The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1805-02-19 00:00:00

THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, (Virginia) PUBLISHED BY RITCHIE & WORSLEY, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE...AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM...payable in advance.
NUMBER 87.]
TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 19, 1805.
[VOLUME I.]
CONDITIONS.
 I. The ENQUIRER will appear twice a week...During the session of Congress and the Virginia Legislature, either a third paper or a supplementary half-sheet, during the week.  II. Terms of payment FIVE DOLLARS per annum, in advance.  III. ADVERTISEMENTS, from those who do not subscribe to the paper, should they not exceed a square in length, shall be inserted for twenty-five cents the first time, fifty cents for each time during three weeks, and for every additional insertion thirty-three cents; long ones in the same proportion.  IV. SUBSCRIBERS shall have their advertisements inserted for fifty cents the first time, and thirty-three cents for every additional insertion. 
Sales at Auction.
Will be held at Public Auction, on Tuesday the 19th inst. on the premises: THE well improved WOLF ARE LOT lying in that part of this city called Rocketts, No. 27. formerly the property of Robert Omberson, dec'd. The Lot will admit of a partition into three tenements. The terms of the sale are negotiable notes in the bank of Virginia, at 90 days. No undisturbed title will be made, except an endorsement of the widow's dower.  PROSSER & MONCURE V. M'S. February 8. ids.
Auction Sales.
THOMAS TAYLOR & Co. WILL in future sell at the store occupied by W. H. Hancock & Co. on Wednesdays in each week; and at their office, on Tuesdays and Fridays as usual. Dec. 1, 1804. epf.
BEER.
JUST received per the Schooner Caroline , a quantity of excellent Philadelphia beer, for sale wholesale or retail, by the subscribers opposite the Bell Tavern, who have always a regular supply.  RUSSELL & WALLACE. Feb. 8. ids.
CASH.
WILL be given for 12 or 15 BOYS, from 7 to 15 years old. Enquire of the Printers. Dec. 15. [epf.]
WASHINGTON TAVERN.
THE subscriber has taken a lease of this tenement for a number of years, and has put it in a state of repair which renders it not inferior to any in this City. Besides the Tavern, he has detached buildings, well calculated to accommodate those who are anxious of greater convenience than can be obtained at other houses. Single rooms within the public square, and are within two hundred yards of the Capitol. They have detached buildings over any other houses in this City, with respect to pure air and excellent water. He has good STABLES and a constant supply of the best FORAGE. He tenders his services to his friends and the public, and assures them, that no unlawful gaming, nor any other practice which might, in any degree, have a tendency to disturb the peace of his house, will ever be permitted.  EDWARD HALLAM. Richmond, September 26.
THE subscriber offers for sale, the property on which he now resides, consisting of two acres (town measure) of highly improved Land, on which is situated a good Brick dwelling with all the necessary offices.  JAMES DREW M'CAW. February 8. ids.
NOTICE.
THE subscribers having put an end to their retail business, request the debtors to this firm to come forward, without loss of time, to have their accounts adjusted, and to pay what may be due. As great indulgence has been already given, further cannot reasonably be expected. George McCreedy will attend at this place, for the purpose of settling the accounts, and receiving payments. Those who do not pay, or give satisfactory assurance of paying soon, must leave themselves if just are initiated against them.  LATE & McCREEDY. Manchester, Feb. 5. [eps.w.]
IRISH Linens and Muslins; Superfine Cloths and Cashmere; India, Italian and French Silks; Do. Wool Moll Muslins; Do. do. Mulls; Fanny Muslin, Vails and Shawls; Umbrella Muslins; Cambric Dimities & Calicoes; Laced Caps and Vails; Do. Hdkfs and Shawls; Do. Gloves and Mitts; Fanny Leather and Kid Gloves. For Sale by  BARTLETT STILL. January 15. ids.
JOHN SPINDLER.
RESPECTFULLY informs the Ladies and Gentlemen of Richmond, that he intends to teach DRAWING, PAINTING in Oil Colours and Crayons , and would instruct Gals & pupils in those branches, either by waiting on them, or at his house, opposite Thomas Wilson's Rye back front. N. B. Sign, Hairs, and Military Colours painted by J. S. Orders from the country punctually attended to.  [epf.]
NOTICE.
THOSE indebted to the late firm of Shanks & BRee , either by Bond or open account, are desired to make payment before 1st of March. All failing to comply, will find their accounts in the hands of an attorney.  COLIN MACRAE. Manchester, January 15. [eps.w.]
FOR SALE.
FIVE Hhds. and 16 qr. casks of LONDON PARTICULAR TENERIFFE WINE of a superior quality, on a credit of 120 days—Negotiable notes. Enquire of  THOMAS NORVELL. December 28. [ids.]  PURE MELL STONES, of all sizes and 25 PLASTER OF PARIS, of an excellent quality, for sale, as at present.  WILLIAM DAVIDSON. near the Market. Dec. 4. [epf.]
BROKER'S OFFICE.
THE Subscriber has opened a Broker's Office, opposite the Union Tavern, and over the Leaning-house of Thomas and Amos Ladd. All business confided to him, will be transacted with strict fidelity.  THOMAS NORVELL. October 3. ids.
HUGH I. CRAWFORD.
HAS just Received, per the ship Alexander , from London: A general Assortment of Genuine DRUGS & MEDICINES , which he will dispose of on moderate terms. Richmond, Dec. 25. [Law2m.]
TO BE SOLD.
For ready money, pursuant to a decree of the Federal Circuit Court, for the district of Virginia in a suit between Princess Bond , Attorney for the creditors of Ezekiel Edwards , Plaintiff, and David Ross and others defendants—
TWO undivided parts, out of three, of forty-two acres of LAND, in the county of Henrico, upon Four-Mile Creek, with the Mills and Houses thereon, known by the name of the Norwich Mills . ALSO—a Tract or Parcel of LAND, situate in the county of Henrico, about seven miles below the City of Richmond, commonly called and known by the name of the Seven Pines , thought to contain one thousand acres, but Mr. Ross undertakes, that an accurate survey and plot shall be produced on the day of sale.
The Sale will positively take place at the Eagle Tavern in the City of Richmond on Thursday the 21st day of February next.
BEN. MOSBY, D. H. for JOSEPH SCOTT, M. V. D. Jan. 8. [ids.]
At the same time and place, I will dispose of the other undivided third part of the said Norwich Mills and will also dispose of a valuable tract of LAND adjoining thereto, which contains about five hundred acres, with various improvements. The whole is a valuable estate. Mr. Hooten will show the Mills and the land. The terms of payment for the said land and the other third part of the Mills will be half ready money, and twelve months credit for the other half.  DAVID ROSS.
TO PRINTERS.
HENRY OURAM—PRESS-MAKER, South-east corner of Prince and Sixth-streets: RESPECTFULLY informs the trade, that he undertakes to provide Printing-Offices with everything in his line, having a complete Printer's Joiner , constantly employed in making the wood part of Presses, Engravers, Rules, &c. &c. Copies of all new Composing Sticks, Brass & Wood Galley's, &c. &c. constantly on hand, or made to order with dispatch and neatness. Orders from any part of the Continent attended to. Philad. Jan. 5. epf.m.
FOR RENT.
THE new BRICK tenement at the corner of my lot near the Bell Tavern . There on hand, two hundred thousand BRICKS of first quality, which will sell, apply to Mr. Bowler at the Union Tavern .  SAMUEL OVERTON. Feb. 12. (St.)
WILLIAM PRICHARD,
AFTER a residence of near twenty years in the City of Richmond, as a Bookseller and Stationer , offers his whole STOCK IN TRADE for sale, either to individuals who might incline to an eligible situation in those lines, or to the public at more reduced prices than in any City of the United States.
To any person who might wish to become his successor, the most advantageous terms would be offered—such as would not only insure a permanent, but a lucrative establishment in this increasing City. Those, therefore, who have any view of this kind, will be pleased to apply to him, either personally, or by letter. The stock on hand consists principally of the most approved modern writers upon every branch of science and literature, as also a general collection of law authorities, both European and American editions.
The situation of said look-store is well known in every person who has visited Richmond, as being the most central and convenient situation for the sale of Books, and Stationery articles; and the long period which he has continued to occupy it, has also given it a decided preference over others with the several look-sellers and traders throughout the United States.
The proprietor has now on hand PIANO FORTE , warranted of the best quality— NEW MUSIC , and various kind of MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS , &c. Feb. 12.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD.
AWAY from the subscriber, on Thursday evening last, a negro fellow, named SAMUEL PARKER . He has a yellow complexion, is five feet five, 1-2 inches high, about 28 years of age, and has a large scar over his left eye. He wears ear-rings in each of his ears, and had on when he eloped a double-breasted coat. There can be little doubt of his attempting to pass as a free man, as a forged certificate of his freedom was found the day after he went off. The above reward will be given any person who will secure him in jail so that I get him again.  JOHN FOSTER. February 12. ids.
THE PATENT BALANCE.
THE great accuracy, convenience and dispatch, & the economy of expense, labor and time attendant on this truly valuable improvement in the art of weighing, had such a weight with the last general assembly, as to induce them to authorize the use of it in the tobacco warehouses of this commonwealth.
This has been testified to in its favor, with many others in petition of the subscriber, together with the general approbation expressed by all purchasers, and his own experience, which has induced him to believe that they are preferable to the common beams, scales and weights now generally used. As agent for the Patentee, he keeps always a general assortment on hand, to weigh from 100 to 5000 pounds, or till more is required by particular order.  E. W. SCOTT. Feb. 12. eps.w.
By virtue of a Decree of Court executed to the subscriber by John B. Bane , for the purpose of paying the payment of a debt due Thomas Ditchell :
WILL be SOLD, on Friday the 1st day of March next—A LARGE FARM of an hundred acres of LAND, lying in the county of Louisa, on Cub Creek . In EARH , and LANCLOTT MINOR , Trueman . Feb. 8. ids.
FOR SALE.
A LIKELY young negro fellow, a BLACK SMITH by trade, and is well acquainted with the making of plantation utensils. For terms apply to  PETER RUST. Richmond County, Feb. 8. ids.
DOCTOR WILSON received yesterday a supply of Peruvian Bark, Castor Oil and Jalap , all of the best quality. He also has Calomel, Kermes, Senna, Manna, Rochelle and Glauber Salts, Tartar Emetic, Ipecacuanha, Opium, Elixir and Silver Carbets, Biletic and common Bougies, &c. &c. &c.
He desires to keep a supply of the best Medicines that can be procured, and flatters himself that his acquaintance with Medicine, will entitle him to a share of public patronage. Several of his friends and acquaintances by paying the retail prices of his Medicines, will be prescribed for gratis. October 31. ids.
LANDS FOR SALE.
In the Geneva Country, state of New York . THE subscriber having charge of part of the valuable LANDS in the Geneva country, lately under the agency of Charles Williamson, Esq. now offers them for sale on moderate terms either to actual settlers, or to those who desire to settle on the lands themselves, are desirous of investing their monies for the future benefit of their families. The titles of these lands are indisputable.
For terms apply to Mr. John Hessel , at the proprietor's land office at Geneva , in the county of Ontario , in the state of New York , or to Mr. Sam. S. Haight at Bath , in the county of Steuben ; or to Mr. Frederick Panung , at Preston , in the state of Connecticut . New York, June 5, 1804. eps.w.
ROBERT TROUP.
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
The answer and plea of SAMUEL CHASE , one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him in the said court, by the honorable the House of Representatives of the United States in support of their impeachment against him, for high crimes and misdemeanors, supposed to have been by him committed. [Given in the 4th inst.]
This respondent, in his proper person, comes into the said court, and protesting that there is no high crime or misdemeanor particularly alleged in the said articles of impeachment, to which he is, or can be bound by law to make answer; and saving to himself now, and at all times hereafter, all benefit of exception to the insufficiency of the said articles, and each of them, and to the defects therein appearing in point of law, or otherwise; and protesting also, that he ought not to be injured in any manner, by any words, or by any want of form in this his answer; he submits the following answers and observations by way of answer to the said articles.
The first article relates to his supposed misconduct in the trial of John Fries for treason, before the circuit court of the U. States, at Philadelphia, in April and May, 1800; and alleges that he presided at the trial, and that he was "unfaithful to the solemn duties of his office, and contrary to the sacred obligation by which he was bound to discharge them, faithfully and impartially, and without respect to persons." he did then, "in his judicial capacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust."
This general accusation, too vague in itself for reply, is supported by three specific charges of misconduct:
1st. In delivering an opinion, in writing, on the question of law, on the constitution of which, the defence of the accused materially depended; which opinion, it is alleged, tended "to prejudice the minds of the jury against the case of the said John Fries , the prisoner, before counsel had been heard in his favor."
2d. In restricting the counsel for the said John Fries , from recurring to such English authorities, as they believed apposite; or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions, upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client."
3d. "In debarring the prisoner from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury (through his counsel) on the law as well as on the fact, which was to determine his guilt, or innocence, and at the same time endeavouring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law, as well as the question of fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give."
This last article then concludes, that in consequence of this irregular conduct of this respondent, "the said John Fries was deprived of the right, secured to him by the eighth article, a mandatory of the constitution; and was condemned to death, without having been heard, by counsel, in his defence."
By the eighth article amendatory to the constitution, this respondent supposes, is meant the sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States; which secures to the accused, in all criminal prosecutions the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
In answer to these three charges, the respondent admits that the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, was held at Philadelphia, in that district, in the months of April and May, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred; at which court John Fries , the person named in the said first article, was brought to trial, on an indictment for treason against the United States; and that this respondent then held a contravention, as one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States; by virtue of which office, he did, pursuant to the laws of the United States, preside at the above mentioned trial, and was assisted therein by Richard Peters, Esq. then, and still district judge of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania; who, as directed by the laws of the United States, sat as assistant judge at the said trial.
With respect to the opinion, which is alleged to have been delivered by this respondent, at the above mentioned trial, he begs leave to lay before this honorable court, the true state of that transaction, and to call its attention to some facts, and considerations, by which his conduct in that subject will be presumed, he fully justified. The constitution of the United States in the
third section of the third article, declares that "treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying a war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
By two acts of Congress, the first passed on the third day of March, 1791, and the second on the eighth day of May, 1792, a duty was imposed on spirits distilled within the United States, and on bills; and various provisions were made for its collection.
In the year 1794, an insurrection took place in four of the western counties of Pennsylvania, with a view of resisting and preventing by force the execution of these two statutes; and at a circuit court of the United States, held at Philadelphia, for the district of Pennsylvania, in the month of April, in the year 1795, by William Paterson Esq. then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, and the above mentioned Richard Peters , then district judge of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, two persons, who had been concerned in the above named insurrection, namely, Philip Vigol and John Mitchell , were indicted for treason, of levying war against the United States, by resisting and preventing by force the execution of the two last mentioned acts of Congress; and were, after a full and very solemn trial, convicted on the indictments and sentenced to death. They were afterwards pardoned by George Washington , then President of the U. States.
In the list of these trials, that of Vigol , the defence of the prisoner was conducted by very able counsel, one of whom, William Lewis, Esq. is the same person who appeared as counsel for John Fries in the trial now under consideration. Neither that learned gentleman, nor his able colleague, then thought proper to raise the question of law, "whether resisting and preventing by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the United States," be a levying of war against the United States? according to the true meaning of the constitution; although a decision of this question in the negative, must have acquitted the prisoner. But in the next trial, that of Mitchell , this question was raised on the part of the prisoner, and was very fully and ably defended by his counsel; and it was solemnly determined by the court, both the judges concurring, "that to resist or prevent by armed force, the execution of a particular law of the United States, is a levying of war against the U. States, and consequently is treason, within the true meaning of the constitution." The decision, according to the best established principles of our jurisprudence, became a precedent for all courts of equal or inferior jurisdiction; a precedent which, although not absolutely obligatory, ought to be viewed with very great respect, especially by the court in which it was made, and ought never to be departed from, but on the fullest and clearest conviction of its incorrectness.
On the 9th of July 1798, an act of Congress was passed, providing for a valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, and an enumeration of slaves throughout the United States; and directing the appointment of commissioners and assessors for carrying it into execution: And on the 4th day of July in the same year, a direct tax was laid by another act of Congress, of that date, on the lands, dwelling-houses, and slaves, to be valued and enumerated.
In the months of February and March, A. D. 1799, an insurrection took place in the counties of Bucks and Northampton , in the state of Pennsylvania , for the purpose of resisting and preventing by force, the execution of the two last mentioned acts of Congress, and particularly that for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses. John Fries , the person mentioned in the article of impeachment now under consideration, was apprehended and committed to prison, as one of the ring-leaders of this insurrection; and at a circuit court of the United States, held at Philadelphia, in and for the district of Pennsylvania, in the month of April, A. D. 1799, he was brought to trial for this offence, on an indictment for treason, by levying war against the United States, before James Iredell Esq. then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States who presided in the said court, according to law, and the above mentioned Richard Peters , then district judge of the United States, for the district of Pennsylvania, who sat in the said circuit court as assistant judge.
In this trial, which was conducted with great solemnity, and occupied nine days, the prisoner was assisted by William Lewis , and Alexander James Dallas, Esqrs. two very able and eminent counsellors; the former of whom, William Lewis , is the person who assisted as above-mentioned, in conducting the defence of Vigol , on a similar indictment. These gentlemen, finding that the facts alleged were fully and undeniably proved, by a very minute and elaborate examination of witnesses, thought proper to rest the case of the prisoner, on the question of law which had been determined in the cases of Vigol and Mitchell above mentioned, and had then been acquiesced in, but which they thought proper again to raise. They contended, "that to resist by force of arms a particular law of the United States, does not amount to levying war against the United States, within the true meaning of the constitution, and therefore it is not treason, but a riot only."
This question they argued at great length, and with all the force of their learning and genius; and after a very full discussion at the bar, and the most mature deliberation by the court, the learned and excellent judge who then presided, and who was no less distinguished by his humanity and tenderness towards persons tried before him, than by his extensive knowledge and great talents as a lawyer, pronounced the opinion of himself and his colleague, "that to resist or prevent by force, the execution of a particular law of the United States, does amount to levying war against them, within the true meaning of the constitution, and does therefore constitute the crime of treason;" thereby adding the weight of another and more solemn decision, to the precedent which had been established in the above mentioned cases of Vigol and Mitchell .
Under this opinion of the court on the question of law, the jury, having no doubt as to the facts, found the said John Fries guilty of treason, on the above mentioned indictment. But a new trial was granted by the court, not by reason of any doubt as to the correctness of the decision on the question of law, but solely on the ground, as this respondent hath understood and believes, that one of the jurors of the petit jury, after he was sworn, but before he was sworn on the trial, had made some declaration unfavorable to the prisoner.
The yellow fever having appeared in Philadelphia in the summer of the year 1799, the above mentioned Richard Peters , then district judge of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, did according to law appoint the next circuit court of that district, to be held at Norris Town therein: Pursuant to which appointment, a circuit court was held at Norris Town aforesaid, in and for the said district, on the 11th day of October in the last mentioned year before Burford Washington, Esq. then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, and the above mentioned Richard Peters ; at which court no proceedings were had on the aforesaid indictment against John Fries , because, as this respondent hath been informed and believes, the commission of the marshal of the said district had expired, before he summoned the jurors to attend at the said court, and had not been renewed; by reason of which no legal panel of jurors could be formed.
On the 11th day of April, A. D. 1800, and from that day until the 2d day of May in the same year, a circuit court of the United States was held at Philadelphia, in and for the district of Pennsylvania, before this respondent, then one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, and the above mentioned Richard Peters , then district judge of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania. At this court, the indictment on which the said John Fries had been convicted as above mentioned was quashed ex officio by William Rawle, Esq. then attorney of the United States for the district of Pennsylvania, and a new indictment was by him preferred against the said John Fries , for treason of levying war against the United States, by resisting and preventing by force, in the manner above set forth, the execution of the above mentioned acts of Congress, for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses, and the enumeration of slaves, and for levying and collecting a direct tax. This indictment, of which a true copy marked exhibit No. 1, is herewith exhibited by this respondent, who prays that it may be taken as part of this his answer, being found by the grand jury on the 16th day of April, 1800, the said John Fries was on the same day arraigned thereon, and plead not guilty. William Lewis , and Alexander James Dallas, Esqrs. the same persons who had conducted his defence at his former trial, were again at his request assigned by the court as his counsel; and his trial was appointed to be had, on Tuesday the 22d day of the last mentioned month of April.
After this indictment was found by the grand jury, this respondent considered it with great care and deliberation, and finding, from the three overt acts of treason which it charged, that the question of law arising upon it, was the same question which had already been decided twice in the same court, on solemn argument and deliberation, and one in that very case, he considered the law as settled by those decisions, with the correctness of which on full consideration he was entirely satisfied; and by the authority of which he should have deemed himself bound, even had he regarded the question as doubtful in itself. They are moreover in perfect conformity with the uniform tenor of decisions in the courts of England and Great Britain, from the revolution, in 1688, to the present time, which in his opinion, added greatly to their weight and authority.
And surely he need not urge to this honorable court, the correctness, the importance, and the absolute necessity of adhering to principles of law once established, and of considering the law as finally settled, after repeated and solemn decisions by courts of competent jurisdiction. A contrary principle would unsettle the basis of our whole system of jurisprudence, hitherto so safe guard & our boast; would reduce the law of the land, and subject the rights of the citizen, to the arbitrary will, the passions, or the caprice of the judge in each particular case; and would substitute the varying opinions of various men, instead of that fixed, permanent rule, in which the very essence of the law consists. If this respondent erred in regarding this point as settled, by the repeated and solemn adjudications of his predecessors, in the same court and in the same case; if he erred in supposing, that a principle established by two solemn decisions, was obligatory upon him, sitting in the same court where those decisions had been made; if he erred in believing that it would be the highest presumption in him, to set up his opinion and judgement over that of his colleague, who had twice decided the same question, and of two of his predecessors, who justly rank among the ablest judges that have ever adorned a court; if in all this he erred, it is an error of which he cannot be ashamed, and which he trusts will not be deemed criminal in the eyes of this honorable court, of his country, or of that posterity by which he, his accusers, and his judges, must one day be judged.
Under the influence of these considerations, this respondent drew up an opinion on the law, arising from the overt acts stated in the said indictment, which was conformable to the decisions before given as above mentioned, and which he sent to his colleague the said Richard Peters , for his consideration. That gentleman returned it to this respondent, with some amendments affecting the form only, but not in any manner touching the substance.
The opinion thus agreed to, this respondent thought it proper to communicate to the prisoner's counsel—several reasons concurred in favor of this communication. In the first place, this respondent considered himself and the court, as bound by the authority of the former decisions; especially the last of them, which was on the same case. He considered the law as settled, and had every reason to believe that his colleague viewed it in the same light. It was not suggested or understood, that any new evidence was to be offered, which could vary the case, it would render wholly inapplicable both the opinion and the former decisions on which it was founded. And he could not and did not suppose, that the prisoner's counsel would be desirous of wasting very precious time, in addressing to the court an unfeigned argument, on a point which that court had itself precluded from deciding in their favor. He therefore conceived that it would be rendering the counsel a service and a favor, to apprise them before hand of the view which the court had taken of the subject; to allow them to inform themselves of the necessity of endeavoring to produce new testimony, which might vary the case, and take it out of the authority of former decisions. Secondly, There were more than one hundred civil causes then depending in the said

court, as appears by the exhibit marked No. 1, which this respondent prays may be taken as part of his answer. Many of those causes had already been subjected to great delay, and it was the peculiar duty of this respondent, as presiding judge, to take care, that as little time as possible should be unnecessarily consumed, and that every convenient and proper dispatch should be given to the business of the citizens. He did believe, that an early communication of the court's opinion, might tend to the saving of time, and consequently to the dispatch of business.
Thirdly, As the court held itself bound by the former decisions, and could not therefore alter its opinion in consequence of any argument; and as it was the duty of the court to charge the jury on the law, in all cases submitted to their consideration, he knew that this opinion must not only be made known at some period or other of the trial, but must at the end of the trial be expressly delivered to the jury by him, in a charge from the bench: and he could not suppose and cannot yet imagine, that an opinion, which was to be thus solemnly given in charge to the jury, at the close of the trial, could make any additional impression on their minds, from the circumstance of its being intimated to the counsel before the trial began, in the hearing of those who might be afterwards sworn on the jury.
And, lastly, it was then his opinion, and still is, that it is the duty of every court of this country, and was his duty on the trial now under consideration, to guard the jury against erroneous impressions respecting the laws of the land. He well knows, that it is the right of juries in criminal cases, to give a general verdict of acquittal, which cannot be set aside on account of its being contrary to law, and that hence results the power of juries, to decide on the law as well as on the facts, in all criminal cases. This power he holds to be a sacred part of our legal privileges, which he never has attempted, and never will attempt to abridge or to oblige. But he also knows, that in the exercise of this power, it is the duty of the jury to govern themselves by the laws of the land, over which they have no dispensing power; and their right to expect and receive from the court, all the assistance which it can give, for rightly understanding the law. To withhold this assistance, in any manner whatever; to forbear to give it in that way, which may be most effectual for preserving the jury from error and mistake; would be an abandonment or forgetfulness of duty, which no judge could justify to his conscience or to the laws. In this case, therefore, where the question of law arising on the indictment, had been finally settled by authoritative decisions, it was the duty of the court, and especially on this respondent as presiding judge, early to apprise the counsel and the jury of these decisions, and their effect, so as to save the former from the danger of making an improper attempt, to mislead the jury in a matter of law, and the jury from having their minds pre-occupied by erroneous impressions.
It was for these reasons, that on the 22d day of April 1800, when the said John Fries was brought into court, and placed in the prisoner's box for trial, but before the petit jury was impanelled to try him, this respondent informed the abovenamed William Lewis, one of his counsel, the aforesaid Alexander James Dallas not being then in court, "that the court had deliberately considered the indictment against John Fries for treason, and the three several overt acts of treason stated therein: That the crime of treason was defined by the constitution of the United States: That as the federal legislature had the power to make, alter, or repeal laws, so the judiciary only had the power, and it was their duty, to declare, expound and interpret the constitution and laws of the United States: That it was the duty of the court, in all criminal cases, to state to the petit jury, their opinion of the law arising on the facts; but the jury in all criminal cases were to decide both the law and the facts, on a consideration of the whole case: That there must be some constructive exposition of the terms used in the constitution, "levying war against the United States;" That the question, what acts amounted to levying war against the United States, or the government thereof, was a question of law, and had been decided by judges Patterson and Peters, in the cases of Vigol and Mitchell, and by judges Iredell and Peters, in the case of John Fries, prisoner at the bar, in April 1799: That judge Peters remained of the same opinion, which he had twice before delivered, and he, this respondent, on long and great consideration, concurred in the opinion of judges Patterson, Iredell, and Peters: That to prevent unnecessary delay, and to save time on the trial of John Fries, and to prevent a delay of justice, in the great number of civil causes depending for trial at that term, the court had drawn up in writing, their opinion of the law, arising on the overt acts, stated in the indictment against John Fries; and had directed David Caldwell their Clerk, to make out three copies of their opinion, one to be delivered to the attorney of the district, one to the counsel for the prisoner, and one to the petit jury after they should have been impanelled and heard the indictment read to them by the clerk, and after the district attorney should have stated to them the law on the overt acts alleged in the indictment, as it appeared to him."
After these observations, this respondent delivered one of the abovenamed copies to the aforesaid William Lewis, then attending as one of the prisoner's counsel; who read part of it, and then laid it down on the table before him. Some observations were then made on the subject, by him and the abovenamed Alexander James Dallas, who had then come into court; but this respondent doth not now recollect those observations, and cannot undertake to state them accurately.
And this respondent further saith, that the paper marked exhibit No. 2, and herewith exhibited, which he prays leave to make part of his answer, is a true copy of the original opinion, drawn up by him and concurred in by the said Richard Peters, as above set forth, which original opinion is now in the possession of this respondent, ready to be produced to this honorable court. He may have erred in forming this opinion, and in the time and manner of making it known to the counsel for the prisoner. If he erred in forming it, he erred in common with his colleague and with two of his predecessors; and he presumes to hope that an error which has never been deemed criminal in them, will not be imputed as a crime to him, who was led into it by their example and their authority. If he erred in the time and manner of making known this opinion, he feels a just confidence, that when the reasons which he has alleged for his conduct, and by which it seemed to him to be fully justified, shall come to be carefully weighed, they will be sufficient to prove, if not that this conduct was perfectly regular and correct, yet that he might sincerely have considered it as right; and that in a case where so much doubt may exist, to have committed a mistake, is not to have committed a crime.
And this respondent further answering saith, that he opinion was delivered to the prisoner.
er's counsel, viz. that "any insurrection or rising of any body of people within the United States, for the purpose of resisting or preventing by force or violence, under any pretence whatever, the execution of any statute of the United States, or levying or collecting taxes, or for any other object of a general or national concern, is levying war against the United States, within the contemplation and true meaning of the constitution of the United States," is a legal and correct opinion, supported not only by the two previous decisions above mentioned, but also by the plainest principles of law and reason, and by the uniform tenor of legal adjudications in England and Great-Britain, from the revolution in 1688 to this time. It ever was, and now is his opinion, that the peace and safety of the national federal government, must be endangered by any other construction of the terms "levying war against the United States," used by the federal constitution; and he is confident that no judge of the federal government, no judge of a superior state court, nor any gentleman of established reputation for legal knowledge, would or could deliberately give a contrary opinion.
If however this opinion were erroneous, this respondent would be far less censurable than his predecessors, by whose example he was led astray, and by whose authority he considered himself bound. Was it an error to consider himself bound by the authority of their previous decisions? If it were, he was led in to the error by the uniform course of judicial proceedings, in this country and in England, and is supported in it, by one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence. Can such an error be a crime or a misdemeanor?
If, on the other hand, the opinion be in itself correct, as he believes and insists that it is, could the expression of a correct opinion on the law, whenever and however made, mislead the jury, infringe their rights, or give an improper bias to their judgment? Could truth excite improper prejudice? Could the jury be less prepared to hear the law discussed, and to decide on it correctly, because it was correctly stated to them by the court? And is not that a new kind of offence, in this country at least, which consists in telling the truth, and giving a correct exposition of the law?
As to the second specific charge adduced in support of the first article of impeachment, which accuses this respondent, "of restricting the counsel for the said Fries, from recurring to such English authorities as they believed apposite, or from citing certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed illustrative of the positions upon which they intended to rest the defence of their client," this respondent admits that he did, on the above mentioned trial, express it as his opinion to the aforesaid counsel for the prisoner, "that the decisions in England, in cases of indictments for treason at common law, against the person of the king, ought not to be read to the jury, on trials for treason under the constitution and statutes of the United States; because such decisions could not inform, but might mislead and deceive the jury: that any decisions on cases of treason, in the courts of England, before the revolution of 1688, ought to have very little influence in the courts of the United States; that he would permit decisions in the courts of England or of Great Britain, since the said revolution, to be read to the court or jury, for the purpose of shewing, what acts have been considered by these courts as a constructive levying of war against the king of that country, in his regal capacity, but not against his person; because levying war against his government, was of the same nature as levying war against the government of the United States: but that such decisions, nevertheless, were not to be considered as authorities binding on the courts and juries of this country, but merely in the light of opinions entitled to great respect as having been delivered after full consideration, by men of great legal learning and ability."
These are the opinions which he did, on that occasion, deliver to the counsel for the prisoner, and which he then thought, and still thinks, it was his duty to deliver. The counsellors admitted to practice in any court of justice, are in his opinion, and according to universal practice, to be considered as officers of such courts and ministers of justice therein, and as such, subject to the direction and control of the court, as to their conduct in its presence, and in conducting the defence of criminals on trial before it. As counsel, they owe to the person accused, diligence, fidelity, and secrecy, and to the court and jury, due and correct information, according to the best of their knowledge and ability, on every matter of law which they attempt to adduce in argument. The court, on the other hand, hath power, and is bound in duty, to decide and direct what evidence, whether by record or by precedents of decisions in courts of justice, is proper to be admitted for the establishment of any matter of law or fact. Consequently, should counsel attempt to read to a jury, as a law still in force, a statute which had been repealed, or a decision which had been reversed, or the judgements of courts in counties whose laws have no connection with ours, it would be the duty of the court to interpose, and prevent such an imposition from being practiced on the jury. For these reasons, this respondent thinks that his conduct was correct, in expressing to the counsel for Fries, the opinions stated above. He is not bound to answer here for the correctness of those principles, though he thinks them incontestable; but merely for the correctness of his opinion in delivering them. A contrary opinion would convert this honorable court, from a court of impeachment into a court of appeals; and would lead directly to the strange absurdity, that whenever the judgment of an inferior court should be reversed on appeal or writ of error, the judges of that court must be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors, and turned out of office: that error in judgment is a punishable offence, and that crimes may be committed without any criminal intention—Against a doctrine so absurd and mischievous, so contrary to every notion of justice hitherto entertained, so utterly subversive of all that part of our system of jurisprudence, which has been wisely and humanely established for the protection of innocence, this respondent deems it his duty now, and on every occasion, to enter his protest and lift up his voice; and he trusts that in the discharge of this duty, infinitely more important to his country than to himself, he shall find approbation and support in the heart of every American, of every man throughout the world, who knows the blessings of civil liberty, or respects the principles of universal justice.
It is only then, for the correctness of his motives in delivering these opinions, that he can now be called to answer; and this correctness ought to be presumed, unless the contrary appears by some direct proof, or by some violent presumption arising from his general conduct on the trial, or from the glaring impropriety of the opinion itself. For he admits that cases may be supposed, of an opinion delivered by a judge so palpably erroneous, unjust and oppressive, as to preclude the possibility of its having proceeded from ignorance or mistake. Do the opinions now under consideration bear any of these marks? This honorable court
need not be informed that there has existed in England, no such thing as treason at common law, since the year 1350, when the statute of the 25th Edward III, chap. 2, declaring what alone should in future be judged treason, was passed. It is perfectly clear that decisions made before that statute, 150 years ago, when England, together with the rest of Europe, was still wrapped in the deepest gloom of ignorance and barbarism; when the system of English jurisprudence was still in its infancy; when law, justice and reason, were perpetually trampled under foot by feudal oppression and feudal anarchy; when under an able and vigorous monarch, every thing was adjudged to be treason which he thought fit to call so, and under a weak one, nothing was considered as treason which turbulent, powerful, and rebellious nobles thought fit to perpetrate: is it perfectly clear that decisions made at such a time, and under such circumstances, ought to be received by the courts of this country as authorities to govern their decisions, or lights to guide the understanding of juries? Is it perfectly clear that decisions made in England, on the subject of treason, before the revolution of 1688, by which alone the balance of the English constitution was adjusted, and the English liberties were first on a firm basis; decisions made either during the furious civil wars, in which two rival families contended for the crown; when in the vicissitudes of war, death and confiscation in the forms of law, continually walked in the train of the victors, and actions were treasonable or praiseworthy, according to the preponderance of the party by whose adherents they were perpetrated; during the reigns of three able and arbitrary monarchs, who succeeded this dreadful conflict, and relaxed or invigorated the law of treason, according to their anger, their policy, or their caprice; or during those terrible struggles between the principles of liberty, not yet well defined or understood, on one hand, and arbitrary power, insinuating itself under the forms of the constitution, on the other; struggles which presented at some times the wildest anarchy, at others, the extremes of servile submission, and, after having brought one king to the scaffold, ended in the expulsion of another from the throne? Is it clear that decisions on the law of treason, made in times like these, ought not only to be received as authorities in the courts of this country, but also to have great influence on their decisions? It is clear that decisions made in England, as to what acts will amount to levying war against the king, personally, and not a gainst his government, are applicable to the constitution and laws of this country? Is it clear that such English decisions on the subject of treason, are applicable to our constitution and laws, are to be received in our courts, not merely as the opinions of learned and able men, which may enlighten their judgment, but as authorities which ought to govern absolutely their decisions?—Is all this so clear, that a judge could not honestly and sincerely have thought the contrary? That he could not have expressed an opinion to the contrary without corrupt or improper motives? If it be not thus clear, then must it be admitted that this respondent, sincerely and honestly, and in the best of his judgment, considered these decisions as wholly inadmissible, or admissible only for the purposes and to the extent which he pointed out.
And if he did so consider them, was it not his duty to prevent them from being read to the jury, except under those restrictions, and for those purposes? Would his duty permit him to sit silently, and see the jury imposed on and misled? To sit silently and hear a book read to them as containing the law, which he knew did not contain the law? Such silence would have rendered him a party to the deception, and would have subjected him to all the contumely, which a conscientious and courageous discharge of his duty, has to unmeritedly brought on his name.
With respect to the statutes of the United States, which he is charged with having prevented the prisoner's counsel from citing on the aforesaid trial, he denies that he prevented any act of Congress from being declared, either to the court or jury, on the said trial; or prisoner's counsel to read to the jury, or to the court, any act of Congress whatever. Nor does he remember or believe, that he expressed on the said trial, any disapprobation of the conduct of the circuit court before whom the said case was first tried, in permitting the act of Congress relating to crimes less than treason, commonly called the sedition act , to be read to the jury. He admits indeed that he was then and still is of opinion, that the said act of Congress was wholly irrelevant to the issue, in the trial of John Fries, and therefore ought not to have been read to the jury, or regarded by them. This opinion may be erroneous, but he trusts that the following reasons on which it was founded, will be considered by this honorable court, as sufficiently strong to render it possible, even probable, that such an opinion might be sincerely and honestly expressed.—1st, That Congress did not intend by the sedition act , to define the crime of treason by levying war. Treason and sedition are crimes very distinct in their nature, and subject to very different punishments; the former by death, and the latter by fine and imprisonment. 2dly, The sedition act makes a combination or conspiracy, with intent to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or the advising or attempting to procure any insurrection or riot, a high misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment; but a combination or conspiracy with intent to prevent the execution of a law, or with intent to commit treason, is not treason by "levying war" against the U. States, unless it be followed by an attempt to carry such combination or conspiracy into effect, by actual force or violence. 3dly, The constitution of the United States is the fundamental and supreme law, and having defined the crime of treason, Congress could not give any legislative interpretation or exposition of that crime, or of the part of the constitution by which it is defined. 4thly, The judicial authority of the United States, is alone vested with power to expound their constitution and laws.
And this respondent further answering saith, that after the above mentioned proceedings had taken place in the said trial, it was postponed until the next day, Wednesday, April 23d, 1800; when at the meeting of the court, this respondent told both the above mentioned counsel for the prisoner, "that to prevent any misunderstanding of any thing that had passed the day before, he would inform them, that although the court retained the same opinion of the law, arising on the overt acts charged in the indictment against Fries, yet the counsel would be permitted to offer arguments to the court, for the purpose of shewing them that they were mistaken in the law; and that the court, if satisfied that they had erred in opinion, would correct it: and also that the counsel would be permitted to argue before the petit jury, that the court were mistaken in the law." And this respondent added, that the court had given no opinion as to the facts in the case, about which both the counsel had declared that there would be no controversy.
After some observations by the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, they both declared to the court, "that they did not any longer consider themselves as the counsel for John Fries the prisoner. This respondent then asked the said John Fries, whether he wished the court to appoint other counsel assigned; in which he acted, as this respondent believes and charges, by the advice of the said William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas; whereupon the court ordered the said trial to be had on the next day, Thursday, the 24th of April, 1800.
On that day the trial was proceeded in; and before the jurors were sworn, they were, by the direction of the court, severally asked on oath, whether they were in any way related to the prisoner, and whether they had ever formed or delivered any opinion as to his
guilt or innocence, or that he ought to be punished? Three of them answering in the affirmative, were withdrawn from the panel. The said John Fries was then informed by the court, that he had a right to challenge thirty-five of the jury, without shewing any cause of challenge against them, and as many more as he could show cause of challenge against. He accordingly challenged peremptorily thirty-four of the jury, and the trial proceeded. In the evening, the court adjourned till the next day, Friday, the 25th of April, when after the district attorney had stated the principal facts proved by the witnesses, and had applied the law to those facts, this respondent, with the concurrence of his colleagues, the said Richard Peters, delivered to the jury the charge contained and expressed in exhibit marked No. 5, herewith filed, which he prays may be taken as part of his answer.
Immediately after the petit jury had delivered their verdict, this respondent informed the said Fries, from the Bench, that if he, or any person for him, could show any legal ground, or sufficient cause to arrest the judgment, while time would be allowed him for that purpose, until the cause being shewn, sentence of death was passed on the said Fries, on Tuesday the 22d day of May, 1800, the 1st day of the term; and he was afterwards pardoned by John Adams, then President of the United States.
And this respondent further answering saith, that if the two instances of misconduct, first stated in support of the general charge, contained in the first article of impeachment, were true as alleged, yet the inference drawn from them, viz. "that the said Fries was thereby deprived of the benefit of counsel for his defence," is not true. He insists that the said Fries was deprived of the benefit of counsel, not by any misconduct of this respondent, but by the conduct and advice of the above mentioned William Lewis and Alexander James Dallas, who having been, with their own consent, assigned by the court as counsel for the prisoner, withdrew from his defence, and advised him to refuse other counsel when offered to him by the court, under pretence that the law had been prejudged, and their liberty of conducting the defence, according to their own judgment, improperly restricted by this respondent; but in reality because they knew the law and the facts to be against them, and the case to be decided, and supposed that their withdrawing themselves under this pretence might excite odium against the court; might give rise to an opinion that the prisoner had not been fairly tried; and in the event of a conviction, which from their knowledge of the law and the facts they knew to be almost certain, might aid the prisoner in an application to the President for a pardon. That such was the real motive of the said prisoner's counsel, for depriving their client of legal assistance on this trial, this respondent is fully persuaded, and expects to make appear, not only from the circumstances of the case, but from their own frequent and public declarations.
(To be continued.)
Debate, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.
WEDNESDAY, February 6. Debate on the report of the managers to whom were referred the answer of Samuel Chase.
Mr. J. Randolph moved that the house concur with the managers in their report.
Mr. R. Griswold did not know but what the replication was correct. But it appeared to him that they were about to act in too precipitate a manner. The answer of Judge Chase had only been transmitted to them that morning, and had been directed to be printed; it appeared therefore to him that gentlemen could not have had sufficient time to judge whether the replication reported by the managers was a proper one or not—He was averse to delay a decision of the impeachment, but he was not prepared to act so soon. It appeared from the replication that the answer was supposed to be indecent. Let the answer be printed and then gentlemen would be able to decide that point. In order to obtain a fair and full discussion of the replication he moved to refer it to a committee of the whole house.
Mr. Elliot did not rise to express surprise at the stile of the replication. After what had taken place in relation to the impeachment of Judge Chase, he felt no surprise at any language that might be used. He hoped that the language of the replication would not be sanctioned by the house. In his opinion the stile was undignified and unworthy of that body. The court, they were about to punish, if the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. R. Griswold) should be rejected, was unprejudged and not incorrect.—That might be no objection with the managers, but he trusted that it would be with the house.—He was in favor of the motion to refer the report to a committee of the whole, and hoped that they should adopt such a replication as was worthy of the house. If the question should be taken upon agreeing to the replication reported by the managers he should give it his decided negative.—The replication was undignified and improper.—It asserted that the answer of Judge Chase contained untruths and evasions. This was not the fact. In his opinion, it contained a correct statement of facts, and with a few exceptions principles correct and arguments unanswerable.—The replication declared also that Judge Chase was guilty upon every article of impeachment: therefore no member who voted against either article of impeachment, could in his opinion vote with propriety in favor of the replication. He hoped they would refer the subject to a committee of the whole house, in order that they might not act in a precipitate manner upon a subject of such importance.
Mr. J. Randolph hoped the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. R. G.) to refer the report to a committee of the whole house would not prevail. He did believe that an agreement to the motion would be a virtual refusal on the part of the house to proceed any farther with the prosecution of the impeachment. He was not surprised that the gentleman from Connecticut, who had heretofore deemed this subject as unworthy of discussion, should endeavour in this manner to destroy the prosecution, and to effect that indirectly which he could not do directly. What were the facts in the present case? Early in the session, the house of representatives had exhibited articles of impeachment against Samuel Chase to the senate. After as long a time as could be given him for the purpose of putting in his answer he had come forward with one, of which no accurate description could be given. If they were to go into a committee of the whole and adopt a replication equally as long as the answer there would be no possible chance of finishing the prosecution at the present session. After, at the last session, coming forward and pressing for a trial, and complaining of a denial of justice on account of its not taking place—the respondent was now endeavouring to postpone the trial until the next session. The managers had but one of two courses to pursue, either to file a general replication to the answer, which they had done, or to file a special replication which would have been a virtual relinquishment of the prosecution for the present session. He hoped the house would agree to file a general replication and proceed to the trial as soon as possible and that the impeachment would not be wire drawn any more.
Mr. Elliot was in favor of filing a general replication to the answer of Judge Chase, but he was opposed to the stile of the one reported by the managers. If they were to refer the subject to a committee of the whole it would probably
be taken up to-morrow, and the discussion would not last more than one day, and the trial would not be delayed until the next session, as was said by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph.) He still hoped that the house would proceed in a manner worthy of that body.
Mr. R. Griswold asked if the impeachment had been wire drawn as was represented by a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) by whom had it been done? It certainly was not by him. Since the subject had been first under consideration he had not occupied thirty minutes of the time of the house upon it. He wished not to protract the trial, as he conceived that the person accused and the public were both entitled to an immediate decision. But upon a subject of so much importance, upon a report drawn in such an unbusiness-like as the present, he deemed it improper to act in so hasty a manner. The answer had not been read in the house, but most of the members had heard it read in the senate.—Probably some of them had not, and therefore could not decide upon a proper replication. Under these circumstances he deemed it proper to refer the subject to the committee of the whole and had felt it his duty to make the motion he had done.—Having discharged his duty, he should acquiesce in the decision of a majority in the house.
The question was then taken—and the motion to refer the report to a committee of the whole house was lost—Yeas 31—Nays 60.
The question then returned upon concurring with the managers of their report. Mr. P. Griswold called for the yeas and nays. Mr. Lucas said that it appeared to him proper to postpone the further consideration of the replication until they should have the answer printed. It appeared preposterous to agree to a replication to the answer when that answer was not before them. He understood that the answer would be printed on the next day, and then they might act upon it. He therefore moved to postpone the further consideration of the report of the managers until to-morrow.
Mr. J. Randolph had no great objection to postpone the subject for the time moved by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He wished to inform that gentleman that this house was in possession of the answer of Samuel Chase. A copy of it had been sent them from the senate, & whether printed or in manuscript, it was in possession of the house. After the able and masterly manner in which the answer had been read in the senate, he presumed it must be fresh upon the minds of every gentleman who had attended there. For his own part the silence which prevailed in the senate added to the animated impression upon his mind not easy to be effaced. The answer was on the clerk's table, he had no objection to hearing it read by the clerk. But as well as the clerk of the house of representatives, he conceived it would be no derogation to him to say, that they would receive but a faint impression of it after having heard it read in the senate. Should they postpone it until to-morrow, what would happen then? A printed copy of the answer would be laid upon the table of every member, and it would require four hours to read it. He thought that after once perusing it, they could not have such a retention of it as from hearing it read in the senate. However, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania, wished the subject to be postponed until to-morrow, he had no great objection to it.—While he was up, he would notice one observation which fell from the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. R. Griswold) that gentleman had no objection to the filing of a general replication; provided it were done in a different stile from the one reported by the managers, from the one reported by the managers, in answer to this Mr. Randolph observed that the respondent had made the proceedings in this celebrated case of Warren Hastings authority for his answer; the Managers had also adopted an authority which he conceived that the gentleman from Connecticut, would consider as entitled to respect, it was the authority of Edmund Burke. Discovering that the answer was stuffed full of evasions and did contain a gloss & coloring of facts, false & untrue, the managers thought it their duty to draft a replication similar to the one put in by the house of Commons, in reply to the answer of Warren Hastings. He found however that the theories of the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke agreed better with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. R. Griswold) than the practice.
Mr. Lucas observed that he had heard the answer of Judge Chase read in the Senate, and he believed the rest of the members did also, he would withdraw his motion for a postponement of the subject until to-morrow. Mr. Dennis moved to amend the Replication by striking out, after the words "and observe," the following: "that the said Samuel Chase hath endeavoured to cover the high crimes and misdemeanors, laid to his charge, by evasive insinuations, and misrepresentation of facts; that the said answer does give a gloss & coloring utterly false and untrue, to the various criminal matters contained in the said articles." He observed that those words were too intemperate to comport with the dignity of the house. If they were expunged, the replication would be a general one, and would answer every purpose. He did not believe that the respondent wished a delay. It was true that at the beginning of the session he had wished that the trial to be postponed until the next session, but having failed in that, he was now attending with his witnesses at a considerable expense, and was no doubt anxious for a speedy decision. He should vote against the Replication if the words proposed to be expunged, were retained, as he would do no act which would commit the dignity of the house.
Mr. Huger called for the yeas and nays. The question was taken upon agreeing to the amendment, by yeas and nays, and were yeas 41, nays 70.
The question was then taken upon agreeing to the Replication, and passed in the affirmative, yeas 77—nays 34. (The above debate is from the Washington Federalist.)
SPANISH HIDES.
FOR SALE, a large quantity of Prime Spanish Hides, on moderate terms. Apply to the subscriber opposite the Post-Office, Richmond.
MICAJAH DAVIS. 2d Mo. 10th.
A YOUNG MAN, who writes a fair hand, and has conducted the clerkship of a county court for three years past, wishes to engage in the same business with some gentleman in the upper country.—He can produce testimonials of his earned morals and general good conduct. A line directed to the Post-Master in Williamsburg, will be attended to and immediately answered. February 19.
FOR SALE, On a credit of 18 months, at the Eagle tavern, on the 25th March ensuing:
A certain tract or parcel of LAND, lying in Powhatan county on Mayo river, containing 550 acres more or less, being that tract lately owned by the benefit of Mrs. Mary Davis, deceased, and sold by virtue of a deed of trust for Patrick's, will show the land to any person desirous to purchase. An undivided share with general warrantee, will be made, the purchaser on payment of the money—undoubted security will be required. PROSSER & MONCURE, V. M's. February 13.

Foreign Intelligence.
LONDON, Dec. 3.
A Swede, which left the Texel on the 25th ult. has brought intelligence to our squadron...
A letter from an officer who holds an important situation in the Russian navy, dated Revel; October 12, says—
"In the course of next spring a large fleet for England will certainly sail from this port...
The British Navy.—The total number of ships now in commission is 685, of which 194 are of the line...
December 17.
We are favored from an authoritative source with copies of two letters from Officers of rank in the British Indian Army...
The mediation of Prussia between Turkey and France, according to private advices, is not expected to prove successful.
The jewels purchased at Lisbon for Bonaparte's coronation, are supposed to have cost little short of a million sterling.
GRAVESEND, Nov. 22.
The following are the exact dimensions, tonnage, &c. of the Hibernia, launched last Saturday:
Table with 2 columns: Gun, 82, 24, 18 & 9-pounders, 130 guns; Length of keel, 167 feet; From figure head to the taffrel, 242 feet...
Domestic Intelligence.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
A ticket, for 1805, has been recently recommended to the representatives of this state, by a convention held at Concord...
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
February 2, 1805.
The following message of the President of the United States, with the documents referred to, were read.
Ordered, That they be printed for the use of the Senate.
Attest, SAMUEL A. OTIS, Sec'y.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
According to the desire expressed in your resolution of the 28th inst. I now communicate a report of the Secretary of State...
Jan. 31st, 1805.
The Secretary of State to whom the President of the United States has been pleased to refer the resolution of the Senate...
11. A copy of a letter, addressed to the Secretary of State, by the Envoy of Great Britain, dated on the 31st of August last.
12. An extract of a letter to the same, from the late charge des affaires of France, dated 6th May last...
Of the inclosures alluded to in the aforesaid letter and extract, the only authenticated statement relative to the conduct of American private armed vessels...
All which is respectfully submitted. JAMES MADISON. Department of State, Jan. 31st, 1805.
[No. 1.]
Mr. Merry, to the Secretary of State.
PHILADELPHIA, August 31, 1804.
SIR, I have received information respecting several vessels which have of late been armed...
have failed from the different ports of the United States, some loaded with articles contraband of war...
to make on so important a subject, I think that I can have the honor of stating to you...
that several vessels of the above description, which are mentioned to be schooner-rigged, have failed lately from the port of Baltimore...
Philadelphia, bound to the possessions of his majesty's enemies in the East as well as West-Indies.
It is said, that the object of some of these equipments is to force a trade with the blacks, in the island of St. Domingo...
I understand, Sir, that the armaments in question have, in fact, taken place under no commission or authority...
I have, therefore, thought it my duty to have the honor of making you acquainted with the information that has reached me...
I have the honor to be, with high respect and consideration, Sir,
Your most obedt. humble servant, ANT. MERRY.
The Hon. James Madison, Secretary of State.
[No. II.]
Extract of a letter from the Charge des Affaires of France dated 11th May, 1804, and addressed to the Secretary of State.
[Translation.]
The undersigned is informed in a manner, which leaves no room to doubt it, that the American merchants, who pursue this commerce...
In considering the matter merely under the view of the law of nations, it is manifest that American citizens, under the very eyes of their government...
The French government certainly could not see without a profound regret that after having given to the United States the most marked proofs of its desire to place the good understanding of the two nations upon the most immovable foundations...
[The substance of Mr. Barnwell's letter, annexed to these documents, has already been published in the American papers.]
IN SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
Mr. Breckenridge in pursuance of instructions from the Legislature of Kentucky at the last session...
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several states...
ARTICLE. The judicial power of the United States shall be
be continued to extend to controversies between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states...
Register,
OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.
FRIDAY, Feb. 8, 1805.
Mr. Nicholson reported a bill supplementary to the act, entitled, an act concerning the district of Columbia...
Another bill supplementary to the act more effectually to provide for organizing the militia of the district of Columbia...
Mr. Linn presented to the House the act of the state of South Carolina passed 21st December, 1804...
A message from the Senate by Mr. Otis their secretary, informing that they had concurred in the bill making provision for the support of the military establishment for the year 1805...
Another message was received from the Senate by Mr. Otis their secretary, informing that they had passed a bill for the adjustment of titles and claims to land in the district of Orleans...
The house having resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Gen. Forsyth in the chair, the committee attended in the Senate Chamber on the prosecution of the impeachment against Samuel Chase...
The House then went into a committee of the whole on the report of the committee of Claims, on the petition of Alexander Scott...
Mr. Dawson in the chair.
After some time spent in considering the same, the committee rose and reported their concurrence in the report of the committee of Claims...
Mr. Richard reported from the committee of enrollment that they had examined the bill concerning the manner of surveying the public lands of the United States...
The engrossed bill to appropriate a sum of money for the purpose of building gun-boats was read the third time and passed.
Mr. Morrow reported from the committee appointed for the purpose, a bill making provision for the disposal of the public lands in the Indiana territory...
Mr. Southard said it would be well recollected by the House, that during the last session of Congress a resolution was introduced into the House...
A bill predicated on that resolution was brought in, but was postponed, and not finally acted on. Mr. S. said he had waited with an expectation...
Referred to a committee of the whole on Monday next.
Mr. Greenfield presented a petition from Daniel Clark of Salem, Mass. stating that in the year 1801 he loaded a schooner for St. Jago de Cuba...
Mr. Greenfield reported from the committee of Commerce and Manufactures, on the bill for carrying into more complete effect, the 10th article of the treaty of friendship, limits and navigation with Spain...
NORFOLK, Feb. 14.
Yesterday came on before the fullest bench ever witnessed in this borough, the trial of the negroes charged with the murder of a captain of a craft, named Amos.
Herald.
By capt. Ward, arrived from Cadiz, we learn that a formal exposition of the differences between Spain and Great-Britain had been published by his most Catholic Majesty...
[Public Ledger.]
S. CAROLINA. CHARLESTON, Feb. 1.
Vessels cleared at the Custom-House of this port, from the 1st October 1803, to the 1st February 1804, bound
Table with 2 columns: To London, 2; Liverpool, 6; Glasgow, 6; Total, 14.
Supposing to carry, on an average, 700 bags of Cotton each, the quantity would be 9,800 bags.
Vessels cleared from the 1st October 1804, to the 1st February 1805, bound to the same ports, viz.
Table with 2 columns: To London, 2; Liverpool, 18; Glasgow, 8; Total, 28, Difference, 14.
And supposed to carry in the same ratio as the above, the quantity will be 19,600 bags.
GUN BOATS No. 1 and 2 arrived this morning, from Beaufort.
ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, FEBRUARY 19, 1805.
ACQUISITION OF LOUISIANA.
The Federal prints have not yet ceased to anathematize this measure; perhaps the most important, which has occurred under the present administration.
Eight columns have been already expended upon this subject by the Public Ledger. We shall wait until the discussion is concluded...
CARD.
To the Editor of the National Intelligencer.
The republicans of Virginia have been deeply interested in the fate of the Texas Claims. The unblushing corruption of the Georgia Legislature of '97...
Recollecting the history of this business during the last session of Congress, your friends have been unable to repress or conceal their solicitude.
Feb. 18th 1804.
Valuable ends may in some cases justify very improper means. If this maxim be correct, and it has been advocated by some enlightened philosophers...
Like other species of gambling, a lottery is liable to the two prominent objections, of furnishing new means of accumulation...
This is an extreme case. It is one however, which almost every person can illustrate by the history of some industrious mechanic...
his fil operations: around the wheel of fortune, the anxious audience are seen gathering and greedily catching the decrees of fate.
RICHMOND ACADEMY LOTTERY.
State of the wheel after the 10th day's drawing, ending on Wednesday last, the 13th instant.
Table with 2 columns: Prize of D. 5000 is Dells. 1 5000, 2 2000, 3 1000, 4 500, 5 500, 6 300, 7 100, 8 100, 900 12, 10800.
927 Prizes amounting to Dells. 28200
2450 Tickets remaining in the wheel.
Drawing of 10 days.
Table with 2 columns: 3 Prizes of Dols. 300 is Dols. 12 100, 600 12, 7200.
615 Prizes amounting to Dols. 5800
805 Blanks.
1500 Tickets drawn at 10 dols 15000
WHEEL GAINED—Dols. 5700
9th DAY'S DRAWING.
Prizes of 12 dollars.
Table with 2 columns: No's. 1791 2292 108 9119 944 1148 2876 1717, 1816 1378 908 3207 2437 713 3745 3722 8506...
10th DAY'S DRAWING.
Prize of 300 Dollars—No. 3146.
Prizes of 100 Dollars—No's. 9318, 312.
Table with 2 columns: Prizes of 12 Dollars—No's. 2013 3069 2014, 616 2059 989 105 678 1890 9227 1475 1081...
11th DAY'S DRAWING.
Prize of 300 Dollars—No. 9183.
Prize of 100 Dollars—No. 592.
Table with 2 columns: Prizes of 12 Dollars—No's. 3300 9411 293 9916, 3749 1760 2102 3219 924 3030 866 2983 1927...
Tickets raised to 12 dollars. Total gain of the wheel! 6600.
27 No. II. on the "Trade to St. Domingo," is postponed.
28 For several New Advertisements, see third column of the fourth page.
29 No Northern Mail on Saturday night, North of Alexandria.
THE Subscribers intends to practise LAW in the County Courts of Mecklenburg, Halifax, Lunenburg and Brunswick...
Any person willing to employ him in their business, may have ready communication with him at Lombardy Grove, Mecklenburg, where he will reside.
February 19. eT8w
WILL BE SOLD,
At Public Auction, on Saturday the 20th day of April next, at the Rawleigh Tavern, in the city of Williamsburg;
THAT valuable Plantation called YARMOUTH, lying in James City county, on Chickahominy River, ten miles from Williamsburg.
For ELIZA INNES.
Feb. 19. (epids)
BLANKS.
The following Blanks, printed on a handsome Script Type, may be had at the office of the Enquirer.
Table with 2 columns: BANK Checks, (plain) - pr. quire 1, ditto ditto, (ruled) - 1 60, Negotiable Notes, - 1 25...
PRINTING generally executed in an elegant style, and on the shortest notice.

ON POLITICAL INTOLERANCE.
TO ERR, IS HUMAN; TO FORGIVE, DIVINE!
WHEN Alexander, after his victory over Porus, magnanimously restored to that prince, his kingdom and the provinces connected with it...
The inhuman monster, infamously great, None shall remember but to execrate.
There is something indeed in a noble generosity to a fallen enemy, which is calculated to attract the most unbounded admiration.
It seems somewhat surprising that we should so generally admire this noble spirit, while the most virulent political intolerance prevails universally among us.
There is one reason to doubt whether a perpetual exclusion of the federalists from all offices is a sound policy.
I would not however be understood to advocate the indiscriminate admission of federal characters to all offices whatever.
Where, let it be asked, has the term and form of denunciation been devised? It is to be feared it has been known only as the offspring of a false sense of things, from which may have been derived the origin of it.
olent revolutionary troubles in France—those troubles which have almost brought France upon the verge of ruin.
Intolerance in politics appears indeed to me to be both inconsistent with republican principles, and prejudicial to the republican cause.
The principle of intolerance is ever the same. Religious bigots always make bigoted politicians, and intolerant men out of power are sure to be persecutors when in power.
It may be said however that self-interest dictates to us as a measure of defence to hold in our own hands the reins of government, and to exclude from every place of honour, and profit, those whose principles are believed to be subversive of republicanism.
Admit that this be the case. Let the position then be supported with frankness, but with decency; let your argument prove the sincerity of your opinion, but let your conduct demonstrate that you are still open to conviction.
There is one reason to doubt whether a perpetual exclusion of the federalists from all offices is a sound policy.
I would not however be understood to advocate the indiscriminate admission of federal characters to all offices whatever.
Where, let it be asked, has the term and form of denunciation been devised? It is to be feared it has been known only as the offspring of a false sense of things, from which may have been derived the origin of it.
to promote the republican cause, while no danger can threaten us, should we offer the olive branch to our opponents.
But whatever conduct we pursue, as it respects the federal party, found policy dictates union among ourselves.
THE subscriber wishes to hire two pair of good SAWYERS for six months. JOHN PENDLETON.
FOR SALE, on 12 months credit; A healthy Young Negro WOMAN, about 18 years old, with her two female children.
TWO Dutchmen, whom I purchased at Norfolk lately, left home on the 3d. Feb. They are clothed in brown linen; and have humblums and brown linen shirts on, and an old fine hat.
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. RANAWAY from the subscriber, on the 2d. inst. a Negro Man named SAM—He is about five feet high, 18 or 19 years old, very likely and well made.
THE SUBSCRIBER OFFERS FOR SALE, SIX hundred and forty acres of the well known TRACT of LAND called "THE SEATON'S FERRY TRACT."
TO RENT OR LEASE, FOR ONE OR MORE YEARS, THE HAY-MARKET GARDEN IN THIS CITY.
JUST RECEIVED, and for sale at the Office of THE ENQUIRER, a few copies of the following BOOKS: Moore's Anacreon, Life of Doctor Barwin, Report of the Trial of Lord Headfort, Graydon's Digest of the Laws of the U. States, Terrible Tragedy, Voinea's View of the United States, &c. &c.
WANTED immediately at Hanover Court-house, a BAR KEEPER. One well recommended, will give good wages to. E. O. THILMAN.
RICHMOND ACADEMY LOTTERY. OFFICE is hereby given, that the days of drawing will henceforward be Wednesday and Saturday, commencing to-morrow, the 5th inst.
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. JACK, or JACK ASH, a gardener by profession, formerly the property of Lewis Burwell, dec'd.
CHOICE LANDS—FOR SALE. A DIVISION of the famous Saura Town Lands having taken place between the heirs of James Park Farley, Esq. dec'd, and Col. John S. Farley and his sister Mrs. Elizabeth Morton.
THE subscriber wishes to hire two pair of good SAWYERS for six months. JOHN PENDLETON.
FOR SALE, on 12 months credit; A healthy Young Negro WOMAN, about 18 years old, with her two female children.
TWO Dutchmen, whom I purchased at Norfolk lately, left home on the 3d. Feb. They are clothed in brown linen; and have humblums and brown linen shirts on, and an old fine hat.
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. RANAWAY from the subscriber, on the 2d. inst. a Negro Man named SAM—He is about five feet high, 18 or 19 years old, very likely and well made.
THE SUBSCRIBER OFFERS FOR SALE, SIX hundred and forty acres of the well known TRACT of LAND called "THE SEATON'S FERRY TRACT."
TO RENT OR LEASE, FOR ONE OR MORE YEARS, THE HAY-MARKET GARDEN IN THIS CITY.
JUST RECEIVED, and for sale at the Office of THE ENQUIRER, a few copies of the following BOOKS: Moore's Anacreon, Life of Doctor Barwin, Report of the Trial of Lord Headfort, Graydon's Digest of the Laws of the U. States, Terrible Tragedy, Voinea's View of the United States, &c. &c.
WANTED immediately at Hanover Court-house, a BAR KEEPER. One well recommended, will give good wages to. E. O. THILMAN.
THE SUBSCRIBER OFFERS FOR SALE, THE CHINESE SNAKE STONE, formerly the property of the late Mrs. Tabb, of Matthews county, so famous throughout Virginia, for its efficacy in extracting the venom from the bite of a Mad Dog, Snake, or other poisonous thing.
TO RENT, AND POSSESSION GIVEN IMMEDIATELY, A TENEMENT on Shockoe Hill, adjoining the house now occupied by Mr. John McCreedy.
NEAL NELSON, BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURER, MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND. MAKES Boats & Shoes to any pattern or fashion, equal in point of Materials and Workmanship to any in general use.
FOR RENT, FOR THE PRESENT YEAR, TWO valuable and experienced CARPENTERS and one man COOK, who has been regularly bed. For terms enquire at the office of the Enquirer.
NOTICE. ALL persons indebted to the late firm of BUCHANAN, DUNLOP & CO. of Petersburg, ROBERT POLLOK & CO. of Richmond, and DUNLOP, POLLOK & CO. of Manchester, are hereby notified.
RESPECTFULLY informs those concerned, that he has removed the books and papers of the late concern of Robert Pollok & Co. and Dunlop, Pollok & Co. to a new Brick House near the Basin, and directly opposite to the State-House.
NOTICE. WE the undersigned, partners in the late concerns of BUCHANAN, DUNLOP, & Co. at Petersburg, of ROBERT POLLOK, & Co. at Richmond, and of DUNLOP, POLLOK, & Co. at Manchester, have sold to Mr. James Dunlop, our late partner in said concerns, the debts now due to us, and outstanding at these different establishments.
FOR RENT: THE Large White House at Rocketts, formerly occupied by Mr. William Fenwick, and afterwards by Mr. Braxton Craddock. For terms, apply to GALLEGO, RICHARD & CO.
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE. WILL BE SOLD, to the highest bidder, on the premises, on the third day of April next, at 12 o'clock, an undivided moiety in the two lots of ground, formerly the property of Andrew Ronald, dec'd.
ENOCH SULLIVAN, JEWELLER & HAIR-WORKER, (First door below the Eagle Tavern.) EGGS leave to inform the public that he has for Sale, A FASHIONABLE ASSORTMENT OF JEWELRY & SILVER WARE; Also, A HANDSOME SUPPLY OF LADIES ELEGANT GOMBS, POCKET BOOKS, &c.
WILLIAM AUSTIN, WILL BE SOLD, to the highest bidder, on the premises, on the third day of April next, at 12 o'clock, an undivided moiety in the two lots of ground, formerly the property of Andrew Ronald, dec'd.