The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-03-29 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXVII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, MARCH 29th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
Mr. GODDARD. Mr. Chairman, the bill on your table having been to long before the committee, and the principle of the first section, now under consideration, having been to fully and ably discussed, that I should content myself with a silent vote, if the subject was of less importance. To this course I should be more inclined, as gentlemen on the other side of the House, have already expressed an opinion that nothing new could be offered to the committee; and manifested an uneasiness, that the debate should be further protracted.
But, Sir, the man who deems this subject as important as I do, as one, involving the dearest and best interests of our common country, will seek rather for an apology for silence, than for speaking.
Before I enter upon a distinct consideration of the two questions, involved in this discussion, I hope the committee will pardon me, for advertising to the history of this bill, in this House. When the bill first came from the Senate, a motion was made, to refer it to a select committee, which had been appointed in this House, on the subject of the judiciary system of the United States. That motion I then supported, with an anxious hope, that it might prevail. The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) being Chairman, and myself a member of that committee, I felt extremely loquacious there to meet, to lay aside all party feelings or prejudices; to banish all considerations, when or how, the act now proposed to be repealed, was passed; to confine ourselves to the enquiry whether the existing system does not afford to the citizens of the United States, a fairer chance to obtain prompt and speedy justice in their courts, than the former system, now proposed to be revived. But, Sir, the chairman of that committee, then told us, that a great constitutional question had been raised; that such questions were improper for the consideration of select committees; that a fortunate period had arrived for its discussion; that it was proper to be considered, only in committee of the whole; and that it must be decided.
On a subsequent occasion, when a motion was made to postpone the consideration of this bill, to a future day, the solicitude which I had felt, to avoid an unnecessary decision, of the fatal question was revived; and dormant hopes returned fortified by petitions from respectable sources, informing us, that the present organization of the courts, in one circuit at least, was not only superior to the old system, but absolutely necessary to the attainment of justice in that circuit. Animated with a hope, excited by those petitions; deeply impressed with a sense of the dangerous and deadly blow, which I then was, and still am, persuaded the repeal of this law will give to the constitution, I then expressed a wish, which, although it drew upon me from one gentleman, a charge of an intention to delay, and embarrass the business of the session, was the honest effusion of my heart, that an opportunity might still be given, to ascertain, whether the act proposed to be repealed, is not what its title imports, "an act for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States." That our enquiries might still be confined, exclusively to that question, and if the result of such enquiries should prove to us, that the courts as organized by the act now proposed to be repealed, were throughout the United States, what those petitions prove them to be, in the third circuit; an useless, a dangerous discussion, of the other question, might be avoided. We were then told, Sir, by another gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph) that a great constitutional question had been raised, raised let me add, by the gentlemen who support the bill, and that it must be decided. That gentleman then told us what that question was. Whether the judiciary is a co-ordinate or subordinate branch of our government? Defeated in both these attempts, we are at length brought to a
consideration of the important principles contained in the first section of the bill on your table.
After the repeated declarations of the two gentlemen from Virginia, that the great constitutional question must be decided, although in doing it, a judicial establishment may be abolished, which is necessary to the administration of justice, those who oppose the passage of the bill might be excused from directing any remarks to the question of expediency. Yet, Sir, left silence on that question should by some others, be construed into an admission, that the new system, is not preferable to the old, now to be restored, I will first take the liberty to submit a few remarks on that question.
I am induced to believe, that there must exist between the several gentlemen from Virginia, who have spoken on this subject, and myself, some radical difference of opinion, as to what is a due administration of justice, in courts of law. One gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Thompson) expressed his astonishment, at what he was pleased to call, this immense establishment. To prove its inutility, he declared, that he came from a state where justice was 'truly and speedily' administered, and produced to the committee a document to show, that there were now pending before a court in that State, in which only one old man sat as judge, no less, than two thousand, six hundred, and twenty seven causes, undecided!
On a former occasion, which has been alluded to, I took the liberty to suggest as a reason for confining ourselves to an enquiry into the expediency of the measure only, that the organization of the courts as it now exists, was calculated to carry justice home to every man's door; another gentleman from Virginia, declared, that to be the very reason why he would vote for a repeal of the law, intimating that we had too much federal justice. I must believe, that those gentlemen take as the basis of their opinions, the position, that suits as law are evils in community, and infer, that the organization of courts, which is best calculated to deter citizens from applying to them, is the best. Hold out to the citizens a prospect of an endless continuance of the evil, and they will not involve themselves in it. For, Sir, what prospect of justice, can that fair or promise himself, who sees that 2627 causes, which have been accumulating for ten or twelve years, must be decided, by one venerable old man, before his can be attended to?
This administration of justice may suit the state of society in Virginia; but it is not such as the people of the United States meant to provide for themselves, under that happy form of government, which they have adopted. In looking into the sixth article of the amendments to the constitution, which have been adopted by the people, I find this expression of the public will. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, &c."
If, Sir, the old system is to be revived, what, let me ask, will be the condition of persons accused of crimes? And who may not be accused? It is acknowledged by those who advocate the repeal, that under that system, owing to the vast distance which judges were obliged to travel, the rising of rivers, impassable roads, and various inevitable accidents, judges could not, and frequently did not, arrive in time to hold a court. The same things, owing to the same causes, will happen hereafter. What will be the consequence? Persons accused of crimes, and confined in your gaols, to wait their trials, must continue perhaps in the confinement of a dungeon, six months longer, before they can have an opportunity of having their guilt or innocence, ascertained before a court of law. What under this system becomes of the right of the accused to a speedy trial, sacredly guaranteed to him by the constitution? If innocent you punish him. If guilty, you inflict a double punishment, one before and one after conviction. This consideration alone in a free country, ought to outweigh all arguments, arising from the trifling additional expence, to which we are subject, by the act proposed to be repealed. But, however important, the speedy administration of justice, in criminal prosecutions, that alone was not all which the citizens intended to secure to themselves when they adopted this constitution. The speedy administration of justice, in civil actions, was then deemed important.
The convention of the state of Virginia, when this constitution was adopted, proposed certain amendments to it, and among others a bill of rights. In that
bill of rights I find the 12th article expressed in this manner: "That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy, by recourse to the laws, for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay; and that all establishments or regulations, contravening these rights, are oppressive and unjust." The convention of North-Carolina, copying after Virginia, adopted precisely the same amendments. Both these states then thought that all establishments or regulations, contravening the right, of obtaining justice promptly and without delay, were oppressive and unjust. Those amendments were proposed to the constitution of the United States, and regarded the attainment of justice in the courts of the U. States. Those states were not then afraid of a too prompt administration of federal justice. Now, a system which has confessedly been formed to prevent courts being holden, and to postpone sittings from term to term, without trial, and which from the very nature of its organization, will often produce that effect, is to be restored, and one which all agree is calculated to ensure a speedy trial, is to be abolished.
I am not disposed to dwell long upon this subject, not having been a member of this house when the act now to be repealed passed. Sir, when I heard the objections to the old system, and the advantages of the new one, so fully stated by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) when I found that the plan of separating entirely the supreme from the circuit courts originated as early as the year 1790, and was then recommended to Congress, by the then attorney general, Mr. Randolph, as appears by the report read yesterday, by the gentleman from North-Carolina (Mr. Huger).—When that gentleman has truly observed, that the document before us contains only the business done by the judges of the supreme and district courts in the circuit courts, and not the business of their own particular courts also. When I reflect on the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court, and the extreme absurdity of subjecting, in another place, the determination of the same men to the revision of themselves; might I not reasonably indulge the hope, that gentlemen must have been satisfied that the judicial establishment, as it now exists, does furnish to the citizens a much fairer chance for the attainment of justice than the old one, and that they would have suffered the constitutional question to have slept for the present?
But, Sir, we are compelled to consider whether the bill on your table can pass without a violation of the constitution. Before other considerations are attended to, I hope I may be permitted to present to the committee one argument, derived from the progress of the bill itself.
A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) told us some days past, that on this subject the constitution speaks a plain and intelligible language. Let me enquire where gentlemen have found this plain and intelligible language.
One gentleman taking for granted the position to be proved, and reasoning ab inconvenienti , has found it in the evil consequences, resulting from establishing a different doctrine "an army of unimpeachable judges with salaries and without offices!"
Another has found it in a distinction between the supreme and inferior courts, derived from the words, "may" and "shall."—Another, in the words "from time to time."
Another in that clause of the constitution which authorizes Congress to establish tribunals inferior to the supreme court, supplying the word, "abolish" omitted by the convention which framed the instrument.
Another in a discovery that misbehaviour is no crime in a judge for which he can be impeached; and therefore, the legislature must, ex necessitate rei , possess the power of removing judges from office.
Another has found this language in the will of the people , not literally expressed in the written constitution, but in their elections, in a change of rulers; believing, I presume, that the vox populi is vox Dei , and that human must yield to divine laws and constitutions.
Another in the tyranny which will be established, if you suffer the judges to rest the laws by the constitution.
Another in the words "to promote the general welfare," in the preamble to the constitution.
Another in the exposition of the word "hold," connected with that clause of the constitution which authorises the President to grant commissions.
And last of all, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. R.) abandoning all these, has found it in the " quo animo ," as he expressed it, with which you give your vote.—Erecting in every man's mind a tribunal before which, to test the constitutionality of measures.—The doctrine is, believe that you do not violate the constitution, and it is not violated! This last position, whatever are its merits, has not novelty to recommend it. "As a man thinketh so is he," has been taken for the basis of many false speculations before this time.—Instead of finding this plain language in any one part of the constitution, ought not the various grounds which have been taken by the friends of the bill to teach gentlemen to distrust the soundness itself of the doctrine which they wish to support? Shall I be told in answer to this, that those who oppose the bill have taken grounds as various in their opposition? No, Sir, we uniformly grounded our arguments on two plain and unequivocal sentences in the constitution. "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." Those who oppose, are indeed obliged to follow those who support the bill, in their devious course, and find arguments to answer the constructions by which these words, which are truly plain and intelligible, are attempted to be done away. But having been apprised by the gentleman from Virginia, that the great constitutional question to be decided is, whether the judiciary is a co-ordinate or a subordinate branch of our government; and whether it is competent for the courts to decide upon the constitutionality of laws? And this bill having been brought forward at a period which gentlemen are pleased to call fortunate, for that purpose, I hope I shall be excused for requesting the attention of the committee for a few moments to this question. One gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) having said that he was not disposed to contend about the terms co-ordinate and subordinate, I am willing to substitute others. Is the judiciary a distinct and independent branch of the government, ordained and established by the constitution as such? In examining this question I may be permitted to enquire, whether it is competent for the judges to pronounce on the constitutionality of your laws? One gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) seemed disposed to wave this enquiry, probably in consequence of the sentiments of a different kind, avowed by his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) yet it deserves to be considered; and that gentleman could not suffer it to pass in silence, but charged a claim of such power to the judges as one of their crimes.
Altho' proving this does not, I admit, prove that the judges of your courts are by the constitution rendered independent of the legislative power; yet it furnishes a strong reason for giving to that instrument, if it will bear it, such a construction as will make them so. Judges dependant on the legislature for their continuance in office; for the continuance of their offices; or for a continuance of their salary, cannot be expected to decide against the wishes of those on whom they depend. Gentlemen ask where we find in the constitution a power given to the judges, to decide against the constitutionality of laws? I answer in the sixth article, these words, "This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." The judges are not only sworn to support the constitution, but their oath of office binds them to judge "agreeably to the constitution and the laws." The expression supreme law of the land, imports inferior and subordinate laws. What are those laws unless acts of Congress? The expression respecting laws made pursuant to the constitution, necessarily implies, that laws may be made, which will not be pursuant to that instrument. Such are not the supreme law of the land. They are not law. Shall not the judges, when called upon to decide, if in their opinion a bill should be passed by Congress against the constitution which assumes the form of a law, declare it, I will not say null & void , if gentlemen dislike those terms, but to be no law ? Not being made pursuant to the powers delegated to Congress, by the constitution. In the case of Vanhorne vs. Dorrance , decided in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania, reported in Dallas's Reports, judge Paterson is made to say—"What is a constitution? It is the form of government delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first
principles of fundamental laws are established. The constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life giving principle, and the death doing stroke, must proceed from the same hand. What are legislatures? Creatures of the constitution; they owe their existence to the constitution; they derive their power from the constitution; it is their commission; and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The constitution is the work and will of the people themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the legislature, in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the creator, and the other of the creature. The constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, the constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive, and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this, there can be no doubt, that every act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is absolutely void." In another part of the same case, the same learned judge speaking of an act of the legislature of Pennsylvania, upon the constitutionality of which he was then deciding says, "If this be the legislation of a republican government, in which the preservation of private property is made sacred by the constitution, I ask, wherein it differs from the mandate of an Asiatic Prince? Omnipotence in legislation is despotism. According to this doctrine we have nothing that we can call our own, or are sure of for a moment; we are all tenants at will, and hold our property at the mere pleasure of the legislature. Wretched situation! Precautions to secure it, and call ourselves free!" Before I lay aside this case I will take the liberty to read the remarks of the same judge respecting tribunals of justice. "The rights of private property are regulated, protected and governed by general known and established laws; and decided upon by general, known and established tribunals; laws and tribunals not made and created on an instant exigency, or on an urgent emergency, to serve a present turn, or the interest of a moment. Their operation and influence, are equal and universal; they preside alike on all. Hence security, and safety, tranquility and peace. One man is not afraid of another, and no man afraid of the legislature." In another case reported in the same book, judge Iredell, speaking of Congress says, "Upon this authority, there is, that I know, but one limit; that is, that they shall not exceed their authority: if they do, I have no hesitation to say, that an act to that effect would be utterly void, because it would be inconsistent with the constitution, which is a fundamental law, paramount to all others which we are not only bound to consult, but sworn to observe." In the case of Bull and wife against Calder and wife , as well as in several other cases, the same doctrine is maintained by the judges of the supreme court. And, Sir, it is to this doctrine that we owe our liberty, which consists in security to our persons, our property, and reputation. And will the gentleman from Virginia impute the maintaining of this doctrine to the judges as a crime? Is this the question to be decided? Are we to shew our control over the courts; to repeal this law, and put down the judges? Let it be remembered, that in these decisions the judges were not claiming power, as the gentleman from Virginia has been pleased to express it, but solemnly deciding between citizen and citizen the rights of private property.—And let us arrogate as much wisdom as we please to ourselves, who, let me ask, are most competent to decide correctly, important questions arising under the constitution, our judges or our legislators? Legislatures will in violent times enact laws manifestly oppressive, unjust and unconstitutional, and that too, under the specious pretext of relieving the burdens of the people. Such laws it is the business of judges, elevated above the influence of party spirit, to control.—Let me mention an instance. Previous to the adoption of this constitution, and during the time of the paper money system of the state of Rhode Island, an act was passed by the legislature of that state, subjecting to a penalty, any person who should refuse that money, then in a very depreciated state, for articles offered for sale in market; and a new and summary

mode of prosecution and trial was provided. The money was offered to a butcher in market for his meat; it was refused. An action was brought for the penalty. And I now see in his place, an honorable member of this house, then a judge of the supreme court of that state, who concurred with the rest of the judges of that court, in declaring the law to be unconstitutional and void.
The consequence was, that the judges were summoned to appear immediately before the legislature, to answer for their conduct; and it was with the greatest difficulty, that the legislature were prevented from dismissing them instantly from office. I mention this to show, that such has been and such will be, the conduct of legislative bodies. Such ought always to be the conduct of judges, and this can with certainty be effected in no other way, than by rendering them independent of the legislature, subject only to removal by impeachment. But, Sir, I beg leave again to recur to the amendments which were proposed by certain States to the constitution, at the time of its adoption, to show what was the sense of those States, at that time, on the importance of the independence of the judiciary, to the liberties of the people of this country. In the declaration of rights proposed by the convention of the State of Virginia, I find the fifth article is in these words, "that the legislative, executive and judicial powers of government, should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating, the public burthen; they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections." Then, Sir, the doctrine of the responsibility of the judges to the will of the people, did not prevail in Virginia. It was not then thought necessary, that the judges should return to the mass of the people, to restrain them from oppression. The convention of the State of North-Carolina, recommended a bill of rights as an amendment to the constitution, containing precisely the same words. And to render the judges as independent as possible, the convention of each of those States, recommended also an amendment, that the salaries of the judges should neither be increased nor diminished, during their continuance in office. Who then can say that a limitation of the legislative power was not intended by those who adopted the constitution? And, Sir, it was intended by those who framed the constitution. Gentlemen admit, that the words in the first section art. 3, of the constitution, "The judges both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour; and shall at stated times, receive for their service a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office" were designed to secure the independence of the judges while in the exercise of their official duties, as long as the office continues. Let me ask gentlemen, if upon their construction that you may abolish the office, this end is really attained? In what consists the independence of a judge? It consists in having his mind elevated above the fear of any evil consequence, resulting to him from rendering upright and impartial judgments; in his being so situated as not to have his mind wrought upon, directly or indirectly, by any other considerations than those arising from the justice of the cause which he is about to decide. Considering the infirmities of human nature, the framers of the constitution supposed it necessary, in order to secure an administration entirely impartial, that the judge should know, that let him decide as he will, provided he acts honestly he shall not be deprived of his office, nor suffer a diminution of his salary. Here let me ask, what difference in effect there can be upon the mind of a judge, while in the administration of justice, to know that in consequence of the decision which he is about to make, his office will be taken from him, or he taken from his office? Will not the effect be precisely the same in the one case, as the other? In the other case the office and the judge are separated from each other. Upon the construction given to this part of the constitution, by the friends of the bill, the judge is not to be turned out of office, nor his salary diminished, left his independence should be impaired; and yet he is to cease to exercise judicial functions, and to cease to receive any salary, if he decides against the wishes of the legislature, and still be independent! If the constitution meant to secure the independence of the judges, while in office, let gentlemen apply to it, one rule of construction of instruments of writing; so construe "ut res magis valeat, quam pereat" and then let them ask themselves, if upon their construction, the end which the constitution is acknowledged to have had in view, is attained? But if the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) can avoid the force of the first part of the sentence, "the judge shall hold, &c.; by considering hold as implying tenure under the president, and not operating as a limitation upon legislative power; how does he avoid the second? "They shall at stated times,
receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished, &c." I am sensible it has been attempted, by saying, that compensation is given for services rendered, and if you deprive the judges of the power of rendering services, by abolishing their offices, the compensation ceases of course. But I apprehend you cannot entirely dispense with his services. If you abolish the court in which he ordinarily administers justice, he may still grant commissions of bankruptcy, issue judicial writs and perform various other services. To my mind, the plain language of the constitution is this. Congress may from time to time, as the exigencies of the country, arising from its increasing population, growing commerce, or other causes shall require, ordain and establish such inferior courts, as may be deemed necessary. In the exercise of this power, the constitution supposes, that a sound discretion will govern; that there will be no abuse of it; that as the country shall advance in population and wealth its situation may be such as to require more inferior courts, but never less; that when courts are once established, you may, if you please, alter, modify, change, or transfer jurisdiction, from one court to another. But whatever is done upon this subject, must always be done with a sacred regard to the inviolability of the judges, already in office. And if you will entirely change the organization of the courts, it can only be done, when the offices of the judges are vacant, or with reference to the happening of that event. You cannot totally divest a judge of all judicial authority, ordina- his salary, & thereby compel him to abandon his office, nor deprive him, both of office and salary. Upon any other construction, the provisions of the constitution intended to secure the independence of the judges are, not only inefficient, but absurd. The word hold itself, upon which the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) predicates his argument, supports this construction. It implies an inseparable connexion, between the person holding and the thing held, which can no more be dissolved in one way than in another. All means looking to that end, are alike forbidden.
A gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) has defined a court to be an institution for the administration of justice; and said that he could no more conceive of a court without a judge, than of a legislature without legislators. [Mr. B. explained. He said he was not responsible for the definition; he took it from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hemphill). He did not say without judges, but without offices.] Mr. Goddard proceeded. I am not able to recollect the force of the gentleman's argument, unless he meant to say that the abolition of a court necessarily put down a judge. The gentleman quoted the 27th section of the act of last session, which abolished circuit courts, as a precedent in point to justify the repeal of that law. But the abolition of a court does not necessarily imply that a judge is put out of office, or the office itself discontinued. Congress by law erects courts; give names to those courts, and create offices; but this done, justice cannot be administered in them, until afterwards by an act of the President, judges are appointed. The circuit courts, as organized before the act of the last session, were holden by judges of the supreme court, assisted by district judges. Abolishing circuit courts did not affect the judges of the supreme court, or the district judges; each remained independent judges, possessed of their proper offices. A name of the institution is nothing; and I very much question whether the name of the supreme court may not be changed. The constitution, it is true, has said that there shall be one supreme court; it implies that there shall be one court, supreme or superior to all others; but may it not be called by what name you please? But it has been said, upon the same principle that you can withdraw from a court a part of its jurisdiction; you may withdraw the whole, and leave a naked judge without any jurisdiction, enjoying a salary. This does not follow. As I have before remarked, a judge may exercise many judicial functions without a court to sit in; and I have also remarked, that the power to erect new tribunals from "time to time" was always to be exercised with sound discretion. The constitution does not go on the ground that it will be abused, that new courts will unnecessarily be erected. That power is not otherwise limited than by enjoining it upon the legislature, to do all which is done on this subject, with an eye to the independence of judges already in office.
To aid us, Sir, in our construction of the constitution of the United States, I beg leave to turn the attention of the committee, for a few moments, to some of the state constitutions. I believe we shall not only find in many of them, the principle of the independence of the judiciary admitted, but in some of them expressly, the doctrine for which I now contend. Some of the State constitutions existed in their present form, anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States. Some have been since amended. In the bill of rights prefixed to the constitution of New-Hampshire, are these words. "It is not only therefore the
best policy, but for the security of the rights of the people, that the judges should hold their offices, so long as they behave well." In the constitution of that state, under the head of the judiciary power are these expressions, "The general court are hereby empowered to make alterations in the power and jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, and general sessions of the peace respectively; or if they shall judge it necessary for the public good, to abolish those courts &c." Previous to the adoption of this constitution, which was but a revision of a former one, there existed in that state a supreme court, the judges of which as well as those of the inferior courts held their offices during good behaviour. The people of that state supposed it necessary, expressly to delegate to the legislature, the power of abolishing inferior courts, the judges of which held their offices during good behaviour, and for that purpose among others, amended their constitution. And, Sir, delegating to the legislature the power of abolishing inferior courts, clearly implies that the power of abolishing the supreme court is withheld. Can then the legislature of New-Hampshire, repeal the law organizing the supreme court of that state? Clearly not. In the bill of rights as well as in the constitution of Massachusetts the independence of judicial officers, is provided for. And in the act which relates to the executive power, I find these expressions "As the public good requires that the governor should not be under undue influence of any of the members of the general court, by a dependence on them for his support." Then follows a provision for an honorable salary to be provided for him, and also for the judges of the supreme court. I read this for the purpose of showing, that the public good requires that the governor should be elevated above an undue influence of the members of the general court, it much more requires, that judges should be above that influence. But, Sir, I will not detain the committee by adverting to all the state constitutions, in which the independence of the judiciary department is established; I will only notice the expressions in that of New-Jersey. "The judges of the supreme court shall continue in office for seven years." An act of the legislature of that state would be necessary to organize that court. Can a subsequent legislature repeal that act before the expiration of seven years? Can a judge be said to continue in office after the office is abolished? I presume not. The constitution is imperative, he shall continue in office . There the word hold implying tenure, is not used, and yet the principle is precisely the same as that adopted in the constitution of the United States. The difference consists only in the time for which the office is held. In New-Jersey the time is definite; in the constitution of the United States indefinite, until the happening of an event, the misbehaviour of a judge. In many of the state constitutions provision is made for the removal of the judges upon the joint application of both branches of the legislature to the executive. Having these constitutions and the statute of 12th and 13th William, which introduced that provision in England, before them, the framers of our constitution chose to discard it, and provide for the removal of judges only on impeachment of the House of Representatives, before the Senate, and a judgment of that body, in which two thirds must concur. Gentlemen admit, that in England the independence of the judges has ever been the pride and boast of that country. That it has tended to the preservation of the liberties of the people. But they say, upon our construction of the constitution of the United States, judges will be more independent than they are in England. Suppose it is admitted, what follows? Nothing but that the liberties of the people are better secured in this country than in that. From the nature and principles of the British government, there is no danger of the judges being removed but for misbehaviour. One branch of the legislature of that country being hereditary, the other elective. If the judges decide uprightly, but against the wishes of the popular branch, the other branch will not probably concur in a vote to remove them. If they decide uprightly, but against the wishes of the hereditary branch, the other will not probably concur in such a vote; and they can be removed only on the joint address of both branches. Our government being more free, and wholly elective, a mode which gives greater independence to the judges than that of a joint address is adopted. No joint vote of both branches of the legislature can, in no way , remove a judge or separate him from his office. A vote of the House of Representatives may impeach, a vote of the Senate, two thirds concurring, may remove.
Several gentlemen in discussing this subject, have gone very far from the question before us, in bringing into view matters foreign from the merits of the question. I shall not attempt to follow them. But, Sir, suffer me to notice for a moment, one charge, which is brought against the judges; They have attempted, say gentlemen, to introduce the common law into this country, and this gentlemen seem to consider as a crime. I had, indeed, believed that the people of
this country esteemed the common law as their privilege. In the 7th article of the amendments to the constitution, it is expressly recognized. "In all suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; & no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined, in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." The people of the state of Maryland esteemed it so important as to introduce a provision respecting it into their bill of rights; the third article of which declares "that the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law." But, Sir, I will not pursue this subject. Gentlemen have told us that they are honest; that they have the good of their country at heart; that elections in this country are to be confided in; the people will, by their votes, cure all the evils which may be introduced. Let the motives and views of gentlemen be ever so pure, I cannot but shudder at a principle which is calculated to prostrate at the feet of one department of the government, another department co-ordinate and independent with itself. And unless gentlemen can prove to me that there is something more than human in the American character, I cannot cease to fear the evils which will result from this measure. Ought not gentlemen, at the moment of the triumph of one party over another, to distrust themselves? The human mind is often influenced by motives which it does not acknowledge, even to itself. Hazael, when told that he would set fire to the strong holds of Israel, and commit other abominable crimes, exclaimed, "But what! Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?" But he went away and did the very things which he thus spurned at. I do not believe that gentlemen wish to introduce into this country, the horrid scenes which have lately passed in review before us in France. But they are too recent, and too horrible to be soon forgotten; too horrible indeed to be mentioned. Let gentlemen ask themselves if this measure does not look the same way? There was a time when the Britains in France were thought honest, virtuous and patriotic. They claimed from the people unlimited powers. Confiding in them, unlimited powers were given. Let gentlemen call to mind the time when in that country legislative, executive and judicial powers were exercised by the same persons; let them remember the scenes too dreadful to be repeated, which flowed from the concentration of all the powers of government in one branch; and let them ask themselves, if we have no reason to tremble at consequences which may result from the introduction of the same principle, by the passage of the bill on your table?
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF U. S.
THURSDAY, March 13, 1803.
INTERNAL TAXES.
(Debate continued)
Mr. Huger. Gentlemen may well be in favor of taking off this tax, who know that, after it is taken off, we are to bear the burthen of the day. The gentleman from New-Jersey lays carriages are necessaries of life in his state. This puts me in mind of the boy who pelted stones at the frog, and who, when called upon to say why he did so cruel a thing, said it is a very pleasant thing to me. No doubt it is a very pleasant thing to the gentleman from New-Jersey to get rid of this tax.
But it is impossible to imagine a tax more easy of collection or less oppressive.
Contrast the operation of the Internal and external duties upon the different states. Of the import Virginia pays about 800,000 dollars, while South-Carolina, a comparatively small state, pays about 804,000 dollars, that is, 4,000 dollars, more than the great state of Virginia.
Of the internal duties Virginia pays 134,000 dollars while South-Carolina pays only 23,000 dollars: and if these taxes are repealed South-Carolina is to console herself for being released from the payment of 23,000 dollars, while Virginia is released from the payment of 134,000 dollars.
The observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts respecting the clergy is extremely curious. I hope I respect the clergy as much as that gentleman, or any member on the floor. However the clergy may be treated in Massachusetts, in South-Carolina we support and pay them well, and we treat them as citizens. The very argument of the gentleman from that state they are exempted from all state taxes is an argument for taxing them by the United States.
The arguments of gentlemen are very strange. They say the repeal of these taxes has been talked of all over the continent, and because talked of, and expected, they must be repealed. What does this mean other than this? If you elect me, I will get rid of these taxes; and gentlemen now gravely get up, and assign this as a reason for their votes.
The next argument is not less curious. We are told that though a particular branch of the internal duties does not fall heavily, yet that if one be repealed, we must repeal the whole from the expense of collection. But if one of these taxes be wrong, why not repeal it, and let the others stand? I say, with the gentleman from Virginia, that if we cannot collect the tax on whiskey without a system of espionage odious to a free people, I have no objection to doing it away.
When, too, we call upon gentlemen, for particular information to enable us to determine the comparative merits of internal and external taxes, we are awed by the exhibition of a profound and philosophic style of silence. I conceive that when the time comes for a repeal of certain taxes, we ought to have statements in black and white; we ought to have chapter and verse; and I have always thought it best ever to shew our ways before we do away our means.
Though I shall vote against giving up the carriage tax, and other branches of the internal revenue, yet if these amendments do not succeed, I shall notwithstanding vote for the bill. For though I have strong doubts that the United States cannot do without these taxes I am one of the minority; I stand not on the vantage ground. Having therefore threw ineffectually to relieve my constituents from the burthen that is likely to be thrown upon them, I will vote for the bill, though I think gentlemen ought not to have attempted this thing till the last moment of the session, until the savings which are talked of, had clearly been exhibited.
Have these savings appeared? No. According to the report of the secretary of the Treasury not a cent can be spared. The secretary of the navy stated that his department required more than a million. And yet in the report of the committee of Ways and Means this sum is pared down, and 200,000 dollars taken from it without assigning any reason for the reduction. It is a fact then, that these taxes are to be demolished, and the funds of the Navy and Treasury Departments to be cut down. When then, though the resources are not over the demands for the year, gentlemen are inextremely bent on this act, I must say that in my opinion it is predicated on popularity. I do not say that the present administration are for destroying public credit, the army and navy. I hope in God it is not so. But gentlemen will recollect that they have been charged with these delinquies. I will ask if it would not be more prudent first to make savings, and at the next session, if admissible, to take off these taxes? But gentlemen are scarcely six months in the government, when they pursue measures, not to pay the public debt, but to destroy the means of paying it. I speak the more boldly on this point, as I have no interest in the funds. I am a mere planter.
The expense of collecting these taxes is implied on. But it has been shown that many, if not all the present offices may be done away, and the expense reduced to a level with the expense of collecting the imposts; and thus every reason for the repeal is done away. Do gentlemen, casting their eyes over the world, see the defenceless state of our trade? Do they see a large army in St. Domingo? Do they regard the report that we are about to change our neighbours, and have a great nation a long side of us? Do they not perceive that the peace in Europe is barely an armed neutrality? And yet do they imagine the golden age is come; and that this is the moment to alter our wary plan, to reduce our resources, and to leave every thing at six's and seven's?
I have heard no complaint of any of these taxes, except those on tillers. Let then the last be repealed or modified, and retain the rest. They yield about 240,000 dollars. Retain these, and take off the 8 cents upon salt, which produce 214,000 dollars; leaving 26,000 dollars for the collection. I will ask if the great bulk of the people will not be benefitted by this change.
Had not things taken their present course, I should not have called upon the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) to support me in my present proposition. But I recollect that at the time when the present duty on salt was laid that gentleman inveighed so eloquently against the measure, that he almost persuaded me to vote against it. Why then this change? Do not the people feel it as heavily now, as they did then?
The present state of trade ought to influence our decision on this subject. Our merchants are in a serious situation. I know, as a planter, that my produce stands untold, even at reduced prices, owing to the embarrassments of our merchants. The want of circulating coin will prevent the merchants from importing, and us from buying goods. It is possible that our commerce may not, but it is probable that it will decline. It ought to be recollected, that for some years past we have enjoyed the advantages of neutrality amidst belligerent nations. Hence our tonnage had greatly increased. It must now decline, and I cannot conceive that our external duties will be commensurate to the de-

When I was so strenuous against the imposition of that tax, either he or his friends offered to commute the whole into an annual tax for it. I am ready, under certain circumstances, to admit, to diminish that duty, but not with the views of gentlemen, who are not to be induced to favor of reducing the public burthens, as for throwing an odium upon other measures equally necessary, and in existing a shade of unpopularity upon this act. Why do I say so? Because when power was in their hands, they were not for reducing them at all. On the contrary, their system was to get all they could, and to keep all they got. They would not commute even the federal tax for any duty or tax. As it had been well said by a gentleman from Kentucky, now power has passed from gentlemen, they are willing to reduce the taxes, to take them entirely out of our hands, and instead of letting us apply them, they say let us do it, and let us use our power to do that, which is disagreeable to us, in the way that is most disagreeable to you. This, and nothing more or less, is the amount of the remarks of gentlemen.
After having experienced the benefits of the system of these gentlemen, we are now told they have made a great discovery in the mode of reducing the public expenses. Pity it was not made while those gentlemen were in power. So long as they enjoyed the power, the idea of reducing the public burthens never entered into their minds; at any rate we heard nothing of it if it did. But so soon as the nation had dismissed them from power, so soon as any disposition to that effect became inefficient, we hear the gentlemen loudly contending for a reduction.
When gentlemen say, they are not anxious for extending a system of executive patronage, we are willing to give them credit for what they say. But let us see what credit we are entitled to when we say the same thing. We have on this occasion, as I trust we shall on all occasions, that we do not take up their principles with their power; that on the contrary, we advance the same principles now, when in possession of power, that we did, when we had scarcely any prospect of getting into power.
Of all the articles of internal revenue, if any were retained, no doubt that upon stamps should be retained, as it is at once the most productive, and the least expensive in collection. And yet what do the gentlemen propose? To retain the tax upon carriages, that only yields the inconsiderable sum of 80,000 dollars, and give up that on stamps, which produces 240,000 dollars. Why? Because the latter falls on the merchants; and yet gentlemen say, in the same breath, the external duties fall on the consumer, and not on the merchant.
For my part, I am not to be deterred, by any attempt to render this measure unpopular, from persisting steadily that system which is congenial to the spirit of the constitution, viz. to throw back the internal taxes into the hands of the states, only to be used by this government on a national emergency. When this government was established, we were informed that these taxes were never to be laid but on such emergency. Yet the government had not been in operation more than two years, when they were seized, to rear that system of patronage, which, from the commencement of the government, has been so favourite a measure. It is not my purpose here to trace that system of patronage through its various modifications, which has been more happily done by my colleague on a late occasion. But it is my object to restore the constitution to its healthful state, by doing away these taxes; of which should we retain a part, however small, we might, on a mere change of men, see it soon ramified to the greatest extent.
Gentlemen tell us no saving has been shown to be made; but I think it has been clearly shown that a saving has already been made more than commensurate to the whole amount of these internal taxes. In addition to this sum, is the difference between the amount received and that which is payable, which is more than 100,000 dollars, for which the committee of Ways and Means have made no allowance. This fact will show the disposition of the committee not to insist upon items of small amount, though in the aggregate those items amount to near 200,000 dollars, which is one fifth of the whole sum of these taxes.
We are told this act is unwise, as the state of things abroad is perilous, and that we ought not to part with the sum of 650,000 dollars, because the revenue from imports may fail. Do gentlemen mean to say, that in such event we can rely on the sum of 650,000 dollars, for a defalcation in a revenue of 11 millions? If this argument means anything, it would dictate the organization of the system of internal taxation commensurate to the meeting of any defalcation that may accrue. Let us give them all they want. That defalcation may be 30, 60, or 100 per cent; and it follows that we ought to raise from the taxes 3, 6, or 10 millions. It is from the fact that this source is unequal to the supply of any great defalcation, that we are for giving it up.
I am sensible of having detained the committee longer than I might have intended or they may have wished; but from the situation in which I was placed as a member of the committee of ways and means, I felt it my duty to trouble them even at this late hour. Before, however, I sit down, I must say, that the committee have shown that a saving, at least equal to and probably much greater than the amount of the internal revenues, will be made. Estimating the contemplated reductions at the lowest rate, there will be saved in the appropriations for the army 400,000 dollars; for the navy 200,000 dollars. These will cover the internal taxes. The committee have laid nothing about the abolition of the mint, which will save 50,000 dollars; or of the judiciary; nor have they brought into view the large amount of custom-house bonds not yet collected.
But we are told that this repeal is to take place at the expense of the navy, and that the navy is an institution to which the people are attached. The people certainly have a right to decide, whether they will sell large sums in the building of seventy-fours, or small sums, that they may pay their debts.
The estimates on which the gentleman from South-Carolina relies, are not estimates made by the secretary of the navy for the present year, but for the last year, and the gentleman will find that the expenses of the present year, supposing that we keep up the squadron in the Mediterranean, will amount to a sum less by 500,000 dollars, than the expenses of the last year. Is the gentleman prepared to show the statement of the secretary of the treasury to be incorrect? Is he prepared to say, that we cannot keep up the amount for what he estimates it at? We have heretofore heard much of confidence in executive officers. I am not one of those who are for bestowing confidence, where it is not merited; but I have no hesitation to say, I will, until gentlemen show strong reasons for the contrary, give confidence to officers, whose character and whole offices depend on the fairness of their statements.
Mr. HUGGER explained. He said, he had not said, that South-Carolina consumed the whole that the imported, he knew the contrary. But he contended that South-Carolina, and other states on the sea board paid a larger share of the duties on imported articles than the interior parts of the union. Neither did he say, that the reduction in our tonnage would have any very great effect. He was aware of the difference between foreign and domestic tonnage. Yet certainly if the effect of a peace was the losing a large portion of our carrying trade, the amount of tonnage must sink.
[A motion was made to adjourn and loll.]
Mr. GRISWOLD. The question is whether we shall strike out carriages. On this limited motion I did not expect to have heard gentlemen go into a full examination of the merits of the whole internal revenue. Having, however, indulged themselves in the inquiry, it seems necessary to follow them, even though my remarks should fall in their application to the carriage tax. It is not true, as stated by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) that the clergy of New-England are paupers; they are not paupers.
Mr. BACON said he had stated no such thing.
Mr. GRISWOLD. They are not paupers, sir. They are able and willing to pay with cheerfulness their portion of the public burthens. It is not true that Connecticut does not pay her proportion of the carriage tax. The document shews that she does pay her proportion of it, though that proportion is not so high as that paid by Massachusetts. Gentlemen have made it needful to state the situation of the clergy of New-England, in order to remove the imputation against that order of men, and to state the proportion of the tax paid by us to prove that we are not particularly interested in the continuance of this tax.
We wish to retain it because we deem it necessary, because we deem it a realonable tax; and because it is one that is less expensive in collection, than other taxes.
We are persuaded, that if gentlemen will examine the documents on the table, they will find that though vast credit is due to the last administration, for the skill manifested by them in the establishment of the revenue; yet they will see that there is no certainty of its amount for the eight coming years being so productive as they seem to suppose. If they refer to the documents, they will find that for the three successive years of 1790, 1791 and 1792, the average product of imports, calculated on the present rate of duties, was 6,153,000 dollars; they will also find that for the six succeeding years, the average product was 8,350,000 dollars. Now, I think it is not safe to estimate the receipts for the eight coming years higher than those of these six years. It is to be observed that these six years included a period of war, which extended the value of our exports, rendered the consumer better able to pay, from the high price received for the productions of his labour; and increased the consumption of luxuries more than in time of peace. It will also be evident, that a variety of items which have gone to make up the aggregate of revenue, will, in time of peace fail. There are 86,000 dollars estimated on drawbacks, which arose from duties paid on imported articles afterwards exported from the U. S. & which will cease the moment the carrying trade ceases. Will any gentleman say, that in time of peace we shall continue to import articles for the consumption of Europe, the Spanish colonies, &c. This item from its nature is calculated to cease at the end of the war. It must cease.
Some duties must be reduced. Of
some the average product of the duties for the years 1790, 1791, and 1792 was 317,000 dollars; for the six succeeding years, it was 714,000 dollars. Do gentlemen think this amount will be kept up? During war your citizens are able to purchase. In peace the ability must decline.
The duty on sugar in three years has risen from 500,000 dollars to 903,000 dollars.
The duty on coffee has risen almost in the same proportion; and if it is not reduced, you will lose by its being smuggled; the temptation will be too strong to be resisted.
You cannot, therefore, calculate upon more than the average of the above six years. Indeed you cannot with safety calculate so high. The Secretary of the Treasury has grounded his calculations on the idea that the consumption of foreign articles will increase with our population. But I totally disagree with him. I will ask whether you will consume more than you can pay for? I will ask how you will be enabled to pay for more now in a time of peace than you were able to pay for formerly? Are the European markets, or those of the West-Indies increased? If not, it will follow that the consumers of your produce are not increased, though your productions are increased. And this state of things instead of increasing the consumption of foreign goods, will only tend to increase your manufactures.
Other circumstances too have arisen that have enabled us for some years past to pay for more goods than we can expect to be able to pay for hereafter; viz. the funding the national debt, and the selling a large amount of stock abroad. I hope we shall have no more national debts to fund.
It is not safe to rely upon a higher amount of duties than the average receipt for the above six years; then you cannot rely upon a higher amount I repeat for duties on foreign articles than 6,850,000 dollars. But suppose you derive 9,500,000 dollars from this source. In addition to this fund the secretary of the treasury calculates upon receiving annually 400,000 dollars for the sale of lands. I am inclined to believe the amount will not be so large; but let it down at that. The postage of letters will yield 50,000 dollars; and the dividends upon bank stock 71,000 dollars. And here you have the whole amount of your revenue, with the exception of a trifling sum from patents, fines, &c. The whole, in the aggregate, amounts to 9,071,000 dollars.
I will now enquire into the expenses for the eight coming years. According to the secretary of the treasury, we are to pay 7,300,000 dollars on account of the debt. But I will not take his calculation. I will state it at 7 millions, which we must pay—the civil list, 780,000 dollars; it will be understood that this is only what is absolutely necessary—foreign intercourse, &c. estimated at 200,000 dollars—the military establishment, 1,420,000 dollars, as estimated at the opening of congress, and which is the estimate of the ensuing, and not of the past year, as stated by the honorable member from Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he did not state it to be the old estimate, but an estimate formed on the old basis.
Mr. GRISWOLD. I took it so. It is not safe to put the expenses of the military establishment for the eight coming years lower than this estimate. Gentlemen ought to consider the situation in which we are placed. They ought to consider our neighbours on the frontiers, and those who are likely to be our neighbours. They ought to consider the accidents to which all nations are exposed. They ought to consider the necessity of sending a strong garrison to the posts on the Mississippi; And when they consider all these circumstances, they will agree with me that it is not safe to trust the defence of the country to arrangements that will involve a smaller expense.
At the beginning of the session the expense of the navy was estimated at 1,100,000 dollars; we since find it reduced to 900,000 dollars. On this estimate I have two remarks to make. I ask whether gentlemen are content to take this estimate for the eight coming years. How is it made out? By striking off 150,000 dollars appropriated to progressing in the building of the seventy-fours, and 50,000 dollars for making navy yards. What is meant by this? May not gentlemen as well lay down the navy at once. You have not at present a single dock where a large vessel can be commodiously repaired; and to
make such a dock will cost at least 50,000 dollars. It is easy to make this reduction on paper; but we may as well burn our ships of war or give them as a present to our sister republic. I trust, however, the country is not prepared to give up the protection of commerce; and if not prepared, we must devote annually 1,100,000 dollars; which, indeed, is short of what will be required.
Taking the old estimates, which are the only correct ones, Government must expend annually 10,500,000 dollars. But make a reduction for the military and naval establishments of 500,000 dollars, which the necessary measures of the government will not warrant—and the annual expenditure will be 10,000,000—compare with this your revenue, which only amount to 9,071,000 dollars.
And in this estimate I have made no allowance for that infinite variety of contingent events that under every government are constantly arising. I ask, then, if it is safe or proper, to give up the carriage tax, and all the other internal taxes, when they will probably be wanted for the expenses of the government.
I am perfectly aware that our finances are in such a state, owing to the great skill with which they were managed under the old administration, that we have now three millions of surplus revenue in our Treasury; and that gentlemen, by applying this sum to the wants of the two or three coming years may meet the expenses of the government, and perhaps go on till another Presidential election. But I trust we shall not act upon this narrow system. I trust we shall not look forward only to another Presidential election. But that taking into our view the eight ensuing years at the expiration of which time in consequence of the reduction of the debt which will then have been accomplished a large sum can be dispensed with, we will wait till that period arrives, before we dispense with these branches of revenue or any other.
[Mr. Griswold's Speech to be concluded in our next.]
WASHINGTON CITY.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1802.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
MONDAY, March 29, 1802.
An engrossed bill, making a partial appropriation for the support of government, during the year 1802, was read a third time and passed.
Previous to its passage, a conversation took place respecting an alleged looseness of appropriation. This objection was made by Mr. Griswold, and supported by Mr. Dany who were of opinion that the sum in the bill should be more specifically appropriated.
The objection was repelled by Messrs. Milledge, Giles, Elmerdorf, Randolph, and Allison, who contended that the objection did not apply, and that no inconvenience could arise from a partial appropriation made in the bill and contemplated for a definite object.
A motion made to recommit the bill was lost; when the bill passed—Yeas 45.
An engrossed bill for the relief of Isaac Zane, was, after a short discussion, passed—Yeas 45.
An engrossed bill to amend an act, entitled, "An act to retain a further sum on drawbacks for the expenses incident to the allowance, and payment thereof and in lieu of stamp duties on debentures," was read a third time.
Mr. STANLEY moved to recommit the bill to the committee of commerce and manufactures; lost—Yeas 27—Nays 31.
The question on the passage of the bill was then taken by Yeas and Nays, and carried—Yeas 38—Nays 32.
A message was received from the President, with accompanying communications from the marshal for the district of Columbia, stating the great defects attending the existing state of the jail in the district, &c.
Referred to the committee of whole house on Territorial bill.
Mr. NICHOLSON presented two petitions from citizens of Washington, praying that an Internal Government may be established for the district of Columbia, by Congress.
Referred to same committee.
The order of the day was called for on the bill respecting the government for the district of Columbia.
Mr. T. MORRIS moved to postpone the consideration of the bill till the 4th Monday of November next.
Mr. Morris made this motion from a conviction that the provisions of the bill were disagreeable to a great majority of the inhabitants. From this circumstance it had been his opinion that the bill would have been suffered to sleep.
Mr. NICHOLSON seconded the motion.
Mr. Bacon asked gentlemen to assign some specific reasons for the motion.
Mr. NICHOLSON said his specific reason for a postponement was his dislike to the system laid down in the bill. He believed that system, if established, would prove very oppressive, from the great expense attending it. Another reason with him was that the inhabitants of the district are very generally averse to it. Should the house go into committee, he had no doubt, but that after contumelious days, the bill would be finally rejected. The question of postponement would determine the sense of the house respecting a territorial legislature.
Mr. DENNIS said he had early taken up the opinion, that it would be as well for the interest of the United States as for that of the district, to establish a system of local authority. But as no person could be more opposed to the provisions of the bill than he was; and finding almost the whole of the inhabitants agreed in it, he should vote for the postponement; though the principle which the house was in favor of adopting might perhaps be best settled by a motion to strike out the fifth section of the bill. Should the house take up the bill, he was prepared to move a number of amendments, one of which would be for incorporating a senatorial branch. Believing that the present bill would be rejected, and that it was necessary for Congress immediately to do something in relation to the affairs of the territory, he would vote in favor of the motion.
The question of postponement was put, and carried—Yeas 42.
When on motion of Mr. Dennis, the committee of the whole was discharged from the further consideration of the several subjects connected with the territory, and reference made thereof to a select committee.
The House proceeded to consider the report on the petition of James Mac Callen, and others; when after a very detailed speech made by Mr. Davis, the following resolution was agreed to.
Resolved, that those persons who purchased land of John Cleves Symmes, prior to the first of January 1800, ought to have further time allowed them to pay the money, that is allowed by the act of congress of March 3, 1801.
Messrs. Davis, Hoge, and Fearing, a committee to bring in a bill.
TUESDAY, March 30, 1802.
A bill was received from the senate, for the better security of public monies lodged in the hands of public officers.
Referred to a committee of the whole house on Monday.
The House then went into committee of the whole, Mr. L. R. Morris in the chair, on the resolutions of a select committee respecting the admission of the North Western territory as a state into the union.
A motion was made to agree to the first resolution, which involves the principle of admission; which was supported by Messrs. Nicholson, R. Williams, and Macon, and opposed by Messrs. Fearing, Griswold, and Goddard.
The question to agree to the first resolution was then taken, and carried by a large majority—yeas 47.
Twenty Dollars Reward.
RANAWAY from the Subscriber on the 16th inst. living in Charles county, near Port Tobacco in the state of Maryland, a NEGRO MAN, by the name of HENRY, 24 or 25 years old, 5 ft 9 or 10 inches high, spare made, and middling dark complexion, with very thick lips, and flow in his speech. His clothing when he went away was a blue negro cotton upper jacket, a white marlins quilting under ditto, old olivarg shirt, and a pair of brown stuff overalls, patched with sky blue cloth. He was seen to pass the Paterson Branch Ferry on Friday the 18th inst. and was seen in the City of Washington on Saturday the 27th. I have every reason to believe he is now in the City or George Town; I will give the above Reward to any person that will secure him in any jail, and give me information so that I get him again.
EDWARD HAMILTON. March 31, 1802. 12w3t.
NOTICE
In the matter of John Sticker's Bankrupt.
WHEREAS a commission of bankruptcy founded upon the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the fourth day of April 1800, entitled, "An act to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States," has been awarded and issued against John Sticker, of the City of Washington in the District of Columbia, merchant, and he has been declared a bankrupt. He is hereby required to surrender himself to the commissioners in the said commission named, or the major part of them on the 20th and 24th days of April and the 28th of May next at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of each day, at the house of William Rhodes, innkeeper in the City of Washington; and make a full discovery and disclosure of his estate and effects, when and where his creditors are to be found prepared to prove their debts, and at the first sitting the said bankrupt is required to furnish his examination. All persons indebted to the said bankrupt, or who have any of his effects are not to pay or deliver the same, but to whom the commissioners shall appoint.
GWINN HARRIS, Clerk to the Commissioners. March 31, 1802. 12w3t.

NOTICE.
COMMITTED to the Jail of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, as a runaway, a Negro Woman named CHARLOTTE , about nineteen years of age, five feet four or five inches high. She says she is the property of Lewis St. John, near Battle Town, Frederick county, Virginia. The owner is requested to come and pay charges and take her away.
DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. Feb. 3, 1802. epf
NOTICE
Is hereby given to the Creditors of EXZIEL KING, Bankrupt. THAT on Saturday the third day of April next, between the hours of eleven and one of the said day, at the place of holding the circuit court of the district of Columbia, in the City of Washington, a certificate of discharge will be given to the said bankrupt, unless cause be then and there shown to the contrary by the said creditors or some of them.
By order of William Kilby Chief Judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, this 25th day of March 1802.
URIAH FORREST, Clerk of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for Washington County. March 29, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE.
I WOULD sell on reasonable terms, three or four hundred acres of Land, in the centre of my estate at Marlborough, on the Virginia side of the river Potomac, about 45 miles below the City of Washington, and 13 distant from Frederickburg; the whole constituting a very desirable situation for a substantial Farmer, on a moderate scale. This tract extends for length, from Potomac river across the neck of Accotack creek—it has most beautiful situations on the river for aqueducts; it has a fine Rock & Herring Fishery, and a landing that must be very valuable, as it is the only hold water on the Potomac, that can be connected by land carriage with Frederickburg. The soil is very rich, and it has very well for cultivation, with a large bank of the rich shell marl—part of it is a most valuable firm marl, from which 100 to 150 tons of good hay might be annually taken, a portion of this is ditched and drained for timothy. The improvements are an overleer's house, barn and negro quarters. If not before sold by private contract, it will be offered at public vendue on the 20th of May, on the premises, (the seller reserving a bid) deliverable in the fall. Mr. William Hay, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase.
JOHN F. MERCER. Annapolis. Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w.
PROPOSALS
By THOMAS HERTY, For publishing by subscription an APPENDIX to his Digest of the Laws of the United States.
IT will contain all the public acts of the two preceding and present session of Congress, that is, the acts of the first and second sessions of the sixth, and the first session of the seventh Congress. It will be printed in the same order of arrangement, and have reference to such parts of the aforesaid work, as shall be repealed, is suffered to expire, or which may otherwise undergo alterations, subjected to which, will be given, a correct table of the duties on imports and tonnage, and a neat Index; this, connected with the foregoing, will embrace the whole law in force.
CONDITIONS.
It will be put to press immediately after the close of the present session of Congress, (provided a sufficient number offer to defray the expense of the work) and be ready for delivery in about two months thereafter.
The price to subscribers will be one dollar and fifty cents in boards, to be paid for on delivery. It shall be neatly printed on good paper.
Subscriptions received by the Editor, at his Conveyancing Office, near the Treasury Department, City of Washington; and by those in whose hands proposals are left. March 12, 1802. rawf
VALUABLE LAND FOR SALE.
FOR sale about 4500 acres of land belonging to the estate of Judge Mercer, deceased, and situated in the county of Loudoun, on the waters of Goose Creek, about 40 miles from Alexandria and the Federal City. A large portion of this tract is meadow ground, of good quality, and the soil of the high land is well adapted to every species of produce usually cultivated on land similarly situated in the upper country. Such portion of it as remains unenclosed, affords an extensive and excellent range for stock of every kind. On one part of this land is one of the most valuable mill sites in the state. The supply of water is inexhaustible, and the mill could be erected immediately on the side of the public road leading from Winchester to Alexandria. It is computed that the number of wagons almost constantly travelling along this road, amount to at least 5 or 600. So that a ready market might always be had here, for a very considerable quantity of grain and hay.
Tis deemed unnecessary to describe more particularly the many advantages of this tract of land, as it is expected that all persons disposed to purchase, will first view the premises. To accommodate purchasers the whole tract will be divided into lots of 4 or 500 acres each, with as much wood and meadow land to every lot as circumstances will admit. And it is believed that the whole 4500 acres may be sold off into farms of the above-mentioned size, or as leave in each as much wood and meadow land as would be desired.
The price and time of payment will be made known by the subscribers. Letters directed to John T. Brooke, Frederickburg, or to James M. Garnett, Laytons, will be answered without delay.
JOHN T. BROOKE, JAMES M. GARNETT, Adm'rs Feb. 2, 1802. epf
BOARDING.
Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol.—Apply to the Printer. March 29, 1802. ep3w
For Sale,
A NEGRO WOMAN about 21 years old, who is a good Cook, and a complete house servant in every other respect.—Also a large well formed horse, that goes well in a carriage, and pleasant under the saddle.—Enquire at this office. March 5, 1802. epf
FOR SALE.
A superb Carriole with plated Harness ALSO a pair of young, handsome and fleet PONIES, and a capital saddle horse, who never was in harness. Enquire of the Printer. Dec. 12. epf
NOTICE.
THE Creditors of Mr. William Bayly, are requested to meet at Mr. Semmes's Tavern, George-Town, on Monday the 12th of April next, at 6 o'clock in the afternoon. WALTER MACKALL. March 29, 1802. ep3t
For Sale,
A NEAT Frame House and Lot, on New-Jersey Avenue, square 690; sixteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bow window, a parlour and closet back on the second floor two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches front, running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabout.—For terms apply to
JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. March 5, 1802. epf
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR,
SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, cashmeres, fawlans, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His unremitting attention shall be given to merit patronage. Capitol Hill, next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings. Dec. 7, 1801. epf
Looking Glasses.
J. COOK Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Prints, FOR SALE, At J. March's Store, High-street, George-Town.
THE subjects of the Prints are very interesting, and in superb gilt frames; and the glasses are of the first qualities, in the most modern and elegant frames, and of any size. They are marked at the lowest cash Prices. March 15, 1802. epf
CHARLES VARDEN,
Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia, GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of, Best superfine cloths, Cashmeres, Swansdown, Toylenettes, Velveretts, Fancy Cords, Coatings, Plannels, &c.
N. B. Regimentals, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies' Habits, made in the neatest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice.—Washington City, New Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Rapine's book store. Dec. 16, 1801. epf
GENNESSE.
For Sale, All the Subscriber's Mills, Houses and improved Farms, in the Counties of Ontario and Steuben, in the state of New-York.
TO meet the views of the numerous applicants for this valuable property, and to give an opportunity of acquiring it on fair and equal terms, the subscriber offers it for sale at Public Auction, on Wednesday the 14th day of June next, at POWELL'S Hotel in Geneva, on the favorable terms of one sixth cash, and the remainder payable in six annual payments with lawful interest.
The Mills are situated at Hopeton, Lyons, Sodus, Genesee Falls, Caledonia, Hemlock-Lake, Painted Pot, Bath, and Canafieo, several of which are merchant mills, and the greater part of them are erected on the navigable waters leading to Montreal, Albany and Baltimore.
The houses are situated in Bath, Painted Pot, Hopeton, Geneva, Lyons and Sodus, and the improved farms are in the neighborhood of these towns. All of which will positively be sold except the House and Farm occupied by the subscriber, near Bath. CHARLES WILLIAMSON. Bath, March 1, 1802. ep3w
FOR SALE,
An excellent Blacksmith, together with his wife and three likely children, to wit, two boys, 10 and 8 years of age, and a girl four. The woman has been employed altogether in washing and ironing. An examination of the blacksmith's work will be his best recommendation. To save unnecessary applications the price of the family is 1,400 dollars. V. PETTON. Stafford, March 8, 1802. rawf
This day is Published
By RAPINE, CONRAD & Co. Corner of New-Jersey Avenue and South B street, a little south of the Capitol.
A DISSERTATION on the freedom of Navigation and Maritime Commerce, and such rights of states, relative thereto, as are founded on the Law of Nations, adapted more particularly to the United States; and interspersed with moral and political reflections, and historical facts; with an Appendix, containing sundry state papers.—By WILLIAM BARTON, A. M. member of the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, and of the Royal Economical Society, Valencia, Spain.—Price 2 dollars.
Physical Investigations, and Deductions, from Medical and Surgical facts, relative to the causes, nature and remedies of the diseases of a warm and vitiated atmosphere, from climate, local situation, or season of the year, together with an historical introduction to Phytopharmacology; or the experimental philosophy of human life; that of diseases, and also of remedies.—By WILLIAM BARNWELL, M. D. formerly surgeon in the employ of the honorable East India Company, London.—Price 2 dollars. March 24, 1802. ep4t
For Sale at Rhodes's Tavern.
On the 15th day of April will be sold at Public Auction, by Loring and Forrest, at 12 o'clock the following valuable property, unless disposed of by private contract.
THREE two story brick houses in separate Lots to accommodate purchasers. Situated in Fourteenth-street, square 253, being on a high and healthy situation, near the Treasury Office, at present much under lot at 205 dollars each per annum; to respectable tenants as follows: No. 1, to David Rawn; No. 2, to Wm James; No. 3, to R. W. Peacock; each house is 23 feet front, and containing a good dry cellar. On the first floor are two parlors, kitchen and servant's room over the same; second floor contains three well finished bed rooms with closets where necessary; back yard paved, with out-houses, and lot inclosed with close boarded fence, 6 feet high, to an alley 26 feet wide. The front of the said houses is paved with brick, locust trees planted, and post and rail fence, with a pump of excellent water adjoining the same; the whole completely finished in a neat, genteel manner. The titles are good, being from the commissioners. Terms of payment, one half the purchase money down, or such bills as will be approved of 60 days, and the balance in seven equal payments with interest.
At the same time will be sold two improved ground rents on square 461, being on the south side of the Pennsylvania Avenue, and cutting on Tyber Creek near the Market House. One lot containing 44 feet front, let on lease to Mr. Henry Burford, forever for 60 dollars per annum, payable half yearly; whereon is built a double two story brick house, with cellars and other buildings. The other is 47 feet 3 inches front in two leases for ever, to John Gardner, at 72 dollars per annum, payable half yearly. He has built a large two story double brick house, with cellars under the same, occupied by Mr. Thompson for a liquor store. This property is equal to bank stock, or any other property in the United States. For further particulars enquire of Loring and Forrest Auctioneers or
WILLIAM LOVELL. March 24, 1802. ep5
The Arabian Horse The Dey of Algiers.
ARRIVED on the 19th inst, in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Mason, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swain of Massachusetts, now in Europe.
He will stand the ensuing season, at my farm in Montgomery county, seven miles from this town and the City of Washington, and will cover at forty dollars the season (commencing the 1st of March) and one dollar to the groom, the money or an approved promissory note to be sent with the mare.
This beautiful animal was brought from Arabia in the year '98, at four years old, by the late grand ballist Fromm, of Prussia, into that kingdom, and was purchased at the sale of the ballist's studs, after his death, at Pehrslon, in '99, lieutenant general Frederick baron of Bismar, by whom he was sent to Hamburg to col. Swan, whence he was by that gentleman shipped to America; to attest which, and to prove him to be a genuine Arabian horse, original certificates are in my hands, and may at all times be seen.
The Dey is of full stature for his race, he measures exactly fourteen hands two inches and an half. His colour is nearly white, with a few brown spots dished over his neck and flounders. In figure and bone, it is believed, he will stand the test of the best judgment.—He is only eight years old the coming spring. He is of fine presence and carriage; and remarkably vigorous and active.
As it is the wish of his proprietor to display the merits of this horse in his colts—as early, and with as much certainty as possible, by his order, no more than fifty mares will be received this season.
I have excellent and extensive pasture well fenced, adjoining the land, at two shillings and six pence per week. Grain and green clover will be furnished if desired, at moderate prices.—Great care shall be taken of mares, and every justice done them with the horse; but I will be answerable for no accidents or escapes. If gentlemen at a distance choose to send servants with their mares they shall be provided for on reasonable terms.
CHARLES C. JONES. George-Town, Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w
N. B. The Dey will be shown every Thursday for some weeks to come at the Union Tavern in Georgetown, and at Mr. Stoll's Tavern, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
For Sale,
Or to To LET, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable. ISAAC POLOK. Dec. 16. epf
Land and Houses for Sale.
The Subscriber will sell by private contract, the following valuable property.
TWO Tracts of Land, in Culpepper county, Virginia, lying on Flat Run, near Rorman's ford, distant 28 miles from Fredericksburg, and 55 from the City of Washington. One tract contains 700 acres, the other 300; the soil of which is equal to any in the vicinity, and is more particularly productive of grain. They are separated from each other by a never-failing stream, which waters 200 acres of the best bottom land, a great proportion of which consist of mowing and grazing meadow. Of the 700 acres tract, 300 are cleared and in arable order, and 250 of the smaller tract are highly improved. The buildings on the latter tract are commodious, consisting of a roomy dwelling house lately erected, a kitchen, stables, servant's houses, all in good repair; near which are extensive and flourishing orchards of apples and peaches, and a large kitchen garden. On the other tract are an overleer's house, negro cabin, &c. The situation as to health, agreeable society, and convenience to mills, both saw and grist, can be exceeded but by few places. They will be sold either together or separate.
Also, in the town of Alexandria, two elegant three story brick houses, situated the one on King, the other on Columbia street, and 40 by 20 feet each. They are well calculated for private families, and are as well situated as any in the town, for the grocery and flour business.
Also, in the same town, five unimproved lots on King-street, and three on Patrick-street, which will be sold or leased, for any length of time, and about one mile from the same town, 9 3-4 acres of land, pleasantly situated on the Leesburg road.
He will also sell a handsome and commodious three story brick house, lately finished, in the City of Washington, on F street, not far from the branch bank, 28 feet by 40, occupied at present by the Secretary of State; and adjoining thereto, a good framed house, well calculated both for a family and retail store, there being a large store room in front, and four other convenient rooms, with a kitchen and table on the lot.
A framed house, two stories high, 26 feet by 26, on F. street, directly opposite the branch bank. The above houses are situated in by far the best improved and most pleasant part of the city.
Several unimproved lots, in good situations in the City of Washington, and 7 or 8000 acres land in Kentucky.
The whole and any part of the above described property will be sold on such terms as will render complete satisfaction to purchasers. For the lands in Virginia, on the payment of one third of the purchase money in hand, a credit will be given for the residue, of one two and three years, payable in three equal installments with interest.
Fifty or sixty negroes will be taken in payment for a part of it. For further particulars, as to terms, apply to the subscriber or, in his absence to John Hewitt, attorney at law, City of Washington, to Robert B. Voss, Esq. of Culpepper, for the lands in Virginia; and to Henry Moor, Esq. of Alexandria, for the property in Alexandria.
NICHOLAS VOSS. Washington, Feb. 26, 1802. rawf
Farming Lands for Sale.
THE Subscriber would sell about 2000 acres of the tract of Land whereon Dr. John D. Orr at present resides, in the county of Prince William, situated a few miles from the seat of the district Court, and within convenient marketable distance of the Occoquan Mills and Dumdries. It is of the full rate quality of soil, is abundantly supplied with wood and water, and has a large proportion of ground which is in a peculiar manner adapted to the growth of timothy grass.
Also the tract of land adjacent to the above, late the property of Mr. Thomas Swann of Alexandria, together with about 100 acres of woodland, of the above described tract, making about 1550 acres; the quality and advantages being similar to that. The first mentioned tract will be conveyed to the purchaser free from every encumbrance, a considerable payment in hand will be expected, and the lowest price per acre twenty dollars. Possession to be given the ensuing spring, with a reservation of the growing crop of small grain, but the last-mentioned tract will be sold subject to existing Leases for short terms of years, under strict covenants guarding against waste and injury of the property, &c. and subject to the purchase money which will be due for the same to Mr. Swann, with interest, in about 9 years. The payment required in hand is the remainder of the amount, about two thousand pounds; and the price per acre is eighteen dollars.
Also the reversionary interest in the Piedmont tract, situated below the mountain called the Short Hill, in Loudoun county, consisting of several thousand acres, chiefly under Lease to the occupants, and forming perhaps the best settlement in Virginia, of the same extent, extremely well watered; improved with the best meadows and orchards, and peculiarly adapted to the use of the Planter of Paris. This Land will be sold in Lots consisting of one or more tenements, as may best suit purchasers, together with one or more Lots of woodland to be laid off on the S. W. side of the Short Hill for the convenience of any of said tenements that may be lease of wood. There are several good mill seats upon this tract, which is not more than 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington, and no part of it more than 15 miles from Leesburg. The price per acre will be various, according to the quality and advantages of the Land, and circumstances of the Leases, but an extensive credit will be given by installments, upon receiving what it may be convenient for the purchasers to pay in hand. It is desired that persons wishing to purchase this property, will signify their intentions before the wood land is laid off.
Also two or three small Farms with every requisite convenience for immediate operation, in the counties of Jefferson and Frederick, and at various prices.
And several valuable building Lots, situated upon the Pennsylvania Avenue, in the City of Washington; some upon square 79, near the Six Buildings, and some upon square 38; besides other very valuable Lots in that City. Application to be made in person, or by Letter, (post paid) directed to Charlottesville, Virginia, to FERDINANDO FAIRFAX. Shan. Hill, March 3, 1802. ep2w
BOLTING CLOTHS.
A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF
BOLTING CLOTHS.
Of the best qualities and latest importations, are kept for sale by OLIVER EVANS, at the corner of Market and Sixth streets, Philadelphia, and
By OLIVER & EVAN EVANS, With BOHN and SLINGLUFF, the corner of Market and Howard streets, Baltimore, Also, with DEAN & GARDNER, Union street, Alexandria.
The book entitled, the YOUNG MILL-WRIGHT and MILLER'S GUIDE , may also be had at the above places. Jan. 29, 1802. cp4w&cp4w
In Council, Annapolis, Feb. 8, 1802.
Ordered, That the act to alter the parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and the qualifications of voters, passed at the last session of the general assembly of this state be published twice in each week, for the space of three months, successively, in the Maryland Gazette, at Annapolis; the federal Gazette, the American and the Telegraph, at Baltimore; the Museum, at George-Town; the National Intelligencer; the paper at Easton; Bartee's paper, at Frederick-town, and in the Washington Spy.
By order, NINIAN PINKNEY, Clk.
An ACT to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and qualifications of voters.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That every free white male citizen of this state, and no other, above twenty-one years of age, having resided twelve months in the county next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, and every free white male citizen of this state above twenty-one years of age, and having obtained a residence of twelve months next preceding the election in the city of Baltimore or the city of Annapolis, and at which he offers to vote, shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote by ballot in the election of such county or city, or either of them, for delegates to the general assembly, electors of the senate, and sheriffs.
And be it enacted, That all & every part of the constitution and form of government of this state repugnant thereto, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this act, shall be and the same are hereby abrogated, annulled and made void.
And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the general assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election, as the constitution and form of government directs, that in such case this act, and the alteration of the said constitution contained therein shall be considered as a part, and shall constitute and be valid as a part, of the said constitution and form of government, to all intents and purposes, any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. February 19, 1802. 2aw.3m.
For sale, or to be rented.
A House and lot on the Capitol Hill—the lot is 20 feet 2 inches on Delaware Avenue, and about 190 feet deep extending back to a 30 feet Alley. The House is a handsome well furnished convenient three story brick house, containing 2 seated parlors, 5 chambers, 2 parlors—kitchen with a pantry and cellar.
It is directly opposite to the Buildings of WASHINGTON, occupied by Gen. Dearborn, near adjoining to a number of houses belonging to Mr. Carroll, rented to Mr. Dalton and others. From its vicinity to the Capitol, it is well calculated for a private family; or a person attached to the offices of the Federal Legislature.—Adjoining is a lot of about 40 feet front on same Avenue, and running same depth back. (the whole under a good post and rail fence) which, if required would be sold at same time. Hrented, the Tenant may have the use of the whole of the lot, which would make an excellent garden, having a South and Eastern exposure, as long as convenient to the proprietor. This property would be sold a Bargain for satisfactory payments, or well situate property in Philadelphia would be taken in exchange.
Apply to Benjamin Dureh, New Jersey Avenue or to the Editor of the National Intelligencer—or to Barrick and Percival, Philadelphia. Nov. 21. tf.
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of land containing 2,500 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, late the residence of PRESTLEY THOMPSON, Esq. Seventeen hundred acres of which are of the most valuable kind of low ground, on the river; between three and four hundred acres heavily timbered, the remainder is wavy high land extremely productive. The soil of this tract is equal to any in the state for cultivation of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy, and small grain of all kinds. On this tract are a large commodious two story brick mansion house and two offices; a large brick stable, a valuable barn, cow house and many other out houses, all in good repair. The orchard and garden contain a variety of valuable fruit trees, and the waters abound with excellent fish and oysters. It is situated about a day's sail from Alexandria, Baltimore or Norfolk. There are two good mill seats for grist, or saw-mills on this estate, and plenty of cedar and chesnut timber, exclusive of the heavy timber, which if felled and no counting will command a price in the City of Washington, nearly equal to the value of the land.
The terms will be made easy to the purchaser for or purchasers, and the tract will be divided into two or more plantations if necessary.—Apply to
RICHARD PETERS, junr. No. 83, Walnut Street Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Nov. 11. epf