The national intelligencer and Washington advertiser. (Washington City [D.C.]), 1804-03-09 00:00:00

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER,
A N D
WASHINGTON ADVERTISER.
Vol. IV. WASHINGTON CITY, PRINTED BY SAMUEL HARRISON SMITH, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE.
No. DXXXIV.
FIVE DOLLS. PER ANN.
FRIDAY, MARCH 9th, 1804.
PAID IN ADVANCE.
DOCUMENTS.
Accompanying the Report of the committee appointed to enquire into the official conduct of SAMUEL CHASE and RICHARD PETERS.
Interrogatories exhibited on the part of the House of Representatives to William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, upon the enquiry into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, or either of them.
 1. Were you present at the trials of John Fries for high treason, in the circuit court of Pennsylvania—in the years 1799 and 1800.  2. Who presided on those trials?  3. What were the circumstances, generally, which attended them?  4. Were the counsel for the prisoner, at the first trial, permitted to argue the point whether the offence charged amounted to high treason?  5. Were they prevented by the court from arguing that point on the second trial?  6. Was the prisoner condemned without counsel being heard in his defence?  7. Did any correspondence ever pass between you and the Executive of the United States, on that occasion? and if any, of what nature?  8. Is that correspondence now in your possession?  9. Relate every thing within your knowledge which happened at the last trial?  10. Are you acquainted with the circumstances which attended the trial of Thomas Cooper for sedition?  11. Relate those circumstances?  12. Was a subpoena to summon any witness in behalf of the accused refused? how? and by whom? 
The answers of William Lewis to the interrogatories exhibited to him on the part of the House of Representatives, upon the enquiry into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, or either of them.
I, William Lewis, of the city of Philadelphia, being one of those people called Quakers, and conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, on my solemn affirmation declare and affirm as follows:
That I was present at the trial of John Fries, for treason in the circuit court of Pennsylvania, in the year 1799, and assisted him as his counsel, at his request, and I believe under an assignment for that purpose by the court, but I have no recollection of having been at present at any part of his trial for treason in 1800.
That the first trial was before the honorable James Iredell, one of the associate judges of the supreme court of the United States, and the honorable Richard Peters, judge of the district court of Pennsylvania.
That Mr. Dallas, Mr. W. Ewing and I were counsel for the prisoner, and were permitted freely to produce every authority, and to urge every argument which we thought proper and relevant, on the law as well as the facts, to prove that the offence did not amount to treason, that the trial was conducted to the best of my judgment and belief, with moderation, patience and indulgence, and I do not recollect any thing to have taken place during the trial, that seems to me to merit particular notice, except, that after the prisoner had been convicted, a new trial was granted, on the motion of Mr. Dallas and myself; principally, I believe, on the ground, that one of the jurors, after he had been summoned, and before he was sworn, had made declarations, manifesting a prejudice of the case against the prisoners in general, and more particularly so, against John Fries.
It is with great regret that I find myself called on at this distance of time, when I fear that my recollection may in some degree fail me, to answer the fifth interrogatory, and I feel it a duty to add, that although my memory is I believe, a remarkably accurate one for a short time, it is far from being so, after a considerable lapse of time, and it is therefore possible that my answers to this interrogatory may not be so correct as I wish them to be, but they shall be as much so as it is in my power to make them.
To the best then of my recollection and belief, the following circumstances took place on the two days next preceding the trial of John Fries for treason before the honorable Samuel Chase one of the associate judges of the supreme court of the United States, and the honorable Richard Peters, judge of the district
court of Pennsylvania, in the latter end of April or early in May, 1800. Mr. Dallas and I were the counsel of the prisoner at his request, and I believe by the appointment of the court. On the first of these days, when I entered the court room, the judges were on the bench, the jury were soon after called and many of them appeared, I am unable to say whether John Fries was at this time in the bar assigned for criminals or not, but if he was not then, I feel sure that he was placed there in a few minutes after.
Mr. Dallas was not at this time in court, and before he came, judge Chase handed or threw down to Mr. Caldwell the clerk of the court one or more papers, and at the same time delivered himself, in substance, and as nearly as can be recollected to the following effect: That he understood or had been informed, that on the former trial or trials, there had been great waste of time, by counsel making long speeches to the jury on the law as well as on the facts, and on matters which had nothing to do with the business before the court, and he particularly noticed in strong and pointed terms of disapprobation, their having read, and I think having been permitted to read, certain parts of certain statutes of the United States, relating to crimes less than treason, in order to show that the prisoner's case came within them, and which he said, he or the court (I do not recollect which) would not suffer to be read again, as they had nothing to do with the question. He added that we are judges of the law and understand it, or we are not fit to sit here; that cases at the common law, or under the statute law of England previous to the English revolution, had nothing to do with the question, and that they would not suffer them to be read; that they had made up their mind on the law, and had reduced it to writing, and that the counsel might conduct themselves accordingly, (or conformably to it) as they had ordered copies of it to be made, and one of them to be delivered to the counsel in support of the prosecution, and another to the prisoner's counsel, and that as soon as the case was opened or gone through (I am not sure which was the expression,) on the part of the prosecution, he or they (I am not certain which) should order one to be delivered to the jury. He also added, that if we had any fault to find with the opinion of the court, or had any thing to say on the law, to show that they were wrong or had mistaken it, we must address ourselves to the court, and not to the jury. About the time when judge Chase began to speak, the clerk handed me one of the papers. If I looked at it, it has escaped my recollection, but if I did, I am confident that I read but a very small part of it, as my attention was immediately engaged by the declarations made by judge Chase, and I very soon threw it from me, declaring in court, but whether addressing myself to it, or not, I cannot recollect, that my hand should never be tainted by receiving a prejudged opinion in any case; much less in a capital one. The novelty as well as the nature of the proceeding agitated me considerably, and I replied with that warmth which I thought the occasion demanded, as nearly as I can recollect, as follows: That in civil cases I deemed it proper that the consideration of the law and the facts should be kept as separate as possible, and that the former should be determined by the court, and the latter by the jury, but that in criminal cases, and especially in capital ones, it was the constitutional right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts; that it was the right of the prisoner for the jury to pass between him and his country on both of them; that it was the right of his counsel to address the jury on the law as well as the facts; that I deemed this right a sacred and a great constitutional one, which should never be sacrificed by me, and I added that I never had, and never would address the court on the law in any criminal prosecution whatever.
That although the constitution and statute of the United States might not perhaps be materially different from the English statute of treason, as to levying of war, and although the judges in England since their situation was rendered independent, had been able and upright it did not follow that the law of treason as settled in that country, was applicable here, because the judges there had since the revolution, and since their independence, held themselves in many particulars, bound by former decisions, but that our judges were not bound by them in the construction of a new statute of our own, and that I therefore
could not submit to the doctrine, that whatever was the present law of treason in England, as to the levying of war, was the law of treason in this country. That it was important to guard at the beginning against a latitude of construction of our own constitution and law by shewing the extravagant lengths which courts in England had gone under the statute of Edward the Third, before the judges were independent, and when many of the constructions which prevail at this day were established; that I deemed it the right of counsel to show this, and if I was deprived of it, and if the court had made up their mind on the law before the jury were sworn; before any evidence was given, and before the prisoner's counsel had been heard, and if the counsel were now to be restricted in the manner declared by judge Chase, I deprived of being able to render the prisoner any service, (as there was but little, if any, dispute, as to the facts, and his case depended in a great measure, if not altogether, on the law. It is impossible for me at this distance of time to repeat the precise words that were made use of, in so sudden and unexpected an alteration, but I feel confident that I have stated the substance, and most material parts, and although I am not conscious of it, it is possible that some parts of what I have mentioned as being said by me, passed on the second and not on the first day.
Judge Chase apparently heard me with impatience. (I mean on the first day) and most certainly without seeming to pay much regard to what had been said by me.
In an early stage of the business I was struck with the idea, that if judge Chase had made up his mind on the law, it was not likely that any thing which Mr. Dallas or I could say would alter it; and that if we withdrew from the prisoner's defence under the circumstances which took place, and left him without counsel, and if he should be condemned, it was not likely that he would be executed, and I therefore concluded in my own mind, that it would be best for us to do so, more especially as we had been assigned by the court, and I thought we might do it without dishonor to ourselves.
As soon as I saw Mr. Dallas coming into court I met him and gave him a brief (I believe not a full) account of what had taken place, and of my determination if he concurred in it. He did concur, and we went to the bar together, where he repeated, in part, the sentiments which had been delivered by me, with some additional ones. The trial did not come on that day. I am not sure of the cause which prevented it, nor have I the least recollection of having heard judge Peters on that day say a single word on the subject which has been mentioned.
Mr. Dallas and I informed John Fries of our determination to withdraw ourselves from his defence, if he would agree to it; and we strongly recommended to him to do so, as we did not think it likely, after what had passed, that we could render him any service in court—and as our withdrawing ourselves might, and probably would, be of material use to him with the President, if he should be convicted. He seemed greatly alarmed at his situation, and perplexed to know what to do. We told him that if he insisted on it, we would go on in his defence, and render him all the service in our power; but, that after what had passed, we feared it would be little, if any.
He at length said, that his dependence was on us, that he was sure we would advise him to the best, and that he would do as we thought proper. It was then agreed that we should withdraw ourselves as had been proposed. I believe it was not at this time, but certainly before he was called on in court the next day, it struck me, that perhaps the court might offer to assign him other counsel—and as I supposed that the reason which influenced the conduct of Mr. Dallas and me, should equally apply to them, I advised him not to accept of it, and he agreed to follow my advice.
When I have said that Mr. Dallas and I told the prisoner, that if he insisted on it, we would go on in his defence, I am not to be understood, that we would have done it, under the restriction which had been attempted by judge Chase, but that we would have gone on in the usual manner, and in the exercise and enjoyment of all our professional rights, until we were stopped by the court, and so far as concerns myself I solemnly declare, that if I knew my own mind, I would have gone on in this way, or not at all; but I would not have tamely surrendered
any one of the rights for which I contended, that I held them and still hold them so sacred, that I should have persisted in them until I was stopped by an actual exercise of the authority of the court, and that if this had taken place, nothing could have induced me to have proceeded further, whatever the consequence might have been.
Having, as I believed, with Mr. Dallas, faithfully done our duty on the first day, and satisfied John Fries of the propriety of our conduct, and prevailed on him to follow our advice. I went to court the next day with a mind somewhat indifferent as to what might take place, and I believe intending to neither say nor do any thing more than to inform the court, that neither Mr. Dallas nor I was any longer the counsel for the prisoner, and that we should take no part in his defence. Soon after the opening of the court, judge Chase addressing himself to Mr. Dallas and me, asked if we were ready to proceed; on which I answered, that we were no longer the prisoner's counsel, and I began to state in a few words our reasons for our withdrawing ourselves from his defence, when I was interrupted by his telling me, that we might go on in our own way, as we pleased, and that the court would hear us, and to the best of my recollection he expressed himself in terms which evidently shewed a willingness that we might go on without the previous restrictions which had been insisted on the day before. We refused on account of what had passed, and of the determination which we had taken. The court endeavored to prevail on us to proceed, but it was in vain, for we were positive and determined not to do it. Judge Peters said that we might take as large a range as we pleased, and asked if an error had been committed, if we would not suffer it to be corrected?—Or words to this effect. He added, that the papers which had given so much offence had been all called in, and I think he said that they had been burned or destroyed. I observed that although that might be the case, with respect to the papers, it was not so with respect to the pre-determination on the minds of the judges, which still remained, and would have the same effect as if the papers were still in existence. I added, that many of the jurors who had been present and heard what had passed, might be on the trial with all the prejudices which the declarations from the bench on the preceding day had created. The court appeared anxious to induce Mr. Dallas and me to undertake the prisoner's defence, and certainly offered to remove every previous restriction which had been insisted on the day before. We repeated and insisted on several of the grounds which we had taken on the preceding day, and absolutely refused to have any thing further to do with the prisoner's defence before the court. I then left it, and do not recollect to have been there again until I was informed of his trial and conviction; and I therefore cannot say, what circumstances attended his second trial. It is proper to add, that when judge Chase desired Mr. Dallas and me on the second day to go on in our own way, and as we pleased, he said it would be at the risk or hazard of our characters if we attempted to conduct ourselves improperly, and that it must be under the direction of the court, which would judge of what was right, or words to this effect.
That I have always understood and believed the prisoner was condemned without counsel being heard in his defence, but not having been present at the second trial I cannot assert it of my own knowledge.
That soon after sentence of death had, as I understood, been pronounced on Fries, Mr. Thomas Adams, the son of the then President Adams, spoke to me in court, and said his father wished to know the points and authorities which Mr. Dallas and I had intended to rely on, in favor of Fries, if we had defended him on his last trial; and asked if I had any objections to his seeing them? I said that I had not; but the President never sent to me for them, nor did I ever send them to him. Shortly after this Charles Lee, Esq. the then Attorney General, made a similar request of me, and assigned as a reason for it, that he might perhaps be consulted by the President on the occasion, and wished to consider the case; but he did not tell me that the request came from the President, nor that he intended laying the statement, which he asked for, before him. I spoke to Mr. Dallas, and we agreed to comply with Mr. Lee's request. Mr. Dallas prepared a statement in the form of a letter, from him and me, to Mr. Lee, and sent it to me—I
made some alterations in it, had it copied, and then sent to Mr. Dallas, the original draft and alterations, together with the copy, signed by me. The latter was, as I understood, signed by Mr. Dallas, and sent to Mr. Lee. Mr. Dallas being in possession of the original draft and alterations, is more capable of proving the contents than I am. He has sent me a copy, which I suppose to be correct: but as I have not compared it with the original, I cannot prove it to be so. He is also in possession of a letter in answer to it, from Mr. Lee to him and me, and can better prove its contents than I can, although he has furnished me with a copy which I suppose to be correct.
I know of no other correspondence that ever passed between the executive of the United States and me, on the occasion mentioned in the last interrogatory.
W. LEWIS.
The answers of Alexander James Dallas to the interrogatories, exhibited upon the enquiry into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, and Richard Peters, Esquires, now depending in the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States.
I, Alexander James Dallas, being duly sworn, in answer to all and every of the interrogatories abovementioned, do depose and say,
That I was present, as herein after mentioned, at the trials of John Fries, on a charge for treason, in the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, in the years one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and one thousand eight hundred.
That the first trial took place in May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, before Mr. Iredell, an associate judge of the supreme court of the United States, and Mr. Peters, the district judge. Mr. Lewis, Mr. W. Ewing, and myself, were counsel for the prisoner; and, in that character, we freely delivered to the jury, every argument, in point of fact, and of law, which we thought proper. The trial was conducted by the court, the jury, and the gentlemen, who sustained the prosecution, (Mr. Rawle, the district attorney, and Mr. Sitgreaves) with the greatest candor, impartiality, humanity and patience, during a period of days.
The prisoner was, however, convicted by the verdict of the jury; but, on a motion made by Mr. Lewis and myself, a new trial was granted; principally, I believe, on the ground, that one of the jurors, after he was summoned, and before he was sworn, had made declarations, manifesting a prejudice of the case, unfavorable to the northern rioters in general, and, in particular to Fries.
That the circuit court was held at Norristown, in October, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, (the yellow fever then raging in Philadelphia) by Mr. Washington, an associate judge of the supreme court of the United States, and Mr. Peters, the district judge of Pennsylvania; when Mr. Lewis and myself again attended, as the counsel of Fries. But some circumstances occurred (which I have never heard authoritatively explained) that induced the court to postpone the trial of Fries, and other prisoners, until the next term.
That the second trial of Fries took place in the term commencing in April, one thousand eight hundred, before Mr. Chase, one of the associate judges of the supreme court of the United States, and Mr. Peters, district judge of Pennsylvania. At the instance of the prisoner, Mr. Lewis and myself were assigned by the court, as his counsel; and Mr. Ingersoll attended, with a view to assist Mr. Rawle, the district attorney, in support of the prosecution. On the day appointed for the trial, I entered the court room, some time after the court had been opened, and observed an unusual agitation among the gentlemen of the bar. Fries was then standing in the prisoner's box; the jurors summoned in the general panel, appeared to be attending in the jury boxes, and other parts of the hall; and there was a considerable number of citizens assembled as auditors. My attention was immediately attracted, by the eagerness of a conversation, in which Mr. Lewis and Mr. Edward Tilghman were engaged; but as soon as Mr. Lewis saw me enter, he hastened towards me, out of the bar, and stated, in substance, "that, after the court was opened, Mr. Chase had delivered a paper to the clerk, which he said, contained the opinion of the court, on the law of treason; with a declaration, that a copy should be given to the district attorney; another copy

should be given to the prisoner's counsel; and a third copy should be delivered to the jury, as soon as the opening for the prosecution was finished; that Mr. Chase had made some remarks, condemning the arguments and authorities produced on a former trial; and that he had concluded with expressing an intention to recur to the authorities of any common law authorities, or to any other authorities, prior to the English revolution." Upon a brief exchange of our sentiments, relative to this proceeding, Mr. Lewis and myself considered it as unprecedented, and improper; as injurious to the prisoner; and as an invasion of the rights and independence of the profession; and, therefore, we determined to decline taking any part in the defence. In a recent conversation with Mr. Lewis, he suggests to me, that he does not recollect that we formed the determination to withdraw at that time; but thinks we determined, that we would insist upon our right to address the jury, in a criminal and a capital case, both upon the law and the fact, Mr. Chase having said, that on the law, the counsel must address the court alone, and not the jury. The impression upon my memory, however, remains as I have stated it; corroborated, I conceive, by the letter which we afterwards wrote to Mr. Lee, the attorney general, and other circumstances. Mr. Lewis and myself then went, together, into the bar; and being asked by the court, whether the counsel for the prisoner were prepared to proceed, Mr. Lewis answered, in substance; "that there was no question, as to the facts involved in the case, but only as to the law arising from the facts; and since the court had undertaken to determine the law, and to announce their opinion, he could not flatter himself with being able to change that opinion; no service could, therefore, be rendered to the prisoner; and he was not willing to enter upon a hopeless defence, under circumstances so degrading to the profession." I do not recollect any allusion at this time, to the right of the counsel to address the jury, both on the law and facts, in a capital case; though Mr. Lewis, in the recent conversation to which I have already alluded, suggested that idea, as the principal source of the first day's altercation, between the bench and the bar. In the sentiments, which he then expressed, however, I declared my concurrence. The agitation of the gentlemen of the bar continued, or rather increased. Mr. Edward Tilghman, in particular, made several observations, calculated to induce us to persist; and advised us not even to look at the paper which Mr. Chase had delivered to the clerk. When Mr. Lewis and myself entered the bar, I noticed Mr. Chase and Mr. Peters in conversation on the bench; and after we had declined proceeding, I heard Mr. Peters say to Mr. Chase, "I told you what would be the consequence: I knew they would take the stud;" or other words to the same effect. Mr. Peters appeared to be dissatisfied, or uneasy; and endeavored to persuade us to resume the defence, saying, at that time, I think, as well as on the next day, "that for his part he did not care what range the counsel took, either on the law or on the fact." Under these circumstances, Mr. Rawle, the district attorney, moved for a postponement of the trial; Fries was remanded to prison; and the court was adjourned.
That some time afterwards, in the course of the same day, I met Mr. Peters in the street, and he gave me, in substance, the following statement; "that Mr. Chase had prepared an opinion, on the law of treason, which he submitted to Mr. Peters for consideration, before the time of trial; that although Mr. Peters agreed in the opinion, yet Mr. Chase had never suggested, nor did Mr. Peters conceive that it was to be made public, except by way of charge from the court, after the evidence and arguments on both sides were closed; that when Mr. Chase delivered the paper to the clerk, Mr. Peters had been called to the end of the bench by a witness, and was surprised, on enquiry to find what had happened; and that he then predicted to Mr. Chase the consequence which ensued." Mr. Peters told me, I think, at the same time, that the power had been withdrawn, and that measures were taken to prevent the circulation of copies of it. I never read, or saw, the paper itself; nor, indeed any copy of it, until a few days ago, when Mr. William S. Biddle, showed me a copy, which he said he had taken from the original, while it was in the hands either of the clerk, or of the district attorney, with whom he was at that time a student.
That, on the next day the court being opened; the prisoner being placed in the criminal's box; the jury and the auditors attending as before; Mr. Chase again asked, whether the counsel for the prisoner were ready to proceed in the defence? And Mr. Lewis and myself answered, that we did not deem ourselves any longer the counsel of Fries. Either at this time, or, as I thought when first recurring to my memory for the facts, on the preceding day (and I cannot now say positively which) I repeated, in an
address to the court, the circumstances that had been communicated to me by Mr. Lewis, and added some general remarks upon the relative duties, rights, and responsibility of the judge, and of the counsel, with a view to vindicate our conduct on the present occasion. Mr. Peters then stated, in substance, "that the paper in question was withdrawn; and that, for his own part, he was willing to hear every thing that could be said on the occasion;" adding some expressions of a conciliatory nature. Mr. Chase also said, "the paper is withdrawn, and the counsel may be heard in opposition to the opinion of the court, at the hazard of their characters," or words of similar import. Here, I believe, it was that Mr. Chase added, that in arguing upon the law, the counsel must address the court alone, and not the jury, but I well recollect, on reflection, that at some period of the transaction, such an expression fell from the judge. Mr. Lewis thereupon observed to Mr. Chase, in substance, "you may withdraw the paper, but will that remove the bias which exists in your own mind, or obliterate the impression, that has been made by a public declaration of your opinion, upon the minds of the audience, a part of whom must compose the jury, for the trial of the prisoner? Here, also I believe, Mr. Lewis, by way of answer to Mr. Chase's declaration, insisted upon the right of counsel to address the jury, both on the law and the fact, in a capital case. Mr. Peters repeated his wish, that what had passed, might be overlooked, or forgotten; and Mr. Chase (making a remark about the counsel being mistaken, if they thought to embarrass him, couched in words that I do not recollect) asked Fries whether it was his desire that other counsel should be assigned? Fries answered in the negative; on which I think, he was remanded to jail, and the trial was ordered for the ensuing morning. On the next day the trial accordingly took place; the prisoner had no counsel for his defence; the prosecution was conducted by Mr. Rawle alone, Mr. Ingersoll having withdrawn, as I understand, in consequence of the prisoner's peculiar situation: the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the court pronounced sentence of death. I only attended occasionally in court during the trial; and cannot recollect any other material facts relating to it, within the scope of the interrogatories.
That shortly after the sentence of death had been pronounced upon Fries, Mr. Charles Lee, then the attorney general of the United States, mentioned to me in court, "that the case of the prisoner was before the President; that all the information was wished, which could assist in making a proper decision upon a claim for mercy and pardon; and that he, therefore desired to know, whether I had any objection to communicate the grounds, on which the counsel intended to have enforced the defence." I answered, that I had personally no objection; but that it was proper to consult Mr. Lewis. In the course of the same day I mentioned the subject to Mr. Lewis, and found that Mr. Lee had made a similar application to him; on which it was agreed, that from motives of respect to the application, as well as of humanity to the prisoner, we would furnish a statement of our arguments and authorities. I do not think, however, that Mr. Lee, on this occasion declared, that he had applied to us, by direction of the President; though I afterwards inferred that fact, from the expressions in Mr. Lee's letter, acknowledging the receipt of the statement.
That having waited for some time in hopes of receiving the draft of the statement from Mr. Lewis, I reminded him of the urgency of the case (in consequence of the approach of the day appointed for the execution of Fries) and received the answer contained in a letter, of which a true copy is annexed, marked A. Upon this answer, I prepared a communication for Mr. Lee, which being submitted to Mr. Lewis, and some alterations and additions being made in the manuscript, was fairly transcribed at his office; and he returned the original draft, together with the fair transcript, signed by him in a letter, of which a true copy is annexed, marked B. I added my signature to the fair transcript which Mr. Lewis had subscribed, and immediately sent it to Mr. Lee, in the terms and form, of which a true copy is annexed, marked C and on the same day Mr. Lee transmitted the acknowledgment marked D.
I must be permitted to add, that in the course of my narrative, I have endeavored to state with fidelity, all the facts; but still, it is possible, that I may have erred, in the attempt to place them in the proper order of time; and do not pretend to be more than substantially correct, in the recital of the language, which was used upon this occasion, by any of the persons to whom I have referred. I may be permitted, likewise to discharge a duty to the counsel, as well as to all the parties interested, in observing, that Mr. Lewis and myself were greatly influenced in the conduct which we pursued, by our opinion of the means most likely to save the life of Fries, under all the circumstances of his
case. After the first day's altercation, we consulted him on the expediency of persevering in the surrender of his defence; and if he or his friends, had expressed the wish, we should certainly have resumed the task. Even in that event, however, I do not suppose, that we should have yielded the right to cite all the authorities which we thought applicable to the subject in discussion; nor the right, in a capital case, to address the jury, both on the law and the fact. But the exercise of those rights of counsel, could not, in any degree, impair or affect the undoubted right of the court, to deliver their opinion on the law, in charge to the jury, in opposition to the authorities adduced, or the reasoning employed.
That I do not sufficiently remember the facts relative to Thomas Cooper's trial, to justify my entering into any detail. Mr. Caldwell, the clerk of the court, told me, that in consequence of directions from Mr. Chase, he had refused to issue a subpoena, on Mr. Cooper's application, out of court, the evening before the day appointed for the trial, the subpoena being for Mr. Adams, then President of the United States, to attend as a witness. The question of the subpoena was mentioned in court, on the day appointed for the trial; and I think the court refused to award it, on the ground that Mr. Adams's testimony, if he were present, could not be exacted to inculpate himself.
A. J. DALLAS. (A.) Sunday afternoon.
SIR, When your letter of yesterday came to my house, I was not at home, and I did not return until it was too late in the evening to send an answer, at that time, although I immediately wrote one. At an early hour this morning I left town, without recollecting to give directions, as I had intended, for sending it to you, and this must be my apology, for a seeming neglect, which I assure you was not intended.
We must, in my opinion, in justice to poor Fries, as well as to ourselves, and more especially as it has been requested, state the heads of our intended arguments, with our reasons briefly, but strongly expressed, together with our authorities, for believing that the case did not amount to treason. I think we must, also, give our reasons for believing, that the trial was not in the proper county; for, to me, it appears, that none of the reasons urged against us, on any former occasion, apply, on the present occasion; and I also think, that if we are not right, in urging this, on the present occasion, the clause, providing for the trial in the proper county, &c. neither is, nor ever can on any future occasion be, of the least avail. But we ought, I think, above all things, to rely on the separating of the jury, in a capital case, being a sufficient ground to vitiate the verdict. I also think, that it will not be amiss for us to state, in decent, but manly terms, our reasons for declining any interference in the trial. If you concur in these sentiments, do inform me, that we may prepare our statement, as soon as possible, and every communication between us, that may be likely to render service to poor Fries, will be very agreeable to Your most humble servant, W. LEWIS. Copy. A. J. Dallas.
(B.) May 19th, 1800.
SIR, The alterations which I had to propose, in the letter prepared by you, for the Attorney General, were so few and slight, that I have ventured to make them, without first consulting you. If you approve of the letter, in its present form, be pleased, after signing it, to send it to the Attorney General.
I am, Sir, Your most humble servant. W. LEWIS Copy. A. J. DALLAS. A. J. Dallas, Esq.
(C.)
SIR, In compliance with your request, we shall now proceed, briefly, to communicate the points and authorities which we intended to urge, in the case of the United States against Fries, if the conduct of the court had not, unexpectedly, deprived us of every hope of success, from these means of defence. It may be proper to premise, that on the morning appointed for the trial, the presiding judge, in the presence of the prisoner, the jury, and a numerous audience, delivered to the clerk a paper, which he said, contained the opinion of the court, formed, after mature deliberation, upon the law of treason; directed copies of the paper to be given to the attorney of the district, and the prisoner's counsel; and declared his intention to present a copy of it to the jury, as soon as the case was opened on the part of the United States. He referred, likewise, in terms of disapprobation, to the arguments, which (as he was informed) had been used in favour of the prisoner, on the former trial; and announced a determination to prevent his counsel from
citing any authorities at common law, or, indeed, any authorities prior to the English revolution. The cause thus prejudged; the province of the advocate thus circumscribed; and the minds of the jury thus prejudiced; we deemed it a duty owed to the prisoner, to the public, and to ourselves, to surrender the task, which the court had previously assigned to us; for, as there existed no controversy in relation to the facts, and as the jury would naturally rely on the judgment of the court in relation to the law, we had not the vanity to suppose, that any effort on our part, could do more than give to the trial, the form and ceremony of a defence; while our acquiescence might afford some sanction to the establishment of a precedent, hostile to the rights of the citizen,—unfavourable to the trial by jury,—and degrading to the character of the profession.
The candour and humanity which have induced you to interpose in the present mode, have also, however, influenced our decision:—and, if you will allow for the different effect of arguments, publicly delivered before a jury entitled, in a capital case, to pass both on the law and the fact (with whom, too, even a doubt would lead to an acquittal) we, consistently, offer for your consideration, the following general positions:
1. That there has been a mistrial. 2. That the offence charged is not treason. 3. That a new trial ought to have been awarded. 1. That there has been a mistrial. 1 vol. p. 67. s 29. 1. By the judicial act it is declared, "that in cases punishable with death, the trial shall be had in the county where the offence was committed, or where that cannot be done without great inconvenience, twelve petit Jurors, at least, shall be summoned from thence." 2. The offence was committed by Fries in the county of Northampton; but his trial was in the county of Philadelphia. 3. The language of the act is mandatory;—"the trial shall be had in the county where the offence is committed;" and some "great inconvenience" must appear, judicially, to the court, before they can exercise the discretion of ordering a trial in any other county. No such inconvenience was suggested on the record, or even stated at the bar; and, if it existed in the present instance, it must forever exist in all future cases, and this clause of the law be rendered altogether useless. 3 Dall. 513 4. It is true, that an inoffical motion was made on the first trial, to change the place of trial; but it was overruled on grounds which have no application to the second trial; For,
1. There was no inconvenience, owing to the riotous state of the county of Northampton, at the time of the second trial. 2. And the court (being bound to notice every thing that was essential to an exercise of jurisdiction) might have ordered the trial in the proper county before it was commenced in Philadelphia, by a finding of the new indictment, a nol. pros. having been entered on the old one. 6. Co. 14. 6. Hawk. 5. For any mis-P. C. B. 2 ch. 47. trial, on acc. s. 11. 1b. B. 2. ch. count of jury 27. s. 108. process, or on another account, the verdict must be set aside.
II. That the offence charged was not treason. 1. vol. p. 16. const. 1. The constitution defines treason to be, "levying war against the United States, &c." and the act of Congress inflicts the punishment of death on the person convicted of the crime. 2. As the spirit of the constitution is opposed to implied powers, and constructive expositions, we are bound to take the plain, manifest, meaning of the words of the definition, independent of any glossary, which the English courts, or writers, may have affixed to the words of the English statute. 3. The plain, manifest, meaning of the words, is "a forcible opposition to the power of the government, with intent to subdue and overthrow it." 4. This meaning may embrace a forcible attack upon the legislature, (or, perhaps, any other principal department of the government) to compel the repeal of a law. 5. But it does not embrace the case of an opposition to the execution of a particular law. 6. It seems, indeed, upon principle, to be a confusion of crimes, to include in the same class, a forcible attempt to subvert and overthrow the power of the government, and the mere resistance of subordinate agents, in carrying a particular law, or regulation, into effect.
1 Hale, P. C. 7. If Fries and his companions had opposed in Foster, 219. arms the troops that were sent against them, it would clearly have been an act of treason; but, in the conduct which they pursued, we can only perceive sedition, riot, and rescue. 1 Vol. p.s. 109. B. Such, likewise, has 1. 22, 23, been the legislative construction
& discrimination between the cases; for, unquestionably, the sedition law and the penal law define and punish the offences committed by Fries and his companions, as distinct from the offence of treason; and when an offence is classed under a 1 Hale, P. C. particular head in the 151. penal code, it is inconsistent to search for Post. 200. 201. it under another head. 9. But even if the English decisions and writers are considered as giving a construction, for our use, to the same words employed in the statute of Edw. 3. they do not extend so far, as to pronounce an opposition to the execution of a particular law, to be treason, by levying of war. 10. At common law, there is not a single case, or dictum, to support such a doctrine; though, indeed, in the reign of Hen. 8. rescue was made treason by a statute, which was afterwards repealed. 4 Bl. Com. 69. 11. Under the statute 88. 75. of Edw. 3 there have 1 Hale 132. been many wild constructions. 4. levying treason, by Post. 234. levying war, of which Coke, Hale, Black- 3 Inst. 22. 3. stone, &c. solemnly complain; but none, even in the bad times of the judicial history of England, have gone so far as the present case. 12. We cannot trace a single instance of a riot, in opposition to the execution of a particular law, being prosecuted as treason in England; though the history of that nation abounds with such insurrections. 4 St. Tr. 844. 13. The constructive cases in England, turn upon universality of object, in opposition to the power of the government. The case of Dammaree and Purchase was decided on that ground; for if the rising had been to suppress all bady houses, it would have been equally within the principle, as the rising to suppress all houses. 4 Bl. Com. 81. pres. all meeting 1 Hawk. P. C. houses. So a rising to Ch. 17. s. 25. alter, or reform, religion, which can only be done by force on the legislature, is treason. But lord George Gordon's trial and a quittal establish the doctrine, for which we contend. It is true, lord Mansfield there declares an opposition to the militia law, to be treason; and to oppose the militia is in effect, to oppose the power of the government: but we apprehend the reason of this is, because it is, in effect, the same to oppose the militia, or the execution of the militia law, as to oppose the regular forces; which has always been held to be treason, and the expression used by Lord Mansfield is confined to an opposition to the execution of this particular kind of law, and does not extend to any others, as would, we think, have been the case, had the rule been the same in other cases.
III. That a new trial ought to have been awarded. 1. After the jury were sworn, and the evidence partly given, one of the jury separated from his brethren, and slept at his own lodgings. Affid. of W. 2. During this separation Barnes. he conversed with one person on the subject of the trial—"declaring that the evidence of a certain witness went hard against the prisoner,"—and Affidavit of being told by another person Isaac Rough ton, that "he supposed the evidence would go hard against Fries." 3. Hence, in the contemplation of the law, he was committed by an expression of his own opinion, and influenced by the expression of the opinion of another. 4. The law and practice of Pennsylvania (in the federal as well as state courts) have uniformly opposed the separation of the jury in a capital case, though necessity has compelled an adjournment of the court.
(To be continued.) In the case of NICHOLAS FEBRUARY, An Involvent debtor.
SIX months from and after the first day of March, is limited, and appointed for the creditors to bring in, and exhibit their claims to the trustee, and that notice be given in the Washington Federalist, and National Intelligencer once a month, three times in each paper before the expiration of said term.—It is further ordered, that the trustee sell the property of the involvent, at public sale to the highest bidder, on a credit of 6 months, giving six months previous notice thereof, by public advertisement, in the same papers once a week for 6 weeks prior to the day of sale.
By order, Wm. Cranch, Esq., URIAH FORRESTER, CLK. March 7—1803 To be Sold, At public sale, at Mr. John Barney's Columbian Inn, on the 10th day of September next, at 2 o'clock, P. M. All the right, title, interest, and estate of Nicholas February (an involvent debtor) in, and to sixteen and three quarter acres of land, with a dwelling house thereon, in the vicinity of George Town, also some household and kitchen furniture.—Terms of sale, the purchaser to give bond with approved security, payable in six months after the day of sale, any person wishing to view the property before the sale, may apply to the subseriber. In the above case, the creditors are requested to exhibit their claims within the time limited, to the subscriber. CHARLES BRATTY, Trustee. George Town, March 7.

IMPEACHMENT.
On WEDNESDAY a message was communicated to the House of Representatives...
A motion was made about that hour in the House, leading to an adjournment...
YESTERDAY at 12 o'clock, the court was again opened, when the managers repaired to the Senate chamber.
Mr. Early, one of the managers, opened the trial; and after a few preliminary remarks...
The reader will recollect that on Tuesday the court, after hearing Mr. Harper...
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TUESDAY, March 6.
IMPEACHMENT.
Mr. Nicholson, from the Managers appointed to support the articles of impeachment...
"That on Friday, the second of March, the Managers, agreeably to the directions...
The Managers, under these circumstances, felt themselves bound to object...
The Senate withdrew to a private chamber, where it is presumed the question...
Mr. Harper should be heard, and whether this was to be a measure preliminary...
The Managers considered this as an irregularity, and not believing that they...
Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Smilie, as soon as the above report was read...
Resolved, That this House doth approve of the conduct of the Managers...
Mr. Elliot moved to strike out the words "as stated in their report of this day."
Mr. Elmer remarked that the Managers appeared to consider the proceedings...
Mr. Smilie. The Senate undoubtedly have the right of fixing their mode of procedure...
Mr. Dana. It is very proper for the Managers of an impeachment to apply to the House...
Mr. Nicholson. The Managers entertain no other desire but that of being guided...
Mr. Smilie. I cannot agree to strike out this part of the resolution, as it is...
Mr. Nicholson observed that on further reflection he did not consider himself...
Mr. G. W. Campbell was of opinion that it would only be necessary for the House...
Mr. Hoyer declared himself of the same opinion.
Mr. F. Lewis moved a postponement of the further consideration of the motion...
Mr. Smilie had no objection to the postponement.
All further procedure was arrested by the agreement to a motion of Mr. Nicholson...
On the ensuing day, Mr. Smilie said, as the resolution appeared to be disa-
greeable to some gentlemen, he would withdraw it.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7.
Claims for lands under acts of Georgia.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson, the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole...
The bill was read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States...
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the time limited in the last above recited...
The Chairman then read the bill by paragraphs.
Having read the second section.
Mr. Nicholson moved so to amend it, as to make the settlement of the commissioners...
Mr. J. F. Clay opposed this amendment.
Mr. Lucas likewise opposed it and moved an amendment, requiring approbation...
Mr. Lucas's motion was negatived—Ayes 45—Nones 50.
Mr. Bedinger spoke against the motion of Mr. Nicholson, which was likewise negatived...
Mr. F. Randolph said he would move an amendment to the first section, which...
A division of the question being called for, a question was taken on striking...
When the question was taken on the proposed additional proviso, which was likewise lost...
Mr. Varnum moved that the committee should rise, report their agreement to the bill...
Mr. Rodsey, hoped that the committee would, previously to rising, agree to consider...
[These recently appeared in the National Intelligencer.]
Mr. Elmer and Mr. Mitchell advocated the rising of the committee.
Mr. F. Randolph opposed the rising of the committee, contending in favor...
Messrs. Elliot, Eustis, Lyon, and Gregg supported; and Messrs. Bedinger, Lucas, Sloan and Macon, opposed...
When Mr. F. Randolph, went at considerable length into an argument in support...
Mr. Boyd spoke concisely against the rising of the committee and in favor...
Mr. Elliot followed at considerable length in reply to Mr. Randolph.
Mr. Smilie urged the impropriety of considering the resolutions.
Mr. Lucas spoke in favor of considering them.
Mr. F. Clay hoped the committee would rise, as a representative from Maryland...
Mr. F. Randolph replied at some length to the remarks of the different gentlemen...
After a few remarks from Mr. Elmer, in answer to Mr. Randolph, the question...
The committee accordingly rose, and the chairman reported their agreement...
An adjournment was moved and negatived—Ayes 37—Nones 57.
The question being put on the committee having leave to sit again.
Mr. F. Randolph opposed an agreement to it, under the idea that the resolutions...
Mr. Holland expressed the same opinion.
Dr. Eustis delivered a speech of considerable length, in reply to Mr. Randolph...
Mr. Dawson avowed himself friendly to a discussion of the resolutions.
After a few remarks by Mr. Smilie, on the opposite side, the question of giving...
[This question, from the unexpected turn which the debate took, and its irrelevancy...
Mr. F. Randolph immediately moved that the House should take up the resolutions...
A member enquired whether it was not in order first to consider the report...
The Speaker said Mr. Randolph's motion being first made must be first considered.
An unsuccessful motion having been made to adjourn, the question was taken...
When an adjournment took place about 5 o'clock.
THURSDAY, March 8.
Mr. Nicholson announced to the House, that his colleague (General DANIEL HEISTER) had...
The House immediately entered into resolutions to this effect, and instructed...
About 2 o'clock the remains of the deceased were conveyed from his late lodgings...
The body, we understand, will be interred at Bagerstown, the place where the General was killed.
General Varnum reported a bill for establishing rules and articles for the government...
A message was received from the President of the United States, enclosing...
Dr. Leib presented a petition from sundry inhabitants of George Town...
Dr. Mitchell made a report from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures...
The report contains much interesting information respecting the topography...
Made the order for Wednesday next. The House adjourned about 12 o'clock...
Philadelphia, March 6.
Latest from Europe
By the ship Jupiter, 73 days from London, arrived at Charleston.
Capt. Sabar, left London on the 1st December, and passed Gravesend on the 2d...
The latest papers which we have been able to obtain by this arrival, are to the 25th November.
From the Philadelphia Evening Post, of 5th March.
A confidential correspondent has communicated to us the substance of a letter...
The above comes from so respectable a source, that its truth cannot be doubted.
The Boston Glass Company
Having established a Manufactory on the Middlesex Canal, are now ready to deliver...
Table with 2 columns: Size, Price per light. Rows include 18 by 12 at 43 Cents, 16 by 11 at 31 do., etc.
Large Sheets at 3 dollars each, suitable for pictures. Also Coach Glasses from 100 to 125 cents.
AMOS A. WILLIAMS. March 9—w6t.
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD.
Run away on the first of April last my servant HARRY. He is about twenty-one years of age...
The above reward of one hundred dollars will be paid for lodging him in any jail...
ANDREW PURNET, collector South Carolina. Feb. 2—w8,27,30

(BY AUTHORITY.)
Scheme of a Lottery.
To build an Asylum in the city of Richmond.
Table with 2 columns: Prize, Dollars. Includes prizes like '1st Prize - last drawn ticket, having a blank to its number, 40,000' and '1 do. 10,000'.
5325 prizes, 150,000
9675 blanks, not two to a prize, 150,000
This lottery has been authorised by the Legislature of Virginia, for the laudable purposes of erecting a Seminary of learning in or near the metropolis of this state.
Richmond, March 2 - if
Tickets to be had of Robert Pollard, Doct. John Brockenbrough, jun. Wm. Price, (Reg.) Samuel Pleasants, jun. and William Prichard.
Dancing School.
P. L. DUPORT professor of Dancing respectfully informs the ladies and gentlemen of the city of Washington and George Town...
FOR SALE OR RENT.
OR will be exchanged for property as eligibly situated in Alexandria. This two story brick House on the north side of the Capitol corner of 1st and B streets...
THOMAS CARPENTER, TAYLOR
HAS just received an handsome supply of fall goods, which he is determined to sell and make upon the most reasonable terms, and in the best and most fashionable manner...
CHARLES VARDEN, TAYLOR
HAS received from Philadelphia an elegant assortment of the best quality Superfine Cloths, Cassimeres, Silk Florinthe, Black and fancy silk molekin velvet, white & figured Marcellas, Swandowns, Toilmettes, Velvet-tens, Kaney-fords, Coatings, &c.
S. THOMAS.
BEGS leave to inform his friends that he has removed his store from George Town to King-Street Alexandria, where orders in his line will be executed with punctuality and dispatch.
GLIDING AND EXAMINING ON GLASS.
A few doors above the Washington Tavern - Looking glass and picture frames made and regilt.
NEEDLE WORK
Framed in the handsomest manner, and names done on glass.
S. THOMAS, as a stranger being determined to establish in the line of his profession, offers that encouragement alone which he trusts the reasonableness of his charges and his affinity to business may entitle him to.
Window cornices handsomely gilt, and every thing in his line done to please the fancy of the owner equal to any imported.
FOR SALE.
N. B. He has some glasses and prints for sale on low terms.
Feb. 29 - 6t
A GREAT BARGAIN.
THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS will be taken and payment made easy to the purchaser, for the following valuable property free from any incumbrance whatever.
A SET of saw mills working two saws - a grist mill with two run of stones and bolting machine, also a cotton and rice machine complete all worked by water, also one saw mill about 400 yards from the former and that will work from two to fourteen saws under the same roof...
WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION.
The office of the Washington Association and United States Insurance company is removed to the corner of square No. 226 fronting on the President's Square and Pennsylvania Avenue. THOMAS HERTY, Sec'y P. T. Jan. 18 - 2t
Fifty Dollars Reward.
RAN away from the subscriber about the first of November last, a negro man called BILLY BUNDY, about 26 years old, yellow complexion, bends forward with his knees, a large scar on or near one of his heels, and has a habit of breaking his chain when spoken to...
TO RENT.
And immediate Possession given. A Two story Frame House, in the City of Washington, situated on N. Street, square 224 - containing 4 rooms beside two garret rooms, piazza and pantry, kitchen, store room, &c. with a good garden - lately occupied by Mrs. Lee, adjoining to Mr. Xaupie's Store...
HAT MANUFACTURY.
The subscriber informs his customers and the public generally that he has discontinued business in the city of Washington, and has opened shop on Bridge-street near the Union Tavern - he solicits the continuance of former customers, and hopes that all others who may chuse to call and purchase his manufacture will be amply suited. JOEL BROWN. George Town, Feb. 17 - tf
NOTICE.
ALL who are indebted to the estate of John Crookshank deceased are requested to make immediate payment to, CHARLES GLOVER, Adm. George Town, Nov. 25 - tf
Valuable Lands for Sale.
PURSUANT to a decree of the honorable the Circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, will be exposed for sale, at public auction, for ready cash, on Saturday the 7th of April next, under the direction of the undersigned commissioners appointed for that purpose.
A TRACT OF LAND.
late the property of Robert Alexander, situate upon the Potomac river, adjoining the lands of Mr. Philip Alexander, containing 545 acres, being one moiety of the Abbingdon tract, formerly the residence of Mr. Cullis, deceased; this land is bounded by two parallel lines 120 poles wide, and running back westerly 634 poles from the river to the back line, and will be laid off into squares of 50 acres each, and will be sold in large or small parcels as may accommodate purchasers; this land is situated about an equal distance between Alexandria and George Town, and commands a full view of those towns, the city, Eastern Branch and Potomac, and in point of soil is equal to any on the river. Any person desirous of purchasing will be shown the premises and the plat and survey of the same on application to George Deneale in Alexandria.
THOMAS SWANN, } Com're.
EDMUND J. LEE, }
GEO. DENEALE, }
March 5 - tdf
FOR SALE.
ON board the sloop Columbia, Thomas R. Gardiner master, from Rhode Island, lying at King's wharf, I sweet cyder, cheese, and potatoes, also a trunk of ladies Morocco shoes - apply to the capt. on board. George Town, March, 6 - 3t
Bank of Columbia.
IN conformity with the charter of this bank, an election for twelve Directors will take place and be held at the house of Mr. Joseph Semmes in George Town on Tuesday the 20th March next at the hour of 10 o'clock, A. M. WILLIAM WHANN, Cashier.
In the case of Robert P. Wade.
Wade an insolvent debtor - six months from and after the first day of March is limited and appointed for the creditors to bring in and exhibit their claims to Robert W. Peacock the trustee appointed for the benefit of the creditors of Robert P. Wade an insolvent debtor in the county of Washington and that a copy of this order to be published three times in the National Intelligencer during the said term. By order of William Cranch, Esq. URIAH FORREST, Clk. March 6 - 3t
NOTICE.
The subscriber hath obtained from the Orphans Court of Calvert county, letters of administration on the personal estate of Daniel Kent deceased late of said county. All persons having claims against the estate are requested to hand them in legally authenticated, and those indebted are requested to make immediate payment to JOSEPH KENT, adm'r. Lower Marlbro, Feb. 24 - 3w
NOTICE.
The subscriber hath obtained from the Orphan's court of Prince George's county, in Maryland, Letters Testamentary on the personal estate of Ninian Willett, late of said county, deceased. All persons having claims against the said deceased, are hereby warned to exhibit the same, with the vouchers thereof, to the subscriber at or before the first day of September next - They may otherwise by law be excluded from all benefit of the said estate. Given under my hand this twenty first day of February, in the year eighteen hundred and four. JOHN T. WILLETT, Ex'r. March 7 - 3t
NOTICE.
All persons having business with me as agent either for the joint or separate estate of ROBERT MORRIS, JOHN NICHOLSON and JAMES GREENLEAF, or who may wish to buy any part of the property of the Aggregate Fund in this city or its vicinity, are requested, during my absence, to apply either to captain Thomas Tingey, Wm. Cranch, Esq. or Mr. Samuel Elliot, jun. JAMES GREENLEAF. City of Washington, Feb. 27 - 2w4w
Philadelphia TRINITY CHURCH LOTTERY.
10,000 Dollars the highest Prize. THE scheme contains 18,000 tickets - 6,271 of which are prizes - deduction 15 per cent. is expected to commence drawing the ensuing spring. Whole half and quarter tickets to be had of GEORGE TAYLOR, jun. No. 85 South Second Street opposite the Bank of Pennsylvania. D. C.
Table with 2 columns: Whole tickets, 6; Halves, 3; Quarters, 1. Prices: 25, 12 1/2, 6 1/4.
FIFTY DOLLARS REWARD.
Run away from the subscriber on the 21st inst. a young, likely, and very dark mulatto fellow, named PHIL. He is about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high of a thin, spare make; rather a round face, looks bold, and is about 20 years of age. He carried with him, some tow linen shirts and trowlers, a short blue coarse. This lad is a shoemaker, and it is more than probable will engage as a journeyman with some one of the trade. He is an artful, cunning fellow, reads his testament tolerably well, and plays occasionally upon the fife; is pert and saucy, has a vast deal of pride, thinks highly of himself; very tenacious of his opinions, never in the wrong, and will chatter and dispute from morn to morn, rather than confess a fault. He is smart and active, talks quick, and by his high pert manner, makes himself easily distinguished. It is possible he may have procured a pass, and it is supposed he went off with a thick-set mulatto fellow from the same neighborhood. If those who may accidentally fall in with this fellow, knew how kind and gentle has been the treatment shown him, and how base and ungrateful he has been the return, they would feel an impulse that would prompt, nay urge them to secure him. The above reward will be given to any person that will lodge him in any jail, so that I get him again; and it is requested, information will be given by one or more letters, sent by post, directed to the place of my residence. UPTON BRUCE. Cumberland, Allegany county, Maryland, Feb. 24 - tawst
TO BE LET
And entered upon immediately, a two story BRICK HOUSE in good repair on Twelfth street near Pennsylvania Avenue, opposite Morin's tavern - The house is the property of the Washington building Company, and will be rented low apply to THOMAS CARPENTER. Jan 30 - 3twf
The Celebrated ENGLISH Running Horse CLIFDEN.
WILL stand the ensuing season at the City of Washington, at THIRTY DOLLARS the season, which will commence on the 1st of March, and end on the 1st of August, but TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS will be received in full if paid within the season, and a dollar to the groom. Good pasture at fifty cents a week, and the utmost attention will be paid to the mare, but there will be no responsibility for accidents or escapes. Notes of hand will be expected with the mare. Enquiries may be made at Mr. Rhodes's tavern, city of Washington, and at M'Laughlin's, George-Town. Clifden's half brother Tickleoby, just imported from England, stands in Virginia at ten guineas a mare.
Clifden is a horse of uncommonly fine form, above fifteen hands an half hands high, of a beautiful deep blood bay, and perhaps the strongest made thorough blooded horse on the continent. Large and powerful horses produce the only real good turf-horses.
PEDIGREE.
I Certify, that Clifden was gotten by Alfred out of an own sister to the duke of Queensbury's bay horse Mulberry, which was gotten by Florizel out of Sir James Pennycuick's famous Matchem mare. Clifden was bred by the earl of Darby, and sold untried for 500 guineas. ISAAC PICKERING. Foxleaze, Hampshire. 18, 1799.
ALLIANCE.
Alfred was gotten by Matchem - Rockingham's dam, Purley, by Matchem; Pumpkin, by Matchem; Conundrum, Ranthos, Riddie, &c. by Matchem. Alfred's dam by Snap. Old Medley's dam by Snap; Snapdragon (dam of Old Selima's) dam by Snap; Old Shark's dam by Snap, &c.
PERFORMANCES.
In the year 1792, at five years old, he won ten times out of his twelve first races, as may be seen by the racing calendar, and was unqualified for eight years except by Buzzard. 1. In 1792, Thursday, Aug. 2d, a few stakes made for Lewes, but run at Brightelmston, wt. 12 ft. 3 lb. 4 miles. High Flyer, rode by himself, 1. Mr. Chichester's g. m. by King Fergus, rode by Lord Barrymore, 2. Sir John Lade's b. h. Clifden, by Alfred rode by himself, 3. 2. Lewes, Aug. 9th, a match for one hundred guineas, 12 ft. each. Sir John Lade's b. h. Clifden rode by Lord Barrymore, 1 2 1. Mr. O'Kelly's b. m. Miss Windmill, by Mr. Chichester's g. m. by King Fergus, rode by Mr. O'Kelly, 2 1 2. 3. Newmarket, first October meeting, four year old John Lade's b. h. Clifden, by Alfred, 5 years old, walked over the Beacon course, on Friday the 5th, and received the 70gs. Purse. 4. Second October meeting, same year, Monday 15th. Clifden carrying 9 ft. 12 lb. beat Sir Charles Bunbury's Playfellow, 4 years old, carrying 7 ft. 8 lb. D. I. 50 gs. 2 to 1 on Clifden. 5. Same day he received 10 gs. from Mr. Chichester's Minister, 12 ft. each, D. I. 25 gs. 6. On the 17th Clifden carrying 9 ft. beat Mr. O'Kelly's Big Ben (imported by the name of Traveller into Virginia) by a clipse, carrying 8 ft. 3 lb. both 5 years old. 50 gs. 7. On the 19th Clifden beat the duke of Grafton's Prunella in a sweepstakes of 25 gs. each, to go. It and received a forfeit from H. R. H. the duke of York's fire; Sir Charles Bunbury's Amelia; Lord Clermont's Jerome; Mr. Golding's Nameless. 8. On the 20th he beat Mr. O'Kelly's Slack across the Flat, 50 gs. to 7 and 2 to 1 on Clifden. 9. On the third October, or Houghton, meeting, Monday 29th, he received 40 gs. from Sir Charles Bunbury's Amelia, 100 gs. h. ft. 10. Same day he received 25 gs. from H. R. H. the duke of York's Pyramon, 100 gs. h. ft. 11. Next day, 30th October, Mr. Montlieu's Halkin, by Jupiter, beat Sir John Lade's Clifden, 100 gs. 12. November 18. Clifden, 5 years old, carrying 8 ft. 8 lb. beat Mr. O'Kelly's Excalibur, by Sweetbriar, aged, carrying 8 ft. 4 lb. 50 gs. The last race Clifden ran in 1792 was against the duke of Bedford's large horse Dragon, by Woodpecker. This was an astonishing race, each horse was rode by his owner, and carried 15 ft. or 210 lb. over the Beacon course 4 miles and nearly a quarter, for 300 gs. Clifden was beat, but the duke of Bedford rode fifteen stone, and Sir John Lade was obliged to carry about 5 stone dead weight, enough to kill even a good horse! Dragon never ran another successful race! Clifden, owned by the honorable Mr. Bowes, ran the next year, & beat Mr. O'Kelly's b. g. carrying about 12 ft. each, rode by the owners, over the new course, Lewes, for 100 gs. to 4 on Clifden. The duke of Queensbury's Mulberry, full brother to Clifden's dam, beat the following horses at Newmarket: Lord Darby's Sir Peter Teazle, over the Beacon course for 500 gs. and his lordship has five refused six thousand guineas for Sir Peter, as stated in a letter to Dr. Thornton in 1800. Mulberry also beat Lord Clermont's Collector, over the
six mile course, for 200 gs.; likewise the Yellow mare, for 300 gs. B. C.; also Lord Clermont's Woodcock, D. I. for 200 gs. In a sweepstakes of 50 gs. each D. I. he beat Lord Clermont's Woodcock 2d and Mr. Fox's Braganza 3d. In a sweepstakes of 300 gs. each, across the flat, he beat Mr. Bullock's grey Paspion 2d, and Lord Clermont's Old Paspion 3d. And in a sweepstakes of 100 gs. each, he beat the duke of Grafton's Oberon 2d, Lord Clermont's Woodcock 3d, and Mr. Vernon's Muti 4th. Thus Clifden, besides being a capital runner himself, is altogether from the first rate running stock.
In a letter from Mr. Sturt, member of parliament for Dorsetshire, to Dr. Thornton, he says, "I know of four or five very promising colts of Clifden's get. One in particular of the honorable Lionel Dakers, another of Dr. Barnes's, and I have a yearling in my possession, which I think the finest colt of his age I ever saw. From having seen these (his first colt) I repent having parted with him, and would willingly re-purchase the horse."
Mr. Ringgold, at whose farm he stood in Washington county Maryland, says Clifden's colts are the finest he ever saw, in every respect.
Clifden had only 50 mares in Virginia the season before last. The last season they saw his colts and he had 100. Col. Patterson, with whom he first stood, says no colts have been seen equal to Clifden's since the time of Old Paspion.
I do hereby certify, that Clifden stood in Chesterfield county at my stable, that he is a remarkable sure foal-getter, and his colts are large and handsome. Given under my hand this 30th day of January, 1804. THOMAS BRANCH. March 7 - 3t&w6w
Valuable property for Sale.
In virtue of a deed of trust executed and bearing date on the 8th day of January 1798, between ISAAC POLOCK of the first part WILLIAM DEAKINS jun. since deceased of the second part, and JONAH THOMPSON and RICHARD VEITCH of the third part. The subscriber being the Executor, devisee and legal Assignee of the said William Deakins jun. deceased, for the purpose of executing the trusts in and by that deed declared, shall and will on the 27th day of March next, if live, if not, the next fair day, at the Tavern of John H. Barney in George-Town, expose to public sale for Cash, to the highest bidder, that valuable Lot, situated on Water Street, in said town, on which the House at present occupied by Mr. Barney, as a Tavern, stands, together with all the buildings and improvements on the same, said lot, fronting on Water-street 52 feet, and running back 175 feet parallel with Cherry Alley, and binding thereon, being part of that lot designated in the plan of Old George-Town, by No. 49. Also another Lot on Keys Street, (being part of that Lot designated by the No. 77 in the plan of Old George-Town) comprehending a part of that wharf lately occupied as a Lumber Yard, by Mr. George Kriger - also a large and convenient two story brick dwelling house - More particular information relative to the above valuable property, may be had at any time previous to the day of sale, by application to Messrs. Thompson and Veitch in Alexandria, John T. Mason, Esq. George-Town, or the subscriber. FRANCIS DEAKINS. Executor and Devisee of William Deakins jun. deceased. Georgetown Jan. 20 - 2w17Mar
BY AUTHORITY.
SCHEME OF A LOTTERY.
To build a Catholic Cathedral Church in the City of Baltimore.
Table with 2 columns: Prize, Dollars. Includes prizes like '1st prize of 20,000' and '1 do. 10,000'.
7154 Prizes, 210,000
3856 Blanks - Not two to a prize. 21,000 Tickets, at 10 dollars each, 210,000
The laudable purpose of this lottery - the many very valuable prizes offered, and there not being two blanks to a prize, are considerations which give the managers reason to hope for a rapid sale of the tickets - the drawing will commence as soon as a sufficient number of tickets shall be sold to authorize it; and thirty days after the completion of the drawing, the prizes will be paid to the fortunate adventurers; subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent. Such prizes as shall not be demanded within twelve months after the drawing is finished, shall be considered as relinquished for the benefit of the church. For the satisfaction of those at a distance it may be necessary to mention, that the managers have given bond to the mayor and city council in the sum of 120,000 dollars, for the due payment of the prizes which may be drawn.
Tickets to be had of the managers, or of such persons as may be appointed by them.
Managers. Right rev. Bishop Carroll. Rev. Francis B. Moran. Messrs David B. Brien. Robert Brien. Charles Brien. Patrick Brien. Agapitus Brien. Lawrence Brien. Francis Brien. July 13, 1803. The managers have lodged a number of tickets in the above lottery in the hands of Wm. Brent and James D. Barry for sale.