The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1808-01-29 00:00:00

National Intelligencer.
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VIII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. 1132.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1808.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DEBATE.
On the Resolution for requesting the President to cause an enquiry to be made into the conduct of GENERAL WILKINSON.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 8. (CONTINUED.)
Mr. Randolph's motion for requesting the President to cause an enquiry being under consideration.
Mr. Rowan said he had yesterday mentioned certain facts; he did not then know that it was in his power to prove those facts. He had found a certified copy of the deposition made by Judge Innes to the patriots of Kentucky. He would read extracts from it.
Extracts from a letter from Thomas Power to Judge Sebastian, containing proposals from the Spanish court, communicated in testimony before the Kentucky Legislature by Judge Innes.
"His Excellency the Baron of Carondelet, commander in chief and governor of his Catholic Majesty's provinces of West Florida and Louisiana, having communications of importance, embracing the interests of said provinces, and at the same time deeply affecting those of Kentucky and the western country in general, to make to its inhabitants, through the medium of the influential characters in this country, and judging in the present uncertain and critical attitude of politics, it highly imprudent & dangerous to lay them on paper, has expressly commissioned & authorised me to submit the following proposals to the consideration of Messrs. S. N. I. and M. and also of such other gentlemen as may be pointed out by them, and to receive from them their sentiments and determination on the subject."
"1st, The above mentioned gentlemen are immediately to exert all their influence in impressing on the minds of the inhabitants of the western country a conviction of the necessity of their withdrawing and separating themselves from the federal union, and forming an independent government wholly unconnected with that of the Atlantic states. To prepare and dispose the people for such an event, it will be necessary that the most popular and eloquent writers in this state, should, in well timed publications, expose in the most striking point of view, the inconveniences and disadvantages that a longer connection with, and dependence on, the Atlantic states must inevitably draw upon them, and the great and innumerable difficulties in which they will probably be entangled if they do not speedily recede from the union—the benefits they will certainly reap from a secession, ought to be pointed out in the most forcible and powerful manner; and the danger of permitting the federal troops to take possession of the posts on the Mississippi; and thus forming a cordon of fortified places round them, must be particularly expatiated upon. In consideration of gentlemen devoting their time and talents to this object, his excellency the Baron of Carondelet, will appropriate the sum of one hundred thousand dollars to their use, which shall be paid in draughts on the royal treasury at New Orleans; or if more convenient, shall be conveyed at the expense of his Catholic Majesty into this country, and held at their disposal. Moreover, should such persons as shall be instrumental in promoting the views of his Catholic Majesty, hold any public employment, and in consequence of taking an active part in endeavouring to effect a secession, shall lose their employments—a compensation equal at least to the emoluments of their office, shall be made to them by his Catholic Majesty, let their efforts be crowned with success, or terminate in disappointment."
"Immediately after the declaration of independence, Fort Massac should be taken possession of by the troops of the new government."
"His Catholic Majesty will further supply the sum of one hundred thousand dollars for the raising and maintaining the said troops, which sum shall also be conveyed to and delivered at Fort Massac."
In 1795 some characters in Kentucky were addressed by a short letter from the Spanish agent, and he deemed it his duty to inform the House that when Judge Innes, who delivered this testimony, was asked how he came to be known and singled out, he replied that he had never been there, had never heard of the correspondence, and could not account for it otherwise than by an acquaintance with Gen. Wilkinson; that he had given Wilkinson Sterne's Sentimental Journey with his name written in it; and from the book's being given to the Spanish commander, he supposed
his name had become known to the Spaniards. Wilkinson presented a book with Innes's name in it to the Spaniards, and they immediately concluded that Innes was a corrupt man. This was a little circumstance, but fraught with meaning, and ought to have influence with the House in making this enquiry. They saw that corruption and intrigue had been practised in that country, that Wilkinson was supposed to be connected with it, not to a certainty, but so much so as to render it worth enquiring into; it was due to the man himself, and to the nation that enquiry should be made. He was therefore opposed to the resolution's lying on the table; they could gain nothing by it; the information which the gentleman from New Orleans could give was but a part of the whole. I have it my power said Mr. R. to name persons to a proper tribunal who can give important information. The evidence of the gentleman from New Orleans he said was unimportant compared with what remained behind the screen. There was much information which might be given to a tribunal vested with the power of issuing compulsory process. Why not then immediately themselves go into an enquiry?
It was said that the House had not the power; he hoped the present question would be so stated as to leave a precedent on record by which future legislatures might be governed. If they were prepared to surrender this right, it was not fit that they should continue much longer a nation, they were only deluding themselves with an idea of national existence if this doctrine prevailed. It did belong to them; it grew out of the general construction of the constitution, and from a comparison of the particular powers of the several departments of government.
We are to do, however, said Mr. R. that the President is making an enquiry; let him proceed, but let us do our duty. The people will not expect us to surrender the national rights, and abandon the enquiry. The people were jealous of their rights, & however confident in the Executive would not abandon it to his direction. The permission of this power to the Executive exclusively might not now be dangerous; but the time to form good precedents was when they had a President in whom they could confide. The President's having instituted an enquiry was no argument with him at all. This House had first originated the enquiry; and should they tamely abandon it because the President had appointed three subaltern officers to carry on an enquiry—an enquiry which must be ineffectual? And it was known too that the province of a court martial was confined to the military conduct of that officer—confined to acts which related to him as an officer, but not as a man. He was a military officer at the time in which he was charged with having been corrupted by the Spanish government, but had not received it under colour of a military act. An inquisition into his conduct therefore did not attach to a military court, but to the grand inquest of the nation. This man was charged with corruption and had forfeited the confidence of the people. Would the House under these circumstances disclaim an enquiry? If they did, they disclaimed one of the great powers with which they were indubitably clothed.
It had been said that this enquiry would affect private character. Mr. R. respected private character; but when placed in competition with the great interests of the nation, he would not be so squeamishly delicate about it. Cases had heretofore occurred in which a civil officer had been charged with having acted improperly; and evidence collected from every part of the nation and published a year before his trial. The interest of the nation and their duty to their constituents required an enquiry, and he hoped it would be made; not the House should interrupt the enquiry of the President, but suffer it also to go on.
This enquiry would involve more men than Wilkinson. They would find that the court of Spain addressed itself to high characters: Humble characters would not suit their purposes. This enquiry would lead to an implication of others whom it
might be important for the nation to understand, in order to be relieved from a possibility of danger at home in case of a foreign war, from the circumstance of those having great power and control possessing a disposition to ruin the country. If the House were disposed to make effectual enquiry, they would oppose the postponement and adopt an amendment which he had proposed to offer for appointing a special committee for enquiry, with power to compel attendance of witnesses, &c.
The American government was not very old, and they had already discovered three treasonable projects—a late one which had excited much alarm, and into which enquiry had been made, and delicacy towards character had not been very much regarded. The President of the U. S. had thought it his duty to charge one of the great departments of the nation with the corrupt administration of the law; and in so doing had given them an illustrious example of the little necessity for delicacy.
The Spanish conspiracy and the two thousand Kentuckians officered under French colors afterwards, did not excite the same sensation on every mind that it did on his. If said Mr. R. you are disposed to turn a deaf ear to this, you will soon learn, with all your vigor, unwelcome intelligence from the Louisiana country. You should determine that in no part of the United States should treason lurk concealed—that it is vain for any man, whatever be his elevation, to cover improper conduct from the nation. Sure our existence is important; our government is assailed, corruption rankles in an important part. I hope such a display of energy will now be made as will paralyze treason and corruption yet in embryo.
Mr. Taylor said when he had made the motion for postponement, he did not to give gentlemen an opportunity to blacken this man's character; he had hoped that the usual course of confining the debate to the motion in hand would have been adhered to. But as gentlemen had travelled out of their course and expressed so great a desire to discuss the main question, he was not disposed to indulge them. From a sense of justice to the person involved, he would not afford an instrument of protracting slaughter to his character. We have been traveling from step to step, said Mr. T. and every proposition however wide & abstracted, has but afforded another means of torture. I will not be considered as one of those who would propose an instrument to sear the feelings of any man, be he who he may; and as gentleman are so extremely anxious for discussion, my motion shall not afford a pretext for it. Mr. T. then withdrew the motion for postponement.
Mr. Milnor immediately renewed the motion.
Mr. Smilie wished the gentleman from Kentucky would tell the House what were the proceedings of the legislature on this evidence, and who was the person who delivered it?
Mr. Rowan said the person who stated this was Judge Innes, not in the character of a culprit, but as a witness. This he was proud to say was the patriotic language of Kentucky, on such a subject.
Mr. Smilie said this was the proceeding of that legislature in the case of Sebastian. He believed the legislature had proceeded correctly and the gentleman had told them this was a specimen of patriotism of Kentucky. Mr. S. thought so too, and that Kentucky was entitled to that character; but strange that this same patriotic legislature had never communicated this information to the Secretary of State [Mr. Rowan. I will inform the gentleman that I myself as Secretary of State did inclose it to the President.] Mr. S. did not think the evidence of a character as Power could have any weight. The man who had told them that morality in public and morality in private life were different things; and that a stoic would make a bungling politician—a man void of principle was not entitled to credit.
The gentleman had said he wished to see the man who would deny the power of this House. He may see one, said Mr. S. it is myself; and I hope there are many others in the
House prepared to deny the power of the House. It is unnecessary to go into an argument again to show what are the powers of the House prescribed by the constitution. The gentleman has not attempted to show that the House had the power; nor can it be shewn. But the gentleman supposes that except this House can assume power to act for the public safety, there is no safety for the republic. Surely the patriots who framed the constitution supposed that the distribution of power and the frame of government it contained were sufficient to preserve the safety of the nation. But the gentleman says we must appoint a committee. Will the gentleman shew whence we derive the authority to appoint a committee of enquiry, for I perceive he doubts that other departments will not do their duty. I will ask the gentleman, supposing that his doctrine, absurd as it is, was to obtain, & a committee to be appointed, what can be done? Are we to proceed to judgement on this officer or what is to be done? If according to his idea, this House is left by the constitution to roam at large without limit or restriction, and exercise its powers as the passions would us lead, independently of the constitution, I see nothing but ruin to result: and I am not afraid in the most express language to deny that power, nor am I afraid that the constitution will not bear us through. Mr. S. said the constitution was well understood by the body of the people; and they would not blame their Representatives who were desirous to preserve the proper distinction between the different departments of government. He cared not what was the question. He should vote against the resolution, & against any postponement or commitment of it; that the business might be left with the proper authority.
Mr. Findley. Before the question is taken on this extraordinary resolution lying on the table, or that it be finally disposed of in any other manner, I will address you, sir, in a manner that I know to be out of order, but believing as I do the admission of this resolution and every question arising thereon, to have been out of order, I will take the liberty to proceed, hoping that I will not be interrupted by the House, the members having patiently submitted to the desultory discussions which had occupied their attention for several days, on a subject which could not constitutionally come before them. Though this House is not a court of record nor of judiciary decision, yet they received a few days ago a charge against a citizen; that that citizen was a responsible military officer, who in that character had rendered important services to the United States for at least thirty years, and most essential services at a very recent period, is well known; yet it is not to advocate his official character or conduct that I address you, sir, and through you this House. It is to advocate the liberties of the citizens of the United States, the cause of my sons, and of sons yet unborn, in this cause I feel myself under a necessity of acting in some degree contrary to my professions.
The House, sir, has not only received the charge and information of the mover, without any documents having been laid on the table, but on his demand has received information from the delegate of the territory of New Orleans. That gentleman, taken by surprise, stated that he was discouraged in attempting to give information to the President; that he gave information in writing to the Secretary of State, to which no attention that he knew of was paid. Finding that this information was by some members made use of to implicate the administration; that gentleman, voluntarily, with that candor which he is known to possess, explained to the House that the information which he had designed to give to the President, and did give to the Secretary of State, did not relate to the question then before the House; that he could give further information if he was officially called on, but would not otherwise. This observation does honor to his understanding. I wish, sir, the hint had been taken; that gentleman knew that this House was authorised to originate or concur in enacting laws, but had no power to decide on, or
execute these laws. This gentleman was not called upon nor obliged, probably not able to give information of transactions prior to that period in which he was consul for the United States. I have always understood that he was a useful and faithful consul for the United States at New Orleans while it remained under the Spanish government.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rowan) who addressed you, sir, last but one, has without being called upon, volunteered information against General Wilkinson, not however supported by such testimony as could be admitted in any court of law or equity, but such as the mover has offered and also volunteered; however I disapprove of this practice it has by being indulged become necessary that I should also give information with relation to this subject.
From the commencement of the Federal government, and even before it commenced, there were complaints and murmurs in the Ohio country which gave occasion to Spanish intrigues. To remove these complaints and counteract these intrigues, president Washington was very attentive, and for that purpose employed one or more agents to go into the country; in short, he kept a watchful eye on the people of that country; this circumstance was generally known at the time and is recorded in Ramsay's Life of Washington, and if I recollect well, in Marshall's.
In 1795, a treaty was concluded with Spain favorable to the western country, but the execution of it, from various causes, was so much delayed as to render its success doubtful. During this suspension these intrigues between the Spanish government at New Orleans and characters on the Ohio were revived and carried to the greatest height, money enclosed in sugar barrels was sent to Kentucky, to be distributed to different persons supposed to be influential, and if I am not mistaken overtures were made to the Baron de Corondelet, the governor, to be king of Louisiana, Kentucky, &c. which he refused, but information of all these circumstances were duly put in possession of the government; probably all the characters to whom the money and letters were sent were not known, but the transaction was well known to the administration, and no doubt the most prudent means used to counteract or prevent its effects. I had this information principally from the respectable gentleman who was during that period commissioner in behalf of the U. S. for carrying the treaty with Spain into effect, and for running the boundary line, the execution of which these intrigues delayed and went near to defeat. I had this information from that respectable gentleman in the fall of 1799, therefore before the present administration commenced, and three years before the gentleman from New Orleans gave, or attempted to give, his information respecting these intrigues, which however he candidly says did not relate to the case before the House, viz. the corruption of gen. Wilkinson. No doubt the information given of these intrigues during former administrations is lodged in the office of state, and consequently early known to the present administration. The gentleman from whom I had the information conversed with me at the same time about gen. Wilkinson, who as commander of the army had to assist in the execution of the treaty, but did not give the smallest hint of his being implicated in these intrigues, except giving assistance in counteracting them. It is well known that he stood high in the confidence of that administration as he had done in the former, and has done during the present, and enjoyed, as far as I have known, the public confidence, till in favor of a recent and dreadful intrigue, which the general has since contributed so greatly to defeat, it was found necessary to denounce his character. I had not, sir, intended to have mentioned this information to the House until I could have had it from under the hand of the gentleman himself, but the information now given by the gentleman from Kentucky, and the manner in which the administration has been implicated for declining to receive information in a particular instance, seems to render it improper to delay this information longer. It was not given to me in confidence.
I did not rise, sir, with a view to enter into the argument. The gentleman from Kentucky's claim of such constitutional and dangerous powers to this House has been sufficiently noticed by my colleague, who has just sat down (Mr. Smilie.) It is such a doctrine as the gentleman himself on one reflection will retract. He concluded with very earnestly and repeatedly persuading the members not to suffer themselves to be influenced by delicacy for the feeling of gen. Wilkinson.

Mr. Speaker, even delicacy for the feelings of the general or any other citizen should so far have effect as to prevent their character from being traduced where they cannot be permitted to be heard in their own vindication, and where there is no legal authority to investigate their case or to decide upon their character. The members of this House, sir, are privileged from being called to account or punished elsewhere, for what they say on this floor, but to prevent the abuse of this necessary privilege to the purposes of private enmity, caprice, passion or indiscretion, under the hypocritical disguise of zeal for the public good, the House is not only authorised to prescribe its own rules of decorum, but also to punish or even expel a member for the breach of these rules. Sir, even mentioning or implicating the name or character of an officer or citizen on this floor, so as to impute blame to his character, is a breach of decorum, and ought to be punished, and though it has in some few instances passed with impunity in public bodies, it has never failed to degrade the character of him who takes that indecent and ungentlemanly liberty, in the public opinion, and to sink the character of the public body that permits it. No such conduct ought to be permitted unless in order to impeachments of a public officer, or in order to the punishment of a contempt.
On this occasion, sir, I am not however influenced by delicacy for the feelings of general Wilkinson. I am influenced by a delicacy of a superior kind; I am influenced very seriously, sir, by a delicacy for the character of this House. I am jealous lest, instead being the constitutional protectors of the citizens, we should give ground to suspect that we would submit to become instruments of persecution or private revenge at the instigation of any of our own members. We have courts of justice with trial by jury for the application of our laws to the punishment of crimes and the protection of innocence; but those citizens who choose to accept of offices, civil or military, are obliged to surrender the right of trial by jury for official crimes, as security for their official trust. Civil officers subject themselves to impeachment which may result in disqualification and infamy, and military officers to a decision of courts martial, which may result in forfeiture of life.
Mr. Speaker, we can only prescribe to the executive or the courts of justice, civil or military, by a law of Congress, if the laws are insufficient for the detection or punishment of crimes, let Congress revise them or make new laws. If there are not a sufficient number of courts established, Congress has authority to organize other courts; but one branch of Congress alone has no right officially to enquire into or sit in judgment on the character of executive officers, except with a view to impeachment, which it is admitted does not apply to this case. It is admitted even by the advocates of the resolution that the House can pass no sentence in this case; why then begin what we cannot finish? Happily the resolution for raising a committee with authority to call for persons, papers, records, &c. has been rejected by such a majority as does honor to the House; but the propriety of doing so has been again advocated, and may probably again be renewed; but I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this House will never institute a court of slander out of its own body, or degrade itself into a court of star chamber. If general Wilkinson is guilty, which he may be for aught I know, let his guilt be detected and punished by the proper tribunal, which is at his own request already appointed. Permit me, sir, to conclude by saying that on a review of the whole subject, as it has been conducted, general Wilkinson is not the sole, nor the principal object. Whatever danger there might have been in 1796, during gen. Washington's presidency, or in the four following years of Mr. Adams's presidency, there is no such danger now as to justify a member of this House in stopping and delaying by solemn grimace, a bill which has for its object the necessary enforcement of the embargo, every hour's delay of which in so far defeated its salutary effects in favor of the peace of the country; yet we know that by this stratagem, I cannot call it less, that important bill was delayed in its passage several days, though the member who moved the resolution before the House had voted against the embargo, after having been the original mover, and advocate of it; yet this will not account for his novel interruption of the passage of the supplementary law through the House; reasons for this must be sought for elsewhere, and time and circumstances will sufficiently suggest these reasons to every member and citizen acquainted with them.
Mr. Babb understood the motion for postponement was made for the purpose of giving the gentleman from Orleans time to lay before the House such information as he possessed. To vote on this it became necessary for him to enquire when the gentleman from Orleans would give his information? If he could do it in one or two days? If he could, Mr. B. said he should vote for the postponement; but if not, he should vote against it, because he was unwilling to hold up the character of any man to suspicion.
Mr. Clark had no other wish than to obtain time to draw up his information; he could probably prepare it by Monday.
The motion for postponement was carried, 70 to 32.
(DEBATE TO BE CONTINUED.)
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27.
Mr. Blackledge presented a Map of the state of N. Carolina from Jonathan Price and John Strother, the receipt of which the Speaker was desired to acknowledge.
The report of the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, on the memorial from the city of Washington, relative to erecting that city into a port of entry, was taken up and concurred with.
The House took up for consideration the amendments made by the Senate to the bill for erecting a BRIDGE over the river POTOMAC, which were concurred in without debate and without division. [The bill only requires the sanction of the President to be a law.]
The House took up for consideration the resolution lately offered by Mr. Key for the erection of a standing committee of the House to enquire and report on all concerns relative to the district of Columbia.
Mr. Findley observed that he had long been in favor of appointing a committee of this kind. The citizens of the district of Columbia were not and could not be represented on this floor. He wished to see the business consolidated, so that they might be justly heard.
Mr. Key said his object in this motion had merely been to render more simple to the House the legislating for the district. It would save many committees from being raised, and promote consistency and uniformity in the laws relating to the district.
The resolution was then agreed to without a division, and Messrs. Key, Van Dyke, Love, Holland, Brown, L'Herminier, and Taylor appointed the committee.
Mr. G. W. Campbell moved for the order of the day on the bill from the Senate for increasing the military peace establishment of the U. States.
[This bill contemplates the raising one battalion of riflemen, one battalion of cavalry, one regiment of infantry, and the increasing the number of men in each company now in service to the number of one hundred and twenty.]
Mr. Nelson moved that its further consideration be postponed till the 1st March.
Mr. Chandler wished the gentleman to alter his motion so as to let it lie on the table.
Mr. Nelson, I cannot consent, for this reason: I expect to be absent for some time, and whenever the bill is called up, I wish to make some few observations upon it.
Mr. Chandler. I am opposed to taking up the bill at this time, because it will depend upon circumstances whether we ought to act on it or not. If we have peace with the powers possessing territory adjoining to us, it is unnecessary to add to our peace establishment, it being a subject on which we should be extremely cautious. Circumstances might arise which would render it necessary to add to our peace establishment before the first of March.
Mr. W. Alston. The views of both gentlemen would be answered by the bill's being referred to a select committee to examine into the propriety of passing it, which would be precluded by a postponement or by its lying on the table.
The Speaker. The bill has been already referred to a committee of the whole House: and therefore cannot at present be referred to any other committee.
Mr. Nelson. This bill sent down from the Senate contemplates adding a very small number of men to the peace establishment of the U. S. It is a little trifling in which does not deserve consequence. On this great continent where there are now so few troops, it is contemplated to make to them an addition of two battalions, and increase the number of men in each company to one hundred and twenty. Such an addition will be but a drop of water in the ocean; the country will not feel the effects of it; it will be doing nothing. It is doing business by halves—a petty miserable measure, of which the U. S. will never feel the benefit. I have another objection. The committee to whom was referred the other day a resolution for increasing our war establishment, are prepared to report a bill to the House for that purpose. If the bill so to be reported shall pass, it will be unnecessary to pass this bill; because we shall be in war, and have no occasion for a peace establishment. It will be better to let this miserable thing lie on the table, or postpone it till we see whether or not we shall pass the war bill. If that does not pass, little as this thing is, and much as I despise the principle of it, gentlemen may take their own way with it; but if the war bill does pass, certainly this should not.
Mr. Desha. The gentleman is mistaken as to the contents of the bill, for there are three instead of two regiments to be raised; and these are essentially necessary, whether we have war or not. Take into view the city of New Orleans; threatened without, and we know it is said to be disaffected within, it is an object of the greatest consequence to the U. S. to retain it in safety; and there ought to be troops in its neighborhood, whether in peace or war. I am opposed to postponement, though I should have no objection to its lying on the table.
Mr. Nelson. I should be very sorry if it be indeed necessary to keep a standing army to take care of New Orleans. If the citizens of that city are so depraved as not to be kept in order without a military force among them, I wish I had never heard of them.
Mr. Desha. The gentleman has misunderstood me. I mean that they are so divided, that they may not be united to defend the place sufficiently against a foreign enemy; and advan-
tage will be taken of this circumstance. New Orleans is a very vulnerable point, and of as much consequence perhaps as any port in the U. S. and I believe it is necessary that there should be a strong garrison kept there at all times.
Mr. Dawson. A few days ago the House unanimously passed a resolution for increasing the military establishment of the U. S. having reference as I had supposed, to a war establishment; in pursuance of which I am now prepared to report a bill, which, if passed, will render unnecessary the bill for an increase of the peace establishment. I therefore wish this business to lie on the table.
Mr. G. W. Campbell. I believe that we can act upon this subject as well at this time as at any other. The arguments of the gentleman from Maryland prove, if any thing, that this bill may be immediately decided. He tells us, if we have war, this is nothing; if we have no war, it is not necessary to increase the peace establishment—and therefore, we can decide upon it now. I am not prepared to say that this addition ought to be made, but do not know why gentlemen should call this so little a thing. From the general features of the bill it is evidently intended to produce an addition to our peace establishment. My idea of it is, that it is intended to provide, as well against the hostility of the Indians on our frontier, as against the marauding parties of any foreign power. I think it a questionable point, whether, our extended frontier does not require an additional force. You have been frequently told in the House that the Indians have of late threatened much; that the population of the territory of the United States in their vicinity is small and much scattered. This subject should be brought before the House, when also I should wish to hear what information gentlemen can offer on the subject.
Mr. Macon. I do not believe it necessary to make so large an addition to our present peace establishment, and am willing to postpone the bill. The gentleman from Kentucky has told us of the divisions in Orleans, and that it is necessary for that reason to keep troops there. The transfer of Louisiana was made without the assistance of arms. The difference of opinion there is the same as every where else exists betwixt federalists and republicans; and his observation would apply fully as well to any other place as to New-Orleans. For what are these regiments contemplated to be raised? Not for war, but in addition to our peace establishment. There is no necessity for increasing it: I fear that gentlemen, from the very best of motives, will go on to encroach our peace establishment, till we have as large a standing army as any other nation. Great objects often arise from small beginnings. If we raise troops, let it be for war; let the peace establishment rest as it is. I shall vote for the motion under consideration, but had rather vote for an indefinite postponement.
Mr. Desha. Although opposed to postponement, I do not know that I am entirely in favor of the bill. The gentleman from North Carolina has told us that he is opposed to increasing the establishment for the purpose of protecting New-Orleans, because the people in that country is divided only as we are, into republicans and federalists. A great part of the inhabitants of that country, on the contrary, are attached to monarchical government; and many of them being yet subjects of Spain, they are attached to that government. They are monarchists, not federalists or republicans; and by a very natural inference, will attach themselves to foreign governments.
Mr. Gardner. I hope the motion for postponement will prevail. I am sorry that the honorable Senate should have chosen at this time to add to our peace establishment after adopting a war measure by laying an embargo. If we are to have war, on which we cannot yet decide, we shall undoubtedly continue the strong measures which we have this session commenced; but until that momentous question is decided, I am clearly in favor of postponing the consideration of our peace establishment.
Mr. Dana. Perhaps it might be as well to refer this bill to a select committee, and therefore to vote against the present motion. Although the title of the bill be, "A bill supplementary to an act entitled "An act fixing the military peace establishment of the United States," and although the first section provides for the erection of some forces in addition to our present peace establishment, I really never have imagined, when troops were raised for peace, that it would be contrary to law for them to fight in case of war. I did conceive that when on our peace establishment they could as well fight if raised expressly for war. If therefore there should be danger on our frontier, and if it is supposed that the regular
forces there placed as a security against annoyance are not sufficient, and that more are necessary to preserve peace, I do not see any impropriety in raising an additional number; and as gentlemen from that part of the union, possessed of better means of information than myself, seem to imagine it to be at least worthy of consideration, I am not anxious for postponing it. The honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Macon) seems to suppose that there is not more difference of opinion there than there is in other parts of the United States between federalists and republicans. I fancy the gentleman must take these terms in a sense very different from that which is derived from a most authentic source; for, from very high authority the nation has been told that "we are all federalists; we are all republicans." If we are all of one character, we are certainly not contending one against the other; the gentleman's words therefore convey a meaning different from this highly authentic definition. Could any one imagine that if one character is here applicable to all, though possibly there may be some slight shade of difference, that there is no more difference of opinion in the territories? As respects the inhabitants of some of those territories, biased by strong monarchical attachments, their habits of life have rendered them liable to foreign influence in a much greater degree than the people within the old United States. It is therefore peculiarly necessary that this part of the country should have the assistance of regular troops to repel invasion.
Mr. Witherell. This postponement of business looks too much like getting rid of it altogether. I think we shall not be in a better situation to decide on the necessity for adopting this bill on the first day of March than we are now. If it should lie on the table or be left within our reach, I am not afraid that we shall lay violent hands on it. We are not generally in such a hurry to get through business that we tear it to pieces in getting hold of it. As this is the first time the subject has come under notice, I am as perfectly incapable of deciding on the bill as when it first came from the Senate. I should wish it to lie on the table, or that it may be referred to a select committee.
Mr. Rhea. I am as much opposed to a standing army as any gentleman in the House; but I shall act as I think right at this time, leaving other gentlemen to do the same. There may be times at which a larger military force is necessary than at others; and the present may be one of those times. An objection has been made to the bill because the number is too small. I do not know whether I shall give my vote for raising all the men proposed by the bill; but part of them are necessary. An objection has been made to the bill because it contemplates an addition to our peace establishment. As I consider that we are now approaching to a state of war, I do not see how the number proposed in addition to our present establishment can be objected to. If this number be raised, or even a further additional number, the number to be raised on a war establishment would be by so many diminished. It is well known that a bill has been passed this session, appropriating a sum of money for erecting and repairing fortifications. If erected they must be garrisoned; and although the number proposed may be considered as now too large, yet, when we advert to those places necessary to be garrisoned, they will not appear to be too many; and when we consider our extended frontier, more may be necessary, if only to guard against incursions of the Indians. I shall vote against the postponement of the bill, and hope it will be now considered: the committee now said to be about to report on a war establishment, may accommodate the number of men to be employed to the number to be raised by this bill for the peace establishment. For another reason I shall vote against postponement: I shall take into consideration every thing which comes before us on the principle of national defence, and make the best of it I can; and I shall consider this measure in that light. What may be the fate of the bill for a war establishment, to be reported by the committee, I do not know; and therefore intending to vote for every thing however small towards the great project of national defence, I shall vote against a postponement of this.
Mr. J. K. Smith. I am opposed to the postponement of the bill, and think it ought to be acted on immediately. We know the situation of the western country, and very lately a rebellion has been attempted under Aaron Burr. If he had not been arrested as he was in his career, his project might certainly have led to the establishment of a separate government at New Orleans. I apprehend as much danger from Aaron Burr at this time
as at any time since he first determined on the attempt. Gentlemen say that this provision is too small; if they think so, let them enlarge it, and double it if they apprehend danger. They say also that our present peace establishment is large enough; and that if we have not war, that it ought to be reduced. I am not of that opinion. I shall not be lulled into security; for I think that prudence dictates to us an apprehension of danger; I think we may expect it too, and that we ought to make provision for a stand at first. Even this little force would be of some service; although but 1,500 or 2,000 men, they may be of service. I am desirous to give assurance to the friends of the government at New Orleans, and in the territories adjacent, that they shall be protected, and induce them to have confidence in the general government.
Mr. Lolland. If I viewed the matter in the same light as my friends from Tennessee and New Hampshire, I would vote to take up the bill and pass it immediately. They go upon the ground that it is necessary to augment the peace establishment of the nation; but I see no reason why it should be augmented now or at any time past. The gentleman last up has talked about rebellion, and wishes a peace establishment to put down rebellion. Certainly the militia of any portion of this country are competent to put down all rebellion. The militia of any single district of any state would not want assistance to suppress any insurrection or conspiracy in the United States. Shall it be said that we must augment our military force to put down rebellion? There are very few in the United States who would rebel; none but a few harmless malcontents capable of no more harm than making a noise in newspapers. As to the conspiracy of Aaron Burr, what had been the amount of it? Was the aid of the regular force necessary to quell that? No. The militia were vastly more than competent, for that purpose. Burr is become harmless; his sting is drawn. Is it necessary to raise our peace establishment under the expectation of being beset by a foreign power? If it is now, it always has been; we have always been liable to foreign attack. Either our present peace establishment is competent, or it is necessary immediately to go into a war establishment. With respect to the Indians, they are inoffensive; there has not been a time since the expedition against them under General Wayne, that they have not considered themselves as a conquered nation, & looked up to the United States as their masters. If the Indians were considered as dangerous, nothing would be more agreeable to the militia than to go against them; it would be but too agreeable to a portion of the militia to go against them, and demolish the whole nation of Indians. So that in every point of view I consider it improper to adopt the bill and would have voted for an indefinite postponement.
Mr. Rowan. The whole northern boundary of Orleans, the Indiana and Michigan territories, and the St. Louis country, are all exposed; and although the Indians may, in the prevailing language of the day, look up to their great father, much alarm has been excited in that country, special missions have been sent to enquire into the cause of their tumultuous aggregation, and it is not now known for what purpose they are convened. While that country is in its present unsettled state, until its population is such as to repel the attacks of the Indians, it is prudent to have a small force to co-operate with the militia. It is important that there should be a force established at Orleans for a while; it is the key to the whole western country. Men may talk of patriotism; but it must be known, that any power which possesses the mouth of the Mississippi river, will possess the whole western country. The amor patriae will do very well in theory; but in practice it often yields to private interest. The people in that country are much disaffected; their habits are not American or republican, but lead them to favor monarchical governments. In addition to this they have various causes of discontent. It is necessary to have a military force there, not to keep the people in order, but to prevent a foreign power from taking advantage of the dispositions of the people and using them to its own advantage. It certainly would be a desirable object for any foreign power to possess New-Orleans. It will be known by an enemy that if they can once take footing in it, they can keep possession a sufficient length of time to allow them to receive reinforcements before it could be wrested from them by a force from the U. S. It would be well that the people should be assured that the country will be maintained in our possession. The

time is not remote, I hope, when a chain of population will extend from the U. S. to New-Orleans; but till that time, and more especially from the ease with which possession of the place once had been maintained, it would be good policy to have there some regular troops, and to control any disposition which exists against the interests of that country and of the U. S. Gentlemen ought not to be so much alarmed about raising an army. We seem unwilling to have them because they have ministered to the prostration of the liberties of the people, and served as an instrument to tyrants. But such an effect is only produced by an abuse of a great good; it is necessary to maintain our government and it may give a tyrant predominance and render him despotic. Let us take care not to abuse a thing which is useful; but not decline to use a weapon because its use may be perverted. We can disband an army when it becomes necessary. We have shown our power in this by an actual exercise of it; but, no doubt, had the same circumstances existed then that exist now, the army would not have been disbanded: we had not then this western country, this new world, if I may so express it. I beg gentlemen to consider the projects which have been attempted to the westward; they are worthy of the most serious attention. It has been said that the military were competent to defeat that of Aaron Burr. I wish to God it had been the case, and that it had not been necessary to violate the constitution to defeat that project. I would rather have maintained any given military force than sanction the violation of the Constitution and of individual right. As to savages—gentlemen who do not live in the neighborhood of savage tribes cannot conceive the feelings of those who do, and who have still fresh in their recollection the ravages and depredations committed by these savages. It is of importance to keep up such an establishment as shall give tranquility to the feelings of the people there. The force contemplated by the bill, small as it is, may form many rallying points round which the population could collect themselves for immediate defence. At all events I think it is imprudent to postpone this bill to so late a period in the session. It may happen that in a very short time some forces may be required in the neighborhood of the Lakes, to secure them from the savage tribes. We are in their neighborhood; we have no security that their attachment to America is permanent; they are capable of being excited by any person who will take the trouble, and who has influence. I am myself opposed in general to a standing army. I believe the citizen militia of America are competent to the preservation of good government and quelling insurrection; but are not properly calculated or used for protection against savages or for the defence of New-Orleans. This place is near the Havannah, and our relations with that government are not very stable. My object is to prevent that place from coming into the possession of an enemy; and therefore wish to keep this bill at least within the power of the House.
Mr. Chandler. I wish the bill could be postponed indefinitely. Though I at first objected to postponement for so long a time, the reasons urged by some gentlemen against postponement have convinced me that it ought to be postponed. If there be need of any more force in consequence of the disposition of the Indian tribes, I shall be as willing to raise them as any other man; but I wish the war establishment to be kept distinct and separate from our peace establishment. At Fort Adams and other places there are now bodies of men, which in case of peace, will be sufficient for all purposes. A gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Desha) has observed that it is necessary there should be a force kept at New-Orleans; that they are not divided into republicans and federalists, but are republicans and monarchists. I must confess that the distinction is rather nice; if for that reason we ought to keep a force there, we ought for seven years back to have kept a force in every sea-port town in the U. S. But, thank God! the judgment of the people has rendered it unnecessary. Therefore, as in time of peace, I shall never vote for increasing our military force, so in time of war I shall not vote against it.
Mr. Nicholas. I hope the bill will not be postponed. I am one of those who believe that the present peace establishment is not competent to its intended purpose. In saying this, I hope I shall not subject myself to the imputation of wishing to erect such a standing army as may in any event be used to purposes hostile to our liberties. For what purpose do we need a peace establishment? Not only to garrison fortifications, but for the protection of our ports and harbors; we must have a force of some kind to preserve our towns from insult by a single vessel. This is the reason why a peace establishment is necessary in our seaport towns. What is the vast extent of our territory? To the westward and to the north and south more than 2000 miles. On various
parts of this frontier we keep a chain of garrisons. What is the situation of New-Orleans and the country around it, lately acquired to the U. S. for aught we know against the wishes of those who inhabit it? Its situation is dangerous, and it ought to be protected as it is extremely important to the U. S.—perhaps of greater importance than any point in the union. The Representatives on this floor from the great western waters are more numerous than from any eastern state. What was lately the situation of that country, at a time when there was an expectation of an attempt to wrest it from us? The greatest regular force that could then be collected, was four, five, or six hundred men. Shall we for a trifle risk the possession of that country so essential to the safety and interests of so large a portion of the union? I am not anxious to act on this bill; but I hope before we part hence, that something will be done. If we erect a war establishment, this will not be necessary; but if we do not, this bill or something similar will be absolutely necessary.
Mr. Troup. No gentleman in the House feels more anxiety on this subject than myself, or is more sincerely desirous of an increase of our military establishment, because no state in the union is more exposed than the state of Georgia. On the western frontier, she has to defend herself against a tribe of savages more numerous than any other: on the southern she is open and exposed to the invasion of a foreign power; on the sea she has to defend a coast of an hundred and sixty miles, lined with a chain of islands and filled with a negro population, liable to become a point of resort and attack to privateers and free-booters—besides many other exposed points. But, until the commander in chief of the army of the U. S. is acquitted of the charge against him and restored to the confidence of the people, I will not give my assent to any increase of our military establishment.
Mr. Clarke. Much has been said to day on the subject of the disposition of the people of the territory of Orleans to the U. States. I should hope that the gentlemen from Kentucky and Virginia have spoken more from report than from their own knowledge, and that they hold a better opinion of the disposition of the inhabitants of the territory. I should have wished to hear those gentlemen state in what instance the people of that territory, have shown a disposition unfavorable to the U. States. When the possession of the territory was transferred to the U. S. the people knew and prized the benefits which they would enjoy by an exchange. Since that time what evidence have you of their objection to it? Did not the militia of that territory volunteer their services against the Spanish forces some time ago in motion near them? Then why are they accused of disaffection? It is much better to hope than fear; and certainly not correct to reason from those fears. Altho' I am of opinion that no district in the union is more attached than that to the general interests of the country, still I am of opinion, considering the peculiar situation of that country, exposed on all sides, that an additional force is necessary there. In 1806 a force of 2000 men was brought to our very doors before we knew of its being on the way, or even of its being in existence. On the other side of us is the province of West Florida, where there are about 1800 men. When the troops moved from Orleans to repel expected invasion to the westward, we were left as well as I recollect, with but a single company. I wish the country to be so protected as to guard as well against the incursions of Indians as against any other hostile attempt; at the same time I will boldly state, that no part of the Union is more attached to the general government, and that nothing to the contrary can be alleged against them.
Mr. Findley. If gentlemen will turn their attention seriously to the situation of our very extensive frontier, and consider how thinly settled it is, not only in the new states and territories, but in a great extent of some of the old states, they will probably think with me that an increase of the peace establishment is necessary, both to give security and confidence, especially in this time of alarm. That the alarm is considerable, and danger apparent, I am confident. I last night received information that the assembly of Pennsylvania, now sitting, have a bill before them for raising a force for the defence of their frontier, and wish to be informed if Congress would propose an adequate force for that purpose before their bill passes into a law. This is a proof that that state is alarmed. The north west counties of that state, on the account of the great amount of military and company land unsettled, is thinly settled, and those settlements at a distance from each other; consequently their militia are not sufficient for their defence. The Indians west of the Lakes, have in the former Indian war usually crossed the Lake Erie in their canoes, and spread aasty destruction; and before the
alarm was spread, retreated to their canoes, and escaped from pursuit. The settlements are now much more extensively exposed.
The state of Pennsylvania is not the only one so exposed; part of the adjoining states are in the same situation. When once the Indians make a successful stroke, they triumph in their success, and the neighboring tribes catch the flame and join in the destructive depredations. It would be much cheaper to prevent than to repel such outrages; for this I appeal to experience. If the states and territories are obliged to provide for their own defence they will call on Congress to pay it. The government did so in the late Indian war, Congress appropriated a gross sum, out of which the President paid the militia called out by the county lieutenants and the rangers ordered by the state the same pay as to the regular troops. The state, however in order to obtain good men, gave additional pay. It is for the House to consider, if the protection would not be more cheap and effectual by an increase of the permanent establishment than by each state and territory providing for their own protection in their own way, without concert. A comparative small force and expence will prevent the Indians from going to war and inspire the settlers with confidence, to what it would require to carry on an Indian war and restore lost confidence. Certainly the present movements and excitements among the numerous north western tribes give just cause of apprehension and call on us to be prepared without delay. Therefore I shall vote against the postponement of the bill and every other unnecessary delay.
After some further debate, in which Messrs. Lyon, Holland and Nelson took part, (and in which Mr. Lyon stated his belief that our situation is perilous, and that he should vote for every thing which looked like defence) the question on postponement was decided in the negative—67 to 40.
On motion of Mr. Dana, the committee of the whole was discharged from the further consideration of the bill, and it was referred to a select committee.
Mr. Dawson reported a bill authorising the raising an additional army; and, a bill to authorise the President to raise a provisional army. [Both these bills are blank as to the number or amount of force to be raised.]
These bills were twice read and referred to a committee of the whole on Monday next.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 28. The House met. Mr. Southard. The melancholy duty devolves upon me to announce to the House the death of my colleague, Mr. EZRA DARBY, late a member of this House, from New Jersey.
On motion of Mr. Holmes, Resolved unanimously, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of Ezra Darby, Esq. late a Representative from the state of New Jersey.
Messrs. Southard, Masters, Porter, Holmes, Newbold, and Lambert form the committee.
On motion of Mr. Blount, Resolved unanimously, That the members of this House will testify their respect for the memory of Ezra Darby, Esq. late a member of their body, by wearing crape on their left arm for one month.
On motion of Mr. Holmes, Resolved unanimously, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of Ezra Darby, Esq. on to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Nicholas, Resolved unanimously, That a message be sent to the Senate to notify them of the death of Ezra Darby, Esq. late a member of this House, and that his funeral will take place to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
Mr. Helms. In order to give time to make preparations for the last offices to our friend, I move that the House now adjourn.—Agreed, mem. con. and the House adjourned at about half past 11 o'clock.
WASHINGTON CITY. FRIDAY, JANUARY 29.
DIED —In this City, about four o'clock yesterday morning, of a consumptive complaint, the Hon. EZRA DARBY, Member of the House of Representatives from the state of New-Jersey, in the fortieth year of his age.
Both in his public and private walks, Mr. Darby was an ornament to society. He was a true patriot, a real philanthropist, a tender husband, a kind neighbor, a faithful friend.—But more than all these, he was a sincere christian. He firmly believed in the doctrine of the gospel, and for several years was a public professor of the religion of Jesus Christ, which proved the sweetest consolation of his declining moments. Malignity could not impeach his character, nor death blast his hopes. He sleeps in Jesus, and shall awake in his likeness. He has left a tender consort, and a numerous train of friends and relatives to lament his loss.
The subject, now under the consideration of the House of Representatives, relative to the classification of the Militia, is indisputably one of the first importance that can be discussed
under a government whose structure is republican. Having invariably viewed the principle of a select corps as alone calculated to give the militia that energy that shall supercede the necessity of a large standing army, we are happy to find the advocates of this feature coming out with those arguments which we think cannot be dispassionately weighed without proving irresistible—Several days have already been given to the discussion, and there is every probability that many more will be consumed previously to a final decision.
There are, in our opinion, three great results which will flow from the adoption of this principle, an economy of treasure; an economy of blood; and an almost certain preservation of liberty.
There can be no doubt of the practicability of rendering a select militia corps so respectable as greatly, if not altogether, to supercede a resort to a large standing army; certainly so far to diminish the quantum of standing force as to lessen the expence that would otherwise be incurred, and still more to diminish the danger to be apprehended from it.
Such is the correct jealousy in the U. States of a standing army that it may be assumed as certain that it will not, in times of peace, be tolerated to any considerable extent—These, then, will be the seasons, in which schemes of treason and rebellion will be organised, unless there constantly exist some efficient power, strong enough to crush them, before they shall have attained a dangerous maturity—For, however comparatively patriotic the citizens of the U. States are, every one knows the magical effect of success, and the consequent danger of suffering any such efforts to be crowned with the eclat of triumph. A select militia, ready, at a moment's warning to crush treason or rebellion, and so organized as to leave no hope of impunity, will be the only effectual antidote. Had such a militia existed Burr would never have dreamt of success.
If the effects of such a system be to avert the causes of war, internal or external, its influence, in a pecuniary point of light, will at once be perceived to be immense. In a time of peace our military establishment costs a million; in a time of war, it would cost ten or twenty times as much.
The economy of the blood of our citizens would be still greater, and more important, not only by preventing the necessity of a recurrence to arms, but likewise in carrying into the field, in case of such necessity, men enured to arms, fully equipped and well disciplined, who would consequently be able to make a better stand against the enemy.
But the strongest argument, in our opinion, in favor of this feature, is the mound it will raise round our republican institutions. By superseding in common times the necessity of a resort to any considerable standing force, it will save the community from the contamination which a large permanent establishment produces even in the purest state of society; and, in case of the necessity of such a resort, the danger of a standing army usurping or awing the civil power will be completely averted, by the existence of a patriotic body of citizen soldiers whose swords would instantly be drawn on the assailants.
The Senate of Virginia has rejected by 13 votes to 6, the proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States, concerning the Federal judiciary.
From the Richmond Enquirer of January 23d.
LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS. About 1 o'clock on Thursday, the following ticket was circulated among the members of the Assembly:
Those members of the General Assembly, of Virginia, who are friendly to the election of JAMES MADISON, to the office of President of the United States, and they only, are requested to attend this Evening, at six o'clock, at the Bell-Tavern, in order to make arrangements for effecting that object.
Thursday, 21st Jan. 1808. About 4 o'clock, Mr. Semple rose in his place in the House of Delegates, and notified that a meeting of the members of the Assembly would be held at the Capitol for the purpose of forming an electoral ticket, to which all the members of the Legislature were invited. After some animadversions from Mr. J. H. Smith (of King and Queen,) Mr. Gholston moved an adjournment, which was lost. An adjournment was then moved by Mr. Smyth (of Wythe) which was carried.
At 6 o'clock, the meeting at the Bell commenced. Mr. Barbour nominated Robert Taylor (Speaker of the Senate,) as Chairman of the meeting; which was unanimously agreed to.—Mr. B. then nominated Thomas Ritchie, as Secretary to the meeting, which was agreed to without opposition.
It was then moved and carried, that the Senatorial districts and the counties, should be respectively called over, for the purpose of ascertaining what and how many Senators and Delegates were present. The following is the
list of those who attended as the friends of JAMES MADISON.
Here follows the names of eight Senators, and one hundred and fifteen Delegates.
Mr. Barbour then moved that the law should be read, regulating the Electoral districts, for the purpose of nominating Electors; which was agreed to. Nominations were then made principally by the Senators and Delegates from each district respectively. The following ticket was then formed:
Joseph Godwin, Benjamin Harrison, George Dillard, Dr. R. Field, Col. Thomas Reed, Joseph Eggleston, Hugh Nelson, Col. George Penn, Philip Norborne Nicholas, Judge Spencer Roane, John Roane Robert Taylor, Gustavus B. Horner, Robert Nelson, Mann Page, Richard Barnes, John T. Brooke, Judge Hugh Holmes, Osborne Sprigg, James Allen, Judge Archibald Stuart, Col. Alexander Smyth, Gen. John Preston, & William McKinley.
On motion, a permanent corresponding committee of five, to reside at this city, was nominated and appointed, consisting of the following gentlemen: Dr. Wm. Foushee, sen. Peyton Randolph, Samuel Pleasants, Thomas Ritchie, and Jarvis Storrs.
On motion a corresponding committee of three was appointed for each county.
Mr. Barbour then moved, that the Secretary should keep open a list for the insertion of such members names as had not attended this meeting—Agreed.
The meeting then adjourned.—And never have we seen one which exhibited more concord, unanimity, good order & good humor.
The following absentees have since directed their names to be added to the original list: Col. Selden and Gen. Pegram of the Senate; and Messrs. Lemuel Riddick, (of Nansemond) and John Hill, (of King William) have since been added to the list. Of these gentlemen, Gen. P. attended at the Capitol and was one of the 10 mentioned in the following paragraph.
We understand that a meeting was held at the Capitol, when Gen. Hungerford, of Westmoreland, was appointed Chairman, and Mr. T. Hansford Secretary. On a division, it was found that 57 were in favor of Mr. Monroe, and 10 of Mr. Madison. The meeting adjourned (with out forming an Electoral ticket) until last evening. On last evening, the weather was rainy, and the meeting adjourned until this evening.—We have not been able to obtain a correct list of the names of those who attended at the Capitol on Thursday evening.
New York, Jan. 22. We are authorised by some of the friends of general Moreau, to state, that the rumors which have been published respecting the object of his journey to New Orleans, are altogether unfounded. It is to be hoped that the public mind will not receive any unjust or improper prejudice, from the groundless rumors of the day.
Chillicothe, Jan. 11.—Neither of the persons recognized to appear here before the circuit court, by the chief justice of the U. S. in Sept. last, have yet made their appearance.
NOTICE. A MEETING of the UNITED STATES MILITARY PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY will be held at the first apartment on the right hand in the War Office, on Saturday the 30th instant, at half past six, P. M. The chair will be taken at 7 precisely. Should any of the individual notices miscarry the members are requested to attribute the failure to accident, and attend notwithstanding. Commissioned officers of the army, marine corps and navy, whether members or not, are also requested to attend.
JONA. WILLIAMS, President. January 26—2t
In pursuance of a deed of trust, dated on the 17th day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and three, from Isadore Harday, of Prince George's county, Maryland, to John Francis Hardey, will be exposed to Public Sale, on the premises, on Tuesday the first day of March next, if fair, and if not, the first fair day thereafter.
ALL those two Tracts or Parts of Tracts or Parcels of Land, lying and being in Prince George's county, called Gardinor's Meadows and Tyler's Advantage , containing 330 acres. These lands are encumbered with the right of dower, and will be sold for cash.
The above tracts of land are situated about 5 miles from Piscataway, in Prince George's county, and are tolerably well improved. A more minute description is deemed unnecessary, as those who wish to purchase will view the premises, either on or before the day of sale.
RICHARD B. GARDINOR, Admin'r of John F. Hardey. January 29—Mar.
A CARD. MR. GENERES has the honor to remind his friends and the Public that his BALL will be on Monday next, (if fair) and to be continued on the same day every week, at Mr. Stelle's No. 1.
Mr. G. gives lessons at the same place at 11 o'clock in the morning. January 29—3t

CASE ON JOHN SMITH.
SENATE—January 20, 1808.
Mr. Pope called up for consideration the resolution, offered by him some days since, which, as amended at his instance, was read as follows:
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate do issue a subpoena [in the original resolution subpoena] in the usual form, to cause to be summoned to appear before the Senate, on the first day in March next, Elias Glover and William McFarland, then and there to give testimony in the case of John Smith, a Senator from the state of Ohio, regarding his alleged participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr.
Mr. Pope said, if there was no opposition to its adoption, he should be averse to trespassing on the time of the Senate; but if there were objections to it he should think it his duty to assign the reasons that induced him to offer it.
Mr. Adams said he certainly had some objections to its adoption. In the first place it imposed a duty on the Secretary which he would find it difficult, if not impracticable for him to discharge. It required a subpoena to be issued in the "usual form." What form? Mr. A. questioned whether this would not be the first subpoena ever issued by him. If it were meant that it should be in the usual form prescribed in a court of law, Mr. Adams doubted whether the power to issue it resided in the Senate. The process of a court was issued under law, and under a penalty attached to non-attendance. Should a witness refuse to attend he was liable to further process to coerce his attendance; and the same law likewise provided that witnesses thus summoned should be compensated. Mr. A. said he knew of no such power inherent in the Senate. In cases of impeachment, it was true, certain processes had been issued in the nature of subpoenas; but actual subpoenas had never been issued. A summons had been issued, but not under any penalty for non-attendance, and certainly, no process of attachment had ever been issued by the Senate to enforce the attendance of witnesses.
Besides if one witness is summoned, the Senate may be called upon to summon an hundred. And suppose the witnesses summoned shall not attend. Have you not, by summoning them, acknowledged their materiality? And might not their non-attendance be a ground for a continuance. Suppose a party, for the purpose of producing this effect, wishes a witness not to attend; and he summon him, and he does not attend; where will the delay end?
Further, the Constitution says no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but under an appropriation made by law, which requires the concurrence of the two Houses. What assurance have we that the other branch of the legislature will authorise the compensation of witnesses? Have we not in the case of an impeachment been for two years in collision with the other House on the compensation of witnesses?
Mr. A. concluded by observing that he believed the course of proceedings in the Senate were such, that they must take such testimony as they could get, and rest satisfied with collecting it by the best means in their power.
Mr. Pope said he was not a little surprised at the arguments adduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts. He did not care for the mere words of the proposition he had submitted, or whether the term subpoena were retained, or stricken out; it was the principle only of the resolution which he regarded. Mr. P. said he must acknowledge that, on this subject, he was so unfortunate as to entertain ideas which were considered in the Senate as of a peculiar character, although sanctioned by the usage of ages. Having been recently translated from the bar to the Senate, he might, perhaps, have been mistaken in his opinion of the course most proper to be pursued on this occasion, and have considered the Senate as too much under the influence of rules of law. But he must say, that whatever errors might have tinged his first impressions, he still viewed the Senate as bound by the rules of equity and justice.
What was the object sought for in this case? To ascertain whether John Smith is guilty of a certain criminal conduct. [Mr. P. here read the resolution offered by the select committee for expelling Mr. Smith.] Is it not evident then, said Mr. P. that we are now sitting to try and determine whether Mr. Smith has been guilty of this criminal conduct? And ought we not, in so doing, to observe the rules best calculated to ascertain the truth? What then are the best means for attaining this end? Indisputably, by having the witnesses brought to our bar, who can furnish
important information. I ask every member whether his mind will not be best satisfied by the presence of the witnesses, which will afford the fullest means of obtaining a correct statement of facts. Are not the benefits of the cross examination of witnesses acknowledged by every man in the least conversant with courts of justice? And is not this invariably considered as the right of the accused? A right not derived from any rule of strict law, but from the principles of natural justice.
I am equally, said Mr. Pope, surprised at the doubts expressed of our power to summon witnesses. If we have a right to enquire into the conduct of a Senator, we have necessarily a right to every incidental power essential to the making the enquiry. Where a power is given by the Constitution to do a particular thing, I have always deemed it a sound construction that by necessary implication every incidental power is given which is necessary to carry the main power into full effect. But it is said, we have no fund out of which to compensate witnesses, and that the concurrence of the other House must be obtained before they can be indemnified. But are we, in the discharge of an important duty, involving the dearest interests of an individual, to act on the idea that the other House will not concur in providing for the expenses necessarily attendant upon it. The case of the impeachment of Chase has been instanced; and what is that case? In that case process was issued for witnesses to ascertain certain facts; and I ask whether previously to the issue of process, any law was passed making provision for defraying the expenses either attendant on their service, or for compensating the witnesses? This case therefore furnishes a strong argument against the conclusions of the gentleman from Massachusetts.
It may not be improper for me here to express my ideas of the powers of the Senate on the expulsion of its members. By the Constitution the Senate are empowered with the concurrence of two thirds to expel a member.
It follows that the Senate have on this point unlimited power, and, as incidental to its exercise, the power of receiving any kind of evidence that shall be satisfactory to them. In some cases they may expel a member for disorderly behavior passing under their own view; they may, in other cases, expel on common fame; and in others, on account of his being found guilty of some particular infamous crime; and some gentlemen seem to be of opinion, that a member may be expelled in consequence of having lost the confidence of his constituents. This resolution, however, is not bottomed on any of these circumstances, but on alleged particular criminal conduct. Is it not then proper to investigate whether Mr. S. has been guilty of this conduct or not? For recollect when this body pronounces on the alleged charges, they pronounce to the nation that Mr. Smith stands condemned of being guilty of treasonable conduct.
It may, perhaps, be contended that after the indictments found against Mr. Smith at Richmond, and after the rumor of his participation in the treasonable schemes against the peace of the union, the Senate ought on common fame to expel him. I am, however, of opinion that this is not the proper course, but that it is right to give him an opportunity of defending himself. One of the witnesses deemed material in this case is Mr. Glover. So far as we know any thing of him he possesses a fair character. But his deposition has been taken ex-parte. In Mr. Smith's answer it appears that Mr. McFarland was present at the conversation alluded to in that deposition. As then the testimony of Glover is admitted to be important, is it not proper to obtain the best evidence the nature of the case admits of. I confess that for one I feel some difficulty in pronouncing a man guilty on ex-parte evidence. Let us put the case home to ourselves. Suppose an individual should send a deposition from Kentucky charging me with an infamous crime. Would I not have reason to think the Senate guilty of injustice should they not give me an opportunity of cross examining the witness on whose evidence the charge was founded. But it is said the witnesses summoned may not attend. Well—if so, we shall have done every thing in our power to obtain the best evidence, and we shall then be compelled to give the evidence we have the weight which its ex-parte character deserves.
Again, it is said, if we summon Glover, Mr. Smith may call upon us to summon a hundred witnesses in his defence. This, however, will altogether rest in the discretion of the Senate. While I contend for the propriety of summoning these two wit-
nesses, let it not be understood that I am in favor of summoning witnesses to every collateral point. For while I deem it important to summon witnesses to establish the most important features of this case, I think depositions will answer as to the general character of the witnesses.
One other idea operates on my mind in favor of adopting this resolution. We have passed a resolution authorizing Mr. Smith to take such depositions as he pleases to assail the character of Mr. Glover. If Mr. G. is anxious to defend his character, he will no doubt feel disposed to travel here at his own expense. But is it not just that his expenses should be defrayed; and will it not be a piece of oppression to him not to grant this process?
Before I sit down I will suggest one other idea with regard to the power of the Senate in this case. Suppose a question of expulsion to arise dependant on record evidence, and a summons should go to the Clerk at Richmond to send certain records. How are we to pay the Clerk the expense of getting attested copies of these records? Out of what fund is it to be drawn? Is it not clear that we must depend on the concurrence of the other House in defraying it. So in the present case we ought to take it for granted that the other House will do what is reasonable and just.
Mr. Reed observed that Peter Taylor was a material witness in the present case, and he could see no reason for drawing a distinction between him and Glover and McFarland. All their characters were implicated. If one, therefore, was summoned, he thought they should all be summoned, and he should vote against the resolution unless Peter Taylor was likewise introduced into it.
Mr. Pope said, if the gentleman from Maryland wished the name of Peter Taylor introduced, he hoped he would make a motion to that effect. He had no objection to summon him likewise.
Mr. Giles remarked that the suggestion of the gentleman from Maryland furnished a strong argument against the original resolution. If the Senate adopted the principle contained in that resolution, there would be no end of the exercise of the power of summoning witnesses. Suppose, said Mr. Giles, after we have adopted this resolution, Mr. Smith comes forward and says he has many material witnesses, and that he considers it extremely hard that they should come on at his expense. If the Senate regarded the obligation of consistency, would they not be obliged to summon these witnesses on the part of Mr. Smith? With the gentleman from Kentucky, I foresee, said Mr. G. many inconveniences attending the present mode of procedure. But the question is whether we are in a capacity to remedy them. I believe we have already provided for the protection of witnesses, in the resolution adopted, as far as we can. I am satisfied that all we can do in this case is to take voluntary testimony. The committee thought, that under the peculiar circumstances of the case, if a witness were to be discredited, it would be proper to give him previous notice.
Mr. Giles said he was not ready at present to decide on the power of the Senate to summon a witness. But he would remark that in a similar case it had been thought necessary by the other House to have an express law passed. He alluded to the provision for summoning witnesses in the case of a contested election.
For these and various other considerations Mr. G. thought the course designated by the committee the best that could be pursued in this case.
Mr. Pope said that the inconveniences attending the course suggested by him, could not be so great as gentlemen imagined. In ordinary criminal cases the expenses of the accused were not paid by the public. So in this case, if Mr. Smith brought forward his witnesses, the Senate would not be bound to defray their expenses.
The claim of Mr. Smith as well as that of every person accused before this body, to have his expenses reimbursed, must depend on our justice and sound discretion. If we have power to enquire into any fact not coming within our own view, we certainly ought to pursue that course of investigation that is best calculated to produce a correct result. Mr. P. added that he had as one of the committee consented to propose a resolution for the expulsion of Mr. Smith, but was desirous of having the witnesses named in the resolution examined at the bar of this House before a final decision. He therefore hoped the resolution would be adopted, although from the general opposition which had been discovered to this mode of procedure, he had but little reason to expect it.
Mr. Franklin said a few words
against the resolution, which we heard too indistinctly to report.
Mr. Anderson said that much pains had been taken to assimilate the powers of the Senate in the present case to those exercised in the case of an impeachment. In cases of impeachment, it would, however, be recollected that it had invariably been found necessary to pass special rules, and among them one prescribing the form of a summons or subpoena. Nor did he believe that in the present instance they could adopt the resolution offered by the gentleman from Kentucky, without afterwards determining the form of the summons.
Under the proceedings of courts of justice particular writs were provided for particular cases. But this was not the case in the Senate. No rule was prescribed for the Secretary. If he then was not competent to fixing the form, was the President? No. As his power was altogether derivative, the Senate alone was competent.
But Mr. A. said he denied that the Senate in this case had any such power; for he could not consider them in such a case as acting in a judicial capacity. The Constitution says, "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide." In this case they are vested with judicial powers so far as relates to enforcing the attendance of members. But what is the next clause?
"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."
If in this case the Constitution meant to confer a judicial power to summon witnesses, it would have said so.
The question was then taken by Yeas and Nays on the resolution, which was disagreed to, as follows:
YEAS.—Messrs. Bayard, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Pickering, Pope, Smith of Md. White.—7.
NAYS.—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bradley, Ccondit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gilman, Gregg, Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Mathewson, Milledge, Mitchill, Parker, Reed, Robinson, Smith of New-York, Smith of Tennessee, Sumter, Turner.—23.
LINDSAY'S HOTEL.
The Subscriber has taken that well calculated house on the Capitol Hill. Late occupied by Mr. Frost formerly by Mr. Steele—Where he intends to open a Tavern on the 24th October. Those gentlemen who may favor him with their Custom may rely on every attention in the Power of the Public's devoted Servant.
GEO. W. LINDSAY. N.B.—EIGHT or TEN BOARDERS may be conveniently accommodated. October 19—tf.
THE services of a likely NEGRO BOY, turning 15 years of age, who has been accustomed to wait in the House, may be obtained for 6, 9, or 12 months, for the use of 135 dollars the same time, and the return of the money on the time fixed on will be secured. For particulars enquire of the Editor hereof. January 26—3t
This is to give Notice, THAT the subscriber hath obtained from the Orphans Court of Montgomery county in Maryland letters of Administration on the personal estate of Hillary L. Fisher, 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, at or before the 1st day of August next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate.
Given from under my hand and seal this 22nd day of January eighteen hundred and eight. ARTAXERXES FISHER, Administrator of Hillary L. Fisher. January 25—3t
A GREAT BARGAIN.
JOSEPH WHEATON Broker and Commission Merchant, has put into his hands for sale, at his office in F street near the Bank, a valuable property in the city of Washington, consisting of 646,453 square feet of city LOTS advantageously situated on the most prominent and valuable streets, and near the Navy Yard and Bridge, and to be had on the most reasonable terms of payment. This great bargain is recommended to gentlemen desirous of securing an early fortune, in this truly growing and flourishing city; the permanent residence and seat of the government of the United States. Other city property to be had—Houses and Lots—Enquire as above.
All kinds of Stocks bought and sold. Wanted to Purchase a few MILITARY LAND WARRANTS. Washington city, Dec. 11—tf
TWO ELEGANT FORTEPIANOES.
THE subscriber has just received two instruments made by Broadwood, of the first quality, and probably superior to any in this place. He has also all kinds of DRY & WET GOODS, among the latter peach brandy 6 years old, fourth proof, and best kind of HAMS—also, he offers a pair of PISTOLS, in mahogany case, said to shoot between two and three hundred yards, with a musket handle, original cost 100 dollars.
R. A. WAGLER, At his New Store, near the Centre Market. N. B. Instruments tuned on the shortest notice. December 25—tf.
PHILADELPHIA GRAND LOTTERY.
HIGHEST PRIZE 10,000 DOLLARS. Authorised by an act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania.
For the encouragement of USEFUL ARTS.
   CASH PRIZES.     1 Prize of 10,000 dollars 10,000   2 do. of 5,000 — 10,000   5 do. of 1,000 — 5,000   10 do. of 500 — 5,000   10 do. of 200 — 2,000   40 do. of 100 — 4,000   100 do. of 50 — 5,000   200 do. of 20 — 4,000   500 do. of 10 — 5,000   1,000 do. to consist of machines for opening off cast worsted & open wrought woollen clothing into wool, valued at 100 dollars each, (patent right included) 100,000   1,000 do. to consist of rights for manufacturing ornamental mouldings for dwelling houses & shipping, valued at 50 dollars each, 50,000   Dollars 200,000  
Subject to a deduction of 15 per cent. The most valuable cash prizes from 200 dollars and upwards, to be determined as follows:
   First drawn number on the first day's drawing, each Dolls. 200   First drawn number on the succeeding ten days, each 500   First drawn number on the succeeding five days, each 1,000   First drawn number on the succeeding two days, each 5,000   First drawn number on the last days' drawing 10,000  
This lottery will positively commence drawing on the 23d day of February next, and will be completed in 28 days at intervals, under the superintendence of gentlemen appointed by the Governor to whom approved security has been given, for the faithful drawing of the Lottery agreeably to the scheme. The numbering for the wheels has so far progressed, under the directions of Mr. James Oellers, as to justify fixing the day of drawing. The cash prizes will be paid at the bank in thirty days after the conclusion of the drawing, and the machines and composition rights delivered to order, on payment of the deduction as above. All prizes must be demanded in one year after the drawing, or they will be considered as forfeited after that time.
PICKERS at One Dollar and Fifty Cents each, to be had of James Oellers, No. 1, S. Third st. Leonard Keckhle, No. 79, N. Third street. Thomas Peters, No. 22, N. Second st. Thos. Bedwell, No. 178, N. Third st. Silas Wilson, N. 341, N. Front st. John Shaw No. 232, N. Second st. Charles Bitter, N. 11, Third st. Isaac Carpenter, No. 245, S. Second street. Daniel Miller, No. 427, N. Second st. And at the OFFICES of the Aurora and Freeman's Journal. The price of tickets will advance as the drawing progresses.
Note.—The purchaser or holder of every ticket, will be entitled to a valuable patent right for manufacturing Sago, Starch, and Hair Powder, from Potatoes, by a process entirely new, besides a chance of the many valuable cash prizes.
37 Tickets for Sale at J. MARCH'S Book-store, Georgetown, and at the Book-store of R. C. WRIGHTMAN Pennsylvania avenue, Washington city. January 8—tf
A BRICK HOUSE & LOT FOR SALE.
ON Monday the 8th day of February next, if fair, if not the next fair day, will be exposed to public sale on the premises at 4 o'clock in the evening, part of Lot No. 6, in Square No. 1 A, in this city, fronting 16 feet 9 inches on North G street, and running back 183 feet, with the improvements thereon, consisting of a convenient two story Brick House and enclosure. The Lot was leased to the former tenant for a term of 99 years at the rent of $5 dollars per annum, and the benefit of a covenant to purchase the fee simple thereof.
On default of payment of three years rent, the subscriber has been put in possession of the premises, according to the law in such cases provided; for which, and accruing expenses, it will be sold, subject to the conditions of the former case, and a new lease executed to the purchaser on complying with the terms of sale. Being in the vicinity of the public offices, and in a thick settled general neighborhood, it would be an eligible situation for a gentleman doing business in either of the departments. The premises may be viewed and the papers seen by applying to Thomas Hertly, prior to the day of sale.
JOSEPH NOURSE. Terms of sale, a negotiable note with an approved endorser, payable 60 days after date. January 18—tdos