The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-06-21 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,  WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. 14
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCLIII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, JUNE 21st, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday March 1, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the Courts of the United States."
Mr. Dana. Mr. Chairman, I was disposed to do justice to certain members of the house between whom and myself there might be supposed to exist some of those differences of opinion which have been styled unessential. It was my intention to vindicate them from the imputation of being under the influence of the gentleman from Virginia. This was very different from what he probably imagined at the time of calling me to order. But it shall now be waved. The recommendation from the chair is entitled to respectful attention.
It is with deep regret, Sir, that I have seen the present measure pushed forward upon the house. Yet I will acknowledge, since the commencement of the main debate, I have experienced a peculiar satisfaction in witnessing the disposition to allow so fair an opportunity for discussion. 'Tis like the senatus which accompanies the return of health, after having suffered feverish from the violence of disease.
Whatever difference of political sentiment may exist among us, all will agree I am, in its being to the common reputation of gentlemen, that in the present instance the deliberations have been conducted with such impressive order. It may be further remarked as a source of grateful reflection, that on this momentous subject, we have not been addressed as if the eloquence of avarice, was the only eloquence becoming the American Congress. In the course of debate indeed, there has been some notice of the expence of the judicial establishment, as organized by one of the acts passed at the last session; but this has not, to my recollection, been insisted on, in this house, as the principal motive for adopting the bill on your table. On the contrary, one of the zealous advocates of the bill (Mr. Randolph) has spoken of the expence as being a paltry sum, and disclaimed the being actuated by this consideration.
Such a frank declaration on his part was alike honorable and proper. For, what is the additional expence that must ultimately be incurred, for the support of the judicial establishment, according to the principles of the act now proposed to be repealed? Permit me, Sir, to state it distinctly.
The act in question is "An act to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States," which was approved on the 13th of February 1801. By that act, six circuits were established; five for the Atlantic states, and a sixth for Kentucky, Tennessee and the district of Ohio.
To each of the five first circuits, three circuit judges were assigned, and an annual salary of two thousand dollars was allowed to each judge.
In the sixth circuit, the judicial duties were to be performed by a circuit judge, with the assistance of the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee. An annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars was allowed to the circuit judge; and the two district judges were each to receive the same sum. By this establishment, the district judge of Kentucky became entitled to five hundred dollars annually, in addition to his former salary; and the district judge of Tennessee, to seven hundred dollars.
  According to this statement, there are for five circuits, the salaries for fifteen judges at 2,000 dollars 30,000   For the sixth circuit, the salary of one circuit judge 1,500   The additional sums, allowed to the two district judges 1,200   The amount of the whole for a year is, 32,700 
It is to be remembered however, that after the office of one of the associate justices of the supreme court shall become vacant, by resignation, death, or constitutional removal, the vacancy is not to be supplied by a new appointment; but the court is thereafter to consist of no more than five justices, that is, of one chief justice and four associate justices. Thus is the purport of the third section of the act. All the justices, having been duly appointed, and having accepted their commissions, were entitled to their offices, so long as they
should behave well. As none of them could constitutionally be divested of office by an act of congress, the court must continue to consist of six justices, until one of them ceases to hold his office; in which event, the office, and with it the salary, can rightfully be discontinued. After a constitutional vacancy shall exist, this part of the act may have effect; and there will then be a reduction of three thousand five hundred dollars, for the salary of one associate justice.
  The amount of the judges in the respective circuits, being, therefore, rated at 32,700   Deduct the allowance for one associate justice of the supreme court 3,500   And the difference, being 29,000 
is the additional expence to be ultimately incurred, for the support of the judicial establishment. This is the clear result of the whole. It has now been stated particularly, that the truth might be precisely ascertained on this point.
An expence of twenty nine thousand two hundred dollars annually, it will be readily acknowledged, might be considered as a large sum, if it were to be paid by an individual in this country. But it should be kept in mind that this expence is for a public establishment, interesting to the whole people of the United States. It is to be paid by a nation—a rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the richest productions of their industry, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye."
If you compare this with your permanent expenditures as estimated by the present secretary of the treasury, you will find it is not the one hundredth part of the amount to be paid for the current service of the year, even if you exclude all the payments on account of the public debt. It is not the third part of what is estimated as necessary for maintaining one of your frigates.
If you compare the expence with the means of paying it, you will find, the whole sum for the circuit judges of the fourth circuit, does not amount to the duties payable on seven hundred coaches, chariots, post chariots, post chaises, phaetons, and coaches owned in Virginia. That sum, it is to be remembered, forms a part of the tenth circuit; and on examining the treasury documents laid before congress, you will find, that during the year 1800, there were in Virginia 709 pleasurable carriages, such as I have just mentioned; besides upwards of three hundred other four wheel carriages paying inferior rates of duty.
If you compare the additional expence, which has been stated, with the population of the United States, and apportion it accordingly, you will find it to be but very little more than half a cent for each person.
It would be a national reproach, it would be an infamy to the American name, if the consideration of such an expence, could excite the solicitude which has been manifested respecting the question now in debate. The expence is not, cannot be, the true cause of what has been witnessed on this subject.
Considerations of a different nature, such as appeal more eloquently to the passions, must have operated to produce the effect. You may form some judgment of them, from what was said by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) when he referred to the journals of the last session, and spoke about opposing the public will.
But, before replying to that part of his observations, I beg liberty to advert to what has been said respecting the character of officers who have been dismissed since the 4th of March. It might have been hoped, that it would be sufficient for gentlemen to be in possession of power, without attempting to deprive those whom they have driven from office of their well earned reputation. Are the persons now in power sensible of a deficiency of their own stock, and do they expect to supply it by this species of plunder?
A gentleman from Maryland (Gen. S. Smith) has made some observations conveying a general allusion to negligencies and delinquencies in office: But he did not profess to apply the allusion to all the gentlemen who have been dismissed. If I did not misunderstand him, he would admit, that there were some worthy men among them. I regret that the gentleman from Maryland is not now in his place. If he were present, I am persuaded he would not wish that his observations should be left so as to be construed to the injury of meritorious officers. Let they should be thus misconceived, with reference to the state from
which I am a representative, I could have wished to enquire whether he would be understood as imputing any misconduct to the gentlemen who have been dismissed in Connecticut.
It is well known that it has been the executive pleasure to dismiss a supervisor of the revenue for Connecticut, and two collectors of the customs. The gentleman from Maryland, I firmly persuade myself, could not intend to accuse them. I know them personally. They are men of worth. I am confident, no gentleman who knows the truth and respects it will affirm, that either of those officers was incompetent to his office, or inattentive to his duty or unfaithful to the constitution. Nor can it with a colour of justice, be pretended that they were hostile to our revolution. They all have decisive proofs of their attachment to it. No anti-revolutionary adherence to our enemies can with truth, be charged against them; and their official integrity is irreproachable. If criminality is to be imputed to them it must be for a new species of crime—they have been guilty of obeying the laws of their country.
Was it a reason for their dismissal, that some of the persons high in office did not expect them to be so devoted to particular views as was wished. Whatever it may have been, I will not in this place, imitate gentlemen on the other side who have so freely called in question the characters of persons differing from themselves in political opinions. Nor will I here undertake to draw a comparison between the officers who have been dismissed and those who have been appointed to their places. I waive any general investigation of the characters of men recently placed in office. It might occupy too much time, especially at this late hour. I quit the topic, with a general remark—Gentlemen should remember, their glass-house is not a fortress.
After this vindication of meritorious men who have been removed from office I will now attend more particularly to some observations of the gentleman from Virginia. He has spoken of the judicial act of the 13th of February 1801, as if the passage of it had been attended with improper circumstances, and thence has attempted to deduce the inference that it ought to be repealed. He read part of the journal of the last session, and charged certain members of the house with having been engaged in opposing the public will at the time when the act was approved. The journal shews, that on the 13th of February, eighteen hundred and one, the representatives, voting by states, proceeded to the twenty ninth ballot for president, and the result was the same as had taken place before—the votes of eight states given for Thomas Jefferson; the votes of six States for Aaron Burr; and the votes of two States divided.
Much has been said on this topic, which has at length been brought forward as a public charge, by the gentleman from Virginia. It is now time that it should be examined.
According to the principles of our government, the public will, when explicitly ascertained by an authentic act, is the law of the land, and must be obeyed. Of this there can be no doubt; it is beyond all question. But this public will is not merely the will of part of the community, a section of the people; it is the will of the great body of American citizens. The highest and most solemn expression of the public will in this country is the constitution of the United States. This was agreed to by the general convention—was transmitted to the legislatures of the several states by the unanimous resolution of congress under the confederation—was recommended by all those legislatures, when they passed laws for submitting it to conventions for their ratification—and was finally ratified by the conventions of all the states in the union. It was thus established by the general consent. In this, we should acknowledge the high authority of the public will.
There is however a misfortune which attends the argumentation of some gentlemen. They substitute a part for the whole; and would confound the will of a certain portion of the people, however vaguely expressed, with the will of the whole public body as explicitly manifested by an authentic act.
What manifestation was there of the public will relative to the late election of a President of the United States? Take only authentic evidence of the public will on this subject proved, that Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, and Aaron Burr of New-York, were equally objects of approbation. The majority of the electors had given them an equal number of votes. What then was the difference of right between them?
Was it, that one of the candidates was a Virginian? Was it that the members of congress were assembled on the banks of the Potomac, with Virginia in view on the other side? Must it be acknowledged as the prerogative of that state to impose a chief magistrate on the Union?
Or was there a difference of right, because Virginia, with its extent and population, could make more clamour than any other state? The noise of so great a state may sometimes seem loud enough for the voice of the people of the United States. And are they, therefore, in this house to be confounded with each other? If so, the observations about the public will, of which we have lately heard so much from a certain quarter, must be understood to mean the will of Virginia: and we may thus judge of the argumentation when gentlemen from that state are speaking of the respect due to the public will.
Two persons were presented, in constitutional form, to the House of representatives, as being equally candidates for the office of President—One from Virginia, and the other from New-York. When they were so presented, the choice between the two candidates was devolved on the representatives by the constitution of the United States. After maturely considering the question, it was for them as ultimate electors to vote as they judged to be most for the public welfare. They voted by states as required by the constitution. And are gentlemen to be here accused for exercising the constitutional right of election according to the conviction of their own judgment? When called upon, under the constitution, to elect one of the two candidates, were they not bound, by the nature of their duty, to give their votes according as the one or the other was by them judged to be more or less preferable? Upon what principle can gentlemen be accused of hostility to the interest of the people, because they did not think proper to elect the candidate from Virginia? Are our affairs already reduced to such a situation that it is to be charged as a public offence, if any member of this house has failed to vote for a Virginian to be the President of the United States?
It was the constitutional right of members of this House, in deciding between the two candidates, to give their ballots for the one whom they believed to be superior in practical capacity for administering the government; one whom they believed to be not hostile to the commercial interests of the country, and not disposed to subject the Union to the domination of a particular state, whatever might be its lordly pretensions in consequence of extent of territory or antiquity of dominion.
As the gentleman from Virginia has thought proper to speak of events which took place about the time of passing the act in question, allow me, Sir, to mention one circumstance of which he has said nothing. The act, as finally enrolled, was signed by the speaker of the House of Representatives, after the balloting for a President had commenced; and the clerk carried it to the other house for the signature of their president. The candidate from Virginia was then in the chair of the Senate. The clerk of this house, on first presenting himself as was customary at the door of the senate chamber, was not admitted. The situation came to the knowledge of a Senator, and was communicated to the Senate. After the sense of that body was found to be for his admission, the door was opened, and the clerk was admitted to deliver his message, and present the enrolled bill for signature. It was then signed by the President of the Senate.
What should be thought of this as taken in connection with the fate of the act and the pendency of the presidential election? Was it a circumstance which must ever be remembered with mortification, and which therefore will never be forgiven?
To give a further colour to the suggestion that the passage of the act was attended with improper circumstances, the attempt has been made to impress an idea, that it was adopted without mature deliberation, & hurried through its different stages in a reprehensible manner. If we are not willing to be misled by pretexts, let us examine what was the fact.
A recurrence to the journals of the house will prove, that the subject of the judicial establishment was recommended by the President of the United States, to the attention of Congress, at two successive sessions. In his communication at the opening of the first session of the sixth congress, he recommended the subject in the following terms:—"To give
due effect to the civil administration of government, and to ensure a just execution of the laws, a revision and amendment of the judiciary system is indispensably necessary. In this extensive country it can not but happen, that numerous questions, respecting the interpretation of the laws and the rights and duties of officers and citizens, must arise. On the one hand, the laws should be executed; on the other, individuals should be guarded from oppression. Neither of these objects is sufficiently assured under the present organization of the judicial department. I therefore earnestly recommend the subject to your serious consideration." In the hour of Representatives, this part of the President's speech was referred to a select committee. They reported a bill which contained a variety of provisions for amending the system. The bill was referred to a committee of the whole, in which it was discussed several days; and was afterwards recommitted to the same gentlemen who had reported it. As it was printed for the use of the members, and the subject was extensively interesting to the community, it was judged proper to defer a final decision until another session, and, in the mean time, gentlemen might have an opportunity to acquire information that would assist them to form a more satisfactory judgment.
At the second session of the sixth congress, the subject was again recommended by the President. These are his words: "It is in every point of view of such primary importance to carry the laws into prompt and faithful execution, and to render that part of the administration of justice, which the constitution and laws devolve on the federal courts, as convenient to the people as may consist with their present circumstances, that I cannot omit, once more, to recommend to your serious consideration the judiciary system of the United States. No subject is more interesting than this to the public happiness; and to none can those improvements which may have been suggested by experience be more beneficially applied." On this recommendation, a select committee was appointed. That committee reported a bill to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States. The bill underwent a long discussion and a variety of amendments. It was finally passed in the house of representatives, by a majority of 51 to 43; and, in the senate, by a majority of 16 to 11. After knowing these facts, will gentlemen have the hardihood to call this a hasty measure?
Compare the whole proceedings with what took place respecting a former act. Gentlemen have spoken of the general power of congress, to repeal acts passed by their predecessors. Are they prepared to repeal the act to which I now refer? It is the act relative to the temporary and permanent seat of government, passed in July 1790. That act was carried in the Senate, by a majority of 14 to 12. In the house of representatives, a committee of the whole agreed to it, as it came from the senate. Twelve different amendments were proposed in the house; the yeas and nays were taken on each of them, and every amendment was rejected—all in one day. A motion was then made for the third reading of the bill on the Monday following: The motion was negatived. It was moved that the third reading should be on the next day: This was negatived. The yeas and nays had been taken twelve times during the sitting; a motion was made to adjourn. This was negatived. The general rule of the house being against reading a bill twice on the same day without special order, a motion for the third reading of the bill the third time was made on the part of its advocates and carried. On taking the yeas and nays for the thirteenth time in one day, the bill was passed by a majority of 32 to 29. Mark the smallness of the majority in both houses; the utter rejection of every amendment in the house of representatives; the hurried manner in which it was forced on to the final question; recollect other considerations relative to the passage of that act, and then judge whether it was not attended with circumstances highly improper. If matters of this kind constitute a sufficient cause for gentlemen to repeal any act passed by their predecessors, why should we remain here in pursuance of that act?
Will any gentleman say, it is for our personal convenience that the seat of government is now at this place? Is it at present for the public convenience? Is it less expensive for individuals, or for the public than it would be in some of your commercial cities? Have you here the opportunities for valuable information which might be had else-

where? What then should detain us, if it be not a regard to stability and consistency in public proceedings, combined with a regard to the expectations of respectable persons seriously interested in the question? But if you may repeal the act organizing the judicial system, what principle is there that ought to confine the government to the place in which we are now assembled? Repeal this act, as is proposed by the bill on your table, and you strike the principle of public stability and consistency. Repeal this act, and there can be no principle of constitutional obligation, none of political honor, or legal right, to detain you here.
Gentlemen in favor of the proposed repeal have spoken about the acts as if this organization of the courts did not contribute to the more convenient administration of justice. The argument deserves examination.
According to the original system, as delineated in the judicial act that was approved in September 1789, two courts to be called circuit courts, were to be annually held, in each district of the respective circuits, by any two justices of the supreme court, and the district judge of such district. The attendance of two justices of the supreme court, at each circuit court in the respective districts, besides two sessions of the supreme court annually held by all the justices at the seat of government, required of those gentlemen such burthensome services, that they at length addressed a letter on this subject to the President of the United States, who communicated it to congress. On recurring to the journal of the second session of congress, it will be found that the communication was made on the 7th of November 1792. The copy of the letter, as sent by the President, has been obtained from the clerk's office. It bears date, Philadelphia 9th August, 1792, and is in the following terms.
[Mr. Dina here read the letter.]
It was undoubtedly in consequence of this communication, that the system was revised at the same session of congress. A further act respecting the courts was passed and approved on the 2d of March 1793. By that act the system was altered, so that the attendance of one justice of the supreme court was to be sufficient for holding a circuit, with the district judge. In case of their being divided in opinion on the final hearing of a cause, or on a plea to the jurisdiction, the cause was to be continued to the succeeding court, when another justice might attend.
This arrangement afforded a relief to the justices of the supreme court; but on experiment, was found to produce serious inconveniences to suitors in the circuit courts.
It should be recollected, that the circuit courts decided, without appeal, all cases of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the value of the matter in dispute was between five hundred and two thousand dollars. To refer cases of this importance to the final decision of a single judge must be contrary to the sound principles of jurisprudence. But the mode adopted for avoiding this impropriety subjected the parties to accumulated disadvantages and expences, in consequence of delays which were continually occurring. Will it be too much to admit, that the decisions on the respective causes were generally delayed at least for one term in a year? What would be the average expence to the parties on account of such delay? If you include the expence for counsel, for witnesses, for the attendance and travel of the parties, on both sides, it is not moderate, very moderate to estimate the amount of these items at twenty dollars for each cause. The expence for fifteen hundred causes amounts at this rate, to the aggregate sum of thirty thousand dollars, payable by the suitors, for delays resulting from the defective nature of the judicial system. Compare this with what has been stated as the additional expence to the government, on account of the new organization of the courts! A tax of thirty thousand dollars annually, levied solely on the suitors in the circuit courts, and levied in consequence of defects in your laws, was a burthen of which they might reasonably complain. It was a burthen whose oppressive weight the government ought not to continue upon persons who had the right to demand justice, freely, and without delay. The act of the last session, as it obviates the former causes of delay, relieves the suitors from this unreasonable and vexatious tax. This statement is not a mere affair of speculation. Who doubts the fact of there being at least fifteen hundred causes depending in the courts of the United States? It is proved by a document before the house. The document No. 8, notwithstanding its defects, exhibits enough to prove this fact.
The superior convenience of the new system is sufficiently proved, if it be possible for gentlemen to want proof of what is so evident, by the representations from the bar of Philadelphia, and the bar of New-Jersey, and by regard professional experience, and by the representations from the respectable bodies of merchants in Philadelphia and New-York, if you regard mercantile knowledge. Other considerations might be mentioned, to evince the general con-
venience of the new system, and the inconvenience of the former one; but the delays, uncertainties and contradictory proceedings, which resulted from the late defective arrangement, have already been pointed out with such clearness and force of illustration, that it must be superfluous for me to dwell upon this part of the subject.
On the other side, reference has been had to a document received from high authority. It is the document No. 8, which has been laid before us, by the President of the United States. If the Congress had wanted the information which that document professes to give, they would have called for it, I presume, from a subordinate officer, whose proper duty it would be to give it—the attorney-general—not the president. On this occasion, however, the chief magistrate has been pleased to volunteer his service. The purity of his motives is not now arraigned; but the propriety of his conduct is not perfectly unquestionable. Let me not be understood as insinuating, that he has intentionally given us incorrect information. The extreme impropriety of any such intention, without regard to the hazard of eventual exposure, should repel every idea of this kind; but the purity of motives does not impair the evidence of facts. No doubt it was the object to give us such information as had been procured. Yet, when information was not desired, why should we have such as has been laid before us?
This document, with a boldness of language bordering on impertinence, has been called an exact statement. After its incorrectness has been detected and exposed, we have a supplementary document sent to us, stating (I am not confident that I precisely recollect the modifying style of the last communication, but I think it was nearly to this purpose) that there was some deficiency of exactitude. What opinion is to be formed of this proceeding? The chief magistrate comes forward, unrequired, unasked, and communicates a statement which is explicitly declared to be exact; and yet he afterwards corrects that statement by following it up with another. It must be unfortunate for the legislature and for the chief magistrate, that errors of this kind should take place, because they tend to excite doubts where no doubt should exist. When the President of the United States, with his high responsibility and all his means of information, is induced to come forward, in the face of the whole American people, and to make to them, through the legislature, an official declaration relative to facts, it becomes his advisers to be well assured of the correctness of such declaration. When the President gives the sanction of his authority to any statement of fact and affirms it to be exact, it should be entitled to full credit, beyond any possible contradiction.
The manner in which this document was mentioned, in the communication of the President at the opening of the session, would lead to the idea of its containing ample information respecting the business in the courts of the United States. At present laying aside all the clerical errors which have been pointed out, I must be permitted to think, there are some others of such importance as to deserve animadversion.
After what has already occurred, I consider the communication itself strikes my mind as an executive manifesto against the former administration; and I deem myself warranted to consider the present attack on the judiciary as having been comprehended in the general plan of hostile operations.
In a concern so important as this, where the stake was so great, and the game to be played so deep, it is not to be presumed, that the first magistrate would recommend the measure, as he has done, without advising previously with the ministers, of whom he may be considered as the head. If his powers are to be assimilated to the prerogatives of the British monarch, according to the spirit of what we have heard from some of the advocates of the present bill, it must of course be warrantable for the greater freedom and decorum of debate to consider him as surrounded by his ministers in council and acting with their advice.
Taking up the communication, however, as we find it, what do we further observe? It is well known, that circuit courts were held in the spring the last year, and again in autumn. Yet the document (No. 8) has reference to the 15th of June. If it was the wish to give us a complete statement upon which we might properly act, with respect to an important system, why did not the executive, with his ministers, think fit to cause the suits for the whole year to be communicated, instead of a part of the year, during which the system could not have gone into fair operation? Why could not we be furnished with a report of the business before the circuit courts at their last annual session? Has there not been sufficient opportunity for obtaining the information? Why then is it, that we have a statement for only the first part of the year, and not for the whole? Is this giving to us, or to the public, full and fair information? It cannot, certainly be pretended, that we have before us all the official information which might have been given upon
this subject, although its importance is not to be denied. If we were to act on the information sent us, we ought to have been presented, as far as practicable, with a full view of the business in the circuit courts since their late organization.
But is the utility of courts to be tested solely by the number of causes, and not by the magnitude of the questions decided. A thousand causes before courts of very limited jurisdiction, such for example as those before justices of the peace in some of the states, are of far less consequence than a single cause that might come before a court of the United States. Did the ministerial advisers of the executive hold the discernment of the American congress in such low estimation as to imagine, that, in legislating on this subject, the nature of the business before the respective courts would be wholly disregarded? Where great questions are litigated, your courts should be so constituted as to authorise great confidence in their decisions. The value of the interests immediately in controversy, and the extensive influence of the principles on which the decisions must depend, should both be considered in estimating the importance of a judicial establishment. Where life may be taken by sentence of the court, and where causes may be decided of the value of many thousand dollars, causes in whole proper decision the commerce of the country is seriously interested, where the causes are of this nature, it is important, that the organization of the court should be such, as to inspire confidence by its tendency to unite talents and character, with ample opportunity for mutual comparison of opinions and mature deliberation. Were the ministry wholly regardless of these principles? Notwithstanding, the facility with which further information might have been given as to the nature of the respective causes, especially in relation to the value in controversy, it is to be remarked, that the communication is wholly silent respecting these objects.
As I see the gentleman from Maryland (Gen. S. Smith) in his place, I be liberty to notice again the dismissal from office in Connecticut. I refer to the case of the supervisor of the revenue and two collectors of the customs. If I understood the gentleman when he was speaking about the office, who have lately been removed, he would allow, that there were some worthy men among them, although he appeared to be satisfied, that in general they ought to have been dismissed for not conducting property in office. His sense of justice, I am persuaded, would not permit him to apply this censure to the gentlemen whom I have mentioned. But, as he did not make any particular exceptions, and his language might perhaps be construed so as to implicate persons very differently from his intentions, I could with the gentleman to state, whether he would have his observations understood as implicating the gentlemen who have been dismissed in Connecticut. If he will be so good as to do this, I will give place to him.
Gen. S. Smith. My observations did not apply to those gentlemen. I said nothing against them.
Mr. Dana. I am happy to have had this opportunity of making the inquiry. I believed the gentleman from Maryland to have been in situations where he might be informed respecting those gentlemen; and was satisfied, that, if he had become acquainted with their true characters, he could not be willing to accuse them of having conducted improperly in office.
To refuse the consideration of the document (No. 8) it is to be observed, there is another material deficiency. The document has been recommended to our attention, as if it were an exact statement of all the causes decided or pending before the several courts of the U. States. But is it so? No, sir. It is an imperfect docket of the circuit courts; we must include in this description, however, the courts held by such district judges as exercise the powers of circuit courts. There is no mention of the causes before the ordinary district courts. Not a word about the causes in the supreme court. Why are all these omitted? Is it of no moment for us to be acquainted with them, if we are to revise the whole judiciary system of the United States? After the recommendation of the revision at the opening of the session, such an imperfect document serves to argue an expectation that Congress would proceed to alter the system without examination of the subject. If it was prepared with a view to inform the people, what information does it give? Such as cannot be relied on. We have been called upon to receive it as completely correct; it is found to be palpably erroneous and defective.
In addition to what has been communicated to us on the part of the executive, the system, which the present bill is designed to repeal, has been censured in the memorials of sundry inhabitants of the city and county of Philadelphia. Their memorials are all alike; different persons having signed printed copies to the same effect. What are their complaints against the act in question? The time of bringing it forward, the manner of conducting it through the several sta-
ges, the subsequent appointments under it, are all mentioned; and, for reasons in favor of repealing the act, there is a general reference to the debates in the senate. It is not in order, sir, for any member of this house to mention, in debate, what has been said in the other house. By your rules, I am not permitted to reply to any of the arguments which have been urged by those senators who advocated the repeal. This part of the memorial, therefore, cannot, without inconsistency be regarded by this house. For the rest, what information is given you? The proceedings of Congress appear from their records, and, it is to be presumed, are at least as well known to the respective members as to the memorialists. The mention of appointments under the act may perhaps be considered as implying some information unfavorable to the characters of the circuit judges. But as to them, the memorialists cannot be presumed to have particular knowledge, unless it be with respect to judges in the third circuit. And these judges are spoken of in terms of high respect by the gentlemen of the bar in Philadelphia and New-Jersey. This honorable testimony is from gentlemen of professional eminence, who have had an opportunity of personally observing the judges in attending the respective courts. To this effect too, you have the testimony of the very respectable body of merchants in Philadelphia, whose representation on this subject has been submitted to the house. They may concur with the gentlemen of the bar in highly appreciating the services of the circuit judges. The characters of those judges are, unquestionably, placed on a basis, too firm to be affected by any thing insinuated against them.
The representations from the gentlemen of the bar in Philadelphia and New-Jersey, furnish a strong body of evidence in favor of the new organization of the courts. They are gentlemen accustomed to the transaction of professional business, and have experienced the comparative effects of the former system and the present. In a manner honorable to themselves and to their profession, the gentlemen of the bar in Philadelphia, although well known to entertain different sentiments on political topics, have laid aside their political distinctions, to attend to this subject, which concerns the common interest of honest men of all parties; and have united to support a system which they believe to be of high importance for the due administration of justice. It is to be regretted that any member of the national legislature should be induced from any cause whatever, to give utterance to such sentiments as have been thrown out against the professional gentlemen, who have borne testimony in favor of the present organization of the courts. Persons who have been intimately acquainted with none but the mere underlings of the profession, might perhaps be expected to indulge suspicions, that gentlemen so respectable as these would state their opinions in favor of a system, solely from motives of pecuniary interest, and not from the conviction of their unbiaffed judgment. An acquaintance with the course of professional business, however, might satisfy men of candid minds, that pecuniary motives cannot have induced the gentlemen of the bar to address you as they have done. It is to be hoped, for the honor of the house, that we shall not act upon sentiments so little worthy of the national legislature, and so unjust to gentlemen of professional reputation. Sir, the testimony of the gentlemen of the bar on this subject, is one of the most respectable sources of opinion.
After what they have said, to evince the superior convenience of the present organization of the courts, if any doubt can exist as to the fact, it is to be recollected, there is the additional testimony of mercantile gentlemen in the populous cities of Philadelphia and New-York. It is observable, however, that the merchants of Philadelphia, and the chamber of commerce in New-York, like the gentlemen of the bar have abstained from any discussion of constitutional or political questions—With a delicacy as honorable to themselves as it is respectful to the legislature, they have left it for the respective members to reason on general topics; and have spoken of what has passed within their own observation and experience. The merchants address you with a particular reference to the commercial interests of the country. Will you deny their practical knowledge with respect to the business in which they are occupied, and for which they were educated? They speak of the proposed repeal as a measure which must be seriously prejudicial to their commercial concerns.
It should be remembered, that the questions, which very frequently occupy the courts of the union, are such as relate to commerce not only with foreigners, but between persons of different states. On these subjects, Congress have power to legislate, and the judiciary to judge. Much of the credit of the country, the assurance of obtaining justice, the national character for integrity, depends on a system for the wise and impartial decision of judicial questions. Is it not necessary to your commercial prosperity, that the foreign creditor of your merchants should have a security for as ample justice here as he could have in his own country? Is it not necessary in a national view that there should be such an organization of the courts as will fully satisfy creditors abroad or in the respective states, that their claims shall be fairly tried without being subjected to the influence of local prejudices? Let me ask, sir, Are your merchants generally such capitalists, as to make instant payment for every thing they import? They cannot do it. They must have credit, if the country is to continue its accustomed commerce. And we know that credit is not an object of compulsion, as it respects those who give it. They require a just cause of confidence. Credit is free as human thought. Mercantile gentlemen in Virginia, in Georgia, or any other state, when it is known that ample justice is assured to creditors in the courts of the United States, may obtain a credit abroad, which otherwise would never be given them. Without a confidence of this kind, you must not, you cannot speak of your country as being in good credit. When gentlemen of extensive mercantile information, address you in favor of these courts, as requisite for securing mutual justice and the prosperity of commerce, they are entitled to attention. They are a body of men who have too much honor to flatter for truth, any thing of which they are not well assured that it is the fact; and they have too much knowledge to err on a point so intimately connected with their pursuits.
What, sir, I pray you, must be the consequence of measures contemplated at the present session of congress? If you abolish the internal revenues, and lay upon the commercial interest, the burden of supporting government, will you superadd the destruction of an establishment which authorises general confidence, and is beneficial to your commerce both foreign and domestic.
Consider the representation from the respectable body of mercantile gentlemen in Philadelphia. If you abolish all the other courts, they request, that the circuit court, may be preserved in the third circuit. This, it is known, extends over New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. The merchants request the preservation of this court, as being an institution in which their commercial welfare is most intimately concerned—If you resolve, that all the expences of government shall be defrayed from commerce, will you not pursue an institution which may assist the merchants to obtain the means of paying the sums which you demand from them?
Gentlemen have undertaken to inform us, that the state courts will be sufficient; and appear to have a peculiar jealousy of the federal courts. But they may be reminded, that the present question is not, what they may think, but what others will think, of the courts of their respective states. Whatever may be the administration of justice in any of the state courts, yet they are not sufficient in a national view, if foreigners or citizens of other states have not a confidence in them. The declarations of gentlemen, therefore, in commendation of the courts of their own state, cannot, in the present case, abolish the point in their favor, unless it is also shown that equally favorable opinions of them are entertained by persons who live without the state. But why are some gentlemen so zealous for state courts, to the destruction of the courts of the union? Shall we be told, that such is the will of the people? While I speak, sir, of the people in this manner, I mean Virginia. Why should that particular state have a predominant influence for governing the union? And why should a zeal against the federal courts be particularly manifested from that quarter? Is it apprehended, if these courts should continue and become objects of general

approbation, that the effect may be incompatible with some part of their policy? Is it apprehended, that there may eventually be issued from the federal courts, a process which will seriously affect some of their baronial estates?
It would be too much for this cause, to abolish a system which is so evidently formed for the conventional administration of justice.
As a further reason for repealing the act in question, it has been contended, that some of its provisions are unconstitutional. This, however, if true, does not require you to repeal the whole of an act, containing a variety of distinct provisions; although it might be a sufficient reason for amending the act so as to remove from your statute book, such parts as are judged to be not agreeable to the constitution. A single provision, which may be thought exceptionable, does not necessarily contaminate the whole of a system. Gentlemen have spoken as if the act in question had inflicted a wound on the constitution. But will you, to cure a supposed wound, employ the guillotine?
A gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) has charged the act with being unconstitutional, because it authorized the supreme court to issue writs of mandamus. He founds his charge on the idea, that the jurisdiction of the supreme court is appellate, and that the writ of mandamus must issue from a court of original jurisdiction. Will the gentleman say, that it is legally correct to call the mandamus an original writ? Will he state what is the nature of the writ of mandamus? It is essentially appellate. It is in the nature of an appeal to a superior tribunal for redress, in cases where it is alleged that justice has not been done by a subordinate tribunal or officer. There is no novelty, in allowing to the supreme court the power of issuing writs of mandamus. A provision to this effect is found in the thirteenth section of the original judicial act, passed in 1789. Applications have been repeatedly made to the supreme court for such writs. Allow me to state one of them. It was founded on an act of congress respecting invalids, passed in 1792. That act referred it to the judges holding the several circuit courts, to examine the claims to invalid pensions, and to certify the result, with their opinion in each case, to the secretary at war, who was accordingly to place the names of such applicants on the pension list, except in any case where he should have cause to suspect imposition, or mistake. The judges as such did not think the act constitutionally obligatory upon them; but, in several circuits, they agreed to consider themselves as commissioners designated by the act, and, under this character, proceeded to examine the claims. The result, when in favor of a claimant, was certified to the secretary of war. There were questions, however, respecting the whole business; a further act relative to invalids was passed in February 1793; and the secretary did not place any of the persons, whose claims had been allowed by the judges, on the list of pensioners. It was for the purpose of having the names of one of these claimants placed on the pension list, that an application was made to the supreme court. In behalf of the claimant, Mr. Edmund of Connecticut moved for a mandamus. The motion was made in February term 1794. I have an extract from the minutes of the supreme court, certified by the clerk of the court.
Wednesday, 5th February, 1794.
Present, The honorable John Jay, chief justice; William Cushing, James Wilson, John Blair, and William Patterson, Associate Justices.
M c Edmund, of counsel for John Chandler, a citizen of the state of Connecticut, this day moved for a mandamus to the secretary of war, for the purpose of directing him to cause the said John Chandler to be put on the pension list of the U. States as an invalid pensioner, conformably to the order and adjudication of the honorable James Iredell and Richard Law, esquires, judges of the circuit court of the United States.
The court informed Mr. Edmund, that when the trial of the cause now before the court should be finished, they would hear him in support of his motion.
Friday 7th February, 1794.
The court proceeded to hear Mr. Edmund on the subject of his motion and, on the 5th instant, and agreed to hold the same under advisement.
Thursday 13th February, 1794.
The court proceeded to hear argument of counsel on the motion of Mr. Edmund, for a mandamus to the secretary of war, made on Wednesday the 5th instant.
Friday, 14th February, 1794.
The court having taken into consideration the motion of Mr. Edmund of the 5th instant, and having considered the two acts of congress relating to the same, are of opinion, that a mandamus cannot issue, to the secretary of war, for the purpose expressed in said motion.
There does not appear to have been any question respecting the general power of the supreme court, to issue a mandamus to the secretary of war, or any other subordinate officer. The thirteenth section of the original judicial act expressly gave the "power to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principle and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding offices under the authority of the United States." And the motion for a mandamus was a regular mode for obtaining a decision of the supreme court, respecting the validity of a claim to a pension in the case stated. The decision was against the claim. Of course, a mandamus could not issue for the purpose expressed in the motion.
When such has been the unquestioned usage heretofore, is it not extraordinary that there has not been prudence enough to say less about the case of Marbury against the Secretary of State. In this case, however, no writ of mandamus has been issued; although there has been a preparatory process of an inferior nature. On motion of Mr. Marbury, at the last term of the supreme court, a rule was made, for the present Secretary of State, to show cause why a mandamus should not be awarded to him for the delivery of a commission which was claimed by Mr. Marbury, as a justice of the peace in the district of Columbia. This was but a regular notice, to the secretary, of the application which had been made to the court. It no cause is shown, the next process is not a peremptory mandamus. For there are two writs of mandamus, which are issued in succession; the first being in the alternative, to do this, or signify reason to the contrary; and then, if no sufficient reason is signified, a peremptory writ may issue. But in the present case, neither of these writs have been awarded. By a rule to show cause the court has required, that notice shall be given of the purpose for which Mr. Marbury has made his appeal to them. This was not a mandate sent into the executive cabinet, as has been represented. I have a certified copy of the rule of court, comprehending a statement of the principal allegations as they appeared in evidence. It does not make any mention whatever of the present President of the United States. But that a secretary of state is amenable to a writ of mandamus from the supreme court, is a position clearly warranted by principle and precedent. A secretary of war, under a former administration, was not supposed to be exempted above the reach of such a process. He did not consider himself degraded by being called upon in this form where a question of right was to be decided, and a specific relief was the object. Is there any thing, in a case like this, to make a difference between a former Secretary of War, and the present Secretary of State? What are the facts respecting the application of Mr. Marbury? Several of them are stated in the rule of court, which has been published in a variety of papers. Mr. Marbury had been, with the advice & consent of the senate, appointed & commissioned, by the late President of the U. States, as he fully believed to be a magistrate for the county of Washington in this district; and he applied to the Secretary of State for the commission. On principles of ordinary courtesy it would not have been expected, but it appears to have been the last, and the secretary of state was so far from delivering the commission, that he did not even answer the enquiry of Mr. Marbury, when he requested to be informed whether the commission for him was signed by the late President, and sealed with the seal of the United States.
There are some other circumstances which do not appear on the face of the rule to show cause; although they are mentioned in the affidavits, of which I have certified copies. After mentioning the demand of the commission, it is stated in one affidavit, "that when the demand was made upon the secretary of state, he referred to his chief clerk, who answered, that the commission was not in the office, and had been delivered to Mr. Lincoln, the attorney-general."
From another affidavit it appears, that Mr. Marbury "applied to Jacob Wagner, chief clerk in the department of state, for an affidavit respecting the commission being sealed with the seal of the United States, and that the said Jacob Wagner declined making a voluntary affidavit, alleging that he did not conceive himself at liberty to make such an affidavit in consequence of his official relation."
The chief clerk has undoubtedly conducted as became his peculiar situation. It was to be expected that he would consult the secretary of state on the subject. Whatever personal civility might be agreeable to the disposition of Mr. Wagner, it was not proper for him, in a case so circumstanced, voluntarily to contravene the instructions of the head of the department.
[Mr. Dana to be continued.]
Lots for Sale
Or to Let on Ground-Rent. THE Subscriber offers to sell or to lease one hundred Lots, advantageously situated; some in the vicinity of the Capitol, and others near the Navy Yard; for cash, credit or wet or dry goods. WILLIAM FROUT. Washington City, April 5, 1802.
WASHINGTON CITY.
Monday, June 21, 1802.
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States of America, To all whom it may concern:—
The Citizen Satin, having produced to me his commission, I do hereby recognize him as commissary of Commercial Relations of the French Republic for the state of Georgia, to reside at Savannah, and declare him free to exercise such functions, powers and privileges, as are allowed to similar agents of the most favored nations.
In Testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.
GIVEN under my hand at the City of Washington, the fifteenth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twenty-sixth.
TH: JEFFERSON. By the President, JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State.
Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States of America, To all whom it may concern:—
The Citizen Joseph Marie Lequinio Kerblay, having produced to me his commission, I do hereby recognize him as Commissary of Commercial Relations of the French Republic for the state of Rhode Island, to reside at Newport, and declare him free to exercise such functions, powers and privileges, as are allowed to similar agents of the most favored nations.
In Testimony whereof I have caused these letters to be made patent and the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.
GIVEN under my hand at the City of Washington, the fifteenth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twenty-sixth.
TH: JEFFERSON, By the President, JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State.
On the 17th arrived at Baltimore, the sloop of war Courier, capt. Mountfort, a French national ship, from L' Orient, which place she left on the 28th of April; the commander arrived in this city yesterday.
We learn that the object of this vessel's coming here was to apprise admiral Villaret of his being appointed governor of Martinique, with directions to repair to Guadalupe and remain there till Martinique should be surrendered. The Courier brings no news from France.
DIED—On the 4th inst. in Brunswick county, Virginia, the Wife of Thomas Claiborne, Esq. member of Congress. This lady was exemplary in all the christian, connubial, maternal, and moral duties; and left a character highly venerated and beloved.
The Senate of Massachusetts have concurred with the House, in the Ref. lve, appropriating 20,000 dollars for erecting a Statue to George Washington; with an amendment, that the Statue be of Marble and not of Bronze.
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
Mr. SMITH, In such parts of the late Definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the French Republic, as relate to the Island and order of Malta, some obscurity has resulted from the French word langue, being translated by the English word language. To illustrate the meaning of those parts it is necessary to observe, that the order of Malta (the original institution of which is sufficiently well known), consists of knights in the several catholic countries of Europe, or in those countries where catholicism still prevails in a certain degree.
The number of knights from each country is, when collectively taken, denominated the langue of that country;—for instance, the body of Maltese knights from England was called la langue Anglaise, from France, la langue Francaise; from Portugal, la langue Portugaise; and so on of the knights of other nations; so that by langue must be understood, in this case, such knights of the Maltese order as are natives of this or that country.
It is moreover, proper to observe that the order of Malta had property in the different catholic countries—in France this property was confiscated in the course of the revolution.
Should these observations be deemed worthy of a corner in the National Intelligencer; they are at your service;
some of your curious readers they may be acceptable; those who are unacquainted with these circumstances, might suppose that the Treaty prohibited hereafter the French and English languages to be spoken in the island of Malta, which is absurd.
A SUBSCRIBER. Virginia, June 10, 1802.
Among the many useful institutions of France we notice a School for Gardening, for theory and practice, under Lemoine at Paris. The subscribers to the amusements of the city of Lyons, and to the assemblies for dancing, have engaged to promote the public charities, and have received commissioners from the Council General of the administration of charities in the city. General Claude Martin, born at Lyons, who died in India, has left from his immense riches the annual sum of 10,000 francs to Lyons, for the aid of Prisoners for debt, and has added a capital of 600,000 francs to the establishment for charitable purposes.
Extract of a letter dated Hamburg, March 12th 1802, from professor Ebeling to Dr. Barton.
"The discoveries in Galvanism are pushed forward with vigour. Ritter has published a periodical paper entirely concerning this discovery. The cures made the eby, of blind and deaf persons, as also of other patients for example such as had lost the use of the muscles concerned in speech and swallowing, are astonishing. At Brunswick, the Duke has ordered a particular institution for electrical and galvanic cures. In our neighbourhood eight deaf persons (two born so) have been restored; at Jever eleven; some relapsed. I myself have likewise experienced some relief from my hard hearing, but discontinued as I could not attend regularly; but I shall begin again this spring. A brother of mine, a physician, had his very acute hearing entirely lost, by only applying for about twenty four hours, two connected pieces of zinc and silver on the mallet-process, which had been deprived of its skin by blistering."
House of Commons, April 27. Mr. John Nichols gave notice, that on Friday se'night he would move an address to his majesty, to thank him for having removed the right hon. William Pitt from his council.
April 28. Lord Belgrave said that, understanding an honorable gentleman had given notice of a motion for Friday se'night, to censure the conduct of his right hon. friend, Mr. Pitt, he (Lord B.) unwilling to trouble the house with two days discussion on the same subject, stated his intention to move on the same day.
"That the House should declare their approbation of the administration of his honorable friend."
From the INDEPENDENT CHRONICLE.
An extract of a letter, dated London, May 1, 1802, say:—"I congratulate you on the repeal of the late extraordinary and oppressive law, varying the judiciary system, passed in the last Congress. Every person of discernment say, at the time this law was enacted, that it was nothing more than a mere political trick, to embarrass your new administration. But what will not a dangerous ambition attempt, to secure the continuance of its power and influence?—Your constitution and government never could have acquired its appropriate stability, if a discomfited faction, in the last moments of its political existence, could be permitted to protract that influence against the public scale, by interfering with establishments which should always be held sacred by every party. The moment the courts of justice become the instruments of a ruling faction, what becomes of their impartiality? Where is their independence? I will venture to say, that such an act of violence never will be perpetrated a second time, against the Spirit and even letter of your constitution, now the authority of the law is re-established by this precedent, to be paramount, not only to judicial decisions, which are often arbitrary and cruel, but even over the persons who form your courts."
"A judicial aristocracy of all others would be the very worst, for it would poison the fountains of truth itself, by infusing its own passions and a sense of its own interests in them, instead of its being regulated by that stern, unrelenting and impartial justice, which ought to govern every court of judicature in a free country. It has given me great anxiety, who, you know, have always taken a deep share in every thing that concerns your country, to find many of your state, and even federal judges, in the paroxysm of your late delusion, iterating through their courts, and conversing the holy seat of law, reason and equity, into a rostrum, from which they could harangue the populace, under the artful pretence of instructing a grand jury; and excite an alarming fanaticism among them, under the cover of legal authority. Even here nothing of this kind has lately happened; I must therefore attribute such dreadful excesses to the early, unpolished nature of your government, before your habits are fixed by time and experience."
"Of all the calamities which can afflict a people willing to be free, that of a judge becoming a violent partisan, is the most to be deprecated. I dare say, under the wise and virtuous administration of Mr. Jefferson, a law will be passed regulating these occasional addresses to the passions of the multitude, and obliging the judges to keep within the bounds of their duty, instead of wandering at large, over the widely extended field of existing political differences, in which there are so many thorns and so few flowers."
"At present I hope every thing and fear but little. I have had a most excited idea of the habitual good sense of your countrymen, who appear to have acted, on the whole, from the first settlement of New England, under all circumstances in a manner superior to any example that as yet has been exhibited, as far as I know, in the whole course of human affairs; and I firmly rely, that this important part of the union, which was the first to assert the rights and liberties of men, will be the last to desert that sacred cause."
"I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject, but the things I have long had on your account, will, I am sensible, serve as an apology for this intrusion on your patience."
To Rent.
A THREE story brick house on Pennsylvania Avenue, west of the seven buildings, to which may be had the 25th inst. For further particulars enquire of BENEDICT ELIASON, Lindenbourg; or Samuel McIntire, near the premises. June 21, 1802.
Ten Cents Reward.
RANAWAY from the subscriber, living in the City of Washington, on the 10th of April last, an apprentice lad, named William Jones, about fifteen years of age, bound to the Cabinet and Chair Business. Whoever will secure the said boy to that the subscriber get him again shall receive the above reward, and no charges paid, by WM. WORTHINGTON, Ten. June 21, 1802.
For Sale.
A two story frame House, nearly finished, situate and fronting on south N street on sq. 700, adjoining the premises of Mr. R. Fraser.
THE house is twenty five feet front, fifteen feet deep, a parlor and passage below, stairs in the passage, the lower story ready for plastering; the materials on the house. The second story nearly ready. The house occupies the whole of the front and runs back ninety five feet to a twenty feet alley, under a lease of ninety nine years, renewable forever. Should the above property not be sold by private contract before the 28th day of July, it will then be offered at public sale. For further information enquire of Mr. Thomas Herty, or James Vanland, New Jersey Avenue. June 23, 1802.
NOTICE.
THERE will be sold at public sale, for cash, on the 17th day of July next, at the dwelling of Richard Lamar, Prince George county, Maryland, four Negroes, viz one woman, two boys and a girl, the property of Mary Lamar, deceased, of said county, by me J. LAMAR, Adm r . June 18, 1802.
District of Columbia, County of Washington.
By the Orphan's Court June 8, 1802. JOHN A. BURFORD and Hugh Denney, having applied for letters of administration on the estate of William Clarke, late of the late President, Esq. deceased, it is ordered, That they give notice of their application by inserting a copy of this order once a week for four successive weeks, in the National Intelligencer, and that letters issue to them, unless cause to the contrary be shown on or before the 14th day of July next.
John Hewit, Reg l June 16, 1802.
CHARLES VARDEN,
Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia, GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and states himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of, Best superfine cloths, Cassimeres, Swansdown, Turkey Carpets, Velvets, Fancy Cards, Coatings, Flannels, &c.
N. B. Regimentals, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies Habits, made in the neatest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice—Washington City, New Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Rapine's book store. Dec. 16, 1801.
TO RENT,
And possession given immediately, A TWO STORY brick house on F street near the War Office, containing two parlors, six bed rooms, and a kitchen, with an excellent garden, coach house, stable, &c. The house is newly painted and papered was formerly occupied by Mr. Dexter, lately by Mr. John Brown. Enquire of Clement Dorsey, Esq. George-Town or of the subscriber, who has for sale a well finished three story brick house opposite the six buildings, and a variety of City Lots in one eligible situation. The above House will be sold for less than any gentleman could build it. The payments will be made only on the whole of the above property. WILLIAM DYER. April 2, 1802.
WILLIAM DYER.
Building materials will be taken in part payment. W. D.

PROPOSALS
For carrying the Mails of the United States on the following Post Roads, will be received at the General Post Office in Washington City, until the 12th day of July next, inclusive.
48. From Sandwich by Falmouth, and Holmes' hole to Edgartown once a week. Leave Sandwich every Wednesday at noon, and arrive at Edgartown on Thursday by 1 P M. Leave Edgartown every Thursday at 4 P M, and arrive at Sandwich on Wednesday by 10 A M.
49. From Providence, R. I. by North Providence and Cumberland, R. I. by Mendon, Upton, Grafton, Worcester, Holden, Rutland, Barre, Petersham, New Salem, Wendell and Northfield, Mass. to Brattleboro' Vert. once a week. Leave Providence every Tuesday at 9 A M, and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 9 A M. Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 3 P M, and arrive at Providence the next Monday by 3 P M.
50. From Brookfield by Ware, Belchertown, Granby, South Hadley, Northampton, Chesterfield, Worthington, Pitsfield, Dalton, Pittsfield, Hancock, and New Lebanon, N. Y. to Albany twice a week. Leave Brookfield every Monday and Thursday at 9 A M, and arrive at Northampton by 3 P M. Leave Northampton on Tuesday and Friday at 5 A M, and arrive at Pittsfield by 1 P M, and at Albany on Wednesday and Saturday by 3 P M. Returning—Leave Albany every Tuesday and Friday at 9 A M, arrive at Pittsfield by 3 P M, leave Pittsfield on Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A M, and arrive at Northampton by 8 P M. Leave Northampton on Monday and Thursday at 4 A M, and arrive at Brookfield by 4 P M.
51. From Bennington, Vt. by Pownall, Vt. Williamstown, Mass. Alford, Lanesboro', Pittsfield, Lenox, Stockbridge, Great Barrington, Sheffield, Sandbury, C. Sharon, C. Kent, C. Dover, N. Y. S. East, N. Y. S. Sal, N. Y. N. Bedford, N. Y. North-Castle, N. Y. and White Plains, N. Y. to New Rochelle, N. Y. once a week. Leave Bennington every Wednesday at 6 A M, and arrive at Stockbridge by 7 P M. Leave Stockbridge on Thursday at 6 A M, arrive at Sheffield by 10 A M, at Sharon by 3 P M, and at New Rochelle the next Saturday by 5 P M. Returning—Leave New Rochelle every Saturday at 6 P M, arrive at Bedford on Sunday by noon, leave Bedford at 1 P M, and arrive at Sharon on Tuesday by 4 P M. Leave Sharon at 5 P M, and arrive at Sheffield on Wednesday by 10 A M, and at Stockbridge by 4 P M. Leave Stockbridge every Thursday at 6 A M, and arrive at Bennington same day by 7 P M.
52. From Springfield by West Springfield, Westfield, Enfield, Blandford, Ludlow, Bethel, Tynningham, Stockbridge and West Stockbridge to Kinderhook, N. Y. once a week. Leave Springfield every Thursday at 5 A M, and arrive at Kinderhook on Friday by 6 P M. Leave Kinderhook on Saturday at 6 A M, and arrive at Stockbridge by 4 P M. Leave Stockbridge on Tuesday at 4 P M, and arrive at Springfield on Wednesday by 5 P M.
IN RHODE ISLAND.
53. From Providence by Barrington, Warren and Bristol, to Newport three times a week. Leave Providence every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, at 7 A M, and arrive at Newport by 4 P M. Leave Newport every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 8 A M and arrive at Providence by 4 P M.
54. From Providence by Pawtuxet, Warwick, East Greenwich, Little It & Wickford to Towerhill, once a week. Leave Providence every Friday, at 4 A M and arrive at Towerhill, by 11 A M. Leave Towerhill every Friday, at 2 P M and arrive at Providence on Saturday by 8 A M.
55. From Newport by Towerhill, Charlestown, Westerly, Stonington, C. and Groton to New-London, C. twice a week, May 1 to Nov. 1. Leave Newport every Thursday and Tuesday at 10 A M and arrive at New-London on Friday and Wednesday, by 3 P M. Returning—Leave New-London every Tuesday and Thursday, at 9 A M and arrive at Newport on Wednesday and Friday by noon. Nov. 1 to May 1. Leave Newport every Wednesday and Monday, at 10 A M and arrive at New-London on Thursday and Tuesday, by 6 P M. Returning—Leave New-London every Monday and Friday at 4 A M and arrive at Newport on Tuesday and Saturday by 10 A M.
56. From Providence by Patuxet Falls and Rehoboth to Taunton once a week. Leave Taunton every Monday at 10 A M, and arrive at Providence, by 3 P M. Leave Providence every Tuesday at 5 A M and arrive at Taunton by 10 A M.
IN CONNECTICUT.
57. From Hartford by East-Hartford, Hebron, Lebanon, Windham and Lebanon to Norwich twice a week. Leave Hartford every Tuesday and Friday, at 5 A M and arrive at Norwich, by 6 P M. Leave Norwich every Monday & Thursday at 6 A M and arrive at Hartford by 6 P M.
IN CONNECTICUT.
58. From Hartford by Middletown,
Haddam, East-Haddam, Colchester and Montville to New-London, once a week. Leave Hartford every Thursday at 1 P M, and arrive at New-London on Friday by 7 P M. Leave New-London every Saturday at 11 A M, and arrive at Hartford on Monday by 7 P M.
59. From Hartford by West-Simsbury, New-Hartford, Winsted, Norfolk, Canaan, Sheffield, Housatonic and Claverack to Hudson once a week. Leave Hartford every Thursday at 8 A M, and arrive at Hudson on Saturday by 10 A M. Leave Hudson every Saturday at 2 P M and arrive at Hartford the next Monday by 7 P M.
60. From Hartford by Farmington, Bristol, Harwinton, Litchfield, Washington, New-Milford, Brookfield, Danbury, Ridgefield, Salem, N. Y. and Bedford to New-York city once a week. Leave Hartford every Tuesday at 2 P M, arrive at Litchfield on Wednesday at 9 A M, at New-Milford by 3 P M, and at New-York on Friday at 11 A M. Returning—Leave New-York every Friday at 6 P M, arrive at New-Milford on Monday by 9 A M, at Litchfield by 3 P M, and at Hartford by 11 A M.
61. From Litchfield by Cornwall and Sharon to Poughkeepsie, N. Y. once a week. Leave Litchfield every Wednesday at 2 P M, arrive at Sharon by 7 P M, and arrive at Poughkeepsie on Thursday by 6 P M. Returning—Leave Poughkeepsie every Friday at 6 A M, arrive at Sharon by 6 P M, and at Litchfield on Monday by 9 A M.
62. From New-Haven by Derby, Southbury, Woodbury, Bethlem, Litchfield, Goshen, Canaan to Sheffield, once a week. Leave New-Haven every Tuesday noon, & arrive at Litchfield on Wednesday by 11 A M. Leave Litchfield at 2 P M, & arrive at Sheffield on Thursday by 9 A M. Returning—Leave Sheffield every Thursday at 11 A M, arrive at Litchfield by 3 P M. Leave Litchfield on Monday at 11 A M, and arrive at New-Haven on Tuesday by 10 A M.
63. From Fairfield, Bridgeport, Trumbull, Huntington, Newtown and Brookfield to New-Milford, once a week. Leave Fairfield every Wednesday at noon & arrive at New-Milford on Thursday by 3 P M. Leave New-Milford every Friday at 9 A M, and arrive at Fairfield on Saturday by 8 A M.
64. From New-Haven by Milford, Stratford, Bridgeport, Fairfield, Norwalk, Stamford, New-Rochelle, N. Y. to New-York city, three times a week, May 1 to Nov. 1. Leave New-Haven every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 3 P M, and arrive at New-York city on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday by 10 A M. Returning—Leave New-York city every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 10 A M, and arrive at New-Haven on Wednesday, Friday and Monday by 5 A M, waiting one hour at Stamford. Nov. 1 to May 1. Leave New-Haven every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 1 P M, and arrive at New-York on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday by 11 A M. Returning—Leave New-York every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 11 A M, and arrive at New-Haven on Wednesday, Friday and Monday by 3 P M, waiting one hour at Stamford.
IN NEW-YORK.
65. From New-York by Bergen N. J. Hackinack, Paramus, New-Artem, N. Y. Chester, Goshen, Wardouridge, Shawangunk and New-Paltz to Kingston once a week. Leave New-York every Friday at 6 A M and arrive at Goshen on Saturday by 6 P M. Leave Goshen at 7 P M and arrive at Kingston on Sunday by 7 P M. Returning—Leave Kingston every Monday at 6 A M and arrive at Goshen by 7 P M. Leave Goshen on Tuesday by 6 A M and arrive at New-York on Wednesday by 6 P M.
66. From Fishkill to Newburg twice a week. Leave Newburg every Tuesday and Friday at 2 P M and arrive at Fishkill at 4 P M. Leave Fishkill every Tuesday and Friday at half past 4 P M and arrive at Newburg by 6 P M.
67. From Newburg by New Windsor, Goshen, Warwick, Hamburg, Newtown, Johnsonburg, Hopewell, Belvidere and Easton, to Bethlehem, Pa. once a week. Leave Newburg every Monday at 1 P M and arrive at Warwick on Tuesday by 7 A M and at Newtown on Wednesday by 9 A M and at Bethlehem at 2 P M. Returning—Leave Bethlehem every Thursday at 4 P M and arrive at Easton by 7 P M. Leave Easton on Friday at 4 A M, arrive at Newtown by 7 P M and at Newburg on Saturday by 9 P M.
68. From Rhinebeck to Kingston twice a week. Leave Rhinebeck every Monday and Friday at 11 A M and arrive at Kingston by 1 P M. Leave Kingston every Monday and Friday at 8 A M and arrive at Rhinebeck by 10 A M.
69. From Hudson to Catskill twice a week. Leave Hudson every Monday & Friday at 3 P M and arrive at Catskill by 5 P M. Leave Catskill every Monday and Friday at 8 A M and arrive at Hudson by 10 A M.
70. From Catskill by Freehold, New Durham, Bloemfield, Head of Delaware, Harpersfield, Kaaterskill, Meredith, Franklin and Oquaga to Union, and from Union by Windham, Walton, Delhi, Head
of Delaware, and the same route thence to Catskill once a week. Leave Catskill every Monday at 8 P M and arrive at Union the next Thursday by 6 P M. Leave Union on Friday at 6 A M and return to Catskill the next Monday by 7 A M.
71. From Albany by Troy to Lansingburg six times a week. Leave Lansingburg every day Sunday except at 9 A M and arrive at Albany by 11 A M. Leave Albany at 4 P M and arrive at Lansingburg same day by 6 P M.
72. From Lansingburg by Yates's, Cambridge, Salem, Hebron, Granville, Hampton and Poulitney Vt. to Fairhaven Vt. once a week. Leave Lansingburg every Friday at 8 A M and arrive at Salem on Saturday by 10 A M. Leave Salem at 11 A M and arrive at Fairhaven on Monday by 10 A M. Returning—Leave Fairhaven every Monday at 2 P M, arrive at Salem on Tuesday by 10 A M. Leave Salem on Wednesday at 6 A M and arrive at Lansingburg on Thursday by 3 P M.
73. From Lansingburg by Waterford, Stillwater, Westfield, Fort Miller, Fort Edward, Sandyhill, Kingsbury, Fort Ann and Whitehall to Fairhaven once a week. Leave Lansingburg every Saturday at 8 A M and arrive at Sandyhill on Sunday by 8 A M and arrive at Fairhaven on Monday by 10 A M. Returning—Leave Fairhaven every Thursday at 6 A M and arrive at Sandyhill by 4 P M and at Lansingburg on Friday by 6 P M.
74. From Albany by Schenectady, Tripp's Hill, Conesjohary, Herkimer, Utica and Whitestown to Rome twice a week. Leave Albany every Monday & Thursday at 2 P M and arrive at Schenectady by 6 P M. Leave Schenectady on Tuesday and Friday at 6 A M and arrive at Conesjohary by 6 P M. Leave Conesjohary every Wednesday and Saturday at 6 A M and arrive at Utica by 6 P M. Leave Utica every Sunday and Thursday at 6 A M and arrive at Rome by 11 A M. Returning—Leave Rome every Sunday and Thursday at 2 P M and arrive at Utica by 5 P M. Leave Utica on Tuesday and Friday at 6 A M and arrive at Conesjohary by 6 P M. Leave Conesjohary every Wednesday and Saturday at 6 A M and arrive at Schenectady by 6 P M. Leave Schenectady every Monday and Thursday at 5 A M and arrive at Albany by noon.
75. From Utica by New Hartford, Westmoreland, Oneida, Manlius, Onondaga, Marcellus, Aurelius, Gayuga & Geneva to Canandaigua, once a week. Leave Utica every Thursday at 6 A M and arrive at Oneida by 2 P M and arrive at Manlius by 7 P M. Leave Manlius on Friday at 5 A M and arrive at Canandaigua on Saturday by 9 A M and at Canandaigua by 6 P M. Returning—Leave Canandaigua every Monday at 6 A M and arrive at Utica the next Wednesday by 6 P M.
76. From Canandaigua by Harnady to Niagara once a week. Leave Canandaigua every Monday at 6 A M and arrive at Niagara the next Thursday by 9 A M. Leave Niagara every Thursday by 3 P M and arrive at Canandaigua the next Monday by 6 P M.
77. From Canandaigua to Scipio once a week. Leave Canandaigua every Saturday at 11 A M and arrive at Scipio by 2 P M. Leave Scipio at 4 P M and arrive at Canandaigua by 7 P M.
78. From Oneida to Canaan once a week. Leave Oneida every Thursday at 3 P M and arrive at Canaan by 7 P M. Leave Canaan every Friday at 6 A M and arrive at Oneida by 10 A M.
79. From Utica by New-Harford, Paris, Hamilton and Sherburne to Oxford once a week. Leave Utica every Monday at 6 A M and arrive at Oxford on Tuesday by 6 P M. Leave Oxford every Wednesday by 6 A M and arrive at Utica on Thursday by 6 P M.
80. From Conesjohary by Cherry Valley, Cooperstown, Butternuts, Oxford, Union and Owego to Athens Pa. once a week. Leave Conesjohary every Sunday at 1 P M and arrive at Oxford on Tuesday by 10 A M and at Union on Wednesday by 10 A M. Leave Union same day at 11 A M, and arrive at Athens by 7 P M. Returning—Leave Athens every Thursday at 5 A M, and arrive at Conesjohary the next Sunday by 11 A M.
81. From Athens Pa. by Chemung N. Y. Newtown, Painted Post, Bath, Jerusalem, and Potterstown to Canandaigua once a week. Leave Athens every Thursday at 6 A M, and arrive at Canandaigua every Monday by 7 P M. Leave Canandaigua every Monday at 5 A M, and arrive at Athens on Wednesday by 7 P M.
82. From Cooperstown by Burlington, Brookfield, Sherburne, Dwyer, Fabius, Tully, and Samsonus to Scipio, once a week. Leave Cooperstown every Tuesday at 6 A M, and arrive at Scipio on Thursday by 6 P M. Leave Scipio every Friday at 6 A M, and arrive at Cooperstown on Sunday by 6 P M.
83. From Tripp's Hill to Johnston twice a week. Leave Tripp's Hill every Tuesday and Friday at 3 P M, and arrive at Johnston by 4 P M. Leave Johnston every Tuesday and Friday at 5 P M, and arrive at Tripp's Hill by 6 P M.
84. From Schenectady by Ballstown Springs, Saratoga Springs and Glensville to Sandyhill once a week. Leave Schenectady every Tuesday at 7 A M, &
arrive at Sandyhill by 7 P M. Leave Sandyhill on Wednesday at 7 A M, and arrive at Schenectady by 7 P M.
85. From Albany by Danesburg and Danlock to Cherry Valley once a week. Leave Albany every Thursday at 2 P M, and arrive at Cherry Valley on Friday by 6 P M. Leave Cherry Valley every Wednesday at 6 A M, and arrive at Albany on Thursday by 10 A M.
86. From Vergennes, Vt. by Willsboro' Peru and Plattsburg, to Champlain once a week. Leave Vergennes every Wednesday at 6 A M & arrive at Champlain on Friday by 9 A M. Leave Champlain on Sunday by 3 P M and arrive at Vergennes on Tuesday by 6 P M.
IN NEW-JERSEY.
87. From Newark by Chatham, Morristown, Boonton, Rockaway and Sparta to Newtown, and from thence, by Johnsonburg, Hackettstown, Black River, Mendon, Morristown and Chatham to Newark once a week. Leave Newark every Thursday at 8 A M, and arrive at Newtown on Friday by 6 P M. Leave Newtown every Saturday at 6 A M, and arrive at Newark the next Monday by 7 A M.
88. From Trenton by Allentown, Monmouth C. h. Shrewsbury, Middletown Point, Spottwood, New-Brunswick, Somerset C. h. Pluckemin, Raritan, New-Germantown, Pittston, Alexandria, Plumstead Pa. Flemington and Pennington to Trenton, and from Trenton by Pennington, and the same route (leaving out Plumstead) back to Trenton every week. Leave Trenton every Tuesday at 8 A M, pass by Allentown, &c. and return to Trenton the next Tuesday at 6 A M. Leave Trenton every Tuesday at 9 A M, pass by Pennington, Flemington, &c. and arrive at Plumstead and return to Trenton the next Tuesday by 6 A M.
89. From Trenton by Bordentown, Slatington, New-Mills, Mount-Holly, Moorestown, Haddonfield and Cooperstown to Philadelphia once a week. Leave Trenton every Tuesday at 9 A M, and arrive at Philadelphia on Wednesday by 11 A M. Leave Philadelphia every Wednesday at 2 P M, and arrive at Trenton the next Thursday by 3 P M.
90. From Philadelphia Pa. by Haddonfield, Taunton and Aston to Tuckerton once a week. Leave Philadelphia every Thursday at 10 A M, and arrive at Tuckerton by 3 P M. Leave Tuckerton every Tuesday at 6 A M, and arrive at Philadelphia on Wednesday by 2 P M.
91. From Philadelphia by Gloucester, Swedesboro, and Woodbury to Salem once a week. Leave Philadelphia every Wednesday at 3 P M, and arrive at Salem on Thursday by 2 P M. Leave Salem every Tuesday at 6 A M and arrive at Philadelphia on Wednesday by 7 A M.
FOR SALE,
LOOKING GLASSES & FURNITURE.
The subscriber respectfully informs the public, that he has just received from New-York various kinds of Looking-Glasses, from 5 to 50 dollars each—Alo tables, bureaus, &c. of an elegant and fashionable make. He continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of ornaments for chimney-pieces, door caps, romice pieces, metal fishes, &c. &c.
GEORGE ANDREWS.
April 14, 1802. cptr
Thomas Carpenter,
TAYLOR.
Has just received an elegant and fashionable assortment of summer goods, consisting of London superfine cloths and millinery; India, Manchester, and silk striped nankeens; cotton calimere, blear, Bengal elegant white chintz for pauloon; white and coloured martinees, jeans and fern croisés; silk gingham, black and other coloured striped silks, &c. — All which he will make up on the most reasonable terms, and in the most neat and fashionable manner—Fennelly-vania Avenue, west of the President's square.
May 24, 1802. cptr
Fifty Dollars Reward,
For apprehending and returning the following Criminals, who broke the Jail of this place and escaped therefrom on the Night of the 6th of June, 1802, viz.
DANIEL Hickey, an Irishman, stout, lally fellow, has a scar on his right arm and shoulder, is a noted villain, has broke this and Alexandria Jail twice, is about five feet 7 or 8 inches high, supposed to be about 35 or 40 years of age.
Charles Houtman, a Dutchman, is about 50 years of age, 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, has a number of scars on his back and is a lally fellow.
Thomas Naylor, born in Virginia, rendered made fellow, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, about 19 or 20 years of age.
William Pickerton, an Englishman, bred to and follows the sea, is a noted villain, is supposed to be about 35 years of age and 6 feet high.
A Negro woman named Millie, born in Virginia, stout maid, 5 feet 2 or 3 inches high, 25 or 30 years of age.
Whoever will take up and return the above named Criminals, shall have the above reward—or 10 dollars for either, if returned to ROBERT MC'LAN, Gaoler, For D. N. C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia, Washington City, June 8, 1802. 91
Advertisement.
Will be sold for ready money on the premises the 24th inst. if not sold before at private sale.
A NEGRO WOMAN about 40 years of age—Also about 600 bushels Shell Lime. As the above property is to be sold for whatever it will bring in ready money, it is expected it will go at very low.
BROHAWN & BYUS. Young's Wharf.
June 16, 1802. cpts
Summer Establishment.
MAIL PILOT.
Will, in future leave the Washington Tavern, Alexandria, every morning at 5 o'clock, and arrive at John H. Barney's, at the Columbia Inn, Georgetown, to breakfast at 7 o'clock, and then proceed on to Baltimore, where it will arrive at 5 o'clock in the evening at Mr. Peck's Columbia Inn, and remain on to Philadelphia, so that persons travelling in this line may be sure of no hindrance on their way.
Being provided with as good horses and carriages as any on the road, we solicit a share of public patronage, and confidently expect that such a favor this line of stages with their custom will find the accommodations equal, if not superior, to those provided by any others.
Returning—It leaves Baltimore every morning at 6 o'clock, and arrives at Alexandria the same evening.
Stages for Alexandria taken at Georgetown, at J. H. Barney's, Gate-office.
PETER HEINKEL, S. H. BARNET. Alexandria, June 14, 1802. cptr
Annapolis, May 4, 1802.
St. John's College.
On the 22d day of June next the trustees of St. John's College purpose to proceed to the appointment of a professor of English and Grammar in St. John's College, who shall receive for his services at the rate of 300, to be paid quarterly—Doll. 533.33.
His duty is, in conjunction with an assistant, to teach English grammatically, and the Latin grammar, the vocabulary, and composition, so as to prepare students for the schools of languages. He and his assistant are likewise to teach writing and arithmetic and the lower branches of the mathematics, if required, to each of the students as are not declined for the upper schools.
By order of the visitors and governor of St. John's College. A. G. HANSON. May 14, 1802.
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of land containing 2,500 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, late the residence of PRESLEY THORNTON, Esq. Seventeen hundred acres of which are of the most valuable kind of low grounds on the river; between three and four hundred acres heavily timbered, the remainder is wavy high and extremely productive. The soil of this tract is equal to any in the state for cultivation of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy, and small grain of all kinds. On this tract are a large commodious two story brick mansion house and two offices, a large brick stable, a valuable barn, cow house and many other out houses, all in good repair. The orchards and garden contain a variety of valuable fruit trees, and the waters abound with excellent fish and oysters. It is situated about a day's sail from Alexandria, Baltimore or Norf'k—there are two good mill seats for grain or sawmills on this estate, and plenty of cedar and chestnut timber, exclusive of the heavy timber, which it saved up into scantling will command a price in the City of Washington, nearly equal to the value of the land. The term will be made easy to the purchaser or purchasers, and the tract will be divided into two or more plantations if necessary—Apply to RICHARD PETERS, junr. No. 33, Walnut Street Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Nov. 11. cptr
Now Landing
AND FOR SALE, By the subscriber at his store in Jefferson town street, at very reduced prices, by wholesale and retail, for cash, country produce, or approved notes at 60 and 70 days.
 Leaf, lump and brown Pepper,  fugars,  Meat-fish,  Rum of different kinds,  Holland gin,  Cherry boinee,  Madeira, Sherry, Lil-  bon, and Malaga wines,  Clare in boxes—of superior quality,  French Liquor,  Hyson, Young Hyson, Imperial and Souchong teas,  Coffee,  Chocolate,  Almonds,  Raisins,  Prunes,  Fresh Lucca oil,  Capers,  Anchovies,  Olives,  Lemons,  Brown and white fowls,  Mound and dipped candles,  Starch,  Ginger,  Pimento,  And a few dozen very cheap long and short kid and fancy gloves. 
April 30, 1802. B. G. ORR. cptr
For Sale,
A VERY elegant Indian HORSE, seven years old, paces, trots, and canters, and in other respects completely broken to the bridle—For further particulars enquire of Mr. Steele on Capitol Hill, and see the horse at his livery stable. April 26, 1802. cptr