The enquirer (Richmond, Va.), 1807-06-17 00:00:00

The Enquirer.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS RITCHIE, OPPOSITE THE POST-OFFICE.....AT FIVE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.....(PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)
VOLUME 4.]
RICHMOND, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE 17, 1807.
[NUMBER 11.]
VIRGINIA BANK STOCK.....104. Richmond Prices Current.
   D. C.     TOBACCO, : : : : : 5 to 7 00   WHEAT, NEW, : : : : : 92 to 100   FLOUR—SUPERFINE, NEW, : : : 5 3/4 ca/b   FINE, : : : : : 5 00   CORN, PER BARREL, : : : : 4 50   BACON PER LB. : : : : : 16   BAR IRON—PER TON, : : : : 110 to 120   HEMP—PER TON, : : : : 200 to 210   WHISKEY—PER GALLON, : : : : 54  
VIRGINIA, to wit : At a Chancery District Court, held in the City of Wil- -liamsburg, the 25th day of April, 1806. Benkin H. Hilliard against, Armistead Hilliard and Reuben Jones, Defts. THE defendant Armistead Hilliard, not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this Court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this country, on the motion of the Plaintiff, by his counsel, it is ordered that the said defendant do appear here on the first day of the next term and answer the bill of the Plaintiff, & that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper of the City of Richmond, for two months successively, and posted at the front door of the former capital in this city.
A Copy. ANTHONY ROBINSON, c. c. May 26. law2m.
IN CHANCERY. In King William County Court, March 25th, 1807. John Smith against, Ambrose Lipcomb, Edward Hill and Philip Lipcomb, Defts. THIS day came the Complainant by his counsel, and the defendant, Ambrose Lipcomb, not having entered his appearance, and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth: On the motion of the complainant, it is ordered, that the said defendant, Ambrose Lipcomb, do appear here, on the fourth Monday in June next, and answer the bill of the complainant, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper printed in the City of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy posted at the front door of the court house of this county. A Copy. Teste, ROBERT POLLARD, c. c. April 24. law2m.
IN CHANCERY. In King William County Court, March 25th, 1807. Thomas Lipcomb, assignee of John Smith, Compts. against, Ambrose Lipcomb, Edward Hill and Philip Lipcomb, Defts. THIS day came the complainants by their counsel, and the defendant Ambrose Lipcomb, not having entered his appearance, and given security according to the act of Assembly, and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth: On the motion of the complainants, it is ordered that the said defendant Ambrose Lipcomb, do appear here on the fourth Monday in June next, and answer the bill of the complainants, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper, printed in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy posted at the front door of the Court house of this county. A Copy. Teste, ROBERT POLLARD, C. C. April 24. law2m.
IN CHANCERY. In King William County Court, March 25th, 1807. Thomas and Henry Gannett, Compts. against, Ambrose Lipcomb, Edward Hill and Philip Lipcomb, Defts. THIS day came the complainants, by their counsel, and the defendant Ambrose Lipcomb, not having entered his appearance, and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth: On the motion of the complainants, it is ordered that the said defendant Ambrose Lipcomb, do appear here on the fourth Monday in June next, and answer the bill of the complainants, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper, printed in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy posted at the front door of the Court house of this county. A Copy. Teste, ROBERT POLLARD, C. C. April 24. law2m.
IN CHANCERY. In King William County Court, March 25th, 1807. Thomas and Henry Gannett, Compts. against, Ambrose Lipcomb, Edward Hill and Philip Lipcomb, Defts. THIS day came the complainants, by their counsel, and the defendant Ambrose Lipcomb, not having entered his appearance, and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth: On the motion of the complainants, it is ordered that the said defendant Ambrose Lipcomb, do appear here on the fourth Monday in June next, and answer the bill of the complainants, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper, printed in the city of Richmond, for two months successively, and another copy posted at the front door of the Court house of this county. A Copy. Teste, ROBERT POLLARD, C. C. April 24. law2m.
NOTICE. Agreeable to an order of the County Court of Amelia, the Commissioners appointed, will proceed at Amelia Court-House, on Thursday the 18th of this month, to examine, settle and liquidate the claims that may be exhibited against the estate of John Bottom, deceased: All persons having claims against said estate, are hereby requested to make them known on that day, supported by proper vouchers or testimony. All persons indebted to said estate, are hereby notified, that coercive measures will be resorted to, provided their respective claims are not immediately discharged. This notice will certainly be plead in bar, in default of the respective claimants making their claims known on the aforesaid day. A. S. TOWNES, D. S. for Wm. MURRAY, Sess. June 16. it
Europe.
THE LATEST FROM THE CONTINENT OF EUROPE.
SALEM, June 5. —On Wednesday last the Hopewell, Capt. Rea, arrived here from Hamburg, which place she left on the 17th of April. The last news received there respecting the war was similar to what we have had here—that Massena had made a movement which it was expected would immediately bring on another general battle. As to peace, though there had all winter been some talk of it, yet it was an event that in Hamburg was not expected soon to take place.
With respect to the events of war which had taken place between the French and Russians, it was difficult to judge of the truth from the Hamburg papers, as they are issued under the inspection of a French intendant. Of public and official statements there is generally a distrust, from the supposed policy of each party to conceal its own disasters, and exaggerate those of its enemy: private information is therefore often more relied on.
From persons who had been at the theatre of war, and from the communications of the French officers themselves, it was well known, that though the French had maintained their military reputation in all the battles they had fought, yet that Bonaparte had at length met with an enemy that required the full exercise of all his genius and energy, and had received such a check as he had never before experienced. Persons who had visited both the French and Russian armies, allowed that the former were vastly superior to the latter in military science and experience; but yet Bennington had managed his means with such skill and judgment as greatly to harass and straiten the French, and to make them suffer severely from the rigours of the climate and the want of provisions, as well as from his arms.
The dreadful accounts we have had of the battle of Eylau appear to have been no fiction: the destruction of human life in that awful scene has hardly been equalled in modern warfare. Bennington's statement of the French loss in this affair seems not to have been far from the truth; for French officers who were in the battle acknowledged that they had between 30 and 40,000 killed and wounded: the Russian loss they state to be equally great, and it was confidently said that there was not less than 20,000 wounded Russians in Konigsberg: the conclusion was, that neither side could boast of having gained any distinguished advantage over the other in the action, though it was acknowledged that the Russians evaded Konigsberg by it.
The account we have had of the destruction of Bonaparte's guards was true: Augereau being wounded, and his men discouraged by repeated repulses, Bonaparte ordered his guards to the charge; they obeyed, and were all cut to pieces, saving about sixteen men, the Russians giving no quarter. After the battle, no less than 15,000 dead bodies were counted upon the field. A French officer, in a letter to a friend, says, that two more such battles would annihilate the French army. It was evident that the impression of Bonaparte's invincibility was in some degree effected, and the hopes of those strengthened who wished to see bounds set to his triumphs.
The greatest exertions were making on both sides to repair their losses by recruits. Vast numbers were pouring into the French grand army, from all parts of Germany, as well as from France, thousands of wretched creatures being obliged to enlist, to get bread; and even many of the Prussian prisoners had entered among the recruits. The shock, from the next meeting of the two armies was expected to be even more terrible than that of the former.
It seems the good generalship of Bennington had not preferred him from the jealousy of the other officers of the Russian army, who think themselves dishonored by having a foreigner placed over them. The emperor Alexander had arrived at Revel, on his way to the army, with a view probably of composing the difficulties.
There are now no French troops in Hamburg; the place is garrisoned by the Dutch, the river is blockaded by the British, and its trade has ceased.
From late London Papers.
LONDON, April 7. A vessel from the coast of France, which left Cherbourg on Friday last, brings an account of some disturbances having broken out in the neighbourhood of our town, in consequence of an extraordinary levy of conscripts, which had been made of boys, one year younger than any who had yet been demanded for the army. So determined was the opposition of the inhabitants of this oppressive measure, that it was necessarily given up. Thrown about the whole of the district of La Vendee no levy has been lately enforced.
APRIL 8. The Prince of Wales is allowed to take now half a pint of wine by his Physicians. His general drink is barley water, and his food is simply small soup, fish, and salad. He has abstained from butcher's meat and poultry for several months.
LONDON, April 9. The force intended to be sent to the continent, will, it is said, be not less than 30 or 40,000 men.—The German Legion is about 18,000; the remainder are to be British troops—Lord Cathcart is to have the command.—Transports are getting ready with all possible expedition.
A new system of impress service is about to be adopted.
LONDON, April 15. Part of the Channel Fleet is arrived at Torbay.
Major Tucker received a letter from Gen. Beresford, dated Nov. 10, stating that he and his officers were well treated by the Spaniards. This is the most recent communication from the British prisoners of war in South America.
170 of the seamen, who were on board the Dutch frigate lately wrecked, have entered into the British service. They were Prussians, Swedes, Danes and Homburghers, impressed by the Dutch.
Captain Brisbane, of the British Navy, has been knighted.
The French have collected a contribution of 10 millions of livres from the town of Stettin. A club of bachelors has lately been instituted in a town in South Wales, where each member
binds himself under penalty of considerable forfeiture, to many in the course of one year.
A Noble Lord lost, last week, at a low gambling house, at the West-end of the town, 1000 dols. One of the winners now sports an elegant barouch purchased by the spoil.
NEW-YORK, June 10.
The Paris papers received at the office of the Mercantile Advertiser, by the Calypso from Bordeaux, are to the 14th of April, inclusive. They contain no later news from the armies than we have heretofore received: but they furnish intelligence from Turkey, which sets aside the report of the English having taken the Dardanelles; and as this is the only article of consequence, we have confined our translations to whatever relates to it.
Translated for the Mercantile Advertiser.
GERMANY.
Vienna, April 2. The Court Gazette of yesterday contained the following article relative to Turkey:
"Admiral Duckworth having passed nine days before Constantinople, and the negotiations between his Britannic majesty's ambassador Arbuthnot and the Porte having been broken off, the English fleet put to sea suddenly on the morning of the 1st of March, and directed its course by a northerly breeze towards the Upper Dardanelles, as if wishing to gain the Black Sea, but suddenly shifting, made sail for the Marmora. The Turkish fleet, which returned from the Bosphorus, joined the newly-equipped vessels which were in the arsenal of Tephora, and is gone in pursuit of the English squadron, to the number of from 15 to 20, under the orders of the Captain Pacha. The crew are almost entirely composed of Janissaries."
This is all the Aulic Gazette has published to this day; but private letters give later intelligence. One of these, which has been received at a banking-house, is expressed in the following terms:
"The English fleet, intimidated by the formidable preparations of the Porte, which had been directed by General Sebastiani, ambassador of France, warmly seconded by the French officers, and by several Spanish officers, quitted on the first of March its station before Constantinople, for the purpose of returning to the Archipelago. It repassed the lower Dardanelles on the 3d of March; and appears to be on a new cruise on the coast of Tenedos."
Admiral Duckworth, doubtless, thought that his position would become very critical on the sea of Marmora, should he give time to the Turks to cut off all direct communication with England, and the rest of the fleet, in the Mediterranean, and, in truth, the forts of the Dardanelles, could have been put at any moment in the best state of defence, and the total want of troops to make a disembarkation would not have permitted him to make even the smallest attack on any one of these forts to facilitate his passage.
Two French officers of rank have departed for the Dardanelles to fortify the coast of Asia, whilst others are employed in fortifying that of Europe. The grand Seigneur has requested General Sebastiani to fortify equally the Bosphorus on the side of Pont Euxine, the dispositions for which are already completed.
PRUSSIA.
Finkenhein, 3d April. We have received official intelligence from Constantinople. Every thing happens for the best.—The English have completely miscarried, and have been obliged to repass the Strait of the Dardanelles. The Porte exhibits an energy which has confounded the English and the Russians.
Moniteur.
TURKEY.
Constantinople, 3rd March. The important events which have passed within the view of this capital of the empire of the Crescent are of a nature to fix the attention of all Europe; their favourable issue, the retreat of the English fleet under Admiral Duckworth, which has repassed precipitately the Strait of the Dardanelles, ought to have, in the present situation of affairs, the greatest influence on the military operations which will render the year which has just commenced the most celebrated perhaps of all that ancient and modern history has made us acquainted with.
PHILADELPHIA, June 9.
A letter received from London, per the Young Factor, dated in April, says, "Bonaparte has sent an ambassador to St. Petersburg, with very liberal offers if that court will withdraw from its allies.—The Russian minister has left this court, not well pleased with the scantiness of our subsidies."
Captain Taylor arrived at Boston, from Amsterdam, reports, that almost every vessel direct from Amsterdam, is carried into some port in England. A fleet of about 100 sail, standing to the S. and E. was seen 2d of May in lat. 23, long. 62.
A letter from an officer on board a British man of war, off Cadiz, dated March 31, says, "Capt. Hallowell, of the Tigre, has failed from Sicily with 6000 troops for the Levant, under the command of Col. Frazier. It is supposed they are to take possession of Alexandria."
MONTE VIEDO.
The following is an extract of a letter from a British officer, at Monte Viedo, dated February 7.
"We are at length in possession of this place, the only fortified one in this country. It would have fallen an easy conquest, had not some French adventurers (Mordelli their chief) stirred the country against us. Mordelli and most of his companions were killed in the assault, and the natives flock in numbers, returning to their homes and occupations. If we can but reconcile the country to our government, hundreds from Britain and Ireland would emigrate. This is the finest climate imaginable."
The 87th regiment, which greatly distinguished itself at the capture of Buenos Ayres, "was composed to a man of Roman Catholics"—and "8 of the 4000 men composing the British expedition were Catholics."
The British are in possession of all the north side of the river, from Cologno to Monte Viedo, and have a strong garrison at Cologno.
Domestic.
FRANKFORT, May 14.
Extract of a letter from a gentleman at Port Royal, N. T. to his friend in this place, dated April 4, 1807.
"The Spaniards have behaved basely. Some time before Congress met, capt. Gaines was
directed to apply to the governor of Florida on the subject of duties. Col. Howard then acted as governor; and after much deliberation conceded that American vessels should pass Mobile without paying any other duties than Spaniards going to Baton Rouge pay at New Orleans. They pay none. Yet in the face of this order the commandant at Mobile has detained an American vessel 3 weeks loaded with goods, the Chastleton trading house and provisions for the troops: he threatens to throw every foul in the Calabouche if they attempt to go up the river, and says that governor Howard had nothing to do with it, and that governor Folks, who now acts, has given peremptory orders to the contrary. A vessel loaded with 160 bales of cotton passed my house last Sunday and expected to be allowed to pay the duties without going by the town of Mobile, as it is much out of the way and difficult of access. But they have compelled him to return and go by the town, and are now, as I was told to day, unloading the vessel, to be perfectly certain that nothing passes without paying duties. When will our country be routed to resent these injuries?"
"Some troops are expected from Orleans—the usual quota stationed in this country. The Spaniards have sent out all the vessels they have to stop them. But they will come by land."
"A letter which I received just now from Mobile, which is about 30 miles from my house, says that they have been making warlike preparations there for several days. Mobile news, however, is not often to be relied upon."
The Enquirer.
RICHMOND, 17th June.
TRIAL OF AARON BURR.
Circuit Court of the U. States for the fifth circuit and District of Virginia. Present JOHN MARSHALL, Chief Justice of the U. States, And CYRUS GRIFFIN, Judge of the District of Virginia.
SATURDAY, June 13th.
Mr. Burr thought it proper to mention, that his counsel had understood, that a supplemental charge had been written by the court: that it had been put into the hands of the Attorney of the United States, and that it was to be shown to his own counsel, before it was delivered. From the want of time, however, or from some other cause, it had not yet been submitted to his counsel. The court had yesterday requested a copy of his propositions, that they might judge of their application; and if satisfied on that point, that they might give additional instructions to the jury. His counsel had complied with the request; and though it was not possible for the court to have perceived whether a supplemental charge was necessary, yet it had now appeared from the whole course of the argument, that each of his propositions would come before the Grand Jury. If the court was satisfied on the law, they would of certainty instruct the jury on such points as seemed inevitably to come before them: But if they had any doubts on the law, they would certainly require an argument; and that he was then ready to demonstrate the truth of each of the propositions which he had submitted. He should make no remarks on the consumption of time, of which gentlemen made so many complaints: he should only observe, that three weeks ago he was ready to argue these points. But he was even willing to limit the time to be employed upon the present argument, even to a certain number of minutes; he was even willing to argue the points in the way of notes submitted to the court.
Chief Justice stated that he had drawn up a supplemental charge, which he had submitted to the Attorney for the U. S.; with a request that it should also be put into the hands of col. Burr's counsel; that Mr. Hay had however informed him in the conversation which he had just had with him, that he had been too much occupied himself, to inspect the charge with attention, and deliver it to the opposite counsel; but another reason was that there was one point in the charge which he did not fully approve. He should not therefore deliver his charge at present; and should reserve it until Monday. In the mean time Col. Burr's counsel would have an opportunity of inspecting it;—and an argument might be held on the points which had produced an objection from the Attorney for the U. S.
Mr. E. Randolph. Is it the wish of the court that the argument should be carried on orally or in writing?
Chief Justice. I am willing to hear the remarks on both sides, in writing.
Mr. Hay objected to this method from the excessive labour which it would impose upon them either way.—The Chief Justice declared that it was perfectly indifferent to him.—Mr. Martin assured the court that it was perfectly convenient to him to argue the point either orally or in writing.—Mr. Wickham stated, that the Attorney for the U. S. wished to object to certain propositions which Col. Burr had submitted to the court; that he was ready to go into this discussion immediately; that the Attorney for the U. S. preferred an argument orally before the court to one in writing; and that this was in fact, the very course which Col. Burr's counsel had first recommended. Mr. W. hoped that this supplemental charge would be given to the jury, before the witnesses were sent up; that the counsel for the prosecution preferred the contrary, but certainly the most improper course.
The Chief Justice observed that the court would also have wished that the charge should have been delivered, before the witnesses were sent up; but that it was almost indifferent to him, whether the testimony was submitted to the Grand Jury before or after the delivery of the charge; that it was often the custom for the Petit Jury itself to hear the testimony before the law was expounded; and the same practice might extend to the Grand Jury; for it was extremely easy for them, after they had heard the testimony to apply the instructions of the court and distinguish those parts which were admissible from those that were not so. It was not for instance absolutely necessary for them to know, previous to the delivery of the charge, that two witnesses were necessary to prove the overt act even before a Grand Jury. When the charge had been delivered, that principle would apply to the testimony which they had actually heard; and though it was desirable that the charge should precede the testimony, yet it was not so essential as to interrupt the proceedings.
Mr. Randolph conceived it far more important to give the supplemental charge before than after the exhibition of the testimony: that with one set of principles on their mind, the G. Jury would frequently ask questions in one point of view, which they would not under other impressions; and that the supplemental, like the original charge, ought to precede the evidence.—Mr. Martin observed, that there was this considerable difference between a Grand and a Petit Jury, that when any doubt arose about the propriety of testimony before the Petit Jury, the court would be present and ready to decide; but the Grand Jury has not the same aid of the judgment of the court in selecting the testimony.
The Chief Justice said, that the necessity of giving a supplemental charge at this time, was not so manifest; as in his original charge he had expressed his ideas on the nature of Treason: That he stated this crime to consist in an actual "levying of war," and that of course, the Grand Jury would have to enquire into the existence of overt acts: that from this statement, it would readily occur to the Jury, that no matter what suspicions were entertained, what plans had been formed, what enterprises had been projected, there could be no Treason, without an overt act; and that without some overt act, no crime of Treason had been committed.
The discussion of this question was at length waved; when the Chief Justice delivered the following opinion on the motion to issue a subpoena duces tecum directed to the P. U. S.
The object of the motion now to be decided is to obtain copies of certain orders under seal to have been issued to the land & naval officers of the U. S. for the apprehension of the accused; and an original letter from Gen. Wilkinson to the President in relation to the accused, with the answer of the President to that letter, which papers are supposed to be material to the defence. As the legal mode of effecting this object, a motion is made for a subpoena duces tecum to be directed to the President of the U. States.
In opposition to this motion a preliminary point has been made by the counsel for the prosecution. It has been insisted by them that, until the Grand Jury shall have found a true bill, the party accused is not entitled to subpoena or to the aid of the court to obtain his testimony.
It will not be said that this opinion is now for the first time, advanced in the United States; but certainly, it is now for the first time advanced in Virginia. So far back as any knowledge of our jurisprudence is possessed, the uniform practice of this country has been to permit any individual who was charged with any crime, to prepare for his defence, and to obtain the process of the court, for the purpose of enabling him to do so. This practice is as convenient, and is as consonant to justice as it is to humanity. It prevents in a great measure, those delays which are never desirable, which frequently occasion the loss of testimony, and which are often oppressive, that would be the inevitable consequence of withholding from a prisoner the process of the court, until the indictment against him was found by a Grand Jury. The right of an accused person to the process of the court, to compel the attendance of witnesses seems to follow necessarily from the right to examine those witnesses, and wherever the right exists, it would be reasonable that it should be accompanied with the means of rendering it effectual. It is not doubted, that a person who appears before a court, under a recognizance, must expect that a bill will be preferred against him, or that a question concerning the continuance of the recognizance, will be brought before the court. In the first event, he has the right, and it is perhaps his duty to prepare for his defence at the trial. In the second event, it will not be denied that he possesses the right to examine witnesses on the question of continuing his recognizance. In either case, it would seem reasonable that he should be entitled to the process of the court, to procure the attendance of his witnesses.
The genius and character of our laws and usages, are friendly, not to condemnation at all events, but to a fair and impartial trial; and they consequently allow to the accused the right of preparing the means to secure such a trial.—The objection that the attorney may refuse to proceed at this time, and that no day is fixed for the trial, if he should proceed, prevents no real difficulty. It would be a very insufficient excuse to a prisoner who had failed to prepare for his trial, to say that he was not certain the attorney would proceed against him. Had the indictment been found at the last term it would have been in some measure uncertain whether there would have been a trial at this, and still more uncertain on what day that trial would take place; yet subpoenas would have issued returnable to the first day of the term, and if, after its commencement, other subpoenas had been required, they would have issued returnable as the court might direct. In fact all process to which the law has affixed no certain return day, is made returnable at the discretion of the court.
General principles then, and general practice, are in favor of the right of every accused person to be as soon as his case is in court, to prepare for his defence, and to receive the aid of the process of the court to compel the attendance of his witnesses.
The constitution and laws of the U. States will now be considered for the purpose of ascertaining how they bear upon the question.
The 8th amendment to the constitution gives to the accused in all criminal prosecutions, a right to a speedy and public trial, and to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. The right given by this article must be deemed sacred by the courts, and the article should be so construed as to be something more than a dead letter. What can more effectually secure the right to a speedy trial than the declaration that the accused shall be disabled from preparing for it, until an indictment is found against him? It is certainly in the true spirit of the provision, that the accused should have the benefit of the compulsory process to enable him to compulsory the attendance of his witnesses.
This observation derives additional force from a consideration of the manner in which this subject has been contemplated by the legislature. It is obvious that the intention of the legislature that in all capital cases, the accused should be entitled to process before the trial. The words of the law are, "person or persons accused of

the crimes aforesaid (that is of treason or any other capital offence) shall be allowed and admitted in his said defence to make any proof that he or they can produce, by lawful witnesses or otherwise, and shall have the like process of the court where he or they shall be tried, to compel his or their witnesses to appear at his or their trial, as is usually granted to compel witnesses to appear on the prosecution against them."
This provision is made for persons accused or indicted. From the imperfection of human language it frequently happens that sentences which ought to be the most explicit are of doubtful construction, and in this case the words "accused or indicted" may be construed to be synonymous, to describe a person in the same situation or to apply to different stages of the prosecution. The word or may be taken in a conjunctive or a disjunctive sense. A reason for understanding them in the latter sense is furnished by the section itself. It commences with declaring that any person who shall be accused and indicted of treason, shall have a copy of the indictment, and at least three days before his trial. This right is obviously to be enjoyed after an indictment, and therefore the words are "accused and indicted." So with respect to the subsequent clause which authorizes a party to make his defence and directs the court on his application to assign him counsel. The words relate to any person accused and indicted. But when the section proceeds to authorize the compulsory process for witnesses, the phraseology is changed. The words are "and every such person or persons accused or indicted" &c. there by adapting the expression to the situation of an accused person both before and after indictment. It is to be remarked too, that the person so accused or indicted is to have "the like process to compel his or their witnesses to appear at his or their trial as is usually granted to compel witnesses to appear on the prosecution against them." The fair construction of this clause would seem to be that with respect to the means of compelling the attendance of witnesses to be furnished by the court, the prosecution and defence are placed by the law on equal ground. The right of the prosecutor to take out subpoenas or to avail himself of the aid of the court in any stage of the proceedings previous to the indictment, is not controverted. This act of Congress, it is true, applies only to capital cases; but persons charged with offences not capital have a constitutional and a legal right to examine their testimony, and this aid ought to be considered as declaratory of the common law in cases where this constitutional right exists.
Upon immemorial usage then, and upon what is deemed a sound construction of the constitution and law of the land, the court is of opinion that any person charged with a crime in the courts of the United States has a right, before as well as after indictment, to the process of the court to compel the attendance of his witnesses. Much delay and much inconvenience may be avoided by this construction, no mischief which is perceived can be produced by it. The process would only issue, when according to the ordinary course of proceeding, the indictment would be tried at the term to which the subpoena is made returnable, so that it becomes incumbent on the accused to be ready for his trial at that term.
This point being disposed of, it remains to inquire whether a subpoena duces tecum can be directed to the President of the United States, and whether it ought to be directed in this case.
This question originally consisted of two parts. It was at first doubted whether a subpoena could issue in any case to the chief magistrate of the nation; and if it could, whether that subpoena could do more than direct his personal attendance; whether it could direct him to bring with him a paper which was to constitute the gift of his testimony.
While the argument was opening the attorney for the United States avowed his opinion that a general subpoena must issue to the President but not a subpoena duces tecum. This terminated the argument on that part of the question. The court, however, has thought it necessary to state briefly the foundation of its opinion that such a subpoena may issue.
In the provisions of the constitution and of the statute which give to the accused a right to the compulsory process of the court there is no exception whatever. The obligation, therefore, of those provisions is general; and it would seem that no person could claim an exemption from them but one who would not be a witness. At any rate, if an exception to the general principle exists, it must be looked for in the law of evidence. The exceptions furnished by the law of evidence (with one only reservation) so far as they are personal, are of those only whose testimony could not be received. The single reservation alluded to, is the case of the king. Although he may perhaps give testimony, it is said to be incompatible with his dignity to appear under the process of the court. Of the many points of difference which exist between the first magistrate in England and the first magistrate of the United States, in respect of the personal dignity conferred on them by the constitution of their respective nations, the court will only select and mention two. It is a principle of the English constitution that the king can do no wrong, that no blame can be imputed to him, that he cannot be named in dehte.
By the constitution of the United States, the President as well as every other officer of the government, may be impeached, and may be removed from office on conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors.
By the constitution of Great Britain the crown is hereditary and the monarch can never become a subject.
By that of the United States, the President is elected from the mass of the people, and on the expiration of the time for which he is elected, returns to the mass of the people again.
How essentially this difference of circumstances must vary the policy of the laws of the two countries in reference to the personal dignity of the executive chief, will be perceived by every person. In this respect, the first magistrate of the union may more properly be likened to the first magistrate of a state—at any rate under the former consideration; and it is not known ever to have been doubted, that the chief magistrate of a state might be served with a subpoena ad testificandum.
If in any court of the United States, it has ever been decided, that a subpoena cannot issue to the President, that decision is unknown to the court.
On any principle, the President could not stand exempt from the general obligation of the constitution, it would be because the chief magistrate demanded his personal attendance. But it is apparent that this is an unresisting, unenforceable demand at the time when his attendance is required, it would be the return of the subpoena, and would furnish a reason for not obeying the court, than a reason against its being served in point of fact it cannot be served at the people of England have the
same interest in the service of the executive government, that is, of the cabinet council, that the American people have in the service of the executive of the United States, and that their duties are arduous and unremitting. Yet it has never been alleged that a subpoena might not be directed to them.
It cannot be denied, that to issue a subpoena to a person filling the exalted station of the chief magistrate, is a duty which would be dispensed with much more cheerfully than it would be performed; but it be a duty the court can have no choice in the case.
If then, as is admitted by the counsel for the United States, a subpoena may issue to the President, the accused is entitled to it of course; and whatever difference may exist with respect to the power to compel the same obedience to the process, as if it had been directed to a private citizen, there exists no difference with respect to the right to obtain it. The guard furnished to this high officer to protect him from being harassed by vexatious and unnecessary subpoenas, is to be looked for in the conduct of a court after those subpoenas have issued, not in any circumstance which is to precede their being issued.
If in being summoned to give his personal attendance to testify, the law does not discriminate between the President and a private citizen, what foundation is there for the opinion, that this difference is created by the circumstance that his testimony depends on a paper in his possession, not on facts which have come to his knowledge otherwise than by writing? The court can perceive no foundation for such an opinion. The propriety of introducing any paper into a case as testimony, must depend on the character of the paper, not on the character of the person who holds it. A subpoena duces tecum then may issue to any person to whom an ordinary subpoena may issue directing him to bring any paper of which the party praying it has a right to avail himself, as testimony, if indeed that be the necessary process for obtaining the view of such paper.
When this subject was suddenly introduced, the court felt some doubt concerning the propriety of directing a subpoena to the chief magistrate, and some doubt also concerning the propriety of directing any paper in his possession, not public in its nature, to be exhibited in court. The impression, that the questions which might arise in consequence of such process, were more proper for discussion on the return of the process than on its issuing, was then strong on the mind of the judges, but the circumlocution with which they would take any step, which would in any manner relate to that high personage, prevented their yielding readily to those impressions, and induced the request that those points, if not admitted, might be argued. The result of that argument is a confirmation of the impression originally entertained. The court can perceive no legal objection to issuing a subpoena duces tecum, to any person whatever, provided, the case be such as to justify the process.
This is laid to be a motion to the discretion of the court. This is true. But a motion to its discretion, is a motion not to its inclination, but to its judgement, and its judgement is to be guided by sound legal principles.
A subpoena duces tecum, varies from an ordinary subpoena only in this, that a witness is summoned for the purpose of bringing with him a paper in his custody. In some of our sister states whose system of jurisprudence is erected on the same foundation with our own, this process, we learn, issues of course. In this state it issues not absolutely of course, but with leave of the court. No case, however, exists, as is believed, in which the motion has been founded, on an affidavit, in which it has been denied, or in which it has been opposed. It has been truly observed, that the opposite party can regularly take no more interest in the awarding a subpoena duces tecum, than in the awarding an ordinary subpoena. In either case he may object to any delay, the grant of which, may be implied in granting the subpoena, but he can no more object regularly to the legal means of obtaining testimony, which exists in the mind, than in the papers of the person who may be summoned. If no inconvenience can be sustained by the opposite party, he can only oppose the motion in the character of an amicus curiae, to prevent the court from making an improper order, or from burdening some officer by compelling an unnecessary attendance. This court would certainly be very unwilling to say that upon fair construction the constitutional and legal right to obtain its process to compel the attendance of witnesses, does not extend to their bringing with them such papers as may be material in the defence. The literal distinction which exists between the cases, is too much attenuated to be countenanced in the tribunals of a just and humane nation. If then, the subpoena be used without enquiry into the manner of its application, it would seem to trench on the privileges which the constitution extends to the accused; it would seem to reduce his means of defence, within narrower limits than is designed by the fundamental law of our country, if an overstrained rigor should be used with respect to his right, to apply for papers deemed by himself to be material. In the one case the accused is made the absolute judge of the testimony to be summoned; if in the other, he is not to judge absolutely for himself, his judgement ought to be controlled only so far as is apparent that he means to exercise his privileges, not really in his own defence, but for purposes which the court ought to discountenance. The court would not lend its aid to motions obviously designed to manifest disrespect to the government, but the court has no right to refuse its aid to motions for papers to which the accused may be entitled and which may be material in his defence.
These observations are made to show the nature of the discretion which may be exercised. It is apparent that the papers are irrelevant to the case, or that for state reasons, they cannot be introduced into the defence; the subpoena duces tecum would be useless; but if this is not apparent; if they may be important in the defence; if they may be falsely read at the trial; would it not be a blot in the page which records the judicial proceedings of this country, if in a case of such serious import as this, the accused should be denied the use of them?
The counsel for the United States, take a very different view of this subject, and insist that a motion for process to obtain testimony, should be supported by the same full and explicit proof of the nature and application of that testimony, which would be required on a motion which would delay public justice; which would arrest the ordinary course of proceedings, or which would in any other manner affect the rights of the opposite party. In favor of this position, has been urged the opinion of one, whose loss as a friend and as a judge, I sincerely deplore; whole worth I feel, and whose authority I shall at all times greatly respect. If his opinion was really opposed to mine, I should certainly revise, deliberately revise the judgment I had formed: But I perceive no such opposition.
In the trials of Smith and Ogden, the court
in which Judge Patterson presided, required a special affidavit in support of a motion made by the counsel for the accused for a continuance and for an attachment against witnesses who had been summoned and had failed to attend.
Had this requisition of a special affidavit been made as well a foundation for an attachment, for a continuance, the cases would not have been considered by the counsel for the prosecution merely as a means of punishing the contempt, and a court might certainly require stronger testimony to induce them to punish a contempt than would be required to lend its aid to a party in order to procure evidence in a cause. But the proof furnished by the case is most conclusive, that the special statements of the affidavits were required solely on account of the continuance.
Although the counsel for the United States considered the motion for an attachment merely as a mode of punishing the contempt, the counsel for Smith and Ogden considered it as compulsory process to bring in a witness, and moved a continuance until they could have the benefit of this process. The continuance was to arrest the ordinary course of justice, & therefore the court required a special affidavit, showing the materiality of the testimony before this continuance could be granted. Prima facie evidence could not apply to the case, and there was an additional reason for a special affidavit. The object of this special statement was expressly laid to be for a continuance.
COLDEN proceeded. "The present application is to put off the cause on account of the absence of witnesses, whose testimony the defendant alleges is material for his defence, and who have disobeyed the ordinary process of the court. In compliance with the intimation from the bench yesterday, the defendant has disclosed, by the affidavit which I have just read, the points to which he expects the witnesses who have been summoned will testify."
"If the court cannot, or will not issue compulsory process to bring in the witnesses who are the objects of this application, then the cause will not be postponed."
"Or if it appears to the court that the matter disclosed by the affidavit might not be given in evidence if the witnesses were now here, then we cannot expect that our motion will be successful. For it would be absurd to suppose that the court will postpone the trial on account of the absence of witnesses whom they cannot compel to appear; and of whose voluntary attendance there is too much reason to despair; or on account of the absence of witnesses who if they were before the court, could not be heard on the trial." (Page 12)
This argument states unequivocally the purpose for which a special affidavit was required. The counsel for the U. S. considered the subject in the same light. After exhibiting an affidavit for the purpose of showing that the witnesses could not probably possess any material information, Mr. Sandford said "It was decided by the court yesterday that it was incumbent on the defendant, in order to entitle himself to a postponement of the trial, on account of the absence of these witnesses, to show in what respect they are material for his defence. It was the opinion of the court that the general affidavit in common form would not be sufficient for this purpose; but that the particular facts expected from the witnesses must be disclosed, in order that the court might, upon those facts, judge of the propriety of granting the postponement." (Page 27.)
The court frequently treated the subject so as to show the opinion that the special affidavit was required only on account of the continuance; but what is conclusive on this point is, that after deciding the testimony of the witnesses to be such as could not be offered to the jury, Judge Patterson was of opinion, that a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue ought to be granted. He could not have required the materiality of the witness to be shown on a motion, the success of which did not in his opinion, in any degree depend on that materiality; and which he granted after deciding the testimony to be such as the jury ought not to hear. It is then most apparent that the opinion of Judge Patterson has been misunderstood, and that no inference can possibly be drawn from it, opposed to the principle that has been laid down by the court. That principle will therefore be applied to the present motion.
The first paper required, is the letter of Gen. Wilkinson, which was referred to in the message of the President to Congress. The application of that letter to the case, is shown by the terms in which the communication was made. It is a statement of the conduct of the accused, made by the person who is declared to be the essential witness against him. The order for producing this letter is opposed,
It is a principle universally acknowledged, that a party has a right to oppose to the testimony of any witness against him, the declarations which that witness has made at other times on the same subject. If he possesses this right, he must bring forward proof of those declarations. This proof must be obtained before he knows positively what the witness will say, for if he waits until the witness has been heard at the trial, it is too late to meet him with his former declarations. Those former declarations, therefore, constitute a mass of testimony which a party has a right to obtain by way of precaution, and the positive necessity of which, can only be decided at the trial.
It is with some surprise an argument was heard from the bar, insinuating that the award of a subpoena on this ground, gave the countenance of the court to suspicions, affecting the veracity of a witness who is to appear on the part of the United States. This observation could not have been considered. In contests of this description the court takes no part; the court has no right to take a part. Every person may give in evidence, testimony such as is stated in this case. What would be the feelings of the prosecutor, if in this case the accused should produce a witness completely exculpating himself, and the attorney for the U. S. should be arrested in his attempt to prove what the same witness had said upon a former occasion, by a declaration from the bench, that such an attempt could not be permitted, because it would imply a suspicion on the court that the witness had not spoken the truth? Respecting no unjustifiable an interpolation but one opinion would be formed.
The 2d objection is, that the letter contains matter which ought not to be disclosed. That there may be matter, the production of which the court would not require, is certain; but that in a capital case, the accused ought not, in some form, to have the benefit of it, if it was really essential to his defence, is a position which the court would very reluctantly deny. It ought not to be believed, that the department which superintends prosecutions in criminal cases, would be inclined to withhold it. What ought to be done under such circumstances presents a delicate question, the discussion of which, it is hoped, will never be rendered necessary in this country. At present it need only be said, that the question does not occur at this time. There is certainly nothing
before the court, which shows, that the letter in question contains any matter, the disclosure of which would endanger the public safety. If it does contain such matter, the fact may appear before the disclosure is made. If it does contain any matter which it would be imprudent to disclose, which it is not the wish of the executive to disclose, such matter, if it be not immediately and essentially applicable to the point, will, of course, be suppressed. It is not easy to conceive, that so much of the letter as relates to the conduct of the accused, can be a subject of delicacy with the President. Every thing of this kind, however, will have its due consideration on the return of the subpoena. Sdly. It has been alleged that a copy may be received instead of the original, and the act of Congress has been cited in support of this proposition.
This argument pre-supposes that the letter required is a document filed in the department of state, the reverse of which may be and most probably is the fact. Letters addressed to the President are most usually retained by himself. They do not belong to any of the departments. But were the fact otherwise, a copy might not answer the purpose. The copy would not be superior to the original, and the original itself would not be admitted, if denied, without proof that it was in the hand writing of the witness. Suppose the case put at the bar, of an indictment on this letter for a libel, and on its production it should appear not to be in the hand writing of the person indicted. Would it be deposited in the department of state make it his writing or subject him to the consequence of having written it? Certainly not. For the purpose then of showing the letter to have been written by a particular person, the original must be produced and a copy could not be admitted.
On the confidential nature of this letter, much has been said at the bar, and authorities have been produced, which appear to be conclusive. Had its contents been orally communicated, the person to whom the communications were made could not have excused himself from detailing them so far as they might be deemed essential in the defence. Their being in writing gives no additional facility, the only difference produced by that circumstance is, that the contents of the paper must be proved by the paper itself, not by the recollection of the witness.
Much has been said about the disrespect to the chief magistrate which is implied by this motion and by such a decision of it as the law is believed to require.
These observations will be very truly answered by the declaration that this court feels many, perhaps peculiar motives, for manifesting as guarded a respect for the chief magistrate of the union as is compatible with its official duties. To go beyond these would exhibit a conduct which would deserve some other appellation than the term respect.
It is not for the court to anticipate the event of the present prosecution. Should it terminate as is expected on the part of the United States, all those who are concerned in it should certainly regret that a paper which the accused believed to be essential to his defence, which may, for aught that now appears, be essential, had been withheld from him. I will not say that this circumstance would in any degree tarnish the reputation of the government, but I will say that it would justly tarnish the reputation of the court which had given its sanction to its being withheld. Might I be permitted to utter one sentiment with respect to myself, it would be to deplore most earnestly, the occasion which should compel me to look back on any part of my official conduct with so much self-reproach as I should feel, could I declare on the information now possessed, that the accused is not entitled to the letter in question, if it should be really important to him.
The propriety of requiring the answer to this letter is more questionable. It is alleged that it most probably communicates orders showing the situation of this country with Spain, which will be important on the midsemaine. If it contains matter not essential to the defence and the disclosure is unpleasant to the executive, it certainly ought not to be disclosed. This is a point which will appear on the return.
The demand of the orders which have been issued, and which have been, as is alleged, published in the Natchez Gazette, is by no means unusual. Such documents have often been produced in the courts of the U. S. and the courts of England. If they contain matter interesting to the nation, the concealment of which is required by the public safety, that matter will appear upon the return. If they do not and are material, they may be exhibited.
It is said they cannot be material because they cannot justify any unlawful resistance which may have been employed or meditated by the accused.
Were these admitted, and were it also admitted that such resistance would amount to treason, the orders might still be material because they might tend to weaken the endeavor to connect such overt act with any overt act of which this court may take cognizance.
The court, however, is rather inclined to the opinion that the subpoena in such case ought to be directed to the head of the department in whose custody the orders are, and the court must suppose that the letter of the secretary of the navy which has been stated by the attorney for the U. S. to refer the counsel for the prisoner to his legal remedy for the copies he desired, alluded to such a motion as is now made.
The affidavit on which the motion is grounded has not been noticed. It is believed that such a subpoena as is asked ought to issue if there exist any reason for supposing that the testimony may be material and ought to be admitted. It is only because the subpoena is addressed to those who administer the government of this country, that such an affidavit was required as would furnish probable cause to believe that the testimony was desired for the real purposes of defence, and not for such as this court will forever discountenance.
When the Chief Justice had concluded his opinion, Mr. McKee addressed the court to the following effect: I hope, sir, that I have misunderstood an expression, which has just fallen from your honor; but the opinions of those gentlemen, who are near me, completely confirm my own conceptions. Your honor has declared, if I mistake not, that "if the present prosecution terminates as is wished, that nothing has appeared in my conduct, nothing in the conduct of the gentlemen who are associated with me on the present occasion, and nothing in the conduct of the government, to produce such a conviction in the breast of the court. Permit me, sir, to assure this court, if we feel any sentiment at all, that it is one of a very different description. The impression which has been thus conveyed by the court, that we not only wished to have A. Burr accused, but that we wished to convict him, is completely abhorrent to our feelings. We trust that it has rather accidentally fallen from the pen of your honor, than that it is your deliberate opinion. We wish for nothing, sir, but a fair and competent investi-
gation of this case. It is far from our wishes, that A. B. should be convicted but upon the most satisfactory evidence. And let me assure this court, that nothing would more keenly wound my feelings, than if you or any other man should suppose it is possible that I or any other gentleman with whom I am associated, or the government which we have the honor to represent, should at all events desire the conviction of the prisoner.
The Chief Justice replied, that it was not his intention to insinuate that the Attorneys for the prosecution or that the administration, had ever wished the conviction of Col. B. whether he was guilty or innocent; that his assertion was this: gentlemen had so often and so uniformly asserted that Col. B. was the case, and they had so often repeated it before the testimony was perceived on which that guilt could alone be substantiated, that it appeared to him probable, that they were not indifferent on the subject.
Mr. M c Rae begged leave to point out to the court a considerable difference between the opinions and wishes of the counsel for the prosecution; that from the testimony which they had examined, they thought it extremely probable that A. B. was really guilty; but that this was very different from wishing to find him guilty or to convict him at all events.
Mr. Hay observed that his own conscience was satisfied with the course which he had pursued in this business; that he should attempt to secure the same sentiment by his future deportment; and provided he enjoyed that satisfaction, he was completely indifferent to the opinion of others; and he should certainly pursue his own judgment. He asked whether he might not send up the witnesses to the G. Jury? Mr. Burr then pressed upon the court the necessity of giving the supplemental charge; that it would be of considerable benefit in limiting the Jury to separate what was proper in the evidence from what was improper; that if the charge was not delivered for several days, the jury might in the mean time be receiving very false impressions; and that their mind might be so completely involved in these impressions, that it would be impossible for them to separate them from their decisions, even after the delivery of the charge. He conceived that the court ought either to prevent the witnesses from going to the Grand Jury or to deliver its supplemental charge. The Chief Justice replied that on Monday morning he would deliver the charge, if all the necessary preliminary points could be settled.
Mr. Hay then requested the clerk to swear four of the witnesses. Thomas Truxton, William Eaton, Benjamin Stoddert & Stephen Decatur were accordingly sworn and conducted to the Jury-Room.
Mr. Burr hoped that the court would immediately take up the supplemental charge to the Jury. What was the objection which the attorney for the U. S. has submitted to your honor, and on which you seemed to entertain some doubts?
Chief Justice. It is, whether the statute of Edward VI. was now in force in this country. Mr. Randolph. We are ready on that point sir.
The Clerk then proceeded to call four other witnesses to the Book; but when Erick Bollman appeared, Mr. Hay addressed the court to the following effect:
Before Mr. Bollman is sworn, I must inform the court of a particular, and not immaterial circumstance. He, sir, has made a full communication to the government, of the plans, the designs, and views of A. Burr. As these communications might criminate Dr. Bollman before the Grand Jury, the President of the U. S. has communicated to me this pardon (holding it in his hand) which I have already offered to Dr. B. He received it in a very hesitating manner; and I think informed me that he knew not whether he should or should not accept it. He took it from me however, as he informed me for the purpose of taking the advice of counsel. He returned it in the same hesitating manner: he would neither positively accept nor refuse it. My own opinion is that Dr. B. cannot under these circumstances possibly criminate himself. This pardon will completely exonerate him from all the penalties of the law. I believe his evidence to be extremely material. In the presence of this court I offer this pardon to him, and if he refuses, I shall deposit it with the Clerk for his use.—Will you, sir, (addressing himself to Mr. Bollman) accept this pardon?
Mr. Bollman. No I will not, sir.
Mr. Hay then observed that Dr. Bollman must be carried up to the Grand Jury with an intimation, that he had been pardoned.
Mr. Martin. It has always been Dr. B's intention to refuse this pardon: but he has not positively refused it before, because he wished to have this opportunity of publicly rejecting it.
Erick Bollman, William Duane, Peter Taylor and ***** Albright were then sworn by the Clerk.
Mr. Martin did not suppose that Dr. B's pardon was a real or effectual one; if he made any confessions before the Grand Jury they might find an indictment, which would hold against him; nor could his be an effectual one, before it was pleaded to an indictment in open court.
Mr. Hay enquired whether Dr. B. might not pass on to the Grand Jury.—The Chief Justice asked, what would be the difference between sending him now and some time hence, when the question about his pardon shall have been settled.—Mr. Hay replied, that he was anxious to introduce his evidence before the Grand Jury in a chronological order, and that if Dr. B's was suspended, it would make a chasm in his arrangement; however it was of very little consequence to him, whether he was sent now or some time hence.—Chief Justice. What is particular point before the court? Mr. Martin. Dr. B. is not pardoned, and no man is bound to criminate himself.—Chief Justice. What precedents have you? Mr. Martin. I am prepared to show, that a party even possessed of a pardon, is still indictable by the Grand Jury, unless he has pleaded it in court.—Mr. Hay. Sir, may we send the other witnesses to the jury? Chief Justice. Certainly. Mr. Bollman may in the mean time be suspended.
Four other witnesses were then sworn.
Mr. Hay. I now propose to send Dr. Bollman to the Grand Jury. At this time the Marshall entered, and Mr. Hay informed the court, that the Grand Jury had sent for the article of the Constitution and the laws of Congress relating to Treason and the midsemaine.
Jacob Dunbar was sworn and sent to the G. Jury.
Some desultory conversation here ensued between the bar and the court respecting Dr. B. when Mr. Hay addressed the opposite counsel. Are you then willing to hear Dr. B. indicted? Take care in what an awful condition you are placing this gentleman.
Mr. Martin. Dr. Bollman, Sir, has lived too long to be alarmed by such menaces. He is a man of too much honor to trust his reputation to the course which you prefer for him.—The Chief Justice. There can be no question but Dr. B. can go up to the jury: but the question is, whether he is pardoned or

not. If the Executive should refuse to pardon him, he is certainly not pardoned. — Mr. Martin. But there can be no doubt, if he chooses to decline his pardon, that he stands in the same situation with every other witness, who cannot be forced to criminate themselves. Some defactory conversation here ensued; when Mr. Hay observed that he should extremely regret the loss of Dr. B's testimony; he believed it to be material; he trusted that he should obtain it, however reluctantly given; the court would perceive that Dr. Bollman now possessed a much safer, as even to encounter the risk of an indictment for treason. Whether he should appear before the Grand Jury under the circumstance of a pardon being annexed to his name, might hereafter become the object of a distinct arrangement. In the mean time, he might go up without any such notification. — Counsel for Mr. Burr acquiesced. — Chief Justice. Whether he is really pardoned or not, I cannot at present declare. — I must take time to deliberate. — Mr. Hay. Cautiously then I ask you, Mr. Bollman, do you accept your pardon. — Mr. Bollman. I have already answered that question several times. I say, no; and I repeat that I would have refused it before, but that I wished this opportunity of publicly declaring it. — Mr. Hay. If the Grand Jury have any doubts about the questions that they put to Dr. B. might be called upon to answer, they can apply to the court for instructions. I assert, first, that Mr. Bollman is a pardoned man. I with the opposite counsel to prove that he is not. I therefore move, first, that he be sent up to the Grand Jury, certified by you that he is pardoned. I make this motion, that gentlemen who wish to discuss the question, may have an opportunity of producing their arguments. Mr. Williams Counsel for Mr. Bollman. There are 3 questions to be decided. — 1. Whether a witness is bound to answer any questions which tend to criminate himself, or afford a clue to evidence for that purpose? — The operation of a pardon, whether it changes the question, but in this case it having been refused, the court cannot notice it. — Who is to be the judge, the witness or the court as to the propriety of answering the question? — On the first question, Mr. W. laid down the following propositions. — 1. The rule of law is that no man shall be bound to answer any question which shall accuse himself. — 1. McNally v. 256. 2. Haw. c. 46. — 2. He shall not be bound to answer any question which shall accuse himself of a misdemeanor. — 1. McNally v. 256. — 3. He shall not be called upon to criminate himself. — 1. McNally v. 256. — 4. He is not to defend himself. — 1. McNally v. 256. — 5. Not to answer enquiring questions. — 1. McNally v. 256. — 6. To ask a man if he is a Roman Catholic, is not permitted. — 1. McNally v. 257. — 7. To ask a man if he is a Quaker, is not permitted. — 1. McNally v. 257. — 8. The case of Gooley in this court upon the trial of Reynolds, was called who had been acquitted, the day before the Grand Jury. — So. 1. Black. Rep. 27. As to the 2d question, the rule of law is the same, even if the man be pardoned. — 1. A witness, although pardoned, shall not be bound to criminate himself, for the pardon having placed him in statu quo, no question shall be asked him which shall tend to make him contemptible or to away the benefit of the pardon. — 1. McNally v. 256. — 2. Sta. T. 822. 1035. — 3. Bound to acknowledge himself acquainted with any treason, he was guilty of a very high misdemeanor, and therefore do away any benefit from the pardon. — But court cannot notice pardon, unless a pardon by Sta. for under great seal and accepted, yet it would be error in Court to allow it if not pleaded. — 2. Haw. Ch. 37 Sec. 59, Sec. 64, 65. — 3. Sta. 294. — 4. If party only entitled upon pleading it, then if he refuses, court cannot take notice of it. — Here party refusing, court must say not pardoned, for until it is pleaded, party liable to be punished. — For if he pleads not guilty, the court will not allow him to plead it afterwards. — 2. Haw. Ch. 37. Sec. 59. Bac. 294. As to the 3d question, the witness must be the judge of necessity. — 1. Because he can only know what the answer is, and the bearing it will have. — 2. If the court to decide, they must know what would be the answer, and to get that from the witness to criminate himself, which I have shown he is not bound to do. If it be objected that by this means, no witness would give evidence against the accused. — It may be answered, 1. The refusal is upon oath, because he affirms that to answer it would be to criminate himself. — 2. You have some obligation on him to answer that truly, as to speak truth upon any other subject. — 3. If he perjures himself, in that he would certainly do it to get clear of giving evidence against himself. — 4. It is his privilege not to answer any question having that tendency. — 5. This rule is upon the following authorities: — The court in a case in 1743, in 4. Sta. T. 414 note states to wit, "If you think it will criminate yourself, you need not answer it." — 1. McNally v. 257. — 8. It is put to the witness and not to the court, because he knew what was to be the answer — if it be objected that nothing is evidence against him, which he may say on his oath, the answer is that it has been otherwise decided. — 2. Dougl. 593. Mr. Martin would merely suggest a few additional authorities: among these were 5 Bac. p. 293. — 2. Harkins ch. 37. p. 59. 60. 65. — Mr. Martin contended that these authorities demonstrated that there were two kinds of pardons in England: one by Parliament and the other under the Great Seal; that the first exempted an individual from the cognizance of the court as to the particular crime for which he might stand charged; but that the latter was no bar to a judicial prosecution; and was not indeed effectual until it had been pleaded and allowed in court. Mr. M. also quoted an authority from Salkeld to show in corroboration of Mr. W's position that no witness however exempted from the charge and necessity of criminating himself; however responsible on that account to the law; can be made to discredit himself by his own testimony. — Mr. Williams also quoted another authority to the same effect from p. 258 of McNally's Evidence. Mr. McRae. It is extremely uncertain, Sir, whether Mr. Bollman will or will not answer the questions; which may be propounded to him by the G. J. If he is the very honourable man, which these gentlemen have represented, he certainly will not refuse to answer. But if he does refuse, it can only be upon the ground that he is really a criminal. It is not therefore necessary for us to determine this point at the present time. It is not necessary to decide whether Dr. B. is or is not a pardoned man; we do sincerely hope, that he will appear in the character of an honourable man; and not refuse to answer the interrogatories of the G. Jury. But if he should refuse that course, it will be then time enough for us to bring this discussion before the court. — Mr. Hay. The proposition which I had stated, seems to me to be so evident as to require little argument. I consider Dr. B. as a pardoned man; and therefore I desired that the court should certify that fact for the instruction of the G. J. Gentlemen however seem themselves to concede the very point for which we are contending. Why do they so much expatiate on the consequences of a pardon, if they do not consider that one has been already established? Why do they with to forestall Dr. B. under the plea that he cannot be made to defame himself, unless they consider him not sufficiently secured by the possession of a pardon? — As to the effect of a par-
don, it is a distinct question; on which the court may hereafter instruct the Grand Jury. But at present I with the court merely to certify that he is pardoned. — Mr. Martin replied, that if the gentleman had attended to his argument he would have seen that most of his authorities had borne upon the existence of a pardon and not upon the effect of one. — Chief Justice. Have any of you authorities to show, when the pardon operates? — Mr. Martin. Certainly from the time of pleading. — G. J. — You mistake my question. Suppose the pardon to be lost, is it then valid? — Mr. Martin. If it be proved that he had pleaded it to an indictment, I presume an exemplification of it would answer every purpose. Mr. Martin. As another reason, Sir, why Dr. Bollman has refused this refusal of this pardon, permit me to say, that it would be considered as an admission of guilt. Dr. B. does not admit that he has been guilty. He does not consider that a pardon is necessary, for an innocent man. Dr. B. Sir, knows what he has to fear from the persecution of an angry government; but he will brave it all. The man who did so much to rescue the marquis La Fayette from his imprisonment; and who has been known at so many courts, bears too great a regard for his reputation, to wish to have it founded throughout Europe, that he was compelled to abandon his honour through a fear of unjust persecution. After some defactory conversation, Dr. Bollman was sent up to the G. J. without any particular notification. The question whether he is pardoned; and of course how far he may be called upon to disclose all that he knows—are reserved for future discussion and decision. Mr. Hay requested leave to inform the G. J. that fatigue alone had prevented Gen. Wilkinson from attending them on that day; but that he should appear before them on Monday. Mr. Bots then observed, that there was one point in the supplemental charge, which he wished to notice. In one part of the charge, the clause of the constitution relative to treason, is quoted, which clause recognizes the necessity of two witnesses to prove an overt act. — In a subsequent part, there seems to be an implication that one witness to an overt act is sufficient. — How was this contrariety to be explained? — Chief Justice. Though the constitution declares that two witnesses are necessary to produce conviction; yet it may not be so strictly and absolutely necessary to authorize an indictment. My present impression is, that though there must be two witnesses to the general charge of treason; yet that one witness may be sufficient for one act; and another to another. Ch. Justice quoted the statute of Ed. VI. The law books made this discrimination between a trial and an indictment. Mr. Hay. There is one important question worthy of our consideration. In your supplemental charge, Sir, you have referred to the statute of Edward VI. But no such statute is now in force here. A general law of the Virginia Legislature in 1792 and 1795 took off all the British laws; and then they set to re-enacting such as were congenial with our form of government. But this statute was certainly in force at the commencement of our revolution; and the question is whether, if it was in force then, it can be considered as now. — Do gentlemen contend, that we are bound by a statute, which the government has not adopted? At the close of the court, the Chief Justice observed, as the Editor is informed, that he had explained the sense in which the words, which had been remarked on by Mr. McRae, had been employed; but that he had no desire that they should remain in the written opinion. That he did not perceive that they were calculated to excite any feeling; but as it was not his intention to convey the idea that a conviction right or wrong was wished; and as that idea had been inferred and might be thereafter attached to them by those who might see the opinion without hearing the explanatory words, he had expunged them. Accordingly the words "was wished &" were expunged when the Editor received the written opinion. Some defactory conversation ensued; when the court adjourned till Monday 11 o'clock.
MONDAY, June 15. Mr. Hay directed the Deputy Marshal to request Gen. Wilkinson to come into court. In a few minutes, Gen. W. entered with a firm and dignified carriage, and gracefully bowing to the bench, and surrounding spectators, took his stand behind Col. B's counsel. How raptly with feeling and interest, was the scene before us! It was the first occasion on which these two distinguished individuals had met, since the explosion of these interesting transactions which have so strongly agitated our country, and with which both of them have been so deeply connected. Col. B's countenance was marked by a haughty contempt; the countenance of Gen. Wilkinson, was calm, dignified and commanding. After Gen. Wilkinson had taken the oath at the Clerk's Table; Mr. Hay enquired of the Court whether he was at Liberty to communicate to the Grand Jury through the marshal, their immediate examination of Gen. W. might perhaps facilitate their enquiries. — And then Gen. W. attended the Marshal to the Jury room. Mr. Hay. The opposite counsel have objected to the tenour of the Oath, which had been administered to the witnesses. Will the Court instruct the Clerk on the subject? Mr. Bots stated, he did not approve of the form in which the oath was administered; that this objection, however, did not come from Col. B. that there was some variation between the present and other forms; but that if the A. for the U. S. was satisfied with the form, Col. B's counsel would acquiesce. Mr. Hay. There are now four indictments before the G. Jury; two of them against A. Burr for treason and for a misdemeanor; and two against Herman Blannerhasset for the same offences; and it was this circumstance, which dictated the general form of the oath. — The Ch. Jus: presumed that this form was not less obligatory than if all the indictments had been particularly enumerated. — Mr. Hay. It is the general form, Sir; to give true answer to such questions as the Grand Jury may ask. Mr. Wickham stated, that as the indictments were now pending before the G. J. it was necessary to recall to the memory of the court, a circumstance which had been early suggested; that a number of improper papers might be exhibited before the G. J. The Attorney for the U. S. had indeed pledged himself to send up no papers, which had not previously passed the inspection of the court; but it had since occurred to Col. B's Counsel, that the witnesses themselves might carry up such papers. The object of this promise would be entirely defeated, if papers were thus to be carried, instead of being sent up. It would be changing too the very function of a witness; whose business it was to give testimony, and not to carry papers. Finding that nothing could be done without an application to the court, Mr. W. submitted it to them, whether they ought not to instruct the G. J. to receive no papers, but through the medium of the court. Mr. Hay hoped, that the court would not act upon a mere suspicion; that witnesses will carry up improper papers; it was extremely probable, that Gen. W. in delivering his evidence before the G. J. may have occasion to refer to certain letters that he has received and to certain documents, which would assist to give the history of these transactions. He would not produce these as distinct and substantial evidence; but as so many private memoranda, which (such was the nature of the human mind) ought and must resort to, to make his narrative more connected and distinct. — Mr. H. hoped, that after the splendid example of patience which the G. Jury had displayed, they would not be interrupted in the examination which was now commenced; but that he had no objections to the court's sending up by word or by writing such instructions to them on this subject, as the court might think proper. Mr. Bots confessed, that this opposition surprised him; on a former day he had understood that no papers were to go before the G. Jury, but those which had been inspected by the court. Mr. Bots requested leave to explain. He had promised before the arrival of Gen. W. to send up no papers without the inspection of the court; that he had at that time several authenticated papers, several affidavits; and that he had an impression (tho' not a very decided one) that they ought not to be submitted to the G. J. At that time gentlemen seemed to think that certain papers and cyphered letters were to be sent up without any previous motion; he would still pledge himself to avoid this course. But it might happen that Gen. W. had various papers to connect the narrative of his conduct. It is probable that he has those very papers in his pocket, & would resort to them. If Gen. W. has brought them before the Grand Jury, Mr. H. hoped, that gentlemen would not, therefore, accuse him of a breach of faith. Mr. Bots believed, that the A. for the U. S. was incapable of anything like a breach of promise; but while he was willing to admit his intelligence and honor; he would fly without seeming to cast a reproach upon a character whose head and heart were inferior to none, that gentlemen felt a strong bias which ought to be vigilantly watched. He was still surprised at the gentleman's proceedings; because the very principle which he supports as to the papers themselves, would go to prevent the introduction of witnesses before the G. J. Papers he admits are not proper to go before the Jury; and, therefore, if witnesses are to carry them, they themselves ought not to go. — If Mr. Hay were called before the Jury, he would produce no papers, but what had passed through the court. But Mr. Hay is not the only prosecutor in this business. There is another equally active. Mr. Hay admits that this zealous prosecutor may produce his papers before the Jury. If he merely produces papers, for the purpose of refreshing his memory, any instruction which may go from the court, will be perfectly innocent in his effects; But it is possible that such an instruction may be necessary to repress the introduction of very improper papers; which he might hope to convey to the multitude abroad, through the channel of the G. J. There was a particular reason to recommend this vigilance. It was understood that a species of plunder of papers had been permitted; that the Post-offices had been robbed. Should such papers which came in this manner into the possession of the U. S. be permitted to be laid before the G. J. without previously passing through the ordeal of the court? Mr. Bots here cited as an authority from 8th Vol. of American Museum, Judge Gripp's charge to the G. J. C. J. No affidavits ought to be sent up; and no papers containing distinct, substantive testimony against the accused. — Mr. Hay. I am willing to adhere substantially and literally to my promise. I know not what papers Gen. Wilkinson may choose to employ. I was with him yesterday, and saw a whole Volume of papers; but it was impossible for me to know which of them he intended to produce. If gentlemen wish to know the object of my visit, I will tell them. Mr. Martin. It is unnecessary. — Mr. Hay. I have said in this court, that it was not my business to defend Gen. Wilkinson, but the result of my conversation yesterday is, that it is my duty to defend him; and my impression is, that I shall defend an honest man and a patriot. All the suspicions which I had imbibed from the mysterious circumstances of the times, have completely vanished; and I am now fully impressed with the conviction of his unflawed integrity. I shall advance up to his defence with the most perfect sincerity. — Mr. Martin. I have no doubt that the gentleman has taken a very good way to remove his unfavorable impressions; if that can be called a good one, which consists in hearing but one side of a cause. If he would but hear Col. Burr's story in the same way, perhaps his impressions against him might also be removed. Mr. Hay. I have heard his story from his counsel, but they have more strongly confirmed my opinion. Mr. Wirt said that he had looked over the authority quoted by Mr. Bots, and was satisfied that the papers referred to by Judge Gripp, were only affidavits. (Mr. W. made quotations to prove this position) that it was in some cases necessary to resort to written papers, as the very best testimony; for example; suppose that Gen. W. should state that on such a day he received a letter from A. Burr by the hands of Bollman or Swartwout, might he not try to the Jury "Here is the letter. I am ready to read it." Would it not be competent for a Grand or even a Petit Jury to hear it? Such letters are the very best evidence of their own contents; and before a Petit, and of course before a Grand Jury they are much more proper to be produced than any statement of their own contents. Again; suppose Gen. W. was to mention the cyphered letter: would it not be competent for the Jury or for the gentlemen on the other side to say "Produce it: we shall receive its contents" This remark evidently shows that if the objection now suggested to papers, extends to all, it is perfectly fallacious; and that sometimes they are not only evidence, but the very best evidence in themselves. Mr. Wickham expatiated at some length upon this point. He reminded the court of the case which happened before the highest tribunal in this country, the Senate of U. S. where a witness (Mr. Hay) was forbidden the use of his papers, even to refresh his memory. Mr. Hay replied that he knew not and cared not what they decided; but if they had decided at all, he would assert that the very persons who did so, knew that they were deciding contrary to law. Mr. Bots said, that the Senate had so decided; and it was composed of the ablest lawyers from all parts of the union. — Mr. Hay contended the fact of decision. Mr. Martin contended, that the court was to judge what evidence was to go before the G. Jury. He cited Danby's case where a witness gave a deposition under the statute of W. and Mary; he prevaricated before the Grand Jury and they sent for his deposition. The court decided they should not have it; because not proper for them. The Chief Justice here delivered the opinion of the court; which he reduced to writing for the purpose of laying it before the G. Jury. It went to instruct the G. J. not to inspect any papers, but what were necessary to connect the narrative of the witness. Mr. Hay objected to this form of instruction. Suppose the papers were from another hand, for instance Dr. Bollman, really connected with A. B. These papers might have had a material influence upon G. W's conduct; was it not necessary to the integrity of his testimony, that these too should be exhibited? — Chief Justice. These papers do not bear upon the accused person; but only upon the witness. — Mr. Hay. But they bear upon A. B. in that very way. The western papers have represented Gen. W. as connected with A. B. and the language of the cyphered letter seems to countenance the conjecture. It may be necessary to exhibit these papers to support the credit of the witness. — G. J. It may then be added that such papers relate merely to the credit of G. W. and are not intended to inculcate the accused. — Mr. Wickham. It is Col. Burr who is on his trial and not Gen. Wilkinson. It is true that these papers do not criminate Col. B. but they bear upon him by vindicating G. W.; and it is a found rule of law, that what cannot be done directly, may not be done indirectly. — Mr. Wirt. It is the privilege of the G. J. to judge of the credibility of a witness. If they doubt his veracity, they have a right to be satisfied upon the point. They may call upon him to say "why is this and why was that" and he may explain by the production of his papers. If this were not the case, the G. J. would not know whether to believe him. Mr. Hay suggested an alteration in the form of instruction; that any paper might be exhibited, which came from the person accused or any other person, proved to be the accomplice of the accused, that formed a part or was explanatory of the narrative. — The Chief Justice wished to send some specific instruction to the G. Jury to prevent the delay which would arise from the coming into court, when they had a particular paper before them, on which they would demand the instruction of the court. — Mr. Hay contended for the alteration which he had suggested: he quoted an English case to show, that when a man was first proved to be connected with others, what was then in proof against the others, was also good against him. He quoted the case of the Corresponding London Society to the same effect. Here a long, and defactory argument was continued upon the form of instruction. The argument principally turned upon two points; 1st: how far the papers of those persons, that were said to be connected with Mr. P. could be introduced to fill up the narrative of the witness; and 2d whether it was proper formally to declare in the written instruction to the Jury, whether papers were only to be introduced to support the credit of the witness. — The form was at length composed by the C. J. and transmitted to the G. J. by the marshal. Its contents were not read to the court, and as it is now in the possession of the G. J. it is impossible for us to present a correct transcript of its contents. Mr. Hay at length addressed the court. The Grand Jury have sent for Dr. Bollman; and they will want him to decipher, if he can, the cyphered letter which I hold in my hand. (This was the letter, partly in German and partly in cypher, and addressed to some person in N. Orleans, which we have already mentioned.) Mr. Willie, (the reputed secretary of Mr. Burr) will prove the identity of the paper; and Dr. Bollman will interpret it. — Call Mr. Willie into court. After a considerable time, Mr. Willie appeared in court, when Mr. Hay proceeded. — This is the paper, Sir, which I shall disannex from the affidavit accompanying it, and with it to be transmitted to the G. Jury. — It is addressed, I understand, to Dr. Bollman under a fictitious name; and it is all in the hand-writing of Mr. Willie. (It is proper to remark, that in these observations Mr. H. alluded to the annexed paper, which was an affidavit of Willie's, and was said to relate to these circumstances.) Mr. Bots objected to its being sent up to the G. J. He understood that no paper was to be laid before them, which was not material to the cause, whether it could or could not be authenticated. Let the gentlemen then, explain the contents and materiality of that paper. — Mr. Hay. A hard proposition indeed! when it is partly written in cyphers and partly in German. — I deem it material, however, because I understand that it was either dictated by the accused, or first written and afterwards copied by his secretary; and for him; and that it is addressed to Henry Wilbourn, alias Erick Bollman. — Mr. Wirt. I understand, that any paper may be sent up under the instruction which has just been transmitted to the Jury. — Mr. Burr. The paper is before the court. It is now in the possession of the court; and it is not to be sent up to the G. J. but under the judgment of the court: of course the judgment of the court should be satisfied with the materiality of this paper. — Mr. Hay. The accused is mistaken in point of fact. The paper is now in my possession. — Mr. Wickham. Why was it offered to the court, if it was not to be put into their possession? But if it was not in their possession; if it is merely brought into court, that it may be sent to the G. J. any paper may be conveyed to them through the same process. Mr. Hay asserts that it is addressed to E. Bollman. But is not the post-office mark on it? Was it not obtained by an act of felony? Mr. Hay. There is no P. Office mark on it. Mr. H. then expatiated at considerable length on the point: He denied that the paper was in the possession of the court, and asserted his right to send up any paper to the Jury, under the direction which they had already received. Mr. Wickham. I wish to know, whether he offers it to the court? Mr. Hay. No. — Mr. W. How then can any notice be taken of it? How can he find it up? By the Marshal? He is the officer of this court. By Mr. Willie? He is only a witness. If the paper goes up at all, it is under the sanction of the court. If a living witness goes up, it is because he is presumed to be a relevant witness. But if it be a paper, how can its relevancy be established, until its contents and materiality are known? — Mr. Wirt. May not the difficulty be removed by the court's inclosing it in another paper, with an endorsement that it is sent up under the last instructions? By those instructions they will judge; and unless it is shown to come from A. B. or under his authority, they will of course reject it. Some ingenious sparings between Messrs. Wickham and Wirt, amused the audience for a moment, when Mr. Bots objected to the transmission of the paper. It was either immaterial or it was not. If it was immaterial, why embarrass the Grand Jury with it? But if it contained pertinent matter, it was certainly a tainted wicked matter; in which Mr. Willie may be himself concerned. If he be sent to the G. J. with this paper, what would he say about it? Would the court with him to say any thing which might criminate himself? We have a right, said Mr. B. to see this paper. Perhaps we shall find that it has been lished from the P. Office, contrary to the 6th amendment of the Constitution, which protects every man's papers from unreasonable searches and seizures. If it has been obtained by such illegal and violent means, the court would perhaps arrest it: and even the G. J. would not dirty their fingers with it. Some defactory conversation ensued, when Mr. Willie was called to the court. — Mr. Williams (his counsel) hoped that no question would be put, the answer to which might tend to criminate himself. — Mr. Hay. Wait till the question is put. — Mr. McRae. Did you copy this paper? — Mr. Williams (after consulting with his client) he says that if any paper he has written has any effect upon any other person, it will as much affect himself. — Mr. Wirt. He has sworn in his deposition, that he did not understand the cyphers of this letter. How then can his merely copying of this letter implicate himself in a crime, when he should not only copy it, but be privy to its contents? — Mr. McRae. We will change our question. Do you understand the contents of that paper? — Mr. Williams. He objects to answering. He says that though that question may be an innocent one; yet the counsel for the prosecution might gradually go from one to another, until he at last obtained matter enough to criminate him. Mr. McRae. My question is not, do you understand this letter? And then, what are its contents? If I pursued this course, I might then propound a question, to which he might object. But unless I take that course, how can he be criminated? — Mr. Bots. If a man knows of treasonable matter and does not disclose it, he is guilty of a misprision of treason. Two circumstances therefore constitute this crime; 1. a knowledge of the treason and a concealment of it. The knowledge comprehends two ideas; that he must have seen and understood the treasonable matter. To one of these points, Mr. W. is called upon to depone. If this be established, who knows but the other elements of the crime may be gradually unfolded? Mr. McRae. I did not first ask if he copied, and then understood it. But first if he understood it. Had he answered this question in the affirmative, I certainly should not have pressed the other question upon him, because that might have amounted to a him whether he knew this letter to be written by A. F. or by some one under his authority. — Mr. Williams. Here refuses to answer; it might tend to criminate him. The court were of opinion that Mr. Wyley should answer upon oath whether or not he thought that answering the proposed question might have a tendency to criminate himself. Mr. Wyley replied it might criminate him in the event of a certain case. Here a long and defactory argument ensued, which was terminated by a promise from Col. B's counsel, to produce their authorities before the court to-morrow, to show that Willie could not be compelled to answer such questions as might in his own opinion tend to criminate himself.
TUESDAY, June 16. As soon as the court met, Mr. Hay produced and read the following letter from the President of the U. S. WASHINGTON, June 12. 07. Sir. Your letter of the 9th is this moment received. Reserving the necessary right of the President of the U. S. to decide, independent of all other authority, what papers, coming to him as President, the public interests permit to be communicated, and to whom, I assure you of my readiness, under that restriction, voluntarily to furnish on all occasions, whatever the purposes of justice may require. But the letter of Gen. Wilkinson of Oct. 21, requested for the defence of Col. Burr, with every other paper relating to the charges against him, which were in my possession when the attorney general went on to Richmond in March, I then delivered to him; and I have always taken for granted he left the whole with you. If he did, and the bundle retains the order in which I had arranged it, you will readily find the letter desired under the date of its receipt, which was November 25; but left the attorney general should not have left those papers with you I this day write to him to forward this one by delphax, Wilmington or Newcastle may produce delay in his receiving my letter, of which it is proper you should be apprised. But as I do not recollect the whole contents of that letter, I must beg leave to devolve on you the exercise of that discretion, which it would be my right and duty to exercise, by withholding the communication of any parts of the letter, which are not directly material for the purposes of justice. With this application, which is specific, a prompt compliance is practicable; but when the request goes to 'copies of the orders issued in relation to Col. Burr, to the officers at Orleans, Natchez and to the secretaries at the War and Navy departments,' it seems to cover a correspondence of many months on such a variety of officers civil and military as over the U. S. as would amount to the laying open the whole executive books. I have desired the secretary at War to examine his official communications, and on a view of these we may be able to judge what can and ought to be done towards a compliance with the request. If the defendant alleges that there was any particular order which, as a cause, produced any particular act on his part, then he must know what this order was, can specify it, and a prompt answer can be given. If the object had been specified, we might then have had some guide for our conjectures as to what part of the executive records might be useful to him. But, with a perfect willingness to do what is right, we are without the indications which may enable us to do it. If the researches of the secretary at War should produce anything proper for communication and pertinent to any point we can conceive in the defence before the court, it shall be forwarded to you. I salute you with esteem and respect. TH: JEFFERSON. GEORGE HAY, Esq. Some conversation ensued about the specification of the papers wanted from the executive. Mr. Hay stated, that in his communication to the P. to which this letter was a reply, he had mentioned the papers in those terms, in which he conceived it would be most likely that they would be described by the opposite counsel. It seemed, however, that the President did not consider this description as sufficient. — Col. B's counsel then stated, that they had sent an express to Washington for these papers, with a subpoena to the President; and that it would appear on the return, whether they could obtain such papers as they wanted. The rest of the session of the court was occupied by the question which was yesterday suggested respecting Mr. Willie. — Mr. Martin will close the debate this day.
Sales at Auction. On WEDNESDAY the 24th inst. will be sold, peremptorily, without reserve, about Eight Thousand Dollars worth of fresh imported DRY GOODS, CONSISTING OF CALICOES and Chintz, white and black Cambrics, Ladies fine cotton Hois, fine cotton Shirting, Irish Sheetings, Bandanas and Madras Handkerchiefs, brown Plattellas, German Dowlas, Cotton Kerseymeres, Chambray Mullins and Ginghams, Furniture Calicoes, Germantown Prints, coloured Cambrics, elegant worked Shawls, 6-4 Cambric and other Dimity, silk and cotton Umbrellas. A FEW BALES of Sannabs, Baftas and Coffas, one bale of Gillis Hks and a variety of other articles. TERMS OF SALE.—All sums of 100 dollars, and under each—between 100 dollars and 300 dollars, 90 days—over 300 dollars, six months credit will be given. Notes negotiable at the Bank, with approved endorsers will be required. June 17. Darmstadt, Fester & Sanbell. In pursuance of a decree of the Superior Court of Chancery for the district of Richmond, will be sold on the 6th day of July next, at the Tavern of Mr. Zachariah Brooks, in the town of Manchester. THE LOT and Appurtenances in the said town, lately occupied by Mr. Wm. Robinson; the sale will be on twelve months credit, the purchaser to give a bond with security, to bear interest from the date. June 17. JOHN MINOR, Trustee.

AN ENCOMIUM ON OUR REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THURSDAY, February 19. POOR LAWS.
Mr. WHITBREAD rose to make his promised motion respecting the poor laws. The object he had in view, was to regulate, to modify, and to add to the provisions made for the poor, and it would come to a period when these laws would become absolute a thing of which he did not altogether despair, there would be more reason to rejoice. His object was to make the poor, if possible, absolutely ashamed to accept relief, and to give them the strongest motives to provide for themselves, and opportunities for that purpose, so as to render them valuable members of society, instead of being a burthen to it. His design was to excite the mind of the labourer, and to give him a greater freedom—to stimulate him by rewards—to render the burthens more equal—to make parochial relief a matter of degradation, and to discriminate between those who had been reduced to poverty by crimes, and those who had become poor through misfortune. He would propose two or three regulations with that view. He would not introduce any thing new, except where it should be called for by all the enlightened persons who had written on the subject, or with whom he had conversed. Nor would he alter any part of the old regulations, except where he found that the alteration had been proved to have been good in practice some where. His first object was the examination of the character of the labourer, and with that view the principal point to be attended to was, the education of the poor. He would therefore propose, that the whole of the population should have the means of acquiring information. Prejudices had existed against enlightening the people, but these had now in a great measure disappeared. He would refer to the condition of the poor in Scotland, where the poor laws had in some measure become absolute, and what was this circumstance owing to?—but to the effects of superior education. If you found that the poor in that country had once been in a situation no less distressful than the poor of England had been in the earlier periods of our history, but that afterwards their condition had been so much altered for the better, was it unreasonable to expect that the same effects would be produced in England, if the same means were applied? He begged leave to advert to the description of the poor of Scotland in 1678, by Andrew Fletcher. It appeared that then there were no less than 200,000 beggars, wandering from door to door, and though the number was greatly increased by the peculiar distress of that time, yet no less than 100,000 of this description generally existed; an enormous number considering the state of the country at that time. These were addicted to the most abominable vices.
The remedy which Mr. Fletcher proposed, was to give a better education to the poor. Then the system of education began in Scotland, and the evil system, and the whole was ascribed to the effects of education; to the system of parochial schools. To this the Lord Advocate of Scotland, in 1803, when the subject of these schools was before the house, ascribed the good morals of the Scotch. He stated, that from Manchester alone, mere converts were sent abroad from the whole of Scotland; and that no more than six persons annually, upon an average, suffered capital punishment in that country. These schools indeed served as a sort of Berometer to ascertain the state of the poor in Scotland. The poor laws there had lately been more relaxed than usual. The salaries of the school masters being only the same as it was 20 years ago, it happened for some time that some schools were actually given up, and to this cause might the evil be properly ascribed. He had laid enough, he believed, to convince the house of the propriety of introducing a plan of education into this bill. This might be done at a moderate expense—but if the thing should be successful, the expense was no consideration. Whenever it might be, it would be repaid ten thousand fold in hard money, and more than that in the improved state of the people in point of morals and comfort. In the interval between Mr. Pitt's plan and this time, a system of education had been partially set on foot, which he was happy to find had received the Royal patronage. This was so plain and so simplified, that it might justly be called a grand discovery; it alluded to the system of Mr. Lancaster. He thought that man had met with difficulties from prejudiced persons, yet he was happy to find that he still retained the Royal patronage.
The second plan which he meant to propose for exalting the character of the labourer was that which had been proposed by Mr. Pitt; which was to throw open the law of settlements altogether, which produced more bad passions, and gave occasion to more litigation than almost any thing else connected with the poor laws. He then went into the history of the act of settlement, by which a person having resided three years without interruption in one place, was entitled to relief. Mr. Pitt proposed 5 years and this was the time which he had fixed, and he would add, that no person having been convicted of a crime should have the benefit of this. The over-seer, he thought, should have the power of examining to what parish any person belonging before this period of residence was expired, which would subject him to relief from the parish where he dwelt. An appeal should be allowed to the quarter sessions, and this to be decided upon within two sessions from the time of the appeal. At present no notice was taken of the circumstances of the proper parish of each till the time when a person was dying or dead, and when in consequence the best source of information was lost. Beyond this he would propose that quarter sessions should grant rewards to labourers under confined circumstances, as a stimulus to industry.
He adverted to the beneficial effects of the Benefit Societies, and the rewards granted by Agricultural Societies to persons in indigent circumstances, who had brought up large families without parochial relief, and praised the late Duke of Bedford for his active benevolence in such cases. He approved of these rewards although he did not think there would be many claimants, but he had been agreeably surprised to find the claimants numerous. He should, therefore, propose, that Justices should have the power of granting rewards of this nature according to the number of children, and that the reward should only be given. Beyond that he would propose, that such persons should have some badge of distinction to point out that they had been considered as meritorious persons. This would be a cheap stimulus to industry, and a powerful one, as man is fond of distinction. Another thing which he would propose, was to give security to the property which the poor had accumulated. He could not reconcile himself to the system of forcing them to lay up any other money. He thought the notion of county banks started by Mr. Madocks, could not be reduced to practice; what he would propose, therefore, was, that certain commissioners should be appointed in London to manage a fund, which should be called the Poor's Fund. That every poor man should have the privilege of subscribing to this fund, the lowest subscription being 50s. in the year, and the highest 50l. that the whole sum belonging to any individual should not be allowed to exceed 200l. that the interest when accumulated to 100l. should be transferred—and that there should be no duties paid on stamps, and that the letters on subject should be free of postage.
He next proceeded to state that the 43d of Elizabeth enacted, that in every parish a rate should be raised; parishes of course were unequal in their respective sources of means, and consequently the contributions raised were unequal; the necessary consequence, was, that in order to equalise the rates of the country, the more wealthy parishes were obliged to make good the deficit of each of the poorer parishes, and thus one set of parishes were affected in support of another. The distribution of districts was thought too confined. He objected to them to national rates; he thought they would prove difficult in the levy, and impracticable in their operation. The parish of Spitalfields
was a proof of the inadequacy of the present system. In that parish there were no opulent householders, the poor were actually living on the poor, and the pittance that was taken from one part to save the other from dying with hunger, endangered in the same degree the first; the men who employ those manufacturers live remote from the parish, and accordingly have no share in relieving their poverty. In a parish such as this, what could be expected from the present system of poor rates; even amongst the country, the manufacturing counties do not pay as much as the agricultural counties. He should propose then, that a general rate should be made in the second quarter of every year by all the different overseers of the average amount of poor rates levied for the three last preceding years; and if any parish paid more than double the amount of county rate, that parish should be relieved to the amount of the deficiency of county rate. He should propose that not only part of the county rates should fall on land, but that all visible productive objects should be made rateable. He should propose, that a power be given to the church-wardens to enable them to let out cottages to the poor and enable the parishes to purchase land to build these cottages upon. The honorable gentleman next proceeded to a consideration of the Vestries, and proposed many rules for the better regulation of their meetings.
In Mr. Gilbert's Poor Laws he found that 5l. contribution to the poor rates was a necessary qualification to vote in Vestries. He was against this rule—he thought the sum too great, and thought that it would be better to enlarge the meetings. He should propose also an entire modification in the work-house system, to which as it at present stood, he professed himself no friend. He should propose too, that the different county justices should be empowered to examine and discriminate between the criminal and innocent poor. The Honorable Gentleman concluded with moving—
"That leave be given to bring in a bill for promoting the encouragement of industry in the laboring classes of the community, and for the more effectual relief and regulation of the criminal and necessitous poor."
After a conversation between Mr. Rose, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Ellison, Lord Howick, Sir J. Newport and Mr. Bragge Bathurst, in the course of which Mr. Whitbread received many compliments on the talents and diligence he had evinced, and the propriety of dividing his bill into two or more bills was suggested, the motion was agreed to.
A PROPOSITION. An interest in a law suit, now depending in the Superior Court of Chancery, holden in the City of Richmond, will be given in exchange for good Western Lands. By addressing a letter to A. B. Williamsburg, further information may be received. The suit above alluded to, has for its object, the recovery of a large sum of money. The gift of the action is a deed of trust, in which five brick and one wooden houses &c. (situate in this city) are conveyed. Some complexity attends the cause—but the ultimate success of a final recovery, depends merely upon a strict application to its prosecution. N. B. For the next ensuing 8 or 10 days, any enquiry in writing, left at the Post-Office, in this place, (directed as above,) will meet attention. June 10. oaw2m.
NOTICE. All persons having claims against the estate of Walter Irvine, dec'd. are requested to come forward with their accounts properly authenticated for adjustment—and those that are indebted thereto, will make payment, settle their accounts by bonds or otherwise, as speedily as possible, the estate not being in a situation to grant long indulgence. Having appointed Mr. Charles A. Scott and Thomas Pittman my agents for the above purposes, their acts, or either of them, shall be binding on me. ANN F. IRVINE, adm'x. of WALTER IRVINE, dec'd. Those that are indebted to the late firm of Irvine and Pittman, are requested to come forward, to have their accounts settled. THOMAS PITTMAN, Surviving partner of IRVINE and PITTMAN. law3m. June 10.
FOR SALE. By the subscriber, three doors below the market bridge, 25 Hogs. or CIDER VINEGAR. Of superior quality, which will be disposed of, on moderate terms, by wholesale and retail. SAMUEL WHITE. law6m. May 19.
TEN DOLLARS REWARD. And all legal and reasonable charges paid, for apprehending and bringing to the subscriber, near Charlesville, Albemarle, or for securing him in some jail, and giving me information thereof by post, to Charlottesville. A SMALL BLACK NEGRO MAN, named BILLY, alias WILL, about 30 years of age, 5 feet 6 or 7 inches high, has a small fair one over all of his eyes, walks very awkward, which is occasioned by his turning his toes very much out—he appears to be lame when he walks—he is an ill looking, fellow, rather a bulky head of hair, which he sometimes ties, and at times rather impudent; he is a rough hewer, and an excellent lawyer, having been employed at that business for ten or twelve years past; he left Charlottesville about Christmas last, and was on the 20th January following committed to Rockingham jail, which he broke in a few days, and has not been heard of since. It is supposed he will make towards Winchester, or Hobbs's-Hole, where he was raised in the Brockenborough family, but he has not been among them for the last 10 or 12 years; he will probably change his name and clothes, the latter of which were when he ran away, a blanketing great coat, and a grey coloured round about and pantaloons. DAVID WATTS, sen. law2m. May 19.
FITZWHYLLSONN & POTTER, Have just received from London, a large supply of STATIONARY, which, with the stock formerly on hand, makes up an extensive assortment of WRITING Paper, for blank Books, of all sizes, and of the very first quality. Various kinds of foolscap and letter Paper, Hot-pressed pot, gilt and plain, Elegant embossed and plain visiting Cards, Drawing Books, Pencils and Water-Colors, Genuine Writing, Marking and Copying Inks, Fish Quills, Sealing-Wax and Waters, Chisels and playing Cards, Iron-Steel Pens, Excellent Pen knives, A large collection of Music, Fashionable Paper-hangings, &c &c. Their stock of Day-Books, Journals and Ledgers, and of other Blank-Books, for County Courts, Sheriff's, and private Gentlemen, is very extensive, and warranted of the best materials. They have also an assortment of School-Books, of approved editions, and some esteemed works on the different subjects of Law, Physic, Divinity and Miscellaneous Literature. May 15. law3m.
MR. WILLIAM THOMPSON, SIR, As you are not an inhabitant of this state, and your agent is unknown to me, you will please to TAKE NOTICE, that I shall, on Friday the 10th of July next, at the house of Mr. Hugh French, in the County of Powhatan, between the hours of nine o'clock in the forenoon and five in the afternoon, proceed to take the depositions of Jesse Davinport, David Burton, Early Cox, and others, in a suit in Chancery, now depending in Lunenburg County Court, where you are plaintiff, and Jonah Thompson, son, executor of Jonah Thompson, dec'd. and myself defendants, at which time and place you or your agent will please to attend. SARAH THOMPSON. law6m. Powhatan, May 26.
PETER V. DANIEL, residing in Falmouth will practice LAW in the County Courts of Stafford, Spottsylvania and Culpepper; and in the District Courts of Fredericksburg and of the Hay-Market. May 25. sawf.
NOTICE. I WISH to Lease the PLANTATION on which Mrs. Jane Howard now lives, from one to five years. Any person who wishes to contract for said tract of land, will view the premises and make application to me at Richmond, or at Powhatan July court, at which place I shall attend. Provided I should not lease the property previously, it will be set up to the highest bidder on Monday succeeding said court, on the plantation. The Negros will be hired with the land, if it is the wish of the Leaser. P. S. In case it should be leased previously, it will be made known. C. H. SAUNDERS. May 13. tf.
By virtue of a Deed of Trust from John Hopkins, Esq. agent for the Virginia Company, to the subscribers, for the purpose of securing the payment of one Thousand Four Hundred Pounds, with interest from 25th July, 1806, due to Thomas Rutherford— WILL BE SOLD, to the highest bidder, for ready money, before the Eagle-Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on Tuesday 25th July next— ALL the LAND belonging to the Virginia Company, lying between the Canal and James-River, and near to said Rutherford's mill. ROBT. GAMBLE, GEO. JEFFERSON, ROBERT POLLARD, CH. JOHNSTON, May 13. tf.
At a Chancery District Court held in Williamsburg the 20th day of October, 1806. Robert Bayly, Plf. Against William Hawkins, Defs. By consent of the parties, signified by their letters filed, the court doth adjudge, order and decree, unless the defendant do, on or before the first day of February next, pay unto the Plt. twenty pounds, three shillings, with interest thereon, to be computed at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the sixteenth day of September, 1806, and the costs expended in the prosecution of this suit, that the said defendant and his heirs, and all persons claiming under him, be from thenceforth barred and foreclosed of all equity and right, to redeem the one hundred and fifty acres of Land in the county of Essex, mentioned in the bill, and in the Indenture of mortgage therein referred to, and filed as an exhibit, made the third day of December 1801, between the defendant of the one part and the Plt. of the other part, and in case of default in the payment of the said money, interest and costs at the time aforesaid, that Thomas Pitts jun. James Hunter, James M. Garnett and William Waring, or any three of them; after giving three weeks notice in one of the Richmond newspapers, do expose to public sale by auction, for ready money, the said one hundred and fifty acres of land, and out of the proceeds of the sale, pay unto the Plt. the said money, interest and costs, and the surplus of the proceeds of sale, if any, after deducting the expenses attendant thereon, pay unto the defendant, and make report thereof to the court, in order to a final decree. Pitts dec'd: 20 dolls. 65 cents. A Copy. (Signed) ANTY. ROBINSON, s. m.
On Monday the 6th day of July ensuing, we shall attend on the Land mentioned in the foregoing copy of a decree of the Williamsburg Chancery District Court, and expose it to sale on the terms therein mentioned. THOS. PITTS, WILLIAM WARING, JAMES HUNTER. gw. Essex, June 18.
LOTS FOR SALE. On Tuesday the 5th day of June next, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, on the premises, will be sold at public auction. SIXTEEN half acre LOTS, situate on the north side of Bacon-Quarter Branch, in or adjoining the city of Richmond, denoted and known by the survey made by Richard Young for Wm. Duval, by the No's. 317, 312, 321, 322, 319, 320, 313, 314, 293, 294, 296, 297, 266, 267, 254 and 255. Terms of payment will be made known at the time of sale. Any person inclined to purchase at private sale, either the whole or part of these Lots, may know particulars by applying to ALEX. QUARRIER, or, JOHN RICHARD. May 5. tf.
THE sale of the above mentioned sixteen LOTS, is postponed until Saturday the 27th instant, (June 5) at noon, of which day, it will take place at the Eagle Tavern, in the City of Richmond, when a plot showing the position of the several Lots will be produced, till then may be seen at Mr. John Satchell's. In the mean while any persons desirous of viewing the property will be accompanied to the lot by one of the Subscribers. ALEX. QUARRIER, JOHN RICHARD. June 18. tf.
ADVERTISEMENT! BAN-AWAY from the Subscriber, living in Culpepper County, on the 19th ult. two Negro Men, REUBEN & SAM. Reuben is almost five feet ten inches high, light complexion, has a scar on the right side of his neck below the ear; another on the left, lower on his neck; he has also a scar on the right leg a little below his knee, occasioned by a burn; his back has many scars on it from floggings he has received which he fully narrated. Sam is remarkably black, about five feet nine inches high, has a lump above the right eye that appears to be a wen; his eyes have a yellow appearance. Reuben is about twenty-six years of age, Sam twenty-two. They took a variety of clothing with them, which they will no doubt change. I will give twenty Dollars reward for their apprehension, or ten Dollars for either of them, delivered to me or secured in any jail in Virginia: if taken out of the state forty Dollars or twenty for either of them. It is probable they will attempt to pass as freemen, as I have reason to believe they have passes. I forewarn all persons from harboring the said Slaves. FIELDING PICKLIN. June 13. 4c.
ATTENTION! THE members of the Richmond Cavalry, are requested to meet at their usual parade ground, near Mr. Adam Craig's, on Wednesday the 17th of the present month, at half past 3 o'clock, r.m. completely equipped. By order of the Captain. BENJ. MOSBY, Sergt. June 18.
FOR SALE. A NEGRO MAN, by trade a Shoemaker.—Enquire of the PRINTER. June 13. 4c.
THE SUBSCRIBERS HAVING PURCHASED THE STOCK OF DRY GOODS, of Gilliat and Kirby, and taken the Store lately occupied by them. WILL carry on the business under the firm of KIRBY, DRAKE & TAYLOR. They will sell low for cash or on short credit, to punctual customers. JAMES KIRBY, RIVERS DRAKE, EDM'D. TAYLOR, jr. May 30. ep1w.
MRS. SMITH, MILLINERY, NEXT DOOR BELOW THE EAGLE-TAVERN, Respectfully informs the Ladies of Richmond and its vicinity, that she has just received, her spring assortment of MILLINERY, CONSISTING of a neat and general assortment of the newest fashions, which being laid in for cash, will enable her to dispose of them on the lowest terms. May 30. tm.
CHINA & GLASS. The subscriber had just received from New-York, a handsome assortment of CHINA AND GLASS; THE FORMER CONSISTING OF COMPLETE & BROKEN SETS DINING China, and China Glazed Ware, amongst which are a few handsome sets Nankin, complete and broken sets Tea China, Bowls assorted, and Chimney ornaments. THE LATTER CONSISTS CHIEFLY OF Glass Lusters, Cur. moulded and plain Bowls, ditto Pitchers, Small Lemonade Cans, cut and plain Decanters, Water Bottles, Saucers, Goblets, Tumblers, Wine Jelly Glasses, Sweetmeats and Salts of different qualities. He has on hand a general assortment of the best GROCERIES, which he will sell low at wholesale or retail—and continues to keep a constant supply of Philadelphia Porter, Ale and Beer. DANIEL TRIPLETT. May 5. gw.
NOTICE. All persons having claims against the estate of John Pendleton, esq. late of the City of Richmond, dec'd. are requested to exhibit them to either of the subscribers as specially as possible. GEO. PICKETT, ROBERT POLLARD, CHS. JOHNSTON, N. SHEPPARD. Administrators. November 18. tf.
THE SUBSCRIBERS, Having taken a House a few doors below the Bell-Tavern, offers For Sale, under the firm of WHITE & SHELTON, A GENERAL assortment of GROCERIES, which they will dispose of on very moderate terms, for Cash, Country produce, or approved paper. ISAAC WHITE, JOHN S. SHELTON December 23. ep tf.
JUST RECEIVED, AND FOR SALE, At his Jewellery Store, A GENERAL assortment of Swords, Belts, B. palettes, Plumes and Cockades; also Drums and Pipes. ENCH SULLIVAN. May 1. d.
WASHINGTON TAVERN! OPEN & MOORE have taken the WASHINGTON TAVERN, adjoining the Capitol Square, lately occupied by Edward Hallam. At considerable expense, they have provided themselves with excellent accommodations for their friends, and invite their's and the public patronage. They are determined to keep as good a table and as genteel an inn as any in Richmond—Furnished ROOMS, adjoining the Tavern, and every necessary attendance, for families travelling.—Both the Co-partners having been well-versed in this business, flatter themselves with the expectation of rendering general satisfaction. Richmond, February 17. (f)
On Tuesday the 7th day of July next, I shall, by virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed to me, expose to Public Auction, for ready money, upon the premises, so much of the TENEMENT, lately owned by Francis Allison, as is now in the occupancy of Mr. Benj. James Harris—or such portion thereof, as may be sufficient to pay and satisfy the sum of £500, with interest thereon, from the 1st day of January, 1805, and the costs and charges attending the execution of this trust—that being the sum due, under the said deed. SAML. MCRAW, Trustee. June 6. tf.
JOHN HENRY, Has received, by the Ship Roup, from Liverpool, a few boxes of 4-4ths wide Irish Linen, which he offers for sale by the piece or package.—Also, on hand, of former importations, 7-8ths and 4-4ths wide Irish Linen, in well assorted packages—5-4ths wide Irish and German Sheetings, by the piece, and old London particular Madeira Wine in Pipes. May 22. ep1w.
TO BE SOLD, FOR READY MONEY, At the Eagle-Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on Monday the 20th day of July next, by virtue of a Deed of Trust, executed by John S. Moore, for the purpose of securing a debt therein specified, due to Walter Boyd Gilliam, A TRACT OF LAND, lying partly in Hanover, and partly in Goochland, adjoining the Lands of Eliza Lea, Samuel Mobly, William Woodson and others, and containing, by estimation, 500 acres, or so much thereof as will be sufficient to satisfy said debt, with the expenses attending the execution of the trust. By order of the Trustee. TAYLOR & BROWN, v. m. May 29. tf.
WILL BE SOLD, AT PUBLIC AUCTION, At the Eagle-Tavern, in the City of Richmond, on THURSDAY the 2nd day of July next, if fair, if not, the next fair day thereafter. A VALUABLE TRACT OF LAND, containing 150 acres, more or less, lying in the lower end of the County of Louisa, whereon Thomas Wash now resides, and adjoining the lands of Messrs. John S. Smith, Joseph Eggleston and Henry Duckerson. Six months credit will be allowed the purchaser on his giving a note negotiable in the Bank of Virginia, with an improved endorser or endorsers, and a deed of trust on the property to secure the payment of said note. TAYLOR & BROWN. Trustees for the Creditors of Mr. George G. Anderson. June 10. tf.
THE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE JUST RECEIVED A SUPPLY OF COLOGNE MILL-STONES, OF DIFFERENT SIZES, WHICH will be disposed of for CASH or approved negotiable Notes at 60 days. TAYLOR & BROWN. June 10. tf.
FOR SALE, All the personal estate of Robert Burton, dec'd. known in the plan of the City, by No. 58. Also, an unimproved LOT, No. 57. The sale will take place on the premises, on Monday the 22nd current, at 10 o'clock, By order of the Executor. TAYLOR & BROWN, v. m. June 10. 2w.
POSTPONEMENT. THE SALE OF COL. QUARRIER'S SQUARE OF GROUND, advertised by us, for sale on the 10th inst. is postponed until Saturday the 20th inst. when it will certainly take place. TAYLOR & BROWN, v. m. June 10. tf.
NOTICE. THE debtors to the late firm of GILLIAT and KIRBY, are hereby informed that Thomas Gilliat alone is empowered to receive payment of all the debts due to that concern. All persons having demands against them, are requested to apply to Thomas Gilliat, and those indebted to the firm, are earnestly requested to come forward without delay and discharge their respective debts. For JOHN GILLIAT, AND SELF, THOMAS GILLIAT, JAMES KIRBY. May 28. ep1w.
SPRING GOODS. THE SUBSCRIBERS HAVE RECEIVED THEIR SPRING GOODS, By the Ship Rolls, from London, and Unit & States, and Roup, from Liverpool, AMONGST WHICH ARE— BEST 7-4 Superfine Cotton Kerseymeres and Cloths & Kerseymeres, Grandineries, meres, Cotton and thread Laces, Drab Sattin and Black patent Hats, Calicoes, and Morocco Belt Black Beaver and Hats and Caps, Drab Hats, Keating's Bedticks, and Gentlemen's brown Cotton and Linen thread Hosiery, extra size, Checks, Brown and white Cotton, Smith's Bellows, Anvils and Vices, Black and white patent Silk, do. Large Spades and Coal Black and white Ribbed do. do. Shovels, bed do. do. Large Matresses, striped Black and white plain, with hair, do. do. Rolls and Osnaburgs, Ladies Stockings of all Hoes and Scythe Blades kinds, all kinds, Marleilles Quiltings, also, A few boxes choice Irish Linens, and 5-4 Sheetings, purchased in Dublin with cash. All of which will be sold low for cash, or country produce to good customers. ELLIS & ALLAN. A few sheets new Music, for the Piano-Force. May 15. ep1w.
HARDWARE, IRONMONGERY, AND CUTLERY STORE. BREAH & FOLLET, AT THE SIGN OF THE ANVIL, MAIN-STREET, RICHMOND. Have received by the latest arrivals from England, a large and general assortment of HARDWARE, IRONMONGERY & CUTLERY, which they will sell by wholesale or retail, low for cash, or on a short credit, for approved security, amongst which are, Waldrons, Prime Corn & Grain Scythes, Sickles, Weeding Hoes, Cat-tan Hoes & Rakes, Spades & Shovels, trace Chains, Black-Smith's Bellows, Anvils, Brick Irons, Sledge & Hand Hammers, Vises, Screw Plates, Files & Knaps, Carpenters, Joiners, Coopers, Curriers, Saddlers, Silver-Smiths, Watch makers & Shoe-makers Tools, Locks, Hinges, Nails, Brads, Tacks, Screws, Brads Mounting for Cabinet makers, Steel-yards, Scale Beams & Weights, Tea Kettles, Skillets & Spiders, Pots & Kettles, Belmont Kettles & House Skillets, Bells, Grid-Irons, Prying-Pans, Waffle & Water Irons, Smoothing Irons, Black Tin Coffee Pots, Britannia metal Tea Pots, Britannia metal Table & Tea Spoons, Coffee & Corn Mills, Knives & Forks, Pen & Jack Knives, Scissors, Razors, Razor Cases & Shaving Boxes, Ivory & Horn Combs, Curling Irons, Razor Hones, Glaziers Diamonds; a few dozen of elegant silver mounted & plain green & white handles table & desert Knives & Forks, Table Steels, Dutchers Steels & Knives, Brads & Iron Wire, Tin in boxes, sheet Iron, Sheet & Bar Lead, Patent Shot, Gun Locks, Flint, Bear, Wolf & Fox Traps, Screw & Bales for raising Mill Stones, Mill Grindstones & Inks, German Steel, Marbles, Novacatia Grindstones, Window Glass, with a great variety of other articles in the above line, too tedious to enumerate: of which a constant supply will be kept & sold on terms worthy the attention of those who wish to purchase. Also:—For sale, 50 kegs F. Gun-Powder, 15 barrels Liver Oil, Boiling Cloths, Gun, & a general assortment of Brushes, May 20. gw.
JAMES RIVER LANDS FOR SALE. FOR SALE, 1170 acres of Land lying in the county of Amherst, 12 miles from James River, where it is navigable to the City of Richmond—Two thirds of this tract is prime tobacco Land, and is inferior to none for the production of corn, Wheat, &c. affording a sufficiency of meadow Land and a desirable Mill seat; it lies convenient to two manufacturing Mills—The purchaser can have possession the first of December next, with the privilege of feeding small grain the ensuing fall. The Land will be shown by my brother Alexander B. Rose, Esq. in whose occupancy it is for the present year. One third of the purchase money will be required in hand, the balance in four annual payments. If not sold before, it will be offered at Public sale on the 7th July next, on the premises, upon the above terms. For further particulars apply to the subscriber. HENRY ROSE. Alexandria, May 22. tf.
N. B. Letters by post will meet with regular attention. THE SUBSCRIBERS, HAVE FOR SALE, FINE old Medoc Claret, of the vintage of 1801, London particular Tenerife Wine, Set elegant French desert China, of the manufacture of Angouleme, German Tickenburg, by the piece or bale, Salt in Sacks, Crates of Liverpool Ware and Sugar in barrels. Pickett, Pollard & Johnson May 19, ep1w.