The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1802-04-19 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER, AND WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. II.
WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. CCXXVII.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
MONDAY, APRIL 13th, 1802.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
National Intelligencer.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 26
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. NICHOLSON—Continued]
Another powerful objection with the gentleman from Delaware to the old system, is, that the supreme court was formed by the judges who held the circuit courts. By this organization the whole advantage derived from the right of appeal is destroyed; because when an appeal comes up, each judge will be afraid to decide against the opinions of his brother, inasmuch as tomorrow that brother will have to decide upon a judgment given by himself. In God's name, sir, what kind of objection is this? Will one of these venerable characters, selected for his wisdom & virtue, be induced by the price of opinion, to forget the sacred obligation of his oath? Can it be possible that a man who has passed the meridian of life, and enriched his mind with the incubations of twenty years, will sacrifice the correctness of his judgment, and the integrity of his heart to the vain pride of a boy, or the oftentimes folly of a coxcomb?—God forbid that our bench should be filled by men of this description. The citizen is no longer secure in his liberty and his life. The depravity which could feel such an influence would know no limits. Avarice and ambition would not be outdone by pride, and each in its turn would rule him. But, sir, I trust our country is not yet so lost. I hope experience has not yet taught us to believe that our judges are to be influenced by any but the purest motives. If we cannot confide in them to revise the opinions of each other, they ought not to be entrusted with the administration of justice, even in the lowest grade. I cannot agree with the gentleman that the sense of appeal is the great check upon the conscience of the inferior judge. I trust to his integrity as a man, to the high obligation of his oath. When these are rendered or forgotten, he is under the influence of no other check. If there are not our great security, our situation is deplorable indeed. Our laws and constitution must be changed; for let it be remembered, that in criminal cases there is no appeal. In cases affecting the life or liberty of the citizen, the judge has no check of this kind upon his conscience; and if we cannot rely upon his integrity and his oath, our constitution and our laws afford us no security. If the constitution and the laws will not bind him, if he is lost to every sense of honor and virtue, if he will sacrifice the faith which he has pledged in the presence of his God, to the vain pride of opinion, he can never be relied on, and is unfit to be a judge. To argue, therefore, from this supposed depravity of our nature, is to argue from a principle which no power on earth can control.
For my own part, I have always believed that a court of appeals, thus organized, was of the most valuable kind. I consider it the most effectual method to secure a uniformity of decision. By appointing one supreme tribunal for the purpose of hearing appeals, with a limited original jurisdiction, a very small portion of their time as a court of appeals will be occupied. They will diverge into different parts of the union, where they will be engaged in deciding controversies, and will have an opportunity of hearing all the arguments of counsel; when they again assemble at the seat of government with their brethren, they will bring with them the principles upon which all decisions have been made below, and though not authorized to decide upon appeals from judgments rendered by themselves, yet by offering the reasons which influenced them below, will either have an opportunity of convincing their brethren, or of having their own errors corrected. A comparison of opinion upon great and leading points, will enable them to carry out into their federal circuits, the opinions of the whole, with the arguments upon which they are founded, and the same decision upon the same or similar points will, of consequence, be made in every part of the union. By these means a perfect uniformity of decision will be established, and permit me to say, that this will be the only method of securing this uniformity
until professional gentlemen engage in reporting cases. At this time I believe there is but one reporter of cases decided in the supreme court, and he, I readily admit, is a most valuable one; but it is impossible to say whether he is now continuing his labours, and will favor us with another volume. When your court of appeals is constituted entirely distinct from your inferior courts, and is attended by only a small proportion of the gentlemen of the bar, residing either at the seat of government, or coming from the middle states, I do not know how the decisions of the supreme court are to be known in the eastern and southern country. But by sending your supreme judges to ride the circuits, you fend out with them the decisions of the supreme court and establish the most perfect uniformity throughout all your inferior courts.
To show, however, that this uniformity did not prevail, the gentleman from Delaware advanced two instances where successive judges differed from each other. The first on the law of attachments, the other in relation to chancery proceedings. That these inconveniences may have been felt I shall not pretend to deny; but permit me to say that they neither arose from the defects of the old system, nor were they provided against by the new one. They arose from the circumstance of Congress not having legislated on these subjects. I differ with the gentleman, when he says, that these are mere matters of practice. Sir, they involve important principles of law. The one goes to the seizure of a man's goods and chattels, the other authorizes your judges to sign a decree against him upon an ex parte hearing, by taking the bill of complaint pro confesso .—Rules of practice may be settled by the judges themselves; but these are principles that ought to be settled by the legitimate authority, as all others ought to be, wherein the laws of the states differ so very materially. In Maryland they are regulated and defined by express statute, and the equity jurisdiction of your courts will not be worth pursuing unless you point out their modes of proceeding. In those states where they have no chancery courts, as is the case in Pennsylvania, and I believe all the New-England states, I can readily conceive that a judge would be at a loss, for I cannot imagine what rules of proceeding he would be guided by. If there is any state in the union, in which a judge would feel himself bound to pursue the practice in England of issuing first the subpoena , then the attachment , afterwards the attachment with proclamations , to be followed up by the commission of rebellion , and finally the sequestration , the process would be so extremely tedious that it would almost discourage a suitor from going into your courts. Give me leave again to say, that if these are evils arising from the defects of the old system, they were not remedied by the new one. They never can be remedied until Congress legislate on the subject. By enacting the law of last session you did not provide against them; by repealing that law you will not revive them.
I hope I may be allowed to pay some attention to another observation of the gentleman from Delaware, which seems to have been produced, not by any thing said on this side of the house, but by a phantom which he himself has raised. He tells us if we "trust the execution of the federal laws to state courts, in ten years we shall have neither law nor constitution." I believe, sir, an idea of this kind has never been expressed by any one. Matters of high importance, properly belonging to the federal judiciary, we will leave to them; but if federal jurisdiction is to be extended to all cases, I would venture to affirm that in ten years your state laws and constitutions would be entirely swallowed up. Nothing would have to frown a tendency to consolidate the union, as nothing could more effectually destroy the state sovereignties. By confining both to their proper orbits, the safety and harmony of both will be preferred. For myself, however, I have no hesitation in declaring that if all judicial power is to be exclusively vested in the one or the other, I would give the preference to the state courts, inasmuch as I prefer a government truly federal to a consolidation of the union. The gentleman likewise thought there were some who would willingly restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts for the purpose of extending the powers and influence of the state courts. If he means by this that there are some who would like to see a part of the business now transacted in the federal courts, transferred to the state courts, I unite with him in opinion and avow myself one of those. I think much of the business may be done with equal safety and much less expense in the state
courts; and for my own part should like to see the jurisdiction of the federal courts more restricted. Instead of giving them cognizance over sums of five hundred dollars, for instance, I would limit their jurisdiction to a thousand.—And where I ask would be the evil? I know it has been heretofore fashionable to say, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold) has repeated it, that prejudices might exist in the state courts, and that a foreigner, or a citizen of a different state might not have justice impartially dealt out to him. Sir, this is an odious objection. It is an objection not founded on experience. It contains a charge against the character of the states, totally without foundation, and ought to be repelled. I know very little of judicial decisions in other states, but in the state which I represent, I aver there is no ground for such an objection; and I speak it with pride and boasting as a native of Maryland, that justice has never been more purely administered in any country on the face of the earth. If ever there was a time when prejudices against foreigners might probably exist, that time has gone by, and I trust never will return. That time was at the close of our revolutionary war, after an arduous struggle for our liberties, when scarcely a man in Maryland could look around him without seeing a vacancy which had been once filled by a brother or a friend. It was impossible to forget the enmity which had subsisted between Great Britain and this country; it was impossible to forget that Great Britain had armed our brethren, and had let loose the savages of the wilderness against us. The oppressions that had been practiced, the cruelties we had endured were yet fresh in our minds. The feelings, which had been roused by a strong sense of injury, were not yet subdued—but these feelings never found their way into our courts of justice. An Englishman and an American stood upon the same ground. Justice was blind to every thing but their respective merits. She never enquired into the birth place of a suitor, but listened to his claim with an attentive ear, and pronounced her decree with an impartial voice. At the commencement of the war, British merchants had claims to an immense amount against the citizens of Maryland; our citizens were likewise largely involved with each other. The difficulties of the war need not be recounted, but payment was impossible. To prevent an accumulation of debts by compelling a dreadful sacrifice of property, our courts of justice were closed. In the year 1779, however, an expedient was adopted, the wisdom of which I cannot, I dare not question. A paper currency was issued, which creditors were compelled to receive from their debtors in full discharge of their debts at an equal value with gold and silver; and if they refused to receive it, proof of the tender operated as a discharge. This currency had not the confidence of the people, and consequently depreciated till it became worth almost nothing. Still it was a tender, and creditors were compelled to receive it. Those who were indebted to British merchants and had debts due to them in the country, saw ruin staring them in the face—they complained, and complained with justice. The legislature interfered and declared by law that British debts might be discharged by the debtor paying into the state treasury for the use of the British creditors, the amount in paper money, if he would make oath he had received it in discharge of debts due to himself. This was a great relief, and numbers took advantage of it. They flattered themselves it would prevent their ruin; but sir, the ruin was only postponed; for the treaty of peace came, declaring that creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediments in the recovery of their debts, and by an act of Maryland this treaty was declared the supreme law of the land. Suits were brought in the courts of the state by the British creditors to recover those very debts which had been discharged under the solemn sanction of a law, and our courts felt themselves bound to decide that the treaty operated as a nullification of the state law. By this decision those men who had been compelled to receive from their debtors, paper money in discharge of debts due to them, and had under the authority of a law paid the debts due from them to British creditors, were now under the necessity of paying a second time in gold and silver. Here was an occasion, if one ever existed, upon which prejudice might well discover itself; for on this occasion a foreigner was placed in a situation infinitely more eligible than a citizen. But the state courts did their duty.
They declined to be governed by a narrow minded prejudice, and decreed to the Englishman what the laws of our country had declared to be justly his due. No local considerations, no attachments to the suffering individuals of their own state had any influence upon their minds; they undeviatingly pursued the path which justice pointed out to them. Who then could dread the future existence of a prejudice which will deny justice to a foreigner? Let it not be doubted, for there is no ground for the suspicion.—Nor can there be any reason to apprehend that the state courts will discover an unwillingness to execute your federal laws; for in the year 1792, you gave them cognizance of offences against your revenue laws, and as far as my information goes they have been faithfully and promptly administered. But give me leave to say that it is not so much in the court as it is in the jury that this prejudice (if any) is to be apprehended. The jury have a latitude in giving their verdict, and may if they think proper undertake, by giving a general verdict, to decide both law and fact. This is a power more transcendent than that of the court, and may be equally directed by prejudice. Yet no organization of your federal courts that has ever been made can possibly reach the evil, if indeed any such evil exists; for both in the state and federal courts a jury of the state must decide. But, sir, I am free to declare that I dread no such prejudice either in court or jury. I trust to the integrity of the American character, and estimate the virtues of a state judge as highly as those of a federal judge.
They declined to be governed by a
narrow minded prejudice, and decreed to the Englishman what the laws of our country had declared to be justly his due. No local considerations, no attachments to the suffering individuals of their own state had any influence upon their minds; they undeviatingly pursued the path which justice pointed out to them. Who then could dread the future existence of a prejudice which will deny justice to a foreigner? Let it not be doubted, for there is no ground for the suspicion.—Nor can there be any reason to apprehend that the state courts will discover an unwillingness to execute your federal laws; for in the year 1792, you gave them cognizance of offences against your revenue laws, and as far as my information goes they have been faithfully and promptly administered. But give me leave to say that it is not so much in the court as it is in the jury that this prejudice (if any) is to be apprehended. The jury have a latitude in giving their verdict, and may if they think proper undertake, by giving a general verdict, to decide both law and fact. This is a power more transcendent than that of the court, and may be equally directed by prejudice. Yet no organization of your federal courts that has ever been made can possibly reach the evil, if indeed any such evil exists; for both in the state and federal courts a jury of the state must decide. But, sir, I am free to declare that I dread no such prejudice either in court or jury. I trust to the integrity of the American character, and estimate the virtues of a state judge as highly as those of a federal judge.
In relation to the expense of the system proposed to be repealed, various opinions have been expressed, some estimating the saving at forty thousand dollars a year, others at twenty-eight thousand five hundred. I think it totally unnecessary to descend into the minutiae of the expense, because the same principle which would impel us to a saving of forty thousand dollars a year would impel us likewise to the saving of twenty-eight thousand five hundred. If the money is thrown away upon an useless object, it is our duty to save it. The utility of the object has not been proved sufficiently to authorize an annual expenditure even of the lowest of these two sums, and for one, I feel myself bound, by repealing the law, to make the saving.
The gentleman from Delaware made another remark in relation to the expense, which I must beg leave to notice. He says that federal justice, as he is placed to term it, does not cost one fifth as much as state justice. This is a position equally indefensible with most others which he has attempted to maintain. I do not know by what scale the gentleman graduated the relative expense; whether by the number of suits decided, or the supposed value of property depending upon the decision. As to the latter it would be a difficult matter to determine, because the data, we have, are not sufficient to form an opinion upon it; but I meet him most readily upon the former. I must necessarily again refer to my own state, for which I hope to be pardoned. In Maryland, there is a general court with unlimited jurisdiction, which sits four times a year; twice on the Western and twice on the Eastern shore, & I think I speak within bounds when I say, that in these courts at least three thousand suits are annually brought. The salaries of the three judges amount to six thousand dollars per year. The juries attending these courts are paid out of the public treasury, and I believe receive a sum which including their itinerant charges amounts to not more than 5,500 dollars; however to make it a round sum and to defray some other small incidental charges, it may be fixed at 6,000 dollars. Thus then the trial or decision of these 3,000 suits costs, with the salary of the judges and the payment of the juries, 12,000 dollars, or just four dollars for each action. It is agreed on all hands that the federal judiciary costs the United States in the aggregate 137,000; the proportion of Maryland (as one-fifteenth part of the Union, which is the proportion she bears in population, in taxation and representation) will be equal to rather more than nine thousand dollars. From the document number 3, which has been laid before us as corrected by the message of yesterday, it appears that in the circuit court of Maryland for the twelve years past there have been 269 suits instituted, or about twenty-two suits per year, to these may be added cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, which go before the district court, and a very few cases of appeals that may be carried to the supreme court, making perhaps in
the whole about two hundred per year; but let it be taken on a larger calculation and say, that the whole number of suits, in which the citizens of Maryland are immediately concerned, amount to four hundred in each year; for which we pay nine thousand dollars; it follows that each suit costs rather more than twenty-two dollars, or better than five times as much as each suit brought in the state court of Maryland. Thus instead of state justice costing five times more than federal justice; in reality federal justice costs five times more than state justice. If a calculation is made of all the business transacted in all the courts of Maryland, from the highest to the lowest, I believe it will be found that the ratio will be the same.
The document from which we have acquired our information, as to the number of suits which have been instituted and are now depending in the circuit courts, has been severely commented on. A gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Griswold) says, it is incorrect because it does not exhibit the names of the suitors, and declares the President had no right to procure it. These are objections to be sure of a most important nature. Objections which are made for the purpose of inducing us to reject the testimony it affords. Let me ask the honorable member, where was the necessity for shewing us the names of the suitors? Truly, says the gentleman, for the purpose of shewing the class of citizens from which the President had lately made some appointments in Connecticut. And I would again ask, what these appointments have to do with the question now before us? Suppose the fact had appeared as the gentleman intimates, that all those people who have lately received appointments in Connecticut, were defendants on the docket of the circuit court in that state, would it have proved the necessity of keeping up the system? Sir, the objection is an absurd one. If it could prove any thing, it would be that the President had given appointments to poor men, and God forbid that there should be any thing criminal in this. But the President had no right to obtain this information for the purpose of laying it before congress. Is it not his constitutional right? Nay, is it not his constitutional duty to give such information to congress relative to the affairs of the union as in his judgment will throw light on subjects likely to attract their attention? Is it not the constitutional organ through which we are to acquire information? Is it not declared by the constitution, that the President shall from time to time, give us information on the state of the Union, and recommend to our consideration such measures as he shall deem necessary or expedient? And yet when he exercises this constitutional privilege, when he performs this constitutional duty, these gentlemen, whose tender consciences are upon some occasions so alive to the constitution, think proper to reproach him for it. Nay the gentleman from Delaware has vauntingly declared that for the performance of this constitutional duty he holds him responsible. For this he trusts he will be brought to account, and that the day will come, when we shall hear the honorable member and his friends, speaking more effectually on the subject. What idle declamation, what empty sounds are these! Yes, sir; he is responsible; and not to the gentleman from Delaware, more than to the meanest man in the community; he is responsible to the American people. He is responsible to the great body of the nation whose voices have done justice to his virtues; and on this responsibility he cheerfully risks himself and all his actions. The day of account will come; the day on which the people of this country will again have to determine whether he merits their confidence or not; and when this day shall arrive, if his conduct will not stand the test of free and impartial enquiry, I trust he will be dismissed, as those have been, who have gone before him. But if he shall be found to have been faithful in the discharge of his duty, he will receive the most grateful reward that can be bestowed on a public servant, the approbation of his country.
This appeal too is called a measure of the President's, and the gentleman from Delaware has said, it is in the power of the President now to arrest its progress. What is meant by this? What is the dark insinuation covered under this language? Does any man within these walls dare to insinuate that I am under executive influence? Does any man assert that I am governed by any other motive than my own sense of right, and my own opinion of the con-
(Continued on last page)

(Continued from last page) effect the powers vested by the constitution in the government of the United States. It has, notwithstanding been contended that the 1st section of the third article which I have just read, operated imperatively upon Congress, and that they were thereby obliged to establish not only a supreme, but likewise inferior courts. I shall admit that before the government of the United States could exercise higher judicial powers, it became necessary to organize the supreme court; but I contend that when this court was once organized, the constitution was gratified. Contemporaneous exposition has been resorted to, to support doctrines advanced by our adversaries, and I shall beg leave to resort to similar assistance, to shew that this was the opinion of one of the wisest and ablest men our country can boast of. The venerable and highly respected judge Pendleton, a strenuous and learned advocate of the constitution, in debating this article in the convention of Virginia, thus expresses himself: "The first clause contains an arrangement of the courts, one supreme, and such inferior as Congress may ordain and establish. This seems to me to be proper; Congress must be the judges, and may find reasons to change and vary them as experience shall dictate. It is therefore not only improper, but exceedingly inconvenient, to fix the arrangement in the constitution itself, and not to leave it to laws, which may be changed according to circumstances. I think it highly probable that this first experiment will be to appoint the state courts to have the power for federal jurisdiction; because it would be best calculated to give general satisfaction and answer economical purposes, since a small additional salary may in that case suffice instead of a competent provision for the judges. But even this eligible mode of experience may furnish powerful reasons for changing, and a power to make such change ought to rest with Congress." It will be found that through the whole of that debate, this idea was not combated, and it clearly proves that no one considered the courts established by the constitution, or that the section was imperative. I might follow the example of my opponents, and rest contented with offering the opinions of that day, as a reason why my own opinions, at this time are correct; but I will endeavour to shew that this idea of judge Pendleton's was entertained by Congress after the government was adopted. It is clear, from the extract I have just read, that the friends of the constitution thought it would be gratified in this particular by organizing a supreme court, and by giving federal jurisdiction to the state courts; and it cannot be doubted that the doctrine was sound, if the constitutionality of the law establishing the judicial courts, in the year 1789 is admitted. For by that law it is provided, "that the circuit courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states of all suits at common law, or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another state." By this clause the federal court is vested with a cognizance concurrent with the state courts over cases of federal jurisdiction; by which the jurisdiction of the state courts is unimpaired; and it is admitted that they may hold equal cognizance with the federal courts, where the sum amounts to five hundred dollars. But in all cases at common law or in equity, where the sum or value in dispute is under five hundred dollars, the original cognizance is left exclusively with the state courts. Now, sir, it cannot be denied if the state courts were competent to hold exclusive jurisdiction over sums not amounting to five hundred dollars, they would have been equally competent to hold jurisdiction over sums to any amount whatever. Their concurrent jurisdiction is admitted, their exclusive jurisdiction might have been left to them. In like manner the state courts might have been permitted to hold cognizance of admiralty and maritime cases; for I believe all the state had courts exercising this kind of jurisdiction. I do not contend that this would have been proper, but only with the view that it might have been done, and that there was no constitutional necessity for establishing inferior courts. It has been argued, not I believe in this house, but in another where the subject has undergone discussion, that the necessity for inferior courts arose from the constitution having declared that the supreme court should have appellate jurisdiction; and that there can be no appeal unless there were inferior courts from which an appeal might lie. This objection discovers wonderful sagacity indeed, for I presume it could not be conceived that an appeal might lie from, as well as a writ of error be directed to, a state court, as I believe is already provided for by the act of 1789, in certain cases. These remarks have been made with a view to shew that the language of the first section of the third article is not imperative, but that Congress might have gratified the constitution by organizing the supreme court alone. If their discretion was to be exercised as to the time when these inferior courts should be established, I think it may likewise be proved that the number was to depend upon their discretion also. The gentleman from Connecticut admits that the number may be increased from one to a thousand, but he denies that the number can ever be diminished. Thus, it is in the power of one Congress to encroach the evil to any extent, but it is impossible for any future Congress to correct the errors or repair the mischief of their predecessors. This is a hateful doctrine in a free country, and I hope can be shown to be unfounded. The language of the constitution is, "such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." By the word "such" I understand so many both in kinds and numbers as Congress may, in their judgment, from time to time, and according to circumstances, think necessary. This involves the right of modifying the various kinds of courts, and increasing or diminishing the number at pleasure. The constitution does not fix the number of courts, but leaves Congress to determine. It is admitted on all hands that the authority to erect these courts is not derived from this article, but from the 8th section of the first article, in which it is declared that Congress "shall have power to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court." The same article likewise declares that Congress "shall have power to lay and collect taxes and to establish post-offices and post-roads." Now the right to reduce the number of taxes, or the number of post-offices and post-roads is not denied, and where, I ask, is the right to reduce the number of inferior tribunals denied? The authority to establish each is vested by the same article and is couched in the same language. We are in the constant habit of diminishing the number of post-roads & post-offices without hearing any objections, and I hope ere long we shall acquire a habit of diminishing taxes. Our constitutional right to do this, I presume, will not be denied, however gentlemen may think proper to object on other grounds. There is no part of this section imperative; it vests Congress with a discretionary power to lay and collect taxes; to borrow or coin money; to establish post-offices and post-roads; to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; to raise armies and to equip a navy; but we find no restriction upon the power of Congress to reduce all these establishments whenever in their opinion they may become useless, or circumstances may arise to justify the reduction. I think this opinion must be universally concurred in as far as it respects any one of those objects; and it must be admitted that we have the power to reduce as well as to establish unless some restriction can be found in other parts of the constitution. This instrument has been scrutinized with an eagle's eye, ever since the question now under consideration has been raised, and no express restriction, check or limitation of the repealing power of Congress has been pointed out, because none can be found. I have searched for this prohibition, but have been unable to discover it. Where the constitution means to restrict, it is clear, explicit and unequivocal. By referring to the ninth section of the first article you will find the limitations of the powers of congress are defined with the most accurate precision. The tenth section, in terms equally definite, restricts the authority of the states. Yet among these you will find no restriction similar to that now contended for. [Mr. Nicholson—to be continued.]
For Sale, OR TO BE RENTED. THE Subscriber will sell or rent, his buildings on F street, Lot No. 23, square 289; and give possession on the first day of May. Any person desirous of purchasing or renting the same, may know the terms, or application to Mr. Bond, adjoining the premises, or to the subscriber in Colchester, Virginia. JAMES H. BLAKE. April 29, 1802. WANTED, A BANK and BOOK-KEEPER. A young man, who can come well recommended for the above business, will meet with employ at the Columbian inn; and generous wages, by J. H. BARNEY. April 16, 1802. NOTICE. WITH respect to the caution of the said John Harrison, I will appear on the premises on the day of sale, and exhibit the contract and the award, and all the papers relative thereto; with a sufficient voucher of the compliance of the state; and will also produce gentlemen of respectability and propriety to warrant the title; or refund the purchase money: Provided the title should ever hereafter be found insufficient. SAMUEL BAKER. April 16, 1802. To be Sold, A FEW LOTS in Squares No. 902, and 904, near the Barracks, at a moderate price for cash—Apply to Benjamin Moore, New-Jersey Avenue, who has for sale Rhode-Island Lime, by the cask; and he expects in a few days molasses by the hoghead, to be delivered at any wharf in the city. April 14, 1802.
CONGRESS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. FRIDAY, March 28, 1802. DEBATE. On the passage of the Bill "to revive and continue in force an act entitled an act to augment the salaries of the officers therein mentioned." Mr. DAWSON. I voted against the law of '99, which increased the salaries of certain officers of our government, and I propose now to vote for that bill which continues the augmentation. I will state to this house the reasons for these my votes, in a concise manner, for, in on this and on all occasions, I shall avoid going into arguments which do not bear on the question, and the only effect of which is a waste of our time and of the public money. I will not suppose what is the state in which a gentleman ought to live, and what are the expenses attending thereon—I will not enquire whether all, or any of our officers do live in that state—These, Sir, are questions which we are not in duty bound to examine. The duties of our public officers, and a proper compensation for services, are the only questions, which it belongs to us to examine. Sir, it must be remembered by you, and by every gentleman of this house, and especially by those who were members in '99, what was our situation at that time; we were constantly told, that we were threatened with a foreign war, and we were called on to make exertions to meet that danger—every means within our power were resorted to; armies were raised, and fleets set on foot, taxes of various kinds were imposed to meet these expenses, and individuals were invited to make sacrifices—loans at 8 per cent were negotiated, and voluntary contributions were solicited; at a time like that and under such circumstances, I did think it unjust; I did think it impolitic to raise the salaries of any set of men; and it was for this reason, and for this chiefly that I voted against the augmentation; for permit me here to observe, that while I am an advocate for putting down all useless & expensive officers, my decided opinion ever has been, that we should pay well those we do retain—this in my judgment is right—it is just—I believe it to be politic, and I am sure it is sound republicanism. Our situation is different now from what it was in '99; none of the causes which I have mentioned do now exist, and it is for that reason in part, that I shall vote now differently from what I did at that time. There are other reasons, Sir, in forming an opinion on the question now before us, the knowledge of facts which every gentleman must possess, and his own experience thereon, must furnish the best data, and assist his judgment more than any observations which can be made on this floor. Every gentleman must know, what are the official duties of our public officers, and every gentleman must feel what are the expenses of living at this place, and from thence what is a proper compensation. I believe, Sir, that most gentlemen will unite with me in saying, that those who inform us that the expenses of living are less than they were in '99, that they are less in Washington than they were in Philadelphia are woefully mistaken, experience has taught us the contrary, and if it has not to other gentlemen, I congratulate them thereon. Sir, there is one consideration which has not been mentioned, which although not conclusive, I own has some weight with me. When these gentlemen, some of them at least, came into office, these were the salaries then established; they had reason to conclude they would be continued, except there were good reasons to the contrary. None, Sir, do exist; and while no attempt is made to raise salaries, according to the constant practice heretofore, while the expenses are at least equal to what they ever were, and the income niences of living greater, I do think it would be unjust now to diminish. For these reasons I shall vote for leaving the salaries as they now are, altho' I voted against the increase in '99, under the then situation of the country. Mr. GOWARD. I did not think of rising to day, nor should I now rise but for the remarks made by the gentleman from Virginia. I have no necessity for making an apology to the House for any apparent inconsistency of vote on this occasion, as I have never before voted on the subject, not having had, when the bill alluded to passed, the honor of a seat on this floor. To me, however, the reasons of the honorable gentleman appear very inconclusive. He lays, that in 1799 such was the situation of the country, that every citizen was called upon to make a sacrifice of his personal interests. But if the situation of the country was at that period such as called for sacrifices, was it not also such as required the incurring additional expenses and new debts, and is not our present situation such as requires a payment of the debts then contracted? The gentleman has also observed, that those now in office accepted their places under an expectation that the old salaries would be continued. Strange! Did they not know, that the law fixing those salaries was limited in its duration. They cannot, therefore, with any appearance of justice, say that the good faith of the government is pledged to continue those salaries. I apprehend on the contrary they had good reason to expect they would be discontinued, because those very gentlemen had declared to the nation, that the expenses of the government had been profligate, that the salaries of public officers had been too high, and they ought to have calculated that the system of economy they are for applying to others would also be extended to them. The other reason, alleged by the gentleman, the present increased expense of living, is not correct. Whatever the present expenses may be, it is not probable that the expenses for the ensuing two or three years will be so great as those which succeeded the passage of the law proposed to be re-enacted. The greatest part of the European world was then at war—now there is peace; and it may reasonably be expected, that there will be a gradual appreciation of money, and that the price of articles of consumption and rents will fall. I do not believe that all the salaries are too high; but I believe that some are, and that the proportion between them is not correct. For these reasons I am compelled to vote against the whole bill. Mr. SMILIE. The Yeas and Nays are called by gentlemen, and I am glad of it. I have no dissidence to record my opinion. I am happy that in my vote on this occasion, I shall not be obliged to depart from the principle on which I have always acted, viz. that it is beneficial to the community, that the officers of government should be supported in a respectable manner. I never deviated from this principle either in the legislature of Pennsylvania, or in Congress, excepting in one instance, for which I can easily account. Nor have I ever varied my vote in consequence of any particular person being in office; for I have always considered the emoluments allowed as attached to the office, and not to the officer. The case to which I allude is the compensation given to the judges last year. I voted for a smaller one than that which obtained. But as I was adverse to the establishment, and thought it would soon be let slide, I do not think the vote given on that occasion a deviation from the principle. I believe it is good policy in a republican government to support our public officers, as to command the full talents of the country. Many of the officers, whose salaries are fixed in this bill, are of this character, and on whose talents depend in a great degree the honor and safety of the government. I believe salaries ought to be neither so high as to make the fortune of the officer, or so low as to disable an individual from living comfortably. This is the golden mean. I am not a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, to see how the sentiments of gentlemen vary with circumstances. We had some time since before us a bill for reducing the compensations of certain collectors of ports. I know that on that occasion many members were in favour of reducing some of the compensations; but I do not recollect that any member was for reducing the compensation of those collectors who received within 5,000 dollars. And yet now we find gentlemen opposing the same allowance to these high and respectable officers. I believe this measure will prove perfectly agreeable to the people, and that it will be approved by their good sense. Much has been said about the expenses of living, and some gentlemen have laid those expenses have not increased. But I have only to appeal to themselves to know whether the expenses of living here are not greater than in Philadelphia. For my part I have experienced a considerable increase; and I have no reason to infer that other gentlemen have not felt the same increase. Mr. T. MORRIS. I shall vote against the bill, not because I object to the greater part of the salaries, but because the bill is so drawn as not to enable us to discriminate respecting the several salaries, being obliged to vote in lump for or against the whole of it; It is not material to me whether the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Dawson) has acted consistently or not. Be that as it may, I must act from my own conviction. I am desirous of making a necessary and proper provision for our public officers. I would not even deny to the present Secretary of the Treasury the additional allowance of this bill because, when, on this floor, he denied it to his predecessor. To the salary of the Secretary of the Navy I would be glad to make an addition, because I believe that his duties are as laborious as those of the other secretaries. As to the expense of living, I do not believe it is comparatively so great to the officers provided for in this bill as to us, as they make arrangements for the whole year.
Mr. ALSTON. The very reason which will induce the gentleman to give his vote against the passage of the bill upon your table, is the reason which induces me to give it my support and assent. For if the salary of any one of the officers which that bill contemplates the continuing in force, was to be changed or lessened, I would most assuredly vote against the whole bill. I have heard no objection specifically made, to any one of the salaries, except that of the attorney general, and if even an alteration had been made in his salary, from what had been heretofore established by law, I should give my negative to the bill. The uniform practice of reviving and continuing old laws in force for a longer time ever since the establishment of the present government, has been the very course now pursued by the committee of revival and unfinished business, who reported this bill. I can see no reason why the present officers of government should not receive the same compensation that had heretofore been allowed to others. I really believe that, if gentlemen were to go into an investigation of the salary of every officer, which it was proposed to continue in force, that they would be satisfied, that a saving could not be made worth the detail of a bill, and that if the alteration which gentlemen contended for, had been made in the form of the bill, and the smallest alteration had been made in the salary of any one of the officers, from that which they had heretofore been accustomed to receive, it would have been in my opinion, a sufficient cause, to justify a rejection of the bill. I therefore hope the bill may be permitted to pass in its present form. Mr. TALLMADGE. I am against the passage of the bill, because I think the form of it improper, and because I do not believe that the reasons now exist which formerly induced the legislature to pass the law now proposed to be revived. My first objection arises from the rejection of every amendment that has been offered. Had the amendments prevailed I should have voted for the great outlines of the bill. I am a friend to liberal salaries; but inasmuch as we are prevented from apportioning the salaries, I am against the whole bill. With respect to my second objection, I must remark that the old salaries were fixed on war prices; and this was the reason why the legislature limited the duration of the old law to three years, expecting that by the removal of the test of government, and the termination of the war, a reduction in the expenses of living would take place. I cannot give into the idea that the expenses here are greater than in Philadelphia. But, provisions, and labour, are certainly lower here than there, and the effects of peace will make them still lower. I will not say that I shall be influenced to vote against the bill because one of the officers voted against the augmentation. Such prejudices shall have no weight with me. I have made these remarks, because I am unwilling that my vote should go abroad, without my reasons against the bill. If gentlemen had given us an opportunity to vary the compensation, I will not say that I would not have finally assented to the bill, and if the bill had been detailed, and a majority of the house had agreed to all its parts as it now stands, I might even then have assented to it. But under existing circumstances I cannot.
Mr. BACON. Having heretofore expressed my own sentiments on the subject of salaries and compensations for public services in general, in a government like ours, I should not have attempted to say any thing further on the question had it not been from a consideration of the manner in which the resolution has been treated, which I had the honor yesterday, to lay before the house. Although that resolution has been committed to a special committee, yet, from the manner in which it has been treated by gentlemen on both sides, and in all parts of the house, it seems to be apparent that there exists almost a unanimous determination not to make any reduction from our own pay. I conceive it to be highly important, not only that legislative bodies should act, but that they should appear to act with uniformity. And in nothing is this uniformity of conduct more important than in the apportionment of compensations for services among the various descriptions of men who perform them. The appearance of partiality in the legislature, especially in their own favor, is peculiarly odious; and in proportion as it is odious, it is hurtful to the government. No evidence has yet been adduced to shew that the present apportionment of salaries and compensations is not equal and just. If it is not, who but former majorities were responsible for any inequalities that may exist? The present apportionment is the result of actual experiment, which is said to be the best evidence with respect to propriety of conduct in the management of human affairs. At the commencement of the government, the pay of the members of congress was set the same as

it now stands. The salaries of those civil officers which are named in the present bill, were then considerably lower than what they are now. The establishment of salaries and compensations which was first made, neither was, nor could be, any other than an establishment of experiment. It was found by experience, after several years practice, that the apportionment was unequal, that the pay of the Senators and representatives was out of proportion to that of the officers named in the bill. Our predecessors, therefore, who were then in the majority, increased the salaries of the latter, while they permitted their own pay to remain as it was at established. Thus, it will be presumed, was found to be, in fact, the case, until we conclude that the congress at that time established a system of proportional , the most distant idea of which may not be indulged.
It has been, and still is, a prevailing opinion with me, that in a government like ours, the salaries and compensations established by law are generally too high, and I sincerely wish that they might be uniformly reduced. At the time, I cannot feel myself justified in giving my vote to reduce the compensation of officers, while there appears to be no disposition to lower our own. This, in my opinion, would indicate an undue regard to our own private interest, and give occasion to our adversaries to speak reproachfully of us.
Mr. Nicholson. I will state but a single fact. I have heard only one salary objected to by gentlemen as too high, viz. that of the attorney general. They have informed the house that the annual allowances of 600 dollars has been made that officer in consideration of services rendered under the British treaty. It is true that sum was allowed in 1797. At that time the salary was 2,000 dollars. In 1799, when the law, now proposed to be revived, was passed, the salary was fixed at 3,000 dollars. The then attorney general, and the present attorney general, both drew from that time 3,000 dollars. But the operations under the 6th article of the British treaty must now cease, and of course the additional 600 dollars must also cease; the salary will hereafter stand as fixed by the act of 1799, and there can exist no reason, in consequence of a diminution of services, arising from the termination of the operations of the 6th article of the treaty, for a diminution of the fixed salary.
Mr. Elmer said he had thought the amendment offered proper, but as it had not been carried, he would pursue a different line of conduct from that pursued by the gentleman from Connecticut. Though he might not be of opinion that there was an exact proportion preferred in the compensations made to the several officers, yet as he was satisfied with the general provisions of the bill, he would vote for it.
Mr. Calhoun declared himself in favor, and Mr. Hallings against the passage of the bill; when the question was taken by yeas and nays, and carried—Yeas 50—nays 22.
Notice is hereby given,
To all persons having claims against Mr. NOLLY YOUNG deceased, to render them properly authenticated to Robert Brent, in the City of Washington; and all those indebted to him are requested to make payment.
BENJ. YOUNG, } Exrs. NICHOLS YOUNG, } ROBERT BRENT, } April 19, 1802. epgw
STATE OF MARYLAND.
Mark Pringle, vs. Nathaniel Washington, and Margaret his wife, Henderson Sim Butler and Susannah Greenfield Butler his wife, and John Trueman Hawkins.  IN CHANCERY, April 10, 1802.
THE object of this petition is to obtain a decree for recording a deed executed on the twenty ninth day of August in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety four, by George Frazier Hawkins, formerly of Prince George County deceased, for conveying unto William Russell of Baltimore county and his heirs, all that tract or parcel of land called Calcutta, then lying in Frederick county, containing in the patent thereof three thousand two hundred acres, of land more or less, contained within the courses in the said patent mentioned; & it is since the filing of the said petition reported that the said George Frazier Hawkins, John Trueman Hawkins, Susannah Greenfield Butler, and Henderson Sim Butler, all reside in the City of Washington, in the district of Columbia, out of the state of Maryland.
It is thereupon adjudged and ordered, that the petitioner cause a copy of this order to be inquired on in each of three successive weeks before the first day of May next, in the National Intelligencer; in order that the said George Frazier Hawkins, John Trueman Hawkins, Susannah Greenfield Butler, and Henderson Sim Butler, may have notice of his application to the court, and of the substance and object of the petition, and be warned to appear in this court either in person or by solicitor, on or before the first Tuesday of October next, to show cause wherefore a decree should not pass as prayed.
(True Copy) Tch. SAMUEL H. HOWARD, Reg. Cur. Can. April 19, 1802.
WASHINGTON CITY.
MONDAY, April 19, 1802.
Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq. to the Secretary of State, dated February 18, 1802.
"The Commissioners on the seventh article of the treaty of 1794, have re-assembled and are proceeding to business."
WHEREAS the Sire Charles Godfrey Palk, and Mr. Johann Ernst Christian Schultze, have respectively returned the Exequaturs which they had received, recognizing them as Consuls of his majesty, the King of Prussia, in the United States, notice is hereby given that their functions, as such, have accordingly ceased.
GIVEN under my hand at the Department of State, this 13th day of April 1802. (Signed) JAMES MADISON.
BY AUTHORITY.
At a meeting on Monday the fifteenth day of February, one thousand eight hundred and two, of the Commissioners under the 7th Article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between his Britannic Majesty, and the United States, it was ordered; that the following notice be published in such American papers as the Government of the United States shall direct.
"All persons interested in the provisions of the seventh article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, are requested to take notice, that the Commissioners appointed in pursuance of said article, are ready to proceed in the execution of the trust assigned them at their office in Gray's Inn-Square, Gray's Inn."
Extract of a letter from Tobias Lear, Esq. to the Secretary of State, dated Cape Francois, March 29th 1802.
"The Prefect yesterday gave orders to the Custom house, that no American vessel should be admitted to an entry until the captain should have exhibited his papers to me, and received a certificate from my office, that his vessel is American property—and that none should depart without my passport."
"March 30th 1802." "P. S. There was a pretty severe engagement yesterday about ten miles from hence, between the troops which arrived the day before, which had been sent out, and the blacks, in which the latter had their camp broken up, and it is said left upwards of 400, left on the field of battle. Christopher, who commanded, is said to have fled. The troops which arrived yesterday have marched out this morning."
"Accounts from the South Bay, that general Delphin (a black general) has been obliged to abandon a strong hold, which he held near St. Marcs, after losing 800 men. We do not know exactly where Delphin is."
"Two ships, of what is called the Batavian division, arrived yesterday, and the signal is now out for several others."
The proceedings of the federal legislature have developed another great feature of the republican system. An act has passed the House of Representatives "making provision for the redemption of the WHOLE DEBT of the United States," by which seven million three hundred thousand dollars are annually appropriated to its discharge until it shall be totally extinguished.
It has been said that the present administration were hostile to the payment of the public debt; that they were hostile to the establishment of national credit; that as they evidently desired, so when they possessed the power, they would intentionally pursue every measure calculated to subvert the funding system.
Citizens of America! Mark these calamities; compare them with the ACTS of a republican legislature; and decide for yourselves the respect which ought to be paid to reproaches that emanate from party.
The republicans, when out of power, declared their indisposition to every unnecessary or wanton increase of debt, accompanied by a solemn desire, by measures the most effectual to diminish and ultimately extinguish the existing debt. These were their professions. The public are now possessed of their acts; and the most perfect harmony is found to subsist between them. Men out of power, have not deceived the people with regard to their conduct when in power. It is to be regretted that the history of the world furnishes few parallel precedents. But it is to be hoped, however, that the precedent is of such a nature as shall hereafter be observed not only by those who created, but by those who shall find it their interest to imitate it.
It is somewhat extraordinary, nor can charity forbear to notice it, that NINETEEN members of the House of Representatives, all of whom are federal, and most of whom have heretofore professed an ardent desire to support the national credit, and to discharge the debt, voted against the bill; while every republican member in the house voted for it.
THE following are the names of the NINETEEN gentlemen who voted AGAINST THE BILL:
Messrs. Boudé, Campbell, Dana, Davenport, Dennis, Foster, Gaddard, Griswold, Hallings, Hemphill, Lowndes, L. R. Morris, T. Morris, Piquet, J. C. Smith, Stratton, Wadsworth, L. Williams, Woods.
The following are the names of the FIFTY FIVE gentlemen who voted FOR THE BILL:
Messrs. Allon, Archer, Bacon, Bailey, B'loop, Brown, Butler, Claiborne, Clay, Condit, Davis, Dawson, Dickson, Elsen-dorf, Elmer, Eustis, Fowler, Gray, Hanna, D. Heister, J. Heister, Helmes, Henderson, Hoge, Holland, Holmes, Huger, Jackson, Lieb, Milledge, Mitchell, Moore, Mott, New, Newton, jun. Nicholson, Randolph, jun. Smith, I. Smith, J. Smith (of Vaug.) J. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stanley, Staunton, jun. Stewart, Taliaferro, jun. Tilling-hast, Thompson, A. Trigg, J. Trigg, Van Cortlandt, Van Nels, Van Horne, R. Williams.
Powerful is truth, and it will prevail!
Mr. Smith. In the National Intelligencer of the 6th instant, it is remarked that "federalism has triumphed in Massachusetts." That, "it will be observed, that the number of votes given on the present election is greatly inferior to that given on the last." That "this can be ascribed to but one of two causes, or to both conjointly. The one, is the deprivation of a large number of citizens of the right of voting; the other, the indifference of the citizens to vote at this election, compared with their zeal to vote on the preceding election."
The foregoing statements are erroneous, and truth requires that they should be corrected. It appears by the votes from sixty two towns, published in the Boston Centinel of the 7th instant, that in those sixty two towns, there was given eleven hundred and four votes more for Governor this year than was given last year. It is equally certain, that a large number of citizens in that State have been deprived of the right of voting. The qualification of voters for Governor, Senators, &c. is prescribed by the constitution of that State, and no law has ever been passed, or attempted to be passed in that State, to alter or impair the constitutional qualification of the voters.
VERITAS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U. S.
WEDNESDAY, April 14, 1802.
(Sketch continued.)
In committee of the whole on the bill making provision for the redemption of the debt of the United States.
During the previous debate, some remarks fell from Mr. Randolph, implying an opinion, that the act of May 1795 so far continued in force as to authorize the commissioners of the sinking fund to borrow five million of dollars, of which only 20,000 dollars have been yet loaned.
Mr. Bayard moved to strike out of the 4th section, the words, "to borrow certain sums, and to sell the shares of the bank of the United States belonging to the United States."
Mr. Bayard declared his object to be to prevent any legislative construction that the provisions of the above act authorizing the loan, remained in force.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Bayard and Griswold; and opposed by Messrs. Randolph and Nicholson.
Motion lost—yeas 28—nays 37.
The committee then rose, and reported the bill, which the House immediately took up.
Mr. Bayard moved to strike out the following words in the 4th section, viz. "Nor the power given to them by an act entitled, An act making provision for the payment of certain debts of the United States, to borrow certain sums and to sell the shares of the bank of the United States belonging to the United States, in the manner, on the terms, and for the purposes authorized by the said act" (being the same motion made in the committee, as above stated.)
Mr. Bayard called for the yeas and nays; which were taken, and were—yeas 27—nays 46.
Mr. Bayard moved to amend the 4th section by adding, "and provided further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive any act, or part of an act authorizing the loan of money, and heretofore expired."
Mr. Randolph said, he had no objection to the amendment. Carried without a division.
Mr. Griswold moved to strike out of the 5th section, the following words, "to contract either with the bank of the United States, or with any other public institution, or with individuals, for the payment in Holland, of the whole or any part, of the principal of the said Dutch debt and of the interest and charges accruing on the same, as the said demands become due, on such terms as the said commissioners shall think most advantageous to the United States; or—"
The yeas and nays were required by Mr. Griswold, and were, yeas 26—nays 48.
Mr. Griswold moved to amend the 4th section, which authorizes a re-loan
of the installments of Dutch debt, by adding the following words, as a limitation of the power, viz. "in case the advance upon exchange between the United States and Holland shall exceed 5 per cent and in case difficulty shall occur in making remittances" and called the yeas and nays.
Mr. Randolph moved to amend the amendment by inserting or instead of and .
On this motion the yeas and nays were called, &c. were, yeas 47—nays 22.
Mr. Bayard moved to amend the amendment, in order to define the term "difficulty," by adding "such as shall render it impracticable to make remittances of any installments becoming due on Dutch debt,"—motion lost—yeas 20.
Mr. Nicholson professed himself desirous of accommodating the reasonable wishes of gentlemen. He therefore moved to amend the amendment by adding "in case such difficulties shall occur, as in the opinion of the commissioners shall render the purchase of bills inexpedient."
Carried without a division.
The amendment being made to read as follows; viz. "in case the advance upon exchange between the United States and Holland, shall exceed 5 per cent, or in case such difficulties shall occur as in the opinion of the commissioners shall render the purchase of bills inexpedient."
Mr. Griswold moved a division of the question on the word or , and required the yeas and nays, which were taken on the member of the amendment preceding the word or , which, on the question being taken, was lost—yeas 19—nays 49.
Mr. Bayard said, he supposed the question then was on the second member of the amendment.
The SPEAKER said, it fell of course from the vote already given.
Mr. Bayard said, he would then move that part of the amendment as a distinct motion.
The SPEAKER declared such a motion out of order, as the House had already decided upon it.
Mr. Bayard moved to strike out the 6th section, which authorizes the employment of an agent in Europe, for the purpose of transacting any business relative to the discharge of the Dutch debt, &c. with an annual compensation not exceeding 3,000 dollars.
The question on striking out was taken, and lost—yeas 18—nays 43.
Mr. Bayard moved to amend the 5th section, by striking out fourth , and inserting eighth per cent, being the commission allowed for purchasing bills.
Mr. Bayard advocated and Mr. Randolph opposed the motion, when the question was taken and lost—yeas 19.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.
FRIDAY, April 16, 1802.
Three engrossed bills; viz. "to abolish the board of commissioners in the city of Washington, and to make provision for the repayment of loans made by the state of Maryland, for the use of the city." "for the relief of Fulwar Skipwith;" and "for the relief of Lewis Touissant;" were read the third time and passed.
Mr. S. Smith , from the committee of Commerce and Manufacture reported on the petition of sundry calico printers of Philadelphia; of sundry citizens of New-Jersey and Delaware—of sundry cordwainers of Massachusetts and Delaware—of Samuel Corp—of sundry merchants of Richmond and Manchester—of sundry shoemakers of Lynn. Mat. of Thomas Stagg jun. and Thomas Snell—and on a resolution of the house of Feb. 18th, to enquire into the expediency of creating a port of entry at Beaufort.
Ordered that the consideration of the said memorials and petitions, and resolution of the House, be postponed until the 3d Monday in November next.
MESSAGE from the President.
Gentlemen of the H. Representatives,
I now transmit the papers desired in your resolution of the 6th instant. Those respecting the Bercenu will sufficiently explain themselves. The officer charged with her repairs states, in his letter received August 27, 1801, that he had been led by circumstances, which he explains, to go considerably beyond his orders. In questions between nations who have no common umpire but reason, some thing must often be yielded of mutual opinion to enable them to meet in a common point.
The allowance which had been proposed to the officers of that vessel being represented as too small for their daily necessities, and still more so as the means of paying, before their departure, debts contracted with our citizens for subsistence, it was requested on their behalf that the daily pay of each might be the measure of their allowance. This being solicited and reimbursement assured by the agent of their nation, I deemed that the indulgence would have a propitious effect in the moment of returning friendship. The sum of 870 dollars and 83 cents was accordingly furnished them for the five months of past captivity, and a proportional allowance authorized until their embarkation.
TH: JEFFERSON.
The accompanying documents are very long. They were ordered to be printed.
Messengers and papers accompanying it, were then referred to Messrs. Eustis,
Tallege, Thompson, Campbell, and Hanna.
The House went into committee of the whole, Mr. J. C. Smith in the chair, on the report of the committee to whom were referred a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, and sundry documents relative to the claim of Comfort Sands & others, after considerable debate on taking up the business at this late period of the session. Considerable debate took place in the committee, when modified the report, which the house agreed to with an amendment. As the relations agreed to are long, we decline their immediate insertion. They authorize under prescribed limitations, the institution of an amicable suit, before the circuit court of the United States, for the final adjustment of the claim.
SATURDAY, April 17, 1802.
The house went into committee of the whole—Mr. Hanna in the chair, on the bill making certain provisions for the widows and children of the officers lost on board the Infatigable and Pecker, &c.
Several amendments were made in committee, when the house was resumed, and the bill, as amended, was ordered to a third reading.
Mr. S. Smith reported a bill to amend the act allowing compensations to those employed in the collection of the customs, &c.
The bill among other provisions directs that hereafter the clear annual receipts of a collector shall not exceed 5,000, of a naval officer 3,500, and of a surveyor 3,000 dollars.
The house went into committee of the whole—Mr. L. R. Morris in the chair, on the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1802.
Mr. Randolph moved to fill up several blanks in the bill, with specified sums, which were all agreed to, the total of which amounts to 900,000 dollars.
Mr. Dana moved to insert 305,000 dollars, for the purchase of timber, &c. for the seventy fours, the sum in the first estimate of the Secretary of the Navy, instead of 195,000 dollars, in the last estimate.
Motion lost—yeas 14.
Mr. Dana moved to insert 100,000 dollars, for Navy docks, &c. the sum in the first estimate of the Secretary, instead of 50,000 dollars, in the last estimate.
Motion lost—yeas 17.
Dr. Davis moved to add a new section to the bill, authorizing the secretary of the Navy, with the approbation of the President of the United States, to carry the excess of any specific appropriation beyond the sum expended to the deficiency arising under any other specific appropriation of the bill.
Messrs. Randolph, Mason, and Pison, opposed; and Messrs. Eustis, and S. Smith, supported the motion, which was lost.
The committee rose, when Mr. Huger moved to disagree to the report of the committee for filling the blank for contingent expenses of the navy with 50,000 dollars, with the view of filling it up with 100,000 dollars. This motion was supported by Messrs. Huger and Dana, and opposed by Mr. Randolph.
When the question was taken by yeas and nays, and lost—Yeas 39—Nays 24.
Mr. Huger objected to the appropriation of 195,000 dollars to purchase timber for 74's &c. which was, however, agreed to—yeas 40: as was 50,000 dollars for docks, &c. also objected to by Messrs. Huger and Dana.
Mr. S. Smith moved a new section authorizing the Secretary of the Navy, with the approbation of the President, to apply any excess of the appropriation, beyond the expenditure of the specific sums appropriated, to the repair of vessels in actual service, if the exigency of the service shall require it; except the sums appropriated for purchase, &c. of timber for 74's and for the improvement of navy yards and docks—Motion lost.
The bill was then ordered to a third reading on Monday.
Extract of a letter from a member of Congress, dated 7th instant, to a gentleman in Baltimore.
"It is not true that France has yet demanded payment for the Insurgent."
"It is not true that the French charge d'affaires has solicited a loan for six millions of dollars. It is not believed that he has any authority to ask a loan of any kind, even if wanted."
"It is true that the charge d'affaires of the French republic was desirous of selling bills on France to our treasury; but the secretary had no occasion for bills at present, and did not purchase."
"It is true that a sum was unanimously voted to carry into effect the convention with France. The largest item of their demands is for the proceeds of prizes taken by our public ships of war, carried into the British Islands and there sold directly contrary to law, without any form of trial whatever."
The mode was, the captains called a survey on the prizes, and the surveyors never failed to declare the prize unfit to proceed to America. She was then sold, the captors received there one half of the prize money—the other half was paid into the treasury; so that in fact we lose only that half received by the crews of our ships.
"This improper conduct was not only winked at, but countenanced."

(Continued from first page) situation? If he does my answer is ready for him. Let gentlemen speak out; let them leave nothing to be guessed at; and we shall know on what ground to meet them. Language that can be made to mean any thing or nothing, should not be used on this floor, and hardly merits notice.
There is one other remark of the gentleman in which he has been more explicit and which I shall beg leave to notice. He tells us if we pass this law, the judges will declare it unconstitutional, and he knows many enlightened citizens who are prepared to support the judges by force. From other quarters we have been told, that the bayonet must rule, if the law does not; that is, what these gentlemen in their profound wisdom think proper to call 'the law.' This is a strange language to be used by men who profess to be the exclusive friends of order and good government, and who promised to meet us, robed in the full garb of civilian meekness. But it is imagined that these threats are to drive us from our purpose? The gentleman expects not to appeal the stout hearts of his adversaries? But alas if we will not regard our wives and children, Sir, when we despair of alarm, we did not mean to conjure up a mad head and bloody noses to terrify the women and children? Even if he should produce the effect, it would be a party triumph. Yes, Sir, we will regard them; and we can show that regard in no way more effectually than by protecting the constitution from its enemies. If therefore there are men among us who are resolved to destroy this union, which has been cemented by the best blood of the nation; if they will burst asunder those bands of brotherhood and affection, by which we have been heretofore united; I now warn them, that we shall not tamely submit to it. We have lived with them as brethren, and should reluctantly interpose as enemies; but we will not be Zerobabel by the blood of bayonets with which they have threatened to overwhelm us. The aim of the Union has already been pointed out; one infraction, it will prove strong enough to chastise rebellion. Punishment is due to traitors, and I bitter myself the government will be able to inflict it. But if, unfortunately, I should be mistaken if its powers should be too feeble to repress superior numbers, deluded by the artifice of ambitious men, and enlisted under the banners of an aspiring faction, let them this day be informed, that they will find us no easy prey. Let this threatened storm approach when it may, if we cannot check its progress, we will rally round the constitution and perish in its defence. For my part, I have formed no hope beyond the existence of this constitution.
The gentleman from Delaware has elatently cautioned us against the exercise of the repealing power which we now contend for. His charity leads him to believe that our sole object is not the removal of the judges; but he intends us to remember that other men may follow us, who may consider this as a precedent, and will repeal a law merely for the purpose of diminishing judges, against whom an antipathy may be felt, as he says was lately the case in the state of Maryland. Whether the legislature of that state had a constitutional right to repeal the law, it is not now necessary to enquire; because by settling the principle of congressional right in the present case, we settle the principle of legislative right in Maryland. But I shall undertake to say that the law of Maryland stood upon a very different basis from that now under consideration. The law of Maryland appointing judges, was a temporary one; that of Congress is permanent. Prior to the year 1789, the county courts of Maryland were held by justices of the peace, in the annual appointment of the governor and council; but in the year 1789 a law passed new organizing the courts by declaring that they should be filled by judges holding their commissions during good behavior. This law was to continue in force for three years only. At the expiration of this time, the law was again continued for three years more. In 1796 it was further continued for three years, and in 1799 had its duration extended, I believe for three or four years longer. Now at the expiration of any one of those periods, it was completely and undeniably in the power of the legislature to suffer the law to die a natural death. There was no power on earth competent to the task of compelling the legislature to renew it. This left the judges entirely dependent on the will of the legislature at the end of every three years; or in other words they were to hold their offices so long as those offices were in existence, and the commission of the judge as well as the existence of the office depended on the will of the legislative body. From these considerations, it may, perhaps, be fairly inferred that the right of repeal in Maryland was less doubtful than the right which we now contend for. I can all be permitted to observe that although there might have been some gentlemen desirous of repealing the law, merely to dismiss the judges, yet this desire was not universal, if we can decide upon the intention from the
effect. Independent of some valuable provisions which were introduced, and which the people of the state have long been contending for, (I mean a limitation of the jurisdiction of the general courts) the removals that have taken place have not been directed at the political opinions of the men. The state is divided into five districts, in each of which there is a chief or presiding judge. Of these five, four were, what is called, Federal and one Democratic in his politics. Two of these federal judges have been continued in office by a grant of new commissions to them, two federal have been displaced, and the only democratic judge among them has been displaced also; although the law was repealed by a democratic legislature, and the removal made by a democratic executive. I shall however take the liberty of saying, that if the right to repeal is not repugnant to the constitution, in my opinion each may exist which would excise the legislature in repealing a law, barely for the purpose of removing a judge, as it will readily be conceived, there may be many objections to a man which would render him unfit to be a judge, although they might not come within the technical meaning of the word misbehaviour . These objections I will not detail, left it might be invidiously supposed, I intended to point them at those gentlemen who have lately been removed from office in Maryland.
I will now exhibit the indulgence of the committee while I direct my observations to the constitutionality of the bill on the table. The objections which have been raised on this ground, although urged with much force, have been uniform in their nature, and insisted on by every gentleman who has spoken in opposition to the repeal. I shall most readily admit that our government is organized differently from any other in the known world. Most writers on government have considered the judicial power to be a branch of the executive, although its administration was entrusted to other hands. This is certainly the opinion of Judge Blackstone, who declares the nation to be the fountain of justice, and the king the reservoir, from which it is to be distributed through such variety of channels as he may think proper. Woodeson in his lectures seems to think differently, because he speaks of the judicial, as a branch totally distinct from the executive power. But DeSolme agrees with Blackstone, and I rather suppose this to be the correct opinion as it relates to England; for it must be admitted that the king has the power of erecting courts at pleasure by letters patent, and to appoint the judges; and although parliament may have a right to erect courts likewise, yet the consent of the king is here manifestly given. In this sense the President, the Senate, and the house of representatives in their legislative capacity; and the President and Senate, in their executive capacity, may likewise be considered the reservoir of justice, as the former have the power of erecting courts at pleasure, and the latter have the right of appointing the judges. I do not know, however, that it is material to contend about the distribution of powers; it is certain that by our constitution Executive and legislative powers are often blended in the same persons, and in some instances powers usually executive are constituted totally legislative; as the power of declaring war, &c. We are not therefore to resort to the opinions of writers on this subject, but are to look to the instrument itself which we are bound to support, as well by the solemn obligation of an oath, as our duty as men, and a regard to our own welfare and happiness as citizens.
One ground which gentlemen have taken, and which they seem to rely on with much confidence, is, that the inferior courts were established by the constitution; that they grew out of the constitution as necessarily as the supreme court, and therefore can only be put down by means of a change in the constitution. I do not know that I use the precise language, but this was certainly the idea meant to be conveyed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania on my right (Mr. Hemphill) and by several others. To this point therefore I will direct some few remarks.
The 1st section of the 3d article of the constitution declares, that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Every word of this section has derived an importance from the course which the present discussion has taken, and every word has been commented on over and over again. I will readily agree with the gentleman from Connecticut, that this clause gives no powers to Congress, and I shall hereafter contend that the powers of congress are by no means restricted by it. The whole article is consumed in defining the extent to which the judicial power shall run, and in declaring by what institutions that power shall be exercised. The authority to establish inferior courts is given by the 8th section of the 1st article, and the power of organizing the supreme court is given by the last clause of the same section, authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary for carrying into
(Continued on second page)
Notice is hereby given, THAT the co-partnership between William Moffat and Ebenezer Nesbitt, of Pensylvania, is this day dissolved by mutual consent. All persons indebted to the late company, are desired to make payments to Ebenezer Nesbitt, and all persons who have demands will call on him for payment. WILLIAM MOFFAT, EBENEZER NESBITT. Washington, April 2. rax3t
Public Sale. By Order of the Orphan's Court of Prince George County, Maryland, will be sold to the highest bidder on a credit of nine months at the dwelling house of the late Robert in the City of Washington, on Tuesday the 27th inst. at 11 o'clock A. M.—ALL the personal property of Lewis Williamson deceased; consisting of different articles. The purchaser to give bond with good security for payment of the purchase money. CATHARINE WILLIAMSON, Administratrix. Washington, April 1, 1802. rax3t
BOLTING CLOTHS. A GENERAL ASSORTMENT OR BOLTING CLOTHS Of the best qualities and latest importations, are kept for sale by OLIVER EVANS, at the corner of Market and Ninth Streets, Philadelphia; and BY OLIVER & EVAN EVANS, With BENJAMIN SINGLUFF, 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. ep3w80&9w
THOMAS GARTRELL, 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, callicoes, lawns, downes, &c. and engaged workmen of superior talents his unexampled attention shall be given to merit patronage. Central Hill, next house east of Mrs. Finch's boarding house, and Pennsylvania Avenue between the President's square and Seven Buildings. Dec. 7, 1801. ep3t
Water Lot for Sale. A VALUABLE Lot on the Eastern Byram, midway between South Capitol Street and the Eastern Branch in the George Town Avenue. No situation can excel this in point of convenience to a whole sale merchant, being near the junction of the canal and the waters of said branch. The price will be moderate for each if early application is made—title justifiable. FOR SALE, upwards of 1000 Lots in the best situations in the City. Enquire of Thomas Henry Couveyance, near the Treasury Department. April 9, 1802. rax3w
New Invention. The IMPROVED SAW-MILL, for which the subscriber has obtained a Patent. THIS improvement saves the sawyer much labour, and the work is also much more expeditious. The log being slubbered, turned down, and the saw started, the whole operation proceeds without further manual aid; for the instant the cut is finished, the log moves back, and at the same time is guaged to the utmost exactness by the machine, ready for another cut in two thirds of a minute. The saw resumes its action in the log, and thus moves in alternate succession until the whole be cut up in any given dimensions, at which time the mill shuts up if required, or at any number of cuts for which the sawyer prepares, for his attendance is unnecessary. Any person or persons inclining to purchase the privilege of erecting this valuable and simple machine, or of adding the improvement, which may readily be added to any saw Mill already in use, will please to apply to the subscriber at West Brandywine Bridge, on the Philadelphia and Lancaster turnpike road, Pennsylvania or to Dr. Thornton, commissioner, City of Washington. MOSES COATES. Washington, April 5, 1802. rax21&w
We the Subscribers, inhabitants of Chester county in Pennsylvania, having been called upon by Moses Coates, to view his new invented plan of framing, were eye witnesses to the following facts:— First, that in consequence of hands playing on a rag iron attached to the common rag wheel, the saw is relieved from the log. Secondly, that by the action of another principle the log is moved the required distance for the next cut, and that the saw is kept in motion after the log is slubbered and turned down, until the frame is cut into the kind of boards required. The whole of the above is accomplished by his new invented plan exclusive of manual labour. Francis Gardner, John Fleming, E.C. Isaac Coates, Thomas Vickers, William Billy.
FOR SALE, An excellent Blacksmith, together with his wife and three likely children, to wit, two boys, to and 8 years of age, and a girl four. The woman has been employed altogether in washing and ironing. An examination of the blacksmith's work will be his best recommendation. To have unnecessary applications the price of the family is 1,400 dollars. M. PETTON. Stafford, March 3, 1802. rax3t
Benjamin Henfrey, RESPECTFULLY informs the citizens of Washington, George Town, and the vicinity, that he will exhibit his NEW MODE OF OBTAINING LIGHT, in a variety of THERMO LAMPS, At Mr. Thompson's new brick house, Pennsylvania Avenue, on Friday evening next, from 5 to 8 o'clock, and will continue every evening until the 21st inst. Tickets to be had at the door; price one dollar, to admit a gentleman twice, or once and bring a Lady. April 14, 1802. ep3t
For Sale, A NEAT Frame House and Lot, on New Jersey Avenue, square 603 sixteen by twenty-four, consisting of a shop in front with a large bay window, a parlour and clover back on the second floor, two rooms and a closet, and two rooms on the third floor, together with the lot, twenty-one feet three inches front, running back to an alley one hundred and thirteen or fifteen feet, or thereabout—For terms apply to JOHN MINCHIN, N. Jersey Avenue, near the Capitol March 5, 1802. ep3t
NOTICE. THE public are hereby cautioned against the sale of my house on Square No. 422 on Pennsylvania Avenue, advertised by Samuel Baker, on the 27th inst. inst. he, the said Baker, not having complied with the contract entered to in his advertisement; nor has he complied with the terms of an arbitration had on the occasion. The circumstances leading to the same will be made known by application to JOHN HARRISON. April 14, 1802. ep3t
FOR SALE, LOOKING GLASSES & FURNITURE. The subscriber respectfully informs the public, that he has just received from New York various kinds of Looking-Glasses, from 5 to 50 dollars each—Also carved tables, bureaus, &c. of an elegant and fashionable make. He continues to manufacture and sell all kinds of ornaments for chimney-pieces, door casings, cornice pieces, metal tables, &c. &c. GEORGE ANDREWS. April 14, 1802. ep3t
NOTICE. WAS committed to the jail of Washington county, District of Columbia, a negro Man by the name of JESSE, Fry; he belongs to Peyton Wayal of Georgia; is five feet eight inches high, has a scar on each side of his nose, and his back much scarred. The owner of the above slave is desired to come, prove property, pay charges, and take him away; or he will be sold for his fees agreeable to law. DANIEL G. CRENT, Marshal of the district of Columbia. April 14, 1802. ep3w
Public Sale. Will be exposed to Public Sale on the premises at 12 o'clock on Tuesday the 27th inst. A two story brick dwelling house, situated on square No. 432, opposite the new market house, Pennsylvania Avenue, in virtue of a power in me vested by certain articles of agreement executed between me and the present proprietor, John Harrison, for building said House. SAMUEL BAKER. April 12, 1802. ep3t
George-Town, Port Tobacco, and Leonard Town MAIL STAGES.
THE subscribers respectfully inform the public, that they have extended the George-Town and Port Tobacco line of stages to Leonard Town; and that after the 1st of April next, it will leave the Indian King tavern, George-Town, every Monday and Friday at 7 o'clock, A. M. and Thompson's inn, Leonard Town, every Monday & Friday morning at 4 o'clock, meet at Poe's tavern, Port Tobacco, and return to their respective places on Tuesday and Saturdays. Fare for each passenger, with all allowance of 20lb. of baggage, from George Town to Port Tobacco, three dollars and fifty cents, from Port Tobacco to Leonard Town, three dollars—Extra baggage to be paid at the rate of a passenger for 15lb. weight—All baggage to be at the risk of the owner. I am hoped that this undertaking will meet with the approbation and support of the public in general, and particularly the gentlemen of Leonard Town, Port Tobacco, Tiptonway & the neighbourhood of those places when they are assured that there are arrangements made with the proprietors of the Baltimore and Frederick town stages to ensure them a passage in either without delay, by their obedient servants. JOSEPH SEMMES, JAMES THOMPSON. April 12, 1802.
N. B. The subscriber begs leave to acquaint his friends and the public in general, and particularly the gentlemen of the Northward Neck of Virginia, that he has extended the line of stages from this place as far as Ladie's Ferry, opposite Moe's Ferry, to run twice a week, viz. leave the Ferry every Tuesday and Saturday morning and return on Monday and Friday evening. Those gentlemen wishing to travel may depend on finding good drivers and handsome accommodations on the road from the Ferry to this place, and will always be sure of a conveyance on the days above-mentioned during all the month of April, and if sufficient encouragement offers, will be continued by their Obedient humble servant. JOSEPH SEMMES. Georgetown, April 12, 1802. ep3t
To be Rented, And Immediate Possession given. A VERY convenient three story brick house, in a fine airy situation.—Enquire at this office. April 12, 1802. ep3w
For Sale, A NEGRO WOMAN about 38 years of age; she is an excellent Cook, and good washer. For terms apply to the Editor. April 5, 1802. ep3t
BOARDING. Three or four Gentlemen can be accommodated with separate Rooms near the Capitol.—Apply to the Printer. March 19, 1802. ep3w
For Sale, Or to To Let, on Ground Rent for ever, FIFTY LOTS, SITUATE between the President's House and Capitol.—The titles to which is indisputable. ISAAC POLOCK. Dec. 16. ep3t
TO RENT, And possession given immediately. A TWO STORY brick house on F Street near the War Office, containing two parlors, five bed rooms, and a kitchen, with an excellent garden, coach house, stable, &c.—The house is newly painted and papered; it was formerly occupied by Mr. Decker, and lately by Mr. John Brown. Enquire of Clement Dorsey, Esq. George-Town; or of the publisher, who has for sale a well finished three story brick house opposite the Six Buildings, and a variety of City Lots in the most desirable situations. The above House will be sold for less than any gentleman could build it. The payments will be made easy on the whole of the above property. WILLIAM DYER. April 7, 1802. ep3t Building Materials will be taken in part payment. W.D.
Looking Glasses. J. COOK Wishes to inform his friends and the public that he has a large and elegant assortment of Looking Glasses and Prints. FOR SALE, At J. March's Store, High-street, George-Town. THE subjects of the Prints are very interesting, and in superbly gilt frames; and the glasses are of the best qualities, in the most modern and elegant frames, and of any sizes. They are marked at the lowest cash Prices. March 15, 1802. ep3t
Farming Lands for Sale. THE Subscriber would sell about 1000 acres of the 17th 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 Damries. It is of the best 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 timber grass.
Also the tract of land adjacent to the above, late the property of Mr. Thomas Swann of Alexandria, together with about 100 acres of woodland, of the above described tract, making about 1550 acres; the quality and advantages being similar to that. The first mentioned tract will be conveyed to the purchaser free from every encumbrance, a considerable payment in hand will be expected, and the lowest price per acre twenty dollars. Possession to be given the ensuing spring, with a reservation of the growing crop of small grain, but the last mentioned tract will be sold subject to existing Leases for short terms of years, under strict covenants guarding against waste and injury of the property, &c. and subject to the purchase money which will be due for the same to Mr. Swann, with interest, in about 9 years. The payment required in hand is the remainder of the amount, about two thousand pounds; and the price per acre is eighteen dollars.
Also the reversionary interest in the Piedmont Tract, situated below the mountain called the Short Hill, in Loudoun county, consisting of several thousand acres, chiefly under Leases to the occupants, and forming perhaps the best settlement in Virginia, of the same extent, extremely well watered; improved with the best meadows and orchards, and peculiarly adapted to the use of the Planter of Paris. This Land will be held in Lots consisting of one or more tenements, as may best suit purchasers, together with one or more Lots of woodland to be laid out on the S. E. side of the Short Hill for the convenience of any of said tenements that may be scarce of wood. There are several good mill seats upon this tract, which is not more than 55 miles from Alexandria and the City of Washington, and no part of it more than 15 miles from Leesburg. The price per acre will be various, according to the quality and advantages of the Land, and circumstances of the Leases, but an extensive credit will be given by instalments, upon receiving what it may be convenient for the purchasers to pay in hand. It is desired that persons willing to purchase this property, will signify their intentions before this 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 385, besides other very valuable Lots in that City. Application to be made in person, or by Letter, (post paid) directed to Charlottown, Virginia to
FERDINANDO FAIRFAX. Shan. Hill, March 5, 1802. ep3w