The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-04-12 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXXIII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, APRIL 12th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES;
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
Mr. GRISWOLD—Concluded.
There is another strange position which has been advocated upon this occasion, and which deserves some attention because it has been often repeated—it is that although you cannot remove the judge from the office you may remove the office from the judge. To this extraordinary assertion I answer, that the words of the constitution admit no such construction. The expression being that the judge shall hold his office during good behaviour, necessarily implies and secures a union of the office and the officer, so long as the officer shall behave well, and a removal of the office from the judge destroys as effectually this union as the removal of the judge from the office could do. Gentlemen admit that the judge cannot be removed from his office because the constitution has united the officer and the office together, and declares that this union shall remain inviolate, so long as the judge behaves well, and yet strange to tell, you may destroy this union at a stroke, by destroying the office itself. I request gentlemen to review this assertion, and to inform the committee what possible difference there can be, in effect, between removing the man from the office, and the office from the man. If constructions of this kind can be admitted, there is not a crime which was ever perpetrated by man, which cannot be justified. Sir, upon this principle, although you may not kill, by thrusting a dagger into the breast of your neighbour, yet you may compel your neighbour to kill himself by forcing him upon the dagger—you shall not murder, by destroying the life of man, but you may confine your enemy in prison, and leave him without food, to starve and to die. These may be good distinctions in the new system of philosophy, but they can never be admitted in the old school. I will not, however, consume the time of the committee by any further remarks on the extraordinary distinction which has been taken between the power of removing a judge, and that of removing an office. If such distinctions can gain credit in this committee, it is idle to attempt to repel them.
Although it is not in my power to discern any difficulty which can arise in the construction of the constitution upon this subject, yet as I am bound to imagine that some doubt does exist, because gentlemen declare so, I will now take the liberty of referring gentlemen to a source of information, from whence they may ascertain the precise effect of those words in the constitution which relate to the tenure of the office of judge. I mean the construction which was put upon the constitution, by those who framed it, and by the cotemporary writers of the day, who treated of this subject while the constitution remained before the state conventions for their adoption.
The meaning of words must, in the nature of things, be at first arbitrary, but it would be madness to admit, that the power of changing their meaning remains equally so, after they have been introduced, with a precise meaning, into a written instrument.
Fortunately for our present purpose, the tenure by which the judges of our national courts were to hold their offices was an object of too much importance to escape the critical examination of the friends and enemies of the constitution, and it is a fact no less important than true, that the construction which we contend for, was at that time, given by the writers of all parties and of all descriptions, without an exception to the contrary. Sir, the people of this country have been long attached to an independent judiciary; they draw their attachment, not only from the thing itself, but from the principle of the British government, from whence we have drawn so many of our political opinions, and from the evils actually experienced by many states under their colonial governments for the want of an independent judiciary. These circumstances will account for the critical attention which was paid to
this part of the constitution in its formation and adoption.
The extent and meaning of the terms during good behaviour have not only been ascertained by cotemporary writers, but antecedent to our constitution. The statute of England, which has been already alluded to, is one of these authorities and proves directly the converse of that which has been supposed. That statute declares that the judges of England shall hold their offices during good behaviour, providing however, that they may be removed by the king upon the joint application of the two houses of parliament. Now, Sir, no gentleman can be so ignorant as not to know, that the exception or this proviso in this statute proves the rule; it proves that the authority given to the judges to hold their offices during good behaviour would have completely placed them beyond the reach of King, Lords and Commons, so long as they behaved well, and so long as the statute continued, if the proviso had not limited the effect of the general words.
In respect to the cotemporary writers, I will first mention the author of the notes on Virginia, an authority which I presume gentlemen on the other side of the House will reject. The writer of those notes has published a constitution drawn up by himself for the state of Virginia. This form of a constitution, although never adopted by that state yet serves to prove what was in the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, the extent and meaning of the words, during good behaviour. In that constitution, Mr. Jefferson provides that the judges of the higher grades of courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour, but in the inferior courts, they shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and the existence of the courts. I ask gentlemen why this mode of expression was introduced in relation to the inferior courts? Why, Sir? But for the reason which gentlemen must be blind if they do not see; because the tenure of office during good behaviour was so broad and extensive, that the judges once in under that tenure, would hold their offices for life if they behaved well, beyond the power of the executive or legislature, to remove or destroy them, and in order to enable the legislature to remove the judge, or if gentlemen please to remove the office, and limit the effect of the general words, it became necessary to provide that the existence of the judge should only be commensurate with the court, thereby giving in effect a power to the legislature to destroy the judge by abolishing the court in which he was to act.
The periodical papers of the day under the signature of Publius , which, it is now well known were written by some of the ablest men of this or any other country, and by those who were members of the general convention, and were published for the purpose of explaining and recommending the constitution to the people of the United States before its adoption, contain the same exposition of the tenure of the office of judge and places the judge equally beyond the power of the executive and the legislature.
The decisions and legal opinions of the state judges of Virginia, upon those parts of their constitution which relate to this subject, go to the same point. The same expressions in the state constitutions themselves, & the application of that language to the question, in those states, where the legislature appoint the judges, prove that the limitation of the power of removal applies as well to the legislature as to any other department.
The debates in all the state conventions for adopting the constitution, and particularly in the convention of Virginia, in which this subject was fully explained, both by the friends and the enemies of the constitution, can leave no doubt in regard to the construction at that time given to the words which define the tenure of the office of judge.
Indeed, Sir, I challenge the gentlemen who are opposed to the construction now contended for to produce a sentence from any cotemporary writer of reputation which is opposed to the correctness of our construction. Nay, Sir, I go further, I challenge the gentlemen to produce a paragraph from a newspaper of that day, which impugns the exposition now supported. And permit me to observe that this subject was as interesting at that time as it is now, and was as well understood.
There is moreover a further authority to this point, which ought to be considered as conclusive; it is the authority of the convention itself. Upon this great question of rendering the judges independent of the other departments, it was thought by some, that they ought not to be made completely so, and a propo-
sition was brought forward in the convention to authorise the removal of the judges by the President upon the joint application of the two houses of Congress, and this proposition was deliberately rejected. Sir, it is impossible a proceeding should more clearly expound the intention of the convention, than this has done; an intention which cannot be mistaken, of placing the judges beyond the direct or indirect power of the legislature.
Sir, it is perfectly apparent that the meaning of the expressions in the constitution which relate to this subject were fixed and well understood, both by the convention and those who adopted the constitution, and I ask gentlemen, before they pass forward to a decision, to examine whether it is proper? Whether it is competent for us at this time to set at naught the constructions which were then given? Sir, where are we to stop? What security have we, that every feature of the constitution will not be defaced by some new definition of words and expressions? Our fathers and our brothers who formed and who adopted this constitution, thought they understood its provisions and its effect, but alas! They were ignorant and blind, and knew not the import of the instrument which they subscribed.
Sir, if Congress can set aside these solemn and settled constructions, there is not a provision in the constitution too sacred to escape the rapacious hand of the Legislature. A majority may hereafter say that two really means ten, and the members of this house shall hold their seats for ten instead of two years; or that four means twenty, and that the president shall continue in office for that period of time.
An independent judiciary is the great object which can be obtained by any government; on this depends the prosperity, the lives and the liberties of the people. It was the fairest feature which the constitution presented for our acceptance; strip it of this; let it be the settled construction of the constitution, by a final decision of these courts who must pronounce on your law, and I will unite with my friend from North-Carolina in declaring, that I will not heave a sigh or drop a tear for its loss forever.
Sir, if your constitution is to be blown about by every wind; if it is to be curtailed or enlarged, as the caprice or the ambition of every new man shall desire, there is no security to be derived from it. Your experience will only confirm what many sagacious men have predicted, and all wise men have feared, that a constitution upon paper can never endure; that the ingenuity of man will be continually excited to pervert its meaning; to make it a nose of wax to turn it in every direction, as the convenience of the moment, or the projects of a faction shall require. Sir, Let us not by our conduct verify these predictions; Let us not leave behind, this melancholy lesson to the world: "If we love the constitution, if we honestly wish to preserve it, we must admit of no new sophisticated expositions; we must not only support it, but we must support it in the constructions given to it, at its adoption. Sir, if you transgress these bounds you are afloat upon an ocean which has no limits; innovate but in one essential point, the constructions then given, and a few short years will prove that the rapacious hand of power will not leave a vestige of the mighty fabric."
The strong inducements which presented themselves to the convention to render the judicial power independent of the legislature, furnishes a further argument in favour of our construction, for although I admit that this argument cannot be conclusive, because it is not so much the enquiry what the constitution ought to be, as what it really is, yet if any doubt in fact hangs over the language, it is fair to ascertain the meaning by recurring to what must have been the will and intention of those who formed the instrument.
The power given to the courts to pronounce on the constitutionality of laws would be entirely defeated, in those times when the exercise of that power becomes most necessary, if the judges are not placed beyond the power of the legislature. The idea of giving this power to the courts, and at the same time of leaving the courts at the mercy of that department over which the power is to be exercised, is rather too absurd for gentlemen even in these days of extravagance, and gentlemen aware of this, have had the confidence to deny that this power resides in the courts. Sir, upon this point, it is not necessary to say, that these declarations are opposed to all former opinions and decisions. It is well known to every member of this committee, that
the right of the courts to decide on the constitutionality of your laws, has been recognized in your laws themselves; has been exercised by the courts; your laws have been pronounced unconstitutional and void, and that decision has not only been acquiesced in by the legislature, but the act itself has been removed from your code of statutes. Nor is this principle peculiar to your national government; it exists and is exercised under every state government, where the powers of the legislature have been limited by a written constitution. The principle not only exists, and results from the nature of this government, but is provided for by the terms of the constitution itself. The words declare that the constitution shall be the supreme law and the judges are not only bound to respect it as such, but have sworn to support it, and they would be guilty of perjury if they should knowingly decide for the execution of an act which the constitution did not warrant. Nor can any embarrassment result from the execution of this principle; the judges must pronounce upon your laws generally; they find two statutes in your law book which are repugnant to each other; they must decide which of the statutes shall bind; they find the law of the constitution and the law of the legislature clashing with each other; they know the first is paramount, and limits as well the power of the legislature as the power of the court, and they must decide either that the law of the constitution or the law of the legislature is void. In such a case, there is nothing left to discretion, the constitution is peremptory & commands the obedience of every department.
If this power of checking the unconstitutional acts of the legislature is necessary, where can it reside with so much propriety as in your courts? This department, from its nature, must be filled with men of learning, wisdom and moderation. It possesses none of the prerogatives which can be dangerous to public liberty. It commands neither the wealth or the force of the nation; its province is to pronounce upon the law; to declare what is right and what is wrong. And that this power ought to reside some where cannot be doubted by any man, who sincerely wishes to perpetuate our form of government.
Sir, if there is no power to check the usurpations of the legislature, the inevitable consequence must be, that the Congress of the United States becomes truly omnipotent. All power must be concentrated here, before which every department and all state authorities must fall prostrate. Admit this principle and nothing can resist the attacks of your national laws upon state sovereignties. Here is an end of your federal government. A consolidation of the states is the immediate effect, and in a few short years these sovereignties will not even retain the name.
But a further effect will result from this principle which in my opinion is still worse than that which I have described. All the authority which unlimited power can exercise must not only be concentrated in the legislature, but must ultimately fall into this house, where numbers and predominating influence must swallow up the other departments, and in this mode there must be erected a despotism as terrible as it is powerful.
It is the despotism of one hundred and six men clothed with unlimited power, & liable from its organization, to all the passions and all that fluctuation which can ever agitate a popular assembly. From such a despotism I pray God to deliver this country, and intreat gentlemen to stop in that mad career which leads inevitably to this result.
I have now gone through with the general remarks which I deemed proper to submit to the committee upon this subject, and might perhaps with propriety dispense with all further observations; but some of the arguments which have been urged in support of this measure, have not been particularly noticed; and upon an occasion so interesting as this is, I shall be excused for calling the attention of the committee to those which now occur to my recollection.
Before I enter however into a particular consideration of the arguments of gentlemen, I take the liberty of saying that gentlemen in this house, whatever may have been done in another place, have placed this question in one respect upon its true ground—they have made no distinction between the authority of the legislature over the judges of the supreme and the inferior courts. All their arguments have gone to prove that no such distinction can exist. Indeed, Sir, it is impossible to perceive the shadow of a difference. The judges both of the supreme and the inferior courts are equally creatures of the constitution,
and the mode of appointment in both cases has been regulated by law, and if you can destroy the judges of the inferior courts, by repealing the law which limited their number, and directed the mode of appointment, you may destroy the judges of the supreme court by repealing the law which limited the number and organized that court. I wish it then to be as perfectly understood in every part of this country, as it is in this house, that the principle contended for by the supporters of the bill, goes equally to the destruction of the judges of the supreme as of the inferior courts.
One argument, which has been urged in support of this bill, has been that the law of the last session, which it contemplates to repeal, was in itself unconstitutional, and for that reason ought to be repealed and removed out of the way, and a gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) has referred us to the second section of that act, as proof of this assertion, and appears to imagine that the authority given to the supreme courts to issue certain writs cannot be warranted by the constitution. Sir, without entering into an examination of the constitutional authority of the supreme court, to issue the writs which have been enumerated, I take the liberty of referring the gentleman from Kentucky to the last part of the section of which he complains—he will there find that the power of the courts to issue the writs, is confined to cases, where it becomes necessary to issue them, for the exercise of its jurisdiction, and that they shall be only issued agreeable to the principles and usages of law, and I believe that the gentleman from Kentucky himself will scarcely believe that an authority to issue writs under such limitations is not warranted by the constitution.
Gentlemen have also referred us to those parts of the law of the last session which abolishes the old circuit courts, and the district courts of Kentucky and Tennessee, and appear to imagine, that by abolishing these courts, the judges who were authorized to hold them, were destroyed. Sir, these gentlemen who have called our attention to this point, appear to have fallen into a mistake, which has been very common with gentlemen of a certain description—they have pursued a theory and overlooked the fact. What judges were destroyed by abolishing the old circuit courts, in the district courts of Kentucky and Tennessee? I enquire for the fact? Sir, gentlemen will find that no judge was destroyed by the putting down of these courts. By whom were the old circuit courts held? If gentlemen do not know, I will inform them, that those courts were held by a judge of the supreme court, and by a district judge, and gentlemen cannot be so ignorant, as not to know, that the judges of the supreme court, and the district judges, remain in office, notwithstanding their services in the circuit court have been dispensed with. Besides, those judges were never appointed or commissioned to be judges of a circuit court—they held but one commission, and that commission in the first case, is as judge of the supreme court, and in the second, as district judges; and the old law, in assigning to these judges their duties, required that they should, at stated times associate together, and hold a court, which was denominated a circuit court, and no man ever doubted the power of the legislature to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of a judge, so far as it could be done without invading his independence. The fact then, in respect to the old circuit courts, is opposed to the theory. No judge has been destroyed by the act of the last session, and in respect to the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee, the fact is precisely the same, for although the courts which these judges were authorized to hold under the old law, were dissolved with the new law, yet the judges remain as they always were, judges of the United States, under the name of district judges, and the jurisdiction which they formerly exercised, in most respects, are to be performed by associating with the circuit judge of the sixth circuit, and holding courts to be denominated circuit courts for that purpose.
The difficulty into which gentlemen have fallen, appears to arise from confounding the terms court, and judge together—they appear to suppose that these terms are synonymous, whereas no two terms can be more distinct in their significations. A court is not a judge, nor is a judge a court. A judge is a public officer clothed with judicial powers—a court is a place where justice is administered, or an assemblage of judicial officers, organized for the exercise
(Continued on last page)

more... their power... legislative... independence... removal... To this consideration... I have... a judge can only be removed... impeachment... two thirds of the members... and if the period ever should... when a majority of the... representatives should become... to go into the Senate with an... impeachment against a... two thirds of that body should... be of little importance... your courts or your judges... government which we have... can never survive the... that day, and when depravity... gained so strong a foothold... legislative department, the... body must be contaminated... of being the citizens of a... we shall be fit only to be... the constitution, by requiring... a majority of the... and two thirds of the... in an impeachment... conviction, has been... independence in ordinary... times, but it was in... to secure him against... a revolution, or the more... of total degeneracy and... corruption.
Again it is said, that the power of the legislature to vary the jurisdiction of the judges, and to create new courts, may be used to destroy their independence; and whilst we admit the existence of that power, we may as well admit all that the bill claims. Sir, I have two answers to give to this argument. The first is, that it is drawn from a supposed abuse of power, which can never be admitted in any deliberative body, because it goes to the destruction of all power, for all power may be abused, and therefore no power ought to exist. But a consideration perhaps more conclusive is, that an abuse of power in the case stated, can never take place, unless attended with circumstances so violent as to appall the integrity of any legislature. And again, the evil will in some measure correct itself. For if you diminish the jurisdiction of your old judges, and confer their important powers on new judges, who may be taken from the prevailing party, the consequence will ordinarily be, that your new judges, having obtained the object of their ambition, being removed by their independence beyond the power of their own party to remove them, will find it for their own interest to administer justice according to their best discretion, so that the principle of independence which we contend for, will in its operation correct that abuse of power, which might otherwise prove so destructive.
I have now, Mr. Chairman, noticed all the arguments which occur to me, and which have been urged in support of the present bill, and I hope I shall be pardoned, if upon this all important occasion I again turn back to the emphatic words of the constitution on which we principally rely. "The judges, both of the supreme and the inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior." If words so explicit in their meaning, in an expression so well understood by every capacity can be construed away, by the metaphysics of this day, with much more ease may we ourselves, or our successors remove, by construction, every barrier which limits the power of the legislature. It is declared in the constitution, that the ratification or introduction of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808. If this spirit of construction is admitted, how easy will it be for gentlemen to say migration or importation does not mean introduction, and that Congress may prevent the introduction although they could not prohibit the migration or importation, and in this mode the security of the states will be entirely destroyed. Acts of attainder may not be passed. But gentlemen may hereafter say, that an act to confiscate the property of an individual and to banish him to a foreign country under pain of death if he return, is no act of attainder, and within the powers of Congress. A capitation tax can only be laid by an apportionment among the states, but it may be said that a tax upon all persons able to carry arms is no capitation tax within the meaning of the constitution and may be laid without an apportionment. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation made by law, but your President may hereafter say that this does not extend to money in the hands of collectors. In fine, Sir, there is not a prohibitory clause within the constitution which may not be evaded if this spirit of construction is tolerated.
Sir, do gentlemen see the extent to which they are going? Do they see in this bill a principle which goes to prostrate all state authority, which goes to destroy every department except that of the legislature, and to concentrate all power within itself? Sir, gentlemen must pardon me when I treat them not to abandon the plain meaning of terms; if we suffer our lives to be reduced into this wide field of conjecture and
construction, your constitution will retain no more certainty than the wind; its value will become less than the paper on which it is written. I should now, Mr. Chairman, close the observations which I had to submit to the committee upon this interesting question, had not the gentlemen on the other side of the house, thought proper to involve in this debate a discussion of several topics, not necessarily connected with the subject. These topics have been urged and ably debated with a view to influence the decision of this question, and although I cannot see their application, yet I am not disposed to set up my discernment as the standard of infallibility, and shall therefore now pay due respect to the path which those gentlemen have marked out. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) as an apology for the extensive range which he has taken upon this occasion, has informed us, that the act of the last session was but a single link in one great chain of political measures, and for the purpose of understanding this particular measure, it became necessary to review the whole chain of political events.
The gentleman begins his remarks, by saying that two parties have existed in this country from the commencement of the present government; the one what the gentleman has been pleased to denominate a party of energy, and the other a party of responsibility; the first disposed to go forward with the affairs of the government with energy, as they deemed it expedient, and the other only in submission to the public will. Sir, it can be no news to the members of this committee, that two parties exist in this country, nor can gentlemen be ignorant that two parties did exist in the nation at the adoption of the constitution; the one consisting of its friends, and the other composed of its enemies; nor is it necessary for me to say how the present have grown out of these original parties. It is sufficient for my present purpose to say that the parties alluded to by the gentleman from Virginia, are characterized by prominent features, and cannot easily be mistaken. Some of these features I will describe, & leave to the decision of the committee which party really deserves best of the community. One great feature which has characterized those whom the gentleman has been pleased to denominate the party of energy, has been their strong attachment to the present constitution; and a determination not only to leave each department to the exercise of its proper functions, but to support them in it. Their opponents, to say nothing of their attachment to the constitution, have on the contrary been disposed to bring all the powers of the government into the House of Representatives, and in that way, to strip the other branches of their constitutional authorities. This was attempted some years ago in a very interesting question, which related to the British treaty. Nor although the constitution had expressly delegated the treaty making power to the President and Senate, yet the gentleman from Virginia and his friends, were determined to grasp it for the House of Representatives. Pursuing the same spirit of hostility to the other departments, the gentleman and his friends are at this time attempting to make an inroad on the judicial department; and to bring in effect, the powers of that department into this house.
Again this party of energy was disposed to establish and support public credit, in which their opponents did not agree. This party of energy was likewise determined to defend their country against the hostile attacks of the enemy, and to support the interest, the safety and honor of the nation; their opponents on the contrary were disposed to prostrate every thing that was dear to the will of the enemy. One party was disposed to build up and support, whilst the other were and still are determined to pull down and destroy. The spirit with which this determination is pursued will appear, from the allusions which have been made to the most proven measures of the former administration.
The public debt has been spoken of, and it has been charged as a crime that these solemn engagements which were the price of our independence, and for the discharge of which the national faith was pledged, have been provided for, by the old administration. Sir, are we to understand that this crime is to be ultimately atoned, by wiping out the debt with a sponge. Surely the gentleman cannot intend this, and yet I can give no other solution to the remark.
The Indian war has also been alluded to in very extraordinary language, as an event which was greedily seized to enlarge the field of executive patronage. Sir, the gentleman cannot intend to insinuate that the Indian war was excited by the administration; the causes which produced that war are too publicly known to be forgotten or misunderstood. And has it indeed, at this time, become criminal for the government to defend the inhabitants of our frontier from the attacks of the savage? The gentleman has likewise told us that the depredations upon our commerce by the Barbary powers, and by French cruisers, was made a pretext for commencing a naval establishment, and in
this way of extending this bug-bear of executive patronage. Sir, this remark gives me no surprise. I know perfectly well, that there is a party in this country who are opposed to our commerce and to our navy. I shall long recollect the depredations which were made upon our commerce by the French, and the difficulty with which gentlemen were persuaded to repeal those depredations. I cannot forget that before they would consent to our first measure of defence, that the cruisers of France were capturing your ships within the Delaware bay. It is certainly true that the old administration was neither the enemy of commerce, or of the navy; and it is as certainly true that they were equally disposed to defend your citizens against Algerine slavery, & the depredations of France. And to the merchants & seamen of this country, and the community at large, I am willing to refer the question, whether it was proper to surrender our commerce to the enemy, and give up our seamen to slavery, or defend both by an adequate naval establishment.
Gentlemen have complained of the haste with which the last judiciary act was passed; but when gentlemen indulge themselves in these suggestions, they ought to examine, whether the fact of which they complain has really existed. They ought to recollect that the journals of this house will decide this point, and that by these journals it will appear that this very law, in its principles, was under the consideration of Congress for two sessions; that the subject had for years been contemplated by the members of the legislature, and that no act of the government (unless we except the act of bankruptcy) was ever passed with more deliberation.
There was however one circumstance attending the passage of this law which in the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) cannot be excused; the law received the signature of the President whilst the House of Representatives were engaged in the late Presidential election. The gentleman has indulged himself, by saying that this obnoxious law was approved by the President whilst the House of Representatives were engaged in the election of a chief magistrate, and influenced by the violence of party, were attempting to defeat the public will. Sir, what does the gentleman from Virginia intend by these declarations? Are we to understand that the determination is now avowed on this floor, which we have heard so often repeated beyond the walls of this House, that no man but a Virginian is hereafter to become a President of the United States? And are we indeed reduced to this; that the members of this House, when exercising the sacred right of suffrage, on one of the most important occasions which can ever arise, are to be charged with attempts to defeat the public will because they would not consent to violate their consciences, in voting for a particular candidate merely because he lived on the other side of the Potomac. Sir, this language may perhaps accord with the sentiments of this meridian, but give me leave to tell the gentleman from Virginia, that it will not be relished by one part of the United States, and give me leave further to say that there are states in this Union, who will never consent, and are not doomed to become the humble provinces of Virginia.
Sir, I consider the question we are now about to decide, as more important than any which ever occupied the attention of the national legislature. The constitution has guaranteed to the people of this country an independent judiciary, but the moment the bill on your table becomes a law, that independence is gone, and your courts become the passive agents of the legislature to execute its commands. And whatever may be said on this subject, it is impossible to prevent the members of this committee and the people of the United States, from tracing this destructive measure back to the fountain from whence it has proceeded. Who recommended a revision of the act of the last session? Who sent us the document on which gentlemen have predicated so many of their arguments? Who, Sir, but the President of the United States, on whose head must fall the whole weight of responsibility for this invasion of the constitution.
Before I sit down, permit me once more to appeal to the intelligence, and to the patriotism of the members of this committee. Permit me to say that there is no middle ground between a government of laws and a government of men—that the former can only be supported by an independent judiciary, and if by the passage of this bill you destroy this only barrier, the people of the country are left at the mercy of a host of depots, whose will is law, and whose enmity is death.
Notice is hereby given, THAT the co-partnership between William Moffat and Ebenezer Nesmith, Housewrights, is this day dissolved by mutual consent. All persons indebted to the late company, are desired to make payments to Ebenezer Nesmith, and all persons who have demands will call on him for payment. WILLIAM MOFFAT, EBENEZER NESMITH. Washington, April 2. Tawjt
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1802. DEBATE ON INTERNAL TAXES continued.
The bill to repeal the Internal Taxes was read the third time. Mr. DANA said he could have wished, before the observations of the gentleman from Maryland, to have uttered a few remarks on the draft of the bill. (He here specified some amendments which in his opinion, the bill required.)
Mr. GRISWOLD moved to recommit the bill to the committee of the whole House for amendment—and stated wherein he conceived it to require amendment. Messrs. RANDOLPH, JONES, JOHNSON, and GRISWOLD, vindicated the correctness of the provisions of the bill. When the motion to recommit was taken, and lost—yeas 26.
Mr. DENNIS. Having been frequently involuntarily up on this bill, it is with reluctance that I rise again. I have to regret my absence at the time my colleague animadverted upon remarks, which had previously been made by me, or on the proceedings in the progression of the bill in which I took a part.
Mr. S. SMITH said he had made no remarks respecting his colleague in his absence.
Mr. DENNIS. I beg pardon for the mistake. My colleague, however, seems to have discovered a new argument, not derived from the general principles of the bill, but from local considerations. He conceives that Maryland pays infinitely more than her proportion of these taxes, and that it is therefore his duty to vote against their continuance. But I have frequently observed, that the only way to enquire into this subject is to compare our internal and external revenue. Had my colleague attended to this circumstance, he would have spared his remarks.
We have not documents whereon to ground a general view of the subject. But in the last year it appears there were collected of the internal taxes 72,735 dollars in Maryland, and in the whole United States 919,719 dollars. I will remark that if Maryland pays more than her proportion of the internal revenue, she pays infinitely more of the external duties; Of these last, Maryland pays more than a million, while the whole amount is only ten millions; that is she pays 1-8th part of the whole external revenue, which is greater than the proportion of 72,000 to 919,000 dollars, the sum calculated upon by the gentleman from Maryland.
I do not conceive that any accurate estimate of the sums actually paid by each state can be derived from the documents before us. I know that though a million of external duties is paid in Baltimore, yet that the whole of that sum is not paid even by the whole state of Maryland. The same is the case with the internal duties—for instance, that on rum is first paid by the merchants, who do not ultimately pay it, but throw it on the consumer. The same is the effect of the duties on refined sugar, and on sales at auction. For no duty is derived from sales at auction under an order of court. The sales, on which duties are paid, are chiefly derived from large commercial towns, and they are not paid exclusively there, but by the great body of citizens of the United States, who consume the articles sold.
In Virginia there is paid on stamps 17,000 dollars; in Maryland 23,000. Thus it appears that in Maryland, which is so much smaller than Virginia, there is paid in the first instance a greater proportion of the duties on stamps; yet I cannot suppose there is a greater proportion of this tax actually paid in Maryland than in Virginia, as I know Virginia consumes more. The document, therefore, throws no light on the subject; the whole statements of my colleague are fallacious. The internal taxes, too, are chiefly imposed upon luxuries, the consumption of which bears no proportion to population. They are taxes operating upon a particular description of citizens; in general upon the wealthy; of course where there are most wealthy citizens, the greater portion of these taxes is paid. This is particularly the case with the carriage tax.
I have before expressed my disposition to repeal the tax upon stills; not for the reason assigned by my colleague, because Maryland pays more than her legitimate proportion of this tax. I know that those who distil the most, consume the least of imported spirits. Now the tax upon domestic spirits is infinitely less than that on imported spirits. The first pays 2 cents; and the last 40 cents. The necessary consequence, then, of substituting domestic in the room of foreign spirits, is that we are liberated in that proportion from the duty on the latter. I am therefore for abandoning this tax, not because I think Maryland
pays more than her proportion of it, but because it is inconvenient in the collection, and requires a great number of officers to collect it. The real question is, whether the tax on internal articles is greater than that upon imported articles? No doubt the honorable gentleman (Gen. Smith) pays a greater tax upon internal than upon imported articles. But let the question be put to the mechanics of the country, and they will answer, retain the taxes upon all the internal articles except bills, and reduce the duties on those imported articles which are necessaries of life. Though a few wealthy individuals may pay large sums to the internal revenue, yet it will be found that 19-20ths of the citizens of Maryland pay the most on imported articles.
This comparative view, in my opinion, is the only accurate one which can be taken. I am, therefore, still under the impression that if we can dispense with part of our burdens, it is better to retain part of the Internal Taxes, excepting that on stills, and make a diminution in the duties on imported articles of the first necessity.
Mr. T. MORRIS. We are called upon to destroy at one blow all our sources of internal revenue, and to rely for the protection of the government exclusively on the external taxes. I am for two reasons against this step. In the first place I am not convinced that we can do without this revenue. It may be deemed rash in me, after the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) has declared that he has enquired into the expenditure and the savings, and is satisfied of the extent of the last, to say that I am not convinced that we can dispense with these taxes. If I had not doubted before, his style of reasoning would not have convinced me. We do not know what sum we may be obliged to pay to Great Britain under our treaty with her, nor do we know the extent of our obligation, which a large portion of our citizens think well founded to indemnify for French spoliations. Is it then proper to diminish our revenue before we have enquired into these circumstances?
But, in the second place, however well convinced I might be that we could spare these taxes, I would vote against the repeal of the taxes upon pleasurable carriages, sales at auction, refined sugar, and licenses to retailers, because they are for the most part paid by the wealthy and luxurious.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) objects to the tax upon carriages because it falls heavily upon his state; he says in Baltimore there are a great number of hacks, which are not owned by the rich. But I will ask the gentleman, who pays the hack hire, the poor or the rich? Do the poor of Baltimore ride about in hacks? The very circumstance of the existence of so great a number of hacks proves the carriage tax not to be oppressive.
The aggregate of the taxes upon carriages, brown sugar, licenses, sales at auction, and stamps is 481,000 dollars. Make a deduction of 24,000 dollars for the expenses of collection, which I am persuaded will be quite sufficient, and there remains a balance of 457,000 dollars.
If the state of the finances admitted this reduction, I would prefer lessening the burthen on other articles, which chiefly falls on the yeomanry of the country; on bohea tea, for instance, which pays 12 cents, and on brown sugar, which pays 5 cents per pound.
What are the objections made by gentlemen to our plan? They say they are for repealing the internal taxes in preference to all others, because they require a host of officers, and because they increase executive patronage, which is odious to the American people, and hostile to the genius of a free government. But I take this to be fallacious. For I cannot conceive that those who object to executive patronage are seriously adverse to it. We are to judge, not, from their professions, but actions; and when we see men of merit, over the whole union, deprived of their offices—
Mr. Nicholson called to order. Mr. Morris. If the objection derived from the alleged expense of collection be solid, it may easily be removed by turning over the collection to the Deputy Post-Master, who will consider 5 per cent. as a sufficient premium. Whence, then, the necessity of destroying a whole system, because a part of it is defective? If the number of officers, or the expense be too great, lessen them, but do not on that account destroy the system altogether.
Much has been said respecting the duty upon stamps. I will acknowledge that, when it was first laid, it was odious, because it was not then understood. I believe however that it is now a popular tax in a great part of the union; and if the house had permitted a document, for which I moved, to have been produced, it would have appeared to be a tax chiefly paid by the opulent part of the community. I believe that in my part of the country it is as popular a tax as any paid.
Gentlemen say the people are averse to the internal taxes; and in the same breath, they inform us, that if they are laid aside by this government, they will be retained in the several states. I do

know that in some of the states they are so little obnoxious, that there is a double tax, one laid by the states, and the other by the United States. This of itself is sufficient to prove that the disposition of the country is not against them.
Had gentlemen convinced me that we could dispense with the tax on stills, I would have agreed to abandon it. But they have not convinced me, and I am not, therefore, in favour of abandoning it. But if they are willing to double the tax or the other five sources of internal revenue, I will join them in taking off the duty on stills.
A strange charge is brought by gentlemen. They accuse us with courting popularity. But how long is it, since in the estimation of gentlemen it has been a crime to appeal to the sentiments of their constituents? What! if it is deemed by a part of the House that a tax should be taken off of some articles, though the majority are for taking it off of others, are we to be called bale-courters of popularity, when we address our remarks, not only to the sober sense of this House, but also to that of the people? If the charge of courting popularity apply any where, it is to the President. Was it proper in him to designate any particular tax as a fit one to be removed? I must say that this was going beyond his duty. For as all revenue systems must originate in this house, it rested with us exclusively to originate as well as decide whatever relates to revenue.
I have another objection to the repeal; should war, or any other untoward event, occur, I ask what resource is there left to which we can resort? If such untoward events should occur, we cannot resort to our taxes or articles of luxury, for the means of indulgence will be gone. We must resort to excises. It is owing to the flourishing situation of the country, that we are now enabled to tax luxuries. But when they cease to be consumed, we must resort to objects of prime necessity. I ask, then, if the situation of the country is such as to warrant this abandonment of all our internal sources? Do we not know that a formidable foreign power is to be feared on our frontier? Do we not know that a nation, not the most tranquil is to take possession of Louisiana and Florida? Are we then, in such critical circumstances, to squander away our revenues?
[Debate to be continued.]
For Sale,
A NEGRO WOMAN about 38 years of age; she is an excellent Cook, and good washer. For terms apply to the Editor. April 5, 1802. epf
Public Sale.
By Order of the Orphan's Court of Prince George County, Maryland, will be sold to the highest bidder on a credit of nine months at the dwelling house of the subscriber in the City of Washington, on Tuesday the 27th inst. at 11 o'clock A. M.—
A LITTLE PERSONAL property of Lewis Williamson deceased; consisting of different articles. The purchaser to give bond with good security for payment of the purchase money.
CATHARINE WILLIAMSON, Administratrix. Washington, April 1, 1802. raw3t
Publication.
WITH suitable encouragement may be shortly published a Tract, under the title of Republicanism Spiritualized, or the Great Salvation, rising upon the national flood.
In five Discourses: 1. The angel "sitting in the sun" 2. The "angel upon the waters" 3. The angel with "the book open in his hand" 4. The angel with the "sharp Sicle" 5. The "harvest of the earth" The mysteries of the "latter day glory" are wrapped up in the book of the Revelations of St. John; and can never be touched but through the breaking of "the seals" by him to whom the power is given. "In the days of the voice of the seventh angel when he shall begin to sound; the mystery of God shall be finished." April 7, 1802. D A.
NOTICE
In the matter of JOHN STICKNEY Bankrupt.
WHEREAS a commission of bankruptcy founded upon the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the fourth day of April 1800, entitled, "An act to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States," has been awarded and issued against John Stickney, of the City of Washington in the district of Columbia, merchant, and he has been declared a bankrupt. He is hereby required to surrender himself to the commissioners in the said commission named, or the major part of them on the 10th and 24th days of April, and the 12th of May next, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon of each day, at the house of William Rhodes, inn-keeper in the City of Washington; and make a full discovery and disclosure of his estate and effects, when and where his creditors are to come prepared to prove their debts, and at the second sitting to choose assignees, and at the last sitting the said bankrupt is required to finish his examination. All persons indebted to the said bankrupt, or who have any of his effects are not to pay or deliver the same, but to whom the commissioners shall appoint.
GWINN HARRIS, Clerk to the Commissioners. March 31, 1802. raw3w
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1802.
On Thursday last the following resolution was moved in the Senate.
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to examine and report what regulations ought to be adopted respecting the lands claimed by the United States, within the state of Tennessee.
In the course of the remarks made on that and on the ensuing day, it appeared that the state of Tennessee had recently passed a law for the disposition of lands of the United States within the limits of that state, on the idea that such lands became the property of Tennessee in virtue of her sovereignty. It was understood, that though a law of the above nature had passed, yet that no land office is yet opened.
The land above alluded to became the property of the United States in the following manner:—
The territory of which Tennessee consists, was ceded by North-Carolina, to whom it belonged, with the reservation of those lands for which warrants had been issued from the land office of that state. This territory, thus ceded, was formed into a territory of the United States, under the appellation of the South-Western Territory, under a compact which expressly vested the property of the above lands, with the mentioned reservation, in the United States. Under this compact, and of consequence under the obligation of this term, Tennessee, at a subsequent period, was admitted into the union. The land remaining, after all the warrants were satisfied, is stated to amount to about ten millions of acres.
On the adoption of the resolution, the yeas and nays were taken.—All the Senators voted for the resolution, but those of Tennessee.
FOR THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
The Editors of the Washington Federalist in their notice of the dismission of Mr. Lowndes from the post-office at Bladensburg, observe, "the post-master general is so anxious to complete the contemplated reform, that he had not appointed a successor to Mr. Lowndes when he went on the dismission." It is not true that a successor was not appointed. A gentleman in Bladensburg was appointed to succeed Mr. Lowndes, who Mr. Granger was assured would serve, and he did agree to serve, provided no other person could be got to act, equally agreeable to Mr. Granger. This gentleman received his appointment on the 18th February, and a few days afterwards waited on Mr. Lowndes and told him of his appointment, but observed, that he did not wish to serve, and asked Mr. Lowndes if he would continue, provided he declined, who appeared then much inclined to do so. Mr. Granger was informed of this, and agreed to continue Mr. Lowndes, if on his part he would agree to keep the office near the tavern. It certainly has been a strong objection to Mr. Lowndes that he resides so far from the tavern where the stages stop. It is true his store is no great distance from the tavern, but his dwelling house is at least half a mile from it. The consequence was, that the charge of the mail was confided to his young man, who was often at his meals at Mr. Lowndes's house, when the mail arrived—and the mail has been known to pass through the place unopened, in consequence thereof. It is further said, that "after the office was refused by several gentlemen, Mr. Lowndes was insulted with an offer to be continued,"—the offer was conditional, viz. that Mr. Lowndes would remove the objection to him—and if Mr. Lowndes is really so sensible of insult, why did he continue to act from the 18th February, till the 1st of April? The place was not offered to several gentlemen, on the contrary, the one first appointed and Mr. Rofs, were the only persons to whom it was offered.
Letters from Auguiline, of the 19th of March, contain information, that Paine, an Indian chief, of Lacheway, distance 70 miles from St. Auguiline, being desirous to be on the same friendly footing with the Spanish government as he and his tanned brethren formerly were, called a meeting of all the Indian chiefs of the Creek nation, who duly attended, except the chief of the Malesoake, where the noted Bowles is harboured. At this meeting it was unanimously agreed to deliver up Bowles to his Excelly H. White governor of St. Auguiline, together with all the white prisoners who were taken, and the negroes & property of every description. For this purpose Paine sent in a flag of truce to the governor, who acceded to the terms proposed by the Indians, adding that in future no Indians would be permitted to come within the settlement with their guns, tomahawks, knives, or any warlike instruments, but leave the same at the different frontier stations in Florida; that on agreeing to those terms, he would conclude a peace with them; and as soon as the prisoners and property were returned, he would give up the In-
dian prisoners now in the fort of St. Auguiline. It is expected this treaty will be immediately ratified. Lieut. Colonel John M'Queen, of the horse, bearing a commission from the King, is now out with a party of his troop, at the Musketos, to prevent further depredation of the savages, till the treaty is ratified and promulgated.— Charleston paper.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
THURSDAY, April 8, 1802.
Mr. Taliaferro reported a bill to incorporate the directors of the Columbian Library Company.
Also a bill to incorporate the inhabitants of the City of Washington.—Referred to a committee of the whole on Monday.
The house agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the naturalization bill.
Mr. Nicholson reported a bill to provide more effectually for the due application of public money, and for the accountability of persons entrusted therewith.—Referred to a committee of the whole on Monday.
FRIDAY, April 9, 1802.
The bill for admitting the North-Western Territory as a state into the union, was read the third time, and passed.
The yeas and nays were called on the passage of the bill, and were yeas 47—nays 29.
A bill to amend the judicial system of the United States was received from the Senate.
The chief alterations made from the old system consist in the holding the supreme court only once a year by four justices, and the establishment of six circuits, within each district of which circuit courts are to be held twice a year, composed of one justice of the supreme court and the judge of the district, in which said court is held.
The bill was read twice, and referred to a select committee.
The house took up the bill for the relief of Theodolus Fowler; on which a considerable debate ensued, which terminated in its being ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
Mr. RANDOLPH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, made a detailed report respecting the making appropriations for the discharge of the national debt.—Adjourned till Monday.
Norfolk, April 3.
A gentleman who came passenger in the Schooner Mary, Johnson, from Port Republican, has favored us with the following particulars:
That on the 10th March, a General action was fought at Petit Riviere, in which the Blacks were routed, but not without considerable loss on the part of the French, in which two general officers, D'Faix and Devaux, were badly wounded; on the next day a great number of Blacks were brought in prisoners, and the chiefs sent on board the admiral's ship; the others sent to the forts to labour. D'Faix's army had been routed in the neighbourhood of St. Marc, and himself wounded by a ball through the body. The commander of Leogane who murdered all the whites at that place, had been taken prisoner and brought into Port Republican.
An American Schooner, without sails, had been found between St. Marc's and the island of Gonaives, with a number of white inhabitants who had been murdered at the time St. Marc's was burnt.
An American sloop which escaped from St. Marc's, was taken on her passage to Philadelphia, by a French frigate, and Frenchmen put on board her, and ordered for Port Republican; in going up they ran her ashore, lost the sloop, but saved part of the cargo.
The mode of payment for property sold to the French at that port, is one fifth in specie, two-fifths in produce at 30 days, and the remainder in produce at 60 days, or if preferred, bills on France or Holland, at 60 days sight.
By the Schooner Good Intent, arrived yesterday, we learn, that Generals Boulet and Leclerc, have been also wounded, the former in the leg and the latter in the body.
Extracts from two Proclamations received by the Mary, Johnson, from Port Republican.
"From the present date, (10th Ventose) for the period of three months, the following articles shall be admitted into the Cape and Port Republican free of duty, viz.—Flour, Biscuit, Salt Meats, Drugs, and all kinds of Wine."
"All masters of vessels arriving at the ports of the island, shall, before landing their passengers or any articles of merchandise, report to the Port Officer, the state of the passengers, and give in a list of the cargo; no passenger to be landed without having a permit for that purpose; on sailing, a certificate of the cargo will be required from the same officer, and no passengers permitted to depart without a permit; and should it afterwards be found that the cargo on board is not corresponding, the vessels will be liable to confiscation."
Extract of a letter from a gentleman of respectability at Port Republican, to his friend in this town, dated March 1, 1802.
"The arrival of the French troops in this Island has put an entire stop to our communication with Jamaica. The moment we had the news of peace, we began to fear the storm that threatened this Island; but we painted it in fair colors, and did not perceive it in the true ones in which it has made its appearance; if we had, few would have remained to have witnessed it. The cool and determined intentions of Toussaint to destroy all the white inhabitants in the island will ever mark his name with infamy, this scene was to have taken place this day, the 1st March, had not the arrival of the French troops prevented him partly from putting it in execution; he has succeeded too far in his bloody designs.—The Cape, Gonaives, St. Marc, L'Arca Baye and Leogane, are all burnt to the ground, and nearly the whole of the white inhabitants massacred. This town was to have shared the same fate on the night of the 5th February, but fortunately the French troops entered the town that evening sooner than was expected, and pursued Toussaint's troops so closely, they had hardly time to look over their shoulders; several skirmishes took place in the town, and the most severe one was within 20 yards of the house where I was concealed in the garret; several balls passed through the shingles at a small distance from me. On the 4th of February, all the white inhabitants found in the streets, to the number of 500, were taken up and sent into the country; about 300 of them are still missing, and it is to be feared, are murdered."
Public Sale.
Will be exposed to Public Sale on the premises at 12 o'clock on Tuesday the 27th instant.
A two story brick dwelling house, situate on square No. 432, opposite the new market house, Pennsylvania Avenue, in virtue of a power in me vested by certain articles of agreement executed between me and the present proprietor, John Harrison, for building said House.
SAMUEL BAKER. April 12, 1802. epf
To Land Surveyors
And Gentlemen of Landed Property. To be sold, a THEODOLITE with vertical arch, and telescopic and plain sights, spirit level and parallel plates perfectly new and lately imported from London. To the practical surveyor or student in the mathematics the above instrument will be found a valuable acquisition. To be seen at Mr. Tunnicliff's Hotel, Capitol Hill. April 12, 1802. epf
George-Town, Port Tobacco and Leonard-Town
MAIL STAGES.
THE subscribers respectfully inform the public, that they have extended the George-Town and Port Tobacco line of stages to Leonard-Town; and that after the 1st of April next, it will leave the Indian King tavern, Geo-Town, every Monday and Friday at 7 o'clock, A. M. and Thompson's inn, Leonard-Town, every Monday & Friday morning at 4 o'clock, meet at Pyc's tavern, Port Tobacco, and return to their respective places on Tuesday and Saturdays. Fare for each passenger, with an allowance of 20lb. of baggage, from George-Town to Port Tobacco, three dollars and fifty cents, from Port Tobacco to Leonard-Town, three dollars.—Extra baggage to pay at the rate of a passenger for a 15lb. weight.—All baggage to be at the risk of the owner.
It is hoped that this undertaking will meet with the approbation and support of the public in general, and particularly the gentlemen of Leonard-Town, Port Tobacco, Pitsylvania & the neighbourhood of those places, when they are assured that there are arrangements made with the proprietors of the Baltimore, and Frederick town stages, to ensure them a passage in either without delay, by their obedient servants.
JOSEPH SEMMES. JAMES THOMPSON. April 12, 1802.
N. B. The subscriber begs leave to acquaint his friends and the public in general, and particularly the gentleman of the Northward Neck of Virginia, that he has extended the line of stages from this place as far as Ladie's Ferry, opposite Hoe's Ferry, to run twice a week, viz. leave the Ferry every Tuesday and Saturday morning and return on Monday and Friday evening.
Those gentlemen wishing to travel may depend on finding good drivers and handsome accommodations on the road from the Ferry to this place, and will always be sure of a conveyance on the days abovementioned, during all the month of April, and if sufficient encouragement offers, will be continued by their Obedient humble servant. JOSEPH SEMMES. George-town, April 12, 1802. cp3t
By order of the Orphan's Court in and for the county of Washington, district of Columbia.
Notice is hereby given.
THAT all persons having claims against Gustavus Scott, late of said county deceased, are hereby warned and required to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber at or before the first day of June next, they may otherwise by law, be excluded from all benefit of the said estate.
ELIAS B. CALDWELL, Adm'r Georgetown, March 29, 1802. raw3m
A LIST
Of Letters remaining in the Post-Office at Washington City, on the 1st day of April, 1802.
A. William O. Allen, Archibald Alexander, 2. B. James Burnes, Samuel Boots, Tarleton Bates, Joel Brown, James Boram, Enos Bronson, 3, Alexander Brodey, 2, John Barney, Wiggleworth Burditt, Jonathan Berford, Thomas Burnes, Sarah Beckett, James Barr, Joseph Boon. C. Hugh Carey, Alexander Cunningham, Captain Dan. Carmick, Captain Thomas Garberry, Matthew Carey, John Cogley, John H. Carr, Mr. Colbott, William Crafts, Rev. Mr. Cotton, Esther Carey, Overton Carr, junr. James Cammeron, Peter Colson, Col. Arthur Campbell, Thomas Collins, Jacob Chandler, William Ceglia, 2. D. Samuel Dexter, 2, Aaron Dyer, 2, Cornelius Delavan, Moufleur Dularague, Richard Dalhies, Eleanor Duvic, Isaac Davis, Aaron Dunlap, Capt. Thomas Dalton, John Deterly, Mrs. Davis. E. Rufus Ely, Griffith Evans. F. Elizabeth Fisher, Joseph Forman, John Forbes, Washington L. Finney. G. William Grindage, 3, William Guest, Ann G. Grose, James Giles, John Catcwood, junr. Edward Gobin, John Gardiner. H. Capt. Charles Hyde, 2, Col. David Henley, James Heron, John Hall, Joshua Hathaway, 2, Laurence Howard, Dr. Alexander Humphreys, Roger Humphreys, Miss Frances D. Henley, 2, David Humphreys & Co. Nicholas Heiner, William Hawkins, Capt. Gerva's Hall, Samuel Hardesty, Mrs. Hodgekin. I. Col. John Jenkins, 2, Richard Jones, Ephraim Igan, Thomas Johnson, 2. K. Patrick Kainteen, John Kern, Thomas Knapp, William King, Philip B. Key. L. Julian and Nancy Leary, Levin Lake, Betty Logan, Lewis Littlepage, Noah Linsey, James Lyon. M. George C. Morton, 3, George M c Elroy, Charles Morris, 3, Robert Morris, junr. 2, John I. May, James Magee, Jacob Mixel, Isabella M c Cashlen, John M c Cluchen, James Morris, Samuel Mickle, William Marshall, James Miles, Capt. Daniel M c Lane, 3. N. Col. Lewis Nicholas, 2, Robert H. Nichols, Charles Newbold. O. Blicker Olson, 2, Edward O'Brien, Francis I. Oliver. P. Col. Joseph Pannell, 2, David Phipps, William Pickering, Noah A. Phelps, Thomas Paxton, George W. Pollock, Isaac Patterson. R. George Rowland. S. Samuel Sheckell, George F. Stras, Joseph Shephard, John Spalding, George Speth, James Strawbridge, Edmund Scannell, Felix de St. Hilaire, William Summers, James Stevens, Michael Shanks, James Smith, A. Sinds, Mrs. Spiers, John L. Sullivan, John Witherspoon Smith, Andrew Somebody, Mrs. Delilah Stewart, 2. T. John Turner, Peggy Taylor, Capt. Thomas Tingey, Mrs. Emily Thompson, Doctor William Thorton. V. Nicholas Vols, Andrew Vanbibber. W. Major John W. Willis, Peter Williams, William Wells, 2, Lieut. John Wilson, 3, Jonah Watson, Matthew Welch, John Lambert Wilson, James Wilson, Thomas Wite, Mary Wilson, Doctor Alexander McWilliams, Brigadier General James Wilkinson. Z. Noah Zane. To be Rented, And immediate Possession given, A VERY convenient three story brick house, in a fine airy situation.—Enquire at this office. April 12, 1802. ep4w. BOLTING CLOTHS. A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF BOLTING CLOTHS Of the best qualities and latest importations, are kept for sale by OLIVER EVANS, at the corner of Market and Ninth streets, Philadelphia, and By OLIVER & EVAN EVANS, With B. JOHN and SLINGLUFF, at the corner of Market and Howard streets, Baltimore. Also, with DEAN & GARDNER, Union street, Alexandria. The book, entitled the YOUNG MILL-WRIGHT and MILLER'S GUIDE, may also be had at the above places. Jan. 29, 1802. ep4w&cp4w

(Continued from first page.) of judicial powers. The term court has a variety of significations, but never can be confined to mean a judge— a judge may be authorized to hold a particular court, but it would be absurd to say, that because his authority to hold that court was taken away, that the judge himself no longer existed. Sir, if gentlemen did not perplex themselves with unfounded theories, there would be no difficulty in this part of the subject. It is admitted by all parties that the jurisdiction of judges may be varied as often and to any extent which the legislature deem expedient, provided in doing this, you preserve, inviolable, the independence of the judge.—The legislatures may dispense with the attendance of judges in old courts, and require their attendance in new courts, at will. This, and this alone, has been done in the case under consideration, and the existence of no judge has been affected. It may be further remarked, that our judges are in a strict sense, judges of the United States, and the name which may be given to them, whether taken from the court in which they are to act, or the country in which they reside, has no connexion with their judicial powers. And being judges, by whatever name they are called, their jurisdiction may be varied, the places for holding the courts may be changed, and their associates varied, as the necessities of the country shall, in the opinion of the legislature require—keeping however always in view the substantial independence of the judge. It was on these principles that the authorities of the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee were extended. Those judges were originally confined to their respective districts, but the law of the last session required their attendance in the adjoining districts, where they were to associate with the circuit judge, and exercise the jurisdiction which had been given by law. And to compensate them for those additional services, the same law provided an increase of salary.
A further argument has been urged in favor of this claim to destroy our judges, which is founded on the following general assertion, that the power to create necessarily includes a right to destroy. In answer to this assertion, I take the liberty of saying, that it is neither true in fact, nor can it be applied, if true, to the present question. A power to create does not include a right to destroy. This may be proved, by stating a great variety of cases, but I will confine myself to the constitution, and select one or two provisions, about which there can be no dispute. The legislature have power to fix the compensation of the President, but they cannot vary it, during the term of the incumbent. The legislature have power to fix the salaries of judges, but they cannot diminish those salaries whilst the judges remain in office. The truth then is, that the right to destroy does not depend on the power of creating. In many cases the right to destroy must depend on the immutable principles of morality. In civil transactions it will often depend upon the stipulations of a contract, and in the business of legislation it will depend entirely on the nature and limitations of your government. So that the enquiry will still return, does the nature and limitation of our government give to the legislature a right to destroy the judges?
Nor could the assertion apply to the present question, if it had been true, because the judges were not created by the legislature, but by the constitution—the mode of appointment, &c. having been only left to the legislative department.
One further general assertion has been made, from whence gentlemen have thought proper to derive arguments in support of their claims. It is, "that ours is a government of responsibility, and that the departments are responsible to each other." This assertion is undoubtedly true, but the logic must be novel indeed, which can force this principle to bend to the purposes designed. The theory of our government certainly embraces the principle of responsibility, but it is precisely that responsibility which is delineated in the constitution. The members of each house of congress are responsible to their respective bodies, and may be expelled whenever two thirds of the members of that house to which the individual belongs, shall think proper to exercise the power of expulsion. The legislature itself is responsible to the judiciary department for the constitutionality of its acts, and those acts, as has been already shown, may be declared void, if they are not warranted by the constitution, and the members of the legislature are responsible to the people upon the returns of every new election.
The President himself is responsible upon an impeachment before the senate, and upon a conviction by the sentence of two thirds of that body, he may be removed from office, and he is again responsible to the electors at the end of four years.
The judges also are responsible upon impeachment, and may in the same manner be removed from office, whenever they shall be found guilty of misdemeanors by two thirds of the senate. When
we speak then of the independence of our judges, we intend only, that constitutional independence which places them above the power of any department to remove them, except upon impeachment.
Under this general scheme of responsibility one gentleman has gone so far as to say, that the judges are responsible to the legislature under the power given to appropriate money for the payment of their salaries, and if we do not like the judges or think the salaries too high, we may refuse the necessary appropriations. Sir, I will not insult the understandings of the committee by answering this argument; and I only mention it at this time, to express my astonishment, that a principle only calculated to stop the wheels of government, should at this time be renewed on the floor. If gentlemen are really determined in this form to arrogate all power to this House, it will be more manly to assume it openly and without disguise. Still however, pursuing this plan of responsibility, a gentleman from Kentucky has told us, that the judges are responsible to the people upon every new election, and whenever it shall appear by the result of the elections, that the people are opposed to the political opinions of the judges, they are, as I suppose, to be tumbled from their places, and the seats of justice are to be filled with men, whose minds will bend more easily to the will of the prevailing faction. On what page of the constitution the gentleman from Kentucky has found this alarming principle, it is impossible for me to say. I can therefore only declare, that in my judgment it is subversive of every provision in that instrument, and must convert the courts into revolutionary tribunals, and render them the mere agents of a prevailing faction to execute vengeance on their political opponents.
A further argument has been urged to prove the dependence of judges on the executive power, and that the limitation in the constitution upon the power of removal applies only to the President, drawn from a principle which exists in all monarchical governments; that principle is, that the judicial authority is only an emanation from the executive power, and a branch of it. Sir, gentlemen who have repeated this principle, appear to be insensible, that it has no application to the form of government in this country. In unlimited monarchies, it is true, that the legislative, the executive, and the judicial powers are all united in the same person. The monarch makes the Law, decides upon it, and carries it into execution. This constitutes the essence of despotism. In limited monarchies, such as that of England, the legislative power is at this time in reality separated from the executive, and although the judicial power remains still nominally united to the executive, and was so in fact, before the revolution, yet in effect the act of Parliament which renders the judges independent, has separated this department from the executive power; and in this country, pursuing the great object of rendering the three departments of government independent of each other, we have as well in our national, as state constitutions, provided that these departments should not depend upon, or be subordinate, the one to the other. The theory of our government supposes, that the department which enacts the law should neither expound it, or carry it into execution—that the department whose province it is to expand the law, should not be entrusted with its execution. By assigning to each department in this form, its distinct duties, and establishing the independence of each, in the exercise of its appropriate functions, we have attained, if the principle is preserved, more security against the power of oppression, than any nation ever enjoyed. The legislature may pass unconstitutional laws, depriving the people of rights which the constitution has guaranteed, but these laws can never be executed so long as an enlightened and independent court remains to expound them—The ambition of an unprincipled first magistrate may desire the ruin of individuals who are opposed to his ambitious projects, but the vengeance of executive power can never reach the man of virtue, so long as he is protected by the courts of his country. Gentlemen then who attempt to engraft upon our constitution the theory of monarchies ought to learn, that they do not apply to our form of government, and that the expression of the constitution which was designed to give independence to the judges, could not have been designed to guard the judges against the executive more than the legislative power. Its object was, to render the judicial a distinct department, and to leave the judges without the fear of removal, to exercise their legal and constitutional powers.
Gentlemen have likewise said, that our theory destroys itself, that whilst we are supporting the independence of the judges, we admit that they are exposed to an impeachment by one branch of the legislature before the other, on which they may be found guilty of misdemeanors and expelled from office; and that the fear of impeachment will operate
(Continued on second page)
MISS JONES,
First House west of the President's on Pennsylvania Avenue. HAS received a fresh supply of goods among which are the following articles, viz. Handmade bonnets, assorted ribbons, straw trimmings, silk and straw cords and tassels; a variety of handsome fans, guages, white and colored tiffneys, plad handkerchiefs, thread, laces, and edgings, Lady's gloves, Men's ditto, handsome flannels of various kinds, black and white laced veils, laced cloaks, black lace, and a variety of other fancy articles; which will be sold cheap. April 5, 1802. ep3t
Water Lot for Sale. A VALUABLE Lot on the Eastern Branch, midway between South Capitol street and the Eastern Branch in the Georgia Avenue. No situation can excel this in point of convenience to a wholesale merchant, being near the junction of the canal and the waters of said branch. The price will be moderate for cash if early application is made—tule indisputable. FOR SALE, upwards of 1,000 lots in the best situations in the City. Enquire of Thomas Herty Conveyancer, near the Treasury Department. April 9, 1802. 1aw3w
For Sale, A NEAT Frame House and Lot, on New Jersey Avenue, square 690; sixteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bow window, a parlour and closet back on the second floor two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches front, running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabout.—For terms apply to JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. March 5, 1802. ep3t
TO RENT, And possession given immediately. A TWO STORY brick house on F Street near the War Office, containing two parlors, six bed rooms, and a kitchen, with an excellent garden, coach house, stable, &c.—The house is newly painted and papered; it was formerly occupied by Mr. Dexter, and lately by Mr. John Brown. Enquire of Clement Dorsey, Esq. George-Town; or of the subscriber, who has for sale a well finished three story brick house opposite the Six Buildings, and a variety of City Lots in the most eligible situations. The above House will be sold for less than any gentleman could build it. The payments will be made easy on the whole of the above property. WILLIAM DYER. April 7, 1802. ep3t Building Materials will be taken in part payment. W. D.
VERY VALUABLE LAND FOR SALE. A TRACT formerly advertised, known by the name of Hicks's Niche, containing from 13 to 1500 acres, pleasantly situated on the Potomac, and in quality inferior to none. It is well covered with timber; well watered; very healthy; has good orchards, and houses for overseers, &c. A minute description is unnecessary, as the purchaser will no doubt view it. I shall only add that it possesses fishing shores of great value. The terms may be known on application to Mr. Henry O'Leary of George-Town, or the subscriber at Font Hill, Northumberland county, Virginia. JOHN GORDON. April 7, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE. I WOULD sell on reasonable terms, three or four hundred acres of Land, in the centre of my estate at Marlborough, on the Virginia side of the river Potomac, about 45 miles below the City of Washington, and 13 distant from Fredericksburg; the whole constituting a very desirable situation for a substantial Farmer, on a moderate scale. This tract extends for length, from Potomac river across the neck of Accotack creek—it has most beautiful situations on the river for a country seat; it has a fine Rock & Herring Fishery, and a landing that must be very valuable, as it is the only bold water on the Potomac, that can be connected by land carriage with Fredericksburg. The soil is very rich, and it lies very well for cultivation, with a large bank of the richest shell marle—part of it is a most valuable firm marsh, from which 100 to 150 tons of good hay might be annually taken, a portion of this is ditched and drained for timothy. The improvements are an overleer's house, barn and negro quarters. If not before sold by private contract, it will be offered at public vendue on the 20th of May, on the premises, (the seller reserving a bid) deliverable in the fall. Mr. William Hay, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase. JOHN F. MERCER. Annapolis. Feb 26, 1802. ep6w
District of Columbia, Washington County, to wit: THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, THAT the subscribers of Washington county, in the District of Columbia, have obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington County, in the said district, Letters of administration on the personal estate of Jasper De Carnap, late of Washington county deceased; all persons having claims against the said deceased, are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof to the subscribers, at or before the 15th day of August next; they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate.—Given under our hands this 12th day of February 1802. ELIZABETH DE CARNAP, Administratrix. HENRY INGLE, Administrator. Of Jasper de Carnap, deceased. Feb. 1, 51802. 1aw2M
BOARDING. Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol.—Apply to the Printer. March 19. 1802. ep3w
NOTICE. COMMITTED to the Jail of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, as a Runaway, a Negro Woman named CHARRLOTTE, about nineteen years of age, five feet four or five inches high. She says she is the property of Lewis St. John, near Little Town, Frederick county, Virginia. The owner is requested to come and pay Charges and take her away. DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. Feb. 5, 1802. ep3t
Farming Lands for Sale. THE Subscriber would sell about 1000 acres of the tract of Land whereon Dr. John D. Orr at present resides, in the county of Prince William, situated a few miles from the seat of the district Court, and within convenient marketable distance of the Occoquan Mills and Dumfries. It is of the first rate quality of soil, is abundantly supplied with wood and water, and has a large proportion of ground which is in a peculiar manner adapted to the growth of timothy grass. Also the tract of land adjacent to the above, late the property of Mr. Thomas Swann of Alexandria, together with about 100 acres of woodland, of the above described tract, making about 1550 acres; the quality and advantages being similar to that. The first-mentioned tract will be conveyed to the purchaser free from every encumbrance, a considerable payment in hand will be expected, and the lowest price per acre twenty dollars. Possession to be given the ensuing spring, with a reservation of the growing crop of small grain, but the last-mentioned tract will be sold subject to existing Leases for short terms of years, under strict covenants guarding against waste and injury of the property, &c. and subject to the purchase money which will be due for the same to Mr. Swann, with interest, in about 9 years. The payment required in hand is the remainder of the amount, about two thousand pounds; and the price per acre is eighteen dollars. Also the reversionary interest in the Piedmont tract, situated below the mountain called the Short Hill, in Loudoun county, consisting of several thousand acres, chiefly under Leases to the occupants, and forming perhaps the best settlement in Virginia, of the same extent, extremely well watered; improved with the best meadows and orchards, and peculiarly adapted to the use of the Plaster of Paris. This Land will be sold in Lots consisting of one or more tenements, as may best suit purchasers, together with one or more Lots of woodland to be laid off on the S. E. side of the Short Hill for the convenience of any of said tenements that may be scarce of wood. There are several good mill sites upon this tract, which is not more than 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington, and no part of it more than 15 miles from Leesburg. The price per acre will be various, according to the quality and advantages of the Land, and circumstances of the Leases, but an extensive credit will be given by instalments, upon receiving what it may be convenient for the purchasers to pay in hands. It is desired that persons wishing to purchase this property, will signify their intentions before the wood land is laid off. Also two or three small Farms with every requisite convenience for immediate operation, in the counties of Jefferson and Frederick, and at various prices. And several valuable building Lots, situated upon the Pennsylvania Avenue, in the City of Washington; some upon square 74, near the Six Buildings, and some upon square 38; besides other very valuable Lots in that City. Application to be made in person, or by Letter, (post paid) directed to Charles Town, Virginia, to FERDINANDO FAIRFAX. Shan. Hill, March 5, 1802. ep8w
For Sale at Rhodes's Tavern. On the 15th day of April will be sold at Public Auction, by Loring and Forrest, at 12 o'clock the following valuable property, unless disposed of by private contract. THREE two story brick houses in separate Lots to accommodate purchasers. Situated in Fourteenth-street, square 253, being on a high and healthy situation, near the Treasury Office, at present much under let at 205 dollars each per annum; to respectable tenants as follows: No. 1, to David Rawn; No. 2, to Wm James; No. 3, to R. W. Peacock; each house is 23 feet front, and containing a good dry cellar. On the first floor are two parlors, kitchen and servant's room over the same; second floor contains three well finished bed rooms with closets where necessary; back yard paved, with out-houses, and Lot inclosed with close boarded fence, 6 feet high, to an alley 26 feet wide. The front of the said houses is paved with brick Locust trees planted, and post and rail fence, with a pump of excellent water adjoining the same; the whole completely finished in a neat, genteel manner. The titles are good, being from the commissioners. Terms of payment, one half the purchase money down, or such bills as will be approved of at 60 days, and the balance in seven equal quarterly payments with interest. At the same time will be sold two improved ground rents on square 461, being on the south side of the Pennsylvania Avenue, and buttling on Tyler Creek near the Market House. One lot containing 44 feet front, let on lease to Mr. Henry Burford, forever for 60 dollars per annum, payable half yearly; whereon is built a double two story brick house, with cellars and other buildings. The other is 47 feet 8 inches front in two leases for ever, to John Gardner, at 72 dollars per annum, payable half yearly. He has built a large two story double brick house, with cellars under the same, occupied by Mr. Thompson for a liquor store. This property is equal to bank stock, or any other property in the United States. For further particulars enquire of Loring and Forrest Auctioneers or WILLIAM LOVELL. March 24, 1802. ep3t
For Sale, A NEGRO WOMAN about 21 years old who is a good Cook, and a complete house servant in every other respect—Also a large well formed horse, that goes well in a carriage, and pleasant under the saddle—Enquire at this office. March 5, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE. A superb Carriage with plated Harness ALSO a pair of young, handsome and fleet PONIES, and a capital saddle horse, who never was in harness. Enquire of the Printer. Dec. 18. ep3t
SHELL LIME. FOR SALE, about 1,000 bushels of Shell Lime, in store at Mr. Young's warehouse, Greenleaf's Point.—Apply to MICHAEL CLEART. Georgetown, April 7, 1802. ep3t
For Sale, Or to Let, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable. ISAAC POLOCK. Dec. 16. ep3t
Le's 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 PROUT. Washington City, April 5, 1802. 2awtf
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR, SOLICITS a continuation of that generous encouragement which he has experienced from the Ladies and Gentlemen of this City and its vicinity. Having procured an elegant assortment of cloths, cashmeres, swandowns, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His unremitting attention shall be given to merit patronage. Capitol Hill, next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings. Dec. 7, 1801. ep3t
CHARLES VARDEN, Merchant Taylor, from Philadelphia, GRATEFULLY acknowledges the favors conferred on him by the gentlemen of this City, and flatters himself that the general satisfaction he has already given will merit a continuation of the same. He has also received a handsome assortment of goods from Philadelphia, consisting of, Best superfine cloths, Cashmeres, Swandowns, Toylennets, Velverets, Fancy Cords, 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. ep3t
Looking Glasses. J. COOK Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Prints, FOR SALE, At J. March's Store, High-street, George-Town. THE subjects of the Prints are very interesting, and in superb gilt frames; and the glasses are of the first qualities, in the most modern and elegant frames, and of any size. They are marked at the lowest cash Prices. March 15, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE. On Monday the 17th day of May next, will be sold at Vendue, at Mr. Semmes's Tavern, George-Town. ALL those tracts or parts of tracts of land called Scotland and Barbadoes, lying on the navigable waters of the Eastern Branch, containing 206 acres more or less, about half this land is in wood, mostly chestnut. Mr. Henry Smith lives on the premises, and will show them. At the same time the store and lot at the corner of High and Bridge-streets, at present occupied by Mr. James Doyle, and the square where Mr. Bayly now lives, adjoining to Col. Deakings and Mr. Charles Lowndes; which will be divided into small lots. On the premises are a small though comfortable frame house, kitchen, stable, and smoke house; the situation of this property must make it a desirable object. The terms are notes negotiable at the bank of Columbia, at 6, 12, and 18 months, with interest.
I will sell at private sale, a mill, mill-seat, and 42 and an half acres, of land, lying on Rock-Creek, within one mile of Georgetown and the City of Washington; its situation with its other great advantages must render it very valuable. This property will be sold on very moderate terms, if speedy application is made.
And on a credit of 1, 2, and 3 years with interest, all those tracts called Br. Lord's Rest and Batchelor's Forrest, lying in Montgomery county, containing 331 3-4 acres; this land will be divided into lots to suit purchasers, if not sold before the first day of August next, it will then be sold at Public Sale at the house where Mrs. Lynn formerly lived, on terms which will then be made known.—I will also sell a number of lots in eligible situations in the City of Washington. For the terms of any or all the above property, please to direct to the subscriber WALTER MACKALL. Benedict, March 29, 1802. 2aw3w