The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-06-18 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. 60.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
FRIDAY, JUNE 18th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday March 1, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the Courts of the United States."
Mr. GREGG. Several days ago, Mr. Chairman, I expressed an anxiety with that this question might be decided, and assigned as a reason for my anxiety, the length of time it had already occupied, and the belief I entertained, that if the discussion was continued any longer, it must be by the repetition of arguments we had already heard, and by introducing extraneous matter, which very probably had better be kept out of view. I confess I have heard nothing since to convince me, that the opinion I had then formed was incorrect. It is true the argument has been conducted with great ingenuity and address on both sides, but it must be acknowledged, there has been much repetition, and many subjects brought into view, which as they have very little bearing on the present question, had certainly better been left untouched.
It has appeared to me, that a stranger coming into the house at some periods of the debate, would at once have concluded the subject of discussion to be, whether the measures of the government during the administration preceding the present, tended to monarchy or aristocracy? At other times he would have apprehended the question to be, whether the common law attaches to the constitution of the United States, and forms a part of it? From the course of the arguments at other times he would be inevitably led to conclude, that the main question to be decided was, how far the courts have a constitutional right and power, to declare laws passed by congress unconstitutional and void. These to be sure are interesting and important subjects, and we have had much useful information to aid us in forming an opinion, should we even be called to decide on them, but they appear to me to be entirely irrelevant to the subject immediately before the committee, that I have regretted to hear them, thus incidentally drawn into the present discussion.
Entertaining the opinion which I before expressed, and which I have now repeated, of the exhausted state of the subject, it would certainly be improper in me to detain the committee, by entering minutely into the argument. I assure the committee I have no such intention. My principal object in rising, is to correct some information with which a gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Rutledge) favored the committee a few days ago, respecting an official character in Pennsylvania, the date from which I have the honor to come, as one of its representatives. I would have done this at the time the information was given, had I not been prevented by the reluctance I always have felt at forcing a gentleman interrupted in his observations. Had it been done then, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Dennis) would perhaps have spared the allusion made by him to the same person on Saturday.
A gentleman from Virginia in speaking on the subject of appointments to office, mentioned that a person, not only hostile to our independence during the revolutionary war, but who had even joined the British army, and distinguished himself as an active partisan in their service, had been appointed to the important office of a judge, by the late President. The gentleman from South Carolina in searching for an officer under the present administration, supposed to have been possessed of singular principles, during that interesting period in the affairs of this country, as a fit object for the appointment of the judge, travelled into Pennsylvania, and fixed on
the collector of the internal revenue for the city and county of Philadelphia in that state. He informed the committee that when the British army under Sir William Howe, made its triumphal entry into Philadelphia, that person was its conductor; that in manifestation of his joy on the occasion, he rode before with his head wreathed with laurel, and that he was afterwards proscribed for his conduct, by an act of the legislature of the state.
That the person alluded to, with many others, did precede the British army when it marched into Philadelphia, exhibiting evident demonstrations of joy, I believe has never been contradicted. That he was proscribed by an act of the legislature, I believe is equally certain. But I never until now heard, that he was the conductor of the army on that occasion. I have always heard him spoken of as being too young to be entrusted with so important a commission. His youth and his being under the direction of friends, who on that occasion were supposed to have exercised a controlling power over him, pleaded so powerfully in his favor, that this political transgression was forgiven by his country, and the proscription revoked. I wish the gentleman had proceeded with the history of this person. It would then have appeared to the committee, that the war had not long terminated before he was brought into public notice, and placed on the theatre of public life, by that very description of people who now arrogate to themselves the appellation of federalists. It would also have appeared, that shortly after the establishment of the present government, he was appointed assistant secretary of the treasury by general Washington, then President, and that when that office was abolished, he was appointed by general Washington also. Yes, sir, he was appointed to both these important offices by general Washington. This concretion alone it might have been supposed, would in the opinion of gentlemen have been sufficient to justify the present President in giving him the appointment he now holds, had it been given by him; but it is a subordinate office he holds: it does not come under the immediate notice of the President: it is within the gift of the supervisor of the district.
Here, Mr. Chairman, I will beg leave to observe, and I think it will not be improper in this place to take some notice of the clamor that has been excited, and the charges that have been made against the President for removing the late supervisor of that district, and appointing as his successor the person who now holds the office. I have before me a newspaper containing a number of trails given at an entertainment on a late memorable occasion in this city, in one of which the injury done the late supervisor is represented to be so great, as to warrant a kind of appeal to the people for obtaining him redress. I have seen in another newspaper (and newspaper information is become very fashionable on this occasion) a paragraph in these words, "General Miller, the accomplished, the war worn soldier, has been removed from the office of supervisor of the district of Pennsylvania, to make room for one Nathan Leech, a Dutchman." Now, sir, what must have been the object of the author? Most undoubtedly to impress the minds of strangers with a belief, that the former was a man of distinguished merit, & the latter, the reverse.
In this as in other cases it is fair and proper, that the whole truth should be declared. It is not pretended to be denied that the late supervisor is a man of merit. It would ill become any person at the present day to attempt to divert him, or any of the brave men to whose exertions our country is indebted for its independence, of the honors justly acquired by their services during the revolutionary war. That gentleman entered into the army very early in the war, and continued in service until 1779 or 1780. He then retired, and was shortly after appointed to a literary civil office under the state, which he held till 1793, at which time, I believe, he was made supervisor of the district.
Let us now enquire what are the pretensions of his successor in office. His
military career also commenced with the revolution, nor did he lay down his sword, until at the conclusion of the war, the army was disbanded. The importance of his services through that whole period I have never heard questioned. If therefore being war-worn constitutes any just demand on the government for official remuneration (and I must declare I have always viewed it in that light) the person who now holds the office has a superior claim, as having been longer in service than his predecessor, and because in the last years of the war particularly, the pay of the officers could not be considered an adequate compensation for their services.
Pursue me, sir, whilst I am on the floor to advert for a moment to an address from the bar of Philadelphia to the Senate, on this subject, to which frequent allusion has been had, & on which great stress is laid in this discussion. As the address is not before the house, I much question whether arguments drawn from it are fairly in order. But if it even was on your table, I would ask what influence should it have on the decision of the present question?
The respectability of the bar of Philadelphia is acknowledged to be very great. It is composed of men so eminent for their professional abilities as they are distinguished for personal merit. I feel no disposition to detract from their reputation in either of these respects, even as it is in my power. But, sir, it is well known to every person living in Pennsylvania, that the lawyers of the whole state, with few exceptions, whatever their professional abilities and personal merit may be, have uniformly been advocates of that system of politics and all those measures which distinguished the former administration of our government. The public debt, a large army, an increased navy, and the whole catalogue of taxes received their countenance and support, as contributing to the extension of executive influence and power. Surely then it cannot be accounted strange, if it is not to be expected, that these men should rally round the judiciary, and endeavour by adding to its influence to compensate for their loss of power in the proposed reduction of some of the other establishments.
With respect to the address itself it may be observed, that it cautiously avoids giving any opinion on the constitutional power of Congress to pass the bill on the table, and confines itself to a simple statement of the experience of the present organization of the courts, as ascertained by the practice of the gentlemen who have signed it. Even as to the expediency of the system, I have been informed they were not unanimous and that a few not inferior in talents, absolutely refused signing. Had it touched the constitutional question, or contained even an implied doubt of the constitutional power of congress to repeal the laws to which it alluded, I feel myself warranted in saying, that some at least whose names are now in it, would have refused their signatures. Indeed I am inclined to think, that a regard for consistency would prevent them generally from giving their sanction to any instrument embracing that principle, and this opinion I conceive will appear to be sufficiently warranted by this consideration.
In the state of Pennsylvania the judges hold their commissions by the same tenure, by which the judges of the United States hold theirs. During good behaviour are the terms used in both constitutions. The judiciary system in Pennsylvania has been long thought to be imperfect and defective. An attempt is now making to improve it. I have this morning seen a bill on the subject, which I understand is likely to pass in the House of Representatives. I believe that bill is supported by all the professional gentlemen who are members of the House. I have not heard that any of those who are not members, are protesting against it, as being unconstitutional; and yet it goes to abolish the offices, and of course to put down more than a hundred judges, who are all commissioned during good behaviour . If these gentlemen believed that measure to be unconstitutional, their patriotism surely would lead them to protest against it, and to exert their influence to prevent its passage.
Then, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me may be considered as pretty conclusive evidence, that it is a received opinion in that state, not objected to even by professional gentlemen, that it is competent to the legislature to abolish an office, which in experience is found to be inexpedient and unnecessary, even although the officer holding it is competent during good behaviour ; and this is confirmable to the opinion of the
chief executive magistrate of that state, expressed with reference to this particular subject in a letter to a friend, which has been already cited by a gentleman from Georgia. Unless the legislature does possess this power, or if the doctrine of the independence of the judiciary should prevail to the extent that has been contended for, it appears to me, that what I have always considered as the most important principle of the constitution is destroyed. Responsibility in public agents I have always considered as the best, the only security the people have against oppression. While that is preserved they are in no great danger; destroy it and where is their security? If the judges even of inferior courts are to be independent, as that their offices must be sacred and beyond the reach of the legislature, and if their power in deciding on the constitutionality of laws is to be unlimited, & without any qualification, the legislature is but a subordinate branch of the government—the judiciary is paramount—the supreme power is in their hands. Such a doctrine appears to me repugnant to common sense, to the vital principles of our government, and to the plain and obvious meaning of the constitution.
I wish, Mr. Chairman, take this opportunity of expressing the regret with which I have heard during the present discussion, the friends of this bill branded with epithets, and loaded with charges, which to say no worse of them, are certainly highly improper in this place. They have been charged with being actuated by motives hostile to the constitution and government of their country. They have been represented as being led on by a principle of innovation, and a destructive spirit, which after deluging Europe in blood, is now exerting its baneful influence over them. They have been called tools of the President, mere automatons, prepared to execute all his commands. They have been held up as demagogues, Jacobins and infidels. And all this is done under the privilege of freedom of debate. This, sir, is not freedom of debate. It is a gross abuse of that privilege. It is licentiousness of debate, and if continued to be practised no inconsiderable consequence will be, to sink the reputation of this house in the estimation of every wise and good man. I have lamented exceedingly, that any gentleman on this side of the house could have thought himself justifiable in descending to make any reply to such insinuations.
I was, Mr. Chairman, a member of Congress at the time the system was adopted, which it is the object of the present bill to repeal. I was then opposed to it. I did not think so extensive an organization of the courts necessary. The expense created by it, I considered a serious evil. The courts under the old system I believed to be congruent to the discharge of all the business which would be likely to come under their cognizance for a long time. The document which has been laid before us by the President, containing a list of all the causes which have been entered, and which yet remain undecided in the courts of the United States, has fully confirmed me that I was not mistaken in that opinion. The number therein stated even falls short of what I supposed it might be. Believing therefore the present system to be unnecessarily expensive, viewing its expense as oppressive, finding no article or section in the constitution, which either in its plain letter or by any fair construction prohibits to the legislature the power of repealing it, and considering the doctrine of the independence of the judiciary in the extent contended for, as not only incompaxible with, but as repugnant to the vital principle of the constitution, I fully gave my decided vote in favor of the bill, and against the present motion for striking out the last section.
Mr. HASTINGS. I desire to express my sentiments upon the bill now under consideration of the committee—not that I expect to add many new reasons against the principles of the bill, to those that have already been offered, by gentlemen who have proceeded me in the discussion—but when the constitution of our country, the ark of our political safety is in danger—when (in my apprehension) it is threatened with a blow that may prove fatal to its existence, when we contemplate that a dissolution of the Union may be the final result—our fears are excited, the imagination is stirred, and every exertion ought to be made to avert the impending evil.
Under our present constitution of government (which I believe to be the best and most perfect in the world) the American people have been happy beyond all former example—and whether
our national prosperity and union shall be preserved or destroyed, depend alone upon ourselves—upon the preservation of the existing constitution.
The subject now under consideration of the committee, involves in it, an important constitutional question—shall the independence of our federal judiciary be impaired or destroyed? Shall it be maintained in that state of inviolability, in which the people, the creators of the constitution placed it—on which the independence of this important branch of our government, be predicated at the feet of the national legislature.
I have always believed that for a government to be free, it must have three separate, distinct, and as far as possible independent branches, the legislative, executive and judicial—that these three branches, though co-operating, with, ought mutually to be checks upon each other—and that whenever one of those branches assumes the powers, constitutionally belonging to the other, there is an end to the freedom and security of that government—and I have uniformly believed that it was the sense of the American people, that the powers of their government should be thus arranged and attributed.
It is possible that a legislature may sometimes be under the influence of popular passions, and that the executive may not be wholly free from them—to gratify popular clamour, laws may be enacted unconstitutional and oppressive—What power then to check the legislature in their wild career, but an upright and firm judiciary, that is not dependent upon popular will—Judges who are independent, holding their offices during good behaviour, and who uninfluenced by popular or party views, will operate as a check upon them, who in various ways may attempt to break down the barriers of the constitution—and by the exercise of this constitutional power, preserve the liberty, freedom and independence of their government and country.
I believe it is often true that there is a strong opposition in legislative bodies to encroach upon the other branches of the government, because perhaps they are generally the weaker branches—if we turn our attention to England we shall discover the point displayed in the conduct of the British parliament, during the reign of the elder Charles—Charles was an arbitrary prince—he levied money from his subjects without the consent of parliament, and against law—the parliament refused his charges, and he suspended them; but his parliament was not divided with respecting the royal prerogative within reasonable and constitutional bounds; they stripped the king of all his executive powers, and then sent him to the scaffold. The parliament then assumed and exercised all the legislative and executive powers of the government.—Gustavus ensued, and order was not restored until Oliver Cromwell, with military force, and without the consent of the people, forcibly seized upon the government.
If we look to France we may there behold the same encroaching spirit, which discovered itself and prevailed in the national convention.—The executive of the nation deprived of all its powers and prerogatives, which were usurped and exercised by the convention, who tried, condemned and doomed the king to be guillotined. The time came, when arbitrary acts against all the powers of government, detached judges and commissioners from their own body, into every part of the country, to inflict revolutionary vengeance upon the suspected enemies of the revolution; and individuals held red under the arbitrary decrees and sentences of those revolutionary judges—I hope, sir, that the same encroaching spirit upon the constitutional independence of our national judiciary has not entered this house; but what has happened once may happen again.
The opinion and practice in those states that have provided by their constitutions of government, that the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour (which is the case I believe with nine or ten states in the union) must be a good rule by which to ascertain the understanding of the people respecting this tenure of office.—In Massachusetts the judges hold their offices during good behaviour; in that state I apprehend the people never supposed that their judges were liable to be removed from office, but for misbehaviour; and I have been led this to have been the prevailing opinion in all the other states, where good behaviour is the tenure of the judge's office. Upon this point I cannot entertain a doubt; the measure of the words in our national constitution, "that the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices dur-

are good and necessary, are clear, precise, and free from all ambiguity; and require no nice niceties, technicalities, or distinctions to ascertain their true force and meaning. But to be a little more particular upon this point, the judicial power is one of the three separate branches of our government; and it is as essential to the happiness and security of the people that the independence of this branch of their government should be preserved as entire as the other two branches. The American people have declared in their constitution, that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Here the word shall applies as well to the inferior courts, as to the supreme court; and is as imperative to the one as to the other. I apprehend the true meaning to be this, that there shall be a supreme court, and there shall be inferior courts, both of which shall be ordained and established by Congress; the constitutional injunction upon Congress is to establish courts being as strong and direct in the one case as in the other; and the constitution contemplates the constituting of courts inferior to the supreme court, when it speaks of the supreme court's having appellate jurisdiction. Then follows another part of the section, "the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour." Here the expression "the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour" is as imperative as the former part of the section, that the judicial power shall be vested in a supreme court, &c. It is a constitutional command upon the legislature, that they shall ordain and establish a supreme court, and also inferior courts, the command is as positive that the judges of both the courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour; now the act for the repeal of the constitution and establishing the present circuit courts, says that the supreme court being a constitutional court, cannot be abolished by the legislature; but I see no reason why you cannot as easily get rid of the judges of your supreme court, by repealing the law organizing that court, as you can remove the judges of your circuit courts by repealing the law that establishes those courts; the principle and process is the same; for both courts equally depend upon a legislative act to constitute and ordain them; and if the principle is once adopted, why not remove your President from office? For can there be a President constitutionally elected, but by the intervention of the legislature? You make a law determining the time of electing the electors of President and Vice-President, and the day on which the electors shall give their votes. You ordain and establish courts by law. The President is one constitutional branch of the government; the judges are another constitutional branch of the government. The President shall hold his office during the term of four years; the judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour. If by repealing the law constituting the court, you can displace your judges, why not also by a cunning decree remove the President by repealing the law dictating the time for electing the electors of President. Convinced therefore from the best attention I have been able to give the subject, that if the bill before the committee is finally passed, it will be an infraction of the constitution. I shall only add, that two or three reasons alone are satisfactory to my mind, why (if it was constitutional) it still would be inexpedient to abolish the present system of circuit courts, and restore the old one. First, and in the old system the number of judges and abundance of a judge's sitting and deciding causes in an inferior court, and upon an appeal from his decision to the supreme court, the same judge sitting and deciding upon the same cause in that court. Secondly, the great inconvenience and difficulty that the judges of your supreme court under the old system were subjected to, being obliged to travel from one end of the United States to the other to hold circuit courts; their long absence from their families and friends; the expense of holding courts, occasioned by sickness, or a variety of accidents; and the great expense to litigants consequent thereon. By the present system these evils and defects so much complained of under the old system are remedied.
Foreign Intelligence.
The following (transcribed from a French paper of the last of April) is the article alluded to by Mr. W. in his speech on the Deficit see next.
France, reconciled with all governments, will never be able to disarm the animosity of those men who are irritated by the spectacle of her greatness, and blinded by the splendor of her glory. When, six months ago, they saw her in fifteen days conclude four treaties of peace, and restore tranquility to sea and land, stunned by such success, they attempted to conceal the brilliant terms of the peace with England. They opened a most extensive range to the lovers of conjectures. They pretended that secret articles balanced the advantages of the public stipulations. Time has shown that there were no secret conditions.
Rolling on, I know not what, expressions of the English ministers in parliament, they contended that the merit of this peace could not be decided by the preliminaries; that we should wait for the definitive Treaty, and then the superiority of Great Britain would be seen.
The Definitive Treaty has at length been signed, and it is found to be more advantageous, more glorious to France, than the preliminaries.
At the time when the first convention appeared, it was criticized on different grounds. Men considered the benefit which England might derive from the cinnamon forests of Ceylon, and particularly from the superb part of Trincomalee, the true bulwark of India, commanding the Malabar and Coromandel, and all the Archipelago of that ocean.
It was calculated too, not what Trincomalee was worth, but what it might be rendered by the skillful industry of the English, less interested, perhaps, about their own produce, than eager to monopolize all the commerce of the Archipelago, and the countries adjacent. In addition to these estimates, so flattering to England, were adduced the riches she was to acquire in the Mysore, conquered during the war of the revolution; and people were inclined to believe that the English had carried to the utmost extent of their wishes, their naval and commercial greatness.
With this situation of England was opposed that of France, aggrandized by Belgium, Savoy, Piedmont, and part of Germany; disposing without control of Holland, Switzerland and Italy; fortifying herself in the Mediterranean, by the acquisition of Porto Ferrajo—opening in the north a river famous for its ancient commerce, and a port destined by its situation, to become the emporium of Europe; recovering Martinique, enriched by English capital; obtaining the Spanish part of St. Domingo; establishing herself in Louisiana, and regaining her settlements in India.
Between these two pictures of two states which may cease to be enemies, but never to be rivals, it was not difficult to pronounce which of the two had gained most by the war. It was demonstrated that France had obtained an irresistible preponderance upon the continent; and that in suffering her maritime power to fall off, she had not lost the elements of it, which consist in her population and her territory.
Such was the aspect of things which the preliminaries offered; and as they have formed the basis of the Treaty of Amiens, it may be said that the latter was tried by anticipation. Let us now examine whether it does not secure some new advantages to France and her allies; whether it does not contain great features sufficient to render it remarkable in history.
The French were justly alarmed at what was due to England for advances made for the maintenance of more than 20,000 prisoners. The 2d article of the Treaty of Amiens diminishes the debt of France. It is agreed that, in the account of the respective advances, shall be stated not only the expenses of the prisoners of the two nations, but also those of the foreign troops which, before being taken prisoners, were in the pay and at the disposal of either of the contracting parties. Thus the expenses laid upon the 7,000 prisoners given back to Russia will be stated in deduction from that which
the French owe to England. The 7th article refers to France in Guiana, an arrangement which the 6th article of the preliminaries left at least doubtful, as it guaranteed to Portugal the integrity of her possessions.
In the conditions relative to Malta, that important fortress, which the friends of England have so often assigned to her, every thing is favorable to France, both in the provisional regulations and the definitive arrangements. As long as the island is Neapolitan it will be French; and to make it cease to be so will require the concurrence of all the great powers. At one day the Maltese language should become dominant, the position, the wants, the temper, the nature of that language would bring it under the influence of the French government.
Such then, are several conventions which render the Treaty preferable in point of advantage for France, to the preliminaries. But it is not what the Treaty expresses that is most advantageous; it is particularly what it does not express which ought to form the subject of joy to the French and their allies.
In all former negotiations England had insisted on the renewal of ancient treaties, ascending upwards as far as that of Westphalia. With a less purpose of attention did she always enumerate them, date by date, and also give them a new force. Every body knows that almost all the treaties were onerous to the maritime powers of the continent, and that they even contained stipulations humiliating for the allies of France. There were certain which the Dutch were obliged, in sign of submission, to lower their flag to that of England. This shameful homage had never been contested without procuring a war. The reigns of Cromwell and Charles II. afford examples of this truth. This species of vassalage is abolished; and, what is more important to commerce, the abrogation of ancient treaties has removed the fatiguing inconveniences which they occasioned to France and her allies in their navigation, in the administration of their colonies, in their whole commercial system.
It will be necessary to give an idea of the capital improvements which the treaties on the continent which the receiver the law on the 1st of December 1807, between that power and Spain. It will then be seen how greatly the authority of the power with which they traced was limited as to the control of its own customs and duties. If we were, then, to compare the advantages enjoyed by the English in their relations with the continental powers, with the difficulties opposed to the latter by the various acts of navigation, we should not any longer be surprised at the degradation into which this nation has fallen before the war. We should rather be astonished that the English may not have done more every thing.
It is in the course of the discussion another doctrine has been advanced by the advocates for the bill, in my opinion dangerous to the rights and liberties of the people, and wholly destructive of the independence of the judiciary—I mean that the judiciary is no check upon the legislature—that the legislature expresses the public will—that the public will thus expressed, is to be carried into effect by the judiciary; however, the law may be in direct violation of the constitution—and we are told by an honorable member of the committee, that if we pass this bill and thereby violate the constitution, it will only be for two years—in two years the people may find other representatives and restore the law—and this it is said is the corrective principle in the constitution—but if this doctrine be true—if the judiciary power
be not so constituted as to be on the one hand independent of the acts and doings of the legislature—consequent upon an ex post facto law, by which I may be deprived of any estate or life before this correcting principle can operate and have effect. We are also told that by abolishing the present circuit courts, we shall get rid of the expense of supporting fifteen circuit judges—in expense to the United States of about thirty thousand dollars a year—but I ask, what is this expense (which one of the advocates for the repeal of the law has said is paltry) compared to the advantages of a more prompt administration of justice, than was the case under the old system—gentlemen may talk about saving expense, I am disposed to go as far as they will in saving the public money in every proper way—but I never can consent to abolish expense, at the expense of the constitution. It is said also that the business in the circuit courts has diminished, and this is urged as another reason for abolishing those courts—it appears that fifteen hundred and thirty five suits were depending in the six circuit courts—this number will average about two hundred and seventy two suits to each of the courts—this shews pretty conclusively that there is business sufficient for those courts to do—and the less business the less delay, and the more prompt will be the administration of justice—besides is not this country rapidly increasing in population and wealth? Contrary to all experience therefore, we are to conclude that litigation and suits, will decrease in a ratio with the increase of our population and wealth.
Mr. Chairman, an honorable member from Virginia has told us, that the judges have claimed powers, which I understand that gentleman to mean do not belong to them—and he says that it was the State of Massachusetts which was first attempted to be brought to the feet of judicial policy—I would ask, that when the judges found by the constitution that a state was liable to be sued, and therefore assumed the action of an individual against the state, if this was an unconstitutional assumption of power? And are the judges for this to be censured and charged with claiming power, which did not constitutionally belong to them to exercise? Upon the principles of justice, I apprehend no sufficient reason can be given, why a state should not be as competent to pay her debts, as an individual—or is justice and moral obligation different, as applied to a state or an individual?
The same honorable gentleman has said, that we may now indulge the hope, that our pulpits will not much longer be converted into political forms—How this may be in Virginia I know not—but, for, as it respects the clergy in New England it is not true—we are blessed there with a learned, pious and patriotic clergy; who from their good conduct have acquired and deservedly possess the confidence of the people—a clergy, for, that during our revolutionary war were the zealous supporters of the rights and liberties of their invaded country—a clergy, that by their influence in their parishes, by animating and encouraging the people in the most gloomy periods of that war to persevere in the prosecution of it, were as useful almost as in any in the field—and who made as great sacrifices in the common cause, by receiving their small salaries in a depreciated paper currency, as any other class of people in the country—Our clergy too, like our judges, hold neither the sword nor the purse; like our federal judges too, their tenure of office is generally during good behaviour; for misbehaviour only can they be removed from office. Our clergy are the advocates of civil and religious liberty; they are the friends and patrons of order and good government. We consider them in New England to be a useful and invaluable class of citizens—we will not to part with them, nor to have their respectability and worth lessened by groundless calumny or outrageous abuse.
Mr. Chairman, an honorable member from Maryland has given the committee a long dissertation upon common law, and read a number of passages from Judge Blackstone's Commentaries, with a view, I perceive, to convince the committee, that our federal courts have no constitutional right to use and exercise common law powers; if the honorable gentleman had turned his attention to the 67 and 68th pages of the first vol. of the same author, I think his difficulties and doubts upon this subject, must have been in a great measure removed. That correct writer there treating of the common law of England, lays "This unwritten or common law is properly distinguished into three kinds. 1. General customs, which are the universal rule of the whole kingdom, and form the common law, in its strictest and more usual signification. 2. Particular customs; which for the most part affect only the inhabitants of particular districts. 3. Certain particular laws, which by custom are adopted and used by some particular courts, of pretty general and extensive jurisdiction. As to general customs or common law, properly so called, this is that law by which proceedings and determinations in the king's ordinary courts of justice are guided.
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. cpf.
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 Dufley, 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 DYTE. April 7, 1802. cpf. If Building Materials will be taken in part payment. W.D.

Makes that the revolutionary spirit after having itself after it is weakened everywhere else! To add to the whimsical nature of these combinations, England has contributed, as well as France, to maintain it there. It appears certain, at least, that having received from the inhabitants of Malta several plans of a republic, the English have given effect to the propositions of these islanders in the treaty of Amiens. Thus democratic principles have found protection from the power that went to war to oppose them. But the organization of this new republic and its future figure cannot have any considerable interest, except for France and England. There is in the treaty a single line respecting the states of Barbary, which produces a more extensive, a more general, as well as all Europe. It intimates the design of giving an end to the system of hostilities which subsists between civilized governments and those of Africa which the Europeans of the former could alone have raised to the rank of powers. Religion formerly endeavoured to repair, in this respect, the negligence of policy. At length policy cultivates the duty of protection. Its happy intentions are not, perhaps, easily realized, but they cannot fail into oblivion. The signal is given. It adds to the importance of the treaty as Amiens. It honours the negotiators whose work the treaty is, and the government whose confidence they have justified.
PARIS, April 19. In the fitting of the legislative body on the 30th Germinal (April 20) citizen Fourcroy presented, on the part of the government, a very long plan for the improvement of public instruction. The government, in turning their attention to this subject, has found that the primary schools have been much neglected, and that the central schools have not been of as much service as was expected. The central schools of arts and sciences are mostly confined to Paris; the other rich and populous cities of the republic have unconstitutionally a claim to similar institutions. There is at present no school of jurisprudence, and but three of medicine. The plan proposes, that the central colleges and the central schools shall be replaced by lycées, where ancient and modern literature, and the elements of the sciences, shall be taught. Three inspectors general, named by the first consul, shall visit these establishments, and make reports to the government. The number of special schools shall be increased, and professors of all sorts given to them. Encouragements and rewards shall be given by the government to those matters of private examinations who shall most distinguish themselves by diligence and success. A special school of war is also proposed, unconnected with and different from the école militaire. In this school 500 students are to be educated for two years, entirely at the expense of the republic. The expense of all these establishments would amount to upwards of 7 millions (or about three hundred thousand pounds sterling).
General Lannes, the French envoy to Portugal, arrived in Lisbon on the 20th ult. with his suite, and was received with great honors, government sending carriages to meet him. He sent word to the French factory, that he would receive them to a certain day, until that he would receive none who did not wear the national cockade. Several emigrants are in Lisbon. The duke of Luque-hong hosted the national cockade, and dined with general Lannes. The general has carried as a present to the Prince Regent, a superb set of harness. No bad hint to a budget power.
Alexander Lanuth and Monnier, both famous in the early part of the revolution have been appointed precepts, the one of the Lower Alps, the other of the Illé et Vilaine.
Now Landing AND FOR SALE, By the subscriber at his store in Jefferson ten stores, at very reduced prices, by wholesale and retail, for cash, country produce, or approved notes at 60 and 90 days. Loaf, lump and brown Pepper, Mustards, Figures, Mace, Midlings of different kinds, Cloves, Holland gin, Admiral, Cherry toasts, Indigo, Capers, Fig Blue, Madeira, Sherry, Port, Port Blue, Scotch snuff bottles, Wines, Real Havana, figures, Claret in boxes—of superior quality, Best quality chewing tobacco, French Liquors, Coarse and fine salt, 11 years, Young Hylas, Shad and herrings in barrels, Imperial tea, Hams, Shoulders, and midlings of bacon, Cherry toasts, Georgia Caviar, Almonds, Portland pickles, Figs, China Bows, French Luce oil, Glass ware assorted, Anchovies, Sets of tea China, Olives, Port wine in quarter or boxes, Jamies, Parent choice, Provençal and white soap, Porter in bottles, Mould and dipped candles, Powder, flour, and hard tack, Reses, Rubin Glue, Ginger, Allum, Tinware, And a few boxes very cheap long and short bed and fancy gloves. B. G. ORR. April 30, 1802. apf
WASHINGTON CITY. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1802. APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT. General Commissioners of Bankruptcy. FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE. Nicholas Gilman, Henry S. Langdon, John Goddard, John McClellan. FOR NEW YORK. John Broome, William Edgar, Joseph Clay, Daniel D. Tompkins, Nathan L. Lord, James Foulke, Abraham G. Lansing, Nicholas N. Quackenbush, George Merchant. FOR PENNSYLVANIA. Alexander J. Dallas, Joseph Clay, Mahlon Dickerson, John Sergeant, Thomas Cumpston, John W. Vancleve. FOR VIRGINIA. George Hay, William Duval, George W. Smith, Benjamin Hatcher, Archibald Thevenot, Thomas B. Robertson, John M'Rae, Thomas Bache,
By the Two Reviewers, Capt. Allen, from the Cape, arrived at Baltimore, we have received the following important information respecting the present state of St. Domingo, which, though verbal, may be fully relied upon from the intelligence of the officer from which it is derived. It is as late as June 1st, when the vessel sailed from the Cape. At that period, the whole Spanish part of the island, as it is usually termed, was tranquil, and the mountains were entirely free from negroes. The fourth part of the island, the part usually called French, was also in a tranquil and flourishing state. This section includes Aux Cayes, and other parts. Of the west part of the island, Jérémie and the adjacent country were also tranquil and flourishing; while the remaining portion was in a state of gradual restoration to order and improvement. Of the north part, the district of Jean-Rabel was still improving—from which to Fort Dauphin, including the Cape, was entirely desolated. All the negro cultivators had, however, returned to the respective plantations, though little work was yet done owing to the country not being sufficiently recovered from the late scene of destruction. Toussaint and Christophe had surrendered, and were permitted to remain on their plantations with a small body of blacks; the former of whom was at the Gonaves. There were supposed to be about 7 or 8,000 wandering negroes on the mountains; but they were destitute of leaders, and had no magazines either of provisions or military stores. Since the surrender of Toussaint, a French post between the Cape and the Gonaves, consisting of 32 soldiers, had been taken and the soldiers murdered. The act was disavowed by the leaders of the negroes. A number of the most respectable planters, chiefly whites, had been called by Leclerc to convene at the Cape, and to assist him by their advice, in re-organizing the affairs of the island, in order to place the government, at present entirely military, in the hands of a civil administration. This result was expected to be effected during this month. The whole number of French troops in the island were estimated to amount to about 23,000, including about 3,000 negroes; of which 15,000 were in the best order for service. Of the 3,000 troops, before employed in Egypt, scarce 100 remained, owing to their feeble health on reaching the island. But three ships of war remained at the island, viz. 1 of 80 and 2 of 74 guns, under the command of Admiral La Touche. Three hundred houses have been fully repaired, and are now occupied in the Cape. The island in general was healthy, except the Cape; the ill-health of which was written from the uncommon dryness of the weather for two months, which usually form the rainy season, and from the unusual prevalence of the westerly winds for two weeks antecedent to the 25th of May, during which season the average mortality in the army was 30 a day. But on that day a heavy shower fell, which had a beneficial effect, so that on the four subsequent days the mortality only amounted to 3, 4, 2, and 6. General Hardy, who had rendered himself odious by his cruel exercise of power, had died to the joy of the inhabitants. Frankfort, June 5. We are informed, by a person who arrived a few days ago from Natchez,
a considerable progress has been made in cutting the road between this place and the settlements in Tennessee. Our informant supposes, that near one hundred miles have been cut, but in detached parts. The road is cut about sixty feet wide, well bridged, and much more level and nearer than the trace usually travelled. Raleigh, June 8. On Tuesday last, no judge attending, the federal district court for this state was opened and adjourned by the marshal. The following day, the newly appointed judge, Edward Harris, Esq., of Newbern, arrived, and on that and the following day, went through all the business to which one judge is competent—after which (Judge Hall of S. Carolina not being present, nor having been heard from) the court was adjourned, to the great disappointment of litigants and their counsellors attending from different parts of the state. In future, we trust, our circuit courts will be regularly and efficiently held, as under the law lately passed, in all any accident prevent the chief justice of the supreme court from attending, our district judge alone has full power to hold the court.
[From the Salem Register.] [The following publication deserves to be classed among the innumerable existing proofs that the recent vehement denunciation of the act, repealing the late judiciary system, is unconstitutional, is not only irrational in itself, but at war with the cool and dispassionate principles and conduct of that description of citizens from which it has flowed.]
REPORT. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the House of Representatives. June 21, 1798. The committee raised to consider the subject of a judicial reform at large, having attended that service, ask leave to report: THAT although they have a strong conviction of the real necessity of some effectual reform in the judicial department of this commonwealth, yet unable to determine which would be the best mode, and not perfectly masters in any way, they would state the principles of the several systems, which have been thought on, and request the opinion of the whole house, previous to drawing any bill on the subject.
The bill providing for a superior court in Mass , and which was referred to our consideration, proposed to institute, for that district only, a reform, the principle of which is, to create a court, consisting of one first and three associate justices, to which an appeal should lie from the courts of common pleas, and general sessions of the peace; which court should have and exercise the same powers, within that district, essentially of the supreme judicial court, which that court now has in civil and criminal matters: the judgment of the superior court to be final and conclusive, except when exceeding the value of ten thousand dollars; providing, however, and giving the supreme judicial court power to correct the judgments and proceedings of the superior court, by writs of error, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with double costs against the plaintiff in error, if the original judgment is affirmed. The full justice of this court to have a salary of one thousand and fifty dollars, the associate justices each one thousand dollars, to be paid out of the public treasury.
Your committee find on the files of the general court, a plan proposed by the revising committee in October, A. D. 1782, which recommends the abolishing of the courts of common pleas, adding four more judges to the bench of the supreme judicial court, dividing the commonwealth into four districts, and making three justices a court, and two a quorum on the circuit. Three of these justices to be assigned every six months for each circuit; so that not less than one, nor more than two, who attended the former circuit, shall be assigned for the succeeding circuit. Three terms to be held annually in each of the four middle counties, viz. Suffolk, Essex, Middlesex and Worcester, and two terms in each of the other counties, except Dukes's county and Nantucket, where there should be one court in each, for both counties, at the same time. This court to be vested with all judicial powers civil and criminal, with original jurisdiction by process immediately to that court, in all civil actions, over 40; excepting such civil actions as the court of Sessions have heretofore held, which with all matters cognizable by that court, were to be referred to a county court of five justices, to be instituted for each county. That two law terms of the supreme judicial court should be held annually at which six should constitute a quorum; at which terms should be determined difficult points of law, ruling in the circuits on writs of error, certiorari, special verdicts, demurrers, bills of exceptions, motions for new trials, and causes continued for advisement any of which may be referred to the same terms by order of the justices in their several circuits; said bills containing this system are also on the files. Your committee also find a third plan, which has been under consideration of the general court, proposing to divide the commonwealth into four districts, and appointing a circuit court of common pleas for each, of one first and two associate justices, with the same powers as are now vested in the courts of common pleas, with conclusive and final jurisdiction in civil actions under the value of 40 dollars, excepting actions of account against guardians, bailiffs and receivers, actions wherein the title of real estate is in question, and actions against officers for illegal assessment, with a review in that court, where the damages are under 40 dollars, and an appeal when over that sum. The principle of this plan is, to institute a court of equal respectability on account of talents, with the supreme judicial court, to effect which, a compensation by fees or by salary, should be obtained for the justices, of at least one thousand dollars by the year. This mode proposes connecting those circuit courts of common pleas, under certain limitations, with the court of general sessions of the peace, and to abolish the present courts of common pleas. Your committee would add, that the advocates for a superior court in Maine suggest, that if adopted, a less portion of the time of the supreme judicial court would be required there, and that provision might be made for two terms of that court in some of the counties where one only is now held, and even three terms in others where needed. The friends of a system providing for a circuit court of common pleas believe, that it would so far lessen the number of actions on the dockets of the supreme judicial court in the respective counties, as that court might, with the present number of terms, at each circuit, close and settle all the business of each county. Those who are in favor of adding four more justices to the bench of the supreme judicial court, believe it the best mode which can be adopted. The advocates of this system propose as an amendment, that there should be three law terms to be held in different parts of the state, and some of them are of opinion that the courts of common pleas should be retained as subordinate to the supreme judicial court. Your committee submit this report to the honorable house, with observations, that a delineation of the knowledge of the principles of these several systems, by printing the bills and this report, would essentially aid in effecting some reform which might tend to remedy the very great inconveniences, which now result from the present state of our judicial department. JOHN BOWELL, jun. Per Order.
COMMENT. This report was supported by the most eminent federal characters and the enumerated therein became the object of long and interesting debates. The opponents of them, though warm and decisive, never once in all the debates doubted the constitutionality of the bills. In particular almost all, if not all, of the gentlemen of the law were bold and determined advocates for that bill, which was to abolish the court of Common Pleas, and this in the memorable year 1798. The clause of our state constitution respecting this point is, that "all judicial officers duly appointed, commissioned and sworn shall hold their offices during good behaviour, with an exception not applicable to this case. The clause of the constitution of the United States is, that "the judges both of the Supreme & Inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour." In fact, both are literally the same tenure and in the same words—judge therefore, fellow citizens, of the consistency of federalism, when the same men, who in 1782, and 1798, annoyed and supported the construction of the constitutionality of the repeal of a law under which judges were appointed, "to hold their offices during good behaviour," and yet in 1802,
in an instance precisely the same, denied the very existence which they had to warmly advocated!!! The document from which these quotations are taken and these conclusions drawn, is now before us and open to every man's inspection. Any member of the then general court can produce & attach the evidence here offered. It is time that the great many of our country should perceive the tricks of federal delusion, and meet them on honest republican ground. Party spirit would make every thing subservient to its own views; and neither honor, justice and even common sense would escape a vote or influence unreciprocated. The reign of alarm is run; of unconstitutional proceedings, through every variety of changes, but it is only to deceive and abuse the public confidence. N. B. Among the lawyers alluded to, who in or out of the general court, recommended and supported the acts for the abolition of the court of common pleas were Messrs. Theophilus Parsons, John Lowell, junr. Guodler Williams, all men of federal politics. Read and attend fellow citizens, and in the language of an eloquent speaker, "pardon—for heave's sake, pardon."
NOTICE. THERE will be sold at public sale, on the 17th day of July next, at the dwelling of Richard Lamson, Prince George county, Maryland, four Negroes, viz one woman, two boys or girls, and a girl, the property of Mary Lamson, deceased, of said county, by me J. LAMAR, Adm r . June 12, 1802. 1832
FOR NEW-YORK. The schooner Enterprise, to fill in at here week. For freight or passage apply to Capt. Mitchell on board, or R. B. JAMIESON. June 14.
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR. HAS just received an elegant and fashionable assortment of summer goods, consisting of London lime-tape cloths and crimeres; India, Manchester, and the striped nankeens; osnaburgs, hollands, Bengal elegant white shirt for pancheon, white and coloured mouselines, piques and sun crosses, silk ginghams, black and other coloured striped linens, &c. All which he will make up on the most reasonable terms, and in the most neat and fashionable manner—residing near Avenue, west of the Providence Theatre. May 24, 1802. apf
Valuable Property for Sale. Will be sold on Friday the 24th day of October next, at the dwelling house of the Subscriber in Prince George's County, Maryland, about two miles from Washington—For Cash. A valuable and pleasantly situated tract of land, containing about 100 acres; also a quantity of corn, wheat, rye and tobacco, with sundry articles of household furniture, farming utensils and stock. A private sale will be preferred—But if not so sold, before the 8th day of October next they will be sold on that day, on the terms above mentioned. The land if not sold, will be rented on reasonable terms. WILLIAM BROWN. June 10, 1802. apf
Annapolis, May 4, 1802. St. John's College. ON the 22nd day of June next the trustees of St. John's College purpose to proceed to the appointment of a professor of English and German in St. John's College, who shall receive for his services at the rate of 200, to be paid quarterly—Dolls. 533 33. His duty is, in conjunction with an assistant, to teach English, mathematics, and the Latin grammar, the vocabulary, and exercises, as to prepare students for the 1800 L languages. He and his assistant are likewise to teach writing and arithmetic, and the lower branches of the mathematics, if required, to such of the students as are not destined for the upper schools. By order of the visitors and governor of St. John's College. A. G. HANSON. May 14, 1802.
Fifty Dollars Reward. For apprehending and returning the following Criminals, who broke the Jail of this place and escaped therefrom on the Night of the 6th of June, 1802. viz. DANIEL HENSCLEY, an Irishman, stout, jolly fellow, has a scar on his right arm, and shoulder, is noted villain, has broke this and Alex. is jail twice, is about five feet 7 or 8 inches high, supposed to be about 35 or 40 years of age. Charles Houltman, a Dutchman, is about 50 years of age, 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, has a number of scars on his back and is a jolly fellow. Johnson Naylor, born in Virginia, reputed to be a Fellow, about 5 feet 8 or 9 inches high, about 19 or 20 years of age. William Pickerson, an Irishman, bred to and follows the sea, is a noted villain is supposed to be a murderer from a whipping he received at the public poll of this place, is about 35 years of age and 6 feet high. A Negro woman named Moll, born in Virginia, stout mid, 5 feet 2 or 3 inches high, 25 or 30 years of age. Whoever will take up and return the above named Criminals, shall have the above reward—or 10 dollars for either, if returned to ROBERT MCLELLAN, GOVERNOR. for DYNE D. BRENT Marshal of the District of Columbia. Washington City, June 2, 1802. 92

Advertisement.
Will be sold for ready money on the premises the 14th inst. if not sold before at private sale.
A NEGRO WOMAN about 40 years of age—Also about 600 bushels Shell Lime. As the above property is to be sold for whatever it will bring in ready money, it is expected it will go off very low.
BROTHAWN & BYUS. Young's Wharf.
June 16 1852.
Summer Establishment.
MAIL PILOT.
WILL in future leave the Washington Tavern, Alexandria, every morning at 5 o'clock, and arrive at John H. Barney's, at the Government Gunery, to breakfast at 7 o'clock, and then proceed on to Baltimore, where it will arrive at 5 o'clock in the evening, at Mr. Tuck's Columbian Inn, and regularly on to Philadelphia, for those persons travelling in this line may be sure of no hindrance on their way.
Being provided with the good horses and carriages as say on the road, we solicit a share of public patronage, and confidently expect that such is favor this line of stages with their omnibus will find the accommodations equal, if not superior, to those provided by any others.
Returning—it leaves Baltimore every morning at 6 o'clock, and arrives at Alexandria the same evening.
Boats for Alexandria taken at Georgetown, at J. H. Barney's stage office.
PETER HELLILL, S. H. BARNET. Alexandria, June 14, 1852.
FOR SALE.
A TRACT of land containing 2,500 acres lying immediately on the river Potomac, in the county of Northumberland, Virginia, the residence of PRESLEY THORNTON, Esq. Seventeen hundred acres of which are of the most valuable kind on the ground. On the river, between three and four hundred acres heavily timbered, the remainder is wavy hilly and extremely productive. The soil of this tract is equal to any in the state for cultivation of corn, wheat, tobacco, timothy, and small grain of all kinds. On this tract are a large farmhouse, two story brick barn, two large tobacco houses, a large brick silo, a valuable barn, cow house, and many other out-houses, all in good repair. The orchard and garden contain a variety of valuable fruit trees, and the waters abound with excellent fish and oysters. It is situated about a day's fall from Alexandria, Maryland or Washington—There are two good mill sites for grain, or flourmills on this estate, and plenty of cedar and chestnut timber, exclusive of the heavy timber which is saved up into caulking will command a price in the City of Washington, nearly equal to the value of the land.
The terms will be made easy to the purchaser or purchasers, and the tract will be divided into two or more parcels if necessary—Apply to
RICHARD PETERS, jun. No. 85, Walnut Street Philadelphia, Nov. 17.
City Hotel.
BROADWAY NEW-YORK.
THE Sub-ther most respectfully informs his friends and the public, that the above Hotel will be opened on the 1st of May ensuing, when their patronage is earnestly solicited. He avails himself of this opportunity to return his sincere and grateful thanks to those societies, parties, and gentlemen who have given him their support, and assures them that a continuance of their favors will be a stimulus to more exertions to please; and that the utmost attention shall be given for their comfort and accommodation. Boarding may be had by the day, week, month, or year. Families travelling may be elegantly accommodated with lodging and fitting rooms; and if preferred, have dinners served in their apartments. The Hotel being so well known, it is almost needless to say, that it is situated in one of the most healthy and pleasant parts of the city; commanding an extensive view in every direction, not only on the city itself, but also of the Narrows, the North and East Rivers, the Isle of New-Jersey, York and Long Island, &c. &c. A handsome coffee-room will be fitted up in the principal story; here gentlemen may have tea, coffee, chocolate, &c., lamps, and newspapers in general, at the shortest notice. All the leading newspapers in the union, will be regularly taken in. Public dinners and suppers in a plain & elegant style, for large or small parties. Ale, beef-steaks, oysters, &c. regularly furnished. An ordinary every day at half past 2 o'clock, by the public's obedient servant, JOHN LOFT. N. B. Rooms to let by the month or year. April 21, 1852.
HARLE'S 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 good, from Philadelphia, consisting of, Ball Apron lace, Gingham, Swansdown, Toylenets, Velverets, fancy Crabs, Cords, &c. N. B. Regimentals, Naval Uniforms, and Ladies' Hats, made to the newest and most fashionable manner, and at the shortest notice—Wish-ton City, New Jersey Avenue, next to Mr. Kappe's book store. Dec. 15, 1851.
For Sale.
A VERY elegant saddle HORSE, faves years old, paces, trots, and canters, and is in other respects completely broken to the bridle—For further particulars enquire of Mr. Steele on Capitol Hill, and see the horse at his livery stable. April 25, 1852.
PROPOSALS
For carrying the Mails of the United States on the following Post Roads, will be received at the General Post Office in Washington City, until the 12th day of July next, inclusive.
IN MAINE.
1. From Deeringville to Eastport on Moose Island once a week. Leave Deeringville every Thursday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Eastport by 5 P.M. Leave Eastport every Friday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Deeringville by 10 A.M.
2. From Sebec by Penobscot, Danneville, Machias, Chandlerville, Columbia, Narraguagus, Gouldboro' to Sullivan to Trenton once a week. Leave Sebec every Friday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Trenton the next Monday by 10 A.M. Leave Trenton every Monday by 10 A.M. and arrive at Sebec the next Thursday by 6 P.M.
3. From Trenton by Bluehill, Gethse, Penobscot, Bucksport, Prospect, Bethel, Ducktrap, Campobello, Thomaston, Warren, Waldoboro' and Newcastle to Waterville once a week. Leave Trenton every Monday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Waterville the next Thursday by 6 P.M. Leave Waterville every Friday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Trenton the next Monday by 10 A.M.
4. From Bucksport by Frankfort, Hampden, Bangor, Edinburg and Orrington to Bucksport once a week. Leave Bucksport every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Bangor by 4 P.M. and arrive at Bucksport the next Tuesday by noon.
5. From Waterville by Bath, Brunswick, Freeport, North Yarmouth and Falmouth to Portland three times a week. Leave Waterville every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Portland the same days by 6 P.M. Returning—Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Waterville the same days by 6 P.M.
6. From Waterville by New Milford, Dickey, Hallowell, Augusta, Winthrop, Monmouth, Greene, Lewiston, New Gloucester, Gray and Farmington to Portland once a week. Leave Waterville every Wednesday at 8 A.M. and arrive at Portland on Saturday by noon. Leave Portland every Sunday at 8 P.M. and arrive at Waterville the next Tuesday by 7 P.M.
7. From Hallowell by Augusta, Vassalboro', Windsor, Fairfield and Canaan to Norridgewock once a week. Leave Hallowell every Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Norridgewock on Friday by 9 A.M. Leave Norridgewock every Tuesday at 3 P.M. and arrive at Hallowell on Wednesday by 4 P.M.
8. From Hallowell by Augusta, Reedfield, Mount Vernon and Chelsea to Farmington, and from thence by New Sharon and Belgrade to Augusta once a week. Leave Hallowell every Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Farmington by 6 P.M. Leave Farmington every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Hallowell by 4 P.M.
9. From Portland by Windham, Raymond, Bridgetown, Waterville, Norway, Paris, Bethel, Turner, Poland and New Gloucester to Portland once a week. Leave Portland every Tuesday at 8 A.M. and return to Portland the next Wednesday by 5 P.M.
10. From Portland by Saccarappa, Gorham, Standish, Falmouth, Hiram, and Brownfield to Fryeburg once a week. Leave Portland every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Fryeburg every Tuesday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Fryeburg every Tuesday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Portland the next Wednesday by 7 P.M.
11. From Portland by Gosham, Buxton, Limington, Limerick, Parsonsfield, Newfield, Shapleigh, Waterboro', Sanford and Lebanon to Berwick once a week. Leave Portland every Monday at 8 A.M. and arrive at Berwick on Wednesday by 7 P.M. Leave Berwick every Tuesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Portland on Saturday by 6 P.M.
12. From Portland by Sebago, Biddeford, Kennebunk, Doughty's Falls, Berwick and Dover, N.H. to Portland three times a week. Leave Portland every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Portland by 6 P.M. in summer, and by 8 P.M. in winter. Returning—Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 4 A.M. and arrive at Portland by 6 P.M. in summer, and by 8 P.M. in winter.
13. From Portland by Sebago, Pepperell's, Biddeford, Kennebunk, Wells, York, and Kittery to Portsmouth three times a week. Leave Portland every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Portsmouth the same days by 6 P.M. in summer, and by 8 P.M. in winter. Returning—Leave Portsmouth every Monday, Wednesday and Friday by 4 A.M. and arrive at Portland the same days by 6 P.M. in summer, and by 8 P.M. in winter.
14. From Portsmouth by Dover, Rochester, Middletown, Ogunquit, Mountsbanke, Centre Harbor, Plymouth, New Hampshire, Meredith, Gilmanstown, Nottingham and Durham to Portsmouth once a week, and return the contrary way the next week, so as to pass alternately once a week. Leave Portsmouth every Monday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Portsmouth the next Monday by 2 P.M.
15. From Portsmouth by Exeter, Checher, Londonderry, Amherst, Peterborough, Manchester and Keene to Waterville once a week. Leave Portsmouth every Tuesday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Waterville on Wednesday by 7 P.M. Leave Waterville every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Portsmouth on Saturday by 6 P.M. Returning—Leave Waterville every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Portsmouth on Saturday by 6 P.M.
16. From Exeter by Nottingham, Concord, Salisbury, Grafton, Canaan, and Lebanon to Hanover once a week. Leave Exeter every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Hanover on Thursday by 9 A.M. Leave Hanover on Saturday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Exeter the next Tuesday by 7 P.M.
17. From Haverhill Mass. by Chester, Pembroke, Concord, Berwick, Safford, Yarmouth, Rumney and Haverhill N.H. to Newbury Vt. once a week. Leave Haverhill Mass. every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Chester by 5 P.M. on Saturday by noon; leave Concord at 7 P.M. and arrive at Plymouth on Monday by 6 A.M. and at Haverhill by 5 P.M. on Tuesday by 7 P.M. Returning—Leave Newbury on Tuesday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Haverhill by 7 A.M. at Plymouth by 6 P.M. on Wednesday by 6 P.M. Leave Concord on Thursday at 10 A.M. and arrive at Haverhill on Friday by 10 A.M.
18. From Hanover N.H. by Orford to Haverhill once a week. Leave Hanover every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Haverhill by 4 P.M. Returning—Leave Haverhill on Tuesday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Hanover by 6 P.M.
19. From Hanover by Norwich, Hartford, Lyndon, Windsor Vt., Charleston, Waitsfield, Weathersfield Vt., Putney Vt., Brattleboro' Vt., Hinsdale Vt., Bennington Mass. Greenfield Mass. Deerfield, Whately, Hatfield, Northampton, Southampton and Westfield Mass. to Springfield Mass. twice a week. Leave Hanover every Monday and Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Windsor by noon. Leave Windsor in half an hour and arrive at Brattleboro' on Tuesday and Friday by 11 A.M. Leave Brattleboro' at 2 P.M. and arrive at Springfield on Wednesday and Saturday by 6 P.M. Returning—Leave Springfield every Monday and Thursday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Northampton by 1 P.M. Leave Northampton in half an hour and arrive at Brattleboro' every Tuesday and Friday at 10 A.M. Leave Brattleboro' at 1 P.M. and arrive at Windsor on Wednesday and Saturday by noon. Leave Windsor in half an hour and arrive at Hanover by 6 P.M.
20. From Portsmouth by Exeter, Kingston, Haverhill, Mass. Arrows, Wilmington, Woburn and Medford to Boston three times a week. Leave Portsmouth every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 A.M. and arrive at Boston the same days by 7 P.M. Returning—Leave Boston every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 3 A.M. and arrive at Portsmouth the same days by 7 P.M.
21. From Exeter by Newmarket and Durham to Dover once a week. Leave Exeter every Tuesday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Dover by 10 A.M. Leave Dover every Tuesday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Exeter by 6 P.M.
22. From Rutland by Pitsfield, Brandeis, Leicester, Sambury, Middlebury, New Haven, Vergennes, Ferrisburgh, Charlotte, Shelburne, Burlington, C.B. Chester, Milton, Georgia, St. Albans, and Swanton to Highgate once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Charlotte on Tuesday by 10 A.M. and arrive at Highgate on Wednesday by 7 P.M. Returning—Leave Highgate every Thursday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Charlotte on Friday by 2 P.M. and at Rutland on Saturday by 7 P.M.
23. From Burlington by Jericho, Montpelier, Williamstown, Randolph, Royalton, and Woodstock to Windsor Vt. once a week. Leave Burlington every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Montpelier on Saturday by 6 P.M. and arrive at Windsor by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Windsor every Tuesday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Montpelier on Wednesday by 6 P.M. and at Burlington on Friday by 10 A.M.
24. From Montpelier by Barre, Washington, Corinth, Bradford, Newbury, Ryegate, Peacham and Newfbury, to Danville once a week. Leave Montpelier every Saturday at 7 P.M. and arrive at Newbury on Sunday by 6 P.M. and at Danville on Tuesday by 2 P.M. Returning—Leave Danville every Tuesday at 4 P.M. and arrive at Montpelier on Thursday at 4 P.M.
25. From Rutland by Castleton, Fairhaven, Benson, Orwell, Shorham and Addison to Vergennes, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Fairhaven by 10 A.M. Leave Fairhaven at noon, and arrive at Vergennes on Tuesday by 2 P.M. Returning—Leave Vergennes every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Fairhaven by 10 A.M. and arrive at Rutland by noon.
26. From Rutland by Clarendon, Thannington, Danby, Dorset, Manchester, Ascutney, Shaftsbury, Bennington, Lardisburg and Troy to Albany, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday and Thursday by 8 A.M. and arrive at Bennington on Tuesday and Friday by 7 P.M. Leave Bennington on Wednesday and Saturday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Albany the same days by 5 P.M. Returning—Leave Albany every Monday and Thursday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Bennington the same days by 7 P.M. Leave Bennington, Tuesday and Friday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday and Saturday by 3 P.M.
27. From Rutland, by Sherburne, Salisburg and Reading to Waterville, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Waterville on Tuesday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Waterville every Tuesday by 2 P.M. and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday by 7 P.M.
28. From Rutland, by Grand Isle, Charlotte, Roaring Brook, Bellows Falls & Westminster, to Waitsfield, N.H. once a week. Leave Rutland every Friday at 6 P.M. and arrive at Waitsfield on Friday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Waitsfield every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Rutland on Saturday by 6 P.M.
29. From Bennington by Manchester, Wilmington and Woodford to Brattleboro', once a week. Leave Bennington every Thursday at 9 P.M. and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 11 A.M. Returning—Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Bennington on Saturday by 4 P.M.
30. From Newburyport, by Amherst to Haverhill, once a week. Leave Newburyport every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Haverhill by 11 A.M. Returning—Leave Haverhill every Monday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Newburyport by 7 P.M.
31. From Boston, by Chelsea, Lynn, Salem, Beverly, and Manchester to Gloucester, once a week. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Gloucester by 6 P.M. Leave Gloucester every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 6 P.M.
32. From Boston, by Charleston, Medford, Woburn, Malden, Revere, Chelsea, Charlestown, Lynn, Lynnport, Amherst, N.H., Framingham, N.H., Wellesley, Newton, N.H. and Glenora, N.H. to Windsor, Vt. once a week. Leave Boston every Saturday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Amherst by 8 P.M. and at Windsor the next Tuesday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Windsor every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Amherst on Wednesday by 7 P.M. Leave Amherst on Thursday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 8 P.M.
33. From Salem to Marblehead six times a week. Leave Salem every day, Sunday excepted at noon, and arrive at Marblehead by 1 P.M. Leave Marblehead every day at half past two o'clock P.M. and arrive at Salem by half past 3 P.M.
34. From Biliteria by Tewksbury, Dracut, Petham, N.H. and Wilmington to Concord, N.H. once a week. Leave Biliteria every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M. Leave Concord every Monday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Biliteria by 3 P.M.
35. From Boston, by Cambridge, Lexington, Concord, Acton and Littleton, to Groton twice a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday and Saturday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M. and arrive at Groton by 3 P.M. Returning—Leave Groton every Monday and Thursday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M. Leave Concord at 1 P.M. and arrive at Boston by 7 P.M.
36. From Groton, by Townsend, Albany, New Ipswich, Jaffrey, Marlborough, Keene, and Chesterfield, N.H. to Brattleboro', Vt. once a week. Leave Groton every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Brattleboro' by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Brattleboro' on Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Groton on Saturday by 6 P.M.
37. From Concord by Acton, Boxboro', Harvard, Littleton, to Manchester, once a week. Leave Concord every Wednesday and Saturday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Manchester by 7 P.M. Leave Manchester every Monday and Thursday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M.
38. From Leominster by Westminster, Templeton, Grafton, Athol, New Salem, Wendell, and Montague, to Greenfield, once a week. Leave Leominster every Thursday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Greenfield by 7 P.M. Leave Greenfield every Saturday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Leominster by 7 P.M.
39. From Worcester, by Paxton to Lancaster, once a week. Leave Worcester every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Lancaster by 11 A.M. Leave Lancaster the same day at 1 P.M. and arrive at Worcester by 6 P.M.
40. From Boston, by Roxbury, Dedham, Medfield, Midway, Bellingham, Mendon, Upton, Douglas, Hopkinton, C. Poniket, C. Ashford, C. and Tolland, C. to Hartford, C. once a week. Leave Boston every Monday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Hartford on Wednesday by 5 P.M. Leave Hartford every Friday at 5 P.M. and arrive at Boston on Saturday by 5 P.M.
41. From Boston by Needham, Wrentham, Ashland, Framingham, N. N. Norwich, New London, Saybrook, Killingworth, Guilford, and Branford, to New Haven, three times a week. From New Haven, to May 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at New Haven by 11 A.M. and arrive at New London by 1 P.M. Returning—Leave New London every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 11 A.M. Leave New Haven every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 11 A.M.
42. From New Bedford to Nantucket once a week in summer, and twice in winter. May 1 to Nov. 1. Leave New Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Nantucket by 1 P.M. and arrive at New Bedford by 4 A.M. and arrive at Nantucket the same days. Leave Nantucket every Sunday by 6 A.M. and arrive at New Bedford the same days, when the wind and weather will permit.
43. From Boston by Dorchester, Milton, Roxbury, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Hane, Plymouth, Scituate, and Scituate to Warren, R.I. once a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Warren on Friday by 9 A.M. Leave Warren every Tuesday at 7 A.M. and arrive at Boston on Wednesday by 11 A.M.
44. From Boston by Dorchester, Milton, Quincy, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Hane, Plymouth, Scituate, and Scituate to Warren, R.I. twice a week. Leave Boston every Tuesday and Friday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Warren by 7 P.M. Returning—Leave Warren every Monday and Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 7 P.M.
45. From Plymouth by Sandwich, Falmouth, Vineyard Haven, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Buzzards Bay, and Barnstable to Boston, once a week. Leave Plymouth every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 10 A.M. Leave Boston every Monday and Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Plymouth the next Sunday by 6 P.M.
46. From Hingham by Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield and Duxbury to Boston, once a week. Leave Hingham every Wednesday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 11 A.M. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Hingham by 7 P.M.
47. From Sandwich, by Wareham, Rochester, New Bedford, Dartmouth, Westport, and Little Compton, R.I. to Newport, R.I. once a week. Leave Sandwich every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Newport on Tuesday by noon. Returning—Leave Newport every Tuesday at 3 P.M. and arrive at Sandwich on Wednesday by 7 P.M.
IN VERMONT.
22. From Rutland by Pitsfield, Brandeis, Leicester, Sambury, Middlebury, New Haven, Vergennes, Ferrisburgh, Charlotte, Shelburne, Burlington, C.B. Chester, Milton, Georgia, St. Albans, and Swanton to Highgate once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Charlotte on Tuesday by 10 A.M. and arrive at Highgate on Wednesday by 7 P.M. Returning—Leave Highgate every Thursday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Charlotte on Friday by 2 P.M. and at Rutland on Saturday by 7 P.M.
23. From Burlington by Jericho, Montpelier, Williamstown, Randolph, Royalton, and Woodstock to Windsor Vt. once a week. Leave Burlington every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Montpelier on Saturday by 6 P.M. and arrive at Windsor by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Windsor every Tuesday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Montpelier on Wednesday by 6 P.M. and at Burlington on Friday by 10 A.M.
24. From Montpelier by Barre, Washington, Corinth, Bradford, Newbury, Ryegate, Peacham and Newfbury, to Danville once a week. Leave Montpelier every Saturday at 7 P.M. and arrive at Newbury on Sunday by 6 P.M. and at Danville on Tuesday by 2 P.M. Returning—Leave Danville every Tuesday at 4 P.M. and arrive at Montpelier on Thursday at 4 P.M.
25. From Rutland by Castleton, Fairhaven, Benson, Orwell, Shorham and Addison to Vergennes, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Fairhaven by 10 A.M. Leave Fairhaven at noon, and arrive at Vergennes on Tuesday by 2 P.M. Returning—Leave Vergennes every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Fairhaven by 10 A.M. and arrive at Rutland by noon.
26. From Rutland by Clarendon, Thannington, Danby, Dorset, Manchester, Ascutney, Shaftsbury, Bennington, Lardisburg and Troy to Albany, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday and Thursday by 8 A.M. and arrive at Bennington on Tuesday and Friday by 7 P.M. Leave Bennington on Wednesday and Saturday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Albany the same days by 5 P.M. Returning—Leave Albany every Monday and Thursday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Bennington the same days by 7 P.M. Leave Bennington, Tuesday and Friday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday and Saturday by 3 P.M.
27. From Rutland, by Sherburne, Salisburg and Reading to Waterville, once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Waterville on Tuesday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Waterville every Tuesday by 2 P.M. and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday by 7 P.M.
28. From Rutland, by Grand Isle, Charlotte, Roaring Brook, Bellows Falls & Westminster, to Waitsfield, N.H. once a week. Leave Rutland every Friday at 6 P.M. and arrive at Waitsfield on Friday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Waitsfield every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Rutland on Saturday by 6 P.M.
29. From Bennington by Manchester, Wilmington and Woodford to Brattleboro', once a week. Leave Bennington every Thursday at 9 P.M. and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 11 A.M. Returning—Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Bennington on Saturday by 4 P.M.
30. From Newburyport, by Amherst to Haverhill, once a week. Leave Newburyport every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Haverhill by 11 A.M. Returning—Leave Haverhill every Monday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Newburyport by 7 P.M.
31. From Boston, by Chelsea, Lynn, Salem, Beverly, and Manchester to Gloucester, once a week. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Gloucester by 6 P.M. Leave Gloucester every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 6 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 6 P.M.
32. From Boston, by Charleston, Medford, Woburn, Malden, Revere, Chelsea, Charlestown, Lynn, Lynnport, Amherst, N.H., Framingham, N.H., Wellesley, Newton, N.H. and Glenora, N.H. to Windsor, Vt. once a week. Leave Boston every Saturday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Amherst by 8 P.M. and at Windsor the next Tuesday by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Windsor every Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Amherst on Wednesday by 7 P.M. Leave Amherst on Thursday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 8 P.M.
33. From Salem to Marblehead six times a week. Leave Salem every day, Sunday excepted at noon, and arrive at Marblehead by 1 P.M. Leave Marblehead every day at half past two o'clock P.M. and arrive at Salem by half past 3 P.M.
34. From Biliteria by Tewksbury, Dracut, Petham, N.H. and Wilmington to Concord, N.H. once a week. Leave Biliteria every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M. Leave Concord every Monday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Biliteria by 3 P.M.
35. From Boston, by Cambridge, Lexington, Concord, Acton and Littleton, to Groton twice a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday and Saturday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M. and arrive at Groton by 3 P.M. Returning—Leave Groton every Monday and Thursday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M. Leave Concord at 1 P.M. and arrive at Boston by 7 P.M.
36. From Groton, by Townsend, Albany, New Ipswich, Jaffrey, Marlborough, Keene, and Chesterfield, N.H. to Brattleboro', Vt. once a week. Leave Groton every Monday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Brattleboro' by 10 A.M. Returning—Leave Brattleboro' on Friday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Groton on Saturday by 6 P.M.
37. From Concord by Acton, Boxboro', Harvard, Littleton, to Manchester, once a week. Leave Concord every Wednesday and Saturday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Manchester by 7 P.M. Leave Manchester every Monday and Thursday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Concord by 11 A.M.
38. From Leominster by Westminster, Templeton, Grafton, Athol, New Salem, Wendell, and Montague, to Greenfield, once a week. Leave Leominster every Thursday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Greenfield by 7 P.M. Leave Greenfield every Saturday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Leominster by 7 P.M.
39. From Worcester, by Paxton to Lancaster, once a week. Leave Worcester every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Lancaster by 11 A.M. Leave Lancaster the same day at 1 P.M. and arrive at Worcester by 6 P.M.
40. From Boston, by Roxbury, Dedham, Medfield, Midway, Bellingham, Mendon, Upton, Douglas, Hopkinton, C. Poniket, C. Ashford, C. and Tolland, C. to Hartford, C. once a week. Leave Boston every Monday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Hartford on Wednesday by 5 P.M. Leave Hartford every Friday at 5 P.M. and arrive at Boston on Saturday by 5 P.M.
41. From Boston by Needham, Wrentham, Ashland, Framingham, N. N. Norwich, New London, Saybrook, Killingworth, Guilford, and Branford, to New Haven, three times a week. From New Haven, to May 1. Leave Boston every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at New Haven by 11 A.M. and arrive at New London by 1 P.M. Returning—Leave New London every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 11 A.M. Leave New Haven every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 4 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 11 A.M.
42. From New Bedford to Nantucket once a week in summer, and twice in winter. May 1 to Nov. 1. Leave New Bedford every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 9 A.M. and arrive at Nantucket by 1 P.M. and arrive at New Bedford by 4 A.M. and arrive at Nantucket the same days. Leave Nantucket every Sunday by 6 A.M. and arrive at New Bedford the same days, when the wind and weather will permit.
43. From Boston by Dorchester, Milton, Roxbury, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Hane, Plymouth, Scituate, and Scituate to Warren, R.I. once a week. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 2 P.M. and arrive at Warren on Friday by 9 A.M. Leave Warren every Tuesday at 7 A.M. and arrive at Boston on Wednesday by 11 A.M.
44. From Boston by Dorchester, Milton, Quincy, Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Hane, Plymouth, Scituate, and Scituate to Warren, R.I. twice a week. Leave Boston every Tuesday and Friday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Warren by 7 P.M. Returning—Leave Warren every Monday and Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 7 P.M.
45. From Plymouth by Sandwich, Falmouth, Vineyard Haven, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Buzzards Bay, and Barnstable to Boston, once a week. Leave Plymouth every Wednesday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 10 A.M. Leave Boston every Monday and Thursday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Plymouth the next Sunday by 6 P.M.
46. From Hingham by Cohasset, Scituate, Marshfield and Duxbury to Boston, once a week. Leave Hingham every Wednesday at 5 A.M. and arrive at Boston by 11 A.M. Leave Boston every Wednesday at 1 P.M. and arrive at Hingham by 7 P.M.
47. From Sandwich, by Wareham, Rochester, New Bedford, Dartmouth, Westport, and Little Compton, R.I. to Newport, R.I. once a week. Leave Sandwich every Monday at 6 A.M. and arrive at Newport on Tuesday by noon. Returning—Leave Newport every Tuesday at 3 P.M. and arrive at Sandwich on Wednesday by 7 P.M.