The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-03-19 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CXXIII.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANN.
FRIDAY, MARCH 19th, 1807.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, February 23,
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. HUGER.—I have endeavored to catch your eye, Mr. Chairman, at this time, under the expectation and in the hope, that, as the committee have, during the two last days, enjoyed a vacation from public business, I shall run the less risk of exhausting its patience, and may calculate the more largely on the good nature and indulgence of gentlemen, in the course of the few observations, I shall venture to submit to their consideration. Little accustomed to deliver my sentiments before a public audience, from my mode and habits of life, seldom obliged even to concentrate my ideas on a particular subject, I have at no time presumed to address this honorable body, but with great diffidence, with the utmost deference—never I can truly say, have I felt more strongly and sincerely these sensations than at the present moment; nor have I without great difficulty, and after much hesitation, ventured to offer myself to your regards, and take possession of the floor. Believing, however, as I do, that the dearest interests of the community, the very existence of our national government, and union, are involved in this momentous question, I feel myself compelled in duty and conscience, to express my dissent, and enter my protest against the (in my humble opinion, unconstitutional and mischievous) measure, which we are now called upon to adopt, in language more strong and decided than might be conveyed by a silent vote.
When I was before up, Mr. Chairman, on the motion for a postponement, made by the member from Delaware, I took occasion to express my regrets, that a constitutional point of the first magnitude and importance should be brought forward at a moment so inauspicious to a fair and impartial investigation of it, at a time, when the passions of gentlemen had been so greatly excited; when party feelings and party zeal must necessarily have so powerful an influence on their minds; when they had just gained after a long and irritating struggle, a complete victory over their political opponents, and found themselves at a moment's warning, put in possession of the whole power of the government. I could not but lament and deplore the fallibility of human nature, and what appeared to me to be the infatuation of men, whom I knew to be wise and honorable. I deprecated and protested against the haste and precipitancy, with which this measure was so unnecessarily hurried on for consideration, and conjured gentlemen to pause and consider, whether it was at this moment, and under the present circumstances, that they ought to give a loose to their feelings, and urge the house to decide irrevocably and finally a great, an all important national and constitutional question; involving in its decision the prostration and complete overthrow of the only bar—the only efficient check, which the constitution had provided, to their newly acquired power, implicated, as it unfortunately was, with another subject, peculiarly obnoxious to them, as a party, and necessarily exciting in their minds so many unpleasant and irritable recollections. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit it to the candor of the committee to determine, whether the course which has been pursued, and the occurrences which have since taken place, do not fully warrant and clearly evince the correctness and propriety of the observations I make on that occasion. Which of the honorable gentlemen, who have advocated the measure now submitted to your consideration, which of them I pray you, has been able to divest himself of his party feelings and enthusiasm, and laying aside all extraneous matter, has confined himself to the real merits of the question. An honorable member from Virginia (Mr. Giles,) not now in his place, who has, however, taken an active part in the debate, and who, without disparagement to other gentlemen, may be regarded, as the premier, or prime minister of the day, promised us on a former occasion, that he would endeavor
to take this course. He told us, that if party feelings ever could be buried, the subject of the bill before us was the most proper to induce both sides of the house to make an effort to that effect; that he hoped and sincerely wished all extraneous and foreign matter might be laid aside; that gentlemen would meet the question with coolness and temper, and make up their opinions on the subject with a view merely to the simple merits of the case. And if I am not greatly mistaken, the honorable member pledged himself, that he would endeavor to enforce this doctrine by his own example. But what was the fact? Had that gentleman confined himself in the smallest degree to the real merits of the case? Had he not on the contrary, put his memory and invention equally to the rack, in order to ferret out proper subjects for irritation, and to excite to the highest pitch, the party feelings and party spirit of the committee. Had he not gone back to the very commencement of the government, given an extensive history of all its operations for twelve long years, and brought to our recollection every topic, every subject, which during this period had been conjured up and made use of to prejudice and inflame the public mind against those, who have heretofore administered the government? He had not been satisfied to avail himself even of living objects, but had raked up the ashes of the dead, not certainly to prove the expediency or constitutionality of the measure proposed, but for the charitable purpose of throwing an odium on his political opponents. So far was he indeed from confining himself as he had promised, to the point in dispute, that his sole aim, his only object would seem to have been to shew that the act of the last session was passed with party views, and party purposes, and upon the same grounds ought now to be done away.
When a gentleman of such high talents and extensive acquirements, addresses himself so much to the passions and party feelings, and so little to the reason and understanding of his audience; does it not, Mr. Chairman, afford a strong presumption, that he is neither convinced of the soundness of the doctrine he advances, nor satisfied with the strength of the arguments he has to adduce in support of the measure, he wishes to carry?
I observe, Mr. Chairman, on running my eye over the notes, which I have taken in the course of the present debate, one circumstance, which has been noticed by several gentlemen, and upon which they dwell with apparent triumph. They tell us, that the members of the present congress were elected with a view to the repeal of the act of the last session; that the people have thereby shown their high disapprobation of the new organization of the judiciary, then adopted; and have expressed in a manner not to be misunderstood, their sentiments in favour of the constitutional doctrine now contended for. Gentlemen should really however, consult facts and dates, before they indulge themselves in these round assertions. Is it not, Mr. Chairman, in the present instance notorious to every body, that the great majority, three-fourths at least of the members of the present congress, were chosen antecedent to the passage of the law in question. The elections, it is well known, had taken place in South-Carolina, North-Carolina, Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New-York, and I believe, all the New-England States, before it was adopted. How then, can gentlemen pretend to tell us at this day, that the majority of the House were elected with a view to the repeal of a law, which was not in existence at the time of their elections, and that the people had in this way expressed their opinions and sentiments on a constitutional question, which could not in the nature of things have been before them.
I shall now, Mr. Chairman, proceed to the discussion of the main question, beg leave to lay a few words with respect to the document No. 8, which was presented to this House by the executive, for the purpose of throwing additional light on the subject of the judiciary, and which has been printed and dispersed throughout the continent, with so much diligence and liberality. But, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, allow me to call the attention of the committee to the President's message at the commencement of the session, and remind them of what he there lays on the subject—speaking of the judiciary, he expressed himself in the following words.
"The judiciary system of the United States, and especially that portion of it recently erected, will of course present itself to the contemplation of congress; and that they may be able to judge of
the proportion, which the institution bears to the business it has to perform, I have caused to be procured from the several States; and now lay before congress, an exact statement of all the causes decided since the first establishment of the courts, and of those which were pending, when additional courts and judges were brought to their aid."
I know not, Mr. Chairman, whether this part of the message made the same impression on the minds of every gentleman, who heard it read; but to me and to all those whom I have spoken on the subject, it certainly did appear to hold out the idea, that the executive had caused to be procured from the several States, and then laid before congress, an exact statement of all the causes, decided since the first establishment of federal courts, and which were still depending before them. For myself, I did understand and expect, that we were to have a complete and general view of the judiciary in all its branches, and ramifications. And I observe, Mr. Chairman, that all those gentlemen, who either in this or the other branch of the legislature, have referred to document No. 8, acted under this impression, and spoke of it, as affording a general view of all the business, which had been brought before the various and different courts of the United States. And such in my humble opinion, ought in fact to have been the statement. We ought to have had a full and not a partial view of the subject, if it was necessary, that we should have any official information at all with respect to it. Instead however, of a general and comprehensive view of all the business before the federal courts, we have only a partial and incorrect statement of the business, which has been brought before a proportion (not all even of these) of the circuit courts under the old establishment: the very courts whose organization we contend was defective, and which the honorable and learned member from Delaware, has proven beyond all possibility of doubt, to have been found so very inconvenient in practice, that suitors were driven from them, and forced, however against their inclination, to have recourse to other tribunals. If the document, therefore, incorrect as it avowedly is, proves anything; it goes to establish, what we aver and contend for, to wit: that these courts were heretofore improperly organized, and did not afford that prompt and equal justice, which the people of the United States have a right to expect, and ought to find in the national tribunals. And although I have not had an opportunity of procuring any information on the subject from my own immediate source, nor can be expected, being no professional man, to have acquired any practical knowledge of the business of the courts, in the various parts of the Union; yet, I have casually received some information from a neighbouring State, which will at once shew, under how different an aspect the subject would present itself; how much more considerable the quantity of business brought before the federal courts would appear to have been, had there been presented to our view, a general statement of all the causes, which have been or are now depending in all the different courts. It has been stated to me on authority, upon which I have every reason to rely, that the President had applied for cases in the circuit courts only, not in district courts; that there have been and are still however depending in the district courts of Virginia alone, suits to the number of twelve hundred, more than half of which are yet undetermined, and that there is no doubt, but that other States have their suits in the same proportion.
The committee will at once perceive in how very different a light, this subject would have appeared to the eyes of the American world, both as to the quantity and importance of the business, under the cognizance of the federal judiciary, had a general statement, as was expected, of all the causes, which have been brought before any and each of the courts, been submitted to us by the executive.
Whilst on this subject, I beg permission, Mr. Chairman, to state another piece of information, which I have received, with respect to the courts of Virginia. It is stated in the document No. 8, respecting the circuit court which sits at Lexington, for the western district of Virginia, "That no causes were decided or depending in the circuit court of the western district of Virginia;" but no reason is given, and the inference necessarily drawn from this by the public must no doubt be, that there was no business to be done in that court. I am credibly informed, however, "that there was neither a marshal nor an attorney for that
court when the judges met; nor was there any jury summoned. The commission, it seems, of marshal, for Mr. Gratton, and of attorney for General Blackburn, which had been made out, sealed and ordered to be put into the post-office, under the old administration (without being actually put in the mail) were suppressed upon a change taking place in the administration; and it was not until after the date of the docket, that Mr. Moore and Mr. Monroe received their commissions as marshal and attorney of that district. I am further told, that as soon as the federal court met, thus organized, fifteen suits were instituted. How, Mr. Chairman, were not these facts known to those who framed the document No. 8? And if known, ought there not, in fairness and candour, to have been some notice taken of them in the exact statement? Instead of admitting the insinuation which it now conveys, as it now stands, viz. that there was no business at all to be transacted in the circuit court for the western district of Virginia.
[Here Mr. Huger was interrupted by Mr. Holland from North-Carolina, who wished to know the authority upon which he made these statements.—Mr. Huger said in reply, that he did not conceive himself bound to give his authority; nor did he think proper to gratify the honorable gentleman's curiosity in this respect, unless called upon to do so by the house. It was sufficient that he believed the information he had received to be correct; he stated what he conceived to be facts, in his place. If he was incorrect or misinformed, it became gentlemen on the other side to deny the facts, and point out to the committee, in what respect the information he had given was erroneous.—Mr. Huger then continued.]
I shall not, Mr. Chairman, encroach further on the time and indulgence of the committee, by any other desultory observations; but shall proceed to consider, as well as my feeble means will permit, the merits of the main question, and the bill now under consideration.
The bill sent down from the senate and now before the committee, involves two very distinct questions. It is proposed, in the first place, to repeal the act for the better organization of the judiciary, passed at the last session, and thereby to revive the former judicial establishment. Was this the only consequence, the whole effect of the bill, I should feel little anxiety as to the result of the present debate. For defective as the old system is conceived to have been, I have no doubt but that we might have hobbled on with it a few years longer, until further experience should have induced some future congress to alter and amend it.—Certain additional judges, however, having been required and appointed under the act of the last session, a simple repeal of that act necessarily deranges and deprives them of their offices. There arises another question of far greater magnitude, in my estimation all important: Whether this can be constitutionally done? In other words, whether the judges of the federal courts are to hold their offices during good behaviour, as the constitution would seem to require, or at the pleasure of the other two branches of the legislature; the construction now contended for?
Having been one of those who, in a former congress, contributed to bring about those alterations in the federal courts, which it is at this time proposed to do away, I may well be supposed to feel a partiality for, and to be prejudiced in favor of them.—To this partial feeling, to these prejudices it is perhaps owing, Mr. Chairman, that notwithstanding all that torrent of abuse which has been so liberally, but with so little foundation, bestowed on the law of the last session; notwithstanding the laboured and learned arguments which I have heard and read on the subject, both within and without these doors, I am still so much of an heretic as to believe, that the former organization of the federal judiciary was defective, and that it has been improved upon and amended by the new system. I am still so unreasonable as to suppose (judging from my own feelings and impressions) that the framers of the law it is now proposed to repeal, might have been actuated by motives less criminal and impure than those which have been so charitably attributed to them by their political opponents, and that some grounds might be adduced in favor of the provisions introduced into it, not altogether untenable. It has, however, been echoed and re-echoed from one end of the continent to the other, that the present law is a hasty and novel system, totally unnecessary, suddenly brought forward with party views, adopted for party purposes, and hurried through the last congress by small majorities, in either branch of the legislature. I will not undertake
to say, Mr. Chairman, that those who passed the law, now so much deprecated, were totally exempt from party feelings, nor will I deny, that it was adopted at a late stage of the last session, and carried by no very large majority, either in the Senate or House of Representatives. I do contend, however, that the measure cannot, in fairness and candour, be attributed to mere party motives, distinct from all public advantage; that the defects of the old system have been for years back complained of; that congress have been again and again called on to remedy them, and that the most important change, the vital principle contained in the new system, has been in contemplation from the very commencement of the present government, and have been heretofore warmly advocated by gentlemen of the very political sect which now raise such a clamor against it. Let us test these assertions by facts and dates.
One of the most pressing and not least important duties of the first Congress, under the present constitution, was to organize and establish national tribunals for administering justice, and carrying the laws of the union into effect. They took the business up, therefore, at a very early period, and adopted a plan, of which I request leave to give the outlines.
The United States were divided into 13 districts, to each of which a resident judge was appointed. These districts, (except those of Kentucky and Maine) were again classed into 3 circuits; the eastern, middle and southern. In compliance with the express injunctions of the constitution, a supreme court was also established, the members of which were composed of a chief justice and five associate judges. The chief justice and his associates were not only to do the duty of judges of the supreme court, but alternately to make the tour of the United States, and two of them united with the district judge of the district in which they met, were to hold the circuit court. North-Carolina and Rhode-Island having afterwards accepted the federal constitution, were erected into new districts, as were also Vermont and Tennessee, upon their being admitted into the union, as separate and distinct states.
Such in a few words was the system originally adopted in the year 1789. But no sooner had it been put into operation, than the inconveniences and defects of it began to be perceived and felt. In the very next year, as early as the year 1790, the attention of congress was called again to the judiciary; and the attorney general, Mr. Edmund Randolph, was desired to report, and did present a very detailed and elaborate report on the subject. In the course of this report, Mr. Randolph, as I shall presently shew, disapproves in the most unequivocal terms of the principle, which had been adopted of making the judges of the supreme court ride the circuits; and recommends the very change, which was introduced into the law of the last session, and is now so much reprobated, by his political friends. Nothing, however, having been done in the business at that time, complaints continued to pour in from all quarters;—and a succeeding congress found themselves in 1793, obliged to modify the law so far, as to do away the necessity of two judges of the supreme court attending the same circuit, and to allow a circuit court to be held by the district, and a single judge of the supreme court. This modification of the law, lessened, it is true, the bodily labours of the judges, and so far obviated the inconveniences which had been experienced. But the remedy was still not sound equal to the disease. Did a judge attempt to protect by law, from the eastern or middle, to South Carolina, or any other of the southern states, the vessel failed perhaps to sail at the time appointed, or was delayed by contrary winds, and the business of the court was consequently delayed or postponed altogether to another term. Was a land conveyance preferred; the rising of rivers, bad roads, bad horses, a thousand other accidents, to which travellers are necessarily liable, not unfrequently interrupted in the same way, the business of the courts, and suitors, after a great expence of time, money, and trouble, were sent home as they came, with their business unsettled and undecided. These physical impediments alone; not to speak of the instability and want of uniformity in the decisions and proceedings of the circuit courts, which were the necessary and inevitable consequences of this constant change in the person of the judges, living in different parts of the United States, and accustomed in their several states to such different and sometimes contradictory rules and modes of transacting business; these physical impediments, I say, alone, soon convinced all reasonable men, who had any thing to do
(Continued on last page.)

There seems to be some disposition at present to excite a belief, that the abandonment of the claims of our merchants for losses by French spoliations is chargeable on the present administration. How stands the matter of fact? The 2d article of the French convention reads thus:—
"The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of 6th Feb. 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of 14th November 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed; the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time, and until they may have agreed upon these points, the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows, &c."
Article 5th "The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment may be prosecuted in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the two States. But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations."
The Senate refused to advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty unless the 2d article above recited was struck out; to this President Adams agreed, and the treaty was so ratified by him Feb. 18th, 1801. The votes of the Senate, as published in the newspapers at that time, were for striking out the 2d article;
Messrs. Armstrong, Bingham, Chipman, Dayton, D. Foster, Hillhouse, Hindman, Howard, Latimer, J. Mason, Morris, Paine, Read, Rofs, Schureman, Tracy, Wells. 17.
Against striking out the 2d article; Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Cocke, T. Foster, Franklin, Greene, Langdon, Livermore, Marshall, S. T. Mason, Nicholas. 13.
Striking out the 2d article was striking out the effect of all the labors of our envoys on that subject, and was in fact agreeing to make a treaty without making any provision for the claims of our merchants, or to keep alive the demand; and suffering the 5th article to stand as it does, effectually deprived them of any chance for relief, and was an abandonment of their claims. So it was justly understood by Bonaparte, as he declares in his ratification, bien entendu , it being well understood, that by this retrenchment the two states renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article. When his ratification was laid before the Senate of the United States, they say, that Bonaparte understood it as they intended, and they vote almost unanimously, that it ought to be considered as justly and fully ratified: it was said at the time, and never denied, that Messrs. Wells, Hillhouse, Chipman, and D. Foster, were the only persons in the negative. Mr. Hillhouse, and some of the others have often been heard to declare, that they were opposed to having any treaty with France. We trust the federalists will not disown their own measures, which have been acquired with so much labor and expense, from the recall of Munroe to the ratification of the treaty.
Mr. SMITH, I perceive that a writer in the Washington Federalist of the 16th inst. under the signature of "One of the Gallery," has demanded of you, "Why did you leave out of Mr. Bacon's Speech his preliminary remarks," &c. If blame attaches to any one for this omission, I feel it to be incumbent on me to take that blame to myself, since immediately on the adjournment of the House, I furnished you with the notes of the speech which I had the honor to deliver on that day before the committee of the whole house. I had not any minutes of those preliminary remarks, which I made relative to the right and duty of judicial officers to judge of the constitutionality of the laws . Consequently you were not furnished with them by me. The sentiment expressed in those remarks is one which I have long entertained, and one, the correctness of which, I have not now, nor do I recollect that I ever had, the least doubt. Not having expected to speak on the subject at the time I did, if at all, and not having previously contemplated an occasion for any remarks of that kind, they were made ex tempore . And although I considered them as pertinent on that occasion, I did not consider them as so affecting the main question, as to render it expedient to make any alteration in the minutes which I had taken, or to add to the notes which I had previously prepared. I had no ambition to make a more lengthy speech than any other gentleman who had taken, or who might afterwards take, a part in the debate.
of the suability of the states, through which subject, the constitution being in that respect also amended, it is unnecessary to follow him; after which he thus proceeds:]
"But whatever objections may be made to the judicial power of the federal government, as it relates to the States, in other respects as now organized and limited by the constitution itself, by the amendments proposed by congress, and since adopted, and by the act above referred to (to wit, the act limiting the jurisdiction to a certain sum) we may venture to pronounce, that it is worthy every eulogium, that ever has been pronounced on the judiciary of Great Britain, to which it is in no respect inferior; being indeed in all respects perfectly assimilated thereto, with the addition of a constitutional instead of a legal independence only: whatever there has been said by Bacon, Montesquieu, Delolme, Blackstone, or any other writer, on the security derived to the subject from the independence of the judiciary of Great Britain, will apply at least as forcibly to that of the United States. We may go still further: In England the judiciary may be overwhelmed by a combination between the executive and legislature. In America it is rendered absolutely independent of and superior to the attempts of both to control or crush it . First by the tenure of office, which is during good behaviour . Secondly, by the independence of their salaries, which cannot be diminished. Thirdly, by the letter of the constitution, which defines and limits the powers of the several branches of government. Lastly, by that uncontrollable authority in matters of legislation, which is exclusively vested in this department, and which extends to every possible case, that can affect the life liberty or property of the individual, as a member of the federal republic, except in the case of impeachment. The American constitutions appear to be the first, in which this absolute independence of the judiciary has been carried into full effect. Dr. Rutherford considers the judiciary, as a branch of the executive authority, and such in strictness it may still be considered in other countries, since its province is to advise the executive rather than to act independently thereof. In this sense the judiciary are said to be one of the king's councils in England; but with us the judiciary power is a distinct and independent branch of the government, recognized as such in express terms in our state bill of rights and constitution, and demonstrably so too, by the constitution of the United States, from which it derives all its power, in like manner as the executive and legislative powers are distributed to the other departments of the government. The obligation which the constitution of the United States imposes upon the judiciary to support the constitution, would be nugatory, if it were dependent on either of the other branches, or in any manner subject to control by them, since such control might operate to the destruction of the constitution.
[Mr. HUGEN's Speech to be concluded in our next.]
BOARDING.
Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol.—Apply to the Printer. March 19, 1802. ep3w
Sale at Auction.
On Saturday the 20th of March next, will be sold at Public Vendue, at Rhodes's Tavern.
A LOT of ground in the City of Washington, known on the plat of said City, of Lot No. 14, in square No. 846, containing 3856 square feet. The situation is amongst those which are considered the most valuable, being in the neighbourhood of the Navy Yard, and but a short distance from the Capitol. The sale to commence at 11 o'clock A. M. when the terms will be made known by, AZARIAH GATTON. March 19, 1802. it
THOMAS HOLT,
HAS a variety of Garden Seeds, Fruit Trees, flowering Shrubs, Lombardy Poplars, Asparagus Roots, early Cabbage Plants, &c. for sale at his Garden, Eastern Branch. One or two Negro Boys would be taken for a short period to learn the gardening business. March 19, 1802. ep3t
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. 15, 1802. 12waM
being destroyed. I feel a strong conviction on my mind, that the most stable support, the main pillar of the noble fabric already totters on its foundation, and is about to be tumbled prostrate in the dust.
We have heard a great deal, Mr. Chairman, both within and without these walls, of the discoveries and improvements, which have of late years been made in the science and practice of government. Among these I had been taught to regard, as by no means the least important, that maxim, which goes to establish the complete separation of the three great branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judiciary. I had till the present day, been taught to reverence, as a still more important discovery, as the climax of improvement in modern jurisprudence, the principle, we now contend for, and which affects the absolute independence of the latter on the other two branches of government. Such is the doctrine I had been inculcated in all modern authors of reputation, which have fallen into my hands. This political creed I had, I thought, imbibed from the best publications, and most approved authorities of our own country, and from none more decidedly than that, so well known under the title of the federalist; a work, attributed to the joint labours, and combined talents of three of the most able statesmen America can boast, and avowedly the best commentary on the federal constitution, which has made its appearance in print. I will not take up the time of the committee by referring to the different parts of this celebrated work, which go to the support of the doctrine we advocate. It is in the hands of every one, and I call upon, I challenge gentlemen to point out the page, the sentence, or the line, which does not inculcate and strongly enforce this principle of the entire and absolute independence of the judiciary. There is another authority, however, of equal eminence, though of later date and less notoriety, to which I shall beg leave to call the attention of the committee.
In the former part of the argument, I had it in my power to produce, in support of the expediency of the judicial system, adopted by us at the last session, an official opinion (given at an early period of the present government,) of a learned gentleman, high in the ranks, and no less high in the estimation of that very party, which now oppose it with such vehemence and clamour. I am so fortunate, sir, as to be at present able to offer to the committee, an authority equally high and in no way less respectable, also drawn from the state, which at this time takes the lead, and from the ranks of our political opponents, to prove the constitutional doctrine, we are contending for. I have in my hands, sir, a paper containing the sentiments on this subject, delivered long before it was foreseen, that the present question would be agitated on this floor, of one of the most eminent law characters of the state of Virginia. The gentleman, who has been selected to indicate the principles of republicanism in the minds of the youth of that country, and to teach them the genuine doctrines of our state, and federal constitutions. I now allude to Judge Tucker, professor of law in the college of William and Mary, and one of the judges in the supreme court of the state of Virginia. This document, from which I am about to state the opinion of the learned judge on this constitutional point, does not, it is true, come recommended by an official stamp, as did the report of the attorney general. It carries, however, with it every mark of authenticity, nor have I any reason to doubt, but that it contains the genuine sentiments of this celebrated professor, as coolly and calmly made up in the retirement of his study, and delivered by him to his pupils in his public lectures. If I am mistaken, and the sentiments, which have been attributed to Mr. Tucker, are not genuine; there are several gentlemen, one in particular, not now in his seat, but in the house, I believe, (Mr. Randolph) who will have it in their power to correct me, and state the truth to the committee. Having premised thus much, sir, I shall now beg leave to state the opinion and sentiments of the learned judge in his own words—to wit:
"The constitution and powers of the judiciary department of the federal government have been equally the subject of applause and censure, of confidence and jealousy.
"The unexceptionable mode of appointing the judges and their constitutional independence of every other branch of the government, merit an eulogium, which all would have concurred, in bestowing on this part of the constitution of the United States, had not the powers of that department been extended to objects, which might hazard the tranquillity of the union, in attempting to secure it. [Mr. Tucker then proceeds to define more at large the powers and objects here alluded to, but concludes with the following remarks:]
"All these objections seem, however, to be completely removed by the amendments which were recommended by the first congress, & have since been ratified. [The judge here again goes on to speak
full effects of party, and to promote harmony among our fellow-citizens, if, in the changes of men and of parties, which must necessarily take place in the administration of public affairs, we accustomed ourselves to act with some little delicacy towards each other, and to pay some little respect to the measures of those, who have immediately preceded us. Whilst we improve and amend what in practice is found useless or inadequate to the end proposed, would it not be as well to forbear from making innovations merely for the sake of change, or to gratify our party pique or party feelings. The present system, it is granted, has been established by the political opponents of those now in power. Be it so. The preceding organization of the judiciary, however, was avowedly defective and inadequate to the due administration of justice. Some amendments have been made to it. A new system has been adopted. It is just carried into operation, and all the inconveniences and expense which actually attend changes, have been felt and incurred. No one can pretend to complain of any defects in the present establishment from experience, for it is scarcely yet carried into complete operation. Would it not be as well then, to try the experiment, to wait and see the practical advantages or disadvantages of the system? It would be prudent also, I humbly conceive, sir, to take this course for another reason, viz. the effect which these frequent and sudden changes in our most important establishments, must be expected to have on our credit, and in no small degree, perhaps, on the reputation of our government among foreigners. Fickleness and instability have ever been the bane of republican institutions. The nations of Europe know this well. They have their eye upon us, and watch all our motions. This want of stability in our establishments; these sudden and hasty changes in our measures cannot, therefore, but affect our reputation and character, as well abroad as at home.
One word, sir, before I conclude my observations on this part of the subject, with respect to the additional expense incurred by the new arrangement. It has been said, that the federal judiciary costs the United States one hundred and thirty or forty thousand dollars; and from the manner in which this sum is brought forward and presented to our view, it might seem that the whole of this expense was to be attributed to the new system. What, however, is the fact? Upon a fair statement, and after making the deduction of the salary of one judge of the supreme court, whose place is vacated after the death of the present incumbent, the additional expense will be only from 25 to 30,000 dollars. It is further to be observed, even with respect to this sum, that the number of judges of the supreme court, had the old establishment been retained, or should it now be revived, is allowed on all hands to be inadequate to the bodily fatigue and duties imposed on them. Gentlemen have consequently all acknowledged it heretofore, and several of them, the member from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) in particular, have in the course of the present debate, stated it as their opinion, that it would be necessary to increase the number of judges of the supreme court, if the present bill prevails. Now it is to be recollected, that the associate judges receive a salary of 3,500 dollars each, and laying aside the danger of rendering this body inconveniently numerous and unwieldy, by augmenting their numbers, each additional judge must receive the above salary of 3,500 dollars; whilst the present circuit judges are allowed but 2000 dollars per annum. The addition, therefore, of half the number of judges to the supreme court (which there is every reason to believe it is in contemplation to make, if the circuit judges are gotten rid of) would cost the United States, within a few hundred pounds, if not quite as much, as the additional judges required under the present arrangement, to get rid of whom such extraordinary pains are taken, and an expense of 20 to 30,000 dollars already incurred, even in carrying the business thus far through the two houses of congress. Such is the saving wisdom, the wonderful economy of these enlightened days! We set the whole nation in a flame, and spend thousands in one day, to the end that we may have the appearance of saving a few hundreds in another.
But, however, wholesome and proper the amendments, which took place at the last session in the organization of the federal courts, appear to me to have been, I should submit without difficulty to the proposed repeal, did it only involve the mere question of expediency. I should be perfectly satisfied to gratify the whim and caprice of the majority who have at the present time the control over public affairs, in this as well as in many other respects. It is not on this ground, sir, that I am led to make so decided an opposition to the measure under consideration, and look forward with such trembling anxiety to the result of the present debate. Very different motives, considerations of a far more important nature influence my conduct and vote on this occasion. To me it appears, that one of the great principles, one of the leading excellencies of our national compact is in danger of
fame individuals, the same set of judges, presiding alternately in each of them. This system of constantly appealing from the decisions of men, sitting in a lower, to the same men seated under a new title, in a court of higher grade, appears to me neither to satisfy the obvious intention of the constitution, nor to comport with the dictates of common sense. But, if such a principle be tolerated even in the inferior courts, it is obviously incorrect as relates to the supreme court; a court of the last resort, and from the decisions of which there is no appeal. Let me ask, sir, what must be the feelings, what necessarily the impression on the minds of foreign or domestic suitors, drawn from the remote parts of the Union, who on an appeal from the decision of a district judge, meet the same individual seated in a higher capacity, on the circuit bench, and when again on a further appeal to the supreme court, he recognizes the same faces, the same individuals, from whose decisions in the circuit courts, he had just before appealed? Can it be presumed, that suitors will, in this case, go away as well satisfied, as perfectly convinced of the equity and justice of a confirmation of the decisions of the courts below, as they might be expected to do, had they found this final and ultimate decree to proceed from an entirely new set of judges, unprejudiced and unfettered by what had preceded, and presumed from their high grade, to be of the most eminent talents and first standing in society. Yet such was the necessary consequence of the former organization of the courts. And what else has been contemplated in the new system but to obviate this inconvenience, and do away this exceptional part of the old plan. The only change in fact, the vital principle of the present law is nothing more or less than to establish the point, that instead of the same individuals, sitting and holding the different courts, each district court should have its separate and distinct judge or set of judges. Now where, I pray you, sir, is the mighty error, the great crime committed in bringing about this change? I ask with confidence, whether the principle be not correct in itself, and whether it does not accord equally with the dictates of common sense, and the plain meaning and fair construction of the provisions, contained in the constitution?
If, however, it can be for a moment supposed to have been the intention of the wise men who framed the constitution, that the national courts were to be distinct in name, but to be all held by the same individuals, the same set of judges; if it be the wisdom and enlightened policy of the present day to establish, not the most wholesome and convenient organization of the federal judiciary, but that which will save the greatest number of pence and require the smallest possible number of judges—why not get rid at once of all the judges of the inferior courts? The chief justice & his five associates, or even the half of them, could no doubt dispatch all the business of the federal courts. They might be packed up in a state waggon, make in due course the small circuit of this petty empire, and decide all the trifling and unimportant causes, which would be brought before them, alternately sitting as judges of the district, circuit and supreme courts. We should, by such an arrangement, not only save the 20 or 30,000 dollars, which is so much complained of, and may be appropriated to much more advantageously to the payment of the President's salary; but a still further sum of 77 to 80,000 dollars, a sum equal to the whole amount of that most abominable of all abominable taxes, that tax on grinding to the poor, which we are told, it requires such a host of officers and such an enormous per centage to collect, which takes from the mouth of labor such an immense portion of its earnings, and which of course must and ought to be repealed. I allude, Mr. Chairman, to the tax so well known under the title of a tax on pleasurable carriages. Gentlemen would, in all probability, have the further gratification of seeing the number of causes diminish daily in the federal courts, and when we are favored with another exact statement on this subject, it will be found, perhaps, that they are reduced, as they no doubt ought to be, merely to those affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. The whole business of the union will thus be happily restored to the state courts, to which it of right belongs, and from which it has been torn, vi et armis , under the wicked administrations of Washington and Adams, and heretofore retained, in spite of, and in direct opposition to, the wishes of the parties most immediately concerned.
But in another and still more comprehensive view of the subject, it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, improper and inexpedient to repeal the law of the last session at this time. It is but too true, we all know it, sir, that parties do exist in our government; that shades of political difference unfortunately divide the American people. In free governments this must ever be the case. Still, however, let it not be forgotten, that we are citizens of one and the same country, and have a common interest in the public and general welfare. Would it not then be wise and prudent, would it not tend to do away, in a great measure, the ban-

I may have made other remarks at the same time, of which I had no minutes; of these, I am certain I had none. I am also certain that I never felt the least degree of reluctance against those preliminary remarks being made as public as was the speech. Nor have I any more doubt of the propriety and truth of these remarks, than I have of the truth and propriety of any other sentiment which I expressed on the subject to which they refer.
Since the Speech has been published, I have, both in public companies and in private circles, repeatedly given the same explanation which I now give, of the reason why those remarks were not published with the speech. Whether "ONE OF THE GALLERIES" was ever present when this explanation has been given, I cannot positively say. That this, however, has been in fact the case, and that repeatedly, I have but little doubt. I have no objection against your making such use of this communication as you see fit.
Your humble servant, J. BACON.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
TUESDAY, March 16, 1802.
The following are the Yeas and Nays on the postponement, until the fourth Monday in November next, of the bill to extinguish the claims of the United States for balances reported against certain states by the commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the United States and the individual states:—
YEAS.—Messrs. Bacon, Bilhopp, Brown, Butler, Cabell, Claiborne, Clay, Clopton, Condit, Cutler, Cutts, Davenport, Davis, Elmer, Eustis, Fowler, Goddard, Gray, Hanna, Hastings, J. Heister, Helms, Hunger, Jackson, Leib, Lowndes, Mattoon, Milledge, Moore, New, Peirce, Read, Smilie, Jn. Smith, J. C. Smith, Jos. Smith, Southard, Stanton, Tallmadge, Tenney, Tillinghast, A. Trigg, J. Trigg, Upham, Varnum, Van Horne, Wadsworth, L. Williams, —48.
NAYS.—Messrs. Alston, Archer, Bailey, Byrd, Dana, Dawson, Dennis, Dickson, Elmendorf, Folsom, Gregg, Griswold, Grove, Hemphill, Henderson, Hill, Holland, Holmes, Johnson, Jones, Mitchell, L. R. Morris, T. Morris, Newton, Nicholson, Plater, Randolph, J. Smith, (of N. Y.) J. Smith, (of Virginia) S. Smith, Stanford, Stanley, Stewart, Stratton, Thomas, Thompson, Van Cortlandt, Van Nels, Van Rensselaer, Walker, R. Williams, Woods.—42.
WEDNESDAY, March 17, 1802.
Mr. GREGG observed, that the acts of congress respecting a marine corps allowed the President to dismiss the privates but not the officers; in consequence of which restraint, though a considerable reduction of the men had taken place, all the officers were yet retained. He thought it proper, that the President should have the same power to reduce the officers as the men. He therefore, moved the following resolution:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire, whether any, and if any, what alterations are necessary in the several acts, relative to the establishment of a marine corps, and in an act fixing the rank and pay of the commanding officer of the corps of marines; and that the committee be authorised to report by bill or otherwise.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. GREGG further offered the following resolution:
Resolved, That the President of the United States, be requested to communicate to this House such information, as he may have received, relative to the Copper mines on the south side of Lake Superior, in pursuance of a resolution passed the 16th day of April 1800, authorizing the appointment of an agent for that purpose.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. GRISWOLD observed, that the general estimate of the secretary of war, made to the committee of ways and means, on the saving that would probably result from the reduced military establishment of the present year, which made it amount to the sum of four or five hundred thousand dollars, was to him not perfectly satisfactory. He therefore moved, that the secretary of war be directed to lay before this House a statement of the number of troops which were actually in the pay of the United States during the year 1801, together with the expense which has in fact arisen for the support of the military establishment for the same year.
Mr. Randolph remarked, that as the committee of ways and means required no other than the result of the saving likely to arise from the military reduction, the secretary had given all the information asked for.
The consideration of this motion was postponed till to-morrow.
The House then took up the bill for repealing the internal taxes.
Mr. Randolph hoped the motion, made yesterday, to recommit the bill, would not prevail, as he was prepared to offer immediately to the House the amendments, which gentlemen required.
The question on recommitment was then taken, and lost without a division.
Several amendments, relating to the details of the bill, were made.
When Mr. DENNIS renewed the motion made by him in committee of the whole, somewhat varied, viz. to strike out of the repealing clause all the articles of internal taxation, excepting "bills and domestic distilled spirits, and stamped vellum, parchment and paper."
He moved that the question be taken by yeas and nays on each article distinctly.
The question was accordingly stated on striking out "refined sugars."
[Mr. S. Smith desired to be excused from voting, as he was interested in a sugar refinery.]
The question was put and lost—yeas 30—nays 54.
Mr. DENNIS then moved to strike out "refined" for the purpose of inserting "brown" sugar.
He said, he did this the more forcibly to contract the votes of gentlemen who were in favor of a discrimination between the necessaries and luxuries of life.
Mr. CLAIBORNE desired the speaker to read the title of the bill; which he did as follows: "A bill for repealing the internal taxes."
When Mr. Claiborne asked, if brown sugar was within the meaning of the term "internal taxes."
Mr. DENNIS replied, that it was always in order to amend the title of a bill.
The SPEAKER declared the motion out of order, as a decision had just been made against striking out the whole term "refined sugars."
Mr. RANDOLPH wished with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Dennis) a distinct question to be taken upon each of the articles of internal revenue. He believed the abolition of one constituted the most forcible reason for repealing the whole. If there were a disposition to abolish taxes on the necessaries, and to retain those on the luxuries of life, let us see who are for the one, and who for the other.
Mr. Dennis, equally with the gentleman from Virginia, was for a discrimination. In compliance with the decision of the chair he would withdraw his original motion, and now move to strike out "licenses to retailers," in order to insert "bohea tea."
General Varnum asked for a division of the question.
The Speaker said it was indivisible.
Mr. Huger said it had been his intention, after the motions before the house were disposed of, to have moved to insert an amendment for a reduction of the duty on salt; he enquired if he was not precluded from so doing by the decision of the chair.
Mr. Dennis replied that it was his purpose to move the insertion of "salt," in the room of "pleasurable carriages."
Mr. Huger observed that the principal object of his motion would be to show that the amount of duties on salt was about equal to the whole saving of this bill.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on striking out "licenses to retailers," in order to insert "bohea tea 5"
And lost—Yeas 31—Nays 57.
Mr. Dennis next moved to strike out "sales at auction," and insert "coffee."
A division of the question was called for, which the Speaker declared not to be in order.
Dr. Eustis enquired whether it could be in order to insert expressions that might greatly vitiate the bill, & wrest it from its main purpose. He said this was not the place to contrast the relative merits of a tax upon sales at auction and a duty upon coffee. He had not the least objection, at a proper season, to afford gentlemen the opportunity of contrasting the advantages attending the repeal of these taxes, and the duties on other articles.
Mr. S. Smith appealed from the decision of the chair, on the division of Mr. Dennis's motion.
Mr. Thomas Morris called for the yeas and nays.
Mr. S. Smith called for the reading of the rule which declares, that "any member may call for a division of a question where the sense will admit of it."
The question was then taken by yeas and nays on concurring in the decision of the chair; and lost—Yeas 40—Nays 48—and the motion was determined to be divisible.
The question was then stated on striking out "sales at auction."
Mr. Huger said he entertained doubts of the propriety of repealing the internal taxes. If those, to whom has been devolved the management of our public concerns, say they can spare 650,000 dollars, the amount of these taxes, be it so. But if this sum can be dispensed with, he said he was anxious that at least a part of it should go to relieve those who do not pay a large share of the internal taxes, from the burthen of other taxes. He was solicitous, therefore, to give his vote in such a way as to exhibit to his constituents his efforts to reduce the duty upon salt and other necessaries of life.
Mr. S. Smith remarked that the gentleman from South Carolina doubted the possibility of sparing 650,000 dollars. If he really entertains such a doubt, it must be entirely destroyed when he learns that the duty on salt, which he
wishes to take off, alone amounts to above 700,000 dollars!
Mr. Huger replied that he was not so anxious for popularity as some gentlemen. With regard to salt he only wished to reduce the duty so as to affect the revenue about 218,000 dollars.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays on striking out "sales at auction," and lost—Yeas 32—Nays 58.
Mr. Speaker. The question now is on the remainder of the motion to insert "coffee."
Mr. Griswold observed, that the gentleman from Massachusetts had supposed this was not the proper place to decide whether we will reduce the duties on imported goods. But if the word "coffee," be inserted, the effect will be that all duty upon that article will cease. Gentlemen may suppose that it is not proper to dispense with the whole duty; but if it be repealed, there will be nothing to prevent the imposition of a new duty by a new bill. Mr. G. thought the present duty too high; he thought it would be productive of smuggling; and he thought it oppressive.
Mr. S. Smith said, the present, in his opinion, was not the proper place to introduce the repeal of the duty on coffee. It will be remembered that early in the session he had brought forward a resolution, which was committed, to enquire whether any and what alterations were necessary in the laws imposing duties on imports. He then stated that he was disposed to reduce the duty on coffee as now proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold,) and when that question should come in the proper place, he would be found voting with him to reduce the duty on coffee.
Mr. Dennis said his object was not to dispense with the entire duty on bohea tea, sugar, salt, and other imported articles. But he had no other opportunity than that which he now embraced. For after it shall have been decided to abolish the whole internal taxes, gentlemen will tell us they cannot dispense with any of the duties upon imported articles. The only question at present is, whether we shall make a reduction of the duties on imported articles, or totally abolish the internal taxes.
Mr. Lowndes said the subject was so important that he must beg the indulgence of the House while he submitted a few remarks. The motion goes to abolish the present duty on coffee, in order to lay a smaller one. A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) informs us that he feels a conviction that the present duty is too high, and that it may introduce the practice of smuggling. But that gentleman must excuse my saying that his professions differ from his practice. He is now for voting away all revenue derived from the luxuries of life, from pleasurable carriages, from refined sugar, and other articles, and tells us that after getting rid of these resources he will, by and by, vote for more moderate duties on imported articles. Good God! Is not this course putting it entirely out of his power to do so? The people of this country deserve some consideration. This is a new era. The people are reduced from a state of opulence to much distress by the cessation of European hostilities. The carrying trade, so lucrative to our merchants, is taken away. Labour has heretofore been high in our cities, from the activity of commerce. Now there is an alarming stagnation, and the most valuable portion of our citizens are without occupation. And yet taxes, predicated on the existence of the war, are to be continued on a peace. Gentlemen, who have got power seem to have forgotten the people who gave it to them. By the stagnation of trade our farmers will be injured. Flour, which lately sold for 13 dollars a barrel, now sells for 6 dollars. If the profits of the farmer be reduced, ought not his expenses of living also to be reduced?
What good can result from repealing the duties on fills, or pleasurable carriages, and on sales at auction? Is not the tax on fills a good one; and has it not been approved by experience, ever since it came into operation in the year 1790? Have any inconveniences been experienced? Have not, on the other hand, the distilleries increased to the enormous number of 22,000? Has not the revenue likewise increased? And are not these strong evidences of the propriety of the tax? Suppose it should restrain the immediate use of spirituous liquors. Is not the result beneficial to the morality of our citizens?
But the articles of tea and coffee are different in their nature. They are promotive of morality, and restrain the use of ardent spirits. The gentleman from New-Jersey has informed us, that the lower class of citizens in his state, do not in general consume tea and coffee. But, however, it may be in New-Jersey, I will inform that gentleman that in Charleston the lower class of citizens, the very carmen, do consume these articles, which, after the fatigues of the day, are their evening solace.
The gentleman from New-Jersey has told us, that the people of this country have never been oppressed by taxes. I am happy to hear gentlemen on that side of the House make this confession. I believe they never have been oppressed by our predecessors. I will not say, they have never felt the burthen of taxation, because I believe they have felt it. But they have considered the taxes
laid, necessary for the security of the government.
This tax upon coffee appears to me to be unnecessary, impolitic and oppressive. It was laid when we were subjected to the depredations of foreign nations, and menaced with hostility; and yet it is to be continued after the occasion, for which it was created, has ceased. The people will feel it. They will discriminate between the tax, and the price of the commodity; and they will understand from what quarter the tax proceeds.
There is another pernicious consequence that will result from the continuance of this high duty upon coffee. It will hold out a dangerous temptation to the merchants to smuggle. Coffee and sugar are articles of great value and small bulk. The day is not distant when the circumstances of the country, the great extent of the sea coast, and our numerous ports, combined with this temptation, will introduce the pernicious practice. I hope, for these reasons, the House will agree to reduce these taxes, and hold out to the country those enjoyments which have been heretofore possessed.
Mr. Elmer said, that as to those articles which are necessaries and those which are luxuries, gentlemen will differ. He thought it, however, extraordinary that it should be insisted that bohea tea and coffee are necessaries of life, and carriages luxuries. He certainly considered pleasurable carriages as of this description; yet many carriages, and more than one half of those in use in New-Jersey, were of the first necessity. He would feel very happy in reducing the duties upon tea and coffee, if our circumstances shall admit it. But though they may be extensively used, it by no means follows that it is good policy to encourage the consumption of them. He believed some of our own products would form a very good substitute for coffee. With regard both to tea and coffee, he knew that so far from being necessaries of life, they were consumed by the citizens generally in proportion to their wealth.
Mr. Elmer said he had not expressed the sentiment ascribed to him by the gentleman from South Carolina. He had neither said that the people had been, or had not been oppressed by taxes. He had said that tea and coffee were not necessaries of life. As well might tobacco, which was in as general use, be called a necessary of life.
Mr. Elmer concluded by observing that he should be pleased with a diminution of the duties upon tea and coffee; but that it must be evident this was not the proper time to consider its expediency; as the bill then before the House respected exclusively the repeal of the internal taxes.
A member enquired where the word coffee was to be inserted.
Mr. Nicholson said the motion made had been to strike out the words "sales at auction," and insert the word "coffee." The House having determined not to strike out, there was of consequence no place wherein to insert.
Mr. Griswold replied that the difficulty, into which gentlemen were thrown, arose from their having reversed the decision of the chair; but that the question on inserting coffee must be put. Some additional conversation ensued when Mr. Hill observed that he had voted against the decision of the chair from an impression that it was wrong; but he was now satisfied it was correct; he therefore, moved a reconsideration of the decision of the House.
Mr. Davis moved to adjourn.
Mr. Southard said he felt no embarrassment. In his opinion the decision not to strike out entirely superceded the motion to insert.
The question of adjournment was lost.
Mr. S. Smith asked whether the question of reconsideration was a question of order, or whether it was one that admitted of debate.
The Speaker said he would consult this rule respecting questions of reconsideration.
Mr. Bayard said in order to allow time, he moved now to adjourn—carried—Ayes 46—Noes 38.
THURSDAY, March 18, 1802.
The House was again engaged in amending the bill for repealing the Internal Taxes. Much debate took place both on the merits and demerits of the bill, and on incidental points, and the House did not adjourn till 6 o'clock.
We are obliged to omit a sketch of the proceedings to allow room for the other interesting articles received at a late hour.
In our notice of the motion made by Mr. Dennis on Monday last, on the bill for repealing the Internal Taxes, after stating the motion, it is added: "His object being to repeal all the internal taxes excepting those on fills and domestic distilled spirits." This is a typographical error; the word "retain" should be substituted in the place of the word "repeal."
The Editor of the National Intelligencer thinks it proper to state, that the sketch of the proceedings of Wednesday, as published, was made on the evening of Wednesday.
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, March 19, 1802.
Postscript.
The Executive has received authentic information that the trade between the United States and St. Domingo, except with Cape Francois and Port Republican, in that island, is for the present suspended.
The undersigned Commissary General and Chargé des Affaires of the French republic, gives information to all persons whom it may concern, that in consequence of the revolt of the negroes in St. Domingo, all manner of intercourse is, by order of the commander in chief for the French republic, in the island, prohibited, to foreigners, with any other part of the island but the two ports of Cape Francois and Port Republican. Cruisers will arrest all foreign vessels attempting to enter any other port, and to communicate with the revolted negroes, to carry either ammunition or provisions to them; such vessels shall be confiscated and the commanders severely punished, as violating the rights of the French republic and the law of nations.
Fair and regular traders will meet with encouragement and protection at the two abovenamed places from the General in Chief and subordinate authorities. The intercourse between the United States and these two ports is left open to the American trade. It will be advisable for merchants who make shipments to the colony, and who wish to meet with no interruption by incurring suspicion of improper conduct, to take proper certificates from the commissaries or commissarial agents of the French republic, in the United States, who are instructed to deliver them to the applicants.
Given at Georgetown, Columbia District, the twenty-seventh Ventose, tenth year of the French Republic, (18th March, 1802.)
J. A. PICHON.
The French Frigate Bayonnaise has arrived at Baltimore, the captain whereof came on Wednesday to this City. The Bayonnaise left St. Domingo 6 days later than our advices from Mr. Lear.
We learn that the French troops had met with no obstacles to their progress and that Christophe and Dessalines, the two chiefs, subordinate to Toussaint, had been taken prisoners.
On the 17th of February, a cessation of hostilities was announced, which was to last for four days, when a general attack of the blacks was to take place throughout the whole extent of the island, unless the blacks submitted.
[By Authority.]
AN ACT
For the accommodation of Persons concerned in certain Fisheries therein mentioned.
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That from and after the passing of this act, it shall be lawful for the collector of the customs for the district of Edenton to permit any vessel having on board salt only, after due report and entry, and security given for the duties, to proceed under the inspection of an officer of the customs to any fishery or other landing place within the district, (to be designated in the permit) and there discharge the same; subject, however, in all other respects, to the regulations, restrictions, penalties and provisions established by an act passed the second of March, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, intitled "An Act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage."
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That every inspector or other officer of the customs, while performing duty on board any such vessel, elsewhere than in the port to which such officer may properly belong, shall be entitled to receive from the master, or commander thereof, such provisions and other accommodations (free from expense) as are usually supplied to passengers, or as the state and condition of the vessel will admit.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That if by reason of the delivery of any cargo of salt, in manner aforesaid, more than fifteen working days (computed from the date of entry) shall, in the whole, be spent therein, the wages or compensation of such inspector, or other officer of the customs who may be employed on board any vessel, in respect to which such term may be so exceeded, shall, for every day of such excess, be paid by the master or owner; and until paid, it shall not be lawful for the collector to grant a clearance, or to permit such vessel to depart from the district.
NATHL. MACON, Speaker of the House of Representatives. A. BURR, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.
APPROVED, March 16, 1802.
TH: JEFFERSON, President of the United States.

(Continued from first page.) with the courts, how defective and inadequate to the due administration of justice, must necessarily be this system of lending the judges, like so many postboys, whipping and spurring through mud and mire, from one end of this vast continent to the other. Complaints and representations, therefore, were still made from various quarters, and a revision of the judiciary was again and again, year after year, recommended to congress, as well by the executive, as the judges themselves. I well recollect indeed, from the time of my return from Europe, in the latter end of the year 1791, and long before I had it even in idea, that the indulgence and partiality of my fellow-citizens would honor me with a place on this floor. I well recollect to have heard this plan of an itinerant judiciary complained of and reprobated in every company, and not the least by those characters in my own state, whose opinions and judgements I was most accustomed to respect and revere. I recollect equally well, Sir, that at the commencement of the session, in which I was first honored with a seat in congress, a revision of the judiciary was recommended by the executive, and a committee, composed of some of the most able and respectable members of this house, were appointed for the purpose of taking the subject into consideration, and did report a bill for the better organization of the judiciary. This bill, after having been a number of times under consideration, and undergone a variety of amendments, was recommended to the same committee, who, in conformity with the amendments, adopted in the house, gave it a new shape, and reported a second bill, of which the present law is, I believe, nearly an exact copy.
And here, Sir, permit me to observe in contradiction to what has fallen from several gentlemen, the honorable member from Virginia (Mr. Giles) in particular, and what has been so confidently argued out of doors, that the present organization of the judiciary was predicated entirely on party grounds, and with a view to the changes of party which have since taken place; in contradiction to this assertion, permit me to observe, that at the time I am now alluding to, when a revision was recommended by the executive, and the bill, of which I have just spoken, was presented to the house, the federalists, as it has been since termed, was in the zenith of its glory, in the height of its power. An election had lately taken place, and a larger majority was returned in favor of the federal administration, than had ever before appeared in any former congress; nor was there the least reason to anticipate the change of men, which has since taken place. The framers, therefore, of the new system, have been most erroneously and unjustly accused of bringing it forward in the expectation of such a change; the very contrary being the fact, and the present system having been presented to congress at the very moment when their political prospects bore the brightest & most promising aspect. Partly owing, however, to the deference, which many had for the gentleman, who was the author of the old plan, partly owing to a difference of opinion among the federalists themselves, whether it was most expedient to change this plan altogether, or to endeavour to remedy the evils complained of, by adding certain number of additional judges to the supreme court, and partly to the press of business, and an inclination to give time for further consideration; the subject was allowed to lie over till the next session. We had scarcely met however, for the first time at the present seat of government, long before the fate of the Presidential election was known, when the subject was again taken up, and the House were called on to adopt the law, which finally prevailed. After this plain tale, this simple narrative, the truth and correctness of which no one will deny, I leave it to the committee and to the world to decide, with what propriety or justice this system has been branded and reprobated in such glowing colors, as a hasty, novel and unnecessary measure, hurried through the two Houses at the fag end of a dying administration, for the purpose of affording sinecure retreats to a few favorite characters. Yet gentlemen may hew their ingenuity and inventive talents, by the fabrication of such tales at the time of elections, but let us hear no more of them in this place.
There appears to me, indeed, Mr. Chairman, to have been a radical error in the original organization of that part of the old plan, which relates to the circuit courts. In this opinion I am happy to have it in my power to shew, that I am supported by that of the gentleman already alluded to, Mr. Edmund Randolph, a gentleman high in the ranks, and high in the estimation of our political opponents. In the report presented by Mr. Randolph to congress, in the year 1790, and which I have before quoted to prove, that the principle adopted in the present law, so far from being a novel one, was in contemplation from the very commencement of the government; in this report Mr. Randolph expresses himself in the following words, which as they come from a quarter gen-
lemen cannot object to, will I trust command their attention, and have due weight with them in making up their minds on the present question. "A third alteration (says Mr. Randolph,) which the attorney general cannot forbear to suggest is, that the judges of the supreme court, shall cease to be judges of the circuit courts. It is obvious, that the inferior courts should be distinct bodies from the supreme court. But how far it may confound these two species of courts, to suffer the judges of the supreme to hold seats on the circuit bench; he declines the discussion, and circumscribes his reflections within the pale of expediency only. Those who pronounce the law of the land without appeal, ought to be pre-eminent in most endowments of the mind. Survey the functions of a judge of the supreme court. He must be master of the common law in all its divisions; a chancellor, a civilian, a federal jurist, and skilled in the laws of each state. To expect that in future times this assemblage of talents will be ready without further study for the national service, is to confide too largely on the public fortune. Most vacancies on the bench will be supplied by professional men, who perhaps have been too much animated by the contentions of the bar, deliberately to explore this extensive range of science. In a great measure, then, the supreme judges will form themselves after their nomination. But what leisure remains from their itinerant dispensation of justice? Sum up all the fragments of their time, hold their fatigue at naught, and let them bid adieu to all domestic concerns, fill the average term of life, already advanced, will be too short for any important proficiency."
2. The detaching of the judges to different circuits defeats the benefits of an unprejudiced consultation. The delivery of a solemn opinion in court commits them, and should a judgment rendered by two, be erroneous, will they meet their four brethren unbiased? May not human nature thus trammelled, struggle too long against conviction. And how few would erect a monument to their candor at the expense of their reputation for firmness and discernment.
3. Jealousy among the members of a court is always an evil, and its malignity would be double, should it creep into the supreme court, obscure the discovery of right, and weaken the respect which the public welfare seeks for its decrees. But this cannot be affirmed to be beyond the compass of events to men, agitated by the constant scanning of the judicial conduct of each other.
4. If this should not happen, there is fresh danger on the other side, lest they should be restrained by delicacy and mutual tenderness, from probing, without scruple, what had been done in circuit courts. A schism of sentiment before a decision and after a free conference is not esteemed harsh; but it is very painful to undertake to satisfy another, that in a public opinion, already uttered, he has been in the wrong.
5. Situated as the United States are, many of the most weighty judiciary questions will be perfectly novel. These must be hurried off on the circuits, where necessary books are not to be had, or relinquished for argument before the next set of judges, who on their part may want books and a calmer season for thought. So that a cause may be suspended until every judge shall have heard it.
6. The supreme judges themselves, who ride the circuits will be soon graduated to the public mind in relation to the circuits; will soon be considered as circuit judges, and will not be often appreciated, as supreme judges. When a discomfited party looks up to the highest tribunal for redress, he is told by the report of the world, that in it every quality is centered, necessary to justice. But how would his sanguine hopes be frustrated, if among six judges two are most probably to repeat their former suffrages, or to vindicate them with strenuous ability; or if to avoid this, the wisdom of a third of the number must be laid aside."
I am then supported by this high authority and these powerful arguments in saying, that the inferior courts ought to be distinct bodies from the supreme court. It is evident however that under the old organization of the judiciary, these two species of courts were in a great degree amalgamated and confounded. I do regard this, Sir, as a radical vice in the old system, and I have my doubts, which seems also to have been the case with the learned gentleman whom I have just quoted, though he does not, it is true, express himself to this effect, in clear and positive terms; I have my doubts, whether the plain meaning and intention of the constitution has not been in this point infringed. When that instrument provides, "that there shall be a supreme court and such other inferior courts, as congress shall from time to time ordain and establish," can any one suppose the object of this provision to be merely, that the courts should be nominally distinct, and be known under different appellations, but might be all held by the
(Continued on second page.)
To the INHABITANTS of that part of Washington county, East of Rock Creek. THE situation in which the city of Washington is placed by the cession of Maryland, and assumption of the United States, demands the attention of its inhabitants:—to take this situation into consideration, and make a proper representation to Congress, of our local interests, devolves upon us, therefore, as a duty. And, that the session may not pass without suitable provision being made for our internal government, a meeting will be held at the Capitol, on Monday the 22d inst. at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, for the purpose of choosing a committee to draft a memorial on the subject. March 16th, 1802.
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 overter'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.
GENNESSEE. For Sale, All the Subscriber's Mills, Houses and improved Farms, in the Counties of Ontario and Steuben, in the state of New-York. TO meet the views of the numerous applicants for this valuable property, and to give an opportunity of acquiring it on fair and equal terms, the subscriber offers it for sale at Public Auction, on Wednesday the 15th day of June next, at POWELL'S Hotel in Geneva, on the favorable terms of one sixth cash, and the remainder payable in six annual payments with lawful interest. The Mills are situated at Hopeton, Lyons,odus, Genesee Falls, Caledonia, Hemlock-Lake, Painted Post, Bath, and Canisteo, several of which are merchant mills, and the greater part of them are erected on the navigable waters leading to Montreal, Albany and Baltimore. The Kettles are situated in Bath, Painted Post, Hopeton, Geneva, Lyons and Sodus, and the improved farms are in the neighborhood of these towns. All of which will positively be sold except the House and Farm occupied by the subscriber, near Bath. CHARLES WILLIAMSON. Bath, March 1, 1802. ep3w.
NOTICE. Will be offered for sale by Auction, on the 18th day of March next, on the premises, one moiety or half part of an excellent frame house in the City of Washington, on Pennsylvania Avenue, between the Seven Buildings and George-Town. At present occupied by Mr. Watkins, and adjoining the brick house in which Mr. Amariah Frost lives. One half part of the lot will be sold with the house, and Jacob R. Rhodes's title to the same will be conveyed to the highest bidder. This property is taken by virtue of two writs of fieri facias to me directed, issued out of the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Columbia, sitting in the county of Washington, Frederick Betz, against Hugh Boyd, Jacob R. Rhodes, and George Haywood.—Terms of sale cash.—Time of sale 11 o'clock. A. M. DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal. Feb. 19, 1802. eptf
Lands for Sale. WE will sell that valuable Farm, lying in Prince George county, containing 400 acres more or less, and one other tract containing 150 acres adjoining the above late the property of Richard Beall deceased; those lands are well timbered and watered, and at a small expence there might be made at least 40 acres of meadow. The improvements on the first mentioned land are a good dwelling house, kitchen, new barn, an excellent tan yard, and several other convenient out houses; and the last mentioned land has a new Log dwelling house, and other convenient out houses. These lands lie four miles from Bladensburg and ten from the City of Washington. For terms apply to Samuel N. Smallwood at the Washington Navy Yard, or to the subscribers living near the premises. AZEL BEALL, } Executors. RICHARD WALKER, } March 1, 1802. ep4w.
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. eptf
For Sale, Or to To LET, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable. ISAAC POLOCK. Dec. 16. eptf
FOR SALE. A superb Curricule 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. eptf
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. eptf
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. eptf
Public Auction. By virtue of an order from the Orphan's court of Prince George county, will be exposed to Public Sale, for cash, on the 23th day of March next, at the dwelling of Richard Lamar, in said county. ALL the property of Mary Lamar, deceased; consisting of twelve negroes, among which are women, girls, and boys.—Also a variety of household furniture. All persons indebted to the said estate are desired to make payment immediately; and those that have claims against the same, are requested to exhibit them properly authenticated, before the first day of May next, to the subscriber. JOHN LAMAR, Adm'r. Feb. 19, 1802. ep3w.
NOTICE. COMMITTED to the Jail of Washington County, in the District of Columbia, as a Runaway, a Negro Woman named CHARLOTTE, about nineteen years of age, five feet four or five inches high. She says she is the property of Lewis St. John, near Battle Town, Frederick county, Virginia. The owner is requested to come and pay Charges and take her away. DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. Feb. 5, 1802. eptf
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, swansdowns, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents. His unremitted 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. eptf
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, Swansdown, Toylenets, 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. eptf
Sale at Auction. Pursuant to a Deed of Trust from Amariah Frost, and Esther his wife, to the subscriber, dated the 13th day of August 1800, will be sold to the highest bidder at Public Auction, on the 31th day of March inst. at 12 o'clock, at Stell's Tavern, in the City of Washington. A Lot of Ground, BEING a moiety of No. 17, contained in square No. 634, fronting 27 feet 4 inches on North Capitol Street, in said City, adjoining the south wall of the buildings lately erected by general Washington. This lot of ground is considered very valuable from its proximity to the Capitol and pleasant situation commanding an extensive prospect of the City and its vicinity. The title will be made indisputably good, and the terms of sale known at the time and place before-mentioned. J. G. LADD.
Also will be offered for sale at the same time and at the same time and place, the remaining part of said Lot No. 17, being of the same dimensions as the above, and lying contiguous thereto, unless previously disposed of at private sale. Alexandria, March 15, 1802. ep3t
NOTICE. Committed to the Jail of Washington County, District of Columbia, the following Slaves, viz. NEGRO Sarah Ann Owens—Committed the 20th February; says she belongs to William Foote, of Alexandria. Has a scar on her breast, is four feet one inch high, supposed to be about 23 years of age. Also—A dark Mulatto Woman, calls herself Peggy—Committed 23d February; says she belongs to Joshua Power, near Port Tobacco, Maryland. Has a scar on her right arm, occasioned by a burn—is 5 feet 4 inches high, supposed to be about 35 years of age. The owners of the aforesaid slaves are requested to come and pay charges and take them away; otherwise they will be sold for their fees, agreeably to law. DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal of the District of Columbia. March, 8, 1802. ep3w.
Public Sale. On Saturday the 20th inst. will be sold to the highest bidder (if not sold previous by private contract) that well-known property in the City of Washington, between the President's House and the Capitol, generally known by the uncommon overflowing of two wells, whose water is excellent, and may be converted to a variety of uses, particularly in the creation of booths of every denomination. THERE is at present on it a good two story brick house, a good frame kitchen, and a frame that may be converted into a stable. The Lot fronts 56 feet four inches south on C street, runs back to a thirty feet alley 150 feet. It would be superfluous to say anything further, as respects this valuable property, as those who wish to purchase, will view it prior to, or on the day of sale.—Terms made known on the day of sale. WM. CLARKE. March 15, 1802. eptf
VALUABLE LAND for SALE. FOR sale about 4500 acres of land belonging to the estate of Judge Mercer, deceased, and situated in the county of Loudoun, on the waters of Goose Creek, about 40 miles from Alexandria and the Federal City. A large portion of this tract is meadow ground, of good quality, and the soil of the high land is well adapted to every species of produce usually cultivated on land similarly situated in the upper country. Such portion of it as remains uncleared, affords an extensive and excellent range for stock of every kind. On one part of this land is one of the most valuable mill sites in the state. The supply of water is inexhaustible, and the mill could be erected immediately on the side of the public road leading from Winchester to Alexandria. It is computed that the number of wagons almost constantly travelling along this road, amount to at least 5 or 600. So that a ready market might always be had here, for a very considerable quantity of grain and hay. It is deemed unnecessary to describe more particularly the many advantages of this tract of Land, as it is expected that all persons disposed to purchase, will first view the premises. To accommodate purchasers the whole tract will be divided into lots of 4 or 500 acres each, with as much wood and meadow land to every lot as circumstances will admit. And it is believed that the whole 4500 acres may be so laid off into farms of the above-mentioned size, as to leave in each as much wood and meadow land as would be desired. The price and time of payment will be made known by the subscribers. Letters directed to John T. Brooke, Fredericksburg, or to James M. Garnett, Laytons, will be answered without delay. JOHN T. BROOKE, } Adm'rs JAMES M. GARNETT, } Feb. 8, 1802. eptf
The Arabian Horse The Dey of Algiers. ARRIVED on the 10th inst. in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Malon, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swas of Massachusetts, now in Europe. He will stand the ensuing season at my farm in Montgomery county, seven miles from this town and the City of Washington, and will cover at forty dollars the season (commencing the 1st of March) and one dollar to the groom, the money or an approved promissory note to be sent with the mare. This beautiful animal was brought from Arabia in the year '98, at four years old, by the late grand bailiff Fromm, of Prussia, into that kingdom, and was purchased at the sale of the bailiff's studs, after his death, at Fehrbellen, in '99, lieutenant general Frederick baron of Diemar, by whom he was sent to Hamburg to col. Swan, whence he was by that gentleman shipped to America; to attest which, and to prove him to be a genuine Arabian horse, original certificates are in my hands, and may at all times be seen. The Dey is of full stature for his race, he measures exactly fourteen hands two inches and an half. His colour is raily white, with a few brown spots dashed over his neck and shoulders. In figure and bone, it is believed, he will stand the test of the best judgment. He is only eight years old the coming spring. He is of fine presence and carriage; and remarkably vigorous and active. As it is the wish of his proprietor to display the merits of this horse in his colts—as early, and with as much certainty as possible, by his order, no more than fifty mares will be received this season. I have excellent and extensive pasturage well fenced, adjoining the land, at two shillings and six pence per week. Grain and green clover will be furnished if desired, at moderate prices.—Great care shall be taken of mares, and every justice done them, with the horse; but I will be answerable for no accidents or escapes. If gentlemen at a distance choose to send servants with their mares they shall be provided for on reasonable terms. CHARLES C. JONES. George-Town, Feb. 26, 1802. ep6w. N. B. The Dey will be shown every Thursday for four weeks to come, at the Union Tavern in Georgetown, and at Mr. Seel's Tavern, on Capitol Hill in Washington.