should like to purchase a tract of land in that neighborhood, and informed them that there was no truth in the stories they had heard about the expedition of Colonel Burr."
"John Crosbey, says that sometime in Christmas times (or holy days) a stranger came to his house in the evening with a black servant and three horses, he said he had missed his way, that he was bound to the mouth of Paskagola river, where Doctor White lived, where he talked of purchasing land, and wanted a pilot to put him in the right path."
"He, Crosbey, accompanied him the next morning immediately after breakfast to the Mobile trading road, about eight miles, and shewed him a path leading to the settlements on the Chickasawhay or Paskagola river. He did not propose to look at or purchase land in this the upper part of the country, but on the sea coast, saying he thought it would be better living on the coast than higher up. He crossed Sinter bague at the ford on the Natchez trace, near which a Mr. Salter then lived, who directed him to Crosbey's house."
"Jordan Morgan says that General Adair and servant came to his house very muddy, the waters being high and the weather rainy, lodged with him all night, set out early the next morning, proceeded to the house of Edward Gattin, a few miles distant from his (Morgan's) house, where the General left his horses, and immediately procured a canoe and proceeded with his servant only down the Paskagola to its mouth, he said he wanted to see one Joseph Collins, a Spanish American or an American turned Spaniard to whom he sold negroes some years before. Requested Gattin to have his horses well fed, that he should return in about three weeks, and should then go to Mobile, Pensacola and St. Augustine."
Statement of distances from Nashville to the mouth of the Paskagola river on the route taken by General Adair, in December 1806, and January 1807.
 From Nashville to Duck river, 50  Duck river to Tennessee river, 75  Tennessee to McIntoshville Chickasawhay, 90  McIntoshville to Pidgeon Roost (Folsoms) 49  Pidgeon Roost to Holstones, 50  From Holstone's to Anderson's, 50  Anderson's to the cross paths, (trading road) 76  Cross paths to ford of Sinter bague (Salters) 30  Salter's to Crosbey's, 2  Crosbey's to the Mobile path or trading road, 8  Thence to the upper settlements on the Chickasawhay or Paskagola, 10  Thence to Gattin's, 36  Thence by water to the mouth of Paskagola, 90  616 
I cannot vouch for the correctness of the four last counts; but believe the aggregate will be within ten miles of the truth.
NOTICE.
ON TUESDAY the 30th inst. will be offered for sale, subject to a yearly rent payable quarterly, the PEWS in the PRESBYTERIAN Meeting House on F street, near the Treasury Department. Sale to commence at 5 o'clock, P. M. at the Meeting House, when the terms of sale will be made known. June 24—3t
THE CELEBRATED ENGLISH RUNNING HORSE CLIFDEN,
WILL stand the ensuing season at my Farm in Prince Georges county, about 9 miles from Queen Ann, 9 from Bladensburg, the same distance from Upper Marlborough, and about 15 from the city of Washington, at 25 DOLLARS the season; but 20 DOLLARS will be received in full if paid within the season; which will commence in March and end on 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 orders. The utmost care will be taken of the mares, but I will not be answerable for accidents or escapes.
CLIFDEN is a horse of uncommonly fine form above 15 and 1 1/2 hands high, of a beautiful deep blood bay, and perhaps the strongest made thorough blooded horse on the continent. Large and powerful horses produce the only real good turf horses.
Notes of hand must be sent with the Mares I AAC DUCKETT. March 6—1807.
Treasury Department, United States, April 28, 1807.
WHENAS the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund at a meeting held on the 23d 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 February 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 to the reimbursement thereof.
And whereas the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund at their meeting held on the 23d 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 Deposit as the Secretary of the Treasury shall designate, be the agents under his superintendence for making the said purchases:—Notice is hereby accordingly given, That James Madison Jun. Cashier of the office of Discount and Deposit at Washington, has been appointed agent for that purpose in Washington, to whom such of the proprietors of Eight per Cent. Stock as may be willing to sell the same within the prices limited by law, are requested to apply.
ALBERT GALLATIN, Secretary of the Treasury.
Fifty Dollars Reward. RAN away from the subscriber, on Monday the 11th of this month Negro JOHN,
who calls himself John WHITE, but as he is an artful and intelligent fellow, may probably change his name, and attempt to pass for a freeman. John is about 35 years old, his complexion black, has a pleasant countenance a high round forehead and about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high, square and well set. He is a blacksmith by trade, and a tolerable good house carpenter, and will probably offer his services in one or the other of the above trades.
Had on, when he absconded, a black fur hat a good deal worn, a round jacket of striped country made cotton, osnaburgs shirt, and a pair of olive colored negro cotton trowsers, but as he has a variety of clothing, will no doubt change his dress. He is given to drink and apt to get intoxicated.
The above reward and all reasonable charges will be paid for apprehending the said Runaway and lodging him in any jail so that I get him again, in out of the state, or fifty miles from home—but if within the state or the above distance from home 20 dollars & all reasonable charges.
CLEMENT BROOKE, Near Upper Marlborough. Princes George's County. May 23,—w6t.
Valuable Seats for Iron Works.
THE subscriber offers for sale between Five and Six Thousand acres of Land bounded on one side by James River, including big and little Owen's Creek, and situate in Amherst county in the state of Virginia. This land is in the midst of a well and thick settled country, about 100 miles above the city of Richmond. There are not more than 30 acres of it cleared. The remainder is heavily timbered—consisting of large pines, white oaks, poplar, black walnut and chestnut. On Big Owens creek, and within 600 yards of James river, which is navigable for boats at all seasons of the year—there is an excellent site for any kind of water works. The stream is rapid and constant, and about three miles from the seat are, as it is believed inexhaustible banks of iron ore, which the subscriber has secured and which will be sold with the land. This ore has been tried and proved to be of a very superior kind. The land adjoining the seat is of excellent quality. Two hundred acres of timothy meadow might be made on the creek. The upland although hilly in places is well adapted to small grain, and a great proportion of it suitable to the raising of tobacco. Immediately around the site for water works are inexhaustible LIMESTONE Quarries, together with great quantities of the best building stone. In short there are many advantages combined to render this a most eligible spot for the erection of iron works, or any other kind of water works. It is deemed unnecessary to say more concerning this property than to request those who incline to purchase to view it. It will be shewn by captain Henry Halloway in the neighborhood. The price will be moderate, terms of sale, which will be made very easy, will be made known on application to the proprietor residing in Georgetown district of Columbia. NATHAN LUF. O'ROUGHS. Georgetown, February 16—wtf
By order of the Orphans Court of Saint Mary's county, the subscriber will expose at public sale, at the late residence of Deborah Woldenholme of said county deceased, on Tuesday the first day of September next, on nine months credit with interest from day of sale, the purchaser to give bond with approved security. All the personal property, except negroes, of Deborah Woldenholme deceased, George Campbell, deceased, and Ann Campbell deceased, consisting of Household Furniture, Horses, Cows and Calves, Sheep, Hogs, Plantation Utensils, &c. &c. JAMES BISCOE, adm re . Baltimore May 4—wgt

PROPOSALS
For carrying the MAILS of the United States , on the following Post Roads , will be received at the General Post Office in Washington , until the 1st day of July next, inclusive.
(CONTINUED.) 40. From Rutland by Cavendish, Chester, Rockingham, Bellows Falls and Westminster to Walpole, once a week. Leave Rutland every Wednesday at 9 p.m. and arrive at Walpole by 6 p.m. on Thursday. Leave Walpole every Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Rutland on Sunday by 10 a.m.
41. From Bennington by Marlboro', Wilmington & Woodford, to Brattleboro', once a week. Leave Bennington every Thursday, at 9 p.m. and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 11 a.m. Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at Bennington on Saturday by 4 p.m.
IN MASSACHUSETTS.
42. From Newburyport to Haverhill twice a week. Leave Newburyport every Monday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Haverhill by 11 a.m. Leave Haverhill every Tuesday and Saturday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Newburyport by 7 p.m.
43. From Salem, by Danvers, Topsfield and Boxford, to Haverhill, once a week. Leave Salem every Monday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Haverhill by 6 p.m. Leave Haverhill every Monday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Salem by 10 a.m.
44. From Boston, by Salem and Manchester, to Gloucester, three times a week. Leave Gloucester every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Boston by 6 p.m. Leave Boston every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Gloucester by 6 p.m.
45. From Salem to Marblehead, six times a week. Leave Salem every day (Sunday excepted) at noon, and arrive at Marblehead by 1 p.m. Leave Marblehead every day at 2 p.m. and arrive at Salem by 3 p.m.
46. From Boston, by Medford, Woodburn, Bellerica, Chelsea, Tuftsboro', Danvers, Amherst, Framingham, Walshington and Claremont, to Windsor, Vt. twice a week. Leave Boston every Monday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Bellerica by noon, and at Amherst by 7 p.m. Leave Amherst on Tuesday and Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Windsor by 6 p.m. Leave Windsor every Monday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Amherst by 6 p.m. Leave Amherst on Tuesday and Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Boston by 5 p.m.
47. From Bellerica, by Patucket bridge, Brucut, Pelham and Windham, to Londonderry, once a week. Leave Bellerica every Monday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Londonderry on Tuesday by 9 a.m. Leave Londonderry every Tuesday at 10 a.m. and arrive at Bellerica by 7 p.m.
48. From Boston, by Concord, Littleton, Groton, Townsend, Ashby, New Ipswich, Jaffrey, Marlboro', Keene & Walpole, to Rockingham Bridge, twice a week. Leave Boston every Monday & Thursday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Keene on Tuesday and Friday by noon. Leave Keene at half past 12 p.m. and arrive at Rockingham by 6 p.m. Return.—Leave Rockingham every Tuesday & Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Keene by noon. Leave Keene at half past 12 p.m. and arrive at Boston on Wednesday and Saturday by 8 p.m.
49. From Concord, by Snow, Bolton & Lancaster, to Leominster, twice a week. Leave Concord every Monday and Thursday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Leominster by 7 p.m. Leave Leominster every Wednesday & Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Concord, by 11 a.m.
50. From Leominster, by Westminster, Templeton, Gerry, Athol, New Salem, Wendell & Montague, to Greenfield, once a week. Leave Leominster every Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Greenfield by 7 p.m. Leave Greenfield every Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Leominster by 7 p.m.
51. From Worcester, by Holden, Rutland, Hubbardston, Templeton, Winchendon, Fitz William, to Keene, once a week. Leave Worcester every Wednesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Keene on Thursday noon. Leave Keene every Monday noon, and arrive at Worcester on Tuesday by 6 p.m.
52. From Worcester, by Holden, Rutland, Barre, Peterham, Athol, Orange, Warwick, Northfield & Hinddale, to Brattleboro' once a week; to return by Wendell and New Salem, instead of Warwick, Orange, & Athol. Leave Worcester every Thursday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 10 a.m. Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Worcester on Saturday by 7 p.m.
53. From Shrewsbury, by Holden, Rutland, Green, Hardwick, Pelham, Amherst and Hadley to Northampton once a week. Leave Shrewsbury every Tuesday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Northampton on Wednesday by 10 a.m. Leave Northampton every Wednesday at 1 p.m. and arrive at Shrewsbury on Thursday by 7 p.m.
54. From Brookfield, by Belchertown, Hadley, Northampton, Chesterfield, Worthington, Patridgefield, Dalton,
Pittsfield, Hancock and New Lebanon to Albany twice a week.
May 1 to November 1. Leave Brookfield every Monday and Thursday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Albany on Tuesday and Friday by 7 p.m. Leave Albany every Wednesday and Saturday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Brookfield on Thursday & Monday by 7 p.m.
November 1 to May 1. Leave Brookfield every Monday and Thursday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Northampton by 7 p.m. Leave Northampton every Tuesday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Albany on Wednesday and Saturday by 3 p.m. Return.—Leave Albany every Tuesday and Friday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Pittsfield by 8 p.m. Leave Pittsfield every Wednesday and Saturday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Northampton by 8 p.m. Leave Northampton every Thursday and Monday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Brookfield by 7 p.m.
55. From Suffield, by Westfield, Southampton, Northampton, Hatfield, Whately, Deerfield, Greenfield, Bernardston, Hinsdale, Brattleboro', Putney, Westminster, Rockingham, Charlemont, Claremont, Cornish, Windsor, Hartland and Plainfield, to Hanover, twice a week. Leave Suffield every Monday and Thursday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Northampton at 10 a.m. and at Brattleboro' on Tuesday and Friday by 10 a.m. Leave Brattleboro' at 1 p.m. and arrive at Windsor on Wednesday and Saturday by noon. Leave Windsor at half past 12 p.m. and arrive at Hanover by 8 p.m. Return.—Leave Hanover every Monday and Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Windsor by noon. Leave Windsor at half past 12 p.m. and arrive at Brattleboro' on Tuesday and Friday by 11 a.m. Leave Brattleboro' at 1 p.m. and arrive at Suffield on Wednesday and Saturday by 8 p.m.
56. From Springfield, by West Springfield, Russell, Blandford, London, Bethlem, Tyringham, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge, to Kinderhook, once a week. Leave Springfield every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Kinderhook on Friday by 6 p.m. Leave Kinderhook every Saturday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Stockbridge by 6 p.m. Leave Stockbridge every Tuesday at 4 p.m. and arrive at Springfield on Wednesday by 6 p.m.
57. From Boston, by Dedham, Medfield, Medway, Bellingham, Milford, Medford, Uxbridge, Douglas, Thompson, Pomfret, Alford and Tolland, to Hartford, once a week. Leave Boston every Tuesday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Hartford on Thursday by 5 p.m. Leave Hartford every Friday at 8 a.m. and arrive at Boston on Monday by 4 p.m.
58. From New Hartford, Ct. by Sandisfield, London, Becket, Lee, Lenox, Richmond and Hancock, to New Lebanon, New York, once a week. Leave New Hartford every Friday at 2 p.m. and arrive at New Lebanon on Saturday by 6 p.m. Leave New Lebanon every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at New Hartford on Friday by 10 a.m.
59. From Boston, by Dedham, Wrentham, Attleboro', Providence, Scituate, Plainfield, Jewett's City, Chelsea, New London, Lyme, Saybrook, Killingworth, Guilford and Branford, to New Haven, three times a week.
May 1 to November 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Providence by noon. Leave Providence by half past 12 p.m. and arrive at New Haven on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 1 p.m. Return.—Leave New Haven every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 a.m. and arrive at Providence on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Boston same days by noon.
November 1 to May 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Plainfield by 8 p.m. Leave Plainfield every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a.m. and arrive at New Haven by 8 p.m. Leave New Haven every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Boston every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 8 p.m.
60. From Boston, by Milton, Canton, Eaton, Taunton, Berkley & Freestown, to New Bedford, three times a week.
May 1 to November 1. Leave Boston every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 3 a.m. and arrive at New Bedford by 8 p.m. Leave New Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 a.m. and arrive at Boston by 8 p.m.
November 1 to May 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Taunton by 7 p.m. Leave Taunton every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 3 a.m. and arrive at New Bedford by 7 p.m. Return.—Leave New Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9 a.m. and arrive at Taunton by 8 p.m. Leave Taunton every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a.m. and arrive at Boston by 7 p.m.
61. From New Bedford to Nantucket, once a week. Leave New Bedford every Tuesday at 9 p.m. and arrive at Nantucket in 24 hours. Leave Nantucket every Friday at 3 a.m. and
arrive at New Bedford by 8 a.m. Wind and weather permitting.
62. From Boston by Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield, Duxbury and Kingston, to Plymouth, once a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 5 a.m. and arrive at Plymouth by 6 p.m. Leave Plymouth every Thursday at 6 a.m. and arrive at Boston by 7 p.m.
63. From Sandwich by Barnstable, Yarmouth, Dennis, Harwich, Chatham, Orleans, Eastham, Wellfleet, Billingsgate and Truro, to Provincetown, once a week. Leave Sandwich every Wednesday (Concluded in Supplement.)
APPEALS.
NOTICE is hereby given that the Board of Commissioners of the county of Washington will meet from the 15th to the 27th inst. both days inclusive, at Steele's hotel, city of Washington, and at Semmes's tavern, Georgetown, from the 26th inst. to the 6th July inclusive, between the hours of 10 and 12 o'clock for the purpose of hearing appeals under the late assessments.
JOHN MOUNTZ, Jun. Ck. June 8 t.6
The thorough Bred Horse MONTICELLO, NOW IN HIGH ORDER.
WILL be Let to Mares the ensuing season to commence the first of April, at my farm, near Georgetown, at FIFTEEN DOLLARS per Mare, for which a note must be sent payable the first of September, and one dollar to the groom; or in lieu thereof, ELEVEN DOLLARS in money.
Good and extensive pasturage, well enclosed, at 50 cents per week, and the mare fed, if required, at the market price, for which the money must be sent. The greatest care taken to prevent accidents or escapes, but will not be responsible for either.
JOHN THRELKELD. March 23-tf TRIAL of Col. AARON BURR. WESCOTT & CO. Eleventh street near Pennsylvania avenue, Washington city,
INFORM the public, that they have engaged Mr. THOMAS CARPENTER, one of the most able and correct Stenographers in the United States, to attend the Circuit Court to commence its session in Richmond, on the 22nd of this month; and if the trial comes on, to publish as speedily as possible, a full and complete account of it, accompanied by all the documents relative to this memorable and important decision.
May 18-tf A GOOD STAND. TO LET, the House next west of Rhodes's Hotel, where Mr. M'Laughlin carries on the boot and shoemaking.
ALSO, A House for a genteel private family. To Let, the House adjoining Josiah W. King's, Esq. on F Street. Enquire of JAMES HOBAN. No. 29.
This is to give notice, that the subscriber of the city of Washington in the district of Columbia, hath obtained from the Orphan's Court of Prince George's county in the State of Maryland, letters of administration on the personal estate of Thomas Duckett, late of said county deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber on or before the first day of October next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Those indebted to the deceased are desired to make immediate payment.
ALLEN B. DUCKETT, Adm. City of Washington, March 18-tf. All claims forwarded by mail must be post paid.
LAND FOR SALE.
The Subscriber offers for sale 780 acres of land on Bullkin run in Jefferson county Virginia about 10 miles from Harper's Ferry, and a miles from the Shenandoah river. 400 acres of this land is cleared, the rest in woods, on it there is a valuable Mill seat with 22 feet fall, the stream affording a sufficiency of water to turn two pair of stones, 25 acres of watered meadow which produces abundant crops of Hay, and as much more may be made at a trifling expence—the cleared land may be laid off into fields of 50 acres and each field have running water in it; there is generally sown on this farm 420 acres in wheat, which has not for some years past, produced less than 2500 bushels per annum—the improvements are a Stone Dwelling House and kitchen, a Stone Dairy with a large never failing spring near the dwelling, a barn with stables under it for 30 horses, an apple orchard of 200 trees of choice fruit, and a variety of other fruit trees; on another part of this farm, there is a small frame Dwelling House, Kitchen and Dairy, Smoke house, Barn and Stables—this property will be shown and the terms made known on application to the subscriber on the premises.
JOHN GANTT, Sen. April 29-epam
IN virtue of a Deed of Trust from Uriah Forrest, deceased, to me, bearing date the 19th day of June 1801, recorded among the Land Records for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia authorizing me the subscriber to do so. I do hereby give notice that on Wednesday the 24th day of this month at the Union tavern in Georgetown, if fair, if not the next fair day at the hour of 11 in the forenoon, I will sell at public sale to the highest bidder for ready money all those two BRICK HOUSES and the Ground to them attached and belonging, being, and laying in square numbered 118 in the city of Washington, being the two houses next to the east end house of six under the same roof, and standing on lots numbered one and two in said square, one of which houses is now in the occupation and under rent to general Tureau the other occupied by and under rent to Mr. Wm. Kerr. The same being sold for the purposes in the said deed mentioned.
J. S. M. LINGAN. June 15-5t
TAKE NOTICE.
THE creditors of Zadock Baldwin, an insolvent debtor, are desired to take notice that the subscriber, legally appointed assignee of said insolvent debtor, will attend at the house of Johnson Tuttle, innkeeper in the town of Newark on the 3d day of July next 10 o'clock A. M. to examine and ascertain the debts due to each creditor; and that he will on Thursday the 3d day of December next, at 10 o'clock A. M. attend at the same place to make a division of all the money which shall then have come to his hands of the estate of the said Zadock Baldwin.
SILAS CONDIT. Dated Newark, N. Jersey, 1st June } 1807—June 10-1m WM. S. NICHOLLS,
HAS just received from Philadelphia, and now for sale, a large and very handsome supply of SPRING GOODS, which he can offer his friends and customers on terms which will be pleasing to them—having taken great pains to select a general assortment, and goods of the best quality. He has on hand, Irish Linens, Dimities, India Muslins, and Calicoes, which he will sell very low; well worth the attention of those who purchase by the piece. Georgetown, June 5-3w
FOR RENT,
The House now occupied by Mr. Edward Jones—its advantageous situation to Market and the many real and essential conveniences appertaining thereto, render it a very desirable residence for any genteel family to a person, who I can be satisfied will make a good tenant, a lease of years will be granted if required.
Possession can be given the first day of July next ensuing. WM. STEUART. Georgetown, April 20-emptJuly.
CHARLES H. VARDEN, Merchant Taylor
Met. 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.
A choice assortment
Of Extra Superfine cloths, Bennetts, Velvets, and Cords, Cassimeres, single and double milled Sattin cloths, fashionable Spanish Orleans and Tollens, rich silk Molekin velvets, silk and satin Florentines, with a variety of other articles suitable for the season.
N. B. Ladies habits, regimentals, and navy uniforms made in the first stile of fashion.
Richard Harvells celebrated patent parallel Suspender, can be had on the same terms as at his manufactory. November 12-tf
TO BE RENTED,
The DWELLING-HOUSE & WARE-HOUSE (Now used as a Brew-house,) ON the head of Deblois's Wharf, above the Navy Yard on the Eastern Branch. It is a good stand for a coal, lumber and wood yard. There is an excellent garden adjoining, well stocked with roots and vegetables; also an Ice house with a large body of Ice in it. These premises will be let much lower than their present rent, and possession given on the 18th day of July next. Apply on the premises to
CORN. CONINGHAM.
The Brewing Utensils will be sold, if required, at a moderate price. City of Washington, June 17-3t
TO ARCHITECTS.
THE Subscriber being appointed to obtain plans and estimates for a plain, substantial and commodious BRICK CHURCH, with steeple and Clock, to be erected in this city, hereby offers a premium of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS to any person who may furnish him on or before the 1st day of August next, the plan and estimate of said building, which may be approved of and finally adopted.
It is requested that such plans as may be offered, special regard be had for obtaining a copious admission, and free circulation of fresh air—also, that the pews be single, and in number at least one hundred, each at least sufficiently large for the accommodation of six or eight persons.
Such plans and estimates as may not be approved of, will be returned if desired in conformity to the instructions which may accompany them.
JOHN MURRAY.
The Printers in Savannah, Charleston, Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston, are requested to insert this advertisement, and forward their accounts for payment to the printer of the Augusta Herald. Augusta, (Georgia) June 17-3t
A fine Crop of Grass for Sale.
TO BE SOLD,
The growing crop of a perfectly clean & an uncommonly luxuriant Timothy Meadow, supposed to be upwards of 20 acres at Green Hill, (Mrs. Dugget's) in the neighborhood of Bladensburg, and about 6 1/2 miles from the Capitol in this city. The purchaser may have a credit of 4 months for the money, on his securing well the payment of it. Applications will be received by the subscriber, and the sooner they are made the better, as the season of harvest is near at hand.
DANIEL BRENT, at Mrs. Young's Washington City, June 20. epw
WEISKOPFF & KELLER, CONFECTIONERS,
RESPECTFULLY inform the public, that they have commenced business in High street, where Ladies and Gentlemen can be supplied with CAKE of the best kind, Ornaments for Tables, and also Ice Creams by giving the shortest notice.
They have also on hand an assortment of Confectionary, which they will sell to retailers on the most reasonable terms. They have also Orange, Essence of Lemon, do. Punch and Cordials of different kinds, superior to any ever offered for sale in this place. They will also take their endeavor to please those who may favor them with their custom.
Ice Cream every day. Georgetown, June 22-23wtf
TEN Dollars Reward.
STRAYED from the subscriber on Thursday the 11th inst. a large light BAY HORSE, his age about 7 years, blind of the right eye, a little galled with the collar, and the hair considerably chafed on the left of the breast; any person delivering to me shall be paid the above reward.
GEO. BLAGDEN. Washington, June 19-3t
FORTY Dollars Reward.
WENT away on the 5th inst. a small negro boy named JIM, about 13 years of age, 4 feet 6 or 7 inches high, of a yellow complexion, weak and inflamed eyes, and has a few faint scars on his face, his hair cut close, excepting a small circular bunch behind, fusters when he attempts to speak fast or is alarmed—had on an old tow linen shirt, and a pair of old black fringed fancy trowsers patched with blue and white kersey—he is an artful chap and will attempt to pass as a free boy by getting some free negro to own him a child which he has frequently said would be his plan should he run away. Twenty dollars will be paid for apprehending him, if taken in this state, and the above reward if taken out of the state, if secured to that I get him, and all reasonable charges if brought home to
BASIL SIMPSON, Elkridge. Anne Arundel county, state of Maryland, June 17-24w3w
AUCTION.
To be sold, on Saturday the 27th inst. at 4 o'clock, P. M. at the Auction Room, on F Street,
The Property of Paul M'Neill, seized for boarding and lodging, by Mrs. Thompson, at the Six Buildings, viz. a black furtrout coat, black cloth coat, pantolettes and vest, 3 pair of boots and 2 of shoes, 1 blue cloth cloak, 3 blue cloth military coats, 4 new raffled mullin, 7 new plain & 1 linen shirts, 1 pr summer pantolettes, 3 waistcoats, 1 pr. cloth pantolettes, 3 flannel jackets, 1 pair of drawers 3 sheets, 2 pillow cases, 2 pair silk hose, 1 pair gloves, with a great variety of other articles of wearing apparel, &c. Also a portable writing Desk.
There will be offered for Sale, on the same day.
A large quantity of Ready-made Clothes, &c. SAMUEL SPEAKE, Auctioneer. June 22 3t
ELIAS B. CALDWELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW,
HAS removed his Office, to the house lately occupied by Mr. Law, on Capitol Hill. Washington, July 26-tf
Will be sold at Public Sale on Monday the 6th day of July next at Mr. Chapalier's tavern near Charlotte Hall academy in St. Mary's county, a Tract or parcel of LAND called HULSON, situate lying & being in the vicinity of said academy, containing about 150 acres, on six months credit, the purchaser giving bond with approved security. Possession will be given immediately after the sale, and when the purchase money is paid a good and sufficient title will be given. At the same time and place will be sold Six NEGROES, consisting of three valuable men, a lad, women and child. The terms of sale of the negroes will be made known on the day of sale by SAMUEL TYLER, auctioneer. Mary Pottinger. June 8-4w
WILLIAM MARBURY
HAS just received, via Philadelphia and Baltimore, and now for sale at his store, next door above Mr. Eliza Riggs, Bridge Street, an elegant assortment of Fancy & Spring Goods, viz.
4 4th, and 7 8th Irish Linen net, do. Linens silk and cotton hosiery 5 4th Irish sheeting Figured Florence Linen ca-bricks, Do. crepe Thread and cotton lace Plaid and plain Manx Fancy ginghams tuss Do. gauze mullins White and coloured Seeded mull do. Kid gloves Tamboured do. Parraboes, plated Fancy tamboured mull mounted Ladies ruffles and ruffles Leno do. do. dress morocco slippers Leno long shawls pers Do. tamboured veils, Blue, plain and coloured 8 8th and 6 4th cam nankens brick mullins Cotton calimeres 4 4th silk chambrays Marceilles waistcoating Cotton do. India and cambric di- 7 4th fatin damask milties shawls London hats, &c. &c. Georgetown, May 15-tawam
Treasury department of the United States, April 2d. 1807.
Whereas the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, at a meeting held on the 23d day of March 1807, did resolve, that the sum remaining to complete the expenditure of the annual appropriation of eight millions of dollars, should among other purposes be applied to the reimbursement of the FUND AND HALF PER CENT. STOCK, created in pursuance of an act of Congress, passed on the 3rd day of March 1795.
This is therefore to give notice, that the principal of the said Four and half per cent. stock, will on the said day of October next ensuing, the date hereof 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; & that the interest which may then be due on said stock, will also be paid to the respective Stockholders or their lawful Representatives or Attorneys duly constituted and authorized.
It is further made known for the information of the parties concerned, that no transfers of the said Four and half 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 September ensuing, 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.
ALBERT GALLATIN, Secretary of the Treasury. April 6-wt830