The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1805-01-05 00:00:00

THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, (Virginia) PUBLISHED BY RITCHIE & WORSLEY, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE...AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM...payable in advance.
NUMBER 74.]
SATURDAY MORNING, JANUARY 5, 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 not exceed a square in length, shall be inserted for seventy-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 sold, on Tuesday the 8th January next, at 12 o'clock, on the premises, for approved negotiable notes in the Bank of Virginia at 60 days,  SIX VERY VALUABLE LOTS , known in Queen's plan of the Academy or Theatre, lots No. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, the situation of which is inferior to very few, if any lots in the city of Richmond. The plan may be seen at the office of the subscribers.  PROSSER & MONCURE, V. M's. December 25. (tds.)
Sales at Auction.
WILL BE SOLD , on Saturday the 11th inst. on the premises, the NEW BRICK HOUSE adjoining Mr. Nathaniel Shepard's, on the hill.  Terms of payment, 1-3 cash, 1-3 in 3 months, and the remaining 1-3 in six months. Notes negotiable in the Bank of Virginia will be required, by  THOMAS TAYLOR, & Co. V. M. January 3.
Sales at Auction.
By Virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to the subscribers by Mr. Bartlett Sull, of the city of Richmond, for the purpose of securing the payment of his note to Messrs. Lemuel Wells, & Co. of New York, for six thousand three hundred and twenty-two Dollars seventeen Cents, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, from the 25th day of May last,  WILL BE SOLD , to raise the aforesaid sum and interest, together with the expenses attending the execution of said trust, for ready money, on the premises, on Saturday the 2d day of February ensuing, between the hours of 11 and 1 o'clock, that LOT OF GROUND on the north side of the Main-street, next above the Bell Tavern, with the Brick-buildings thereon, at present in the occupancy of Messrs. St. John & Gwathmey and John Richard, Esq. The buildings are insured, and the title to the property is believed to be unexceptionable. A conveyance with special warranty will be made by the subscribers.  PROSSER & MONCURE, Trustees & V. M's. December 25. (tds.)
Auction Sales.
THOMAS TAYLOR & Co.  WILL IN FUTURE SELL at the place occupied by M c Whorter & Co. on Wednesdays in each week; and at their office, on Tuesdays and Fridays as usual.  Dec. 1, 1804. (epf.)
25 Shares in the Virginia Bank WANTED IMMEDIATELY: for which a liberal price will be given.  Jan. 3. tf
CHECK V. drawn by the Commissioner of a Loans for 37 dols. in favor of the attorney of Lynes Esqrs. on the bank of Virginia, has been lost. All persons are guarded against receiving it.  Jan. 2d. 1805.
BILLS ON NEW-YORK, At Ten to Sixty Days sight—FOR SALE BY M. W. HANCOCK & CO. Dec. 22. tf
IRISH LINEN and Madeira Wine.  JOHN HENRY has imported in the ship LATONA, captain Thurston, from Liverpool, a few small boxes of well assorted 4-4s IRISH LINEN , purchased in Dublin in July; which, with fine old London particular MADEIRA WINE , in pipes and half pipes, he offers for sale on moderate terms.  Nov. 7. (epf.)
CASH  WILL BE GIVEN for 12 or 15 BOYS, from 7 to 15 years old. Enquire of the Printers.  Dec. 15. [epf.]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE DEBTORS OF ROSS & FORD ,  THAT in compliance with my duty as assignee, I shall commence suits indiscriminately against all those who do not come forward and give assurances when payment may be expected.  December 22. (tf)
IRISH LINENS & 5-4 IRISH SHEETINGS.  THE SUBSCRIBERS have just received from Belfast a handsome assortment of 7-8th & 4-4th IRISH LINENS , and 5-4th IRISH SHEETINGS , which will sell on moderate terms.  ELLIS & ALLEN. December 20. [ep 4w.]
W. COWAN,  WATCH AND CLOCK MAKER , one door below the Eagle Tavern—repairs Watches and Clocks of every description, at the shortest notice.  W. C. returns his grateful acknowledgements to his friends and customers, and hopes to merit a continuance of past favours.  N. B. He has on hand a few good Watches, with a variety of Chains, Seals, Keys, &c. Which he will dispose of low for cash.  December 2. [ep 4w.]
T. SULLY,  Portrait and Miniature Painter.  SPECIMENS of his work may be seen at his rooms above Dunbarre & Turner's Grocery, Main-Street, Richmond.  December 4. (epf.)
TRACT OF LAND.  Will be publicly exposed to sale, at the Eagle Tavern in the city of Richmond, on the 15th day of January,  A SMALL TRACT OF VALUABLE LAND , whereupon the subscriber now lives, containing about 250 acres lying on the Wellham road, and about four miles from the said city. A farther description of the land is deemed unnecessary, as it is presumed that every person desirous of purchasing, will obtain farther information as to the land, by a view of, or enquiry as to the same. 500 Dollars of the purchase money will be expected in cash, and a credit of seven years given for the balance, upon receiving bond with security for the payment thereof, and legal interest thereon annually. Mr. Aichey, Payne of Goodland, who is the trustee of the subscriber, will join herein executing a deed to the purchaser.  December 20. (tf)
FOR SALE—at Rocketts.  THE LOT, and two story BRICK HOUSE, containing three tenements, which the subscriber purchased at the sale of George Nicholson, deceased. The lot is well situated for a warehouse, and the brick building for a bake-house, lumber-house, or Tobacco Factory.  November 14. (tf)
NOTICE.  BANK OF VIRGINIA.  Richmond, Dec. 12, 1804.  A GENERAL meeting of the Stock-holders will be held at the Bank-House, on the first Monday in January next, for the purpose of electing directors for Richmond, Norfolk, Petersburg and Fredericksburg; and for other purposes relative to the affairs of the corporation.  In order that all the real share-holders may be exhibited, those persons who have not sent in the receipts granted by the commissioners for receiving subscriptions, are requested to transmit them by the day above mentioned, together with the cashier's receipts for the second instalment, when new scrip will be issued, in lieu thereof, by the president.  (epf.) JOHN BROCKENBROUGH, Cashr.
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, that James Dunlop , late a partner in the above concerns, has become purchaser of the outstanding debts—they will therefore be pleased to make payment to Mr. John Tompkins residing in Richmond, or the subscriber residing in Petersburg, who alone are authorized to make collections and grant discharges.—Suits will be indiscriminately commenced against all who do not make payment before the first of February next.  JOHN DUNLOP, Attorney For JAMES DUNLOP. Petersburg, Nov. 15, 1804. (epf.)
J. TOMPKINS  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 Scale-House. Where he has for sale, a few pipes of OLD COGNAC BRANDY, of superior quality.  December 11.
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, and outstanding at these different establishments.—Those indebted will therefore please to take notice, that hereafter payments are to be made only to the said Mr. James Dunlop , his attorney or attorneys, and to whom those having claims against these concerns will apply for payment.  DAVID BUCHANAN. By ROBERT POLLOK, his Attorney. ROBERT POLLOK. Virginia, Petersburg, Dec. 6, 1804. (epf.)
ENOCH SULLIVAN,  JEWELLER & HAIR-WORKER,  (First door below the Eagle Tavern.)  BEGS leave to inform the public that he has for Sale, A FASHIONABLE ASSORTMENT OF JEWELRY & SILVER WARE; Also, A HANDSOME SUPPLY OF LADIES ELEGANT COMBS, POCKET BOOKS, &c. Dec. 8. (epf.)
BURR MILL STONES, OF ALL SIZES; and PLAISTER OF PARIS, of an excellent quality, FOR SALE, AS USUAL, BY  WILLIAM DAVIDSON, near the Market. [epf.]
FARMINGDALE NURSERY.  THE SUBSCRIBER has FOR SALE, for the present season, at his Nursery, adjoining the Borough of Norfolk,  10,000 WORKED FRUIT TREES;
Consisting of Apples, Peaches, Pears, Cherries, Apricots, Plums, Nectarines, &c. &c. selected from all parts of this state, from the Northerly to the Southerly, and from England. He flatters himself that those who want to purchase will be satisfied with the goodness of the fruit trees being near one hundred yards. He has also for sale a quantity of Lombardy and Balsam Poplars, Pride of China, &c. with a large assortment of Tulip Roots, imported three years ago from London, and are beautifully variegated, of all colours.  HAYLOR HILL. December 15. (epf Wm. T.)
WHITE CHIMNEYS.  THE SUBSCRIBER wishes to rent the Tavern and Store House at this place, either altogether or separately; the eligibility of the situation for a Tavern and Store is well known by many; the salubrity of the air and the quality of the water, are unexceptionable. Possession may be given on the 1st of January next. For terms apply to  FRANCIS GALTAN. White Chimneys, Dec. 15, 1804. (epf.)
BROKER'S OFFICE.  THE Subscriber has opened a Broker's Office, opposite the Union Tavern, and over the Coasting-house of Thomas and Amos Ladd. All business confided to him, will be transacted with strict fidelity.  THOMAS NORVELL. October 3. tf
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 6 or 8 pupils in those branches, either by waiting on them, or at his house, opposite Thomas Wilson's Esq. back street.  N. B. Sign, House, and Military Colours painted by J. S. Orders from the country punctually attended to. [etm.]
FOR SALE,  FIVE Hhds. and 10 qr. casks of LONDON PARTICULAR TENNERIFFE WINE of a superior quality, on a credit of 120 days—Negotiable notes. Enquire of  THOMAS NORVELL. December 29. (tf)
ADVERTISEMENT.  A GREEABLE to a decree of the county of King and Queen—will be sold at Mr. John Miller's Tavern on the 12th day of January next, one TRACT OF LAND belonging to the estate of Thomas G. Rowe deceased, lying in the county aforesaid, containing about 550 acres. The land lies nine miles from Tappahannock and seven from Dunkirk, this land joins the lands of Col. John Hokin, and the Rev. Robert B. Sample.  ALSO—will be sold on the 14th day of said month at King and Queen Court-House, it being court day. Seven very LIKELY NEGROES belonging to the said estate. Twelve months credit will be allowed the purchasers for the Land and Negroes, on giving bond with approved security to the  COMMISSIONERS. December 22. (3w.)
NEAL NELSON,  BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURER,  MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND.  MAKES Boots & Shoes to any pattern or fashion, equal in point of MATERIALS and WORKMANSHIP to any in general use.  Imported Boots and Shoes, of the first quality and newest fashion, for sale.  Gentlemen at a distance, who are disposed to forward me their measure, by paying attention to the annexed cut, can be fitted with Boots or Shoes as well as they were on the spot.  A—the length of the Boot.—B—round the Calf.—C—the pitch of ditto.—D—round the heel and instep.—E—round the instep.—G—across the ball of the foot. Fix the heel against a perpendicular, and stick a knife at the end of the great toe—let down in figures the number of inches and quarters, in the different measures.  June 30. (epf.)
HUGH J. 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. (1w2m.)
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 privacy than a tavern usually affords. These tenements adjoin the public square, and are within two hundred yards of the Capitol. They have detached advantages 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 renders his services to his friends and the public, and affirms 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.
THIS DAY IS PUBLISHED, AND FOR SALE AT RITCHIE & WORSLEY'S BOOK-STORE:  The Rainbow,  SERIES FIRST;  Originally Published in the RICHMOND ENQUIRER  AN affection was formed during the last summer, by a few gentlemen, of whom some are now, and others have been, inhabitants of this city, for the purpose of composing a series of Miscellaneous Essays for the Richmond ENQUIRER. These Essays were regularly published every Saturday, during the months of August, September, and October. The first number appeared on the 11th of August, and the last on the 20th of October. These numbers, taken together in the order in which they were published, will constitute the first series of the RAINBOW: and it is this first series which is now presented by the proprietors of the Enquirer to the amateurs of Literature, and to its patrons in Virginia. The second series will probably be communicated to the public in the present form, as soon as it shall be completed by the members of the affection.  Richmond, Dec. 11th, 1804.
TO RENT—For the ensuing year,  THE WHITE HOUSE at Hanover Courthouse, together with the lots adjoining therefor, that are not attached to the Tavern. The house is a very commodious one with all the necessary offices.  Also, for rent, a field containing about an hundred acres adjoining the premises, well calculated for the cultivation of corn. The above property will be rented separately or together, as may best suit those wishing to rent. Terms will be made known by the subscriber living at the Courthouse.  BARBARY O. THILMAN. Dec. 1.
MISS ROBBINS,  AFTER making her sincere acknowledgements to her friends and the public, for that portion of patronage which she has experienced, wishes to inform her patrons, that she has removed her School to a house nearly opposite to Mr. Copland's on Shockoe Hill where she can accommodate a dozen young Ladies as Boarders.  Nov. 3. (etm.)
NOTICE.  THE subscribers and members of the Mutual Insurance Company against Fire on Goods and Furniture, in the state of Virginia, are hereby requested to attend their annual general meeting, to be held agreeable to their constitution, on the second Wednesday in January, which being the 9th day of next month, by ten o'clock A. M. at the General Office of Insurance, in the city of Richmond.  W. P. AST, Principal Agent. s. s. s. Richmond, Dec. 10, 1804. 184-5.
Printing.  IN ALL ITS VARIETY, EXECUTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ENQUIRER.
CHOICE LANDS—FOR SALE.  A DIVISION of the famous Saura Town Lands lying taken between the heirs of James Park Farley, Esq. dec'd. and Col. John S. Farley and his sister Mrs. Elizabeth Morson, the subscribers, Robert Taylor of Norfolk, and Charles Duncan at Roslin, near Petersburg, are fully empowered by the said Col. Farley and Mrs. Morson, to dispose of their proportion, containing 12,832 acres, which are surveyed and laid off in eight lots, containing from 500 to 2800 acres, agreeable to plots in the possession of the said Duncan. The four largest lots are of excellent quality, each containing a considerable proportion of the richest low grounds, which produce tobacco of the very first quality, as has been experienced by one of the subscribers, who dropped it for a number of years.  Those lands lie on Dan and Smith's rivers, in Rockingham county, on the borders of North Carolina, about 170 miles from Petersburg and Richmond. As there are seldom such lands for sale, they must be an object to those who want to purchase such as will produce fine tobacco, hemp and small grain. One third of the price must be paid in ready money, one third in twelve months, and the other third in two years, the purchaser giving bond with unexceptionable security bearing interest from the date if not punctually paid. Those who wish to purchase will be shown the lands by Doctor John C. Cox, living at Lee'sville, near Rockingham Court-House, and the terms made known by  ROBERT TAYLOR, or CHARLES DUNCAN. Petersburg, Nov. 24. (epf.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,  THAT I executed to John Burton of Buckingham county, on the third of the present month, two bonds, one for the sum of £. 100 payable 25th inst. and the other, for the sum of £. 15 payable 25th of December, 1805, which bonds I am determined not to pay, as the said Burton has failed to make a good right to a negro man, for which the said bonds were given.  THOMAS BONDURANT. Buckingham, December 22. (es 5w.)
TO MR. CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, OF SOUTH-CAROLINA.  SIR,  As you are not a resident of this Commonwealth, and have no Agent or Attorney within the same, to whom a legal notice can be given: you are hereby informed, that by virtue of a commission issued from the office of the High Court of Chancery, for the middle district of Virginia, by law directed to be held at the Capitol in the City of Richmond, in the suit in Chancery depending in said court, in which you are Complainant, and am Defendant. I shall proceed on the second Monday in February next, at the Tavern of James George in the county of Goochland and state of Virginia, to take the depositions of Thomas Johnson, John Johnson, Zachariah Pulliam, John Frewell, and William Chick, to be read as evidence in the said suit, and that if the same cannot be taken on the day aforesaid, the taking thereof will be continued by adjournment from day to day until the whole are completed; when and where you may if you please attend.  I am Sir, Yours, &c. JENKINSON JOHNSON. Louisa county, and state of Virginia. December 22. (es 4w.)
TO NON-RESIDENTS OF KENTUCKY.  THE SUBSCRIBER living in the neighbourhood of Frankfort, Kentucky, having undertaken to pay the taxes of a number of gentlemen residing in Virginia and elsewhere, on their lands in this state, and finding that the remitting of money to him for that purpose is attended with great difficulties, risk and trouble, proposes it to those gentlemen and any others who may find it an accommodation to them, the following plan, to wit: That they shall deposit their money in either of the banks of Richmond, Alexandria, George town or Baltimore, on or before the first day of May annually, and authorize some person at those several banks to disburse him by bill of the amount, and to subscribe credit it shall be applied, and impose on him to draw for the same, payable on sight. The lands of non-residents are advertised about the first of July, which is an expense of twenty-five cents on each tract. The subscriber's draft will command the cash in this state, and as soon as his bills are honoured at any of the above mentioned banks, he will advance the money in Kentucky, deducting seven and a half percent commission for his trouble, in attending to and executing the business. He will enclose duplicate receipts to those banks in which the money is deposited, or to the proprietors of the lands, keeping the original in his own possession, to correct any errors which may occur in the auditors office of Kentucky. To those gentlemen who may wish to pay their taxes in this way, and who have not a personal acquaintance with the subscriber, he begs leave to refer them to the Hon. John Breckenridge, the Hon. Matthew Walton Esqrs. now in Congress, at the city of Washington, or to Gen. John Preston of Montgomery county, and Col. James Breckenridge of Botetourt county, Virginia, as to the confidence which may be reposed in him.  NATHANIEL HART. N. B. The postage on all letters directed to me on the above business must be paid. December 15, 1804. (es 11 May.)
A TRACT OF LAND.  By virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to the subscriber, will be sold to the highest bidder, for ready money, on the 14th day of January next, at Buckingham Court-House, being court day.  A CERTAIN Tract or Parcel of Land, lying in said county, containing one thousand acres, more or less; bounded by the lands of Michael Jones, Jeffrey Smith, Richard Gilliam and others, and lying on the Pickinham road—to secure the payment of a certain sum of money therein mentioned, due from John Miller, to Willis Wills, and the expenses attending the execution of this trust.  GEORGE S. HARE, Trustee. Buckingham, Dec. 8. (es 6w.)
NOTICE.  THE subscribers and members of the Mutual Insurance Company against Fire on Goods and Furniture, in the state of Virginia, are hereby requested to attend their annual general meeting, to be held agreeable to their constitution, on the second Wednesday in January, which being the 9th day of next month, by ten o'clock A. M. at the General Office of Insurance, in the city of Richmond.  W. P. AST, Principal Agent. s. s. s. Richmond, Dec. 10, 1804. 184-5.
THE HOUSE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.  Debate,  ON the bill for authorizing the erection of a Dam or Causeway from Mason's Island to the Western shore of the Potomac.  [CONTINUED]  TUESDAY, Dec. 11.  The House went into a committee of the whole by a vote of fifty four ayes against thirty nine.  Gen. Varnum in the chair.  Mr. Macon [Speaker] gave it as his opinion that it would be improper at this time to take up the subject, especially as there was a motion on the table to recede the territory of the district back to the jurisdiction of the states out of which it had been carved; if it is intended to recede the territory, it would certainly be better to recede with as few encumbrances or alterations as possible; indeed the striking property of the business taking the course he had just mentioned, had led him to expect that the present bill would not be again agitated, but the question of the reception had been investigated and decided. He would therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.  Mr. Smith voted against going into a committee of the whole, on the ground mentioned by the Speaker. If it be the intention of the legislature to recede this territory there certainly was no necessity of discussing the propriety of erecting a causeway; if it be not the intention, when this is manifest it will be time enough to consider the bill before them. From what he had observed on the part of the inhabitants of the district of Columbia, there seemed to be a disposition, if not a determination to give Congress as much trouble in legislating for them as they had for all the rest of the union. During the present session this single ten mile square had occupied as much of the time of the House, as the whole of the United States, whose general & important business was daily crammed to be forwarded for the local concerns of this place. From observing this to be the settled course of proceeding he was convinced that Congress must do one of two things, either recede them to their respective states, or put them in a situation capable of managing their own affairs in their own way. The daily pay of the members amounted to a considerable sum, and the length of time consumed on every trifling application for want of some member able to explain the true situation of a district occasioned by its unrepresented state on this floor, were evils much to be lamented, if they could not be remedied. He thought members could hardly justify the waste of their time intended to be devoted to the public, whatever they might think of the expense it occasioned. He hoped the committee would agree to rise.  Mr. Lewis did not think it fair to anticipate the opinion of the House on the question of reception, which he considered would be the effect of the committee's rising. If however the committee shall determine that they would not at this time discuss the present bill, he had no objection to enter on the consideration of the other subject.  Mr. Nelson thought this the proper time to discuss this question even in preference to that of reception. It appears from the petition of the inhabitants of George-town, that the channel of the river, on which the elevation of that town depends, is filling up daily, that the mass of mud would soon encircle to such a degree as totally to ruin the navigation to that port. If even it should be agreed by Congress to recede the territory to the states of Virginia and Maryland which he wished and hoped in God would not be the case, it would be late in the session and in all probability at a time when neither of those state legislatures will be in session. Supposing both states were willing to accept the reception, which he believed would not be found to be the case, the petitioners could not apply to the Virginia legislature until next December, as their session began in that month, nor to Maryland until next November. A twelve month's delay might defeat the object altogether, for the petitioners assert that it requires immediate exertions to prevent the channel filling up altogether.  Again, if the question of reception must be first decided, he saw that it would be an everlasting obstacle to the consideration of the propriety of the measure contemplated by the bill. Suppose a number of gentlemen opposed to the consideration of the question on reception should join with those opposed to the erection of a causeway, the subject will never be called up, neither at this or any future session.—When a petition is presented from George-town to be allowed the object of their present prayer it is in the power of any gentlemen inclined to vote against that measure, to lay on the table a motion for reception, and the two will sleep side by side on your table till the rising of Congress. The same argument for this course of proceeding will have as much weight at any future period as at the present time. Hence he inferred that now was the proper season for investigation, and the sooner a decision was obtained the better. He did not think the subject of reception ought to have been introduced on the present occasion, as it did not necessarily connect itself with an improvement of the navigation of the Potomac.  Mr. Macon had stated his reasons for making the motion, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) had replied that the main question would be eternally suspended, if his (Mr. Macon's) arguments were allowed to prevail; this did not appear to follow from the premises. If there is a majority in favor of the causeway, and the minority attempt to defeat the will of the majority by introducing the question of reception, nothing is more easy than to remove that or any other obstruction thrown in their way. The majority may call up the motion made by my colleague (Mr. Stanford) to recede the jurisdiction to Maryland and Virginia this day if they please—and when they have it before them, it is an easy matter to reject it, and proceed to their favorite measure of damming up the western half of the river.  Mr. Nelson. Mr. Speaker tells us it is easy for a majority to reject anything they disapprove; true, but when a motion has obtained access to your table, it would be deemed ill manners for any gentleman but the individual who introduced it, to call it up to the attention of the House with a view to turn it out of doors. Politeness or common civility will permit every gentleman to carry on the business.
THE HOUSE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.  Debate,  ON the bill for authorizing the erection of a Dam or Causeway from Mason's Island to the Western shore of the Potomac.  [CONTINUED]  TUESDAY, Dec. 11.  The House went into a committee of the whole by a vote of fifty four ayes against thirty nine.  Gen. Varnum in the chair.  Mr. Macon [Speaker] gave it as his opinion that it would be improper at this time to take up the subject, especially as there was a motion on the table to recede the territory of the district back to the jurisdiction of the states out of which it had been carved; if it is intended to recede the territory, it would certainly be better to recede with as few encumbrances or alterations as possible; indeed the striking property of the business taking the course he had just mentioned, had led him to expect that the present bill would not be again agitated, but the question of the reception had been investigated and decided. He would therefore move that the committee rise and report progress.  Mr. Smith voted against going into a committee of the whole, on the ground mentioned by the Speaker. If it be the intention of the legislature to recede this territory there certainly was no necessity of discussing the propriety of erecting a causeway; if it be not the intention, when this is manifest it will be time enough to consider the bill before them. From what he had observed on the part of the inhabitants of the district of Columbia, there seemed to be a disposition, if not a determination to give Congress as much trouble in legislating for them as they had for all the rest of the union. During the present session this single ten mile square had occupied as much of the time of the House, as the whole of the United States, whose general & important business was daily crammed to be forwarded for the local concerns of this place. From observing this to be the settled course of proceeding he was convinced that Congress must do one of two things, either recede them to their respective states, or put them in a situation capable of managing their own affairs in their own way. The daily pay of the members amounted to a considerable sum, and the length of time consumed on every trifling application for want of some member able to explain the true situation of a district occasioned by its unrepresented state on this floor, were evils much to be lamented, if they could not be remedied. He thought members could hardly justify the waste of their time intended to be devoted to the public, whatever they might think of the expense it occasioned. He hoped the committee would agree to rise.  Mr. Lewis did not think it fair to anticipate the opinion of the House on the question of reception, which he considered would be the effect of the committee's rising. If however the committee shall determine that they would not at this time discuss the present bill, he had no objection to enter on the consideration of the other subject.  Mr. Nelson thought this the proper time to discuss this question even in preference to that of reception. It appears from the petition of the inhabitants of George-town, that the channel of the river, on which the elevation of that town depends, is filling up daily, that the mass of mud would soon encircle to such a degree as totally to ruin the navigation to that port. If even it should be agreed by Congress to recede the territory to the states of Virginia and Maryland which he wished and hoped in God would not be the case, it would be late in the session and in all probability at a time when neither of those state legislatures will be in session. Supposing both states were willing to accept the reception, which he believed would not be found to be the case, the petitioners could not apply to the Virginia legislature until next December, as their session began in that month, nor to Maryland until next November. A twelve month's delay might defeat the object altogether, for the petitioners assert that it requires immediate exertions to prevent the channel filling up altogether.  Again, if the question of reception must be first decided, he saw that it would be an everlasting obstacle to the consideration of the propriety of the measure contemplated by the bill. Suppose a number of gentlemen opposed to the consideration of the question on reception should join with those opposed to the erection of a causeway, the subject will never be called up, neither at this or any future session.—When a petition is presented from George-town to be allowed the object of their present prayer it is in the power of any gentlemen inclined to vote against that measure, to lay on the table a motion for reception, and the two will sleep side by side on your table till the rising of Congress. The same argument for this course of proceeding will have as much weight at any future period as at the present time. Hence he inferred that now was the proper season for investigation, and the sooner a decision was obtained the better. He did not think the subject of reception ought to have been introduced on the present occasion, as it did not necessarily connect itself with an improvement of the navigation of the Potomac.  Mr. Macon had stated his reasons for making the motion, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) had replied that the main question would be eternally suspended, if his (Mr. Macon's) arguments were allowed to prevail; this did not appear to follow from the premises. If there is a majority in favor of the causeway, and the minority attempt to defeat the will of the majority by introducing the question of reception, nothing is more easy than to remove that or any other obstruction thrown in their way. The majority may call up the motion made by my colleague (Mr. Stanford) to recede the jurisdiction to Maryland and Virginia this day if they please—and when they have it before them, it is an easy matter to reject it, and proceed to their favorite measure of damming up the western half of the river.  Mr. Nelson.

finely he introduces here in his own way; it was for this reason that he had said it never would be called up, but stand an eternal obstacle in the way of the required improvement.
Mr. Sloan reminded the committee of an old saying, the time present only is in our power, the future we know not of. The time present then is the time to redress the grievances of the suffering part of this community, and as the citizens of George-town were really embarrassed, and their apprehensions excited of greater danger, he hoped the committee would proceed with the business.
Mr. Stanfield's motion troubled the House with any motion. But the one alluded to by his colleague (Mr. Speaker) he had brought forward from a sense of duty; the reiterated application of the inhabitants of this district for legislative provisions he had always listened to with attention, & he had no objection to proceeding in the discussion of the present bill, convinced that it would only serve to show the necessity of receiving the territory. From all that had hitherto been done, it was apparent that they could not attempt to accommodate one part of the district without drawing forth petitions against the same, from another part; counter petitions were constantly coming in; he was willing to hear every thing, but he did not believe the House could agree to anything; and it was not to be wondered at when the inhabitants could not agree among themselves, or if the House agreed at this time relative to the objects of the bridge company & the causeway petitioners, it would be, he supposed, to do nothing in either case; all this tended to evince the propriety of adopting the resolution he had laid on the table to receive the territory to the states of Virginia and Maryland, who would then have competent powers to grant both parties, if they deemed it expedient, of which he was convinced they were better judges than this or any future Congresses were ever likely to be.
The question on the committee rising was taken and lost, only 48 members voting in the affirmative.
Mr. Mason then proposed to amend the bill in such a way as to provide for regulating the ferries that might be established across the eastern part of the stream to the causeway, and applying the fund arising from the same for the purpose of keeping the causeway in repair.
Mr. Lewis did not conceive it useful to travel over the ground alluded to on a former occasion, but would confine himself to the committee some information he had acquired since, in respect to the damage the eastern branch or the port of Alexandria was likely to sustain, as had been alleged. Before the year 1784, the channel on the western side was so shallow, that vessels only of very ordinary burthen could pass, while on the Maryland side vessels of great draft of water could easily pass up to George-town. The uncommon hard winter of 1783-4, was followed in the spring by the greatest torrents ever known in the Potomac, the bodies of ice were of immense magnitude, and many of them lodged upon the island, and under the rocks of its bed, pressing with a force beyond all credibility, it tore the rocks asunder, and pressed them over into the new channel, occasioning a rise of 20 or 30 feet on the George-town shore. On the Virginia side the torrent also forced itself, and deepened that channel, while it left a vast quantity of mud, rocks and sand, in the eastern channel, which has been constantly accumulating since that period. The situation of the present bar is at the meeting of the two arms of the river below the island, and does not permit the passage of vessels after it drawing more than 12 feet water. The consequence of this alteration in the bed of the river below the island has been to narrow the mouth of the eastern branch; but it had no effect upon the harbour of Alexandria. This will serve to explain what may be the effect of opening the old channel in the way proposed; it may operate to widen the mouth of the eastern branch harbor, but it cannot injure Alexandria.
With regard to the objection stated by his colleague (Mr. Slater) in relation to the power given to the corporation of George-town to tax the additions to that town, he could assure the committee that almost every person in George-town had signed the petition, and as no objection had been made by any person concerned, though the bill had been a long time before the committee, he considered it a tacit acknowledgement on the part of those who had not signed the petition, that they wished the measure might be adopted and carried into execution.
He felt particularly solicitous for the erection of this dam, as it regards the interests of the citizens in the western parts of the states of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. For if no steps are taken to improve the navigation below George-town, the navigation will soon become so shallow as not to permit sea vessels to come to George-town to carry off the produce which may descend by the Potomac and its improved canals. The destruction of George-town will follow the loss of the navigation, and the western farmers will lose a choice of two rival markets.
While he was up he would add a few words with respect to the right which Congress has to legislate on this subject. He differed entirely from those of his colleagues, who held that Congress had no jurisdiction over the river Potomac, because it never was ceded by Virginia. The state of Virginia ceded to her dividing line, and it was immaterial whether that dividing line was high water mark on her shore, or the middle of the channel; for as Maryland has ceded all the land, she cedes up to the Virginia line wherever that may be. For he held it to be found law that you could not convey a body of territory without conveying all its appurtenances, unless expressly reserved, and neither state had made a reservation of any right, or a part of any right. Suppose A. and B. should hold two adjoining tracts of land, and A. should sell to C. all the tract he held, and B. should also sell to C. all his adjoining tract, would not the whole of the property of A. and B. thereon, of what nature soever it might be, vest solely and exclusively in C. and if a road passed along the line of A. upon the land of B. or part on each of their lands, would it be contended that C. could not keep it in repair, or improve it for his own and his neighbours accommodation without obtaining the consent from A. and B. every time an improvement was required. This statement he considered as a full reply to all that had been urged on this head, and he concluded with repeating his former wish, that the bill might be speedily passed into a law.
Mr. Clarke.—When this bill was under consideration some days past, I endeavoured to shew, and hope with satisfaction, that Congress had not the power of legislating on this subject; the ground I then assumed was, that Virginia had by contract with the state of Maryland, before the cession to the United States, acquired the right of high way on the river Potomac, which she has never granted. It is now unnecessary to enquire into the reasons of this policy; it is sufficient to our present purpose to say it is the fact.
In retracting this subject I find my arguments very much strengthened by examining the articles of agreement between the states of Maryland and Virginia, and this circumstance is the
only inducement for my troubling the committee again. The sixth article of the agreement declares that the river Potomac shall be considered a common highway for the purpose of navigation and commerce to the citizens of Virginia and Maryland, and of the United States, and all those in unity with them. The eighth article declares that all laws and regulations, which may be necessary for preserving and keeping open the channel and navigation of the river, shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both states. If a doubt remained heretofore, it appears to me this must remove it, and time will be spent in vain to illustrate the subject.
My colleague (Mr. Lewis) supposes, that as the two states have ceded the territory, that all that either or both possessed, passed by the grant; but let it be recollected, this was a several and not a joint conveyance, and nothing more passed than is embraced by the terms of the grant; and Virginia has expressly limited it to her territory, and cautiously avoided yielding any right that had accrued from the state of Maryland. Here, Mr. chairman, they distinguish between what they call an improvement, and an obliterating of the navigation, the one they contend they have the right to do; but the other they have no power over. This admission, in my conception, furthers the question, for if we have the power of legislating on the subject, we can make any regulations we please, and indiscriminately improve, alter, or obstruct. It seems a little remarkable that gentlemen wish to improve a property they have no title to, and it does not appear a conspicuous mark of understanding to begin at the wrong end to improve, and then contend about the right.
Mr. Nelson did not expect that a point would have been brought up again, but since it had happened, he felt a propriety, not to say a duty in recapitulating also what he had argued before, and adding some further reasons to show that Congress had the right, and the exclusive right of jurisdiction over all that part of the river Potomac within the district of Columbia. The burthen of the long appears to be this, that because the states of Maryland and Virginia entered into a compact, before the formation of the present constitution, by which it was agreed that the river should be considered a common highway, and as both possessed the right of way, it was a joint right which as they did not jointly convey the right has never been ceded to the United States. Does the gentleman (Mr. Clarke) mean to say that the states of Virginia and Maryland had not the power of granting this joint right? If he does not assert this, or if he admits they had the power, we shall be able to demonstrate that they have granted it to Congress.—After two states have made a division of part of each of their particular property, cannot they mutually give to another the property they have thus acquired? surely common sense cannot deny them the right to do so; if you cannot grant away a right, it is no right, for a right cannot be complete, if it cannot be conveyed to another, the very idea of a right implies the power of disposal. They say that Maryland had the exclusive right of navigating the river Potomac, and that she gave by compact a qualified property in that exclusive right to Virginia. Cannot Virginia convey this qualified right? If one holds a right to an estate for life or a term of years, is it not as competent for the party to convey such right, as he would be to convey an estate in fee simple? Whether the right be a special right, or a limited right, or of whatever nature it be, every man has a right to convey it to another, unless there be exceptions or reservations; but in the compact between Maryland and Virginia there are no reservations or stipulations that abridges or precludes a conveyance.—Then he asked them to propound this case. Maryland has a common right with Virginia in the Potomac, and Maryland declares that she gives up all her right to 10 miles square of her territory; the Potomac is a part; Virginia also says that, so far as she has a right, she gives it up also. Well then, both states have given up their respective rights. Does not the relinquishment of their rights by both states produce the same effect, as if it had been done by a joint instrument? Maryland, he asserted had given up her right; no matter whether it was a real right or qualified right, she gave up all but what she had conveyed to Virginia, and Virginia has given up all she possessed.
Mark the reverse, if Virginia has not ceded her right in the Potomac, and Maryland hers, to Congress, then this is not a district of territory within the meaning of the constitution, and if it be not the constitutional district, we have no right to exercise any other jurisdiction here than what we exercise in common for every other part of the United States. For if the district be separated by the Potomac, it is not one district, but two districts, and the constitution does not give Congress power to assume exclusive jurisdiction over two districts. If however the state of Maryland has ceded the Potomac, and it runs up to the Virginia territorial line, then the district is but one district though it consists of parts taken from two states. He felt a difficulty in defining this idea, because when a thing is self evident it renders it hard to prove what is so palpable, and a multitude of words rather tends to confuse than clear the point. But what he understood was, that when several tracts of land were joined together they are not separated by the water courses or anything else crossing or traversing the same; then the jurisdiction of congress runs as well upon the bed of the river as its banks, and so over the whole ten miles square: if this idea was correct, congress had assumed the exclusive jurisdiction over no more territory than they had a constitutional right to acquire. He might be mistaken in his opinion; he therefore urged his arguments with great diffidence. He was liable to error, and that very often; and it may be the case in the present instance. But he must acknowledge that he had not as yet heard any thing that satisfied his mind that he had been wrong. He therefore still hoped that the bill might pass into a law, from a conviction that it would be a great benefit to all persons residing upon or near the waters of the Potomac.
Mr. J. Randolph had hoped that the very peremptory statement of his colleague (Mr. Clarke) when the subject was last under consideration had satisfied the most incredulous that Congress were not competent to pass the bill before them. Indeed he had hoped that the bill would have been suffered to sleep through the rest of the session, and the House no more troubled on the subject. The reasoning of the gentleman left up was to his mind utterly fallacious and inconclusive. The district was not necessarily divided into two bodies politic because of the intervening jurisdiction of Virginia over the Potomac. Did Massachusetts constitute two states because its parts were completely separated by New-Hampshire through which you must necessarily pass to get into Maine from old Massachusetts, as it was called? For the purpose of division the mathematical line which marked the boundary between the two states of Maryland and Virginia was equivalent to the whole breadth of the Potomac. On the ground of natural right, Congress could not obstruct the navigation of the river.—They could not do it without admitting the right of Virginia and Maryland to raise obstructions above and below.—Those states had as good a claim to stop the passage of the ships of the United States, as Congress had to interrupt their boats. But gentlemen say they are not stopping the navigation, they are improving it—how? by damming up the belt channel. Did not this justify any species of obstruction—it was only to term it an improvement and every objection was silenced. Whatever might be the decision of the house he trusted no member from Virginia would be found to concede her right over the Potomac. He hoped also that the subject would be suffered to remain at rest until the question of re-cession was decided—but in whatever shape it should appear he should always protest against it as a violation of the rights of the state which he represented.
Mr. Nelson would briefly reply to what had been said in relation to two districts being but one district. The fact was as had been often stated, that two parts of the district had been separately granted by Maryland and Virginia, that if these two parts touched each other and left no interval, they became one district, but if there was an interval between them, such as the river Potomac, they were two districts, and over two districts Congress had no authority to assume exclusive jurisdiction. But he thought the gentle-
man from Virginia had evaded an answer to the position that Congress cannot exercise powers of exclusive legislation over two districts. What had been said of Massachusetts and Maine being one state, although separated from each other by New-Hampshire, did not apply; they might be and in fact were a body politic, notwithstanding the geographical separation of the parts. A nation and its territory, like the United States and Louisiana, were a body politic, but the decision of the present question does not depend on things like these. The jurisdiction given to Congress by the constitution over one district of country can never be considered a jurisdiction over two separate districts. True, if both parts join together they are but one district; yet if they are separate they are two districts.
What has been said of Virginia's holding the right of free navigation under the law of nature and of nations was an opinion different from that he held; but it would take such a length of time to discuss that point, and recite his authorities, that he was induced to give it the go-by, with one single remark. It was not the understanding which the states of Virginia and Maryland had at the time of entering into the compact for the free navigation of the Potomac, Potomac, & the mouth of the Chesapeake bay. By that instrument it would appear that their right of navigating these waters was the result of compact and did not grow out of the law of nature, or the code adopted by the nations of Europe.
But suppose his idea to be correct, still he would contend that what was proposed to be done by the inhabitants of George-Town was within the power of the United States legislature, inasmuch as it goes to amend and make better the navigation of the Potomac. Indeed any stranger standing by and hearing the debate which had taken place, would suppose that the advocates for the dam were disposed to obstruct the navigation of the river in such a manner that no other vessels than those belonging to George-Town should be permitted to pass by Mason's island. This however was by no means the intention. He concluded with observing, that to him and his constituents it was really a matter of great concern; and he believed it to be equally important to all the upper country of Maryland, and part of Virginia and Pennsylvania, all in Pennsylvania within 20 miles of the fourth line of that state, and all the inhabitants of Virginia between the ridge dividing the head waters of Rappahannock and James rivers from the Potomac. If, by inaction or refusal, the channel to George-Town should be suffered to fill up, he would not give a single farthing for all the improvements made upon the canal navigation. The Potomac company may as well be abolished at once, for there will be an end to all the advantages they have heretofore calculated upon, and which had been the inducement for them to expend so many myriads of dollars on their improvements. He could not restrain himself from expressing his anxiety that the bill should pass, and this he felt thought, as he had before declared to be the proper time.
Mr. Lucas. The question is, whether we can authorize the inhabitants of George-Town to improve the river at their own expence; and it appears from the statements made in the course of the argument, that the Potomac was within the charter bounds of Maryland, and not within the charter bounds of Virginia; and unless Maryland had ceded the right of navigation thereon to Virginia by compact, Maryland would yet have been as the sole owner of the soil, also the sole owner of the river. What Maryland gave to Virginia was not a title to admit them to the right of ownership; they only granted a qualified right, and reserved the territorial right, and if to Virginia has never possessed more than qualified right. Let it be enquired what right is that? and it will be found to be merely the right of free navigation. That is nothing more than the right of passage over the soil of another, or as it is termed by the civilians, the right of servitude. It is not a right in the territory, but merely a right of usage across the soil. If for example, an alluvion was to form an island in the Potomac, would Virginia claim it as joint owner of the soil. She would not, because she has no other claim than what is declared in the compact; that being only a qualified right, she is not joint owner; of course Maryland being the sole owner of the soil might convey her whole territorial right, subject only, to the qualified right of Virginia, viz. the right of navigation. If the right of fishery, or any other territorial right, was contended for on her part, it would not be allowed her. For all territorial rights, as they were in Maryland from the beginning, remained in her till her act of cession.
It is evident, therefore, that Maryland as absolute proprietor of the soil could convey the same to Congress without the intervention to Virginia, and if Maryland could do this, she has done it; for by her act of cession she has ceded to Congress all her territorial rights over ten miles square, or less, of her territory, but still subject to the qualified right of Virginia. It is argued that such a conveyance cannot be complete, without the consent of Virginia, and as Virginia has not ceded her qualified right derived from Maryland, Congress do not hold the Potomac in full sovereignty.—He granted it, and admitted further that as Virginia had only ceded such of her territory as was within her charter bounds, and as the right she had to the river was not included in her charter, but derived from Maryland by compact, that she had still that right, but that was a right neither more or less than that of the free navigation, to which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) had said the state of Virginia was entitled by the law of nature and of nations, inasmuch as she held territory above and below. But if Maryland has conveyed to Congress all her right to that part of the Potomac lying within the boundaries of the district, Congress has the same right which Maryland had. Suppose a case, a person conveys his right of soil to another, but previously he had agreed with his adjoining neighbor to let him have the service of his road. Shall this qualified right in the use of the road across the other's soil prevent the new possessor from repairing or improving such road. Such a position cannot be supported. Because a general right of improvement in the owner of the soil would be counteracted by the special right of way or passage granted to another. Can it be said that Congress, when they wish to improve a road or a river within their exclusive jurisdiction, cannot exercise this right, without the consent of those whom they have allowed to travel along or over the same. Surely this will not be contended for.
The waters of the Potomac are a common highway. We grant it, but will it cease to be a common highway, whilst the whole body of the waters are carried through one channel instead of two? Does the contraction of the surface and deepening of the channel render it less a high-way than it was heretofore. Will the river Potomac cease to be the Potomac, when its waters are compressed within narrower bounds? No. What is lost in surface is gained in depth, not a drop is lost to the river, but there is a clear profit in the gain.
Allusion has been made to the navigation of the Mississippi, in which France has a qualified right of navigation. The United States owning the soil on both sides. If the United States should pass a law to remove its obstructions or cut across from point to point, would France interfere, and say you shall not remove a single stick of drift wood, or any of the masses of trees which almost choke up the navigation at certain seasons. It is preposterous to think so; what not remove a bar that shall be formed by the course of nature! It is absurd. But yet there is more ground for this position than the one now advocated for the concurrent jurisdiction of Virginia and Maryland. It has been contended that the state of Virginia and Virginia were to make the improvements in the river not only by joint consent, but at joint expence. Now would George-town at her own expence offer to lay out such a sum of money, as is likely to be required for the erection of the dam, in order to obstruct the navigation of the river, a river in which she is most deeply concerned? Would they pay the whole expence, if it was to work an injury instead of a benefit? The states of Virginia & Maryland agreed in the opening of the canal, but here George-town bears the whole expence, and let any man say whether they would consent and pay for their own ruin?
Mr. Sloan would leave the dispute as to the right of jurisdiction over the river to be settled by those who were more competent to investi-
gate law questions than he was himself. But from what he had heard, he had brought his mind to this conclusion, that whatever right Maryland possessed to the jurisdiction of the Potomac, Congress was now entitled to exercise. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) has said that Congress has no right to obstruct the navigation. True; but it does not follow that Congress has no right to remove obstructions. He says also that we might stop both branches. Not so, it is intended to stop one only, in order to deepen the other, so as to render the navigation more useful and safe. The case before us has been occasioned by the act of God, or a great mover of in nature, a quantity of ice has been lodged, and tore up from the shore and the island the materials that form perhaps the base of this sand bar, by which the navigation has been obstructed. Now, suppose another case, that this ice had pent up the whole body of the river, and compelled the waters to form themselves a channel for escape, through the lower grounds of the Virginia side, and thereby have given a new course to the river, and it would not be the first time that ice had been the cause of changing the bed of a river. He would ask, was there any member of this house but would heartily concur in restoring the inhabitants on this side the river to the use of the river, by erecting proper works to restore the stream to its old bed. He did not believe there would be the slightest objection to such a proposition, especially if it was to be done, like the present measure, at the sole expence of the people of George-town. With regard to the doubt which had been entertained whether it would be advantageous or not, he believed that to be perfectly settled, after what had been stated by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Lewis). He believed it would no more injure Alexandria, or the mouth of the eastern branch, than it would the mouth of the Chesapeake.
Mr. R. Griswold. This question has assumed several important aspects since it has been before the committee. The first, though not the least, has been the denial of the right of Congress to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district of 10 miles square. This question however, must be solved by adhering to the constitution of the United States, and the acts of cession of the states of Maryland and Virginia, which were passed for the purpose of carrying into execution that part of the constitution relative to a territory over which the United States were to exercise exclusive legislation. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. J. Randolph) has stated in fact, though not in words, that Congress have the power of assuming exclusive jurisdiction over more than one district if granted by any of the states. He says that this district of 10 miles square is divided into two districts by the Potomac, or by a mathematical line, therefore they are still two districts, and he does not deny the right of Congress to assume the exclusive legislation over them, but merely, they have no right to exercise jurisdiction on the interval between them; this has been illustrated by a reference to old Massachusetts and her province of Maine. He says they are one body politic, and constitute one state of the union. Here that gentleman must surely be mistaken. It is not to be disputed that a state may consist of separated parts, and so might the territory of ten miles square, if the constitution had not tied it down to one entire and connected district. As well might it be contended that Congress might assume 100 districts, each consisting of one mile square, as that they are authorized to hold two districts within their ten miles square. But the truth is that by the acts of cession of both Maryland and Virginia, the two parts which Congress have assumed are expressly granted, and Congress now stand on their ground, and have all the rights and jurisdiction which either or both states possessed previous to the act of cession, and that right extends over the river included in the ten miles square. He would admit, for argument sake, that those two states have the privilege of free navigation, or the right of high way, but he would ask if there was anything contained in the bill that infringed that right? And he knew the answer must be, that there was nothing in the bill likely to work an injury to any person.
Mr. Alston did not intend to consume much time of the committee in delivering his sentiments, as the discussion had already been protracted to a much greater length, than he at first view of the subject supposed it merited. It has been contended by several gentlemen that Congress have no power to legislate at all upon the subject of the navigation of the river Potomac. This really to him appeared to be a very extraordinary doctrine indeed. That because Virginia and Maryland had not jointly conveyed a common property, their conveyances separate, although including this very common property was not obligatory, and did not convey to Congress exclusive legislation and jurisdiction over such part of the river as lay within the district of Columbia. He admitted that the river Potomac was a common highway, and ought for ever to remain so, for the benefit, not only of the people of Virginia and Maryland, but likewise for all the citizens of the United States, choosing to navigate the same, and to do any act whereby the navigation would in the smallest degree whatever be obstructed, was more than we had a right or ought to do; but would it follow in consequence that we had no right to improve or benefit the navigation of the river; most indubitably not. It was in his mind clear from the information he had received, that unless something was done for the benefit of the navigation of the river, that an end would soon be put to George-town as a commercial spot. He believed it to be universally the case that, the uniting of any two streams of nearly equal size produced a bar or shallow place just below their junction. If then the bar complained of just below Mason's island, has been produced in consequence of the uniting of the two arms of the river, it seemed to him, as an inevitable consequence, that if one of them was dammed up, the channel would return to its former depth.
Mr. Alston could not see the force of an argument made use of by his colleague, the honorable Speaker, if he understood him correctly, to say that if the dam contemplated should be effected, it would tend to injure the ferries established on the river. In what manner the erection of the dam from Mason's island to the Virginia shore could affect them, he was not able to discover, as the land on the Virginia shore, opposite the ferries, and the island belong to the same person. He entertained no doubt but that the same privileges would extend to the island as were now enjoyed at the landing on the Virginia shore.
It therefore appeared to him that the propriety or impropriety of the measure contemplated by the bill upon the table, turned wholly upon the question, whether thereby the navigation of the river Potomac would be obstructed or benefited. For his part he had no doubt but that it would greatly tend to the improvement of the navigation of the river; he should therefore give it his decided support and hoped the bill would pass into a law.
Mr. Claiborne asked if the ten miles square located and surveyed to the United States included the river; he rather suspected that they had laid off ten miles square exclusive of the river. If this was the case, Congress had assum-
ed jurisdiction over more territory than they were constitutionally entitled to.
Mr. J. Randolph had really hoped that after this question had been so long before the committee it would have been better understood than it appeared to be. He regretted his incompetency to make himself intelligible. He had not meant to convey the idea attributed to him by Mr. R. Griswold. What he had said in relation to the 2 districts was offered as a solution of the difficulties which the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Nelson) seemed to labour under. He never did contend, that because Congress had the power of exercising exclusive jurisdiction over a district of ten miles square, they had therefore a right to exercise similar authority over one hundred districts of one mile square. The same gentleman seemed to labour under another error in supposing that he contended that Congress, because they had no right to legislate over the river, had no right to legislate here. The right of jurisdiction over the territory is not impugned by a denial of the right over the river. It is a little remarkable that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. R. Griswold) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lucas) draw the same conclusion from different premises; but it never was contended by him, that Virginia had a territorial right over this river. What she had was a stipulated right, and Maryland had conceded that no obstruction should be made in the river, but by the joint consent of the two states. It is however said that the dam will not be an obstruction, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has discovered that all the water will still flow between the banks of the Potomac; but though the water be there, there will be no navigating up or down the west side of the island. The gentleman is also at a loss to conceive how George-town which is so greatly interested in the navigation of the Potomac, should at its own expence undertake to throw obstructions in the river. Is he yet to learn that George-town might not be greatly concerned, if she hindered the navigation generally, while she derived much benefit to herself. He knows that there is a project afoot for cutting a canal across from the Potomac to the eastern branch, and by that means obstruct the passage of Alexandria. If you undertake to exercise this right, what is to prevent your taking the water out at the Little Falls, and bringing the whole to the residence of your favorite child, the City of Washington, and thereby destroy the canal constructed at such vast expence by the joint funds of Maryland and Virginia. He thought the present to be a very important question, or he would not have been so troublesome. He would just review the positions he had taken; the state of Virginia acquired by compact an extension of her natural right to the navigation of the Potomac; she afterwards ceded ten miles square within her limits; but did not cede any qualified right she might have beyond her limits; yet you assume this power, and deprive Virginia of what she alleges she neither did nor even meant to convey. He hoped whatever might be the decision, that not a single member from Virginia would vote to yield up her rights without her consent.
Mr. Lewis did not view the subject in the same light with his colleague (Mr. J. Randolph) and should therefore vote in favor of the bill.
(To be continued)
Register, OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES.
Friday, December 23.
Mr. Southard presented the petition of Charles Croxall of New Jersey, formerly of Col. Hartley's regiment of the Pennsylvania line, stating that he had been taken prisoner at the battle of Brandywine in 1777, and for two years confined on Long Island; that during that interval the new arrangement of the army had taken place, by which he had become supernumerary; that there were only seven officers in the same situation, five of whom are since dead; praying Congress to make him the allowances granted to other officers of the line who served to the close of the war. Referred to the committee of Claims.
Mr. Dana reported on the following petitions from the committee of Claims. William McClelland, praying compensation for a company of Marylanders raised in 1760 against the hostile Indians. The report states the claim to be inadmissible, and concludes with a resolution that the petition be rejected; agreed to by the House.
On the petition of Peter Landais, formerly captain of the Alliance frigate, for his share of three prizes sent into Bergen, and relinquished by the Danish government to the British, during our revolutionary war. The committee reported that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore conclude with a resolution that the prayer thereof ought not to be granted, which was agreed to by the House.
On Catharine Haines, the widow of an old soldier, praying a grant of land, &c. The report states that whatever might be her claims on humanity or her title to support from state institutions, she does not appear to have any well founded claim on the treasury of the United States. They recommend that she have leave to withdraw her petition, which was agreed to by the House.
Also a bill for the relief of John Steele, which was read twice and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday next.
Mr. McCreery presented a petition from certain sugar refiners, praying to be allowed a drawback upon sugars exported, equal to the duty on brown sugar, referred to the committee appointed to this subject on the petition of a similar nature from New York.
A message from the Senate was received informing that the Senate had agreed to the amendments proposed by the House on the bill providing for the distribution of the laws of the United States.
Mr. Lewis called for the third reading of the bill to amend the charter of the town of Alexandria.
A lengthy discussion took place on the passage of the bill, which was opposed by Mr. Lewis and its postponement contended for by Messrs. Dennis, Early, R. Griswold and Goddard. The bill was advocated by Messrs. Lyon, Elmer, Leib, Gregg, Eppes, Smilie and G. W. Campbell, who likewise opposed the postponement.
On the question to postpone the bill till the first Monday in December next, it was lost, 44 being in favor of the postponement, and 60 against it.
On postponing till the first of February the question was also lost, 42 in favor and 58 against it.
A motion was then made to recommit the bill to a committee of the whole in order to withhold from aliens the right of holding real estate within the bounds of the corporation, and to make some other alterations, which though not very material would give satisfaction to the party in Alexandria who opposed the passage of the bill.
On the question to recommit, there were 25 in the affirmative, and 61 in the negative; so the motion was lost.

Mr. J. Randolph then spoke against the passage of the bill, and was replied to by Messrs. Dawson and G. W. Campbell. The Yeas and Nays were called by Mr. Lewis, and were declared to be—Yeas 54, Nays 51.
Mr. J. Randolph moved that the postmaster general be directed to lay before this House a list of the names of persons with whom contracts have been made for carrying the mail of the United States from the 31st of December 1801, to the 31st of December 1804, inclusive, specifying the terms on which such contracts were made, and the sums paid, or to be paid to the contractors respectively. On motion it is agreed to consider the resolution, and on the question the House agree to the same, it was carried nem. con.
ENQUIRER. RICHMOND, JANUARY 5, 1805
INTRODUCTION OF SLAVES INTO VIRGINIA. The law of 1785 is the last law which has been passed by our Legislature, for regulating the introduction of Slaves into this state. According to that law, no man has a right to import any slave from Africa, or any of the West India islands, for any cause whatever: nor has he a right to bring any slaves from any of the other states into Virginia, "with an intention of selling them." But it is still the privilege of an inhabitant of the state, to bring into it any slave whom he may acquire in any other state by descent, by marriage, or by devise; and it is still the privilege of an inhabitant of any other state to remove into this state, with all the slaves which he may own, on the condition that none of them should have been imported from Africa or any of the West India Islands, since the first day of November, 1778. Such is the law of Virginia, as it now stands.
During the present session of the legislature, a proposition has been made to alter this law, and to prevent any slaves being brought into the commonwealth, although they may have been acquired in any other state by descent, marriage or devise, and although they should belong to a citizen of any other state who wishes to remove from it and become an inhabitant of Virginia. Should the bill pass in its present form, and its provisions be rigorously executed, a great and effectual barrier will be at once established against the further introduction of slaves into the commonwealth. According to the contemplated system, no slave can pass the limits of Virginia who is not a resident of it, on the first of July next, unless indeed he should have come from the county of Alexandria in the territory of Columbia, or unless he should accompany his master in the capacity of a waiting servant, and even in that character he is not to remain a whole twelvemonth upon our soil.
No man who recollects the real and relative situation of our Commonwealth, can disapprove of the provisions and the policy of the contemplated law. Within the limits of Virginia there already exist too many of that melancholy race of men, whose fate we may deplore, but cannot redress. The number is already too great; whether we consider the repose of the state, or the industry of its citizens; and if it cannot diminish, it ought not at least to augment the evil, or to view with indifference the prospect of an increasing multitude. At the present time, however, the policy of a fitter state has multiplied the chances of an extended population, and our own rational apprehensions. Carolina, by opening her ports to all the negroes which are imported from Africa and the West-Indies, threatens to pour a new tide of population upon the surrounding states; and who can say whether the market of her own state, of Georgia, N. Carolina and the western states being once supplied, that we ourselves may not see them pouring in upon us the miserable victims of their inhuman traffic. Already has their infernal industry displayed an unparalleled zeal, and collected victims from every market of slaves. Examine the Charleston papers, and you will find their columns continually blackened and disgraced by advertisements of auctions of miserable negroes.
The "Times" of December 21st, which is now before me exhibits its very first column not less than four advertisements of slaves to be sold; some are Gold-Coast slaves, some Windward slaves, others Congo Negroes, and the fourth completes the cruel farce by displaying "prime Africans" as its recommendatory title. With such abundant cargoes are hawked about the streets of Charleston and advertised in its public prints; is there no danger, that the depreciated value of this property should occasion their owners to go in search of some more distant and favorable markets, and that Virginia as well as the surrounding states should partake of the diluvial tide? Yet these importations are daily increasing; and it is yet uncertain, whether the present Legislature of South-Carolina will have the enlightened policy of arresting the traffic. On the 8th of last month a motion was made in the Senate to prohibit it, & was lost by a majority of one only: 16 being for it and 17 against it; and two members were absent. It is true, a resolution, was agreed to in the House of Representatives by a considerable majority on a subsequent day, the 14th December, but it is said in a private letter from Columbia that the session is too far advanced for the Senate to resume its deliberations on that subject.
Thus will the merchants of S. Carolina have another twelve-month at least to swell their imports and their coffers; and who can say how many slaves in that time will not cross the boundary of Virginia? Is it not then a wise policy for our legislature at once to arrest their inroads, and stop every legal avenue through which the way speculator may attempt to introduce them? To announce the law that no expedient subterfuge shall sanctify the violation; that no plea of meditated removal should serve the inhabitant of another state, and no plea of descent, marriage, or devise, should screen a Virginian from the penalties of the law, whose forms he professes to observe, whilst he violates its spirit? In fact it is not politic and just to adapt the substantial provisions of the following bill, which passed the House of Delegates on Thursday, Ayes 102, Nays 50; and which has been sent to the Senate for their concurrence?
A BILL TO PREVENT SLAVES BEING BROUGHT INTO THIS COMMONWEALTH. Be it enacted, That slaves (1) which shall hereafter be brought within this commonwealth and kept therein one whole year together, or following at different times, as shall amount to one year, the owner of any such slave being of full age, shall forfeit all right and claim to such slave, which shall absolutely vest in the overseers (2) of the poor of any (3) county or corporation, who shall apprehend such slave. In default for the poor of the said county. Every slave who shall so become vested in the overseers of the poor, shall be by them sold by public auction, at the courthouse of the county, on some court day, for ready money, which shall be applied towards lessening the poor rate for such county.
Every person hereafter bringing slaves into this commonwealth, contrary to this act, shall forfeit & pay the sum of 400 (4) dollars, for every slave so sold or bought; half of which forfeiture shall be to the use of him or them that will sue for the same, and the other half to the use of the commonwealth, to be recovered by action of debt or information, in any court of record: Provided always, and it is to be understood, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed, as to deprive a person who may come within the commonwealth, without fixing his residence therein, of any servant or servants he may bring with him for attendance; (5) and Provided also, that this act shall not be so construed as to repeal an act passed at the last session, entitled, "An act authorizing the removal of slaves from the county of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, into this commonwealth."
Any slave who hath been or hereafter shall be brought into this state, contrary to law, or who shall be passing thro' this state by land or water, who may commit a capital crime, and be tried and executed therefor within this commonwealth, shall not be paid for out of the public treasury; (6) nor shall any slave be paid for out of the public treasury, who shall be convicted and executed for the commission of a crime, in the perpetration of which, the owner of such slave, shall, in the opinion of the court before whom such slave shall be tried, be either a principal or accessory (7) before the fact. (8)
And be it further enacted, that every overseer of the poor within this commonwealth, shall, in addition to the oath now prescribed by law take the following: "I, A. B. do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will, to the utmost of my power, enforce all laws to prevent the further introduction of slaves into this commonwealth: So help me God."
And be it further enacted, That in any action or prosecution by the overseers of the poor, in virtue of this act, if they shall be cast, they shall not be liable to pay any costs out of their individual estates, but the costs shall be paid out of the levy imposed by the overseers of the poor on the titheables within their jurisdiction. All and every act and acts, clause or clauses of acts, containing any thing within the purview of this act, shall be, and the same are hereby repealed. This act shall commence and be in force from and after the first day of July next.
NOTES
(1) The reader will agree with me in the opinion, though he may smile at the frivolity of the criticism, that this clause of the bill is not grammatically correct. If "slaves" be the nominative case, we enquire in vain for its appropriate verb. It is not "shall forfeit" because "owner" is the nominative to it. Perhaps the clause might properly be expressed in the following manner: "That whenever any slave shall be hereafter brought into the commonwealth," &c. (2) The first proposition was, that every such slave should become free according to the 1st sect. of the law of 1785. It was contended by those who were in favor of this proposition that it should be made the strong interest of some person at least to execute the law; that no one would be more interested in the execution than the slave himself, who would for that information against his master be the indispensable instrument of his own emancipation; & that no motives of sufficient potency could be held forth to any other man, to overcome the shame and odium of turning an informer. Those who advocated the present provision of the law expatiated upon the mischievous consequences of a partial emancipation: they declared that much of the odium which now accompanies the character of the informer arises from the faithless avarice which commonly actuates his conduct: that this opinion would not prevent the man who appeared to be discharging his official duty, from a regard to public interest: and that the approbation and sympathy of the world would go along with every overseer of the poor who relieved the burthens of the parish by lessening at the same time the number of emancipated blacks. (3) The first copy of the bill had no specification of the particular overseer, who had the power. A slave might be carried from one end of the state to the other. Should a power be given to the overseer of the parish into which he was first carried, to go a part of him to other parishes: should the power of apprehending him be given to the overseer of the parish where he was at that time to be found: to what overseer in fact should this power be given? The words of the bill were intended to remove every doubt of this kind. (4) 200 dollars was the fine first stipulated in the bill. It was stated however that the fine ought to be greater, as many slaves were worth more than that sum and that the fine ought to be so much greater than the value of the slave as to increase the risks and diminish the probable profits of such a smuggling trade. (5) This was not one of the first provisions of the bill. When the embarrassment and inconvenience which many travellers coming into this state for business, health or pleasure, would experience from the want of this privilege, were taken into consideration, the propriety of conceding it was readily admitted. (6) The mover of this provision of the bill, observed, that by the present law, remunerating masters for the execution of their slaves, they might demand a compensation for every slave who had committed a capital crime, who was passing thro' the state, or who might even be brought into it contrary to the law; that a slave for instance who was accompanying his master on a journey from Maryland to N. Carolina, must be paid for by the state of Virginia, tho' it had derived no benefit from his labour: that it was contrary to the policy of the state to insure any slave which belonged to the citizen of another state; and that it would be peculiarly unjust to provide by law for the compensation due to the master who had already violated one of the laws of the state. (7) Does not or should not the Legislature attempt to give such a right to the law, as may be descriptive of its contents? And how would any attorney discover from the title of "a bill to prevent slaves being brought into the commonwealth" that any provision was made in it for the case of a slave who had not been brought into the commonwealth? Ought not this clause to have been embodied into an act, entitled an act to amend an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning slaves, free negroes and mulattoes? And indeed, ought not the whole of the bill to have received this title?
(8) It was asked, why not extend this provision to a master who was an accessory after as well as before the fact? Two answers were given. 1st. That a worthy master might be pronounced an accessory after the fact who should even attempt to promote the public good, by removing his criminal servant for ever beyond the bounds of the state, & thus exempting him from similar crimes, and that he would then stand upon the same ground as the master who had been an accessory before the fact. 2d. because by the definition of the common law, the last interference of the master, even the employing of counsel in defence of his slave, might make him an accessory after the fact. The general merits of this bill were once more investigated on the third reading, and two principal objections were taken to it. 1st. That from a comparison of the two last Censuses, the number of slaves in Virginia had not increased in an equal ratio with the number of white inhabitants; that she thus lost more by the exportation of slaves, than she gained by their importation; and it would therefore be impolitic to pass any law, which might excite the jealousy of her sister states, and induce them to adopt a countervailing policy. 2dly. That such a law would benefit the Eastern District of Virginia, at the expence of the Western, as it would lose the labour of all those slaves who would otherwise be carried among them by emigrants from the other states. But these were objections, which the advocates of the bill triumphantly and ably refuted.
Legislature of Virginia. EXTRACTS FROM THE JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
Friday, December 28.
A bill, establishing several new ferries and increasing the rates of former ones, was read a second time and amended at the clerk's table, and with the amendment, ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
Authorizing Adam Hickman to erect a dam across the west fork of Monongahela river, for certain purposes therein mentioned; was read a second time, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
Mr. Du-Val (from the committee to whom it was committed) presented, A bill, for the relief of special bail in certain cases with several amendments, which were twice read, and agreed to by the house.
Ordered, That the said bill with the amendments, be engrossed and read a third time.
Mr. Smyth (Wythe) presented, according to order, A bill, further to amend the penal laws of this commonwealth, which was received and read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time.
On a motion made, Ordered, That the said bill be now read a second time; and the said bill was accordingly read a second time, and,
On a motion made, Ordered, To be committed to a committee of the whole house on the state of the commonwealth.
Ordered that 150 copies of the said bill be printed for the use of the members of the General Assembly.
Mr. Westwood presented, according to order, a bill, to amend and explain an act, passed January the 24th, 1804; further declaring what shall be deemed an unlawful meeting of slaves, which was received and read the first time, and ordered to be read a second time.
Mr. Mathews according to order, made the following report: The committee to whom was referred so much of the gov. letter as relates to the proposed road from the upper navigation of James river, to the upper navigation of Kanawha river, have according to order had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report.
That it appears to your committee, that two routes have been viewed, each commencing at the plantation of Hugh Ballentine, in Greenbrier; the one passing the Hay-back meadows, Cauley river, Peter creek, to Carroll Morris's plantation, twelve miles below the great falls of Kanawha; the other passing John Patterson's on Sewell mountain, crossing New river near the mouth of Man's creek, to the highest navigable point of Kanawha river, below the great falls.
It also appears to your committee, that the latter route is 16 1-2 miles the shortest, less intersected with difficult water courses, and can be made a good road for a less sum than the former.
Resolved, as the opinion of this committee, that an act ought to pass, authorizing the opening of the said road, from the plantation of Hugh Ballentine, in Greenbrier, by the Man's creek to the highest navigable point of Kanawha, route, below the great falls of that river.
The said report being read, was on the question put thereon, agreed to by the house.
Ordered, That a bill be brought in pursuant to the said report, and that the committee who made the same, do prepare and bring in the said bill.
On a motion made, the house came to the following resolution: Resolved, that this house, as a tribute of respect to the memory of Thomas Walker, late of Princess Anne, a member of the present general assembly, who departed this life this morning, will, with such members of the senate as are now in town, on to-morrow, go in procession to his grave, to discharge the last melancholy offices due the dead.
Saturday, Dec. 29. An engrossed bill, for the relief of special bail in certain cases, was read a third time, and the title amended; and passed.
Monday December 31.
Mr. Henning, presented according to order, a bill, "To amend an act, entitled an act, to authorise the opening a turnpike road over the South Mountain," which was received and read the first time and ordered to be read a second time.
Ordered, That the committee to whom was referred the petitions on the subject of the claim of the Loyal Company be discharged therefrom, and that the said petitions be referred to a committee of the whole house on the state of the commonwealth.
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill, "To amend the several acts concerning guardians, orphans, committees, infants, masters and apprentices," and that Messrs. E. Harrison, Randolph, Tazewell, Smyth (Wythe) Boyd, Leake, Mallory and Aylett, do prepare and bring in the same.
Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill "Concerning feumers," and that Messrs. Tazewell, Ker, Peake, Du-Val, Blake, Riddick, Edwards and Sebell do prepare and bring in the same.
Resolved, that a committee be appointed to examine into the state of the land office; to enquire whether any and what alterations are necessary in that establishment, and that they be instructed to report by bill or otherwise, and a committee was appointed of Messrs. Henning, Mathews, Burwell, Singleton, Pruney, Smyth (Wythe) and Martin. Adjourned.
Tuesday, Jan. 8, 1804. On motion, Ordered, that the committee of the whole house on the state of the commonwealth be discharged from further consideration of the report of the committee on the subject of the amendment proposed by the legislature of Massachusetts to the constitution of the United States, and that the said report be referred to the committee who reported the same. Ordered, that leave be given to bring in a bill, to class the counties within this commonwealth, to establish a due proportion between the duties and pay of commissioners of the revenue, and for other purposes; and that Messrs. Singleton, E. Harrison, Riddick, Byrd, C. Fofter, Gregory, Terry, Snyder and Powell, do prepare and bring in the same. Mr. Aylett presented, according to order, a bill, (which was committed) to amend an act, intitled, an act, further declaring what shall be deemed an unlawful meeting of slaves, with an amendment, which was twice read and agreed to by the house, and the bill, with the amendment, ordered to be engrossed and read a third time.
Wednesday, Jan. 24, 1805.
They have also passed the bill, intitled, an act incorporating a company to build a toll bridge over the fourth branch of Potomac river, with an amendment, to which amendment they request the concurrence of the House of Delegates.
An engrossed bill, to amend and explain an act, passed January 14th, 1804, further declaring what shall be deemed an unlawful meeting of slaves, was read a third time, and the title amended.
Resolved, that the bill do pass, and that the title be, an act, to amend and explain an act, further declaring what shall be deemed unlawful meetings of slaves.
No Washington papers were received by the mail last night. We are consequently unable to present our readers with any details of the late incidents at Tripoli.
ERRATA IN THE LAST PAPER.
In Mr. Barbour's speech, for "placed beyond the bann of the commonwealth," read "placed under," &c. For "cast away the scabbard" read "sheathe it in the scabbard."
SQUADRON OFF TRIPOLI.
Extract of a letter from a Member of Congress to a Member of the House of Delegates, dated WASHINGTON, December 31, 1804.
"Official accounts from our Consul at Malta, were received here last evening. They confirm the accounts, which have already appeared in our papers, of the attacks of the 2d and 7th of August. They mention also another attack on Tripoli, on the 29th August. On this occasion the frigate Constitution lay within pistol shot of one of the principal batteries, and within 600 feet of the Bashaw's palace,—120 rounds were fired by our different vessels.—Some damage was done to the town, and many inhabitants killed.—The Constitution received 12 balls in her hull, and lost several of her men. On the 1st of September a fire ship sent into the harbour of Tripoli, blew up before our officers and seamen left her.—Every soul perished!"
Last Evening's Mail.
ATTACK UPON TRIPOLI. We learn information was yesterday received at the Navy office in Washington of a fourth attack upon Tripoli by our squadron. The particulars had not transpired when our informant left there, but was supposed to be rather unfavorable—it was said three officers and forty-five men had been killed, and two gun boats blown up. Lieut. Somers, midshipman Walworth, and one other officer, with twelve men, were blown up in one of the gun boats. Alex. Advs. Jan. 1.
NEW-YORK, December 29.
The British ship Commerce, from Liverpool, came up last evening, and has furnished the Editor of the Mercantile Advertiser with a regular series of London Papers and Lloyd's Lists to the second of November, inclusive. The late hour at which they were received would not allow us to do more than give the leading articles from papers of the latest dates, and a copy of the Lloyd's Lists. We shall continue our selection in our next. Mer. Adv.
LONDON, October 31.
According to private accounts, the intercourse between this country and Holland may be considered as closed, several of our merchants having received notice to ship no more goods for the Dutch ports, as a general declaration has been issued, that all vessels and their cargoes will be confiscated, which have not been cleared out from a neutral port, and furnished with certificates from the French consul resident there.
NOVEMBER 1.
This morning dispatches were received from Admiral Thornborough, on board his Majesty's ship Eagle, off the Texel, stating his having sent an Officer in a boat to look close into the Texel, to discover the state of the forces of the enemy, when it was found they had lying there five sail of the line, eight frigates, and about 100 small craft, all ready for sea. Should they attempt to come out, there is every reason to believe they will meet with a warm reception and safe convoy to one of our ports.
Our correspondent at Rotterdam informs us that disturbances have broken out on the borders of Switzerland of a very formidable description.
NOVEMBER 2.
Sir George Rumbold, the British Resident at Hamburg, with his papers, has been seized by a party of 200 French infantry, who surprised him at his house, about a mile from the city, and carried him off. The Senate of Hamburg, the day after this outrage, sent to the French Resident to enquire the cause of it, and to demand his liberation. The minister said he was ignorant of the cause, but supposed it to be a suite of Mr. Drake's affair.
It is said that Mr. Nicholls, our Consul at Hamburg, has taken refuge in the house of Mr. Forbes, the American Resident. If the French wished to seize him too, they would not respect that asylum.
Couriers announcing the outrage have been sent to all the principal courts. We should think that this repetition of the scandalous violation of the Germanic territory at Ettenheim will at last extort from the Continental Powers some measures for the protection of the most sacred intercourse of nations. If Fouché, the French Minister of Police, is to issue his mandates of arrest against individuals, Ambassadors, in a neutral territory, he may send his archers to seize his prey in the Palace of the
Emperor of Austria or the King of Prussia.—Others may not feel the effects of Bonaparte's lawless violence, but their turn may come if they have not the courage to defend the common law of nations. The French Commercial Agent, who yet resides at Cottenburgh, has received an order from his Government to quit Sweden immediately. We have received some accounts from our squadron off Ferrol, all of which agree in stating, that no armaments were preparing in that port, and for this good reason, that the naval officers were totally unprovided with the means of armament one upon the most limited scale. By accounts from Valencia, dated early in October, we have been favoured with some farther particulars of the Spanish insurrection. At the beginning of last month, between three and four thousand of the King's troops entered the province of Biscay, without any opposition from the insurgents. Admiral Massaredo, and General Oquilla, who are said to have been the ringleaders in that revolt, were arrested and sent to Burgos. Upwards of two hundred of the most important persons concerned in the insurrection are said to have been in consequence of the unfavorable answer received from Bonaparte, to whom it is reported the Biscayans offered to become vassals, as the head of the French Government. His Imperial Majesty is stated to have recommended to them to continue in submission to their own Sovereign, to whom allegiance, in case it were necessary, he would send an army of two hundred thousand men. The business was, notwithstanding, considered as far from being settled. A report of a very momentous and extraordinary nature has reached us by the same conveyance; but it is of such a nature as to render it an act of discretion to refrain communicating it to the public. None of the bullion or property which was taken in the Spanish frigates detained by the squadron under the orders of Captain Moore, has been landed at either Portsmouth or Plymouth. According to accounts from Florence, the house of Nicolò Maria Saffi, banker to her Etrurian Majesty, had stopped payment for the sum of two millions of scudi.
According to report of four Dutch defectors, Bonaparte had sent positive orders from Aix-la-Chapelle to the French commodore at Ferrol to sail for Brest, even though he should be obliged to fight his way through our cruisers. The squadron would, in consequence, have already left Ferrol, had not an aid-de-camp of the Spanish minister of marine arrived from Cadiz with dispatches, which induced him to wait for further instructions from France. It is believed at Ferrol, and on board the French fleet, that the ships which are equipping at Cadiz and Barcelona will co-operate with the French as auxiliaries only to a certain distance from the Spanish coast, as the Spanish cabinet regards its neutrality encroached upon by the strength of our blockading squadron. These Dutchmen assert, that the greatest anarchy and confusion prevail all over Spain; that the insurrection which began near Bilbao, has extended to the neighboring provinces; & that the insurgents amounted to upwards of 60,000 men, and were daily increasing. This latter report was confirmed by an American captain from Corunna, who added, that the leaders of the insurrection are Spaniards formerly in the French service, and young men educated in France. The common belief among all classes of the people is, that the dissolution of the Spanish monarchy, or at least a general revolution, is at hand. This dangerous superstition is kept up by the pretended prophecies, circulated by Spanish priests in French pay; and it will, therefore, not be surprising, if an ignorant people, thus deluded, and also tormented by famine and disease, will, from despair, seek a remedy in the worst of all evils, a rebellion.
Richmond Theatre.
For the Benefit of Mr. GREEN.
THIS EVENING, Saturday, January 5, 1806, will be presented for the first time here, a COMEDY, called
NOTORIETY; OR, A DASH AT THE DAY.
Nominal, Mr. Green. Colonel Hubbub, Mr. Comer. Sir Andrew Acid, Mr. Hopkins. Lord Jargon, Mr. Downie. Clairville, Mr. Poe. Saunter, Mr. Martin. James, Mr. Briggs. O'Whack, Mr. Seron. Lady Acid, Miss Melford. Miss Sophia Strangeways, Mrs. Green. Honoria, Mrs. Hopkins.
End of the Play.
"Collins's Ode on the Passions," By Mr. GREEN.
To which will be added, for the last time this season, the Farce of
RAISING THE WIND.
Plainway, Mr. Comer. Fairwood, Mr. Downie. Didler, Mr. Green. Richard, Mr. Poe. Sam, Mr. Hopkins. Waiter, Mr. Briers. Servant, Mr. Martin. Miss Durable, Mrs. Downie. Miss Peggy Plainway, Mrs. Hopkins.
Doors to open at half after 5 o'clock, and performance to begin at 6, precisely.
TO PRINTERS.
HENRY OURAM—PRESS-MAKER, South-east corner of Prune and Sixth-streets:
RESPECTFULLY informs the trade, that he undertakes to supply Printing-Offices with every thing in his line, having a complete Printer's Joiner, constantly employed in making the wood part of Presses, Furniture, Rules, &c. &c. Copies of all sizes, Composing Sticks, Brass & Wood Galleys, &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. epyu.
STRAYED OR STOLEN,
ON the night of the 2d inst. from the back street, near May's Bridge, a CHESTNUT SORREL HORSE, about fifteen hands and a half high, short tail and forelock, has on the right of his withers, a large tear, the effect of a bruise from a saddle, has on before a pair of shoes much worn, treads, paces and canters well, goes handsomely in harness. Whoever will deliver said horse to me at Doctor Duval's, Richmond, shall be handsomely rewarded. NICHOLAS CHILDERS. January 4. (opt)
NEIL McCOULL has received his FALL SUPPLY OF DRY GOODS.
Nov. 14. ept 1F

For the RAINBOW. Many of the following observations on Duelling have heretofore been published. The essay has been carefully revised. A few additional remarks are suggested. In its present state, it becomes him, deems it not unworthy of republication. When the Editor of the Enquirer has no original communication to publish, the enclosed essay may possibly be deemed worthy of appearing, as a communication to the Rainbow. G.
ON DUELLING.
It must be obvious to the most superficial observer, that the abolition of duelling, can be effected only, by means of reasoning, expostulation and example. The eradication of inveterate errors, the correction of prevailing immorality, are admitted by all competent and impartial enquirers to be duties, that lie beyond the sphere of government, legislation and police. Penal prohibitions and regulations, when confined within their proper province, and divested of their solemn formalities and imposing pretensions, are nothing more, than the concentration of public force, for the purpose of preventing, repelling or punishing acts of violence and fraud, which the ignorant and indigent would otherwise be incessantly prompted to perpetrate, in consequence of the inevitable inequality, with which property and labour are apportioned and distributed. This fundamental truth, which the lessons of experience, recorded by history, and the lights of reason, concentrated by philosophical analysis, combine to establish, ought to be clearly comprehended and habitually recollected by every individual who ventures to speculate on human affairs. To attempt by authoritative prohibitions and penal regulations to extirpate immorality that has taken root in general prejudice, is of all projects the most preposterous. If Noah, when warned by the voice of God of the approaching deluge, had endeavoured to stem the rushing waves, by dykes and mounds, he would not have betrayed greater ignorance than the legislator, who attempts by statutes and penalties to eradicate prevailing immorality and inveterate errors. A proceeding of this sort, as has been wittily and eloquently said is "like gibbeting a carcass, or demolishing a tomb, whilst the spirit survives, transmigrates into a more pernicious form and acquires rejuvenated energy." Evils of this description originate in misconceptions and miscalculations, which can be corrected only, by the luminous exhibition and distinct apprehensions of the evidence, by which their absurdity is clearly exposed and the uncompensated misery with which they are pregnant, is palpably and vividly depicted. We cannot therefore, rationally indulge a hope of effecting the abolition of duelling, by the authority of the magistrate or the denunciations of the priest. But I cannot concur with those who think, that the expostulations & examples of enlightened & influential men, would prove equally ineffectual. The history of human society, from primitive ignorance and barbarism, to the most refined and expanded civilization, is little else, than a detail of the evils which have arisen from inveterate errors and the means which philosophy and reason have successfully employed for their gradual extirpation. Viewed in this light, the proposition that truth is omnipotent, far from being an idle hyperbole, or unmeaning rant, is an important fact, attested and illustrated by the progress of society and science. Since the art of printing has afforded a depository for the perpetuation and a medium for the diffusion of knowledge, the artillery of reason, under the banners of truth have been incessantly plied and fatally directed. By this artillery, we have seen the bulwarks of despotic power demolished, the infernal fabric of sacerdotal imposture shivered into atoms, the splendid illusions of ancient philosophy dissipated, the barbarous jargon of venerated but venal schools, swept into oblivion. After achieving so many glorious victories, and exterminating so many destroying monsters, can it be believed, that duelling will long be permitted to stalk abroad, and immolate on its unhallowed altar, the disciples of reason, now that the givens laws to the powerful, and lessons to the people, now that she has attained the maturity of her strength and the meridian of her glory? The era of its abolition is at hand! It is prohibited by law, interdicted by religion, discouraged by the maxims of popular and philosophical morality, denounced by the impartial enquirer, and deplored by the philanthropist. It maintains its hold on vulgar minds, by brittle and transient ties, which death will speedily burst and bury in the grave of its victims. It is shielded in minds of a superior order, by a cloud of delusion, which the spreading light of truth cannot fail to penetrate and dispel. Let us analyse in succession, the arguments that have been urged in its defence, and their inconsistency will flash upon the unprejudiced mind, with the clearness of sunshine and the force of lightning. "Duelling is sanctioned by the inviolable laws of honour."—What is honour? It has been defined "the noble minds distinguishing perfection," and what is the noble mind? distinguishing perfection, but the faculty of discerning in every combination of circumstances, however complex or unexpected, with intuitive quickness, and pursuing with heroic energy, the path of propriety and justice? The man who in any article of conduct or topic of enquiry, is swayed by prevailing error or inveterate custom, or by any influence distinct from the clear and impartial convictions of his own understanding is divested of honorable mind's distinguishing perfection. Now, will it be contended that the practice of duelling, the perpetration of deliberate suicide and murder, can be, in any possible combination of circumstances the duty of an enlightened man, the line of conduct which justice and reason prescribe? When my name is coupled with an opprobrious epithet, when a charge the most ignominious or vile, is attempted to be fastened upon my character, the dilemma is palpable. The epithet is applicable or inapplicable, the charge is true or false. These are facts, which the exhibition of evidence, the comparison of testimonies, the confrontation of witnesses are alone adequate, to ascertain and establish. If I am conscious of innocence, shall I shrink from investigation, shall I desert from the "vantage ground" of free discussion, where truth never fails to triumph, nor falsehood to be covered with shame and confusion? Shall I in obedience to the impulse of vindictive fury or the mandate of barbarous custom, commit to chance or force, the decision of a question which can only be determined by the impartial statement of facts? Shall I repair at the bidding of the malignant calumniator to the den of assassination, where confident probability of his superior skill in the use of the only weapons he has learnt to wield, he is prepared, after attempting to blast my reputation, to shed my blood? Shall I by evading an open and impartial enquiry into the accusation with which I am charged, although conscious of innocence, and capable of proving my innocence in so clear a light, as to convince every unprejudiced mind and seal the quivering lip and palied tongue of calumny in eternal silence, shall I, by resorting
to violence! the refuge of conscious guilt, to murder! the last refinement of desperate depravity, to suicide! the gloomy asylum of intolerable remorse, inapplicable misery or abject cowardice, countenance a belief that I am secretly conscious of the truth of the accusation, or want vigilance, penetration and energy, to confound the artifices of falsehood by the arms of reason and of man? Incredible infatuation! we behold a rational being unjustly accused, capable of repelling the accusation with irresistible energy, and overwhelming the accuser with shame and contrition, not only declining to discharge a duty which the united voice of reason, justice, philanthropy, patriotism, friendship, personal interest and self-preservation, command him to perform, but deliberately proceeding to perpetrate a crime the most atrocious, that infernal malevolence could invent, to sanction a practice the most detestable that ignorance has ever hatched, or superstition nurtured, for the perdition of mankind. We behold a rational being, deliberately renouncing the exalted attributes that distinguish the civilized man from the savage cannibal, the progressive mind from the unimprovable and sanguinary beast, the benevolent intelligence, from the infernal fiend. We behold a rational being, scornfully throwing aside arms tempered by the omnipotence of truth for the protection of innocence and the punishment of guilt, and assuming the brittle armour and perishable weapons of force and falsehood. We behold the "incorruptible piling on corruption, the immortal putting on mortality."
But it has been urged that an insult produces sensations which a man of honour is unable to endure. The immortal Junius has said "that a man of honour is degraded by an insult and can only recover his level by revenge." surely if the word insult has any meaning, this argument is an insult to common sense. Is reason to be regarded, as a stumbling block! an encumbrance! a nuisance in our nature? or is it not the province of reason, to control our passions, regulate our feelings and govern our actions? Might not the votaries of avarice, ambition, jealousy, or revenge, with equal propriety plead the uncontrollable impulse of their feelings, in justification of their enormities? Your feelings are wounded: is there any thing in gunpowder to balsamic, in the force of a bullet to emollient, in the point of a sword to efficacious, as to cicatrize and heal these futile but agonizing wounds? Admitting for a moment, that the man, who, under the influence of passion, intoxication or mistake insults his friend or fellowman, deserves instant death. Ought this punishment to be inflicted by his exasperated antagonist? Ought the person insulted to adopt a mode of inflicting the punishment which may expose both parties equally, perhaps the person insulted most imminently, and possibly may involve the innocent with the guilty, in the same horrible catastrophe? But the immortal Junius has said, "a man of honour is degraded by an insult and can only recover his level by revenge." Were this sentiment his only claim to immortality, his fame would be a noxious ephemeron, fugitive and foul as the shocking immorality it sanctions. Here, the eye of the soaring eagle blenched, he stooped from his "height sublime" and drenched his plumes in the "oblivious pool." The mind can only recover its level by revenge. What mind? That of a demon?—Tis a tentement congenial only to the foul of an Indian, brandishing his tomahawk at the breast of his captive, or Tisiphone, vibrating a whip of scorpions over one of the victims of infernal torture. Another writer, scarcely inferior to Junius in cleanness of style, keenness of irony and bitterness of invective, in a professed and elaborate defence of duelling, has expressed a sentiment if possible more odious and offensive. "The fines of beauty ever crown the laurels of the brave, (meaning the duellist) the lovely maid who turns with loathing from the fighting insignificance of the perfumed coward (meaning the man who refuses to fight a duel) runs with rapture to embrace the youthful hero." Arguments are not the weapons to repel this detestable declamation: The check of beauty crimsoned with glowing indignation, her brow contracted with an awful frown, her eyes averted with horror and flashing with magnanimous disdain, her bosom heaving and every feature darkened feature with implacable abhorrence, are the proper answers. Yes, on you, fair daughters of Columbia, it devolves, to overwhelm with flame, those blasphemers of your sex; to chase from your presence, the wretches who with their hands imbrued and reeking in the blood of your lovers, your husbands, your brothers and your fathers, profanely plead your approbation as the incentive, your love as the reward of their enormities. But how, are we asked, can duelling be abolished? The man who tamely submits to dishonourable imputations, who refuses to give or receive a challenge, is branded as a Coward! Lo! here is the potent spell, by which the feudal wizard disolves at pleasure the ties of blood, friendship, humanity and justice. Has philosophy no charm of superior potency? Let us try it by the touchstone of analysis. Courage consists in being able to encounter with readiness & energy, and endure with unshaken firmness, the difficulties, dangers, disappointments and distresses incident to the performance of our personal and social duties. Thus defined, courage is obviously essential to the existence of virtue; without it, there can be neither fortitude nor dignity, nor energy, nor consistency of character. It is not only one of the indispensable constituents of virtue, but sheds an attractive and dazzling lustre over every other. Let it be recollected, however, that courage is a ministerial not a cardinal virtue: It is susceptible of adverse directions, and may be exerted with equal energy in the cause of truth or error, in the production of good or evil. Michael and Mohoc, Timoleon and Caliline, Brutus and Bagehot, may have been equally courageous. Courage is a virtue only, when it is enlisted under the banner of justice; when employed for the purposes of pride, vanity, ambition, resentment & revenge, it becomes the instrument and consummation of the most damning vice. In conformity with the preceding definition of courage, cowardice may be defined the evasion, violation or deflection of a personal or social duty, in consequence of the difficulties, dangers, privations or pains incident to the performance of it.
From these explanations of the terms, courage and cowardice, it follows with irresistible force of evidence, that the man who fights a duel, who gives or accepts a challenge, not from a clear conviction of the propriety of duelling, but from a servile dread of the contempt which the refusal to fight may excite in the minds of prejudiced persons, is in the most odious and emphatic sense of the term he most dreads, a dastardly and a coward. Whilst he is meditating his detestable purpose, conscience, in still, small, but terrifying accents, ever and anon whispers, Coward! and when the deed is done, burning on his affrighted soul, in all the majesty of offended justice, in a tone more awful "than the thunder's deep and dreadful organ-pipe," cries coward. To sacrifice our own existence, or that of our neighbour, in obedience to the suggestions of refinement; or, at the beck of a barbarous custom, on which reason and justice
command us to trample, exhibits the ferocity of a tiger, the phrensy of a maniac, or the rancour of a fiend—not the courage of a man and the energy of a hero.
If a man were to throw himself from a precipice; thrust his right hand into a furnace; or dislocate his limbs upon the wheel, merely to prove that he could brave death, and endure torture with unshaken constancy, the madness of his proceeding would be palpable to every mind.—Yet the man who fights a duel, who gives or accepts a challenge merely to evince his insensibility to the fear of pain and death, or because he wants courage to encounter the frown of prejudice and the curse of folly, exhibits a more extravagant insanity. The principal difference between the imaginary and the real enormity is, that the madness of the former proceeding would, on account of its novelty, be discernible to every eye, whereas that of the latter, altho' even more extravagant, would be concealed under the veil of general delusion. The madness would, in the imaginary instance, be palpable, because the malady would be confined to one individual; in the case of duelling it would be overlooked, because the duellist is surrounded by persons no less insane than himself.
O! 'tis a fearful spectacle to see So many maniacs dancing in their chains; Gazing upon the links, that hold them fast, With eyes of anguish; execrate their lot, Then shake them in despair and dance again.
In every other light in which the case can be placed and compared, the conduct of the duellist is more frightfully immoral and extensively injurious. In the first case, only one individual could be tortured or destroyed; in the second, both may fall by each others hands.—In the first case, the victim must be so deplorably destitute of reason as to render the extinction of his existence desirable; in the second, the persons who may be endowed with the most admirable qualities, and connected by generous and endearing ties, with the most accomplished of their countrymen and contemporaries. The proceeding in the first instance, far from being imitated by others, would excite universal reprobation and horror; in the second, the inveteracy of the prejudice in favour of duelling combines with the personal respectability of the duellist, to perpetuate the practice.
To eradicate the prejudices from which this barbarous practice derives its origin, is the province of philosophy, eloquence and moral energy. To expel duelling from civilized society & substitute a more rational method of deciding the quarrels that arise betwixt men of delicate and irritable feelings, is the more difficult and dazzling duty of the distinguished few, who combine the discernment that can unmask an inveterate but venerable abuse, and the philanthropy that would prompt them to employ their best efforts to effect its abolition, with the personal energy and respectability, that will enable them to encounter it with success, shield their motives from general misconstruction, and render the example they exhibit an object of imitation. The ignorant must fight duels in blind obedience to the tyranny of custom, the timid to quiet their intolerable and humiliating sensations, the vain and frivolous to obtain the applause, or avert the contempt of the giddy multitude; the vindictive, from the uncontrollable fury of the demon that possesses them: Even the enlightened, the generous and the brave, must fight duels, unless they possess sufficient energy to exhibit unequivocal evidence of the dignity of their motives, and a sufficient share of personal respectability, to frown into silence the prejudice, which a departure from established custom never fails to excite. Let it be recollected, that this ignominious and modern custom, was originally established by the example of influential individuals, its abolition can be effected only by the heroic efforts of enlightened and accomplished men. G.
THE YAZOO PAPERS.
[CONTINUED.]
JOHN SHEPPERD, Esq. a member of the last legislature at Augusta, being duly sworn, saith, that just before the bill, for the disposal of the western lands, came before the house at the last session, he had frequent conversations with William Longstreet, Esq. another member of the legislature, who recommended to the deponent strongly to be in favor of selling the lands, and if he would, he should come in for shares to the amount of one hundred thousand acres. The deponent said he did not think it right to sell the lands, but the said Longstreet told him if he would, he might make a fortune for himself and family forever, or words to that effect. The deponent said it would be injurious to the community, and it would be displeasing to our constituents to dispose of their rights. The said Longstreet then said it was no matter, that the deponent nor himself need not care, provided they could get the land, whether they ever came there again, or words to that effect. That the deponent had a conversation with Philip Clayton, at the state house, about the 20th of December, 1793, concerning the lands, when the said Clayton urged him, the deponent, to go home; that the same evening, the said Clayton called the deponent into his office, and told the deponent, that provided, that he would give him, the said Clayton, an order on the speaker for his warrant, which he said, by his calculation was twenty-eight pounds, and go home immediately and return no more, that he would give the deponent, seventy pounds.—The deponent answered, that he had business up town, and returned to him no more that night;—a few evenings afterwards, the said Clayton told the deponent he need not be angry with him, for that it was at the request of general Gunn, and he would pay the expense. (Signed) JOHN SHEPPERD. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
DAVID GLEN, sworn, saith, that he went down to Augusta during the last session of the legislature, whilst the act for the sale of the western lands was under the deliberation of the general assembly, that he put up with Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Shepperd, two members of the general assembly, at Mr. M'Teer's in Augusta; that he frequently talked with Mr. Wilkinson on that subject, and advised him not to agree to sell it, for it would hurt his popularity; that the said Wilkinson said it would not, for that he thought it was best. That after the deponent found the land would be sold, he was desirous to get part of it, and applied to Mr. Cox, one of the trustees in one company, to know if he could get part; that Mr. Cox told the deponent he could not, for that all the shares were taken up; that he then applied to the said Keuben Wilkinson to know if he could get him a part, which he would and did let the deponent have a share, which was in the name of the said Keuben Wilkinson, and was for about twenty-seven thousand acres or thereabout, subject to a deduction. The deponent further saith, that he frequently heard Reuben Wilkinson say, after the legislature rose, that he should make a great deal of money by that measure; that during the sitting of the legislature Mr. Longstreet frequently urged the deponent to try to prevail on Mr. Shepperd, another member, to go home—the deponent said he could not influence Mr. Shepperd: the deponent understood and believed that the said Longstreet wished to get Mr. Shepperd to go home, to prevent him voting against the sale of the lands; that he likewise had a conversation with Mr. Wilkinson, who also urged the deponent if Shepperd would not go home. The deponent answered he did not know. When Wilkinson replied by God, I wish he would. The deponent further saith, that before the adjourning rose, and before the governor signed the bill,
he the said Wilkinson showed the deponent two written certificates, for four shares each, or for a certain number of acres, the deponent does not precisely recollect, which said certificates did not mention that any sum was to be paid for them. They were signed by Nathaniel Pendleton, chairman. He believes that afterwards the said Wilkinson showed the deponent two printed certificates from the Tennessee company, one from the Georgia company, for fifty-six thousand acres, signed by James Gunn, Matthew McAllister and George Walker, he believes, and two printed certificates from the Georgia Mississippi company; that the said Wilkinson informed the deponent the first two written certificates had been given up, and that he had received the last two printed ones in lieu thereof. (Signed) DAVID GLEN. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
ROBERT FLOURNOY, Esq. being duly sworn, saith, that at the last session of the legislature before the last, he made an acquaintance with judge Pendleton; that the said judge Pendleton contemplated and made proposals to the legislature to purchase a part of the vacant territory; that he then offered the deponent a share, provided the business succeeded—that not being the case, the deponent attended at the last session, when that subject came on the carpet again. That when William Longstreet called on the deponent one morning, at his lodgings, and informed him that he, the deponent, was set down for a share of 75,000 acres, in the Georgia company; that the deponent was informed that he was set down by the influence of general Gunn: the deponent further saith, that the meetings of the Georgia Mississippi company were held at the deponent's quarters; that he was present at some of their meetings, and during the passage of the act for the disposal of the western lands, he thinks general Gunn sent for the deponent, and asked him if he was intimate with Henry Mitchell, Esquire, a senator from the county of Warren. The deponent answered he was. Gen. Gunn then requested the deponent to go to him the said Mitchell, and propose to him to take a share of 75,000 acres of the lands, on the same terms of the other purchasers, and at the same time to urge him to vote for selling the land: the said Gunn mentioned that captain Rabbs had a share of 56,000 acres or thereabouts, who was a brother-in-law to Mr. Mitchell, but that Mr. Mitchell should have a share exclusive of that. The deponent did make such a proposal, which Mr. Mitchell refused. The deponent further saith, that the said general Gunn requested him at some time during that session, and before the bill for selling the land was passed, to go to Roberts Thomas, a member of the senate, from Hancock county, and know if he was earnest in the business, for that he was afraid he did not intend to be uniform, for he was afraid the fellow was frightened, or words of that nature; that the deponent did call on Mr. Thomas for that purpose, who told him that he meant to be uniform. The deponent, after the rising of the legislature, saw the said Thomas in the streets of Augusta, when the said Thomas made this observation—"They blame me for speculation: now I will speculate: Flournoy, you have been speculating all your life and I will make more money in 2 years than you have made in your whole life." The deponent replied, I believe you have made more in two months, or less time. (Signed) R. FLOURNOY. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
ROBERT FLOURNOY, Esq. further saith, that Roberts Thomas, Esq. in a conversation on the subject before the meeting of the last legislature, told the deponent he should be in a favor of a sale, as he thought it would be an advantage to the state, if it came forward in a favourable shape. The deponent further saith, that General Gunn likewise told the deponent, during the sitting of the legislature, that no member of the legislature should or could expect to have a share if he did not vote for the bill. (Signed) R. FLOURNOY. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
JAMES SIMMS, Esq. one of the representatives from the county of Columbia, being duly sworn, saith that he had frequent conversations with Roberts Thomas, Esq. a member of the senate of this state, at the last session of the legislature at Augusta; that the deponent did frequently, during that session, and whilst the act for the disposal of the western territory was in agitation, advise the said Roberts Thomas not to vote for the sale of the lands, that the said Thomas said there was an opportunity of making something very clever, and if he did vote for it, he would—the deponent told the said Roberts Thomas, that the purchasers would deceive him, and after he had voted in favor of it he would get nothing; to which the said Roberts Thomas replied, he would take care to make himself secure before he gave his vote. The deponent further saith, that during the last session of the legislature, whilst the said bill for the disposal of the western lands was on the carpet, general Gunn called on the deponent, and told him that he was fearful the bill would be lost. Luke Mann, a member of the senate, as the deponent understood that day, voted against the bill; Gunn then said, Simms I suppose from what I have heard, you are a poor man, and you now have an opportunity of making something handsome for yourself and family, if you will prevail on Mann to vote for the bill I will give you 50,000 acres of land. The deponent further saith, that the said Gunn told the deponent he would give the same, if he would get Mr. Wood, a senator, to vote for it, or any other member of the senate; that he was in company with Mr. John King, and Mr. Samuel Wright, two members of the same senate, at their quarters in Augusta—that a conversation arose about the sale of the western lands; the deponent expressing himself opposed to that measure, the said John King and Samuel Wright told the deponent he ought not to oppose it: for he might make something clever, if he would come into the measure, or words of that nature. (Signed) JAMES SIMMS. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
BURRALL POPE, Esq. one of the members of the last and present senate of this state, being duly sworn, saith, that being a member of the senate at the last session of legislature, he lodged at Mr. Herbert's, in Augusta, with Mr. Harrison Mugrove, then a member of the house of representatives, from the said county—that one evening, whilst the bill for the disposal of the western territory was in its passage, the said Mugrove told the deponent he had found out more than ever he knew before, that he had discovered there were two shares in Cuming's company reserved for himself and every member that would take them; the deponent further saith, that at another time said Mugrove said to the deponent: friend Pope, I am authorized to tell you that you can have one hundred guineas for your part, to which the deponent answered he had no part; that another time the said Mugrove further told the deponent, he might get 500 silver dollars. (Signed) BURRALL POPE.
HENRY G. CALDWELL, Esq. being duly sworn, saith that, during the sitting of the last convention at Louisville, the deponent had a conversation with general Gunn, when the said Gunn asked the deponent who was to be governor next year—the deponent said he heard judge Smith mentioned, the said Gunn shook his head and said it would not do, that Smith had been ungrateful to his poor relations, for that he had made a great deal of money by the speculation and had not been generous to them—the deponent asked the said general Gunn how much judge Smith had made by that business, general Gunn answered thirteen thousand dollars. The deponent then asked the said Gunn if the said Smith had a share in the lands, to which general Gunn gave no direct answer, but said he had engaged to give judge Smith thirteen thousand dollars for his influence in passing the law for disposal of the lands; that if the law passed and that in consequence he had given him a draught for the money, and he either had received or would receive it. (Signed) HENRY G. CALDWELL.
DAVID B. MITCHELL, a member of the last as well as the present legislature of the said state, being duly sworn, maketh oath and saith, that on his return from Augusta, after the sitting of the legislature, he rode in company with Thomas Wyly, Esquire, a member of the senate of that legislature from the county of Wilkinson, when a conversation took place between this deponent and the said Thomas Wyly, on the subject of the sale of the western territory of this state which took place during that session, when the said Thomas Wyly told this deponent, that he, the said Wyly, had sold a share which he held in one of the companies who had purchased the said territory, to one Wilson, a merchant in Augusta, for which he had put a negro fellow, named Dublin, which was either in full or in part for the said share, but this deponent believes the negro was only in part, for the said Wyly also informed this deponent that he had some money besides, which was paid him on account of said share, and further that the said negro Dublin was then riding behind the carriage in which the said Wyly and this deponent were; and this deponent further saith, that at the same time the said Wyly told this deponent, that he would make eight or ten negroes by the shares he held in the different companies who purchased the said territory; that this deponent then observed to the said Wyly that he had not made as much as some others of the senate had, when the said Wyly observed that he had engaged too soon, that he was not so lucky as some of them who had held off until the last. (Signed) D. B. MITCHELL. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
HENRY MITCHELL, Esq. senator from the county of Warren, in the last and present general assembly, being duly sworn, saith, that during the sitting of the last legislature at Augusta, the deponent was sent for by Mr. Cuming, one of the grantees of the Georgia Mississippi company, to his house, where in a conversation about the sale of the western territory, the said Mr. Cuming asked the deponent his opinion as to the propriety of such sale; the deponent answered it was a subject that would come before him in the senate, and consequently he did not think proper to form his opinion before it did come forward; that the said Mr. Cuming further told the deponent that provided he thought it right to sell the lands, that he should not be precluded from having a share, although a member, for that the companies had made provision for shares for all the members, provided they thought fit to take them. (Signed) HENRY MITCHELL. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
JAMES MANELL, Esq. a member of the representative branch of the last legislature, and now a member of senate, being duly sworn, saith that in a short space of time after the adjournment of the last legislature, he was in the town of Augusta, in company with Andrew Innes, who told him that he was one of the associates contemplated in an act passed by the aforesaid session, for disposing of a part of the western territory of this state, that the purchasers and their associates were reduced to the necessity of passing a credit in favor of Roberts Thomas, then senator of Hancock county as an associate, for the full amount of eight clear shares of land, without his paying one shilling for the same; whereby they did procure the vote and interest of him the said Thomas, in passing the aforesaid act. That after the legislature adjourned, the said Roberts was alarmed and did propose to sell or let his eight shares as aforesaid, revert to the grantees and their associates, for a sum not less than three, nor more than five thousand dollars; which proposal was acceded to, and that he, as one of the associates, was called in for his proportionate part of the aforesaid sum, which he did pay; whereby the claim of the aforesaid Roberts was thereby extinguished for and in the behalf of the grantees and their associates, or words to that effect. (Signed) JAS. MANELL. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
JOHN THOMAS being duly sworn, saith, that his late brother, Roberts Thomas, a member of the senate at the last legislature, told the deponent that the companies who purchased the western lands had complimented the said Roberts Thomas with something, either a share or shares, or something of that kind, that he does not suppose that his late brother could have had the sum of 9,000 dollars in cash before the meeting of the legislature, nor had he sold any part of his property about that time as the deponent knew of: the deponent further saith, that his late brother was possessed of a note of hand for nine hundred dollars given by Jacob Walbarger, to which the name of A. Jones is signed as a witness; that he does not know that his brother sold Mr. Walbarger any property. The deponent further saith, that after his brother was wounded, he told the deponent he had voted for the sale of the lands, and thought he had done right, and was it to do again he should do the same; and that the deponent does not believe that the companies gave the said Roberts Thomas any monies, and that if he had a large sum of money, he must have got it by the sale of the lands or shares which the companies had given him as he supposes. (Signed) JOHN THOMAS, Jun. Sworn to, as aforesaid.
JAMES LUCAS being duly sworn, saith, that some time after the breaking up of the last legislature, when Roberts Thomas, Esq. as a member of senate in that legislature had returned to Hancock county, that this deponent heard that the said Roberts Thomas was either selling, or about to sell off all his property, and to remove; that this deponent then went, with some of his neighbors, to the house of said Thomas, and had some conversation with him on the sale of the western territory, when the said Roberts Thomas informed this deponent that he was, and had always been in favor of the sale of said territory, and that the companies who had purchased the same had let him have a share or two in the said lands; and this deponent further saith, that on the day of election for members to congress, the deponent saw a Mr. Walbarger at the election for Hancock county, who informed the deponent that he had purchased a share of the said lands from the said Roberts Thomas, and that he had given his note of hand for the same for nine hundred dollars, which share he, the said Walbarger, had afterwards sold, by which he had made a profit of 125 dollars; and this deponent further saith, that on or about the day on which the last legislature adjourned, he was in Augusta, and that Jno. King, Esq. a member of the senate, carried the deponent to the house of Mr. Thomas Cuming, and there spoke, as he believes, to one of the grantees of the Georgia Mississippi company, to let the deponent have a share in said company, that the deponent did, in consequence thereof, receive a certificate for one share, for which he paid one hundred dollars; and further, that some time in the beginning of August last, this deponent being in Augusta, saw Mr. Reuben Wilkinson, a member of the last legislature there, who informed the deponent that he had a share in the Tennessee company, and that he had but a few minutes before paid the balance of the purchase money therefor. (Signed) JAMES LUCAS. Sworn to, as aforesaid. (To be continued.)
BLANKS. The following Blanks, printed on a handsome Script Type, may be had at the office of the Enquirer. D. C. BANK Checks, (plain) - pr. quire 1 ditto ditto. (ruled) - 1 25 Negotiable Notes, - - 1 Ditto on fine paper, - - 1 25 Foreign Bills of Exchange, - - 1 50 Bill of Lading, - - 1 County Court Clerks' Blanks, - - 50 Sheriff's ditto. - - 50 Constable's Warrants, - - 50 PRINTING generally executed in an elegant style, and on the shortest notice.