The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-04-02 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXIX.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, APRIL 2d, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
Mr. RUTLEDGE.—I have kept my seat, Mr. Chairman, until this late stage of the debate, under a hope that the arguments of gentlemen who advocated the passing of this bill would convince me it is not unconstitutional; but after having listened most attentively to them for many days, I find the deep impression made upon my mind, that it attacks the very vitals of our constitution, has been fortified and extended instead of being diffused.
It is not necessary, Sir, for me to call to your recollection v. it was the situation of America anterior to the formation of the present government. Our state governments had proved to be mere ropes of sand. Experience had shown the confederation to be miserably defective in all its parts. Those evil times, when anarchy and jealousy distracted our state governments, and clashing interests threatened to break our federal union, called all America upon its legs. The people of this nation summoned their wits and best men to meet in convention, to form a constitution which should promote the lasting welfare of our country, and secure the liberties their valour and wisdom had won.
The difficulty of the task was fully equal to its importance. In reviewing the histories of other republics, the convention saw that like the splendid shows of a magic lantern, they had appeared and disappeared in almost the same moment of time; as had been observed by a celebrated writer, they rose like a rocket and fell like a stick. Although their existence had every where been transient, yet it had been protracted wherever the institutions of the country had excited any kind of veneration for its judicature. At Athens in particular, and indeed throughout Greece, the liberties of the people were for a season preserved by the respect felt towards the august court of Areopagus. Notwithstanding the aspiring ambition of some of the states, the intrigues of powerful demagogues, and the general degeneracy of manners, yet, as long as this venerable judicature was respected, Greece continued free. As soon as it lost its influence the people lost their liberties. Taught by these examples the value of a good judiciary, the patriots who met at Philadelphia determined to establish one which should be independent of the executive and legislature, and possess the power of deciding rightfully and finally on conflicting claims between them. The convention laid their hand upon this invaluable and protecting principle; in it they discovered what was essential to the security and duration of free states; what would prove the shield and palladium of our liberties; and they boldly laid, notwithstanding the discouragement in other countries in past times, to efforts in favor of republicanism, our experiment shall not miscarry, for we will establish an independent judiciary; we will create an asylum to secure the government and protect the people in all the revolutions of opinion, and struggles of ambition and faction. They did establish an independent judiciary. There is nothing, I think, more demonstrable than that the convention meant the judiciary to be a co-ordinate and not a subordinate branch of the government. This is my settled opinion; but on a subject so momentous as this is, I am unwilling to be directed by the feeble lights of my own understanding, & as my judgment, at all times very fallible, is liable to err much where my anxieties are much excited, I have had recourse to other sources for the true meaning of this constitution. During the throes and spasms, as they have been termed, which convulsed this nation prior to the late Presidential election, strong doubts were very strongly expressed whether the gentleman who now administers this government was attached to it as it is. Shortly after his election, the legislature of Rhode Island presented a congratulatory address which our chief magistrate considered as soliciting some declaration of his opinions of the federal constitution; and in his answer, deeming it fit to give them, he said
"the constitution shall be administered by me, according to the fair and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people at the time of its adoption ;" a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it. These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time . To this high authority I appeal. To the honest meaning of the instrument; the plain understanding of its framers. I, like Mr. Jefferson, appeal to the opinions of those who were the friends of the constitution at the time it was submitted to the states. Three of our most distinguished statesmen, who had much agency in framing this constitution, finding that objections had been raised against its adoption, and that much of the hostility produced against it had resulted from a misunderstanding of some of its provisions, united in the patriotic work of explaining the true meaning of its framers. They published a series of papers, under the signature of Publius, which were afterwards republished in a book called the Federalist . This contemporaneous exposition is what Mr. Jefferson must have adverted to when he speaks of the publications of the time. From this very valuable work, for which we are indebted to Messrs. Hamilton, Madison and King, I will take the liberty of reading some extracts, to which I solicit the attention of the committee. In the seventy-eighth number we read, "good behaviour for the continuance in office at the judicial magistracy, is the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. In a republic it is a barrier to the encroachments & oppressions of the representative body. And it is the best expedient that can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws. The judiciary in a government where the departments of power are separate from each other, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution. It has no influence over the sword or the purse, and may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment. The complete independence of the courts of justice, is essential in a limited constitution, one containing specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such as that it shall pass no ex post facto law, no bill of attainder, &c. &c. Such limitations can be preserved in practice no other way than through the courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts manifestly contrary to the constitution, void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges of the states or the people would amount to nothing. Where the will of the legislature declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the constitution, the courts designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, are to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The convention acted wisely in establishing good behaviour as the tenure of judicial offices. Their plan would have been inexcusably defective had it wanted this important feature of good government." The authority I have read proves to demonstration what was the intention of the convention on this subject; that it was to establish a judiciary completely independent of the executive and legislature, and to have judges removable only by impeachment. This was not only the intention of the general convention, but of the state conventions when they adopted this constitution. Nay, Sir, had they not considered the judicial power to be co-ordinate with the other two great departments of government, they never would have adopted the constitution. I feel myself justified in making this declaration by the debates in the different state conventions. From those of the Virginia convention, I will read some extracts, to show what were there the opinions of the speakers of both political parties. The friends of the constitution insisted that our federal judges would be independent of every thing but their behaviour and their God. The opposers of the constitution insisted that they would not be perfectly independent of the legislature, because they might increase their salaries. Most affectionately attached to the sovereign rights of the states and the people, the opposers of the constitution displayed all the suspicion of jealous lovers. They supposed the judges would not be completely independent, and insisted if they were not there would soon be a concentration of all power in the legislature and a perfect despotism in our country. Hence it appears that both parties thought the judges ought to be beyond the reach of the legislature except by impeachment. The friends of the constitution insisted they were so; the opposers feared they were
not. Let us attend to the debates in the convention of Virginia.
General Marshall, the present chief justice, says 'can the government of the United States go beyond those delegated powers? If they were to make a law, not warranted by any of the powers enumerated it would be considered as an infringement of the constitution which they are to guard: they would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction: they would declare it void.' Mr. Grayson, who opposed the constitution, we find saying 'the judges will not be independent because their salaries may be augmented.' This is left open. What if you give 600l. or 1000l. annually to a judge? 'Tis but a trifling object when by that little money you purchase the most invaluable blessing, that any country can enjoy. The judges are to defend the constitution.' Mr. Madison in answer says, 'I wished to insert a restraint on the augmentation as well as diminution of the compensation of the judges—but I was over-ruled; the business of the courts must increase. If there was no power to increase their pay, according to the increase of business, during the life of the judges, it might happen that there would be such an accumulation of business, as would reduce the pay to a most trivial consideration.' Here we find Mr. Madison not using the words, good behaviour, but he says (what we say was meant by good behaviour) during the life of the judges . The opinions of Mr. Madison I deem conclusive as to the meaning of the words, good behaviour; but I will read what was said by Mr. Nicholas, which is substantially the same. [Here Mr. Rutledge read several extracts from the debates in the Virginia convention. Those quotations show that, in Virginia at least, the public will and intention was to have an independent judiciary.] Let us now see what was the opinion on this subject of the first congress under the constitution when the first judiciary bill was debated. Mr. Stone says, 'the establishment of the courts is immutable.' Mr. Madison says, 'the judges are to be removed only on impeachment, and conviction before congress.' Mr. Gerry, who had been a member of the general convention, expresses himself in this strong and unequivocal manner. 'The judges will be independent, and no power can remove them; they will be beyond the reach of the other powers of the government; they will be unassailable, and cannot be affected but by the united voice of America, and that only by a change of government.' Here it is evident Mr. Gerry supposed a project like the present could only be effected by the people, through the medium of a convention—he did not suppose it possible for congress ever to grasp at this power. The same opinions were held by Mr. Lawrence, and Mr. Smith, (here Mr. Rutledge read further extracts from the congressional debates.) In addition to those high authorities permit me, Mr. Chairman, to read some parts of the lectures, on the judiciary of the United States, of the celebrated judge Tucker, the present professor of law at the university of William and Mary, in Virginia, (here Mr. Rutledge read from Tucker's lectures.) I with gentlemen who compare the official tenure of our judges with those of Great Britain, to attend to the wide distinction between their independency, as shown by the learned judge and professor whose lectures I have cited—he shews that the judges in England have only a legal independency, while in America they enjoy a constitutional independence.
The advocates of this bill say, the people could not have meant to establish an independent judiciary, because a permanent body of men, beyond all control, would prove hostile to the liberties of the people. Sir, we do not contend for any such establishment—we do not wish for a judiciary permanent and beyond control—No, Sir, all we insist upon is, that the judges are liable to that sort of control only which the constitution establishes, that good behaviour, is the tenure by which they hold their office, and that they cannot be removed from it but by impeachment. That the judicial authority was never designed to depend upon the executive and legislative powers, but in some sort to balance them. That our federal judicature was meant to give to the government a security to its justice against its power—it was contrived to be, as it were, something exterior to the state. The honorable gentleman from Vermont, (judge Smith) who preceded me, says, our construction of the constitution is derived from implication. This is not the case, Sir, we require no ingenuity, no sophistry, no metaphysical distinctions to bear us out in our contrac-
tion. We resort to the plain meaning of the words of the constitution. Knowing the constitution would contain the seeds of its dissolution, should it contain articles liable to ambiguity, the convention cautiously avoided obscurities—they selected as plain words as any in our language to represent their intention of having an independent judiciary—they used words that are intelligible to almost every capacity. Let us read them. 'The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their office during good behaviour.' These are the words of the constitution, and what words, Sir, could have been found more express, more unequivocal in their meaning? Let us suppose, Mr. Chairman, that instead of being the legislature, and instead of having the constitution before us upon trial, and (as is the case I fear) being about to sign its death warrant, we were a convention called by the people, to form a constitution, that we had determined to establish an independent judiciary—to have judges removable only by impeachment—that having decided this principle, 'twas referred to a committee to draft a clause conformably to the idea of having the judicial entirely independent of executive and legislative power, and that this service was assigned to the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) could his ingenuity, could his knowledge of our language, furnish words to represent the intention of having an independent judiciary, more appropriate, more unequivocal, more familiar, than the words used by the convention, and which I have just read? They are explicit, simple, unqualified, and at the same time imperative. The understanding of the convention, of the states, and of the people at large was, that our judiciary should be independent. They deemed this constitutional check essential to the duration of the government; and until the fourth day of last March, I believe the judiciary was considered as sacred. The state governments, and the people, and the friends of our federal union, revered it as the fortress and ark of their liberty.
While this shield remains, it will be difficult to dissolve the ties which knit and bind the states together. As long as this buckler remains to the people, they cannot be liable to much or permanent oppression. The government may be administered with indiscretion, and with violence—offices may be bestowed exclusively upon those who have no other merit than that of carrying votes at elections—the commerce of our country may be depressed by nonessential theories, and public credit may suffer from bad intentions—but so long as we have an independent judiciary, the great interests of the people will be safe. Neither the President, nor the legislature can violate their constitutional rights. Any such attempt would be checked by the judges who are designed by the constitution to keep the different branches of the government within the spheres of their respective orbits, and say thus far shall you legislate and no further. Leave to the people an independent judiciary, and they will prove that man is capable of governing himself—they will be saved from what has been the fate of all other republics, and they will disprove the position that governments of a republican form cannot endure. I did hope from the promises made by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) on a former occasion, when we attempted to postpone this bill, that he would have given it an unimpassioned consideration—if it were possible for him to dismiss party feelings, and argue any question upon its real merits, it was to be hoped he would have given a cool and deliberate consideration to this all important subject, and argued it upon the ground of constitutionality. But unmindful of his promise not to consider this as a party question, the gentleman prefaced his observations with saying he designed to make them personal.
His preliminary remarks were highly afflictive to myself and friends—we deprecated this course, but the gentleman's crimination must be deemed a justification of the recrimination which he has rendered necessary.
This is a painful task, and if gentlemen should feel themselves or their friends wounded by any of our observations, they must recollect the situation in which they have placed us, and that the necessity of defending ourselves has been imposed upon us by their attacks. In a space which occupied two hours, ten minutes only of that time were given to a consideration of the constitutionality of this measure, and then the gentleman found it convenient to employ the rest of it in fulminating his anathemas against the past administrations, and re-
iterating those insinuations and censures which on all past occasions he has indulged himself in bestowing upon those who are no longer in power. Whether attacks are to be continued upon the past administrations to divert the public eye from the present administration, or whether they are calculated to raise a smoke under the cover of which gentlemen may march, unobserved to attack the vitals of our constitution, is best known to themselves. The gentleman from Virginia has rendered homage to the judiciary of Great Britain—acknowledges much of the prosperity of that nation to be produced by the independency of their judges—says ours are at least as independent, but that the doctrine of making them completely independent is a monstrous one. Sir, there is no kind of analogy between the governments of America and Great Britain; and none between the situation of the judges, in that and in this country. The people of England, gained much, and had an abundant source of oppression dried up, when they got their judges made independent of the monarch, whose creatures, they had been, and whose arbitrary measures they had been obliged to support. But, Sir, it was impossible to make the judges a check upon parliament, for nothing in that government is independent of parliament. In this country things are far different, we have a written constitution—the people have given certain powers to the executive, other defined powers to congress, and delegated other powers to the judiciary. But the gentleman from Virginia wishes to make congress as powerful as the parliament of Great Britain—he wants the legislature in America to be (like the parliament in England) without control: he wants to destroy that check which the people in their constitution formed for us—he wants to prostrate that protecting principle which was never before known in a republican government, and for the want of which all republics have perished. In England the independence of the judiciary as far as it goes I highly appreciate, but I venerate the independence of our judges (as designed by the people when they adopted the constitution) because it is complete—in England it is not. There they have a legal independence; here a constitutional one. Although the independence of the judges in England is partial, yet it has been productive of vast good; although they may be said to be in some measure still independent on the monarch, in as much as pensions and places are in his gift, yet it is well known the independence they do possess of the crown prevents reams of state from entering the courts, and that the royal will sinks into nothing and disappears at the seat of justice when opposed by the law. From many proofs of this fact I beg leave to select the case of M c Wilkes at the time of his second election, and when he had been outlawed; although the whole power of the crown was most actively employed to crush this obnoxious subject, yet Lord Mansfield, and the whole bench of judges, declared the outlawry contrary to the principles of common law, and reversed it as being illegal. Permit me to read this case—(here Mr. R. read an account of the proceedings and the whole of Lord Mansfield's celebrated speech). The judiciary on this occasion we see checking arbitrary executive measures, because they were independent of the executive.
In America the judicial power was designed as a constitutional check upon both the executive and legislature—but gentlemen on the other side, deprecating all control, are for prostrating the check imposed by the people on their representatives, and the destruction of which will make them omnipotent. The gentleman from Virginia lays the judicial power was not formed by the constitution. I shall not be surprised by any declaration he may make about the meaning of the constitution after this. Sir, the judicial power is established by the constitution equally with the executive and legislature. The organization of the courts has been left to congress, but the instrument under which we act has established the judiciary, and has also assigned its duties. A charge has been made against us by the honorable gentleman which I must deny, I plead not guilty to it, and say he is wholly mistaken. He has charged us with having changed with the times and with having formerly advocated the extension of the powers of this house. Sir, this is not the case, tempora mutant sed non mutamur in illis. Knowing how strongly disposed in governments like ours the popular branch always is to grasp at illegitimate powers, we have in times past
(Continued on last page.)

seventy seven causes. This paper serves to show not what business is done, but what a mass of business there is undone and which the court is incompetent to decide. What a frightful picture has he given of the judicature of his own state. How alarming must it be to foreigners and the citizens of other states who may have causes depending in Virginia—What chance can a citizen of South Carolina, Massachusetts or elsewhere, have of obtaining justice before the lapse of many years, if the history given by the gentleman from Virginia be correct. Should a citizen of another state be a suitor in Virginia it is competent to the citizen of that state to carry the cause into the court of chancery, where a mass of business prevents it from his view, and he finds 2600 causes must be dismissed before his can be heard. Where would the citizens of other states having debts in Virginia attempt their recovery? They would seek justice, Sir, in the federal circuit court, which gentlemen are now endeavouring to annihilate, and not in the state court, which may be more properly called a bed of justice than a court of justice, if justice sleeps there as the gentleman has represented. He also states that state justice is cheaper than national justice. I do not believe this a correct position. I am very willing to enter into a comparison, but must exclude from it, Virginia, because he has shown that justice is denied there, it being greatly delayed. I did hope, Mr. Chairman, the motion made before I got up for the rising of the committee would have obtained, and should not have commenced offering my observations at so late an hour, had there not been a loud call for the question, but as I am unwilling to abuse the patience of the committee, as I have detained them I find more than two hours, and have not yet offered half of the observations I am desirous of submitting, I will suspend them for the present and continue them to-morrow, or will now proceed as shall be most agreeable to the committee.
On motion of Gen. Smith the committee rose.
THURSDAY, Feb. 25, 1802.
I beg leave, Mr. Chairman, to proffer my thanks to the committee for the indulgence with which they favoured me yesterday, and at the same time to acknowledge the respect excited by the politeness of the honorable gentleman from Maryland who moved for its rising. In the course of the observations I yesterday offered I endeavoured to show that 'twas the intention of the convention to make our judges independent of both executive and legislative power—that this was the acknowledged understanding of all the political writers of that time, the basis of the state conventions, and of the first Congress when they organized our judicial system. If I have been successful in my attempt to establish this position, and if (what I suppose cannot be denied) it be true in jurisprudence that whenever power is given specially to any branch of government, and the tenure by which 'tis to be exercised be specially defined, that no other, by virtue of general powers, can rightfully intrude into the trust—then I presume it must follow of consequence that the present intermeddling of Congress with the judicial department is a downright usurpation and that its effect will be the concentration of all power in one body, which is the true definition of despotism. As, Sir, every thing depends upon the fair construction which this article in the constitution respecting the judiciary is susceptible of, I must again read it (here Mr. R. read several clauses of the constitution,) some of the clauses we see are directory and others prohibitory. Now, Sir, I beg to be informed of what avails are your prohibitory clauses, if there be no power to check Congress and the President from doing what the constitution has prohibited them from doing? Those prohibitory regulations were designed for the safety of the state governments, and the liberties of the people. But establish what is this day the ministerial doctrine, and your prohibitory clauses are no longer barriers against the ambition or the will of the national government; it becomes supreme and is without controul. In looking over those prohibitory clauses as the representative of South Carolina, my eye turns with no inconsiderable degree of jealousy and anxiety to the 9th Sec. of the 1st article—which declares, (here Mr. R. read the article respecting migration before the year 1808.)
I know this clause was meant to refer to the importation of Africans only, but there are gentlemen who insist that it has a general reference, and was designed to prohibit our inhibiting migration as well from Europe as any where else. It is in the recollection of many gentlemen who now hear me, that in discussing the alien bill, this clause in the constitution was shewn to us, and we were told it was a bar to the measure, and an honorable gentleman from Georgia, then a member of this house, and now a Senator of the United States (and who had been a member of the convention) told us very gravely, he never considered this prohibition as relating to the importation of slaves.—I call upon gentlemen from the southern states to look well to this business. If they persevere in fritting away the honest meaning of the constitution by their
forced implications, this clause is not worth a rush—is a mere dead letter; and yet, without having it in the constitution, I know the members from South Carolina would never have signed this instrument, nor would the convention of that state have adopted it. My friend from Delaware, standing on this vantage ground, says to our opponents, here I throw the gauntlet, and demand of you how you will extricate yourselves from the dilemma in which you will be placed should Congress pass any such acts as are prohibited by the constitution. The judges are sworn to obey the constitution which limits the powers of Congress, and says they shan't pass a bill of attainder or ex post facto law; they shall not tax articles exported from any state, and has other prohibitory regulations. Well, Sir, suppose Congress should pass an ex post facto law, or legislate upon any other subject which is prohibited to them, where are the people of this country to seek redress? Who are to decide between the constitution and the acts of Congress? Who are to pronounce on the laws? Who will declare whether they be unconstitutional? Gentlemen have not answered this pertinent enquiry. Sir, they cannot answer it satisfactorily to the people of this country.—It is a source of much gratification to me to know, that my sentiments on this subject, as they relate to the constitutionality of it, are in unison with those of the wisest and best men in my native state. The judicial system had proved so inconvenient there as to render a new organization of it necessary some years past. There were gentlemen in the legislature as anxious to lend from the bench some of the judges as gentlemen here are to dismiss our federal judges; personal animosities existed there as well as here, though not to so great an extent; but 'twas the opinion of a large majority of the South-Carolina legislature, that as the constitution declares "the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour," the office could not be taken from them, the measure was abandoned, and the wise and cautious course pursued, which we with gentlemen here to follow; the system was not abolished, but modified and extended; the judges had new duties assigned to them, and their number was increased, but no judge was deprived of his office. In South-Carolina they have a court of chancery, consisting of three chancellors, and the law establishing it requires the presence of two judges to hold a court. During a recess of the legislature one of the chancellors resigned and another died. The functions of this court of consequence became suspended. All the business pending in it was put to sleep.—The public prints were immediately filled with projects for destroying the court which had been denounced as unnecessary. As the citizens of the western part of the state had not participated much in the benefits derived from the court of chancery, many of the most influential of them deemed it of little utility. The opposition assumed so formidable an aspect as to determine the governor (who exercises the power of appointing judges during the recess of the legislature) not to make any appointments, believing the court would be abolished. When the legislature met an effort was made to abolish the court; but a large majority, giving to the constitution the honest meaning of its framers, considered the judges as having a life estate in their offices, provided they behaved well; and the vacancies on the chancery bench were immediately supplied.
That the national judicial establishment is comparatively more costly than are the state judiciaries, is far from being the case, I believe. It may be so in Virginia, where they have one chancellor with little salary and much business, but it is not so in other states. In South-Carolina, we have six judges at common law, at six hundred pounds sterling a year each, three chancellors at 500L each, which, together with the salaries and fees of office of the attorney general, master in chancery, solicitors, clerks and sheriffs, amount to six thousand two hundred pounds sterling. And yet, Sir, justice I believe is no where cheaper than in South-Carolina. By the judicious structure of her judiciary system, the streams of justice are diffused over the whole state, and every man is completely protected in his life, liberty, property and reputation. The courts are almost constantly in session. The judges are gentlemen of high talents, integrity and strict impartiality, and every one who goes into the court of that state, not only obtains ample justice, but obtains it promptly—this, Sir, is what I call cheap justice. The gentleman from Virginia has seen fit to notice the law which laid a direct tax, and said it was imposed when we knew the administration of this government was soon to pass from those then in power—and was resorted to as a means of extending executive patronage, and to make provision for the friends of an expiring executive. Can the honorable gentleman be serious in all this? Does he remember when we passed this law? It was in 1798, when, I will be bold to say, the administration enjoyed the highest degree of popular favor. In no popular government perhaps was an administration more popular than was the former administration at the time this tax was
laid. Sir, this law had no connexion with personal or party considerations—Like all the measures of the past administration, 'twas designed to promote the public good. Had we, like our opponents, consulted the caprices and prejudices, and not the real interests of our constituents; had we been merely attentive to popular favor, we should not have passed this law; at the crisis 'twas passed the public good demanded it, and we were regardless of every other consideration. A nation that had lighted up the flame of war in every corner of Europe, that was prostrating the liberties of every free people, and subverting the government of every country, saw fit to menace us. Told us for the preservation of our peace and independence we must pay tribute. This degrading measure was scornfully rejected by our administration—they said if we must fall we will fall after a struggle, and our citizens prepared themselves for war with alacrity, and regarded every sacrifice as inconsiderable compared with the great sacrifice of independence. With this prospect of immediate war, we should have acted not only unwise but treacherously, had we trusted for public income to the revenue derived from trade—had our trade been destroyed, there would have been a complete destitution of revenue, and to place the means of national defence as far beyond the reach of contingency as possible we imposed the direct tax. We knew this law would prove arms and ammunition to those who were inventing all the falsehood credit could swallow, and who were busily employed in misrepresenting and calumniating the conduct of the government. We did suppose they might make this law their artillery to batter down the administration—but we were not deterred from our honest purposes by this expectation—a change of men when compared with a change of government weighed with our minds as dolt does in the balance—our measures did not aim at popularity, and we were just to our country, regardless of any party consequences. At this early period, says the gentleman, it was to have been calculated what would be the result of the Presidential election. Sir, those must have been gifted with second sight, they must have been prophets indeed, who could have then foretold how the election would issue—the result was as doubtful as any event could be, 'till within a few days of the election—it is recollected that every thing depended upon the South-Carolina vote—all the gentlemen in nomination went there with an equal number of votes—the anxiety displayed at the time by the gentlemen here from Virginia proved they then deemed it very doubtful how the election would terminate. Indeed, Sir, nothing could have been more doubtful, and I believe it is fully known to the ministerial side of this house that it depended upon one of the gentlemen nominated who had not the Carolina votes to have obtained them and produced to the election a different result—but his correct mind was obnoxious to any intrigue; 'twould not descend to any compromise, and this honorable man knew that no station could be honorable to him unless honorably obtained. In the very wide range which the gentleman from Virginia has permitted himself to take, he has been pleased to notice the conduct of the late congress when they were occupied in the election of a President of the United States, and he has said we were then 'pushing forward to im- molate the constitution of our country.' What does all this mean Sir? What Sir! Because we, of the two gentlemen who had from the electors an equal number of votes, did not prefer him who was from Virginia, are we to be charged with an immolation of our constitution? Sir, the gentleman from Virginia was not a member of the last congress, and left he should not know the history of the transaction to which he alludes, I will give it.
The electors chosen in the different states gave the same number of votes for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr; there being a tie it devolved by the direction of the constitution upon the House of representatives to make an election. We sincerely believed that Mr. Burr was the best and the most fit man to be president, and we accordingly voted for him; we continued to vote for him six and thirty times; we were anxious to have him elected and we deprecated the election of the other candidate, but when we found gentlemen were determined not to have the candidate from New-York, and laid they would have him from Virginia, President, or they would have no President, we, who venerated our constitution too sacredly to do any thing which should hazard the loss of it, yielded. We believed Mr. Jefferson radically and on principle hostile to the national constitution—we believed some of the most important features in it obnoxious to him—we believed him desirous of destroying the independence of our judiciary—we believed him opposed to the senate as now organized, and we believed him destitute of that degree of energy necessary to maintain the general liberty of the people of the United States. With these impressions deep upon our minds, we should have been traitors to our country had we voted for the gen-
tleman from Virginia, as long as there was any prospect left to us of elevating the gentleman from New-York; but when we found the object of our preference was so obnoxious to gentlemen on the other side, that they would hazard the having of no president rather than have him, we ceased our opposition. And this is what the honorable gentleman from Virginia has been pleased to call 'pushing forward to immolate the constitution.' I regret, Mr. Chairman, being compelled to mention names and say any thing of a personal nature, but I am obliged to do it in pursuing the gentleman from Virginia, who in his extraordinary course has not only mentioned the names of gentlemen but ascribed unworthy motives for their conduct. He has said Mr. Read & Mr. Green voted for the law under which they got appointments. Although I have abundant proof that neither of these gentlemen solicited their offices, that they were given spontaneously, and without being expected, yet I will merely answer this observation by mentioning, what is very generally known to all gentlemen who have been of late in the councils of the nation—it is, that it was the invariable practice of the former executive to appoint gentlemen to office without previously advising with them. It is well known that under the law gentlemen are now endeavoring to repeal, Mr. Jay was appointed chief justice, and about the same time several gentlemen in this house were appointed to some of the most honorable stations under our government—the executive's intention it is well known had not been previously noticed to them—it is known they all declined accepting the places proffered to them. Permit me, Sir, to give a brief history of the case of Mr. Greene, on which the gentleman from Virginia has dwelt so much.
[Mr. RUTLEDGE's speech to be concluded in our next.]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
THURSDAY March 18, 1802.
INTERNAL TAXES.
MR. GRISWOLD—Concluded.
Believing it unsafe to abandon any of these taxes, I shall vote against repealing all of them. I have of consequence, no idea of giving up the tax either upon stamps or dills. I believe all to be necessary, as necessary for the support of public credit, as for the honor and safety of the nation.
We have no peculiar interest in retaining these taxes—We share not the loaves and fishes. But we are deeply interested in the support of public credit, in the safety and honor of the nation; and let money go where it may, I will always vote for money enough to support public credit, and to maintain the honor and safety of the nation.
I believe in this project more is intended than is expressed. I know, whenever a deficiency shall occur, where it will fall. I know that it will fall on our naval establishment. Look back to the sentiments and conduct of those, who once held seats on this floor, and who now hold high offices under the executive, and flew me when they voted a cent for a navy. Did they not invariably say, let commerce shift for itself? Yes, I have heard these declarations, and they account for these measures to starve the navy. It is therefore I feel alarmed, knowing full well where the deficiency is to fall.
But it is said, the collection of the internal taxes is attended with great expense, and therefore they ought to be given up; that they increase executive patronage, and therefore ought to be surrendered. I deny that their collection costs more than that of duties on imports. It is stated by the treasury officers, that the expense on imposts is only 5 per cent. But how often have you been told, that your merchants are only your collectors. Gentlemen have never heard me say that all the duties fall on the merchant, I know the contrary; and I know that to protect the fair trader from injury, all you have to do is not to make them so high as to produce smuggling, or so prompt in their payment as to prevent the merchant from collecting them from the consumer before he pays them into your treasury; but the merchant falls to the retailer, whom he charges 20 or 25 per cent. on the duties paid by him. Before the articles sold get into the hands of the retailer, they come charged with an advance of 25 per cent. The retailer falls to the consumer with his 33 per cent. added. I did not say they stood charged with 100 per cent. but with 40 per cent. at least. All those who make these charges are collectors; so that the fact is, that instead of costing 5 per cent. as asserted, they cost to the man who pays the tax, the consumer, more than 40 per cent.
Let us, in this view of comparative expense, turn to the other branch of the subject.
1st. As to carriages.
The Secretary of the Treasury informed us at the beginning of the session, that the internal revenues, taken together,
cost in collection 19 per cent.—Now that officer acknowledges that they do not cost more than 15 per cent.—When an officer states one thing to day, and another thing to-morrow, I will submit whether it is not better to make our own calculations. It is easy to prove that in Massachusetts the collection of the internal taxes does not exceed 8 per cent. and it may be made equally low elsewhere. Therefore you may reduce this sum within 10 per cent. Indeed, if you carry these taxes as far as you ought to do to meet and equalize the duties on imported goods, you may bring the collection down to 5 per cent. Carry the duty on distilled spirits as high as on imported spirits, and my life for it, the expense will not be greater.
But from another view, it will appear that the expense paid by the consumers of the objects of internal revenue, is not so high as on imported articles.—For instance, distilled spirits are either retailed by the distiller or sold directly to the retailer, and the distiller charges ordinarily no advance upon the tax, but gets his profit by being paid for the labour of distillation; this makes a difference of 20 per cent. In other articles, in licences to retailers, there are no additional charges, no 20 per cent. Sales at auction are in the same situation; with respect to carriages there is still a greater difference. The consumer pays nothing but the tax, without paying any commission or profit. Stamps are precisely so situated in most parts of the country.
The calculation, therefore, is fallacious, that makes the expense of collecting the internal revenue greater than that on imported articles; as with regard to the latter, the consumer in paying your duties, not only pays the collection, but also pays the merchant and retailer. So that these internal taxes are collected with the least expense of any. For what matters it to the consumer, whether he pays 20 per cent. to the merchant or to the retailer, or to your officer? He actually pays it in either case.
Now this being clear, and also that the taxes may be so modified as to be collected still lower; particularly that on carriages (which may be collected by the deputy postmaster, who may receive the tax of persons living at a distance through the mail) I ask why give up the internal taxes in preference to those on imported articles? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) tells us, that the system of internal taxes is repugnant to the theory of a free government; that it requires a host of officers to collect them. But what is the danger from this source? Is it not well known that the tax gatherer is always odious, and that instead of having influence to subvert the government, he ceases, as soon as he becomes an officer, to have that influence which he would otherwise have possessed. The officers too are very few, only one supervisor and a few collectors in each state. The gentleman must think very contemptuously of the people, to suppose that they can be corrupted by a few officers with inconsiderable salaries. For these reasons, I consider this objection an argument against every thing; as applicable to the army, the navy, and every other important object that can be named. It is an objection which may do to talk about, but which has no solidity in it.
I have only one further observation to make; and that is, that if we can part with any taxes, though my opinion is, that if we sincerely mean to support the credit of the government we cannot part with any; but if we can, we ought to give up the tax upon some imported articles. Coffee is taxed 5 cents a pound; the present price, including the import, is not more than 20 cents; the duty is more than 50 per cent. on the cost abroad. This enormous duty is a great temptation to smuggling. It can be easily done. Let gentlemen look to the sea-coast. The temptation to gain 50 per cent. is immense; and I am apprehensive the practice may be gone into, unless you lessen the inducement; and in that event your revenue is gone; for the payment of it depends upon the honor of your merchants. Such is your sea-coast, that the vigilance of a thousand officers could not resist the practice, if the disposition were not wanting. If this duty on coffee shall produce smuggling in the merchant who imports it, his neighbour, who imports sugar, will say, my neighbour is growing rich by this practice; I have the same right with him; and the practice will catch like wild-fire. We ought therefore to put these excessive duties down.
Besides, as to sugar, that, in my opinion, is a necessary of life. The duty is 50 per cent. on its first cost. It must therefore be oppressive; and if we can dispense with any of the impositions, it ought to be with those which fall upon the necessaries of life, which are consumed by the poor.
For these reasons I am for retaining the carriage tax, for retaining all the internal taxes, and for modifying and improving them. I believe that in this way the expense of collection may be greatly lessened, and such a modification of the taxes take place as shall produce an equal pressure of the public burthens upon the whole community.
[Debate to be continued.]

Latest Foreign Intelligence.
From London papers to the 8th of February received by the Port Mary, capt. Collins, arrived at Charleston.
GENOA, December 31.
It now appears to be certain, says our Gazette, that the African piratical powers will not be suffered much longer to continue their depredations. The states of America have already declared, that, instead of submitting to a disgraceful tribute, they will sit out some frigates for the protection of their trade; and it is generally asserted, that English and French frigates, with flags of truce, have demanded of the Bey in the name of their respective nations,
1st. That all slaves of those nations now in the hands of the Tunisians, shall be set at liberty. 2nd. That all the corsairs shall be disarmed. 3rd. That all European ships shall be permitted freely to carry on their trade. The same demands have been made of all the piratical states of Barbary.
HAGUE, January 14.
The conclusion of the last year was unfortunately distinguished by the breaking down of the dykes, and by dreadful inundations: though Holland is the natural basin into which two rivers discharge themselves, the Meuse and the Rhine, the great precautions, which had been taken for several centuries past, seemed to have removed all fear of their overflowing their banks; but nothing could oppose the impetuosity of their waves—quays, dykes, and every thing else were swept away. The South of Holland has in particular suffered very much; for many years the inhabitants congratulated themselves on being spared. The late inundations carried every where terror and devastation; the land which separates Rotterdam and Gonda was one vast inundation, which seemed to have given back that country to the sea, from which it was gained by the incessant industry of our ancestors. It is impossible to calculate without terror the extent of our losses—more than six thousand acres of land are under water.
PARIS, February 8.
A letter from Amiens, of 9 Pluivose (Jan. 29,) received at Havre, states the following intelligence relative to the Definitive Treaty: "We learn at this moment, on good authority, and we hasten to inform you, that the Articles of the Definitive Treaty are settled between the Plenipotentiaries, and that they will be signed and published within fifteen days."
LONDON, January 8.
One of the neatest traits of Buonaparte we have seen for some time, is an answer he gave to the magistrates of Paris, who proposed to erect a monument to him. He answered, that the idea of erecting monuments to the fame of public benefactors was honorable to the nation. He was willing that a spot should be marked out for the monument proposed, but the erection of it he left to posterity, should they ratify the good opinion entertained of him. The idea is very fine.
LONDON, January 25.
Yesterday we received by express, the Paris Journals to the 23d inst. The First Consul has been received with the greatest enthusiasm at Lyons. The Mouiteur is filled with the accounts of the processions and fetes to which his presence in that city has given rise. In the midst of the rejoicings of the Lyonees, the business of the Cisalpine Consulta seems to be entirely forgotten.
Talleyrand has addressed a letter to the mayor of Lyons, from which it appears that the First Consul is at great pains to establish such commercial relations with Russia as will probably render that country a considerable market for French manufactures.
February 1.
A letter from Brussels, January 10, intimates an expectation of a speedy adjustment of the definitive treaty at Amiens. A further delay is, however, attempted on the part of the Spanish government, still greatly dissatisfied with the cession of Trinidad. But we ought not to vouch for the truth of such a circuitous channel, which cannot be sufficiently informed on a subject of such magnitude and importance.
The King of Etruria has been acknowledged by the Neapolitan government; but what dare it refuse, when under the mandate of the French Republic.
From Naples we learn, that the twenty-five hundred troops who have so much contributed to the peace and tranquillity of that capital, were about to embark, as generally believed, for Malta, to act as the third power, under whose guarantee and protection that island was to be placed by France and England. Should this be well founded, and we see no reason to the contrary, the ambition of Russia will be completely gratified by the attainment of that footing and interest in the concerns of Europe, which may at some future period give her a dangerous preponderancy.
LONDON, February 2.
Mr. King, the American minister at this court, solicited to remain by Mr. Jefferson, who knows and values his abilities, it is said, has requested that a successor may be appointed. We disbelieve this.
We yesterday received Paris Journals to the 28th inclusive, but they contain nothing of importance. It is reported, in a letter from Vienna, that the Grand Duke of Tuscany is to be made an elector of the empire, with the territories of Saltzburgh, Passau, and Berghelsdaden. On the other hand, a new protestant electorate in the House of Orange is to be erected. It is said that a Congress at Amiens, to which Russia and all the powers of the continent are to send ministers, will be held.
Private accounts say, that in consequence of the express demand of the French government, the delays hitherto opposed by the court of Madrid to the conclusion of the definitive treaty have been forced to give way, and the Chevalier d'Azzaras, who was at Paris, has received orders to go to Amiens as Plenipotentiary. If this be true, the definitive treaty, we are inclined to think, will speedily make its appearance.
February 8.
Yesterday, we received Paris Journals to the 3d inst. inclusive. Their contents are given in the preceding columns.
The Chief Consul returned to Paris on the 31st ult. His arrival was announced by a discharge of Artillery, and on the following day received the congratulatory addresses of the different public bodies. All is adulation without alloy.
The Tiers Confolides have rather declined a little they are 56 f. 60 cents.
A letter from Amiens, in the Journal du Commerce , states, that the definitive treaty is settled. We have no doubt of the fact ourselves.
A morning paper of this day states on private authority, that the Spanish minister has signed the Preliminary treaty on the part of his court. Whether this be yet the case, we know not, but the two principal powers having come to a proper understanding, the consent of Spain may be considered as a thing of course.
It is with great pleasure we state from unquestionable authority, that the Danish court's act of accession to the convention signed at St. Petersburg on the 17th of June last between England and Russia, was dispatched for Moscow on the 25th of October; and that his Danish majesty's ratification was forwarded from Copenhagen to St. Petersburg on the 24th of December.
THE STORM.
SHEFFIELD. —A letter dated January 20, ten o'clock, P. M. says, "Since three o'clock this morning, this town and neighbourhood has experienced the most dreadful hurricane ever remembered by the oldest inhabitants. Every where are seen houses unroofed, chimneys blown down, windows wrenched from their situations, many old cottages totally demolished, trees torn up by the roots, and hay-stacks scattered about. In fact, this place wears the appearance of a town closely besieged, and for the whole of the day has nearly been as still and silent as at midnight. Among the most conspicuous buildings that have suffered, is the Tontine Inn, the leads of which were early in the day torn from the roof, and lie dispersed in the adjoining streets. God knows when the tempest will cease; at present there is no appearance of it. Though the wind is somewhat abated, it still roars hideously, accompanied with intervening storms of rain and snow, and keeps us all on the alert."
Chester. —Thursday morning this city was visited by one of the most tremendous hurricanes we ever remember, which continued with unabated violence throughout the day, and has done considerable damage, scarcely a house having escaped its dreadful ravages. A number of windows have been blown in, some houses have been entirely unroofed, and several chimneys blown down; but we are glad to say we have not heard of any lives being lost, or limbs broken. A stack of hay (about 40 tons) on the Tarvin road, was blown over, and nearly all lost; the vane on the top of St. John's and Brides churches are bent like bows, and rendered useless; and the streets are strewed with slates, bricks, &c. which render them very dangerous for passengers. The wind was nearly west; consequently the damage to the shipping in the river on the coast of Wales, Hoylelake, and the channel, must, we are afraid, be very great.
Liverpool. —We were visited here on Tuesday night by the most dreadful hurricane that can be remembered by the oldest inhabitant. A horrid night it was indeed, and the day-light opened a scene shocking to behold. Many houses are quite blown down and demolished; innumerable others have had their chimneys thrown down in every part of the town. Many lives are lost in the ruins; the havoc made in the river Mersey surpasses all description: several vessels this day, at tide time, foundered in the sight of the inhabitants and spectators on shore, and in some instance every attempt to save the perishing sailors proved abortive.
The river and along the Cheshire shore, presents a melancholy scene indeed: dead bodies thrown up—pieces of wreck floating here and there!—Horror has been depicted in every countenance—each person afraid either to go out in the street, for fear of being killed by the falling of bricks, slates, ridgings, &c. and equally apprehensive of his life, by constant expectation of his house falling down over him. You may rely on this hasty sketch being by no means exaggerated.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1802.
There have been two other late arrivals from Europe, besides that at Charleston, viz. one at New-York, bringing London papers as late as Feb. 11, and one at Philadelphia, in 27 days from Lisbon, with London papers as late as Feb. 13.
By extracts from these papers it appears, the principal points of news are: That the definitive treaty between France and England had not been concluded.
That the British had concluded a treaty with the Porte, annulling and superseding a treaty before concluded between France and the Porte, from which a misunderstanding is expected between France and Turkey.
That it was contemplated to render the Cisalpine republic an appendage to that of France.
A New-York print promises a copy of the constitution of the Italian Republic , of which Bonaparte is chosen President.
[From the London Sun, of February, 8.]
DEFINITIVE TREATY.
We have now the satisfaction of being able to announce from undoubted authority, that the terms of the definitive treaty between this country and France are at length finally agreed upon and concluded.
Indeed it is more than a week since this was the case, but the official publication of the terms has been delayed from a wish on the part of our government to improve the provisions intended for the Rastadholder, and also to arrange some points respecting Switzerland, before the ratification be formally declared.
The public, however, may rely on what we state, that every article respecting this country is completely and finally settled.
The chief difficulty in the negotiation arose from its being strongly urged by this government that Demarara and Surinam should be declared free ports for three years, to enable the British subjects who had settled there, the more easily to dispose of their property, and to remit it direct to this country.
[We ask the attention of our readers to the following correct tribute of praise, extracted from the London Morning Chronicle of the 16th of January last:]
We find in the speech of the American president, that the tax on newspapers is one of those which it is in immediate contemplation to remove. His reason alleged for this removal, is highly honorable to the character and views of the American government. It is declared to be for the purpose of facilitating the progress of information; and whatever some persons may pretend to the contrary, it is a certain fact, that in the present state of society, there is a very numerous class of every community who have access to no other source of political intelligence. It will not indeed be pretended that this intelligence is always pure, but experience has fully proved, that with all its defects, it has had a very important and beneficial effect on the public mind. If any one pretends to doubt this, let him turn his attention to the subject and degraded state of public opinion in those countries where such sources of intelligence are not known, and assert, after such a survey, that tyranny could have long existed if means had been used to acquaint the people with the true state of public affairs. Wherever we see an anxiety on the part of government to withhold information from the people we may safely conclude that its measures are unjustifiable, and its views dangerous. A good government has every thing to hope for from the freedom of discussion and the diffusion of knowledge. Its measures may experience, in some cases, factious opposition, or be subject to malicious misconstruction, but the rectitude of its proceedings, while it will secure general support, will sufficiently protect it against the effects of occasional misrepresentation. Much is, in all circumstances, gained by unrestrained discussion, but no permanent advantage can result from temporary concealment. The American President recognizes the full force of this principle, when he proposes to remove every restraint on the diffusion of knowledge. In con-
dering the wise policy which he recommends on this subject, it is impossible not to contrast with it, the conduct of the late administration; who, instead of affording any facilities to the dissemination of knowledge, formed a systematic attack on the liberty of the press, and loaded literature of every description with intolerable imposts. It surely was no very honorable distinction to them to sacrifice the advantages of knowledge to the interests of revenue, and to attempt to fill the exhausted coffers of the treasury, by extinguishing the light of the people.— Morn. Chron.
The latest accounts from New-Hampshire furnish the following statement of votes for governor of that state.
For Mr. Gilman, 6,366
Mr. Langdon, 4,265
Present maj. for Gilman, 2,101
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
WEDNESDAY, March 31, 1802.
The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled, "An act to repeal the Internal Taxes," and
On the question shall this bill pass as amended?
It was determined in the affirmative; Yeas 15—Nays 11.
The Yeas and Nays being required by one fifth of the Senators present; those who voted in the affirmative, are:
Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Clinton, Cocke, Golhonn, Ellery, T. Foster, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, S. T. Mason, Nicholas, and Sumner—15.
Those who voted in the negative, are:
Messrs. Dayton, D. Foster, Heward, J. Mason, Morris, Ogden, Olcott, Ross, Tracy, Wells, White—11.
[The amendments above referred to relate only to the details of the bill]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
WEDNESDAY, March 31, 1802.
The house went again into committee of the whole on the report of a select committee respecting the admission of the North Western Territory as a state into the union.
Mr. L. R. Morris in the chair.
The second resolution under consideration, as follows:
2nd. "Resolved, That the said state of Ohio ought to consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit: Bounded on the east by the Pennsylvania line, running from the territorial line in Lake Erie to the Ohio; on the south by the Ohio to the mouth of the great Miami; on the west, by a line drawn due north from the mouth of the great Miami aforesaid, and on the north by an east and west line, drawn through the southerly extreme of lake Michigan, running east, after intersecting the due north line aforesaid, from the mouth of the great Miami, until it shall intersect lake Erie or the territorial line; and thence with the same through lake Erie, to the Pennsylvania line, aforesaid, or place of beginning: Provided, that congress shall, at any time hereafter, be at liberty, either to attach all the territory lying east of the line to be drawn, due north from the mouth of the Miami, aforesaid to the territorial line, and north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly extreme of lake Michigan, running east as aforesaid, to lake Erie, to the aforesaid state, or dispose of it otherwise, in conformity to the 5th article of compact between the original states, and the people and states to be formed in the territory north west of the Ohio."
Mr. Fearing declared himself opposed to this resolution, which he considered unconstitutional and inexpedient.
Mr. Giles defended the resolution.
Mr. Bayard moved to strike out the words which fix the boundary of the new state, and moved the substitution of words, declaring that the boundary should be the same as that originally designated as the boundary of the eastern state.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Bayard, Fearing, and Goddard, and opposed by Messrs. Bacon and Smilie, and on the question being taken, was lost—yeas 18—nays 38.
Mr. Fearing moved to strike out that part of the resolution that referred to congress the right of altering the boundaries of the new state when formed—lost—yeas 20.
The question was then taken on the resolution, which was agreed to—yeas 42.
The third resolution, providing for calling a convention to form a constitution, was then agreed to—yeas 42.
Mr. Fearing moved an amendment, which was agreed to, conveying the property in two salt springs, in addition to the Scioto springs, to the new state.
Mr. Griswold moved to strike out that part of the report which provides that one-tenth of the proceeds of the sales of western lands should be applied to the making "turn-pike or other roads leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic to the Ohio," with a view, if it should be deemed necessary, to substitute a provision that 5 per cent. of said proceeds should be paid into the
treasury of the state to be used as the state legislature should direct.
Mr. Goddard supported the motion of Mr. Griswold, who was answered by Messrs. Giles, Smilie, R. Williams, Jackson and Holland.
Motion lost—yeas 17.
Mr. Fearing moved that the one-tenth part of the proceeds of land should be laid out in the making of roads in the new state, under the direction of the legislature thereof, instead of being laid out as prescribed in the resolutions.
Motion lost—yeas 25.
The committee then rose and reported the resolutions, which were immediately taken up in the house, and agreed to:
Ordered that a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolution by Messrs. Giles, Griswold, R. Williams, Jones, L. R. Morris, and Condit.
[As soon as room allows, we shall state the foregoing proceedings at large.]
THURSDAY, April 1, 1802.
The house went into committee of the whole on the bill making appropriations for negotiations for ascertaining the boundary line between the United States and Upper Canada—Mr. Davis in the chair.
Bill reported, and passed.
It appropriates 10,000 dollars for the purpose.
The house went into committee of the whole on a report respecting the city of Washington—Mr. Davis in the chair.
In lieu of the first resolution, one was substituted on motion of Mr. Dennis, for abolishing the present board of commissioners, and empowering the President to appoint one or more agents to manage the affairs of the City.
Mr. Griswold moved to amend the third resolution by striking out that part which empowers the President to advance monies from the treasury to pay the instalments of the loans of 200,000 dollars land, in case too great a sacrifice would be made by selling city lots.
This motion was opposed by Mr. Nicholson, and lost—Yeas 20.
Mr. Gregg moved to strike out the proviso in the 4th resolution, which leaves from immediate sale a certain portion of city lots pledged to the payment of 50,000 dollars loaned of Maryland.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Griswold, Eustis, Mitchell, Bacon, Randolph, and Allison; and opposed by Messrs. Nicholson, and Holland; and carried—yeas 45—nays 20.
Mr. Nicholson moved to strike out the first part of the 4th resolution, and insert in lieu thereof a provision, that in case the proceeds of the lots do not prove adequate to repay the loan of Maryland, the deficiency shall be paid out of the treasury.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Nicholson, Allison, T. Morris, and Dennis, and opposed by Mr. Gregg.
The committee rose without coming to a decision, and asked leave to sit again.
Philadelphia, March 29.
Capt. Findlay, of the Hindostan, from Lisbon, brings English papers to the 13th of Feb. inclusive, by which it appears that no certain information had reached England of the conclusion of the definitive treaty. Buonaparte had returned to Paris from Lyons, where a grand Italian convention had been held, the result of which has been the uniting great part of Italy to France, to be called the "Italian Republic," and to be ruled by a vice consul, who receives his appointment directly from the Consul. The Spanish minister had arrived at Amiens to assist at the Congress. The Ottoman Porte is stated to have rejected the treaty concluded at Paris, and to have formed a new commercial treaty with England. A loan for thirty millions was negotiating in London. The income tax was expected to be repealed, and an additional duty on malt and beer imposed. Consols were 69. Lord Clare, the late chancellor of Ireland, and admiral Graves, have paid the debt of nature.
Notice is hereby given,
THAT the co-partnership between William Moffat and Ebenezer Nesmith, Housewrights, is this day dissolved by mutual consent. All persons indebted to the late company, are desired to make payments to Ebenezer Nesmith, and all persons who have demands will call on him for payment.
WILLIAM MOFFAT. EBENEZER NESMITH. Washington, April 2. kw31
Continuation of the WASHINGTON DANCING ASSEMBLY.
The Managers give Notice that there will be an assembly at Stelle's Hotel on next Tuesday evening, the 6th of April.
N. B. The company of such Ladies as have or may receive tickets for the season, is particularly solicited; the gentlemen who think proper to attend, as well subscribers as others, will, under the direction of the Managers, be furnished at the bar with tickets of admission on the usual terms.
April 2, 1802.
For Sale,
A NEGRO WOMAN about 27 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.
ep4

(Continued from first page.) struggled hard for preserving to all the branches of the government the powers delegated to them respectively by the constitution; we have ever been watchful of executive and judicial rights, and defended them from the encroachments attempted by the legislature. The gentleman from Virginia must permit me to call to his memory the course of conduct we pursued on a very memorable occasion when he and his friends wished this house to arrogate executive powers. I refer to the proceedings on a motion made by the honorable gentleman then his colleague, who is not now a member of this house, (Mr. Nicholas) in the debate on the foreign intercourse bill. Mr. Nicholas said, "I believe all governments like ours tend to produce a union and consolidation of all its parts in the executive department, and the limitations of each other will be destroyed by executive influence unless there is a constant operation on the part of the legislature to resist this overwhelming power. A representative government may be made, the most oppressive and yet preserve all its constitutional forms, and the legislature shall appear to act upon its own discretion whilst that discretion shall have ceased. Where under our government the executive has an influence over the legislature, the executive is capable of carrying its views into effect in a manner superior to what can be done in a despotic monarchy. Michie's will be carried further because the people will be inclined to submit to a government of its own choosing. Monarchs cannot carry their oppression so far without resistance as republics. Suppose executive patronage had extended its influence into the legislature, and that in consequence of a thirst for office majorities were formed in both branches of the legislature devoted to the views of the executive; where would be a check to objects hostile to the public good? In what branch of the government would you look for it? Was it the senate? Will you look to this house? The majorities are humble expectants of office. Where then will you find any thing capable of controlling the overbearing influence of the executive? It must be in small and feeble minorities, who by their opposition, and attention to the interests of the people against arbitrary power, may route the people to a resistance of their danger, and force the public sentiment to be respected; this he concurred would be the only check." It hence appears, that those gentlemen have availed themselves of every occasion to extend the powers of congress, and had their attempts been successful we should ere this have had a consolidated government—a kind of government which the people of this country never wished to establish, and which is incompatible with their best rights. The gentleman from Virginia whose argument I have quoted on the subject of the foreign intercourse bill shows that those who were then in the minority extended their project so far as to count upon the minority to check the powers of the other departments of government. Not so, sir, is the case with us; we do not count upon the efforts of feeble minorities—we do not wish to guard the constitution by appeals to the people, we will do nothing calculated to produce infurrection, we do not want to protect the great charter of our rights by the bayonet. No, sir, we rely on honest and legitimate means of defence; we wish to check these gentlemen only with constitutional checks. The people of America lay in their constitution the judiciary is designed as a check upon the legislature and executive, and as a barrier between the people and the government. We lay it is the sheet anchor which will enable us to ride out the tornado and the tempest, and that if we part from it there is no safety left: that it is the only thing which can preserve us from the perilous lee shore, the rocks and the quicksands where all other republics have perished. The judiciary is the keystone of the national ship—throw it overboard and she must upset.
[Mr. Giles begged leave to explain; he said the gentleman had not quoted his arguments fairly; he never held the ideas ascribed to him; he certainly had not said the gentleman from South Carolina wished on former occasions to concede power to the popular branch of the government; the gentleman from South Carolina, he believed never wished this or any other popular branch of government trusted with power.]
Mr. R. said on a subject so momentous as this he would not trust to his memory; that he had taken down the words of the gentleman from Virginia; he certainly did not mean to misrepresent him, and was sorry he had supposed he had not quoted him fairly. It has been further said by this gentleman that as the judiciary was established for the benefit of the people, and is maintained by their money, the people must with it put down when the proper authority tells it has no duties to perform and is a mere figure. I should be glad to know, sir, what is meant by the proper authority; are we to judge in this business, or is the executive to judge for us? Sir, the executive has been fit to judge for us, but I believe he has gone beyond the line of his duty; and it would be
more proper to call this document, now in my hands, an officious than an official act. However unpleasant it may be to gentlemen to call this an executive measure, the great solicitude discovered by the President to get embarrassed of this most salutary constitutional check, proves it his measure; 'tis not the measure of Congress nor of the people, but of the executive. Not satisfied with calling the attention of Congress to this subject, he has, in his zeal to furnish arguments to those who support here his measures, given us a table showing what business had been done in the federal courts prior to the late organization of them. Had the former President furnished the late Congress with such a document as this, it would have been considered as abundant evidence of the inconvenient organization of the federal courts, and furnished arguments for the change in the system which we did make; the result of this document is, that owing to the inconvenient arrangement of the system, suitors were deterred from entering the national courts. It shows how insufficient the provision for doing business was under the ancient system, and not how little there is to do. In a nation so great, and so growing in its greatness as ours is; among a people so commercial, so enterprising, and so attached to right as are the people of this country, there must be much law or there will be no justice. But had the late executive furnished, unsolicited by Congress, such a document, the whole nation would have rung with censures. He would have been charged with considering Congress as a mere bureau—a committee or commune through which the executive was to make its projects and his propensities felt. In this document No. 8, we see the arm of the executive raised against the judiciary, and in his message we hear him say it must fall . If he had consented himself with merely directing our attention to the law he wishes repealed, we might have obtained much more useful information for ourselves than what he has been pleased to give. If he had only adverted to this subject as one requiring the consideration of Congress, and they had wished for information, they would have called upon the proper officer for it, and have directed the attorney-general to furnish a table, showing what business had been done in the circuit courts since the time of their establishment. Such a document would have shown whether the existing law be beneficial or not; but the President it seems did not deem it wise to leave to us, the usual course of obtaining information; perhaps he had sufficient reasons for this; probably such a document as I have mentioned would have given a result not suited to executive views. It would have shown that much important business had been done in the circuit courts, although they had but a short existence. Whether the executive was inclined to act with the promptitude he did, to prevent its being known of what validity the law is, it is not for me to say. I must be permitted however, Mr. Chairman, to say, that having passed the last summer in the eastern states, I know that in that section of the Union the circuit court was fully occupied during its session. It is within my own knowledge that at Portsmouth in New-Hampshire, there was much business done; at Boston there was a great deal of important business despatched much to the satisfaction of suitors, and I learned from an authentic source that the court was a highly popular one. At Newport in Rhode-Island, there was so much business, that the court was under the necessity of holding evening sessions. In Vermont I know that much business was done, and done much to the satisfaction of the public. From the gentlemen of the bar in New Jersey, we have a memorial stating, that there had been many causes tried in the circuit court in that state. In Philadelphia the gentlemen of the bar, of both political parties, have united in informing us that they doom the continuance of this court not only useful but necessary. From the chamber of commerce at New-York, and from the merchants in Philadelphia we have received petitions, praying for a continuance of the law, which has been denounced, and which the executive thinks unnecessary. These facts make a mass of high evidence, which on ordinary occasions would weigh much. But I fear it will not preserve the law in question. It has been frowned upon from high authority, and I fear it must perish.
Sir, this document No. 8 is as little calculated to serve the purposes of gentlemen who appeal to it, as is the document produced some days past by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Thompson) he gave us a record from the court of chancery in Virginia to show how much business there is done in that court where he says there is but one judge and his salary is only 1500 dollars. The honorable gentleman, in Virginia, they have but one chancellor, with the salary of 1500 dollars, who renders as much service as all the national courts; and to prove this he reads to us a certificate from the clerks of the court of chancery stating that on the chancery docket there were two thousand six hundred and
(Continued on second page.)
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. epf
NOTICE. Is hereby given to the Creditors of EZEKIEL KING, Bankrupt. THAT on Saturday the third day of April next, between the hours of eleven and one of the said day, at the place of holding the circuit court of the district of Columbia, in the City of Washington, a certificate of discharge will be given to the said bankrupt, unless cause be then and there shown to the contrary by the said creditors or some of them. By order of William Kirtly Chief Judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, this 25th day of March 1802. URIAN FORREST, Clerk of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for Washington County. March 29, 1802. epf
THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE. THAT the subscribers of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, have obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington County, in the said district, Letters of administration on the personal estate of Jasper De Carnap, late of Washington county deceased; all persons having claims against the said deceased, are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof to the subscribers, at or before the 25th day of August next; they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under our hands this 12th day of February 1802. ELIZABETH DE CARNAP, Administratrix. HENRY INGLE, Administrator. Of Jasper de Carnap, deceased. Feb. 2, 1802. raw2M
FOR SALE. I WOULD sell on reasonable terms, three or four hundred acres of Land, in the centre of my estate at Marlinton, 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 Accomack 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 bank of the richest shell marl—part of it is a most valuable firm manure, 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 excellent house, barn and negro quarters. If not before sold by private contract, it will be offered at public vendue on the 20th of May, on the premises, (the seller reserving a bid) deliverable in the fall. Mr. William Hay, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase. JOHN F. MERCER. Annapolis, Feb. 26, 1802. epbw.
State of Maryland. Elizabeth Retalick, 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 of 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 assigned all his right and title to the said Lot of ground to Simon Retalick 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 the cause a copy of this order be inserted three Tuesdays or three Fridays in the National Intelligencer, City of Washington, before the twentieth 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) SAMUEL H. HOWARD, Reg. Court Cn. March 26, 1802. tw3F
BOARDING. Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol—Apply to the Printer. March 19, 1802. ep3w
For Sale, A NEAT Frame House and Lot, on New-Jersey Avenue, square 660; fifteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bow window, a parlour and closet back on the second floor, two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches front, running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabout.—For terms apply to JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. March 5, 1802. epf
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR, SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, cassimeres, 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. epf
Looking Glasses. J. COOK Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Plates. 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 size. They are marked at the lowest cash Prices. March 15, 1802. epf
CHARLES VARDEN, Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia. GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of Bell superfine cloths, Cassimeres, Swansdown, Toylenets, 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. epf
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 100 acres of wood-land, of the above described tract, containing about 150 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 guaranteeing 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 occupiers, 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 scarce 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 every requisite convenience for immediate operation, in the counties of Jefferson and Frederick, and at various prices. And several valuable building Lots, situated upon the Pennsylvania Avenue, in the City of Washington; some upon square 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, Short Hill, March 5, 1802. epbw
FOR SALE. A superb Carriole with plated Harness and a pair of young, handsome and fast HONES, and a capital saddle horse, who never was in harness. Enquire of the Printer. Dec. 18. epf
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, an square 253, bounding on a high and healthy situation, near the Treasury Office, at present much under let at 205 dollars each per annum; to respectable tenants as follows: No. 1, to David Rawn; No. 2, to Wm. James; No. 3, to R. W. Peacock; each house is 23 feet front, and containing a good dry cellar. On the first floor are two parlors, kitchen and servant's room over the same; second floor contains three well finished bed rooms with closets where necessary; back yard paved, with out-houses, and lot inclosed with close boarded fence, 6 feet high, to an alley 26 feet wide. The front of the said houses is paved with brick, Locus 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 payments with interest.
At the same time will be sold two improved ground rents on square 461, being on the fourth side of the Pennsylvania Avenue, and cutting on 13ber Creek near the Market House. One lot containing 44 feet front, lot 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 LOFELL. March 24, 1802. epfs
The Arabian Horse The Dey of Algiers. ARRIVED on the 19th inst, in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Mason, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swan 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 bailiff Brown, of Russia, into that kingdom, and was purchased at the sale of the bailiff's studs, after his death, at Eschschwitz, in '99, lieutenant general Frederick baron of Diemar, by whom he was sent to Hamburg to col. Swan, whence he was by that gentleman shipped to America; to attest which, and to prove him to be a genuine Arabian horse, original certificates are in my hands, and may at all times be seen.
The Dey is of full stature for his race, he measures exactly fourteen hands two inches and an half. His colour is nearly white, with a few brown spots dished over his neck and 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 pasturage well fenced, adjoining the land, at two shillings and six pence per week. Grain and green clover will be furnished if desired, at moderate prices.—Great care shall be taken of mares, and every justice done them with the horse; but I will be answerable for no accidents or escapes. If gentlemen at a distance choose to send servants with their mares they shall be provided for on reasonable terms.
CHARLES C. JONES. George-Town, Feb. 26, 1802. epbw 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.
FOR SALE, An excellent Blacksmith, together with his wife and three likely children, to wit, two boys, 10 and 8 years of age, and a girl four. The woman has been employed altogether in washing and ironing. An examination of the blacksmith's work will be his best recommendation. To save unnecessary applications the price of the family is 1,400 dollars. F. PETTON. Stafford, March 8, 1802. rawtf
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 Gustavus 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. raw2M
For Sale, Or to To Let, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS. SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol—The titles to which is indisputable. ISAAC POLOCK. Dec. 16. epf