The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-03-12 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. II. WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. No. CCX.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, MARCH 12th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 20, 1802.
DEBATE
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organisation of the courts of the United States."
[Mr. Bayard, concluded.]
I owe to the committee the expression of my thanks for the patience with which they attended to the laborious discussion of yesterday.
It will be my endeavour in the remarks which I have to offer upon the remaining point of the debate, to consume no time which the importance of the subject does not justify. I have never departed from the question before the committee, but with great reluctance. Before I heard the gentleman from Virginia, I had not an observation to make unconnected with the bill on the table. It was he who forced me to wander on foreign ground, and he assured, sir, I shall be guilty of no new digressions where I am not covered by the same justification.
I did think that this was an occasion when the house ought to have been liberated from the dominion of party spirit, and allowed to decide upon the unbiased dictates of their understanding. The vain hope which I indulged that this course would be pursued was soon disappointed by the inflammatory appeal made by the gentleman from Virginia, to the passions of his party. This appeal, which treated with no respect the feelings of one side of the house, will excite recriminations which have been made, or which shall be retorted. We were disposed to conciliate, but gentlemen are deceived if they think that we will submit to be trampled on.
I shall now, sir, proceed to the consideration of the second point which the subject presents. However this point may be disguised by subtleties, I conceive the true question to be—has the legislature a right by a law to remove a judge? Gentlemen may state their question to be, has the legislature a right by law to vacate the office of a judge? But, as in fact they remove the judges, they are bound to answer our question.
The question which I state they will not meet. Nay, I have considered it as conceded upon all hands, that the legislature have not the power of removing a judge from his office; but it is contended only that the office may be taken from the judge. Sir, it is a principle in law, which ought, and I apprehend does, hold more strongly in politics; that what is prohibited from being done directly is restrained from being done indirectly. Is there any difference but in words between taking the office from a judge and removing the judge from the office? Do you not indirectly accomplish the end, which you admit is prohibited. I will not say that it is the sole intention of the supporters of the bill before us, to remove the circuit judges from their offices; but I will say that they establish a precedent, which will enable worse men than themselves to make use of the legislative power for that purpose upon any occasion. If it be constitutional to vacate the office, and in that way to dismiss the judge, can there be a question as to the power to re-create the office and to fill it with another man? Repeal to-day the bill of the last session, and the circuit judges are no longer in office. To-morrow rescind this repealing act (and no one will doubt the right to do it) and no effect is produced but the removal of the judges. To suppose that such a case may occur is no vagary of imagination. The thing has been done, shamelessly done in a neighbouring state. The judges there held their offices upon the same tenure with the judges of the United States. Three of them were obnoxious to the men in power. The judicial law of the state was repealed, and immediately re-enacted without a veil being thrown over the transaction. The obnoxious men were removed, their places supplied with new characters, and the other judges were re-appointed. Whatever sophistry may be able to shew in theory, in practice there never will be found a difference in the exercise of the powers of removing a judge and of vacating his office.
The question, which we are now considering, depends upon the provisions contained in the constitution. It is an error of the committee, upon plain subjects to search for reasons very profound. Upon the present subject the strong provisions
of the constitution are so obvious, that no eye can overlook them. They have been repeatedly cited, and as long as the question stated is under discussion, they must be reiterated. There are two prominent provisions to which I now particularly allude. 1st. The judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour. 2d. Their compensation shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. These are provisions to clearly understood upon the first impression, that their meaning is rather obscured than illustrated by argument. It is meant; and what has been universally understood by the tenure of "good behaviour." A tenure for life if the judges commit no misdemeanor. It is so understood and expressed in England, and so it has always been received and admitted in this country. The express provision then of the constitution defines the tenure of a judge's office; a tenure during life. How is that tenure expressly qualified? By the good behaviour of the judge. Is the tenure qualified by any other express condition or limitation? No other. As the tenure is express, as but one express limitation is imposed upon it, can it be subject to any other limitation not derived from necessary implication. If any material provision in the constitution can in no other manner be satisfied, than by subjecting the tenure of this office to some new condition, I will then admit that the tenure is subject to the condition.
Gentlemen have ventured to point out a provision which they conceived furnished this necessary implication. They refer to the power given to Congress from time to time to establish courts inferior to the supreme court. If this power cannot be exercised without vacating the offices of existing judges, I will concede that those offices may be vacated. But on this head there can be no controversy. The power has been, & at all times may, be exercised without vacating the office of any judge. It was so exercised at the last session of Congress; and I surely do not now dispute the right of gentlemen to establish as many new courts as they may deem expedient. The power to establish new courts does not therefore necessarily imply a power to abolish the offices of existing judges, because the existence of those offices does not prevent an execution of the power.
The clause in the constitution to which I have just alluded has furnished to gentlemen their famous position, that though you cannot remove a judge from his office, you may take the office from the judge. Though I should be in order, I will not call this a quibble, but I shall attempt, in the course of the argument, yet more clearly to prove that it is one. I do not contend that you cannot abolish an empty office, but the point on which I rely is, that you can do no act which impairs the independence of a judge. When gentlemen assert that the office may be vacated notwithstanding the incumbency of the judge, do they consider that they beg the very point which is in controversy? The office cannot be vacated without violating the express provision of the constitution in relation to the tenure.
The judge is to hold the office during good behaviour. Does he hold it when it is taken from him? Has the constitution said, that he shall hold the office during good behaviour, unless Congress shall deem it expedient to abolish the office? If this limitation has been omitted, what authority have we to make it a part of the constitution?
The second plain, unequivocal provision, on this subject is, that the compensation of the judge shall not be diminished during the time he continues in office. This provision is directly levelled at the power of the legislature. They alone could reduce the salary. Could this provision have any other design than to place the judge out of the power of Congress; and yet how imperfect and how absurd the plan. You cannot reduce a part of the compensation, but you may extinguish the whole. What is the sum of this notable reasoning? You cannot remove the judge from the office, but you may take the office from the judge. You cannot take the compensation from the judge, but you may separate the judge from the compensation.
If your constitution cannot resist reasoning like this, then indeed is it waste paper.
I will here turn aside, in order to consider a variety of arguments drawn from different sources, on which gentlemen on the other side have placed a reliance. I know of no order in which they can be classed, and I shall therefore take them up as I meet with them on my notes. It was urged by the honourable member from Virginia, to whom I have so frequently referred, that what was created
by law, might by law be annihilated. In the application of his principle, he disclosed views which I believe, have not yet been contemplated by gentlemen of his party. He was industrious to shew that not only the inferior courts, but the supreme court derives its existence from law. The president and legislature exist under the constitution. They came into being without the aid of a law. But though the constitution said, there should be a supreme court, no judges could exist till the court was organized by a law. This argument, I presume, was pushed to this extent in order to give notice to the judges of the supreme court of their fate & to bid them prepare for their end.
I shall not attempt to discriminate between the tenure of the offices of the judges of the supreme & inferior courts. Congress has power to organize both descriptions of courts, and to limit the number of judges, but they have no power to limit or define the tenure of office. Congress creates the office; the President appoints the officer, but it is neither under Congress or the President, but under the constitution, that the judge claims to hold the office during good behaviour. The principle asserted does not in this case apply; the tenure of office is not created by law, and if the truth of the principle were admitted, it would not follow, that the tenure of the office might be vacated by law. But the principle is not sound. I will shew a variety of cases which will prove its fallacy. Among the obnoxious measures of the late administration, was the loan of five millions, which was funded at 8 per cent. The loan was created by a law and funded by law. Is the gentleman prepared to say, that this debt, which was funded by a law of the former legislature, may be extinguished by a law of the present? Can you, by calling the interest of this debt, exorbitant and usurious, justify the reduction of it? Gentlemen admit that the salary of a judge, though established by a law, cannot be diminished by a law. The same thing must be allowed with respect to the salary of the President. Sir, the true principle is, that one legislature may repeal the act of a former, in cases not prohibited by the constitution. The correct question therefore is, whether the legislature are not forbidden by the constitution to abridge the tenure of a judicial office?
In order to avoid cases of a nature similar to those which I have put, the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Davis,) and after him the gentleman from Virginia, endeavoured to draw a distinction between laws executed, and laws executory.
The distinction was illustrated by reference to the case of a state admitted by a law into the union. Here it is said the law is executed, and functus officio, and if you repeal it, till the state remains a member of the union. But it was asked by the gentleman from Kentucky, supposing a law made to admit a state into the union, at a future time, before the time of admission arrived, could not the law be repealed. I will answer the question to the satisfaction of the gentleman, by stating a case which exists. By an ordinance of congress, in the year 1787, Congress ordained, that when the population within the limits of a state within the North Western Territory, should amount to 60,000 souls—the district should be admitted as a member of the union: Will the gentleman venture to doubt as to this case? Would he dare to tell the people of this country, that Congress had the power to disfranchise them.
The law, in the case I refer to, is executory, though the event upon which it is to take effect is limited by population and not by time?
But, sir, if there were any thing in the principle, it has no influence upon the case to which it has been applied. A law has created the office of a judge, the judge has been appointed and the office filled. The law is therefore executed, and upon the very distinction of the gentleman, cannot be repealed. The law fixing the compensation is executory, and so is that which establishes the salary of the President, but tho' executory, they cannot be repealed. The distinction therefore is idle, and leaves the question upon the ground of the repeal, being permitted or prohibited by the constitution. I shall now advert, sir, to an argument urged with great force and not a little triumph, by the honorable member from Virginia. This argument is derived from the word, 'hold' in the expression, the judge shall hold his office during good behaviour. It is considered as correlative to tenure. The gentleman remarks, that the constitution provides, that the President shall no-
minate the judge to his office, and when approved by the senate, shall commission him. It is hence inferred, that as the President nominates and commissions the judge, the judge holds the office of the President; and that when the constitution provides, that the tenure of the office shall be during good behaviour, the provision applies to the President, and restrains the power which otherwise would result in consequence of the offices being held at will. This is an argument, sir, which I should have thought, that honorable member would have been the last person upon this floor to have adopted. It not only imputes to the President royal attributes, but prerogatives, derived from the rude doctrines of the feudal law. Does the gentleman mean to contend, that the President of these states, like the monarch of England, is the fountain of honor, of justice and of office? Does he mean to contend, that the courts are the President's courts, and the judges, the President's judges? Does he mean to say, sir, that the chief magistrate is always supposed to be present in these courts, and that the judges are but the images of his justice? To serve the paltry purposes of this argument, would the gentleman be willing to infuse into our constitution, the vital spirit of the feudal doctrines? He does not believe, he cannot believe, that when the word 'hold' was employed, any reference was had to its feudal import. The language of the constitution furnishes no support to this feudal argument. These officers are not called the judges of the President, but the judges of the United States. They are a branch of the government equally important, and designed to be co-ordinate with the President. If, sir, because the President nominates to office and commissions, the office is held of him, for a stronger reason where by patent he grants lands of the United States, the lands are held of him. And upon the grantee's dying without heirs, the lands would escheat not to the United States, but to the President. In England, the tenure of lands and offices is derived from the same principle. All lands are held mediately, or immediately of the crown, because they are supposed to have been originally acquired from the personal grant of the monarch. It is the same of office, as the king is supposed to be the source of all offices. Having the power to grant, he has a right to define, the terms of the grant. These terms constitute the tenure. When the terms fail, the tenure ceases, and the object of the grant reverts to the grantor. This gentleman has charged others with monarchical tendencies, but never have I before witnessed an attempt so bold and strong to incorporate, in our constitution, a rank monarchical principle. If, sir, the principle of our constitution on this subject be republican and not monarchical, and the judges hold their offices of the United States, and not of the President, then the application of his argument has all the force against the gentleman, which he designed it should have against his adversaries. For if the office be held of the United States, and the tenure of good behaviour, was designed to restrain the power of those of whom the office was held, it will follow, that it was the intention to restrain the power of the United States.
We were told by an honorable gentleman from Virginia, who rose early in the debate, (Mr. Thompson) that the principles we advocated tended to establish a sinecure system in the country. Sir, I am as little disposed to be accessory to the establishment of such a system, as any gentleman on this floor. But let me ask how this system is to be produced? We established judicial offices, to which numerous and important duties were assigned. A compensation has been allowed to the judges, which no one will say, is immoderate, or disproportionate to the service to be rendered. These gentlemen first abolish the duties of the offices, then call the judges pensioners, and afterwards accuse us of establishing sinecures. There are no pensioners at present, if there should be any; they will be the creatures of this law. I have ever considered it as a sound and moral maxim, that no one should avail himself of his own wrong. It is a maxim, which ought to be equally obligatory upon the public as upon the private man. In the present case, the judge offers you his service. You cannot say, it is not worth the money you pay for it. You refuse to accept the service; and after engaging to pay him while he continued to perform the service, you deny him his compensation, because he neglects to render services which you have prevented him
from performing. Was injustice ever more flagrant? Surely, sir, the judges are innocent. If we did wrong, why should they be punished and disgraced? They did not pass the obnoxious law, they did not create the offices, they had no participation in the guilty business; but they were invited upon the faith of government, to renounce their private professions, to relinquish the emolument of other employments, and to enter into the service of the United States, who engaged to retain them during their lives, if they were guilty of no misconduct. They have behaved themselves well, unexceptionably well, when they find the government rescinding the contract made with them, refusing the stipulated price of their labour, disaffirming them from service, and in order to cover the scandalous breach of faith, stigmatizing them with names which may render them odious to their countrymen. Is there a gentleman on the floor of this House, who would not revolt at such conduct in private life? Is there one who would feel himself justified, after employing a person for a certain time, and agreeing to pay a certain compensation, to dismiss the party from the service upon any caprice which altered his views, deny him the stipulated compensation, and to abuse him with opprobrious names, for expecting the benefit of the engagement?
A bold attempt was made by one of the gentlemen from Virginia, (Mr. Giles) to force to his aid the Statute of 13th Wm. 3d. I call it a bold attempt, because the gentleman was obliged to rely upon his own assertion to support the ground of his argument. He stated, that the clause in the constitution was borrowed from a similar provision in the Statute. I know nothing about the fact, but I will allow the gentleman his full benefit. In England at an earlier period, the judges held their commissions during the good pleasure of the monarch. The parliament desired, and the king consented, that the royal prerogative should be restrained. That the offices of the judges should not depend on the will of the crown alone, but upon the joint pleasure of the crown and of parliament. The king consented to part with a portion of his prerogative by relinquishing his power to remove the judges, without the advice of his parliament. But by an express clause in the statute, he retained the authority to remove them with the advice of his parliament. Suppose the clause had been omitted, which reserved the right to remove upon the address of the two Houses of parliament, and the Statute had been worded in the unqualified language of our constitution, that the judges should hold their offices during good behaviour, would not the prerogative of removal have been abolished altogether? I will not say that the honorable member has been peculiarly unfortunate in the employment of this argument, because, sir, it appears to me that most to which he has had recourse, when justly considered, have operated against the cause they were designed to support.
The gentleman tells us that the constitutional provision on this subject was taken from the statute of William. Will he answer me this plain question? Why do we find omitted in the constitution, that part of the statutory provision, which allowed the judges to be removed upon the address of the two branches of the legislature? Does he suppose that the clause was not observed? Does he imagine that the provision was dropped through inadvertency? Will he impute so gross a neglect to an instrument every sentence and word, and comma, of which, he has told us was so maturely considered, and so warily settled. No, sir, it is impossible; and give me leave to say, that if this part of the constitution were taken from the statute (and the gentleman from Virginia must have better information on the subject than I have) that a stronger argument could not be adduced, to show that it was the intention of those who framed the constitution, by omitting that clause in the statute which made the judges tenants of their offices at the will of Parliament; to improve in this country the English plan of judicature, by rendering the judges independent of the legislature. And I shall have occasion in the course of my observations to shew, that the strongest reasons derived from the nature of our government, and which do not apply to the English form, require the improvement to be made.
Upon this point, sir, we may borrow a few additional rays of light from the constitutions of Pennsylvania, of Delaware, and of some other states. In those states it has been thought, that there might be misconduct on the part

of a judge, not amounting to an impeachable offence, for which he should be liable to be removed. Their constitutions therefore have varied from that of the United States, and rendered their judges liable to be removed upon the address of two thirds of each branch of the legislature. Does it not strike every mind, that it was the intention of those constitutions to have judges independent of a majority of each branch of the legislature; and I apprehend also that it may be fairly inferred, that it was understood in those states when their constitution was formed, that even two thirds of each branch of the legislature would not have the power to remove a judge whose tenure of office was during good behavior, unless the power was expressly given to them by the constitution. I cannot well conceive of anything more absurd in an instrument designed to last for centuries and to bind the furious passions of party, than to fortify one party to judicial independence, and to leave another totally unguarded against the violence of legislative power.
It has been urged by the gentleman from Virginia, that our admission that Congress has a power to modify the office of judge, leads to the conclusion, that they have the power to abolish the office. Because, by paring away their powers they may at length reduce them to a shadow, and leave them as humble and as contemptible as a court of piepoudre. The office of a judge consists of judicial powers which he is appointed to execute. Every law which is passed increases or diminishes those powers, and so far modifies the office: nay it is competent for the legislature to prescribe additional duties or to dispense with unnecessary services, which are connected with the office of the judge. But this power has its bounds. You may modify the office to any extent which does not affect the independence of the judge. The judge is to hold the office during good behaviour; now modify as you please, so that you do not infringe this constitutional provision.
Do you ask me to draw a line and say, thus far you can go and no farther. I admit no line can be drawn. It is an affair of sound and bona fide discretion. Because a discretion on the subject is given to the legislature, to argue upon the abuse of that discretion is adopting a principle subversive of all legitimate power.
The constitution is predicated upon the existence of a certain degree of integrity in man. It has trusted powers liable to enormous abuse, if all political honesty be discarded. The legislature is not limited in the amount of the taxes which they have a right to impose nor as to the objects to which they are to be applied. Does this power give us the property of the country, because by taxes we might draw it into the public coffers, and then cut up the treasury and divide the spoils? Is there any power in respect to which a precise line can be drawn, between the direct exercise and the abuse of it.
I can only say therefore on this subject, that every man is acquitted to his own conscience who bona fide does not intend, and who sincerely does not believe, that by the law which he is about to pass, he interferes with the judges holding their offices during good behaviour.
I am now brought, Mr. Chairman, to take notice of some remarks which fell from the gentleman from Virginia, which do not belong to the subject before us; but are of sufficient importance to deserve particular attention. He called our attention in a very impressive manner to the state of parties in this house at the time when the act of the last session passed. He describes us in a state of blind paroxysm, incapable of discerning the nature or tendency of the measures we were pursuing. That a majority of the house were struggling to counteract the expression of the public will, in relation to the person who was to be the chief magistrate of the country.
I did suppose, Sir, that this business was at an end, and I did imagine that as gentlemen had accomplished their object, they would have been satisfied. But as the subject is again renewed, we must be allowed to justify our conduct. I know not what the gentleman calls an expression of the public will. There were two candidates for the office of President, who were presented to the House of Representatives with equal suffrages. The constitution gave us the right and made it our duty to elect that one of the two whom we thought preferable. A public man is to notice the public will as constitutionally expressed. The gentleman from Virginia and many others may have had their preference, but that preference of the public will did not appear by its constitutional expression. Sir, I am not certain, that either of those candidates had a majority of the country in his favour. Excluding the state of South-Carolina, the country was equally divided. We know that parties in that state were nearly equally balanced, and the claims of both the candidates were supported by no other scrutiny into the public will, than our official return of votes. Those votes are very
imperfect evidence of the true will of a majority of the nation. They resulted from political intrigue, and artificial arrangement.
When we look at the votes we must suppose, that every man in Virginia voted the same way. These votes are received as a correct expression of the public will. And yet we know, that if the votes of that state were apportioned according to the several voices of the people, that at least seven out of twenty-one, would have been opposed to the successful candidates. It was the suppression of the will of one third of Virginia, which enables gentlemen now to say, that the present chief magistrate is the man of the people. I consider that as the public will, which is expressed by constitutional organs. To that will I bow and submit. The public will, thus manifested, gave to the House of Representatives, the choice of the two men for President. Neither of them was the man whom I wished to make President, but my election was confined by the constitution to one of the two, and I gave my vote to the one who I thought was the greater and better man. That vote I repeated, and in that vote I should have persisted, had I not been driven from it, by imperious necessity. The prospect ceased of the vote being effectual, and the alternative only remained of taking one man for President, or having no President at all. I chose, as I then thought, the lesser evil.
From the scene in this house, the gentleman carried us to one in the senate. I should blush, Sir, for the honor of the country, could I suppose that the law designed to be repealed, owed its support in that body to the motives which have been indicated. The charge designed to be conveyed, not only deeply implicates the integrity of individuals of the senate, but of the person who was then the chief magistrate. The gentleman, going beyond all precedent, has mentioned the names of members of that body, to whom commissions issued for offices not created by the bill before them, but which that bill by the promotions it afforded was likely to render vacant. He has considered the scandal of the transaction, as aggravated by the issuing of commissions or offices not actually vacant, upon the bare presumption that they would become vacant, by the incumbents accepting commissions for higher offices which were issued in their favor. The gentleman has particularly dwelt upon the indecent appearance of the business from two commissions being held by different persons at the same time, for the same office.
I beg that it will be understood, that I mean to give no opinion as to the regularity of granting a commission for a judicial office, upon the probability of a vacancy, before it is actually vacant. But I shall be allowed to say that so much doubt attends the point, that an innocent mistake might be made on the subject. I believe, Sir, it has been the practice to consider the acceptance of an office, as relating to the date of the commission. The officer is allowed his salary from that date, upon the principle that the commission is a grant of the office, and the title commences with the date of the grant. This principle is certainly liable to abuse, but where there was a suspicion of abuse, I presume the government would depart from it. Admitting the office to pass by the commission, and the acceptance to relate to its date, it then does not appear very incorrect in the case of a commission, for the office of a circuit judge, granted to a district judge, as the acceptance of the commission for the former office relates to the date of the commission, to consider the latter office as vacant from the same time. The offices are incompatible. You cannot suppose the same person in both offices at the same time. From the moment, therefore, that you consider the office of circuit judge filled by a person who holds the commission of district judge, you must consider the office of district judge as vacated. The grant is contingent. If the contingency happen, the office vests from the date of the commission, if the contingency does not happen the grant is void. If this reasoning be found, it was not irregular in the late administration, after granting a commission to a district judge, for the place of a circuit judge, to make a grant of the office of the district judge, upon the contingency of his accepting the office of circuit judge. I now return, Sir, to that point of the charge, which was personal in its nature, and of infinitely the most serious import. It is a charge as to which, we can only ask, is it true? If it be true, it cannot be excused; it cannot be palliated, it is vile profligate corruption, which every honest mind will execrate. But, Sir, we are not to condemn, till we have evidence of the fact. If the offence be serious, the proof ought to be plenary. I will consider the evidence of the fact, upon which the honorable member has relied, and I will shew him by the application of it to a stronger case, that it is of a nature to prove nothing.
Let me first state the principal case. Two gentlemen of the senate, Mr. Read of South-Carolina, and Mr. Green of Rhode-Island, who voted in favor of the law of last session, each received an ap-
pointment to the place of district judge, which was designed to be vacated by the promotion of the district judge to the office of circuit judge. The gentleman conveyed to us a distinct impression of his opinion, that there was an understanding between these gentlemen & the President, and that the offices were the promised price of their votes.
I presume, Sir, the gentleman will have more charity, in the case which I am about to mention, and he will for once admit that public men ought not to be condemned, upon loose conclusions drawn from equivocal presumptions.
The case, Sir, to which I refer, carries me once more to the scene of the Presidential election. I should not have introduced it into this debate, had it not been called up by the honorable member from Virginia. In that scene I had my part, it was a part not barren of incident, and which has left an impression, which cannot easily depart from my recollection. I know who were rendered important characters, either from the possession of personal means, or from the accident of political situation. And now, Sir, let me ask the honorable member, what his recollections and belief will be, when he observes that every man, on whose vote the event of the election hung, has since been distinguished by Presidential favor. I fear, Sir, I shall violate the decorum of Parliamentary proceeding, in the mentioning of names, but I hope the example which has been set me will be admitted as an excuse. Mr. Charles Pinckney of South-Carolina was not a member of the house, but he was one of the most active, efficient, and successful promoters of the election of the present chief magistrate. It was well ascertained that the votes of South-Carolina were to turn the equal balance of the scales. The zeal and industry of Mr. Pinckney had no bounds. The doubtful politics of South-Carolina were decided, and her votes cast into the scale of Mr. Jefferson. Mr. Pinckney has since been appointed minister plenipotentiary to the court of Madrid. An appointment as high and honorable, as any within the gift of the executive. I will not deny that this preferment is the reward of talents and services, although, Sir, I have never yet heard of the talents or the services of Mr. Charles Pinckney. In the House of Representatives I know what was the value of the vote of Mr. Claiborne of Tennessee. The vote of a state was in his hands. Mr. Claiborne, has since been raised to the high dignity of governor of the Mississippi Territory. I know how great and low greatly felt, was the importance of the vote of Mr. Linn of New-Jersey. The delegation of the state consists of five members. Two of the delegation were decidedly for Mr. Jefferson; two were decidedly for Mr. Burr. Mr. Linn was considered as inclining to one side, but still doubtful. Both parties looked up to him for the vote of New-Jersey. He gave it to Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Linn has since had the profitable office of supervisor of his district conferred upon him. Mr. Lyon of Vermont was in this instance an important man. He neutralized the vote of Vermont. His absence alone would have given the vote of a state to Mr. Burr. It was too much to give an office to Mr. Lyon; His character was low. But Mr. Lyon's son has been handsomely provided for in one of the executive offices. I shall add to the catalogue but the name of one more gentleman. Mr. Edward Livingston, of New-York. I knew well, full well I knew the consequence of this gentleman. His means were not limited to his own vote—nay, I always considered more than the vote of New-York within his power. Mr. Livingston has been made the attorney for the district of New-York—the road of preferment has been opened to him—and his brother has been raised to the distinguished place of minister plenipotentiary to the French republic. This catalogue might be swelled to a much greater magnitude; but I fear, Mr. Chairman, were I to proceed further, it might be supposed, that I myself harboured the uncharitable suspicions of the integrity of the chief magistrate, and of the purity of the gentlemen whom he thought proper to promote, which it is my design alone to banish from the mind of the honorable member from Virginia. It would be doing me great injustice to suppose, that I have the smallest desire, or have had the remotest intention to tarnish the fame of the present chief magistrate; or of any of the honorable gentlemen who have been the objects of his favor, by the statement which I have made; my motive is of an opposite nature. The late President appointed gentlemen to office, to whom he owed no personal obligations, but who only supported what has been considered as a favourite measure. This has been assumed as a sufficient ground, not only of suspicion, but of condemnation. The present executive, leaving scarcely an exception, has appointed to office, or has by accident, indirectly gratified every man, who had any distinguished means in the competition, for the Presidential office, of deciding the election in his favour. Yet, Sir, all this furnishes too feeble a presumption to warrant me to express a suspicion of the integrity of a great officer,
or of the probity of honorable men, in the discharge of the high functions which they had derived from the confidence of their country. I am sure, Sir, in this case, the honorable member from Virginia is as exempt from any suspicion as myself. And I shall have accomplished my whole object, if I induce that honorable member, and other members of the committee, who entertain his suspicions as to the conduct of the late executive, to review the ground of those suspicions, and to consider that in a case furnishing much stronger ground for the presumption of criminality, they have an unshaken belief, an unbroken confidence in the purity and fairness of the executive conduct.
I return again to the subject before the committee, from the unpleasant digression to which I was forced to submit, in order to repel insinuations which were calculated to have the worst effect, as well abroad as within the walls of this House. I shall now cursorily advert to some arguments of minor importance, which are supposed to have some weight by gentlemen on the other side. It is said, that if the courts are sanctuaries and the judges cannot be removed by law, it would be in the power of a party to create a host of them to live as pensioners on the country. This argument is predicated upon an extreme abuse of power, which can never fairly be urged to restrain the legitimate exercise of it; as well might it be urged, that a subsequent congress had a right to reduce the salary of a judge, or of the President, fixed by a former congress, because if the right did not exist, one congress might confer a salary of 500,000 or 1,000,000 dollars to the impoverishment of the country. It will be time enough to decide upon those extreme cases when they occur. We are told, that the doctrine, we contend for, enables one legislature to derogate from the power of another. That it attributes to a former a power which it denies to a subsequent legislature.
This is not correct. We admit, that this congress possesses all the power possessed by the last congress. That congress had a power to establish courts, so has the present. That congress had not, nor did it claim the power to abolish the office of a judge while it was filled. Though they thought five judges under the new system sufficient to constitute the supreme court, they did not attempt to touch the office of either of the six judges. Though they considered it more convenient to have circuit judges in Kentucky, and Tennessee, than district judges, they did not lay their hands upon the offices of the district judges. We therefore deny no power to this congress which was not denied to the last. An honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. Thompson) seriously expressed his alarm, lest the principles we contended for should introduce into the country a privileged order of men. The idea of the gentleman supposes, that every office not at will establishes a privileged order. The judges have their offices for one term; the President, the senators and the members of this House for different terms. While these terms endure, there is a privilege, to hold the places, and no power exists to remove. If this be what the gentleman means by a privileged order, and he agrees, that the President, the Senators and the members of this House belong to privileged orders, I shall give myself no trouble to deny, that the judges fall under the same description; and I believe, that the gentleman will find it difficult to shew, that in any other manner they are privileged. I did not suppose, that this argument was so much addressed to the understandings of gentlemen upon this floor, as to the prejudices and passions of people out of doors.
It was urged with some impression by the honorable member from Virginia, to whom I last referred, that the position that the office of a judge might be taken from him by law, was not a new doctrine. That it was established by the very act now designed to be repealed, which was described in glowing language to have inflicted a gaping wound on the constitution, and to have stained with its blood the pages of our Statute book. It shall be my task, Sir, to close this gaping wound, and to wash from the pages of our Statute-book, the blood with which they were stained. It will be an easy task to shew to you the constitution without a wound, and the Statute-book without a stain.
It is, Sir, the 27th sec. of the bill of the last session, which the honorable member considers as having inflicted the ghastly wound on the constitution, of which he has so feelingly spoken. That section abolishes the ancient circuit courts. But, Sir, have we contended, or has the gentleman shown, that the constitution prohibits the abolition of a court when you do not materially affect or in any degree impair the independence of a judge. A court is nothing more than a place where a judge is directed to discharge certain duties. There is no doubt, you may erect a new court and direct it to be held by the judges of the supreme or of the district courts. And if it should afterwards be your pleasure to abolish that court, it cannot be said, that you destroy the offices of the judges by whom it was ap-
pointed that the court should be held.
Thus it was directed by the original judicial law, that a circuit court should be held at York town, in the district of Pennsylvania. This court was afterwards abolished, but it was never imagined, that the office of any judge was affected. Let me suppose, that a State is divided into two districts, and district courts established in each, but that one judge is appointed by law to discharge the judicial duties in both courts. The arrangement is afterwards found inconvenient, and one of the courts is abolished. In this case will it be said, that the office of the judge is destroyed, or his independence affected? The error, into which gentlemen have fallen on this subject, has arisen from their taking for granted, what they have not attempted to prove, and what cannot be supported. That the office of a judge, and any court in which he officiates are the same thing. It is most clear, that a judge may be authorized and directed to perform duties in several courts, and that the discharging him from the performance of duty in one of those courts cannot be deemed an infringement of his office. The case of the late circuit courts as plainly illustrates the argument, and as conclusively demonstrates its correctness, as any case which can be put. There were not nominally any judges of the circuit court. The court was directed to be held by the judges of the supreme and of the circuit courts. The judges of these two courts were associated and directed to perform certain duties; when associated and in the performance of those duties, they were denominated the circuit court. This court is abolished; the only consequence is, that the judges of the supreme and district courts are discharged from the performance of the joint duties which were previously imposed upon them. But is the office of one judge of the supreme or of the district courts infringed? Can any judge say, in consequence of the abolition of the circuit courts, I no longer hold my office during good behaviour? On this point it was further alleged by the same honorable member, that the law of the last session inflicted another wound on the constitution, by abolishing the district courts of Kentucky and Tennessee. The gentleman was here deceived by the same fallacy which misled him on the subject of the circuit courts. If he will give himself the trouble of carefully reviewing the provisions of the law, he will discern the sedulous attention of the legislature to avoid the infringement of the offices of those judges. I believe the gentleman went so far as to charge us with appointing by law those judges to new offices.
The law referred to establishes a circuit, comprehending Kentucky, Tennessee and the district of Ohio. The duties of the court of this circuit are directed to be performed by a circuit judge and the two district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee. Surely it is competent for the legislature to create a court, and to direct that it shall be held by any of the existing judges. If the legislature had done with respect to all the district judges, what they have done with respect to those of Kentucky and Tennessee, I am quite certain, that the present objection would have appeared entirely groundless. Had they directed, that all the circuit courts should be held by the respective judges within the circuits, gentlemen would have clearly seen, that this was only an imposition of a new duty and not an appointment to a new office.
It will be recollected, that under the old establishment, the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee were invested generally with the powers of the circuit judges. The ancient powers of those judges are scarcely varied by the new law, and the amount of the change is, that they are directed to exercise those powers in a court formerly called a district, but now a circuit court, and at other places than those to which they were formerly confined. But the district judge nominally remains, his office both nominally and substantially exists, and he holds it now as he did before, during good behaviour. I will refer gentlemen to different provisions in the late law, which will shew beyond denial, that the legislature carefully and pointedly avoided the act of abolishing the offices of those judges.
The 7th sect. of the law provides that the court of the 6th circuit shall be composed of a circuit judge "and the judges of the district courts of Kentucky and Tennessee." It is afterwards declared in the same section, "that there shall be appointed in the 6th circuit, a judge of the United States to be called a circuit judge, who, together with the district judge of Tennessee and Kentucky shall hold the circuit courts hereby directed to be held within the same circuit." And finally, in the same section it is provided, "that whenever the office of district judge in the districts of Kentucky and Tennessee respectively shall become vacant such vacancies shall respectively be supplied by the appointment of two additional circuit judges in the said circuit, who, together with the circuit judge first aforesaid, shall compose the circuit court of the said circuit." When the express

language of the law affirms the existence of the office and of the officer, by providing for the contingency of the officer ceasing to fill the office, with what face can gentlemen contend that the office is abolished? They who are not satisfied upon this point, I despair of convincing upon any other.
Upon the main question, whether the judges hold their offices at the will of the legislature, an argument of great weight and according to my humble judgment, of irresistible force, still remains.
The legislative power of the government is not absolute but limited. If it be doubtful whether the legislature can do what the constitution does not explicitly authorize; yet there can be no question, that they cannot do what the constitution expressly prohibits. To maintain, therefore, the constitution, the judges are a check upon the legislature. This doctrine I know is denied, and it is therefore incumbent upon me to show that it is sound.
It was once thought by gentlemen who now deny the principle, that the safety of the citizen and of the states, rested upon the power of the judges to declare an unconstitutional law void. How vain is a paper restriction if it confers neither power nor right. Of what importance is it to say, Congress are prohibited from doing certain acts, if no legitimate authority exists in the country to decide whether an act done is a prohibited act? Do gentlemen perceive the consequences which would follow from establishing the principle, that Congress have the exclusive right to decide upon their own powers? This principle admitted, does any constitution remain? Does not the power of the legislature become absolute and omnipotent? Can you talk to them of transgressing their powers, when no one has a right to judge of those powers but themselves? They do what is not authorized, they do what is inhibited, nay at every step they trample the constitution under foot; yet their acts are lawful and binding, and it is treason to resist them. How ill, Sir, do the doctrines and professions of these gentlemen agree. They tell us they are friendly to the excellence of the states; that they are the friends of federative, but the enemies of a consolidated general government, and yet, Sir, to accomplish a paltry object, they are willing to settle a principle which, beyond all doubt, would eventually plant a consolidated government, with unlimited power upon the ruins of the state governments.
Nothing can be more absurd than to contend that there is a practical restraint, upon a political body who are answerable to none but themselves for the violation of the restraint, and who can derive from the very act of violation, undeniable justification of their conduct.
If, Mr. Chairman, you mean to have a constitution, you must discover a power to which the acknowledged right is attached of pronouncing the invalidity of the acts of the legislature which contravene the instrument.
Does the power reside in the states? Has the legislature of a state a right to declare an act of Congress void? This would be erring upon the opposite extreme. It would be placing the general government at the feet of the state governments. It would be allowing one member of the union to control all the rest. It would inevitably lead to civil dissension and a dissolution of the general government. Will it be pretended that the state courts have the exclusive right of deciding upon the validity of our laws?
I admit they have the right to declare an act of Congress void. But this right they enjoy in practice, and it ever essentially must exist subject to the revision and control of the courts of the United States. If the state courts definitively possessed the right of declaring the invalidity of the laws of this government, it would bring us in subjection to the states. The judges of those courts, being bound by the laws of the state, if a state declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, the law of the state would oblige its courts to determine the law invalid. This principle would also destroy the uniformity of obligation upon all the states, which should attend every law of this government. If a law were declared void in one state, it would exempt the citizens of that state from its operation, whilst obedience was yielded to it in the other states. I go farther, and say, if the states or state courts had a final power of annulling the acts of this government, its miserable and precarious existence would not be worth the trouble of a moment to preserve.
It would endure but a short time, as a subject of derision, and waning into an empty shadow would quickly vanish from our sight. Let me now ask if the power to decide upon the validity of our laws resides with the people. Gentlemen cannot deny this right to the sovereign people. I admit they possess it. But if at the same time it does not belong to the courts of the United States, where does it lead the people? It leads them to the gallows. Let us suppose that Congress, forgetful of the limits of their authority, pass an unconstitutional law. They lay a direct tax upon one state and impose none upon the others. The people of the state taxed, contest the validity of the law. They forcibly resist its execution. They are brought
by the executive authority before the courts upon charges of treason. The law is unconstitutional, the people have done right, but the court are bound by the law and obliged to pronounce upon them the sentence which it inflicts. Deny to the courts of the United States, the power of judging upon the constitutionality of our laws, and it is vain to talk of its existing elsewhere. The infraction of the laws are brought before these courts, & if the courts are implicitly bound, the invalidity of the laws can be no defence. There is, however, Mr. Chairman, still a stronger ground of argument upon this subject. I shall select one or two cases to illustrate it. Congress are prohibited from passing a bill of attainder; it is also declared in the constitution that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the party attainted." Let us suppose that Congress pass a bill of attainder, or they enact that any one attainted of treason shall forfeit to the use of the United States all the estate which he held in any lands or tenements.
The party attainted is seized and brought before a federal court, and an award of execution passed against him. He opens the constitution and points to this line "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." The attorney for the United States reads the bill of attainder.
The court are bound to decide, but they have only the alternative of pronouncing the law or the constitution invalid. It is left to them only to say that the law vacates the constitution, or the constitution avoids the law. So in the other case stated, the heir after the death of his ancestor, brings his ejectment in one of the courts of the United States to recover his inheritance. The law by which it is confiscated is shewn. The constitution gave no power to pass such a law. On the contrary it expressly denied it to the government. The title of the heir is rested on the constitution, the title of the government on the law. The effect of one destroys the effect of the other; the court must determine which is effectual.
There are many other cases, Mr. Chairman, of a similar nature to which I might allude. There is the case of the privilege of Habeas Corpus, which cannot be suspended but in times of rebellion or of invasion. Suppose a law prohibiting the issuing of the writ at a moment of profound peace. If in such case the writ were demanded of a court, could they say, it is true the legislature were restrained from passing the law, suspending the privilege of this writ, at such a time as that which now exists, but their mighty power has broken the bonds of the constitution, and fettered the authority of the court. I am not, Sir, disposed to vaunt, but standing on this ground I throw the gauntlet to any champion upon the other side. I call upon them to maintain, that in a collision between a law and the constitution, the judges are bound to support the law, and annul the constitution. Can the gentlemen relieve themselves from this dilemma? Will they say, tho' a judge has no power to pronounce a law void, he has a power to declare the constitution invalid.
The doctrine for which I am contending is not only clearly inferable from the plain language of the constitution, but by law has been expressly declared and established in practice since the existence of the government.
The 2d section of the 3d article of the constitution expressly extends the judicial power to all cases arising under the constitution, the laws, &c. The provision in the 2d clause of the 6th article leaves nothing to doubt. "This constitution & the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, &c. shall be the supreme law of the land." The constitution is absolutely the supreme law. Not so of the acts of the legislature. Such only are the law of the land as are made in pursuance of the constitution.
I beg the indulgence of the committee one moment, while I read the following provision from the 25th sect. of the judicial act of the year 1789: "A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of law or equity of a state in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity, &c. may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the supreme court of the United States upon a writ of error." Thus, as early as the year 1789, among the first acts of the government, the legislature explicitly recognized the rights of a state court to declare a treaty, a statute, and an authority exercised under the United States void, subject to the revision of the supreme court of the United States; and it has expressly given the final power to the supreme court to affirm a judgment which is against the validity either of a treaty, statute or an authority of the government.
I humbly trust, Mr. Chairman, that I have given abundant proofs from the nature of our government, from the language of the constitution, and from legislative acknowledgement, that the judges of our courts have the power to judge and determine upon the constitutionality of our laws.
Let me now suppose that in our frame
of government the judges are a check upon the legislature; that the constitution is deposited in their keeping. Will you say afterwards that their existence depends upon the legislature? That the body whom they are to check has the power to destroy them? Will you say that the constitution may be taken out of their hands, by a power the most to be distrusted, because the only power which could violate it with impunity? Can anything be more absurd than to admit, that the judges are a check upon the legislature, and yet to contend that they exist at the will of the legislature? A check must necessarily imply a power commensurate to its end. The political body designed to check another must be independent of it, otherwise there can be no check. What check can there be when the power designed to be checked can annihilate the body which is to restrain it?
I go farther, Mr. Chairman, and take a stronger ground. I say in the nature of things the dependence of the judges upon the legislature, & their right to declare the acts of the legislature void, are repugnant and cannot exist together. The doctrine, Sir, supposes two rights—first the right of the legislature to destroy the office of the judge, and the right of the judge to vacate the act of the legislature. You have a right to abolish by a law, the offices of the judges of the circuit courts. They have a right to declare your law void. It unavoidably follows in the exercise of these rights, either that you destroy their rights, or that they destroy yours. This doctrine is not an harmless absurdity, it is a most dangerous heresy. It is a doctrine which cannot be practiced without producing not discord only, but bloodshed. If you pass the bill upon your table the judges have a constitutional right to declare it void. I hope they will have courage to exercise that right; and if, Sir, I am called upon to take my side, standing acquitted in my conscience and before my God, of all motives but the support of the constitution of my country, I shall not tremble at the consequences.
The constitution may have its enemies, but I know that it has also its friends. I beg gentlemen to pause before they take this rash step. There are many, very many who believe, if you strike this blow, you inflict a mortal wound on the constitution. There are many now willing to spill their blood to defend that constitution. Are gentlemen disposed to risk the consequences? Sir, I mean no threats—I have no expectation of appalling the stout hearts of my adversaries; but if gentlemen are regardless of themselves, let them consider their wives and children, their neighbours and their friends. Will they risk civil dissension; will they hazard the welfare, will they jeopardize the peace of the country, to save a paltry sum of money, less than thirty thousand dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the friends of this measure are not apprized of the nature of its operation, nor sensible of the mischievous consequences which are likely to attend it. Sir, the morals of your people, the peace of the country, the stability of the government, rest upon the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. It is not of half the importance in England, that the judges should be independent of the crown, as it is with us, that they should be independent of the legislature.
Am I asked, would you render the judges superior to the legislature? I answer, no, but co-ordinate. Would you render them independent of the legislature? I answer, yes, independent of every power on earth, while they behaved themselves well. The essential interests, the permanent welfare of society, require this independence. Not, Sir, on account of the judge; that is a small consideration, but on account of those between whom he is to decide. You calculate on the weaknesses of human nature, and you suffer the judge to be dependant on no one, lest he should be partial to those on whom he depends. Justice does not exist where partiality prevails. A dependant judge cannot be impartial. Independence is therefore essential to the purity of your judicial tribunals.
Let it be remembered, that no power is so sensibly felt by society, as that of the judiciary. The life and property of every man, is liable to be in the hands of the judges. Is it not our great interest, to place our judges upon such high ground, that no fear can intimidate, no hope can seduce them? The present measure humbles them in the dust, it prostrates them at the feet of faction, it renders them the tools of every dominant party. It is this effect which I deprecate, it is this consequence which I deeply deplore. What does reason, what does argument avail, when party spirit presides? Subject your bench to the influence of this spirit, and justice bids a final adieu to your tribunals. We are asked, Sir, if the judges are to be independent of the people? The question presents a false and delusive view. We are all the people. We are, and as long as we enjoy our freedom, we shall be divided into parties. The true question is, shall the judiciary be permanent, or fluctuate with the tide of public opinion? I beg, I implore gentlemen, to consider the magnitude and value of the principle which they are about to annu-
iliate. If your judges are independent of political changes, they may have their preferences, but they will not enter into the spirit of party. But let their excellence depend upon the support of the power of a certain set of men, and they cannot be impartial. Justice will be trodden under foot. Your courts will lose all public confidence and respect.
The judges will be supported by their partisans, who in their turn will expect impunity for the wrongs and violence they commit. The spirit of party will be inflamed to madness; and the moment is not far off, when this fair country is to be desolated by civil war.
Do not say, that you render the judges dependent only on the people—you make them dependent on your President. This is his measure. The same tide of public opinion which changes a President, will change the majorities in the branches of the legislature. The legislature will be the instrument of his ambition, and he will have the courts as the instrument of his vengeance. He uses the legislature to remove the judges, that he may appoint creatures of his own. In effect, the powers of the government will be concentrated in the hands of one man, who will dare to act with more boldness, because he will be sheltered from responsibility. The independence of the judiciary was the felicity of our constitution. It was this principle which was to curb the fury of party upon sudden changes. The first moments of power, gained by a struggle, are the most vindictive and intemperate. Raized above the storm, it was the judiciary which was to control the fiery zeal, and to quell the fierce passions of a victorious faction.
We are standing on the brink of that revolutionary torrent, which deluged in blood one of the fairest countries of Europe.
France had her national assembly, more numerous and equally popular with our own. She had her tribunals of justice, and her juries. But the legislature and her courts were but the instruments of her destruction. Acts of proscription and sentences of banishment and death were passed in the cabinet of a tyrant. Prostrate your judges at the feet of party, and you break down the mounds which defend you from this torrent. I am done. I should have thanked my God for greater power to resist a measure so destructive to the peace and happiness of the country. My feeble efforts can avail nothing. But it was my duty to make them. The meditated blow is mortal, and from the moment it is struck, we may bid a final adieu to the constitution.
GENNESSE.
For Sale, All the Subscriber's Mills, Houses and improved Farms, in the Counties of Ontario and Steubens, 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, Sodus, Genesse 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 houses 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
PROPOSALS BY THOMAS HERTY. For publishing by subscription an Appendix to his Digest of the Laws of the United States.
IT will contain all the public acts of the two preceding and present session of Congress, that is, the acts of the first and second sessions of the Sixth, and the first session of the Seventh Congress. It will be printed in the same order of arrangement, and have reference to such parts of the aforesaid work, as shall be repealed, is suffered to expire, or which may otherwise undergo alterations; subjoined to which, will be given, a correct table of the duties on imports and tonnage, and a neat index; this connected with the foregoing, will embrace the whole law in force.
CONDITIONS. It will be put to press immediately after the close of the present session of Congress, (provided a sufficient number offer to defray the expense of the work) and be ready for delivery in about two months thereafter.
The price to subscribers will be one dollar and fifty cents in boards, to be paid for on delivery. It shall be neatly printed on good paper.
Subscriptions received by the Editor, at his Conveyancing Office, near the Treasury Department, City of Washington; and by those in whose hands proposals are left. March 12, 1802. iawtf.
WANTED—A ROOM, well furnished—Apply to the Printer. March 5, 1802. ep2t
WASHINGTON CITY.
FRIDAY, March 12, 1802.
RATIFICATION OF THE DEFINITIVE TREATY.
Captain Wyeth of the brig Happy Couple, who arrived at New-York in 48 days from St. Maloes, brings intelligence that the DEFINITIVE TREATY was signed the ninth of January.—We have but a moment before closing our paper, to insert this brief notice of an event highly interesting to the friends of humanity, and which we sincerely hope may secure a long repose to the European powers.
[N. York Daily Adv.]
The Editor of the National Intelligencer has received a letter from his correspondent at Dover (Eng.) dated Jan. 11th, who advises that there is no news respecting the Definitive Treaty.
It is with deep regret that we inform our readers that on Saturday last, about noon, Princeton College was entirely consumed by fire.
[From the New-York Citizen.]
The Editors have been favored with a fight of a letter from the hon. Robert R. Livingston, dated Paris, 20th December, from which the following is an extract:—
"This country is threatened with a scarcity—Bread is already very high, and the uncommon rains which have prevailed this winter, will be very prejudicial to the winter crops in the ground."
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
WEDNESDAY, March 10, 1802.
The Naturalization bill was passed—Yeas, 59—Nays, 27.
A resolution was offered for adjourning the two houses on the second Monday in April, when it was moved to postpone the consideration of it until the 4th Monday of March, which, after debate, was carried.—Yeas 46—Nays 42.
The house then took up the amendment of the Senate to the act to amend an act to lay and collect a direct tax, and agreed thereto.
They also agreed to the amendment of the Senate to the act fixing the military peace establishment of the United States.
THURSDAY, March 11, 1802.
Mr. Griswold laid the following motion, in substance, on the table.
Resolved, That it is proper to make provision by law, towards indemnifying the merchants of the United States for French depredations, so far as claims for the same have been abandoned by the convention with France.—Ordered to lie on the table.
Looking Glasses.
WILL be on to-morrow or next day, a few Looking Glasses, in handsome and fashionable frames, of moderate, large sizes. Ladies or gentlemen wanting such articles, will please apply to Mr. Charles Varden, Capitol Hill. Persons wishing to be supplied with large Pier Looking Glasses, Tables, Cornices for Beds or Windows, Picture Frames, &c. will be waited on in a few days by leaving their address as above.
N. B. Venetian blinds made to any size, and on very moderate terms. March 12, 1802. ep3t
I offer for Sale,
A two story FRAME HOUSE and Lot. THE lot is twenty-eight feet front, by one hundred feet deep; it is lot No. 5, on Eleventh Street, and in square 347, between the President's house and Great Hotel, the house is not finished; but a reasonable deduction will be made to any person wishing to purchase the same. It is useless to go to any further particulars, as any person wishing to purchase the same, can view the premises at any time.—Application to be made to the subscriber living on the spot, or to Jasper Jackson, merchant, living in George-town.
ANTHONY JONES. March 12, 1802. ep3t
For Sale.
THAT elegant House and Lot in Liberty-Street, near the Springs in Bath, Berkeley County Virginia, newly finished by, and for, the residence of the late Thomas Palmer, deceased. The House consisting of five rooms on the ground floor, over a very roomy cellar. Five rooms on the second floor; one large upper room over four of the rooms and cock-loft. To one part is a pleasant piazza; to the best, an handsome railed balcony. Annexed to the house is a garden and shrubbery, laid out with taste; Also a new smoke house, coach house, and stable for eight horses.
Also will be disposed of, six acres of Land near the town, lately cleared and walled in.
The reputation of the waters has rendered the description of the place unnecessary; and as it is the resort of the most genteel society in the summer season, it is presumed it would be a suitable dwelling for a family, or would well suit any person for a boarding house.—Apply to James Davidson, Esq. cashier of the branch bank, City of Washington. March 12, 1802. gzw3t

NOTICE.
THE Sale of the brick house and lot No. 10, in square 728, in the City of Washington, near the Capitol on East Capitol Street, which was to have taken place this day, is postponed on account of the inclemency of the weather, but will certainly be exposed to public sale, at Tunnicliff's Tavern, near the premises on Tuesday the 10th day of March next, at 4 o'clock in the evening, on a credit of three, six and nine months. Negotiable notes with approved indorsers, payable at the Bank of Columbia, or at the Branch Bank in the City of Washington, to be given at the time of the sale, when possession will be given, and an indisputable title will be made to the purchaser on receiving the last payment. SAMUEL TYLER. Feb. 26, 1802.
N. HINGSTON,
Botanist, Nursery and Seedsman, Fair-fax-street, Alexandria.
H AS on hand a very complete assortment of all kinds of fresh Seeds, for the kitchen and flower garden. Also for the improvement of land, Lombardy poplars, catalpa, grafted apple trees, of choice fruit, and a variety of different flowering shrubs and plants. Bulbous roots, and medicinal plants, and seeds. All sorts of tools and implements, used in gardening; flowers and plants in pots, and flower pots of all sorts.
I will sell or rent for the unexpired time of my lease, which is eleven years from the first of January last, fifteen acres of highly improved land on a public road, two miles from Alexandria, on which is a log house, and stable 4 acres of clover and timothy, a good garden, with all the necessary beds, lawn, and all the necessary tools and plants for a market garden. Any person wishing to rent or purchase, may be accommodated with all kinds of farming and gardening utensils. There is a spring of excellent water, and the place is allowed to be the handsome both for pleasure or prospect, in these parts.
I will also rent for one or more years the store I now occupy; allowed to be as good a stand for the grocery business as any in town. Any person wishing to rent may be accommodated with a general assortment of goods suitable to the stand, on the lowest terms.
Also for sale, a handsome saddle horse, 4 years old next summer. And an half acre lot, in fee simple, on the corner of Wolf and Wilkes-streets. A great bargain may be had on any of the above property. N. H.
N. B. Garden and Flower Seeds, of N. Hingston's raising, warranted good, may be had at Mr. Joncherez's store, three doors below the Union Tavern, George-Town. March 5, 1802. ep3t
GEORGE WALKER,
R EQUESTS those who may have any claims against him, that have not yet come to his knowledge, to bring them in for immediate settlement; and informs those who are indebted to him, that no longer indulgence than the 15th of next month will be given.
He has yet remaining on hand for sale, six hundred and thirty six of the very best of the lots arising from the tract of land of which he was sole simple proprietor before the City of Washington was laid out; and which lots are situated on the Eastern Branch near to where the bridge is about to be built; extending from thence over the high ground on each side of the Pot Road, north east of the Capitol.
The recording clerk's office here, will show the title to be good. He will let for a reasonable rent, about 80 acres of land, inclosed at the north end of his plantation, and within ten minutes walk of the Capitol; containing a large barn and two good stables, two large orchards of choice fruit, a new garden, two good springs, and the use of an excellent well at water convenient, with a small dwelling house which will be erected in a few weeks hence. This place is well calculated for gardening, a dairy and a livery stable.
He also wishes to let a two story frame house calculated for a store, on square No. 728. And will sell or let, a barn 50 feet by 25, on square No. 919, East Capitol Street. Washington, Feb. 17, 1802. ep1f
For 5000 dolls. & 60 cts.
AT EASY PAYMENTS.
The subscriber offers for sale
a tract of land on Aquia Creek, in the county of Stafford, containing about 500 acres, two fifths of which is woodland, lying chiefly on the water. This tract possesses the following improvements and advantages.—A two story framed dwelling house and the usual out-houses; orchards of apples, peaches, pears, cherries &c. a falling garden neatly laid out, several springs of excellent water, and a well at the door. The dwelling house is situated on an eminence commanding a most delightful and extensive prospect of the Potomac (from whence it is distant about two miles) for thirty or forty miles; and of the Aquia from its confluence with that river to the head of tide water at Woodstock—a prospect perhaps equalled at few in the U. States. The tract abounds with valuable quarries of free stone of every quality. Some of them contiguous to deep water, and nearer the Potomac than any that are now in operation no said Creek. For one acre, containing a free stone quarry three miles further from the Potomac, the proprietor has refused 3000 guineas, and eleven acres adjoining the said acre, were sold for 6000 dollars. There are also two valuable marl pits, several flinty shores for rock, flint and herring, and plenty of wild fowl in season. It is believed by good judges, that the timber on the land, and fire wood, if cut ready for market, would command a greater sum than is asked for the whole premises. Wood may be conveyed to the City of Washington with a fair wind in two tides, the distance being not more than 40 or 45 miles. This land, supposing the timber to be entirely taken off, would in the course of seven or eight years flat up thick with cedar, locust and pine. It would be a great acquisition to a grazier, the soil being admirably adapted to the culture of grass.—Apply to the subscriber near Aquia.
V. PEYTON. Jan. 11, 1802. law2m
Land and Houses for Sale.
The Subscriber will sell by private contract, the following valuable property.
TWO Tracts of Land, in Culpepper county, Virginia, lying on Flat Run, near Roman's Ford, distant 28 miles from Fredericksburg, and 55 from the City of Washington. One tract contains 700 acres, the other 300; the soil of which is equal to any in the vicinity, and is more particularly productive of grain. They are separated from each other by a never-failing stream which waters 200 acres of the best bottom land, a great proportion of which consist of mowing and grazing meadow. Of the 700 acres tract, 300 are cleared and in arable order, and 250 of the smaller tract are highly improved. The buildings on the latter tract are commodious, consisting of a roomy dwelling house lately erected, a kitchen, stables, servant's houses, all in good repair; near which are extensive and flourishing orchards of apples and peaches, and a large kitchen garden. On the other tract are an overseer's house, negro cabin, &c. The situation is as health, agreeable society, and convenience to mills, both saw and grist, can be exceeded but by few places. They will be sold either together or separate.
Also, in the town of Alexandria, two elegant three-story brick houses, situated the one on King, the other on Columbia Street, and 40 by 20 feet each. They are well calculated for private families, and are as well situated as any in the town, for the grocery and flour business.
Also, the same town, five unimproved lots on King-Street, and three on Patrick-Street, which will be sold or leased, for any length of time, and about one mile from the same town, 9 3/4 acres of land, pleasantly situated on the Leesburg road.
He will also sell a handsome and commodious three story brick house, lately finished, in the City of Washington, on F Street, not far from the branch bank, 28 feet by 40, occupied at present by the Secretary of State; and adjoining thereto, a good framed house, well calculated both for a family and retail store, there being a large store-room in front, and four other convenient rooms, with a kitchen and stable on the lot.
A framed house, two stories high, 26 feet by 20, on F. Street, directly opposite the branch bank. The above houses are situated in by far the best improved and most pleasant part of the city.
Several unimproved lots, in good situations in the City of Washington, and 7 or 8000 acres land in Kentucky.
The whole and any part of the above described property will be sold on such terms as will render complete satisfaction to purchasers. For the lands in Virginia, on the payment of one third of the purchase money in hand a credit will be given for the residue, of one two and three years, payable in three equal instalments with interest. Fifty or sixty negroes will be taken in payment for a part of it.
For further particulars, as to terms, apply to the subscriber or, in his absence to John Hewit, attorney at law, City of Washington, to Robert B. Vols, Esq. of C. paper, for the lands in Virginia; and to Henry Moot, Esq. of Alexandria, for the property in Alexandria. NICHOLAS VOSS. Washington, Dec. 25, 1802. 2awtf
Office of Intelligence.
THE dispersed situation of those who are established in the City of Washington, renders intercourse and communication difficult and embarrassing, not only to themselves but to those who visit it, whether on business or for the purpose of settling. A variety of domestic and familiar facts are necessary to be acquired, and yet the acquisition of them sometimes costs more labor, attention and expense, than matters of higher consequence. Hence in particular, many persons of moderate resources have greatly suffered, being under the immediate necessity of engaging in measures, and at the same time unprepared with the requisite information. It is on this account that the subscriber has been induced to offer to the patronage of the public an office of Intelligence. In this office, those who reside in George Town, Alexandria, or the City of Washington, may at any time be informed of real property in any of those places either improved or unimproved entered here for sale; for which entries he keeps a regular set of books. Those who approve of this design in this particular, are requested to transmit him a designation of their property, and terms for the information of applicants. Persons who have houses to rent, and those being desirous of hiring houses will here find a greater mass of intelligence on that subject than they can derive from any other source. He has opened also, a set of books where persons desirous of employing others in a capacity whatever may soon learn of those who will be willing to serve them, and the latter, on the other hand, will be enabled to learn of those, who wish to employ them. Strangers at living at the metropolis may apply here for a most any kind of information whether in private or public business; and information will either be given or seasonably procured for them; horses and carriages will be received on commission for private sale, and personal property of any description whatever; bills of sale and other instruments of writing will be correctly and handsomely executed. The public must be well assured that an institution of this kind cannot prove generally useful without general encouragement.—That general encouragement he subscriber pledges himself to exert himself to deserve. Some charge will be made for every real information imparted, but as an orbitancy is always disgraceful, and the nature of such an institution requires moderation, he holds himself bound to give no dissatisfaction on that score.
THOMAS Y. SPROGELL. Pennsylvania Avenue, opposite six buildings, December 7th, 1801.
A Negro Man for sale, who has been accustomed to driving a carriage, and taking care of horses.
Two Negro Boys are wanting, about the age of from twelve to sixteen, for which a generous price will be given. They are to continue in the city of Washington.
A handsome top Chair and harness for sale. Lots may be had on Pennsylvania Avenue, ground rent, in excellent situations. Furnished Apartments may be had. December 9th. N. B.—A carriage & horses for sale.
W. T. F. N. B.—A carriage & horses for sale.
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 1, 1802. ep3t
NOTICE.
Committed to the jail of Washington County, District of Columbia, the following Slaves, viz.
N EGRO Sarah Ann Owens—Committed the 20th February; says she belongs to William Foote, of Alexandria. Has a fear 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 23rd February; says she belongs to Joshua Power, near Port Tobacco, Maryland. Has a fear 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
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 Hayward.—Terms of sale cash.—Time of sale 11 o'clock A. M.
DANIEL C. BRENT, Marshal. Feb. 19, 1802. ep5
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 is most beautiful situations on the river for aqueduct feet; 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 overseer'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 1st. Mr. William Hay, the present tenant, will show the premises to persons inclined to purchase. JOHN F. MERCER. Annapolis Feb. 26, 1802. ep5w.
Public Auction.
Will positively be sold at the ferry on the premises, on Monday the 15th of March next, on terms that will then be made known.
All that tract of land, known by the name of Blue Plains, containing near 500 acres, on which Mr. William Bayly now lives. This property has been so frequently advertised and described, that it is supposed useless particularly to describe it; suffice it to say, it combines more advantages than any tract of its size in the United States. A good and indisputable title will be made upon receipt of the purchase money.
WALTER MACKALL, Trustee. Feb. 22, 1802. 2aw3w
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. ep1f
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. ep1f
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. ep1f
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. ep1f
For Sale,
Or to Let, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, Situate between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable. ISAAC POLOCK. Dec. 16. ep1f
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 24th 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 who 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
The Subscriber
RESPECTFULLY informs the public, that he has removed from George-Town to the Fountain Inn, near Rhodes's City Tavern. Where he is furnished with a good hostler, carriage house, and stabling for eighteen horses, and every thing in his line to render the accommodation of travellers agreeable.—The strictest attention will be paid by
CHARLES ROGERS. N. B. Ten or fifteen gentlemen can get board and lodging on moderate terms. Dec. 2. ep1f
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. ep1f
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, Velveteens, Tancy Cords, Coatings, Blankets, &c.
N. B. Regiments, 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. ep1f
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. RICHARD WALKER, } Executors. March 1, 1802. ep4w
A Good Bargain!
Will be sold by Public Sale, on Wednesday the 17th of March next, at 12 o'clock on the premises.
A VALUABLE Farm situate on Tom's Creek, near Emmittsburg, Frederick county, Maryland; containing about 280 acres, 35 whereof are good meadow, mostly timothy, and well watered—120 acres timber land, and the remainder good farming land. Well adapted for raising grain and clover; there is on said farm a two story log dwelling house and kitchen, a stone milk house, and smoke house; a hill house with two tills and a boiler, and a constant stream of water running through both. A good log barn 64 by 20 feet, a new frame cow house 50 by 30 and other convenient buildings, a large apple orchard, containing more than 600 trees; and a large number and variety of peach and cherry trees. This farm is well watered; every field having a constant stream running thro' it. One thousand pounds will be required to be paid in hand, the remainder of the purchase money in three equal yearly payments. If the purchaser will pay the whole in hand, a generous discount will be made. At the same time and place will be offered for sale 280 acres, joining the above; the two have always been one farm, and will be sold separate or together as may suit the purchaser.
The day following a large flock of horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, farming utensils, and household furniture, will be sold. JOHN M. BAYARD. Feb. 26, 1802. ep4w&U.G.
The Arabian Horse The Dey of Algiers.
ARRIVED on the 19th inst, in high health and spirits from Boston, to which place he was imported, and sent here to the care of John Mason, Esq. by his proprietor colonel Swan 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 Schrbellen, 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 nearly 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 alive.
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 pasture well fenced, adjoining the land, at two fillings 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 some weeks to come at the Union Tavern in Georgetown, and at Mr. Stell's Tavern, on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Farming Lands for Sale.
THE Subscriber would sell about 1000 acres of the tract of Land whereon Dr. John D. Orr at present resides, in the county of Prince William, situated a few miles from the seat of the district Court, and within convenient marketable distance of the Occoquan Mills and Dumfries. It is of the first rate quality of soil, is abundantly supplied with wood and water, and has a large proportion of ground which is in a peculiar manner adapted to the growth of timothy grass.
Also the tract of land adjacent to the above, late the property of Mr. Thomas Swann of Alexandria, together with about 1000 acres of woodland, of the above described tract, making about 1500 acres; the quality and advantages being similar to that. The first-mentioned tract will be conveyed to the purchaser free from every encumbrance; a considerable payment in hand will be expected, and the lowest price per acre twenty dollars. Possession to be given the ensuing spring, with a reservation of the growing crop of small grain, but the last-mentioned tract will be sold subject to existing Leases for short terms of years, under strict covenants guarding against waste and injury of the property, &c. and subject to the purchase money which will be due for the same to Mr. Swann, with interest, in about 9 years. The payment required in hand is the remainder of the amount, about two thousand pounds; and the price per acre is eighteen dollars.
Also the reversionary interest in the Piedmont Track, situated below the mountain called the Short Hill, in Loudoun county, consisting of several thousand acres, chiefly under Lease to the occupants, and forming perhaps the best settlement in Virginia, of the same extent, extremely well watered; improved with the best meadows and orchards, and peculiarly adapted to the use of the Plaiter of Paris. This Land will be sold in Lots consisting of one or more tenements, as may best suit purchasers, together with one or more Lots of woodland to be laid off on the S. E. side of the Short Hill for the convenience of any of said tenements that may be scarce of wood. There are several good mills upon this tract, which is not more than 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington, and no part of it more than 15 miles from Leesburg. The price per acre will be various, according to the quality and advantages of the Land, and circumstances of the Leases, but an extensive credit will be given by instalments, upon receiving what it may be convenient for the purchaser to pay in hands. It is desired that persons wishing to purchase this property, will signify their intentions before the wood land is laid off.
Also two or three small Farms with every requisite convenience for immediate operation, in the counties of Jefferson and Frederick, and at various prices.
And several valuable building Lots, situated upon the Pennsylvania Avenue, in the City of Washington; some upon square 74, near the Six Buildings, and some upon square 38; besides other very valuable Lots in that City. Application to be made in person, or by Letter, (post paid) directed to Charles Town, Virginia, to
FERDINANDO FAIRFAX. Shan. Hill, March 5, 1802. ep3w
BOLTING CLOTHS.
A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OF
BOLTING CLOTHS
OF the best qualities and largest importations, are kept for sale by OLIVER EVANS, at the corner of Market and Ninth streets, Philadelphia, and
By OLIVER & EVAN EVANS, With JOHN and SLINGLUFF, at the corner of Market and Howard streets, Baltimore. Also, with DEAN & GARDNER, Union street, Alexandria.
The book entitled the YOUNG MILL-WRIGHT and MILLER'S GUIDE, may also be had at the above places. Jan. 29, 1802. ep4w&kop4w