The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1805-03-01 00:00:00

THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, (Virginia) PUBLISHED BY RITCHIE & WORSLEY, OPPOSITE THE POST OFFICE...AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM...payable in advance.
NUMBER 90.]
FRIDAY MORNING, MARCH 1, 1805.
[VOLUME I.]
CONDITIONS.
 I. THE ENQUIRER will appear twice a week...During the session of Congress and the Virginia Legislature, either a third paper or a supplementary half-sheet, during the week.  II. Terms of payment FIVE DOLLARS per annum, in advance.  III. ADVERTISEMENTS, from those who do not subscribe to the paper, should not exceed a square in length, shall be inserted for seventy-five cents the first time, fifty cents for each time during three weeks, and for every additional insertion thirty-three cents; long ones in the same proportion.  IV. SUBSCRIBERS shall have their advertisements inserted for fifty cents the first time, and thirty-three cents for every additional insertion. 
Sales at Auction.
Will be sold at Public Auction, on Tuesday the 19th inst. on the premises.
THE well improved Half Acre LOT lying in that part of this city called Rockers , No. 207, formerly the property of Robert Overton, deceased. The lot will admit of a partition into three tenements. The terms of the sale for negotiable notes in the bank of Virginia, at 90 days. An indisputable title will be made, except an incumbrance of the widow's dower.
PROSSER & MONCURE, V. MRS. Feb. 8. epf
Sales at Auction.
Will be sold, on Wednesday, the 6th day of March next, on a credit of 12 months.
A NEGLIGENT CHARIOT, as good as new, with a complete set of harness, together with a pair of strong horses. THOMAS TAYLOR & Co. V. MRS. Feb. 26. epf
Sales at Auction.
Will be sold on Wednesday the 6th day of March next.
A Good BRICK dwelling HOUSE with all the necessary offices together with two acres (town measure) of highly improved land; the property and present residence of Dr. James D. McCaw. Terms of payment will be made known on the day of sale. THOMAS TAYLOR & Co. V. MRS. February 22. epf
Auction Sales.
THOMAS TAYLOR & Co. Will in future sell at the store occupied by M. W. Hancock & Co. on Wednesdays in each week; and at their office, on Tuesdays and Fridays as usual. Dec. 1, 1804. epf
WM. MCKENZIE & Co.
WILL HAVE FOR SALE - 4000 Dollars worth of 2 per cent. Certificates, bearing interest at 5 per cent. and stock of the Bank of Virginia. February 25. epf
NOTICE.
TWO facilities to claimants under the 7th article of the treaty with Great Britain - the receipt of the third installment due on the 10th July next, in instances in which they have not confirmed the public agent in London, their special attorney, it has been thought proper to draw to the United States all such monies of the above description as may not be drawn from him by the individuals themselves prior to the 1st of September next. The agent is accordingly instructed to cash paying them after that date; but after the 1st of November next, they will be again payable at the city of Washington to those who have right, or to their attorneys duly authorized. Department of State, Feb. 8. 1805. Note. The Printers of the Laws of the United States are requested to insert the above four times in their gazettes. Feb. 1.
JUST RECEIVED, and for sale at the Office of the ENQUIRER, a few copies of the following BOOKS: Moore's Anacurion Life of Doctor Darwin Report of the Trial of Lord Hawkesbury Graydon's Discourse of the Laws of the U. States Terrible Tragedy Volney's View of the United States, &c. &c. February 5.
NOTICE.
THE subscribers having put an end to their retail business, request the debtors to this firm to come forward, without loss of time, to have their accounts adjusted, and to pay what may be due. As great indulgence has been already given, further cannot reasonably be expected. George McCrede will attend at this place, for the purpose of settling the accounts, and receiving payments. Those who do not pay, or give satisfactory assurance of paying soon, must blame themselves if suits are instituted against them. LYLE & McCREDE. Manchester, Feb. 8. epf
FOR SALE.
By WILLIAM ROSS, AT THE EAGLE TAVERN: NIGHY-four yards Fancy, Tolonet, Callimere & Swanton Wool Fabrics. 2 cases Britannia, 1 bale Ticklenburgs, 8 cases and trunks Chinese and Callimere, 1 case Cotton Shawls and Pocket Handkis. 1 do. India Satins, assorted colours, 1 bale Guarah Mullins, 2 do. Bafa do. 3 do. Cofia do. 1 do. Jamnah Mamoudy do. 1 do. do. Samnah do. 60 boxes Spanish Segars, 20 do. containing sets of Tea China, 67 pieces each, 50 do. assorted do. 80 ream Medium Vellum Printing Paper, 6 do. Foolscap Writing do. Also, 5 boxes Glass Tumblers and Decanters. N. B. Crop Tobacco, Flour, or Flax-Seed, will be taken in payment as cash. January 11. (lawf)
HUGH J. CRAWFORD, HAS just Received, per the ship Alexander, from London a general Assortment of Genuine DRUGS & MEDICINES, which he will dispose of on moderate terms. Richmond, Dec. 25. (lawf)
FOR SALE, A Likely Negro WOMAN, who understands cooking and washing - Likewise her daughter about 6 years old. Enquire of the printers. February 19. epf
TO NON-RESIDENTS OF KENTUCKY.
THE SUBSCRIBER living in the neighbourhood of Frankfort, Kentucky, having undertaken to pay the taxes of a number of gentlemen residing in Virginia and elsewhere, on their lands in this state, and finding that the remitting of money to him for that purpose is attended with great difficulties, risk and trouble, proposes it to those gentlemen and any others who may find it an accommodation to them, the following plan, to wit: That they shall deposit their money in either of the banks of Richmond, Alexandria, George town or Baltimore, on or before the first day of May annually, and authorize some person at those several banks to advise him by post of the amount, and to whom credit it shall be applied, and in how far to draw for the same, payable on sight. The lands of non-residents are advertised about the first of July, which is an expense of twenty-five cents on each tract. The subscriber's draft will command the cash in this state, and as soon as his bills are honoured at any of the above mentioned banks, he will advance the money in Kentucky, deducting seven and a half percent commission on his bills, in attending to and executing the business. He will enclose duplicate receipts to those banks in which the money is deposited, or to the proprietors of the lands, keeping the original in his own possession, to correct any errors which may occur in the auditors office of Kentucky. To those gentlemen who may wish to pay their taxes in this way, and who have not a personal acquaintance with the subscriber, he begs leave to refer them to the Hon. John Breckinridge, the Hon. Matthew Walton, Esqrs. now in Congress, at the city of Washington, or to Gen. John Preston of Montgomery county, and Col. James Breckinridge of Botetourt county, Virginia, as to the confidence which may be reposed in him. NATHANIEL HART. N. B. The postage on all letters directed to me on the above business must be paid. December 15, 1804. (lawf)
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
Answer of SAMUEL CHASE.
(Concluded.)
These charges amount in substance to this: that the respondent refused to discharge a grand jury on their request, which is every day's practice, and which he was bound to do, if he believed that the due administration of justice required their longer attendance; that he directed the attention of the grand jury to an offence against a statute of the U. States, which he had been informed was committed in the district; and that he desired the district attorney to aid the grand jury, in their enquiries concerning the existence and nature of this offence. By these three acts, each of which it was his duty to perform, he is alleged to have degraded his high judicial functions, and tended to impair the public confidence in, and respect for, the tribunals of justice, so essential to the general welfare.
That this honorable court may be able to form correctly its judgment, concerning the transaction mentioned in this article, this respondent submits the following statement of it, which he avers to be true, and expects to prove.
On the 27th day of June, 1800, this respondent, as one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, presided in the circuit court of the United States, then held at New-Castle in and for the district of Delaware, and was assisted by Cushing Bedford, Esq. then district judge of the U. States for that district. At the opening of the court on that day, this respondent according to his duty and his uniform practice, delivered a charge to the grand jury, in which he gave in charge to them several statutes of the U. States, and among others, an act of Congress passed July 14th, 1798, entitled "An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the U. States." and commonly called the "sedition law." He directed them to enquire concerning any breaches of those statutes, and especially of that commonly called the sedition law, within the district of Delaware.
On the same day before the usual hour of adjournment, the grand jury came into court, and informed the court that they had found no indictment or presentment, and had no business before them, for which reason they wished to be discharged. This respondent replied, that it was easier than the usual hour of discharging a grand jury; and that business might occur during the sitting of the court. He also asked them if they had no information of publications within the district, that came under the sedition law, and added, that he had been informed, that there was a paper called the "Mirror," published at Wilmington, which contained libelous charges against the government and President of the United States: that he had not seen that paper, but it was their duty to enquire into the subject; and if they had not turned their attention to it, the attorney for the district would be pleased to examine a file of that paper, and if he found any thing that came within the sedition law, would lay it before them. This is the substance of what the respondent said to the grand jury on that occasion, and he believes nearly his words. On the morning of the next day, they came into court and declared that they had no presentment or indictment to make, on which they were immediately discharged. The whole time therefore, for which they were detained, was twenty-four hours, far less than is generally required of grand juries.
In these proceedings, this respondent acted according to his sense of what the duties of his office required. It certainly was his duty to give in charge to the grand jury, all such statutes of the United States as provided for the punishment of offences, and among others, that called the sedition law; and into all offences against which act, while it continued in force, the grand jury were bound by their oaths to enquire. In giving it in charge, together with the other acts of Congress for the punishment
of offences, he followed more over the example of the other judges of the supreme court, in holding their respective circuit courts. He also contends, and did then believe, that it was his duty, when informed of an offence, which the grand jury had overlooked, to direct their attention towards it, and to request for them, and even to require if necessary, the aid of the district attorney in making their enquiries. In thus discharging what he conceived to be his duty even if he committed an error in so considering it, he denies that he committed or could commit any offence whatever.
With respect to the remarks which he is charged by this article with having made to the grand jury, relative to "a highly illiterate temper, which he had understood to have manifested itself in the state of Delaware, among a certain class of people, particularly in Newcastle county, and more especially in the town of Wilmington," and relative to "a most seditious printer, residing in Wilmington, unscrupulously by any principal of virtue, and regardless of the order of this respondent does not recollect or believe, that he made any such observations. But if he did make them, it could not be improper in him to tell the jury that he had received such information, if indeed he had received it; which was probably the case, though he cannot recollect it with certainty at this distance of time. That this information, if he did receive it, was correct, so far as it regarded the printer in question, will fully appear from a file of the paper called the "Mirror of the Times," &c. published at Wilmington, Delaware, from February 27th to March 19th, 1800, inclusive, which he has lately obtained, and is ready to produce to this honorable court when necessary, and some extracts from which are contained in the exhibits severally marked No. 7, which he prays leave to make part of his answer.
And for plea to the said seventh article of impeachment, the said Samuel Chase saith, that he is not guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor, as in and by the said seventh article is alleged against him, and this he prays may be enquired of by this honorable court, in such manner as law and justice shall seem to them to require.
The 8th article of impeachment charges that the respondent, "disregarding the duties & dignity of his official character did, at a circuit court for the district of Maryland, held at Baltimore, in the month of May, 1800, pervert his official right and duty to address the grand jury then and there assembled, on the matters coming within the province of the said grand jury, for the purpose of delivering to the said grand jury an incompetent and inflammatory political harangue, with intent to excite the fears and resentment of the said grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland, against their state government and constitution," and also that this respondent, "under pretence of exercising his judicial right to address the grand jury as aforesaid, did endeavor to excite the odium of the said grand jury, and of the good people of Maryland, against the government of the United States, by delivering opinions which were, at that time and as delivered by him, highly indecent, extra judicial, and tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering parizan."
In answer to this charge this respondent admits, that he did, as one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, preside in a circuit court held at Baltimore in and for the district of Maryland, in May 1800, and did then deliver a charge to the grand jury, and express in the conclusion of it some opinions as to certain public measures, both of the government of Maryland and of that of the United States. But he denies that in thus acting he disregarded the duties and dignity of his judicial character, perverted his official right and duty to address the grand jury, or had any intention to excite the fears or resentment of any person whatever, against the government and constitution of the United States or of Maryland. He denies that the sentiments which he then expressed, were "incompetent and inflammatory," either in themselves or in the manner of delivering; that he did endeavor to excite the odium of any person whatever against the government of the United States, or did deliver any opinions which were in any respect indecent, or which had any tendency to prostitute his judicial character, to any low or improper purpose. He denies that he did any thing that was unusual, improper or unbecoming in a judge, or expressed any opinions, but such as a friend to his country, and a firm supporter of the governments both of the state of Maryland and of the United States, might entertain.
For the truth of what he here says, he appeals confidently to the charge itself, which was read from a written paper now in his possession ready to be produced. A true copy of all such parts of this paper as relate to the subject matter of this article of impeachment, is contained in the exhibit marked No. 8, which he prays leave to make part of this his answer. That part of it which relates to the article now under consideration is in these words: "You know, gentlemen, that our state and national institutions were formed to secure to every member of the society equal liberty and equal rights; but the late alteration of the federal judiciary by the abolition of the office of the six circuit judges, and the recent change in our state constitution by the establishing universal suffrage, and the further alteration that is contemplated in our state judiciary, (if adopted) will in my judgment take away all security for property and personal liberty. The independence of the national judiciary is already shaken to its foundation; and the virtue of the people alone can restore it. The independence of the judges of this state will be entirely destroyed, if the bill for the abolishing the two supreme courts, should be ratified by the next general assembly. The change of the state constitution by allowing universal suffrage, will in my opinion certainly and rapidly destroy all protection to property, and all security to personal liberty; and our republican constitution will sink into a mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments."
"I can only lament that the main pillar of our state constitution has been thrown down, by the establishment of universal suffrage. By this shock alone, the whole building totters to its base, and will crumble into ruins before many years elapse, unless it be restored to its original state. If the independence of your state judges, which your bill of rights wisely declares "to be essential to the impartial administration of justice, and the great security to the
rights and liberties of the people," shall be taken away, by the ratification of the bill passed for that purpose, it will precipitate the destruction of your whole state constitution, and there will be nothing left in it, worthy the care or support of freemen."
Admitting these opinions to have been incorrect and unfounded, this respondent denies that there was any law which forbid him to express them, in a charge to a grand jury; and he contends that there can be no offence, without the breach of some law. The very offence of deposition consists, in punishing acts which, at the time when they were done, were forbidden by no law. Admitting the expression of political opinions by a judge, in his charge to a jury, to be improper and very dangerous; there are many improper and very dangerous acts, which not being forbidden by law cannot be punished. Hence the necessity of new penal laws; which are from time to time enacted for the prevention of acts not before forbidden, but found by experience to be of dangerous tendency. It has been the practice in this country, ever since the beginning of the revolution, which separated us from Great Britain, for the judges to express from the bench, by way of charge to the grand jury, and to enforce to the utmost of their ability, such political opinions as they thought correct & useful. There have been instances in which the legislative bodies of this country, have recommended this practice to the judges; and it was adopted by the judges of the supreme court of the United States, as soon as the present judicial system was established. If the legislature of the United States considered this practice as mischievous, dangerous or liable to abuse, they might have forbidden it by law; to the penalties of which, such judges might afterwards be subject; but the legislature has given to it an implicit sanction; and for that reason to punish it now by way of impeachment, would be to convert into a crime, by an ex post facto proceeding, an act which when it was done & at all times before, they had themselves virtually declared to be innocent. Such conduct would be utterly subversive of the fundamental principles on which free government rests; and would form a precedent for the most sanguinary and arbitrary persecutions, under the forms of law.
Nor can the incorrectness of the political opinions thus expressed, have any influence in deciding on the guilt or innocence of a judge's conduct in expressing them. For if he should be considered as guilty or innocent, according to the supposed correctness or incorrectness of the opinion, thus expressed by him, it would follow, that error in political opinion however honestly entertained, might be a crime; and that a party in power might, under this pretext, destroy any judge, who might happen in a charge to a grand jury, to say something capable of being construed by them, into a political opinion adverse to their own system.
There might be some pretence for saying, that for a judge to utter seditious sentiments, with intent to excite sedition, would be an impeachable offence: although such a doctrine would be liable to the most dangerous abuses; and is hostile to the fundamental principles of our constitution, and to the best established maxims of constitutional jurisprudence. But admitting this doctrine to be correct, it cannot be denied, that no seditious intention must be proved clearly, either by the most necessary implication from the words themselves, or by some overt act of a seditious nature connected with them. In the present case no such acts are alleged, but the proof of a seditious intent must rest on the words themselves. By this rule this respondent is willing to be judged. Let the opinions which he delivered be examined; and if the members of this honorable court can lay their hands on their hearts, in the presence of God, and say, that these opinions are not only erroneous but seditious also; and carry with them internal evidence of an intention in this respondent to excite sedition, either against the state or general government, he is content to be found guilty.
In making this examination, let it be borne in mind, that to oppose a depending measure, by endeavouring to convince the public that it is improper, and ought not to be adopted; or to promote the repeal of a law already passed, by endeavouring to convince the public, that it ought to be repealed, and that such men ought to be elected to the legislature as will repeal it, to attempt in fine, the correction of public measures, by arguments tending to show their improper nature, or destructive tendency; never has been or can be considered as sedition, in any country, where the principles of law and liberty are respected; but is the proper and usual exercise of that right of opinion and speech, which constitutes the distinguishing feature of free government. The abuse of this privilege, by writing and publishing as facts, malicious falsehoods, with intent to defame, is punishable as libelous, in the courts having jurisdiction of such offences; where the truth or falseness of the facts alleged, and the malice or correctness of the intention, form the criterion of guilt and innocence. But the character of libelous, much less of seditious, has never been applied to the expressions of opinions concerning the tendency of public measures, or to arguments urged for the purpose of opposing them, or of effecting their repeal. To apply the doctrine of sedition or of libels to such cases, would instantly destroy all liberty of speech, subvert the main pillars of free government, and convert the tribunals of justice into engines of party vengeance. To condemn a public measure, therefore, as pernicious in its tendency; to use arguments for proving it to be so; and to endeavour by these means to prevent its adoption, if still depending, or to procure its repeal in a regular and constitutional way, if it be already adopted; can never be considered as sedition, or in any way illegal.
The first opinion expressed to the grand jury on the occasion in question, by this respondent, was that "the late alteration of the federal judiciary, by the abolition of the offices of the six circuit judges; and the recent change in our state constitution, by establishing universal suffrage; and the further alteration that was then contemplated in our state judiciary, if adopted," would in the judgment of this respondent, "take away all security for property and personal liberty." That is "these three measures, if the last of them, which is still depending, should be adopted, will, in my opinion, form a system which pernicious tendency must be, to take away the security for our property and our personal liberty," which we have
hitherto derived from the statutory restrictions, laid by the authors of our constitution on the right of suffrage, and from the present constitution of our courts of justice." What is this but an argument to persuade the people of Maryland to reject the alterations in their state judiciary which were then proposed; which this respondent as a citizen of that state had a right to oppose; and the adoption of which depended on a legislature then to be chosen? If this be sedition, then will it be impossible to express an opinion opposed to the views of a ruling party at the moment, or to propose any of their measures by argument, without becoming subject to such punishment as they may think proper to inflict.
The next opinion is, that "the independence of the national judiciary was already shaken to its foundation, and that the virtue of the people alone could restore it." In other words, "the act of Congress for repealing the late circuit court law, and vacating thereby the offices of the judges, has shaken to its foundation the independence of the national judiciary, and nothing but a change in the representation of Congress which the return of the people to correct sentiments alone can effect, will be sufficient to produce a repeal of this act, and thereby restore it to its former vigor, the part of the federal constitution which has been thus impaired."
This is the obvious meaning of the expression; and it amounts to nothing more than an argument in favor of that change, which this respondent then thought and still thinks is a desirable one; an argument, the force of which as a patriot he might feel, and which as a free man he had a right to advance.
The next opinion is, that "the independence of the judges of the state of Maryland, would be entirely destroyed if the bill for abolishing the two supreme courts should be ratified by the next general assembly." This opinion, however incorrect it may be, seems to have been adopted by the people of Maryland, to whom this argument against the bill in question was addressed: for at the next session of the legislature this bill, which went to change entirely the constitutional tenure of judicial office in the state, and to render the subsistence of the judges dependent on the legislature, and their continuance in office on the executive, was abandoned by common consent.
All the other opinions expressed by this respondent, as above-mentioned bear the same character with those already considered. They are arguments addressed to the people of Maryland, for the purpose of dissuading them from the adoption of a measure then depending; and of inducing them, if possible, to restore to its original state, that part of their constitution relating to the right of suffrage, by a repeal of the law which had been made for its alteration.
Such were the objects of this respondent in delivering those opinions, and he contends that they were fair, proper, and legal objects, and that he had a right to pursue them in this way: a right sanctioned by the universal practice of this country, and by the acquiescence of its various legislative authorities. Such, he contends, is the true and obvious meaning of the opinions which he delivered, and which he believes to be correct. It is not now necessary to enquire into their correctness; but, if incorrect, he denies that they contain any thing seditious, or any evidence of those improper intentions which are imputed to him by this article of impeachment. He denies that in delivering them to the grand jury, he committed any offence, infringed any law, or did any thing unusual, or heretofore considered in this country as improper or unbecoming in a judge. If this article of impeachment can be sustained on these grounds, the liberty of speech on national concerns, and the tenure of the judicial office under the government of the U. States, must hereafter depend on the arbitrary will of the House of Representatives and the Senate, to be declared on impeachment, after the acts were done, which it may at any time be thought necessary to treat as high crimes and misdemeanors.
And the said Samuel Chase, for plea to the said eighth article of impeachment, saith, that he is not guilty of any high crime and misdemeanor, as in and by the said eighth article is alleged against him, and this he prays may be enquired of by this honorable court, in such manner as law and justice shall seem to them to require.
This respondent has now laid before this honorable court, as well as the time allowed him would permit, all the circumstances of his case, with an honorable trial in Providence, and a conviction that he has discharged all his official duties with justice and impartiality, to the best of his knowledge and abilities; and, that intentionally he has committed no crime or misdemeanor, or any violation of the constitution, or laws of his country. Confiding in the impartiality, independence and integrity of his judges, and that they will patiently hear, and contentiously determine this case, without being influenced by the fault of party, by popular prejudice, or political motives, he cheerfully submits his case to their decision.
If it shall appear to this honorable court, from the evidence produced, that he hath acted in his judicial character with wilful injustice or partiality, he doth not wish any favor; but expects that the whole extent of the punishment permitted in the constitution will be inflicted upon him.
If any part of his official conduct shall appear to this honorable court, juris juris , to have been illegal, or to have proceeded from ignorance or error in judgment, or if any part of his conduct shall appear, although not illegal, to have been irregular or improper, but not to have flown from a depravity of heart, or any unworthy motive, he feels confident that this court will make allowance for the imperfections and frailties incidental to man.
He is satisfied, that every member of this tribunal will observe the principles of humanity and justice, and will presume him innocent, until his guilt shall be established by legal and credible witnesses, and he will be governed in his decision, by the moral and christian rule of rendering that justice to this respondent, which he would wish to receive.
This respondent now stands not merely before an earthly tribunal, but also before that awful being whose presence fills all space, and whose all seeing eye more especially surveys the temple of justice and religion. In a little time, his accusers, his judges, and himself, must appear at the bar of Omnipotence, where the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, and every human being shall answer for his deeds done in the

body, and shall be compelled to give evidence against himself, in the presence of an assembled people. To this Omnipotent Judge, at that awful hour, he now appeals for the rectitude and purity of his conduct, as to all the matters of which he is this day accused.
He hath now only to adjure each member of this honorable court, by the living GOD, and in his holy name, to render impartial justice to him, according to the constitution and laws of the United States. He makes this solemn demand of each member, by all his hopes of happiness in the world to come, which he will have voluntarily renounced by the oath he has taken; if he shall wilfully do this respondent injustice, or disregard the constitution or laws of the United States, which he has solemnly sworn to make the rule and standard of his judgment, and decision.
SAMUEL CHASE. A true copy, Attick, SAMUEL A. OTIS, Sec'y.
Debate, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.
WEDNESDAY, January 30.
DEBATE ON THE GEORGIA CLAIMS.
Mr. ELLIOT. —It cannot but be considered as a very fortunate circumstance, and one which cannot fail to have a favourable influence upon the final decision of this important question, that, since the delivery of the animated observations which yesterday so powerfully attracted the attention of the House, we have been afforded a few hours of tranquil retirement from the temple of the forum, for the purpose, useful at all times and peculiarly so at the present time, of calm reflection. To transfer ourselves in a moment from the flowery fields of fancy, to the rugged road of argument, to descend instantaneously from the elevated scenes of eloquence to the humble walls of common sense, requires an effort transcending ordinary powers. In claiming your attention, Mr. Speaker, for a greater portion of the day than I commonly occupy in debate upon this floor, I shall not address you in the style of compliment or ceremony. It is time to banish from these walls that idle frippery of ceremonial conversation, which is suited only to a new year's compliment, or a birth day salutation, and to try to catch a little of the sturdy spirit of antiquity. A bold, a loud, an impressive appeal, is made to the American people. In that appeal I fearlessly and most cordially unite. I regret, however, the existence of a precedent which at once justifies and demands these addresses to the people. Much as I wish to discontinue correct information, particularly on a subject which I believe is but imperfectly understood without these walls, except by interested persons, and convinced as I am that the subject is understood, and an opinion formed upon it, by every member of this House, I shall not so completely follow the example before us as to speak to the people in the first instance, but shall as usual direct my observations to the House.
I propose to examine, in a concise, and if it be in my power, in an argumentative manner, the following questions, which have a direct application to the amendments proposed by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Clarke) to the resolution under consideration, and which at the same time open to view the whole extent of the subject.
Did the state of Georgia, in the year 1795, possess a title to the territory in question?
Were the legislature of Georgia, in 1795, invested, with the constitutional power of making a sale of the territory, and did they make such sale to those from whom the present claimants derive their title or pretended title? And if such sale was made, what title or colour of title did it convey?
Were the members of the legislature of Georgia, in 1796, invested with the constitutional power of rescinding the acts of their predecessors in relation to such sale, and did they rescind them?
Were the claimants or pretended claimants of the present claimants in any manner recognized by the act of cession of the territory in question from Georgia to the United States? And,
Do justice and policy, or either justice or policy, require that the whole or any part of the five millions of acres, reserved by the act of cession from Georgia to the United States, for the purpose of satisfying claims of a certain description against Georgia, in reference to the said territory, should be appropriated for the purpose of satisfying the claims of the present claimants?
However extensive the outline which I have sketched of the subject, the survey will be a rapid one.
It is necessary that I should make one or two preliminary observations. I have uniformly been opposed to the doctrine which has been so powerfully advocated, that Congress is competent to make a legislative decision upon the validity or invalidity of the conflicting acts of Georgia. We possess no such powers. But as individuals we may express our opinions. Nor am I disposed to do any thing which shall have a tendency to impugn the title of the United States to this territory. Without deciding the question of title, my principal object is to show that the claimants are in possession of so strong a colour of title, that it will be good policy to authorise a negotiation with them for the abandonment of their claim, especially as we have a prospect of obtaining that abandonment on their part, without going beyond the reservation in the act of cession, and of course without the actual expense of a single dollar to the United States.
Did the state of Georgia, in the year 1795, possess a title to the territory in question?
To answer this enquiry, it is only necessary to make one or two quotations from the articles of agreement and cession, entered into on the 24th of April 1802, between the commissioners of the United States and those of Georgia. In the first article, "the state of Georgia cedes to the United States all the right, title and claim, which the said state has to the jurisdiction and soil of the lands situated within the boundaries of the United States south of the state of Tennessee," &c. By the second article, "The United States accept the cession aforesaid, and on the conditions therein expressed; and they cede to the state of Georgia whatever claim, right, or title, they may have to the jurisdiction or soil of any lands lying within the United States, and out of the proper boundaries of any other state, and situated south of the southern boundaries of the states of Tennessee, North-Carolina and South-Carolina, and east of the boundary line herein above described, as the eastern boundary of the territory ceded by Georgia to the United States." Whatever claim or title the United States might previously have had to the territory, they thought proper, in 1802, to combine with it, and to fortify it, by that of Georgia; and surely we shall not do any act, or adopt any principle, tending to impair the title under which we now exercise jurisdiction over the territory.
Were the legislature of Georgia, in 1795, invested with the constitutional power of making a sale of the territory, and did they make such sale to those from whom the present claimants derive their title or pretended title? And if such sale was made, what title or colour of title did it convey?
In this age of political revolution and reformation, for I consider it as an age of reformation as well as revolution, there are still certain principles and maxims, not merely venerable for their antiquity, but consecrated by their conformity to the common sense and reason of mankind, which are considered as universal in
their application, and irresistible in their influence. Among these may be numbered the principles which attach to the government of every regularly organized community, the power of deciding the public faith, and that of alienating the right of soil of the vacant territory of the nation. In every free government, there must exist the power of legislation or of making laws a distinct power charged with the execution of the laws, and a judicial power; the union of these different powers in the same person or body of men is the very essence of despotism. Thus in France, prior to the revolution, it was a fundamental maxim of state, that the king was the legislator of the French monarchy; and the power exercised in some instances by certain parliaments, of refusing to register the edicts of the monarch, however in practice, it might operate as an obliquation to legislation, was in theory only a matter of form, or at most but a temporary check upon the executive power. In oligarchies, the legislative power is vested in the rich and noble, and in aristocracies, in a few individuals who are presumed to be the wisest and the best in the community. In governments of the democratic form, this power resides in the great body of the people, and is exercised by themselves or their representatives. The base of the temple of American liberty is democracy, or the sovereignty of the people; representation and confederation are the principal pillars which support the great superstructure. As the state governments are unquestionably representative democracies, the general government is a representative federal republic. In every government of the representative form, the representatives of the people are vested with power to pledge the public faith, and to alienate the vacant territory of the nation. Were the members of the legislature of Georgia, in 1795, invested with this authority? Certainly it was within the sphere of those constitutional rights and powers, which had never been surrendered to the general government. We have since recognized that authority by receiving a solemn deed of cession of the territory, from a subsequent legislature of Georgia, transferring to us not only the soil, but the right of jurisdiction. Was this authority exercised in 1795. In the act of the legislature of that state of the 7th of January in that year, granting this territory to those from whom the present claimants derive their claims, certain lands are described, and it is enacted that those lands shall be sold to such and such persons, as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. The lands shall be sold, or in other words, the right of soil shall be alienated. A proper distinction is taken between the dominium utile and the dominium directum of the civilians. No transfer was made of the right of jurisdiction, although such imaginary transfer forms a prominent article in the reasons assigned by the legislature of 1796 for passing the rescinding act. From this view of the subject, whatever may be the present state of the question of legal title, who can doubt that the present claimants, honest purchasers from the original grantees, upon the faith of an independent state, and innocent of fraud, if fraud existed, possess such a color of title, such an equitable claim, as to render it prudent and politic to enter into a compromise with them upon reasonable terms?
Were the members of the legislature of Georgia in 1796, invested with the constitutional power of rescinding the act of their predecessors in relation to such sale, and did they rescind them?
Congress is incompetent to the decision of this question. Nor is such decision necessary. I will however make one or two enquiries, and state one or two principles, which are applicable to the subject, and which at the same time will go to strengthen the ground I have taken as to colour of title in the claimants, and the policy of extinguishing their claims.
Can a legislature rescind a contract made by its predecessors?
Writers on national law make a distinction between laws which operate in the nature of contracts, and those which have no such operation. Every enlightened and reasonable man will subscribe to the opinion that a pledge of the public faith, given by the competent authority, ought to be irrevocable. Laws which pledge the faith of the community, which create contracts, which vest rights in individuals or in corporate bodies, it may safely be assumed as a general principle, are irrevocable. Laws of merely municipal operation are alterable or repealable at the pleasure of the existing legislature.
Can the judicial power declare a legislative act void as having been passed by means of corruption?
Different opinions have existed in our country as to the right claimed by the judiciary of deciding upon the constitutionality of laws. The better opinion seems to be, that from the nature of our government, and the very terms of the constitution itself, by which that instrument is declared to be the supreme law of the land, the judges not only ought to exercise that power, but that they cannot avoid its exercise. If I am not mistaken, some gentlemen who deny that the judges possess this right, are prepared to invest them with the more dangerous one of setting aside a legislative act on the ground of corruption. To admit that the judiciary may examine into the motives of the legislature in passing laws, or that they may receive and decide upon evidence tending to prove corruption in the legislative body, would certainly be going much farther than those have gone who have claimed for that department the right of deciding upon the constitutionality of laws.—Suppose a trial of title between a person claiming under the act of Georgia of 1795, and another claiming under the United States, and suppose evidence offered to the court to prove the corruption of the legislature of Georgia, in what a peculiar situation would the judges be placed? And would they listen for a moment to an application for the admission of such evidence? It may well be doubted. Do not the present claimants possess a very strong colour of title? Is it not prudent to extinguish claims of this description?
Were claims or the pretended claims of the present claimants in any manner recognized by the act of cession of the territory in question from Georgia to the United States? And,
Do justice and policy, or either justice or policy, require that the whole or any part of the five millions of acres, reserved by the act of cession from Georgia to the United States, for the purpose of satisfying claims of a certain description against Georgia, in reference to the said territory, should be appropriated for the purpose of satisfying the claims of the present claimants?
I have anticipated the principal arguments in favour of the equity of the claimants, and the policy of a compromise with the claimants.—The memorialists state that their claims were particularly contemplated by the commissioners, both of the United States and of Georgia. They have offered us no evidence of this fact, and we are not to take it for granted. Indeed I am far from thinking it my duty either to advocate or answer the pamphlet of the memorialists, and I shall make but this single allusion to it. Whatever may be its merits, it has had no influence upon my mind in forming my opinion.
An examination of the official documents upon our tables will evince, however, that by a very strong implication, if not by express provisions, these claims have been recognized, both by the act of cession, and by the law of Congress passed in consequence. The first condition of the first article of agreement and cession, provides for the payment of one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the state of Georgia, out of the net proceeds of the sales of the lands then ceded; the second provides for certain British and Spanish grants; and the third is as follows: "That all the lands ceded by this agreement to the United States, shall, after satisfying the abovementioned payment of one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the state of Georgia, and the grants recognized by the preceding condition, be considered as a common fund for the use and benefit of the United States. Georgia included, and shall be faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever: provided however, that the United States, for the period and until the end of one year after the assent of Georgia, to the boundary established by this agreement shall have been declared, may, in such manner as not to interfere with the abovementioned payment to the state of Georgia, nor with the grants herein before recognized, dispose of or appropriate a portion of the said lands, not exceeding five millions of acres, or the proceeds of the said five millions of acres, or of any part thereof, for the purpose of satisfying, quieting, or compensating for any claims other than those herein before recognized, which may be made to the said lands, or to any part thereof. It being fully understood, that if an act of Congress making such disposition or appropriation shall not be passed into a law within the abovementioned period of one year, the United States shall not be at liberty thereafter to cede any part of the said lands on account of claims which may be laid to the same, other than those recognized by the preceding condition, nor to compensate for the same; and in case of any such cession or compensation, the present cession of Georgia, to the right of soil over the lands thus ceded or compensated for, shall be considered as null and void, and the lands thus ceded or compensated for, shall revert to the state of Georgia."—It is unnecessary to enquire into the motives which dictated a provision so singular; they are obvious to all who are acquainted with the whole history of the transaction. It was well understood that Congress was to pass the law, and it was passed on the third of March 1803. The eighth section appropriated so much of the reserved five millions of acres, as might be necessary to satisfy the claims, not recognized by the preceding agreement, which were embraced by the two first sections of the act, or derived from British grants for lands not re-granted by the Spanish government; and also contained the following appropriation—"so much of the residue of the said five millions of acres, or of the net proceeds thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, shall be and is hereby appropriated for the purpose of satisfying, quieting and compensating for such other claims to the lands of the United States south of the state of Tennessee, not recognized in the abovementioned articles of agreement, and which are derived from any act or pretended act of the state of Georgia, which Congress may hereafter think fit to provide for; Provided however, that no other claims shall be embraced by this appropriation but those the evidence of which shall have, on or before the first day of January next, been exhibited, by the claimants, to the secretary of state, and recorded in books to be kept in his office for that purpose, at the expense of the party exhibiting the same."
The following are the opinions of the commissioners, the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General of the United States, upon this subject. On the claims pretended to be derived under the act of Georgia of the 21st December 1799, they observe, "upon a full view of the subject, the commissioners do not perceive that those companies have any equitable claim either for the land, or for compensation from the United States." Very different is their opinion upon the claims under the act of 1795. "The commissioners think those propositions inadmissible, and without pretending to affirm that the legislature of Georgia was competent to make the decision, they feel no hesitation in declaring it as their opinion, that under all the circumstances which may affect the case, as they have come within their knowledge, and as herein stated, the title of the claimants cannot be supported. But they nevertheless believe that the interest of the United States, the tranquility of those who may hereafter inhabit that territory, and various equitable considerations, which may be urged in favor of most of the present claimants, render it expedient to enter into a compromise on reasonable terms."—Here I cannot but remark how very difficult it is for feeble minds to decide important questions upon which great men disagree. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) is of opinion that it would not only be impolitic to compromise these claims, but that the only claims of the applicants are fraud and villainy; the commissioners, who probably examined the subject with as much attention, at least with as much coolness, as that gentleman, believe that not only the public good requires the compromise, but that various equitable considerations may be urged in favour of most of the present claimants. The Secretary of the treasury, in his letter of the 9th inst. to the chairman of the committee of claims observes, "My own impression was, that the five millions of acres would be sufficient to cover all the claims of letters, British grantees, & others not expressly provided for by the articles of agreement, and also to make a reasonable compensation for claims derived or pretended to be derived from Georgia; and it appeared to me that the effect of the claim would be—1st, To prevent Congress from voluntarily confirming, at some future time, the said Georgia claims. 2d. To leave it in their power to compromise with that description of claimants, by allowing so much of the surplus of five millions of acres as they might think proper without; at the same time, pledging government to enter into a compromise, if upon a full view of all the circumstances of the case, a different course was thought more eligible." The committee of claimants, who must have paid more attention to the subject than it is possible for other members to do, "On considering these various transactions, are of opinion, that it is proper to make some legislative provision for the purpose of settling the existing claims on such terms as shall appear to be reasonable," and they recommend the appointment of commissioners for that purpose. Can there any longer be a doubt that the claims are recognized by the act of cession? Can there be a doubt that Congress, by making the appropriation of the five millions of acres, and by subjecting the claimants to great expense in recording and supporting their claims, have tacitly pledged the public faith that some provision shall be made for them? And do not justice and policy require the adoption of the resolution reported by the committee?
The gentleman from Virginia, has expressed his surprise that the chairman of the committee of claims has contented himself with reporting facts and principles, and that he has not adopted the novel procedure of reporting something tantamount to an elaborate speech in favor of the claimants. As the speech of the gentleman from Virginia is unfortunately destitute of argument against the claimants, and as it might be possible to deduce from it reasons in their favor, it might perhaps be proper for him to print it and annex it to the report, as a substitute for that which he thinks the chairman ought to have subjoined, for the edification of the House. My feeble attempts have been able to discover but one option at argument, which is in those observations which relate to the message of the President, and the proceedings of Congress, on the act of Georgia, in 1795, and which it is contended, were notice, to purchasers and to the world, of fraud. At that time it was not suspected that fraud had been committed, and the reason for those proceedings was, that the United States possessed, or were supposed to possess, certain claims to the territory. There are certain subtle, sublimated, ethereal, heaven-defended geniiuses, the soft and silken texture of whose minds would suffer infinite discomforture from the contact of that rude and knotty thing, an argument. That gentleman is not of this description. Too often have we witnessed his argumentative powers, to entertain this idea. I regret that he has declaimed instead of reasoning upon this occasion, as I believe that argument, particularly upon important subjects, is more useful than mere declamation. From motives which I cannot develop, for I ascribe no improper views to no one, the present is attempted to be made a party question. The people are told that the capital has become a scene of political and private iniquity, of fraud and federalism; that the majority of their representatives are committing a stupendous robbery upon the public patrimony; and their indignation is invoked upon the plunderers. What facts exist to justify these denunciations? Are we about to barter away the rights, and interests of the people? Are we about to be guilty of a wanton waste of the public property? Are we guilty of political apostasy? No such thing. We are about to make arrangements for carrying into effect a solemn stipulation in the treaty with Georgia, and a solemn act of our predecessors, by devoting a part of the five millions of acres, specially reserved for that purpose, for which the United States never paid a cent, and never will pay a cent, to the extinguishment of the colourable claims of equitable claimants. Yet we are told that this act of equity, good faith, and good policy, is a stupendous crime, compared with which the flagitious acts of the former "unprincipled administration" dwindle into "petty larcenies." I am a republican, a democratic republican. I was opposed to the general system of that administration. But I do not think it magnanimous or honorable, malignant to triumph over fallen foes. Nor do I dread the union of honest men. It can be dreadful only to the dishonest.
It is said that the press is under the influence of a virtual sedition law. No, sir. The press, I speak without illusion to political distinctions, is incorrigibly licentious. Has the gentleman from Virginia read, in one of the oracles of our country, mingled with his own praises, the denunciation of the whole representation of one of the largest states in the union, (Massachusetts) as composed of men destitute both of public and private integrity, and conspirators against the peace of the union, merely because they differ in opinion from that gentleman upon this single question? Does he know that these denunciations are echoed and re-echoed, by means of the presses called exclusively republican, through almost every village of the nation? Has he heard that the representatives of remote districts are denounced to their constituents as traitorous to their rights, and that their independence of his imperious mandates is made the powerful evidence of the treason? I hope, sir, that we shall never see that day when a private cause of a few individuals shall be enabled to dictate to the people in whom to invest their confidence. And I also hope that the day is not distant when independence of sentiment, when independence even of party, shall be the surest passport to public confidence and public honors.
It is said that the circumstance that one of the great officers of the government is numbered among the claimants, ought to scatter consternation through this House. It is unnecessary for me to undertake a vindication of the character of that gentleman. Does his office divest him of the common rights of a citizen? Does it deprive him of the right of petitioning the national legislature. But his contracts are referred to for the purpose of proving that he has extended his official influence within our walls. Unfortunately indeed is the application of this argument. By the report upon the table it appears that three members are contractors, and we all see that two of them are opposed to the present claimants.
Believing, Mr. Speaker, that this act of enormous robbery, this wanton dissipation of the public treasure, this abominable league between corruption and federalism, of which we hear so much, is neither more nor less than an act of just and national policy; believing with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the late Attorney General, that "the interest of the United States, the tranquility of those who may hereafter inhabit that territory, and various equitable considerations, which may be urged in favor of most of the present claimants, render it expedient to enter into a compromise on reasonable terms; and believing that this compromise ought to be delayed no longer, I shall give a decided vote in opposition to the proposed amendment, and in favor of the original resolution, as reported by the committee of claimants.
(To be continued.)
ALL persons indebted to the estate of the late Doctor John Brackenbrough, are requested to come forward and make immediate payment; those who have claims against the estate, will be pleased to make them known, in order that provision may be made for their discharge. Mr. Edward Ware is authorized to collect the debts due in Essex and King & Queen counties, and Capt. Wm. Bragg in Richmond and Weymouth.
THOMAS BROCKENBROUGH, Adm'r with the will annexed. Tappahannock, March 1, 1805. (c934)
A VALUABLE PLANTATION. Lying on Fighting-creek, in this county, will be offered for sale to the highest bidder at Powhatan April court, which is the 17th day of the month. It is supposed to contain 803 acres, but previous to the day of sale, a survey will be made thereof, and a plot exhibited on that day; in the mean time, it will be shown to any person desirous of viewing it, either by myself or my overseer living thereon. It is distant from Richmond 30 miles, Peterburgh 40; James river 10; Appomattox 1; and is thought by judges to contain a body of coal. A small proportion of the purchase money will be required in hand, one half of the remainder on the 1st day of January next, and the balance in two equal annual payments, for which security on the land or otherwise will be expected.
BRETT RANDOLPH. Fighting-creek, Powhatan } county, Feb. 17, 1805. } c934.
Domestic Intelligence.
BOSTON, February 13.
GENERAL ELECTION.
At a numerous meeting of the friends of the present National Administration, assembled from every district in the Commonwealth, it has been unanimously determined to support the Hon. JAMES SULLIVAN, for Governor, and the Hon. WILLIAM HEATH, for Lieutenant Governor, at the ensuing election.
The Ele amendment has been rejected by:
  Vermont New-York 
The consideration of the subject was postponed, (a modest way of rejecting, not to wound the feelings of the Essex Junto) by
Connecticut and Delaware.
So that this disorganizing scheme had been promoted by Massachusetts, and approved by no other state. The proceedings of the legislatures of the several states on this subject, we have conceived it our duty to detail, as these resolutions of amendment were unquestionably as the entering wedge for a complete separation of the Union.—When the subject was taken up in the legislature of the state of Ohio, the following resolutions were adopted—in the Senate nine eleven, nos two—in the House of Representatives twenty-two, nos one.
STATE OF OHIO.
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY.
Whereas the governor of this state hath transmitted to this assembly, a resolution of the legislature of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, instructing their Senators in the Congress of the United States, to take all proper and legal measures to obtain an amendment to the constitution of the United States, so that representatives may be appointed among their several states, according to the number of their free inhabitants respectively, accompanied with a request that similar measures may be adopted by the legislature.
The General Assembly aforesaid, considering, that the constitution of the U. States, in some of its leading features, is the result of compromise and mutual balancing of interests between the several states, particularly that clause which admits a partial representation of slaves, that the inequality in point of representation complained of, when we consider that those states possessing the largest number of slaves, hold also the comparative ranks of large states and are entitled only to an equal representation with the small states in the Senate, does not exist at present; and that to interfere with that part of the constitution which may be viewed as securing privileges to particular states would excite state jealousies, and destroy that confidence and good understanding which now prevails, and endanger the Union of the states; therefore,
Resolved, That the said amendment to the constitution of the United States, is inexpedient, and does not merit the approbation of this legislature.
Resolved, That the governor of this state be requested to transmit to the governor of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, a certified copy of the above resolutions.
NEW-YORK, February 12.
On Saturday morning the brig Ann-Maria, captain Coffin, returned to this port, after a month's cruise off Sandy-Hook for the benevolent purpose of assisting vessels in distress. She has been as far as lat. 38. 15. S. long. 72. 32. spoke twenty-eight vessels, and administered to the necessities of all that were in want of provisions or men. A great part of those spoken on their way to this port have arrived. January 21st. in lat. 39. 48. long. 73. 40 spoke ship Eliza, out 5 days, from Charleston for Rhode-Island, all well. 24th. in lat. 40. 30. long. 73. 20, spoke ship Nancy, Turner of Philadelphia, out 25 days from Turkey-Island, for New-York, all well. Same day spoke ship Commerce, out 5 days from North-Carolina, for this port, in sight of the highlands, spoke ship Stenson, of Boston, out 26 days from St. Domingo, for New-York, short of provisions; but, as the captain expected to get into port in a few hours, he would not have to go for a supply. Same day spoke a brig from Norfolk, for New-York. February 6th. in lat. 38. 12. long. 73. spoke the ship Commerce, Sturges (of Portsmouth Conn.) out 12 days from Newbern, for this port, in great distress from the want of provisions, having been out of bread for four days, with which ship Capt. Coffin supplied him, lent him one seaman, and assisted in repairing his sails. 13th. in sight of Long-Island, spoke ship Richard, out two days from Virginia, for Boston 15th. fair a ship off the Hook. Mr. Adv.
Extract of a letter from capt. Wm. Thompson, of the brig Horatio, of Newbern, dated Nevis, January 24, 1805.
"I am under the disagreeable necessity of informing you, that on the 25th ult. I had Robert Alling, my mate, and two of my people, viz. Russell Davenport, and Eugene Olmsted, impressed by the British ship Carysford, captain McKenzie, off St. Lucia; they being all the seamen on board at the time, and left the brig riding at a small hawser, with only a boy and cook on board—nor would they allow time to let go an anchor nor use the liberty of going on board them—they refused to look at their protections, with which they were all furnished—they also pillaged several articles for which they refused payment. I have forwarded a protest to the commodore in hopes to procure their release." Pbil. Pap.
MAINE.
On the evening of the 29th ult. the Academy, in Hallowell, was consumed by fire, together with the apparatus belonging to the same, and the books of about 60 students.—This valuable institution has been in operation about nine years, during which time about 900 students have here received the benefits of an Academic education.—It was the first organized institution of the kind in the district of Maine; and at the present time only one more is in operation eastward of Portland.
CHARLESTON, February 15.
The fast sailing Schooner Daff, captain Fisher, arrived this morning, in 5 days from Havana. An embargo had existed for two months previous, and was taken off three days before captain Fisher failed. The port was blockaded by three British frigates, a sloop of war, and a brig. This squadron, it was said, had captured a Spanish packet, and a valuable ship from Vera Cruz, with a considerable quantity of specie on board. This last vessel was taken close in with the Moro.—There had been no arrivals at Havana from Spain for some time past. All British property at the Havana had been seized. Capt. Fisher was chased by one of the blockading squadron, but escaped by superior sailing. The Times.
FROM WASHINGTON, February 14.
"In the house of representatives, this day, the report of the secretary of state concerning the names, &c. of the Yazoo claimants, called for by the motion of Mr. Clark, of Virginia, was presented and ordered to be printed—nos 69, nos 49. This report comprehends, however, not more than the names of one in every hundred of those actually concerned: you must not infer from this that the secretary has made a partial report, the fact is a majority of the claimants act by agents, whose names alone appear. On this occasion Matthew Lyon took a-

another opportunity to expose himself to the derision of his new allies, and he excited the pity of many who had before thought well of him.
PENNSYLVANIA.
We have been informed that Hugh H. Brackenridge has resigned his situation as one of the judges of the supreme court of this state.
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENTS.
MONDAY, February 18. The court was opened at 10 o'clock A. M. Present the MANAGERS, accompanied by the House of Representatives, and Mr. Chafe, attended by his counsel. William Rawle, Edmund Lee, Philip Gooch, Gunning Bedford, Nicholas Vandyke, Archibald Hamilton, John Hall, Samuel Moore, —Wyndar, and Judge Winchell, were examined on the part of Judge Chafe. When the court rose about 3 o'clock.
TUESDAY, February 19. The court was opened at 10 o'clock A. M. Mr. Tilton was called in and examined respecting the mode of procedure of the circuit courts of the United States. When the counsel for Judge Chafe proceeded to examine witnesses relative to that article of the impeachment which is founded on the charge delivered at Baltimore.
Thomas Chafe, —Moore, Judge Dorsey, John Purviance, Nicholas Price, James P. Boyd, William McMechan, William Gowan, John Campbell, and William Cranch, were examined. Mr. Harper then addressed sundry charges of Judges containing political matter, to that for the last thirty years such charges had been very usual; he particularly cited a charge of William Henry Drayton, chief justice of South Carolina, delivered April 23d, 1776; a recommendation of the executive council of Pennsylvania, in the year 1785, to the judges to inculcate certain principles and measures, conceived to be conducive to the morals and general welfare of the community; a charge of Judge Iredell, delivered in 1799; a charge by chief justice McKean, on the 27th November, 1797, to a grand jury, relative to matters conceived to be libelous, which were published by William Cobbet and an address lately made to the legislative council of Orleans by Governor Claiborne.
Thomas Hall, a witness summoned by the managers, but absent when he was called in the regular course, was sworn and examined, relative to the charge delivered at Baltimore. George Hay, D. M. Randolph, and John Montgomery, were further examined, principally in explanation of their previous testimony.
The testimony having been closed on the part of Judge Chafe, Mr. Harper rose, and in the name of Judge Chafe, read a written paper of the judges, stating that in consequence of a severe indisposition, he was unable any longer to keep his seat in the court—expressing his thanks to the court, for the patience they had manifested during the course of the trial, and declaring his full reliance upon their impartiality and justice; and concluding with the request that he might be permitted to retire.
Mr. Harper added that for several days a fit of the gout had been coming on the judge, which had so far progressed as to disable him from further attendance—not, however, intimating any wish, on that account, to interfere with the progress of the trial. The President observed that the presence of the judge was not, according to the rules of the Senate, required.
When Judge Chafe immediately withdrew. Mr. Randolph then (about 1 o'clock) in the name of the managers requested a postponement of the trial until to-morrow, that the gentleman who should open the argument, on the part of the House of Representatives, might be enabled to collate, compare and digest the testimony offered.
The counsel for Judge Chafe said they did not ask, though they should not oppose the delay. Nothing further being offered, the President put the question whether the Senate would retire, which was carried.
It was previously stated by the managers and counsel, on enquiry from the chair, that the case would be opened by the managers, replied to by the counsel for Judge Chafe, and closed by the managers.
WEDNESDAY, Feb. 20. Present the MANAGERS and House of Representatives, and the counsel of Judge Chafe. Thomas Hall, a witness on behalf of the managers, was examined.
Mr. Early, one of the managers, rose about 11 o'clock and took a comprehensive view of the several charges contained in the articles of impeachment, and the testimony adduced in their support. Having closed his remarks a short time before 6 o'clock.
Mr. Campbell, likewise one of the managers, followed him. Having spoken about an hour and a quarter, and closed the view of one branch of the subject, he stated that he felt indisposed, and asked the indulgence of a suspension of the trial before he proceeded to make his additional remarks.
The court adjourned for half an hour. Having resumed their sittings, Mr. Campbell's indisposition continuing, the court adjourned till the next day at ten o'clock A. M.
THURSDAY, Feb. 21. Present the MANAGERS attended by the House and counsel of Judge Chafe. The court was opened at 10 o'clock A. M.
Mr. Campbell closed his remarks in a speech about three quarters of an hour in length, and is followed by Mr. Clark, who spoke about quarter of an hour and terminated the opening of the case on the part of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Hopkins, Counsel for Judge Chafe, made a speech of about three hours and a half in length, on that article of the impeachment which is founded on the trial of Fries; on the court rose at about 5 o'clock.
FRIDAY, Feb. 22. The Court opened at 10 A. M.
Mr. Key, counsel for Judge Chafe, addressed the Senate, in a speech of about three hours and a half in length, on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th articles, when the Court rose for half an hour; expiration of which,
Mr. Lee spoke about two hours on the 5th article—when the Court rose at half past 4 o'clock.
SATURDAY, Feb. 23. The Court being opened at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Martin then addressed the Senate from a ter before 11 o'clock, until 5 o'clock, on various points of law arising on the several articles of the impeachment.
At 5 o'clock the sitting of the court was re-sumed for half an hour, at the expiration of which, Mr. Martin resumed his address, and having spoken till 5 o'clock, when he rose that having taken no refreshment since rising in the morning, he felt exhausted, and requested an indulgence until Monday, to continue his remarks. This was granted and the court immediately rose.
Following is the address delivered by Judge Chafe to the court on his retiring.
Mr. PRESIDENT. The state of my health will not permit me to remain any longer at this bar. It is with
great regret I depart before I hear the judgment of this honorable court. If permitted to retire, I shall leave this honorable court with an unlimited confidence in its justice; and I beg leave to present my thanks to thee, for their patience and indulgence in the long and tedious examination of the witnesses. Whatever may be the ultimate decision of this honorable court, I console myself with the reflection, that it will be the result of mature deliberation on the legal testimony in the case, and will emanate from those principles, which ought to govern the highest tribunal of justice in the United States.
Register, OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES.
WEDNESDAY, February 20. The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, and attended the trial of Samuel Chafe, and after some time spent therein, the committee returned, and Mr. Speaker having resumed the Chair,
Mr. VARNUM reported, that the committee had attended the said trial, and that a further progress had been made therein.
A message in writing was received from the President of the United States, as follows:
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.
I communicate for the information of Congress a letter of September 14th, from Commodore Preble, giving a detailed account of the transactions of the vessels under his command from July the 9th to the 10th September last.
The energy and judgment displayed by this excellent officer through the whole course of the service lately confided to him, and the zeal and bravery of his officers and men in the several enterprises executed by them, cannot fail to give high satisfaction to Congress and their country, of whom they have deserved well.
TH: JEFFERSON.
February 20th, 1805. The said message and the papers transmitted therewith, were referred to Mr. Varnum, Mr. J. Clay, Mr. McCreery, Mr. Dana, and Mr. Lowndes.
Mr. Fox's long expected History of the House of Stuart, a late London print, has received its last revision from its distinguished author, and may therefore soon be expected for the press.
TRIBUTE.—Mr. Joseph Trist, midshipman, whose name appears in the account of the late heroic and glorious devotion off Tripoli, was from Washington county, Maryland, an orphan under the kindly care of his uncle, Mr. Eli Williams, and a youth whose ingenuous, manly and enterprising spirit afforded a promise of honorable promotion, but for his early and gallant sacrifice. [F. T. Heral.]
TO THE PRESIDENT & DIRECTORS OF THE JAMES RIVER COMPY.
I FIND that our last Legislature has directed that you shall have the Navigation of the Canal connected with Tide-water by means of Locks. Much has been said on this subject, and many have suggested their doubts as to the practicability of erecting such Locks as will be permanent, and answer the purpose. In my opinion, it is practicable, plain, and easy; but the cost will far exceed common computation, but not more than some of you calculate.
As I have made myself well acquainted with two plans that will answer, differing from each other only in the materials, I hereby offer myself to you as a superintendent of the building of them on the following terms, viz:
Ten thousand dollars for my services, to be paid at the end of five years from the time the Locks are finished, provided they stand; otherwise, nothing. It will be equally agreeable to me, to take a larger or smaller sum, on a longer or shorter time, adding or deducting at the rate of one thousand dollars per annum.
If you wish to have my plans explained to you, you will please to address me through the medium of this paper, and I will attend you in person at any time and place you may appoint.
Should you conclude that my price is more than you will give, in the event that you shall approve my plans, nothing need be said by you to me on the subject.
Your silence for three months, I shall consider as full disapprobation to my proposition.
A CITIZEN OF RICHMOND. (EF2m)
LAND FOR SALE.
A TRACT of about 850 acres, lying on James River, adjoining the town of Lynchburg; one hundred and forty of which is low ground, and said to be of the first quality; a considerable proportion of the high ground lies well, and well adapted to the culture of tobacco and grain. It has an excellent flad and rock fishery on it; a small apple orchard, a good dwelling house and convenient out-houses; a mill flad, supposed to be superior to any in that part of the country—the mill house would fit with thirty-six poles of the river, on navigable water. Likely negroes would be received in part pay, and a generous price allowed for one or two blacksmiths that are under 35 years of age, and good workmen. For further particulars, apply to the subscriber on the premises, or Mr. William Brown, merchant, in Lynchburg. LEWELLEN JONES. (epit)
TO BE SOLD—FOR READY MONEY.
IN pursuance of a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States, between Phineas Bond, attorney for the creditors of Ezekial Edwards, plaintiff, and David Ross and others, defendants, in order to raise the sum of 7000 dols 40 cents, with the expenses of sale, a NUMBER OF SLAVES and so much of that valuable Estate in the county of Campbell, known by the name of the OXFORD IRON WORKS, as shall appear sufficient to raise the said sum of money and the said expenses; the said land being now in the occupation of the said David Ross, and the slaves aforesaid, being on the land.
The sale will take place at the Oxford Iron Works, in the county of Campbell, on Thursday the 11th of April next.
The slaves are represented to be very valuable. The land is so well known, as to render a description unnecessary. BEN. MOSBY, D. M. V. D.
March 1, 1805. JOE. SCOTT, M. V. D.
BLANKS.
The following Blanks, printed on a handsome Script Type, may be had at the office of the Enquirer.
D. C. BANK Checks, (plain) - pr. quire 1 50 ditto ditto, (ruled) - - - 1 75 Negotiable Notes, - - - - 1 25 Dito on fine paper, - - - - 1 50 Foreign Bills of Exchange, - - - - 1 50 Bills of Lading, - - - - 1 50 County Court Clerks' Blanks, - - - - 50 Sheriffs' ditto, - - - - 50 Coalables' Warrants, - - - - 50
PRINTING generally executed in an elegant style, and on the shortest notice.
ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, MARCH 1, 1805.
TRADE TO ST. DOMINGO.
Application of Principles.
There are two restrictions then upon our trade with this island, which it seems the duty of our government to impose; one dictated by the justice we owe to France, and the other dictated by the policy of our own interests. The first of these restrictions relates to the power of arming, the other to the right of transporting contraband articles. If the preceding principles be correct, we are bound to place such restrictions upon the right of arming merchant vessels, as may secure to the lawfully commissioned cruisers of the French government the stipulated right of examining their passport and certificates; and we owe it to our own interests to place such restrictions upon the quality of the cargo, as may prevent the transportation of the contraband of war to the island of St. Domingo. Admit that these principles are correct, and the plain path of policy lies open before us. The whole difficulty will then consist in the proper application of the principles.
Our enquiries will then be wholly confined to an investigation of the most effectual means for restricting the transportation of contraband of war, and the power of resuming an examination by lawfully commissioned cruisers. Let no one imagine however that these expedients are easily to be discovered. Whoever reflects upon the complicated operations of commerce & the ambiguous tendency of these laws; will frequently find at a loss to discover that precise sphere of restriction, which may limit an unlawful or impolitic object, without fettering the proper freedom of trade. The deliberations of the present Congress on this very subject will sufficiently prove the extent of this difficulty; for although the Clearance Bill has been in discussion, from the earliest period of the session, its details have never yet been settled, and at this moment the bill is yet pending before the Senate.
The Senate appear however to have decided upon the general nature of the restrictions which it should embrace, although they have not yet agreed upon the precise extent, to which they may be carried. To prevent any resistance, which our armed merchantmen may make to a proper examination of their papers, the law will probably annex very heavy penalties upon this unlawful use of their arms. To prevent their transportation of the contraband of war to St. Domingo, it is provided by the present Bill that no armed vessels shall obtain a clearance at our custom Houses, until the collector has examined the list of such arms, ammunition &c. which articles are to be brought back into the United States under certain penalties; or a satisfactory account is to be rendered of the manner in which they have been disposed of. Such a restriction as this is evidently more compatible with our interests than the absolute prohibition of arming merchant vessels, or of exporting our manufactured arms and ammunition. Should the Clearance Bill pass with these provisos, it evidently embraces every restriction which is required by the justice we owe to France or the best policy we owe to ourselves.
It was originally the intention of the Editor to expose all the misrepresentations which had been propagated on this subject by some of the federal prints; to criticise all their sophisticated arguments to prove, that Mr. Jefferson's recommendation to Congress to "adopt measures for refraining effectually in future" persons residing in the United States, who "have taken on themselves to arm merchant vessels, and to force a commerce into certain ports and countries, in defiance of the laws of those countries;" a crowning policy on the arrival of the minister Tarreau; 2dly that it was dictated by a hatred of commerce and merchants; and 3rdly that it is inconsistent with the principle of neutral trade, supported by Mr. Jefferson when secretary of state, in his letter of May 15, 1798, to Mr. Ternant, minister plenipotentiary of France. But these allegations have already been answered at great length and with considerable success, by the Philadelphia Aurora.
One remark more will close our view of this important subject. The trade to St. Domingo, has never yet received a satisfactory investigation. The debates of Congress, on this subject, which have been already published, were very short in proportion to its importance, and the arguments of those who spoke, turned rather upon the details of the Clearance Bill, than upon abstract principles or the laws of nations. As to the Essays which have appeared in the public papers, they have generally been composed by the Editors themselves, and have been generally written with too little ability and attention to throw much light upon the subject. This field is still open then to the discussion of enlightened politicians; who have an ample opportunity of exercising their ingenuity by investigating the following abstract points:
1. Can a colony in a state of rebellion be regarded in any other light than that of a belligerent nation; or is it entitled to fewer privileges? This enquiry will determine the extent of the contraband articles. 2. If the mother country has a right to consider every article as contraband, which is defined to the rebellious colony, has she still further a right to demand that all trade to this colony should be prohibited altogether, or that it should be restricted by a neutral nation. 3. If munitions or military apparatus alone is to be considered as contraband, has she a right to demand that the exportation of these should be prohibited or placed under certain restrictions? 4. Or has the mother country any other rights than examining the papers or the cargoes of neutral vessels; and of confiscating either or both, if they should be destined to the rebellious colony?
CURSORY STRUCTURES
ON SIXTEEN COLUMNS OF THE "NORFOLK LEDGER," ON THE ACQUISITION OF LOUISIANA.
"The only benefit we can expect to derive from this transaction, is the probability of a small additional security for a national right previously possessed." (the navigation of the Mississippi.) What then has become of the other advantages we expected to acquire?
An increase of our revenue, from imports and sale of lands? As to imports, "the possession of the island and city of N. Orleans can afford little, if any addition;" and why? because Mr. Livingston in his memorial has clearly demonstrated, that the western states will be supplied with European goods thro' the ports of the Atlantic states, and not by transportation up the Mississippi. This fact may, however, be doubted, in spite of the clear demonstration of Mr. Livingston. Has the Editor of the Nor-
folk Ledger seen an extract of a letter from Edyville, on Cumberland river, Kentucky, dated July 18, 1804, which appeared in some of our public prints?
"Yesterday the barge Experiment with fugitive, liquors &c. belonging to Mr. J. Lyon, arrived here from N. Orleans after a passage of 32 days. This barge carries 18 tons, and is manned besides a captain and supercargo, with 10 oarsmen. This is the first attempt to carry commerce from N. Orleans into the Cumberland river since the accession of Louisiana to the U. States, and the result is highly favourable to the enterprise, which has proved that the expence of transportation from N. Orleans to Cumberland river is but one third as much as the expence of transportation from Philadelphia by the way of Pittsburgh, to Cumberland river. It is believed that goods to the amount of 200,000 dols. have annually been carried down the Atlantic cities over land to Pittsburgh, at an expence of 10 cents for every pound weight: it follows that 18 tons of goods brought up the river have the advantage by dols. 2,888 fixed in the expence of freight over the quantity brought from Philadelphia &c. These facts lead to a conclusion that a very considerable change in the mercantile relations of this western country is approaching, and that the commercial importance of N. Orleans must be considerably elevated thereby."
Still however it may be objected, that even if this commercial revolution should be effected, it will not make any addition to the imports of the U. States, because it will merely change the port at which they are received; it will shift the custom-houses of the western country from Philadelphia or Baltimore, to N. Orleans. This remark, though true in part, would yet be incorrect, because, 1st, it makes no allowance for the increase which would take place in the importation of goods from the decrease of the expence of transportation; nor 2dly, for the much greater certainty of receiving the import on all those goods, which even now go up the Mississippi, if it be paid at N. Orleans, which is now the great depot of foreign goods, than at the custom house of Natchez, which was formerly the western port of delivery; (smuggling being so much more practicable in ascending the river in flats or boats, than at its mouth.) This increase of the imports relates only to those W. inhabitants, which belonged to the United States before the acquisition of Louisiana. But the goods which will be entered at N. Orleans, will supply a more extensive population, & will contribute in a greater degree to the augmentation of our duties. They will supply the demand of the city and island of N. Orleans, of Louisiana to the W. of the river, and of the greatest part of that country lying to the east of it, which we have already claimed, & which we may at last acquire. The following sketch which has already appeared in "The Defence of the present administration," will show at one point of view, that the increase of our revenue from the imports, will be compleatly adequate to the payment of the principal and interest of the purchase money.
"Of these fifteen millions, 9,750,000 dollars are to be paid to our own citizens for debts due by the French Government, and 11,250,000 dollars are to be paid to France at the expiration of fifteen years, allowing in the mean time an interest of six per cent.
Supposing that the whole sum will assume the shape of a loan at six per cent. the United States will have to pay thereon the following sums for fifteen successive years, being the amount of interest paid on the principal, calculated in a compound ratio; viz:
In 1804 900,000 1805 954,000 1806 1,011,000 1807 1,070,000 1808 1,132,000 1809 1,197,000 1810 1,265,000 1811 1,336,000 1812 1,410,000 1813 1,487,000 1814 1,567,000 1815 1,650,000 1816 1,736,000 1817 1,826,000 1818 1,919,000 2,048,000 When there will be due the principal of 20,956,000 Whole sum paid 55,996,000
According to an official document presented to Congress at the opening of the last session, the annual imports of Louisiana then averaged the amount of two millions and a half of dollars, and the exports amounted to about the same sum. This was under the injudicious regulations of an arbitrary government. We have already, in some degree, ascertained the effects of a milder government; and we may estimate the imports without the least fear of exaggeration, at three millions and a half. Should these imports only keep pace with those of the United States generally they will increase at the rate of above ten per cent. a year. But there can be no doubt of their increasing with much greater rapidity. The population of the western country doubles in five years, and the imports have uniformly in our country increased in a quicker ratio. It will be a very moderate computation, to consider them as destined to advance at the rate of fifteen per cent. The average duty paid on imported articles is twenty-five per cent. From these data, it will result, that the following duties will be received:
Dollars. Consolidation of principal and interest. in 1804 975,000 1805 1,036,000 1,934,000 1806 1,156,000 3,206,000 1807 1,299,000 4,727,000 1808 1,527,000 6,537,000 1809 1,755,000 8,684,000 1810 2,018,000 11,223,000 1811 2,319,000 14,212,000 1812 2,666,000 17,730,000 1813 3,065,000 21,838,000 1814 3,424,000 26,693,000 1815 3,937,000 32,231,000 1816 4,526,000 38,690,000 1817 5,200,000 46,110,000 1818 5,984,000 54,860,000 40,787,000
The first column exhibits the sum received for duties; the second those sums with the addition of the accruing interest, in order to compare the probable profit with the probable expence; from which it follows that during a period of fifteen years duties will be received, which may be valued at dols. 54,860,000 And an expence incurred of 35,996,000
Leaving a profit of 18,864,000 which exceeds, by three millions, the whole price of the purchase. There remains to be considered the incalculable value of from two to four hundred millions of acres."
Will no revenue arise from the sale of these lands? And here we are referred to the "experience of the union" for proofs of the unproductiveness of this resource. We refer however to the experience of the union; and what do we discover? That from the last report of the Secretary of the treasury the proceeds from the sale of the public lands are estimated at not less than 450,000 dols. Though it may be a considerable time before a land-office will be established in Louisiana; and though all the lands may not be thrown open to settlers, when one is established, (those tracts only being first located, which are best adapted to the tropical productions) yet this single estimate is sufficient to show the immense resources, which we shall hereafter derive from
the acquisition of Louisiana. As to the additional expences of a "continually extending protection to guard the purchasers;" two circumstances defer our notice; that this protection is not wanted against well disciplined and well-armed nations, but against weak and defenceless Indians, and that there are other expedients to conciliate their affections and lull them into repose, besides the parade of military equipments. Vide the last message of the President.
[To be continued.]
To respect the character of every individual, who has not already obtained, or who does not aspire to a public office, is one of the most sacred duties of the press; but when an individual puts off this private character, and assumes a public standing, it is a duty not less incumbent upon the press to publish a decent investigation into his pretensions. This duty we have this day been called upon to discharge; we discharge it from no sentiment of pleasure, but from an imperious sense of our own obligations. Having once taken up the cross, it would be ridiculous for us to complain of the burden, which it may sometimes force us to feel.
Why do not the republicans of Richmond assemble at once in a public caucus, and select some candidate whom they will determine to support by an undivided suffrage? If they do not adopt this obvious policy, how can they expect to avoid the disappointment of their wishes in the ensuing election? Or how can they expect to put an end to the disagreeable divisions among the republican party which the solicitation of two of their own candidates, uncontrolled too by a federal opponent, will inevitably produce.
As we have given this criticism a place in our paper, we shall conceive ourselves bound to give the same publicity to a reply. But here our duty stops. We will not assist in the continuation of a contest which may admit of an indefinite extension, and may trench upon the rights of our distant readers, by involving them in the unenlightening discussions of a petty portion of the state.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Washington to his friend in this City, dated February 25th 1805.
"I believe it is the opinion of the Executive, that if the agents of other nations had not interfered in producing a reconciliation with Tripoli, during the attacks described in Capt. Preble's dispatches, now inclosed, they would have come to our terms—but it is believed, that judging from the conduct of their own nations, these agents thought that we would be willing to pay equally dear for Peace. However proud you may have been of the title of AMERICAN CITIZEN, it must have been high indeed, if the actions, here recorded, do not yet augment it."
RICHMOND
ACADEMY LOTTERY.
14th DAY'S DRAWING.
Prizes of 1000 Dols.—No. 1028.
Prizes of 500 Dols.—No. 2103 913.
Prizes of 100 Dols.—No. 1510 1747.
 Prizes of 12 Dols.—No.168185622713071    

FOR THE ENQUIRER.
The annual election of the members of the legislature, is the fairest feature of a republican government. In exercising this sacred right, it is all-important to the people, to decide with wisdom. If private partialities ought ever to lose their influence over the conduct of an upright man, it is in the choice of the representative to whom he confides the welfare of his country. Friendship has its allotted boundaries, and ought never to hold its dominion with such cabalistic power over the human heart, as to render it callous to the nobler sentiment of patriotism. Fellow-Citizens, let us prove by our conduct, that we justly appreciate a right, which is the bright gem of our constitution; as independent freeholders of Richmond, it should be our pride to evince, that it is not a nominal privilege which authorizes us of course to pronounce, year after year, the name of a person who has been once elected, until it may be his pleasure to withdraw; but a real, active power to elect the representative, who is most capable to preserve the interests, and guard the rights of the people.
What has been our situation during the last session of the assembly? Our general interests affected by a rival borough, which had the determination to engage pre-eminent talents in the contest; institutions beneficial to the city, shaken to their centre, and our sentiments disregarded. These are the unfortunate consequences which resulted from placing in the legislature a feeble representative, who shrunk in conscious impotence from attacks, which aimed a vital blow at our prosperity. It is proper that a scene so unworthy the metropolis of Virginia should again be presented on the political theatre? Surely no. Enough has been done to gratify the feelings of the individual; let the public welfare be once more our concern.
If the late representative is determined to forget his repeated declarations, that he was willing to withdraw after breaking down the federal plan; his fellow-citizens will recollect, that those electioneering professions alone, obtained an union of suffrages in his favour. It is a fact too notorious to be denied, that very many persons who voted for Major Duval, were strongly opposed to his election. They came into the measure with reluctance, and submitted to the temporary evil only, from a belief, that "the next year he would give way to some younger candidate." The expressions which fell from his lips on that occasion, may be quibbled into a less forcible meaning; but undoubtedly they produced an acquiescence in the resolve of a private caucus of nine persons, collected at his own house, who determined that he should be supported by the republicans. Excusing the privilege of a freeman, I must express my surprise, that such a decision should ever have been adhered to by the citizens of Richmond. Besides the impropriety of so final a body attempting to impose any candidate on the freeholders at large, there appears to me to have been irresistible objections to the candidate whom they did select.
The representative of republicans ought to have been uniformly attached to the cause of republicanism; for never did the enlightened mind of Darius form a judder sentiment, than that "the man who has once deserted the people, can never return to them." The merit of political consistency will not be attributed to Major Duval; for his warmest friend must be contented with bestowing on him a commendation of the same kind with that he gave in the general assembly to the present auditor, (with what correctness the public will decide,) "that he had been acquainted with him for fifteen years without knowing what his political opinions were." But impartial justice, which does not permit any bandage to hoodwink its eagle sight, pronounces, that he has very lately advocated the cause of federalism, that his opponent (who from the earliest dawn of manhood, has felt in every pulpit of his frame a fervid attachment to the rights of his fellow-men) though a much younger man, is in fact a much older republican. And by what merit has this political stain been effaced? It is asserted that he has on many occasions rendered services to the city; but upon investigation they appear invariably to have promoted his own private interests. His pretensions might have had a less questionable shape. What excuse can be offered for his silence during the political struggles that agitated our city? Why did he remain slumbering and inactive in those trying times, when it was dangerous to be a republican? If he was unwilling to aid a feeble party, he cannot deserve their support in the hour of their strength; if his capacity did not permit him to inform his opinions, he must be an incompetent representative for the city of Richmond.
In what manner are those objections removed? The inveterate prejudices which govern little minds, defy the force of argument. No matter what political errors Major Duval may have committed; no matter what may be his incompetency for office; no matter what promises he may have violated, he would be supported against the most accomplished man, by the uninformed part of our old settlers, who, with very little other pretensions than having been induced by their interests to fix in Richmond at an early period, appear to believe that their fellow-citizens are bound to pin their faith upon their fleeces at every election. Permitting their predilection for "one of themselves," to outweigh every other consideration, they infallibly ought to be supported because he is a very good man; as if no other qualification was necessary in the representative of the metropolis of the state. Admit that Major Duval has been a charitable, friendly neighbour, fill it is proper that the city should be represented by a person capable of repelling the attempts that are incessantly made to arrest its prosperity—and I believe that every man who attended the lobby of the house, must have remarked the evident disregard with which his colleagues heard the observations of the city member.
But the incapacity of the late representative is not a sufficient reason, with some persons, for removing him, as they very improperly term a choice of another candidate. They enquire, what harm has he done. Now this question might, as well be asked if he had slept in his seat during the session; or been employed in composing love sonnets for some fair lady's ear. But if his re-election can be prevented only by pointing out errors in his conduct, unfortunately for the city he has done harm. I do not mean to scrutinize into motives; this is the province alone of the great searcher of all human hearts. I confine myself to proving, that his conduct was, in repeated instances, detrimental to his constituents. Was it correct to attempt an extension of the boundaries of the city to an unreasonable and extravagant distance; and what impartiality was manifested in excepting the vacant lots to be included from any assessment of the common council, though in every other part of the city they are subject to taxation? This is a fault, however, to be a trifling fault. It is an offence of a deeper die, that the representative of the city, in direct hostility to the sentiments of every other member of the legislature, should have opposed the pe-
dition of his constituents praying for relief against a most intolerable grievance. I allude to his attempt to compel the owners of vessels, drawing less than seven feet water, to pay a heavy toll to a company, which rendered to them not the slightest benefit. As he had originally obtained the passage of this law by a misstatement, (the report of the committee appointed to enquire into the subject, proves this fact,) it was not inconsistent in him to oppose the amendment. But the citizens who suffered by this oppressive law, must be divested of the common feelings of mankind, again to elect a representative, who, in utter disregard of his repeated promises, opposed their petition, trampled on their rights, and sacrificed their interests.
If those local cases, in which the welfare of his constituents has been evidently postponed to other considerations, formed the only objections to the legislative conduct of our late representative, perhaps our disappointment should be moderated by a due allowance for the infirmities incident to advanced life. But what excuse can be offered, what explanation can be given, what justification can be alleged for his zealous efforts in opposition to the principles he had uniformly professed to reverse, in direct violation of our free constitution, and in open hostility to the very spirit of republicanism, to exempt the society of Quakers from the performance of militia duty. I will not descend to controvert the propriety of a vote that goes to subvert that institution, which has ever been considered the bulwark of our liberties. This monstrous doctrine must excite the most glowing emotions of indignation in the breast of every real republican. Let those advocate the re-election of Major Duval, who wish to see a particular set of men invested with privileges not granted to their fellow citizens; but it would be a shameful defection of principle unworthy of honest independent men, to permit any individual, however popular he may have been, to assail with impunity that system of equal rights, which forms the basis of our republican government.
The most exalted talents do not excuse a departure from principle; and still less where flagrant transgressions are united with notorious incompetence, it is proper to continue the duty of a representative the solemn duty of his constituents; for liberty itself is enjoyed by a precarious tenure, unless the Legislature is taught to speak the sentiments of the people. The gay fineries of spring ought not to efface from recollection, the dark clouds of the winter. If the easy, plausible, insinuating manners of a candidate, prepared with courtier's promises to gratify the expectations of every man he meets, could beguile the people of their just resentments for misconduct too gross to be palliated by any witty excuses, they would indeed require a superintending power "to protect them from their worst enemies themselves." But I will not believe that a Tarantula activity, incessantly interrupting every man's private business with a long winded story of merits which are discoverable only to the hero of the tale, is to influence the votes of my fellow citizens. In forming their decision, they will undoubtedly be guided not by the solicitations of the candidates, but their qualifications for the office. And if they have at a former period been induced to support a person, whom experience proves to be unfit for the station, they will evince, I trust, too much candour to persevere in an error against their better judgment.
The City of Richmond ought not to be sacrificed to the obstinacy of an individual. Already its proudest institutions shake to their foundation. One revolving session more, and on their ruins may perhaps be inscribed this solemn truth, that the greatest curse with which Heaven in its vengeance can afflict an erring people, is an unwise Legislature.
BURR MILL STONES, of all sizes; and PLAISTER OF PARIS, of an excellent quality, FOR SALE, as usual, by WILLIAM DAVIDSON, near the Market. Dec. 4. [cp3m]
FOR SALE, FIVE Hhds. and 10 qr. casks of LONDON PARTICULAR TENERIFE WINE of a superior quality, on a credit of 120 days—Negotiable notes. Enquire of THOMAS NORVELL. December 29. (tf)
SPANISH HIDES. FOR SALE, a large quantity of Prime Spanish Hides, on moderate terms. Apply to the subscriber opposite the Post-Office, Richmond. MICAJAH DAVIS. 2d Mo. 19th. tf
TO MR. CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, OF SOUTH-CAROLINA.
SIR, As you are not a resident of this Commonwealth, and have no agent or Attorney within the same, to whom a legal notice can be given; you are hereby informed, that by virtue of a commission issued from the office of the High Court of Chancery, for the middle district of Virginia, by law directed to be held at the Capitol in the City of Richmond, in the suit in Chancery depending in said court, in which you are Complainant, and I am Defendant, I shall proceed on the second Monday in April next, at the Tavern of James George in the county of Goochland and State of Virginia, to take the depositions of Thomas Johnson, John Johnson, Zachariah Pulliam, John Freewell, and William Clift, to be read as evidence in the said suit, and that if the same cannot be taken on the day aforesaid, the taking thereof will be continued by adjournment from day to day until the whole are completed; when and where you may if you please attend. I am, Sir, Yours, &c. BERRYMAN JOHNSON. Louisa county, and State of Virginia, February 22, 1805 (cp 4w)
CUMBERLAND December Court, 1804. IN CHANCERY. WILLIAM CLARKE, Plaintiff. JANATE RISON, THOMAS LIGON & THOMAS DENT, Defendants.
THIS day came the plaintiff by his attorney, and the Defendant Janate Rison not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of Assembly and rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this state, on the motion of the plaintiff, by his attorney, it is ordered, that the defendant, Janate Rison do appear here, on the fourth Monday in April next, and answer the complainant's bill, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some one of the newspapers published in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the Courthouse of this county. A copy, true, M. WOODSON, clk. Feb. 22. ep2m
BROKER'S OFFICE. THE Subscriber has opened a Broker's Office, opposite the Union Tavern, and over the Counting-house of Thomas and Arnot Ladd. All business confided to him will be transacted with fidelity. THOMAS NORVELL. October 3. tf
WILLIAM PRICHARD, AFTER a residence of near twenty years in the City of Richmond, in a Book-keeper and Stationer, offers his whole STOCK IN TRADE FOR SALE, either to individuals who might incline to an eligible situation in those lines, or to the public at reduced prices shown in any City of the United States. To any person who might wish to become his successor, the most advantageous terms would be offered—such as would not only insure a permanent, but a lucrative establishment in this increasing City. Taste, therefore, who have any view of this kind, will be pleased to apply to him, either personally, or by letter. The stock on hand consists principally of the most approved modern writers with every branch of science and literature, as also a general collection of law authorities, both European and American editions. The situation of said book-store is well known to every person who has visited Richmond, as being the most central and convenient situation for the sale of Books, and Stationery articles; and the long period which he has continued to occupy it, has also given him a decided preference over others with the several book-sellers and traders throughout the United States. The proprietor has now on hand PIANO FORTE, warranted of the best quality—NEW MUSIC, and various kinds of MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, &c. Feb. 12.
I. TOMPKINS RESPECTFULLY informs those concerned, that he has removed the books and papers of the late concern of Robert Pollok & Co. and Dunlop, Pollok & Co. to a new Brick House near the Basin, and directly opposite to the Scale-House. Where he has for sale, a few piques of OLD COGNAC BRANDY, of superior quality. December 11.
NOTICE. WE the undersigned, partners in the late concerns of BUCHANAN, DUNLOP, & Co. at Petersburg, of ROBERT POLLOK, & Co. at Richmond, and of DUNLOP, POLLOK, & Co. at Manchester, have sold to Mr. James Dunlop, our late partner in said concerns, the debts now due to us, and outstanding these different establishments. Those indebted will therefore please to take notice, that hereafter payments are to be made only to the said Mr. James Dunlop, his attorney or attorneys, and to whom those having claims against these concerns will apply for payment. DAVID BUCHANAN. By ROBERT POLLOK, his Attorney. ROBERT POLLOK. Virginia, Petersburg, Dec. 6, 1804. (sp3m)
NOTICE. ALL persons indebted to the late firm of BUCHANAN, DUNLOP & CO. of Petersburg, ROBERT POLLOK & CO. of Richmond, and DUNLOP, POLLOK & CO. of Manchester, are hereby notified, that James Dunlop, late a partner in the above concerns, has become purchaser of the outstanding debts; they will therefore be pleased to make payment to Mr. John Tompkins residing in Richmond, or the subscriber residing in Petersburg, who alone are authorized to make collections and grant discharges. Bids will be indiscriminately commenced against all who do not make payment before the first of February next. JOHN DUNLOP, Attorney for JAMES DUNLOP. Petersburg, Nov. 15, 1804. qtf
LANDS, LOTS & CANAL SHARES, FOR SALE. On Monday, the twenty-fifth day of March next, will be exposed to Public Sale at the Eagle-Tavern, in the City of Richmond, in order to close the Mercantile concern of Buchanan, Dunlop, & Co. the following TRACTS of LAND, &c. viz. A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND, SITUATED in the county of Campbell, on the branches of Cab Creek and Falling River, containing 2,500 acres, bounded by the lands of Hughes and Mr. Reynolds. ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, in the same county, on the waters of Beaver and Poffen Creeks, containing four hundred and fifty acres, by a late accurate survey, and including part of what is called Cooper's mountain. ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, in the said county, on the branches of Poffen, Rockcastle and Flat Creeks, containing 850 acres, and bounded by Stevenson's, Candler's and Martin's lands. ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, in said county, containing 870 acres, on the head branches of the Fork of Falling River, and upon the south east side of Long mountain, and bounded by Onfry's, Forbes's and Stith's lands. ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, in said county, containing 90 acres, on the head branches of the South Fork of Rolling River, on both sides of the main road, and bounded by the Long mountain and Richard Stith's land. ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, situated on the northern branches of Buffalo Creek, in the county of Campbell, containing 350 acres, and commonly known by the name of Turner's place. ALSO, A TRACT OF LAND, situated in Person county, North-Carolina, containing 99 3/4 acres, sold under an execution against Duncan Raper, Jr. and purchased at the marshal's sale at Raleigh, North-Carolina, as per deed to John Tompkins, made by the marshal, recorded in Person county court. ALSO, A TRACT OF LAND, in Patrick county, Virginia, on the head waters of South Mayo River, containing 1020 acres, more or less, as per deed from John Hughes to Buchanan, Dunlop & Co. recorded in the county court of Patrick, in February Court, 1800. A considerable part of this tract is rich low ground. ALSO, LOTS No. 4 & 5, each half acres, situated on the main street, in the town of New-London, on which area Puce and building built. ALSO, LOTS No. 45 & 46 in said town, containing 5 acres, adjoining the above half-acre lots, where a Barn and other out houses now stand. ALSO, LOT No. 41 situated in said town, containing eleven acres, & No. 42 & 43, containing each eight acres. ALSO, A TRACT OF LAND adjoining the above lots, containing 200 acres, which land Thomas Reid purchased of Pamela Crump, as will appear by the deed of indenture, recorded in the district court of New-London. At the same time and place and upon the same terms, will be Sold, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND in Campbell county, containing 400 acres. At the same time and place will be sold, FIVE SHARES IN THE UPPER APPOMATTOX CANAL COMPANY. A further description of the lands and lots is deemed unnecessary, as those inclined to purchase, will of course view them.—Mr. Thomas Reid will show the lands in Campbell county and lots in New-London.—Mr. Duncan Raper, Jr. the lands in Person county, and Mr. Samuel Staples that in Patrick county, and the deeds may be seen on application to Messrs. Puffin and Munro of Richmond.—On the lands and lots a credit of 18 months will be given, and on the Canal Shares a credit of 12 months—the purchaser giving bond with approved security, to carry interest from the date, if not promptly paid. DAVID BUCHANAN, By ROBERT POLLOK, his Attorney. JOHN DUNLOP, Attorney for JAMES DUNLOP. ROBERT POLLOK. February 8.—tdf
TWO Dutchmen, whom I purchased at Norfolk lately, left home on the 3d. Feb. They are clothed in brown cloth; and have humblums and brown linen shirts on, and an old fine hat. Martin is about 5 feet high, sturdy built, broad face, speaks English tolerably. John is tall and thin, with a long sharp nose and chin, and wide mouth. Any person, who will apprehend the said men will be well rewarded by JOHN BASSETT. Feb. 19.
THE subscriber wishes to hire two pair of good SAWYERS for six months. JOHN PENDLETON. Feb. 19. ep3w
CHOICE LANDS—FOR SALE. A DIVISION of the famous Saura Town Lands having taken place between the heirs of James Park Farley, Esq. dec'd. and Col. John S. Farley and his sister Mrs. Elizabeth Martin, the subscribers, Robert Taylor of Norfolk, and Charles Duncan at Nansemond, are fully empowered by the said Col. Farley and Mrs. Martin, to dispose of their proportion, containing 12,882 acres, which are surveyed and laid off in eight lots, containing from 500 to 2500 acres, agreeable to plans in the possession of the said Duncan. The four largest lots are of excellent quality, each containing a considerable proportion of the richest low grounds, which produce tobacco of the very first quality, as has been experienced by one of the subscribers, who shipped it for a number of years. Those lands lie on Dan and Smith's rivers, in Rockingham county, on the borders of North Carolina, about 170 miles from Petersburg and Richmond. As there are seldom such lands for sale, they must be an object to those who want to purchase such as will produce fine tobacco, hemp and small grain. One third of the price must be paid in ready money, one third in twelve months, and the other third in two years, the purchaser giving bond with unexceptionable security bearing interest from the date it not punctually paid. Those who wish to purchase will be shown the lands by Doctor John C. Cox, living at Leeksville, near Rockingham Court-House, and the terms made known by ROBERT TAYLOR, or CHARLES DUNCAN. Petersburg, Nov. 24. epif
FOR SALE. On a credit of 18 months, at the Eagle tavern, on the 25th March ensuing: A certain tract or parcel of LAND, lying in Patrick county on Mayo River, containing 500 acres more or less, being that tract lately owned by John Spencer, and sold by virtue of a deed of trust for the benefit of Dunlop, Pollok & Co. Col. Geo. Penn of Patrick, will show the land to any person disposed to purchase. An undivided title with general warrantee, will be made the purchaser on payment of the money—undoubted security will be required. PROSSER & MONCURE, V. M's. February 19.
TO PRINTERS. HENRY OURAM—PRESS-MAKER, South-east corner of Prune and Sixth-streets: RESPECTFULLY informs the trade, that he undertakes to supply Printing-Offices with every thing in his line, having a complete Printer's FOUNDRY, constantly employed in making the second part of Presses, Furniture, Rules, &c. &c. Chases of all sizes, Composing Sticks, Brays & Wood Galleys, &c. &c. constantly on hand, or made to order with dispatch and neatness. Orders from any part of the Continent attended to. Philad. Jan. 5. ep3m.
MAP OF VIRGINIA. PROPOSALS FOR PUBLISHING BY SUBSCRIPTION, A Map of Virginia: FORMED FROM ACTUAL SURVEYS, AND THE LATEST AS WELL AS THE MOST ACCURATE OBSERVATIONS. BY JAMES MADISON, D. D. PRESIDENT OF WILLIAM & MARY COLLEGE. TO which will be added, A MAP of the greater part of the State of Ohio, from actual surveys; including the whole of the Virginia Military Tract; with all that part of the State West of the Ohio River, to the Indiana boundary line. The north-east corner of the Map will be ornamented with an interesting View of the City of Richmond. The size of the MAP will be five feet six inches in length, and three feet eight inches in breadth. An ingenious and skillful Engraver is engaged to execute the work, in a style not inferior to any similar work in the United States. CONDITIONS. The price to subscribers will be eight dollars, neatly mounted, colored and glazed.—One dollar, (to lighten the great expense of publication,) to be paid on subscribing. Tenon-subscribers the price will be ten dollars. [COPY RIGHT SECURED.] In offering the above work to the public, the proprietors are sensible that excellence is not often attainable; but with candor and truth, equally remote from arrogance and partiality, they can say, that they conscientiously believe it has a just claim to the confidence and patronage of the people. A Map of Virginia has been long and anxiously looked for: None has been published, on the plan of the one now offered, for many years, when Augusta was the frontier country. The labor, expense, and apparent difficulties, in accomplishing so interesting a work, have deterred several from the arduous undertaking. The proprietors, finding that most of the other states had recently given encouragement to similar productions, and entertaining a high sense of the real dignity and importance of Virginia, embarked in the business, from a well grounded belief that the magnitude and utility of the work, would insure, if accomplished, a remuneration. And while Virginia is powerfully stimulated with the love of science and virtue, they hope and believe the will view domestic productions, which prove pre-eminently useful, with a generous pride. Those gentlemen who take subscription papers, are requested to return them to the subscriber, in Petersburg, by the first day of May. The maps will be ready for subscribers in the course of the ensuing summer. WILLIAM PRENTIS. Petersburg, February, 1805. Subscriptions received by RICHIE & WORSLER and others with whom subscription papers are lodged.
WILL BE SOLD, At Public Auction, on Saturday the 20th day of April next, at the Rawleigh Tavern, in the city of Williamsburg; THAT valuable Plantation called YARMOUTH, lying in James City county, on Chickahominy River, ten miles from Williamsburg. The improvements are, a two story brick house, with two rooms and a passage above and below; porticoes on each side; a large and capacious barn, and three other out-houses. The whole tract, including an island, in view of the house, high and low land with marshes, contains about 2700 acres; scarcely one third of which is cleared. Two thirds of the island is arable, which, with the land adjoining the house, is of superior quality. Adjacent to the island are two bold and navigable creeks, with a convenient landing to each. The range for cattle is very extensive, and the marshes and meadows will supply an abundance of hay. Fish and wild fowl, in their respective seasons, may with ease be obtained at your door. The orchards, consisting of the greatest variety of all kinds of fruit, selected with care, are now in their prime. The terms of sale are one third cash and one, two and three equal annual payments, for the balance. PLETON RANDOLPH, Jr. For ELIZA INNES. Feb. 19. (ep4ds)
CASH. WILL be given for 12 or 15 BOYS, from 7 to 15 years old. Enquire of the Printers. Dec. 15. [cpif.]
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD. JACK, or JACK ASH, a pariah by profession, formerly the property of Lewis Burwell, dec'd. was sold by the Exor. of said Burwell, about this time last year, to a gentleman residing in Amherst county, who permitted him to come down last May, for the purpose of visiting his wife and relations, with a promise that his visits should be repeated frequently. Jack has thought proper to abuse this indulgence by not returning to his master. His age is something above fifty, rather under the middle size. 'Tis believed that he secretes himself in Chesterfield, probably Manchester, where his wife's friends live. The keeper of the toll bridge or the ferryman when on visits to his wife, who is free, and who resides opposite Mr. Southgate's garden. Whoever will deliver the said Jack to Mr. Rose the jailer will receive the above reward on application at the office of the Enquirer. Jan. 8, 1805.
TO RENT, AND POSSESSION GIVEN IMMEDIATELY, A TENEMENT on Shockoe Hill, adjoining the house now occupied by Mr. John McCredie, lately possessed by the Subscriber. There is on it a convenient Wooden House with two rooms, a closet and a passage, on the first floor. Two rooms and a closet above, a kitchen and three cellars below with a Smoke House and Garden. Also a Wooden House with two rooms, fire place, kitchen and cellar, on the Tenement whereon I now live, lately occupied by Mr. Samuel Greenhow, on the lot formerly belonging to Mr. Benjamin Mosby. Wm. LONG. January, 17th 1805. epif.
NEAL NELSON, BOOT & SHOE MANUFACTURER, MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND, MAKES Boots & Shoes to any pattern or fashion, equal in point of MATERIALS and WORKMANSHIP to any in general use. Imported Boots and Shoes, of the first quality and newest fashion, for sale. Gentlemen at a distance, who are disposed to forward me their measure, by paying attention to the annexed cut, can be fitted with Boots or Shoes as well as they were on the spot. A—the length of the boot. C—the round the Calf. B—the pitch of the ditto. D—the round the heel and instep. E—the round the instep. G—the across the ball of the foot. F—the heel against a perpendicular, and thick a knife at the end of the great toe—set down in figures the number of inches and quarters, in the different measures. June 30. ep3m.
VALUABLE PROPERTY FOR SALE. WILL BE SOLD, to the highest bidder, on the premises, on the third day of April next, at 12 o'clock, an undivided moiety in the two lots of ground, formerly the property of Andrew Ronald, dec'd. fronting the Basin of the James River Canal, near the center of the city of Richmond, with an undivided moiety of all the valuable buildings thereon, consisting of a large three story BRICK BUILDING, eighty feet in length, with four tenements, twenty feet wide and forty-five feet in length, with fire places on the first and second floors, roomy garrets, in each, with large wheels fixed for hoisting and lowering packages, &c. with dispatch and ease, good dry cellars, with fire places in each. This house has been lately built and in good repair; adjoining is a well finished two story framed dwelling house, thirty eight feet square, with two good cellars, with fire places in each for cooking, in the first and second floors are eight rooms and six fire places. Also, a small two story Brick House with four rooms, with fire places in each, convenient for a store or small family, likewise a small wooden building with a cellar, built for a kitchen, and may be used as a shop; also two stables and a carriage house. The buildings except the kitchen, stable and carriage house, are insured in the Mutual Insurance Company against fire in the rate of Virginia, and the premiums paid. The lots front the Basin on one side, and are bounded by Cary's street, and the street leading to Shockoe warehouse, on the two other sides of them, and are as convenient for commercial or other business as any in the city. The terms of sale, will be fourteen thousand dollars in ready money, the residue payable the fifth day of August next, for which residue, bond with approved security will be required. It is deemed unnecessary to state the great value of the above property, to those who reside in this city, but for the information of strangers, the subscriber begs leave to state, that the aforesaid property is immediately opposite the lower part of the Basin of the James River canal, where all the produce of the upper country is landed; and to any person desirous of carrying on the commission business extensively, perhaps is superior to any other in this city. WILLIAM AUSTIN. February 8.—tf
FOR RENT: THE Large White House at Rocketts, formerly occupied by Mr. William Fenwick, and afterwards by Mr. Braxton Craddock. For terms, apply to GALLECO, RICHARD & CO. January 11. (tf)
TO RENT OR LEASE, FOR ONE OR MORE YEARS, THE HAY-MARKET GARDEN IN THIS CITY.
FEW places on the continent combine more advantages for public entertainments, being immediately contiguous to the most flourishing part of this metropolis—its situation is unrivaled for beauty of prospect and salubrity of air. The buildings erected therein, are well adapted to this place of amusement, and extensive enough for the greatest number of visitors; are peculiarly favorable to exhibitions and performances of every description, and contains more pleasurable and sportive preparations, than are to be met with in any place of the kind in America. My dwelling house may be also rented with the public garden, and a never-failing ice house, well fitted. This house is on an elevation, overlooking the public ground, is large, and one of the most airy and pleasant buildings in this city; well calculated for private and select entertainments, accommodation of Students, &c. there being many spare rooms and neat out houses, more than sufficient for any family. Should this garden not be rented before the first week in April next, preparations are making for their opening with Fire-works, Musical and other entertainments, by professors of the first celebrity; in which cases, a single man as manager, a Bar keeper and a good servant, will be wanted, to whom liberal wages will be given. JOHN PRIOR. Feb. 19. epif.
RISH Linens and Sheetings; Superfine Cloths and Gingham; India, Italian and French Silks; Do. Moll Moll Muslins; Do. do. do. Dimity; Fancy Muslin, Fais and 84 sets; Calomade Muslin; Cambric Dimities & Calicoes; Laced Cambric; Vails; Do. Dimity and Sheetings; Do. Gloves and Mitts; Woolf Leather and Kid Gloves. For Sale by BARTLETT STILL. January 12. tf