The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1807-04-08 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VII.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. 1011.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1807.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FEBRUARY 19.
Debate on Mr. Broom's resolution for the better protection of the writ of Habeas Corpus.
(CONTINUED.)
Mr. QUINCY. So long as an intention appeared to make this a party question, I had no inclination to intermeddle with it. The subject seems to me to be of too high a nature, and too deeply to be connected with the rights and liberties of us all, to be examined under those narrow and temporary views, which party spirit necessarily introduces. Since the discussion has assumed a milder aspect, I shall offer a few considerations; limiting myself to a very simple and brief elucidation of the subject, in a point of view, which no other gentleman has taken of it, as yet, on this floor.
I cannot agree with those gentlemen, who maintain that, in the arrest and transportation of Bollen and Swartwout, they can see no violation of the rights of individuals. The privileges of the constitution are as much the inheritance of the humblest and the most depraved, as of the most elevated or virtuous citizen. To be seized by a military force, to be concealed and hurried beyond the protection of the civil power, and to be sent a thousand miles for trial, in a place where the crime charged was not committed, I humbly conceive, are violations of individual rights and of the constitution. I am not, however, prepared to say, that in no possible case they can be pardoned; nor, with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) that in no case I would consent to indemnify a military commander for making such an arrest. A case might exist, when it might be the duty of a legislature thus to indemnify. I agree, however, that it must be an extreme case, and that the party to be indemnified must evince that he had himself no voluntary agency in producing that state of things which made such an unconstitutional exercise of power necessary to the safety of the state. I give no opinion concerning the conduct of general Wilkinson. The events which happened at New Orleans have no other relation to the subject before the House than this. They have turned the attention of reflecting men in this nation to the nature of the security they possess against similar violence, and in common with other reflecting men, it has become our duty not only to understand the nature of that security, but also to supply, as soon as possible, any deficiencies we may discover in it.
The only question is, have this people the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus secured to them as fully and effectually as the constitution intended, and as wise and prudent men ought to desire? I answer unequivocally, they have not. So far as relates to cases under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, we have virtually no writ of Habeas Corpus. And for this plain reason, that we have none of the sanctions of the writ; we have none of those penalties, without which the writ of Habeas Corpus is a dead letter; particularly in all cases, in which the state of party passions, or of any predominant power leads to the oppression of an individual.
The writ of Habeas Corpus and the penalties by which it is enforced, and in which the great benefit of the privilege consists, are distinct things in their nature. The former was known to the English common law, and although, at all periods of English history, it was held a very precious right, yet were its provisions found wholly ineffectual against arbitrary power, until after the statute of Charles II. called by Englishmen their second Magna Charta. This statute gave penalties, unknown to the common law. If a judge refuses to grant, or an officer refuses to execute the writ, he is liable to a penalty of 500l. sterling, and similar sanctions annexed to other neglects of the precept. The House will observe, that all these penalties are securities, given to personal liberty, additional to those which exist at common law, and are not substituted for them. These penalties are annexed for disobedience to the writ, not as an indemnification for the injury. All the other remedies against the judge, or the party imprisoning, remain unimpaired.
The question recurs, does the federal constitution, by securing to us "the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus" secure to us those sanctions of the writ, which constitute in England its characteristic security? If the constitution had reenacted the statute of Charles there could be no doubt. But will gentlemen seriously assert, that a penal statute of another country, can, by construction, be declared the law of this, so as to make our citizens obnoxious to its penalties? If that statute be our national law, how was it obtained? Re-enacting statute we have none. And "the U. S. as a federal government, have no common law," if we give credit to declarations daily made upon this
floor; or respect the opinions of one of the highest law authorities in this nation, I refer to the opinion of judge Chase in the case of the U. S. against Worrall. 2 Dallas 394.
This view of the subject is certainly sufficient to satisfy this House that their security for this great privilege is, at least, uncertain; and is not this reason enough, for this legislature to commence an enquiry into the nature of that security, and the additional provisions it requires? This at present is the only question.
But gentlemen ask "what need of further penalties?" "If the judge refuses the writ is there not impeachment?" "Against the person illegally imprisoning another, is not an action for damages?" I answer—Both these securities for the personal liberty of the citizen existed, and do still exist in England, as fully as they do here, yet was it ever before heard that these were reasons against enacting that celebrated statute of Charles or were ever urged as evidence that its provisions were needless, or useless? The penalties of that statute are guarantees of the liberties of the citizen, additional to those which result from the law and the constitution. The principle of that statute is, to rest satisfied with nothing short of the actual liberation of the person, from illegal imprisonment, in the shortest time possible. To this end all its provisions tend. It will not leave a citizen to languish in prison, in expectation of the result of the slow progress of legislative inquisition, or for the purpose of ultimately qualifying him to receive a heavy compensation in damages. Impeachment is always a dubious, and an action for false imprisonment, often an inadequate security for the observance of the writ of Habeas Corpus. Great violations of the privilege of this writ can never happen, unless in times of great party violence. In such times, what hope of an impeachment against a judge, who abuses his authority in coincidence with the views of a prevailing party? And as to damages, is personal liberty to be estimated by money? And if it were, what certainty that the person guilty of the illegal arrest will be competent to pay the damages recovered? In the case of seizure by a military power can it ever be expected from the universal pecuniary deficiencies of the soldiers, that damages will be realized, even should the civil arm be competent to enforce an execution?
The penalties affixed by the statute of Charles, on the contrary, assure the obedience of the courts and officers of justice, independent of all party influences, which may happen to prevail in the nation, and secure personal liberty by pecuniary penalties, suspended over the heads of men, whose situation in society is such as, in general, makes the attainment of the penalty certain, should it be incurred. Upon the whole, those who oppose the present motion seem to me reduced to this dilemma—either they must acknowledge that they are content that the citizens of these United States should possess less security for their liberties, than the subjects of the law of England enjoy for theirs;—or they are reduced to the necessity of adopting the doctrine that the statute penalties of another country may by construction become the law of this nation; than which, I can conceive nothing more monstrous or absurd.
In this discussion it has been my wish to avoid all notice of the party and personal invectives which have been uttered. The question is too important to be mingled with feelings and passions of these descriptions. And the circumstances of the times and of the nation, seem to me to claim from us all a contempt for these local and ephemeral distinctions.
Mr. GREGG said he did not rise to enter into a discussion of the merits of the question, but merely to move its postponement indefinitely; the propriety of which motion, he thought, must present itself to the mind of every gentleman. From the time which had been already spent in this debate, it must be evident that before it was finished, the session would be passed away. A considerable portion of the business on the table, the public interest required to be acted upon, and scarcely time sufficient remained to give it the necessary attention. Mr. G. said he should have had no objection to the resolution if offered at an earlier period of the session; and he believed even at this late period he should be willing to let it take place if other business, if he considered it indispensably necessary. But as he did not believe this to be the case, he trusted the postponement would be agreed to.
Mr. NEWTON. I presume I may be permitted, notwithstanding the motion has been tried, to go fully into the
subject before the House. I hope this House will not indefinitely postpone it. If ever there was a subject worthy the attention of an enlightened legislature, it is the subject before us. Every subject that regards the liberty of the citizen should be received with reverence and respect by the votaries of liberty. If we can better the situation of the people of the U. S. and keep from them under all circumstances the hand of oppression, it is our duty to do it, and to pay attention to whatever is likely to eventuate in such an issue. I shall not consider this case as the basis of an impeachment. The only true enquiry at present is whether the writ of habeas corpus is sufficiently fortified by legislative provisions? I will not commit my understanding so far as to decide on the conduct of the commander in chief. If he has done wrong, let him be answerable to the laws of his country;—much less will I talk of indemnifying him—For this reason—because the jury before which the case may come, may, under such circumstances, have regard, not to his circumstances, but to the treasury of the U. S.
It is said that the quarter from which this resolution comes gives it a suspicious appearance. It is true I am of that class of men who may say to the gentlemen with whom this motion originates, as said of old to the Trojans— timeo Danaos et dona ferentes . Still I am willing to examine the proposition, tho' it comes from that quarter, to sift the good from the evil. If gentlemen submit to us a good proposition, I am ready to treat it with all the respect it merits, and I will give all the weight which they may deserve to propositions which they, feeling power and forgetting right, in past times refused to allow. God forbid that we should act on principles that we could not justify. Yes, I congratulate the mover of this resolution, that he has arisen from the long slumbering nap in which he has been involved, and that he has all at once been illuminated by the splendor of liberty. I congratulate him on this circumstance, & I assure him of my most hearty concurrence in the measure he has brought forward.
My friend and colleague from Virginia, has offered a most important amendment to this resolution. The supreme court of the U. S. after having this all important case for a long time under advisement, and after an argument from the bar, are again afloat on the ocean of uncertainty, have started some new doubts, and have asked the gentlemen of the bar to come forward with a new argument. If this is the fact, does it not show the necessity of our attending to the subject; and of some new legislative provisions upon it? I am for defining the powers of our courts. I wish to understand the extent of their prerogatives; and particularly whether they have appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, before whom criminals are to be brought, who are to grant writs of habeas corpus and admit to bail?
These are all considerations of importance, and constitute the reasons which induce me to vote for referring this resolution to a select committee.—But, say gentlemen, we cannot mature this subject this session. Perhaps so; but is this a sufficient reason for not commencing the investigation, for comparing our ideas on the subject, and going forward as far as we can in our progress towards a decision. I for one shall always be in favor of an enquiry into subjects that have a reference to personal liberty.
Another of my colleagues has not only stated an objection to the original resolution, but likewise to the amendment. His objection is that we are filching from the supreme court a power conferred on them by the constitution. Let us examine this question a little—Do not the judges of the supreme court, in connexion with the district judges, compose the circuits of the U. S. We say it is doubtful whether the former judges, sitting as a supreme court, have a right to take this subject into consideration. It has never been denied that they have a right in their respective circuits, at their chambers, to grant writs of habeas corpus. This has never been denied, this I say is law.
This subject has been spread over an immense extent of ground. The single point, however, at issue, is whether we will commit this resolution, in order merely to obtain correct facts and information, which shall present the subject in such a form as shall enable us to act understandingly upon it. I am not at present in favor of acting definitively upon it; but merely for enquiry. So circumstanced, I presume our proceedings cannot injure any individuals implicated in this business, as nothing we can do can have a retrospective effect. These are my reasons for voting in favor of the present motion.
Mr. SMILIE. I have but a few observations to offer on this subject. At an early stage of this debate I expressed myself in favor of the resolution. I thought it proper in itself for this reason—I had doubts in my own mind whether the writ of Habeas Corpus was secured by the penalties necessary to give it effect. I had endeavored to in-
form myself by conversation with professional men upon the subject; finding that they differed in opinion I thought it proper to enquire into it; but like some other subjects introduced into this House, I think it has been spoiled by the mode of treating it. I had flattered myself that it would have been considered as a subject of no one party; but as one in which all parties were equally interested. Instead, however, of treating it on its own merits, it appears to me that the mover and other gentlemen have indulged themselves in invectives against the commander in chief and on points altogether unconnected with the main subject. It is admitted by the mover of this resolution that there may be circumstances under which it might be the duty of a public officer to depart from the laws and take the responsibility upon himself. The gentleman, notwithstanding, undertook to arraign the conduct of the commander in chief without his being heard. Surely this is not the tribunal before which that gentleman ought to appear in case he has done wrong; and if it were, in justice he ought to be heard before he is condemned. Yesterday a doctrine was stated of a most extraordinary nature, though I admit it is the only doctrine on which gentlemen can justify condemning the commander in chief without a hearing. The doctrine is this—that under no necessity whatever can an officer be justified for departing from the law.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH explained. He said he believed there might be situations in which a departure from the law might be justified, if not justified. He had no doubt of it; but he must be permitted to add, if the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts were intended to bear on what he said, that that gentleman had misunderstood or mistated him. He had stated a case of a known, acknowledged violation of the constitution of the U. S. by a military force—That was the thing. For instance, as if in sitting as they had done some few years since, till down balloting who should be President, under the impression that all would go to anarchy and confusion, but for his superior power and wisdom, a commander, at the head of a military banditti, had stepped in to tell us who should be President. If the military had a right to put the constitution at defiance, they had as good a right in one case as in another.
Mr. SMILIE. The gentleman's explanation is perfectly satisfactory. I certainly did misunderstand him. It is well known that military men have departed, and must depart in some instances, from the laws. For instance, it is justifiable for the commander of a garrison, under some circumstances, to burn the suburbs of a city. Since then it is admitted there may be a justification for a departure from the laws, such justification must depend on the degree of necessity that may exist. And my conclusion is, that as we are not acquainted with the circumstances of this case, it is premature to pass judgement on those implicated in it. On this point I coincide with the gentleman from Massachusetts. We ought entirely to consider the subject before us on its own merits. The next question therefore is, whether we are in the situation to make the proposed enquiry. On this point I am sure no gentleman will undertake to say, even were we to suspend the whole business before us, we should be able to mature and finish before the close of the session a business of this importance; and if we did, I fear it would be very incorrectly done. Inasmuch then as we cannot get through this business during the present session, it is proper in my opinion to postpone it until the next. I pledge myself that I shall then be as willing as any gentleman on this floor to take it up and give it a deliberate investigation.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania made this motion, I was really apprehensive that it would have an effect different from that intended—that it would have the effect of protracting this debate. We have had a long discussion, and when every member is ready to give his vote on the subject, and most of the members, who desire it, have in all probability delivered their sentiments, a motion to postpone the subject is offered. What is the consequence? That every member who has spoken on the main question acquires the right to speak twice on this.
I am sorry for the declaration made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I understood him to be friendly to this measure. But how am I to reconcile his friendship with the negative vote which he means to give? For will he or any other gentleman point out a substantial difference between negating and postponing this resolution? This is nothing more or less than an ingenious mode of quieting a tender conscience. To induce gentlemen to vote for postponing, what on principle they cannot vote against. Suppose in the case of a petition from Stephen Sayre, or Oliver Pollock, or any other of the claimants so steadily before us, a motion should be made to postpone their
case indefinitely. What would the gentleman from Pennsylvania say? That there was no substantial difference between postponing and negating it. I do confess, sir, if I was opposed to this measure, I would get up and say so—I would vote against it—I would come out manfully and decide on its merits; and I trust gentlemen opposed to it from principle will have the magnanimity to reject the postponement and try the strength of the House on the main question.
I certainly mean no disrespect to either of the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, because where I do not feel disrespect, I would not express it. But the motion made by one of those gentlemen and advocated by the other, gives an unfaithful representative of the people an opportunity of shrinking from his constitutional responsibility, and as such ought to be resisted. A gentleman goes home, and is asked, what did you do in the case of the Habeas Corpus? Did you vote for or against it? He replies—no, I did not vote against it—I only voted for postponing it indefinitely. Well, what is the meaning of this Parliamentary phrase? Though it is exactly the same as voting against a measure, yet addressed to the unlearned ear of the plainer, it gives an opportunity to every man afraid to stand on his own responsibility to cheat his constituent.
With regard to improper topics and extrinsic considerations, introduced into this debate, no one can be more sensible of, or have greater reason to regret it, than myself; but if urged by me, they have been urged in self defence. I may truly say I did not begin the battle. For on the first day's discussion, when the mover was making a lengthy speech on this subject I was engaged in the Committee Room and only came into the House when about to adjourn; but notwithstanding I heard enough to convince me that principles had been broached, which let them be broached wherever they may, will always meet my reprobation.
The gentleman from Massachusetts must certainly have labored under some strange misapprehension when he conceived that I quoted the case of the prohibition of the exportation of corn from G. Britain by royal proclamation with the view he ascribes to me. I certainly did not. I did not say that if the ministers had acknowledged a violation of law and had thrown themselves on the mercy of their country, it would not according to the usages of that country have been proper to have passed a bill of indemnity. I quoted this case to show that when the known and acknowledged friends of freedom become so intoxicated with power as to abuse the strong bulwark of the constitution, those opposed to them will turn their batteries against them—to show that it did not become the gentleman from Massachusetts, if indeed he is the friend of freedom, to quit the true old constitutional ground, and suffer it to be taken by those in opposition. And in illustration of this observation I stated, that that cunning Scotchman, Mansfield, under similar circumstances, had taken the true ground of the constitution against Chatham and Camden, its loudest advocates, and had thus defeated them with their own weapons.
I am sorry to be obliged to trouble the House with any more of that wearisome declamation, which it seems is totally useless, except to serve the purpose, at various times, of replying to itself. But this declamation! even in this respect one advantage, often found wanting to the most solid argument, viz. that it is a satisfactory reply to something—that it has at least the power of answering itself—and is induced with the properties of echo—that it is not "unheard," "unknown." There has been a dispute in the world from time immemorial between wit and dullness—between imagination and judgment. So we have been told, though some who cultivate the sceptical philosophy dispute it. But this impression has been so long attempted to be made, that there is not a precise or formal coccomb that does not on the score of dullness arrogate to himself judgment and profound wisdom. While I am willing to allow that declamation, or the powers of an effervescent imagination, are no evidences of wisdom, the House must admit that the mere dullness of a special pleader without his accuracy does not imply any pretensions to knowledge. The truth is that on this as on other subjects, it has been my misfortune to come to the House too unprepared. I knew nothing of the subject until it was brought under discussion. I got up yesterday, as I have to-day, to say what first came into my head, and in this way I hope I shall be permitted to go on.
However the gentleman from Massachusetts may have professed his anxiety to avoid committing himself by giving an opinion in the present case, he has given a broad hint of the propriety of indemnifying the commander in chief in this instance, if he acted illegally, by the allusion which he has made to the case of captain Little, to which he might have added that of captain Murray. Let us examine the analogy of these cases, and see whether the gen-

eman from Massachusetts with all his precision and ingenuity is able to make out a similitude between them. The cases of Little and Murray were instances of military men obeying the orders of their military superiors. If it were proposed in the present instance to mulct the young officers who have made these arrests, those cases might with fairness have been cited—they might tell you that in doing so they obeyed their superior officers, and that they could not stand disputing their power lest they should be broken by a court martial. Does the gentleman say there is a similitude between the cases of Little and Murray, and the case of a commander of your army, (supposing him to have contravened the law) and that he would have the same excuse for such contravention as an inferior officer? Does he mean to prepare the House for a justification of the commander in chief on this ground? I hope and trust not. I may speak at random; but I cannot believe his conduct, such as it has been represented to have been, can have been justified either by the instructions or the approbation of his superior officer. But even if it should appear to be the case that he received such instructions from the highest executive authority, the only thing which can be said is, that the commander in chief has acted under the orders of his superior, as in the cases of Little and Murray. But did the House mean to say, when they voted an indemnity to Little and Murray, for obeying the orders of the executive, in cases where the civil and military authority were combined, that because this conduct of an inferior officer was justified by the orders of his superior, there was therefore no blame attached to the executive? I hope not. I trust in God not. I should have been sorry to have seen those claims passed, to give a sanction to the departure of the secretary of the navy and the secretary of state from the laws of the land. It will not, therefore, follow, that, because the House considered the inferior officer not culpable, they also considered the superior, who gave the orders, free from censure. Let us then hear no more in justification of the commander in chief, unless gentlemen show that, instead of acting on his own responsibility, he acted on that of his superior.
I consider the whole of this business as one of the most unfortunate kind that could have happened to the U. S. If we had acquired Louisiana by force of arms or conquest, we could scarcely have inspired the people of that country with greater indignation than by these events, in which it is yet to be seen whether those people are at all concerned; or whether they are not, standing like sheep, suffering the wolves to pass without disturbance—events which must sow the seeds of lasting misfortune, unless healed by a timely interposition of the government. And nothing can have a more fatal effect, than any thing done by this House, or the other part of the government to sanction the conduct of the commander in chief, taking it to be such as is ascribed to him. As a member of this House I am free to give my opinion of what would restore peace to that country—though out of doors I might not do it. The first step ought to be the immediate recall of every man directly or indirectly concerned in this business. You can hardly suppose, sir, that I look forward to being made their governor, or desire on my recommendation to introduce a friend to that place. But I have no hesitation in saying that unless some such step be taken, the attachment of that country to the U. S. is lost forever. I would take such a step boldly—I would know nothing of their little disputes—I would act with the authority of a venerable parent, who, on returning home, found his children by the ears. I would correct them all. I would discountenance at once all such intrigues—I would recal every man who has directly or indirectly participated, or is suspected of having participated in them—I would in short rob out and begin again. It is an extremely unfortunate thing that the people of New Orleans, for the most part speaking the French language, a great part of them attached to the crown of Spain—transferred to the U. S. by an honorable purchase—told they were about to taste the sweets of a government of laws—told that arbitrary notions and letters de cachet were to be proscribed—that the constitution was not to be departed from, but that they were to enjoy all the blessings of citizens of the U. S.;—it is extremely unfortunate that New Orleans should be the first place in which a lesson of military despotism should be taught. I deem it extremely unfortunate—it cannot tend to attach those people to the U. S.—it will however have another tendency—it will prevent every man of character from emigrating to that country, and instead of mixing the Americans with the French, the latter will be kept as a distinct class. For will any man, having the least regard to his rights, go to a place where he will be seized by a military commandant? Suppose, Mr. Speaker, such a thing had taken place in your country or in mine. The military would not at this period be before the court—the spirit of the country would have long since settled the question. I recollect in 1798 or 1799, when the officers of the army were following their legal avocations of enlisting recruits, such was the spirit of detestation in which a standing army was held in my district, that these men were obliged to break up and move off. That spirit would scarcely endure the legal act of a man acting under legal authority, and yet we have now an apology for men acting in direct contravention of legal authority. Will any man point out a good cause for this charge?
The gentleman from Massachusetts has stated another case, which I think is applicable. In case a member of this House should be arrested by the civil authority, he says he may obtain redress. There is no doubt of it. But suppose it were proposed to pass a law for the punishment of murder, and the gentleman should get up and say there is no necessity for such a law. The dead man may have redress without it!
The writ of Habeas Corpus is the only writ sanctioned by the constitution. It is guarded from every approach except by the two Houses of Congress; and yet this writ, thus acknowledged, thus specially designated, this second Magna Charta as it has been called, is to be put on the footing of a common trespass. Really when a man tells me that if imprisoned I may get damages, it requires no ghost to come and tell us that this may be done even without the writ of Habeas Corpus. But will gentleman point to any legislative sanction by which the execution of this writ is guarded? Perhaps an action on the case might be sustained for disobeying it; but suppose a judge should deny it. Impose him, say gentlemen. But will gentlemen rely on that. That affords no certain punishment, and an uncertain punishment is inadequate. We want a certain and adequate remedy.
The gentleman from Massachusetts is equally unfortunate in stating that I am the advocate of punishing with death every person concerned with an infraction of the writ of Habeas Corpus, or as that gentleman stated it, for small and trivial offences. Mr. BIDDWELL explained and observed that he had had allusion to the remarks of the gentleman relative to the slave trade.
Mr. J. RANDOLPH. I stated that I would make a military officer, acting under his own responsibility, acting as commander in chief, punishable with death for such an infraction. Did I in saying so, also say that I would punish an inferior officer with death? Will any man deny that a military character arraying himself against the constitution of his country is worthy of death? I say he is a traitor. A commander in chief of an army, who, on his own responsibility, puts the constitution and laws of his country at defiance, is a traitor, and supposing the case stated at New Orleans to be correctly stated, the commander in chief is as much a traitor as any other man concerned in the conspiracy. Who are these traitors? Burr and Co. What are they about to do? To put down the civil authority by military force; and is there any substantial difference whether the civil authority is trampled under foot, by Burr and his banditti, or by a commander in chief and his regular army. I will go further. Suppose these measures for putting down Burr shall eventually prove to have been measures for putting up somebody else, in what will these men differ? In nothing. If the commander of an army, to give himself a false eclat, shall trample the constitution under foot, shall go a certain length with conspirators, and finding his ground no longer tenable, shall determine to make up in zeal what he wanted in fidelity, he is guilty of treason to the constitution and laws he is guilty of more—he is guilty of violating the principle respected by knaves—the principle of fidelity to each other.
We are told that a continual outcry against public men has a tendency to render the public mind callous, and by its familiarity tends to lose its effect—But do gentlemen believe that stopping forward in defence of the privilege of habeas corpus, flagrantly violated (taking that to be the case) is a mere pecadillo, about which the people ought not to be alarmed? If so, gentlemen are woefully deceived. The people are not so sound asleep as not to be roused; and it was the duty of that gentleman and other gentlemen on his side to have come forward and have said—we are sorry gentlemen have got the start of us, but their doing right shall not drive us into what is wrong. On this subject we will go all lengths with them, we will make an enquiry into the propriety of amending the laws—we will not be behind them in manifesting a zeal for the constitution. If gentlemen had acted so, there would have been an end of the business at once; but it is saying they are friends of the measure, while they are acting as its enemies, that produces this distrust.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy) has stated the difference that exists between the right of the writ of habeas corpus and the remedy. He is correctly stated that it is not intended as a remedy—not to allow an action for false imprisonment; but to prevent false imprisonment, and therefore that it ought to be guarded by sanctions. But the gentleman has omitted to mention one circumstance, which is, that in England the writ of habeas corpus is secured by the sanction of death. And is our attachment to liberty less than that of England? I say that a chief justice of England for refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus, may be impeached, taken to Tower Hill and decapitated. If there had existed the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in England at the time of the impeachment of Strafford, could there have been a charge more strong than a settled design to do away that privilege? In England also it is guarded by the power of attainder. Thank God! we have not that feature in our constitution—but if the same spirit pervades that country now which once did, nothing would sooner pass a bill of attainder, through the two Houses of Parliament, than a known and wanton invasion of this privilege. But fortunately our constitution has denied to us this power;
and it is because we cannot pass bills of attainder, and because judgments on impeachments do not affect the life, that it behoves us to guard this important principle with some more solemn sanctions than it now possesses.
(To be continued.)
From the Enquirer, 3d. of April.
EXAMINATION.
The Editor was prevented by his remote position, from collecting the whole of the argument on Tuesday—He is indebted to a friend for the following sketch.
COMMUNICATION.
The examination of col. Aaron Burr, which commenced in private at the Eagle-Tavern, in this city, on Monday last, was continued on Tuesday at the Capitol, before the Chief Justice of the United States, and in presence of an immense assemblage of the citizens. Col. Burr had been recognized to appear at 10 o'clock. At half past ten he presented himself before the judge, and with some degree of emotion apologised for the apparent delay, declaring that he had misapprehended the hour at which he was bound to appear. The judge then adjourned from the court room to the hall of the House of Delegates for the better accommodation of the spectators.
(Great complaint has been made about the private examination held at the Eagle. Some have branded it with the epithet of "a secret and unprecedented proceeding, not unlike the proceedings of a Spanish Inquisition."—The facts are said to be, that when the attorney for the district applied to the Chief Justice for a warrant, some conversation ensued on the manner of examination: Mr. Marshall observed that it was indifferent to him whether it was held at the Capitol or the Eagle. Mr. Hay objected to the latter, that no room was sufficiently large to receive the crowd that would attend, which would be a source of considerable inconvenience. Mr. M. observed that this difficulty could be obviated by having the examination in private. To which Mr. H. assented, on the condition, that if there were a discussion by council, they should adjourn to the capitol. The evidence to be adduced was already before the public—On the examination, it was agreed that a disquisition was necessary. Mr. Hay then moved for an adjournment to the Capitol, in which arrangement col. Burr's council immediately acquiesced.
Mr. Hay, attorney for the U. S. in the district of Virginia, opened the examination, and in a speech of considerable length and great perspicuity, enforced the reasons which induced him to believe col. Burr guilty of the charges which had been alleged against him. These were the same as stated in the last Enquirer, viz: 1st. The setting on foot and providing the means for a military expedition against the territories of a nation with whom the U. S. were at peace; and 2ly. For high treason against the U. S.
He cited Blackstone's Commentaries to show that on a mere question to commit a person accused of a crime, nothing more was necessary than to show a probability that he had been guilty of it. To require more in this incipient stage of the proceeding, particularly in a country of such thin population and extensive territories as the U. S. would be to hold out an invitation to perpetrate crimes with a certainty of avoiding punishment. In support of these charges, the testimony of Gen. Eaton; the deposition of general Wilkinson, and the disclosures made to him by Bollman and Swartwout were relied on. The treasonable intentions of colonel Burr being clearly established, enough appeared to render it highly probable that he had committed the overt act required by the constitution to consummate the offence. In addition to this testimony, his flight from the Mississippi territory, and the evidence of major Perkins, by whom he was conducted from the Tombigbee, where he was apprehended, to this place, stating his attempt to appeal to a magistrate in the state of South Carolina, were adduced as strong circumstances to prove his guilt.
[Mr. Hay adduced other reasons for a commitment; among others that the executives and legislatures of Ohio and Kentucky had sanctioned by their own acts the probability of some treasonable conspiracy.]
Mr. Burr's attempt to escape from the hands of his escort is thus represented; in passing through the town of Chester, in S. C. the first town of any size that they visited, Mr. B. suddenly alighted from his horse, and threw himself among the small crowd, which had collected to see the cavalcade. He told them that he was A. Burr; dragged by a military escort, without any warrant, and contrary to the laws of his country. Major Perkins however immediately followed, seized, and replaced him upon his horse. The crowd manifested no disposition to interfere in the business.]
Mr. Wickham, in behalf of col. Burr, combated with great ingenuity the arguments of Mr. Hay. He contended that tacita establishing the guilt of the accused ought to be proved before any inference of a treasonable design could be drawn, so as even to warrant a judge in committing for trial; that the evidence in this case, was altogether un-
certain and illegal, that the deposition of gen. Eaton contained its own self-condemnation, and that the flight of col. Burr, as it was termed, by the counsel for the prosecution, was nothing more than a wish to avoid military persecution. No reason, he contended, existed why the U. S. were unprepared with testimony. They had chosen this place as the scene of action, and dragged col. Burr to it. Sufficient time had elapsed since the first apprehension of col. Burr to take affidavits, tending to prove the facts charged, if he had really been guilty.
Mr. Randolph on the same side made an eloquent address to the feelings of audience, and pursued nearly the same train of reasoning adopted by Mr. Wickham.
(Col. Burr's counsel asserted that his objects were of a nature to be useful to the U. S. As far as they ventured to develop them, it was said to be his intention to assist the U. S. in case of a war with Spain, which seemed at that time a probable event; and to settle the Ouachita Grant, from which point it would be at least in the power of col. Burr to be a useful auxiliary to his country against its enemies.)
Col. Burr then arose and addressed the judge. He principally relied on his two former acquittals, and enquired whether there was probable cause to suppose him guilty, when in Kentucky and the Mississippi territory, where the greatest alarms had been excited, the civil tribunals had pronounced him innocent.
(Col. Burr spoke about 10 minutes—He dwelt upon the unfounded alarms (as he called them) which had existed in the W. country; and the way in which he had met them. The alarm prevalent in the state of Ohio, had produced a judicial enquiry into his conduct before the court of Kentucky.—The moment he heard of this step he had hurried before the court; he demanded an enquiry; and he said was honorably acquitted. The same alarm followed him to the Mississippi territory: he had there met it again; and not only had the grand jury found nothing against him, but they had even presented the government for meddling with him. He denied he had ever fled from the laws of his country. It was military oppression he had avoided.—Although Cowles Mead had promised him his protection, while he remained in the territory, it was a promise which could not be kept. The arm of force was too strong. He had been told even by the officers of an armed boat lying at Natchez, that he was to be seized, hurried on board, and borne off. What could he do? In pursuance of his own judgment and the advice of his best and wisest friends, he was determined to fly from the oppression. He declared it to be false, utterly false, that he had broken his recognizance. He asserted that his designs had been honorable and would have been useful to the U. S.—But even admitting that they had been otherwise, they must have been long since abandoned: they had not once ripened into overt acts. There was no treason—He complained of the treatment he had experienced: his loss of property from seizures on the Western rivers; the hardships received from his guard; debarr'd the use of pen, ink and paper; even to write to his daughter. He dwelt upon his effort to escape in S. Carolina. He said it was a mere attempt to throw himself out of the tyranny of a military escort into the hands of a civil magistrate. A little before or after dismounting from his horse, he asked whether he had not called for the interference of a magistrate. He spoke as to the alarms of N. Orleans being considered as a probable evidence of a treasonable conspiracy.—Those alarms were not produced by him, but by others; by the President who had alarmed gen. Wilkinson, and gen. W. who had alarmed the city.—Respecting Wilkinson and Eaton he made but few observations. He called the depositions produced before the court a parcel of crudities which he should not pretend to be able to understand.)
Mr. Rodney, the attorney-general for the U. S. closed the arguments. His exordium expressed in a most sensible and impressive manner, the regret he felt in being compelled to arraign a man as a traitor, whom the people of the U. S. had once elevated to the second office in the government. In discussing this particular question, he took nearly the same ground which had been occupied by Mr. Hay, but went more particularly into an examination of the testimony.
When the arguments were gone thro' the Chief Justice observed that whatever opinion he might give upon this subject he wished it to be in writing.—He would therefore adjourn till the next day at 11 o'clock, for the purpose of having time to consider the question.
On Wednesday the 1st of April, the Judge attended, and in the presence of a very numerous assembly, gave the following opinion:
OPINION
Of Chief Justice MARSHALL.
The United States, } On a motion for v. } commitment. Aaron Burr, }
I am required on the part of the attorney for the United States, to commit the accused on two charges.
1st. For setting on foot and providing the means for an expedition against the territories of a nation at peace with the U. S.
2d. For committing high treason against the U. S.
On an application of this kind, I certainly should not require that proof which would be necessary to convict the person to be committed, on a trial in
chief; nor should I even require that which should absolutely convince my own mind of the guilt of the accused; but I ought to require, and I should require that probable cause be shown, and I understand probable cause to be a case made out by proof, furnishing good reason to believe that the crime alleged, has been committed by the person charged with having committed it.
I think this opinion entirely reconcilable with that quoted from judge Blackstone. When that learned and accurate commentator says, that "if upon an enquiry, it manifestly appears that no such crime has been committed, or that the suspicion entertained of the prisoner, was wholly groundless, in such cases only; it is lawful totally to discharge him; otherwise he must be committed to prison or give bail," I do not understand him as meaning to say that the hand of malignity may grasp any individual against whom its hate may be directed, or whom it may captiously seize, charge him with some secret crime, and put him on the proof of his innocence. But I understand that the foundation of the proceedings, must be probable cause for believing there is guilt, which probable cause is only to be done away in the manner stated by Blackstone. The total failure of proof on the part of the accuser, would be considered by that writer as being in itself a legal manifestation of the innocence of the accused.
In enquiring, therefore, into the charges exhibited against Aaron Burr, I hold myself bound to consider how far those charges are supported by probable cause.
The first charge stands upon the testimony of general Eaton and general Wilkinson.
The witness first named, proves that among other projects which were more criminal, col. Burr meditated an expedition against the Mexican dominions of Spain. This deposition may be considered as introductory to the affidavit of general Wilkinson, and as explanatory of the objects of any military preparations which may have been made.
I proceed then to that affidavit. To make the testimony of general Wilkinson bear on col. Burr, it is necessary to consider as genuine the letter stated by the former to be, as nearly as he can make it, an interpretation of one received in cypher from the latter. Exclude this letter, and nothing remains in the testimony which can in the most remote degree affect col. Burr. That there is the admissibility of this part of the affidavit, great and obvious objections, need not be stated to those who know with how much caution proceedings in criminal cases ought to be instituted, and who know that the highest tribunal of the U. S. has been divided on them.—When this question came before the supreme court, I felt the full force of those objections, although I did not yield to them. On weighing in my own mind, the reasons for and against acting, in this stage of the business, on that part of the affidavit, those in favor of doing so appeared to me to preponderate, and, as this opinion was not overruled, I hold myself at liberty to conform to it.
That the original letter, or a true copy of it, accompanied by the cypher, would have been much more satisfactory, is not to be denied; but I thought, and I still think that, upon a mere question, whether the accused shall be brought to trial or not, upon an enquiry, not into guilt, but into the probable cause, the omission of a circumstance which is indeed important, but which does not disprove the positive allegations of an affidavit, ought not to induce its rejection or its absolute disbelief, when the maker of the affidavit is at too great a distance to repair the fault. I could not in this stage of the prosecution, absolutely discredit the affidavit, because the material facts alleged may very well be within the knowledge of the witness, although he has failed to state explicitly all the means by which this knowledge is obtained.
Thus gen. Wilkinson states that this letter was received from col. Burr, but does not say that it was in his hand writing, nor does he state the evidence which supports this affirmation. But, in addition to the circumstance that the positive assertion of the fact ought not, perhaps, in this stage of enquiry to be disregarded, the nature of the case furnishes that evidence.
The letter was in cypher. Gen. Wilkinson, it is true, does not say that a cypher had been previously settled between col. Burr and himself in which they might correspond on subjects which though innocent, neither of them might wish to subject to the casualties of a transportation from the Atlantic to the Mississippi; but when we perceive, that col. Burr has written in cypher, and that gen. Wilkinson is able to decipher the letter, we must either presume that the bearer of the letter was also the bearer of its key, or that the key was previously in possession of the person to whom the letter was addressed. In stating particularly the circumstances attending the delivery of this letter, gen. Wilkinson does not say that it was accompanied by the key, or that he felt any surprise at its being in cypher. For this reason, as well as because there is not much materiality in sending a letter in cypher accompanied by its key, than there is in sending a letter not in cypher, I think it more reasonable to suppose

that the key was previously in possession of Wilkinson. It was this fact, the letter being written in a cypher previously settled between himself and Col. Burr, is in this stage of enquiry at least, a circumstance which sufficiently supports that the letter was written by Col. Burr.
The enterprise described in this letter is obviously a military enterprise, and must have been intended either against the United States, or against the territories of some other power on the continent, with all whom the United States were at peace.
The expressions of this letter must be admitted to furnish at least probable cause for believing that the means for the contemplated expedition were provided. In every part of it we find declarations indicating that he was providing the means for the expedition; and as these means might be provided in secret, I do not think that further testimony ought to be required to satisfy me that there is probable cause for committing the prisoner on this charge.
Since it will be entirely in the power of the attorney general to prefer an indictment against the prisoner for any other offence which he shall think himself possessed of testimony to support, it is in fact immaterial whether the second charge be expressed in the warrant of commitment or not; but, as I hold it to be my duty to insert every charge alleged on the part of the United States, in support of which probable cause is shown, and to insert none in support of which probable cause is not shown, I am bound to proceed in the enquiry.
The second charge exhibited against the prisoner is high treason against the United States, in levying war against them.
As this is the most atrocious offence which can be committed against the political body, so is it the charge which is most capable of being employed as the instrument of those malignant and vindictive passions which may rage in the bosoms of contending parties struggling for power. It is that of which the people of America have been most jealous; and, therefore, while other crimes are unnoticed, they have returned to trust the national legislature with the definition of this; but have themselves declared in their constitution that "it shall consist only in levying war against the United States or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort."—This high crime consists of overt acts, which must be proved by two witnesses, or by the confession of the party in open court.
Under the control of this constitutional regulation, I am to enquire whether the testimony laid before me furnishes probable cause in support of this charge. The charge is that the fact itself has been committed, & the testimony to support it must furnish probable cause for believing that it has been actually committed; or it is insufficient for the purpose for which it is adduced.
Upon this point too, the testimony of general Eaton is first to be considered. That part of his deposition which bears upon this charge, is the plan disclosed by the prisoner for seizing upon New Orleans, and revolutionizing the western states.
That this plan, if consummated by overt acts would amount to treason, no man will controvert. But it is equally clear that an intention to commit treason is an offence entirely distinct from the actual commission of that crime. War can only be levied by the employment of actual force. Troops must be embodied, men must be assembled, in order to levy war. If Col. Burr had been apprehended on making these communications to general Eaton, could it have been alleged that he had gone farther than to meditate the crime? Could it have been laid that he had actually collected forces, and had actually levied war?—Most certainly it could not. The crime really completed was a conspiracy to commit treason—not an actual commission of treason.
If these communications were not treason at the instant they were made, no lapse of time can make them so. They are not in themselves acts. They may serve to explain the intention with which acts were committed; but they cannot supply those acts, if they be not proved.
The next testimony is the deposition of general Wilkinson, which consists of the letter already noticed, and of the communications made by the bearer of that letter.
This letter has already been considered by the supreme court of the U. S. and has been declared to import, taken by itself, or in connection with Eaton's deposition, rather an expedition against the territories of Spain than the U. S. By that decision I am bound, whether I concurred in it or not. But I did concur in it—On this point the court was unanimous.
It is, however, urged that the declarations of Swartwout may be connected with the letter, and used against Col. Burr.
Although the confession of one man cannot criminate another, yet I am inclined to think that, on a mere enquiry into probable cause, the declarations of Swartwout, made on this particular occasion, may be used against Col. Burr. My reason for thinking so is that Col. Burr's letter authorised Mr. Swartwout to speak in his name. He empowers Mr. Swartwout to make to Gen. Wilkinson verbal communications explanatory of the plans and designs of Burr, which
Burr adopts as his own explanations. However inadmissible, therefore, this testimony may be on a "trial in chief," I am inclined to admit it on this enquiry. If it be admitted, what is its amount?
Upon this point too, it appears that the supreme court was divided. I therefore hold myself at liberty to pursue my own opinion, which was that the words "this territory must be revolutionized," did not so clearly apply to a foreign territory, as to reject that sense which would make them applicable to a territory of the U. States; at least so far as to admit of further enquiry into their meaning: and, if a territory of the U. States was to be revolutionized, though only as a means for an expedition against a foreign power, the act would be treason.
This reasoning leads to the conclusion that there is probable cause for the allegation that treasonable designs were entertained by the prisoner, so late as July last, when this letter was written.
It remains to enquire whether there is also probable cause to believe that those designs have been ripened into the crime itself by actually levying war against the U. States.
It has been already observed that to constitute this crime, troops must be embodied, men must be actually assembled; and these are facts which cannot remain invisible. Treason may be machinated in secret; but it can be perpetrated only in open day, and in the eye of the world. Testimony of a fact which in its own nature is so notorious ought to be unequivocal. The testimony now offered has been laid before the supreme court of the United States, and has been determined, in the case of Bollman and Swartwout, not to furnish probable cause for the opinion that war had been actually levied.—Whatever might have been the inclination of my own mind in that case, I should feel much difficulty in departing from the decision then made; unless this case could be clearly distinguished from it. I will, however, briefly review the arguments which have been urged, and the facts now before me, in order to shew more clearly the particular operation they have on my own judgment.
The fact to be established is that, in pursuance of these designs previously entertained, men have been actually assembled for the purpose of making war against the United States; and on the showing of probable cause that this fact has been committed depends the issue of the present enquiry.
The first piece of testimony relied on to render this fact probable, is the declaration of Mr. Swartwout, that "Col. Burr was levying an armed body of 7000 men from the state of New York, and the western states and territories, with a view to carry on an expedition against the Mexican provinces." The term "levying," has been said according to the explanation of the Lexicons to mean the embodying of troops, and therefore to prove what is required. Although I do not suppose that Mr. Swartwout had consulted a dictionary, I have looked into Johnson for the term, and find its first signification to be "to raise;" its second, "to bring together." In common parlance it may signify the one or the other. But its sense is certainly decided by the fact. If when Mr. Swartwout left Col. Burr, which must be supposed to have been in July, he was actually embodying men from New York to the western states, what could veil his troops from human sight. An invisible army is not the instrument of war, and had these troops been visible, some testimony relative to them could have been adduced. I take the real sense then in which this term was used to be, that Col. Burr was raising, or in other words, engaging or enlisting men through the country described, for the enterprise he meditated. The utmost point to which this testimony can be extended, is that it denotes a future embodying of men which is more particularly mentioned in the letter itself, and that it affords probable cause to believe that the troops did actually embody at the period designated for their assembling, which is sufficient to induce the justice to whom the application is made to commit for trial.
I shall readily avow my opinion that the strength of the presumption arising from this testimony ought to depend greatly on the time at which the application is made. If soon after the period at which the troops were to assemble, when full time had not elapsed to ascertain the fact, these circumstances had been urged as the ground for a commitment on the charge of treason, I should have thought them entitled to great consideration. I will not deny that in the cases of Bollman and Swartwout, I was not perfectly satisfied that they did not warrant an enquiry into the fact. But I think every person must admit, that the weight of those circumstances daily diminishes. Suspicion may deserve great attention, when the means of ascertaining its real grounds are not yet possessed, but when those means are or may have been acquired, if facts to support suspicion be not shown, every person I think must admit, that the ministers of justice at least ought not officially to entertain it. This I think must be conceded by all, but whether it be conceded by others or not, it is the dictate of my own judgment, and in the performance of my duty I can know no other guide.
The fact to be proved in this case is an act of public notoriety. It must exist in the view of the world, or it cannot exist at all. The assembling of forces to levy war is a visible transaction, and numbers must witness it. It is therefore capable of proof; and when time to collect this proof has been given, it ought to be adduced, or the suspicion
becomes a ground too weak to stand upon.
Several months have elapsed since this fact did occur, if it ever occurred. More than five weeks have elapsed since the opinion of the supreme court has declared the necessity of proving the fact if it exists. Why is it not proved?
To the executive government is entrusted the important power of prosecuting those whose crimes may disturb the public repose, or endanger its safety. It would be easy, in much less time than has intervened, since Col. Burr has been alleged to have assembled his troops, to procure affidavits establishing the fact. If in November or December last, a body of troops had been assembled on the Ohio, it is impossible to suppose that affidavits establishing the fact could not have been obtained by the last of March. I ought not to believe, and I do not believe, that there has been any remissness on the part of those who prosecute, on this important and interesting subject; and consequently, when at this late period, no evidence that troops have been actually embodied is given, I must say that the suspicion, which, in the first instance might have been created, ought not to be continued, unless the want of proof can be in some manner accounted for.
It is stated by the Attorney for the United States that as affidavits can only be voluntary, the difficulty of obtaining them accounts for the absence of proof.
I cannot admit this position. On the evidence furnished by this very transaction of the attachment, felt by our Western for their Eastern brethren, we justly felicitate ourselves. How inconsistent with this fact is the idea that no man could be found who would voluntarily depose that a body of troops had actually assembled, whose object must be understood to be hostile to the union, and whose object was detected, and defeated by the very people who could give the requisite information.
I cannot doubt that means to obtain information have been taken on the part of the prosecution if it exists. I cannot doubt the practicability of obtaining it, & its non-production at this late hour does not, in my opinion, leave me at liberty to give to these suppositions which grow out of other circumstances, that weight to which at an earlier day they might have been entitled.
I shall not therefore infer in the Commitment the charge of High Treason. I repeat that this is the less important, because it detracts nothing from the right of the Attorney to prefer an indictment for High Treason, though he be furnished with the necessary testimony.
Judge Marshall then observed, that he should not commit Col. Burr on the charge of treason; but that he should hold him to bail, on the charge of setting on foot a military expedition against the dominions of Spain: That with respect to the amount of bail, he had made up no definitive opinion. He wished it to be neither too large, to amount to oppression, nor too small to defeat the objects of justice. It had occurred to him, that the sum of 10,000 dollars would perhaps avoid both these extremes.
Mr. Hay was in favor of a larger sum. He had no doubt, from the spirit which had been manifested, that Col. Burr could obtain bail to almost any amount he pleased. The day before, Col. B. had obtained bail for 5000 dollars, and he believed without any solicitation on his part.
Mr. Wickham had supposed that 5 or 6000 dollars would have been sufficient. It was only on the misdemeanor, that it was to be given. With respect to the possibility of obtaining bail to any amount, he was unable to express any opinion; it was a subject with which he was personally unacquainted. But as to the spirit which it was said had been manifested, he could say, that he had heard several gentlemen declare themselves unwilling to appear as bail for Col. Burr, lest it should be ascribed to a spirit of opposition to the administration.
Col. Burr rose and observed, that if the government was to pay him for the losses it had made him sustain, 40,000 dollars would not indemnify him. And yet this circumstance might operate against his obtaining bail to a large amount.
Mr. Hay replied. The judge then observed that he should fix the bail to 10,000 dollars, and that he would meet Col. Burr at the Capitol at three o'clock, to receive it.
At three o'clock the judge met the parties: when Messrs. Thomas Taylor, John G. Gamble, John Hopkins, Henry Heath, and William Langburne, appeared as his securities. He is recognized to appear before the federal court, in this city, on the 22d of next May.
The affidavit of commodore Truxton did not get to the hands of the attorney of the United States before Tuesday night; of course it was not exhibited on the examination.—Mr. Rooney left this city yesterday morning, for Washington.
ROBERT CHERRY, WILL RENT HIS HOUSE Covering 25 feet by 46, with a handsome Kitchen Garden attached thereto, on Square 799 near the Navy Yard, referring to himself the STORE and one half the Cellar. April 6.—3t
WASHINGTON CITY, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8.
The PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES yesterday left this City on a short visit to Monticello.
The following extract of a letter received from Lt. Gaines, dated Fort Stoddert, Feb. 22, 1807, furnishes some interesting circumstances relative to the arrest of Col. Burr.
"Early in the morning of the 19th of the present month I was advised by major Perkins, that a man, whom he supposed to be Col. Burr, had passed through the upper end of this settlement the preceding evening; whereupon I immediately set out with a sergeant and three privates of my detachment; and after reconnoitering with major Perkins about fourteen miles up the country, met with Col. Burr, and escorted him to this place. My apprehensions relative to the Spaniards were strengthened by the arrival of a Spanish officer, who commands one of the armed vessels at Mobile (whose name I cannot recollect). He dined with me yesterday, and made a request through his interpreter, to be permitted to see Col. Burr, who, he said, he understood was in the Fort. I promised to see the colonel, and then give him an answer. I went to the colonel's room, and informed him that the Spanish officer wished to see him. He immediately shewed me a paper he had just written, in which he requested me to introduce him to the Spanish officer, adding that he was anxious to send to his friend Morales for a few necessaries. I observed that perhaps it was nothing more than idle curiosity that prompted the Spanish officer to wish to see him, and I could not, under present circumstances, admit an interview. I returned, and informed the Spanish officer, through his interpreter, that, as Col. Burr was a citizen of the U. S. and in confinement for an offence against the laws thereof, I could not permit an officer of a neighboring government to see him, especially as I presumed they could have no sort of business with each other. The officer immediately set out in a small boat for Mobile. This circumstance, together with a communication, made by a Mr. Ashley, who accompanied Col. Burr to this country, to one of our citizens, has induced me to adopt a measure, which had before strongly presented itself as indispensable, to send him direct to the seat of government. [See Note 1.]
"I regret extremely that I should have been compelled to take any measures in relation to the disposal of the prisoner, without instructions from my superiors; nor would I have hazarded this step, but from the fullest belief that I could not keep him secure at this place much longer; nor could I have sent him with safety to Natchez, from whence his associates are no doubt moving towards this place. But in addition to these causes, I have to combat an enemy, that might prove more formidable, and much more unpleasant than either. I have learnt from a soldier, whom I have usually found to be a man of truth, that the Colonel had made overtures to two centinels (who were at different times on duty at his door) for his liberation, and had made offers of cash. My informant, John Brown, a Taylor, had been doing some work for the Colonel, who finding he could speak French, and after some conversation with him in that language, and sounding him as he believed, on the subject of a bribe, enquired whether the two centinels aforesaid could be depended on—Such is my situation, that should any attempts be made either within or without the fort to rescue the prisoner before his departure, the measures which I feel bound to take will be of a much more serious nature than his removal to Washington."
"I have committed the prisoner to the charge of major R. Perkins, to whose activity and patriotism the public are indebted for the seizure of this extraordinary man. The major has selected a party of active and respectable men, [See Note 2.] to assist him on the route, and he will also be accompanied by sergeant Harris and Cyrus Jones, who were with me when I took the prisoner, and who are amongst the most confidential men of my detachment."
"Note 1. The communication, here referred to, we understand to be this. While Ashley was in the company of the sheriff, he said he was well acquainted with the objects Col. Burr had in view, and among other things stated that it was his intention to go into the Floridas. On subsequent enquiries made of him by others, he professed total ignorance of the views of Col. Burr, and said that he had accidentally fallen in with him. This Ashley is a character of some celebrity. He is reputed to be a man of talents, possesses considerable property, and was with Nolan in the Spanish country when he fell."
"Note 2. The escort was composed of the most respectable men in the country, some of them possessed of very considerable property, and others much distinguished in their districts."
To these circumstances it is proper to add, that colonel Burr was treated during the journey with the greatest attention and tenderness. From the beginning to the end of it he was supplied with tea, coffee, wine and brandy of some of which articles he had even a portion left on his arrival at Richmond—and although the party were for two or three days destitute of a sufficient supply of provisions, Mr. Burr was allotted to him the usual quantity. Until the attempt made by him to get out of the power of the escort, he was permitted to wear his pistols and a large knife. After this attempt he was deprived of the former.
Richmond, April 8. MARRIED, on Monday evening last, by the Rev. J. Buchanan M.A. NICHOLAS B. VAN ZANDT, of the city of Washington, to the amiable and much admired Miss MARIA WOOD SOUTHALL, of this city.
A bill for abolishing the Slave Trade has passed the English House of Lords. Vessels employed in that iniquitous traffic (so contrary to justice, humanity, and sound policy) must clear out from British ports for Africa previous to the first of May next, and complete their lading in Africa and their voyage from thence to the West-Indies previous to the first of January, 1808, after which period the trade becomes contrary to law. An exception, however, is made in favor of cases where, by capture, loss of the vessel, or other unavoidable accident, (the proof to lie on the party) the completion of the voyage to the West-Indies within the time limited may have been prevented.
RUNAWAY, On the 31st ult. a black fellow calling himself BILL, was committed to the jail in this city, as a runaway. He is 5 feet 7 or 8 inches high, black complexioned, slenderly made and at first said he belonged to Joseph Blake of Calvert county; but has since confessed that his right name is NED and that he belongs to Benjamin Call of said county. He is clothed in a mutton-ketney. The owner of said slave is requested to retrieve him, or he will be sold for his expenses. CARFWIG VI TIPPETT, Keeper of the jail in Washington city. April 8.—3t
One Dollar Reward. MY Negro man FIDELIO having left my service, and conducted himself improperly, I will give a reward of one dollar to any person who will lodge him in jail or bring him to me securely tied. All persons are warned not to harbor or give employment to said negro, as I shall hereafter prosecute every person so offending. ALICE DRAKEOTT. Washington city, April 8.—3t
This is to give Notice THAT the subscriber hath obtained from the Orphans court of Washington county, in the district of Columbia, letters of administration on the personal estate of RAZIN BECK, late of said county deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit them with the vouchers thereof, on or before the 10th October next, otherwise they will by law be excluded from all benefits thereof and all those indebted to said estate are requested to make payment to the subscriber. Given under my hand this 7th day of April, 1807. RICH. BECK, adm'r. Georgetown April 8.—w3t
PUBLIC SALE. The subscriber in pursuance of an order of the Orphans Court of Washington county, district of Columbia, will sell at public auction on Friday the 17th inst. all the valuable stock of Groceries, together with the Household & Kitchen Furniture, and 3 Negroes, and one strong Horse and a Coach and Harness all of which belonging to the estate of Razin Beck, late of said county deceased. Terms of sale, 3 months credit, the purchaser giving notes with approved endorser, negotiable at the Bank of Columbia, or the Office of Discount and Deposit Washington. RICH. BECK, adm'r. Georgetown, April 8.—3t
JUST PUBLISHED, (PRICE 25 CENTS.) And for Sale AT WESCOTT & CO. PRINTING OFFICE, 11th street, Duane's book store Pennsylvania avenue, by J. V. Thomas, at the Navy Yard, Washington, and J. March George town, A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND. Giving a short account of the country on the the south side of Lake Erie, including a brief description of its situation, climate, soil, productions, trade, commerce, manufactures and exports. By JAMES TONGUE, M. D. &c. of Maryland. April 8.—3t
THE Directors of the North Carolina Gold Mine Company, will be chosen on the first Monday in May next, at Rhodes's Tavern, in this city. WILLIAM THORNTON. City of Washington April 8.—3t
NOTICE. A small BATTEAUX was taken up adrift, supposed to have come down the Potomac, now lying on the wharf at Georgetown—no visible marks. HUGH BROWN. April 6.—3t

A list of Letters remaining in the Post Office at Washington City on the 1st day of April, 1807.
Lieut. William Henry Allen, Thomas G. Addison, Esq. 2, William Adams.
Saml. Bell of Saml. Richard P. Berrian 2, Maria Butler, James Brown, Commodore H. B. Broovorth, Henry Butler, Esq. Geo. Baldwin 2, William Berry, Mrs. Liddy Betch, Gen. Wm. Barton, Abner Bradford, Esq. David Bell, William Brent, jun. Abraham Barge, Silas Butler, Mrs. Mary Bowland, N. Brice, Esq. Miss Jane Barnhoule, Thomas K. Beall, Hon. Frederick Bates, Esq. Benjn. G. Bartlett, Joel Barlow, Esq. Doctor Benton, James Biscoe, Miss Elizabeth Beall.
William Chossborough, Richard Crump, Esq. Patrick Collins, Thomas Cook 2, Mrs. Crawford, (care of Richard Forrester) William Collins 2, George Crooks, Elias B. Caldwell 2, Mr. John Curran 2, Midfn. Overton Carr, jr. Mr. Henry Craig, Mr. Edward Goffon.
Clement Dorsey, Esq. Danl. Dovlin John Darby, Esq. Mr. William Douglass, George B. Doyer, George Dalziel 3, Capt. Deatur, M. Amedee De Muin, Ailley Demot, James L. Donaldson, Esq. Isaac Davis, Benjn. Dulany, Jun. Esq. Francis Donnley.
Evan Evans 2, Thomas Eldridge, Samuel Estil, Doctor Thomas Ewell 2.
Mr. Louis Forman, Mr. Daniel Fox, Aquicous Farnte, Miss Jane Farr, Isaac Foster, Richard Freeman, Esq. David Fergulon, Capt. Danl. Freeman.
Thomas F. Gamble, Miss Gatewood.
Miss Milly Hopkins, Mr. Alexander Harper William Hughes, John Hopkins John Hoye Esq. James Hughes, Esq. Capt. Isaac Hull, Capt. Samuel Hayward, Miss Hannah Hopkins Mr. George A. Hughes, Lieut. John Howard 2, Mr. Garraway Hopkins 2, Mr. Richard Holme, Charles W. Hare, Esq. Colonel S. Hammond.
Major Walter Jones, Jun. Mrs. Elizabeth Innes, Honble. Richard M. Johnson, Esq. Mr. Anthony Johnson.
Mr. Daniel Kiler, Joseph King, Michael Kronanacker 2.
Benjamin Lee, Esq. Jacob Lecay, David Lutter, Charles G. Lewis, Esq. Mrs. Lyme, Lieut. John P. N. Lucket 2, Meriwether Lewis, Esq. 3.
Mr. Owen M'Gowen, Peter Mills Esq. Robert J. Murray, George B. Magruder, Walter M'Connell, Mr. John Major, Mr. Morrison, Anthony Morales, Esq. 2, Lieut. Francis L. Mitchell, John M'Clay, Lieut. Murdoch, Lieut. M'Donough, Humphrey Marshall, Esq. 2, Mr. John Mayne, Miss Montgomery, Lieut. Charles Morris.
Joseph Nichols, (care of Mr. Charles Goldsborough.)
Mr. George Pickett 2, Mr. William Parsons, John Wilkes Pratt, Esq. 2, Levy Proctor, Mr. James A Pearce, William Pole, Richard Parle, Phil G. Penelton, Esq. Robert W. Peacock Esq. Mr. John Han Price, Mr. William Parker.
John Rowan, Messrs. Wm. Rhodes & Son, Miss Sufannah Ronchor, Richard Riker, Esq. 2, Capt. John Robertson, D. M. Randolph, Esq.
Mr. David Stuart, Capt. Francis Smith, Mr. Richard Spriggs, Mr. Michael Stubb, Mr. Henry Smothers, Saml. Hoy-Smith, Esq. John Sheppard Mrs. Agostino Sera, Miss Fanny Shorter, Godfrey Smith, Mr. George Stout, Mr. Henry Sneyd, Lieut. Thomas A. Smith, Mr. Charles Shaw 2, Robert Story, Esq. Mr. Solomon Stinson, Mr. John Smith, Mrs. Ann Strong, Richard Stuart, Wm. O. Spriggs, Esq. Mr. John Showard, Mr. David Slater, Mr. John Simonson, Mr. Samuel Stebinero.
Monsieur Monfieu le Colonel Witeen Treforier, Leonard Travis, Esq. Doctor Robert L. Thorn, Doctor Thornton, Mr. John Tappan, Mr. Benjamin Thomas.
Mr. William L. Venable, Mrs. Cecilia Vanallen.
Mr. Abel Wrifford, Mr. John Walker, Hugh Wilson, Esq. Mr. Joseph Wainfourt, Josiah Whetney, Esq. 2, Capt. Wederstrandt, Mr. John Wenzel, Colo. John Whelon, Mr. Eno Williams, George Walker, Esq. Mr.
Wm. Walker, Mr. Henry Wilkinson, Mr. Robert Winfatt, Elio Whitney, Esq. 2, Mr. Nicholas Walton, Mrs. Sarah Walton, Mr. John Wilson 2.
Thomas Young, Jun. Esq.
A STRAY COW. Strayed away on the 15th of March last, a white and black spotted COW, about 5 years old - had on when she went away a small BELL, with the letters C. De K. and the word "WASHINGTON" in full, scarcely legible, unless closely examined. It is supposed she directed her course towards Rock Creek Church or Tenley Town; she being frequently found at the latter place. Whoever gives information at this Office where she may be found, shall receive a liberal reward. CORN. DE KRAFF. April 3-3t
CAUTION. ON or about the 8th of November, 1806, I passed my note to Thomas Crowley, of Washington city, for one hundred dollars. - Payments have since been made him, some of which have not been receipted on the back of the note, (but which receipts I have in possession). I am under the necessity of cautioning all persons from taking an assignment of said note, as I am determined to pay no part of what may appear due thereof, until my title to the property for which the note was, in part given, shall be cleared of all incumbrance. NICHOLAS WHELAN. April 3-3t
NOTICE. TAKEN up, a stray, a small BLACK COW, and has got a bell, has no mark perceivable she has seen about here all the winter. The owner is requested to come and prove property, pay charges and take her away. ARCHIBALD CRESHER. April 3-3t
WILLIAM DUANE, OFFERS FOR SALE, THAT valuable LOT on which his Bookstore stands, in Pennsylvania avenue; it measures 52 feet on the avenue, occupies the whole side of the square on Sixth street, and 40 feet front on C street, with the Buildings thereon. It will be disposed of on very moderate terms for cash or secure negotiable paper. Also the BRICK HOUSE no. 1 Blodget's Hotel, and the Two LOTS of Ground on one of which it stands. The house was built for a store, and is very lofty and has a dry cellar and plastered garret. This will be sold on similar terms as the above. Apply to R. C. Weightman, at the store, who is authorized to sell either or both. April 3-3t
NOTICE. THE Sale of Dr. John Bullus's FURNITURE is unavoidably postponed on account of the weather, but will commence on Friday the 10th April, 11 o'clock forenoon if fair, if not, the next fair day, when it will positively be sold without reserve.
SALE AT AUCTION. ON Wednesday the 12th day of April will be sold at public auction at the house of Dr. JOHN BULLUS, living near the Marine Barracks, all his Household & Kitchen Furniture, consisting of Mahogany and other bedssteads, bureaus, chairs, mahogany dining, tea and card tables, sofas, dressing tables, wash stands, Brussels and Scotch carpeting the greater part of which is new, large pier and dressing glasses, lamps, plated and other candlesticks, lamps, handsome grates, fenders and shovels and tongs, curtain, quite new and handsomely made, gilt window cornices, beds, matresses and bed furniture, good paintings and prints in frames, china and tea china, cut and plain glass, silver and plated ware, consisting of tea furniture, ladies' spoons and boilers - also, one coach and a travelling carriage nearly new, with harness; a pair of good found horses, and one double barrel fowling piece. The sale to commence at 10 o'clock in the forenoon, if fair, if not, the next fair day, and continue from day to day until all are sold. Terms made known at time and place of sale. The goods may be viewed two days previous to the sale. SAMUEL SPEAKE, Auctioneer. March 2-3t
TO LET, And possession immediately given - That large and commodious brick Dwelling HOUSE & 8 ORB. lately occupied by Mr. ADAM LINSEY near the Navy Yard; the house is well calculated to accommodate a small family at present, having four rooms nearly finished, a good kitchen, and spring of water in the cellar adjoining - also, a stable and wood cellar. The store is large and well adapted to the Dry Goods and Grocery business having a large and dry cellar with a plank floor underneath the whole of the store, where goods of any kind may be safely deposited. The situation of the above described premises for business is not excelled by any in this city. For terms enquire of Mr. Matthew Wright, near the premises or to the subscriber on East Capitol street near the Capitol. WILLIAM EMACK, Attorney for Adam Lindsay. Washington City, March 23-wtf
FRESH GARDEN SEEDS, &c HIERONYMUS HOLT respectfully informs his friends and the public that he has an extensive assortment of Fresh Garden and Flower seeds, Grass seeds, Garden seeds &c for sale at his Nursery Garden Eastern Branch. Washington city, Jan. 2-w3m
PUBLIC NOTICE.
Pursuant to a Resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States of the 3d day of March instant, I am ready to receive separate Proposals, in writing, for the supply of such articles of Stationery as may be necessary for the service of the said House, until the fourth day of March, 1807, and also the like proposals for the execution of all the Printing business of the said House, and for the supply of Fuel during the same time. The several species of stationery, Printing and Fuel wanted, are subjoined to this advertisement, and the proposals must be accompanied with the names and residence of sufficient securities for performance. JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk to the House of Representatives of the United States. City of Washington, 25th March, 1807.
STATIONERY WANTED.
Letter paper, hot pressed, vellum, extra large, Do. do. plain, Do. do. wove and plain, Do. medium size, for engrossing, Foolscap, Ready made pens, per hundred and quills per hundred, Best Dutch red wax, Do. black do. Red wafers, Common black sand, in papers, and Wafer boxes, and pounce boxes per dozen, Inks and sands, per pair, Half pint phials, with corks, Low priced folders, Lead pencils, Red tape, in pieces, Ink of the best quality per gallon, Indian rubber, per bottle, Parchment in skins per dozen, cut/dressed, and pounced for use, 22 by 32 inches, Office penknives and crafting knives.
The supply of these articles must embrace a possible demand to the value of 3,500, or 4,000 dollars, for the session. It is desirable that specimens of paper, quills and parchment should accompany the proposals; and, in every instance, articles of American manufacture of equal quality with, and not exceeding the price of similar imported articles will be preferred. A security equal to 8000 dollars will be required.
PRINTING WANTED.
Plain work, per sheet, octavo, 300 impressions of each sheet, Bills numbered per line, in sheet or half sheet, folio, Figure work, Rule & figure work, Table work, Folding and stitching, per hundred, for any number of documents exceeding three half sheets, and thence to twenty half sheets, and for all above. Book-binding in boards, sheep, per folio and octavo volume marked and lettered.
In every instance, the printer supplies the paper as well as the work duly folded and stitched, and no possible delay is to occur in the daily execution & delivery of the work, so that in all cases where it is practicable, the document ordered to be printed on any given day may be ready for delivery the next morning, at the hour to which the House stands adjourned.
No extra allowance will be made for working on Sundays, holidays, or after night; these must be considered by the contractor, in the price per sheet. The contract must embrace a possible amount of work during the session, equal to 10,000 dollars, and the security required will be to the amount of 20,000 dollars.
FUEL WANTED
For the supply of the next session, 100 cord good found Hickory Wood, to be delivered, sawed, packed and measured, in the public cellar of the Capitol, at the expense of the contractor, the whole to be delivered on or before the first day of October next; a proportion of the purchase money will be advanced on giving sufficient security for performance. And for the supply of the next succeeding session of Congress, &c. to be delivered in like manner, and at such time as may agreed upon. JOHN BECKLEY. Washington, March 30-3w
ELIAS B. CALDWELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, HAS removed his Office, to the house late occupied by Mr. LAW, on Capitol Hill, Washington, July 26-tf
On a liberal credit. THE subscriber will dispose of at private sale, his estate called Chichester, lying on the eastern branch, immediately opposite the city of Washington. This tract of land containing 697 acres is laid off in lots from 3 to 144 acres for the convenience of purchasers. Plats of the estate and the terms of sale are in the hands of colonel Manion at the Navy yard, and Charles Wayman of George Town. The lots will be shown by Mr. Wooden, living on the premises, near the Eastern Branch bridge. ANTHONY ADDISON, Barnaby, 12th June 1805-tf
CHARLES A. BURNETT, HAS received from London and Liverpool a handsome assortment of articles in his line, consisting of WATCHES & JEWELRY, Silver, Tortoiseshell, and steel Spectacles, Table knives and forks w-ivory handles, Pen knives and scissors, Ladies and Gentlemen's Pocket BOOKS. He also continues to manufacture gold and silver ware, at the most reduced prices. George Town, Dec. 2d-tf
This is to give notice, that the subscriber of the city of Washington in the district of Columbia, hath obtained from the Orphan's Court of Prince George's county in the state of Maryland, letters of administration on the personal estate of Thomas Ducket, late of said county deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber on or before the first day of October next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Those interested in the deceased are desired to make immediate payment. ALLAN B. DUCKETT, Adm. City of Washington, March 18-tf All claims forwarded by mail must be paid.
PUBLIC SALE. BY virtue of a deed of trust from James Wiffeld to the subscriber will be sold to the highest bidder on the 27th of May next at the hour of 11 o'clock A.M. on the premises, a lot of ground supposed to contain ten acres with the wood thereon, situated near the lower Eastern Branch bridge and on the road leading to Marlinton. Terms of sale cash. HENSON L. MCCORMICK, Trustee. February 27-wtdof
PORTRAIT PAINTING. C. BOYLE respectfully informs the public that he paints Likenesses in Oil Colors, in the building formerly occupied by Mr. G. Stewart, on the Pennsylvania Avenue, near Duane's Book-store. N. B. A few specimens to be seen, January 5-tf
10 Dollars Reward. RANAWAY from the subscriber, on Sunday the 14th ult. a negro man named DANIEL, about 30 years of age, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, stout made, has a lump on the outside of one of his feet, likewise some lumps on his back, and several slight scars in his face, also a scar on the upper joint of his left fore finger, occasioned by the cut of a knife; he can read, and passed the Falls Bridge on Sunday night the 22nd ult. and said he was going to Georgetown and the city of Washington, but may probably pass on to Baltimore. His clothing when he went away was a short blue coat with skirts, twindown jacket, and striped lindsay trowsers, white yarn stockings, &c his other clothes not remembered. I purchased him last fall of Mr. Robert Gunnell of Virginia, who purchased him some years ago of Capt. John Turbeville. I will give the above reward to any person that will secure him in any jail or give information to me in Fairfax county, Virginia, so that I get him again. H. GUNNELL, Jun. April 1-2w
JUST RECEIVED, 3000 Bushels Coarse LISBON SALT, And a quantity of fresh Lisbon LEMONS in boxes in excellent order, for sale by WALTER & CLEMENT SMITH. Georgetown, April 1-2w.
THE SUBSCRIBER Has for Sale at the Wharf end of South Capitol street, 6 puncheons Jamaica rum } 4th proof, 4 pipes panish brandy } 4th proof, 4 pipes gin, 100 barrels rye whiskey, Lisbon and Teneffe Wine of superior quality in quarter casks, Flour for family use. JAMES D. BARRY. April 6-3t
To Rent, AND possession given on the 19th November next, the two story Brick Dwelling House on the corner of 2nd and 14th streets, as present occupied by Mr. Andrew Way. Also a two story brick dwelling house in a central situation, of which possession may be had immediately. For terms apply to THOS. MENTY. Oct 17-3t & wtf
By the Orphan's Court of St. Mary's county, February term, eighteen hundred and seven. ORDERED that James Biscoe, executor of Deborah Woolfhouse late of St. Mary's county, deceased, give the notice required by law to creditors to exhibit their claims against the estate of the said deceased, and that the same be published once a week for six weeks in the Fredericktown Herald and National Intelligence, in testimony whereof I have set my hand, this 4th day of March, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and seven. JAMES FORREST, Reg. Wills for St. Mary's county.
This is to give notice, that the subscriber of the city of Baltimore has obtained from the Orphan's Court of St. Mary's county, in Maryland, Letters Testamentary on the personal estate of Deborah Woolfhouse late of the county aforesaid, deceased; all persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber, at or before the 4th day of September next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under my hand, this 4th day of March, Anno Domini, eighteen hundred and seven. JAMES BISCOE, Executor. March 20-w6t
The thorough Bred Horse MONTICELLO, NOW IN HIGH ORDER.
WILL be Let to Mares the ensuing season, to commence the first of April, at my farm, near Georgetown, at FIFTEEN DOLLARS, per Mare, for which a note must be sent, payable the first of September, and one dollar to the groom; or in lieu thereof, ELEVEN DOLLARS in money. Good and extensive pasturage, well enclosed, at 50 cents per week, and the mare fed, if required, at the market price, for which the money must be sent. The greatest care taken to prevent accidents or escapes, but will not be responsible for either. JOHN THALKELD. March 23-tf
FOR SALE, Fresh Red CLOVER SEED, By JAMES CRAVEN, near the Navy Yard. March 23-1m
CHARLES H. VARDEN, Merchant Taylor. New Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia, he has imported by ship Eliza ANN lately arrived at Philadelphia, A choice assortment Of Extra Superfine cloths, Bennetts, Velvets, and Cordes, Saffroners, single and double milled Sattin cloths, fashionable Spanish Orleans and Toisonets, rich silk Mouselin velvets, silk and satin Florentines, with a variety of other articles suitable for the season. N. B. Ladies habits, regiments and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion. Richard Marwells celebrated patent parasol dispensers, can be had on the same terms as at his manufactory. November 12-tf
20 DOLLARS REWARD. RANAWAY from the subscriber in August last, a Negro CHARLES - he is a straight well made black man, about 26 years of age, 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high; has lost some of his fore teeth; is remarkably polite and much of a gallant. The above reward will be paid to any person who will bring him home or lodge him any jail so that I get him again. WM. B. BRANES, Upper Marlinton, Jan. 9-tawtf
Valuable Seats for Iron Works. THE subscriber offers for sale between Five and Six Thousand acres of Land bounded on one side by James River, including big and little Owen's Creek, and situate in Amherst county in the state of Virginia. This land is in the midst of a well and thick settled country, about 100 miles above the city of Richmond. There are not more than 30 acres of it cleared. The remainder is heavy timber, bared - consisting of large pines, white oaks, poplar, black walnut and chestnut. On Big Owens creek, and within 600 yards of James river, which is navigable for boats at all seasons of the year - there is an excellent site for any kind of water works. The stream is rapid and constant, and about three miles from the seat are, as it is believed inexhaustible banks of Iron ore, which the subscriber has secured and which will be sold with the land. This ore has been tried and proved to be of a very superior kind. The land adjoining the seat is of excellent quality. Two hundred acres of timothy meadow might be made on the creek. The upland although hilly in places is well adapted to small grain, and a great proportion of it suitable to the raising of tobacco. Immediately around the site for water works are inexhaustible LIMESTONE Quarries, together with great quantities of the best building stone. In short there are many advantages combined to render this a most eligible spot for the creation of iron works, or any other kind of water works. It is deemed unnecessary to say more concerning this property than to request those who desire to purchase to view it. It will be shown by captain Henry Melhaway in the neighborhood. The price will be moderate, terms of sale, which will be made very easy, will be made known on application to the proprietor residing in Georgetown district of Columbia. NATHAN LUGGROUGHO. Georgetown, February 16-wtf
Bank of Columbia, March 19th, 1807. THE Board of Directors having this day declared a dividend for the half year ending the 20th inst. at the rate of 5 1/2 per cent per annum - the same will be paid to the Stockholders or their Representatives at any time after this day. WILLIAM WYATT, Cashier. Georgetown March 20-cfow