The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1805-02-22 00:00:00

THE ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, (Virginia) PUBLISHED BY RITCHIE & WORSLEY, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE...AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM...payable in advance.
NUMBER 88.]
FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 22, 1805.
[VOLUME 1.]
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. 
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
FOR SALE.
On a credit of 18 months, at the Eagle tavern, on the 25th March ensuing. A Certain tract of MARCH of LAND, lying in Patrick county on Mayo river, containing 550 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, Pollock & Co. Col. Geo. Penn of Patrick, will like the land to any person disposed to purchase. An unqualified 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.
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. 13th. tf
A YOUNG MAN, who writes a fair hand, and has conducted the clerkship of a court for three years past, wishes to engage in the same business with some gentleman in the upper country. He can produce testimonials of his correct morals and general good conduct. A line directed to the Post-Master in Williamsburg, will be attended to and immediately answered. February 19. 3t
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 1500 acres; scarcely one third of which is cleared. Two thirds of the island is arable, which, with, which, with the land adjoining the house, is of superior quality. A lease 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 the 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. PEYTON RANDOLPH, jr. For ELIZA INNES. Feb. 19. (epid)
THE SUBSCRIBER OFFERS FOR SALE.
THE CHINESE SNAKE STONE, formerly the property of the late Mrs. Tabbs, of Maury county, so famous throughout Virginia, for its efficacy in extracting the venom from the bite of a Mad Dog, Snake, or other poisonous thing. To prevent unnecessary applications, he deems it proper to mention that this stone for this stone, is two thousand dollars. Until the stone is sold, it will be found at Seaton's Ferry, upon the Pianketank, in Gloucester county; where it will be applied to persons bitten by any venomous thing, upon the most moderate terms. JAMES R. MICOU. February 1.—(ep3w.
TO RENT.
AND POSSESSION GIVEN IMMEDIATELY. A TENEMENT on Shockoe Hill, at No. 10, lately occupied by the Subscriber. There is a convenient Wooden House with two rooms, a lot 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 Mobly. WM. LONG. January, 17th 1805. epf.
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.
THOMAS JACK ASH, a gardener by profession, formerly the property of Lewis Burwell, dec'd, was sold by the Esq. 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. He believes that he secures himself in Chesterfield, probably Manchester, where his wife's friends live. The keeper of the toll bridge on the ferry between will have frequent opportunities of stopping him 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. Rife the junior will receive the above reward on application at the office of the Enquirer. Jan. 8, 1805.
FOR SALE, on 12 months credit.
A Healthy Young Negro WOMAN, about 18 years old, with her two female children. A young person living in Richmond, who would not part the woman and her husband, the above negroes would be sold on moderate terms. Enquire of the printers. February 19. 2t
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
TWO Dutchmen, whom I purchased at Norfolk lately, left home on the 3d Feb. They are clothed in brown cloth; and have humbunus and brown linen shirts on, and an old hat. Martin is about 5 feet high, sandy built, broad face, speaks English tolerably. John is tall and thin, with a long sharp nose and chin, and white mouth. Any person, who will apprehend the said men will be well rewarded by JOHN BASSETT. Feb. 19. tf
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.
RAN AWAY from the subscriber, on the 2d inst. a Negro Man named SAM—He is about five feet high, 18 or 19 years old, very likely and well made, with a scar on the top of one of his feet. His clothing was of grey cloth. He can read and write, and is a very good boot and shoe maker. It is expected that he will have a free pass. Any person who will deliver the said negro to me, or secure him in jail so that I may get him again, shall receive the above reward and all expenses. JOHN GIBSON. Feb. 19. epf
THE SUBSCRIBER OFFERS
FOR SALE, Six hundred and forty acres of the well known Tract of Land called "THE SEATON'S FERRY TRACT," lying upon the Pianketank river in Gloucester county, adjoining the land of Mr. John Seaton, the estate of Benjamin Marable, dec. and others. This land is heavily timbered with the best chestnut, oak, hickory, dogwood I, and a second growth of pine, capable of being converted into common plank or flooring. There are not more than two hundred acres of cleared land upon the tract. A stream runs through the body of this land, upon which an overshot-mill might be erected at a small expense. No situation in the low Country of Virginia, has more the advantage of good water, fish, oysters, & salubrious air, than this. The improvements are inconsiderable. The dwelling House has lately been in part repaired, and consists of three rooms and a passage below, and two above stairs. The terms will be made known upon the premises by Seaton's Ferry, Feb. 19. JAMES R. MICOU. et Sm.
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 pleasant and private 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 gardens, and a never-failing ice house, well filled. 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 field 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 Fife-musick, Musical and other entertainments, by professors of the first celebrity; in which case, a single man as manager, a Bar keeper and a good servant, will be required, to whom liberal wages will be given. Feb. 19. epf.
JUST RECEIVED, and for sale at the Office of the ENQUIRER, a few copies of the following BOOKS:
 Moore's Anacreon,  Life of Doctor Darwin,  Report of the Trial of Lord Headfort,  Graydon's Digest of the Laws of the U. States,  Terrible Retribution,  Volney's View of the United States, &c. &c. 
February 5.
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 to any others who may find it to be 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 bill of the amount, and to subscribe it if that bill be applied, and impose a penalty to draw for the sums payable on sight. The heads of non-residents are advertised about the first of July, which is an expense of twenty-five cents a each tract. The subscriber's draft will commence the cash in this state, and as soon as his bills are honoured at any of the above mentioned banks, he will advance the money in Kentucky, deducting seven and a half percent commission for his trouble, in attending to and executing the business. He will enclose duplicate receipts to those banks in which the money is deposited, or to the proprietors of the lands, keeping the original in his own possession, to correct any errors which may occur in the auditors office of Kentucky. To those gentlemen who may wish to pay their taxes in this state, and who have not a personal acquaintance with the subscriber, he begs leave to refer them to the Hon. John Breckenridge, the Hon. Matthew Walton, Esqrs. now in Congress, at the city of Washington, or to Gen. John Preston of Montgomery county, and Col. James Breckenridge of Botetourt county, Virginia, as to the confidence which may be reposed in him. NATHANIEL HART. N. B. The postage on all letters directed to me on the above business must be paid. December 18, 1804. (811 May.)
FOR SALE,
A Likely young negro fellow, a PLACE SMITH by trade, and is well acquainted with the making of plantation utensils. For terms apply to PETER RUST. Richmond County, Feb. 8.—(212w
FOR SALE,
BY WILLIAM ROSS, AT THE EAGLE TAVERN: LIGHT-FOUR years Fancy, Tolonet, Camilleure and Swindown Wet-coatings. 2 cases Britannias, 1 bale Tichenburs, 8 cases and trunks Chitteress and Calicoes, 1 case Cotton Shawls and Pocket Handks. 1 do. India Satins, assorted colours, 1 bale Gurrah Mullins, 2 do. Bafia do. 3 do. Coila do. 1 do. Jessamyn Mamreedy do. 1 do. do. Sannah do. 60 boxes Spanish Segars, 20 do. containing sets of Tea China, 61 pieces each, 5 do. assorted do. 80 ream Medium Vellum Printing Paper, 6 do. Foliam Writing do. 48, 5 boxes Glass Tumblers and Decanters. N. B. Crop Tobacco, Flour, or Flax-Seed, will be taken in payment as cash. January 11. (12wtf)
RICHMOND ACADEMY LOTTERY.
OFFICE is hereby given, that the days of drawing will henceforward be Wednesdays and Saturdays, commencing to-morrow, the 5th instant. From the great gain of the wheel, the price of tickets is now eleven dollars each; but to favour early purchasers, the commissioners will continue to exchange tickets for prizes, until fifteen hundred numbers are drawn. R. MITCHELL, R. POLLARD, ALEX: STUART, WM: PRICE, G. TUCKER. A committee is appointed to draw the drawing. Richmond, Feb. 5th, 1805.
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENT.
Answer of SAMUEL CHASE. (Continued.)
As little can this respondent be justly charged with having by any conduct of his, endeavoured to "wrest from the jury their indispensable right to hear arguments, and determine upon the question of law as well the question of fact involved in the verdict which they were required to give." He denies, that he did at any time declare that the aforesaid council should not at any time address the jury, or did in any manner hinder them from addressing the jury on the law as well as on the facts arising in the case. It was expressly stated in the copy of his opinion delivered as above set forth to William Lewis, that the jury had a right to determine the law as well as the fact; and the said William Lewis, and Alexander James Dallas were expressly informed, before they declared their resolution to abandon the defence, that they were at liberty to argue the law to the jury. This respondent believes that the said William Lewis did not read the opinion delivered to him as aforesaid, except a very small part of the beginning of it, and of course, acted upon it without knowing its contents; and that the said Alexander James Dallas read no part of the said opinion until about a year ago, when he saw a very imperfect copy, made in court by a certain W. S. Biddle.
And this respondent for her answering, first, that according to the constitution of the United States, civil officers thereof, and no other persons, are subject to impeachment; and they only for treason, bribery, corruption, or other high crime or misdemeanor, consisting in some act done or omitted, in violation of some law forbidding or commanding it; on conviction of which act, they must be removed from office; and may, after conviction, be indicted and punished therefor, according to law. Hence it clearly results, that no civil officer of the United States can be impeached except for some offence for which he may be indicted at law; and that no evidence can be received on an impeachment, except such as on an indictment at law, for the same offence, would be admissible. That a judge cannot be indicted or punished according to law, for any act whatever, done by him in his judicial capacity, and in a matter of which he had jurisdiction, through error of judgement merely, without corrupt motives, however manifest his error may be, is a principle relying on the plainest maxims of reason and justice, supported by the highest legal authority, and sanctioned by the universal sense of mankind. He hath already endeavoured to shew, and he hopes with success, that all the opinions delivered by him in the course of the trials now under consideration, were correct in themselves, and in the time and manner of expressing them; and that even admitting them to have been incorrect, there was such strong reason in their favour, as to remove from his conduct every suspicion of improper motives. If these opinions were incorrect, his mistake in adopting them, or in the time or manner of expressing them, cannot be imputed to him as an offence of any kind, much less as an high crime and misdemeanor, for which he ought to be removed from office: unless it can be shewn by clear and legal evidence, that he acted from corrupt motives. Should it be considered that some impropriety is attached to his conduct, in the time and mode of expressing any of these opinions; still he apprehends, that a very wide difference exists between such impropriety, the casual effect of human infirmity, and a high crime and misdemeanor for which he may be impeached, and must on conviction be removed from office.
Finally, this respondent having thus laid before this honorable court a true state of his case so far as respects the first article of impeachment, declares, upon the strictest review of his conduct during the whole trial of John Fries for treason, that he was not on that occasion unfaithful to the solemn duties of his office as judge; that he faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of his ability and understanding, discharged those duties towards the said John Fries; and that he did not in any manner, during the said trial, conduct himself arbitrarily or oppressively, as he is accused by the honorable the House of Representatives.
And the said Samuel Chase, for plea to the said first article of impeachment, saith that he is not guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor, as in and by the said first article is alleged; & this he prays may be enquired of by this honorable court, in such manner as law and justice shall seem to require. The second article of impeachment charges, that this respondent, at the trial of James Thompson Callender for a libel in May 1800, did with intent to oppress and procure the conviction of the said Callender, overrule the
objection of John Basset, one of the jury, who wished to be excused from serving on the said trial, because he had made up his mind as to the publication from which the words, charged to be libelous in the indictment were extracted."
In answer to this article, this respondent admits that he did, as one of the associate judges of the supreme court of the United States, hold the circuit court of the United States, for the district of Virginia, at Richmond, on Thursday the 22d day of May, in the year 1800, and from that day, till the 30th of the same month; when Cyrus Griffin, then district judge of the United States for the district of Virginia, took his seat in the said court; and that during the residue of that session of the said court, which continued till the 1st day of June, in the same year, this respondent and the said Cyrus Griffin, held the said court together. But how far any of the other matters charged in this article, are founded in truth or law, will appear from the following statement; which he submits to this honorable court, by way of answer to this part of the accusation.
By an act of Congress passed on the 24th day of May, A. D. 1789, it is among other things enacted, "That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall knowingly and wittingly assist and aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings, against the President of the United States, with intent to defame, or to bring him into contempt or disrepute, such person, being thereof convicted, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment, not exceeding two years;" and "that if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, it shall be lawful for him to give in evidence, in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel; and the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases," as in and by the said act, commonly called the sedition law, to which this respondent begs leave to refer this honorable court, will more fully appear.
At the meeting of the last above mentioned circuit court, this respondent, as required by the duties of his office, delivered a charge to the grand jury; in which, according to his constant practice, and to his duty as a judge, he gave in charge to them, several acts of Congress then in force, and the above mentioned act, called the sedition law; and directed the said jury to make particular enquiry, concerning any breaches of these statutes or any of them, within the district of Virginia. On the 24th day of May, 1800, the said jury found an indictment against one James Thompson Callender, for printing and publishing, against the form of the said act of Congress, a false, scandalous, and malicious libel, called "The Prospect Before Us," against John Adams, then President of the United States, in his official character as President; as appears by an official copy of the said indictment, marked exhibit No. 4, which this respondent begs leave to make part of this his answer.
On Wednesday the 28th day of the same month, May, 1800, Philip Nicholas, Esq. now attorney general of the state of Virginia, and George Hay, Esq. now district attorney of the United States, for the district of Virginia, appeared in the said circuit court as counsel for the said Callender; and on Tuesday the 3d of June following, his trial commenced, before this respondent, and the said Cyrus Griffin, who then sat as assistant judge. The petit jurors being called over, eight of them appeared, namely, Robert Gamble, Bernard Markham, John Barrett, William Austin, William Richardson, Thomas Tinsley, Matthew Harvey and John Basset; whom as they came to oath, by direction of the court, "whether they had ever formed and delivered any opinion respecting the subject matter then to be tried, or concerning the charges contained in the indictment?" They all answered in the negative, and were sworn in chief to try the issue. The counsel for the said Callender declining, that it was unnecessary to put this question to the other four jurymen, William Mayo, James Hayes, Henry S. Shore and John Prior, they also were immediately sworn in chief. No challenge was made by the said Callender or his counsel to any of these jurors; but the said answer that should be given by the said jurors, to the question thus put by the order of the court.
After the abovenamed John Basset, whom this respondent supposes and admits to be the person mentioned in the article of impeachment now under consideration, had thus answered in the negative, to the question put to him by order of the court, as abovenamed, which this respondent states to be the legal and proper question, to be put to jurors on oath to be excused from serving on the said trial, because he had made up his mind, or had formed his opinion, "that the publication, called 'The Prospect Before Us,' from which the words charged in the indictment were libelous, were false to be extracted, but which he had never seen, was according to the representation of it, which he had received, within the sedition law." But the court did not consider this declaration by the said John Basset, as a sufficient reason for withdrawing him from the jury, and accordingly directed him to be sworn in chief.
In this opinion and decision, as in all the others delivered during the trial in question, this respondent concurred with his colleague, the abovenamed Cyrus Griffin, in whom none of these opinions have been considered as criminal. He contends that the opinion itself was legal and correct; and he denies that he concurred in it, under the influence of any "spirit of persecution and injustice," or with any "intent to oppress and procure the conviction of the prisoner;" as is most mutually alleged by the second article of impeachment. His reasons were correct and legal. He will submit them with confidence to this honorable court; which, although it cannot condemn him for an incorrect opinion, proceeding from an honest error in judgement, and ought not to take on itself the power of inquiring into the correctness of his decisions, but merely that of examining the purity of his motives; will, nevertheless, weigh his reasons, for the purpose of judging now for they are of sufficient force, to justify a belief that they might have appeared satisfactory
to him. If they might have so appeared, if the opinion which he founded on them be not so palpably and glaringly wrong, as to carry with it internal evidence of corrupt motives, he cannot in delivering it have committed an offence.
This honorable court need not be informed, that it is the duty of courts before which criminal trials take place, to exempt jurors from being excused for light and insufficient causes. If this rule were not observed, it would follow, that as serving on such trials as a juror, is apt to be a very disagreeable business, especially to those best qualified for it, there would be a great difficulty, and often an impossibility, in finding proper jurors. The law has therefore established a fixed and general rule on this subject, calculated not to gratify the wishes or the unreasonable scruples of jurors but to secure to the party accused, as far as in the imperfection of human nature it can be secured, a fair and impartial trial. The criterion established by this rule is, "that the juror stands indifferent between the government and the person accused, as to the matter in issue, on the indictment." This indifference is always, according to a well known maxim of law, to be presumed, unless the contrary appear; and the contrary may be alleged by way of excuse by the juror himself or by the prisoner by way of challenge. Even if not alleged, it may be inquired into by the court of its own motion, or on the suggestion of the prisoner, and it may be established by the confession of the juror himself, on oath, or by other testimony.
But in order to shew that a juror does not stand indifferent between the accuser and the accused, as to the matter in issue, it is not sufficient to prove that he has expressed a general opinion, "that such an offence as that charged by the indictment ought to be punished;" or that the party accused, if guilty of the offence charged against him, ought to be punished;" or "that a book, for printing and publishing which the party is indicted, comes within the law on which the indictment is founded." All these are general expressions of opinion, as to the criminality of an act of which the party is accused, and of which he may be guilty; not declarations of an opinion that he actually is guilty of the offence with which he stands charged. It is impossible for any man in society to avoid having, and extremely difficult for him to avoid expressing, an opinion, as to the criminality or innocence of those acts, which for the most part, are the subjects of indictments for offences of a public nature: such as treason, sedition, and libels against the government. Such acts always engage public attention, and become the subject of public conversation; and if to have formed or expressed an opinion, as to the general nature of those acts, were a sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, when alleged against him, or of excuse from serving when alleged by himself, it would be in the power of almost every offender, to prevent a jury from being impanelled to try him, and of almost every man, to exempt himself from the unpleasant task of serving on such juries. The magnitude and heinous nature of an offence, would give it a greater tendency to attract public attention, and to draw forth public expressions of indignation; and would thus encroach its chance of impunity.
To the present case this reasoning applies with peculiar force. "The Prospect Before Us" is a libel so flagrant and atrocious, that it excited disgust and indignation in every breast not wholly depraved. Even those whose interest it was intended to promote, were, as this respondent has understood and believes, either so much ashamed of it, or so apprehensive of its effects, that great pains were taken by them to withdraw it from public and general circulation. Of such a publication, it must have been extremely difficult to find a man of sufficient character and information to serve on a jury, who had not formed an opinion, either from his own knowledge, or from report. The juror in the present case had expressed no opinion. He had formed no opinion, as to the facts. He had never seen the "Prospect Before Us," and therefore could have formed no fixed or certain opinion about its nature or contents. They had been reported to him, and he had formed an opinion, that if they were such as reported, the book was within the scope and operation of a law for the punishment of "false, scandalous and malicious libels, against the President in his official capacity, written or published with intent to defame him." And who is there, that having neither seen the book or heard of it, had not necessarily formed the same opinion?
But this juror had formed no opinion about the guilt or innocence of the party accused—which depended on four facts wholly distinct from the opinion which he had formed. First, whether the contents of the book were really such as had been represented to him? Secondly, whether they should, on the trial, be proved to be true? Thirdly, whether the party accused was really the author or publisher of this book? And fourthly, whether he wrote or published it "with intent to defame the President, or to bring him into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against him the hatred of the good people of the United States?" On all these questions the mind of the juror was perfectly at large, nor withstanding the opinion which he had formed, he might, confidently with that opinion, determine them all in the negative; and it was on them that the issue between the United States and James Thompson Callender depended. Consequently, this juror, notwithstanding the opinion which he had thus formed, did stand indifferent as to the matter in issue, in the legal and proper sense, and in the only sense in which such indifference can ever exist; and therefore his having formed that opinion, was not such an excuse as could have justified the court in discharging him from the jury.
That this juror did not himself consider this opinion as an opinion respecting the "matter in issue," appears clearly from this circumstance, that when called upon to answer on oath, "whether he had expressed an opinion as to the matter in issue?" he answered that he had not. Which clearly proves that he did not regard the circumstance of his having formed this opinion, as a legal excuse, which ought to exempt him from right from serving on the jury; but merely suggested it as a motive of delicacy, which induced him to wish to be excused. To such motives of delicacy, however commendable in the person who feels them, it is impossible for courts of justice to yield, without putting it in the power of every man, under pretence of such scruples, to exempt himself from those duties which all the citizens are bound to perform. Courts of justice must regulate them

By legal principles, which are fixed and universal; not by delicate scruples, which admit of endless variety, according to the varying opinions and feelings of men. Such were the reasons of this respondent, & he presumes of his colleague the said John Taylor, for refusing to execute the said John Taylor, from serving on the jury above mentioned. These reasons, and the decision founded on them, are in every respect legal and valid. But if the reasons should be considered as invalid, and the decision as erroneous, can they be considered as so clearly and flagrantly incorrect, as to justify a conclusion that they were adopted by this respondent, through improper motives? are not these reasons sufficiently strong, or sufficiently plausible, to justify a candid and liberal mind in believing, that a judge might honestly have regarded them as valid? Has it not been conceded, by the omission to prosecute Judge Griffin for this decision, that his error, if he committed one, was an honest error? Whence this distinction between this respondent and his colleague? And why is that opinion imputed to one as a crime, which in the other is considered as innocent?
And the said Samuel Chase, for plea to the said second article of impeachment, saith that he is not guilty of any high crime or misdemeanor, as in and by the said second article is alleged against him; and this he prays may be enquired of by this honourable court, in such manner as law and justice shall seem to them to require. The third article of impeachment alleges, that this respondent "with intent to oppress and procure the conviction of the prisoner, did not permit the evidence of John Taylor, a material witness in behalf of the said Calender, to be given in, or presence that the said witness could not prove the truth of the whole of one of the charges, contained in the indictment, although the said charge embraced more than one fact."
In answer to this charge, this respondent believes to submit the following facts and observations. The indictment against James Thompson Callender, which has been already mentioned, and of which a copy is exhibited with this answer, contains several counts, each of which contains several counts and independent charges of words. Each of those sets of words was charged as a libel against John Adams, a President of the United States; and the twelfth charge embraced the following words, "the quaking President Adams was a professed adherent of the crown, faithful and serviceable to the British interest." The defendant set up in answer to this charge, and was relied upon, the truth of the words. To the other nineteen charges, no defence or answer was attempted or spoken of, except such as might arise from the supposed unconstitutionality of the libel law, as applied to the twelfth charge, as well as to the other nineteen. It was to prove the truth of these words, that John Taylor, the person mentioned in the article of impeachment now under consideration, was offered as a witness. It can hardly be necessary to remind this honourable court, that when an indictment for a libel contains several distinct charges, founded on distinct sets of words, the party accused, who in such cases is called the "traveller," must be convicted, unless he makes a sufficient defence against every charge. His innocence on one, does not prove him innocent on the others. If the libel law should be considered as unconstitutional, the whole indictment, including this twelfth charge, must fall to the ground, whether the words in question were proved to be true or not. If the law should be considered as constitutional, then the traveller, whether the words in the twelfth charge were proved to be true or not, must be convicted on the other nineteen charges, against which no defence was offered. This conviction on nineteen charges, would put the traveller completely in the power of the court, by which the amount of the fine and the term of the imprisonment were to be fixed, as a conviction upon all the twenty charges. The imprisonment could not exceed two years, nor the fine be more than two thousand dollars. If then this respondent were convicted of procuring the conviction of the traveller, he was sure of his other, without rejecting the testimony of John Taylor. If his temper towards the traveller were so vindictive, as to make him desirous to obtain an opportunity and cause for inflicting on him the whole extent of punishment permitted by the law, still a conviction on nineteen charges afforded this opportunity and occasion, as fully as a conviction on twenty charges. One hundred more, or less, in fines, or in term of imprisonment, before the "Projector before Us," could furnish no moment's gratification to this object, therefore, it was not necessary to reject the testimony of John Taylor.
That the court did not feel this vindictive spirit, is clearly evinced by the moderation of the punishment, which actually was inflicted on the traveller, after he was convicted of the whole twenty charges. Instead of two thousand dollars, he was fined only two hundred, and was sentenced to only five months' imprisonment, instead of two years. And this respondent avers, that he never felt or expressed a wish to go further; but that in this decision, as well as in every other given in the course of the trial, he fully and freely concurred with his colleague, Judge Griffin.
And further proof that his rejection of this testimony did not proceed from any improper motive, but from a conviction in his mind that it was legally inadmissible, and that it was, therefore, his duty to reject it, he begs leave to state, that he interfered, in order to prevail on the district attorney to withdraw his objection to those questions, and consent to their being put; which that officer refused to do, on the ground "that he did not feel himself at liberty to consent to such a departure from legal principles."
Hence appears the utter futility of a charge, which attributes to this respondent a purpose as absurd as it was wicked; and without the slightest proof, imputes to the worst motives in him the same action, which in his colleague is considered as free from blame. But this respondent will not content himself with showing, that his conduct in concurring with his colleague in the rejection of John Taylor's testimony, could not have proceeded from the motives ascribed to him; but he will show that this rejection, if not strictly legal and proper, as he believes and insists that it is, rests on legal reasons of sufficient force to satisfy every mind, that a judge might have sincerely considered it as correct.
The words stated as the ground of the 12th charge above mentioned, are stated in the indictment as one entire and indivisible paragraph, constituting one entire offence. This respondent considered them as constituting one entire charge, and one entire offence; and that they must be taken together in order to explain and support each other. It is clear that no words are indictable as libelous, except such as are so by plain implication, charge the person against whom they are published, with some offence either legal or moral. To be an "aristocrat," is not in itself an offence, either legal or moral, even if it were an offence against the British interest, unless he thereby betrayed or endangered the interests of his own country; which does not necessarily follow, and is not directly alleged in the publication.
These two phrases, therefore, taken separately, charge Mr. Adams with no offence of any kind; and, consequently, could not be indictable as libelous; but taken together, they convey the implication that Mr. Adams, being an "aristocrat," that is, an enemy to the republican government of his own country, had betrayed the British interest, against the interests of his own country; which would, in his situation, have been an offence both moral and legal; to charge him with it was, therefore, libelous.
Admitting, therefore, these two phrases to constitute one distinct charge, and one entire offence, this respondent confutation confutes and states it to be law, that no justification which went to part only of the offence, could be received. The plea of justification must always answer the whole charge, or it is bad on the demurrer; for this plain reason, that the object of the plea is to show the party's innocence; and he cannot be innocent, if the accusation against him be supported in part. Where the matter of defence may be given in evidence, without being formally pleaded, the same rules prevail. The defence must be of the same nature, and equally complete, in one case as in the other. The only difference is in the manner of bringing it forward. Evidence, therefore, which goes only to justify the charge in part, cannot be received. It is not indeed necessary, that the whole of this evidence should be given by one witness. The justification may consist of several facts, some of which may be proved by one witness, and some by another. But proof, in such cases, must be offered as to the whole, or it cannot be received.
In the case under consideration, no proof was offered as to the whole matter contained in the twelfth article. No witness except the above-mentioned John Taylor, was produced or mentioned. When a witness is offered to a court and jury, it is the right and duty of the court, to require a statement of the matters intended to be proved by him. This is the invariable practice of all our courts, and was done most particularly by this respondent and his colleague, on the occasion in question. From the statement given by the traveller's counsel, of what they expected to prove by the said witness, it appeared that his testimony could have no possible application to any part of the indictment, except the twelfth charge above mentioned, and but a very weak and imperfect application even to that part. The court, therefore, as it was their right and duty, requested that the questions intended to be put to the witness, should be reduced to writing, and submitted to their inspection; so as to enable them to judge more accurately, how far those questions were proper and admissible. This being done, the questions were of the following tenor and effect:
16. "Did you ever hear Mr. Adams express any sentiments favourable to monarchy, or 'aristocracy,' and what were they?" 24. "Did you ever hear Mr. Adams while Vice-President, express his disapprobation of the funding system?" 31. "Do you know whether Mr. Adams did not, in the year 1794, vote against the sequestration of British debts, and also against the bill for suspending intercourse with Great-Britain?"
The second question, it is manifest, had nothing to do with the twelfth charge; for Mr. Adams's approbation or disapprobation of the funding system, could not have the most remote tendency to prove that he was an aristocrat, or had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest. In that part of the publication which furnishes the matter of the thirteenth charge in the indictment, it is indeed stated that Mr. Adams, "when but in a secondary station, censured the funding system;" but these words are in themselves wholly immaterial; and no attempt was made, nor any evidence offered or spoken of, to prove the truth of the other matter contained in the thirteenth charge. It was from their connection with that other matter, that these words could alone derive any importance; and consequently their truth or falsehood was altogether immaterial, while that other matter remained unproved. This question, therefore, which went solely to those immaterial words, was clearly inadmissible. The third question was, in reality, as far as the second from any connection with the matter in issue, although its irrelevancy is not quite so apparent. Mr. Adams's having voted against the two measures alluded to in that question, if he did in fact vote against them, could by no means prove that he was "faithful and serviceable to the British interest," in any sense, much less with those improper and criminal views, with which the publication in question certainly meant to charge him. He might, in the honest and prudent performance of his duty towards his government and his country, incidentally promote the interests of another country; but it was by no means competent for a jury to infer from thence, that he was "faithful" to that other country; or, in other words, that he held the interests of that other country chiefly in view, and was actuated in giving his vote by a desire to promote them, independently of, or without regard to, the interests of his own country. Such an inference could not be made from the fact admitting it to be true. The fact, if true, was no evidence to support such an inference, therefore the fact was immaterial; and as it is the province and duty of the court, in such circumstances, to decide on the materiality of facts offered in evidence, it follows clearly, that it was the right and duty of the court, in this instance, to reject the third question; an affirmative answer to which could have proved nothing in support of the defence.
The first question, therefore, and the only remaining one proposed to be put to this witness, stood alone; and an affirmative answer to it, if it could have proved any thing, could have proved only a part of the charge; namely, that Mr. Adams was an aristocrat. But evidence to prove a part only of an entire and indivisible charge, was inadmissible for the reasons stated above.
If, on the other hand, the phrases in question, "that Mr. Adams was an aristocrat," that "he had proved faithful and serviceable to the British interest," were distinct and divisible, and constituted two distinct charges, which may perhaps be the proper way of considering them, still the abovementioned questions were improper and inadmissible, in that point of view. The first charge in that case is, that Mr. Adams "was an aristocrat." To be an aristocrat, even if any precise and definite meaning could be affixed to the term, is not an offence either legal or moral; consequently, to charge a man with being an aristocrat is not a libel; and such a charge in an indictment for a libel is wholly immaterial. Nothing is more clear than that immaterial matters in legal proceedings ought not to be proved, and need not be disproved. In the next place, the term "aristocrat" is one of those vague indefinite terms,
which admit not of precise meaning, and are not susceptible of proof. What one person might consider as aristocracy, another would consider as republicanism, and a third, as democracy. If indictments could be supported on such grounds the guilt or innocence of the party accused, must be measured not by any fixed or known rule, but by the opinions which the jurors appointed to try him might happen to entertain, concerning the nature of aristocracy, democracy or republicanism. And, lastly, the question itself was as vague, and as void of precise meaning, as the charge of which it was intended to furnish the proof. The witness was called upon to declare "whether he had heard Mr. Adams express any and what opinions, favourable to aristocracy or monarchy?" How was it to be determined, whether an opinion was favourable to aristocracy or monarchy? One man would think it favourable and another not so, according to the opinions which they might respectively entertain, on political subjects. The first question, therefore, was inconclusive, immaterial and inadmissible.
The second, as has already been remarked, was wholly and manifestly foreign from the matter in issue. Mr. Adams's dislike of the funding system, if he did in fact dislike it, had nothing to do with his aristocracy or his faithfulness to the British interest. There is no precedent for saying, that such a question ought to have been admitted.
As to the third, "whether Mr. Adams had not voted against the sequestration of British property, and the suspension of commercial intercourse with Great-Britain," it has already been shown to be altogether improper; on the ground that such votes, if given by Mr. Adams, were no evidence whatever of his having been "faithful and serviceable to the British interest." If he had been so, provided it were, in his opinion, at the same time useful to the interests of his own country, which it well might be, and the contrary of which, is not alleged by this part of the publication, taken separately, it was no offence of any kind; and to charge him with it was not a libel. The charge was, therefore, immaterial and futile, and no evidence for or against it could properly be received. And, finally, if the charge had been material, and the giving of these votes had been legal evidence to prove it, that fact was on record in the journals of the Senate and might have been proved by that record, or an official copy of it. As this evidence was the highest of which the case admitted, no inferior evidence of it, such as oral proof is well known to be, could be admitted.
For these reasons this respondent did concur with his colleague, the said Cyrus Griffin in rejecting the three abovementioned questions; but not any other testimony that the said John Taylor might have been able to give. In this he insists that he acted legally and properly, according to the best of his ability. If he erred, it is impossible, for the reasons stated by him in the beginning of his answer to this article, to suppose that he erred willfully; since he could have had no possible motive for a piece of misconduct so shameful, and at the same time so well calculated to give offence. In a point so liable to misapprehension and misrepresentation, and so likely to be used as a means of exciting public odium against him, it is far more probable, that he has been capable of bending his opinion of the law to other motives, he would have admitted illegal testimony; which, taken in its utmost effect could have had no tendency to thwart those plans of vengeance against the traveller under the influence of which he is supposed to have acted.
If his error was an honest one, which as his colleague also fell into it, might in charity be supposed; and, as there is not a shadow of evidence to the contrary, must in law be presumed; he cannot, for committing it, be convicted of any offence, much less a high crime and misdemeanor, for which he must, on conviction, be deprived of his office.
And for plea to the said third 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 third article is alleged against him; and this he prays may be enquired of by this honourable court, in such manner as law and justice shall seem to them to require.
The fourth article of impeachment alleges, that during the whole course of the trial of James Thompson Callender, abovementioned, the conduct of this respondent was marked by "manifest injustice, partiality and intemperance;" and five particular instances of the "injustice, partiality and intemperance" are adduced. The first consists "in compelling the prisoner's counsel to reduce to writing and submit to the inspection of the court, for their admission or rejection, all questions which the said counsel meant to propound to the abovementioned John Taylor, the witness." This respondent, in answer to this part of the article now under consideration, admits that the court, consisting of himself and the abovementioned Cyrus Griffin, did require the counsel for the traveller, on the trial of James Thompson Callender abovementioned, to reduce to writing the questions which they intended to put to the said witness. But he denies that it is more his act than the act of his colleague, who fully concurred in this measure. This measure, as he apprehends and insists, was strictly legal and proper; his reasons for adopting it, and he presumes those of his colleague, he will submit to this honourable court, in order to show that if he, in common with his colleague, committed an error, it was an error into which the best and wisest men might have honestly fallen. It will not be denied, and cannot be doubted, that according to our laws, evidence, whether oral or written, may be rejected and prevented from going before the jury on various grounds. 1st. For incompetency: where the form from which the evidence is attempted to be drawn, is an improper source: as if a witness were to be called who was infamous or interested in the event of the suit: or a paper should be offered in evidence, which was not between the same parties, or was not executed in the forms prescribed by law. 2d. For irrelevancy: when the evidence offered is not such, as in law will warrant the jury to infer the fact intended to be proved; or where that fact, if proved, is immaterial to the issue. For these reasons and perhaps for others which might be specified, evidence may properly be rejected, in trials before our courts.
As little can it be doubted, that according to our laws, the court and not the jury is the proper tribunal for deciding all questions relative to the admissibility of evidence. The effect of the evidence when received, is to be judged of by the jury; but whether it ought to be received, must be determined by the court. This arises from the very constitution of the trial by jury; one fundamental principle of which is, that the jury must decide the case, not according to vague notions, secret impressions or general belief, but according to legal and proper evidence delivered in court. So strictly is this rule observed, that if one juror have any knowledge of the matter in dispute, it may influence his own judgment, but not that of his fellow jurors, unless he state to them on oath in open court;
and nothing is more common than for our courts, after all the evidence which the party can produce has been offered and received, to tell the jury that there is no evidence to support the claim, or the defence: or when proof is offered of a certain fact, to determine that such fact is not proper to be given in evidence.
Hence it results, and is every day's practice, that when a witness is produced, or a writing is offered in evidence, the opposite party having a right to object to the evidence if he should think it improper, requires to be informed what the witness is to prove, or to see the writing, before the first is examined, or the second is read to the jury. The court has the same right, refusing necessarily from its power to decide all questions relative to the admissibility of evidence. This right our courts are in the constant habit of exercising: not only when objections are made by the parties, but when there being no objection, the court itself has reason to suppose that the testimony is improper. In most cases, but not in all, consent by the opposite party removes all objections to the admissibility of evidence, and courts sometimes infer consent from silence; but as it is their duty to take care, that no improper or illegal evidence goes to the jury, unless the objection to it be removed by consent of parties, it is inconsequential to suppose that the evidence offered is improper, to ascertain whether consent has been given, or whether the forming acquaintance of the opposite party has proceeded from inattention. This is more particularly their duty in criminal cases, where they are bound to be cautious for the government, as well as for the party accused.
It being thus the right and duty of a court before which a trial takes place, to inform itself of the nature of the evidence offered, so as to be able to judge whether such evidence be proper, it results necessarily that they have a right to require, that any question intended to be put to a witness, should be reduced to writing, for that is the form in which their deliberation upon it may be most perfect, and their judgment may be most likely to be correct. In the case now under consideration, the court did exercise this right. When the testimony of John Taylor was offered the court enquired of the traveller's counsel, what that witness was to prove. The statement of his testimony given in answer, induced the court to suppose that it was irrelevant and inadmissible. They therefore, that they might have an opportunity for more careful and accurate consideration, called upon the counsel to state in writing, the questions intended to be put to the witness.
This is the act done by the court, but concurred in by the respondent, which has been reflected and adduced as one of the proofs and instances of "manifest injustice, partiality and intemperance" on his part. It owes an apology to this honourable court, for having occupied so much of its time with the refutation of a charge which has no claim to serious consideration, except what it derives from the respect due to the honourable body by which it was made, and the high character of the court where it is preferred.
The next circumstance rated by the article now under consideration, as an instance and proof of "manifest injustice, partiality and intemperance" in this respondent, is his refusal to postpone the trial of the said James Thompson Callender, "although an affidavit was regularly filed, stating the absence of material witnesses on behalf of the accused, and although it was manifest with the utmost diligence, the attendance of such witnesses could not have been procured at that term."
This respondent, in answer to this part of the charge, admits, that in the above mentioned trial, the traveller's counsel did move the court, while this respondent sat in it alone, for a continuance of the case until the next term; not merely a postponement of the trial, as the expressions used in this part of the article would seem to import; and did file as the ground work of their motion, an affidavit of the traveller, a true and official copy of which, marked exhibit No. 5, this respondent herewith exhibits, and begs leave to make part of this answer; but he denies that any sufficient ground for a continuance until the next term, was disclosed by this affidavit; as he trusts will clearly appear from the following facts and observations.
The trial of an indictment at the term when it is found by the grand jury, is a matter of course, which the prosecutor can claim as a right unless legal cause can be shown for a continuance. The prosecutor may consent to a continuance, but if he withhold his consent, the court cannot grant a continuance without legal cause. Of the sufficiency and legality of this cause, as of every other question of law, the court must judge; but it must decide on this as on every other point, according to the fixed and known rules of law. One of the legal grounds, and the principal one on which such a continuance may be granted, is the absence of competent and material witnesses whom the party cannot produce at the present term but has a reasonable ground for expecting to be able to produce at the next term. Analogous to this, is the inability to procure at the present term, legal and material written testimony, which the party has a reasonable expectation of being able to procure at the next term. These rules are as reasonable and just in themselves, as they are essential to the due administration of justice, to the punishment of offences on the one hand, and to the protection of innocence on the other. If the continuance of a cause, on the application of the party accused, were a matter of right, it is manifest that no indictment would be brought to trial until after a delay of many months. If, on the other hand, the granting of a continuance depended not on fixed rules, but on the arbitrary will of the court, it would follow that weakness or partiality might induce a court, on some occasions, to extend a very improper indulgence to the party accused; while on others, passion or prejudice might deprive him of the necessary means of making his defence. Hence the necessity of fixed rules, which the judges are bound to expand and apply, under the solemn sanction of their oath of office. The true and only reason for granting a continuance, is that the party accused may have the best opportunity that the laws can afford to him, of making his defence. But incompetent or immaterial witnesses, could not be examined if they were present; and consequently, their absence can deprive the party of no opportunity which the laws afford to him, of making his defence. Hence the rule, that the witnesses must be competent and material.
Public justice will not permit the trial of offenders to be delayed, on light or unfounded pretences. To wait for testimony which the party really wished for, but did not expect to be able to produce within some definite period, would certainly be a very light pretence; and to make him the judge, how far there was reasonable expectation of obtaining the testimony within the proper time, would put it in his power to delay the trial, on the most unfounded pretences. Hence the rule, that there must be a reasonable ground of expectation in the judg-
ment of the court, that the testimony may be obtained within the proper time. It is therefore a settled and most necessary rule, that every application for a continuance, on the ground of obtaining testimony, must be supported by an affidavit, disclosing sufficient matter to satisfy the court, that the testimony wanted "is competent and material," and that there is "reasonable expectation of procuring it within the time prescribed." From a comparison of the affidavit in question with the indictment, it will soon appear how far the traveller in this case, brought himself within this rule.
The absent witnesses, mentioned in the affidavit, are Wm. Gardner, of Portsmouth, in N. Hampshire; Tench Coxe, of Phil. in Penn. Judge Bee, of some place in South Carolina; Timothy Pickering, lately of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; but of what place at that time, the deponent did not know; William B. Giles, of Amelia county, in the state of Virginia; Stephens Thompson Mason, whose place of residence is not mentioned in the affidavit, but was known to be in London county, in the state of Virginia; and General Blackburn of Bath county, in the said state. The affidavit also states, that the traveller wished to procure, as material to his defence, authentic copies of certain answers made by the President of the U. States, Mr. Adams, to addresses from various persons; and also a book entitled "an Essay on Canon and Feudal Law," or entitled in words to that purport, which was ascribed to the President, and which the traveller believed to have been written by him; and also, evidence to prove that the President was in fact, the author of that book.
Domestic Intelligence.
WASHINGTON, February 15.
Counting of the electoral votes for PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT.
On Wednesday, agreeably to resolutions previously entered into by the two Houses of Congress, the Senate of the United States received in their Chamber the House of Representatives, for the purpose of opening and counting the returns and votes of the Electors of President and Vice-President. About 12 o'clock the Senate took their seats; and immediately after the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives entered; the Speaker and Clerk occupying seats on the floor on the right of the President of the Senate, and the members of the House being seated in front. Mr. Samuel Smith, (teller on the part of the Senate, and Mr. Joseph Clay and Mr. Roger Griswold, tellers on the part of the House,) took their seats at a table placed in front of the Chair, in the area between the Senate and House. The Secretary of the Senate read the resolutions, above stated, of the two Houses. The President (Mr. Burr) stated that pursuant to law there had been transmitted to him several packets, which, from the endorsements upon them, appeared to be the votes of the Electors of a President and Vice-President; that the returns forwarded by the mail, as well as the duplicates sent by special messengers, had been received by him in due time. You will now proceed, gentlemen, said he, to count the votes as the constitution and laws direct—adding that, perceiving no cause for preference in the order of opening the returns, he would pursue a geographical arrangement, beginning with the northern states.
The President then proceeded to break the seals of the respective returns, handing each return, and its accompanying duplicate, as the seals of each were broken, to the tellers through the Secretary; Mr. S. Smith reading aloud the returns, and the annotations of the appointment of the electors, and Mr. J. Clay and Mr. R. Griswold comparing them with the duplicate return lying before them.
According to their enumeration, the following appeared to be the result.
For President. For Vice-President. Thomas Jefferson George Clinton N. Hampshire 12 12 Massachusetts 12 12 R. Island 4 4 Connecticut 9 9 Vermont 6 6 New-York 19 19 New-Jersey 8 8 Pennsylvania 20 20 Delaware 3 3 Maryland 9 9 Virginia 24 24 North Carolina 14 14 South Carolina 10 10 Georgia 6 6 Tennessee 5 5 Kentucky 9 9 Ohio 3 3 Totals 162 162
* In this return, after stating the whole number of votes given for Thomas Jefferson and George Clinton, each elector certifies distinctly his vote for Thomas Jefferson as President, and for George Clinton as Vice-President.
† The returns certify the votes to have been given as stated in an enclosed paper.
In this return, the votes are not certified to have been given by ballot, but agreeably to law. After the returns had been examined, without any objection having been made to receiving any of the votes, Mr. S. Smith, on behalf of the tellers, communicated to the President the foregoing result, which was read from the chair; when the Vice-President said, upon this report it becomes my duty to declare, agreeably to the constitution, that THOMAS JEFFERSON is elected PRESIDENT of the United States, for the term of four years from the 3d day of March next, and that GEORGE CLINTON is elected VICE-PRESIDENT of the United States, for the term of four years from the 3d day of March next.
Prior to the above proceedings, a short debate, arose in the Senate on the keeping the doors open or shut during the counting of the votes. Mr. Wright submitted a motion for their being kept open, which, after some opposition, was agreed to.
HIGH COURT OF IMPEACHMENTS.
WEDNESDAY, February 18.
James Triplett, a witness on the part of the prosecution, was examined.
John Heath, examined yesterday, was called, and cross examined.
John Ballet, a witness on the part of Judge Chase was examined, in consideration of the peculiar situation of his family requiring his immediate return; when the court rose about 4 o'clock.
THURSDAY, February 14. George Read, James Lea, John Crow, John Montgomery, John T. Mason, Samuel H. Smith, and John Stephen, were examined on the part of the prosecution; and Edmund Randolph, on behalf of Judge Chase, on account of his desire to return home without delay. The records of the proceedings in the cases of Calender and Fries were then adduced; when Mr. J. Randolph stated that the evidence

on the part of the prosecution was closed, so far as it could be derived from witnesses that were present. Nine being absent, it was hoped that should they hereafter attend, their testimony would be received.
In this court assembled; when the court rose about 4 o'clock.
FRIDAY, February 15. The Court was opened at 10 A. M. Present the MANAGERS, accompanied by the House of Representatives; and Mr. CHASE, attended by his Counsel.
We omitted to notice, in our last, the appearance of Mr. Charles Lee, as counsel for Judge Chase. William Wirt, Meriwether Jones, Hugh Holmes, Aquilla Hall, Thomas Hall, John Harvey, Risdon Bihop, and Philip Stewart, were again called on the part of the prosecution, without answering. The President enquired of the Managers whether they had closed the testimony which it was intended to adduce in behalf of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Rodney replied that several of the witnesses being absent, it was the hope of the Managers that should they hereafter attend, their testimony would be received after that on the part of Judge Chase was closed. The President observed that such a desire appeared to be reasonable; but that the future admission of testimony on the part of the House of Representatives must depend on the discretion of the court at the trial.
The President, then addressing himself to Judge Chase, informed him that he might proceed with his defence. When Mr. Harper rose, and in a speech of about half an hour, stated the grounds of the defence which he intended to make. Samuel Ewing, Edward J. Coale, William Rawle, William Meredith, Luther Martin, James Winchester, and William Marshall, were examined on behalf of Judge Chase. The court adjourned at about 3 o'clock.
SATURDAY, February 16. The court was opened at 10 A. M. Present the MANAGERS, accompanied by the House of Representatives, and Judge CHASE, attended by his counsel.
David Mead, Randolph, John Marshall, Edmund Lee, John A. Chevalie, Robert Gamble, Philip Gooch, and David Robertson, were examined on behalf of Judge Chase. When the court rose, at about half past 2 o'clock.
Register, OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES. On the 22d of January, Mr. Eustis offered the following resolution.
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide by law for defraying the expense incident to fitting and preparing one of the navy yards belonging to the United States, and lying near the margin of the ocean, for the reception and repair of such ships of war as are now at sea on their return to port, and such other ships or vessels of war as may hereafter return from their cruises or station. Mr. EUSTIS said the resolution now submitted to the consideration of the House had grown out of an opinion which impressed itself on his mind, when he first beheld the whole naval force of the United States moored in the Eastern Branch of the Potomac. He had ever considered the establishment of a navy yard in this city as the principal naval arsenal, to be among the errors or misfortunes which had presided over many other arrangements respecting this city and territory. As the United States were at that time at peace with all the world, excepting the Day of Algiers, as a small part of the force only was necessarily carried on this warfare, & as the ships had been actually hauled up at a considerable expense, there appeared to be no immediate necessity for incurring a further expense in their removal. Our maritime concerns have now experienced a change. We are at war with another of the Barbary powers, and a greater number of ships have been necessarily taken into the service. We have at this time six frigates, and five or six small vessels on duty in the Mediterranean. After a certain time these ships must be relieved. Others must be sent out to take their station. Those which return will require repairs; and in order to prepare for these contingencies it was proper that some one of the navy yards nearest to the ocean should be put in a condition to receive them. This was the object of the resolution.
It was desirable that some place should be selected easy of access, where the water was deep, and in the neighbourhood of some large maritime town, having large markets and magazines of the variety of articles required for repairing and fitting ships for sea, with the artisans employed in that business. It was not his intention to describe the advantages or disadvantages of one place or of another. The United States own six navy yards. The whole cost is before the executive, and such a place will be selected as will combine the greatest number of advantages and best promote the public interests. To those who believed that ships of war could be repaired or fitted out with the same dispatch, at the same expense, and with the same ease and convenience at a place three hundred miles distant from the sea, as they could be in one of the ports lying on its margin, and possessing the advantages which had been stated, no reasoning could be applied which would change their opinions. The proposition was offered to the House to be decided by common sense and understanding. There was one objection, which he had anticipated, and which had some weight in it. The business of the department would in that case be removed from the eye of the government and from the more immediate inspection and control of the intelligent and capable officer who directed its operations, this inconvenience would be balanced by the more ample means and resources which his agents would find in the large town, and by which they would be enabled to carry his instructions more promptly into effect. The resolution was taken on a subsequent day, and debates had thereon, which shall be given hereafter.
SATURDAY, February 9. The bill from the Senate concerning the ascertaining and adjusting titles and claims to land in the territory of Orleans, was read the first and second time and committed to a committee of the whole House, on Monday next.
Mr. Lattimore reported on the memorial of the legislative council and House of Representatives of the Mississippi territory, which was committed to a committee of the whole on Monday next. Mr. Lattimore also reported a bill extending the right of suffrage in the Mississippi territory; which was read the first and second time, and committed to a committee of the whole House, on Monday next. Mr. Greenfield, from the committee of commerce and manufactures, presented a bill making Plymouth, (N. C.) a port of entry, which was read the first and second time, and committed to a committee of the whole House, on Monday next.
Mr. Southard reported a bill authorizing the secretary at war to issue military land warrants, which was read the first and second time, and committed to a committee of the whole House, on Tuesday next.
The memorial of sundry citizens of Delaware praying that New Castle may be made a port of entry, presented December 2d, 1803, and a report of the committee of commerce and manufactures, made at the last session were ordered to be referred to the committee of commerce and manufactures.
Mr. Claiborne, moved to refer the petition of Amy Dardin to a committee of the whole House, this day. Agreed to.
The House concurred in the amendment proposed
by the Senate to the bill making appropriations for the support of the military establishment for the year 1805. The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee of claims, on the petition of Peter Pedelaux of New Orleans, when the further consideration thereof was postponed until Monday next. The memorial and petitions of Samuel B. Beall, James Bonnell, Seth Bowen, John Chamberlain, Esq., Elmer, Jonathan Moore, William T. Smith and Moses Young, were referred to the committee to whom was referred the bill for extinguishing the debts due from the United States. The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, and attended the trial of Samuel Chase, 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 progress had been made therein. Adjourned.
MONDAY, February 11. The speaker laid before the House, a letter from the post-master general, accompanying his report on the petition of sundry inhabitants of Newbern, (N. C.) Ordered to lie on the table. A petition was presented from Anthony Benezet and others, which was referred to the committee of ways and means. Petitions were presented to the House from Francis Duclaux, of Swanton (Vt.) Robert Singleton Gloucester (Vt.) and Peter D. Demarail (N. Y.) which were referred to the committee of claims. Petitions of John M'Fadden, and of John M'Fadden, and Francis Johannot, of Baltimore (Md.) were presented to the House and ordered to be referred to the secretary of the treasury. Petitions of sundry inhabitants of the state of Pennsylvania were presented to the House for the establishment of a post-road from Bethlehem to Berwick, &c. Referred to the committee on post offices and post roads. The House resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of claims on the petition of Peter Pedelaux, of New Orleans. When it was Resolved, That Peter Pedelaux have leave to withdraw his petition. The House according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Gales in the chair. On the petition of Amy Dardin; and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported the following resolution: Resolved, That the prayer of Amy Dardin is reasonable and ought to be granted. Ordered, That Mr. Claiborne, Mr. Elliot and Mr. Conrad do prepare a bill pursuant to the said resolution. A message was received from the Senate, notifying that they had considered the bill declaring the allotment of Congress to an act of the general assembly of North Carolina, and have resolved that it do not pass. The House according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Gales in the chair. On the bill to establish the districts of Genessee, of Buffalo creek and of Miami; and to alter the port of entry of the district of Erie; and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported the bill without amendment. Ordered, that it be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow. Mr. Lowndes reported a bill declaring the consent of Congress to an act of the state of South Carolina passed on the 21st Dec. 1803, as far as it relates to authorizing the city council of Charleston to impose and collect a duty on the tonnage of vessels from foreign ports, which was read the first and second time and committed to a committee of the whole House to-morrow. The House then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, and attended the trial of Samuel Chase; 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 farther progress had been made therein. Adjourned.
TUESDAY, February 12. On motion, Resolved, That a committee be appointed on the part of this House, to join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice President, and of notifying the persons who shall be elected, of their elections; and to regulate the time, place and manner of administering the oath of office to the President. Ordered, That Mr. J. Clay, Mr. Varnum, Mr. Demarail, Mr. Thomas Moore and Mr. Dickson be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution. On motion, Resolved, That a committee be appointed on the part of this House, to join such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to enquire and report whether any, and if any, what further measures ought to be adopted for the accommodation of the President of the United States, for the term commencing on the fourth day of March next. Ordered, that Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Roger Griswold, and Mr. Bryan, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution. A petition was presented from sundry inhabitants of Massachusetts, praying that Buckland may also be made a port of entry and delivery &c. and also, a petition of Elizabeth Peckham, which were referred to the committee of commerce and manufactures. A petition of Benjamin Smith, of Trenton, New Jersey, was presented to the House, as also a petition of Aaron Shepard, of the county of Orleans (Vermont), which were referred to the committee of claims. The engrossed bill to establish the districts of Genesee &c. was read the third time and passed. On motion, A committee was appointed, consisting of Messrs. Stanford, Huger and Merriweather, to enquire if any, and what alteration is necessary to be made in the time of holding the district courts of North Carolina. Mr. Greenfield, from the committee of commerce and manufactures, reported a bill for the relief of Philip Nicklin and Robert E. Griffith, which was read the first and second time, and committed to a committee of the whole House, to-morrow. A petition and memorial was presented to the House from Paul Boughman of Wilmington, Delaware. Referred to the committee to whom was referred the bill, making provision for persons that have been disabled by known wounds, received in the actual service of the United States during the revolutionary war.
NEW-ORLEANS AFFAIRS. We yesterday published (says the New-York Morning Chronicle of Tuesday last) a resolution of the legislative council at New-Orleans, relative to the Spanish troops retained by the late Spanish governor, the Marquis de Casa Calvo, declaring the same dangerous to the peace of the city, and derogatory to the dignity of the government of the U. S. By accounts dated since the passing of that resolution, it appears that the council on a reconsideration of the question, resolved that, though the sentiments be expressed perfectly accorded with their ideas, yet it was an affair in which the council could not interpose, without an interference with the concerns of the governor. The resolution was accordingly dismissed.
In the Legislative Council in the territory of New-Orleans, on the 29th December, Mr. Pollock moved the following resolutions which were read the first time and agreed to, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on the following Monday. Whereas certain troops of his Catholic Majesty yet remain in this city, appearing daily in its streets with arms, to the great annoyance of
the good citizens thereof. And whereas a guard is regularly mounted at the house of the Marquis de Casa Calvo by those troops, who are said to be detained for that purpose solely; And whereas the government of the United States have ever held inviolate rights of hospitality, by a full protection of those who are under its laws, without foreign aid: Therefore, Resolved, as the sense of the members of the legislative council; That such practices are not only dangerous to the peace and quiet of this city, but derogatory to the dignity of the government of the United States, and an infringement of its sovereignty. Resolved further, That the president of the council be directed forthwith to transmit a copy of the preceding resolution to his Excellency the Governor of this Territory.
ENQUIRER. RICHMOND, FEBRUARY 22, 1805.
TRADE TO ST. DOMINGO. No. II.
What is the policy which our government may wish to pursue in the regulation of our trade, will evidently vary with our relations to the island of St. Domingo. Our government may either consider this island an independent sovereignty, or as a colony of France. If we admit it to be a sovereign State, it will then be entitled to all the privileges of an independent government, and our merchants will have the same right to trade with it as they have to trade with France itself. If we still consider it as a colony of France, our rights will vary with our relations; and our commerce will be subjected to those restrictions, which the general law of nations, or our particular treaty with that nation, will impose upon it. What then is the relation, which we should attempt to stand in, with regard to this island? On such a question as this, there can be no difference of opinion among the politicians of the U. States. The interests of our country, and particularly of the Southern States, evidently require that the present inhabitants of St. Domingo should not establish themselves into an independent state; and our relations to France, which would be interrupted and destroyed by the acknowledgment of their sovereignty and the reception of their ambassadors, evidently inculcate the same policy. Our commercial relations with this island must therefore depend upon our relations to the French nation. They must be precisely those, which the law of nations, or our treaty with France, give them a right to expect, and impose upon us the duty of observing. But there are three different methods for regulating this trade to St. Domingo. We may either prohibit it altogether, in our own as well as in foreign vessels, in every commodity, whether contraband or not, and to every port in the island; or we may allow it the most unbounded freedom; or we may subject it to such restrictions as may arrest the trade in some cases, while they allow it in others. Thus the question is: which of these arrangements does strict justice to the French nation dictate, and the policy of our own interests, recommend to our government?
In the "unbounded freedom" of trade may be included the right of arming merchant vessels; and then the question becomes, whether we shall allow to our merchants the unlimited right of arming their vessels, for the purpose of maintaining an unlimited trade. Shall we in other words, allow them the two different privileges, 1st. of arming their vessels, and 2d. of maintaining this commerce, without any restriction? The unlimited exercise of the first of these privileges is plainly incompatible with the justice which we owe to France. The convention of 1801 whilst it exempts the merchant vessels of each nation from any search by the lawfully commissioned cruisers of the other, admits the right of examining and imposing the obligation of exhibiting, "not only their passports, but likewise their certificates, showing that their goods are not of the quality of those which are specified to be contraband." Art. 16. It is a fact however, that the power of arming without any penalty in the case of misconduct, not only enables the merchant vessels to resist this privilege of examination, but it is a fact, not to be denied, that this resistance has been in some cases exerted. Yet this convention whilst it obliges the merchant vessels to exhibit their papers, obliges our government at the same time to adopt every measure which may facilitate the exercise of this right; and of course to remove every obstruction. The American government has then pledged itself by the words of this convention to subject armed merchant vessels to such restrictions, as may secure to the lawfully commissioned cruisers of the French government at least the right of examining their passport certificates. This question is susceptible of a much easier solution than the other; whether our government shall limit in any degree the privilege of our merchants in carrying on this trade. There is no part of the trade to St. Domingo which is not contrary to the article of Gen. Ferrand, and consequently to the rights of France. No one will then deny to France the right of confiscating every vessel whatever her cargo, which is bound to the ports of St. Domingo. Our merchants in this case have no redress, either from the mercy of France or in the violated protection of their own government. This restriction is natural and proper. It is one which our government does not impose, but which it ought not to remove. It is one, which is demanded by the justice we owe to France: and perhaps it is the only one. When our government surrenders every vessel, without reclamation, which is engaged in unlawful traffic, France ought to be contented. She has no right to demand further, that we shall impose previous restrictions upon it; that we shall declare particular cargoes unlawful, and subject those branches of commerce to particular penalties. See Mr. Jefferson's letter of May 15, '93, to Mr. Ternant, minister plenipotentiary of France. Yet though justice to France may not require us to place such restrictions upon the trade of St. Domingo; our own interests may demand the forbearance. If it be the dictate of policy that we should preserve our pacific relations to the French government, and that we should do nothing which may lead to the erection of an independent sovereignty in St. Domingo, it is evidently our interest to restrict every part of our trade with that island, which may lead to such consequences. But the letter of the French minister lately published, has already marked out for us the chart by which we ought to direct our course. He complains of no other part of the American cargoes, than "the munitions which are carried to the revolted of that Colony;" and these are the very articles which may assist them in the establishment of their independence. Let our government then restrict the exportation of the "contraband of war" to St. Domingo whilst it leaves every other article of commerce free from restraint. If this is not one of the duties which we owe to the French nation; it is at least the soundest policy, which we owe to ourselves.
A CASE OF TESTIMONY.
A and B are brought before a court of impeachment, to deliver their testimony on a given subject. They may be supposed to possess in an equal degree, all the qualifications of a witness. Their looks of seeing and hearing are equally perfect; that is, each of them is equally capable of perceiving every object that is before them. The memory of each is equally tenacious. Their power of analyzing their impressions and forming from them an accurate estimate is equally perfect; and the accuracy of one is not more subject to the influence of party or personal considerations, than that of the other. When they are brought before the court, these men appear to be at issue on a given fact. A declares from personal experience, that a particular event has taken place; and B denies it on the same principle. Which of these men deserves to be believed? Certainly A is the most credible witness. What does A declare? That he believes a particular event to have taken place. And why does he believe it? Either because he has actually perceived the event itself, which he records, or because imagination has imposed upon his memory some of her own pictures as the impressions of sense; such a phenomenon as exists in dreams, or delirium. In other words, if this event has really happened, the only source of his mistake must consist in an uncommon and vivid imagination. What does B assert? That he does not remember such a fact. And why does he not remember it? Either because the event itself has never happened; or because his memory has been faithless to her trust. In other words, if this event has REALLY happened, the only source of his mistake must arise from a treacherous memory. The only question is then, is it most probable that A has been imposed upon by a vivid imagination, or B by a faithless memory? But this can scarcely be made a question at all: as cases of delusion are much less frequent than cases of forgetfulness. According to this view of it, these men merely appear to be at issue, while in fact they are not so. B does not really declare that the fact is not as A has represented it; but that he does not recollect it to have been so. This case may receive a plain illustration from an existing incident. Instead of A and B let us substitute the names of John Heath and David M. Randolph, and the case is at once made out. Mr. John Heath certifies, that Judge Chase directed the marshal to strike off all the democratic names, which he might have placed on the panel of the petit jury for trying Calender. And it is said, that Mr. Randolph intends to deny the fact. From the preceding principle it is therefore obvious, that Mr. Heath's testimony inter partes is most entitled to our credit.
PERIOD OF JUDGE CHASE'S TRIAL.
The reader will see by this day's paper, that Charles Lee has been added to the list of Judge Chase's counsel. He has thus five advocates to co-operate with him in his defence. Each of these will probably require one day; perhaps some of them will occupy two days, to develop his argument. Should the Senate refuse them this privilege, the hue and cry of persecution will be once more raised against his political opponents; and should he be found guilty, his friends will be ready to attribute his condemnation to the want of an adequate defence rather than to the enormity of his "high crimes and misdemeanors." A whole week will thus be dedicated to the defence; and a shorter period will be allotted to the managers of the impeachment, both to comment upon the testimony, and to comment upon the arguments of his counsel. Thus they will be brought to the disagreeable dilemma of postponing the trial according to the wishes of the judge, till the next session of Congress, or of condensing their
These remarks have obviously extended into the frond question which has been suggested: whether the trade to St. Domingo should be absolutely prohibited. This like the preceding enquiry will be found to relate as well to the quality of the cargo, as to the power of arming. With respect to the left of trade it has already been found necessary, to introduce discrimination, between those articles which are contraband of war, and those which are not; and while it has been admitted that in the trade to St. Domingo certain restrictions should be imposed upon the first amounting even to an absolute prohibition, upon their exportation, it has been contended that every other part of our cargoes should be exempted from the restrictions of our own laws. We have also admitted that the justice we owe to the French nation inculcates upon us the propriety of laying certain restrictions upon the power of arming merchant vessels. But France has no right to demand, that these restrictions should amount to an absolute prohibition. If we respect all her just rights; the right of examining papers, and the right of confiscating all vessels, whatever be their cargoes, that go to the land of Hayti, the ought to remain contented. She has no right to exact that we should sacrifice our own interests to hers, to shield our defenceless merchantmen from the attacks of pirates. Yet this would be our situation, if our W. India vessels were left without arms. We allow our merchants to protect their vessels against the Malays of the E. India coasts, and the corsairs of the Mediterranean; & why not then against the buccaneers of America? Their number is nearly as great; their piratical disposition is equally unrelenting. The decree of gen. Berrand (6th Thermidor, 1st year) announces the great number and variety of these robbers of the ocean; and the loss of the five Insurance Companies of Baltimore (amounting to nearly 500,000 dols. and principally attributed to these pirates) confirms this official proclamation. The French too, will recollect, that their fears of pirates have many of them been bred in their own colonies, under the pernicious influence of their own mischievous policy; they will recollect too that the war in which the Spaniards are now about to be involved, will let many of their vessels drift from the pursuits of commerce. That necessity having converted them into privateers, cunningly will convert them into pirates; and that their numerous and widely-extended ports in the American coast and Mexican islands, will be their own for the reception and adjudication of their prizes. The French government will not and cannot then demand that our vessels should be exposed without defence in those seas. Their simplest desires will be satisfied, if such restrictions are imposed upon our armed vessels, as may secure them in the full enjoyment of their own rights.
It follows, from these defulatory remarks, 1st. that the French have no right to demand that we should prevent the arming of our merchant vessels. 2d. that their only right is as to the restrictions which we ought to impose. 3d. that they have no right to demand that we should put any restrictions upon our cargoes. 4th. that these restrictions ought however to be imposed from a candid view of our own interests. * This idea will be more fully explained in a subsequent No.
FOURTH OF MARCH. At a meeting of Republican Citizens held at the Capitol. The following gentlemen were appointed a committee to superintend the approaching Festival, on the 4th of March. Genl. Madison, J. E. Hughes, A. M'Rae, J. Clarke, Lewis Harris, Saml. Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Tate, Robt. Mitchell, Major Wm. Price, Wm. Goodwyn, Tho's. L. Preston, Henry L. Biscoe, Wm. Brown, Gervas Siers, Jos. Selden, George W. Smith. Of whom Tickets may be had. * A meeting of the committee is particularly requested on Saturday next, at the Bell-Tavern, 4 o'clock.
ACOUSTICS. J. WOOD purposes to deliver his lecture on Acoustics, and to give an explanation of the principles of Le Brun's Acoustic Temple, in the Assembly room of the Capitol To-morrow, at four o'clock in the afternoon. As it will be impossible to have the Temple erected in the Assembly Room; those who have not yet seen it and attend the Lecture, may have the opportunity of inspecting it any evening next week—Persons who have already visited the Acoustic machine, pay only one half dollar, and they are requested to give in their names on a slip of paper to the Door-keeper, to distinguish them from those who have not seen it; and to whom, the price of admission is one dollar. Feb. 22.
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. M'Caw. Terms of payment will be made known on the day of sale. THOMAS TAYLOR & Co. V. M's CUMBERLAND December Court, 1804. IN CHANCERY. WILLIAM CLARKE, Plaintiff. JANUARY RISON, THOMAS LIGON & THOMAS DENT, Defendants. THIS day came the plaintiff by his attorney, and the defendant January 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, January 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 polled at the front door of the Courthouse of this county. A copy, true, M. WOODSON, cl.
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 common law 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 Pollam, John Freewell, and William Click, 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.
argument within a narrower compass and trusting to the judgment of the Senate to supply all the deficiencies, and spread it out more fully before them. In either case the managers of the impeachment will not stand on equally advantageous ground, with Judge Chase's counsel. It is probable that the managers for the prosecution will attempt to make the most of their time by distributing their duties into different departments. It will be come perhaps the duty of some of the managers to comment upon the evidence, and of the others, to comment upon the defence. They may still further subdivide their employment, by calling the impeachment into different parts, and aligning to each particular manager a particular count. It was in this way at least, that the managers of the House of Commons, took different parts in the prosecution of Warren Hastings. To one of them may be allotted the prosecution on the Pennsylvania charge, to another the Delaware charge; while the Maryland and Virginia charges, as they may be called for the purposes of discrimination, may be transferred to their other colleagues.
THE INVISIBLE GIRL!—This myllic "daughter of ether and light," to whom the most enchanting Poet has dedicated his sweetest lays, is at length destined to come forth in a sensible shape! Hitherto she has appeared to us without much poetic fiction, to be "vox et praeterea nihil." Her melodious voice has simply breathed into our ear: The cold figures of Europe and America, as much enraptured by her charms as the most animated amateur of the arts, have with equal ardour solicited the pleasure of beholding her. But she has hitherto evaded all their warmest importunities, and retired from the gaze of obtrusive curiosity. Yet "Look and you shall find, knock & it shall be opened unto you," is the language of scripture, and it is the language of truth. Like the other fair beings of her sex, she had only kept herself concealed from their view because no one had yet taken the proper method of approaching her presence. There was a certain way to obtain her favours; but no one had as yet discovered the mysterious & much wished-for key. There was a key to unlock the temple in which she had kept her residence, and delivered her secret oracles; but this key was to be forged only by the ingenious hand of science, and no one had yet fallen upon the happy art of applying its principles. The key is at length fabricated, which is to unlock her temple; and on To-morrow, its invisible tenant is to appear before us, without that mysterious veil, which has hitherto concealed her attractions. We have already tasted of the pleasures of mystery; and it is now time that we should enjoy the delights of discovery. Even the poet of the Invisible Girl himself, would be willing to confess on such an occasion as this, that it was fancy and not feeling, which led him to exclaim—Science! to you I have long hid a last and a careless adieu; Still flying from nature to study her laws, And doting, delighting, by exploring its cause. Mr. Wood's invitation will explain the time, place and manner of seeing this invisible sprite.
FOURTH OF MARCH. At a meeting of Republican Citizens held at the Capitol. The following gentlemen were appointed a committee to superintend the approaching Festival, on the 4th of March. Genl. Madison, J. E. Hughes, A. M'Rae, J. Clarke, Lewis Harris, Saml. Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Tate, Robt. Mitchell, Major Wm. Price, Wm. Goodwyn, Tho's. L. Preston, Henry L. Biscoe, Wm. Brown, Gervas Siers, Jos. Selden, George W. Smith. Of whom Tickets may be had. * A meeting of the committee is particularly requested on Saturday next, at the Bell-Tavern, 4 o'clock.
ACOUSTICS. J. WOOD purposes to deliver his lecture on Acoustics, and to give an explanation of the principles of Le Brun's Acoustic Temple, in the Assembly room of the Capitol To-morrow, at four o'clock in the afternoon. As it will be impossible to have the Temple erected in the Assembly Room; those who have not yet seen it and attend the Lecture, may have the opportunity of inspecting it any evening next week—Persons who have already visited the Acoustic machine, pay only one half dollar, and they are requested to give in their names on a slip of paper to the Door-keeper, to distinguish them from those who have not seen it; and to whom, the price of admission is one dollar. Feb. 22.
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. M'Caw. Terms of payment will be made known on the day of sale. THOMAS TAYLOR & Co. V. M's CUMBERLAND December Court, 1804. IN CHANCERY. WILLIAM CLARKE, Plaintiff. JANUARY RISON, THOMAS LIGON & THOMAS DENT, Defendants. THIS day came the plaintiff by his attorney, and the defendant January 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, January 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 polled at the front door of the Courthouse of this county. A copy, true, M. WOODSON, cl.
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 common law 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 Pollam, John Freewell, and William Click, 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.

Miscellaneous.
FROM A LATE LONDON PAPER.
Deafness Cured, by puncture of the tympanum of the ear.
The following very interesting Cure is communicated by M. Manoury, an eminent Surgeon at Geneva, by whom it was performed, in a Letter dated Geneva, September 5, 1804:
"Mr. F. of Geneva, aged 40 years, had lost his hearing several years ago, in consequence of a long affection of the posterior part of the internal fauces, and it was evident, that in this case the Eustachian tubes were obliterated. In condemning the air in his mouth and nostrils, he was totally unable to discern the membrane of the tympanum; a thing which is very easy to do for any one who enjoys a perfect sense of hearing. He could scarcely hear even when you shouted in his ears; and although so long deaf, he had not acquired the faculty of understanding by the motion of the lips. After perusing the paper which I lately published in the Bibliothéque Britannique, Mr. F. conceived that he might be one of those in whom the hearing could be recovered by the perforation of the tympanum. On the 14th of July last I performed that operation on his right ear, in presence of Mr. Jurine, with a very small trocar, about one eighth of an inch in diameter. At the instant that the instrument was withdrawn, we spoke to him in a low voice; but instead of answering he remained immovable in his chair, and seemed stupified. Then he exclaimed, "For God's sake, gentlemen don't cry out so loud: you hurt me." I then began to walk about the room. The squeaking of my boots made him flounder and jump in his chair; and he covered his ear with his hand. The snapping of the fingers quite distracted him, and seemed to produce upon him an effect similar to that of a pistol suddenly fired in the ear of a person not aware of it. When spoken to, though in a whisper, he complained that we spoke too loud. Yet in spite of this excessive sensibility to every inconsiderable noise, there were other sounds, not less distinct which he did not hear, even at a very little distance; such for instance as the ticking of his watch. So that his hearing seemed to be sometimes too dull, sometimes too acute; because no doubt the organ had lost the faculty of adjusting itself to the different modulations of sound. A week after this, however, Mr. F. had lost that excessive sensibility which rendered acute sounds almost intolerable to him, and in fact he had already again learnt to hear. He then wished to have the other ear perforated in the same manner. I performed this operation, but without effect. Twenty days after this second operation, Mr. F. called upon me. I examined his ear in fine sun-shine, and could see in the right ear the membrane of the tympanum traversed in its exterior part by a small cicatrix, having in its centre a small hole which was hardly perceptible. Yet the hearing was scarcely diminished since the first operation. Hearing that this small aperture might close itself entirely, Mr. F. desired that I would perforate again the membrane of that ear, an operation which was repeated without giving him any pain, but not without a slight increase of sensibility in his hearing. I afterwards examined the left ear, and having placed the mensura in the direction of the fun's rays I distinctly perceived a false membrane adhering to the whole circumference of the passage, and perfectly familiar, in its form and situation, to that of the tympanum; the distance between the two membranes being scarcely one sixth part of an inch. I took off at once this false membrane, with a pair of tweezers, and discovered behind it the tympanum quite found and entire. I thought it probable that in the second operation, I had only touched this false membrane. I immediately perforated the true one, and was surprised (as well as my brother, who attended this operation) to find that, altho' Mr. F. had already learnt again to hear with the right ear, yet the restoration of his hearing in the left occasioned in him the same effects of wonder and of excessive sensibility to the least unexpected noise, which he had experienced after the first operation. This inconvenience, however, has not been of longer duration in this ear than it had been in the other."
MEMOIRS
OF THE YOUNG ROSCIUS.
Upon the following statements, from the most authentic sources, perfect reliance may be placed: "William Henry West Betty, the Young Roscius, only son of William Henry Betty, was born on the 13th September, 1791, as appears from the parish register of the Church of St. Cl. in Shrewsbury. Mr. Betty, the father, was the son of Dr. Betty, a physician of eminence at Lisbon, not far from Belfast, in the north of Ireland, at whose death he became possessed of a handsome independent fortune. His wife was Miss Mary Stanton, the daughter of a respectable gentleman in the county of Worcester, a lady of good education and high accomplishments, who brought him a respectable fortune, part of which it is said, is entailed on the young gentleman who is the subject of these memoirs. It has been frequently said that Miss Stanton had been formerly either a performer on a public stage, or in the frequent habit of acting in private theatres; neither of which reports have the smallest foundation in truth."
Mr. Betty at the time of the birth of his son, lived within a small distance of Shrewsbury, from whence he removed a few years after, to the neighbourhood of his native place, in the north of Ireland. He occupied a farm, and also carried on some business relating to the linen manufactory, near Ballylinch, in the county of Down.
In the summer of 1802, the play of Pizarro, was brought out by the Belfast manager with much splendor, and Mrs. Siddons was the Elvira. As Mr. Betty and his son happened to be in the town, they were induced to go to the Theatre, being the first time that Master Betty had ever seen a play. From this moment his fate was decided. When he came home he told his father with such a look of enthusiasm, and a voice so pathetic, that those who heard him will never forget the expression, "that he would certainly die, if he must not be a player." The wonderful acting of Mrs. Siddons, in Elvira, not easily to be forgotten by the most phlegmatic, had left an impression on his glowing mind, which nothing could ever erase. Every thing was neglected for his favorite object; and every thing not connected with it became dreary and insipid. His propensity grew daily more rooted by time; his importunities were irresistible; and his parents at length, finding all opposition unavailing, were compelled to think seriously of the practicability of indulging him. The happy moment at length arrived, which was to realize our hero's hopes! William Atkinson, the manager of the Belfast company, induced by the reports he had received, and solicited to bring forward some extraordinary novelty on account of the extreme depression of the time's, offered him an engagement to play at Belfast for four nights. Accordingly about the middle of August, in the year 1803, he announced the tragedy of Zara, the part of Osmán to be undertaken by a Young Gentleman only eleven years of age. The singularity of the exhibition drew together a great crowd of people, who were equally astounded and enraptured at the performance of the young actor.
He afterwards performed with increased celebrity at the same stage, the characters of Douglas, Rollo, &
Romeo. With his success in other parts of Ireland, in Scotland, and several towns in England, particularly in Birmingham and Liverpool, the public are perfectly acquainted through the medium of the daily prints, and it only remained for a London audience to witness the rare display of his talents, to confirm the tributes of panegyric previously conferred upon his different performances. In its private deportment he exhibits the manner and feelings of boys of his own age. He is fond of, and participates in, the usual games and sports of youth. His disposition is remarkably docile and benevolent, and he is free from all pride and vanity, but possesses just confidence in his genius and powers. [Lend. Pap.]
* The much lamented assassination in Dublin, which caused the death of Lord Kilwarden, had recently taken place, and had spread a great alarm over all parts of the country.
From the London Morning Chronicle, Dec. 5.
ROSCCIUS IN YOUNG NORVAL.
We can now give implicit credit to the story of Hume having declared Master Betty the best Douglas he had ever seen. Such did this gallant youth appear last night as we may suppose he was imagined by the poet in the raptures of invention and the visions of fancy. Scarcely ever were the conceptions of genius so admirably embodied, or did fiction receive such a semblance of reality. The art of acting was proved to possess beauties which it has not for a long time displayed, and power which it has seldom exercised over the human heart. This second performance of the boy as much excels his first as the character of Douglas is superior to that of Albinus. Before, he had to give life to dullness, to reduce extravagance to nature, and to exhibit passion where none was inspired by the situation. Here there was every thing to elevate his mind, to awaken his feelings, and call forth his energies. He rose with the excellence of his author, and his delineation of the character seemed animated with the spirit which created it.
He has to recount some actions and to perform others rather incongruous with his tender years. Can there be a stronger proof of his ability than that he triumphed over this obstacle, and banished every idea of incongruity? His appearance upon his entry, however, was much more manly than could have been expected. His height was assisted by the ostrich feather plumes, and the spear and shield with which he was armed might inspire terror into his enemies and confidence in his friends. He had "that alluring look, twist man and woman" which Glenalvon had observed.
To charm the nicer and fanciful dames. The warlike garb of the brave Caledonians became him much better than the mean disguise of a Moorish slave. His conception of the part was inexpressibly just. He not merely understood it, but he entered into it with enthusiasm.
The character, though it could not have arisen in life, is not poetically unnatural. To be sure, the young Douglas, educated among peasants, would have turned out a clown. Instead of thinking of battles and fame, like other children with whom he associated, he would have taken pleasure in village sports, and perhaps might have amused himself with picking pockets, or robbing a hen roost. But the prejudice in favour of bloodis brough. The maxim of Portes creator fortibus , we are apt to consider as arising not in any measure from imitation. Thus the history of this youth's mind corresponds without previous notions. When he appears before us elegant in his manners, noble in his sentiments, and panting after glory, we hail him as the true representative of his illustrious ancestors, and give him equal credit for all his accomplishments, as if he had been brought up under the tuition of his uncle, and as the heir of his granddame. Master B. appeared to feel the blood of Douglas running in his veins, and impelling him to deeds of virtue and glory. At the same time had a full sense of his supposed circumstances. He answered the description applied to him of being the "flower of modesty as well as valour." He excited all the interest that is taken in merit struggling with obscurity; in a noble spirit weighed down by external disadvantages; in efforts to obtain an eminence which fortune had forbidden to be attempted. He assumed likewise all the tort and amiable qualities that adorn the original, and might indeed make any mother proud to be possessed of him, or drive her mad for his loss.
At first he was chiefly remarkable for an ingenuous mein, and a prepossessing diffidence. He gave an account of himself with such intelligence, as fully to merit the commendation of Randolph, "He is as wise as brave." The nobleness of his soul broke forth in returning thanks for the kindness shown him. In the assurance that he gives—
There's something in my breast that makes me bold To say, that NORVAL ne'er will shame your favor.
There was a fervour that might well make a deep impression on the heart of Matilda, and call forth from her the voluntary exclamation I will be sworn thou wilt not.
He retired with a grateful exultation in his countenance, and as if he were impatient to enter upon the career of arms.
The audience were impatient for the fourth act, in which he returns from managing the fiery steed, and narrates the manner in which he had acquired his knowledge of military tactics. He preferred the hermit before us, cutting on the smooth green turf the figures of the marshall'd hosts. The accent with which he related the encounter at Medina, faltered with sensibility; and when he repeated the exclamation—
My brother, Oh, my brother! He seemed quite overcome with the horrors of the situation of his aged instructor, on discovering the name and lineage of the stranger. In his looks there was the wildness produced by superstitious dread, as he added—
At times, alas! not in his present mind, Holds diadems with his lov'd brother's ghost, And oft each night forlorn as his fallen couch To make sad orisons to him he flew.
The scene between him and his mother, where he is made acquainted with his birth, was one of the most affecting pieces of stage representation we ever witnessed. The eagerness of Lady Randolph to make the communication, was naturally explained by the heroic tone in which he mentioned the happy alternative before him—
Now, if I live, with mighty Chieftains stand; And, if I fall, with glorious dust I lie!
His subsequent surprise when told that he was not Norval's son; his affectionate curiosity to know if his father was yet alive; his sorrow to hear of the warrior's untimely fall; his enquiries after his mother, and his painful sensations in the idea that she might be suffering from oppression, were all in the finest style of force and pathos. He was at last worked up to the suitable warmth for exclamations—
Oh, tell me her condition! Can the sword— Who can resist me in a mother's cause?
He afterwards ran to her embrace, and buried his head in her bosom, with such an effusion of tenderness as deeply to affect every heart that had ever received pleasure from maternal endearments.
His quarrel with Glenalvon called for requisites of a very different description. It was equally well managed. Pride now gave distance to his deportment, and defiance was painted in his aspect.—No less than his gallant father's, his eyes were like the eagle's as well as the dove's.
And as he pleased he won All hearts with softness or with spirit awed. Mot actors here fame, rant and petulant. The boy remained perfectly cool, and produced the desired effect by discrimination. He seemed to penetrate the very soul of Glenalvon, and to make the villain tremble as he said—
Did I not fear to freeze thy frozen visage, And make thee sink too soon beneath my sword, I'd tell thee—what thou art. I know thee.
Even when he drew his sword it did not appear that he might not have executed his threats but for the interference of Randolph. His dignified refusal to submit the dispute to any decision but that of his own breast, could only be exceeded by the steady manner in which he refuted the insidious overtures of his opponent, and said to him—
When we contend again our fates is moral.
In the fifth act he was as great as ever. We hurry over the solemnity with which he spoke the soliloquy in the grove: the captivating generosity with which he dispelled the fears of Old Norval; the magnanimity with which he allayed the apprehensions of his mother; and the tender respect with which he yielded to her more prudent counsels; that we may pay a small tribute of applause to his merit in the dying scene. After he had received the treacherous wound from Glenalvon, his spirit was unbowed, but his strength appeared rapidly to fail him, and life to ebb away. It was a most affecting, and of course a natural exhibition of the last moments of a youthful soldier. The thought that he had done nothing to perpetuate his name, seemed to fill him with the most dolorous regret. The lines
Oh! had I fallen as my brave fathers fell, Turning, with fatal arm, the tide of battle; Like them I should have foul'd and welcom'd death;
were spoken with such earnestness, amidst the convulsive throes that shook his frame, as to convey a lively notion of the manner in which we may suppose some of the heroes of antiquity, or the knights of later times, to have delivered the dying speeches that have been ascribed to them. Yet this thought, though noble, is somewhat selfish. He was perhaps grander still, when, just before he expired, he turned his thoughts to the forlorn and unprovided state in which he was about to leave his unhappy parent, and wistfully turning his glazed eyes upon her, he uttered the vain wish—
But who shall comfort thee! O! had it pleased high heaven to let me live A little while; my Mother, O my Mother!
It was altogether a performance the most astonishing and the most delightful. The audience were repeatedly electrified. If the young man is not, like Douglas, cut off prematurely by unfair treatment, he is likely to obtain permanent renown. How lucky the accident that first led him to the stage. He is now rescued from the humble lot to which he otherwise would have been doomed, and has before him the brightest prospects that can animate honorable ambition.
Transplanted now to the gay funny vale, Like the green thorn of May his fortune flowers.
WILLIAM PRICHARD,
AFTER a residence of near twenty years in the City of Richmond, as a Book-seller and Stationer, offers his whole STOCK IN TRADE FOR SALE, either to individuals who might incline to an eligible situation in these lines, or to the public at more reduced prices than in any City of the United States.
To any person who might wish to become his successor, the most advantageous terms would be offered—such as would not only insure a permanent, but a lucrative establishment in this increasing City. Those, therefore, who have any view of this kind, will be pleased to apply to him, either personally, or by letter. The stock on hand consists principally of the most approved modern writers upon every branch of science and literature, as also a general collection of law authorities, both European and American editions.
The situation of said 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 it 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.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD.
RANAWAY from the subscriber, on Thursday evening last, a negro fellow, named SAMUEL BARKER. He has a yellow complexion, is five feet five 1-2 inches high, about 28 years of age, and has a large scar over his left eye. He wears ear-rings in each of his ears, and had on when he closed a double breasted coat. There can be little doubt of his attempting to pass as a free man, as a forged certificate of his freedom was found the day after he went off. The above reward will be given any person who will secure him in jail so that I get him again.
JOHN FOSTER.
February 12. 4t
TO PRINTERS.
HENRY OURAM—PRESS-MAKER, South-east corner of Prune and Sixth-Streets:
RESPECTFULLY informs the trade, that he is undertaker to supply Printing-Offices with everything in his line, having a complete Printer's Toiler, constantly employed in making the wood part of Presses, Furniture, Rules, &c. &c. Chases of all sizes, Composing Sticks, Brads, & Wood Cylinders, &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.
NOTICE.
THOSE indebted to the late firm of Shanks & MacRae, either by Bond or open account, are desired to make payment before 1st of March. All failing to comply will find their accounts in the hands of an attorney. COLIN MACRAE. Manchester, January 15.—Quar.
FOR SALE.
FIVE Hhds. and 10 qr. casks of LONDON PARTICULAR TENERIFFE WINE of a superior quality, on a credit of 180 days—Negotiable notes. Enquire of THOMAS NORVELL. December 29. (U)
BURR MILL STONES, OF ALL SIZES; and PLEASTER OF PARIS, of an excellent quality, FOR SALE, at B-U-D-A-T, BY WILLIAM DAVIDSON. near the Market. Dec. 4. [ep3.]
NOTICE.
THE subscribers having put an end to their retail business, request the debtors to their 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 purposes 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. 5. (ep3m.)
IRISH Linens and Sheetings; Superfine Cloths and Cashmeres; India, Italian and French Silks; Do. Nall Mull Muslins; Do. do. do. Hosiery; Fancy Muslin, Vails and Shawls; Colonial Muslins; Cambric Dimities & Calicoes; Lined Caps and Vails; Do. Hdkfs and Shawls; Do. Gloves and Mitts; Wool Leather and Kid Gloves. For Sale by BARTLETT STILL. January 18. tf
JOHN SPINDLER,
RESPECTFULLY informs the Ladies and Gentlemen of Richmond, that he intends to teach DRAWING, PAINTING in Oil Colours and Crayons, and would instruct 6 or 8 pupils in those branches, either by waiting on them, or at his house, opposite Thomas Wilson's Esq. back street.
N.B. Sign, House, and Military Colours painted by F. S. Orders from the country punctually attended to. [ep3m.]
CASH
WILL be given for 12 or 15 BOYS, from 7 to 15 years old. Enquire of the Printers. Dec. 15. [ep3.]
WASHINGTON TAVERN.
THE subscriber has taken a lease of this tenement for a number of years, and has put it in a state of repair which renders it not inferior to any in this City. Besides the Tavern he has detached buildings, well calculated to accommodate those who are anxious of greater privacy than a tavern usually affords. These tenements adjoin the public square, and are within two hundred yards of the Capitol. They have delightful advantages over any other house in this City, with respect to pure air and excellent water. He has good stables and a constant supply of the best forage. He intends his services to his friends and the public, and assures them, that no unlawful gaming, nor any other practice which might, in any degree, have a tendency to destroy the peace of his house, will ever be permitted.
EDWARD HALLAM.
Richmond, September 26.
BROKER'S OFFICE.
THE Subscriber has opened a Broker's Office, opposite the Union Tavern, and over the Counting-house of Thomas and Amos Ladd. All business confided to him, will be transacted with strict fidelity.
October 3. if THOMAS NORVELL.
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. (law2m.)
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 fourteen rooms, 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 State 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 seventeen 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.
February 8.—tf
WILLIAM AUSTIN.
FOR RENT:
THE Large White House at Rockets, formerly occupied by Mr. William Fenwick, and afterwards by Mr. Braxton Craddock. For terms, apply to GALLEGO, RICHARD & CO. January 11. (tf)
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 if they were on the spot. A—the length of the Boot. B—round the Calf. C—the width of ditto. D—round the heel and instep. E—round the instep. G—across the ball of the foot. F—the heel against a perpendicular, and stick 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.
WANTED immediately at Hanover Court-house, a BAR KEEPER. One well recommended, I will give good wages to. L. O. THILMAN. February 8.—4t.
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 aforesaid debts—they will therefore be pleased to make payment to Mr. John Tompkins residing in Richmond, or the subscriber residing in Petersburg, who alone are authorized to make collections and grant discharges.—Suits will be in all probability commenced against all who do not make payment before the first of February next.
JOHN DUNLOP, Attorney For JAMES DUNLOP. Petersburg, Nov. 15, 1804. ep3f
J. TOMPKINS
RESPECTFULLY informs those concerned, that he has removed the books and papers of the late concern of Robert Pollok & Co. and Dunlop, Pollok & Co. to a new Brick House near the Basin, and directly opposite to the Scale-Forge. Where he has for sale, a few pipes of OLD COGNAC BRANDY, of superior quality. December 11.
NOTICE.
WE the undersigned, partners in the late concerns of BUCHANAN, DUNLOP, & Co. at Petersburg, of ROBERT POLLOK, & Co. at Richmond, and of DUNLOP, POLLOK, & Co. at Manchester, have sold to Mr. James Dunlop, our late partner in said concerns, the debts now due to, and outstanding at these different establishments.—Those interested 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. (ep3m.)
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 Goochland, on the branches of Cub 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 Falling 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 Patten, Rockfish and Flat Creeks, containing 850 acres, and bounded by Steveson's, Gander's, and Martin's lands.
ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, in said county, containing 670 acres, on the lead branches of the fourth fork of Falling River, and upon the south side of Long mountain, and bounded by Ogby's, Terrell's and Stull's lands.
ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, in said county, containing 90 acres, on the lead branches of the fourth fork of Falling River, on both sides of the main road, and bounded by the Long mountain and Richard Stull's land.
ALSO, ANOTHER TRACT OF LAND, situated on the western branches of Difficult 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 Patten county, North-Carolina, containing 90 3/4 acres, sold under an execution against Duncan Esq. jr. and purchased at the marshal's sale at Raleigh, North-Carolina, per deed to John Tompkins, made by the marshal, recorded in Patten county court.
ALSO, A TRACT OF LAND, in Patrick county, Virginia, on the head waters of South Mago river, containing 1020 acres, more or less, as per deed from John Hughes to Buchanan, Dunlop & Co. recorded in the county court of Patrick, at February Court, 1800.—A considerable part of this tract is rich low grounds.
ALSO, LOTS No. 4 & 5, each half acres, situated on the main-street, in the town of New-London, on which are a store and dwelling house.
ALSO, LOTS No. 45 & 46 in said town, containing 5 acres, adjoining the above half-acre lot, whereon is 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 lot, containing 300 acres, which last Thomas Reid purchased of Pamela Crump, or 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 desired unnecessary, as those inclined to purchase, will of course view them.—Mr. Thomas Reid will show the lands in Campbell county and lot in New-London.—Mr. Duncan Esq. jr. the lands in Patten county, and the deeds may be seen on application to Messrs. Prosser and Moncure of Richmond.—On the lands and lots a credit of 18 months will be given, and on the Canal Shares, a