The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1807-06-05 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
VOL. VII,
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. 1035.
FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM
FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1807.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
TRIAL OF COL. AARON BURR. Monday, May 26. The proceedings of Saturday were read. The names of the grand jury having been called over, they returned to their own chamber. In a few minutes they returned, and their names being called over, Mr. Randolph, their foreman, addressed the court: "May it please the court! We have been here several days. We have found no presentments among ourselves. We shall be glad of a discharge." Mr. Hay hoped that the court would not discharge them: he should perhaps have two indictments to send up to them in the course of the week. The counsel for the prosecution and the prisoner have agreed, that it is better not to do so, until all the important evidence which is to be exhibited, has been actually obtained. General Wilkinson has certainly left New Orleans; and may be expected within ten days; and at the largest calculation, before the rising of the court. Should he be however unfortunately detained, the counsel for the prosecution would then move for a special court, before which time there is every reason to hope that he may be here. In a case of this vast importance, it was impossible to doubt, that the court was disposed to secure a full and satisfactory trial; and that the peremptory of the grand jury would permit them patiently to wait, until they could be properly discharged. Mr. Randolph. The grand jury, sir, have every disposition to discharge their duty. They leave it to the court to decide when they may be dismissed. Chief Justice had no doubt that the grand jury were willing to make some sacrifice of their own convenience to the public benefit: that from the researches he had made since Saturday, he was still disposed to favor the opinion he had then expressed, that it was not necessary to call over the grand jury every day: but that this opinion was more the result of his reflections upon the principle of the case, than of any positive authorities on the subject. Mr. Hay declared that he acquiesced in the opinion of the court, without being understood to give a positive consent. Chief Justice enquired on what day then would be wish the grand jury to be called? Mr. Hay. I shall not wish them to be called until Saturday; perhaps Monday next. Chief Justice. On this day week then. Mr. Randolph hoped that the court if it were proper, would adjourn them to some future day. Mr. Wickham stated that as several witnesses were attending at a considerable distance on the behalf of Colonel Burr, it was proper to fix upon some particular day for calling the grand jury. Mr. Hay replied that a motion might be made which would render their presence necessary even on that day. Mr. Wickham requested, that before the grand jury was adjourned, the counsel for the U. S. would state the object of his motion. Mr. Hay. The object of my motion is, to commit Aaron Burr on a charge of high treason against the U. S.—You will recollect, sir, to have decided on a former case, that there was not sufficient evidence of an overt act to commit Aaron Burr for high treason; and you recognized him for a misdemeanor only. Our evidence is now however more ample; we have new witnesses to bring before you; we have new depositions to read; and upon the strength of this additional testimony, I now move that Aaron Burr be committed on a charge of high treason. Mr. Wickham hoped that the motion may be made and counsel be heard. Mr. Hay. They may be assured, that they will be apprised of the application; but do they wish me now to make it in the presence of the grand jury? Mr. Burr. The gentleman mistakes the motion of his counsel. The object was not that the grand jury might hear the application, but to make the impropriety more manifest of mentioning such an application in the presence of the grand jury. While things are in this crisis, no measures ought to be taken to prejudice their minds; and while a grand jury is impanelled, it is improper to introduce the evidence before any other tribunal. The grand jury were then requested to retire. Mr. Hay. I now move you, sir, that Aaron Burr, at present before the court, stand committed on the charge of high treason against the U. S. on the evidence to be exhibited before you. This evidence is partly the same with that which was exhibited on a former examination of the prisoner; but a considerable part of it is new and has not been laid before you. Mr. Wickham. What kind of evidence is it? Viva voce testimony? Mr. Hay. In cases where the wit- nesses are here they will be personally brought before the court; but where they are not, their depositions will be produced and read. Mr. Botts. We may have cause of much regret that timely notice of this application was not given. From the engagement between the prosecuting and defending counsel, to interchange communication on the points intended to be discussed, we had a right to expect that upon a subject like this, involving questions new and important, we should not have been taken by surprise. Indeed from the common courtesy and candor of the office of the attorney we might have calculated on the previous communication. Mr. Hay. If there be the least surprise in the case, sir, I am willing to waive my motion till tomorrow, at Mr. Botts's request. The counsel for the prisoner shall never have it to say that we have taken them off their guard. It is to be understood however, if this enquiry be postponed, that Aaron Burr must be considered to stand before the court on a charge of high treason. Mr. Botts. Not one moment. We may sustain inconveniences by being thus suddenly called upon to act without reflection, but we should experience greater by a day's delay. The motion is to divest the grand jury of the office which the constitution and laws have appropriated to them, and to devolve it on the court. There is a great objection to the examining and committing power by a high law officer, who is to preside upon the trial. He is obliged previously, without a full hearing, to commit himself upon the case of the accused. Every one will agree that a judge if possible should come to the office of trial advice from prepossession as if he had never heard of the case before; yet, as the grand inquest is not always embodied, it often becomes necessary that the judge should enquire into the offence and commit, to prevent the escape of the offender before the inquest could be legally organised. The examining office of the judge is, in these cases, justified by the necessity of the case; but the necessity does not here exist. This novel mode of proceeding, if carried into effect, would give the attorney for the U. S. the chance of procuring an opinion from the court unfavorable to Col. Burr—failing in that chance, he would then take himself to his only legal one before the grand jury. Why should this court step out of its ordinary course to forestall or influence the deliberations of the grand jury? The object of the motion is without precedent or reason, against all legal principle, and would be most oppressive in its consequences. The history of our criminal jurisprudence yields no instance of such a motion during the session of a grand jury. It is unreasonable and against principle that the functions of the inquest should be suspended, or for the court to assume them. It is not only oppressive, but of a piece with the long course of oppression, which has been practised upon the gentleman whom I advocate. We might with propriety have moved to discharge Col. Burr from the recognizance already given. The laws of Congress have adopted our rules and practice in the state, in proceedings upon indictments for misdemeanors. You were of opinion, you will remember, sir, that moving more than probable cause of suspecting a misdemeanor appeared against Col. Burr. Even after an indictment in Virginia for a misdemeanor, nothing more than a summons can go against the indictee. No court of the commonwealth ever permitted a capias to go in the first instance, unless the case passed sub citatio now arrest and bail are utterly incompatible with a summons; and surely if an indictee cannot be arrested, one merely suspected cannot be held to bail. The conduct of Judge Chase in awarding a capias was the subject of one of the charges in his impeachment.—Mr. Hay ven-ment and ably contended that a summons only ought to have gone against Callender. I know that the court may have an impression that I am wandering from the subject. I will soon see what application the past recognizance has to the motion now to examine the witnesses to commit for treason. Notwithstanding Col. Burr was committed upon a charge of misdemeanor, when under the state laws he could not have been committed, a public prejudice has been excited against the tenor of the measure, and attempts have been set on foot through newspapers and general clamor, to intimidate every officer who might have any concern in the trial. This public prejudice would be increased by the present motion rather than allayed, if the necessary explanation should not be made. The multitude around us must hear what is passing, and we cannot submit to a course, which would further invest the public mind with the poison already too pictur-fully infused. The prosecution of Col. Burr has hitherto been without a check. The seizure of his friends, his papers and his person; the activity of the satellites of power against him; the use of the low engines of a military despotism in different departments of the territory of the U. S. the total disregard of his rights and all law in bringing him hither, ought to end the list of wrongs of which the country has to complain. It was rumored that he would not appear, but he has appeared. He came on Friday, on Saturday, and on Monday to meet his accusers. He did not ask one hour. The government has had the necessary time and means of preparation, and they ought to have been prepared. Yet our purpose was to await the pleasure of the prosecution, unless that pleasure should be found to be oppressive. We are told now, though, that the indictment cannot go up, and that in the mean time an inquisition must be held. I will not weary out the patience of the court. I set down in anxious solicitude that the success of the motion may not add to the catalogue of Col. Burr's grievances. The Chief Justice enquired whether the counsel for the prosecution intended to open the case more fully. Mr. Hay had not intended to have opened it more fully. He could not himself entertain a doubt, that if there was sufficient evidence produced to commit Aaron Burr, the court had completely the right to do it. Mr. Botts himself had not pretended to deny it; for his whole argument had turned upon the question, not whether the court had the right, but whether it was expedient for them now to exercise it. It is certainly proper to do it, upon the evidence only. If that be sufficient, the court could surely entertain no doubts on the subject. Let the court once admit as an exception to this general power, that the grand jury was in session, and they will establish a precedent that is fraught with the most dangerous consequences. It is easy to see through the object of the opposite counsel when they press this principle. Mr. Wickham. It would certainly have been an accommodation to us, to have had this motion put off until tomorrow. We come into this discussion completely out of guard, completely unprepared, and certainly it could have been nothing but forgetfulness, which has prevented the opposite counsel from giving us timely notice of the motion they intended to bring forward. There was an agreement made between us in the very hearing of the court, that if any motion was to be brought forward on either side, they were to give timely notice to the opposite party of the object of their proposition. I am sorry that they have departed from this agreement in the present instance: but if I have not forgotten every principle of law, that I ever learnt, or every principle of common justice, this motion cannot be supported. Mr. Hay. The gentleman will permit me to set him right. He might have relied upon my candor, that when I was about to lay my indictments before the grand jury, I would have given him timely notice of my intention. They might then have moved for the instructions to the jury, which they are so anxious to obtain. This was the only understanding between us on the subject; and our agreement extended no further; much less to the particular case before the court: on the other hand, there was a very strong reason against our making this communication. I feel no hesitation, sir, in assigning this reason; and I hope that it will wound neither the feelings of the prisoner nor of his counsel. I did not intend to have laid it before the court; but I now conceive myself called upon to be thus explicit. The fact is this, Mr. Wilkinson is known to be a material witness in this prosecution. His arrival in Virginia might be announced in this city, before he himself reached it. I do not pretend to say, what effect it might produce upon Colonel Burr's mind; but certainly col. B. would be able to effect his escape, merely upon paying the recognizance of his present bail. My only object then, sir, was to keep his person safe, until we could have investigated the charge of treason; and I really did not know, but that if col. Burr had been previously apprized of my motion, he might have attempted to avoid it. But I did not promise to make this communication to the opposite counsel; because it might have defeated the very end for which it was intended. I have said the only pledge I gave, merely related to the indictments to be sent up to the grand jury. Mr. Wickham observed that he knew the gentleman too well not to doubt that he had misapprehended him. But what could he think of the motion he had made? It was a strange episode which he weaved into his tale. It may be good poetry indeed, but it was not certainly proper matter of argument. Every man who hears news; every man who has ever read on the subject, must know what are the feelings which dictate these insinuations of Col. Burr. Some insinuation was felt by his enemies (not that the attorney for the U. S. himself even felt it) that he did return here for trial. But here col. Burr is, and will always be, to meet every kind of charge that may be brought against him. The gentleman will not open his case; and why? Because when he has heard our arguments against his motion, he may come out with the adverse arguments against us. If they do not choose to open their case, we hope the court will grant us the right to make a conclusive reply. Mr. Hay. Then, sir, we will produce the evidence. Here a desultory conversation ensued upon the order of proceeding. After some conversation the Chief Justice determined that Col. Burr's counsel should proceed with the argument. Mr. Wickham read from the act of Virginia, page 103 of the Revised Code, sec. 8, as bearing upon this case. He observed that the present motion was also unprecedented in a system of criminal jurisprudence which was upwards of 100 years old. If the motion be a proper one, there must be some precedents in this country or in England. But if there be none such, and the gentlemen have not produced them, it is but fair to infer that there are none such. It is therefore obvious that the present motion is contrary to the acts of Virginia as well as to the common law. The attorney for the U. S. has said that he can take no final measures till general Wilkinson is present. His deposition is greatly relied upon. Now, sir, I refer to you as well as the Supreme Court of the U. S. where you presided, that the facts contained in that deposition (if facts they were) did not amount to treason; but to a probable proof of the misdemeanor only. As to gen. Eaton's it is not relied on. The sole reliance of the prosecution is upon Wilkinson's. Of course, if Wilkinson himself were present, he could prove nothing new. But if gen. W. is so material a witness, why are they not prepared to go with him before the Grand Jury? Why is not gen. Wilkinson here? He is a military officer, bound implicitly to obey the head of the government. In the wars of Europe a general has been known to march the same distance at the head of his army in a shorter time than gen. Wilkinson has had to pass from N. Orleans to this place. He is bound to go whenever the government directs him; to march to Mexico; to invade the Floridas; or to come to this city. Perhaps there are other reasons for his not coming. But let us not press this subject. What, sir, is the tendency of this application? What is the motive? I have no doubt that the gentleman mean to act correctly. I wish to cast no imputations. But the counsel and the court will know that there are a set of busy people (not I hope employed by the government) who thinking to do right, are laboring to ruin the reputation of my client. I do not charge the government with this attempt. But the thing is already done. Attempts have been made. The press from one end of the continent to the other has been enlisted on their side; to enlist prejudices against col. Burr. Prejudices? yes; they have influenced public opinion; by such representations, and by persons not passing between the prisoner and his country, but by exparte evidence and mutilated statements.—Ought not this court to bar the door as far as possible against such misrepresentations? to shut every effort to excite further prejudices, until the case is decided by a sworn jury, not by the floating rumours of the day, but by the evidence of sworn witnesses?—The attorney for the United States offers to produce the most violent; no doubt the least impartial which he can select; testimony which is perhaps to be met and overthrown by superior evidence.—Do they, besides these things, with that the multitude around us should be prejudiced by gabbed evidences? Do precedents justify such a course as this?—"Produce your witnesses," they may say. No; sir. Colonel Burr is ready for a trial; but he wishes for that trial to come before a jury.—I do not pretend to understand the motives which led to those things: it is enough that they produce the same mischievous effects upon ourselves. Should government hereafter wish to oppress any individual; to drag him from one end of the country to the other by a military force; to enlist the prejudices of the community against him; they will pursue the very same course which has now been taken. Col. Burr is here ready for trial. They admit that their testimony is not sufficient to bring him before the grand jury; and of course to found an indictment against him. Why then is this partial evidence to be exhibited on a motion for commitment? It is to nourish the prejudices against him.— Will they then press a motion like this? Be it so, sir, I trust that the court will stand between the prisoner and his pursuers; for every man is presumed to be innocent, before he is found guilty. Mr. Wire. May it please your honors. The attorney for the United States believing himself possessed of sufficient evidence to justify the commitment of A. Burr, for high treason, has moved the court to that effect. In making this motion he has merely done his duty; it would have been unpardonable in him to omit it. Yet the counsel in the defence complain of the motion and of the want of notice. As to the latter objection, it must be palpable that the nature and object of the motion rendered notice improper. The gentleman would have had the attorney to announce to the party concerned, that he was, at length, in possession of sufficient evidence to justify his commitment for high treason: and that being apprehensive he might not be disposed to stand this charge, he intended, as soon as the accused came into court next morning, to move his commitment. This would really be carrying politeness beyond the ordinary pitch: it would not have deserved the name of candor, sir; it would in fact, have been an invitation to the accused to make his escape. But as gentlemen seem to doubt, with an air at least of earnestness, the propriety of this motion at this time, and express their regret that they have not had time to examine its legality, the attorney has offered to waive the motion until tomorrow, to give gentleman the opportunity which they prefer to desire; but no fir; they will not even have what they say they want, when offered by the attorney. Another gentleman, after having demanded why this motion was made, and by that demand drawn from the attorney an explanation of his motives, has been pleased to speak of the attorney's statement of his apprehensions as "an epipode;" which "although good poetry," he says, "had better have been let alone, when such serious matters of fact, were in discussion." It may be an epipode, sir, if the gentleman pleases; he is at liberty to consider the whole trial as a piece of epic action, and to look forward to the appropriate catastrophe. But it does not appear to me to be very fair, sir, after having drawn from the attorney an explanation of his motives, to complain of that explanation: it a wound has been inflicted by the explanation, the gentleman who produced it, should blame only themselves. But, sir, where is the crime of considering Aaron Burr as subject to the ordinary operation of the human passions? Towards any other man, it seems, the attorney would have been justified in using precautions against alarm and escape; it is only improper when applied to this man. Really, sir, I recollected nothing in history of his despatch which renders it so very incredible that Aaron Burr would fly from a prosecution. But at all events, the attorney is bound to act on general principles, and to take care that justice be had against every one accused, by whatever name he may be called or by whatever previous reputation he may be distinguished. This motion, however, it seems, is not legal at this time, because there is a grand jury in session. The amount of the position is, that although it be generally true, that the court possess the power to hear and commit, yet if there be a grand jury, this power of the court is suspended; and the commitment cannot be had unless, in consequence of a presentment or bill of indictment, found by that body. The general power of the court being admitted, those who rely on this exception should support it by authority, and, therefore, the loud call for precedents which we have heard from the other side, comes improperly from that quarter. We ground this motion on the general power of the court to commit; let those who say that this power is destroyed by the presence of a grand jury, show one precedent to countenance this original and extraordinary motion. I believe, sir, I may safely affirm, that not a single reported case or dictum can be found, which has the most distant bearing toward such an idea. Sir, no such dictum or case ought to exist; it would be unreasonable and a subversion of the purposes of justice. Nor if the doctrine be true at all, that the presence of a grand jury suspends the power to hear and commit by any other authority, it must be uniformly and universally so; in every other case as well as this, and in every case which can be supposed while a grand jury is sitting. Now, sir, let us suppose, that that transpired on the swearing of a grand jury and their retiring to determine, that Aaron Burr has been for the first time brought to

this town, the members of the evidence scattered over the continent; the attorney, however, in possession of enough to justify the arrest and commitment of the accused for high treason, but not enough to authorize a grand jury to find a true bill. What is to be done? The court disclaims any power to hear and commit, because there is a grand jury: The grand jury cannot find a true bill, because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant such a finding; the natural and unavoidable consequence would be, that the man must be discharged. And then, according to Mr. Wickham's principle of ethics, that every man is supposed to intend the natural consequences of his own acts, the gentlemen who advocate this doctrine intend that Aaron Burr shall be discharged without a trial. I beg you, Sir, to recollect what was said by gentlemen the other day, when you were called upon to give an additional charge to the grand jury. You were told, that a grand jury should require the same evidence to find a true bill, which a petit jury would require to convict the prisoner—connect this principle with the doctrine in question; the sitting of the grand jury, suspends all power to commit by any other body—and the grand jury cannot find a bill, unless on evidence, on which they would convict as a petit jury; connect these two principles and consider the immaturity of evidence which always exists at the period of arrest and commitment; and the sitting of the grand jury, instead of being a season of admonition and alarm, becomes a perfect jubilee to the guilty. But it is said, that this motion is an attempt to divest the constitutional organ of its just and proper power." I believe, Sir, it was never before heard, that an application to commit for safe keeping was an encroachment on the power of the grand jury. Would the gentleman have us to address this motion to the grand jury? They might as well propose that we should submit the bill of indictment to the court and desire them to say, whether it is a true bill or not. This would indeed be the "sitting of powers" of which the gentleman complains. As it is, Sir, there is no manner of collision between the power which we call upon the court to exercise and the proper power of the grand jury. The justices arrest and commit for safe-keeping; then comes the function of the grand jury to decide on the truth of the indictment exhibited against the prisoner. The two offices are distinct in point of time and totally different in their nature and object. But it is said that "there is great inconvenience in submitting a great law officer to the necessity of expressing an opinion on the crime on a motion like this;" "that the judge, like the juror, should come to the trial with his mind pure and unbiased." This argument does not apply to the legality of the power which we call upon the court to exercise; it goes merely to the expediency of exercising this power; and if the argument be true the court ought never to commit; whether the grand jury be sitting or not. This, however, Sir, is a matter for legislation, not for judicial consideration. Whenever the legislature shall decide, by the force of this argument, that the court which commits shall not sit on the trial in chief, a motion like this will become improper; at present, however, the legislature has left this power with the court; and we claim its exercise for considerations of the most serious importance to truth and justice. But, Sir, we are told that this investigation is calculated to keep alive the public prejudices—and we hear great complaints about those public prejudices—the country is represented as being filled with misrepresentations & calumnies against Aaron Burr—the public indignation it is said is already sufficiently excited. This argument, also, Sir, has no application to our right to make this motion: it does not affect the legality of our proceedings—But if the motion is likely to have this effect, we cannot help it—no human institution is free from inconveniences—the course we hold is a legal one—without it is a necessary one—we think it a duty. It is no answer to us then to say that it may produce inconveniences to the prisoner. But let us consider this mournful tale of prejudices and the likelihood of their being excited by this motion. Sir, if Aaron Burr be innocent, instead of resisting this motion he ought to hail it with triumph and exultation. What is it that we propose to introduce? Not the rumors which are floating through the world; not the talk of the multitude—nor the speculations of newspapers: but the evidence of facts; we propose that the whole evidence exculpatory as well as accusatory shall come before you—instead of exciting, this is the true mode of correcting prejudices; in the world which it is said has been misled and inflamed by falsehood, will now hear the truth; let the case come on—let us know how much of what we have heard is false, how much of it is true—how much of what we feel is prejudice; how much of it is justified by fact: whoever before heard of such an apprehension as that which is professed on the other side? Prejudice excited by evidence! Evidence, Sir, is the great corrector of prejudice. Why then does Aaron Burr shrink from it? It is strange to me that a man who complains so much of being without cause illegally seized and transported by a military officer, should be afraid to confront this evidence. Evidence can be promotive only of truth. I repeat it then, Sir, why does he shrink—why does he shrink from the evidence? The gentlemen on the other side can give the answer. On our part we are ready to introduce that evidence. Permit me now, Sir, to turn to the act of Assembly which has been read by Mr. Wickham. Into what embarrassment must the ingenious and vigorous mind of that gentleman have been driven, before he would have taken refuge under this act of assembly? It is but to read it, to see that it has no manner of application whatever to this motion: that it applies to the case of a person already committed—declaring that such person shall be bailed if not indicted at the first term after his commitment; & discharged if not indicted at the second term. [Revised Code by Pheasant & Pace—103, § X.] "When any person committed for treason"—Now, Sir, is Aaron Burr committed for treason? If not, it is obvious that the clause has no manner of application to him. Why, Sir, the object of this motion is to commit him. Gentlemen must have been in strange confusion when they resorted to this law. Mr. Wickham asks if general Wilkinson be a material witness, why he is not here? "Who is general Wilkinson?" says that gentleman—is he not the instrument of the government bound to a blind obedience?" I am sorry for this and many other declaratory remarks which have been unnecessarily & improperly introduced; but the gentleman assures us that no imputation is meant against the government. Oh no, Sir, Col. Burr, indeed, has been oppressed; has been persecuted; but far be it from the gentleman to charge the government with it. Col. Burr, indeed, has been harassed by a military tyrant who is "the instrument of the government, bound to a blind obedience;" but the gentleman could not by any means be understood as intending to insinuate aught to the prejudice of the government. The gentleman is understood, Sir; his object is correctly understood. He would direct the public mind from A. Burr, and point it to another quarter. He would too, if he could, shift the popular displeasure which he has spoken of, from A. Burr to another quarter. These remarks were not intended for your ear, Sir; they were intended for the people who surround us; they can have no effect upon the mind of the court: I am too well acquainted with the dignity, firmness, the illumination of this bench to apprehend any such consequence. But the gentleman would balance the account of popular prejudices; they would convert this judicial inquiry into a political question; they would make it a question between Thomas Jefferson and A. Burr. The purpose is well understood, Sir, but it shall not be served. I will not degrade the administration of this country by entering upon their defence. Besides, Sir, this is not our business; at present we have an account to settle (not between A. Burr and Thomas Jefferson, but) between A. Burr and the laws of his country. Let us finish his trial first. The administration too will be tried before their country; before the world. They, Sir, I believe, will never shrink either from the evidence or the verdict. Let us return to A. Burr: "Why is not gen. Wilkinson here?" Because, Sir, it was impossible in the nature of things for him to be here by this time. It was on the first of April, Sir, that you decided on the commitment of A. Burr for the misdemeanor; until that decision was known, the necessity of summoning witnesses could not be ascertained; gen. Wilkinson is the commander in chief of the American troops in a quarter where his presence is rendered important by the temper of the neighborhood; to summon him on the mere possibility of commitment, would have afforded a ground of clamor, perhaps a just one, against the administration—The certainty that A. Burr would be put upon his trial, could not have been known at Washington till the 5th or 6th of April. Now, Sir, let the gentleman on the other side make a slight calculation; Orleans is said to be 15 or 1600 miles from this place; suppose the U. S. mail travelling by a frequent change of horses & riders, a hundred miles per day, should reach Orleans in 17 days from the Federal City; it would be the 24th or 25th of April (putting all accidents out of the question) before gen. W. could have received his orders to come on: since that time until this, he has had thirty days to reach Richmond. Could a journey of 15 or 1600 miles be reasonably performed in 30 days? who can bear a journey of 50 miles per day for 30 days? But, Sir, gen. W. is not here due means have been used to bring him here, his materiality is ascertained by his affidavit, and the attorney does not choose to send up the indictment in his absence. But we admit it seems that we are not ready to make good our charge. In my opinion there is evidence enough to prove the treason independent of gen. Wilkinson. But it is important in every point of view that that gentleman should be here—it is important to his own reputation—it is important to the people of the U. S. that he should be here—and on the part of the Grand Jury. Sir, there is no calculating what inference, unfavorable to the prosecution might be drawn from the mere circumstance of his absence. The attorney is therefore in my opinion very right not to hazard the justice and the fair trial of this case, by sending up the indictment in gen. Wilkinson's absence. But it seems that Wilkinson's affidavit has been already decided to have
no relation to the charge of treason. To what Gen. Wilkinson's affidavit tended while it was insulated, or connected only with that of general Eaton, is no proof of what its tendency may be now in connection with the great mass of additional testimony which we have collected. Sir, we say that it is the key stone which binds the great arch of evidence now in our possession. As to sending up the indictment, it is out of the question. Truth and justice require that it should not now be sent up. But we hope, Sir, that the motion to commit Aaron Burr will be received, because we think it a legal measure and a just and necessary measure of precaution. (Debate to be continued) TUESDAY, MAY 26. The court delivered the following opinion on Mr. Hay's motion for commitment. [This opinion is already published in our paper of the 1st inst.] Mr. Hay then observed that he was struck with the observation of the court relative to "publications," and he would attempt, if possible, to make some arrangement to obviate that inconvenience.—The two counsels retired to consult for this purpose. They returned in a short time. When Mr. Hay observed, that they could agree upon no arrangement. Col. B. had refused to give additional bail; and he himself would acquiesce in no plan which did not secure his personal attendance. However he hoped that some arrangement might be made before the next day. Wednesday, May 27. The proceedings on this day were extremely interesting; but are of too great a length to be detailed at present. I did that part of it which embraces the evidence given in, are for obvious reasons improper to be published in this stage of the prosecution. Mr. Hay commenced with stating, that all hope of an arrangement with Col. B's counsel to secure his person, and to avoid the impropriety of public examination, was at an end. Col. Burr would not consent to give bail on the charge of treason; and Mr. H. read a letter from his counsel to that effect. He should therefore, proceed to an examination of the testimony. In doing this, he should observe a chronological order: take the conspiracy at its earliest crisis, and introduce the events as they subsequently arose. An interesting discussion took place upon the propriety of this arrangement. Col. B's counsel protested against it. They contended that there were two things to be proved: 1st. An overt act of a treasonable conspiracy; 2d. That Col. B. was connected with it. If the first wanted proof, the last was nugatory. They contended, therefore, that the overt act ought first to be proved; before any other evidence was exhibited as to the intention or the plan. The Chief Justice left the order of the evidence to the judgment of the attorney of the United States. Mr. Hay then offered gen. Wilkinson's affidavit to be read: When a long discussion was entered into on the principles of evidence. The Chief Justice said that the most proper course was first to introduce the evidence as to the overt act, & that gen. Wilkinson's affidavit was not at that time to be read. Mr. Hay then called Peter Taylor and ———. Although the first was Bannercraft's gardener, the other had worked on his island. Of their testimony it is for the present improper to make any statement. They were succeeded by a letter partly in cypher and partly in German addressed to a person in New-Orleans: which Mr. John Brown (former secretary to gen. Marshall on his embassy to Paris) and Mr. Hubner a most respectable German merchant of this city, were sworn to interpret to the best of their abilities, this interpretation to be presented to the court to-morrow. Mr. Hay then brought forward an affidavit of one Dubas, a sergeant in the army of the United States. This affidavit was represented by the prosecution to be of the greatest importance; but was objected to by Mr. B's counsel on the ground of informality: The affidavit appeared on its face to be taken before one Ceras, who signed himself a magistrate of the Town of Orleans. This signature was succeeded by gov. Claiborne's verification of the fact, on one day after the date of the certificate. But there was no caption to the affidavit, as "N. Orleans Sc. t." nor any mention made at the foot of it of the place where it was taken. A long argument ensued upon its admissibility & the court adjourned without giving any opinion. Thursday, May 28. Same Judges present as yesterday. The proceedings of yesterday were read. The Grand Jury appeared in court, and their names being called over, they were adjourned till to-morrow 10 o'clock. William Duane, esq. appeared as a counsel for the U. S.
Luther Martin, esq. appeared as counsel for Mr. Burr. He enquired of the court, whether he should qualify. Chief Justice. It is the usual form; but, it is not absolutely material. It may be dispensed with. Mr. Martin. I did suppose so; & as I am unwilling to take up the time of the court. The court then proceeded to the consideration of the point made yesterday, relative to Dubas's affidavit. A deftly conversation ensued between the counsel and the bar, on the proceedings before the supreme court of the U. S. & on a case quoted from Wallingford's reports. Mr. Martin observed, that in fact this point had not been made before the Supreme court in Washington. Mr. Hay. It seems that the able & intelligent counsel who, were employed for the U. S. did not deem it necessary to state this objection. It passed sub silentio. It was not once noticed, even in the material case of gen. Wilkinson's affidavit. Why was it neglected? or why did the able and zealous counsel, who certainly spared no exertions in the cause of their clients, omit to raise this very objection to the form of authentication? Mr. Martin. Although I was counsel in these cases before the Supreme Court of the U. S. I am confident that this objection was never raised. Gen. Wilkinson was known to be in New-Orleans, and the magistrate who certified his deposition, was known to have been duly commissioned. In fact the other objections to that affidavit were so material, that they were thought to be amply sufficient. This one escaped our notice. The Chief Justice then pronounced the opinion of the court, in the following words: On the part of the U. S. a paper purporting to be an affidavit has been offered in evidence, to the reading of which two exceptions are taken: 1st. That an affidavit ought not to be admitted, where the personal attendance of the witness could have been obtained: 2dly. That this paper is not so authenticated, as to entitle itself to be considered as an affidavit. That a magistrate may commit upon affidavits, has been decided in the Supreme Court of the U. S. though not without hesitation. The presence of the witness to be examined by the committing justice confronted with the accused, is certainly to be desired; and ought to be obtained, unless considerable inconvenience and difficulty exists in procuring his attendance. An ex parte affidavit shaped, perhaps, by the person pressing the prosecution, will always be viewed with some suspicion & acted upon with some caution, but the court thought it would be going too far to reject it altogether. If it was obvious that the attendance of the witness was easily attainable, but that he was intentionally kept out of the way, the question might be otherwise decided. But the particular case before the court does not appear to be of this description. The witness resides at a great distance; and there is no evidence that the materiality of his testimony was known to the prosecutors or to the Executive in time to have directed his attendance. It is true that general instructions, which would apply to any individual, might have been sent, and the attendance of this or any other material witness obtained under those instructions; but it would be requiring too much to say, that the omission to do this ought to exclude an affidavit. This exception, therefore, will not prevail. The 2d is, that the paper is not so authenticated, as to be introduced as testimony on a question, which concerns the liberty of a citizen. This objection is founded on two omissions in the certificate. The first is, that the place at which the affidavit was taken does not appear; The second, that the certificate of the governor does not state the person who administered the oath to be a magistrate, but goes no further than to say, that a person of that name was a magistrate. That, for aught appearing to the court, this oath may or may not in point of fact have been legally administered, must be conceded. The place, where the oath was administered, not having been stated; it may have been administered where the magistrate had no jurisdiction, and yet the certificate be perfectly true. Of consequence there is no evidence before the court, that the magistrate had power to administer the oath and was acting in his judicial capacity. The effect of testimony may often be doubtful; and courts must exercise their best judgment in the case, but of the verity of the paper, there ought never to be a doubt. No paper writing ought to gain admittance into a court of justice as testimony, unless it possesses those solemnities which the law requires. Its authentication must not rest upon probability, but must be as complete as the nature of the case admits of. This is believed to be a clear, legal principle. In conformity with it, as the court conceives, the practice of England and of this country, as is attested by the books of forms; and no
case is recognized, in which a contrary principle has been recognized. This principle is in some degree illustrated by the doctrine with respect to all courts of a limited jurisdiction. Their proceedings are erroneous, if their jurisdiction be not conclusively shown. They derive no validity from the strongest probability that they had jurisdiction in the case; none certainly from the presumption that being a court, an usurpation of jurisdiction will not be presumed. The reasoning applies in full force to the actions of a magistrate whose jurisdiction is local. Thus in the case of a warrant, it is expressly declared, that the place where it was made ought to appear. The attempt to remedy this defect by comparing the date of the certificate given by the magistrate, with that given by the governor cannot succeed. The answer given at bar to this argument is conclusive. The certificate wants those circumstances which would make it testimony, and without them no part of it can be regarded. The second objection is equally fatal. The governor has certified that a man of the same name with the person who has administered it, is a magistrate, but not that the person who has administered it, is a magistrate. It is too obvious to be controverted, that there may be two or more persons of the same name, and, consequently, to produce that certainty which the case readily admits of the certificate of the governor ought to have applied to the individual who administered the oath. The propriety of this certainty and precision in a certificate, which is to authenticate any affidavit to be introduced into a court of justice, is so generally admitted, that I do not recollect a single instance in which the principle has been departed from. It has been said that it ought to appear, that there are two persons of the same name, or the court will not presume such to be the fact. The court presumes nothing. It may or may not be the fact, and the court cannot presume that it is not. The argument proceeds upon the idea that an instrument is to be disproved by him who objects to it, not that it is to be proved by him who offers it. Nothing can be more repugnant to the established usage of courts. How is it to be proved that there are two persons of the name of Ceras in the territory of Orleans? If with a knowledge of several weeks, perhaps months, that this prosecution was to be carried on, the executive ought not to be required to produce this witness, ought the prisoner to be required, with the notice of a few hours to prove that two persons of the same name reside in New Orleans? It has been repeatedly urged that a difference exists between the strictness of laws which would be applicable to a trial in chief and that which is applicable to a motion to commit for trial. Of the reality of this distinction, the present controversy affords conclusive proof. At a trial in chief, the accused possesses the valuable privilege of being confronted with his accuser. But there must be some limit to this relaxation & it appears not to have extended so far as to the admission of a paper, not purporting to be an affidavit and not shown to be one. When it is asked whether every man does not believe that this affidavit was really taken before a magistrate; it is at once answered that this cannot affect the case. Should a man of probity declare a certain fact within his own knowledge, he would be credited by all who knew him, but his declaration could not be received as testimony by the judge who firmly believed him. So a man might be believed to be guilty of a crime, but a jury could not convict him, unless the testimony proved him to be guilty of it. This judicial disbelief of a probable circumstance does not establish a wide interval between common law and common sense. It is believed in this respect to show their intimate union. The argument goes to this, that the paper shall be received and acted upon as an affidavit, not because the oath appears to have been administered according to law, but because it is probable that it was so administered. This point seems to have been decided by the constitution: "The right of the people," says that instrument "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The cause of seizure is not to be supported by a probable oath, or an oath that was probably taken, but by oath absolutely taken. This oath must be a legal oath; and if it must be a legal oath, it must legally appear to the court to be so. This provision is not made for a final trial; it is made for the very case now under consideration. In the cool and temperate moments of reflection, undisturbed by that whirlwind of passion with which in those party conflicts which most generally produce acts or accusations of treason, the human judgment is sometimes overthrown, the people of America have believed the power even of commitment to be capable of too much oppression in its execution to be placed without restriction, even in the hands of the national legislature. Shall a judge disregard those barriers which the nation has deemed it proper to erect? The interest which the people have in this prosecution, has been stated; but it is firmly believed, that the best and true interest of the people is to be found in a rigid adherence to those
principles which have been recognized. This principle is in some degree illustrated by the doctrine with respect to all courts of a limited jurisdiction. Their proceedings are erroneous, if their jurisdiction be not conclusively shown. They derive no validity from the strongest probability that they had jurisdiction in the case; none certainly from the presumption that being a court, an usurpation of jurisdiction will not be presumed. The reasoning applies in full force to the actions of a magistrate whose jurisdiction is local. Thus in the case of a warrant, it is expressly declared, that the place where it was made ought to appear. The attempt to remedy this defect by comparing the date of the certificate given by the magistrate, with that given by the governor cannot succeed. The answer given at bar to this argument is conclusive. The certificate wants those circumstances which would make it testimony, and without them no part of it can be regarded. The second objection is equally fatal. The governor has certified that a man of the same name with the person who has administered it, is a magistrate, but not that the person who has administered it, is a magistrate. It is too obvious to be controverted, that there may be two or more persons of the same name, and, consequently, to produce that certainty which the case readily admits of the certificate of the governor ought to have applied to the individual who administered the oath. The propriety of this certainty and precision in a certificate, which is to authenticate any affidavit to be introduced into a court of justice, is so generally admitted, that I do not recollect a single instance in which the principle has been departed from. It has been said that it ought to appear, that there are two persons of the same name, or the court will not presume such to be the fact. The court presumes nothing. It may or may not be the fact, and the court cannot presume that it is not. The argument proceeds upon the idea that an instrument is to be disproved by him who objects to it, not that it is to be proved by him who offers it. Nothing can be more repugnant to the established usage of courts. How is it to be proved that there are two persons of the name of Ceras in the territory of Orleans? If with a knowledge of several weeks, perhaps months, that this prosecution was to be carried on, the executive ought not to be required to produce this witness, ought the prisoner to be required, with the notice of a few hours to prove that two persons of the same name reside in New Orleans? It has been repeatedly urged that a difference exists between the strictness of laws which would be applicable to a trial in chief and that which is applicable to a motion to commit for trial. Of the reality of this distinction, the present controversy affords conclusive proof. At a trial in chief, the accused possesses the valuable privilege of being confronted with his accuser. But there must be some limit to this relaxation & it appears not to have extended so far as to the admission of a paper, not purporting to be an affidavit and not shown to be one. When it is asked whether every man does not believe that this affidavit was really taken before a magistrate; it is at once answered that this cannot affect the case. Should a man of probity declare a certain fact within his own knowledge, he would be credited by all who knew him, but his declaration could not be received as testimony by the judge who firmly believed him. So a man might be believed to be guilty of a crime, but a jury could not convict him, unless the testimony proved him to be guilty of it. This judicial disbelief of a probable circumstance does not establish a wide interval between common law and common sense. It is believed in this respect to show their intimate union. The argument goes to this, that the paper shall be received and acted upon as an affidavit, not because the oath appears to have been administered according to law, but because it is probable that it was so administered. This point seems to have been decided by the constitution: "The right of the people," says that instrument "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The cause of seizure is not to be supported by a probable oath, or an oath that was probably taken, but by oath absolutely taken. This oath must be a legal oath; and if it must be a legal oath, it must legally appear to the court to be so. This provision is not made for a final trial; it is made for the very case now under consideration. In the cool and temperate moments of reflection, undisturbed by that whirlwind of passion with which in those party conflicts which most generally produce acts or accusations of treason, the human judgment is sometimes overthrown, the people of America have believed the power even of commitment to be capable of too much oppression in its execution to be placed without restriction, even in the hands of the national legislature. Shall a judge disregard those barriers which the nation has deemed it proper to erect? The interest which the people have in this prosecution, has been stated; but it is firmly believed, that the best and true interest of the people is to be found in a rigid adherence to those

A GOOD STAND. TO LET, the House next west of Rhodes's Hotel, where Mr. M'Laughlin carries on the boot and shoemaking. ALSO, A House for a genteel private family. To let, the House adjoining Josiah W. King's, Esq. on F Street. Enquire of JAMES HOBAN.
PUBLIC SALE. ON the 6th day of June next, will be sold for cash, all the right and interest of John Cales in that valuable property, known as the lot in the city of Washington, called Lot No. 3 and 4 in square No. 9, with a large stone Warehouse, and Wharf and a large brick Dwelling House, or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy a writ of scire facias issued out of the circuit court at the suit of John Ray against John Cales, late at the Union Tavern in Georgetown at 4 P. M. DANL BUSSARD, for D. C. BRENT, marshal. May 14—tdf
This is to give notice, that the subscriber to the city of Washington in the district of Columbia, has obtained from the Orphan's Court of Prince George's county in the State of Maryland, letters of administration on the personal estate of Thomas Duckett, late of said county deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber on or before the first day of October next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Those indebted to the deceased are desired to make immediate payment. ALLEN B. DUCKETT, Adm. City of Washington, March 18—tdf All claims forwarded by mail must be paid paid.
SALE AT AUCTION. WILL be sold at the house lately occupied by Fuss and Quin on Capitol Hill, at 11 o'clock A. M. on Monday, the 2th day of June, sundry articles of Household & Kitchen Furniture, consisting of Bedsteads, Beds and Bedding, several handsome Carpets, Mahogany and Windsor Chairs, Mahogany and Pine dining and other Tables, Gilt and Mahogany frame Looking Glasses, Silver Table & Tea Spoons; with a variety of other articles, too tedious to enumerate. The terms made known on the day of sale. SAMUEL SPEAKE, Auct'r. June 1—st
The thorough Bred Horse MONTICELLO, NOW IN HIGH ORDER. WILL be Let to Mares the ensuing season, to commence the first of April, at my farm, near Georgetown, at FIFTEEN DOLLARS, per Mare, for which a note must be lent payable the first of September, and one dollar to the groom; or in lieu thereof, EIGHTEEN DOLLARS in money. Good and extensive pasture, well enclosed, 20 acres per week, and the mare fed, if required, at the market price, for which the money must be lent. The greatest care taken to prevent accidents or escapes, but will not be responsible for either. JOHN T. BARKER. March 23—tdf
NOTICE. It is requested that all debts due to the late establishment of WILLIAM DUANE may be discharged within the period of one month from this date. All claims against the said establishment will be paid on demand, by application to R. C. WEIGHTMAN, Pennsylvania Avenue. June 3—st
R. C. WEIGHTMAN, PRINTER, BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. HAVING purchased the Extensive and Valuable establishment of WM. DUANE, consisting of Books, Stationery, Binding implements, and Printing materials, offers for sale at the lowest Philadelphia rates, Books and Stationery of all kinds;—Music and Musical Instruments—Printing, Ink of the first quality, and Patent Ball Reine. Printing in all its various branches, will be executed to order, with taste and on the shortest notice. Blank Mortgages, Deeds, Leases, Bills of Lading, Powers of Attorney, Apprentices' Indentures, Warrants, &c. kept constantly for sale, by the quire or single sheet. Lawyers & others, by taking a quantity will be allowed a liberal discount. R. C. W. Solicits the attention of his friends, and hopes by unremitted assiduity to his business, to merit a share of public patronage. May 27—tdf
THE INSPECTION OF TOBACCO IN THE City of Washington Will commence on the 10th day of next month, (June) until the Warehouse now building is finished, the Tobacco which may be brought will be inspected and stored at Mr. Smallwood's warehouse, near the one building by the city. MICHAEL LOWE, Inspector.
Notice is hereby given, THAT the subscriber has obtained from the Orphan's Court of Washington county in the district of Columbia, letters of administration on the personal estate of WILLIAM WINTON, late of the city of Washington, deceased. All persons having claims against said estate are hereby warned to exhibit the same with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber, on or before the 15th day of October next, they may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of said estate. Given under my hand this 15th day of May, 1807. GEORGE BLADEN. May 20—tdf
Treasury Department, May 1st, 1807 PROPOSALS WILL be received at the Treasury till the 10th of June next inclusive, for building a light house on an island situate at the mouth of the River Mississippi, according to the designs and description prepared by B. H. Latrobe. The light house to be a circular tower forming a truncated cone 27 feet diameter at the top of the basement, 12 feet diameter at the top of the platform, which forms the floor of the lantern, and 81 feet 7 inches high from the natural surface of the ground to the said platform. The foundation to be sunk 8 feet 6 inches below the surface of the ground, and 28 feet 6 inches in diameter, is to rest on piles driven 20 feet into the earth, and to consist of a reversed Cupola of brick of 25 feet external diameter, 7 feet 6 inches in depth, and bedded in a work of solid masonry, one foot thick above the piling, and which must fill the whole space dug for the foundation and not occupied by the said Cupola. A circular basement wall 3 feet 6 inches high, and 2 feet 3 inches wide to be built of well bonded broad rough stones upon the rim of the reversed Cupola, and upon the solid wall in which it is bedded. The exterior wall of the tower from the top of the basement is to be two feet thick, built of wrought free stones perfectly jointed and bedded, in no part less than two feet thick on the bed of each stone going quite through the wall, the exterior to be chiselled fair; the interior rough pointed. Six equidistant interior brick walls, two bricks and a half thick each, must be bonded with the external wall and extend within the tower, their interior end forming the well of the stair case which is 12 feet wide at the surface of the ground. Those buttress walls (which must be founded upon sprayed arches turned on a brick wall, erected on the rim of a smaller inverted Cupola turned within the larger one) to be united together at each revolution of the stairs, by brick splayed arches, forming the well of the staircase and extending to the external wall of the tower; and on the crown of those splayed arches, reversed arches must be turned, the reversed feet of which support the buttresses above. Those arches forming a succession of recesses rising with the spiral line of steps will continue to the elevation of fifty feet; and thence upwards the interior lining of bricks is to be built solidly and well bonded with the external wall to the top of the tower, the three upper courses of free stones excepted, which are to go through the whole wall in single blocks. The spiral staircase 12 feet diameter at the surface of the ground, and 8 feet diameter at the top of the tower is to consist of 133 steps of Pennsylvania marble with a 9 inches newell supported on a capped free stone pillar, resting on the centre of the foundation Cupola; the other ends of the steps to be supported by, and to go six inches into the brick buttresses and arches above described. A marble platform to cover that part of the Cupola which is not occupied by the first stairs; and the platform which forms the floor of the lantern to consist of ten slabs of marble well jointed together and projecting three inches beyond the upper course of free stone. The entrance into the lantern to be through a sheet iron door sliding on rollers. The lantern 8 feet 6 inches diameter, and 9 feet 6 inches high, is to be fixed in its place by 12 strong iron bars, worked solidly six feet six inches into the wall and secured at the lower end by strong cross bolts one foot in length, with a screw six inches long above the stone work. The twelve corner posts of the lantern to be also iron bars, turned with a flat foot through which the screws of the anchor bars must pass and be strongly fastened to the nuts; their upper ends being morticed into a strong circular iron ring, upon which the iron rafters are rivetted. The rafters to be also framed into an iron hoop with a copper funnel and a large copper ventilator above turned by a vane. The space between the corner posts to be occupied by strong iron sashes glazed with 10 by 12 glass of the first quality, and one of the sashes to be hung on hinges for a door to go out on the platform which is to be surrounded by iron ballustrades 3 feet high with a rail and a strong wire petting carried from the rail to the eaves of the lantern. The necessary lamp or lamps, either suspended by iron chains or supported on iron feet; and a close stove be placed in the lantern.
The building to be painted black, to be provided with two complete electrical rods with gilt points; and to have one door, and at each revolution of stairs two opposite windows 2 feet by 9 inches. The keeper's dwelling house to be erected round the basis of the tower forming a concentric circular building entirely of brick, and of 60 feet external diameter, including that of the tower. The foundation sunk 4 feet, to rest on piles driven 20 feet into the earth, and to be 2 and a half bricks thick, continuing of that thickness 3 feet 6 inches above the ground. The wall to rise 10 feet higher 2 bricks thick, to be connected with the external wall of the light house by nine partition brick walls and to have internal brick piers from which at the elevation of six feet above the base wall spring arches against the body of the light house; and on the top of these carriage arches segment arches must be turned all round the building. The house to be furnished with two stacks of chimneys, and to have twelve external doors or windows, and also internal doors communicating from one room to another; and the internal walls and ceilings to be plastered.
A circular piazza ten feet wide, to be erected round the dwelling house, resting on a foundation brick wall of one and a half brick thick, sunk five feet below the ground rising three feet above the same and coped with free stone; into which 24 east iron pillars 8 feet 8 inches high are to be fixed. The piazza to have two porches formed by arched brick walls connecting it with the dwelling house. On the top of the pillars, plates are to be laid framed together and supporting a ceiling floor. A framed roof covered with cypress shingles, to cover both the dwelling house and piazza. The interval between the walls of the piazza of the dwelling house and of the light house, to be filled with the rubbish, sand or earth, as high as the top of the base wall; and both the piazza and dwelling house to be paved with brick. All the bricks to be sound Philadelphia bricks. A more particular written description and drawings of the building may be seen by applying at the Treasury in Washington, or to Mr. Latrobe at Philadelphia. Separate proposals will also be received for the freight of not more than 800 tons of stone, either from the Delaware and Potomac, and of not more than 250,000 bricks from Philadelphia to the mouth of the Mississippi. The stones and bricks to be delivered within the bar will be received on board of lighters. May 11—epim
ELIAS B. CALDWELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, HAS removed his Office, to the house lately occupied by Mr. Law, on Capitol Hill. Washington, July 26—tdf
WILLIAM DOUGHTY, RESPECTFULLY informs the public that he has just received his SPRING GOODS from Philadelphia, a supply of French Traps, of superior quality, viz. Imperial, Hyson, Young Hyson, & Hyson Skin, with which he will be happy to serve his friends and customers. Georgetown, May 20—tdf
CHARLES H. VARDEN, Merchant Taylor New Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol. RESPECTFULLY informs the gentlemen of the district of Columbia, he has imported by Miss ANN lately arrived at Philad. A choice assortment Of Extra Superfine cloths, Bennetts, Velvets, and Corda, Gaffinettes, single and double milled satin cloths, fashionable Spanish Orleans and Toilets, rich silk Mouselin velvet, silk and satin Florentines, with a variety of other articles suitable for the season. N. B. Ladies habits, rep mantles, and navy uniforms made in the first style of fashion. Richard Marwell celebrated patent parallel suspenders, can be had on the same terms as at his manufactory. November 12—tdf Post Office, Washington, May 9th, 1807. SUMMER ESTABLISHMENT, to commence on Monday the 11th May 1807. THE Mails for the main Southern route, are to be closed at 6 o'clock P. M. and are to arrive at half past 5 P. M. The Eastern mail to be closed at half past 6 P. M. and arrive at half past 5 P. M. The Annapolis and Eastern Shore route closes on Tuesdays and Fridays at 6 P. M. and arrive Tuesdays and Thursdays at 5 o'clock P. M. The Clarkburg and Chillicothe route, via Fairfax Co. h. Winchester, &c. closes Fridays at 6 o'clock A. M. and arrive Thursdays at noon. The Leeburg mail, via Prospect Hill, &c. will close on Mondays at 1 o'clock P. M. and arrive same day at 11 A. M. The general western mail, via Fredericktown, Md. will be closed on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays at 6 o'clock P. M. and arrive at 5 P. M. on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. The mail for Brookville, Md. will be closed every Wednesday at 6 P. M. & arrive Thursdays at 6 P. M. The New Orleans mail, via Athens, Georgia, will be closed every Saturday, 6 P. M. and arrive same day at 8 A. M. &c. via Tennessee, Mississippi Territory, &c. will be closed every Monday 6 P. M. & arrive same day 5 P. M. The mail to Ridge, Md. via Piscataway, Port Tobacco, St. Inigoes, &c. will close every Thursday at 6 P. M. and arrive every Tuesday at 6 P. M. May 13—37
HAVING contracted with JOE HATCH of the city of Washington, to undertake the sweeping of CHIMNEYS in said city agreeably to an act of the corporation, entitled, "An act respecting the sweeping of chimneys in the city of Washington," I do hereby give this public notice to the inhabitants of the city as required by said act, that they may be governed accordingly. ROBERT BRANT, Mayor, of the city of Washington.
Mr. Heigh will commence on the 10th of June, inst. June 3—st TRIAL of Col. AARON BURR, WESCOTT & CO. Eleventh street near Pennsylvania avenue, Washington city.
INFORM the public, that they have engaged Mr. THOMAS CARPENTER, one of the most able and correct Stenographers in the United States, to attend the Circuit Court to commence its session in Richmond, on the 2nd of this month; and if the trial comes on, to publish as speedily as possible, a full and complete account of it, accompanied by all the documents relative to this memorable and important decision. May 18—tdf
DAVID BOUDON, LIMAISON FROM GENEVA, HAS the honor to inform the public, that having now received his complete Port Folio, and a collection of studies and principles, he continues giving lessons with success in the art of drawing and painting Flowers, Landscapes, Figures, &c. &c. He also paints Miniatures, at moderate prices. Likewise Profile Portraits, colored on vellum, at 3 dollars each all warranted likenesses. He assures the public that his profiles are not produced by any machinery, but are the effects of his acquirements, from close and attentive application to study, in the best schools in Italy. His extensive practice in his profession, he hopes will entitle him to the patronage of an enlightened public. Ladies and Gentlemen, who will honor him with their confidence, will please to leave their directions with MR. CHARLES AVISSE, Merchant Perfumer, No. 34, north Howard street, or GEORGE HILL, Baltimore. May 29—3t
LITERARY NOTICE. IN THE PRESS, And will be Published on the 1st day of August next, at the Bookstores of J. MARCHE, Georgetown, and R. C. WEIGHTMAN, (late Duane's) city of Washington, "SIMPLE TALES," By Mrs. OPIE, 2 vols. 12 mo. May 29—3t
PROPOSALS For carrying the MAILS of the United States, on the following Post Roads, will be received at the General Post Office in Washington, until the 1st day of July next, inclusive. IN VERMONT. 31. From Littleton, N. H. by Littleton, V. St. Johnsbury, Danville, Walden, Greenboro' Craftsboro', Elen and Johnson to St. Albans once in two weeks. Leave Littleton, N. H. every other Monday at 6 a. m. and arrive at St. Albans the next Wednesday by 6 p. m. Leave St. Albans every other Thursday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Littleton, N. H. on Saturday by 6 p. m. 32. From Windsor by Woodstock, Royalton, Randolph, Williamstown, Berlin, Montpelier, Middlesex, Waterbury, Bolton, Jerico and Wilton to Burlington once a week. Leave Windsor for every Saturday at 2 p. m. arrive at Montpelier on Monday by 3 p. m. and at Burlington on Tuesday by 1 p. m.—Returning. Leave Burlington at 3 p. m. on Tuesday, arrive at Montpelier on Wednesday by 6 p. m. and arrive at Windsor on Friday by noon. 33. From Montpelier by Berlin, Barre, Washington, Corinth, Bradford, Newbury, Ryegate, Barnet, Peacham and Danville to St. Johnsbury once a week. Leave Montpelier every Thursday at noon, arrive at Newbury on Friday by 7 p. m. Leave Newbury every Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at St. Johnsbury by 5 p. m. Returning. Leave St. Johnsbury every Sunday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Montpelier on Tuesday by 11 a. m. 34. From Rutland, by Pittsford, Brandon, Leicester, St. Albans, Middlebury, New Haven, Vergennes, Ferrisburg, Charlotte, Shelburne, Burlington, Colchester, Milton, Georgia, St. Albans and Swanton to Highgate once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 5 a. m. arrive at Burlington on Tuesday by 4 p. m. and arrive at Highgate on Wednesday by 7 p. m. Returning. Leave Highgate every Thursday at 5 a. m. arrive at Burlington on Friday by 8 a. m. and arrive at Rutland on Saturday by 7 p. m. 35. From Royalton, by Tunbridge, Chelsea and Vershire to Corinth once a week. Leave Royalton every Thursday at noon, and arrive at Corinth on Friday by noon. Leave Corinth every Friday at 2 p. m. & arrive at Royalton on Saturday by noon. 36. From Rutland by Grafton, Fairhaven, Bennington, Danville, Shrewsbury, Addison, Vergennes, Williamstown, Eln. & C. and Panton to Champlain once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Champlain by 10 a. m. Leave Champlain at 11 a. m. & arrive at Rutland on Tuesday by 10 a. m. Returning. Leave Rutland town every Thursday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Rutland by 7 p. m.
next Sunday by 6 p. m. 37. From Middlebury, by New Haven, Meriden, Haverbury, Wallingford, Jerico, Essex, Wolcott, Farmington, and Sheldon to Huntingdon and thence by Berlin, Ennaberg, Bakersfield, Cambridge, Union, Jerico, Richmond, Huntington, Starkville and Bristol to Middlebury once a week. Leave Middlebury every Tuesday at 6 a. m. arrive at Jerico by 4 p. m. and at Huntingdon on Friday by 2 p. m. Returning. Leave Huntingdon every Friday at 6 p. m. and arrive at Middlebury on Monday by 7 p. m. 38. From Rutland by Clarendon, Shrewsbury, Saltas and Reading to Windsor once a week. Leave Rutland every Monday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Windsor on Tuesday by 10 a. m. Returning. Leave Windsor every Tuesday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Rutland on Wednesday by 7 p. m. 39. From Rutland by Tinmouth, Wallingford, Danby, Dorset, Manchester, Arlington, Shaftsbury, Bennington & Pittsfield to Langhburg twice a week. Leave Rutland every Monday and Thursday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Bennington on Tuesday & Friday by 6 p. m. Leave Bennington every Wednesday & Saturday at 5 a. m. & arrive at Langhburg by 1 p. m. Returning. Leave Langhburg every Monday & Thursday at 11 a. m. & arrive at Bennington by 7 p. m. Leave Bennington on Tuesday & Friday at 5 a. m. & arrive at Rutland on Wednesday & Saturday by 6 p. m. 40. From Rutland by Cavendish, Chester, Rockingham, Bellows Falls and Westminster to Walpole once a week. Leave Rutland every Wednesday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Walpole by 6 p. m. on Thursday. Leave Walpole every Saturday at 6 a. m. & arrive at Rutland on Sunday by 10 a. m. 41. From Bennington by Marlboro', Wilmington & Woodford, to Brattleboro', once a week. Leave Bennington every Thursday, at 9 p. m. and arrive at Brattleboro' on Friday by 11 a. m. Leave Brattleboro' every Friday at 2 p. m. & arrive at Bennington on Saturday by 4 p. m. IN MASSACHUSETTS. 42. From Newburyport to Haverhill twice a week. Leave Newburyport every Monday and Friday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Haverhill by 11 a. m. Leave Haverhill every Tuesday and Saturday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Newburyport by 7 p. m. 43. From Salem, by Danvers, Topsfield and Boxford, to Haverhill, once a week. Leave Salem every Monday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Haverhill by 6 p. m. Leave Haverhill every Monday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Salem by 10 a. m. 44. From Bolton, by Salem and Manchester, to Gloucester, three times a week. Leave Gloucester every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Bolton by 6 p. m. Leave Bolton every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 6 a. m. and arrive at Gloucester by 6 p. m. 45. From Salem to Marblehead, six times a week. Leave Salem every day (Sunday excepted) at noon, and arrive at Marblehead by 1 p. m. Leave Marblehead every day at 2 p. m. and arrive at Salem by 3 p. m. 46. From Bolton, by Medford, Woburn, Billerica, Chelmsford, Tyngsboro', Dunstable, Amherst, Framingham, Wellesley and Concord, to Winton, Vt. twice a week. Leave Bolton every Monday and Friday at 5 a. m. arrive at Billerica by noon, and at Amherst by 7 p. m. Leave Amherst on Tuesday and Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Winton by 6 p. m. Returning. Leave Winton every Monday and Friday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Amherst by 6 p. m. Leave Amherst on Tuesday and Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Bolton by 5 p. m. 47. From Billerica, by Patucket bridge, Dracut, Feham and Windham, to Londonderry, once a week. Leave Billerica every Monday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Londonderry on Tuesday by 9 a. m. Leave Londonderry every Tuesday at 10 a. m. and arrive at Billerica by 7 p. m. 48. From Bolton, by Concord, Littleton, Groton, Townsend, Ashby, New Ipswich, Jaffrey, Marlboro', Keene & Walpole, to Rockingham Bridge, twice a week. Leave Bolton every Monday & Thursday at 4 a. m. & arrive at Keene on Tuesday and Friday by noon. Leave Keene at half past 12 p. m. and arrive at Rockingham by 6 p. m. Returning. Leave Rockingham every Tuesday & Friday at 4 a. m. & arrive at Keene by noon. Leave Keene at half past 12 p. m. & arrive at Bolton on Wednesday and Saturday by 11 a. m. 49. From Concord, by Snow, Bolton & Lancaster, to Lewinville, twice a week. Leave Concord every Monday and Thursday at 1 p. m. & arrive at Lewinville by 7 p. m. Leave Lewinville every Wednesday & Saturday at 5 a. m. & arrive at Concord by 11 a. m. 50. From Lewinville, by Westminster, Temple, Grafton, Athol, New Salem, Wendell & Montague, to Greenfield, once a week. Leave Lewinville every Friday at 5 a. m. & arrive at Greenfield by 7 p. m. Leave Greenfield every Saturday at 6 a. m. & arrive at Lewinville by 7 p. m.
LAND FOR SALE. The Subscriber offers for sale 780 acres of land on Bullrun in Jefferson county Virginia about 10 miles from Harper's Ferry, and 2 miles from the Shenandoah river. 400 acres of this land is cleared, the rest in woods, on it there is a valuable Mill seat with 22 feet fall, the stream affording a sufficiency of water to turn two pair of stones, 25 acres of watered meadow which produces abundant crops of Hay, and as much more may be made at a trifling expense the cleared land may be laid off into fields of 50 acres and each field have running water in it; there is generally sown on this farm 220 acres in wheat which has not for some years past, produced less than 2500 bushels per annum—the improvements are a Stone Dwelling House and kitchen a Stone Dairy with a large never failing Spring near the dwelling, a barn with stables under it for 30 horses, an apple orchard of 200 trees of choice fruit, and a variety of other fruit trees; on another part of the farm, there is a small frame Dwelling House, Kitchen and Dairy, Smoke house, Barn and stables—this property will be shown and the terms made known on application to the subscriber on the premises. JOHN GANTT, Sen. April 29—5, 2m