The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1808-01-12 00:00:00

PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE, AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.
TO PRINTERS—FOR SALE, on very reasonable terms: About 500 wt. of BURGEES, and 500 of BREVIER: The same Type on which the ENQUIRER was lately printed.
DISSOLUTION OF CO-PARTNERSHIP. The Co-partnership of Taylor & Brown was by mutual consent, dissolved the 31st December last. All persons having claims against the concern will apply for settlement to James Brown, jun. who is authorised to receive all monies due thereto.
THE AUCTION & COMMISSION BUSINESS will in future be carried on by the Subscriber in the premises heretofore occupied by Taylor & Brown, which is well calculated for the reception of a large quantity of goods. He has on hand for sale, both for cash and on credit, a large assortment of GROceries: Amongst which are,
5 years old ANTIGUA RUM, New, Brown and leaf Sugar by the hhd. and barrel, Imperial, Hahn and Young Hyson Teas, Coffee, Cogniac Brandy, Pennsylvania Whiskey, Salt in sacks, 9 years old Brazil Wine in hds. First quality Madeira in pipes, hds. & qr. casks, Sherry Wine, &c. &c. &c. And a quantity of Dry Goods suitable for the season. JAMES BROWN, JR.
NOTICE—On Monday the 11th inst. if fair, if not, the next fair day, at 3 o'clock P. M. will be sold at auction, without reserve, for ready money, for the benefit of a number of heirs, the late property of Wray Thomas, dec'd. it being in two Tenements on Shockoe Hill: one on the street leading west from the Capitol, now occupied by Mr. C. Beckwith and adjoining the tenement now occupied by Mr. Gris Paine, the other on the main street, now occupied by Mr. B. Chaffee. It is a grocery store. BENJAMIN THOMAS.
FEMALE EDUCATION will be continued at Mount-air, the ensuing year, under the direction of Miss Terrell: who will teach Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, English Grammar and Geography.
The school will be opened on Monday the 18th January. Terms—For Board and Tuition, each finding her own bedding, $100 per annum, paid quarterly in advance; and as provisions will be made in due time for the reception of boarders, no deduction can be made for entering a boarder after a part of the first quarter has elapsed nor for the necessary vacations. HUMPHREY HILL.
JUST RECEIVED, a general assortment of DUTCH ROLLING CLOTHS, of superior quality—For sale by J. DARMSDATT.
DR. FENDALL, OPERATOR UPON TEETH, has just arrived in this place, and may be consulted every day, during his stay, at the Eagle-Tavern. Dr. Fendall cures the scurvy in the gums, he never so inordinate, in a short time; restores loose teeth, by making the gums grow firm up to them, renders teeth white and beautiful; prevents their decay; keeps such as are so, from becoming worse, even to old age; fills up those that are hollow with gold or lead, which will not only render them useful, but prevent their aching and further decay; extracts teeth and stumps with ease; makes and fixes artificial teeth, without extracting the remaining stumps; either with pivots, ligatures or springs, in such a manner as to be useful and highly ornamental. His Columbian Antiseptic Dentifrice, for preserving the teeth, gums, sockets, &c. and superior he thinks, both in elegance and efficacy to any other, is sold by the Doctor.
As Dr. Fendall's continuance in this place is uncertain, those ladies and gentlemen who wish to employ him, will please to make immediate application. Any persons wishing to be waited on, at their residence, will please to send a servant or a line, to his lodgings.
MR. LE TELLIER, DENTIST—Is now practicing in the various branches of his profession, i. e. cleansing and restoring the Teeth to their natural elegance, setting artificial ones, so as to be useful as well as ornamental, plugging the decayed cavities of such as can be preserved, and extracting such as are too far gone to be saved, in which operation he makes use of—Bruff's Patent Extracting Instrument—which takes the teeth out without any possibility of fracturing the jaw or bruising the gums, and with much less pain than the instruments that are in general use. He deems it unnecessary to say any thing concerning the advantages derived from the manner of his performance or his abilities, leaving it to his former operations to speak. He has DENTIFRICE of a superior quality, void of corrosive substances, prepared by himself and for sale.
His dwelling is at the house next to E. Randolph's, near the Capitol.—A line or servant directed to the said place, will be attended to. Dec. 15. [2awtf.]
MR. LE TELLIER informs those that are travelling to Norfolk, that his Brother is practicing Dentistry there, and his abilities are unexceptionable.
A GREABLY to a decree of the county court of Hanover, will be sold at Hanover Town, to the highest bidder, on Tuesday the 19th inst. if fair, if not, the next fair day, on twelve months credit, a valuable BLACKSMITH, a Woman & a Girl, belonging to the estate of William Cock, Jun. dec'd. Bonds with approved security will be required by the COMMISSIONERS. Hanover Town, Jan. 9. [ep3.]
MORE CHEAP GOODS—JOHN KING, again respectfully informs his customers & the public, that he has just received, by the late arrivals from Philadelphia and New-York, a general assortment of Fashionable and Seasonable GOODS, which are now opening at his Store, the second door below the Eagle-Tavern: where they may be had upon as good terms, for cash, as at any other place in the City. November 6. [eptf.]
FOR RENT—Four Commodious TENEMENTS, near the Armoury—For Hire, TWO SAWMILLS. E. J. HARVE. Jan. 2. [eptf.]
FOR SALE, 121,000 acres of LAND in Kenawha county, in the forks of Great Sandy river:
24,000 do. in Tazewell county, on the waters of Clinch river:
20,000 do. in the county of Wythe, on Reed and Peak creeks:
1,000 do. in Randolph county, on the waters of Cheat river:
Also, 30,000 acres of Virginia Land Warrants. The above will be sold very low, and great accommodation given in the payments.
To RENT, a Brick House, on Shockoe-Hill, in a good neighborhood, and possessing every accommodation for a family. THOS: NORVELL.
Dec. 19.
ENGLISH KID SHOES—Just received and for sale by Dodge & Cobb, 3 trunks Ladies' & Misses white, black, figured and lace pattern KID SHOES, of Jackson's manufacture, London; Also, Gentlemen's best superfine London HATS. Jan. 7. [1f]
KIRBY, DRAKE & TAYLOR—Have just received from the late arrivals from London & Liverpool, in addition to their Fall Assortment, 1 bale London superfine Cloths and Cassimeres, 20 do. Kendal Cottons, 2 do. Carpets and Carpeting, 4 boxes 4-4 Irish Linen, 1 do. Diapers, Lawn and Sheetings. All of which will be sold low for cash or on a short credit. Dec. 15. [epf.]
A TEACHER, who can teach the Latin and French Languages, the English grammatically, Arithmetic and Geography, who wishes a healthy situation in the country, may obtain an advantageous situation upon liberal terms; for further information, any person who wishes employment of that kind, is referred to the Editor of the ENQUIRER. Dec. 15. [1f]
WILL be sold at the Bell Tavern in this city, on the 18th day of this month, fifteen like NEGROES, consisting of men, women and children. The terms of sale, twelve months credit, the purchaser giving bond with security to be approved by the subscriber, to carry interest from the date if not punctually paid. WM. PRICE. JOHN F. PRICE. Richmond, Jan. 7. [epbfs]
WILL be sold to the highest bidder, on the premises, on Friday the 30th day of February next, the tract of LAND in Amherst county on which Cornelius Thomas, late of that county, resided. It lies about four miles from the town of Warminster, and contains 2200 acres. Great part of it is tobacco land, equal in quality to any land in that or any other county in this state; some fine meadow land and a plenty of timber, a tolerable mill on a never-failing stream, 80 or 100 acres cleared and in order for cropping. Will sell the whole together or in lots to suit purchasers. My terms are one fourth in cash, and the balance in one, two, and three years. Bonds with approved security, or a deed of trust on the land will be required. REUBEN B. PATTERSON, Attorney in fact for Cornelius Thomas. Buckingham, Jan. 9. [Law4wtf.]
LOST, between Hanover Court House, and the Eagle-Tavern, in the city of Richmond, this day, a red Morocco Pocket-Book, with Bank Notes, to the amount of ninety-five dollars—one fifty dollar note of the U. States' branch at Savannah, No. 5963—two twenty dollar notes of the Virginia Bank, and a five dollar, the numbers of the three last not now recollected; with two Bonds of Warner L. Womack's of a thousand dollars, given to Robert E. Gaines of King and Queen, one of five hundred due the first of January 1810, and the other also of five hundred dollars due in January 1811, with sundry other papers that can be of no service to any person but the owner. Who ever will deliver the said Pocket-Book with the fifty five dollars and all the other papers that were in it when lost, to Mr. Poitiaux of this city, or to the subscriber residing in King William near Hanover Courthouse, shall receive twenty dollars. THOMAS CARY NELSON. Richmond, Dec. 23. [2awtf.]
WANTED, AN ASSISTANT AT THE RICHMOND FEMALE ACADEMY—Mrs. BYRD is desirous of getting a Lady of good moral character and capable of teaching English and Arithmetic, to assist her in tuition, and also in taking care of the young ladies entrusted to her superintendence. To such a person she will give a reasonable salary, besides her board, and lodging at the academy, including fire, candles and washing. Richmond, Jan. 7, 1808. [2awtf.]
PROPOSALS for carrying the MAILS of the United States on the following post-roads, will be received at the General Post-Office until the 14th day of February next.
1. From Fredericksburg by Orange c. h. Milton and Charlottesville to New-York once a week. Leave Fredericksburg every Wednesday at 8 p. m. and arrive at Charlottesville on Friday by 6 a. m.—Leave Charlottesville at 7 a. m. and arrive at New-York by 11 a. m.—Leave New-York every Friday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Charlottesville by 5 p. m. and arrive at Fredericksburg on Sunday by 10 p. m. 2. From New-York by Wanchesho' to Staunton once a week. Leave Staunton every Friday at 6 a. m. and arrive at New-York by 11 a. m.—Leave New-York every Friday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Staunton by 6 p. m. 3. From Richmond by Goochland c. h. Columbia, Rising Sun and Milton to Charlottesville once a week. Leave Richmond every Tuesday at 1 p. m. and arrive at Charlottesville by Tuesday at 1 p. m.—Leave Charlottesville on Thursday by 6 p. m.—Leave Charlottesville every Saturday at 5 a. m. and arrive at Richmond on Monday by 11 a. m. 4. From Leesburg by Elizabethton, Middle-town, Karisburg, Carlisle and Shippenburg to Chambersburg three times a week. Leave Leesburg every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 4 p. m. and arrive at Chambersburg on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 10 p. m.—Leave Chambersburg every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 a. m. and arrive at Leesburg by 12 p. m. 5. From Chambersburg by McConnells-town, Bedford, Somerset and Greensburg to Pittsburgh three times a week. Leave Chambersburg every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 a. m. and arrive at Pittsburgh on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by 9 p. m. and arrive at Pittsburgh on Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday by 10 a. m.—Return from Pittsburgh every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 p. m. and arrive at Chambersburg the next Friday, Monday and Wednesday by 8 p. m.
NOTES. 1. The contracts for the three first mentioned routes are to be in operation on the 1st day of April next, and to continue in force one year. Contracts for the two last routes are to be in operation on the 1st day of July next and continue until the 30th of September 1809. 2. The contractor will be subjected to the usual penalties for delays and failures, which will be specified in the contracts. GIDEON GRANGER, Post-Master General. General Post-Office, Jan. 7. [2aw6w.]
THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, JANUARY 12, 1808.
VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES, WEDNESDAY, JAN. 6.
DEBATE on the Amendment to the Federal Constitution, respecting the Judiciary.
Mr. Barbour moved to discharge the committee of the whole, from the consideration of the subject. Mr. Barbour said that he was averse to going into the order of the day and was for discharging the committee of the whole from further proceeding upon the subject during the present session. It was acknowledged by all that the subject proposed for consideration was amongst the most important of any to which the public attention had been called, since the adoption of the instrument which was sought to be amended. The independence of the judiciary of the other departments and a stability in the tenure by which they hold their office, was in America a principle in the science of politics, which had been cherished with peculiar affection. It had been sanctioned by the most profound writers, it boasted the approbation of the Sages and Patriots who formed the state constitution by the galaxy of talents which convened for the purpose of framing the constitution of the U. S. and finally the value of the principle had been confirmed by experience the most infallible of all tests. He was at liberty to say therefore, as the dependence of the judiciary was a principle of politics that had lately become fashionable in America, that the measure proposed was novel in its nature, and daring in its aspect; but he did not wish to be understood to say that no change ought to take place, for if he were compelled to vote he was willing to go thus far; that if two thirds of Congress agreed upon the unfitness of a judge to hold his office, that he should be suspended until an appeal could be made to the nation through the medium of an election, and if the same majorities approved the sentence of the preceding Congress, a removal should take place. Although he did not mean at this time to go fully into the merits of the question upon a motion to postpone, he would succinctly state that this amendment, it appeared to him from the cursory view he had been able to take of the subject, would combine the two great desiderata in the judicial department, the responsibility of the judge to the will of the public and at the same time give such security to the tenure by which he holds of office, as would rise superior to the vicissitude of opinions and the conflict of parties. It would also save all the delay, trouble and expense, incident to the present mode of trial by impeachment. It would have this great advantage, there would be an opportunity of an appeal to the nation, and if it is by their will a judge should be removed, he would be so.
He thought it necessary to make this statement, but it might be inferred that he was hostile to all innovation, he was far from it. His theory, was that the science of politics was in a state of progressive perfectibility and that experience in the course of time would perpetually suggest the necessity of amendment. But he approached the constitution with reverence and affection, and before he was prepared to give his consent to any change, the evil as well as the remedy must be obvious. He was averse to deep play in public as well as private life, and it seemed to him to border on rashness for a nation in the full enjoyment of political happiness suddenly to plunge into the great ocean of experiment and consequent uncertainty, when the advantage to be gained bore no proportion to the stake that might be lost.
When then a proposition is made to change the constitution, too much time cannot well be consumed in deliberation, in addition to which he thought the people ought to have an opportunity of reflecting upon the change, that the representative might freely communicate his constituents and learn their wishes whether any and what amendment was necessary. The different amendments which gentlemen propose are numerous as well as various, and he believed it was impossible for gentlemen to say which of those numerous amendments would obtain the sanction of the public will. If the question was suspended, the question from its interest and the tendency it is calculated to have upon our future destinies, was calculated to call for a the prudence of every head in the collision of different opinions and different views of the same subject, a result favorable to the best interest of the republic, might be expected. To this it may be added that the present time is peculiarly unfavorable to meddling with the constitution. The importance of our foreign relations was sufficiently great to concentrate the public attention. Upon that subject the prudence of every head and the energy of every heart should be drawn to a focus and their glow with the intensity of ardor.
Could it be right in this situation to be projecting amendments to the constitution which might have a tendency to divide the public mind and attention? Or is it not more proper to take such subjects into consideration in the calmness of peace; than when the political horizon seems over cast with a portentous storm. To him it seemed an injudicious as would be the attempt of an individual to muffle his house during an hurricane. He said there was with him another reason, the recent occurrence in this place has given a bias to the mind incompatible with that unruffled and deliberate state of mind so indispensable to the drawing of just conclusions. Let it be admitted that in this case the result of the trial was far different from the public expectation and that the justice of the country has been deprived of a victim which public opinion had surrendered. Yet the mind which hermits itself to be influenced by an individual case so much as to be willing to abandon great and settled principles, will forever conduct its possessor into inexplicable difficulties. How often have we seen, said Mr. B. the verdicts of juries different from the public opinion. Yet on that account is there any man who would dare to raise his impious hand against this sacred trial? Impartiality is inseparably incident to every human institution, and he that would go in pur-
suit of perfection would soon discover that this faultless monster would forever elude his grasp.
Let then the fire of the moment pass away and its influence upon the mind. Let gentlemen remember that the constitution has been placed under their guardianship, that it is not so affected by the ephemeral agitations of the day; but that it is intended for the welfare of millions yet unborn. Striking its deep foundations in the unalterable rights of man, if its principles which he fondly believed were durable were cherished with affection, if precipitate and wanton innovations were vigilantly guarded against, it might constitute one exception to the perishable nature of all sublunary things and might run parallel with the line of posterity.
After some desultory observations, Mr. Barbour withdrew his motion, when the House resolved itself into a committee of the whole; Mr. Johnston in the Chair.
Mr. Roberson (of Amelia) addressed the Chair:
Mr. CHAIRMAN, I rise for the purpose of offering an amendment to the resolution on the table:—under a government, resting on, and supported by the affections of the people; under a government, chosen and adopted by the voluntary will of the people, under a government acknowledging no sovereignty but the people, and under a government where public virtue alone should recommend individuals to public favor; I can see no earthly reason why the judges should not be responsible to the people or to their immediate representatives.
I therefore move that the words "two thirds" be stricken out of the first resolution and the words "a majority" inserted in lieu thereof.
Mr. Smyth (of Wythe)
Mr. Chairman—I consider it a fundamental principle of republican government, that magistrates are public servants, and accountable to the nation.
If this be true, that form of government is faulty, where this responsibility is merely nominal, not effectual; and where the magistrates are really independent of the national will.
My objection to the constitution as it now stands, and as it has been construed by the judges, is that the judges of the supreme federal court held for life, a power to direct and control the congress, the president, and executive departments, the inferior federal courts, the state courts, and state legislatures; and for erroneous opinions, or want of capacity, or if they should be suspected of the most traitorous designs, they cannot be removed even by the unanimous voice of the nation.
I therefore contend, that the judges are not independent; they are not public servants; they are the masters of the government, and the nation.
The power of impeachment is ineffectual. Judges cannot be punished for their decisions, unless they have proceeded from corruption, partiality, or oppression. And although it may sound well to say, "the judges ought to be independent;" yet we must confine it to an independence of individuals, or of factions. No man entrusted with power by the nation, ought to be independent of the nation. The judges hold a delegated power; and ought to be accountable for the exercise of it, with fidelity, and ability.
Could we be certain that every judge appointed by a President would be able, just, and patriotic, their independence would be desirable. But the same regulation which renders independent the able and upright patriot, will protect the artful enemy of the republican institutions of the country, the simple dotard, or the madman. Thus it was argued in Pickering's case, that he was a madman; and being a madman, could not be convicted of a misdemeanor; and therefore could not be removed from the office of a judge. If we cannot suffer the truly good to be independent, without suffering the bad or suspected to be independent also, let us render the nation independent of the nation.
The claim of power that has been set up by the judges of the supreme federal court, renders it necessary that the nation should have over them a controlling power, that might be promptly exercised. They are in effect the sovereigns of the United States. Their decisions are authority in every court. They approve the acts of Congress, or annul them. They approve the orders of the President, or annul them. They have established a precedent by which it has become necessary for military men, if they would avoid ruin, to carry their orders before they execute them, to the federal judges, and obtain their approbation. Thus subordination is destroyed; and obedience, the vital principle of an armed force, is rendered criminal.
It is remarkable what strides towards absolute power, the judiciary have made since the adoption of the federal constitution. The doctrine, that sets up the judiciary as paramount to the other departments of government is new. It is founded on certain numbers of a publication entitled "The Federalist" written by Mr. Hamilton, whose attachment, to despotic power is well known. The power of government is properly divided into two branches, the legislature and the executive. The judiciary is an inferior branch of the executive power. That this is the case in Europe, is acknowledged by Mr. Tucker in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries. In England the judges are regarded as advisers of the King. A law is passed by the parliament, the judges advise that an individual shall be punished for a breach of it; the King's other officers execute the sentence or not, at the King's pleasure. But here the judiciary, from being a subordinate branch of the executive, have grown in 18 years to be controllers of the legislature, and directors of the president, themselves uncontrolable by any human power.
The judges indeed modestly call their court a co-ordinate branch of the government. They seem to forget that they derive their appointments from the president, and that the power to appoint implies superiority on the part of those who appoint; but they are not contented with an equal power. By reversing and annulling the acts of the legislature and the executive, as well as of the
inferior courts, they arrogate to themselves the supreme ruling power.
In examining the propriety of granting Congress a power to displace the judges, it becomes necessary to consider their claims to the power of controlling the legislature and the president.
Have the courts a right to declare void acts of Congress, under pretence that they are unconstitutional?
I approach this question with diffidence, knowing that an answer in the affirmative has been given by eminent judges, and ably supported. I will briefly offer my reasons for inclining to be of opinion, that this question ought to be answered in the negative. But I will contend, that answer this question as you will, the power proposed by the resolution on your table ought to be given. If the judges possess constitutionally a power to declare the legislative acts of Congress, void, and the political acts of the president illegal, their authority is indeed awful. They may cut the sinews of the government by declaring void acts of Congress raising revenue, or providing the means of defence. They may utterly destroy subordination and obedience in our armies and navies. The national safety requires, that men possessing such powers should themselves be under the control of the national will. On the contrary, if they are not entitled to the exercise of these powers, if they have usurped them, the nation ought to have some way of removing the usurpers.
I contend that the constitution so far as it relates to the power of legislation, is a law to the legislature; of the breach of which, the state governments, and the people are to judge, and they alone. They are the proper guardians of the constitution, and not the inferior branch of the government established by that constitution. The meaning of the constitution is to be fixed by congress, the president, the state governments, and the people, united; and not by the supreme court alone.
The power of revising the proper acts of a department of the government, ought not to be entrusted to another department of the same government; but to those who have instituted the government, and from whom no usurpation is to be apprehended.
For the breach of every law there is an appropriate penalty. They who inflict that penalty are the judges of that law. What is the penalty incurred by members of congress for violating the constitution by passing an act contrary to its provisions? They are not liable to impeachment. The penalty is the loss of their seats. Who inflicts that penalty? The people, and the state governments. Then the people and the state governments are the judges of violations of the constitution by congress.
If the people and the state governments are the proper judges of breaches of the constitution by congress, their decision must be valid, and conclusive. If an act of congress is passed, and approved by the people, and the state governments, shall any earthly authority presume to question it? According to the doctrine contended for by the judges, let an act of congress be passed by both houses unanimously; approved by the president, and every man in the nation; any three of the judges of the supreme federal court may declare it void, and prevent its going into operation, contrary to the wishes of congress, the president, the state legislatures, and the people! Is it reasonable that the judges should possess a power to declare that congress and the president have violated their oaths and the constitution, by passing an act which obtains them the applause of their constituents, and for passing which the senators are re-elected by the state governments, and the representatives by the people? Are not the liberties of the nation prostrated by such a power?
Let this power be conceded to the supreme federal court, and it is not that court alone that will possess it. If it is a judicial power, every inferior federal court, every state court, every justice of peace, every alderman, every jury possesses the power to declare acts of congress void, and may exercise it in 10,000 cases wherein there lies no appeal. On this ground the counsel for Calhoun insisted that the jury had a right to consider void an act of congress. The claim was properly made on the part of the jury, if the court has the right. Judge Chase in the case of Fries very correctly laid it down, that "the constitutional decision of treason was a question of law, and that the jury are to decide in all criminal cases both the law and the facts." In a criminal case the court may or may not instruct the jury as to the law; and if they do, the jury may, or may not, observe their instructions. To my mind it is clear that if a court can, in a criminal case, compare the constitution and an act of congress, decide that the act of congress is void, and instruct the jury it is not law; the jury have a right, without those instructions, to decide it is not law. The instructions of the court cannot enlarge the power of the jury. If with the court's instructions they may disregard the acts of congress, without the court's instructions they may disregard it. They are to decide, what the law is, and what the facts are, and in deciding what the law is, their power is co-extensive with that of the court. But Judge Chase repelled the claim made on the part of the jury. He said it had a direct tendency to dissolve the union. It seems to me that if it had such a tendency, to make the claim on the part of all the courts has the same tendency. For it might equally happen that the same law of congress might be respected and enforced in one part of the nation, and declared void in another. From this case it seems that also the federal judges are disposed to usurp power for themselves, they are not disposed to enlarge the powers of juries.
In order to determine whether the judges have a right to declare void acts of congress as being unconstitutional, we must enquire what kind of a power this is. And if we find it is a judicial power, we may conclude it belongs to the court; but if it is a legislative power, we may conclude it belongs to congress: For by the constitution all legislative power therein granted is to be exercised by congress, subject to the qualified negative of the president, alone; who thereby obtains a share in the legislature: The judicial power is granted to the courts, and the

executive power to the president. When it appears whether a certain act is an exercise of legislative, executive, or judicial power, it also appears what department of the government may perform it. Thus in the case of Jonathan Robbins it was argued by Mr. Marshall in a justly celebrated speech, that he having been demanded under Jay's treaty, delivering him up was an exercise of executive power, and therefore the President had a right to perform it.
Legislative power consists in declaring what the law shall be; executive power in carrying the law into effect; judicial power in applying the law to particular cases. To make laws, is the province of the legislature. To determine controversies, according to those which are made, is the province of the judiciary. To determine what laws may or shall be made, is an exercise of legislative discretion.
If to determine what laws may constitutionally be passed, is a judicial power, then Congress cannot exercise it; consequently, Congress cannot determine how to legislate. It is essential to the power of legislation that the legislature should be able to determine in what manner to legislate. Then as all the legislative power conferred by the constitution, is vested in Congress, it seems to me, they possess the rights necessary to its exercise; and that they possess a right to determine what acts may constitutionally be passed. And for the exercise of a sound legislative discretion therein, they are responsible to their constituents.
Then, if to determine whether a proposed rule shall be a law or not, is an exercise of legislative power, the judges, when they say an act of Congress shall not become a law, exercise legislative discretion: A discretion which the constitution has not conferred on them; and which must produce consequences the people never intended to produce.
I conceive, sir, as in a legislative body consisting of different branches, each branch may judge of its privileges; so in the general government, each department may exercise its own powers, subject only to the control of those who elected them. The errors of any branch of government can only be corrected by those who are constitutionally their superiors. Who corrects judicial errors of an inferior court? Their superiors, the supreme court. Who shall correct the legislative errors of Congress? Their superiors, their constituents. Could it be the intention of the American people to vest in judges whom the President should choose, who would hold their offices for life, and who would neither be elected by, or responsible to the people, a power to control the legislature and executive? Is it not reasonable to suppose, they would prefer reserving the power to control Congress and the President to themselves? Is the power to declare void the acts of Congress expressly given by the constitution? It is not. It is an assumption of power by implication: But the power is too great and unreasonable to be suffered to pass by implication. Those who assume it seek a power above the law: A power which despots only possess: A power granted to judges no where; and ought not any longer to be tolerated here.
While this power is claimed and tolerated, your government is imperfect, and inefficient. Its acts are snares for the citizens. When an act of Congress has passed & been approved by the President, and is published as a law, no one knows whether it is a law or not. And it may be ten years before we shall know. Are the citizens to obey this act, when it is known that it wants the approbation of the federal judges, which approbation is essential to give it validity? Are the citizens to obey it, when such obedience may subject them to ruinous fines and damages, whenever Mr. Marshall and his brethren shall be pleased to declare it void? The constitution has said: "Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it." It is not said that the bill, before it become a law, shall also be presented to, and approved by the federal judges: But that is what they require; and without that approbation, the man who obeys an act of Congress, "acts at his peril."
The same may be said of the orders given by the President to military men. The constitution says: "The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States." It does not say his orders shall be obeyed if approved by the supreme federal court. But the judges have said so in effect. The decision of the court in the case of Little against Bareme is thus abridged: "A commander of a ship of war of the United States, in obeying his instructions from the President of the United States, acts at his peril. If those instructions are not strictly warranted by law, he is answerable in damages to any person injured by their execution." Now observe the consequence of these usurpations. An act of Congress is valid, provided the federal judges approve it. An order of the President to the army or navy is valid, provided the federal judges approve it. But the citizens in the one case, the soldiers or seamen in the other, are called on to obey, before the validity of the act is declared, by the only authority competent to give it validity, and to sanction their obedience. Is not this unjust? Is it not disgraceful, that after an act has been promulgated by the constituted authorities as law, that every citizen, every foreigner, is bound to become a politician and lawyer, and to determine before he yields obedience, whether the act is "necessary and proper" to carry into execution some one of the specific powers of Congress? According to the rules thus established, it seems to be a duty of the citizens and soldiers to pause before they obey; and they seem justified in saying to their government: "We wish to obey; but we dare not, until we have the approbation of the supreme federal court."
Sir, I hold it the duty of every citizen to obey an act of Congress published as law; an act which the constitution says, "shall become a law;" and shall be "the supreme law of the land." I hold it to be the duty of every military man to obey the orders of the commander in chief, unless manifestly contrary to law. If it is the duty of the citizen and soldier to obey, it is the duty of the nation to protect him. This can only be done by maintaining the act or the order to be valid.
An embargo has just been laid by Congress; the act has been signed by the President, and has become a law, as the constitution says, and as we suppose. The President has issued his instructions, and we suppose them to be valid. The act and instructions are to be obeyed, and we ought to obey them.
federal court may declare, that a law putting stop to commerce is not "necessary and proper" to carry into execution a power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations," that therefore the act of Congress and the President's instructions, are merely pieces of waste paper, of no force or validity, and your revenue and naval officers may be ruined by suits for damages. The judges could justify themselves in such a case just as plausibly as in any case wherein they have heretofore declared void, the acts of Congress, or orders of the President.
In England, he acts of Parliament bind the king. He cannot dispense with them. Consequently they bind his advisers, the judges of the several courts. The power of Congress differs from that of Parliament in this, that they cannot change the constitution without the consent of the state legislatures. But the mutual relation and difference of powers, between Congress and the federal judges is the same as between the Parliament and the English judges. Although the powers of the legislature are here more restricted, yet that of the judiciary is not therefore enlarged. What is taken from the legislature is not therefore added to the judiciary. Do the English judges exercise the power of controlling Parliament, and declaring void its acts? Far from it. Blackstone says, "that were to set the judicial power above the legislature, which would be subversive of all government." We have here seen the trial made of setting the judiciary above the legislature, and find that the conjecture made by Blackstone was right.
But it seems to be contended that in as much as our constitution is written, therefore with it the acts of congress, and to declare them void, if in the opinion of the courts, they contradict it. Sir, if a state has a constitution, or fundamental laws, the obligation of those fundamental laws is the same whether they are written or unwritten. Reducing the constitution of a state to writing cannot change the relative powers of the departments of the government, or necessarily make the inferior branch absolute and uncontrollable. Constitutions can exist without necessarily conferring on the judiciary a power to control the legislature, and executive. Vattel says "the constitution of the state ought to be fixed; and since that was first established by the nation, which afterwards trusts certain persons with the legislative power, the fundamental laws are excepted from their commission." He adds "If there arises any dispute in a state, on the fundamental laws, the public administration, or on the prerogatives of the different powers, of which it is composed, it is the business of the nation alone, to judge and determine according to its political constitution."
The oaths taken by the judges, one "to support the constitution of the U. States," prescribed by the constitution itself, another to discharge the duties of the office of a judge "agreeable to the constitution and laws of the U. States," prescribed by an act of congress, are considered as proving the power of the federal courts to decide against the validity of acts of congress: But surely the judges will not contend that oaths encrase their powers, or even their duties. They are only solemn promises to perform duties which exist independently of the oaths. If the oath "to support the constitution of the U. States" contains a grant of power, every man who takes it must be a grantee of the power; and if that is to declare void acts of congress, every constable may declare void the acts of congress. As a qualification for office, taking this oath may authorise one man to exercise more power than another: But the grant of power must be looked for elsewhere, in the laws, or the constitution. As to the oath prescribed by congress, had a congress granted the courts a negative on their acts, a subsequent congress would not be bound thereby. And the oath requires the judges to respect the laws of the U. States, as well as the constitution. As the judges speak of their oaths and morality, I will ask; does he support the constitution of the U. S. who encroaches on the other departments established by that constitution; or who declares void an act passed under the constitution, and in the manner prescribed therein; when the constitution declares "it shall become a law," and that it shall be, "the supreme law of the land?" It seems to me that such actions are no evidence of attachment to the constitution of the U. S.
Let me not be understood as meaning to impair the obligation of the constitution as a fundamental law, when I say it is not in court, a paramount law. It is a gross insult to the congress and President to suffer the judiciary to say to them, "you have violated your oaths and the constitution, and your act shall not become a law." It is requiring the concurrence of the judiciary in the passage of every law. It is better that an act, the constitutional validity of which may be doubted, should operate until the nation by its representatives perceives the objection, and repeals it; than that we should not know what acts are laws, until their validity has been questioned in the supreme court. Does any gentleman believe that congress will intentionally and palpably violate the constitution by passing acts contrary thereto? Judge Chase says "No citizen of knowledge and information, unless under the influence of passion or prejudice, will believe, without very strong and indubitable proof, that congress will, intentionally, make any law in violation of the federal constitution, and their sound trust." Then it is not essential to the preservation of the constitution that it shall be regarded as a paramount law, in court. And it is much safer under the protection of congress, the President, and the nation, on the one hand, than it would be on the other, under that of the three judges composing the majority of the supreme federal court, alone.
Mr. Marshall in the case of Marbury against Madison observed, that "it is not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned." The clause of the constitution reads thus: "This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." The idea conveyed by the passage quoted from the argument of the chief justice, is, that there are grades of supreme law; and that the first mentioned, is the highest grade; but no such inference can be drawn from that circumstance. The constitution, laws, and treaties, are all mentioned as supreme laws; consequently they are laws of equal dignity. And if two of them should contravene each other, the rule that the posterior law abrogates the prior law must apply. A treaty might be made contrary to an article of your constitution. Should a state be conquered; and should Bonaparte land with 50,000 men in Florida and conquer Georgia, & a cession of it be demanded as the condition of peace; as "the safety of the nation is the first law" the general government, to whom is committed the power of making treaties, without any limitation, would have power if absolutely necessary to cede that state, although your constitution guarantees to every state in the union a republican form of government, and protection from invasion. Should more fortunate times succeed, the treaty might be repealed by an act of Congress. We have seen treaties thus repealed and the power is not doubted. Well, the treaty although contrary to a clause of your constitution, would be the supreme law of the land; and we must support the constitution, by maintaining what it maintains. The act of Congress, although contrary to the treaty, would be the supreme law of the land. If, then, an act of Congress may abrogate a treaty and a treaty might contravene a clause of your constitution; why may not an act of Congress be received as law, in court, although deemed in collision with the constitution?
* Pursuant. Done in consequence, or in pursuance of any thing. Johnson.
and men in Florida and conquer Georgia, & a cession of it be demanded as the condition of peace; as "the safety of the nation is the first law" the general government, to whom is committed the power of making treaties, without any limitation, would have power if absolutely necessary to cede that state, although your constitution guarantees to every state in the union a republican form of government, and protection from invasion. Should more fortunate times succeed, the treaty might be repealed by an act of Congress. We have seen treaties thus repealed and the power is not doubted. Well, the treaty although contrary to a clause of your constitution, would be the supreme law of the land; and we must support the constitution, by maintaining what it maintains. The act of Congress, although contrary to the treaty, would be the supreme law of the land. If, then, an act of Congress may abrogate a treaty and a treaty might contravene a clause of your constitution; why may not an act of Congress be received as law, in court, although deemed in collision with the constitution?
As the constitution declares the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, supreme law; an important question arises as to the meaning of the terms used. Does the constitution by the expression "made in pursuance thereof" mean acts of Congress which shall be, in the opinion of the supreme federal court, not contrary to any of the provisions of the constitution? Or does it mean acts of Congress, made in the manner prescribed by the constitution—signed by the president, or re-passed by two thirds, or not returned in ten days? By the seventh section of the first article it is declared that every bill, before it become a law, shall be presented to the President—if he approve it he shall sign it—If not returned in ten days the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it—if approved by two-thirds of each house, it shall become a law. Here it is expressly and repeatedly declared, that the acts of Congress passed in the different modes here mentioned, SHALL BECOME LAWS. This is what is meant by the phrase "laws made in pursuance thereof." I contend for this construction as most agreeable to the meaning of the words used. I contend for this construction as safest for the nation; because it gives to them, and not to a single court, the power to fix the meaning of every clause in the constitution. I contend for it, because it is safest for individuals, who when they see an act of Congress, will know certainly, that it is the supreme law of the land. It is the construction that keeps separate and distinct the different branches of the government; and according to which the concurrence of the judiciary, in the business of legislation, is not necessary.
It has been said that ours is a government of checks and balances, and that the judiciary is a constitutional check on the legislature. I do not understand the design of the constitution to be, that one department of power should check or control another department of power. On the contrary I understand the departments are to be separate and distinct. If one department of power can interfere with the exercise of another, it is confusion. Each department of power has checks within itself. Thus in the exercise of the judicial power, the supreme court checks the inferior courts. In the exercise of executive power, the Senate are sometimes a check upon the President. And in the exercise of legislative power the two houses are checks on each other, and the President on both. These are the checks and balances provided by the constitution. The different powers are essentially distinct, and it is evidently the design of the constitution to keep them so. For their union constitutes despotism. And if a small body of men holding their offices for life, independent of every other body of men, and of the nation, have a right to establish rules for the exercise of the legislative, executive and judicial powers, and to decide on the acts of each department in the recess, then despotism is established. The judges of the supreme federal court, are the supreme rulers of the nation.
The consequences of the power claimed by the judges, deserve the most serious attention. Suppose a new social contract between a prince and people, a part of which should be that the people should choose legislators and the prince judges; whether would it not be safest for the people that the judges chosen by the prince should have power to decide on the constitutionality of the acts of the legislators, or that the people themselves should judge of the constitutionality of those acts? In such a society would not the advocates for monarchical power contend that the prince's servants should fix the meaning of the social contract; and the advocates of democratic power contend that the people's representatives should possess that right, and exercise it, responsible to the people? Names do not alter the nature of things; and you may compare this supposed case with the actual situation of the U. States. There has been a time when all the judges of the supreme federal court held their offices from the gift of the ruling President. Then shall men, elected by the President, decide on the meaning of the constitution, without any appeal, or shall men elected by the people and the state governments so decide, subject to the revision of their constituents?
It is asked, what shall be done if congress violate the constitution? For instance, suspend the writs of Habeas corpus when there is no invasion or rebellion. I answer, the people their senators, and the law will be repealed. But this is putting an extreme case, which may never happen. I ask you, should a power to annul the acts of congress be conceded to the courts, what is to be done if the judges, in violation of the constitution, should declare the revenue laws not "proper" and therefore void, and congress satisfied they were right, should pass no other, and leave the dispute to be settled between the judges and the nation? A wrong opinion entertained by congress could soon be rectified by a change of that body; a wrong opinion entertained by the supreme federal court might remain unchanged for half a century. An intentional violation of the constitution by congress and the President, is about thirty times less probable than such a violation by the supreme federal court. In the one case only three men are to violate their sacred trust; in the other about ninety. And as to cases where it is doubtful whether the act of congress is constitutional or not, the court should presume that congress have not exceeded their powers.
Having presented you with an argument against the power claimed by judges, I proceed to show that whether it be a constitutional, or usurped power, 'tis proper the judges should be under the control of the nation.
By maintaining false legal doctrines the judges are not less exceedingly dangerous. They may prove so, when they act as political preachers. Political preaching from the bench, alone, is a reasonable cause for removal of a judge. We have seen them laboring as the zealous Apostles of principles deemed by a majority of the nation hostile to liberty.
The judges of the supreme federal court lay down rules by which all the branches of the government are to be bound. It is of the utmost consequence that those rules should be the dictates of wisdom. The wisdom of the whole nation is more to be relied on than that of three men in the supreme court perhaps superannuated, and whose patriotism and integrity may be suspected. The nation will never be in its doteage. In it there will always be great numbers of men of sound understanding, and uncorrupted principles. In the supreme federal court, perhaps not one. The nation will be under no undue bias; the judges may be actuated by a factious desire to counteract the other branches of the government.
It is impossible in considering this question to avoid reflecting on some past circumstances. We are bound to avail ourselves of the light of experience. Government was instituted for the purpose of securing justice. Ours is imperfect if it does not answer that purpose. Whatever be the institution if it does not answer the purpose intended, it ought to be altered. If those who have gone before us on the political theatre were mistaken, when they adopted the constitution, in their expectation that it would "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and preserve the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity," it is our duty to rectify their errors. We have the same right to amend the constitution, that they had to make it; and we have experience of its defects, which they had not.
The supreme court have so proceeded, uniformly, as to degrade every branch of the government but their own. Soon after the establishment of that court, they decided that the state governments were liable before them, and endeavored to prove that there was really no difference between the government of a sovereign state, and that of a corporate town. The consequence of that usurpation was an explanation of the constitution by way of amendment. The nation has seen in what way criminal prosecutions have been managed, with a view to prop the authority of one administration, or to bring into contempt that of another.
It is better to prevent an injury than to punish it. If you have a servant that you suspect means to poison you, must you keep him until he effects it? If the nation should ever believe a judge has traitorous designs would it not be "foolish and madness" to keep him in office until he has an opportunity to destroy the nation? You employ a physician, a lawyer, an overseer; you dismiss him if you suspect he is incapable, or unfaithful. You do not call for proof of his criminality. Has he a right to complain that you have judged in your own cause, and not given him a fair trial in court? It is you only who ought to judge in your own affairs. If you dismiss him without a reasonable cause, if you injure yourself—So if the nation ever should cast off a judge without a reasonable cause, the nation only would be injured. The office is not created for the individual who fills it, but for the nation. Their opinion of truth and justice would direct them how to act, and they ought to be at liberty to follow it.
There is much less danger that Congress should usurp power than that the federal courts should. Because the court will consist of a small number, and the power usurped is to continue for life. Congress will be a numerous body, the power of any one of the number will be small, and to be executed for a short time only. They will have no interest, or ambitious motive, to govern them. They will consult only the interest of the people, in which their own will be comprised.
A power to dismiss the judges is necessary to be placed somewhere, even though they have committed no crime or misdemeanor. The opinions of a judge may be a reasonable cause of removal. I contend that "the safety of the people is the first law." If then the opinions of a judge have a tendency to destroy the state, his removal on account of those opinions is proper, and ought to be provided for. It is not now provided for. A judge can only be removed for crimes or misdemeanors. The judgment rendered by a judge can be no misdemeanor, if agreeable to his conscientious opinions. I would have no man punished for his opinions. But as they constitute a very sufficient reason for refusal of office, so, in some cases, they ought to be a sufficient ground of removal.
I hope it is unnecessary for me to say that I do not mean such differences of opinion as exist between the different political parties in this country. I will put a case or two, that I may be fully understood.
While there was a pretender to the British throne, would a judge have been permitted to continue such, whose conscientious opinion was that the pretender's claim was good, and that the acts of parliament to which he did not assent, were unconstitutional, and void? Ought such a judge, whatever his integrity might be, to have been kept in office under the existing government? Certainly not. He ought not to have been punished for his opinion, but he ought to have been removed from an office, which his opinions disqualified him to fill.
Judge Hale in the time of Cromwell declined, as it is said, to sit as a judge of the court of king's bench; because, in his opinion, Cromwell had no good right to the sovereign power. He acted right. Suppose he had set in the king's bench, and there given a conscientious opinion, that as Cromwell had no good right to the sovereign power, levying war against the existing government was not treason, ought he to have been kept in office? Certainly not. His opinions were dangerous, and might have been fatal to the safety of the state.
I contend that any opinion destructive of the nation's rights, of which the nation should be the judge, should be a cause of removal of a federal judge from office.
Suppose a federal judge should now be of opinion, that the heirs of lord Grenville own a large part of N. Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana, that the Yazoo and other companies own the Mississippi Territory and that the Indiana company own the northern counties of this state and the western counties of Pennsylvania. Suppose also that the people and their representatives should be conscientiously of a different opinion; ought not the nation to have power to remove a man whose opinions should have a direct tendency to endanger his country's liberties, and destroy her essential rights? That nation which must keep in office, a man whose opinions are favorable to its enemies, and injurious to its own rights, does not possess the power necessary to protect itself.
A judge ought to be unassisted by the people to whom he is to administer justice, and whose government he is to protect against crimes. Our laws, from the multitude of adjudged cases, are extremely intricate and ambiguous. It was said some ages past of the laws of England, that "men of wit and learning may find what will serve for a pretence, to justify almost any judgment they have a mind to give." If such was then the uncertainty of the law, it will follow that with us, at this time, a judge may give almost any judgment he pleases, and justify it by precedent and sophistry.
A power to remove is necessary; because conviction does not uniformly follow guilt; and "conviction" is required by the constitution. There are many cases wherein a prosecution fails, without establishing the innocence of the accused. Smith and Ogden were acquitted of a misdemeanor in preparing the means of Miranda's expedition. George W. Swinney was acquitted of poisoning Mr. Wythe. The charge of treason against Aaron Burr was dismissed. But public opinion has declared each of those persons guilty. Had any one of them been a federal judge, would it not have been proper that there should have been, somewhere, a power to remove them without conviction? If so, a power to remove ought to be granted. The power of removal may safely be entrusted to Congress. If the two houses concur in any act it cannot be regarded as the act of a faction. It must be regarded as the act of the nation. Public opinion will protect judges from unjust oppression. They who, without a reasonable cause, remove an able and upright judge, may dread the displeasure of the people.
It is essential to the liberties of a nation, that they should have a power to change their rulers. It is not that an actual change is necessary, but it is the power easily and quietly to make the change, whenever they please, that is necessary. Shall a people have a right to change a president, a congress, a host of legislators, and executive officers, but no power, without a revolution, to remove from the office of judge, a simple dolt, a madman, or an artful protector of traitors? Must the whole nation, against its will, submit to the doctrines and principles of the federal judges, suffer them to contaminate the streams of justice, and control the legislature and executive departments? The nation is now obliged to submit; but ought not any longer to be obliged to submit.
Some gentlemen suppose that the reputation of a federal judge is a sufficient guarantee for his faithful performance of his duties: But the contrary has appeared in the case of Chase and Pickering. It has appeared in one thousand instances, that a regard for reputation is no security against usurpation or abuse of power. And to a federal judge, reputation is of less importance than to any body else. He has an office for life, from which the whole nation cannot remove him, if he is cautious enough not to furnish them with legal evidence of his criminality. He has a liberal salary, which cannot be diminished, and his ambition is gratified by the highest office in his country: An office from which he looks down with proud contempt on the President, whose acts he annuls at pleasure. If you would make reputation of some importance to a federal judge, pass the amendment proposed. And then a fair reputation will be really important to him. It will be necessary to keep him in office.
By giving Congress the power to remove, the judge will be placed in the situation wherein he ought to stand. Judges appointed by the President ought not also to be removable by him. If they were, they would be too dependent on his will. As the President appoints, let Congress have the power of removal. The President being the protector of supposed offenders, might be displeased with a just opinion in favor of a defendant, and under an undue bias, remove an upright judge. And, where an unrighteous opinion was given against some state prisoner, the President might be pleased with it, and protect the unjust judge.
It has been the policy of Virginia to place public officers under the inspection and control of the legislature. Several of her officers are now elected annually, who formerly were appointed for an indefinite time. If it is true that magistrates are public servants, the republic ought to possess the same power as an individual, to dismiss the incapable, the worthless, the suspected servant.
I therefore hope that the resolution under consideration will be agreed to by the committee.
(Debate to be continued.)
Latest Proceedings. On Friday, the H. of Delegates proceeded with the discussion of the Amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Smith (King & Queen) and Mr. Brockenbrough (Hanover) for it; and Mr. Dade (Prince William) against it;—Yesterday Mr. Gholson (Brunswick) for it; and Mr. Murdaugh (Norfolk C.) against it.
On Saturday, Mr. Pope (Powhatan) moved for leave to bring in "A Bill to suspend the operation of executions, &c. during the embargo." After some discussion, Mr. Pope withdrew this motion, and then moved for leave to bring in "A bill concerning the sale of property under executions and in cumbrances." Leave was granted; and Messrs. Pope, Semple, Gholson, W. Brockenbrough, Houston, Poindexter, (H.) Strother, Otey, and Woodson, were appointed a committee for this purpose.
LETTER THE SECOND.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER, SIR.
When I reflect on the consequences of war with England, some of our late public proceedings appear too little short of downright madness. That boys who wish to strut before their sweethearts with a cocked and epauletté, spectators who hope to be sutlers and commissaries, or debtors who expect the courts of justice would be closed; that such men should do all they can to bring the country into a war, is natural enough; but that sober and substantial planters and farmers, aye, and here and there a merchant too, should be led away by the declamations about national honor and such stuff, fills my mind with wonder. Have these men seriously reflected on the consequences of a rupture with G. Britain? Let them look before they leap, if they have any regard for their necks.
Let us take a hasty glance at the situation in which such an event would place us. First and foremost, then, we must be content to go without clothes. Enter any shop in the Brick-row, and, saving a little German linens, French or Dutch cloths, Italian silk, and India Muslins, every thing in it is imported from England and her dependencies. We get our shirts from Ireland, our breeches

from Manchester, our crates from Leeds, and even our pen-knives and razors from Sheffield. Why, Sir, if one was fortunate enough to procure cloth for a coat, he could not get a tailor to make it, without a London pattern to cut it by. Let a war take place, and we shall be every where presented with the new and melancholy spectacle of Carpenters without axes, Masons without trowels, Shoemakers without awls, and Barbers without either razors or soap. Nor is there any class or description of men who would not have cause to rue the day which broke off our intercourse with Great-Britain. The Epicure would miss his porter and cheese; the sportsman his blooded horses and mares, and the beau would be all in the dark whether his coat buttons should be yellow or white, concave, convex, or flat. Even you, Mr. Editor, would feel the want of those newspapers which furnish you so copiously with materials for filling up your own. As to our wives and daughters, they would be reduced to the condition of mother Eve, and be obliged to trust to their native loveliness, tho' I confess some of them seem to be already preparing themselves for the sacrifice. Mr. Randolph has indeed said that we might get blankets at St. Thomas's, but begging his pardon, many a man can raise a dollar who can't raise a joe. As to the project of cotton blankets that is talked of, Sir, they won't do, they are mere trash—let any man say whether he ever caught a flea in one.
Sir, among other idle boasting, it is pretended that we may clothe ourselves by spinning and weaving our own cotton and wool. Supposing this might be done, in the course of time, how are we in the mean while, to endure the summer's heat and winter's cold? And when we had done our best in this way, our clothes would not be half so good as those which G. B. now furnishes for our negroes. Then, too, what a set of Goths and Vandals we should become. It is ten to one that if the war should last three or four years, we should become so fixed in barbarity as to lose our taste for British manufactures altogether. The other morning I happened to ask my wife, who piques herself on her skill and taste in dress, how she would like to wear homespun, and I thought the dear creature would have fainted; and my daughter Clementina protested the feel of Virginia cloth always gave her an involuntary shuddering. I was very sorry afterwards that I touched upon the subject, for they have looked dejected ever since, and seem to take pleasure in nothing but frequenting those cheap stores where goods are sold for less than they cost, that they may be prepared for the day of scarcity. Certainly, Sir, the happiness of one half of the community ought not to be indifferent to us.
Nor is our moral improvement to be disregarded. Heaven forbid that we should estimate every thing by dollars and cents! National character is in fact national wealth. Let it not then be forgotten, Sir, that a war puts an immediate stop to those visits which the most enlightened English travellers have occasionally favored us. They take the trouble of a voyage across the Atlantic, and incur the still greater expense of spending some time among us, with no other motive than the improvement of our manners and customs. With a delicacy that can never be sufficiently praised, they discover no symptoms of displeasure or dislike until they are quite out of hearing. And then they convey their friendly admonitions in books, professing to give a mere narrative of their adventures, but evidently written with the design of eulogizing our national character, and showing their sense of our hospitality. Nor is their humility, when here, inferior to their gratitude when they have left us. Sir, one of these good natured gentlemen, when he was in Washington, was in the habit of visiting the President's house, purely to see if he could find any dust or cobwebs in it, and such was his extreme modesty, he always preferred climbing over the temporary stile in the back of the enclosure to entering thro' the gate in front. What greatly enhanced the merit of both these acts was, that the same gentleman was very short, lame and near-sighted. But for these generous missionaries, we should have been now little better than Hottentots, and such we shall soon become, if their labours are interrupted.
Sir, what can be a more serious mischief to a country than that rage for military parade that is now so prevalent? Consider the money laid out in regiments, drums and colours; besides guns, powder, balls, and all the other infernal paraphernalia of military stores. Then too the idleness it must necessarily produce. Husbandmen are taken from the plough, and mechanics from the workbench; apprentices are decoyed from their masters, and boys run away from school. Why, Sir, my second son who is a lad of spirit, and has long been able to shoot duck with bullets, last week enlisted under a brick-maker in the neighborhood who is trying to raise a regiment.
But, Sir, it would require a volume to enumerate all the mischiefs which a war would infallibly bring upon us. Nor is it necessary. It is enough that I have pointed out some that are at once among the most weighty and the least obvious to ordinary observation. Let me now briefly notice one or two objections that will be made to my propositions.
It will be said perhaps that they will give umbrage to Bonaparte, Sir, sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. If we aim at pleasing every body, we shall be likely to please no body; not even ourselves. We have already suffered enough by our inconsiderate zeal to supply the French and Spanish with the dairy products of the West-Indies. It is now high time they should depend upon themselves. We ought to thank God we can get these good things for our own use, which as the great author I mentioned before says, we have not long been used to. Charity is suffered to begin at home with individuals, and I don't see why the rule should not be extended to nations. Besides, we cannot make a friend of Bonaparte, unless we at the same time keep upon good terms with the Dutch and the Prussian and the Spanish and a dozen besides, which, seeing how apt nations are to fall out, is next to impossible. But Great-Britain standing alone and unconnected, if we take sides with her, we shall have to consult nothing but her single interest and humour.
SOLOMON SNEAKING. Col. MONROE is now in this city; and it is said, intends to take up his residence among us.
FRESH TEAS —The subscriber has still on hand a few crates and boxes fresh Imperial and Young Hyson Teas: Also, a few pieces best Company Nankeen, with an assortment of Satins, Silks, Gauzes and sewing Silks. Having laid in the above articles himself, in Canton, he can vouch for the quality and can sell them very cheap. ROBT. N. PAGE. (T. & T. H.) Jan. 12.
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, January 1. Mr. Morrow (Va.) obtained leave of absence for ten days from Monday next. The House took up for consideration the bill supplementary to the embargo law; Mr. Nelson's motion for striking out the provision exempting fishing vessels in the first section being yet under consideration. After some debate, in which Messrs. Lyon, Rhea, (Tenn.) Mason, and Blackledge, supported the motion, & Messrs. Crowninshield, Southard, Newton, Sloan, Dana, and Holland opposed it—the question was taken by yeas and nays—aye 40—nays 68. Several verbal amendments were made to the bill.
Mr. Rhea (T.) moved that the House adjourn. Mr. Randolph called for the yeas and nays on the question. Mr. Rhea withdrew his motion. After some further conversation on the details of the bill, it was discovered that there was not a quorum present, on which the House adjourned.
SATURDAY, Jan. 2. Mr. M. Clay from the committee to whom the subject was referred, presented a bill to amend the several acts more effectually to provide for the national defence by organizing the militia of the U. States; which was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole on Wednesday. The House took up the bill to amend the law laying an embargo.
The motion for an amendment under consideration when the House yesterday adjourned being withdrawn. The bill was ordered to a third reading on this day, and was afterwards passed, 73 to 16. On motion of Mr. Findley, the House went into committee of the whole on the report of the committee of elections on the contested election of John Culpepper, which declares his seat to be vacated on the sole ground that some of the inspectors of election were not sworn as required by the state act. After some debate, (in the course of which a motion to postpone was negatived 50 to 27) the committee of the whole concurred in the report without a decision, and reported it to the House. The House immediately concurred in the report without a division.
On motion of Mr. Bouver, a resolution, was passed, 65 to 14, directing the Speaker to inform the governor of North Carolina of this decision, in order that he may issue a writ for a new election. The minority in this vote wished to enquire whether the person contesting (Duncan McFarland) was entitled to the vacated seat of Mr. Culpepper.
SUNDAY, January 4. Mr. Porter presented a memorial from sundry merchants of the city of Philadelphia, stating that several vessels in that port had already received their cargoes and taken out clearances at the time of the passage of the law laying an embargo, and praying that such vessels, some of which had already departed the port of Philadelphia, and were detained in the river, be excepted from the general embargo; which was read, and a motion having been made to refer it to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures.
Mr. Newton said he was not one who would ever object to the right of petitioning in decent and respectful terms; and should always be in favor of the reference of any petition, when the House were not in possession of such information immediately relating to the subject, as would enable them to decide without a reference. But where there was the necessity for referring this petition? The House had passed a law laying an embargo; the ink in which it was traced was scarcely cold, when a petition was presented from a portion of merchants to allow these vessels to depart. Had the House passed the law with deliberation or not? If they had, it became their duty to support it. If they referred this petition, what might be the consequence? An opinion might go abroad that they wavered in opinion on the propriety of carrying into effect their own law; and if they granted the prayer of the petitioners, the same indulgence must be extended to all in the same situation. There was no port in the U. S. where vessels had not been loaded at the time of the passage of the embargo law, and yet had been stopped in consequence of that law. And what did the petitioners state? That their vessels were loaded and from the operation of the embargo law were prevented from going. What was the object contemplated by the passage of that act? To keep the vessels and property of the citizens of the U. S. within their own jurisdiction. If this petition were to be referred, it would seem as if the House deliberated on the repeal of that law, and would encourage other petitions of the same nature. He hoped a reference would be refused, and that the petition should lie on the table.
Mr. Porter hoped the petition would be referred. What injury could arise from allowing the petition to take the usual course? The House was not pledged to any thing by consenting to the reference. They could reject or adopt the report as they saw fit. If they turned a deaf ear to applications that were made to them by the people; if the practice obtained of rejecting petitions without designing to consider their subject matter, what was the use of the right secured to every citizen by the constitution of petitioning the government? Was it not rendering the right a mere nullity? The gentleman from Virginia had said that it would be proper not to refer this petition, as by so doing it would discourage others from petitioning the legislature on the same subject. If the House were not disposed to grant relief to these petitioners, he thought even in that case it would be better to have a report stating the reasons of their refusal. This would be more satisfactory to the people than the mode pointed out by the gentleman. The case of the petitioners was peculiarly hard. They had obtained regular clearances from the custom house before they received notice of the embargo, and had incurred considerable expenses in preparing for their voyage. He was also informed that a great part of the property would be almost a total loss to the shippers if it did not reach a market early in the spring.
Mr. Milnor said it would be observed, that the petitioners stated that they had actually cleared out their vessels before the embargo was notified. In clearing out their vessels previous to the interdiction of embargo, they had complied with every provision of the laws of the U. S. so far as respected things under their control; they had done no act which should subject them to penalty or to loss. Now it seemed to Mr. M. to be a question, whether vessels could of right be detained when cleared out previous to an embargo? He did not mean to say that they could not; but he thought it might be a subject of enquiry, whether a law having that operation, was not ex post facto . This petition, couched in decent language, related to a subject in which the interests of these people were deeply involved; they were in a situation peculiarly severe, having not only shipped property of a perishable nature on board their vessels, but engaged the captains and crews for voyages; they must also be at a great and unavoidable expense in addition, because, he understood, they could not get clear of the masts.
continuance of the embargo; these vessels, which though loaded had not cleared out, were not subject to the same inconveniences, because they were not hastened with the great expense of supporting their seamen. Mr. M. was not now prepared to say that he should be in favor of an exemption in favor of those vessels which had thus cleared out, but thought it a subject which ought to be enquired into. The gentleman from Virginia had told the House if they passed a law, it should be carried into effect. True it was that they should enforce it as far as it was equitable; but if, as was stated, this was a peculiar case, and the petitioners endured "much more than their portion of inconvenience," was worthy of enquiry, whether no method could be taken to avoid inflicting on them that distress which must overtake them if the law was rigidly enforced. He hoped the petition would be considered in the usual way, by reference. As to the impression going abroad that they were deliberating on the repeal of that law, there could be no weight in that idea. The committee to whom this should be referred might give solid and sufficient reason for continuing that provision of the law, or for granting the particular prayer of the petition.
Mr. Cook always was and always should be in favor of referring petitions from respectable persons clothed in decent language. The embargo law, of a provision in which these merchants complained, was well known to have been passed with great dispatch, if not in a hurry; and that part which provides that vessels already cleared out should be subject to it, was a part which had escaped his particular attention on its passage; it appeared to him in this particular to be of the nature of an ex post facto law. He hoped the petitioners might have a hearing, and that the facts would be submitted to a committee for investigation.
Mr. Newton to exclude debate, withdrew his opposition to the reference. Mr. Burwell moved to refer this petition to a select committee, that it might be enquired into, and that the merchants of the United States might be given to understand that the House would pursue that course which would enforce the continuance of the embargo. He thought that by a reference to a select committee such a report might be obtained as would evince to the nation the propriety of adopting the measure and the reasons in its favor.
Mr. Taylor said he had not on any occasion allowed himself the liberty of treating with disrespect petitions from any portion of the people; and in this case he should adhere to the line which he had marked out for his conduct. And lest it might be conceived from his voting in favor of a reference of this petition, that he participated in the sentiments of the petitioners, he deemed it proper to say that it was from principle alone that he should vote for considering it; and he must be permitted to declare that the petitioners themselves might be charged with as base motives as those from the same city who had been refused a reference of a petition on a former occasion during this session. He thought they might be charged with being induced by foreign influence, to endeavor to paralyze every measure for the good of their country, or might be supposed to be among the acquaintances of Cobbett in America—so taken up with their idol Mammón, with their zeal after profit, that they cared not what became of the country if their coffers were filled. He would compare the conduct of the merchants of the city of Charleston whose petition was scouted the other day, with that of these men, who might either be called the votaries of Mammón or by a worse name.
Mr. Smilie saw no objection to the reference of this petition. He supposed that the hardships under which those persons labored, whose vessels were already loaded at the passage of the law were very great. Under these considerations he thought it would be proper to commit the petition, because it would require a particular report, to be made upon it. When he said this, he was well convinced that general policy would not warrant the granting the prayer of the petitioners; he thought however, that the memorial should be referred.
Mr. Dana thought, if gentlemen so much respected the right to petition, they ought not to deprecate the insertion of all principles which did not exactly concur with their own opinion. If they made it a rule to reject all petitions not conforming to their own decisions, they rendered null and destroyed one of the great ends of petitioning, for it was when they were aggrieved only, that the people wished to petition; such conduct would in effect say saying "We will not regard any petition what so ever." He thought therefore the petition ought to be referred on general principles. Could gentlemen fear the answer which a reference of the petition might produce from the committee? Could they dread a comparison between the reasoning contained in the petition, and that which a report, unfavorable to it might contain? The general rule of reference ought to be regarded, more especially of petitions on great public questions. Independently of this general principle he thought there were special reasons for a reference of this petition, the case of vessels which were cleared out, and had on board all their cargo as well as papers, when the law passed, and which had been detained in bays or rivers by adverse winds, was peculiarly rigorous. Vessels had been cleared out of Philadelphia, having on board foreign merchandise about on their voyage, but had been arrested in their progress, and brought back, by the operation of the embargo law. What was their situation? They would have to reload their goods at a loss of one half percent. of drawback; and if they wished to export them six months hence, they must pay another 3 1-2 per cent. upon them, because they had gone down the bay of Delaware previous to the passage of the law, and had been brought back. Whether the Secretary of the Treasury possessed the power to remedy this defect, he did not know; but he believed he did. He wished the petition, however to be referred to a select committee, to examine whether or not in particular cases the law laying an embargo operated more rigorously than was required by the general policy of the measure.
Mr. Porter merely rose to say that he held in his hand a certificate of the collector of Philadelphia, verifying the facts stated in the petition which was read. The Yeas and Nays being required on the question of reference. Mr. Crowninshield said he understood the petitioners to pray that vessels cleared out previous to passing the law laying an embargo, should be permitted to proceed to sea. It appeared to him that they asked what could not well be granted. This case did not apply to Philadelphia or Delaware alone, but to Baltimore and the Chesapeake, and to every port in the country. He had no doubt that there were several hundred vessels cleared out to foreign ports previous to the laying an embargo, and which were by it prevented from sailing. Should they be permitted from that circumstance merely to be exempt from the general embargo? He thought not. However his own interest or wishes might dispose him to this permission, he could not consistently grant their prayer. But was he therefore opposed to a reference of the petition? By no means. He believed the petitioners had always a right to petition, and he should uniformly vote for a reference of their petitions, when couched in decent and respectful language. But at the same time he should vote for a reference of the petition, he must say that he did not see any reason why these vessels should be permitted to depart. The House had said that they would prohibit vessels from departing, whether cleared out or not. The law would operate severely on these persons; he knew it would, but it would also operate severely on others. Those vessels would suffer great inconvenience which had goods on board, although they had not cleared out. He was in favour of a reference, in order to obtain any additional light that might be thrown on the subject, not as some gentlemen
were, with a view to favor the commercial interest. If gentlemen thought the embargo was wrong, let them submit a proposition to repeal it, he was prepared to meet it on fair grounds.
Mr. Smilie said the question now was, whether the petition should be referred to the committee of commerce and manufactures. A proposition had been made to refer it to another committee. He hoped the House would not deviate from the common rule; for if any subject was proper to be referred to the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, it was this.
The question of reference was then decided by Yeas and Nays as follows: Yeas—Messrs. Alexander, W. Alston, Bacon, Bard, Barker, Bibb, Blackledge, Blount, Boyle, Brown, Calhoun, G. W. Campbell, Carlton, Champion, Chandler, Chittenden, Clopton, Cook, Crowninshield, Cutts, Dana, Davenport, D. Davis, Deane, Dwell, Ely, Findley, Fisk, Green, Franklin, Gardner, Gardner, Gray, Hall, Harris, Heister, Helms, Hope, Holland, Holmes, Isley, Jenkins, Johnson, Kenan, Kirkpatrick, Knight, Lambert, Lewis, Livermore, Macon, Marion, M'Creery, Milner, N. R. Moore, T. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Moseley, Mumford, Newton, Nicholas, Pitkin, Porter, Pugh, Quincy, Randolph, Rea of Pen. Rhea of Ten. J. Richards, M. Richards, Riker, Russell, Searle, Smoot, Smilie, S. Smith, Southard, Stanford, Stedman, Storer, Sturges, Sward, Taylor, Thomas, Thompson, Upham, Van Allen, Van Dyke, Van Rensselaer, Wharton, Whitehill, Wilson, Witherell.—91.
Nays—Messrs. Burwell, Butler, M. Clay, Desha, Howard, Lloyd, Love, Nelson, Sawyer, Sloan, J. K. Smith, Trigg, Troup, Van Horn, M. Williams, Winn.—16.
Mr. Bacon presented a memorial from the governor, by the direction of the legislature of Massachusetts, praying Congress to consider or compromise claims of certain citizens of that state and others to lands formerly granted by the state of Georgia and afterwards ceded by that state to the United States, (the Yazoo claim;) specifically praying "that their claims be satisfied by an equitable compromise, or settled according to known principles by an impartial tribunal." A motion being made by Mr. Bacon to refer it to the committee of claims.
Mr. Bibb moved that it be rejected; but the Speaker declaring a motion for reference to have precedence, Mr. Bibb called for the Yeas and Nays on its reference.
Mr. Marion moved that it be referred to a committee of the whole; which latter motion was agreed to, 71 to 37, after a delay of three hours, which shall be commenced in our next.
The motion for reference of this petition was supported by Messrs. Smilie, Livermore, W. Alston, Holland, Bacon, Elliot, Chandler, Marion, Quincy, Macon, Crowninshield and Cook; and opposed by Messrs. Bibb, Troup, Nelson, Randolph and Alexander.
A question being made as to the day on which it should be taken up. The first Monday of June next was named and disagreed to, 31 to 38. The first Monday in May was negatived, by Yeas and Nays, 55 to 41. This day was named, but the most distant day took preference of course. The second Monday in February was agreed to, 55 to 45.
Mr. Randolph called for the consideration of a motion made by him a few days ago and postponed till this day, (relative to General Wilkinson.) A motion for adjournment took precedence of this, and was carried—Ayes 63.
Mr. Crowninshield presented the memorial of Jonathan Groux, praying that some person may be authorised on the part of the U. S. to treat with him respecting the erection of telegraphs; which was referred to a select committee consisting of Messrs. Crowninshield, Nicholas, Findley, Thomas and Troup.
TUESDAY, Jan. 5. The House were this day wholly engaged in the discussion of the resolution offered by Mr. Randolph on Thursday last in relation to General Wilkinson.
The question at the last consideration was on its reference. It had been then moved to refer it to a select committee, with power to send for persons, papers, &c. and a motion was made to amend this motion by striking out the words in italics was then under consideration and of course was first taken into consideration this day.
The motion for striking out these words was supported by Messrs. Lyon, Campbell, Milner, Holland, Sloan, Dana, Fisk and Alston, and opposed by Messrs. Stanford, Gardner and Elliot; and was carried by yeas and nays, 72 to 38.
The question was then taken on the reference of the resolution, and negatived, only one or two rising in favor of it.
The question then recurring on the original resolution, Messrs. Burwell, Troup and Quincy supported, and Messrs. Blackledge, Milner, Campbell and Gardner opposed it; when Mr. Bibb said it was now a late hour (half past four) and several gentlemen who would wish to express their opinions had not yet had an opportunity; he therefore moved to adjourn. Carried, 60 to 43. [The debate on this day will be commenced in our next.]
DOMESTIC.
We have received Halifax papers to the 17th Dec. In the latest we find an address presented to Vice Admiral Berkeley, from the house of assembly of the province of Nova-Scotia expressive of their "high respect, esteem and gratitude for his services to the country." In admiral Berkeley's reply dated December 17, we notice the following extraordinary assertion. "As yet I have no official intelligence of my removal from the command." The London prints have confidently stated that admiral Berkeley was recalled, and that Sir John B. Warren was appointed in his stead. If the fact had been so, is it not extraordinary that admiral Berkeley is still ignorant of the circumstance? N. Y. D. Adv.
Let any man consider what principles were sacrificed to maintain peace with Britain; what rights were abandoned by treaty; what baleful corruption was practised in Blount's conspiracy —in Miranda's conspiracy —in Burr's conspiracy —and in another conspiracy going on at this moment, and to promote which a noted federalist from the south sailed for England a few weeks ago; when all these things are recollected and considered, it is really astonishing that there can be found any man or any paper, pretending to be American, found so base as to apologise for the perpetrators of the outrage on the Chesapeake and the authors of the late British proclamation.....Aurora. (We understand that this federalist has sailed in a B. packet from N. Y. in company with Swartwout, perhaps to negotiate for a British fleet off the mouth of the Mississippi. Tho' that would attempt to corrupt the Indians at Detroit, would not hesitate to employ corrupt traitors at New Orleans.) Ed. Enq.
In compliance with our promise, we copy the last letter of Gen. W. to Mr. R. Washington, Dec. 28, 1807. SIR, I have received your letter of the 25th inst. by mail, in which you violate truth and honor, to indulge the inherent malignity and rancour of your soul. On what "level," pray
air, and we find the wretch, who to escape his deserved punishment, has recourse to the means of a hypocrite, and upon the stage of hypocrisy. You, John Randolph, are this man, and your own breast can but solve the enigma. You "cannot descend to my level," in an equivocal thing! And as for the "level" this dastardly subterfuge will avail you, that your lion's skin will longer conceal your true character? Embrace the alternative still within your reach, and ascend to the "level" of a gentleman, if possible; act like a man, if you can, and spare me the pain of publishing you to the world, for an insolent, slanderous, prevaricating paitoon. JA: WILKINSON.
John Randolph, Esq. N. B. The first idea suggested by the indecency of your response to my letter, was the chastisement of my cane, from which the sacred respect I owe to the station you occupy in the councils of the nation has alone protected you; and to the consequent conflict of feeling and duty must be ascribed the delay of this note. JA: WILKINSON.
John Randolph, Esq. NORFOLK, Jan. 6. In a part of our impression of Friday we stated that the British line of battle ship, that had been in the bay, had gone to sea. The information we received proved to be incorrect, the Triumph, Sir Thomas Hardy, still remains in Lynhaven Bay.
Last Evening's Mail.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 2. A Court of Enquiry is instituted by the desire of Gen. Wilkinson, for the purpose of hearing testimony in relation to said Gen's. having been, or now being a Pensioner to the Spanish government, while holding a commission under the United States. At this court Col. Henry Burbeck will act as President, and Col. Thomas H. Cushing and Lieut. Col. John Williams, as Members, and Walter Jones, Esq. District Attorney, as Judge Advocate. It will sit in Washington City, on Monday the 11th inst. Expositor. Jan. 8.
By the arrival at New-York of the brig Jane, Cork papers are received to the 20th of November, and London to the 14th. No information is received by them of the expected blocking proclamation, which was to have been published on the 14th. Sir Sidney Smith's squadron had departed from Plymouth, consisting of five sail of the line. It is to touch at Cork, and the naval part of the expedition is to proceed the military.
The British army at Alexandria had embarked, and are hourly expected at Messina to reinforce the army of Sicily. The French have assumed the complete dominion of the Elbe, and capture all vessels from English ports, or with English property on board.
British Blockading Decree. —We have seen a Cork paper of Nov. 19, which says—"A Proclamation has been signed by His Majesty, declaring France and every other country under her control in a state of blockade, prohibiting all intercourse with them, and forbidding all ships to enter their harbors, except such as have cleared last from a port of the U. Kingdom, or a port in the British Colonies." N. Y. Com. Adv.
On Thursday the H. of R. adopted the following resolution, Ayes 89. Noes 19. Ordered, That Mr. John Randolph a Representative in Congress, from the state of Virginia, and Mr. Daniel Clarke, delegate from the territory of Orleans, be requested to lay upon the Clerk's table all papers or other information in their possession "in relation to the conduct of Brigadier General James Wilkinson while in the service of the United States in corruptly receiving money from the government or agents of Spain." The Senate have allowed J. Smith the privilege of being heard by counsel; and tomorrow (Wednesday) was the day assigned.
NORFOLK, January 8. Mr. Rose. —The difficulties which have existed with respect to this gentleman are removed. We learn from unquestionable authority, that orders have been received from the government, directing that with respect to the frigate Statira, she is to be received with her officers and crew, as they would have been received and treated before the Proclamation was issued. This was all that was required by Mr. Rose, who we understand acts out immediately for the seat of government.....Ledger.
WINGFIELD SCHOOL, (Forks Hanover.) The subscriber having provided very ample assistance, can take 12 or 15 students in addition to his usual number. In this institution it is proposed to teach the Greek, Latin, French and English Languages, Writing, Arithmetic, Geometry, Geography and the use of the Globes. Terms—Board, tuition, washing, and fuel, 100 dollars per annum, with an extra charge of 3 1-2 for every student who shall apply himself wholly or partially to the study of the French Language. Bed and Bedding, when found by the subscriber, $6 2-3 per annum. In all cases quarterly payments in advance will be required to be made with punctuality. The subscriber refers these gentlemen, to whom he may not be sufficiently known, to some papers in the hands of Col. George Wm. Smith of the city of Richmond. The school will be opened on the 2d Wednesday of the present month and be closed on the 2d Friday in December next, with a vacation of four weeks, commencing the 2d Friday in June. PETER NELSON. [2aw2w]
JAMES RIVER COMPANY —At an adjourned meeting of the James River Company, held at the Capitol, in the city of Richmond, on the 8th January, 1808. Resolved, That a dividend of four per cent. be made to the share-holders on their respective shares in the said company for the last six months. Extract from the minutes. ROBERT POLLARD, Clerk. (2c)
NOTICE is hereby given to all whom it may concern, That Mr. John Chew of Urbanna, is authorised and empowered by the subscribers to transact any business relative to the late James Mills, Dr. Robert Spratt, Overton Cosby & Co. James Ross & Co. Overton Cosby and Dr. George D. Spratt. JOHN MINOR, JAMES ROSS. [1aw4w]
By virtue of a deed of trust from John Hendrick to the subscriber, and bearing date the 8th of January, 1807, and of record in Hanover office, will be sold on Thursday the 26th inst. on the premises, to the highest bidder, for ready money, one hundred acres of LAND, be the same more or less, in Hanover county, being the lower part of the tract whereon said Hendrick resides, to satisfy the debts in said deed expressed. THOMAS PRICE, Jr. Trustee. Hanover, Jan. 12.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. I communicate to Congress the enclosed letters from Governor Hull respecting the Indians in the vicinity of Detroit...
Then Poquaboa, chief of the Chippewa nation, addressed the President as follows: "Father—Your red children present salute you. Father—Your red children, through you, take the hand of the great Father, the President of the United States..."
MY CHILDREN. Thus you see the interest your Great Father takes in your welfare; how anxious he is to promote your happiness; how desirous he is to prevent you from taking any measures which will involve you in ruin; how generous he is in advising you to remain quiet spectators of any differences that may take place between the white people...
MY CHILDREN. I expect from you a plain, decided answer, which I shall immediately transmit to the Great Council Fire of the nation. To which Nanumwa, a chief of the Pottawatamie nation made the following reply: "Father, We have listened to what you said to us yesterday..."
LOAN OFFICE, State of Virginia, June 8, 1807.—Notice is hereby given—That in conformity with the provisions of the act supplementing the act, entitled, "An act making provision for the redemption of the whole of the public debt of the United States," books will be opened at the office of the commissioner of loans...
BOARDING SCHOOL.—A new boarding school is about to be opened in the town of Hanover, 10 miles from Richmond and 20 from Manchester Mill. The situation is very healthy. He will take 8 boarders only, from 6 to 15 years of age...
CASH SALES.—To be sold, for ready money, in pursuance of a deed of trust from David Ross, esq., bearing date on the 20th day of July, 1806, executed at the General Court, in order to raise the sum of $5,000 and upwards, and the charges of sale...
WILLIAM TEMPLE, has received by ship from Liverpool, and Cape from London, an extensive supply of MERCHANDIZE, suitable to the present and approaching season, which he will sell low. Oct. 10.
ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS REWARD.—Ranaway about the 1st instant from the service of Mr. William Rawle (to whom he was hired) a black man named JACKSON, a house carpenter by profession, of thin consumptive appearance, about forty years of age...
JOHNSON and BEAT, Jewellers & Silver-smiths, Richmond, a few doors above the Bell-Tavern, and just opposite col. Mayo's new building; beg leave to inform the inhabitants of Richmond, Manchester, and their Vicinities, that they have on hand a large supply of Work, composed of the latest Fashions, viz.—An elegant assortment of pearl and topaz Breast Pins, Finger Rings and Bracelets, plain gold do. of nearly all patterns...
JOHN ALCOCK, informs his friends and the public at large, that he has just received, and is now opening, next door to Messrs. Prosser & Moore's vendue, a large assortment of Merchandise, consisting of the following articles—Carpenters and Joiners Tools, Iron and steel Locks and Hinges, for house work and cabinet ware...
THE SUBSCRIBER having purchased the patent-right of erecting, using, &c. (within the greater part of this state southward of the bay) one of the best, most and most expeditious Nail-Cutting Machines that has ever been introduced into this state...
VALUABLE LAND FOR SALE.—On Wednesday the 10th day of February next, will be exposed to sale, to the highest bidder, for ready money, at Goodland court-house, the tract of LAND whereon Edward Boling at present resides...
NOTICE.—On the 10th of last month, Elijah Kirtly delivered to me in Orange county, on his way from Woodford county, Kentucky, a MARE, which he requested me to deliver to a son of a widow Watkins in Goodland...
FOR SALE, that large, valuable and well built Brick Lumber-House, lately the property of Messrs. Wm. McKenzie & Co., 30 feet front, 50 feet deep, and three stories high, situated on the back street leading from the Basin, nearly opposite to the house lately occupied by Mr. John Henry.
FOR SALE, a few prime tracts of Military LAND, in the state of Ohio. Bank Shares wanted—Apply as above. Dec. 15. [cawim.]
EDUCATION.—My school will be open for the reception of students the ensuing year about the first of February; in which will be taught, English Grammar, Latin, Geography, History, Euclid's Elements, Elocution, Book-keeping, Reading, Writing and Arithmetic.
WILL BE SOLD, at public auction, on the 18th day of January next, at the door of the Eagle-Tavern, ninety-two thousand, seven hundred and thirty acres of western LANDS, lying in the counties of Montgomery, Harrison and Kanawha.
NOTICE.—The subscriber respectfully offers his services to his friends and the public, in the above line of business and solicits their patronage. Dec. 15. C. GREENHOW. [cawim.]
NOTICE.—All persons indebted to the late Alexander Banks, dec'd. of Manchester, are hereby requested to come forward and discharge their accounts as speedily as possible; and those persons having claims against the estate will bring in their claims properly authenticated, when provision will be made for their discharge.
PUBLIC SALE.—On Saturday the 20th day of January ensuing, will be sold, at the plantation of the late Alexander Banks of Manchester, the entire stock of Cattle, Corn, Fodder, Hay, Plantation Utensils, &c.
NOTICE.—The subscriber purposes leaving this City in the course of a few days, has determined to dispose of the whole or any part of his stock now remaining on hand at a very reduced price; which consists of a large and superb assortment of Mahogany Furniture, Mattresses of all kinds and sizes...
NOTICE.—The subscriber is desirous of selling his PROPERTY in this City. The purchaser will be accommodated with time if required, on giving satisfactory security. Oct. 7. SAM. GREENHOW. [tids.]
YOUNG NEGROES FOR SALE.—Will be sold to the highest bidder, for cash, at Durrett's tavern, in Petersburg, on Wednesday the 13th January next, 25 young NEGROES. They are all young and likely, and consist of men, women and children.
EDUCATION.—The subscriber offering his unengaged thanks to those gentlemen who have manifested their confidence in him as a Teacher, proposes to continue his school at the same place the ensuing year. In this seminary youth will be instructed in the Greek, Latin and English Languages, Geography and the use of the Globes...
NOTICE.—The subscriber is desirous of selling his PROPERTY in this City. The purchaser will be accommodated with time if required, on giving satisfactory security. Oct. 7. SAM. GREENHOW. [tids.]
EDUCATION.—The subscriber offering his unengaged thanks to those gentlemen who have manifested their confidence in him as a Teacher, proposes to continue his school at the same place the ensuing year. In this seminary youth will be instructed in the Greek, Latin and English Languages, Geography and the use of the Globes...
NOTICE.—The subscriber purposes leaving this City in the course of a few days, has determined to dispose of the whole or any part of his stock now remaining on hand at a very reduced price; which consists of a large and superb assortment of Mahogany Furniture, Mattresses of all kinds and sizes...
NOTICE.—The subscriber is desirous of selling his PROPERTY in this City. The purchaser will be accommodated with time if required, on giving satisfactory security. Oct. 7. SAM. GREENHOW. [tids.]
YOUNG NEGROES FOR SALE.—Will be sold to the highest bidder, for cash, at Durrett's tavern, in Petersburg, on Wednesday the 13th January next, 25 young NEGROES. They are all young and likely, and consist of men, women and children.
NOTICE.—The subscriber purposes leaving this City in the course of a few days, has determined to dispose of the whole or any part of his stock now remaining on hand at a very reduced price; which consists of a large and superb assortment of Mahogany Furniture, Mattresses of all kinds and sizes...
NOTICE.—The subscriber is desirous of selling his PROPERTY in this City. The purchaser will be accommodated with time if required, on giving satisfactory security. Oct. 7. SAM. GREENHOW. [tids.]