The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1805-03-22 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. V.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
NO. DCXCV.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, MARCH 22nd, 1805.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE CHASE.
(Mr. Rawle's testimony, concluded.)
Mr. Randolph. Did you on the first day, the 22d of April, hear Mr. Lewis express in court any sentiments in regard to the paper which you say he viewed with such indignation?
Mr. Rawle. I have no recollection of hearing Mr. Lewis say one word on that day.
Mr. Randolph. You stated that on the next day, Mr. Lewis, when told by the court to proceed as he thought proper, answered that he never would address the court in a criminal case on a point of law, and urged the propriety of citing cases before the revolution, to show that the English Judges since the revolution thought themselves bound by cases before the revolution, which ought not to be the law in this country, and that if he was not permitted to do this, he would be obliged to abandon the defence?
Mr. Rawle. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Randolph. Did you hear any opinion given by the court, which warranted Mr. Lewis in the opinion that he was precluded from citing such cases?
Mr. Rawle. On the 23d I did understand the court to say that such cases should not be cited, because they tended to mislead the jury. But at no time did I hear the court say that counsel were precluded from addressing the jury on the law, but it was said that as to the authorities cited, it must be determined by the court, whether they were admissible or not.
Mr. Randolph. You stated that both the Judges after the adjournment came to your house. Was your house their place of abode?
Mr. Rawle. No, Sir.
Mr. Randolph. At what hour did they call?
Mr. Rawle. About ten o'clock.
Mr. Randolph. And that Judge Peters expressed an apprehension that Messrs. Lewis and Dallas would not go on?
Mr. Rawle. Yes, Sir.
Mr. Randolph. On what grounds did he express this apprehension?
Mr. Rawle. I do not know.
Mr. Randolph. Have you any recollection of any grounds for such an apprehension, except that which arose from the general character of the bar?
Mr. Rawle. I have already stated that I understood there was a measure of that kind in contemplation. I have a faint recollection of having heard something of that kind fall from Mr. Dallas.
Mr. Randolph. Did you express to the Judges that your opinion was drawn from any other source than your general knowledge of the bar?
Mr. Rawle. I do not recollect that I did.
Mr. Randolph. Mr. Chase expressed his regret, and said he did not mean to preclude the counsel from proceeding in the trial in the usual manner. Was the course pursued in the case of Fries in the usual manner?
Mr. Rawle. I never saw a similar circumstance take place at our bar during the whole course of my life.
Mr. Randolph. Is it usual for the court to give a general opinion on the law before counsel are heard?
Mr. Rawle. Never, except in their general charge to the grand jury. They sometimes enquire of the gentlemen who prosecute, what are the offences likely to be presented, in order to inform the grand jury what it is their duty to do, and to make their charge more pointed.
Mr. Randolph. Did you ever hear of its being done in a particular case before the court?
Mr. Rawle. Not, that I recollect.
Mr. Randolph. Do you know whether much conversation took place at the bar on this novel opinion thrown down on the table?
Mr. Rawle. I stated before that I had a great burthen of criminal cases to manage; as I was situated it was not in my power to keep up the usual colloquial intercourse, and I cannot recollect any conversation until that which I have mentioned.
Mr. Randolph. Do you suppose that the act of delivering the opinion in writing was so public as to attract the notice of the jurymen that were attending?
Mr. Rawle. From the number of the jurymen, and from the construction of the court room, I think that a considerable proportion must have paid attention to the transaction.
Mr. Randolph. If you heard Mr.
Lewis use no language on the opinion of the court, whence do you infer his indignation?
Mr. Rawle. From his countenance, and the manner of his throwing down the paper?
Mr. Randolph. Was it such as to attract the attention of those in court?
Mr. Rawle. If they saw him, they must have been struck with the manner in which he expressed his indignation. It was very strong.
Mr. Randolph. Did you hear Mr. Chase say that if the prisoner's counsel had any objection as to the law, as laid down by the court, they must address the court and not the jury?
Mr. Rawle. I have no recollection of hearing such an expression fall from Judge Chase at any time.
Mr. Nicholson. You stated much of your testimony from your notes. I would ask, Sir, were those notes taken at the time, and in the order they stand arranged?
Mr. Rawle. Precisely so, Sir. I made my notes in court.
Mr. Nicholson. What was there in the conduct of Judge Chase that induced the counsel to infer that they would be precluded from citing the statutes of the United States which have been referred to?
Mr. Rawle. I cannot say from what circumstance, unless from a recollection of the strenuous opposition made on a former trial on the part of the prosecution to the course then adopted.
Mr. Nicholson. Judge Chase also declared: "No case can come before us on which I have not an opinion as to the law, otherwise I should not be fit to preside here." Was there any thing which took place prior to this on which Mr. Lewis founded the opinion that he would be compelled to address the court and not the jury?
Mr. Rawle. It appeared to me that it arose altogether from misapprehension. Nothing fell from the court in my hearing, either in public, or in private, which tended to control the counsel from speaking, or to withdraw the consideration of the law from the jury. There appeared to be much misapprehension; and I observed that the court did not let him right as explicitly as might have prevented part of this misapprehension.
Mr. Randolph. I think you said that you entertained at the time of your conference with the Judges an anxious hope that these gentlemen would be induced to proceed. If there is no impropriety in the question, I wish to know the cause of the great anxiety you felt on that subject, which induced you to become the agent of calling in the papers containing the opinion of the court?
Mr. Rawle. My reasons arose from an anticipation of those unpleasant sensations, which I would never with my greatest enemy to feel, that of conducting a trial, in a capital case, and standing alone against a man without counsel. It is easy to conceive that my hopes may have been anxious that I might not be placed in such a painful situation.
Mr. Nicholson. I will ask you whether you took notes of what passed on the first day?
Mr. Rawle. I did not.
Mr. Harper. Inform the court whether Judge Chase did at any time during the proceedings say that he would restrict the counsel of Fries from citing any statutes of the United States to the jury, and especially the sedition law.
Mr. Rawle. I do not recollect that he did.
Mr. Harper. Did he say that he disapproved of the conduct of the former circuit court in permitting the statutes of Congress to be read?
Mr. Rawle. He did not. I never heard any such expression from Judge Chase in relation to the statutes.
Mr. Harper. Have you the paper in your possession which was thrown down on the table?
Mr. Rawle. I have it in my pocket.
Mr. Harper. Will you please to produce it?
Mr. Rawle. This is it, [handing it to Mr. Harper.]
Mr. Harper. Do you know in whose hand writing it is?
Mr. Rawle. In that of the assistant clerk of the court—Mr. Bond.
Mr. Harper. We will offer this paper in evidence.
Mr. Harper then read the said paper as follows, being Exhibit No. 2.
"The prisoner, John Fries, stands indicted for levying war against the United States."
"This constitutional definition of treason is a question of law . Every proposition in any statute (whether more or less distinct—whether easy or difficult to comprehend) is always a question of law ."
"What is the true meaning and true import of the statute, and whether the case stated come within the statute, is a question of law and not of fact . The question in an indictment for levying war against (or adhering to the enemies of) the United States, is "whether the facts stated, do or do not amount to levying war ."
"It is the duty of the court in this, and in all criminal cases , to state to the jury, their opinion, of the law arising on the facts; but the jury are to decide on the present, and in all criminal cases , both the law and the facts on their consideration of the whole case."
"The court heard the indictment read on the arraignment of the prisoner, some days past, and just now on his trial, and they attended to the overt acts stated in the indictment."
"It is the opinion of the court that any insurrection or rising of any body of people, within the United States, to attain or effect, by force or violence any object of a great public nature, or of public and general (or national) concern, is a levying war against the United States, within the contemplation and construction of the constitution of the United States."
"On this general position, the court are of opinion, that any such insurrection or rising to resist or to prevent by force or violence, the execution of any statute of the United States, for levying or collecting taxes, duties, imposts or excises; or for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, or for any other purpose (under any pretence, as that the statute was unequal, burthensome, oppressive, or unconstitutional) is a levying war against the United States, within the constitution."
"The reason for this opinion is, that an insurrection to resist or prevent by force the execution of any statute, has a direct tendency to dissolve all the bonds of society, to destroy all order, and all laws, and also all security for the lives, liberties and property of the citizens of the United States."
"The court are of opinion that military weapons (as guns, and swords, mentioned in the indictment) are not necessary to make such insurrection or rising amount to levying war , because numbers may supply the want of military weapons; and other instruments may effect the intended mischief. The legal guilt of levying war may be incurred without the use of military weapons, or military array."
"The court are of opinion that the assembling bodies of men, armed and arrayed in a warlike manner, for purposes only of a private nature is not treason ; although the judges, and peace officers should be insulted, or resisted; or even great outrage committed to the persons and property of our citizens."
"The true criterion to determine whether acts committed are a treason or a less offence [as a riot] is the quo animo the people did assemble. When the intention is universal or general, as to effect some object of a general public nature, it will be treason , and cannot be considered, construed, or reduced to a riot. The commission of any number of felonies, riots or other misdemeanors, cannot alter their nature, so as to make them amount to treason ; and on the other hand, if the intention and acts combined amount to treason , they cannot be sunk down to a felony or riot . The intention with which any acts (as felonies, the destruction of houses, or the like) are done, will shew to what class of crimes the case belongs."
"The court are of opinion that if a body of people conspire and meditate an insurrection, to resist or oppose the execution of any statute of the United States by force, that they are only guilty of a high misdemeanor; but if they proceed to carry such intention into execution by force, that they are guilty of the treason of levying war , and the quantum of the force employed, neither lessens nor increases the crime; whether by one hundred or one thousand persons is wholly immaterial."
"The court are of opinion, that a combination or conspiracy to levy war against the United States is not treason ; unless combined with an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into execution; some actual force or violence must be used in pursuance of such design to levy war , but that it is altogether immaterial whether the force used is sufficient to effectuate the object; any force, connected with the intention, will constitute the crime of levying war ."
Mr. Harper. I will ask you one question. Do you recollect whether, after the verdict of guilty was brought in against John Fries, the court gave
him information of his right to make a motion for an arrest of judgment.
Mr. Rawle. When the verdict was brought in, the court briefly told him he might be heard then, or at a future day. When he was afterwards brought up for sentence, they told him, if he, or any person for him could point out any error or irregularity in the course of the proceedings, they should be patiently heard; and in like manner Judge Chase addressed the other prisoners; the same question was put to all that were found guilty. They answered, that they had nothing to say.
Mr. Hay being called, and not immediately appearing—
Mr. Harper observed that this witness was called on an article subsequent to that on which the witnesses already examined had testified. He would submit a proposition to the honorable managers, to go through, at one time the whole of the testimony on each article. It may not be the regular course, but if gentlemen assent to it, we shall prefer it; it will be convenient to the witnesses, many of whom may be discharged before the whole of the testimony is gone through.
Mr. Randolph —Though this mode may have its advantages, it is attended with its difficulties. A witness may be found to support more than one article. With regard to the first article, I have no objection to this course; but with regard to the subsequent articles I have.
President. If the gentlemen are agreed, I will take the sense of the Senate on the course to be pursued.
Mr. Randolph. It is the wish of the managers not to depart from the usual course.
Mr. Harper. We do not claim it as a right.
GEORGE HAY sworn.
The greater part of the evidence I am to deliver relates to what was said by me as counsel for J. T. Callender, who was indicted for a libel on the President of the United States, and what was said by one of the judges; for I do not recollect to have heard the voice of Judge Griffin at any time during the trial. In order to make this statement as accurate as possible, as my memory is not strong, it is necessary to resort to a statement made by myself and the counsel associated with me in the defence of J. T. Callender, which I now hold in my hand, and every part of which according to my best recollection is correct.
Mr. Harper here interrupted Mr. Hay, and said, the witness may refer to any thing done by himself at the time the occurrences happened, which he relates. But I submit it to the court how correct it is to refer to what was not done by himself, or done at the time.
President. asked Mr. Hay whether the notes were taken by him.
Mr. Hay. The statement was made by different persons. Some parts were made by myself, perhaps the greater part; the rest by Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Wirt. I believe I shall be able to state from it every material occurrence which took place at the time. With regard to those parts of the statement not made by me, a reference to them will call to my recollection the facts mentioned in such parts. If I state any thing, which I do not distinctly recollect, upon advertising to the statement, I will explain the actual situation of my mind on that point.
Mr. Nicholson. If I understand the witness, it is not his intention to give the paper in his hand as evidence; but merely to refer to it for the purpose of refreshing his memory.
Mr. Harper. I do not understand the way in which it is meant to use the paper. I apprehend that it is a rule of evidence that nothing but notes made at the time of the transactions related can be received as evidence. I therefore am of opinion that a reference to this statement is inadmissible, because a part of it is made by others, and none of it made at the time.
Mr. Rodney. When we advert to what has been stated by the witness, who says he does not mean to state in evidence any thing in the paper, of which he has not independently of it, a distinct recollection, I think it is within the law to admit him to avail himself of it. I apprehend that if I had attended the trial of Callender; and had taken minutes, and others had attended and not taken notes, if by recurring to my notes there should be recalled to their recollection facts so distinctly, that they could swear to them before a court, it would be competent to admit their reference to such notes.
Mr. Campbell enquired whether the
objection were not confined to that part of the statement not made by the witness.
Mr. Harper said the objection related to the whole of it.
Mr. Campbell believed that a witness might use any memorandum to refresh his memory; and that it was not necessary that it should be made at the point of time when the events happened. It is sufficient if made at a time when his remembrance of the facts was correct. With regard to that part not taken by himself, if he perused it at a time shortly after the events related as to be able to determine it to be accurate, and now recognises the memorandum to be the same, it is sufficient.
Mr. Martin said, he had been many years in the practice of the law. The rules of evidence were probably different in different states. But he had always supposed that a witness could not be permitted to use any memorandum not made by himself, or at the time of the events related, or near it. He may before he comes into court consult any memorandum for the purpose of refreshing his memory, but not in court.
President. The witness proposes to make use of a memorandum under the circumstances, which he has stated. The question is, shall the witness be permitted to make use of it?
Mr. Adams. I am not prepared to answer the question at present, not knowing the nature of the minutes the witness proposes to use. I therefore move that the Senate retire before the question is taken.
The question on retiring was taken, and, on a division, l.f.f.
Mr. Adams said he wished to see the paper before he voted.
President asked Mr. Hay whether it was in his own hand writing?
Mr. Hay replied that it was not; but that it was written by a clerk from a printed statement.
President. Have you the paper by your side separate?
Mr. Hay said he had not.
President then put the question, whether the witness should be permitted to use the paper?—and the question being taken by Yeas and Nays, passed in the negative—Yeas 16—Nays 18.
Mr. Randolph asked the witness, to state to the court the circumstances which took place during the trial of J. T. Callender, and particularly what respected the excuse and testimony of John B. T.
Mr. Hay. I will state as well as I can, what fell from the judge, and which appeared to me to be material. After some previous observations, the counsel for the traverser claimed for their client his constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury. I cannot pretend to relate precisely either the course of proceeding, or the exact words which were used, since I am deprived of the aid of those notes which I know to be correct. I shall not, therefore, recite the precise words, but I shall give the substance of them, and the words themselves as nearly as possible. According to my best recollection Judge Chase's declaration on that point was, that he would see justice done to the prisoner in that respect. In order to attain the object which the counsel for Callender had in view, we pursued this course. Believing that a majority of the petit jury, if not all of them, were men decidedly opposed to J. T. Callender, in political sentiments, and thinking it probable from the state of parties at that time, that they had made up their minds, we wished to ask every juror before he was sworn, whether he had ever formed an opinion with respect to the book called the Prospect Before Us. According to my best recollection, Judge Chase interfered, and told us it was not the proper question, he said he would tell us what the proper question was. He then went on to state that the proper question was this: "Have you ever formed and delivered an opinion concerning the charges in this indictment." Though I have but little dependence on my memory in general, yet in this I am certain, that I not only give the substance, but the identical words used. To this question an answer was necessarily given in the negative.
Mr. Key. Who answered?
Mr. Hay. A juror.
Mr. Key. The whole, or what jurors. Was it the answer of John B. T. Ballet, no other juror is mentioned in the second article. The moment any attempt is made to extend the enquiry beyond the precise object of the second article I will object to it.
Mr. Randolph. We have no objection to that course being pursued; as we

can get all we want under the 8th article.
Mr. Rodney. We are examining a witness, who may be able to give testimony on the 2d, 3d, or 4th articles.
President. Will the gentleman read the article on which the witness is called.
Mr. Randolph. I do not know that we are bound to do so.
President. The Senate desire it.
Mr. Randolph. I beg pardon. I thought it was desired on the other side.
Mr. Rodney then read the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th articles.
Mr. Harper. Our wish is only to confine the witness to the matter charged. We only object to the opinion of the witness being given.
President. It is probable, gentlemen, that nothing will arise in what the witness states, that will occasion difficulty. He will please to proceed.
Mr. Hay. What I was about to mention was not so much opinion as fact. I was proceeding to relate the facts which constitute the basis of the second article. When Mr. Basset was called by the marshal, he manifested some reluctance to serving on the jury. He said, according to my best recollection, that he was unwilling to serve, because he had made up his mind as to that book. I do not pretend to say that the words used were precisely those I state. He may have expressed himself in the words ascribed to him by the stenographical statement given of the trial. The objection, thus made by Mr. Basset, was over-ruled by Judge Chase, who asked him whether he had ever formed and delivered an opinion concerning the charges in the indictment. He was sworn to answer this question. Like the other jurors he answered in the negative, and the Judge ordered him, like the other jurors, to be sworn on the jury: he was sworn, and did serve.
Mr. Harper. Was the word used by the judge, and or or?
Mr. Hay. I am perfectly clear it was, and, and not or.
In the state of things at that time, and seeing the temper that was manifested on the trial, I would not, and did not, ask the juror a single question without submitting it to the court, and soliciting their permission to ask it. I solicited the leave of the court to ask a question. The reply of the judge was this:—The difficulty I experience at this moment in stating the precise words, furnishes the reason I had for wishing to recur to the statement I had in my hand. Since I am denied that inaccuracy, I will not pretend to state literally what was said, but I will state the substance. I told the Judge I wished to ask a question?—What, said the judge, is the question you want to put?—State it. It I think it a proper question, or if I choose it, you may put it. Come, what is your question? Notwithstanding the humiliation I felt at being addressed in such a way before a crowded audience, I asked "have you formed (leaving out "and delivered") any opinion concerning the book from which the charges in the indictment are taken."—The reply of Judge Chase was, "no, Sir, no, you shall ask no such question." And the question was not asked. This is all I recollect at this moment respecting Mr. Basset, and the occurrences connected with that part of the trial.
It was stated by Callender in his affidavit that colonel Taylor, of Caroline, was a material witness—but of this I am not certain. because I have not read the affidavit since the trial. In the interval that elapsed between the day, on which the first motion was made, and that on which the trial took place, Tuesday, colonel Taylor was summoned. When he came to town I know not. I have no recollection of having seen him until he came into court. I had therefore no opportunity of ascertaining whether it would be in his power to furnish the accused with the evidence he expected to derive from him. After the witnesses on the part of the United States had been adduced to prove the fact of publication, and after the attorney of the United States had opened the case, and stated the law arising upon the evidence, colonel Taylor was offered to the court as a witness. He was sworn; and immediately after, or probably while he was swearing, Mr. Chase asked the counsel of Callender, what they expected to prove by him. It I recollect rightly, Mr. Nicholas, one of my associates, observed that we did not know distinctly what could be proved by Col. Taylor; but that we expected to prove what would amount to a justification of one of the counts in the indictment; that we expected to prove that Mr. Adams, the then President of the United States had avowed in conversation with col. Taylor sentiments hostile to a republican government; and that he had voted in the Senate of the United States against the law for sequestrating British property in this country, and against the law for suspending commercial intercourse between the United States, and the kingdom of Great Britain. I do not recollect precisely the words which were used by Mr. Nicholas in making the observations that accompanied this statement; but I think he said, he hoped that it would be understood that he was
not tied down to these particular points, saying that probably the answers given by col. Taylor, might suggest other questions proper to be put. Nor do I use the precise words in which judge Chase made an objection; but I do remember that the objection was made. The principle on which he founded his objection was this; that col. Taylor's evidence did not go to a justification of any one entire charge; and he declared col. Taylor's evidence to be inadmissible on that ground. The judge was then asked by Mr. Nicholas, whether we might not prove part of a charge by one witness, and the other part by another. The judge answered him, that he desired him to understand the law as he had propounded it; and the law was this; that this could not be done; that col. Taylor's evidence related only to one part of a charge, and that he could not prove one part by one evidence, and one part by another. I then observed to the judge, that I thought col. Taylor's evidence admissible even on the principle laid down by the court; that I thought his testimony would go to prove both members of the sentence; the one asserted that Mr. Adams was an aristocrat; the other that he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest; and that he could prove that he had heard Mr. Adams make the remarks already stated; and that he had proved serviceable to Great Britain in the way meant by the author, that is, in giving the two votes in the Senate not alluded to in the work. The judge did not say in express terms that the position taken at the bar was wrong, but he said that the evidence of col. Taylor was inadmissible, and that the counsel knew it to be so; and, I believe it was at the same moment of time, he said that our object was to deceive and mislead the populace. I remember these expressions as well as if I heard them yesterday. Finding that the attempt I had made to render a service, not to the man, but to the cause, instead of affording service to the cause, only brought on me the obloquy of the court, I felt myself disgruntled, and said no more on the subject.
I recollect that we were requested by the Judge to reduce to writing the questions that we wished to propound to Col. Taylor. I thought the measure so novel and unprecedented that I was not disposed to comply with this desire. The questions were, however, stated in writing by Mr. Nicholas, who observed that he hoped we would not be confined in the examination of the witness to the questions thus stated in writing. If I mistake not, before the questions were reduced to writing, Mr. Nicholas made some observations about the mode pursued by the court in reference to the attorney for the United States, and that exercised towards the counsel for the prisoner; that the attorney for the United States had not been required to state in writing the questions he wished to ask. When this remark was made to the Judge, he said that the attorney for the United States had stated in the opening of the case all that he expected to prove; "but though this were done, we were not bound to do it." My impression is that that word escaped the Judge several times.
Mr. Nicholson. What word?
Mr. Hay. The word "we." D'd it refer to the court as well as the attorney?
Mr. Hay. So, Sir, I understood it.
The fourth article relates to the refusal of the Judge to postpone the trial on the affidavit of Callender; on which I can only say that the affidavit was filed, but whether regularly drawn or not I do not know. This affidavit, according to my best recollection, stated the absence of material witnesses.
The next article relates to a subject, that it is very unpleasant to me to make any remarks upon, because I feel myself to be a party concerned. The Judge is charged with—
[Mr. Hay here read the 3d, 4th, and 5th clauses of the fourth article.]
There were many expressions used by Judge Chase during the trial which were uncommon, and which I thought, and still think to be so. With respect to the asperity with which he censured me, I shall not—
Mr. Harper interrupted the witness, and desired him to state the expressions, and let the court judge for themselves.
Mr. Hay. The first expression, which made a very strong impression on my mind, was this: In the course of the argument, urged by me in support of the motion for a continuance to the next term, I assumed it as a clear position, that the law of the state of Virginia, which directs that the jury shall assess the fine, would govern in this case. As soon as I got to that part of the argument the Judge interrupted me, and gave me to understand that I was mistaken in the law, and added, the assessment of the fine by the jury may be conformable to your local and state laws, but when applied to the federal courts, it is a "wild notion." In the case of Col. Taylor's evidence, which I have already stated, the Judge said that we knew the evidence to be inadmissible, though we pressed it upon the court, and then the expression followed which has been already mentioned, that we were
endeavoring to mislead and deceive the populace. At another time he was pleased to observe, gentlemen, you have all along been in error in this cause, and you persist in pressing your mistakes on the court. On more occasions than one he charged the counsel with advancing doctrines they knew to be wrong. I endeavored in one part of the cause to satisfy the court that the book called the Prospect before us, could not be given in evidence in support of the indictment, because the title of the book was not mentioned in the indictment. In support of my argument, I observed to the court that if the indictment mentioned the book from which the charges were formed, and any subsequent prosecution should afterwards be instituted, the traverser would have nothing more to do than to produce a copy of the record, and plead it in bar of a subsequent prosecution; but that according to the opinion of the court, the situation of the traverser would be more precarious than according to the doctrines for which I contended; for that the traverser, if he should plead a former prosecution in bar, would not be able to prove the fact by comparing the record with the indictment; but must resort to extraneous evidence to prove that the subsequent prosecution was founded on the same publication that gave rise to the first. The Judge was pleased to observe, without seeming to understand the distinction that I had endeavored to draw, that I knew the present prosecution could be pleaded in bar. I certainly did know it, and was endeavoring at that very time to show by my argument that the better mode of proving the truth of the plea would be by a copy of the record, rather than by an appeal to parole testimony. Judge Chase again interrupted me, and said, I knew that this prosecution might be pleaded in bar.
In the course of this same argument, which I addressed to the judge, for the purpose of shewing the truth of the positions we had stated, I observed that according to the established doctrine, the words "tenor and effect," in an indictment for a libel bound the party to the literal recital of the parts charged as libellous. In support of that opinion I quoted several authorities that satisfied my mind. The judge was pleased to tell me, I was mistaken in my application of them; but I do not remember his precise words. He said the words "tenor and effect," did not oblige the prosecutor to give more than the substance of the paper meant to be recited. It is contended, said he, that the book ought to be copied verbatim et literatim, I wonder, he continued, they do not contend for punctuatim too.
Mr. Nicholson. Was this observation addressed to the bar?
Mr. Hay. It appeared to me to be intended for the people; for he looked round the room, when he said with a sarcastic smile, I wonder they do not contend for punctuatim too. I recollect also, that when Mr. Wirt, who was associated with me as counsel for the traverser, was addressing the court, he was ordered by judge Chase to sit down—in this precise language, sit down. The judge also declared that the counsel on the part of Callender should not address any observations to the jury concerning the unconstitutionality of the second section of the sedition law, in respect to prosecutions for libellous publications.
Mr. S. Smith, at this stage of the examination of the witness, moved an adjournment of the Senate to their legislative apartment.
The motion not being agreed to;
Mr. Hay proceeded;—When Mr. Wirt was arguing from a proposition he had laid down, he said the conclusion which followed was perfectly syllogistical. The judge bowed to him in a manner I cannot describe, and said "A non sequitur, sir." I do not remember any other expressions used by the judge calculated to deter the counsel from proceeding in the defence of J. T. Callender. But I do remember that I was more frequently interrupted by judge Chase on that trial, than I have ever been interrupted during the 16 years I have practiced at the bar. I do not state how often I was interrupted, because I do not recollect; but I know the interruptions were frequent, and I believed them to be very unnecessary, not only as they regarded myself, but the counsel who were associated with me in the defence.
Mr. Randolph. In your testimony you have said that during the whole course of the trial you never once heard the voice of judge Griffin. Were those replies and those decisions, which you have detailed, given by judge Chase apparently without any consultation with judge Griffin?
Mr. Hay. I stated that I did not hear the voice of judge Griffin; but I by no means meant it to be inferred that judge Griffin was not heard by any other person—Judge Chase's manner of delivering the opinion of the court was generally this:—after having stopped, or interrupted the counsel for the traverser, by telling them to sit down, or that they were mikaken in the law—Sometimes, but not every time, he would look at judge Griffin, who sat upon his left hand; and turning to the bar, and to the audience, he would say, such is the opinion of the court—I think also, that I
saw them speaking to each other, but not in such a manner as if they were consulting upon a question of law.
Mr. Randolph. You said that the question propounded to Mr. Basset, and the other jurors, was, "Have you formed and delivered any opinion as to the charges contained in the indictment?"—Are you certain that the expression was "formed and delivered?"
Mr. Hay. I am as clear on that point as I am of any thing that ever occurred in the course of my life. I have said that my memory at best is not a good one; but some of the occurrences on this trial were so singular and novel, that they made an unusual impression on my mind.
Mr. Randolph. When it was decided by the court that the question, "Have you ever formed and delivered an opinion on the charges contained in the indictment;" was the only proper question, was it stated by the court, or requested by the counsel for the accused, that the indictment might be read.
Mr. Hay. It was requested by the counsel that the indictment might be read, that the juror might have an opportunity of ascertaining whether he had made up his mind on the particular charges it contained.
Mr. Randolph. Was the indictment then read?
Mr. Hay. It was not then read, nor until after the jurors were sworn.
Mr. Randolph. You have been, you have stated, a practitioner of the law for sixteen years. Has it been the practice of the courts in Virginia, or have you ever heard of, or seen, an instance, where the questions propounded by counsel, were required by the court to be reduced to writing, and submitted to their inspection, before they were permitted to be put?
Mr. Hay. I never knew of a single instance; nor do I remember to have even heard or read of such an instance. I acted as the prosecutor in the trial of Logwood, charged with counterfeiting notes of the bank of the United States. The chief justice of the United States, who presided at the trial, made no such requisition, nor did it ever occur to me, that such a thing ought to be, or could be done.
Mr. Nicholson. When you were required to reduce the questions to writing, was it at the instance of the attorney of the district, (Mr. Nelson), or was it by the court.
Mr. Hay. I do not remember that Mr. Nelson made any objection to putting the question. The objection was made only on the part of the court. I recollect that Mr. Nelson made one remark as to the witness giving testimony on what took place in the Senate of the United States.
Mr. Randolph. Upon what ground did the counsel for the accused assume the right of proving the vote which was given in the Senate by parole testimony; to prove facts done in the Senate you should have reference to their journal.
Mr. Hay. It will be recollected that I stated that colonel Taylor came into court at the time the jury was about to be sworn; and that the counsel for the traverser was called upon to state in writing the questions that were to be put. Those questions were written without any reflection on my part, as to the propriety or legality of proving the vote of the Senate by parole testimony.
The court adjourned at 5 P. M.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1805.
Mr. HAY in continuation.
A very short statement will close the detail which I have to make. It was the intention of the counsel, who appeared in behalf of the traverser, to have defended him on the ground of the unconstitutionality of that section of the law, commonly called the sedition law, on which the indictment was founded. The gentlemen associated with me in the defence proceeded to argue this point. They were not permitted to address the jury respecting it. The treatment experienced by Mr. Wirt on this occasion, I have already in some degree stated. I recollect he was interrupted by Judge Chase at several times, and particularly at one of those times, for the purpose of telling him that the doctrine he contended for was true, that the jury had the right to determine on the law as well as the fact. Mr. Wirt then went on to state that the constitution of the United States was the law of the land. Judge Chase interrupted him, and said there was no necessity for proving that point, it was the supreme law of the land. Mr. Wirt then went on to argue that if the jury had a right to determine the law in this case, and if the constitution was the supreme law, the conclusion was perfectly syllogistical, that the jury had a right to determine on the constitutionality of the law. It was at that time that Judge Chase addressed him in the words that I have mentioned. According to my best recollection he bowed, and with an air of derision, addressing him, said, "a not sequitur, Sir." Whether Mr. Wirt said any thing more after this in behalf of his client, I do not recollect; he did not, however, say much. After Mr. Wirt sat down, I rose, addressed myself to the
court, and stated that I addressed myself to the court exclusively. I observed that I did not wish to be heard by the jury, or by the very numerous assemblage that surrounded me. This observation was intended by me as a sort of reply to the observation made by the judge that our defence was intended for the people. I did not attempt to speak to the jury on the question, which I wished to argue before them, but I addressed myself to the court for the purpose of satisfying them. After I had gone on for a short time, I was interrupted by the judge, by a question which I thought an unnecessary one. I will endeavor to state it. I stated to the court, in terms as distinct as my knowledge of the English language enabled me to use, the specific proposition for which I meant to contend—which was, that the jury had, according to the laws of the land, a right to determine every question necessary to the decision of the question of guilty or not guilty. Judge Chase asked me whether I laid down that proposition as true in civil as well as criminal cases—because, if you do, said he, you are wrong. My reply was that I believed the proposition universally true; but it was sufficient for my purpose if it were true as applied to criminal cases. I went on, as well as I could, in the argument I intended to urge. I was again interrupted by the Judge. What the circumstances were that gave rise to that interruption, my unaided memory will not enable me to tell, nor do I recollect what expressions were used by him. I have not, since yesterday, taken the liberty of looking at the statement, which I have in my pocket, of the circumstances that took place on the trial; but I know that I was interrupted more than once, and I believe more than twice; but the impression on my mind was that to get through the argument, I should be subjected to more humiliation than any man vindicating another in a court of justice was bound on any principle to encounter, and I declined proceeding in my argument.
When the Judge perceived from the movements I was making, with my papers, that I was about to retire, he asked me to go on—I told him I should not go on. He said, there was no occasion for me to be captious—I told him I was not captious. He then said, go on, go on,—you will not be interrupted. I, however, retired from the bar, and, I believe, from the room where the court was held.
Mr. Randolph. Did any circumstances occur, in relation to a witness brought forward on the part of the prosecution, of an unusual nature, were any observations made by the court to that witness, and what were those observations?
Mr. Hay. I do not know whether the circumstance I am about to state is an answer to the question which has been put to me. But I recollect distinctly that a circumstance did occur, which I thought extraordinary. A witness was brought forward, to prove the publication of the Prospect Before Us, who was the very man employed by Callender to print the work. Whether the publication could be proved by any other person than Callender's agents, I do not now recollect. But I stated to the court that this witness was about to do what the constitution authorised him to refuse to do, and what he was not required to do by the established rules of law in criminal prosecutions, which was, that no man was bound to deliver testimony that would go to criminate himself—and if any thing done by him, implicated him in the transaction charged against Callender as libellous, he was not bound to answer, nor could he be required to answer by the court. Mr. Chase said that the opinion I had expressed was correct; but the witness, who had come forward to give evidence of the publication, might rest assured that he should not be molested for any part which he might have taken in the publication. I do not recollect that the district attorney said a word on the occasion. Every thing that was said on that head was said by myself, and answered by the court, as I have stated. The witness was sworn, and gave in his testimony, in which he stated that he was employed by Callender to print the work called the Prospect Before Us.
Mr. Randolph. The counsel for the accused seemed to have considered in this case, as well as in all the others, that the proceedings would be governed by the act of the state of Virginia, which in virtue of the act of Congress of 1789, was the rule of procedure. It appears that process was issued, such as the laws of Virginia did not authorise. Was there no reference made by the counsel for the accused to the act of Virginia, to show that the process was illegal, or contrary to law, to rule the party to trial at the same term the indictment was found?
Mr. Hay. There was a general, but not a specific reference to that circumstance. In making the motion for a continuance, I stated that in conformity to the law and usage of Virginia, when a presentment was found, the ordinary process was by summons to the next term, and that during the interval between serving the process, and the time at which it was returnable, the accused

was enabled to prepare and collect matter for his defence. It is extremely probable that some other motion would have been made, but for an observation that fell from the judge, on another part of my argument. I stated that the jury were to assess the fine according to law; this opinion was opposed and denounced as a wild motion. Finding that the judge had made up his mind on that subject, and that the law of Virginia was not considered as obligatory, I had no idea of making any motion to the court founded on the doctrine which he had thus denounced. My opinion before, at that time, and at the present time; the opinion which I expressed officially on a late occasion, is, that where the laws of the United States do not otherwise require or provide—
Mr. Martin said that he apprehended this testimony was of no kind of consequence.
Mr. Hay. I was only about to state the reasons, why nothing more was said on that subject, or a motion founded on it.
The President. The Senate object to that sort of testimony. You will please to confine yourself as much as possible to facts.
Mr. Hay. I only meant to have stated a fact, that the express declaration made by the court to the counsel for the accused, in relation to the doctrine just mentioned, put a stop to my mentioning any idea, or making any motion founded on that doctrine.
Mr. Randolph. I wish to ask the witness, who tells us he has been sixteen years a practitioner at the bar, whether he ever knew an instance, in which, in a case similar to that of Callender, punishable only by fine and imprisonment, a capias was issued.
Mr. Hay. I ought to premise, that this question relates to a branch of jurisprudence which I have not much attended to, although some time since I acted as a prosecutor for the state for one of its counties. I have never known a single instance, in which a capias has been awarded in the first instance. I believe the invariable practice is to issue a summons, and I believe it is not customary in Virginia to try a cause at the second term, when the party appears and pleads.
Mr. Randolph. If it is not the practice at the second term, do you mean that it is at the first?
Mr. Hay. No Sir, the presentment is found at the first term; the summons issues returnable to the next; at the second term the issue is made up and the trial comes on at the subsequent term. This I believe is the ordinary mode of proceeding in Virginia.
Mr. Randolph. Finding that the law of Virginia was not considered as applicable, did you move, and support the motion by argument, for a continuance, founded on the affidavit filed by the accused, and what were those arguments?
Mr. Hay. I do not know whether I can state accurately all the arguments urged for a continuance. The argument was certainly in part founded on the affidavit of the traverser. He stated that he wanted documents which he could not instantaneously procure, and material witnesses who resided at a great distance. If I recollect rightly, I stated when Callender was first carried into court that I was not prepared to discuss the important question whether a jury had a right to determine on the constitutionality of a law. I also stated the case to be a new one, also that a prosecution for a libel had never before occurred in Virginia, and that the gentlemen of the bar were not masters of the subject; and that therefore I wished time to look into it.
Mr. CHARLES LEE was here introduced into court as counsel for Judge Chase.
Mr. Harper. In your examination in chief you stated that you defended the cause and not the man. We are not capable of understanding your meaning, and beg you to explain it. Was it the cause of Callender, or was it some other cause?
Mr. Hay. It was the cause of the constitution, and I did not mean to defend Callender farther than he was connected with that cause.
Mr. Harper. Your object appears to have been to show that the law under which he was indicted was unconstitutional?
Mr. Hay. That was one great cause.
Mr. Harper. Not the sole one?
Mr. Hay. I had previously made up my mind, that if a prosecution should take place in Virginia under that law, I for one would step forward and offer my services to the person who should be selected as its first victim.
Mr. Harper. You said that you referred, when making a motion for a continuance, generally to the law, but not specifically to the law of Virginia?
Mr. Hay. My meaning was, that I did not quote the precise title of the act, but made a general reference to it.
Mr. Harper. Without citing the particular law?
Mr. Hay. Without citing it, I made no other than a general reference to the law.
Mr. Harper. Do you recollect, whether on the subject of col. Taylor's testimony, judge Chase applied to Mr.
Nelson, the attorney of the district to determine whether the testimony should be admitted?
Mr. Hay. I have some indistinct recollection of some such thing.
Mr. Harper. Did not Judge Chase offer to postpone the cause for a month or more?
Mr. Hay. I have no recollection of such an offer; it would have been the wish of the counsel for the accused to have obtained that delay. I know that, in consequence of an impression on my mind, that a postponement could not be obtained, I devoted my days and nights to make myself acquainted with the subject, previous to the day when the trial came on. I have no recollection of such an offer; if I had so understood it at the time, I should have availed myself of it.
Mr. Harper. Did the counsel of Callender ask for a postponement, independently of a continuance to the next term?
Mr. Hay. I do not recollect that they did.
The President. You say some conversation appeared to pass between judge Chase and judge Griffin; did you hear so much as to understand the substance of it?
Mr. Hay. No Sir.
President. How then did you draw the inference?
Mr. Hay. From the business then before them.
President. You spoke of a witness called by the name of Rind. Did he appear willing to give testimony?
Mr. Hay. He did not appear unwilling. The objection to his testimony was made by myself.
(To be continued.)
By AUTHORITY.
AN ACT
To amend the act, intitled "An act for the government and regulation of the seamen in the merchants' service."
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all the provisions, regulations, and penalties which are contained in the eighth section of the act, entitled "An act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchants' service," so far as relates to a chelt of medicines to be provided for vessels of one hundred and fifty tons burthen, and upwards, shall be extended to all merchant vessels of the burthen of seventy five tons, or upwards, navigated with six persons or more, in the whole, and bound from the United States, to any port or ports in the West Indies.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. March 2, 1805—APPROVED. TH: JEFFERSON.
AN ACT
To appropriate a sum of money for the purpose of building gun-boats.
Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the sum of sixty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, for the purpose of enabling the President to cause to be built, a number of gun boats, not exceeding twenty-five, for the better protection of the ports and harbors of the United States.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate, March 2, 1805. APPROVED, TH: JEFFERSON.
AN ACT
To authorise the erection of a bridge across a mill-pond and marsh in the Navy Yard, belonging to the United States, in the town of Brooklyn in the state of New York.
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is authorised, by a proper instrument in writing under his hand, in due form, to grant to such person or persons, or body corporate, by their proper name of incorporation, as shall be authorised by an act of the legislature of the state of New-York, to open and improve a road from Brooklyn ferry, in that state, along the shore of the Wallabout, to Bushwick, to erect a bridge across the millpond and marsh, being part of the navy yard belonging to the United States, in the said town of Brooklyn, and to maintain such bridge, under such restrictions and on such conditions as he shall prescribe. Provided nevertheless, that if at any future time, it shall appear to the President of the United States, that the property of the United States is injured by such bridge,
he may revoke the permission granted by him for erecting the same. And provided also, That no toll shall be demanded, at any time, for any article, the property of the United States, which may be conveyed to or for their use, over or across the said bridge, or from any person or persons employed in the said navy yard, who may pass or repass on the said bridge.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate. March 2, 1805. APPROVED, TH: JEFFERSON.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, MARCH 22.
The Committee for the relief of the poor west of the Capitol having expended the money collected for that object submit for the information of the contributors, the following statement of receipts and disbursements.
Amount received by the Treasurer from the collecting committees, Dollars. 531 85 Disbursed by orders on the Treasurer. For wood, 114 00 Meal, 203 23 Meat, 43 16 Groceries, 64 71 Blankets, 42 50 Shoes, 16 25 Distributed in cash, 48 00 Dollars, 531 85
In the distribution of the articles purchased, the committee have been governed by the situation of the person applying, furnishing each with a limited quantity of meal, wood or other necessaries according to the number and wants of the family of the applicant, and only in particular cases have they supplied money. By this arrangement the funds have continued unexhausted, and until this time the committee have had it in their power to afford relief to such persons as have not, from sickness or other causes, been able to earn a livelihood by their labor.
P. HAGNER, JOHN MC GOWAN, WASHINGTON BOYD. March 20, 1805.
The undigned commercial agent thinks it his duty to inform the merchants of the United States, that three American vessels have lately been seized at this port, on account of British manufactured goods, to a considerable amount, having been discovered in the baggage of the passengers. That these vessels, after much detention and expense, have been released on the captains proving that they were entirely ignorant of those contraband goods being on board, and of course could have no intention to defraud the revenue; and the undersigned further thinks it his duty to recommend to the merchants and ship masters of the United States, not to receive any passengers on board their vessels, bound to this place, until such baggage as they wish to ship shall be carefully examined.
WM. LEE. Bordeaux, Dec 20, 1804.
Baltimore, March 18.
We understand that the governor and council have appointed Joseph H. Nicholson, Esq. agent to negotiate the stock, in the bank of England, belonging to this state.
Philadelphia March 18.
By captain Gidea, arrived this morning, from Martinique, we have received the following interesting information, which may serve as a comment on the pretended overtures for peace by Bonaparte:
Captain Gidea failed from Vochelin, (Mart.) the 25th Feb. Two days previous to which, he learned, that a French fleet had arrived at Fort Royal; remained there one night, and next morning proceeded to attack Dominica. On the 26th, abreast of R. Neau, was boarded by an officer from a French frigate, who informed that on the 24th, they had taken Dominica, after an engagement of 14 hours, in which they had lost 30 men. There were several frigates at anchor close in the harbor. He also informed, that the admiral's ship had set the town of Roffeau on fire, the greater part of which was consumed. The French fleet consisted of seven sail of the line, five frigates and four transports. They had a passage of 60 days from Rochefort. Another fleet, consisting of the same number of vessels, had sailed from Toulon for the West Indies, and was hourly expected. The fleet from Rochefort, on their passage, had captured a British cutter.
New-York, March 18.
Late foreign news.—An arrival at Philadelphia from Liverpool brings London dates to the end of January. A prominent article of intelligence is dated Madrid, Dec. 16, which states that the
Spanish government has determined to make an immediate attack on Gibraltar. For this purpose a very strong force had been ordered to the camp at St. Roch, and the siege of the impregnable rock was to be undertaken by an army of from eighty to a hundred thousand men. Spain, it would seem, is resolved to carry on the war with vigor, both by sea and land. Since it commenced, the French fleet in Ferrol has been completely fitted out by Spanish artificers, and, it was supposed, would endeavor to put to sea, though an English squadron, under the command of admiral Cochrane, is off that port. Minorca according to a report which the London papers seem to believe well-founded, has been captured by the gallant lord Nelson. Madeira, there is reason to believe, according to an article in our paper of Saturday, has also been taken by the English. An arrival at Charleston from that island, which failed prior to the time mentioned as the date of its being taken possession of, informs that five thousand troops were daily expected there from England.
Notwithstanding these hostile appearances and operations there is still some faint prospect of peace. A report was prevalent that Bonaparte had resolved to send M. Schimmelpennick to London with pacific overtures. Austria, Russia and Prussia, are stated to be far advanced in negotiations to preserve the peace of the continent.
LONDON, January 11.
"Private advices from Paris of the 2d inst. positively state, that the siege of Gibraltar, by a combined French and Spanish army, is at present a favorite measure of Bonaparte's councils, and that the king of Spain has been invited to adopt it. Several of the ablest French engineers, including Garnot, having been charged with drawing a plan of the intended siege, that of the latter is said to have the preference, and a duplicate of it with the manuscript instructions and memorial have been sent to general Buononville at Madrid, who has presented it to the Spanish cabinet."
"The court of Madrid has now official intelligence that D. Malines had declared war against Spain, and that serious disturbances have broken out in Mexico. The viceroy of that colony has written home for military succours."
January 24.
A report yesterday strongly prevailed, that the island of Minorca had been taken by a coup de main about the middle of last month. The accounts from Gibraltar to the date of the 20th, make no mention of the capture; it is, however, not improbable, as we know an expedition was preparing at Malta towards the end of November.
January 25.
Letters from Paris, of the 4th inst. mention, that general Murat is to have the chief command of the combined force which is to attack Gibraltar. The French army is to consist of 50,000 men. The operations of the combined French and Spanish forces are to be seconded by the French and Spanish fleets. The admiral Gravina, who was to leave Paris about the middle of the present month, having received his letters of recall, and the news of his appointment, on the 27th ult. The chevalier d'Anduaga, at London, is mentioned as his successor in the embassy at the court of the Tuileries.
January 28.
A letter from Madrid, dated December 20, noticed in one of the smaller Paris papers, says "It appears from the annual census that has been lately made of the population of this kingdom, that during the last twelve months it has diminished a million, which diminution is attributed to epidemic disorders, earthquakes, and want. In the town of Malaga alone, 26,000 persons were buried in the course of four weeks. Notwithstanding these great losses it is hoped, with energy and activity, a fleet may be soon fitted out that will be able to fight the English squadron in the Mediterranean."
It is said that the French government have proposed to confer on the king of Sardinia, by way of indemnity, the sovereignty of the Seven Islands, a project which is said to see would be rejected by Russia.
HAMBURG, JAN. 4.
Paris letters of the 26th ult. state that a reconciliation has been effected between Lucien Bonaparte and his brother Napoleon.
VENDUE.
TO BE SOLD on the 15th day of April next at STRELLE'S HOTEL, Capitol Hill—a variety of Household Furniture, consisting of Beds and Furniture, with a large collection of other furniture, belonging to the Hotel, too numerous to mention—all sums under 100 dollars cash, and above, nine months credit, the purchaser giving approved notes with endorsers, on the bank of this place, or George Town, no article to be removed till settled for. Sale to commence at 10 o'clock. Washington, March 22—tdof
For SALE or RENT.
THE Tavern for some years past occupied By PONNIUS D. STALL, It is situated on the Capitol Hill, and well calculated for a large and extensive business, the situation is well known. Possession can be had after the 15th of April next—for terms apply to DANIEL CARROLL, of Duddington. Washington, March 21—tm
PROPOSALS
For carrying mails of the United States on the following post roads will be received at the General Post Office until the 20th day of May next:
1. From Washington city to Halifax old c h. once a week, estimated at 240 miles in three days. Leave Washington every Saturday at 6 a m. and arrive at its old c h. on Monday by 8 p m. Leave Halifax old c h. every Tuesday at 4 a m. and arrive at Washington on Thursday by 6 p m. 2. From Halifax old c h. Va. to Pickenville S. C. once a week, estimated at 275 miles, in 3 1/2 days. Leave Halifax old c h. every Tuesday at 4 a m. and arrive at Pickenville the next Friday by 10 a m. Leave Pickenville every Friday at 2 p m. and arrive at Halifax old town on Monday by 8 p m. 3. From Pickenville to Coweta, indowntown on Chatahoochee river, estimated at 280 miles, in 3 1/4 days. Leave Pickenville every Friday at 2 p m. and arrive at Coweta the next Monday by 6 p m. Leave Coweta every Tuesday at 4 a m. and arrive at Pickenville the next Friday by 10 a m. 4. From Coweta on Chatahoochee to Fort Stoddert once a week, estimated at 246 miles, in 3 1/2 days. Leave Coweta every Tuesday at 4 a m. and arrive at Fort Stoddert the next Friday by 10 a m. Leave Fort Stoddert every Friday at 2 p m. and arrive at Coweta the next Monday by 8 p m. 5. From Fort Stoddert to New Orleans once a week, estimated at 211 miles, in 3 days. Leave Fort Stoddert every Friday at 2 p m. and arrive at New Orleans the next Monday by 4 p m. Leave New Orleans every Tuesday at 10 a m. and arrive at Fort Stoddert the next Friday by 10 a m.
NOTE. The contracts are to be in operation on the first day of May next and are to continue in force until the 1st day of July 1806, on the usual penalties for failures and delays and other conditions. GIDEON GRANGER, Postmaster-General.
General Post-office, March 18, 1805—M20
New Books
FOR SALE, BY
Rapine, Conrad, & Co.
NEAR THE CAPITOL.
CARD'S history of revolution of Russia to the accession of Catharine the first, including a concise review of the manners and customs of the 16th and 17th centuries, Good's memoirs of the life and writings of the Rev. Alexander Geddes, The Anti-Gallican, or standard of British Royalty, Religion and Liberty, Young's analysis of the principles of Natural Philosophy, Webster's Natural Philosophy, Leslie on the nature and propagation of Heat, Segur's history of the reign of Frederick II. King of Prussia, 3 vols. Gardiner's literary, political and economical Essays, 2 vols. Naval Chronicle, 11 vols. complete, Witman's Travels in Egypt, Roffeau's original Correspondence, not before published, 2 vols. Burdin's Medical Studies, 3 vols. Murray's Materia Medica, 2 vols. Chemistry, 2 vols. Elements of Scamanship, 5 vols. Morris's treatise on Brewing, Little's Poems, Poetical Register for 1801-2, 2 vols. Flowers of Literature, 2 vols. Amalia, or the American Foundling, 2 vols. Chances, 3 vols.—Heliorama, 3 vols. Depraved Husband, 2 vols. Picture from Life, 2 vols. Zoflora—Woman of Feeling, 4 vols. Life of a Lover, 6 vols. by Sophia Lee, author of the Recluse, &c. Unexpected Legacy, 2 vols. Modern Faults, 2 vols. Duchesses of La Vallier, 2 vols. by Madame Genlis, Confession in Blynum, 5 vols. St. Clair of the Isles, 4 vols. Benfon's Apology for the Methodists, Kotzebue's Travels from Berlin through Switzerland to Paris, 3 vols. Lewis' (Charles Lee) Comic Sketches, The Pic Nic, 2 vols. Segur on the condition and influence of Women in society, 3 vols. The Revolutionary Plutarch, exhibiting the most distinguished characters in the recent annals of the French Revolution, 2 vols. Memoirs of a Family in Switzerland, 4 vols. Murry House, 5 vols. by Mrs. Parsons, The arch Tower, 5 vols. Theodosius De Zulvin, the Monk of Madrid, a Spanish Tale, by the author of Graiville Abbey, 4 vols. Southey's translation of Amadis de Gaul, 4 vols. Monsieur Botte, by the author of My Uncle Thomas, &c. 3 vols. An Essay on the art of Tormenting, with rules for the exercise of that amazing study, Aiken's (Dr.) Letters on English Poetry, Cavalli's Natural Philosophy, 4 vols. Richmond's Elements of Philosophy, James on Oiliou Diseases, Johnson's history of the progress and present state of animal Chemistry, 3 vols. Buffier's history of the Mathematics, Fellow's Guide to Immortality, 3 vols. Black's Chemical Lectures, 2 vols. Fuseli's Lectures on Paintings, delivered at the Royal academy, in 1801, Original Sonnets on various subjects, by Ann Seward, The American Gardener, being a practical work by the late David Hepburn, for many years gardener to gen. Malons February 20, 1804.

PUBLIC NOTICE.
Pursuant to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States of the 28th of February last, I am ready to receive separate proposals, until the first day of May next, for the supply of such articles of Stationary as may be necessary for the service of the said House, and during the next session of Congress; and also like proposals, for the execution of all the Printing business of the said House, during the same session. The several species of Stationary and Printing wanted, are subjoined to this advertisement, and the proposals must be accompanied with the names and residence of sufficient securities for performance.
JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk to the House of Representatives of the United States.
City of Washington, } 11th March, 1805. }
STATIONARY WANTED.
 Letter paper, hot pressed, vellum, extra large, } per ream.  do. plain, }  Folio post, wove and plain, }  do. medium size for engrossing, }  Quill cap, }  Ready made pens, per hundred, and quills per hundred, }  Bell Dutch red wax, }  do. black do. }  Red wafers, }  Common black sand, in papers, and } per dozen.  Water bottles and pounce boxes, per dozen, }  Ink and pens, per pair, }  Half pint phials with corks, } per dozen.  Loose priced folders, }  Lead pencils, }  Red tape, in pieces, }  Ink of the best quality, per gallon, }  Indian rubber, per bottle, }  Parchment in skins, per dozen, cut, dressed, and pounced for use, 28 by 32 inches, }  Office pen knives, and crafting knives, } 
The supply of these articles must embrace, a possible demand, to the value of 3,500 or 4,000 dollars, for the session. It is desirable that specimens of paper, quills and parchment should accompany the proposals; and, in every instance, articles of American manufacture, of equal quality with, and not exceeding the price of similar imported articles will be preferred. A security equal to 8,000 dollars will be required.
PRINTING WANTED.
In every instance, the printer supplies the paper as well as the work, duly folded and stitched, and no possible delay is to occur, in the daily execution and delivery of the work, so that in all cases where it is practicable, the document ordered to be printed on any given day, may be ready for delivery, the next morning at the hour to which the House stands adjourned.
No extra allowance will be made for working on Sundays, holidays, or after night; these must be considered by the contractor, in the price per sheet. The contract must embrace a possible amount of work, during the session, equal to 10,000 dollars, and the security required will be to the amount of 20,000 dollars.
JOHN BECKLEY.
March 13—ep3w
By virtue of an order from the Orphan's court of Prince Georges county, state of Maryland, will be exposed to public sale on Saturday the 30th inst. at the late dwelling house of Peter Wood, jnn. late of said county deceased. The household furniture of the deceased, consisting of beds, chairs, tables, &c also part of the stock, consisting of sheep, hogs, and cattle. The terms of sale are twelve months credit, the purchaser, or purchasers to give bond with approved security bearing interest from the day of sale. JOHN T. WOOD, Administrator. March 13—6t
RAGS.
THE highest price CASH, given for clean RAGS, by EDGAR PATTERSON, George town, and SAMUEL STETTENINS, near the Centre market, Washington March 8—tf.
Young Ladies Academy.
MRS. O'REILY respectfully informs her friends and the public that she has removed her academy from Baltimore to Alexandria, where she will receive young Ladies who shall be taught the English and French languages grammatically; writing and arithmetic; history, geography and the use of the globes; music, drawing, and all kinds of work, viz. embroidery in chenilles, gold, silver, silks, &c. comprising figures, historical and ornamental, landscapes, flowers, fruit, birds, &c maps wrought in silks, chenilles, gold, &c. print work in figures or landscapes; cloth work in fruit, birds, flowers, &c. filagree and varnishing in vases, pyramids, baskets, tea caddies, operaglass, &c. grotto and shell work, artificial flowers, tambour and dresden, cross stitch, tent stitch, tapestry, &c. bogle and peal work, painting on velvet, gauze, silk, vellum, &c. Her terms are 200 dollars per annum for board and tuition. For music 18 dollars per quarter. Drawing 8 dollars per quarter. Washing 8 dollars per quarter. Every young Lady furnished by Mrs. O. R. with bed and bedding will be charged 4 dollars per quarter. March 8—1m.
TO PRINTERS.
THE subscriber takes Order for Type from the well known Foundry of William Caslin, Jun. and Co. London—Specimens and list of London prices to be seen at Mr. Geo. W. Riggs, Georgetown.
CHAS. R. BIRGMAN,
No. 215. Market-street, Baltimore. Jan. 16. tf.
ADAM KING, & Co.
AT their wine store in High street George Town, have in addition to their stock of old wines, laid in a large and general assortment of all kinds of Liquors and Groceries suitable to the present season; where bills of any description, in their line, will certainly be filled up on the shortest notice and they flatter themselves, from the quality of their wines, &c. they will be able to give general satisfaction to all those who may think proper to favor them with a call—where all kind of commission business as usual, will be attended to with the utmost attention, George Town, November 5—tf
NEGROES FOR SALE.
IN pursuance of a decree of the high court of Chancery of Maryland, the subscribers will sell at public sale on Thursday the 4th day of April next, at the late dwelling place of Mrs. Margaret Bowie, near Nottingham, in Prince Georges county, 11 negro slaves, ALL of them young and likely. The sale will begin at 12 o'clock, and be for cash.
PHILEMON L. CHEW, } Trustees. RD MARSHALL, } March 8—3w.
Valuable Lands for Sale.
By order of the court of Calvert county, will be exposed to PUBLIC SALE, the following lands, the property of the heirs of capt. WALTER SMITH, deceased:
ON Monday the 1st day of April next, will be sold, on the premises, the plantation on which the said capt. Walter Smith formerly resided, containing, by actual survey, 1225 1-8 acres of Land, lying adjoining on Patuxent river, bounded on the southwest by the said river, on the east by a fine navigable creek called Saint Leonard's creek, so that one and a half miles of fencing will enclose the whole Land. The soil of this Land is equal if not superior to any on Patuxent, either for farming, planting or grazing, and in their season the greatest plenty of fine fish and oysters may be had either from the river or creek. A great part of the above Land is covered with cedar fit for posts or fencing.
On Tuesday the 2d, on the premises, will be sold, one other plantation in the forest, at about two miles distance from the former, containing, by survey, six hundred and twenty seven and one half acres of Land, the greater part of which is covered with hickory, chestnut and oak wood, and a great proportion of swamp Land, which, at a trifling expence, might be converted into valuable meadow, belongs to this Land. And
On Thursday the 4th, on the premises, will be sold, one other plantation lying adjoining on Chesapeake Bay, bounded on the northeast by the said bay, on the north by a creek called Parker's creek, containing, by survey, 536 1-2 acres of Land; on this Land there are a great proportion of marsh and meadow Land, and a great abundance of fine timber.
It is thought needful to give a fuller description of the above Lands, as it is presumed that those who wish to purchase, will view the Lands previous to the day of sale, and on application to Mr. John Turner, who resides near the two first mentioned tracts, they may see the plots of the different tracts of Land, and will show the Lands contiguous to him, and Mr. Richard Hance, who resides on the last mentioned tract, will show the outlines of the same to any person wishing to view it.
The above Lands will be sold either in the whole, or be divided into parcels, as may appear most advantageous for the heirs.
The purchasers to give bonds, with approved securities, for the purchase money, to be paid in three annual payments, the interest to be paid yearly, and on the ratification of the sale by the court, and a full payment of the purchase money, and interest thereon, a deed of conveyance will be executed to the purchaser, agreeably to an act of assembly in such cases made and provided.
JOSEPH WILKINSON, } JAMES HEIGHE, } Comm'rs. JOHN TURNER, } Calvert county, Feb. 28th. 1805. xtx A.
Bank of Columbia.
THE Board of Directors having this day declared a dividend for the half year ending the 20th inst. at the rate of Eight per cent. per annum. The same will be paid to the Stockholders or their representatives, on or after Wednesday the 20th inst.
WILLIAM WHANN, Cashier. March 18—6w
CHARLES H. VARDEN, MERCHANT TAYLOR.
Has received from Philadelphia a handsome assortment of FALL goods, consisting of the best London and French superfine cloths, cassimeres, patent Bennet's cord, toilettene, fancy and white Marcellies, black and figured silk, mouselina, fancy silk, Marcellies, constitution cords, velvets, Genoa cord, silk and fustic. Florentines, superfine coating, knapped cloths, with a variety of other articles suitable for the winter season.
N. B. Ladies habits, regimentals, and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion.
New Jersey avenue near the Capitol. December 10—tf
Ten subscribers have opened a GROCERY STORE in the house near the Capitol, lately occupied by Mr. JAMES D. BARRY—where they have for sale, low, for cash or in exchange for country produce.
 Genuine Cogniac brandy, }  Inferior French do. }  Old Jamaica spirits, }  Madeira, }  Sherry, } Wines, by the quarter cask  Lisbon, } and case, or smaller quantity.  Claret, }  Brown Sugar, 1st and 2d quality  Loaf and Lump, do.  Molasses, }  Firkin Butter, }  Mould Candles, }  Sweet Oil, }  Spices of different kinds, }  Pig Blue, }  Starch, }  Almonds, }  Anchovies, } In bottles.  Capers, }  Powder and Shot, }  Excellent Wine Vinegar, }  Gin, }  Whiskey, }  Hylon, } Teas, fresh, and of su-  Imperial, } perior quality.  Young Hylon, }  Salt Herrings in Barrels.  PETER HEALY, & Co. Washington October 31—tf
TO BE SOLD,
ON Saturday the 23d inst. at 11 o'clock at the late dwelling plantation of JOSEPH GALLOWAY, Esq. deceased, the following articles—
Horses, oxen, plantation utensils, beds and other household furniture—a gig with harness for two horses, about 40 barrels of Indian corn, and 600 gallons of cider, the greater part of which was made of Hugh's crab apples. Credit will be given until the first of January next, and bonds bearing interest with approved security will be required. All persons indebted to said estate are requested to call and pay the amount to Mr. John Galloway of West River and those who have claims against it, are to present them properly authenticated to him for settlement.
DAVID LYNN, Adm'r. West River, March 15—4t
FOR SALE.
ON the 3d of April next, A. M. By virtue of a deed of trust dated 30th day of November 1804—will be sold at public sale, on the premises, all the right and title of Wm. McDono in a two story Brick House (nearly finished) and Lot, situated near the war office, in sq. no. 168, in the city of Washington, and nearly opposite the house occupied by Gabriel Duval, Esq. For the terms and further particulars enquire of THOS. W. PAIRO. At the store at the 7 buildings. March 18—tAdp
War Department, } March 6, 1805. }
Notice is hereby given.
THAT separate proposals will be received at the office of the Secretary for the Department of War, until 12 o'clock at noon of the first Wednesday in June next, for the supply of all rations that may be required for the use of the United States, from the 1st day of October 1805, until the 30th day of September 1806, both days inclusive, at the following places, viz.
First, At Niagara, Detroit, Michilimackinac, Fort Wayne, Chikago, Swan Creek, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the state of Ohio, & territory of Michigan, & at any place or places within the Indiana territory north of the 41st degree of north latitude.
Second, At South West Point, Tellico, Knoxville, Nashville, and within the Cherokee nation between Tennessee and Georgia, and on the road between said river and Georgia, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the states of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Third, At the garrison near Vincennes on the river Wabash, at Fort Massac, New Madrid, Chickasaw Bluffs, Arkansas, Natchez and Fort Adams, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited in the Mississippi territory, except the county of Washington, and at any place or places in the Indiana territory south of the 41st degree of north latitude and fifty miles east of the Mississippi river.
Fourth, At St. Louis, St. Charles, Kaskaskia, Oshokia, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the territory of Louisiana north of New Madrid, and at any place or places in the Indiana territory within fifty miles east of the Mississippi river and south of the 41st degree of North latitude, Fort Massac excepted.
Fifth, At New Orleans Plaquemine, Point Coupee, Ocheen, Natchitoches, Appelonas, Attakapa, Fort Stodder, Fort St. Stephens, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the territory of Orleans, or in the county of Washington in the Mississippi Territory, and at any place or places on the west side of the Mississippi river below Arkansas.
Separate proposals will also be received as aforesaid for the supply of all rations, which may be required for the use of the United States, of the United States, from the 1st day of January 1806, to the 31st day of December of the same year, both days inclusive, within the several states herein after mentioned, viz.
Sixth, At Fort Wilkinson, Cockspur Island, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of Georgia, and on the Indian boundary between Georgia and the Creek nation.
Seventh, At Charleston, Rocky Mount, on the head waters of the Santee, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the states of North and South Carolina.
Eighth, At Norfolk, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Virginia.
Ninth, At Fort M'Henry, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Maryland and the district of Columbia.
Tenth, At Fort Mifflin, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Pennsylvania, east of the river Susquehannah, and within the states of New Jersey, and Delaware.
Eleventh, At Pittsburg, Carlisle, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Pennsylvania, west of the river Susquehannah.
Twelfth, At Fort Jay, West Point, Albany, Schenectady, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of New York, Niagara and its dependencies excepted.
Thirteenth, At Fort Trumbull, Fort Volcott, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Fourteenth, At Fort Independence, (Boston harbour) and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Massachusetts, the town of Springfield, and the district of Maine, excepted.
Fifteenth, At Portsmouth, Portland, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the state of New Hampshire and the district of Maine.
Sixteenth, Proposals will also be received as aforesaid, for the supply of all rations, which may be required by the U. States, for the troops which are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the town of Springfield in the state of Massachusetts, & for the armourers and other persons employed in the United States' armoury at that place, from the 1st day of January 1806 to the 31st day of December in the same year, both days inclusive.
A ration to consist of one pound and one quarter of Beef, or three quarters of a pound of pork, eighteen ounces of bread or flour, one gill of rum, whiskey or brandy, and at the rate of two quarts of salt, four quarts of vinegar, four pounds of soap, and one pound and a half of candles, to every hundred ration. The prices of the several component parts of the ration shall be specified; but the United States reserve the right of making such alterations in the price of the component parts of the ration aforesaid, as shall make the price of each part thereof bear a just proportion to the proposed price of the whole ration. The rations are to be furnished in such quantities, that there shall at all times, during the term of the proposed contract, be sufficient for the consumption of the troops at Michilimackinac, Detroit, and Chikago, for six months in advance; and at each of the other posts on the western waters, for at least three months in advance, of good and wholesome provisions, if the same shall be required. It is also to be permitted to all and every of the commandants of fortified places or posts, to call for, at seasons when the same can be transported, or at any time in case of urgency, such supplies of like provisions in advance, as in the discretion of the commandant shall be deemed proper.
It is understood that the contractor is to be at the expence and risk of issuing the supplies to the troops, and that all losses sustained by the depredations of an enemy, or by means of the troops of the United States, shall be paid by the United States at the price of the articles captured or destroyed as aforesaid, on the deposition of two or more persons of creditable characters, and the certificate of a commissioned officer, stating the circumstances of the loss, and the amount of the articles for which compensation shall be claimed.
The privilege is understood to be reserved to the United States of requiring that none of the supplies, which may be furnished under any of the proposed contracts, shall be issued, until the supplies, which have been or may be furnished under contracts now in force, have been consumed; and that a supply in advance may be always required at any of the fixed posts on the seaboard, or Indian frontiers not exceeding three months.
H. DEARBORN, Secretary of War. March 8—taw6w
FOR SALE.
ON FRIDAY THE 22ND INSTANT, WILL be offered at public sale, for ready money, at the present dwelling of Mrs. ELIZA PEACOCK, opposite Mr. Lewis Morin on the Pennsylvania avenue, sundry articles of
HOUSEHOLD & KITCHEN FURNITURE, And a collection of BOOKS.
The sale to commence at 11 o'clock, A. M. N. B. Mr. Peacock having been in the habit of lending out almost indiscriminately, a number of books, and to whom it is impossible to recollect—it is requested that any person having any of those books will return them to Mrs. Peacock as early as possible.
Any of the above articles may be had at private sale on application to ELIZA PEACOCK. City of Washington, March 18—3t
NOTICE.
A Gentleman of a good character, and qualified to teach English and Latin, may meet with an eligible situation, by application to the teacher of the academy in Alexandria. March 4—3w
VILLARD'S LITTLE COTTAGE & SPRING GARDEN.
THE Ladies and Gentlemen of Washington and George Town, are respectfully informed, that the Cottage and Garden is open for their accommodation, and provided with Ice Creams, Tea, Coffee and other refreshments, as heretofore, by their humble servant. Washington, March 19—3t
In the case of Frederick Betts, an insolvent debtor.
District of Columbia, Washington county, to wit:
ON THE petition of Frederick Betts, an insolvent debtor confined in the prison of Washington county for debt. Notice is hereby given, that on Saturday the 23d inst. at 10 o'clock, A. M. at the court room in the Capitol, the oath of an insolvent debtor will be administered to the said Frederick Betts agreeably to the act of Congress now in force on that subject, and a trustee appointed, unless sufficient cause be then and there shown to the contrary. It is ordered that this notice be published twice in the National Intelligencer previous to said day.
By order of the hon. Wm. Kilty, esq. chief judge of the circuit court of the district of Columbia. URIAH FORREST, Ck. March 20—2t
NOTICE.
The Legionary Court of Enquiry of the First Legion of the Militia of the District of Columbia, which met by adjournment at M c Laughlin's tavern in George Town, the 5th March inst. is again adjourned to meet at same place the 30th inst. at 10 o'clock in the morning. In instances where the command of the company has devolved on the Lieutenant, from the resignation of the Captain he is considered as a member of the Court and will attend as such. WM. D. BELL, Adj. March 20—5t
Judge WILSON'S Works.
Just Published, and for sale by Rapine, Conrad, & Co. NEAR THE CAPITOL.
THE works of the Hon. James Wilson, L. L. D. late one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and professor of Law in the College of Philadelphia, 3 vols. with an elegant portrait of the author.
This valuable work contains the learned author's Lectures on Law, and other works connected therewith, of which he takes a most comprehensive view, and ably explains that intricate science. March 20—2aw3w
CIDER, FOR SALE.
JUST received from Rhode Island, and for sale by the subscriber, a quantity of very good CIDER at the reduced price of THREE DOLLARS & FIFTY CENTS per barrel—Also a quantity of excellent CHEESE, a small part of which is old, and of a superior quality. RICHARD ELLIOTT. March 6—w3t