The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-04-09 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. II
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXXII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, APRIL 9th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1802.
DEBATE
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for entering upon the discussion of the subject now before the committee; because I have considered the first section of the bill on your table, and which the motion of my honorable friend from North Carolina proposes to strike out, as implicating not only the dearest interest of the people of this country, but directly prostrating the fairest feature of the federal constitution. And I believe it to be the duty of every man, every friend to the constitution, who has a right to be heard on this floor, to raise his voice against a measure so ruinous and destructive.
I do not however expect, nor am I indeed vain enough to imagine, after the extensive and critical view which has been taken of the subject, that it will be in my power to add much to what has been already urged. This consideration however prevents to my mind no objection to the claims of being heard; for although the arguments of my friends remain unanswered, yet upon an occasion so important as the present, I deem it proper that these arguments should be repeated over and over again, that no gentleman may hereafter say, when the passion of the moment has subsided, that the objections to this measure were not sufficiently urged and explained.
This subject has presented to every gentleman who has examined it, two questions for consideration—First, can the Legislature by the constitution, destroy the judges of the circuit courts, by repealing the law which authorised their appointment?
Second, admitting the power to exist; is it expedient to exercise it upon this occasion? I shall not attempt to deviate from this natural arrangement, but in the beaten tract of those who have gone before me pursue the same objects.
The first of these questions is by far the most important, and if decided one way, will necessarily preclude all examination into the other; for if congress cannot without a violation of the constitution destroy the judges as proposed by this bill, it is useless to enquire into the expediency of doing it, for nothing can be expedient which is repugnant to the constitution. But the great importance of this question, and the necessity of considering in some stage of the discussion the comparative merits of the two systems under which the courts have been organised, will be my apology for taking the same course which gentlemen have taken before me, and directing my remarks in the first place to what has been called the expediency of the measure.
The mere expediency of maintaining the system under which the courts were organized by the law, of the last session must depend on a comparative view of the provisions of that law, with the system which the present bill proposes to revive. And here I must be permitted to say, that the provisions and effects of the two systems were, a few days ago, so fully examined, and completely stated, by my friend from Delaware, that it is impossible the subject should be at this time misunderstood: indeed, Sir, no gentleman can misunderstand it, or resist that conclusion which has been drawn by my friend in favor of the law of the last session.
The defects of the former system under which the courts were organised had been so obvious for many years, that during the whole period within which the last law was under consideration no gentleman attempted to defend it: it was then well understood, and universally admitted, that under the old arrangement, the judicial power could not accomplish the objects, for which it was designed; and the necessity of a change had become too apparent, to be denied: the only question, which then divided the opinions of those who were disposed to execute with good faith the provisions of the constitution in relation to the judicial power, was, whether it was proper to adhere to the principle of the old system and fill up the outline which had
been drawn by adding to the judges of the supreme court, or, leaving those judges to their proper jurisdiction, to organise a new circuit court with adequate powers.
The great and prominent defects of the old system, and which have been so fully pointed out upon this occasion, were not only understood but acknowledged. The absurdity of placing the same judges in the court of appeals to decide in the last resort upon judgments rendered by themselves in the courts below, was seen and felt. The effect of associating a district judge with a justice of the supreme court upon the circuits, could not escape the most cursory observer; and experience had confirmed the opinion, which had been long entertained, that such an association was unnatural, and whilst it destroyed the dignity of the district judge, necessarily lessened the respectability of the court itself.
The constant changes of judges from one circuit to another was also found to embarrass the business of the courts, and particularly in matters of form and practice: and the immense extent of country through which the judges were obliged to travel on the circuits—the accidents to which they were exposed and the failure of courts; not only within the recollection of the members of the House, but proved by the laws which had been passed to revive suits which had been discontinued from these causes, all united to satisfy gentlemen at that time that a new arrangement was indispensable. Indeed, Sir, every gentleman, who has been in the least acquainted with our courts, must have seen the great delays and vexations which have arisen to suitors from the causes which have been mentioned; and that in many cases, those individuals who were entitled by the constitution, to trials in the national courts, and were desirous of obtaining them, were compelled to seek for justice in state tribunals.
There is no axiom better understood in this country than that a delay of justice is a denial of it; and whilst the old arrangement existed, although you professed justice to your citizens and to foreigners who demanded it in your courts, yet in effect by the embarrassments and delays to which that arrangement exposed them, justice was but a name: it was a mockery, from which they were compelled to turn away with disgust.
It is true, that there was a description of persons within the United States, and perhaps within the walls of this House, who were disposed to prostrate in effect the national courts and transfer to state judicatures the whole judicial power. To persons of this description it is obvious, that every proposition which was calculated to improve the organization of the federal courts, would be highly displeasing, because they knew full well, that whenever the national courts should be so organized as to offer to suitors speedy and certain justice, the business of those courts would be increased, their influence and their character more highly respected. But the wishes of those gentlemen did not prevail. It was then believed, and the same opinion must for ever prevail with all well informed men, that a reputable and independent national judiciary is equally necessary for the preservation of the government, and the fair execution of the constitution.
The absurdity of relying on state justice for the execution of our penal laws, on the laws which relate to revenue, cannot be overlooked, and in respect to private suits, it is well known that the constitution has guaranteed to citizens of a certain description the right of trying their causes in the national courts, and you cannot, without a violation of right, turn over their suitors to a Virginia chancellor with his three thousand causes on the docket.
We are not yet to learn, that the state courts are not the best tribunals for the trial of causes, in which the nation or foreigners are concerned. The paper money systems of some states and the breach of treaties in respect to the collection of debts in others, taught the framers of our constitution a conclusive lesson on this subject, and they have wisely provided for the establishment of national courts, where these evils may be avoided, and made it our duty to provide for their efficient organization.
Again, it is idle to disguise the opinions which are entertained of state judicatures by persons who have a right of trial by the constitution in your national courts; Sir, they have no confidence in some of those judicatures; and when they look at the delays which have always attended justice in many of them; when they see themselves liable to be
thrown into a court of chancery, and compelled from the mass of business alone to wait eight or ten years for a trial, their confidence cannot be increased. To those persons and to all those who may be charged with offences against the nation, the constitution has secured the existence of national courts, and it is a gross evasion of the constitution to leave the organization of these courts materially defective.
It cannot upon this occasion become a question of any importance whether your courts are more or less expensive than state courts. The people have not left this question in our hands; they have declared by their constitution that the courts shall exist; they have said that confidence is not, and ought not to be reposed in state courts for the decision of national causes or causes of a civil nature between citizens of different states; they have left nothing upon this subject for us to do, or to decide, but what relates to the form of organizing the national tribunals.
All arguments therefore which are calculated to prove either the merits or defects of state judicatures are irrelevant to the present question. The constitution having declared that the judicial power shall be vested in one supreme court and in inferior courts, and that the jurisdiction of these courts shall extend to a great variety of causes, it only remains to organize them in such a form as to render justice speedy and certain. And this the people have a right to demand at our hands. The parties in civil actions are entitled to tribunals where justice will not slumber for the want of judges to decide. The unfortunate who are accused of crimes, and the people who are interested in public prosecutions, have an equal right to require, that the innocent, when accused, shall be speedily tried and acquitted, and that the guilty shall be as speedily condemned.
The arguments then which relate to the purity of state justice ought to be laid entirely aside, and gentlemen on both sides of the house ought to admit that the legislature must provide for such an organization of the courts as will secure the speedy and certain administration of justice; and the question will again return, was the old organization of the circuit courts, and which is to be revived by the present bill, adequate to these objects?
After all that has been said, after the experience of ten years, I might safely appeal to gentlemen to decide whether that system was calculated to accomplish these objects? Sir, there is not a gentleman on this floor who can lay his hand on his heart and pronounce so preposterous an opinion.
Indeed some gentlemen have admitted, and particularly a gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Smith) who was up yesterday, that the old system was obviously defective, and ought to be changed, but that gentleman had not the goodness to inform us what changes he would propose to remedy these obvious defects. If gentlemen are really desirous of improving the system; why do they pursue the path of destruction? They admit the defects of the old system; they must admit the advantages of the new one; and yet they hasten forward to destroy that which is good, and to revive that which is bad, without proposing a single improvement to render it tolerable. Sir, this does not look like a disposition to improve our judicial arrangements, it looks more like a determination to prostrate our national courts in the dust, and to elevate the judicatures of states on their ruins.
It has been said in the course of this discussion that the old arrangement might be improved by adding to the judges of the supreme court. This proposition has been repelled, whenever it has been urged. It may not however be improper at this time to observe, that such an arrangement would be exposed to most of the absurdities and inconveniences which attended the old arrangement itself: The unnatural association of supreme and inferior judges on the same bench, would continue the same: The absurdities of a judge sitting in an inferior court on one day and deciding causes, and reversing his own judgments the day following in a supreme court is not removed: The shifting of judges from one circuit to another at every term, and the consequent want of identity in the circuit judge, remains as the old system has left it: The certainty of courts may be somewhat increased, but the geographical extent of the country is not diminished, nor can the circuit duty be lessened, provided you send two justices of the supreme court into each circuit. And after all, what will you gain by such an organization? As to econo-
my, which is so much the order of the day at this time, you will not promote it, in any essential point; the salaries of your new judges will amount nearly to as much money as the salaries of your present circuit judges, and the expense of holding courts will be precisely the same. That uniformity of decision, which is so necessary throughout the United States, will not be materially promoted by this arrangement; because the provision already made for that object, by writs of error and appeals to the supreme court, will preserve that uniformity in every point, which is not a mere matter of form; and in respect to the forms of business it is of little importance whether the forms of one or the other part of the country are preferred, provided the principles of decision are the same.
There is however one object which will be gained by the proposed arrangement. You will gain a great accession of numbers to the supreme court, and you will make that tribunal in which the justice of the country is to reside, to resemble a popular assembly, and liable to those party agitations which are so uniformly found in every large assemblage of men.
Some gentlemen however have said, that without increasing the number of judges in the supreme court, you may render the sessions of the circuit court more certain, and identify the judge upon each circuit, by dividing the United States into as many circuits as you have judges of the supreme court, and attaching one of the judges of the supreme court permanently to each circuit. Sir, of all possible expedients, this in my opinion is the worst, for without removing the most formidable objections to the old system, it absolutely renders the decision of causes impracticable. If the judge of the supreme court, and his associate the district judge, shall differ in opinion upon any cause which comes before them, there can be no decision; and justice becomes more uncertain (if possible) than in the court of a Virginia chancellor.
On the whole, Sir, the gentlemen who advocate the present bill, have proposed no substitute for the system which it is calculated to abolish, and whilst they admit the necessity of courts, and the defects of the old system, they cannot in this hasty manner prostrate a useful institution, erected in obedience to the constitution, on any principle of decency or patriotism.
It is certainly true that no exertions have been spared by the executive power, to prove the mutuality of the present circuit courts, and the novel expedient has been gone into of sending into the judicial department for a report of all the causes which have been returned to the national courts, and from these reports, the President has sent to this house, the document number eight. Sir, many of the errors which that document contains have been already exposed, and I have not troubled myself to investigate them further, because I have considered the document itself of no importance; I will however observe, that if my information is correct, in relation to the returns from the circuit court of Connecticut, and I presume it must be, because it is derived from the clerk of that court, the return on your table is not the return which was sent to the executive from that circuit. That return included the names of the parties in each action now depending; and if it had been sent to us un mutilated it would have appeared, whether the aggregate of causes had been truly extracted, and it would likewise have appeared, who were the defendants in that court, from what class of citizens the President had made the late executive appointments in that state, and who the persons were, who are now probably afraid of federal justice.
But, Sir, this document, imperfect and erroneous as it is, still proves (if indeed it proves any thing) the necessity of these courts; it proves that much business has been transacted in the national courts, and that much remains to be done.
But if the business was much less than it really is, could that consideration afford any conclusive arguments against the existence of the courts. This, I believe, is the first time that the utility of courts has been tested by the number of causes depending in them. In a country so commercial as this is, and embarked in so many enterprising pursuits, in which foreigners are concerned as well as our own citizens, it is impossible to prevent the existence of disputes; and if a small number of suits only have been carried into the courts for decision, it proves either that the courts were so badly organized that justice could not be obtained in them, or that justice has been so well administered that men have been in-
duced to do justice to each other without any appeal to the courts.
But all this enquiring into the number of causes depending or tried in the courts, tends more to embarrass the question than to guide the judgment in its decision. It is not important to be informed, how much business has been or may be done in the courts; it is sufficient to know that the existence of national courts is not only necessary but expressly required by the constitution, and that they must be so organized as to render justice speedy and certain to every man who has the right to apply for it, and whilst it is both proved and admitted that the old arrangement could not secure this object, and that the new one has greatly promoted it, it must necessarily result that a determination to destroy the one and restore the other, can only arise from a spirit hostile to the judicial power of the union.
I will, however, detain the committee no longer upon this part of the subject, but call their attention to the great question which has grown out of the present bill; I mean the constitutional right of the legislature to destroy the judges by repealing the law which regulated the mode of their appointment. And here I take the liberty of observing that I feel no terror in approaching this interesting question. Its importance can only animate us in the enquiry, and stimulate our exertions in the defence of truth and the constitution. Nor am I intimidated by any arguments which have been urged in support of this novel claim of the legislature, because those arguments, in my judgment, have been as often refuted as they have been urged.
With the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) I believe that the powers of the legislature must be ascertained by the words of the constitution itself. With that gentleman I think that this instrument is expressed in clear and unequivocal language. And he cannot admire with more ardor than I do, the wisdom of the sages who formed it, or the provisions which it contains. Indeed, Sir, I admire not only the provisions of the instrument, but the order and arrangement in which it is expressed. And I fully believe, if gentlemen will attend to the order as well as the provisions of it, they will find themselves less embarrassed in the expositions which they must pronounce.
Sir, the framers of the constitution have kept every object which it contemplates perfectly distinct; they have blended no two subjects together; each point is settled by itself, and never embarrassed by involving the definition of other points or other powers under the same head.
This order and symmetry will be apparent, when gentlemen turn to the constitution. It will be there found that the first article relates exclusively to the legislative department. The mode of election, the term of service, and the powers of the legislature are there fully and clearly defined, and it will be found that there is not a section in the article, nor a sentence, which delegates power to any other department, nor can there be found in any other article; an expression which conveys an atom of power to the legislature. The second article, pursuing the same order, treats exclusively of the executive department; and does not include a word which does not relate to the executive power. The third article with the same precision is confined to the judiciary department. The fourth relates to the authority of the states, and the duty and power of the national government, both as it regards states and public property. The fifth article provides for amending the constitution. The sixth defines the duty of government in relation to debts, and the effect of the constitution and laws made under its authority. And the seventh prescribes the mode of ratification.
This correct and distinct arrangement in the instrument itself is calculated to facilitate the investigation of powers actually given, or supposed to be given to any department of the government. For, if your enquiry is directed to the powers of the first great department, your attention will be drawn to the first article, where every power of the legislature is delegated; and although these may be limited by powers which are given in other articles to the other departments, yet the power of the legislature can never be increased by any thing which those articles contain. The same rule will guide our enquiry in respect to the powers of the two other departments, and in this way by discarding the application of terms to one department, which the framers of the constitution have exclusively applied to another, we shall escape much confusion and doubt. To investigate then the powers of the

signature in relation to the judicial power, I must beg the attention of the committee in the first place to that part of the first article which relates to this subject. And here it will be found that there is not an expression in this article, or in any part of the constitution which delegates to Congress any power on this subject, but what is contained in two sentences in the 8th section of this article. The first declares, that "Congress shall have power to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court." The second, "to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." By the first of these provisions Congress are clothed with unlimited power, in the creation of inferior courts, both in respect to the number and their jurisdiction; and if this power had not been limited in other parts of the constitution, it is certain that the jurisdiction of these courts, both in criminal and civil causes, might have been extended to every case which could possibly arise in any state or within the United States. And, if gentlemen please, under this general and unlimited delegation of power to erect courts, Congress might not only create and abolish courts and judges at will, but might limit the tenure of office to a term of years, to be held at the pleasure of the President or any executive officer of the government. It is under authority of this part of the constitution, that the inferior courts have been established, and it is apparent that the power given to the legislature by these general words is not only broad enough to cover all the ground demanded, but much more, and for myself, I shall readily admit, that unless this power has been limited by the subsequent parts of the constitution, Congress may at this time do what they please with courts and judges. Under the second provision which I have cited, Congress were authorized to pass the law organizing the supreme court and establishing the salaries of the judges of all the courts, and to pass all laws which were necessary to give complete efficacy to the judicial power.
I will not detain the committee by examining the particular provisions of the second article, because that relates exclusively to the executive power, and is not materially connected with this subject; but will pass to the consideration of the third article, and to which I now beg the particular attention of the committee.
The third article of the constitution does not delegate any power to the legislature—its object is to make a disposition of the judicial power—to limit and to define it—these are the great objects, and the article has provided for them in the following manner: By designating the courts in which the judicial power shall vest; by securing to the judges a tenure of office commensurate with good behavior, and a compensation for services which cannot be diminished; by defining the jurisdiction which the courts shall exercise; the mode in which trials shall proceed, and the facts which shall constitute certain crimes.
The courts in which the judicial power shall vest are designated by the following words, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." It is evident both from the subject matter of this article, and the expression which I have repeated that the framers of the constitution only intended in this place to dispose of the judicial power; and to authorize the erection of courts by Congress. The words "in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish," were never intended to convey a power to Congress to establish such courts, because that power had been already given in the first article of the constitution, to which I have before directed the attention of the committee, and no suppliance can be found in the instrument, and because the object of the expression being to vest the judicial power in certain courts, the subject matter does not admit of any such construction. The expression then plainly intends nothing more or less than this; the judicial power shall vest in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as Congress, under authority of the first article of the constitution shall establish. It is further to be remarked that the expression presupposes the existence both of a supreme, and of inferior courts, and the article contains no imperative language commanding the organization, either of the one or the other. The provisions of the article likewise require as much the existence of inferior, as a supreme court, because the words which define the jurisdiction of the supreme court, giving to that court an appellate jurisdiction in certain cases, cannot be satisfied without the existence of inferior courts, from whose decisions the appeals may be taken; and the expression itself, declaring that the judicial power shall vest in a supreme and in inferior courts necessarily divides to the inferior courts a portion of that power, and renders the existence of such courts necessary for the reception of the power thus delegated.
The inference which I draw from
these considerations is, that the supreme and the inferior courts are creatures of the constitution and not of the law; their existence having been rendered necessary for the reception of the judicial power, by clear and unequivocal language; that the judges when appointed, are of course equally the creatures of the constitution and hold their offices under that instrument in as full a manner as the President himself.
It is true that neither the inferior or the supreme court could have been organized, and the judges appointed without a previous law regulating the mode of performing the operation; and it is equally true that neither the representatives on this floor or the President himself can at this time be appointed without the aid of a law apportioning the representation in one case, and directing the meeting of electors in the other. Indeed, Sir, at the commencement of the government it was impossible and still remains so, to obtain the appointment either of President, Senators, or Representatives without the aid of state laws; but the man must be wild indeed, who imagines that these officers are not the creatures of the constitution because the mode of their appointment has been regulated by law, and in my judgement the man must be equally deranged who imagines that the courts and the judges are not the creatures of the constitution, because the mode of their organization and appointment has been regulated in the same manner. The truth is that the constitution has required with great precision the existence of a President, of Senators, of Representatives, and of judges, and in every case left the mode, and in the case of Representatives and of judges, the number to be regulated by law, and after your law has passed, and the appointments have been made, all these officers hold their offices under the constitution, and you may as well remove the President, the Senators, or the Representatives, by repealing the law which directed the mode of their election, as to destroy the judges by repealing the law which regulated their number, the mode of their appointment or their jurisdiction. Sir, the principle can never be admitted, but the reverse is true, that all these officers, having been once appointed, must remain in office during the term, and under the conditions which the constitution has prescribed.
This then brings me to the second object of the third article, and to enquire by what tenure the judges are to hold their offices—in other words, how long is the judge to remain in office, having been once in under the constitution?
The words of the constitution are 'the judges both of the supreme and the inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour.' To my mind no language can be more clear and explicit than this is. The judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour—indeed it is difficult to explain the expression in terms more certain or explicit than these are. Ask the merest school-boy who runs through your streets, how long a judge is to hold his office, who is to hold it during good behaviour and he will reply without hesitation, that he must hold it, so long as he behaves well—he must hold it for life, if he does not misbehave during that term.
It is however our misfortune in this age for innovation to find that language, and these terms, which a few years ago was not only clear and explicit but well understood, tortured from their obvious meaning; and we are compelled to follow gentlemen through their novel expositions, and endeavor to restore the terms and expressions of our language, to their former import.
Gentlemen appear however to be aware that it would at this time be rather too bold to deny the ordinary effect of the terms good behaviour, but they contend that there is a latent meaning in those words when applied to the constitution which has lately been discovered, and which as I suppose cannot be easily discerned by those whose minds have not been illuminated by the new philosophy. And if I understand the purport of this discovery, as explained to us, it is, that although the constitution absolutely requires that the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour, yet that nothing is intended by this, but that the judges shall hold their offices against the power of removal in the President, and one gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) has gravely attempted to support this strange exposition by saying, that the term hold used in this part of the constitution warrants the construction, that the term hold implies tenure, and tenure implies not only a person holding, but a person or body under whom held; that the expression, the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour, necessarily and only implies, that they shall hold against the person or authority appointing so long as they behave well; and as the second article of the constitution has designated the President to appoint judges with the advice of the senate, and to commission them, it follows that the judges do hold their offices under the President, and are only secured by the constitution against his power of removal
so long as they behave well, being still liable to be destroyed by the legislature in the manner now proposed.
Much credit is undoubtedly due to the gentleman from Virginia for the novelty of his exposition, but I must be permitted to say, that the gentleman has fallen into an error in two essential points—he has in the first place entirely mistaken the import of the word hold, and secondly his construction, if the same had been correct, could not apply to the present question. Sir, the term hold does not imply in a legal, political, or ordinary sense, a person holding, and a person or body under whom held—it implies nothing more or less than absolute possession; and to hold is to possess, to occupy, to enjoy; and the tenure by which a thing is held, or the condition annexed to it must be defined by other words. Whatever I hold, I possess, and whether it is the gift of a friend, the fruit of my personal exertions, or a loan for a term of years, it is nevertheless absolutely held, possessed and enjoyed; so in the present case, the judges are to hold their offices during good behaviour, that is to say, they shall absolutely possess, occupy, and enjoy their offices so long as they behave well, against every power of removal. The gentleman's exposition then having been founded upon the misconstruction of a single term in the constitution has altogether failed at the threshold, notwithstanding the promise of that gentleman to illumine our minds by the clearness of his logic.
But if the definitions of the gentleman had been correct, they could not have been applied to the present question. Admit for the sake of the argument, that the term hold implies all that the gentleman contends for, it does not follow, that the President is the person under whom the office is held; on the contrary, it is impossible for the gentleman to establish his assertion, without investing the President of the United States with all the prerogatives of the British monarch. Sir, it is true, that the King of England is the fountain from whence all the honors of that government flow, and of whom all officers are supposed to be held; but I thank God, notwithstanding the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia, that is not the case in this country; the President is not the fountain of honors with us—the offices of government are not held under the President, but of the people, and the President himself is as much the agent of the people as any subordinate agent in the nation, and his acts when performed within the pale of the constitution are the acts of the people executed by their agents. Admitting then that the judges hold their offices under a superior power, and it is certainly true that they do hold under the constitution, and of the people, altho' the term hold does not imply it, yet a consequence directly the reverse of that contended for by the gentleman from Virginia will follow.—for according to that gentleman's expression, that the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour, being a limitation of the power of removal, in the body under whom the office is held, and these offices being held under the constitution and of the people, it necessarily results, that the people themselves cannot, either in person or by their agents remove the judges so long as they behave well, without a change of the constitution.
Again, the gentleman from Virginia might as well contend that the judges hold their offices under the senate or the legislature itself as under the President. The legislature passes the law which regulates the mode of appointment—the senate concurs in the nominations of the President, and in this form, all have an agency in the appointment of judges, and the judges hold their offices under the legislature, the President and the senate, and consequently the restriction upon the power of removal applies as well to the legislature as to the President.
[Mr. Griswold's speech to be concluded in our next.]
MISS JONES, First House west of the President's on Pennsylvania Avenue.
HAS received a fresh supply of goods amongst which are the following articles, viz. Handsome bonnets, assorted ribbons, straw trimmings, silk and straw cords and tassels; a variety of handsome fans, gauzes, white and colored tiffneys, plad handkerchiefs, thread, laces, and edgings, Lady's gloves, Men's ditto, handsome shawls of various kinds, black and white laced veils, laced cloaks, black lace, and a variety of other fancy articles; which will be sold cheap.
April 5, 1802. ed3t
Water Lot for Sale.
A VALUABLE Lot on the Eastern Branch, midway between South Capitol Street and the Eastern Branch in the Georgia Avenue. No situation can excel this in point of convenience to a wholesale merchant, being near the junction of the canal and the waters of said branch. The price will be moderate for cash if early application is made—title indisputable.
FOR SALE, upwards of 1,000 lots in the best situations in the City. Enquire of Thomas Merty Conveyancer, near the Treasury Department.
April 9, 1802. jawgw
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, March 19, 1802.
DEBATE ON INTERNAL TAXES continued from Supplement.
MR. HUGER. I merely rise to answer the observations of the gentleman from North Carolina respecting the remarks I have submitted on this subject. I had observed that if the object of gentlemen was not merely to acquire popularity, wisdom would have first dictated the making savings, and then the doing away unnecessary taxes. I also stated, that if we could spare 650,000 dollars, it was proper for us to take a general view of the community, and mitigate those burdens which were the most oppressive. I also stated that I was in favor of doing away the tax upon bills and stamps, and for retaining the other sources of internal revenue. With respect to popularity, I will say that when I first entered into public life, it was at the sag-end of an administration; and that it has been my misfortune to vote on all occasions for giving to government the money wanted for the good of the country, and to vote against paying tribute to a foreign nation. I have never told my constituents not to pay their taxes; I have written no pamphlets against the Navy; I have never voted for paying tribute to our enemies, or for refusing to defend my country.
I know that in the upper part of South Carolina the tax on bills is heavy—I am, therefore, for modifying it. But I will ask whether in that district of country the taxes on carriages, refined sugar, &c. fall heavily? I said that no state in the union in proportion to its numbers, consumed more imported goods than S. Carolina; and therefore concluded that the taxes on imports should not be continued longer than necessary. With respect to popularity, I have no objection to it; but if ever obtain it, I hope it will be that which flows from good conduct, and not from my voting this way to day and that way to-morrow.
MR. BACON said he did not rise to give information to the house. He believed every gentleman had digested the subject before him, and had formed his opinion upon it; and that nothing more was now necessary than to express that opinion by a formal vote. He believed the only effect of prolonging the debate would be to waste time and incur expense. He conceived that with regard to all the particular articles in contemplation to be inserted in the bill, they might be introduced with greater propriety into the bill on post-roads, than into the present bill. Both these bills related to revenue; while the post-office bill had the superior advantage of being a permanent law; while the object of the present bill is to do away a law, an entire system, odious and expensive; expensive because it requires a vast number of officers to execute it; and odious, because it increased a patronage hostile to a free government.
The yeas and nays were then called on Mr. Dennis' motion, to insert after "paper"—the words, "duties on imported brown sugar,"—which was lost—Yeas 31—Nays 53.
MR. DENNIS then moved to insert "duties on imported coffee." On which the yeas and nays were called on the motion of Mr. Dana, and were yeas 28—nays 53—Lost.
An amendment was then made, on the motion of Mr. Bayard, authorizing the return of money received by government for the purchase of stamps remaining in the hands of the purchaser.
The question was then put on engrossing the bill.
Mr. Bayard moved the postponement of the question till Monday.
The question was taken on Mr. Bayard's motion and lost—Ayes 27.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays on engrossing the bill, and carried—Yeas 61—nays 26.
When Monday was fixed for the third reading, and the bill with the amendments ordered to be printed in the mean time.
MONDAY March 22, 1802.
The bill to repeal the INTERNAL TAXES was read the third time.
MR. S. SMITH.—Mr. Speaker, I was one of those who, at the meeting of Congress, did believe that it would be prudent to repeal the stamp tax only, at the present session, and to permit the other internal taxes to remain until the next session of Congress. The repeal of the whole of those taxes being proposed, it became my duty to examine the subject fully; this I have done, and the result has been favourable to the repeal.
I shall ask leave to make a few observations on the bill now on its passage.
It does not appear that any gentleman desires to prevent the repeal of the tax on domestic distilled spirits, for no member has moved to strike it out of the bill. I take it therefore for granted, that its repeal is desired by all. Nor do I believe that the repeal of the stamp tax is seriously objected to. I shall in consequence confine my observations principally to those duties, the repeal of which has been opposed. Three of those I voted for retaining in the bill, that is, for the repeal, to wit, licences for retailers of liquors, sales at auction and carriages for the conveyance of persons. My reasons I will now submit to the house.—The laws laying those duties, passed in 1794 for two years, were afterwards continued until August, 1801; and on the 23d of February of that year, were made perpetual. I have never yet heard any good reason assigned why a retailer of liquors should be compelled to pay for permission to pursue his business more than a wholesale dealer in liquors, a retailer of dry goods, a wholesale merchant, a lawyer, a doctor, or any other profession by which man obtains an honest livelihood.—The exigency of the times induced the laying of that tax; but it was then laid, that it was only for a short time, and would be repealed whenever it could be spared; it can now be spared, Mr. Speaker, and ought to be repealed, for it is unjust. This tax ought to be repealed for another reason; its inequality as it relates to the states, and particularly as it relates to Maryland, the state I have the honor to represent.—I have with care examined the documents from the Treasury, and find that Maryland paid for licences in 1800, 4300 dollars, having 9 members (under the new census,) Virginia having 22 members, paid only 5680 dollars, and North-Carolina, having 12 members, paid but 2555 dollars.—Nay, Mr. Speaker, Maryland paid more than was paid by all the five states of Rhode-Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee and South-Carolina, the whole of those states paid only 4555 dollars for retailers' licences.—Can this be just? Can it be right? Ought a member from Maryland to continue a tax so unequal on his fellow-citizens?
Sales at auction.—This tax falls on those who from necessity or from a desire to raise money to meet particular objects, send their goods for public sale; or, it is paid by persons about to remove from one part of the country to another, and sell their little all to enable them to remove with their families. I have never yet heard any reason of force to shew why a man who sells his goods at public sale should pay a duty on sales not paid by those who sell at private sale.—This tax is still more unequal in its operation than that on licences. Maryland paid in 1800 for the tax on auctions 6734 dollars; Virginia, 4731 dollars, and Connecticut only 142 dollars. Can it be just that Connecticut, having nearly as many inhabitants, shall pay but 142 dollars of a tax, where Maryland contributes to the same 6734 dollars. It may operate with gentlemen from that state as a good reason for retaining the tax, but certainly ought to have had a contrary effect on my colleague (Mr. Dennis.) The great inequality of the tax on auctions will appear more striking when gentlemen turn to the document, and see that Maryland actually paid more than eleven states, to wit, New-Hampshire, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New-Jersey, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, North-Carolina, Georgia and South-Carolina; those states will have 58 members on this floor, and paid in 1800 but 5626 dollars, on the tax on sales at auctions, when Maryland paid 6734 dollars.
Carriages for conveyance of persons. This tax has been considered by many as a direct tax under the constitution. I did not think so on its passage, and voted for it, but now I cannot but have doubts on the subject when I recollect the operation of the late direct tax, and the inequality of the carriage tax, as it respects the states. Waggons on similar principles might be taxed, and if they were, the New-England states would pay no part of the tax. Would this be just? Maryland paid of the duty on carriages 8583 dollars; Connecticut only 4554 dollars, being little more than one half thereof, and the seven states of New-Hampshire, Rhode-Island, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, South-Carolina and Georgia pay together only 301 dollars more than Maryland. The tax on carriages falls particularly hard on the district I represent. In the city of Baltimore more than 100 carriages for hire parade the streets, besides a large number employed from that city on the roads.—The owners earn an honest livelihood thereby; a tax on their carriages for conveyance of persons, appears to me as unjust as a tax would be on carriages for conveyance of goods. Sir, this tax does not fall in my district on the luxurious alone. I am inclined to believe that more than two thirds of the tax is paid by citizens keeping carriages for hire, nearly the whole of the other third by our citizens for their convenience. I am persuaded that my district alone paid more in 1800 to the carriage tax than was paid by Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee.

nefice, and perhaps Georgia together.—Can I (knowing this circumstance) ever give my consent to continue a tax every way so unequal?
I will be told that taking the whole four objects proposed to be struck out together, to wit, licences, auctions, carriages and refined sugar, that the result would be more equal. Sir, I have examined that subject also, and have found the result nearly similar. The gross amount collected on those four objects is 239,890 dollars; of this sum Maryland paid 30,060 dollars, one eighth of the whole, and nearly double the fair proportion of that state.—Connecticut paid but 10,521 dollars, being little more than one third of that paid by Maryland. I will not say that this was good cause for gentlemen from that state to vote for the continuance of those taxes, but I will say, that it would be a bad reason for my colleague (Mr. Dennis) to offer for moving to strike them out of the repealing law. But, Sir, the inequality and of course injustice will be more clearly shown when it is known that Maryland paid nearly 2000 dollars more of those four taxes than were paid by the seven important states of New Hampshire, Vermont, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky and Tennessee. Those seven states will have, after the next election, in this house 42 members, and have paid only 23,304 dollars, when Maryland paid 30,060 dollars, and will have only nine representatives. This must be unjust; the repeal ought to be made, or on some future occasion those states may think it convenient to increase those taxes of which they pay so very little.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that taking the whole objects of internal taxation into one view, they will be found nearly equal, as respects the states. I have also examined that subject, and have found the inequality as it respects the state I have the honor to represent continued. Maryland paid in 1800, of the amount actually received into the treasury, charges and drawbacks deducted for that year, 72,735 dollars. Connecticut paid only 22,693 dollars, not one third of the payment made by Maryland. North Carolina 46,479 dollars, and the whole seven following states only 59,093 dollars, to wit: New Hampshire 3,149 dollars—Vermont 1397 dollars—New Jersey 16,109 dollars—Delaware 7,836 dollars—Georgia 3,000 dollars—Tennessee 4,909 dollars, and Connecticut 22,693 dollars—add to those the amount paid by the wealthy and important state of South Carolina, and it will be found that one half the states of the union paid less than 10,000 dollars beyond the single state of Maryland of the whole internal taxes for the year 1800. Thus you see that New Hampshire, having more than half the inhabitants of Maryland, and Vermont having nearly half her numbers, pay scarce any part of the internal taxes—are we then to be surprised if those states, who scarcely pay any thing, or if Connecticut, who pays so small a part of the internal taxes, should be found voting against the repeal. Yes, Sir, we ought to be surprised—the injustice is so glaring, that the members must in honor vote for the repeal of taxes to which their citizens contribute so little—justice demands it of them, and they will obey her voice.
The very great inequality of each of those taxes—of the four conjointly, or of the whole of the internal duties taken together, will plead my apology with such of my colleagues as may have conceived that those taxes ought not to be repealed. Indeed, Sir, I cannot but believe that had the subject presented itself to the mind of my colleague (Mr. Dennis) as it has to mine, he would not have given the opposition he has to the repeal. I must believe that, he will not now vote for the continuance of taxes which fall so unequally on his state as those do. We have been told that the subject ought to be considered in a national point of view, and that those duties are objects of luxury—to the first I do not subscribe. I have always supposed that my duty was to prevent an inequality of taxes being imposed on the state I was elected to represent, and carefully to attend to the interest of my constituents. I am yet to learn what luxury there is in drinking whiskey—nor have I been informed that retailers of liquors find much luxury in paying for their licences. Does the seller at auction find it luxurious to pay a duty on the amount of his goods sold? The owner of an elegant carriage may feel the luxury of riding in it—but I doubt whether the man who keeps carriages for hire, or the people who keep chairs to carry their families to church, find much luxury in paying the tax. My colleague (Mr. Dennis) will tell us what is the luxury arising out of the stamp act. It is true that 400 officers will be dismissed by the repeal; but however, I may regret the injury, some of my acquaintances may suffer, yet I do not believe that their loss of office will greatly disturb the tranquility of the people, and permit me here to remark that had the taxes on the licences, auctions, refined sugar, and carriages, been continued, it would have required a great proportion of those 400 officers to collect them; the cost of which would have been too great for their amount to bear.
May not the desire of retaining their friends in pay, be a strong inducement with gentlemen to retain the taxes? To create offices has been the favorite system with some gentlemen; the system of the republicans is to lessen their numbers, and dismiss all that are useless.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the revenue will not be sufficient (without the aid of the internal duties) to meet the exigencies of our government; and yet we have seen those very gentlemen who make use of that argument, voting to repeal (in addition to the internal taxes) the whole duty on bohea tea, sugar, coffee and salt, making together an amount of more than two millions of dollars. Had they succeeded, the government must have stopped; it could not have met its engagements. But did they intend to succeed? No, Sir, if they could have saved those items to the bill, they would have then voted, I have no doubt, against the whole bill, and thus attained their sole object, to wit: to prevent the repeal of any of the internal taxes, or any reduction of the duty on salt, sugar, &c. &c. Can we, Mr. Speaker, spare those taxes, and meet the wants of government? I think we can. The secretary of the treasury reports, and it is conceded by all, that the revenues were fully equal to the expenditures under the existing laws, at the commencement of the present session; that having been the case; if the present congress have already made savings by a reduction of the army, & a dismissal of useless officers to the amount of the internal taxes, then certainly the government will be fully competent to meet every demand. Have we done this? I think we have, to wit:
  On the army establishment, the difference of expenditure between that repealed, and the law just passed, is agreeably to the report of the secretary of war, dollars 500,000   On the naval establishment (between the sum eliminated on the meeting of Congress and that now required) a saving will be in consequence of a fall of wages and provisions of 200,000   On the judiciary (the law repealed) $1,500   On the forces (less than the estimate) 70,000 
Making together dollars 801,500. The average annual receipts arising from the permanent internal taxes has been declared by the Committee of Ways and Means (and their report has been admitted to be correct) to amount only to 600,000 dollars; the highest calculation has been 650,000 dollars.—This being the fact, we can safely spare taxes to that amount; having already retrenched our expenses above 800,000 dollars.—We shall make yet other savings so as to make the whole, as I expect, amount nearly to one million of dollars. To save from public expense will be more pleasing to the people than to raise a similar sum from them by taxes.
It may be thought by gentlemen who have not particularly attended to the subject, that we shall be unprepared to meet the demand against the United States lately arranged under the British treaty. I do not know the precise amount of the claim stipulated to be paid, but I do know the sum limited by the late administration, beyond which our minister could not go, and I have not a doubt of our being prepared to pay that amount. Gentlemen will turn to page 11 of the secretary's report, and they will be satisfied. The secretary says, after stating a number of items of receipts. "Those several items, (exclusively of several balances due by individuals, a part of which will eventually be received into the treasury,) constitute a sum exceeding three million of dollars, and may for the present be considered as resources sufficient to meet the demands against the United States, which may be eventually payable on account of the sixth article of the treaty with Great Britain, and of the article of the convention with France."
Mr. Speaker, it cannot fail to give pleasure to our constituents when they know, that we have met the payment of the interest on the deferred debt; that we have as much money in the treasury as was left there by the late administration, that we have discharged in the course of the year 1801 of the principal of the public debt two million two hundred and twenty nine thousand dollars; that we have a fund amounting to three million of dollars ready to meet the demand under the British and French treaties, or to meet any unforeseen deficiencies of revenue, that we can with perfect safety (as it relates to our revenue) repeal the internal taxes; and can notwithstanding appropriate a sum toward the discharge of the public debt, such as will in eight years pay thirty two million of dollars, and in fifteen compleatly discharge the whole debt. My colleague (Mr. Dennis) boasted that in nine years, four million of the debt had been paid, the same sum will in future be paid off annually, and that without laying any new tax, on the contrary, I am of opinion we may soon lessen the duties on some of those articles that gentlemen wished to clog this bill with.
Mr. Speaker, during the recess of congress the President by reducing the marine corps from 1200 to 400 men; by an excellent arrangement, as related to our debt to Algiers, by the revoking of unnecessary ministers, at foreign courts; by the dismissal of useless officers, by an economical arrangement of the quarter master's department of the army, and by other judicious measures, did save to the United States an annual expenditure of nearly four hundred thousand dollars. The President has recommended the lessening other expenses, and congress have adopted and will adopt such as will, I expect, amount to one million of dollars. Let us therefore give his honest endeavours to save the public money, and to relieve the burthens of the people, our warm support and assistance.
Mr. Speaker, seeing that the internal taxes taken collectively, or each tax taken separately, are unequal in their operations as it relates to Maryland, and particularly so as it relates to my district. Seeing that their collection requires 400 officers, and that the pay of those officers consumes a large proportion of the money collected from the people. Seeing by the saving made from our usual annual expenditure that we can safely spare the amount of those taxes—and believing that the people will the more readily submit to pay taxes that are necessary, when they know that they will be relieved therefrom, whenever the exigency shall cease to exist; I will conclude by expressing a wish, that the bill to repeal the internal taxes may pass.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 1802.
For a continuation of the DRAFT on the repeal of the INTERNAL TAXES, see Supplement accompanying this day's paper.
The votes given in New-Hampshire for governor, by the latest statements, are for Gilman 7,993, and for Langdon 3,665—Majority for Gilman 2,327
Extract of a letter from H. R. Saabye, Esq. consul of the United States of America at Copenhagen, to the Secretary of State, dated January 16, 1802.
"The ships of the United States have not been subject to any quarantine here. Faith having been given to the bills of health brought by them, and the crews have been permitted to come ashore, after having been examined on board by a medical member of the board of quarantine.
"The further measures adopted in the United States will tend to strengthen this confidence, to which I have contributed every thing in my power by communicating to the quarantine commission, the sketch of the bill of health, and by conferring with them upon the measures to be taken, best consistent with precaution and least obnoxious to trade. The consequence whereof has been a circular letter, sent by the Royal Chancery to all magistrates in the Danish dominions, and whereof I have the honor to enclose a translation.
"You will certainly be kind enough, to make known, what is necessary respecting the special certificates, deemed necessary to be procured for cotton and other commodities of same nature, that the want of the same, may not occasion any delay to the ships carrying these articles."
(CIRCULAR.)
Extract of a letter from the Chancery at Copenhagen to the officers of Denmark, charged with the business to which it relates, dated Jan. 16, 1802.
"At the same time we have to make known to you, that after having conferred with the American Consul, on the precautions best suited to the matter, and least obnoxious to the trade, to be taken with respect to the ships bringing goods that possibly might be infected, it has been notified to the quarantine commissioner, in consequence of its report, that the goods exported and brought hither from America are rice, tobacco, sugar, coffee, and rum, which are all looked upon by the commission to be incapable of transporting the contagion. Some small parcels of cotton are brought here, but they come from the southern states where there is no disease.
"In regard to manufactures the country still wants imports thereof, and consequently no export exists.
"With respect to the regulations established about the bills of health, and their veracity, the American consul has received communications from the secretary of state of the United States of America, according to which there is well founded hope, that the established rules will be observed and even enforced by efficacious measures.
"The commission also has desired the American Consul to request the secretary of state of the United States, that the strictest measures might be taken, particularly with respect to cotton, and other dangerous articles, and the vessels bringing such, that they might be provided
with a special certificate attesting that they neither were shipped nor have been in any suspected place, which we would not fail to let you know for your government."
The Editor of the National Intelligencer has received the London Courier of Feb. 22, 1802; from which are extracted the following interesting articles:
London, February 22.
It has been rumoured that the negotiations will not be concluded so soon as was expected. Some new points have been advanced, and urged with unexpected firmness by the Dutch minister Schimmelpennick, who is said to have distinguished himself in a very conspicuous manner by the depth of his information. The point which he has brought forward relates, as might be expected, more to the commercial than to the political state of the Dutch republic. He has, it is said, claimed an indemnification for the Dutch East India company's ships detained at the commencement of the war.
Some representations have also been made with respect to Ceylon, and to that article of the Preliminaries which declares that the Cape of Good Hope shall always be free to the English, but be maintained at the expence of the Dutch Republic.
The cession of Louisiana to France has also been the subject of much discussion at the Congress, and, if we may give credit to our letters from the Hague, of considerable difficulty. But all the obstacles that have occurred will, we have no doubt, be removed, though the definitive treaty may not be signed so soon as was expected.
The motion in the house commons, last week, to remove the countervailing duty in this country on American shipping, is regarded by some as a masterstroke of policy on the part of the American government, which, at a very early period, imitated other nations, in laying such duties as would discriminate between American and foreign tonnage. This measure tended to promote an increase in the shipping of America; which had not shipping at that time adequate to the carrying of one half of the produce to the foreign market. Other nations, particularly Great Britain, seeing the fatal effects of the success of this regulation, enacted such countervailing laws, and imposed such duties on American tonnage, and on goods imported in American bottoms, as effectually removed the evil. The shipping of America had, however, greatly increased, during peace, and during the war, tho' new countervailing duties had been laid by Great Britain, the American ships, which were not subject to the high war insurance, increased in an astonishing degree. America, having now no need for shipping, and having a superabundance of it, she perceives that Great Britain (who will also now want employment for a vast portion of her increased tonnage) will be able to land American goods in Europe as cheap as herself, unless these countervailing duties are taken off; she, therefore now does away her discriminations, and calls upon us to remove our countervailing duties, leaving the navigation of the two countries to a rivalry in cheapness of freight, in which she is sure to surpass us. Never from the day that our countervailing duties cease, will there be a single shipment from America to Europe, in a British bottom.
By letters from Dublin, of the 16th, we are informed of the liberation of JAMES NAPPER TANDY. He was brought from Lifford to Wicklow, circuitously, in a chaise and four, escorted by a guard of cavalry, avoiding all the large towns, the better to evade public notice. They travelled principally in the night. He arrived at Wicklow on the 15th, and was to embark next day, on board the Lovely Peggy, Captain Harris, for Bourdeaux. The order for his liberation is said to have been produced by proceedings at Amiens. He was not suffered to communicate with any one, after the order arrived.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
Motion made on Monday by Mr. VAN NASS, and referred to a committee of the whole.
Resolved, That any ship or vessel two thirds of which shall have been, or may be, rebuilt within the United States, of American materials, and belonging wholly to a citizen or citizens of the United States, may be registered and considered as an American ship or vessel; and that it shall be the duty of the collector of the district within which such ship or vessel is or may be owned, upon satisfactory evidence of the above facts, to grant such register according to the rules by law established in other cases.
WEDNESDAY, April 7, 1802.
The house went into committee of the whole on the bill "to enable the people of the Eastern division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the union, on an equal footing with the original states; and for other purposes."
Mr. FEARING moved to amend the bill, so as to embrace the population of the Eastern division as bounded by the articles of the ordinance, the effect of which motion would be to include about 3,000 inhabitants of that division, that are excluded by the provisions of the bill, and respecting whom it is provided in the bill, that they may hereafter be added by Congress to the new state, or disposed of otherwise, as provided by the 5th article of the compact.
This motion gave rise to a debate of considerable length, in which Messrs. Fearing, Bayard, Griswold, Goddard, Henderson and Randolph, supported; and Messrs. Giles, Bacon, and R. Williams, opposed the amendment.
Those who supported the amendment contended that the exclusion of that portion of territory occupied by about 3,000 inhabitants was both unconstitutional and inexpedient. On the ground of constitutionality they contended, that under the articles of the compact, which were to be considered as the constitution of the territory, Congress had only the right of forming the eastern division into one, two, or three states; and that under this power, no right existed to form one part of the division into a state, & leave the remaining portions in a territorial condition; that the rights of the whole inhabitants of the eastern division were equal, and if one part was, so also must the remaining part be, admitted to the privilege of a state.
On the ground of expediency, it was contended that the situation of the excluded inhabitants would be peculiarly hard; that, if attached to the Indiana Territory, they would be placed two or three hundred miles from it; that they would be furthermore degraded from the second to the first branch of territorial government, and that they would be deprived, by the reduction of their numbers, from the prospect of being admitted for a great number of years, to state rights.
On the contrary, the opponents of the amendment contended that the provisions of the bill were both constitutional and expedient; that under the compact the right was given to Congress of admitting the eastern division into the union, in the form of one, two, or three states; that this right involved a discretion to admit a part of that division at one time, and the remaining part at a subsequent period; that if the whole division were once admitted into the union, congress would be prohibited from dividing hereafter, when it was acknowledged such division would be expedient, the said division into two or more states, without the consent of the state now formed.
That as to considerations of expediency, the hardships likely to be felt by the excluded inhabitants were such as arose, not from the provisions of the bill, but from their local situation; and that it was not true that they would be degraded, by annexation to the Indiana territory, to a lower grade of territorial character than they at present enjoyed—the grade being the same.
Mr. Randolph supported the amendment on peculiar ground, declaring that if the amendment should not prevail, he would still vote for the admission. He declared himself in favor of the amendment principally from a desire to avoid the introduction of too many small states into the union.
The question was then taken on Mr. Fearing's amendment, and lost—yeas 34 nays 38.
Mr. Fearing moved so to amend the bill as to leave to the new state the right of navigating itself—agreed to.
After some discussion of the details of the bill, the committee rose, and reported the bill, with amendments.
A bill for the relief Thomas K. Jones was passed.
THURSDAY, April 8, 1802. The bill for the admission of the N. W. Territory into the union, as reported by the committee of the whole house, was taken up.
Mr. John C. Smith moved to strike out the 3d section, calling a convention to form a constitution for the new state, which power, he considered as exclusively inherent in the territory.
The motion to strike out was supported by Messrs. John C. Smith, Goddard, Fearing, and Henderson, and opposed by Messrs. Giles, Mitchell, R. Williams, Elmer, and Holland, on the ground that the right of the United States to admit necessarily involved the power of prescribing a convention.
The Yeas and Nays were taken, and were Yeas 26—Nays 43; and the motion lost.
Mr. Fearing said he was of opinion that some provision ought to be made for the inhabitants excluded from the new state, and the continuance of suits from the old to the new government; for these purposes he moved the recommittal of the bill—lost—Yeas 23.
Mr. Dana proposed so to amend the 4th section, as that a majority of the whole number of delegates elected in the convention, instead a majority of those present, should first determine whether it be or be not expedient to form a constitution, &c.
The Yeas and Nays were called, and were Yeas 38—Nays 33; motion carried.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.

SHELL LIME. FOR SALE, about 1,000 bushels of Shell Lime, in store at Mr. Young's ware-house, Greenleaf's Point.—Apply to MICHAEL CLEARY. Georgetown, April 7, 1802. ep3t
TO RENT, And possession given immediately, A TWO STORY brick house on F street near the War Office, containing two parlors, six bed rooms, and a kitchen with an excellent garden, coach house, stable, &c.—The house is newly painted and papered; it was formerly occupied by Mr. Dexter, and lately by Mr. John Brown. Enquire of Clement Dorsey, Esq. George-Town; or of the subscriber, who has for sale a well finished three story brick house opposite the Six Buildings, and a variety of City Lots in the most eligible situations. The above House will be sold for less than any gentleman could build it. The payments will be made easy on the whole of the above property. WILLIAM DYE R. April 7, 1802. ep3t Building Materials will be taken in part payment. W.D.
VERY VALUABLE LAND FOR SALE. A TRACT formerly advertised, known by the name of Hirt's Niche, containing from 13 to 1500 acres, pleasantly situated on the Potomac, and in quality inferior to none. It is well covered with timber; well watered; very healthy; has good orchards, and houses for overseers, &c. A minute description is unnecessary, as the purchaser will no doubt view it. I shall only add that it possesses fishing shores of great value. The terms may be known on application to Mr. Henry O'Riely of George-Town, or the subscriber at Fenc Hill, Northumberland county, Virginia. JOHN GORDON. April 7, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE. I WOULD sell on reasonable terms, three or four hundred acres of Land, in the centre of my estate at Marlborough, on the Virginia side of the river Potomac, about 45 miles below the City of Washington, and 13 distant from Fredericksburg; the whole constituting a very desirable situation for a substantial Farmer, on a moderate scale. This tract extends for length, from Potomac river across the neck of Accotek creek—it has most beautiful situations on the river for a country seat; it has a fine Rock & Herring Fishery, and a landing that must be very valuable, as it is the only bold water on the Potomac, that can be connected by land carriage with Fredericksburg. The soil is very rich, and it lies very well for cultivation, with a large bulk of the rich shell marl—part of it is a most valuable firm marsh, from which 100 to 150 tons of good hay might be annually taken, a portion of this is ditched and drained for timothy. The improvements are an overseer's house, barn and negro quarters. If not before sold by private contract, it will be offered at public vendue on the 20th of May, on the premises. (The seller reserving a bid) deliverable in the fall. Mr. William Hey, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase. JOHN F. MERCER. Annapolis, Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w
State of Maryland. Elizabeth Retaillich, vs. Johanna Casenave, Peter Casenave and Edward Dudley. IN CHANCERY, March 15, 1802. THE object of the complainant in instituting the present suit is, to obtain a decree for the conveyance of a part of a Lot or parcel of ground situate and lying in the City of Annapolis known and distinguished by the number 66. The bill states that Peter Casenave father of the defendants, Johanna and Peter Casenave, by bond dated in the month of June 1793, agreed to convey to the defendant Edward Dudley, the Lot aforesaid, on payment of one hundred pounds current money. That the said Peter Casenave hath departed this life intestate, leaving the aforesaid Johanna, and Peter Casenave his heirs at law, to whom the legal estate in the said Lot or ground hath descended; that the said Johanna and Peter are minors and reside out of the state, as well as the said Edward Dudley. The Bill further states, that the said Edward Dudley heretofore assumed all his right and title to the said Lot of ground to Simon Retaillich deceased, who by his last Will and Testament, devised the same to the complainant. It is thereupon, on motion of the complainant, ordered and adjudged, that she cause a copy of this order to be inserted three Tuesdays or three Fridays in the National Intelligencer, City of Washington, before the seventeenth day of April next, to the intent, that the said defendants may have notice of the complainant's application to this court, and of the substance and object of her bill, and may be warned to appear here in person or by guardian, or solicitor of the court as the case may require, on or before the second Tuesday of August next, to show cause wherefore a decree should not pass as prayed. (True Copy) Tell. SAMUEL H. HOWARD, Reg. Court Can. March 26, 1802. tw3tF
For Sale, A NEAT Frame House and Lot, on New-Jersey Avenue, square 690; sixteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bow window, a parlour and closet back on the second floor two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches front, running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabout.—For terms apply to JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. March 5, 1802. ep3t
In Council, Annapolis, Feb. 3, 1802. Ordered, That the act to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and the qualifications of voters, passed at the last session of the general assembly of this state be published twice in each week, for the space of three months, successively, in the Maryland Gazette, at Annapolis; the federal Gazette, the American and the Telegraph, at Baltimore; the Museum, at George-Town; the National Intelligencer; the paper at Easton; Bartges's paper, at Frederick-town, and in the Washington Spy. By order, NINIAN PINKNEY, Clk.
An ACT to alter such parts of the constitution and form of government as relate to voters, and qualifications of voters. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That every free white male citizen of this state, and no other, above twenty-one years of age, having resided twelve months in the county next preceding the election at which he offers to vote, and every free white male citizen of this state above twenty-one years of age, having obtained a residence of twelve months next preceding the election in the city of Baltimore or the city of Annapolis, and at which he offers to vote, shall have a right of suffrage, and shall vote by ballot in the election of such county or city, or either of them, for delegates to the general assembly, electors of the senate, and sheriffs. And be it enacted, That all & every part of the constitution and form of government of this state repugnant thereto, or inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall be and the same are hereby abrogated, annulled and made void. And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the general assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election, as the constitution and form of government directs, that in such case this act, and the alteration of the said constitution contained therein shall be considered as a part, and shall constitute and be valid as a part, of the said constitution and form of government, to all intents and purposes, any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. February 19, 1802. 2aw.3m.
Farming Lands for Sale. THE Subscriber would sell about 1000 acres of the tract of Land whereon Dr. John D. Orr at present resides, in the county of Prince William, situated a few miles from the seat of the District Court, and within convenient marketable distance of the Occoquan Mills and Dumfries. It is of the first rate quality of soil, is abundantly supplied with wood and water, and has a large proportion of ground which is in a peculiar manner adapted to the growth of timothy grass. Also the tract of Land adjacent to the above, late the property of Mr. Thomas Swann of Alexandria, together with about 100 acres of woodland, all of the above described tract, making about 1550 acres; the quality and advantages being similar to that. The first-mentioned tract will be conveyed to the purchaser free from every encumbrance, a considerable payment in hand will be expected, and the lowest price per acre twenty dollars. Possession to be given the ensuing spring, with a reservation of the growing crop of small grain, but the last-mentioned tract will be sold subject to existing leases for short terms of years, under strict covenants guarding against waste and injury of the property, &c. and subject to the purchase money which will be due for the same to Mr. Swann, with interest, in about 9 years. The payment required in hand is the remainder of the amount, about two thousand pounds; and the price per acre is eighteen dollars. Also the reversionary interest in the Piedmont Tract, situated below the mountain called the Short Hill, in Loudoun county, consisting of several thousand acres, chiefly under leases to the occupants, and forming perhaps the best settlement in Virginia, of the same extent, extremely well watered, improved with the best meadows and orchards, and peculiarly adapted to the use of the Planter of Paris. This Land will be sold in Lots consisting of one or more tenements, as may best suit purchasers, together with one or more Lots of woodland to be laid off on the S.E. side of the Short Hill for the convenience of any of said tenements that may be fearful of wood. There are several good mill seats upon this tract, which is not more than 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington, and no part of it more than 15 miles from Leesburg. The price per acre will be various, according to the quality and advantages of the Land, and circumstances of the Leases, but an extensive credit will be given by instalments, upon receiving what it may be convenient for the purchasers to pay in hands. It is desired that persons wishing to purchase this property, will signify their intentions before the wood land is laid off. Also two or three small Farms with agreeable requisite convenience for immediate operation, in the counties of Jefferson and Frederick, and at various prices. And several valuable building Lots, situated upon the Pennsylvania Avenue, in the City of Washington; some upon square 74, near the Six Buildings, and some upon square 38; besides other very valuable Lots in that City. Application to be made in person or by Letter, (post paid) directed to Charlottetown, Virginia, to FERDINANDO FAIRFAX. Shan. Hill, March 5, 1802. ep8w
BOARDING. Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol.—Apply to the Printer. March 19, 1802. ep3w
For Sale at Rhodes's Tavern. On the 15th day of April will be sold at Public Auction, by Loring and Forrest, at 12 o'clock the following valuable property, unless disposed of by private contract. THREE two story brick houses in separate Lots to accommodate purchasers. Situated in Fourteenth-street, a square 253, being on a high and healthy situation, near the Treasury Office, at present much under let at 20 dollars each per annum; to respectable tenants as follows: No 1, to David Rawn; No 2, to Wm. James; No 3, to R. W. Peacock; each house is 23 feet front, and containing a good dry cellar. On the first floor are two parlors, kitchen and servant's room over the same; second floor contains three well finished bed rooms with closets where necessary; back yard paved, with out-houses, and lot inclosed with close boarded fence, 6 feet high, to an alley 26 feet wide. The front of the said houses is paved with brick Locust trees planted, and post and rail fence, with a pump of excellent water adjoining the same; the whole completely finished in a neat, genteel manner. The titles are good, being from the commissioners. Terms of payment, one half the purchase money down, or such bills as will be approved of at 60 days, and the balance in seven equal quarterly payments with interest. At the same time will be sold two improved ground rents on square 461, being on the south side of the Pennsylvania Avenue, and buttling on Tyber Creek near the Market House. One lot containing 44 feet front, let on lease to Mr. Henry Burford, forever for 60 dollars per annum, payable half yearly; whereon is built a double two story brick house, with cellars and other buildings. The other is 47 feet 8 inches front in two leases for ever, to John Gardner, at 72 dollars per annum, payable half yearly. He has built a large two story double brick house, with cellars under the same, occupied by Mr. Thompson for a liquor store. This property is equal to bank stock, or any other property in the United States. For further particulars enquire of Loring and Forrest Auctioneers or WILLIAM LOVELL. March 24, 1802. epts
The Arabian Horic The Dey of Algiers. ARRIVED on the 19th inst, in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Mason, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swann of Massachusetts, now in Europe. He will stand the ensuing season, at my farm in Montgomery county, seven miles from this town and the City of Washington, and will cover at forty dollars the season (commencing the 1st of March) and one dollar to the groom, the money or an approved promissory note to be sent with the mare. This beautiful animal was brought from Arabia in the year '98, at four years old, by the late grand ballist Fromm, of Prussia, into that kingdom, and was purchased at the sale of the ballist's studs, after his death, at Ebersbach, in '99, lieutenant general Frederick baron of Dommers, by whom he was sent to Hamburg to col. Swann, whence he was by that gentleman shipped to America; to attest which, and to prove him to be a genuine Arabian horse, original certificates are in my hands, and may at all times be seen. The Dey is of full stature for his race, he measures exactly fourteen hands two inches and a half. His colour is nearly white, with a few brown spots dished over his neck and shoulders. In figure and bone, it is believed, he will stand the test of the best judgment. He is only eight years old the coming spring. He is of fine presence and carriage; and remarkably vigorous and active. As it is the wish of his proprietor to display the merits of this horse in his colts—as early, and with as much certainty as possible, by his order, no more than fifty mares will be received this season. I have excellent and extensive pasture well fenced, adjoining the land, at two shillings, and six pence per week. Grain and green clover will be furnished if desired, at moderate price.—Great care shall be taken of mares, and every justice done them with the horse; but I will be answerable for no accidents or escapes. If gentlemen at a distance choose to send servants with their mares they shall be provided for on reasonable terms. CHARLES C. JONES. George-Town, Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w N. B. The Dey will be shewn every Thursday for some weeks to come at the Union Tavern in Georgetown, and at Mr. Stell's Tavern, on Capitol Hill in Washington. THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR, SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, cashmeres, swansdowns, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His unremitting attention shall be given to merit patronage. Capitol Hill, next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings. Dec. 7, 1801. ep3t
NOTICE. COMMITTED to the Jail of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, as a Runaway, a Negro Woman named CHARLOTTE, about nineteen years of age, five feet four or five inches high. She says she is the property of Lewis St. John, near Battle Town, Frederick county, Virginia. The owner is requested to come and pay Charges and take her away. DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. Feb. 5, 1802. ep3t
VALUABLE LAND FOR SALE. FOR sale about 4500 acres of land belonging to the estate of Judge Mercer, deceased, and situated in the county of Loudoun, on the waters of Goose Creek, about 40 miles from Alexandria and the Federal City. A large portion of this tract is meadow ground, of good quality; and the soil of the high land is well adapted to every species of produce mutually cultivated on land similarly situated in the upper country. Such portion of it as remains uncleared, affords an extensive and excellent range for flock of every kind. On one part of this land is one of the most valuable mill seats in the state. The supply of water is inexhaustible, and the mill could be erected immediately on the side of the public road leading from Winchester to Alexandria. It is computed that the number of wagons almost constantly travelling along this road, amount to at least 5 or 600. So that a ready market might always be had here, for a very considerable quantity of grain and hay. 'Tis deemed unnecessary to describe more particularly the many advantages of this tract of Land, as it is expected that all persons disposed to purchase, will first view the premises. To accommodate purchasers the whole tract will be divided into lots of 4 or 500 acres each, with as much wood and meadow land to every lot as circumstances will admit. And it is believed that the whole 4,500 acres may be so laid off into farms of the above-mentioned size, as to leave in each as much wood and meadow land as would be desired. The price and time of payment will be made known by the subscribers. Letters directed to John T. Brooke, Fredericksburg, or to James M. Garnett, Laytons, will be answered without delay. JOHN T. BROOKE, JAMES M. GARNETT, Adm's Feb. 3, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE. On Monday the 17th day of May next, will be sold at Vendue, at Mr. Semmes's Tavern, George-Town. ALL those tracts or parts of tracts of land called Scotland and Barbadoes, lying on the navigable waters of the Eastern Branch, containing 206 acres, more or less, about half this land is in wood, mostly chestnut. Mr. Henry Smith lives on the premises, and will show them. At the same time the store and lot at the corner of High and Bridge-streets, at present occupied by Mr. James Doyle, and the square where Mr. Boyle now lives, adjoining to Col. Deakin and Mr. Charles Lowndes; which will be divided into small lots. On the premises are a small though comfortable frame house, kitchen, stable, and smoke house; the situation of this property must make it a desirable object. The terms are notes negotiable at the bank of Columbia, at 6, 12, and 18 months, with interest. And will sell at private sale, a mill, mill seat, and 42 and an half acres, of land, lying on Rock Creek, within one mile of Georgetown and the City of Washington; its situation with its other great advantages must render it truly valuable. This property will be sold on very moderate terms, if speedy application is made. And on a credit of 1, 2, and 3 years with interest, all those lands called Bradford's Rest and Batchelor's Forest, lying in Montgomery county, containing 531 3-4 acres; this land will be divided into lots to suit purchasers, if not sold before the first day of August next, it will then be sold at Public Sale, at the house where Mrs. Lynn formerly lived, on terms which will then be made known.—I will also sell a number of lots in eligible situations in the City of Washington. For the terms of any or all the above property, please to direct to the subscriber WALTER MACKALL. Benedict, March. 29, 1802. 2aw3w
CHARLES VARDEN, Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia, GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of, Best superfine cloths, Cashmeres, Swansdown, Toylenetts, Velveretts, Fancy Cords, Coatings, Flannels, &c. N.B. Regiments, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies' Habits, made in the neatest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice.—Washington City, New-Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Rapine's book store. Dec. 16, 1801. ep3t
Looking Glasses. J. COOK Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Prints, FOR SALE, At J. March's Store. High-Street, George-Town. THE subjects of the Prints are very interesting, and in superbly gilt frames; and the glasses are of the first qualities, in the most modern and elegant frames, and of any sizes. They are marked at the lowest cash Prices. March 15, 1802. ep3t
Twenty Dollars Reward. RUNAWAY from the Subscriber on the 16th inst. living in Charles county, near Port Tobacco in the state of Maryland, a NEGRO MAN, by the name of HENRY, 24 or 25 years old, 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high, spare made, and middling dark complexion, with very thick lips, and slow in his speech. His clothing when he went away was a short negro cotton upper jacket, a whitish marcelles quiring under ditto, old osnaburg shirt, and a pair of brown duffle overalls, patched with sky blue cloth. He was seen to pass the Eastern Branch Ferry on Friday the 18th inst. and was seen in the City of Washington, on Saturday the 27th. I have every reason to believe he is now in the City or George-Town; I will give the above Reward to any person that will secure him in any gaol, and give me information to that I get him again. EDWARD HAMILTON March 31, 1802. 2aw3t
For Sale, A NEGRO WOMAN about 38 years of age; she is an excellent Cook, and good washer. For Terms apply to the Editor. April 5, 1802. ep3t
For Sale, A NEGRO WOMAN about 21 years old who is a good Cook, and a complete house servant in every other respect—Also a large well formed horse, that goes well in a carriage, and pleasant under the saddle.—Enquire at this office. March 5, 1802. ep3t
To be Sold For half price, a good serviceable Horse and Chair. Enquire of the Printer. April 5, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE. A superb Curricule with plated Harness ALSO a pair of young, handsome and fleet PONIES, and a capital saddle horse, who never was in harness. Enquire of the Printer. Dec. 18. ep3t
BOLTING CLOTHS. A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF BOLTING CLOTHS Of the best qualities and latest importations, are kept for sale by OLIVER EVANS, at the corner of Market and Ninth streets, Philadelphia, and By OLIVER & EVAN EVANS, With BUNN and SLINGLUFF, at the corner of Market and Howard streets, Baltimore, Also, with DEAN & GARDNER, Union Street, Alexandria. The book entitled the YOUNG MILL-WRIGHT and MILLER'S GUIDE, may also be had at the above places. Jan. 29, 1802. ep4w&op4w By order of the Orphan's Court in and for the county of Washington, district of Columbia. Notice is hereby given. THAT all persons having claims against Guttavus Scott, late of said county deceased, are hereby warned and required to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber at or before the first day of June next, they may otherwise by law, be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. ELIAS B. CALDWELL, Adm'r Georgetown, March 29, 1802. 1aw2m
PROPOSALS By THOMAS HERTY, For publishing by subscription an APPENDIX to his Digest of the Laws of the United States. IT will contain all the public acts of the two preceding and present session of Congress, that is, the acts of the first and second sessions of the Sixth, and the first session of the Seventh Congress. It will be printed in the same order of arrangement, and have reference to such parts of the aforesaid work, as shall be repealed, is suffered to expire, or which may otherwise undergo alterations, subject to which, will be given, a correct table of the duties on imports and tonnage, and a new Index; this, connected with the foregoing, will embrace the whole law in force. CONDITIONS. It will be put to press immediately after the close of the present session of Congress, (provided a sufficient number offer to defray the expense of the work) and be ready for delivery in about two months thereafter. The price to subscribers will be one dollar and fifty cents in boards, to be paid for on delivery. It shall be neatly printed on good paper. Subscriptions received by the Editor, at his Conveyancing Office, near the Treasury Department, City of Washington; and by those in whose hands proposals are left. March 12, 1802. 1awt
The subscriber respectfully acquaints the public, that he has removed to the corner of Ninth and B streets, where he continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of Ornaments for Chimney pieces, Door Caps, Frontispieces, Metal Sashes, &c. which may also be had at his store No. 51, Barclay street, New-York, and to Mr. Wild's store, Market street, Baltimore. GEORGE ANDREWS. Who has gold leaf for sale by the package or book. May 8, 1801. 17
FOR SALE. A TRACT of land containing 2,500 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, late the residence of PRESLEY THORNON, Esq. Seventeen hundred acres of which are of the most valuable kind of low grounds on the river; between three and four hundred acres heavily timbered, the remainder is wavy high land extremely productive. The soil of this tract is equal to any in the state for cultivation of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy, and small grain of all kinds. On this tract are a large commodious two story brick mansion house and two offices, a large brick stable, a valuable barn, cow house and many other out-houses, all in good repair. The orchards and garden contain a variety of valuable fruit trees, and the waters abound with excellent fish and oysters. It is situated about a day's sail from Alexandria, Baltimore or Norfolk—There are two good mill seats for grist, or saw-mills on this estate, and plenty of cedar and chestnut timber, exclusive of the heavy timber, which if sawed up into scantling will command a price in the City of Washington, nearly equal to the value of the land. The terms will be made easy to the purchaser or purchasers, and the tract will be divided into two or more plantations if necessary.—Apply to RICHARD PETERS, Jr. No. 85, Walnut street Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Nov. 12. ep3t

APRIL 9, 1802.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DEBATE on Internal Taxes continued.
THURSDAY, March 18, 1802.
Mr. BACON said he should reply to the honorable gentleman from Connecticut only by declaring in so many words, that his (Mr. G's.) answer to his (Mr. B's.) observations, was predicated solely on his own assertion, as a fact, and on the repetition of the same assertion, of what was totally void of truth; and that, for a reason sufficiently obvious, he had refused to give him an opportunity, in its proper place, to correct the error.
An adjournment was moved, and lost. The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on striking out carriages, and lost—Yeas 25—Nays 48.
Mr. RANDOLPH moved to insert in the room of "pleasurable carriages"—"carriages for the conveyance of persons," the terms of the law contemplated to be repealed.
Carried without a division.
Mr. DENNIS moved to strike out "refined," for the purpose of inserting "brown" sugar.
He said it had been his purpose substantially to offer this amendment before. He had frequently made the attempt, but had as frequently been foreclosed by the embarrassing motions of his opponents, and their rules respecting order.
Mr. Randolph said he believed there were no internal duties imposed on brown sugar. Such an amendment will make the bill perfect nonsense.
Mr. DANA suggested to the gentleman from Maryland a modification of his motion, so as to introduce the words, "imported brown sugar" between "carriages" and "stamped vellum," in the 6th line.
Mr. S. SMITH wished to know whether it was consistent with the order of the house, or with the decency which one gentleman owes to another, to ascribe to those who had thought it their duty to make certain motions, motives and intentions different from those they had avowed. He said he was unwilling to enter into altercation with his colleagues, or with any body; but if gentlemen do not restrain themselves in their reflections on us, they will compel us to be as indelicate as themselves, and this house will be converted into a bear garden.
Mr. SMITH said, he had not the least disposition to prevent any motion being made that was designed to make an impression upon the public mind. But he was certain he did not transgress decency in saying that he had never seen such conduct displayed in a deliberative assembly; so many questions introduced to embarrass and distract the house.—Gentlemen, however, calculated wrongly respecting the public mind. If he believed the observations of gentlemen, he should despair of the republic. He entertained, however, little fear. If gentlemen sincerely believe our measures subservive of the public happiness, he did not blame them for their conduct. It is their duty to act as they do. But he could not forbear one remark; who laid these taxes? As to the salt tax, gentlemen took pains to convince us that it will not be improper to reduce this tax. Mr. S. said he was no friend to the tax on salt; but as it did not form a part of the branch of internal revenues, he thought it improper in this place, to take any notice of it. There was no district in the United States more affected by the tax on salt, or less by that on carriages, than the district he represented. But the people in that district consider the tax upon carriages as a part of a pernicious system, and will cheerfully bear all the present duties upon imported articles, that this odious system may be abolished, and they will feel that in doing what we have done, we have done all we could do.
Mr. Dennis. I may perhaps have expressed my impressions of the motives of my colleague too strongly. I did
however think that I had been treated injuriously, and that I had been deprived of the right to make a motion which I thought I possessed.
With respect to the popularity alleged to be intended to be derived from these little motions, I am ready to acknowledge my object is to gain popularity; but it is that kind of popularity that arises from measures calculated to benefit the nation. With this object in view, I believe the internal taxes ought to be retained, and the duties on imports diminished.
But while gentlemen are charging us with aiming at popularity, are they indifferent to it themselves? Has not this report of the committee of ways and means been three months in the making, and when made is it not blazoned in a certain print in a type three times as large, as any other of our proceedings are printed in? I do not know why there is this distinction in the type, unless the object of gentlemen be popularity.
Mr. Nicholson asked if it were in order, or whether a member had any right to talk about the conduct of a particular printer.
Mr. Dennis observed, that he would make no addition to his preceding remarks, as he had just finished when his colleague interrupted him.
Mr. S. Smith said, he did not think his colleague correct in the information he had given the house. He did not himself recollect that he had avowed his intention to renew this motion. Nor did he know that it was his duty to omit doing what he thought right, though it might interfere with his colleague's popularity. He may distinctly take the question upon each of these points; but Mr. S. said he had never seen this mode pursued of jumbling things together. As to the popularity which the gentleman courts, he would inform him that he had voted for the duty on salt, on sugar, and almost all the other dutied articles, and yet he had never lost popularity. He had always thought the best way to get popularity was to act right.
Mr. Jackson wished, in order to save time, gentlemen would agree to take a question upon all the articles at once.
Mr. T. Morris said, in that case he should call for a division.
Mr. Randolph moved the previous question. He said that whenever he perceived a question brought forward to vex, to retard, and embarrass the transaction of business, he should deem it proper to require the previous question. Gentlemen may persist in calling the yeas and nays; but on as many such questions as they choose to move, he said he would call for the previous question.
The yeas and nays were then taken on the previous question, viz. shall the main question, to insert, after "stamped vellum, parchment and paper," the words "the duties on imported brown sugar," be now put?—and lost—yeas 25—nays 51.
Mr. T. MORRIS moved to insert the words "duties on imported coffee:" which motion the speaker declared out of order.
A call, was then made, for the question to engross the bill, in order to its being read a third time.
On which call, Mr. Speaker declared that, in his opinion, it was not in order to engross the bill, until the main question on the motion on which the previous question had been called for and taken, should be put and decided by the House; and that it was farther the opinion of the chair, it was not in order to call for, or put the main question on any motion the same day on which the previous question on such motion was called for, and decided in the negative, by the House.—Whereupon, an appeal was demanded from the decision of the chair.
When, an adjournment was called for, and carried.
FRIDAY, MARCH 19.
The House resumed the consideration of the bill to repeal the Internal Revenues: Whereupon,
The appeal from the decision of the chair, demanded yesterday, and suspended by the adjournment of the house, was renewed.
Mr. L. R. Morris called for the yeas and nays.
A division of the question on the said appeal, was called for by Mr. Bayard.
And on the question, "Is the first part of the decision of the chair in order, to wit: "That in the opinion of the speaker, it was not in order to engross the bill, until the main question on the motion on which the previous question had been called for and taken, should be put and decided by the house?"
It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 48—nays 29.
On the question, "Is the second part of the decision of the chair in order, to wit; "and that it was farther the opinion of the chair, it was not in order to call for or put the main question on any motion the same day on which the previous question on such motion was called for and decided in the negative, by the House?"
It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 69—nays 4.
Mr. Dennis moved to insert after 'paper,' in the 6th line, 'duties on imported brown sugar.'
Mr. Dana said it was not his object at this time to enter into a comparative view of the internal and external duties, but to state, that if it was the sense of the house that the duties on imported articles should be reduced, the regular mode was first to abolish, and then reduce them. This is the regular mode, because by pursuing it, one law will contain the whole rate of duties. This mode had been pursued in revenue acts heretofore passed. [He here quoted the provisions of several acts, which he stated to be to this effect.] He knew the title of the present bill was to repeal the internal taxes; but the title being the last part of the bill agreed to, may be easily altered and accommodated to its contents. This course, Mr. Dana thought the most consistent, as this may be the only revenue bill brought before the house during the session, and may present the only opportunity of contrasting the external and internal duties.
Mr. Holland. I am opposed to the proposition made by the honorable gentleman from Maryland, as I conceive it incompatible with the principles of the bill; were this a bill to regulate duties on foreign imports, a proposition to insert or strike out brown sugar might be proper, as it would also be proper to insert or strike out salt, coffee, &c. as has been so often attempted, with a view, as I suppose, to obstruct or embarrass the passage of it.
Gentlemen on the other side of the house have been told by the patrons of this bill, that it is a bill to repeal the internal taxes. This being the sole object of the bill, gentlemen cannot suppose that the advocates of it would suffer any thing to be attached to it; that would have a tendency to protract or prevent its passage. As I view the proposition to insert imported brown sugar, as having no relation to the repealing the whole system of internal tax laws; and as I consider the proposition calculated to defeat the passage of the bill, I am opposed to it. I am the more decidedly opposed to it, because the gentlemen on the other side of the house have uniformly declared their opposition to the repeal of the internal tax-laws, and have at all times attempted to protract the passage of this bill; this proposition being one other evidence of their intentions, excites me the more strongly to oppose it.
Mr. Speaker. I have long wished to see the time that government would have it in its power to dispense with these taxes, particularly with excises and stamp duties, because I think them hostile to the genius of our government. I know that government hath a constitutional right to impose those taxes. But let it be remembered, that at the time the constitution was formed and adopted, both by the federal and state conventions, it was then understood, that this power
was only to be exercised in cases of the greatest necessity. It was then said by those who advocated this power to be given to the general government, that nothing but extreme necessity would ever influence the general government to lay excise, or levy stamp duties; and that the necessity would not probably ever exist. Calculations were then made and confidently asserted, that three and an half or four millions of dollars of an annual revenue would be quite sufficient to discharge our national obligations, and answer all the demands of the federal government; and that a duty on imports of five per cent. would afford this revenue. Under these impressions the constitution was adopted; and I yet believe, had the government observed a proper and sound economy in her first advances, that there would not have been a necessity to have resorted to those taxes. But contrary to the opinions entertained when the constitution was formed, and without any occurrence that rendered it necessary, soon, very soon, indeed, government proceeded to lay internal taxes; and without any regard to the prepossessions or prejudices of the great bulk of her citizens, she resorted to the most odious of all taxes—excise and stamps—the names alone carrying an odium that cannot be wiped off during the existence of the present generation. Our fathers from Europe, perhaps from the abuse in the collection of those kinds of taxes, or from whatever other cause, hold those taxes as odious, and will continue to consider them as odious, in whatever mode you place them. The odium extends into the domestic retirement of the husbandman, and it is in vain that gentlemen say that the citizens are contented with those taxes: let an enquiry be made of the honest laboring husbandman throughout this extended country.—Let gentlemen travel and make the inquiry, and it will be found, that nothing short of a love of their country, and a desire of peace, have caused the people to be passive under their operation, and they look forward with anxious hope for the time that they are be relieved from them. The time, I hope, is now come, that their expectations are to be realized.
No part of the country consumes a greater quantity of salt, in proportion to their other consumptions of foreign articles, than that part of the country that I have the honor to represent. It is a necessary of life; all description of people must have it. Notwithstanding, if the government must have the money drawn from them by excise and stamps, and they had their choice, they hold those taxes in such abhorrence, that they would tell you to lay the excise upon salt, or upon any other necessary of life, and put down those odious taxes. Such is the disposition of the human heart, that you had better take 100 cents from them, in the way they approve, than to take a single cent from them contrary to their approbation. These are my impressions of the opinion of my constituents, and notwithstanding the declaration of the hon. gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Hugers) respecting the opinions of his constituents, I think them the same with those of mine. I live near South Carolina, and know their localities, prepossessions and habits, and do not hesitate in saying that the great mass of the people of that state would prefer a discontinuance of those taxes to any partial reduction of the duties on salt, brown sugar, or coffee.
The gentleman has informed us that his constituents consume a vast quantity of imports, and that the high duties bear hard upon them. I have no doubt, but that the citizens on the sea-coast, and in the gentleman's immediate district, live fast. Some of them have the character of living fast, and they are able to indulge themselves in luxuries. But the major part of the citizens of that state live in much the same manner as the citizens of North-Carolina, or as those of other states; and I am confident would be highly gratified by a total abolition of the internal taxes.

The same gentleman has supposed, that members on this side of the house, to procure their elections, have committed themselves to their constituents for the repeal of those taxes. I know not by what means that gentleman hath procured his seat. It may be by his promising to his constituents to have the duties on salt, sugar and coffee, taken off, and from this circumstance may arise his suspicion of us, and his great anxiety to comply with his promise.
But I will candidly say, so far as comes within my knowledge, no idea existed, that government could do without those taxes. The citizens expected some more favorable modification, so as to enable small distilleries to go on, (that at present are entirely cut up) distilleries that were carried on not from the profit arising from the liquor, but for the benefit of live stock, that to the great injury of the country at present, cannot under the present law-work, which is a much greater number than those that do work; for those persons that do distil, are persons of large capital; persons of small capital not being able to comply with the requisitions of the law. Arrangements of this kind were expected; but the people at large, as well as myself, thought that it would take some time, spent in economy, after such a scene of extravagance, before these taxes could be dispensed with. As for myself, I had no expectation that they could be dispensed with. I had no conception that so great saving could be made by a lopping off officers. I had no knowledge of their enormous number; and I am now happy to find that greater retrenchments than were expected can be made, and am highly pleased that government can go on without those taxes. They have been odious to the people, partial in their operation, and unproductive in the result; and if you charge to their account the evils they have produced, they have brought little money into your treasury: they are odious and impolitic, for they hold out a premium for perjury. They operate on the moral part of your citizens, by reasons of false returns made by those that are regardless of their oaths. They are unproductive from the expence of collection, the host of officers that must be engaged in the collection, and from the evils they will for ever produce. Evils of this kind are not casually attached to other kinds of taxation; duties on salt, sugar, and coffee, may be oppressive, but they are not odious, and they are productive, few persons being engaged in collection.
But it is said by a gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold) that we cannot do without the revenue arising from internal taxes, and that the people are in the habit of paying them, and that it would be dangerous to discharge them from what they have been accustomed to. It is true that the citizens have been in the harness, and drove on until they have no idea of resistance. But I wish to see the harness thrown off them. I wish to see them restored to that state of freedom that was contemplated at the time of our entrance into the federal government; and that they should not be fettered with taxes that were only intended in the last resort; that were only intended in cases of the first necessity; and whatever may be the consequence of this emancipation, if it throws us in the back ground, I shall be contented under a belief that it will not be in the power of any succeeding administration to resort to excises for twenty years to come, unless there is the most urgent necessity. That they will not dare to do it upon imaginary or pretended necessity. The necessity must exist, and not till then I wish to see those taxes resorted to. The honorable gentleman tells us that he has no reliance on the heads of departments, and that more money will be necessary than is required by them.
I believe that it is the first time that the heads of departments in any government have been suspected of not asking money enough for the administration of government. It is the first time that the administration of the American government has been liable to this charge; and had the former administration continued, they most assuredly would have not been chargeable with this offence. And permit me to say, that a much larger sum would have been necessary. But the administration hath changed, and with it a change of measures; the enormous sums
of thirteen or fourteen million of dollars per annum are no longer consumed. But does the gentleman suppose that his opinion should be substituted for the calculations made by our heads of department; that the legislature ought to adopt his suggestions in lieu of official documents. This, to be sure, would be treating that gentleman with a high degree of compliance and respect. The honorable gentleman hath also informed us that owing to the great industry of the late administration, there are two or three millions of dollars in the treasury, and by this means government may go on a year or two. I am willing to admit that the late administration has been exceedingly industrious to draw money from the people, and that their invention and industry have extended in every direction and to every object, and that nothing, from which money could be drawn, was left untried or untouched. But I think in these respects they have drove on too fast, and drawn from the people as much money in six years as ought to have been taken in twelve years. Indeed I believe, that by the time the direct tax is paid, that government will have received all the money that is in circulation. Some time will be necessary to enable the people to obtain a fresh supply.
I also think it bad policy in government to wrest from the people all their circulating cash. I think it better for the government that the treasury should be poor and the people rich, than that the treasury should be rich and the people poor. If the people are left with money in their hands, it adds to the means of their wealth, and when the necessity of government calls for aid, it will be given by her virtuous citizens; but it is otherwise if the treasury is rich and the people poor. I therefore wish to see a rich and independent people, and a poor treasury, in preference to an indigent people and a rich treasury.
Much hath been said respecting an expression that dropped from a gentleman from Massachusetts, who I trust is a friend to this bill; the expression was, that the taxes were already half repealed; this has been tortured to mean that the friends of this bill are under executive influence; & because of an indication in his message in favour of the repeal, the repeal is an executive measure. Sir, not only the executive, but the corresponding good sense of the most enlightened citizens of this country, has already more than half repealed those taxes, and had the sound understanding of the people been consulted, those taxes would not have been laid; and, as we now know from the best authority that government can go on without them, we should be unmindful of our duty and of the voice of the nation, were we not to repeal them.
An honourable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Dennis) who is the author of the proposition to insert imported brown sugar, announced to the house that his object in this and in all the propositions that he has made on this occasion, is popularity. This being his object he is intitled to all the benefits that he can desire from them. I know not that gentleman's constituents, but it appears to me that they will understand the history of his measures, and if they do, I shall not envy him all the popularity that he shall take by his measures. His constituents will discover, that if any one species of internal taxes is retained, that the system is preserved; and would they for a reduction of the duties on salt, sugar and coffee, agree to keep up 460 lazy drones, that must have a salary equal to the amount of their collection. I think his constituents would think it more advisable to discontinue the system of internal taxes, and thereby compel those idlers to labour for their support, as it is not to be presumed that they are persons of opulence. The benefit the community would draw from their honest labour would be more than the amount of their collections; for I take it that government is benefited in proportion to the increased productions arising from the labour of her citizens. It is therefore impolitic and odious to increase or continue useless officers. I therefore consider this amendment with all the others proposed by the gentleman on the other side of the house, as calculated to obstruct or prevent the passage of the bill, and as I am fully impressed with a belief that the bill ought to pass, I shall vote against the proposition to insert imported brown sugar.
Mr. DENNIS said he only wished a fair decision on his motion, and had intended to leave it to its fate, without a single comment.
His proposition had, however, been from time to time suspended, sometimes by the previous question, sometimes by being divided, and by appeals from the chair. He wished not to produce delay, but he should continue to persevere in the right to have the question fairly stated to the public, until that object be attained. After the delay arising from appeals from the chair, and divisions of motions, &c. &c. and the long speech of the gentleman yesterday, he hoped the majority would no longer complain of procrastination. He did not mean to reply to the whole of the observations of the gentleman last up, for they were generally out of order, and much more applicable to the whole bill on its final passage, than to the motion before the house.
That gentleman, said Mr. Dennis, has told us that the object of this bill is to repeal the internal taxes. This, I suppose, we should have discovered without the aid of the gentleman's sagacity. On the contrary, it is my object to retain the tax on carriages, on refined sugar, on retailers, and on sales at auction, because they are applicable to luxuries used by the rich, and to reduce the tax on brown sugar, on coffee, bohea tea and salt, or on some of them, because they may be considered as necessaries of life. We are told this is not the proper place to make the comparison, and the gentleman (Mr. Holland) tells us, after this bill is passed, he will co-operate with us in reducing the tax on brown sugar. That gentleman, sir, must know that we cannot dispense with these taxes, and those on sugar and coffee likewise; and that when this bill shall have passed, it will be too late to attempt the reduction he speaks of. This is then the only time and place, when and where we can take the comparison, and make our election, whether we will repeal the tax on carriages, on retailers, on sales at auction, and loaf sugar, or reduce them on brown sugar, tea, and other articles before-mentioned.
But the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holland) says the very name of excise is odious to a free people, and that it has been found so in practice. When he proceeds to prove his assertion, he appeals solely to the tax on stills. Without inquiring into the truth of the assertion as applicable to stills, Mr. Dennis said he would remind him the first motion he made on this subject was, to distinguish between the tax on stills and other internal revenues. Mr. Dennis said he was willing now to repeal the tax on stills; and if they would confine themselves to that tax, he would co-operate in the measure. He conceived the tax on stills standing on different grounds from the tax on carriages, retailers and sales at auction, and on refined sugar, precisely because it was very troublesome in its collection, and requires a great many officers to collect it. This gentleman and his coadjutors are very anxious to repeal these taxes; they tell us, because they wish to get clear of a host of officers. They cannot surely expect this to delude the public.
Take off the tax on stills, and they may discharge all these officers, and still collect the tax on the residue of these duties at a lower rate than we collect the impost. They may devolve on the deputy post-master in some cases, and on the collectors of the customs in others, the collection of these taxes, and thus, sir, all this noise about a host of officers is hushed into silence.
A gentleman from N. Jersey (Mr. Southard) supposes if we devolve the collection of the tax on carriages
on the deputy post-masters, it will become burthensome to make the entries—and asks, with a great deal of emphasis, What, will you compel your citizens to travel forty or fifty miles to enter a carriage? Now let us see how far these assertions are supported by the fact. I know of no county where there is, at present, more than one collector of this tax; but I know it is common to find three or four, and sometimes half a dozen deputy post-masters in a county; so that the distance to be traveled, to make these entries, would be diminished rather than augmented; and yet, sir, this is the kind of reasoning by which we are to be persuaded it is best to release carriages, and continue the taxes on the necessaries of life.
But, lays the gentleman from N. Carolina, the people wish to be released from taxes, ask them if they do not. I have no doubt it is at all times pleasing to be released from taxes. But the question is not in the abstract, whether they wish to be relieved from taxes; nor is this the fair way of stating the question. No, sir, ask the American people these questions; whether if we cannot repeal both the internal revenues, and reduce the internal duties, they would prefer to continue the tax on carriages, in order that they may reduce the tax on salt; whether they had rather take off the tax on loaf, or reduce it on brown sugar; whether they will continue to tax retailers of spirituous liquors, in order that they may reduce the tax on coffee: whether they would continue to tax sales at auction, to release the duty on bohea tea; and I will vouch for them they will answer, continue the duties on carriages, on loaf sugar, sales at auction, and retailers (for these relate to mere luxuries) and take off the taxes on the other articles, which are necessaries of life.
On yesterday it was intimated I was seeking after popularity, and that this was the object of my motion. This sentiment has been reiterated by the gentleman from North Carolina. Without enquiring what is the object of that gentleman and the patrons of this bill, I will candidly confess I do expect popularity from this measure. Popularity, however, is but a secondary consideration, and as such I shall always be happy to enjoy it. My duty I conceive is, whenever a question presents itself, first to consider what system of conduct will be most conducive to the public interest, and secondly, what will best comport with the public will; and if my views of public interest correspond with the national voice, I shall always be happy in the approbation of my fellow citizens. I believe this to be the case in the present instance, and therefore I expect to derive popularity from these measures. But at the same time, I will tell that gentleman, that the popularity I aim at, is popularity for that political party with which I am associated, and on the prevalence of whose principles rests, in my opinion, the prosperity of this country, and not my own personal popularity. Permit me to tell that gentlemen, too, that a seat on this floor is not of so much importance to me as he may imagine, and perhaps not of so much consequence as he may deem it to himself; and that it is at least questionable whether I shall again solicit the representative character. I did not intend, as I before intimated, to pursue that gentleman through his desultory harangue, for the reasons before assigned, and will barely repeat that I will agree to repeal the tax on stills, but that I think, if any revenue can be spared, it is much better that we continue to collect the duties on carriages, refined sugar & other luxuries, than to continue the present high duties on coffee, bohea tea, salt, and brown sugar.