The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-05-07 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXXXIV.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, MAY 7th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
Report made in the House of Representatives, April 22d, 1802.
The Committee, to whom were referred the Memorial of sundry Merchants, and Traders of the United States, complaining of Spoliations and depredations committed on their lawful commerce by French cruizers, during the late European War, and praying compensation therefor—have considered the subject, and concurred in their duty to report the following state of facts:
On the 6th day of February, 1778, a treaty of amity and commerce was concluded between the United States and France, containing a variety of reciprocal commercial stipulations and regulations between the two countries, which were deemed by both nations to be in force at the time of the commencement of the late European war, and to continue so for some time thereafter. On the 9th of May, 1793, after Great Britain had become a party in the war, and whilst the treaty between the United States and France, was considered to be in force by both nations, the national convention passed a decree relative to the commerce of neutrals; the first article of which is in the following words: "The French ships of war and privateers, may stop and bring into the ports of the Republic, such neutral vessels as are loaded, in whole, or in part, either with provisions belonging to neutrals, and destined for enemy ports, or with merchandise belonging to enemies." This decree, after being several times repealed, and re-enacted, was finally repealed on the 27th of July following:
—On the 2d of July, 1796, the executive directory made the following decree: "That all neutral or allied powers shall, without delay, be notified, that the flag of the French republic will treat neutral vessels, either as to confiscation, as to searches, or capture, in the same manner as they shall suffer the English to treat them."—On the 1st of August, 1796, the special agents of the executive directory to the windward islands, made a decree to the following effect: "That all vessels loaded with contraband, should be seized and confiscated for the benefit of the captors."—On the 27th of November, 1796, the commission delegated by the French republic, to the windward islands, made a decree to the following effect: "That the captains of French national vessels, and privateers, are authorized to stop and bring into the ports of the colony, American vessels bound to English port, or coming from the said ports."—On the 1st of February, 1797, the special agents of the French directory to the windward islands, made a decree to the following effect: "Subjecting to capture and confiscation, neutral vessels destined for the windward and leeward islands of America, delivered up to the English, and occupied, and defended by the emigrants. These ports are said to be, Martinico, St. Lucia, Tobago, Demerara, Barbice, Essequibo, Port au Prince, St. Marks, L'Archaye, and Jeremie. The decree also subjects to capture all vessels which have cleared out for the West-Indies, generally."—On the second of March, 1797, the executive directory made the following decree: "After the article 17, of the treaty of London, of the 19th of November, 1794, all merchandise of the enemy's, or merchandise not sufficiently ascertained to be neutral, conveyed under American flags, shall be confiscated; but the ship, on board of which such merchandise shall be found, shall be released and given to the proprietor. The commissioners of the directory are enjoined to accelerate, by all the means in their power, the decision of the contests which shall arise, either upon the validity of the captures of the cargoes, or upon freights and insurance."
According to the 18th article of the treaty of London, dated the 19th of November, 1794, relative to articles declared contraband by the 24th article of the treaty dated February the 8th, 1778, are added the following:
 Ship timber;  Cookum, Pitch, and Rosin;  Copper for sheathing Vessels;  Sails, Hemp, and Cordage;  and every thing which serves directly, or indirectly, to the arming and equipping of vessels, excepting bar-iron, and fir in planks. These articles shall be confiscated as often as they shall be destined, or attempted to be carried to the enemy."
According to the 21st article of the treaty of London of the above date, every American, who shall hold a commission from the enemies of France, as
well as every seaman of that nation composing the crew of the ships and vessels, shall, by this fact alone, be declared piratical, and treated as such, without suffering the party to establish, that the act was the consequence of threats or violence."
In pursuance of the law of the 14th of February, 1793, the regulations of the 21st of October, 1794, and of the 26th of July, shall be complied with, according to their form and tenor."
Every American ship shall therefore be deemed a lawful prize, which shall not have on board a bill of lading in due form, according to the plan annexed to the treaty of the 6th of February, 1778, the execution of which is enjoined by the 25th, and 27th, articles of that treaty."
The commissioners of the executive directory are required to carry into effect the penalties that attach on all clandestine attempts that may be made by Americans, or vessels belonging to any other nation, to pass as neutral, on board the vessel where the fraud is attempted to be practiced, in the manner that these penalties have been repeatedly carried into effect during the present war. The penalty shall attach where the blanks in the consignment and invoices are not filled up, though signed and sealed, where the papers are in the form of letters, containing fictitious signatures; where are double passports or bills, specifying different destinations; where consignment is made to two or more factors, and where there are different receipts or papers of any kind which concern the whole or part of the same goods to different owners or different destinations."
By this article, provisions of the treaty of the 9th Frimaire last, relative to freight and insurance, are repealed, as far as they apply to neutrals.
The present treaty shall be published in the bulletin of the laws. The ministers of the marine and of the colonies, of justice, and for foreign affairs, are charged with the execution of it in their respective departments."
The American commerce must have suffered considerable spoliations in consequence of these various regulations of the French government, and its dependencies.
On the 5th and 22d day of June 1797, the President of the United States appointed three envoys extraordinary for the purpose of adjusting the differences which then existed between the two nations, and on the 15th July, 1797, gave instructions to the envoys, which, so far as they respect the depredations on the commerce of the United States, are in the following words:—
In respect to the depredations on our commerce, the principal objects will be, to agree on an equitable mode of examining and deciding the claims of our citizens, and the manner and periods of making them compensation. As to the first, the seventh article of the British, and the twenty first of the Spanish treaty present approved precedents adopted with France. The proposed mode of adjusting those claims, by commissioners appointed on each side, is so perfectly fair, we cannot imagine it will be refused. But when the claims are adjusted, if payment, in specie, cannot be obtained, it may be found necessary to agree, in behalf of our citizens, that they shall accept public securities, payable with interest at such periods as the state of the French finances shall render practicable. These periods you will endeavor, as far as possible, to shorten."
Not only the recent depredations under colour of the decrees of the Directory of the 2d of July, 1796, and the 2d of March, 1797, or under the decrees of their agents, or the illegal sentences of their tribunals, but all prior ones, not already satisfactorily adjusted, should be put in this equitable train of settlement. To cancel many, or all, of the last mentioned claims, might be the effect of the decree of the executive Directory of the 2d of March last, reviving the decree of the 9th of May, 1793; but this being an ex post facto regulation, as well as a violation of the treaty between the United States and France, cannot be obligatory on the former. Indeed the greater part, probably nearly all the captures and confiscations in question, have been committed in direct violation of that treaty, or of the law of nations. But the injuries arising from the capture of enemies property in vessels of the United States, may not be very extensive; and if for such captured property, the French government will, agreeably to the law of nations, pay the freight and reasonable demurrage, we shall not on this account, any further contend. But of ship timber and naval stores taken and confiscated by the French, they
ought to pay the full value, because our citizens continued their traffic in those articles under the faith of the treaty with France. On these two points we ought to expect that the French government will not refuse to do us justice; and the more, because it has not, at any period of the war, expressed its desire that the commercial treaty should, in these respects, be altered."
Besides the claims of our citizens for depredations on their property, there are many arising from ex post facto contracts made with the French government, on its agents, or founded on the seizure of their property in French ports. Other claims have arisen from the long detention of a multitude of our vessels in the ports of France. The wrong hereby done to our citizens was acknowledged by the French government, and in some, perhaps in most of the cases, small payments towards indemnifications have been made; the residue still remains to be claimed."
All these just demands of our citizens will merit your attention. The best possible means of compensation must be attempted. These will depend on what you shall discover to be practicable, in relation to the French finances. But an exception must be made in respect to debts due to our citizens by the contracts of the French government, and its agents, if they are comprehended in any stipulation; and an option reserved to them, jointly or individually, either to accept the means of payment which you shall stipulate, or to resort to the French government, directly, for the fulfilment of its contracts."
Although the reparation for losses sustained by the citizens of the United States, in consequence of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations, or forcible seizures or detentions, is of very high importance, and is to be pressed with the greatest earnestness, yet it is not to be insisted on, as an indispensable condition of the proposed treaty. You are not, however, to renounce these claims of our citizens, nor to stipulate that they be assumed by the United States as a loan to the French government."
Whilst these envoys were in Paris, endeavoring to effect the objects of their mission, the French government, on the 18th of January, 1798, passed the following law:—
The character of vessels, relative to their quality of neutral or enemy, shall be determined by their cargo; in consequence, every vessel found at sea, loaded in whole or in part with merchandise the production of England or of her possessions, shall be declared good prize, whoever the owner of these goods or merchandise may be."
Every foreign vessel which, in the course of her voyage, shall have entered into an English port, shall not be admitted into a port of the French Republic, except in case of necessity; in which case she shall be bound to depart from the said port as soon as the causes of her entry shall have ceased."
The Envoys not having been received by the Directory, and not having effected the object of their mission, on the 28th day of May, 1798, the government of the United States passed the following law:
An act more effectually to protect the commerce and coasts of the United States.
Whereas armed vessels sailing under authority, or pretence of authority from the Republic of France, have committed depredation on the commerce of the United States, and have recently captured the vessels and property of citizens thereof, on and near the coasts, in violation of the law of nations, and treaties, between the United States and the French nation: Therefore—
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, and he is hereby authorized to instruct and direct the commanders of the armed vessels belonging to the United States to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, to be proceeded against according to the laws of nations, any such armed vessel which shall have committed, or which shall be found hovering on the coasts of the United States, for the purpose of committing depredations on the vessels belonging to citizens thereof; and also, to retake any ship or vessel, of any citizen or citizens of the United States, which may have been captured by any such armed vessel."
On the 7th of July, 1798, the government of the United States passed the following law:—
An act to declare the treaties here-
tofore concluded with France, no longer obligatory on the United States."
Whereas the treaties concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French government; and the just claims of the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have been refused, and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all complaints between the two nations, have been repelled with indignity: and whereas, under the authority of the French government, there is yet pursued against the United States, a system of predatory violence, infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation."
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the United States are, of right, freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties, and of the consular convention, heretofore concluded between the United States and France; and that the same shall not, henceforth, be regarded as legally obligatory on the government or citizens of the United States."
On the 9th of July, 1798, the government of the United States passed a law further to protect the commerce of the United States, the two first sections of which relate to this subject, and are in the following words:—
Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That, the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized to instruct the commanders of the public armed vessels which are, or which shall be employed in the service of the United States, to subdue, seize and take any armed French vessel, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere, on the high seas; and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns and appurtenances, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, being French property, shall be brought within some port of the United States, and shall be duly proceeded against, and condemned as forfeited, and shall accrue, and be distributed, as by law is or shall be provided respecting the captures which shall be made by the public armed vessels of the United States."
And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States, shall be, and he is hereby authorized to grant to the owners of private armed ships and vessels of the United States, who shall make application therefor, special commissions in the form which he shall direct, and under the seal of the United States; and such private armed vessels, when duly commissioned, as aforesaid, shall have the same licence & authority for the subduing, seizing and capturing, any armed French vessel, and for the re-capture of the vessels, goods and effects of the people of the United States, as the public armed vessels of the United States may by law have; and shall be, in like manner, subject to such instructions as shall be ordered by the President of the United States, for the regulation of their conduct. And the commissions which shall be granted, as aforesaid, shall be revocable at the pleasure of the President of the United States."
On the 28th day of May, 1798, instructions were given to the commanders of armed vessels belonging to the United States, in the following words:
Whereas it is declared by an act of Congress, passed the 28th day of May, 1798, that armed vessels, sailing under authority, or pretence of authority, from the French republic, have committed depredations on the commerce of the United States, and have recently captured the vessels and property of citizens thereof, on and near the coasts, in violation of the law of nations, and treaties between the United States and the French nation:
Therefore, and in pursuance of the said act, you are instructed and directed to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, to be proceeded against according to the laws of nations, any armed vessel sailing under authority or pretence of authority, from the French republic, which shall have committed, or which shall be found hovering on the coasts of the United States, for the purpose of committing depredations on the vessels belonging to citizens thereof; and also, to retake any ship or vessel of any citizen or citizens of the United States, which may have been captured by any such armed vessel."
On the 10th day of July, 1798, further instructions were given to the commanders of armed vessels of the United States, in the words following:
In pursuance of the acts of Congress
passed the 28th day of May, the 20th day of June, and the 9th day of July."
You are hereby authorized, instructed and directed, to subdue, seize, and take any armed French vessel or vessels, sailing under authority, or pretence of authority, from the French republic, which shall be found within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or elsewhere on the high seas; and such captured vessel, with her apparel, guns, and appurtenances, and the goods, and effects, which shall be found on board of the same, to bring within some port of the United States; and also, to retake any vessel, goods and effects of the United States, or persons resident therein, which may have been captured by any French vessel, in order that proceedings may be had concerning such capture or re-capture, in due form of law, and as to right shall appertain."
Instructions were also given, after the passage of the aforesaid laws, to the captains of private armed vessels of the United States, to the same effect with the instructions given to the public armed vessels of the United States.
In consequence of these measures the treaty of the 6th of February, 1778, between the United States and France, in virtue of which most of the reclamations were made, became no longer obligatory; a partial state of hostility took place between the United States and the French republic; several hostile actions occurred between the armed vessels of the two nations, and several captures were made of French vessels, both by public and private armed vessels of the United States, which have been condemned and sold as lawful prizes.
On the 25th of February, 1799, the President of the United States nominated three other envoys extraordinary for the purpose of adjusting the differences between the United States and the French republic; and on the 30th day of November, 1800, a convention for terminating certain differences which had arisen between the United States and the French republic, was concluded at Paris. On the 3d day of February, 1801, the Senate passed a resolution in the ratification mode, advising the ratification of the said convention, provided the 2d article be expunged, &c. The second article is in the following words:
The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of the 6th of February, 1778; the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date; and the convention of the 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed; the parties will negotiate, further on these subjects at a convenient time, and until they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the regulations of the two countries, shall be regarded as follows. This article was introduced into the convention at the intimation of the American envoys, being, it is to be presumed, the best stipulation it was in their power, at that time, to make, for negotiating hereafter upon the indemnities mutually due, or claimed by the citizens of the two countries. On the 18th of February, 1801, the President of the United States, in conformity with the advice of the Senate, did ratify the said convention, excluding therefrom the aforesaid 2d article. The Senate not having accompanied their advice, for expunging the said second article, with explanation, with any explanation of their motive for the measure, it was understood, both by the Chief Consul and the American Envoy, then at Paris, that the object of expunging the said 2d article was, the retrenchment of the respective pretensions of the two governments, which were the object of the said 2d article; and with an explanation to that effect, on the 31st of July, 1801, the Chief Consul ratified the said convention. The convention thus ratified, was laid before the Senate, by the President of the United States, on its return from Paris, and on the 19th day of December, 1801, the Senate, resolved, "that they considered the said convention as fully ratified," and in pursuance thereof, on the 2d of the same month, the President caused the said convention to be promulgated, as it was originally ratified.
From these circumstances, and a recurrence to the 5th article of said convention, in the following words: "The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment may be postponed in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the two states. But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations," it appears, that the exclusion

the second article of the convention was considered as a renunciation of the indemnities claimed by the citizens of the United States for depredations and depredations upon their commerce, so far as the government might otherwise have been instrumental in obtaining such indemnities.
Upon the whole view of the case, the committee submit to the house to determine whether the government of the United States be, in any respect, bound to indemnify the memorialists; and whether there be any ground for discrimination between the cases of losses sustained before the acts of the 28th of May, 1798, the 7th of July, 1798, and the 9th of July, 1798; and cases of losses sustained after those periods.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, MAR 7, 1802.
Yesterday Mr. Lear arrived here from Cap. Francis.
We understand that on the return of general Le Clerc from Port au Prince, he informed Mr. Lear that from an examination of the treaty between France and the United States, and from the nature of his (Le Clerc's) powers, he did not think himself authorized to recognize him in the character of consul of the United States. Mr. Lear accordingly took his leave.
We understand that the treaty only authorizes the United States to send consuls to the European possessions of France, and that previously to the year 1795, no American consuls were received in the French West Indies.
When Mr. Lear left American produce was extremely low. The day before he departed, the Batavian fleet consisting of 4 ships of the line, had failed for New-York.
We this day infer two pieces, sent for publication respecting the approaching election; we have also obtained, on the earliest day, the Incorporation Act, which we recommend to the perusal of every citizen. We wish it to be understood that in communicating to the public the names of citizens recommended for the councils, we only act as the organ whereby the ideas of others are expressed. These ideas it is the duty of the press to give publicity to.
Our opinion, however, is, that individual recommendation ought to have little weight in the selection of characters. The citizens, all of whom possess an equal interest, should assemble together, and in their collective capacity make suitable nominations.
We trust that neither party nor local spirit will influence the selection. Our interests are the same, and the promotion of those interests depends upon our harmony and mutual co-operation. In making this remark, we are far from feeling ourselves, or recommending to others, an indifference to political considerations. Those considerations, so far as they embrace the great principles of government, are ultimately interwoven not only with our general, but likewise with our local concerns. On the prevalence of republican sentiments much of our happiness depends, and whatever tends, even in the smallest degree, to sustain and diffuse these sentiments, ought to be fostered.
FEDERAL MISREPRESENTATION.
No. 1.
Under this characteristic head, it is proposed, in general with conciseness, to detect and expose those tales which have been so lavishly imposed upon the credulity of the ignorant. It is deeply to be regretted, that falsehoods of the most base nature should be circulated through the union, and particularly to the extreme parts of the country, where they are sorely corrected. It is still more to be regretted that these tales should take their origin in the metropolis, and that too many of them should proceed from men who have sworn to support the government under which we live. But the more ostentatiously respectable the source from which they emanate, the greater the necessity of correction. This duty shall be discharged, notwithstanding the example that is set, with an invariable regard to temperance and decorum.
A Boston Point says:—
"A letter from Washington says that 40,000 dollars have been appropriated by Congress to REPAIR THE ROADS IN VIRGINIA."
This is affected as a palpable fact.
Regard the circumstances on which this calumny is raised.
The act for admitting the North-Western Territory as a state into the union, offers to the new state the enjoyment of the salt springs now belonging to the United States, and also to devote one-twentieth part of the annual proceeds of the western lands to the making roads from the waters emptying into the Atlantic to the new state, on condition that the new state shall exempt all lands for five years.
By this contract material advantages
will accrue to the United States and the new state. The new roads will enhance the value of the lands belonging to the United States, which constitute an immense mass of property, and the freedom from taxation will still further increase their value; while at the same time these two circumstances will greatly facilitate and encourage emigration, which will still further augment the value of the property of the United States. It is evident, therefore, that on these terms there is an honorable reciprocity; there is a great gain to both parties which would not attach to either independently of the contract.
Forty thousand dollars!— this is false. The annual estimate of the sales of lands is 400,000 dollars, which Mr. Griswold on the floor of Congress has pronounced too high, one-twentieth part of which is no more than 20,000 dollars.
To repair the roads in Virginia!— When the terms offered are acceded to, it rests with Congress to say how the roads shall be run. According to their discretion, they may run through any state that may be fixed on, and it is probable that they will pass through Pennsylvania or Maryland, as through Virginia. It follows that Congress have not appropriated the money; that it does not rest with the present Congress to appropriate it; and that when it shall be appropriated, it may not have the least application to Virginia.
No. II.
From the Recorder, printed at Richmond.
MR. BAYARD.— "Another important occasion of honest forbearance by Mr. Bayard may be recorded."
"Shortly before the administration of Mr. Adams died, Mr. Bayard was recommended by him as ambassador to France; the Senate approved; so that Mr. Bayard might have immediately drawn from the treasury, 18,000 dollars for one year's salary and outfit. Instead of this, he did nothing until Mr. Jefferson took the helm. Mr. Bayard then discovered that the appointments would not be continued by Mr. Jefferson; and he with great propriety and honesty permitted the money to remain in the treasury."
"Thus it appears that the treasury of the United States is richer by 32,000 dollars than it would have been, if Mr. Pickering and Mr. Bayard had adhered to their own advantage the benefit which the law did allow. So that it appears that some of the most leading federal characters are not only much better than they have been represented, but have acted with a degree of honesty and honor which deserves public notice and applause."
Truth requires a notice of the above paragraph, which, with whatever motive penned, has a tendency to produce an unjust impression on the public mind.
The facts attending the nomination (for we cannot call it an appointment) of Mr. Bayard are these. After Mr. Jefferson was declared President elect, and but a few days before Mr. Adams retired from office, the latter named Mr. Bayard minister plenipotentiary to France. The nomination produced much surprise in senate, the majority of which was at that time devoted to federal, that it was suffered to lay over for a day or two. When taken up, a leading federal member, whose opportunities had made him peculiarly acquainted with the French character, rose, and addressed the Vice President (Mr. Jefferson) who then presided in senate, substantially in the following words:
"Mr. President, before I give my approbation to this nomination, I should wish to know whether Mr. Bayard will be agreeable to the gentleman who is to administer the government from the 4th of March next. If the enquiry be answered in the affirmative, I shall most cheerfully acquiesce. But if this shall not be the case, and if the honorable gentleman go to Paris without such advantage, I have no doubt he will be treated with the greatest politeness, he will be introduced to the best company, he will be taken to the various museums, and he will derive great pleasure from the embassy. But, inasmuch as a citizen other than the present President will be in power before the honorable gentleman shall reach Paris, I have as little doubt, that, with whatever politeness he may be treated, the French government will ask him for his authority, and if they find he has none from the then President, they will refuse him their confidence."
Further conversation ensued, which that day terminated in a postponement of the nomination, under an offer from some of the federal members to obtain an explanation of the grounds on which it was made.
The next day, a leading federal member informed the senate that he was authorized to say that if the nomination of Mr. Bayard was approved, he would decline the appointment. The member also expressed a hope, that, under such circumstances, the feelings of Mr. Bayard could not be wounded by a rejection. The affair being thus under flood, it is believed the concurrence of the senate was unanimous.
These facts would not have been published but for the frequent attempt to mislead the public mind on the circumstances attending this transaction.
LITERATURE.
Among the interesting publications which are now in the press, perhaps the first rank is due to that of Hornemann , the celebrated traveller. In this important work we are not to look for the bare recital of journeys amidst deserts hitherto untraveled by civilized man; this intelligent adventurer lays more exalted claims to the gratitude of the enlightened part of mankind. As well as their countries, the manners and morals, bold and philosophical researches into the causes of those grand features of society, enter into his plan and from them are drawn deductions of real use to mankind in the highest state of refinement.
The author was at Alexandria when that city was seized by the French. He was of course made a prisoner; but having represented to Buonaparte that he was travelling by the direction of a private Society in England, at the head of which was Sir Joseph Banks, he was released.
DIED— At Trenton, Richard Howell, late governor of New-Jersey.
The court of Vienna has adopted a new plan with respect to literary censorship. Officers are appointed at each of the custom-houses, to examine the books imported from foreign countries, and to see that such as are prohibited shall be immediately transported beyond the frontiers.
Richmond May 1, 1802.
Dr. John Adams , is elected a delegate to represent this city in the next general assembly of Virginia. At the close of the poll on Wednesday evening last, the votes for the respective candidates stood thus:
  For Dr. John Adams, 75   Mr. James Ruff, 52   Mr. George Hay, 48 
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
A Mayor, and two Chambers of Council are appointed by Congress with important and extensive powers to promote the welfare of the permanent seat of government. Let us, my fellow citizens, after mature deliberation the most respectable, most wise, and most moderate of our respectable inhabitants. Let us advert to the President's benevolent, judicious inaugural speech and banish all party distinctions, which destroy the harmony of society, and render us the instruments of designing pedagogues for our own destruction. This incorporation bill is only a temporary experiment; should the desired benefits result from it, congress will be gratified, and ready to advance the city of Washington by subsequent fiduciary acts; but if on the contrary, pitiful jealousies, private piques, and political differences, occasion discord and dissension, congress will turn away disgusted from a community whose interests they cannot reconcile by any endeavors, and whose controversies will destroy the satisfaction of residing amongst us. Let us consider with gratitude that congress has submitted almost without murmuring to the inconveniences of a new establishment, where accommodations and supplies of provisions, could not of course, equal those of an old and well regulated city, and that they have cheerfully suffered the deprivation of all public amusements, and of external social intercourse. Let us remember also, that they liberally defray the expense of a judiciary, and that they have this year passed an act to reimburse the state of Maryland, 250,000 dollars, borrowed by the commissioners, and that they have allowed 3,000 dollars for a jail, and passed an act for opening a canal through the city; in short, that they have liberally met our wishes, when in their judgment they appeared to operate for the general good. Congress has set here two years without any motion to shake confidence, and in this period, two administrations of different political principles have presided over us. Let us deliberate well on the present eventful crisis, and laying aside prejudices, and partialities, select the men best calculated by their integrity and rationality to fulfil the ends of congress, and to further our rising city, bearing the name of our illustrious patriot, and forming the key-stone of the union. Let us with unprejudiced amicable dispositions, meet to nominate the councils, whose conduct may determine our future destinies: our prosperity and happiness depend upon the prudence of our selection of characters. I sincerely hope that every one may be impressed with the solemnity that I now feel, whilst contemplating the consequences of this our first momentous step into public life.
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
To the INHABITANTS of the CITY of WASHINGTON.
As the period approaches when you will be called upon to choose a council for the city, to remedy the many defects and inconveniences which have existed from the want of a police, permit me to address a few thoughts upon what characters would be proper to fill the office of councillors.
I mean not to sound the trumpet of discord; nor do I mean to dabble in turbid waters—I would not throw a pebble privately to rill- and discompose the smooth expanse of social tranquility which we have in our power to enjoy. Let us chuse men capable of serving us, with an eye to the general interests of the city.—Let us repair to the balloting without bribes or animosities; let the men of power and property decline to enforce that undue influence upon their inferiors which they themselves would reject with indignation if offered by their inferiors; and I dare say the business of the election will be decided with less interruption to the social and commercial intercourse of the city, than what frequently attends elections.
So far from desiring that rancour which corrodes and poisons the comforts of life; the day of election would then be a day of rational and manly exultation; we should congratulate each other though differing in opinions on great political questions, as having performed the offices of free and good men. It is a place of high trust in our infant city, and concerns each of you, and those in whom it is reposed ought to be persons selected not by the arbitrary will of a few, but by the unanimous voice of the people; not by combinations made either through caprice, private views or orientation, but by the free and unprejudiced vote of the community.
I have taken the liberty of subjoining a ticket which it is hoped will meet the general wishes of the inhabitants of the city.
 Daniel Carroll, of Dud'n.  Benjamin Moore,  Tristram Dalton,  Augustus B. Woodward,  James Hoban,  Richard Forrester,  Cornelius Cunnigham,  Nicholas King,  Robert W. Peacock,  Robert Brent,  William M. Duncanson. 
If this ticket be approved of, it will meet the wishes of a WASHINGTONIAN.
[By Authority.]
AN ACT,
To incorporate the inhabitants of the City of Washington, in the district of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the City of Washington be constituted a body politic and corporate, by the name of a mayor and council of the City of Washington, and by their corporate name, may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, grant, receive, and do all other acts as natural persons, and may purchase and hold real, personal and mixed property, or dispose of the same for the benefit of the said city; and may have and use a city seal, which may be broken or altered at pleasure; the City of Washington shall be divided into three divisions or wards, as now divided by the levy court for the county, for the purpose of all elections, but the number may be increased hereafter, as in the wisdom of the city council shall seem most conducive to the general interest and convenience.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the council of the city of Washington shall consist of twelve members, residents of the city, and upwards of twenty-five years of age, to be divided into two chambers, the first chamber to consist of seven members, and the second chamber of five members; the second chamber to be chosen from the whole number of councillors elected, by their joint ballot. The city council to be elected annually, by ballot, in a general ticket, by the free white male inhabitants of full age, who have resided twelve months in the city, and paid taxes therein the year preceding the election's being held; the justices of the county of Washington, resident in the city, or any three of them, to preside as judges of election, with such associates as the council may, from time to time, appoint.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the first election of members for the city council shall be held on the first Monday in June next, and in every year afterwards, at such place, in each ward, as the judges of the election may prescribe.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the polls shall be kept open from 8 o'clock in the morning till 7 o'clock in the evening, and no longer, for the reception of ballots. On the closing of the poll, the judges shall close and seal their ballot boxes, and meet on the day following in the presence of the marshal of the district, on the first election, and the council afterwards, when the seals shall be broken, and the votes counted, within three days after such election, they shall give notice to the persons having the greatest number of legal votes, that they are duly elected, and that they make their return to the mayor of the city.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the mayor of the city shall be appointed, annually, by the President of the United States; He must be a citi-
zen of the United States, and a resident of the city, prior to his appointment.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the city council shall hold their sessions in the city hall, or until such building is erected, in such place as the mayor may provide for that purpose, on the second Monday in June, in every year; but the mayor may convene them oftener, if the public good require their deliberations. Three-fourths of the members of each council may be a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day; they may compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties, as they may by ordinance provide; they shall appoint their respective presidents, and shall preside during their sessions, and shall vote on all questions where there is an equal division; they shall settle their rules of proceedings, appoint their own officers, regulate their respective fees, and remove them at pleasure; they shall judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of their own members; and may, with the concurrence of three-fourths of the whole, expel any member for disorderly behaviour, or mal conduct in office, but not a second time for the same offence; they shall keep a journal of their proceedings, and enter the yeas and nays on any question, resolve or ordinance, at the request of any member, and their deliberations shall be public. The mayor shall appoint to all offices under the corporation. All ordinances or acts passed by the city council shall be sent to the mayor, for his approbation, and when approved by him, shall then be obligatory as such. But if the said mayor shall not approve of such ordinance or act, he shall return the same within five days, with his reasons, in writing, therefor; and if three-fourths of both branches of the city council, or recondensation thereof, approve of the same, it shall be in force, in like manner as if he had approved it, unless the city council, by their adjournment, prevent its return.
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That the corporation aforesaid, shall have full power and authority to pass all bye laws and ordinances to prevent and remove nuisances; to prevent the introduction of contagious diseases within the city; to establish night watches or patrols, and erect lamps, to regulate the stationing, anchorage and mooring of vessels; to provide for licensing and regulating auctions, retailers of liquors, hackney carriages, waggons, carts and drays and jacks; brokers within the city; to restrain or prohibit gambling, and to provide for licensing, regulating or restraining theatrical or other public amusements within the city; to regulate and establish markets; to erect and repair bridges; to keep in repair all necessary streets, avenues, drains and sewers; and to pass regulations necessary for the preservation of the same, agreeably to the plan of the said city; to provide for the safe keeping of the standard of weights and measures fixed by congress, and for the regulation of all weights and measures used in the city; to provide for the licensing and regulating the sweeping of chimneys, and fixing the rates thereof; to establish and regulate five wards and fire companies; to regulate and establish the tax of bricks that are to be made and used in the city; to link wells, and erect and repair pumps in the streets; to impose and appropriate fines, penalties and forfeitures for breaches of their ordinances; to lay and collect taxes; to enact bye laws for the prevention and extinguishment of fire; and to pass all ordinances necessary to give effect and operation to all the powers vested in the corporation of the city of Washington: Provided, That the bye laws or ordinances of the said corporation, shall be in no wise, obligatory upon the persons of non-residents of the said city, unless in cases of intentional violation of bye laws or ordinances previously promulgated; all the fines, penalties and forfeitures imposed by the corporation of the city of Washington, if not exceeding twenty dollars, shall be recovered before a single magistrate, as small debts are, by law, recoverable; and if such fines, penalties and forfeitures exceed the sum of twenty dollars, the same shall be recovered by action of debt in the district court of Columbia for the county of Washington, in the name of the corporation, and for the use of the city of Washington.
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the person or persons appointed to collect any tax imposed in virtue of the powers granted by this act, shall have authority to collect the same by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the person chargeable therewith; no sale shall be made unless ten days previous notice thereof be given; no law shall be paid by the city council, subjecting vacant or unimproved city lots, or parts of lots, to be held for taxes.
Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the city council shall provide for the support of the poor, infirm and diseased of the city.
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That no tax shall be imposed by the city council on real property in the said city, at any higher rate than three quarters of one per centum, on the assessment valuation of such property.
Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That this act shall be in force for tow

years, from the passing thereof, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
ABRAHAM BALDWIN, President of the Senate pro tempore.
APPROVED, May 3, 1802.
TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, March 1, 1802.
DEBATE
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
Mr. HILL laid the few observations he had to make, he would have offered before to the committee, could he have done so, without interfering with other gentlemen, better qualified to do justice to the subject.
The best exertions of his humble talents, would at all times prove unequal to a question of such magnitude as the one under consideration. Vain indeed then must prove the attempt after the subject had been so well considered, and the arguments so entirely exhausted.
He had determined to express his opinion by his vote merely. He lamented the impulse which obliged him to forego that determination: an impulse created by allusions too direct to be mistaken.
His respect for the legislature of the state from which he came, also required him to assign his reasons, for the conduct he should pursue. That legislature had recommended to the representatives of that state to vote in conformity to the bill on the table. However great his respect for that legislature—however much he was inclined to obey its requisitions, yet, when he found that respect conflicting with important duties—when those requisitions are opposed to obligations, sacred obligations which imperiously direct another course, he could not hesitate in his decision. His conduct must be consistent—he voted for the law proposed to be repealed, under the full persuasion that it was expedient, he could not vote for the repeal, because he was equally persuaded it was inexpedient; because he did not consider himself authorized to do so. He stated that when he came into congress, he came with the conviction full on his mind, that the judiciary was a distinct, important, independent branch of the government; that to be efficient it ought to be well organized; that the then organization was defective, greatly so; that he knew from experience it was greatly defective; having been for several years an officer of the United States, in their established courts, he had an opportunity of acquiring this knowledge by experience; that to a reform of the then existing system, the only alternative which presented itself was a resort to the courts of the several states. Considering it a solemn duty in the science of government, that one government should intrust the administration of its laws, to the officers of another, over whom it had no control; believing that no responsibility attached on the state judiciaries, which would oblige them to perform duties imposed on them by the general government, and knowing the jealousy of the state governments, which had been frequently evidenced against an amalgamation of national and state authorities, the necessity of a reform presented itself with great force.
The circuit courts as formerly established, were directed to be held by the judges of the supreme court, and the district judges in their respective districts. By this arrangement six judges were required to ride over this vast country twice in each year—to hold courts as often in every state, and this in addition to the duties required of them as judges of the supreme court—the consequence was that with all their exertions these judges found themselves unequal to the performance of those duties; and nothing but a reliance on the wisdom of congress, which cherished the hope of a new arrangement, retained them in office. Under that establishment the lapse of terms would unavoidably occur; it did occur frequently; and occasioned great injury to all concerned in the courts. Another evil was the want of identity, and the resulting want of consistency of decision, in those courts—productive of delays and uncertainties, which could not fail to depreciate the character of the judiciary, however upright and independent the judges—that was an important defect also which allowed the same judge to decide on your appeal, who had pronounced judgment in your cause in the inferior court. These and many other important reasons
which had been or might be adduced, had decided his mind in favor of a reform in the judiciary system. Accordingly in the first session of the sixth congress, he had given his vote for a more convenient organization of the courts of the United States, and in the last session he pursued the same course. Actuated by a wish to promote the due administration of justice; to elevate the character of the American judiciary, and to insure the independence of the judges, as the safe guard of the constitution, he had invariably given his support to the law proposed to be repealed—he believed it was constitutional. He still had the same impressions, and when he added, that not a doubt existed in his mind, that a violation of the constitution is involved in the proposed repeal, he should be justified in voting as he should vote on the present occasion. But, Sir, it is said that the constitution has already been violated; that the law proposed to be repealed violated the constitution; that this allegation was groundless, Mr. H. apprehended had been clearly demonstrated. But suppose it was fact, would that justify a second violation? He knew that in some languages it was taught that two negatives made an affirmative; but he had yet to learn the principle in morals which establishes that two wrongs will make one right. If gentlemen really believe the constitution has been violated, let it be to them an example to deter; let us unite our efforts to heal the wound, and join in deprecating the attempt that would enlarge it. But how has the constitution been violated? By detaching, it is said, from the judges of the supreme court and the district judges, the right of holding the circuit courts; let us examine this. It will be recollect- ed, that previous to the law of last session, there was no circuit judge—the duties of the circuit court were imposed on the judges of the supreme court and the district judges; to relieve those judges from this imposition was one object of that law; another object was to make an arrangement that should not require the judges to perform greater duties than they were able to perform. Is it not a strange doctrine that the lessening the burthens of office, the diminution of the duties required to be performed by a judge should be considered as an infringement of his rights? But the last law imposed on some of the judges other duties, which might be considered in lieu of some of those from the performance of which they were relieved; for instance, by certain provisions in the law, the judge of North-Carolina district is required to hold nine district courts in each year, and at three places in the district; previously he held but four district courts, and those at the same place; that judge might have supposed himself aggrieved by these provisions of that law; but it had not been suggested that he considered his rights infringed by being relieved from other duties. As he was instrumental in making this arrangement, as to the courts of that district, Mr. H. hoped, he might be indulged in explaining the reasons which had induced him to think these provisions necessary, and as the law on the table went to their repeal, he should not be considered out of order. The state of North-Carolina has an immense extent of coast. The chief seaports are Edenton, Newbern and Wilmington. The first and the last are at the distance of 200 miles the one from the other; Newbern about 100 miles from each. The residence of the judge is the interior of the country, near 200 miles from Wilmington, the place of most trade, and about 100 miles from each of the other ports; the objects of the jurisdiction of the district courts are chiefly causes of admiralty & maritime jurisdiction. The court to be useful and convenient could only be made so, by bringing the judge at fixed periods of time, to the commercial points of his district. The difficulty of instituting a suit in the district court of North-Carolina, and the inconvenience of attending it there, amounted nearly to a prohibition of the process of individuals; and, Mr. H. said, he knew demands had been relinquished and claims abandoned rather than encounter these obstacles. For these reasons the provisions on this subject were introduced into the last law, and his motion. And although much benefit may not yet have been experienced by the new arrangement, he had no doubt that great advantage would result therefrom eventually; he stated, that he had been informed, to a late term of one of those courts, near thirty suits had been instituted. He was thus furnished with another reason against the bill on the table; for an amendment which should retain the benefit of these provisions of the last law was inhibited, by the consideration that the imposition of duty would thereby be too great on the judge of that district, who will have the duties of the circuit court again imposed on him. Mr. H. had listened with great attention and weighed with due deliberation all the arguments which had been offered on this important question; his conviction of the inexpediency and unconstitutionality of the proposed repeal was thereby enforced. When he found the best argument, the one most relied on by the advocates of the repeal, on the constitutional point, was derived from a distinction, a fancied distinction; a distinction without a difference, between a removal of a judge from office and the taking away the office from a judge; when it is acknowledged on all hands, that we have no power to remove the judge from the office; yet it is held that the thing may be effected by taking the office from the judge; he must be excused in declaring his belief, that such arguments, analyzed or examined as you will; whether opposed by "boys" or contested by men would alike be found to be but "shadows" indeed.
He considered the judicial power of the United States as a vested power; a power vested in the judge constitutionally appointed; it is vested by the constitution and cannot be taken away by law. It was vested by the people in the majority of their power, and cannot be divested by any power inferior to that of the people, in the exercise of their sovereignty.
The constitution declares that "the judicial shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The constitution arranges the different branches of government; to each department a distinct article is appropriated, vesting power and defining its limitation. By the first article the legislative power is vested in the Congress of the United States, subject to a limited veto of the President. By the second article the executive power is vested in the President of the United States; and the third article vests the judicial power in the judges of the United States, who "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." The three branches of government are thus made distinct and independent of each other. By what authority is it that one or two departments can put down the third department? Where is it to be found; is it found by construction? Then construction makes it as competent for the judge and the legislature to declare they have the right to divest the President of the executive power, as the legislature or the executive, or both to declare they have the right to divest the judges of the judicial power. To his mind it appeared clear and certain that no such right as the one claimed did exist.
The members of both branches of the legislature and the President are periodically elected, and their continuance in office limited and defined by the constitution; they depend on the people in the exercise of their elective franchise for their continuance in office. The judges, who are to hold their offices so long as they behave well, depend only on God and their own conduct for their continuance in office.
"The judges shall hold"—What? "Their offices," says the constitution. How then can the alteration be sustained that the constitution is not infringed, when that is taken from the judge which the constitution declares, the judges shall hold? Has not the taking the office from the judge precisely the same operation as the removal of the judge from the office? Surely this will not be denied. Is not then the provision in the constitution as certainly contravened by the one as the other procedure? The framers of the constitution appear to have been jealous, anxiously jealous of an interference with the independence of the judges; not satisfied with guarding them from a direct removal from office, they endeavoured to provide against indirect means whereby the removal might be effected, hence the provision which forbids a diminution of the salary of a judge. But, say gentlemen, compensation has a relation to services, so intimate, that unless one is performed the other shall not be paid; that when the office is abolished, no service can be performed; consequently no compensation is demandable, and thus the difficulty is avoided. This to be sure is a most convenient kind of casualty; an argument not expected to be heard in this House; subterfuges which could not fail to attach disgrace on individuals surely must be unworthy government. To what does the argument amount—Does it amount to more than this? (asked Mr. H.) I engage a man for a stipulated sum to perform for me a certain service, and while in pursuance of his contract he is engaged in the work, in order to avoid the payment of the sum stipulated, I disable him from performing the service—would this be warrantable, could I justify it? Most unquestionably no. It is of the highest importance the judges should be independent; they are intended to stand between the legislature and the constitution, between the government and the people, they are intended to check the legislature. Should the legislature even surmount the barrier of the constitution it is the duty of the judges to repeal it back within the bounds which limit its power. Were they not independent, would they be equal to this duty? Could they perform it—dare they perform it, if on the legislature they were dependent? But, it is said, with a government of responsibilities like ours the uncontrollable power of the judges
is incompatible. Sir, no such power is claimed for the judges; their office and duty is to prevent the exercise of unauthorized power; they are not without responsibility—they may be controlled—the constitution provides the means. The tenure of their office, is their good behaviour—when that ceases, their term expires—and whether they behave well or ill, is not for them, but the legislature to judge and decide. And here is the constitutional check on the judges; this House may impeach, and the senate evict from office a judge. If he behaves ill, a judge may thus be removed, and the legislature is restrained from an unwarrantable use of this power by its own responsibilities. Mr. H. declared himself without a doubt on the constitutional point in question.
Much had been said, concerning the manner in which the law proposed to be repealed had been passed. A gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) who had been up early in the debate, had taken occasion to mention, by name certain senators, and alleged that their votes carried this law. A recurrence to the journals of that day, would show the fact to be otherwise, unless the gentleman meant to suggest, that the votes of these senators would have been the reverse of what they were, but for the prospect of their subsequent appointments. He would not suppose the gentleman intended this, it would be attaching on the characters of those senators motives too corrupt for that gentleman to charge on others in their absence. The same gentleman, with great emphasis has marked the time when the Presidential approbation of this law was announced to this House, the 13th day of February, when this House was engaged in the choice of President! And then the gentleman directs his attention to the circumstance of some of the members of this House being afterwards appointed to office. As to the time when this approbation was announced, whether combined or not with the circumstance of the subsequent appointments, Mr. H. declared his incapacity to discover what impression the gentleman thereby intended to make. He could not have supposed it had any influence on the passage of the bill, for that was a retrospective relation which could not exist. Did the gentleman mean to suggest, it had, or was intended to have any influence on the pending election? This was a suggestion unfounded. It was never understood at least within his knowledge, that the late President directly or indirectly interferred with this House in the choice of his successor; nor did he ever hear that the late President espoused the cause of either the one or the other of the candidates for the suffrages of the states in this House; equally difficult is it to discover the relationship which the subsequent appointments bear to the subject of that election. Wherefore were those appointments mentioned? Did the gentleman mean to suggest that the members of this House who were distinguished by the President in his subsequent nominations, were actuated by the prospect or promise of such appointments? He was unwilling to believe the gentleman did—such a suggestion would be unworthy any man who did not feel himself liable to be actuated by such motives—and should such suggestions be made existing facts would not sustain it—the conduct of the members alluded to, would prove it to be groundless, and the majority in this House on that occasion, was too decided to countenance a belief, that such means could be necessary.
Other members on this occasion and other occasions had undertaken to make their allusions, to express their insinuations on the subject of these appointments; discovering a disposition to ascribe improper motives to gentlemen on this floor. Mr. H. said for his part he was no motive-monger, and although gentlemen differed from him in political sentiments, he was inclined to appreciate properly their views; they were as much entitled to suppose themselves correct as he was; and he was willing to believe that gentlemen generally were disposed to do right. He would however, caution those members who are inclined to criminate, to be certain before they did so that the means of recrimination were not at hand. He might say, that inducements to put down the present judges, were to be found in the wishes of gentlemen to advance themselves or make places for their friends on the bench of the United States. He might say that the proposed repeal, had numerous advocates, because it was a measure which emanated from the executive, because his friends are courted; his favor hoped for; his power to grant appointments regarded. He might also say that 'if republicanism' as it is called 'did leave this house when the British Treaty came into it,' that treaty had brought into this house many foes to the constitution; for the energies of that government which enforces the payment of debts long withheld, are not likely to find friends or admirers among the coerced debtors; these things he might say. He would not however, make the charges because it was possible they might not be well founded. He disdained such motives himself, and reproached the practices of imputation too liberally to pursue it.
Mr. H. would inform the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) who had alluded to a gentleman from N. Carolina on that floor as a commissioned judge; that the member alluded to never had such commission presented to him, of course he had never the opportunity to accept or reject it; he apprehended that it would be admitted that the acceptance of a commission was necessary to make an officer, and that member held his seat here by an authority equal to that by which the seat of any other member was held—the free suffrages of a large and respectable majority of the freemen of the district he represents is his authority; the gentleman from Virginia has certainly been greatly misinformed as to the member from North-Carolina. If he alluded to the same member when he alluded to certain characters, as to their political tendencies to that of his Ponce de Leon, his informer had grossly deceived him. The fact or sentiment of an anti-revolutionary adherence to the enemies of his country, never had attached, nor ever should attach, on the character of the member alluded to. The fact was directly the reverse—that member had not ceased to lament that his ability had not equalled his inclination to serve his country in her glorious contest for liberty and independence; during that time he was but a boy; the only one of his family who was able, did share in the toils, the perils and the glory of the contest, and was found among those who gathered laurels at the springs of Dataw.
The gentleman from Virginia was also mistaken as to the fortuitous circumstances relating to the salary of the district judge of North-Carolina, at the last session. That was not a fortuitous occurrence—it was designed—that gentleman's friend from North-Carolina was one of a committee appointed to report on the salaries of the officers; and as Mr. H. had understood, opposed in the committee the measure of augmentation generally, and especially the increase of the salary of the North-Carolina judge, and as to that judge prevailed in the committee. In the house, to the surprise of his co-members of that committee, the same member moved an amendment to their report whereby that judge's salary should be included among those which were to be increased—the design was obvious—the circumstances being known, the amendment was rejected.
Mr. H. said the member alluded to lamented not that he possessed the good opinion of the late administrations; it was his pride to have been so distinguished. The suggestion was unfounded which had been made by some, that favoritism was exemplified by the appointment of that member by the late President. The relationship of affinity or any consanguinity between the President or any part of his family, and that member did not exist, he had not that honor; but he had filled an office before in the same department under a commission conferred by the first President. To have been thus distinguished by the preceding Presidents, that member considered as highly honorable to himself. But it seems sufficient reason with some to excite their irritation and display their irascibility; the motives and feelings of that member are therefore to be pitied; the victim is to be pitied; and the means are disregarded by which the offering is to be made; the well turned period of pointed invective, the gross terms of mere vulgarity; the keen knife of the skillful surgeon or the edgeless tool of the clumsy operator are instruments alike acceptable. But he would take leave to say, that the character of that member is fortified by a barrier of integrity which defies the malice and machinations of his enemies, happily possessed of mens conscia recti; he disregards the imputations which have been made; thus shielded, the shafts of malice however directed, fall harmless at his feet, or are repelled with accumulated force on those who cast them. Mr. H. concluded with expressions of regret that he had exhausted any part of the time of the committee in observations extraneous to the subject under consideration; but implied as he had been he hoped to be excused; he would return to the question before the committee and close his remarks with one additional observation, that, believing as he did believe, the essence of civil liberty to be security, and that this being would only be ensured to ourselves and our posterity by the government of laws directly administered by upright and independent judges; it was his duty to withhold his support from any measure which might possibly contravene this all important principle; he should therefore give his vote for striking out the full section of the bill on the table.
FOR SALE, An excellent Blacksmith, together with his wife and three likely children, to wit, two boys, to wit 12 years of age and a girl four. The woman has been employed altogether in washing and ironing. An examination of the blacksmith's work will be his best recommendation. To save unnecessary explications the price of the family is 1,400 dollars.
V. FLETION. Stafford, March 3, 1802. 12wtf