The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1807-09-19 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE...AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM... (PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)
VOLUME 4.]
RICHMOND, SATURDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER 19, 1807.
[NUMBER 38.]
NOTICE.
TO SUBSCRIBERS. NO BANK NOTES, except of Virginia, will, hereafter, be received in payment at the Office of the Enquirer. The practice of transmitting other Notes, not current among us, has become so general, that this measure is deemed indispensably necessary.
TO ADVERTISERS. NO ADVERTISEMENTS will, in future, appear in the Enquirer, except they are previously paid for, or the payment guaranteed by some responsible person, residing in Richmond or Manchester. The price of advertising 20 lines, or less, in print, is 4/6 for the first insertion, and 9/ for every insertion thereafter. There will be no exceptions to this Rule. September 12.
AT CITY POINT FOR ROTTERDAM. The good fast sailing copper-bottomed Ship, RUSSELL. Capt. TAYLER. Now on her second voyage, is in complete order for the reception of a cargo, and having a large proportion of the fame engaged, will be despatched in all the present month—for terms of freight apply to Richard Blow, Esq. Portmouth, R. & A. Pollok & Co. Richmond, or E. BUCHANAN & POLLOK, Petersburg, Sept. 9. epif.
WILLIAM HART, OPPOSITE THE SCALE-HOUSE, —HAS JUST RECEIVED,— 5000 wt. Salt Pickled Bacon, 5000 wt. Copperas, 30 Boxes Liverpool Pipes, 30 Barrels Shad, 5000 wt. Salt Pickled Bacon, Green Coffee, Brown Sugar in barrels, Loaf Sugar, Nutmegs and other Spices, Scotch Barley, London Maltard, &c. Hibernia London Brown Stout. Also: Philadelphia Porter, bottled by himself, Flour, Salt, Molasses, Queens Ware, with a variety of other articles. All of which he will sell at the lowest ready money prices, or exchange for country produce. July 14. if.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD. DESERTEED from my recruiting rendezvous, in this city, on the 12th of the present month, PETER E. BUTLER, who was duly enlisted on the 10th, as a private, in the army of the United States. He was born (according to his own account) in Dinwiddie county, Virginia; aged 24 years. He is 5 feet 9 3/4 inches high, brown hair, blueish eyes, fair complexion, and he seems to be very knowing and inquisitive. I am lately informed, that "he was on board the Chesapeake Frigate when attacked by the British pirate, where he bore the name of James Epper, and in consequence of a slight wound, he was sent to the hospital in Norfolk, from whence he came to this place." The above reward with reasonable expenses will be paid on the delivery of the said deserter at this place or to any officer of the Army of the U.S. EDMUND P. GAINES, Captain 2d U.S. Infantry. Richmond, August 25. if.
By virtue of a deed of trust, executed to me by Mr. James Poindexter, for the purpose of securing the payment of a certain sum of money, therein mentioned—I shall, on Thursday, the first day of October next, between the hours of one and four o'clock, proceed to sell, at the dwelling-house of the late James Poindexter, in Albemarle county, to the highest bidder, for ready money, the following Negroes, to wit: CELEA, Hance, Lewis, Martin, Rachael, Davy, Patrick and Dick; or so many of them as will answer the aforesaid purpose and expenses of sale.—I shall convey only such title as I hold as trustee. THOMAS DIVERS. Sept. 5. 1aw4w9
FOR SALE, A VALUABLE TRACT of Land, in Hanover county, containing 307 acres, lying on Chickahominy Swamp, about one mile below Mr. James Mann, living on the main road, that leads from Richmond to Col. Goudal's, and within 14 miles of the city of Richmond. The Land is well watered, and has some very valuable meadow ground; part of which is reclaimed. There is on the Land, a good framed dwelling house, containing four rooms below and two above, with two brick chimneys; a large barn and other convenient out-houses. There are on the plantation two good orchards, of a variety of choice fruit trees. A further description is deemed unnecessary, as it is presumed any person inclined to purchase, will choose to view the premises. I will sell it on a credit of 1, 2 and 3 years, on the payments being first and yearly secured; or I will take the greater part in young negroes or western Lands, if I like them. Any person wishing to purchase will apply to Mr. John Winn, adjoining the premises, or to the publisher. THOMAS WINN, jun. N. B. The title is indisputable. August 25, 1aw4w9
The Enquirer.
RICHMOND, 19th SEPTEMBER.
TRIAL OF AARON BURR, ON THE INDICTMENT FOR A MISDEMEANOR.
THE UNITED STATES, } On a MISDEMEANOR. vs. } AARON BURR, } (Concluded.)
All testimony which serves to show the expediency to have been military in its character, as far as relates to the arms and provisions procured, no matter by whom purchased, their conduct, no matter by whom directed or who was present, all legal testimony which serves to show the object of the expedition, as would be their actually marching against Mexico, any public declarations made among themselves, any agreement entered into by them for such an expedition, or any similar acts would be received to show the object of the expedition. In the trials of Smith and Ogden they were received. Whether the particular acts of the accused on which his guilt or innocence depend, proceed from this species of testimony or may be proceeded by it, is a question which merely respects the order of evidence. There can be no doubt but that at some stage of the prosecution either before or after the particular part performed by the accused has been shown, the character and object of the expedition may be shown, and that by any legal testimony calculated to develop that character and object. Whether this testimony is admissible before the proof which particular-
ly applies to the part performed by the accused, or ought to be introduced by first proving that part, is a question which is not made in this case and which was not made in the case of Smith and Ogden. In that case it was certainly entirely unimportant, and it is probably not less so in this.
It has been also contended that the acts no more than the declarations of third persons can be given in evidence on this indictment. It has been already said that those acts of equipment which go to show the character of the expedition may be given in evidence. If for example, Blennerhassett, Tyler, Smith or any other persons provided arms, ammunition or provisions which were applied to the armament, this would be evidence because it would show the character of the expedition. This was done in the case of Smith and Ogden without enquiring who provided the arms for they belonged to the expedition. Capt. Lewis for instance, purchased several military equipments. It was not deemed necessary to show that Smith was connected with Lewis, for these purchases were made for the expedition, and Smith was not charged with providing them. He was charged with providing other means; and the means provided by Lewis served to show the character of the expedition. But although the acts of all persons providing means applied to the expedition may be given in evidence upon the same principle that the acts of the expedition may be shown, it does not follow that other acts of third persons may be given in evidence. It has also been contended that no transactions out of the district are testimony. This position is correct to a considerable extent, but not to that extent in which it is laid down. A declaration of Mr. Burr for example, made in Kentucky or elsewhere, where he did set on foot a military expedition on Blennerhassett's island to be carried on against the dominions of the King of Spain while the United States were at peace with that power, would I think be evidence, so would the actual marching of the troops proved to be raised by him against the province of Mexico. Testimony which goes directly to prove the indictment, may I think be drawn from any place.
But I do not understand this to be the point really in contest. I understand the counsel of the United States to insist that providing means in Kentucky, that enlisting men in Kentucky, that joining the expedition in Kentucky may be given in evidence to show that the accused did begin and set on foot the expedition on Blennerhassett's island, or did provide the means at that place as charged in the indictment. This I understand to be the great question which divides the prosecution and defence. It is I believe a general rule that in criminal prosecutions, a distinct crime for which a prosecution may be instituted cannot be given in evidence in order to render it more probable that the particular crime charged in the indictment was committed—if gentlemen think me wrong in this I will certainly bear them upon the point, but I believe the position to be correct. Now providing the means for a military expedition in Kentucky to be carried on against the dominions of a prince with whom the United States are at peace, is certainly in itself a distinct offence upon which an indictment may be as well supported as it can be for providing means for the same or a similar expedition in Virginia. According to the rule laid down then, this testimony cannot be received unless it goes to prove directly the charges contained in the indictment. But how can it go directly to prove those charges? Does it follow that the man who has provided the means in Kentucky has also provided the means in Virginia? Certainly it does not follow; and consequently the acts alleged in Kentucky do not prove the charges contained in the indictment. They would prove the defendant to have been connected in the enterprise, and gentlemen argue as if they thought this sufficient for their purpose. I shall be excused if I employ a few moments in stating my reasons for thinking it not sufficient. I have already said, and surely no man will deny, that two distinct persons may at different places form a different conspiracy for the same enterprise. It will I presume not be contended that one of them may be indicted for the means provided by the other. So too, if the same man shall provide means for the same enterprise at different places, as in Virginia and Kentucky, I do not imagine that an indictment for providing arms in Virginia, could be supported by proving that he provided ammunition in Kentucky. They are distinct offences for either of which he may be punished, and the commission of the one may render more probable, but does not prove the commission of the other.
How then do gentlemen mean to make this testimony relevant? It is by making the acts of Blennerhassett, Tyler and Smith the acts of Burr, by inferring that their acts show an unlawful expedition to have been begun by him in Virginia, or that the means for that expedition were provided by him in Virginia. This being accomplished, his acts in Kentucky may be added to corroborate or confirm the testimony which discloses his conduct in Virginia. As preliminary then to this testimony such proof of the specific charges contained in the indictment must be given, as may be left to the consideration of the jury. This proof relates to place as well as to fact. "Of whatsoever nature an offence indicted may be," says Hawkins B. 2. ch. 25. sec. 55. "whether local or transitory, as felonious words or battery, &c. it seems to be agreed that if upon not guilty pleaded it shall appear that it was committed in a county different from that in which the indictment was found, the defendant shall be acquitted."
This rule is the stronger in the United States where it is affirmed by the constitution itself, and where the jurisdiction of the court is limited to offences within the district. Its obligation therefore is complete. If there be any direct testimony that an expedition was begun, or set on foot, or that the means were provided or prepared in Virginia, that testimony has not yet been heard to far as I recollect. If there be such testimony it must also be shown that the expedition was begun or that the means were prepared by the accused. No single act of his in Virginia has been offered in evidence. He made a contract in the state of Ohio for boats and provisions which may have been intended as a part of the expedition, but no contract appears to have been made in Virginia, nor were the boats constructed or provisions procured in Virginia. How then is it to appear that he began or set on foot a military expedition in Virginia, or that he provided or prepared the means for such an expedition? It is said that if he gave orders from Kentucky or elsewhere, and in consequence of those orders the means were provided in Virginia, the accused is within the letter of the act as well as its spirit, and has himself provided the means in Virginia. If these orders were in proof, the court as well as the counsel would be enabled to view the subject with more accuracy and to treat it with more precision. Since those orders are not adduced, nor accurately stated, and the question has been argued without them, the court must decline giving any opinion, or consider the orders as offered, and say what orders would be admissible and what inadmissible. The latter course may save the bar the trouble of another argument. To whom are orders supposed to have been given, and who are supposed to have executed them? They must have been given to accomplices or to those who had no share in the expedition.
If accomplices, under the direction of Col. Burr, have provided the means, can their liability to the penalties of the law be doubted? I presume not. If persons engaged in the expedition have provided the means for carrying it on, it will, I presume, be admitted that they are within the letter and the spirit of the act. Each man has himself provided and prepared those particular means which he has furnished. If Col. Burr, as was the case with Col. Smith, has supplied money for the expedition, then money may be charged as the means provided by him; but if that money was advanced to an accomplice his investment in means for the expedition is the act of the accomplice, for which being a free agent, he is himself responsible. The accomplice has committed the very act which the law furnishes. Has the accused by fuggling or procuring that act, also committed it? I will not say how far the rule that penal laws must be construed strictly may be carried without incurring the censure of disregarding the sense of the Legislature. It may however be safely affirmed that the offence must come clearly within the description of the law according to the common understanding of the terms employed, or it is not punishable under the law. Now to do an act, or to advise or procure an act, or to be connected or leagued with one who does that act, are not the same in either law, language or in common parlance; and if they are not the same, a penalty affixed to the one is not necessarily affixed to the other. The penalty affixed to the act of providing the means for a military expedition is not affixed to the act of advising or procuring those means to be provided, or of being associated with the man who has provided them. The distinction made by the law between these persons is well settled and has been too frequently urged to require further explanation. The one is principal the other an accessory. In all misdemeanors punishable only by a statute which describes as the sole offender the person who commits the prohibited act, the one is within the other not within the statute. In passing the act under consideration, Congress obviously contemplated this distinction. I presume that in a prosecution under the 3d section for fitting out a privateer it would not be alleged that a person who was concerned with the men who actually fitted out the privateer, but who performed no act himself, could be convicted on an indictment not for being concerned in fitting out the privateer but for actually fitting her out. These are stated in that section as separate offences.
This distinction taken in the law is well understood and cannot be considered as overlooked by those who frame penal acts. They cannot be considered as intended to describe one offender when they describe another, and if experience suggests defects in the penal code, the legislature exclusively judges how far those defects are to be remedied. While expanding the terms of the act it may not be improper to notice an argument advanced by the Attorney for the United States which was flopped by my observing that he had not correctly understood the opinion delivered in the case of Treason. He understood that opinion as approving the doctrine laid down by Keeling and Hale that an accessory before the fact might plead in bar of an indictment as accessory that he had been acquitted as principal, whence it was inferred that on an indictment for doing an act, evidence of advising or procuring that act might be received. On a contrary very far from approving this doctrine. I had certainly I declared it to contradict every idea I had ever formed on the subject. But if it were correct I endeavored to show that it could not affect that case. My disappointment of the doctrine induced me to look further into it, and my persuasion that it is not law, is confirmed. Hale v. 2. p. 292 says "if A and B be indicted of the murder of C, upon their evidence it appears that A committed the fact and B was not present but was accessory before the fact by commanding it, B shall be discharged."
In H. 2. ch. 25. sec. 11. Hawkins discusses this subject, shows in a note the contradiction in those authorities which maintain the doctrine, cites the opposing authorities, and obviously approves the opinion which is here given. It is apparent then, that the law never considers the commission and the procurement of an act, even where both are criminal, as the same act. I cannot therefore consider means provided by those who are his accomplices in the expedition as means provided by Col. Burr. If the means were provided by order of the accused, by persons not accomplices and not guilty under the act, the law may be otherwise. I shall not exclude such testimony. There is however some doubt whether the place of trial should be where the orders were given or where they were executed. At common law, if an act was procured or advised at one place and executed at another, it was doubtful whether the procurer could be tried at either place because the offence was not complete at either. This difficulty was removed by a statute made in the reign of Edward 6th. If there be testimony showing by orders from the accused, means were provided in Virginia by a person not an accomplice, it may be received, and the question respecting the scene of trial put in a way for final decision.
The question whether all the means must be provided before the offence described in the statute has been committed relates to the effect rather than to the exclusion of the testimony. I shall certainly not reject any evidence which shows that any means were provided by the accused in the place charged in the indictment. Upon the subject of beginning and setting on foot a military expedition or enterprise it would be unnecessary at this time to say anything were it not on account of the question respecting the introduction of testimony out of the district. What is an expedition? What is an enterprise? An expedition, if we consult Johnson's "a march or a voyage with martial intentions." In this sense, it does not mean the body which marches, but the march itself. The term is however sometimes employed to designate the armament itself, as well as the movement of that armament. An enterprise is "an undertaking of hazard, an arduous attempt." The proper meaning then of this word also describes the general undertaking and not the armament with which that undertaking is to be accomplished. The first count in the indictment charges that Burr began the expedition in Blennerhassett's island. The 2nd and 3rd that he set on foot the enterprise in Blennerhassett's island. If the term expedition is to be taken in its common and dire sense, that is to mean a march or a voyage with martial intentions, it began where that march or voyage began; and it must have been begun by the accused to bring him within the act. If the term be taken in its figurative sense to designate the armament itself instead of the movement of that armament, then I cannot readily conceive an act which begins an expedition, unless the same act may also be said to provide the means of an expedition. The formation of the plan in the mind is not the commencement of the expedition within the act. Our laws punish no mental crimes nor brought into open deed. The disclosure of that plan does not begin it. If it did the first disclosure would be the beginning. I find a difficulty in conceiving any act which amounts to beginning an expedition which does not also amount to providing the means for an expedition. However if there can be such an act, and if it has been committed in Virginia, it may certainly be given in evidence. The same observations apply to setting on foot an enterprise.
These remarks are made to show what it will be necessary to prove in order to let in corroborative proof. It is then the opinion of the court of the court that the declarations of third persons not forming a part of the transaction and not made in the presence of the accused cannot be received in evidence in this case. That the acts of accomplices, except so far as they prove the character or object of the expedition, cannot be given in evidence. That the acts of the accused in a different district which constitute in themselves substantive causes for a prosecution cannot be given in evidence unless they go directly to prove the charges laid in the indictment. That any legal testimony which shows the expedition to be military or to have been designed against the dominions of Spain may be received. That any testimony showing that the accused performed within the district any one of the acts charged in the indictment may be received. Gentlemen will know how to apply these principles. Should any difficulty occur in applying them, the particular case will be brought before the court and decided.
TRIAL OF AARON BURR. SKETCH of the celebrated ARGUMENT held, on the propositions submitted to the Court respecting the charge of Treason.
[CONTINUED] MR. WIRT.
It is my duty to proceed on the part of the U. States in opposing this motion. But I should not deem it my duty to proceed, if I thought the motion itself well founded. I stand here with the same independence which belongs to the attorney of the U. S. and as he would certainly relinquish the prosecution the moment he became convinced of its injustice, so also, must certainly would I:—The humanity and justice of this nation would revolt at the idea of a prosecution pushed on against a life which stood protected by the laws; but whether they would or not, before I would, plant a thorn in my own heart to rankle there for life, by opening my lips, uncontentiously in such a case, I would feel them up forever. Believing, however, as I do, that this motion is a mere manoeuvre to obstruct the enquiry, to wrest the trial of the facts from the proper tribunal, the jury, and embarrass the court with a responsibility which it ought not to feel, I hold it my duty to proceed—for the sake of the court, for the sake of vindicating the trial by jury, now sought to be violated, for the sake of full and ample justice in this particular case, for the sake of the future peace, union and independence of these states, I hold it my bounden duty to proceed.
And whilst I do, let me request the prisoner and his counsel to consider the difficulty of cloathing my argument in terms which may be congenial with their feelings. The gentlemen appear to me to feel a very extraordinary and unreasonable degree of sensibility on this occasion. They seem to forget the nature of the charge and that we are the prosecution. We do not stand here to pronounce a panegyric on the prisoner, but to urge home upon him the charge of treason against the U. S. S. Treason is the charge; when we speak of treason we must call it treason; when we speak of a traitor, we must call him a traitor; when we speak of a plot to dismember the union, to undermine the liberties of a great portion of the people of this country, and subject them to an usurper and a despot, we are obliged to use the terms which convey these ideas. Why, then, are gentlemen so sensitive? Why, on these occasions so necessary and so unavoidable, do they shrink back with as much agony of nerve as if, instead of a hall of justice, we were in a drawing room with Col. B. and were barbarously violating towards him, every principle of decorum and humanity.
We have, indeed, been invited by Mr. Wickham to conduct this argument on abstracted ground; and have been told that it is expected to be so conducted:—but, sir, if this were practicable, would there be no danger in it; would there be no danger while we were mooted points, pursuing ingenious hypotheses, chafing elementary principles over the wide-extended plains and Alpine heights of abstracted law, that we should lose sight of the great question before the court. This may not be the purposes of the counsel for the prisoner; but it does not, therefore, necessarily limit the purposes of truth and justice. It will be proper when we have derived a principle from law or argument, that we should bring it to the case before the court in order to test its application and its practical truth: In doing which we are driven into the nature of the case and must speak of it as we find it. But, besides, the gentlemen have themselves rendered this totally abstracted argument impossible; for one of their positions is, that there is no overt act proven at all. Now, that an overt act consists of fact and intention has been so often repeated here, that it has a fair title to justice, Vaughan's epithet of a decantatum; in speaking then of this overt act, we are compelled to enquire not merely into the fact of the assemblage, but the intention of it; in doing which we must examine and develop the whole project of the prisoner. It is obvious, therefore, that an abstracted examination of this point cannot be made: and since the gentlemen drive us into the examination, they cannot complain if, without any softening of lights or deepening of shades, we exhibit the picture in its true and natural state.
This motion, sir, is a bold and original stroke in the noble science of defence. It shews the hand and genius of a master. For while it gives to the prisoner the full benefit of his legal defence, of the whole and sole defence which he would be able to make to the jury, if the evidence were gone through, it cuts off from the prosecution all that evidence which goes to connect the prisoner with the assemblage on the island, to explain the destination and objects of that assemblage, and to stamp, beyond controversy, the character of treason upon it. Connect this motion with that which was made by the prisoner the other day, to compel us to begin with proof of the overt act, in which from their zeal, gentlemen were equally sanguine, and observe what would have been the effect of success in both motions; we should have been reduced to the single fact, the infatuated fact of the assemblage on the island, without any of that evidence which explains the intention and object of that assemblage; thus gentlemen would have cut off all the evidence which carries up this plot almost to its conception; which at all events, describes the first motion, which quickened it into life, and follows its progress until it attained whole strength and maturity as to throw the whole western country
into consternation: Of the world of evidence which we have, we should have been reduced to the speck, the atom which relates to Blennerhassett's island; General Eaton's published narration, hitherto so much and so unjustly reviled, would have been without the strong corroborative of Commodore Truxton, and the still stronger and most extraordinary coincidence of the Montgoms. Standing alone, gentlemen would have still proceeded to speak of that assemblage as they have heretofore done; not declaring that what General Eaton had sworn, was not the truth, but that it was a most marvellous story! a most wonderful tale! and thus would they have continued to seek in the bold and wild extravagance of the project itself, an argument against its existence, and a refuge from public indignation. But that refuge is taken away. General Eaton's narration stands confirmed beyond the possibility of rational doubt.—But I ask what inference is to be drawn from these repeated attempts to stifle the prosecution and smother the evidence. If the views of the prisoner were, as they have been often represented by one of his counsel, highly honorable to himself and glorious to his country, why not permit the evidence to disclose these views? Accused as he is of high treason, he would certainly stand acquitted, not only in reason & justice, but by the maxims of the most squeamish morality, in shewing us, by evidence all this honor and this glory which his scheme contained—No, sir, it is no squeamish morality; it is no fastidious delicacy that prompts these repeated efforts to keep back the evidence; it is apprehension; it is fear; or rather, it is the certainty that the evidence whenever it shall come forward will fix the charge; and if such shall appear to the court to be the motive of this motion, your honors, I well know, will not be disposed to sacrifice public justice committed to your charge, by aiding this stratagem to elude the sentence of the law; you will yield to the motion no farther than the rigor of legal rules shall imperiously constrain you.
I come now to answer the argument of the gentleman (Mr. Wickham) who spoke first in support of this motion. I will treat the gentleman with candor. I will not follow the example which he has set me on a very recent occasion. I will not complain of flowers and graces, when none exist. I will not, like him, in reply to an argument, as naked as a sleeping Venus, though certainly not half so beautiful, complain of the painful necessity I am under, in the weakness and decrepitude of logical vigor, of lifting up this flounce and then that furbelow before I can reach the wished-for point of attack. I keep no flounces or furbelows ready manufactured and hung up for use, in the military of my fancy—and if I did, I think I should not be so indirectly impatient to get rid of my wares as to put them off on improper occasions. I cannot promise to interest you by any classical and allusions to the pure pages of Tristran Shandy; I cannot give you a quib or a roket in every period; for my own part I have always thought these fishes of wit, (if they deserve even that name;) I have always thought these mecters of the brain which spring up with such exuberant abundance in the speeches of that gentleman, which play on each side of the path of reason or sporting across it with fantastic motion, decay the mind from the real point of enquiry, no better evidence of the soundness of the argument with which they are connected, nor give me leave to add, the vigor of the brain from which they spring, than those vapors which start from our marshes and blaze with a momentary combustion, which, floating on the undulations of the atmosphere, bespice the traveller into hogs and brambles, are evidences of the fens and solidity of the earth from which they proceed. I will endeavor to meet the gentleman's positions fully and to answer them fairly; I will not as I am advancing towards them, measure with my mind's eye, the height, breadth and power of the proposition; if I find it beyond my strength, I have it; if it fill beyond my strength quarter it; if it fill necessary, subdivide it into eighths; and when by this process I have reduced it to the proper standard, take one of these sections and toss it with an air of elephantine strength and superiority. If I find myself capable of conducting, by a fair course of reasoning, any one of his propositions to an absurd conclusion, I will not begin by flating that absurd conclusion as the proposition itself which I am going to encounter. In commenting on the gentleman's authorities, I will not with farcical politeness thank him for introducing them; declare that they conclude directly against him; read just so much of the authority as serves the purpose of that declaration, omitting that which contains the true point of the case which makes against me; nor if forced by a direct call to read that part also, will I content myself by running over it as rapidly and inaptly as I can, throw down the book with a theatrical air, and exclaim, "just as I fell" when I know it is just as I had not said. I know that by adopting these arts I might raise a laugh at the gentleman's expense; but I should be very little pleased with myself, if I could enjoy a laugh to raise. I know, too, that by adopting such arts, there will always be those flanding around us, who have not comprehended the whole merits of the legal discussion, and with whom I might flake the character of the gentleman's science and judgment as a lawyer. I hope I shall never be capable of such a wish; and I had hoped that the gentleman himself felt so strongly, that high-spirited and ennobling magnanimity which I had been told that conscious talents rarely fail to inspire, that he would have looked with disdain on the poor and fleeting triumph which could be gained by arts like these.
I proceed now, sir, to answer his points so far as they could be collected from the general course of his speech. I say so far as they could be collected; for the gentleman altho' requested before he began, refused to furnish us with his points in writing. It suited better his partisan style of warfare to be perfectly at large; to change his ground as often as he pleased; to day on the plains of Monmouth—to-morrow at the Eutaw Springs. He will not censure me, therefore, if I have not been correct in gathering his points from a defolatory discourse of four or five hours length. I trust, however, that I have been correct—it was my intention to be so—for I can see neither pleasure or interest in misrepresenting any gentleman; and I now beg the court or the gentleman, if he will vouchsafe it, to let me right if I have misconceived him.
I understand him then, sir, to resist the introduction of further evidence under this indictment on these four grounds.

1. Because Aaron Burr, not being present on the island at the time of the assembly, was not a principal in the treason within the constitutional definition; nor within the lex loci of England.
2. Because the fact must be proved as laid; and as the indictment charges the prisoner with levying war with an assembly on the island, no evidence, to charge him with that act by relation is relevant to this indictment.
3. Because if he be a principal in the treason at all, he is a principal in the second degree; and his guilt being of that kind which is termed derivative, no parole evidence can be let in to charge him until we shall first show a record of the conviction of the principals in the first degree.
4. Because no evidence is relevant, to connect the prisoner with others and thus to make him a traitor by relation, until we shall previously show an act of treason by those others; and the assembly on the island was not an act of treason.
Let us examine the first ground: - it is because A. Burr, not being present on the island at the time of the assembly cannot be a principal in the treason within the constitutional definition nor within the laws of England.
In many of the general reflections expressed by the gentleman under this head I perfectly accord with him; as that the constitution intended to guard against arbitrary and constructive treasons; that the principles of sound reason and liberty require their exclusion. I have no objection either to his position that the constitution is to be interpreted by the rules of reason and of moral right. I fear, however, that I shall find it difficult to accommodate both the gentlemen who have spoken in support of the motion; for while Mr. Wickham demands reason for the guide of our interpretation, Mr. Randolph exclaims "five us from the deductions of common sense." A kind of reason which is not common sense, would, indeed, be adapted to the joint purposes of both the gentlemen; but as that is a species of reason of which I have no very distinct conception, I hope the gentleman will excuse me for not employing it. Let us return to Mr. Wickham. Having read to us the constitutional definition of treason and given us the rule by which it was to be interpreted, it was natural to expect that he would have proceeded directly to apply that rule to the definition and give us the result. But while we were expecting this - even while we have our eyes upon the gentleman, he vanishes like a spirit from American ground and we see no more of him, until re-emerging in England, by a kind of intelligent magic, we find him in the middle of the 16th century, complaining most dolefully of the state of my Lord Coke's bowels. Before we follow him in this excursion let us enquire what it was that made the gentleman start with such terror from the regular track of his argument. It was, sir, the decision of the supreme court in the case of Bollman and Swartwout; it was that judicial exposition of the constitution by the highest court of the nation, upon the very point which the gentleman was considering. Sir, if the gentleman had believed this decision favourable to him, we should have heard of it in the beginning of his argument. For the path of enquiry in which he was led him directly to it. Interpreting the American constitution he would have preferred no authority to that of the supreme court of the country. Yes, sir, he would have immediately seized this decision with avidity: he would have felt before you in every possible light: he would have illustrated it; he would have adorned it; he would have expounded it; you would have seen it, under the action of his genius, loom with all the varying grandeur of our mountains in the morning sun. He would not have relinquished this decision, for the common law; he would not have deserted a rock so broad and so solid, to walk upon the waves of the Atlantic. But he knew, sir, that this decision was against him: he felt, too, that it closed against him completely the very point which he was labouring. Hence it was, that the decision was kept sedulously out of view, until, from the exploded materials of the common law, he had reared a Gothic edifice so huge and so dark as quite to overshadow and eclipse it. Let us bring it from this obscurity into the face of day. We who are seeking truth and not victory, whether right or wrong, have no reason to turn our eyes from any source of light which presents it; and least of all from a source so high and so respectable as the decision of the supreme court of the United States. Let it be remembered that the enquiry is whether presence at the overt act is necessary to make a man a traitor: it is necessary by the gentlemen; what says the supreme court? It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his country; on the contrary it was actually levied, that is, if a body of men assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. Here then we find the court so far from requiring presence, that they expressly declare that however remote the accused may have been from the scene of the treasonable assembly, he is still involved in the guilt of that assembly; that he was leagued in the general conspiracy which produced it, is sufficient to make the overt act his own. The supreme court being of that opinion, proceeded to an elaborate examination of the evidence to ascertain whether there had been a treasonable assembly. They look to the deposition of gen. Eaton and gen. Wilkinson, to the cyphered letters, to the declaration of Swartwout that Burr was levying an armed body of seven thousand men; and they look to their parts of the evidence expressly for the purpose of discovering whether it was probable that Burr had actually brought those men together: not whether Bollman and Swartwout were present at any such assembly; they knew that if any such assembly had taken place, Bollman and Swartwout must have been at that time, at the city of Orleans, or on their way thither: indeed, the whole reasoning of the court proceeded on the fact, as admitted, of the prisoner's absence. Why then, the laborious investigation which the court make as to the probability of Burr's having brought his men or any part of them together, unless the guilt of that assembly was to be imputed to Bollman and Swartwout? If their absence had been sufficient to exculpate them, that fact was admitted, and the enquiry would have been a very short one. But the court having previously decided that the fact of presence or absence was unimportant, that it made no odds how far distant the accused might be from the treasonable assembly, it became the unavoidable duty of the court to proceed to the enquiry whether any such assembly had taken place; and if the evidence had manifested that fact to their satisfaction, it is clear that in the opinion of that court the prisoners would have been as deeply involved in the guilt of that assembly as any of those who actually composed it.
* Decision of the Supreme Court, in case of Bollman and Swartwout.
The counsel knew that their first point was not directly the counter authority of the supreme court; they have implied if not expressly admitted it; hence they have been reduced to the necessity of taking the bold and difficult ground that the passage which I have read is extrajudicial - a mere obiter dictum . They have said this; but they have not attempted to show it. Give me leave to show that it is not an obiter dictum ; that it is not extrajudicial; but that it is a direct adjudication of a point immediately before them. The court made no formal division of the subject. It divided itself. The arrest of Bollman and Swartwout at New-Orleans, and the fact that they had not been present at any assembly of the traitors in arms, were notorious and admitted. The case necessarily presented to the court three distinct questions: 1. Are these men leagued in any treasonable conspiracy? 2. Is the fact of their being leagued with it, sufficient, of itself, to implicate them in the guilt of any overt act of that treason? or is it necessary that they should actually have borne a part in that overt act? 3. Has there been an overt act? - Now if the court had been satisfied that there had been an overt act, and that these men were leagued in the conspiracy which produced it, fill it would have remained a distinct and substantive question whether their absence from the overt act and their having no immediate hand in it, did not discharge them from the constitutional guilt of levying war; for although leagued in the conspiracy, and although there might have been an overt act, these men would have been innocent, if presence at the overt act was necessary to make them guilty. The question then of presence or absence, was a question really presented by the case of Bollman and Swartwout: it was one important to the decision of that case; and the court thinking it to be a question of great moment, in direct opposition to the principle contended for on the other side.
Here, sir, having the authority of the supreme court on my side, I might safely dismiss the gentleman's first point. But Mr. Randolph seems to think it doubtful whether you ought to be bound by that authority; even admitting it to be a regular judicial determination of this question; for he made a very pathetic and affecting apostrophe to the situation in which you would be placed, if you differed from this opinion of the supreme court. I can discern nothing very tragic in your situation: - a principle of law, solemnly adjudged by the supreme court, becomes, I apprehend, the law of the land: all the inferior courts of the U. S. are bound by it. To say that they are not bound by it, is to disorganize the whole judiciary system, to confound the distinctions and grades of the courts, to banish all certainty and stability from the law, and to destroy all uniformity of decision. If you, sir, sitting as a circuit court are not bound by the adjudications of the supreme court in this case, neither would any other circuit court in the union be bound by it; and the result might be and certainly would be that what would be treason in one circuit would not be treason in another: and a man might be hung in Pennsylvania for an act against the U. S. in which he would be held perfectly innocent in Virginia: thus treason against the U. S. would be a unsettled and fluctuating, and the object of the constitution in defining it would be disappointed and defeated. I trust that we are not prepared to rush into this wild disorder and confusion; but that we shall temperately and regularly conform to the decrees of that parent court, of which this is a mere branch, until those decrees shall be changed by the same high authority which created them.
But instead of reposing on the authority of that decision, let us go further, and let us indulge the gentlemen with the enquiry whether that decision is in conformity with the constitution of the U. S. and the laws of England.
In interpreting the constitution let us apply to it to the gentlemen's own principles: the rules of reason and of moral right.
That a law should be so construed as to advance the remedy and repress the mischief is not more a rule of common law than a principle of reason: and in reason, it applies to penal as well as remedial laws: so also, the common law maxim that a law, as well as a covenant, should be so construed as that its object may rather prevail than perish, is one of the plainest dictates of common sense. Apply these principles to the constitution. Gentlemen have said that its object was to prevent the people from being harassed by arbitrary and constructive treason. But its object, I presume, was not to declare that there was no such crime. It certainly did not mean to encourage treason. It meant to recognize the existence of the crime and to provide for its punishment. The same liberties of the people which required that the offence should be defined, circumscribed and limited, required also that it should be certainly and deeply punished: and the framers of the constitution, informed by the examples of Greece and Rome, and foreseeing that the liberties of this republic, might, one day or other, be seized by the daring ambition of some domestic usurper, have given peculiar importance and solemnity to the crime by engrafting it upon the constitution. But they have done this in vain, if the construction contended for on the other side is to prevail. If it requires actual presence at the scene of the assembly to involve a man in the guilt of treason, how easy will it be for the principal traitor to avow this guilt and escape punishment forever? He may secretly wander like a demon of darkness from one end of the continent to the other; he may pour poison into the simple and unsuspecting minds of his countrymen; he may seduce them into a plot of his person; may conceal them in his plots; attach them to his glory; he may prepare the whole mechanism of the stupendous and destructive engine and put it in motion; let the rest be done by his agents; let him keep himself only from the scene of the assembly or the immediate spot of battle, and he is innocent in law, while those whom he has deluded are to suffer the death of traitors. Is this reason? Is this moral right? Is this a means of preventing treason? Or is it not rather, in truth, a direct invitation to it? Sir, it is obvious, that neither reason nor moral right require actual presence at the overt act to constitute the guilt of treason: nor can a sound mind or a sound heart doubt one moment, between the comparative guilt of Aaron Burr (the prime mover of the whole mischief) and of the poor men on Blennerhassett's island, who called themselves Burr's men. There is a moral force, there are moral questions on questions of this sort, than the rigid deductions of jurists or philosophers. The decision of the supreme court, sir, is so far from being impeachable on the ground of reason and of moral right, that it stands supported by their most obvious and palpable dictates. Give to the constitution the construction contended for on the other side and you might as well expunge the crime from your criminal code: nay, you had better do it; for by this construction you hold out to ambition and talents, the lure of impunity; while you loose the vengeance of the law on the comparatively innocent.
Sir, the decision of the supreme court is equally supported by the law of England. Lord Coke, commenting on those words of the statute of Edward, which make our constitutional
definition of treason, says, "if many conspire to levy war, and some of them do levy the same according to the conspiracy, this is high treason in illi , for in treason all are principals and war is levied." 3 Inst. 9. In page 16, he says, that although the statute of Mary which first made counterfeiting the privy signet or sign manual, high treason, says nothing of aiders or abettors, yet they are within the purview of this statute, for there are no accessories in high treason." So also in page 21, he says, "In high treason there is no accessories but all are principals; and therefore, when ever act or consent will make a man accessory to a felony before the act done, will make him a principal in high treason." In page 138 he says, "it is a sure rule in law that in alta proutidone nullus potest esse accessorius, sed principales solum modo ;" and in illustration of the rule he puts this case, "if any man commit high treason and thereby becometh a traitor, if any other man knowing him to be a traitor, doth receive, comfort and aid him, he is guilty of treason, for that there be no accessory in high treason." The gentleman, indeed, admits that according to Coke's authority, their client although absent might be a principal in the act of treason. But Coke, they say, had no bowels; he was hard hearted and cruel; his thirst for blood was so great that it misled his understanding. Coke, however, does not state the positions which I have read, on his own authority: on the contrary he cites to the margin the authorities on which he bottoms them, and most ancient and respectable authorities they are. But to gratify the gentlemen let us put Coke aside: What will they say to Lord Hale? Did any fierce and savage passions agitate his breast or darken the horizon of his understanding? O! no, sir; no spot ever foiled the holy crime of his office; mild, patient, benevolent; baleyon peace in his breast, with a mind beaming the effulgence of noon-day, and with a seraph's soul, he sat upon the bench - like a defended God! Yet this judge has laid down the doctrine for which I contend, in terms as distinct and emphatic as those of Lord Coke. - Here Mr. Wirt read 1 H. 6. 118. Pleas of the crown, 214. 249, 253, 328, 313 - Hawkins and Foster support the same doctrine 1 Hawk. ch. 17. sec. 39, 2 Hawk. ch. 29. sec. 2. Foster 341.
I admit that Judge Tucker has combated the doctrine that in treason all are principals. I admit the truth of all the encomiums which the counsel for the defendant have pronounced on that gentleman. He has all the illumination of mind and all the virtues of the heart, which they, with the view of enhancing the weight of his authority, have been pleased to ascribe to him. What they have said of him, from policy, I can say of him, from my heart, for I know it to be true. Yet give me leave, sir, to examine very briefly, his argument upon this subject. His object is to prove that the position "in high treason all are principals" is not law in England. The mode which he adopts to prove his point is this: he collates all the authorities which have supported this doctrine, and tracing it up, with patient and laborious perseverance, with the view, petite fontes , he finds the first spring in the reign of Henry the 6th. That case is reported in the year book 1. Henry 6, 5, and is very nearly as stated by Mr. Tucker from Stanford. It is simply the case of a man who broke a prison and let out traitors. Stanford says it was adjudged petit treason; the year book merely says that he was drawn and hanged, a sentence which in those days when the notions and punishment of treason, (notwithstanding the statute of Edward,) remained still unsettled, is certainly no very unequivocal proof that his crime was petty treason. Mr. Tucker thinks this case not correctly reported, and that the grounds of the judgment seem not well understood. It is to be recollected, however, that these year books, as we are told by Blackstone, serve as indices to the records in the several offices in Westminster; Coke, then, Hale, Hawkins, Foster and all those authors who have relied on this case as establishing the doctrine in question, guided by the marginal reference in the year book, had it in their power to examine the whole, original record in the case, and thereby to understand the entire grounds on which that case proceeded. From their great industry & their prodigious research, there can be no doubt that they did so, & that they have therefore stated the principles of this case correctly. Chief Justice Hufley in the 3 Henry the 7th 10, about sixty years after the first decision, and consequently with much better means of understanding its nature, extent and boundaries than we can possess, refers to it as asserting the doctrine that in treason there are no accessories, but all are principals. Nor is it to be believed that this doctrine originated in the reign of Henry the 6th. The earlier reported case indeed which has come down to us occurred in the fifth year of that reign. There is nothing, however, in the manner of their report which marks it as a case of the first impression; on the contrary the sentence seems to have been a thing of course, and the judges of that day appear, in the language of Blackstone, to be merely pronouncing "an immemorial custom of the land."
The learned and laborious Hawkins speaking no doubt, after the most profound and extensive research, declares in a passage before cited, that it seems to have been never doubted that in treason all are principals. And most certainly, from a very early period in the fifteenth century to the present day, that doctrine has not been questioned in England. After such a lapse of years and centuries, after such full and perfect consent and concurrence among all the judges and all the writers of England, it would be bold in us to say, that this is not the law of England; and after all, the learned judge Tucker relies the fabric of his reasoning on the ground of the imperfection of the first report; an obstacle which, however insuperable to him, was easily to be surmounted by those great men who had access to the original record; and who having that access have affirmed that the case justified the doctrine which they advance. Let me conclude my remarks on Judge Tucker by observing that however deeply & sincerely I revere him, yet certainly when the question is "what is the law of England," it cannot be considered as disrepectful to our learned and virtuous countrymen to prefer the authority of such men a Coke, Hale, Hawkins and Foster, to his. It is on the authority of those distinguished men I shall rest my conclusion that the opinion of the supreme court of the U. S. is in harmony with the English law.
But we are told by Mr. Wickham that all this is elementary and theoretic: that there are no practical decisions worthy of respect which maintain the principle. Suppose this were so, would any judge require higher authority for the law of England than such names as those which I have just mentioned; would a case from the year books decided by Hufley or Rian or a case from the Statute Trials decided by Brumley, Jeffries, or even Holt himself be higher authority than Coke and Hale, Hawkins and Foster? Certainly not. The three cases, however, from the year books, in the reigns of Henry the 6th and 7th, on which Judge Tucker comments, are adjudged cases which avow the principle. In addition to these, Coke in the margin of the passages before read, cites several cases in the reign of Edward the 3d, which I have not had time to examine, but which it is
probable from his learning and accuracy are properly cited in support of his doctrine.
Mr. Wickham says that the books show only two cases of accessories before the fact having been adjudged guilty as principals; but he admits that there are several cases of accessories after the fact being so adjudged; and he seems to be apprehensive that we shall reason from these, later cases to the case of an accessory before the fact. I do not know that it is important, but the truth is that the gentleman, unintentionally, no doubt, has inverted the order of guilt in this case; in reason , the accessory before the fact, he who procures the act or aids in bringing it about, is certainly much more guilty than the accessory after the fact, who having no previous knowledge of the fact, much less any agency or instrumentality in bringing it about, merely receives and comforts the man who has done it. This line of discrimination so forcibly drawn by reason was long respected by the law of England, and so far were accessories after the fact from occupying the worst ground, that while it was never doubted that accessories before the fact were guilty as principals, it was very long doubted whether a accessories after the fact were so guilty. This we are expressly told by Hawkins - 2 Hawk. ch. 29. § 3. I think, however, I shall show by and bye that these accessories after the fact have nothing to do with the case at bar.
The gentleman next read the case of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton's sufferings as they are collected into a Gorgon's head by Judge Tucker. We do not rely upon the authority of that case; and the gentleman by reading it has proved only what we readily admit, that Sir Manners was a judicial tyrant, and that Throckmorton was cruelly and barbarously oppressed. I can see but two motives which the gentleman could have had in view in reading this case with a countenance and cadence of such peculiar pathos: the first contains an implication not very respectful to the court: that it was necessary to hold up to this court, in terrorem , the immortal infamy of Brumley's name: the second to excite our sympathy, under the hope that when once let at, for the want of some other living object they might attach themselves to his client. It was with the same views, I presume, that the gentleman gave us the pathetic and affecting story of the Lady Lyle as it is touched by the chaste and delicate pencil of Hume. It was with the same views, also, that he recited from the same author the deep, perfidious and bloody horrors of a Kirk and a Jeffries. Sensible that there was nothing in this trial or in the virtues of his client to interest us; he borrowed the sufferings and the virtues of a Throckmorton, and a Lady Lyle, to set our hearts a bleeding; thinking that our pity thus excited, would be graciously transferred, assuaged and set over, by way of indorsement, to his client. I congratulate the gentleman upon the ingenuity of the device: the only defect in it is the great hazard, that while we are running parallels between his client and the dramatic person introduced from Hume, we shall find among them an apter prototype for him than in the virtuous and manly Throckmorton or the simple, innocent and humane Lady Lyle.
But we are told that, however, the case may have been prior to the revolution of 1688 since that period they have leaned the other way, and that to show that accessory acts will not make a principal in treason. How is this conclusion obtained? by any adjudged case? no: by any obiter dictum of a judge? no. How then does the gentleman suppose the idea of this change in the English law? He infers it from the impunity of many of those who, fought the Pender's battles or aided him in his flight. This is a new way of setting legal principles. Sir, this was the mere policy of the house of Hanover. The pretensions of the Stuarts had divided the British nation. Their adherents were many and zalous. Their pretensions were crushed in battle. Two courses were, then, open to the reigning monarch: either by clemency and forbearance to allay the animosity of his enemies and prop and secure his throne with the affections of his people; or to pursue his enemies with vengeance; to drive them to desperation; to disgust his friends by needless & wanton cruelty; and to unsettle and float his throne in the blood of his subjects. He chose the former course; and from at his politic or magnanimous forbearance it is argued that the law of treason was changed. To prevent this inference, according to the reasoning of the gentleman, it was necessary to have beheaded or hung every human being who even aided the unfortunate Charles in his flight. Mr. Wickham has mentioned Miss McDonald and he would have had the monarch to have hazarded the indignation and reviled of a generous people by seizing that beautiful and romantic enthusiast, Flora McDonald, and dragging her from her native mountains in the isle of Sky to a prison and to death. We are told, indeed, by Doctor Johnson in his tour to the Hebrides, that this step, impolitic as it was, nevertheless was hazarded; hazarded but partially tho'; she was carried to London; but together with McCleod who had aided in the same flight, she was dismissed, on the pretext of the want of evidence. But certainly a forbearance to punish under an existing law, is no argument of the change of that law.
The gentleman unable to sustain either by adjudication or dictum this novel idea that the law of treason is changed since the revolution of 1688, proceeds still further in the attempt to support it by inference and next infers from the special form of the indictment in Foster 300-6. that presence at the overt act is indispensable to the treason of levying war. That indictment lays two overt acts of the treason; first the general overt act of assembling with an armed multitude and levying war; secondly the entering and taking the town and castle of Carlisle, from the special nature of which last overt act the gentleman deduces the conclusion, that the first was not sufficient; and that the last must necessarily have been proven to sustain the indictment; but is it any where decided that this second overt act was necessary? On the contrary in Lord Bederino's case (10th St. Trials, 605) also cited by Mr. Wickham, where the indictment was precisely that in Foster, it is argued by the counsel for the Crown & admitted by the court, in effect, that the proof of the second overt act was unnecessary; that it was immaterial whether the evidence showed him to have entered and taken the town of Carlisle or not; that it would be sufficient to introduce evidence to the first overt act; the general overt act of levying war. Hence it is obvious that the specification of entering and taking the town of Carlisle was unnecessary and superfluous; and therefore no inference can be fairly drawn from the insertion of it in the indictment. But it is strange that the gentleman should attempt to draw from the mere form of this indictment in Foster the conclusion that the law of England was changed, and that an accessory act would no longer make a principal in treason, when Foster himself expressly lays down the reverse of this principle, in the passage which I have before cited, and declares that all who are leagued in the conspiracy to levy war, are guilty of the levying whether present or absent - whether the war was levied by a few or by all. The same remark applies equal-
ly to the inference attempted to be drawn by Mr. Wickham from the case of Deacon and Wedderburn, reported by the same author.
Other remarks of the gentleman under this head as to accessories being the mere creatures of the common law, and the common law not existing in this country, will be more properly noticed under another head.
I hope it may now be justly considered as proven that whether we look to the laws of England, or to the constitution of the U. States, as expounded by the rules of reason and of moral right, or as expounded by the supreme court of the U. S. the prisoner's presence on Blennerhassett's island at the time of the overt act was not necessary to the constitution of his guilt; and therefore that there is nothing in the gentleman's first objection to prohibit the introduction of further proof.
But if, after all, this court should be of opinion that the prisoner's presence on the island was a necessary to make this an overt act of war, is not this a question for the jury? The question whether there has been an overt act of war or not is a mixed question of fact and law: it is the very question which the jury are sworn to decide. If, for this objection that presence is a material ingredient in the composition of the act, the court exclude all further evidence, will this not be a want to saying that we have not proved the court act to the satisfaction of the court; that the evidence we have introduced and all we propose to introduce will be insufficient to satisfy the court of the overt act? And will not the court, hereby, take the place of the jury; forestall them in the very question which they are sworn to try and snatch it from them by a capo de main ? Gentlemen, indeed, try to give this question a legal attitude by contending that other evidence will be irrelevant until the fact of presence shall be proven; but then, in order to decide this question in the affirmative, the court must assume the function of a jury and say that the overt act is not and will not be sufficiently proved without it. But suppose this question as to the necessity of presence, a question of pure law; fill it would be a question which the jury would have a right to decide; since the law as well as the fact is completely within their power. The court may, indeed, after all the evidence shall be given instruct the jury as to the law; they may instruct them as to what will constitute an overt act of levying war. But nothing more clearly shows the sovereign power and control of the jury both over the law and fact than this; that, even after such instruction of the court, the jury may if they choose decide the case in opposition to such instruction. I do not say that they will do it; or that they ought to do it; but I say that they may do it if their confidence shall so direct; and I say this by the way of showing the paramount power of the jury over the very question now sought to be withdrawn from them and given to the court. I conclude this point with assuming it as proved that actual presence was not necessary to make the prisoner a principal in the treason; and if the court shall think it was, that this is a question which cannot be taken from the jury.
This objection therefore furnishes no legal bar to the introduction of our evidence.
(Mr. Wirt's Speech to be continued.)
WEDNESDAY, Sept. 16.
Mr. Burr observed, that he should waive the right to which he was entitled of putting an end to this enquiry at the present time; but that as much had been boldly said about his levying war in certain places, he was willing to indulge the gentlemen in the production of relevant testimony. If they, however, wandered from that point, he should immediately bring the investigation of the case before the court. He also demanded a free citation of the charge made against him. - The Ch. Justice observed, that the specific charge was levying war at the mouth of Cumberland river. - Mr. Martin noticed that this specific charge had been yesterday made.
Mr. Hay stated that this difficulty had occurred respecting the jurisdiction of the island at the mouth of Cumberland river; that he had been informed, that this island had never been ceded to Kentucky, and that it still belonged to Virginia; that if Mr. Burr then was sent to Kentucky, he might be sent back again; and that even if he was wrong in locating the offence, it was in the power of the court to send him to another district; the only arrangement however that was now to be made, was whether Blen. and Smith should be included in the same motion. Mr. Wickham objected to this arrangement; because their counsel was different; and because the testimony applicable to each might be different. Ch. Jus. Let the examination proceed; and if any confusion should occur, the division may then be made.
Mr. Martin insisted on the specification of the charge. Mr. Hay then produced and read the following paper:
The attorney of the U. States for the Virginia district, charges A. Burr, Harman Blennerhassett and Israel Smith with treason, in levying war against the U. States, and charges that an overt act of levying war was committed on an island whose name is not known at the mouth of Cumberland river, in the state of Kentucky, and that other overt acts of levying war were committed at Bryan Pierre in the Mississippi Territory, and on the Mississippi river between the places above named.
The attorney for the U. S. then called James W. Dowell, who gave the following evidence: In December I was at Wheeling, and engaged with one William Dean to go down the river to New Orleans to take down a boat loaded with flour and whiskey. We went down the river with the boat from Wheeling to Shawnee Town; and here I saw Mr. Blennerhassett, Smith, Tyler and many others. From that place we went down to the mouth of Cumberland River in company with these gentlemen. - (Mr. Hay. Where is Shawnee Town? A. It is below Blennerhassett's island) It was at the mouth of Cumberland that I saw Col. Burr for the first time. We all went up to the beach where he was introduced to us all, and there we formed a ring or circle, where he told us it was not a proper time to divulge his secrets; there were too many listeners.
Col. Tyler, and Mr. Smith, and Mr. Dean & Blennerhassett stood together, and he told Col. Tyler he might tell the gentlemen engaged what he thought proper, and Col. T. said he would inform the captains of the boats; for each boat had a captain. Col. T. said, he would let them know where they were going, when they got to Nantz de Grace (New Madrid, as some call it). - Mr. Dean told the boat we went down in to Comfort Tyler and Israel Smith. Then we proceeded in going down, till we got to New Madrid, where we expected to hear some encouragement for going down; and there we were told by Comfort Tyler, that when we got lower down, they would tell us. They appointed two or three places, but they never saw one fit for it. We went on down to Bayou Pierre.
Mr. Burr. Gentlemen have set out to prove an act of war at the mouth of Cumberland river. We shall presently object to the kind of testimony, they are now bringing forward. - Mr. Wickham. It is understood, that these excep-

Hare are all before the court.—Mr. Hay. We are not now before the court.—Mr. Wickham. I understand the gentleman. We are not before the court to determine objections to evidence.—Mr. Hay. All that I say is, we are not before the court to hear a regular motion, but to determine a motion for commitment. Let all the evidence be produced; and the bench will then determine upon any objections, that may be urged. Mr. Wickham. If we start objections, I presume that it is right to hear them. The Court will not surely hear irrelevant and illegal testimony. There are surely manifest reasons, why this kind of evidence shall not be introduced. Every atom of it is taken down; published in the newspapers, and circulated throughout the world. As there is no reason to expect, that this prosecution will be dropped; as a motion has been made to try him in Kentucky; it is improper to publish this evidence and to prejudice the public mind against Col. Burr.
Mr. McRae. The evidence that we offer relates to one of the very charges urged against him; for it embraces his conduct at Bayou Pierre.—Mr. Burr. It will be saving time, if the gentlemen will confine themselves to Kentucky. I shall not interrupt them; but if they go into the Mississippi Territory, I shall certainly file objections, which the court will suffer to be heard.
Mr. Martin. Let them prove an overt act; and then there will be a sufficient foundation for the introduction of this testimony.—Ch. Justice. That question is for the consideration of the court for the U. S. But if the accused is prepared to rate any objections, to going into the Mississippi Territory, I must hear them.
Mr. Hay. I will submit this idea to the consideration of the court. Ought the witnesses to be detained here day after day? Let the evidence be first heard, and the court may then determine, which part of it is to be laid out of view. Mr. Wirt suggested that to avoid the expense of detaining the witnesses their evidence, might be reduced to Depositions. Mr. Burr. I presume the gentlemen will first ask my consent. Ch. Justice. If the witnesses are absent, their affidavits can be heard. But if they are here, they must be produced.
Mr. Burr. Do I understand gentlemen as insisting on going below the line into the Mississippi Territory?
Mr. Hay. I see no objection to going through the whole line of march.
Mr. Batts objected to the production of such evidence on 3 grounds: 1. That no evidence of acts in the Mississippi Territory was admissible, by the 33d Sect. of the judicial act. Mr. Batts contended that according to this act of Congress, a person arrested is to be tried or imprisoned for trial, before such court of the U. States as "by this act" had cognizance of the offence; that the Mississippi court was not a court of the U. S. within the meaning of its 33d sect.; that by this act that court has no cognizance; that the word "district" which is so frequently used in that act applies entirely to the states and not to the Territories; and that this court cannot judicially hear what it has no cognizance of.
2. That the verdict of acquittal operated as a bar to any trial for the charge now laid by the attorney; that this charge was not the same offence for which he had been already tried and acquitted, and that by the constitution and by common sense, no man could be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence; that treason was one continued and indivisible act; and if it was infinitely divisible, that a man might be subjected to infinite persecutions; that the U. States had the evidence before them; they had then the selection of places to try Col. B. in; and if they had made a wrong selection, it was their own fault; that no instance had occurred in the English rebellions of '15 or '45, where a rebel had had two trials; and that if such had been the usage in England, Lord George Gordon might have been tried in St. George's fields, and if acquitted there, at Moorfields; at Lincoln's Inn Fields; or at G. Queen Street &c.
3. That Col. B. had been already acquitted by an enquiry of a Grand Jury in the Mississippi Territory; that upon such a report here, a person in custody would be discharged; and after this discharge, could the court recommence him for the same offence?
The latter point was in effect abandoned by the accused, during the course of the argument. Col. B. however observed, it might address itself to the found discretion of the court.
Mr. McRae replied to Mr. Batts; and expatiated over a wide field of argument and statement.
On Thursday, Mr. Hay resumed the argument.—He was followed by Messrs. Martin and Wickham, who were answered by Mr. Wirt. Mr. Batts replied to Mr. Wirt.
Yesterday Mr. Randolph closed the argument; after which the Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the court; that he had no power to commit for trial in the court for the Mississippi Territory, and of consequence that it would be improper in him to go into an enquiry on a subject on which he cannot act; that as to the operation of the autrefois acquit , his judgment was not decidedly formed; and that he should therefore defer the testimony relative to the conduct of the accused within the U. S. and stand in the mean time still farther on this subject.
The attorney for the U. S. then proceeded with the examination of James M. Dowell, William Love, and Thomas Barclay, who were called in to prove the military encampment at the mouth of Cumberland River. The testimony was not suffered to extend below the Chickasaw Bluffs; the fourth western frontier of Tennessee. Mr. Burr even objected to the admission of any evidence on the Mississippi; because the boundary of Tennessee did not extend beyond the margin of the river. This point was not definitively settled.
Mr. Hay observed, that he had one other witness to produce (Jacob Dunham) relative to the allegation at Cumberland river, who would prove a quantity of arms there collected; that he would then refer to the court, how far the evidence produced proved an overt act of treason; and if it did, that then he understood he was at liberty to proceed to produce his other testimony (within the U. States) in the nature of collateral or auxiliary testimony.
Mr. Wickham proposed to introduce at the same time the witnesses of the accused relative to this same point. Agreed.
Adjourned till this day 10 o'clock.
A more minute account of all these proceedings in our next paper.
NEW-YORK, September 12.
The fast sailing ship George, Capt. Taylor, arrived at this port last evening in 28 days from Greenock.
She left here on the 13th of August; and Capt. Taylor has originally furnished the editor of the Mercantile Advertiser with Greenock papers to the 12th, a file of the London Courier to the 9th, a Liverpool paper of the 6th, and the Clyde Shipping List to the 11th, inclusive. We have availed ourselves of all these resources; but our paper being pre-occupied at the time they came into our hands, our political articles have necessarily been confined.
We have in reserve the Treaty between France and Prussia, the 87th bulletin from the Grand Army, and several other interesting articles, which shall be duly noticed in our next number.
The London papers are crowded with extracts from American papers, relative to the attack upon the frigate Chesapeake, by his Britannic majesty's fri-
gate Leopard, which had made a very alarming impression upon the minds of the merchants and manufacturers in England.
LONDON, Aug. 4. The differences with America are likely to be adjusted. The right of searching ships of war has never, it is said, been insisted upon by our ministers.
July 7. We understand that orders have been issued to Liverpool and other ports, from the Alien office, desiring that all passengers granted before and since the embargo be considered as null; and that no foreigner be permitted to leave the country.
August 8. It was yesterday strongly reported that the Swedes and the German Legion had made a sortie from Stralsund, and killed, wounded and made prisoners, 5000 Dutch and Spanish troops.—Government have received no accounts with respect to the sortie, and no advices have been received from the Continent this morning.
It was reported last night, that accounts had been received via Portugal, of an attack having been made upon Buenos Ayres, which had failed. We trust the rumour will prove unfounded.
It was reported yesterday evening, that a general embargo had taken place. The American Captains caught the alarm, and no less than twelve of them cleared out their vessels in ballast, and dropped down the river immediately. The rumour is unfounded; it is perfectly true however that no passengers are granted, and no foreigners permitted to leave the country.
Price of Stocks, this day at 12.3—3 per cent. cons. for money 61 3/4—Do. for August 61 1/4—3 per ct. Red.—Omnium 1 4 dis.
August 9. Up to this hour no advices have been received from either the one or the other division of our fleets, which have proceeded on the expedition.
Yesterday the funds experienced a rising advance, in consequence of the receipt of the Russian Treaty, which, it had been reported, contained articles hostile to the interest of this country. Mr. Jackson's misfortune to the continent, we are informed, was in consequence of the 13th article of this treaty, which prohibits the mediation of Russia to promote a peace between Britain and France. Our ministers, it is stated, have preferred their desire for a permanent and equitable peace. Mr. Jackson is induced to inquire the basis on which France is disposed to treat with us, to enter into explanation of the views of our cabinet, and to create, by every honourable means, facilities to negotiations.—The emperor Alexander, we are assured, has renewed to our Cabinet, declarations of the most cordial and amicable friendship.
Nothing transpired yesterday respecting the Expedition—the wind having changed to the Northward, information of their progress is hourly expected by Ministers. The troops which embarked at Hull and Grimsby, still remain there; other corps have been ordered to join them, and they are expected to sail the latter end of the week.
We are still without any further accounts of the progress of our Grand Expedition, towards which, public expectation is now so anxiously directed. The promptitude and vigour with which it has been sent on its important destination, are, we believe, unexampled. For what remains to be done, we are to look to British valor and enterprise; and in this view experience forbids us to apprehend any disappointment. Englishman.
TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE & RUSSIA. From the Royal Hague Courant Extraordinary, Tuesday July 23, 1807.
PARIS, July 25. Yesterday afternoon, at four o'clock the Prince Arch-Chancellor of the Empire laid the two treaties before the Senate, which have been concluded with Russia and Prussia. He at the same time made a very impressive and dignified address to the Senate.
Between his majesty the Emperor of the French, the King of Italy, and his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias.
His majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy, protector of the Confederation of the Rhine & his majesty the Emperor of Russia, animated with the same interest in putting an end to the devastations of war, have for this purpose, nominated and furnished with full power on the part of his majesty the emperor of Russia and King of Italy, Charles Mordaunt Talleyrand, Prince of Benevento, his Great Chamberlain, and minister of foreign affairs, Grand Cross of the Black, and the Red Eagle of the Order of St. Hubert.
His majesty the emperor of all the Russias has on his part appointed Prince Kouroukin, his actual Privy Counsellor, Member of the council of State, and of the Senate; Chancellor of all the Orders in the Empire, Ambassador Extraordinary, and Plenipotentiary of his majesty of all the Russias to his majesty the Emperor of Austria, Knight of the Russian order of St. Andrew, of St. Alexander; of St. Ule; and of the first class of the Order of St. Wolodimir, and of the second class of the Prussian Order of the Black and Red Eagle; of the Bavarian order of St. Hubert; and the Danish Order of Dannebrog, and of the Prussian Order, and bailiff and Grand Cross of the Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and Prince Deoxy Lihanoft Van Roff, Lieutenant General of the army of his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, Knight of the first class of the St. Anne, of the military order of St. Joris, and of the third class of the Order of Wolodimir.
The above-mentioned, after exchanging their full power, have agreed upon the following Articles:
Art. 1. From the day of exchanging the ratification of the present Treaty, there shall be perfect peace and amity between his majesty the Emperor of the French and King of Italy, and his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias.
Art. 2. Hostilities shall immediately cease at all points by sea or land, as soon as the intelligence of the present treaty shall be officially received. In the mean while, the high contracting parties shall dispatch couriers extraordinary to their respective generals and commanders.
Art. 3. All ships of war or other vessels, belonging to the high contracting parties or their subjects, which may be captured after the signing of this treaty shall be restored. In case of these vessels being sold, their value shall be returned.
Art. 4. Out of the esteem for his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and to afford to him a proof of his sincere desire to unite both nations in the bands of immutable confidence and friendship, the Emperor Napoleon wishes that all the countries, towns, and territories, conquered from the King of Prussia, and the Ally of his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, should be restored, namely, that part of the Duchy of Magdeburg, situated on the right bank of the Rhine; the Mark of Brandenburg, the Ucker Mark; the Middle and New Mark of Brandenburg, with the exception of the Circle of Kottbus, in Lower Alsatia; the Duchy of Pomerania; Upper, Lower, and New Silesia, and the County of Glatz; that part of the District of the Neisse, which is situated to the northward of the road of Drietan and Schneidermuhl through Waldau to the Vistula, and extending along the frontier of the circle of Bromberg; and the navigation of the river Netze and of the canal of Bromberg, from Drietan to the Vistula and back, must remain open and free of all tolls; Pomerellia; the island of Nogat; the country on the right bank of the Vistula and of the Nogat, to the West of Old Prussia, and to the northward of the circle of Culm—Ermeraud. Lastly, the Kingdom of Prussia, as it was on the 1st of January, 1772, together with the fortresses of Spandau, Stezin, Custrin, Glogau, Breslau, Schweidnitz, Neisse, Breig, Koshel, and Grotz, and in general all fortresses, citadels, castles, strong holds of the countries above named, in the same condition in which those fortresses, citadels, castles, and strong holds may be at present; also, in addition to the above, the city and citadel of Graudentz.
Art. 5. Those Provinces, which, on the 1st January, 1772, formed a part of the Kingdom of Poland, and have since, at different times, been subjected to Prussia (with the exception of the countries named or
adjudged to in the preceding Article, and of those which shall be described below the 9th Article) shall become the possession of his majesty the King of Saxony, with power of possession and sovereignty, under the title of the Duchy of Warlaw, and shall be governed according to a regulation, which shall insure the liberties and privileges of the people of the said Duchy, and be consistent with the security of the neighboring states.
Art. 6. The city of Danzick, with a territory of two leagues around the same, is restored to her former independence, under the protection of his majesty the King of Prussia and his majesty the king of Saxony; to be governed according to the laws by which she was governed at the time when she ceased to be her own mistress.
Art. 7. For the communication between the kingdom of Saxony and the duchy of Warlaw, his majesty the king of Saxony is to have the free use of a military road through the states of his majesty the king of Prussia. This road, the number of troops, which are allowed to pass at once, and the resting places, shall be fixed by a particular agreement between the two sovereigns under the mediation of France.
Art. 8. Neither his majesty the king of Prussia, his majesty the king of Saxony, nor the city of Danzick, shall oppose any obstacles whatever to the free navigation of the Vistula under the name of tolls, rights or duties.
Art. 9. In order as far as possible to establish a natural boundary between Russia and the duchy of Warlaw, the territory between the present confines of Russia from the Bug to the mouth of the Laffona shall extend in a line from the mouth of the Laffona along the towing path of the fair river, and that of the Bobra up to its mouth; that of the Narew, from the mouth of that river as far as Suradz; from Lissa to its source near the village of Mein; from this village to Nutzick, and from Nutzick to the mouth of that river beyond Nure; and finally along the towing path of the Bug upwards to extend as far as the present frontiers of Russia. This territory is forever united to the Empire of Russia.
Art. 10. No person of any rank or quality whatever, whose residence or property may be within the limits stated in the above mentioned article nor any inhabitant in those provinces of the ancient kingdom of Poland, which may be given up to his majesty the king of Prussia, or any person possessing estates, revenues, pensions or any other kind of income, shall be molested in his person, or in any way whatever, on account of his rank, quality, estates, revenues, pension, income, or otherwise, or in consequence of any part, political or military, which he may have taken in the events of the present war.
Art. 11. All contracts and engagements between His majesty the King of Prussia and the ancient professors, relative to the general imposts, the ecclesiastical, the military or civil benefices, the creditors or pensioners of the old Prussian Government, are to be settled between the Emperor of all the Russias and His majesty the King of Saxony, and to be regulated by their said Majesties, in proportion to their acquisitions according to Article 5 and 9.
Art. 12. Their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Saxe Cobourg, Oldenburg and Mecklenburg-Schwerin, shall each of them be restored to the complete and quiet possession of their estates, but the ports in the Duchies of Oldenburg and Mecklenburg shall remain in the possession of French garrisons till the Definitive Treaty shall be signed between France and Britain.
Art. 13. His majesty the Emperor Napoleon accepts of the mediation of the Emperor of all the Russias, in order to negotiate and conclude a Definitive Treaty of Peace between France and Britain, however, only upon condition that this mediation shall be accepted by Britain in one month after the exchange of the ratification of the present Treaty.
Art. 14. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias being desirous on his part to manifest how ardently he desires to establish the most intimate and lasting relations between the two Emperors, acknowledges his majesty Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples, and his majesty Louis Napoleon, King of Holland.
Art. 15. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias acknowledges the Confederation of the Rhine, the present state of the possessions of the Princes belonging to it, and the titles of those which were conferred upon them by the act of Confederation or by the subsequent treaties of accession. His said majesty also promises. Information being communicated to him on the part of the Emperor Napoleon, to acknowledge those sovereigns who may hereafter become members of the Confederation, according to their rank specified in the act of Confederation.
Art. 16. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias cedes all his property in the right of sovereignty to the Lordship of Jever, in East Friesland, to his majesty the King of Holland.
Art. 17. The present Treaty of Peace shall be mutually binding, and in force for his majesty the King of Naples, Joseph Napoleon, his majesty Louis Napoleon, King of Holland, and the Sovereigns of the Confederation of the Rhine, in alliance with the Emperor Napoleon.
Art. 18. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias also acknowledges his imperial Highnesses Prince Jerome Napoleon, as King of Westphalia.
Art. 19. The kingdom of Westphalia shall consist of the provinces ceded by the king of Prussia on the left bank of the Elbe, and other states at present in the possession of his majesty the Emperor Napoleon.
Art. 20. His majesty the Emperor of all the Russias engages to recognize the limits which shall be determined by his majesty the Emperor Napoleon, in pursuance of the foregoing 19th article, and the cessions of his majesty the King of Prussia (which shall be notified by his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias) together with the state of possession resulting therefrom, to the Sovereign for whose behalf they shall have been established.
Art. 21. All hostilities shall immediately cease between the troops of his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and those of the Grand Seigneur, at all points, wherever official intelligence shall arrive of the signing of the present Treaty. The High Contracting parties shall, without delay, dispatch couriers extraordinary to convey the intelligence, with the utmost possible expedition, to the respective Generals and Commanders.
Art. 22. The Prussian troops shall be withdrawn from the Province of Moldavia, but the said Province may not be occupied by the troops of the Grand Seigneur, till after the exchange of the ratifications of the future Definitive Treaty of Peace between Russia and the Ottoman Porte.
Art. 23. His majesty the emperor of all the Russias accepts the mediation of his majesty the emperor of France and King of Italy, for the purpose of negotiating a peace advantageous and honorable to the two powers, and of concluding the same.
The respective Plenipotentiaries shall repair to that place which will be agreed upon by the two powers concerned, there to open the negotiations, and to proceed therewith.
Art. 24. The periods within which the high contracting parties shall withdraw their troops from the places which they are to evacuate pursuant to the above stipulations, as also the manner in which the different stipulations contained in the present treaty shall be executed, will be settled by a special agreement.
Art. 25. His majesty the emperor of the French, King of Italy, and his majesty the emperor of all the Russias, mutually ensure to each other the integrity of their possessions, and of those of the powers included in this present treaty, in the state in which they are now settled, or further to be settled, pursuant to the above stipulations.
Art. 26. The prisoners made by the contracting parties, or those included in the present treaty, shall be restored in a mass, and without any cartel of exchange, on both sides.
Art. 27. The commercial relations between the French Empire, the kingdom of Italy, the kingdom of Naples and Holland, and the Confederated States of the Rhine, on the one side, and the Empire of Russia on the other, shall be replaced on the same footing as before the war.
Art. 28. The ceremonial between the two courts of the Tuileries and Petersburg, with respect to each other, and also their respective Ambassadors, Ministers, and Envoys, mutually accredited to each
other, shall be placed on the footing of complete equality and reciprocity.
Art. 29. The present treaty shall be ratified by his majesty the Emperor of the French, King of Italy, and his majesty the Emperor of all the Russias; the Ratifications shall be exchanged in this city within the space of four days.
Domeat Tiflis, 7th July, (25th June) 1807. (Signed) C. M. TALLEYRAND, Pr. of Benevento. Prince ALEX. ROURAKIN, Prince D. L. VAN ROSTOFF.
A true copy, (Signed) C. M. TALLEYRAND, Pr. of Benevento.
The fast sailing ship Robert Burns, captain Waite, arrived at this port at a late hour last night, in 4 days from Liverpool, and brings London dates to the 10th August and Liverpool to the 10th. Also dispatches from the American Legation in London to the secretary of state. When the Robert Burns failed the American vessels were hurrying off being in daily expectation of an embargo. A London paper of the 8th says, that as yet there has been no embargo laid on American vessels. The Cincinnati failed on the 9th, the Liberty on the 10th.
SPECULATIVE VIEWS. The battle of Friedland—breaks the alliance between Britain and Russia.
Between Britain and Prussia: A future coalition, A future alliance with Austria, A re-assertion of British influence in Turkey, An establishment in Egypt; A monopoly of the commerce of the Euxine; Of the overland commerce by the Baltic; Of the monopoly of the Baltic trade. Paralyzes the monopoly of the Levant Company. Secures the commerce and influence of France in the Mediterranean. Renders Malta of little importance but as an obstacle to a peace. Diminishes the importance of Gibraltar. And places the Barbary powers under the influence of France.
The battle of Friedland leaves the army in Dalmatia at liberty to march into Turkey. The Dardanelles will be occupied by the French engineers. Constantinople will become to France, what Benares, and Lucknow, and Delhi, and Seringapatam, are to the British—the capital of an ally in form, the chief place of a province in fact. Egypt will be garrisoned by French troops. Syria will have French garrisons. The Turkish frontier will be extended on the Euxine. The Austrian frontier will be extended on the Danube. The Russian Frontier will be reduced within narrow limits on the Caspian. The Persians will become the allies and send ambassadors to France. The Hindustan princes will form alliances with Persia.
In 1808, the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies will be revolutionized. South America will be revolutionized. South America will be abandoned by the British. The Cape of Good Hope will be restored. Ceylon will be restored. Malta will be abandoned, Trinidad will be abandoned, Sicily will be abandoned. In some city of France in the course of a few months, a general congress will be held of delegates from the powers of Europe, who under the guidance of France will enter into stipulations and form a code for the ocean and for the peace of Europe. Aurora.
Treaty between France and Prussia. Among the articles of foreign intelligence received by yesterday evening's mail from New-York, we find the treaty between France and Prussia; but its length precludes insertion in this day's paper. The 27th article indicates the temper of the emperor Napoleon towards Great Britain, and leaves but little doubt that if the war is continued, she must contend against the combined efforts of Continental Europe:— "Art. 27. Until the day of the ratification of the future definitive treaty of peace between France and England, all the countries under the dominion of his majesty the king of Prussia, without any exception whatsoever, shall be shut against the trade and navigation of the English; No shipment to be made from any Prussian port for the British Isles or the British colonies; nor shall any ship from England, or her colonies, be admitted into any Prussian port."
In the house of commons the 7th of August, in a debate on the consolidated fund bill: Sir Thomas Tutton thought, that in the present circumstances it was necessary to give confidence to ministers. Russia and Prussia were prostrated at the feet of France, and our disputes with America increased. The conduct of the latter country was owing entirely to the puffiniamity of the late ministry, who treated with America with a pistol at their breasts. Mr. W. Smith, adverted to what had been said by Sir Thomas Tutton, relative to America, and said, that when that country was mentioned, it could not be in a language too moderate or too conciliatory. He was certain that ministers had a very difficult task to perform with respect to America, and he believed they would be very cautious how they followed the advice of the hon. Baronet.
NEW-YORK, September 11. Capt. Hamilton informs us, that James Wilson, one of the seamen taken out of the Chesapeake, was hung at Halifax on the 1st inst. Previous to his being led to execution, he confessed that he was an Englishman, and had deserted the service. N. Y. People's Friend.
FOR FREIGHT OR CHARTER. THE FINE ATE CAN SHIP BROTHERS, CAPT. DINGLEY, Boston 210 Tons. Now at Bermuda Hundred or City Point. For terms apply to WM. BROWN & Co. Richmond, Sept. 19.
LAND FOR SALE. The subscriber wishes to sell That valuable FARM, on which he resides, containing by actual survey 1199 3-4 acres. The Land is generally level and equal to any in the neighborhood. There are about 15 or 20 acres of excellent Meadow. It is situated on Mattapony river, 8 miles above the Court-House, two from King William Court-House and about thirty miles from the City of Richmond, and adjoins the lands of Col. Larkin Smith, Gen. H. Young and others. The improvements are a large Dwelling House, too fories high, with four rooms and a passage on each floor, a good barn, stable, carriage house and a brick floor house, completely fitted for a retail store. Also, a granary, on a wharf where vessels drawing ten feet water can load. Its situation is very eligible for a professional character, on account of its contiguity to several Court-houses. He will sell the whole or the improvements with a part of the land as may suit the convenience of the purchaser. Terms may be known by application to Charles Hill in Richmond, or to the subscriber in King & Queen county. EDWARD HILL. Sept. 19. law1m4.
IN CHANCERY. In Hanover County Court. August 27th, 1807. Elizabeth Bullock, Widow and relict of John Bullock, deceased, and Elizabeth and Maria Bullock, daughters of said John Bullock, and infants of tender years, by John Woodson, their guardian, for the special purpose of prosecuting this suit by the court appointed, P. Haxall.
David Anderson and Jane his Wife, Defendants. This day came the parties by Nathaniel Pope, their counsel, and the bill and answer being filed and read, It is thereupon ordered that David Royler, Walter Coles, Samuel Mobey, John Hope and John Bowles, Esq., or any three of them, be appointed to make sale of the Household, Kitchen Furniture and Stocks of the said John Bullock, deceased, on twelve months credit, to the highest bidder, giving one months public notice in one of the Richmond newspapers, that they take bonds with security of the purchasers for the estate to be sold; one third thereof payable to the plaintiff Elizabeth Bullock, the widow, and deliver the same to her, as her part in the said estate, and the other two thirds thereof, payable to the other defendants respectively, and deliver the said bonds to them respectively; that they allow unto the pl. Elizabeth Bullock, the widow, one third of the balance of the personal estate of the said deceased, as her dower therein, and the residue thereof, they divide equally between the other plaintiffs, Elizabeth and Maria Bullock and the defendants, and that they report thereof to the court, in order to a final decree. A Copy. Teste, THOMAS POLLARD, D. C. H. C.
IN obedience to the above order of Court, the commissioners therein named, will proceed to carry the same into effect at the house of Elizabeth Bullock, on the 15th of next month. SAMUEL MOSBY, WALTER COLES, DAVID ROYLER, JOHN BOWLES. law1m5.
WILL CERTAINLY BE SOLD. By virtue of a deed of trust made to us, by Willis Willis, late of Buckingham, to secure a debt due said Willis, Willis of Buckingham, will be sold, for cash, to the highest bidder, on the premises, on the 10th day of November next. (If fair, if not, the next fair day.) FOUR Tracts, Lots or parcels of LAND, in Buckingham, opposite the Seven Islands, lying on James and Slate Rivers; the whole containing 236 acres by a late survey. It is hoped, that those who are desirous of purchasing, will view the Lands before the day of sale. The sale will commence at 12 o'clock. WM. H. CABELL, RO: QUARLES, JOHN FORBES, THOS. WILLS. law1m5w.
FOR SALE. THE TRACT of LAND whereon I now live, containing two hundred and forty-one acres, lying and being in the county of Chesterfield, about nine miles from Manchester, and one from James River; there is a very good dwelling house with a good barn and other out houses; apple and peach orchard; it is a very high and healthy situation; very small part of the aforesaid Land cleared. I will sell to fell one half of a Grist-Mill, on Powhatan Creek, within one mile of my aforesaid Land. This Mill is entirely new, and perhaps is as profitable as any mill of the kind in the country. There is only one pair of stones at work at the present; but is so constructed (at a small expense) to put up another pair. For terms apply to the subscriber. JOHN FORE. P. S. There is no doubt but there is Coal on the aforesaid Lands, as a great sign has been discovered. Sept. 19. law2m4. J. F.
TO BE SOLD. At Hanover Court-House, on the 4th Wednesday in November next, being Court day, pursuant to a decree of the County Court of Hanover, (in which William Winfield and others, legatees of John Winfield, deceased, are Plts. and Thomas Winfield and others defts.) A TRACT of LAND, belonging to the estate of the said deceased, containing between 5 and 600 acres, lying and being in the county of Franklin and state of Kentucky. A credit of twelve months will be given the purchaser or purchasers, and a deed executed to him or them, with a special warranty, on entering into as many bonds with security, as there are legatees, payable to them respectively. BY THE COMRS. Sept. 19. law2m5.
MARSHAL'S SALES. WILL be sold, to the highest bidder, for ready money, under a decree of the court of the United States for the fifth circuit, in the Virginia district, between Pheasant Bond, attorney in fact for the creditors of Ezekiel Edwards, plaintiff, and David Ross and others, defendants, in order to raise the sum of fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty-five dollars and sixty-six cents, due and payable the first day of last month, and the expenses and charges attending the sale; a number of very valuable SLAVES. The sale will take place at the Oxford Iron Works, in the county of Campbell, on the 23rd day of September next. BEN. MOSBY, D. M. FOR JOSEPH SCOTT, M. V. D. August 7th, 1807. 235
BY consent of the parties, the sale above-mentioned, is postponed till the 15th day of October next, when it will take place at the Oxford Iron Works—and by the like consent, will be sold, under the decree aforesaid, nine thousand six hundred acres of LAND, more or less, situated on Calawah Creek, and the waters thereof, in the county of Bertie, granted to the said Ross by twenty two several patents: one for 1200 acres, bearing date the 12th day of December, 1785; the other twenty-one patents, bearing date on the 13th of May, 1756, and which are as follows: one for 362 acres, four for 500 acres, each two for 200 acres each; one for ninety acres, one for 410 acres, one for 182 acres, one for 430 acres, one for 290 acres, one for 210 acres, one for 112 acres, four for four hundred acres each, one for three hundred and sixty acres, one for 48

Europe.
Continuation of Foreign News, from London Papers to July 31, received at Boston, by the Sally Ann.
Tilsit, June 28. Yesterday, at three o'clock, the Emperor made a visit to the Emperor Alexander.
At 8 o'clock the two sovereigns returned to the palace of the Emperor Napoleon, who came to the gate of his palace to receive him.
At two o'clock the king of Prussia came to the Emperor Napoleon, who went to receive him to the bottom of the staircase leading to his department.
At four o'clock the Emperor Napoleon went to visit the Emperor Alexander. They mounted their horses at five o'clock, and went to the ground where the corps of Marshal Davoust was to manoeuvre.
Tilsit, July 6. Their majesties, the emperor Alexander, the king of Prussia, the Queen, the grand Duke Constantine, Prince Henry of Prussia, the Prince Royal of Bavaria, and the grand Duke of Berg, dined on the 6th of this month with his majesty the emperor Napoleon.
AFFAIRS IN RUSSIA.
LONDON, July 27.
It is said that renewed overtures have been made to the King of Sweden, probably in consequence of the intervention of Russia; but it is doubtful whether he will accept them, and restore Louis XVIII, a concession at present hardly to be expected.
Lord Gower, in announcing to the Russian Minister of State, Budberg, his arrival at Memel and expressing his intention to attend his Imperial Majesty on the Niemen, is stated to have received intimation, that, under the present circumstances, his Majesty was desirous to dispense with his Lordship's intended courtesy.
Mr. McKenzie, on whose advice from the Continent a Cabinet council was held a few days ago, witnessed the memorable interview between the Emperors on the Niemen. He reports the most remarkable cordiality existing at this time between them, that some extraordinary projects have been suggested by Buonaparte as indicative of their future power and grandeur; that the Russian has promised that either he or his brother Constantine shall pass a month at Paris; and that the whole of these intimacies are not only alarming, but fearfully tending to the injury of Great Britain.
LIVERPOOL, August 1.
The Americans have never confessed that we should exercise, at the pleasure of our naval commanders, the privilege of searching for deserters or English seamen even on board private ships.
In the case of the Leopard, the circumstances are certainly very strong; and it is probable that Captain Humphreys may make out a case which will completely justify his conduct.
A vessel has arrived from the Mediterranean, with letters from the city of Algiers to the 5th ult. inclusive. They communicate the intelligence that a vigorous war was carrying on between the Algerine and Tunisian states.
Lord Collingwood, in the Ocean, with a strong detachment of his fleet, has proceeded, we understand, with Sir Arthur Paget, our new Ambassador, for Constantinople.
AMERICAN TREATY.
We have some reason for believing, (says the Times, of July 13,) that a formal notice of the rejection of the Treaty between England and America has been received by government.
The following are the speculations of the Paris Argus on the battle of Friedland.
"It is not for us to endeavor to penetrate into the consequences of a day so fertile in political results as that of the battle of Friedland; but whatever may be the ideas of that genius which has doubtless already conceived them, it is no longer in the power of his enemies to prevent them.
The most important consequence of this battle is, perhaps, the complete dissolution of that imaginary military glory which rendered the Russians formidable to all nations.
England is struck with the same blow which falls so heavily upon Russia. All intelligent persons foresee the consequence, and we shall soon have occasion to recur particularly to this important subject."
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Batavia, to his friend in Providence, dated April 8.
"The English having lately destroyed nearly all the Dutch naval force that was here, the Malay pirates have become very troublesome on the coast of Java.
Domestic.
NEW-ORLEANS, July 31.
His Excellency Governor Claiborne & Suite, sat out yesterday on a visit to Natchez.
The Conchatto Indians, who are settled on the Sabine river, have lately killed two Americans, near Natchitoches, and threaten to commit further hostility.
About 9 o'clock on Saturday morning the pilot-boat Brothers, with the custom-house officers on board, was detained by an armed boat from the British brig Columbine, now in the Bay, and had the crew examined on pretence of searching for one of the brig's men, who it was said had deserted.
The same brig in the Bay, fired at, brought to, and boarded one of the gun-boats from the eastward, on a similar pretence.
Yesterday afternoon the British Frigate Jason, got under weigh from the quarantine ground, and dropped down to the Hook.
NEW-YORK, September 7.
John Bateman, a native of Newark, in New-Jersey, was pressed out of the brig Ulysses on her passage from this port to Demerara, and is now on board the British frigate Jason on the quarantine ground, with 18 other impressed Americans.
Captain Cochrane, the commander of the Jason, came up to town on Saturday morning in his barge, accompanied by two officers and eight seamen.
About 9 o'clock on Saturday morning the pilot-boat Brothers, with the custom-house officers on board, was detained by an armed boat from the British brig Columbine, now in the Bay, and had the crew examined on pretence of searching for one of the brig's men, who it was said had deserted.
The same brig in the Bay, fired at, brought to, and boarded one of the gun-boats from the eastward, on a similar pretence.
Yesterday afternoon the British Frigate Jason, got under weigh from the quarantine ground, and dropped down to the Hook.
INDIAN DEPREDATIONS.
ALBANY, Sept. 3. A letter from a gentleman of respectable standing in Lewistown, on the Niagara river, to his brother in this town, dated the 19th inst. contains the following intelligence:
That Capt. Connelly, of the schooner Wilkinson, arrived there from Detroit, who informs, that when he left there the town was in a state of the utmost alarm in consequence of the hostile conduct of the Indians, about 500 of whom had encamped on Detroit river opposite the town, dressed and painted in a manner that indicated war.
Canandaigua Repository.
FROM OUR CORRESPONDENTS.
"NEW-YORK, Sept. 6. Custom-House, New-York. Collector's Office, Sept. 5, 1807.
"The President's proclamation having interdicted all communication and intercourse between the Citizens of the United States, and the ships of war of his Britannic Majesty, all persons are hereby notified, that the penalties incurred by a breach of the said proclamation, will be rigorously enforced.
DAVID GELSTON, Collector."
CHARLESTON, August 26.
We are informed that General PINCKNEY, with Colonels STEPHENS, RUTLEDGE and ROOPER, and Majors WARD and HOWARD, went on Monday last to Fort Johnson, to visit the Engineer, Capt. Macomb, who arrived a few days since from Rocky-Mount, agreeably to the invitation of the committee of the citizens.
DEATH OF COMMODORE PREBLE.
Deceased this life, on Tuesday the 25th inst. Commodore EDWARD PREBLE, in the 40th year of his age. As a citizen he was universally beloved; hospitable, generous, philanthropic and amiable; no one could be acquainted with him, without being enraptured with his commendable virtues.
The Commodore expired at a quarter past five in the afternoon of Tuesday. The citizens of this town, deeply affected at the loss of so great and good a man, had a meeting at the Insurance-Office, on that evening, and chose a respectable committee to make arrangements for entombing his remains with every possible mark of respect.
On Saturday last, an EEL of the following surprising dimensions, was caught by Capt. Howland between the bridges on Schuylkill, viz.
Table with 2 columns: Feature, Length. Length: 5 feet 6 inches, Girth: 12, Width: 11. And weighing 12 and an half pounds.
Phil. pap.
PROPOSALS.
For carrying MAILS of the UNITED STATES, on the following routes, will be received at the General Post-Office, until the 15th of October next.
1st. FROM Petersburg by Harrisville, Goldsboro,ville, Drummondville, Warrenton, Lewistown, Raleigh and Averysboro, to Fayetteville, three times a week.
Leave Petersburg every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 3 a.m. arrive at Warrenton same days by 8 p.m.
Return—Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a.m. arrive at Raleigh same days by 6 p.m.
2nd. From Fayetteville by Lumberton, Barefields Mills, Ports ferry, Gaules and Georgetown to Charleston three times a week.
Leave Fayetteville every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 4 a.m. arrive at Ports ferry on Friday and Monday by 6 p.m.
Return—Leave Charleston every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at 5 1/2 a.m. arrive at Georgetown same days by 6 p.m.
Leave Georgetown every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 2 a.m. arrive at Ports ferry on Wednesday, Friday & Monday by 6 p.m.
NOTES.
1. The post master general may expedite the mails and alter the times of arrival and departure at any time during the continuance of the contracts, he dispensing an adequate compensation for any extra expense that may be occasioned thereby. 2. Fifteen minutes shall be allowed for opening and closing the mails at all offices where no particular time is specified. 3. For every thirty minutes delay (unavoidable accidents excepted) in arriving after the time prescribed in any contract, the contractor shall forfeit one dollar; and if the delay continues until the departure of any depending mail, whereby the mails destined for each depending mail, lose a trip, an additional forfeiture of five dollars shall be incurred. 4. Newspapers, as well as letters, to be sent in the mail; and if any person making proposals, desires to carry newspapers, other than those conveyed in the mail, for his own emolument, he must state in his proposals for what sum he will carry with the emolument, and for what sum without that emolument. 5. Should any person making proposals desire an alteration of the times of arrival and departure above specified, he must state in his proposals the alteration desired, and the difference they will make in the terms of the contract. 6. Persons making proposals are desired to state their price by the year. Those who contract will receive their pay quarterly, in the months of August, November, February and May, in one month after the expiration of each quarter. 7. No other than a free white person shall be employed to convey the mail. 8. Where the proposer intends to convey the mail in the body of a stage carriage, he is desired to state it in his proposals. 9. The post master general reserves to himself the right of declaring any contract at an end, whenever any failure happens which amounts to the loss of a trip. 10. The contracts for the above routes are to be in operation on the first day of January next, and to continue in force until the 31st day of March, 1810.
GIDEON GRANGER, Post Master General. General Post-Office, Washington, (Aug. 14) ephw.
FALL GOODS.
The subscribers are receiving by the Ship Herschell from Liverpool, an extensive supply of MERCHANDIZE, SUITABLE to the approaching season—are in daily expectation of their London GOODS, by the ship Culp, which will make their assortment complete, and which they offer for sale by the piece or package, on the most moderate terms. JOHN & ROBERT GAMBLE, jun. Sept. 9. gawgw.
THE BROAD ROCK FALL RACES
Will commence on Monday the 28th day of September next; the first day the GREAT PRODUCE SWEETWEEKS, for which there are 22 Cols entered at 200 dollars each, half forfeit, running 2 mile heats, weights agreeable to the rules of the Jockey Club.
gentlemen's names who have entered Cols: 1. John Hoopes enters the produce of Trompeta by Dragon. 2. David M. Rands enters the produce of Dolly by Bedford. 3. John Randolph (Rancke) prod. Logania by Dragon. 4. Wm. B. Franklin prod. Spot by Dragon. 5. Wm. Alston prod. Mabrina by Bedford. 6. John Stith prod. Belena by Bedford. 7. Turner Dixon prod. Blossom by Bedford. 8. Hugh Willie prod. Puffey by Dragon. 9. James Catterer prod. Bellona by Gherard. 10. Joseph Ruffin prod. Nancy Wildair by Jonath. 11. Thomas Gray prod. his Pantaloon mare by Dragon. 12. John Minge prod. Dido by Whisp. 13. Edward Watkins prod. Kitty Brimmer by Dragon. 14. John Mingo prod. Juliana by Stirling. 15. Daniel Wilson, jun. prod. Signat by Dragon. 16. Thomas Watkins prod. Anderson's bay mare by Dragon. 17. John Clayton prod. his black mare by Sterling. 18. Robert Temple prod. Virginia by B. Ord. 19. Miles Salton, jun. prod. Aaron Hapough by Wasey. 20. John Taylor prod. Maria by Bedford. 21. John Hoopes, jr. prod. Fairy by Dragon. 22. William Talbot prod. Dido by Bedford. 2nd day. The Jockey Club Purse of 400 dols. four mile heats. 3rd day. The Proprietor's Purse of 200 dols. three mile heats. 4th day. A Pot Sweepstakes for 3 year old Cols, running one mile heats. Entrance 100 dollars play or pay. To this Stake there are two subscribers; four to make a race; subscription to close on the 20th September. Any gentleman wishing to subscribe to this Stake, can do it by letter when it is not convenient to do it personally. Letters sent to the Manufactory Post-Office, directed to the Proprietor of the course will be duly attended to. Also, will be run for the same day of this Stake, a Handy Cap Purse, two mile heats. Entrance 20 dols. Horses which run for the three first day races to be Handy Capped agreeably to their performances. Winning mare for each day to carry their full weights. Any gentleman may start a horse for this Purse, whether he is a member of the Jockey Club or not. Wm. BALL, Proprietor. September 5. lawscap.
NOTICE.
All persons having claims against the estate of John Sanduque, deceased, are requested to bring them forward, to the subscriber, duly authenticated, on or before the first day of November next, at which time a division of the assets in my hands will take place; those failing to comply with this advertisement, will be excluded from the benefit of said dividend. THOMAS WHITT. Sept. 9. law2m.
FOR RENT.
And possession given Christmas next, for a term not less than three nor more than seven years.
A TAVERN and the plantation thereunto ad-joining in the county of Mecklenburg, about one mile from Lady Skipwith's, and Somerville, lies on Roanoke river, on the main road leading from the Carolinas, Georgia, &c. to Petersburg, Richmond and the Federal City.
The Tavern-house is large and commodious, good stables and all other necessary out houses—on this place is a good apple and peach orchard, which never fail bearing fruit—there is a quantity of hickory timbered land convenient which may be cleared and used at the discretion of the tenant. It is deemed unnecessary to say more as it is presumed that those who wish to rent would first view the premises. But the subscriber can with propriety say the advantages attached to this place, renders it by far the most advantageous stand for a tavern and store in that part of the country. There will be a tolerable crop of wheat sown on the place. For terms, &c. apply to the subscriber living on the premises. HOWEL GRAVES. Sept. 5. oaw3m.
LAND—FOR SALE.
THE subscriber offers for sale, a Tract of LAND, lying on Tye river, in the county of Amherst, being part of the estate of the late Col. John Rose, containing by actual survey 1005 acres. It is three miles distant from the Court-house, and twenty miles from Warrenton. There are from 150 to 200 acres of this tract cleared, the residue is heavily timbered with oak, hickory, chestnut, &c. The soil of the land, which is inferior to none in its vicinity, is admirably adapted to the culture of tobacco, corn, wheat, &c. Its contiguity to Mr. Miley's manufacturing mill, will be a circumstance of great consideration to a purchaser. Possession will be given on the first day of the ensuing year, with liberty to sow small grain this next fall. One third of the purchase money will be required in hand; for the other payments, a liberal indulgence will be given. The land will be flown by Mr. Alexander B. Rose or Capt. A. Morgan, residing in the neighborhood. Those willing to purchase, may know the terms of sale by applying to the subscriber. THOMAS FITZRUZH. Boscomb, Stafford county, Sept. 5. law2m.
MARTIN BOWMAN.
About 16 years of age, 5 feet high, and a down look; his clothing were a drab coloured cloth coat, & an ozanaburg shirt and pantaloon. Any person bringing said apprenticeship to the subscriber shall be reasonably rewarded, and all expenses attendant thereto, will be paid by him. JOHN L. MORGAN. Sept. 12. law2m.
LOAN OFFICE, STATE OF VIRGINIA, JUNE 8, 1807.
I wish to sell the following VALUABLE PROPERTY, situated in the centre of business, in the City of Richmond, for money, or I will exchange it for good Land in the lower parts of Tennessee. FOUR BRICK HOUSES, on the main-street, three of them opposite Messrs. John & Robert Gamble, and fronting the cross-street, leading from Col. Mayo's bridge; attached thereto are brick Lumber-Houses, Kitchen, Smoke houses, &c. The other House opposite Messrs. Gallego and occupied by Mr. Rolt. Bell, saddler. Any person willing to purchase the above property, will apply to Mr. Lewis Truett, who is generally in Richmond, or to B. TRUEHEART. Powhatan, Sept. 12. oawgw.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,
THAT, in conformity with the provisions of the act supplementary to the act, entitled "An act making provision for the redemption of the whole of the public debt of the United States," books will be opened at the office of the commissioner of loans for the state of Virginia, on the 1st day of July next, to continue open until the seventeenth day of March, 1808, exclusively, the fourteen last days of each quarter excepted, for the purpose of receiving subscriptions for such parts of the old six per cent. deferred six per cent. and three per cent. stocks, as may, on the day of subscription, stand on the books of the said commissioner of loans. Those proprietors of the old six per cent. and deferred stocks, who may subscribe, will receive in lieu thereof a new six per cent. stock, equal to the unredeemed amount of the stock surrendered, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States, under a proviso however, that no reimbursement shall be made except for the whole amount of any such new certificate of stock, nor till after six months previous notice; and the proprietors of the three per cent. stock who may subscribe, will receive in lieu thereof, a six per cent. stock, equal to sixty five per cent. of the amount of three per cent. surrendered, redeemable in the same manner as the new six per cent. stock, as above mentioned, but not redeemable however, without the assent of the holders, until after the whole of the new six per cent. (given in exchange for old six or deferred as above mentioned) as well as the whole of the eight per cent. stock of the United States, shall have been reimbursed. It is also provided that in every reimbursement which may take place, a preference will be given to those creditors who may notify their will to be reimbursed; and that if the applications to that effect shall at any time either exceed or fall short of the sum then applicable to that purpose, the priority of payment shall, so far as may be necessary, be determined by lot.
The present stockholders who reside in any part of Europe, and may assent to that modification, may, at their option, receive the interest accruing on the new stock, either in the United States as heretofore, or in London, or Amsterdam, at par, in which last case, the interest will be paid there by the bankers of the United States, six months subsequent to the day, on which the same would be payable in the United States, and subject to no variation; nor to any other deduction than a commission to the bankers, of one half per cent. on the interest thus paid. JOHN PAGE, Commissioner of Loans.
NOTE.
Proprietors of 1000 dollars nominal six per cent. stock, subscribed before the 1st October, 1807, will be entitled to receive 649 62 of new six per cent. stock. If subscribed between the 1st October, 1807, and 31st December, 1807, 644 37 between the 1st January, and 17th March, 1808, 619 03 Proprietors of 1000 dollars nominal deferred, subscribed before the 1st October, 1807, will be entitled to receive 855 78 If subscribed between the 1st October, and 31st December, 1807, 853 62 between the 1st January, and 17th March, 1808, 831 42 Being the unredeemed amount of the old stock on the 1st July, and October, 1807, and 1st January, 1808, respectively. Proprietors of 100 dollars three per cent. stock will be entitled to receive 650 dollars of new six per cent. stock. J. E. GARD. June 10, 1807.
FOR SALE.
175 Ton Liverpool Shaved Sails, 80 Do. Do. Common Do. 60 Pieces Sacking, 50 Crates well assorted Earthen Ware, On board the Ship Vigilant, Capt. Bowditch, at Bermuda Hundred. Apply to Wm. BROWN & Co. July . law2m.