Virginia Argus (Richmond, Va.), 1802-09-22 00:00:00

The VIRGINIA ARGUS.
[Vol. X.]
A FREE PRESS MAINTAINS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.
[No. 977]
RICHMOND:—PRINTED (ON WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS) BY SAMUEL PLEASANTS, JUNIOR, PRINTER OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
[FOUR DOLLARS PER ANNUM—PAID IN ADVANCE.]
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22d, 1802.
[12 1-2 CENTS SINGLE.]
I AM desirous of selling my land in the county of Halifax, lying on Buckskin creek, containing twelve hundred and fifty acres, and extending about two miles on both sides of the creek. The land is of good quality for Meadow and Tobacco, and will be sold entire or in divisions as may suit purchasers.
PAUL CARRINGTON, Jr. July 27, 1802. (sw)
TO BE SOLD, A WELL FINISHED THREE STORY HOUSE.
With a Kitchen, Stable, Smokehouse, Coach-house and Garden—on the main street a few doors below the courthouse, at present occupied by Jacob Abrahams. For further particulars apply to the subscriber.
JACOB COHEN, On Shockoe Hill. Richmond, Jan. 27, 1800.
Fashionable Dresses.
M. SMITH, MANUFACTURER, FROM LONDON, BEGS leave to inform the Ladies of Richmond, Manchester and their vicinities, that she has imported a number of the newest and most approved London Fashionable PATTERNS. Also, a few LACE CLOAKS, ditto VEILS, Ladies' SHOES, &c. all of a very superior quality, which are now open for their inspection at M. PURFOY'S, Milliner, in the Main-street.
N.B. DRESSES made at the shortest notice in the first stile of elegance.
NOTICE, IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS HOOPER, A BANKRUPT.
THE Subscribers being appointed assignees of the Estate and Effects of Thomas Hooper, late Merchant of Richmond, Bankrupt; All persons indebted to the said Thomas Hooper or who have any of his effects are not to pay or deliver the same to any other person or persons than the Subscribers, or to such as are or shall be duly authorized by them.
RICHARD DENNY, CHARLES SPENCER, } Assignees. Richmond, 28th July, 1802. [uf]
WILL BE SOLD, ON A CREDIT OF ONE AND TWO YEARS, AT BUCKINGHAM COURT-HOUSE, on 28th NOVEMBER, NEXT, IT BEING COURT DAY, THE
LAND
Whereon Charles Jones now resides, lying in the said county, 6 miles from James River; THIS TRACT contains 400 Acres. It is good farming and tobacco land, about one hundred acres are cleared; thereon is a small dwelling house and a good mill seat.
ALSO—THE TRACT Whereon James Ames now lives, lying in the aforesaid county, 4 miles from James River, containing 200 acres; THE quality of this tract is very similar to the above, about 20 acres thereof are cleared. The lands will be shown on application to
DAVID R. PATTERSON, Buckingham, Sept. 1, 1802. P. S. At the same time and place will be sold, on 12 months credit,
18 or 20 head of Horses,
Among which are two elegant Saddle Horses, and two fine blooded mares, both with foal by Stirling. (wtds) D. R. P.
30 Dollars Reward
RANAWAY from the subscribers plantation, on James River, in Chesterfield county, on the 23d of last month, A NEGRO MAN NAMED
HARRY.
He is a remarkable likely fellow, of dark complexion, about six feet high, has a scar under one of his eyes—I will give the above reward to any person who secures him in any jail in this Commonwealth—or the reward and all reasonable expenses to have him delivered to me in this place.
REN: MOSBY. Richmond, Sept. 14, 1802.
Writing Paper and Quills,
For Sale at this Printing Office.
THE SUBSCRIBER Is inclined to sell by private bargain, A Tract of Land
In the county of Chesterfield, containing one hundred and seventy acres, late the property of Henry Saunders, dec. It lies about twelve miles from Manchester, adjoining Short's Tavern—to any person desirous of a country retreat, no situation can be more desirable either for health or business—The soil is fertile, and upon one part of the land in the opinion of good judges it abounds with coal, which can be conveyed to the navigable waters of James River by a land carriage of 1 1-2 miles. The improvements are a tolerable good dwelling and sundry useful out houses in pretty good repair; a further description is not thought necessary, as it is presumable any person wishing to purchase, (if not before acquainted therewith) will view the premises. For terms apply to Mr. Thomas Woodbridge, Jr. living near the land, or the subscriber. If not disposed of by private sale on or before the 2d day of October next, it will on that day be offered to the highest bidder, at Short's Tavern, on a credit—bond with approved security will be required by
WILLIAM SAUNDERS, Exor. Carolina county, Aug. 16, 1802. (wtd)
TO BE SOLD, BY AUCTION,
On Wednesday, the 22nd day of this month, at 9 o'clock in the fore noon, at the store lately occupied by Anthony and Pleasants, before the major part of the Commissioners named and authorised in and by a commission of Bankruptcy awarded and issued against Christopher Anthony and Tarlton Woodson Pleasants, Merchants, under the firm of Anthony & Pleasants;
SUNDRY ARTICLES OF MERCHANDISE,
AND COUNTING-ROOM FURNITURE, FOR CASH.
GEORGE MARK, } Assignees. NEIL MCCULL, } Richmond, Sept. 14, 1802.
STRAYED or STOLEN, From the commons of this city, about the 4th instant, (September,) a
Sorrel Horse,
About four feet ten inches high, 17 or 18 years old, shod all round; he has a blaze face, hanging mane and switch tail, one of his hind feet white, is branded upon one of his buttocks with a Q or something like it; has a lump on the middle of his back about the size of a hen's egg, and is in very good order; he paces slow, trots roughly, gallops very well and has tolerable good spirit. Having owned this horse upwards of ten years, he is well known to many people. Any person who will deliver the said horse to me in this city, shall have TEN DOLLARS reward, if stolen, TWENTY DOLLARS for the thief if brought to justice.
CHARLES WINEGARDNER. Richmond, Sept. 14, 1802. (3w)
THE PARTNERSHIPS OF WEBSTER & CROUCH and CROUCH & WEBSTER
WERE dissolved by mutual agreement the 4th instant—Those who have claims against the concerns, will please apply for payment to Robert Crouch; and those indebted are desired to make payment to him alone, such having been the terms of the agreement by which the said partnerships were dissolved.
ROBERT CROUCH. Richmond, August 10, 1802.
N. B. THE CITY HOTEL will in future be kept by the Subscriber, on his own account.
R. Crouch
THE GREAT ERROR OR American Agriculture EXPOSED:
And Hints for improvement suggested —by THOMAS MOORE, of Montgomery county, Maryland.
A fresh supply of the above valuable publication is just received at S. Pleasants' Book-Store.
Disolution of Partnership THE PARTNERSHIP OF AUSTIN & ANDERSON,
Is this day dissolved by mutual consent. The books and papers are in the hands of William Austin. All persons indebted to the concern, will make payment to him, who alone is authorised to settle the business. All those having claims against the concern, will make application to him for payment.
William Austin. Armistead Anderson. Richmond, 3d May, 1802. (t)
NOTICE.
PETITIONS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE NEXT GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA,
Praying that such alterations may be made in the act intitled "An act to reduce interest on all debts, and to prevent usury in future, and to prevent the creation of a lien upon any traps, dams, hedges, weirs, or other devices in James-river or its navigable branches, for the purpose of taking fish; or which shall operate as an obstacle to their passage in any part of the waters thereof."
TO RENT, A Commodious House,
Near the market and adjoining the tenement now in the occupancy of Mr. Aylett Buckner—it is well calculated for a private family, with a good Kitchen and small Garden—Terms may be known on application to
JAMES REND. 17th July, 1802. (uf)
I WANT TO PURCHASE FROM FIFTY TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND Flourbarrel Staves,
To be delivered at my Mills on the James River Canal.
JOS: GALLEGO. Sept. 8, 1802. [tf]
"A saving of Time is a saving of Money" for Time is even more precious than Money."
FRANKLIN.
MAYO'S
Toll-Bridge,
THE Public are respectfully informed, is now completely and permanently finished; is furnished with good, strong and substantial Hand-Rails; and will, very shortly, be supplied with Lamps, from one end to the other, so that passengers may pass it by day or by night, with the utmost safety and most unbounded confidence.
When the vast magnitude of this undertaking by a single individual, the chimerical light in which it was originally viewed by the community; the immense sum which it has cost; the great length of time (a period of no less than 17 years) which it has taken to bring it to its present state of perfection; but above all, the importance of it to those who travel North or South, and particularly to the whole country South of James River, is bringing their produce to market, and coming to the seat of government, are considered, a confident hope and belief is entertained that it will meet with and always receive universal patronage and support. Exclusive of these reflections, ECONOMY itself points out this to be the CHEAPEST (and surely it is the most AGREEABLE) mode of crossing the river, for the very small difference in the expense of going by any other conveyance, bears no proportion to the certainty, safety and expedition, which this excellent and useful Bridge affords.
SAMUEL JONES. Richmond, Virginia, Sept. 4, 1802.
JUST PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY THE
PRINTER HEREOF,
Mr. Giles's Speech
ON THE
JUDICIARY BILL.
WHERE ALSO MAY BE HAD
ROWLETT'S
Tables of Discount
OR
INTEREST.
To Rent, A TENEMENT,
On the cross street, near the Mason's Hall—Possession will be given the first day of next month. MICHAEL GRANTLAND. 16th September, 1802.
TO LET, The Old City Tavern,
AT A MODERATE RATE, AND IMMEDIATE POSSESSION GIVEN. TO those unacquainted with this dwelling, it may be observed, that it is well adapted for a public house, with good Kitchen and Stabling, a large yard, and an excellent garden; in the yard there is a good bake-house—its situation renders it an object worthy the attention of persons in the country, who may be disposed to keep a tavern in Richmond—or terms apply to SOLOMON JACQBS. September 17th, 1802.
Notice is Hereby Given,
THAT a petition will be presented to the next General Assembly, to alter and amend the charter of the City of Richmond. September 17th, 1802. (2m)
Benj: Du-Val,
At the sign of the GOLDEN MORTAR, RICHMOND.
Has just received a large supply of
FRESH MEDICINES,
Drugs, Surgeons' Instruments, Perfumery, Shaving Soap, Hair Powder, All kinds of Paints, (dry & ground in oil,) Gold Leaf, Hair Pencils, &c. &c.
which, added to his former stock, completer assortment, equal, if not superior, to any before opened in this city.—He is determined to sell on the lowest terms, for cash only (except to those who have heretofore been punctual in their payments). This he is enabled to do, having paid cash for every thing he has imported for more than twelve months past.—To enable him to continue this mode of business, (which he finds greatly to his interest) he earnestly entreats his debtors to discharge their respective balances without delay, having already suffered much inconvenience in consequence of their delinquency. Richmond, January 6th, 1802. N. B. He continues to sell his
Antiphlogistic Pills,
so much approved of from many years experience, that their title has been borrowed to impose on the public in this and several other States.
ALSO HIS
Itch Ointment,
which is the most infallible cure ever before discovered, and will cure in three or four days, by rubbing it in the palms of the hands, and slightly touching the largest bumps twice a day. B.D.
ON FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER NEXT, THE SUBSCRIBER WILL OFFER FOR SALE, AT PUBLIC AUCTION,
Twenty Lots
IN THE TOWN OF NEW-GLASGOW, (In the county of Amherst) on a liberal credit.—At the same time there will be RENTED for one, or more years, some IMPROVED LOTS, in the said town, and possession given the first day of January next.
DAVID S. GARLAND. New-Glasgow, Sep-2 tember 4th, 1802. [wtds]
WANTED AT THIS OFFICE,
A well disposed YOUTH, of respectable connexions, from 14 to 16 years of age, as an APPRENTICE to the Printing business.
A FEW COPIES OF
St. LEON,
A Tale of the 16th Century, By W. GODWIN.
For sale at S. Pleasants' book-Store April 6, 1802
BLANK BONDS
For sale at this Printing Office.
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER
HISTORY
OF THE
LAST SESSION OF CONGRESS.
[CONTINUED.]
AMENDMENT OF JUDICIARY SYSTEM.
On the 6th of April a bill to amend the judiciary system of the United States was received from the senate.
The most material alterations proposed by this bill were, 1st. that there should be only, one term of the supreme court in a year for the trial of causes, to be held on the first Monday in February, and one term requiring the presence of but one justice, to be held on the first Monday in August, at which all measures preliminary to trial should be taken. 2d. That the districts of the United States should be formed into six circuits, to each of which a justice of the supreme court should be allotted, who, together with the district judges, should hold two courts in every year in each district; that whenever the justice of the supreme court and the district judge may differ, the supreme court should ultimately decide. 3d. That the President should appoint as many general Commissioners of bankruptcy in each district as he may think expedient, from which the district judge shall select three for each particular case of bankruptcy.
On the 18th of April the bill was taken up, when the first alteration was resisted with great vehemence by Messrs. Bayard, Griswold, Dennis, Henderson, T. Morris, Dana and Goddard; while it was strenuously supported by Messrs. Nicholson, Elmerdorf, R. Williams and Holland.
By the former it was contended that the great, though disguised object of the bill, was to prevent the next session of the supreme court, which would according to the old law be held in June, but which the present bill deferred till February ensuing; in order to deprive that court of their constitutional right to decide on the constitutionality of the late repealing judiciary act; that it was rather an evidence of a disposition to render the supreme court as insufficient as possible that it might cease to be the object of popular respect, thereby perhaps paving the way for its eventual destruction; that the reducing the terms from two to one in each year would operate with peculiar harshness upon present suitors, and would form the unavoidable protection of business, convert the court into an engine of injustice.
By the latter, all disposition to interfere with the constitutional power of the supreme court was disclaimed; it was not believed that that body would or could pronounce the act offered an unconstitutional, but if they should, the decision would be perfectly harmless, and would only tend the more to unite the public opinion. The true reasons on which this modification of the old law was made, were, the trifling business required to be transacted by that court, and the new duties required to be performed by the justices as members of the circuit courts. The average number of suits annually decided since the establishment of the court amounted only to —, and those at present on the docket did not exceed eight in number. It was asked whether it would be just for the accommodation of the few suitors in this court, to subject to inconvenience the great mass of suitors in the inferior courts. It was denied that one annual session instead of two, would materially delay the administration of justice, as all the preliminary steps would be antecedently taken, and as it might be expected when the terms were so distant, the court would not, without substantial reasons, admit a postponement; and much time being gained from that consumed heretofore in the travel of the judges, the terms might be greatly extended beyond their usual length.
On the question of agreeing to a motion made by Mr. Bayard, to insert two sessions, in the room of one, there rose only twenty-six in the affirmative, and the motion was accordingly lost.
The second alteration was opposed principally by Messrs. Bayard and Griswold—and supported by Messrs. Nicholson and R. Williams.
The argument urged on one side, and disputed on the other, turned on the controverted principle, whether the judges of the supreme court, in order to insure the best administration of justice, should be fixed or rotatory; and as this topic may be presumed to be familiar to the minds of most readers, it is unnecessary here to detail the arguments on either side.
The third alteration, relative to the appointment of commissioners of bankruptcy gave rise to an animated discussion, on the motion of Mr. Dennis to strike out that part of the bill which applied to this point.

The VIRGINIA ARGUS Extra.
[Vol. X.]
A FREE PRESS MAINTAINS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.
[No. 977]
RICHMOND:—PRINTED (ON WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS) BY SAMUEL PLEASANTS, JUNIOR, PRINTER OF THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
[FOUR DOLLARS PER ANNUM—PAID IN ADVANCE.]
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22d, 1802.
[12 1-2 CENTS SINGLE.]
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
SATURDAY, February 20, 1802.
DEBATE.
On the bill received from the Senate, entitled "An Act to repeal certain acts respecting the organization of the courts of the United States."
Mr. RANDOLPH said, that he did not rise for the purpose of assuming the gauntlet which had been so proudly thrown by the Goliath of the adverse party;—not but that he believed even his feeble powers, armed with the simple weapons of truth—a sing and a stone—capable of prostrating on the floor that gigantic boaster, armed cap-a-pie as he was; but that he was impelled by the desire to rescue from misrepresentation the arguments of his colleague (Mr. Giles) who was now absent thro' indisposition. That absence, said Mr. R. is a subject of peculiar regret to me, not only because I could have wished his vindication to have devolved on abler hands, but because he had to-day lost the triumph, which yesterday, he could not have failed to enjoy—that of seeing his opponent reduced to the wretched expedient of perverting and mutilating his arguments thro' inability to meet and answer them. Mr. R. said, that this was the strongest proof which could be given of inadequacy to refute any position. He therefore left to the gentleman the victory which he had obtained over his own arguments;—but whilst he felt no disposition to disturb him in this enjoyment, he hoped he should be permitted to correct some of the misstatements which had been made of his colleague's observations.
In the view which he had taken of the conduct of our predecessors, in the chain of whose measures, the law now proposed to be repealed formed an important link, the funding of the debt of the United States and the assumption of those of the individual states were reprehended. An attempt is made to construe this disappointment into a design of violating the public faith. Mr. R. denied that one syllable had fallen from his colleague, indicative of a right, or disposition on his part to withhold the payment of any public engagements. Against those destructive measures his colleague has raised his voice; against the fatal and absurd maxim that a public debt is a public blessing he has indeed protested; but not a word escaped his lips, because no such sentiment lurked in his heart, which could be construed into a declaration that the present legislature possessed the same power over the engagements of former legislatures which they possessed over ordinary laws; that of modifying or abrogating them with the same freedom, which had been exercised in their establishment. Since the gentleman had betrayed such peculiar sensibility on the subject of the debt, Mr. R. relied on his support when a measure should be brought forward for its final and rapid extinguishment, not by sponge but by a fair reimbursement of 100 cents for every dollar due.
On other topics, the Algerine depredations, Indian war, &c. it might as easily be shown that the representation had been equally unfair. He should not dwell upon them, because they were less calculated to make the unfavorable impression on the public mind, which had been attempted on the subject of the public debt. He would dismiss them with a single remark—the uses to which these incidents were applied, and not the events themselves, formed the subject of his colleague's animadversions.
But to the long catalogue of unpopular acts which have deprived their authors of the public confidence, the gentleman tells us he and his friends were 'goaded' by the clamour of their opponents. He solemnly assures us that in the adoption of those measures they clearly foresaw the downfall of their power; but impressed with a conviction that they were essential to the public good, and disdaining all considerations of a personal nature, they nobly sacrificed their political existence on the altar of the general welfare; and we are called upon now to revere in them the self-immolated victims at the shrine of patriotism. These are indeed, lofty pretensions; and altho' I shall not peremptorily deny, in this age of infidelity, I may be permitted to doubt them; for I call upon this committee to decide whether, in this day's discussion, the gentleman has evinced that purity of heart, or that elevation of sentiment, which could justify me in clothing him with the attributes of Cincinnatus or of the Decii.
In the wide range which the gentleman has taken, the question how far the common law of England is the law of the United States, in their confederate capacity, has been raised. We are told "that the terms of the common law abounded in every page, and in almost every line of the constitution; that without it that instrument is unintelligible and inefficient; that, therefore, it attaches to the constitution. Moreover, that it is the law of the states, by the acknowledged principle, that colonists carry to their newly adopted country, so much of the law of the parent state, as is applicable to their new condition." That the common law is to settle the meaning of common law phrases, few will feel disposed to deny; that when the constitution uses the term 'court,' it does not mean 'jury,' and that 'jury' is not intended to express court, seems plain enough to any capacity. But because the common law is to be resorted to for an explanation of these and similar terms, does it follow that that intricate and indefinable body of law is the irrefragable law of the land? The sense of a most important phrase, "direct tax," as used in the constitution, has been it is believed, settled by the adoption of Adam Smith; an acceptance, too, peculiar to himself. Does the Wealth of Nations, therefore, form a part of the constitution of the United States? Will gentlemen please to specify, also, whether that common law which they have adopted for the United States, be the common law as it stood modified by statute in the reign of Elizabeth and James the I prior to the existence of the act of habeas corpus, divested of all the salutary provisions afterwards introduced at the Revolution—or, whether it be the common law of the time of George the II? Whether we are to be governed by the common law of Sir Walter Raleigh and Captain Smith; or that which was imported by Governor Oglethorpe; or on which of the intermediate periods they have chosen as fixing the common law of these states?
I wish especially to know whether the common law of which they attach to this constitution, be the doctrine laid down by Lord Mansfield, or that which has immortalized Mr. Fox? And whether the jurisdiction thus usurped over the press, in defiance of an express amendatory clause which must be construed to, annul every previous provision, if any such there be which comes within its purview, be an example adduced to illustrate the position which I certainly never shall contest, that 'what the constitution does not permit to be done by direct means, cannot, constitutionally, be indirectly effected.' But to reconcile to this usurpation, we are informed, that the principles of the common law are favorable only to liberty; that they neither have been, nor can be enlisted in the cause of persecution. If I did not misunderstand the gentleman, he said, that no prosecutions had occurred under that law. He has, therefore, never heard of the case of Luther Baldwin. I speak of the New-Jersey case. Nor that of William. Other instances I learn from high authority have taken place in Vermont.
Mr. Randolph apologized for detaining the committee so long on topics irrelevant to the question. He said he would offer some reasons in favour of the expediency and constitutionality of the bill before them. He had not heard any arguments on this occasion more satisfactory to him than those urged at the time when the law was passed in favour of the expediency of the measure. He had waited in the expectation that gentlemen would endeavor to prove that the former system, under a different arrangement, would be inadequate to the duty of holding the circuit courts. A belief that every real objection to the former system might have been obviated by some modification of this kind, had induced him to dissent to the passage of the law, in the first instance. That dissent was recorded on the journals of the House; and so many members of the committee stood in the same predicament, that if a sense of duty to himself and the house were insufficient to deter, that fact alone, of which the gentleman was himself a witness, ought to have repressed the aspersions which he had cast upon a great portion of the committee, whom he represented as the mere puppets of executive influence, acting upon no convictions of their own, but played off by an invisible, although not an unknown hand. Yes, Sir, objections to this system are treated as if altogether unheard of until of late, although a very formidable minority have uniformly been found opposed to it. Nevertheless, this is altogether the work of the executive, who, by the slightest expression of disapprobation, could yet arrest the measure and save the constitution. Mr. Randolph said, that he was unhappily in the ways of majorities; his experience had been very limited, but was he to conclude from these observations, that it was the common law , the uniform usage heretofore of this government, for this house, to be the mere instrument for effecting the executive will, a chamber for registering presidential edicts. It is said that the document on this subject, was one which the executive had no right to lay before the house. When did the right of the President, to recommend modifications of the judiciary system, cease? Such recommendations had heretofore formed a prominent feature in two successive executive communications, made at the commencement of two successive sessions of congress. Did the right of the executive to recommend, and of congress to act, cease at the precise period when the faultless model of the last session was perfected? Mr. Randolph said, that the gentleman from Delaware had taken such a range and thrown out such a vast deal of matter, that, in attempting to reply to some of his observations, he was necessarily led into many desultory remarks. The present system was necessary, it seems, from the inevitable corporeal infirmity of the judges; the unavailing effect of the tedious probation, indispensable to that venerable station.
Let us compare the former practice with the present theory. The judge of one of the two districts into which Virginia had been divided, was contemporary with him at school. He is certainly neither an inferior nor booby judge. His associate, from Maryland, had been an active and gallant partisan at the siege of Pensylvania, during our revolutionary war; not contending, however, under those banners where you would have expected to find a man who occupied so dignified a station under the government of the United States; but fighting the battles of his king's bravely, yet, alas! unsuccessfully contending against that spirit of insubordination and Jacobinism, which threatens to sweep from the earth every thing valuable to man, against which the gentleman from Delaware is also eager to enter the lists. The selections which have been made from either house of congress, seem to have had as little reference to those qualities of age and experience which are said to be indispensable to the judicial character. Upon a subject connected with those appointments we have been told that the executive had a right to presume a vacancy in all cases where a judge of an inferior tribunal had been appointed to a seat on the bench of a superior court; and that the new office vests, not at the time when the judge is notified of his promotion, nor at the date of his acceptance, but from the date of his commission. Mr. Randolph said, that he certainly did not mean to contend with the gentleman from Delaware on points of law, yet he would put a question to that gentleman. It will readily be conceded, that the vacation of the former office is the condition of the acceptance of the latter. Suppose a judge after the date of his new commission but prior to his notification, or acceptance thereof perform a judicial act. Was that act, therefore, invalid? Could his successor on the receipt of his commission exercise the functions of judge, prior to the resignation of the former incumbent?—Could any once be at the same time in the possession of two persons? Did not this doctrine imply a right on the part of government to anticipate the resignation of any judge, to compel his assent to an act vacating his office? The new commission under these circumstances either did, or did not, give a claim to its possessor on the office. If it did not, the executive had the right to withhold it. If it did, a judge may be expelled from office without his consent; and provided, at any time afterwards he shall acquiesce, the expulsion is legal. Besides, by what authority does a member of this house hold his seat under an election previous to his appointment of district judge of North-Carolina? For this office a commission was issued, as I am credibly informed.—But, Sir, we shall be told that the manner in which this affair was transacted, ought not to affect our decision. It is with me an irrefragable proof of the incompetency of the law, and, of course, conclusive evidence of the expediency of its repeal.
But the constitution is said to forbid it. And here permit me to express my satisfaction, that gentlemen have agreed to construe the constitution better adapted to the capacity of unprofessional men, and to protect the gentlemen from Delaware, from arrogating to himself and half a dozen other characters in this committee, the sole right of expounding that instrument, as he has done in the case of the law which is proposed to be repealed. Indeed, as one of those who would be unwilling to devolve upon the gentleman the high priesthood of the constitution, and patiently to submit to technical expositions which I might not even comprehend, I am peculiarly pleased that we are invited to excise our understandings, in the construction of this instrument. A precedent said to be quite analogous has been adduced—the decision of the judges of Virginia on a similar question. A pamphlet entitled "A Friend to the constitution" has been quoted. Public opinion informs me that this is the production of the pen of a gentleman who holds a pre-eminent station on the federal bench. Am I so to consider it? If this be understood it is entitled to high respect; the facts at least must be unquestionable. The courts of Virginia consisted of one general court of common law, a court of chancery, composed of three judges, and a court of admiralty. The judges of all those courts held their offices during good behavior, and did by law constitute a court of appeals. The general court becoming manifestly incompetent to the extensive duties assigned to it, a system of circuit courts was adopted in 1787, and the judges of the court of appeals were appointed to ride the circuits. This law the judges pronounced unconstitutional, and agreed, unanimously, to remove themselves against it. After lamenting the necessity of declining to exercise the constitution and the law, and that in a case personally interesting to themselves they say "On this view of the subject the following alternatives presented themselves; either to decline the question or resign their offices. The latter would have been their choice, if they could have considered those questions, as affecting their individual interests only." Yes, Sir, and such was the character of those men that none doubted the sincerity of their declaration. They then go on to declare, that the legislature have no right even to encroach their duties, by a modification of the courts; a privilege for which no one has contended. In respect to the venerable men, than to this opinion the legislature did not enforce the new regulations. The law was new modelled, a separate court of appeals established, the judges of which were to be elected by joint ballot in conformity with the constitution. New members were added to the general court, and it was declared to be their duty to ride the circuits. The judges of chancery, of the general court, and court of admiralty who had not been elected, in pursuance of the constitution, judges of appeals, but on whom that duty was imposed by law, were relieved from the further discharge of it. In this arrangement several of the judges were understood to have been consulted; and on the ballot the six senior judges were elected, five into the court of appeals, and the sixth in the court of chancery. Nevertheless against this law the judges also protested, as an invasion of the judicial establishment, denying the right of the legislature to deprive them of office in any other mode than is pointed out in the constitution [impeachment] but to make for the present salutary system, they do, in their mere free will, resign their appointments as judges of the court of appeals, and, as they do not hold any separate commission for that office which might be returned, they do order the same to be recorded."
Now, Sir, I shall not contend, as I certainly might, and with great reason, that the practice of Virginia must be considered as settling the constitutional doctrine of that state, the opinions of individuals, however enlightened and respectable, notwithstanding, under which practice, two chancellors have been removed from their office of judges in chancery as well as of appeals, and the judges of the general court and court of admiralty also, divested of their seats on the bench of the court of appeals, although a court of appeals was supposed necessary, and was retained in the new system; nor shall I insist on the disparity between the stability of the judicial branch of government in the eye of the constitution of Virginia and that of the United States, respectively, as surely I might. For the constitution of Virginia, has a retrospect to pre-existing judicial establishments, which experience had tested, which were allowed to be beneficial, and which it is contended were sanctioned by it. That of the United States formed when the confederacy had no such establishment; is altogether retrospective in its operation. It looks forward to such establishments as to be created from time to time; in other words, to be modified as experience shall point out their defects. This power being devolved on a body constituted by express unalterable provisions. No, Sir, I shall detain upon these forcible topics; I will concede, for argument's sake, that the doctrine contended for by the judges of Virginia, was the true constitutional doctrine, and will apply it to the bill on your table, having first applied it to the act on which it is intended to operate. Previous to the existence of that act, the duty of judge of the circuit court was performed by the judges of the supreme court, who also constituted a court of appeals, and by the judges of the respective districts. These were judges of the circuit court to every intent and purpose, as completely as the judges of Virginia were judges of appeals. By the operation of the law of the last session, they have been divested of this office and other persons have been appointed to it. Much stress is laid, much lachrymose exertion, to take metaphysical distinctions between the court and the office. I will grant all that gentlemen contend for, that there is a wide distinction—does it affect the question? Does it alter the fact? The late circuit courts were not only abolished, the persons holding the office of judge of those courts no longer hold it; they have neither been impeached, nor have they resigned. They have not even accepted any new appointment inconsistent with, and by which it became vacant. The function of judge of the circuit court does not constitute an office. If it does, then the judges of the supreme and district courts have been deprived of their offices; (the discharge of those duties, be it remembered, constitutes no small part of the consideration for which they receive their salaries.) It fits does not, then the circuit judges are not now about to be deprived of their offices. On the passage of the law of the last session, did we hear any protest against its unconstitutionality from the supreme or district courts—of any resignations of the office of judge of the circuit court in order that a salary system might take effect? And yet, Sir, is not that
office as distinct from that of supreme or district judge, as the office of judge of appeals in Virginia is from that of judge of the general court, chancery, or admiralty? Are not the jurisdictions of those courts separate and distinct? Does not original jurisdiction of the same subjects, and an appeal lying from the inferior to the superior tribunal, as in Virginia, although the officers of those tribunals may be the same individuals.—When there is the difference between raising the office of appellate jurisdiction from the judge who possessed original jurisdiction, or taking the office of original jurisdiction from the appellate judge? How is the independence of the judge more affected by the one act than by the other?
To prove the unconstitutionality of this bill then, by a recurrence to the doctrine of the judiciary of Virginia, is to prove the unconstitutionality of the law of which it will repeal. And no argument has been, or in my poor opinion can be adduced to prove the unconstitutionality of the one which will not equally apply to the other. No, Sir, gentlemen are precluded by their own act from assuming the ground of the judges of Virginia; they are obliged to concede that we have the power, because they have already exercised it, in modifying the courts, and here they concede the question. They tell you that this, however, must be to the constitutional, a bona fide modification. It becomes them to prove then, that this is a melà fide modification.
Gentlemen have not, they cannot meet the distinction between removing the judges from office for the purpose of putting in another person, and abolishing an office because it is useless or oppressive. Suppose the collectors of your taxes held their offices by the tenure of good behaviour , would the abolition of your taxes have been an infraction of that tenure; or would you be bound to retain them lest it should infringe a private right? If the repeal of the taxes would be an infringement of that tenure, and therefore unconstitutional, could you ring all the changes upon the several duties on stamps, carriages, stills, &c. and because you had retained the tenure , and any one of these offices, without diminishing its emoluments, abolish the others? Would not this be to impair the tenure of the office which was abolished, or to which another officer might have been appointed by an new regulation? Have not the judges in the same manner been deprived of one of their offices, and is not the tenure as completely impaired thereby as if the other had been taken away also? Although it will be granted that the tenure is not so much affected, since with one office he has the salary formerly attached to both.
I agree that the constitution is a limited grant of power, and that none of its general phrases are to be construed into an extension of that grant—I am free to declare that if the intent of this bill is to get rid of the judges, it is a perversion of your power to a base purpose; it is an unconstitutional act. If on the contrary it aims not at the displacing one set of men from whom you differ in political opinion, with a view to introduce others, but at the general good by abolishing useless offices, it is a constitutional act. The quo animo determines the nature of this act, as it determines the innocence or guilt of other acts. But we are told that this is to declare the judiciary which the constitution has attempted to fortify against the other branches of government, dependent on the will of the legislature, whose discretion alone is to limit their encroachments. Whilst I contend that the legislature possess this discretion, I am sensible of the delicacy with which it is to be used. It is like the power of impeachment, or of declaring war, to be exercised under a high responsibility. But the power is denied since its exercise will enable litigious men to overturn the judiciary, in order to put their creatures in office, and to wreak their vengeance on those who have become obnoxious by their merit. Yet the gentleman expressly says, that arguments drawn from a supposition of extreme political depravity prove nothing; that every government presupposes a certain degree of honesty in its rulers, and that to argue from extreme cases is totally inadmissible. Yet the whole of his argument is founded on the supposition of a total want of principle in the legislature and executive. In other words, arguments drawn from this hypothesis are irresistible when urged in favor of that gentleman's opinion, when they militate against him they are totally inapplicable. It is said that the bill on your table cannot constitutionally be passed, because unprincipled men will pervert the power to the lowest purposes; that hereafter we may expect a revolution on the bench of justice, on every change of party, and the politics of the litigants, not the merits of the case, are to govern its decisions. The judiciary is declared to be the guardian of the constitution against infraction and the protection of the citizen, as well against legislative as executive oppression. Hence the necessity of an equal independence of both. For it is declared to be an absurdity, that we should possess the power of controlling a department of government, which has the right of checking us; since thereby that check may be either impaired or annihilated. This is a new doctrine of check and balance, according to which the constitution has unwisely given to an illiterate legislature the power of impeaching their guardians, in judges. Apply this theory to the reciprocal control of the two branches of the legislature over each other and the executive, and of the executive over them. But, Sir, this law cannot be passed, because the character of the bench is to be given up by the legislature, to the entire prostration of its independence and impartiality. It will be conceded that measures such as have been portrayed will never be taken, unless the sentiment of the ruling party is ready to support them. Although gentlemen contend that the officers of judge cannot be abolished, they are not hardly enough to deny that it can be altered. Where then, Sir, is the check supposing such a state of things as the gentleman has imagined, (and which he has also declared cannot be concurred) which shall prevent in principle, men from effecting the same object by encroaching the number of judges, so as to out vote by their creatures, the decisions of their courts? Would not public opinion be as ready to sanction the one as the other of these deplorable acts? Would not the same evil which has excited such apprehension in the minds of gentlemen, be thus effected by means even more injurious than those which they have specified? Without any breach of the constitution an unprincipled faction may effect the end which is so much apprehended from the measure now contemplated to be adopted. I might add, that when the public sentiment becomes thus corrupt, the ties of any constitution will be found too feeble to constrain the vengeance of a triumphant faction. The rejection of this bill does not secure the point which has furnished matter for so much declamation. It
friends are represented as grasping at power not devolved upon them by the constitution, which, hereafter, is to be made the instrument of destroying every judicial force, for the purpose of giving them the places with their partisans. I have long been in the habit of attending to the arguments of the gentleman from Delaware, and I have generally found in their conveyance a ready resource, the test of which they are rarely calculated to withstand. If you are promised a precedent to destroy the independence of your judiciary, do you not concede that a desperate faction, finding themselves about to be dismissed from the confidence of their country, may pervert the power of creating courts, to provide to any extent, for their adherence and power; and that however flagrant their abuse of power, it is senseless and must be submitted to the assertion, that all governments warrant necessary offices, as a provision for political partition of useless ones? Is not an abuse of power more to be dreaded from those who have lost the public confidence, than from those whose interest it will be to cultivate and retain it? And does not every charge of administration the number of your judges are probably to be doubted? Does it not involve the absurdity that, in spite of all constitutional prohibitions, congress may exercise the power of creating an indefinite number of placemen, who are to be maintained thro' life, at the expense of the community? But when these cases are cited, you are gravely told that they suppose a degree of political depravity which puts an end to all arguments. Here, Sir, permit me to state an opinion of opinion between the two opinions of this house. We are accused of an ambitious design of power—a design to destroy a great department of government because it thwarts our views, and of a lawless thirst of self-agrandizement, which no consideration can restrain. Let us be amused by words. Let us tending for unlimited, and who for limited authority. The opponents of this bill contend that an indefinite power of creating offices to be held during pleasure, which when created, were beyond the control of the succeeding legislature. They of course contend for the existence of such a power in the present legislature, for whose exercise there is no security but their self-respect. In other words, that if the present majority should in any way indicate their having forfeited the public confidence, or the signal of their misfortune from their present station, make ample and irrevocable provision for themselves and their adherents, by the creation of an adequate number of judicial offices. Now, Sir, this is a power which we reject, although it is insisted, that we exist in it. We deny that such an authority does with the tremendous power of creating, in defiance of the whole spirit and express letter of the constitution, a vast judicial aristocracy over the heads of our fellow citizens, on whose labour it is so easy to those who are ready to receive the advocates of a dangerous and unaccountable power! In my estimation the wisest power which ever was composed, is that which delegates the being and continuance of the judiciary to the discretion of the legislature. I have no wish to be exposed to the odium of an arbitrary power, the adverse doctrine the persons whom I see around me ought to be tried with such power. Figure to yourself, a man brought on them the odium of their principled receiving in the month of December the solemn warning that on the fourth of March follow, his seat will be vacated from the helm of government—establish the doctrine now contended for, and what may you not expect? Yes, Sir, the destruction and abolition. It denies the existence of one power by establishing another, infinitely more dangerous—and this you are told is to protect the organ of an independent judiciary the vanquished party from the execution of their emaciated, although it has been shown that by increasing the number of judges any tone whatever may be given to the bench.
The theory of which gentlemen contend seems to me farfetched and overstrained. A mighty crisis, it is said, is in motion, which to all good patriots is inextricably involved in the perpetuation of mischief. If, however, the people the next election will apply the constitutional check to its variance with the principle that a free people are capable of self government.
But, Sir, if you pass the law, the judges are to put their veto upon it, by declaring it unconstitutional. Here is a new power of a dangerous and uncontrollable nature contended for. The decision on a constitutional question must rest somewhere. Shall it be confined to men immediately responsible to the people, or to those who are in little else than a name? From which is a correct decision most to be feared? To me it seems that the power which has the right of passing, without appeal, on the validity of your laws is your sovereign; but an extreme case is put in a bill of attainder is passed; are the judges to suspend the operation of the law? Shall they be God or man? Yet you cannot argue from such cases. But, Sir, we are not as deeply interested in the true exposition of the constitution as the judges can be. Which all deference to their talents, is not congress a body of forming a correct opinion as they are? Are not its members, proceeding under a responsibility to public opinion, which can and will check their aberrations from duty? In a case, not an extraordinary one, be it said, congress violates the constitution by detaining the press; the judicial corrective is applied to so far upon protecting the liberty of the citizen, doing the legislature in 22d, pressing the common law of England into the service, where that sedition law did not apply. Suppose you refused and been altogether on this broken staff and rot on the sedition principle. Your present might have been enchanted till dooms day, your citizens incarcerated for life, and where is your remedy? But if the constitution is left with us, there is no longer time to our power, and this would be true if an appeal did not lie, through the judiciary, from us to the nation to whom alone, and not to a few privileged individuals, it belongs to decide in the last resort, on the constitution. Gentlemen say that our doctrine will carry the people to do

gallows if they suffer themselves to be misled into the belief that the judges are not the especial organs of the constitution. Their practice has carried the people to infamous punishment, to fine and imprisonment, and had they availed themselves of the power to have their national laws, judges would have been wanting to conduct them to the gibbet.
A case in the supreme court has been mentioned. I certainly do not mean to put my opinion in competition with that of the gentleman from Delaware, on a professional subject; but I cannot agree with him, that the granting of the rule was not an assumption of the jurisdiction. Suppose a motion made in a court of Virginia, for a rule to be served on the governor of Massachusetts, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding him to do a specific act. To my unlettered judgment the appearance of the motion would be to presume that, if the governor could not show cause, the mandamus might issue. Would not any court reject such a motion on the ground that the chief magistrate of another state was not amenable to their jurisdiction? The gentleman from Delaware doubtless recollects, and probably better than I do, for I believe he was a spectator of the trial; the refusal of a subpoena to a man under criminal prosecution (I allude to the case of Cooper in Philadelphia) to be served on the President as a witness on the part of the prisoner. Was that a subject of inferior magnitude to a mere question of municipal regulation? The court, which it seems has lately become the guardian of the people and oppressed against the strong arm of power, found itself then destitute of all authority to issue the writ. Was it because of the influence and interest of that persecuted man, or of his connections, that it was unnecessary at that time to exert this protecting power? No, sir, you may invade the press; the courts will support you, you will oust him in zeal to further this great object; your citizens may be imprisoned, and amerced; the court will take care to see it executed: The helpless foreigner may, contrary to the express letter of your constitution, be deprived of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his defence; the courts in their extreme humility cannot find authority for granting it; but touch one cent of their salaries, abolish one single office which the judges hold, and they are immediately arrayed against the laws, as the champions of the commonwealth. Lay your hands on the liberty of the press; they are torpid; utterly insensible; but affect their pecuniary interest and they are all nerve. They are said to be harmless unassuming men. Their humble pretensions extend only to a complete exemption from legislative control; to the exercise of an inquisitorial authority over the cabinet of the executive and the veto of the Roman tribune upon all your laws; together with the establishing any body of foreign laws which they may choose to declare a part of the constitution. Grant this authority, sir, to your judges, and you will have a constitution, which gentlemen who are such enemies to dumb legislation may indeed approve, because it is the very reverse of that which has been the object of their adversions. To you it will indeed belong the right of discussing, there ends your power; the judges are to decide, and without appeal. In their inquisitorial capacity, the supreme court, relieved from the tedious labor of investigating judicial points, by the law of the last session, may direct the executive by mandamus in what mode it is their pleasure, that he shall execute his functions. They will also have more leisure to attend to the legislature, and forestall by inflammatory pamphlets their decision on all important questions; while for the amusement of the public we shall retain the right of debating, but not of voting.
A new mode of appeal, that of the sword, has been lately introduced. It is worthy of remark, that the era of this appeal commenced with the downfall of the power of the last administration. The political opponents of that gentleman have set him an example of which I hope he and his friends will profit. They knew that the constitution had been violated. It was no business of speculation, but a plain matter of fact. What was their conduct? They preferred submission to civil discretion. They addressed themselves to the good sense of the community, and their judgment has been affirmed by the people through the medium of the election.  But, sir, another objection is held up, as fatal to the bill on your table: that it diminishes the salaries of the district judges of Kentucky and Tennessee, by repealing the law which increased them. Let us examine this fact. By this very law, the courts of those districts were expressly abolished, the office of judge of those courts was destroyed. The men it is true were retained, and a judicial office given them—but an office entirely different from the former with distinct functions and jurisdiction, and with different salary. We propose to restore those judges to their old offices by abolishing the new ones, to which they never were constitutionally appointed. If their appointment was however constitutional, I leave it to the committee to decide whether the district judge of Kentucky might not, on the theory of our adversaries, demand both salaries—since you had no right to take away his old office and salary. I have not the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with the gentleman who fills that office; but his reputation is too high to lead me to suppose such a claim possible. I mean no disrespect to him, far from it, in putting this case. Instead, as has been asserted, of rendering the office of judge a sinecure as a pretext for abolishing it, we propose to restore the establishment to its primitive purity; to give the judges both of the district and supreme courts duties to perform—the latter being, it seems, now destitute of any other employment than keeping the consciences of the inferior courts—we mean to restore the district judges to their office of circuit judge, for exercising whose duties they have been amply paid by the public; to restore the judges of the supreme court to the same office of which they have been deprived—not believing a sinecure court of appeals to be desirable. Whence then the clamor that the judicial authority is to be perverted to the vile purpose of wreaking party vengeance. Suppose a case to occur—are not the persons who are to decide of the same political character with the minority? Would that gentleman have any cause to fear the decision of a controversy with a person of a different political complexion because of that difference? Is not the judiciary left precisely in the state in which it was a twelve-month ago? Are not the same principles to govern, and the same individuals to decide? It is not, however, on account of the paltry expense of the new establishment that I wish to put it down. No, sir, it is to give the death blow to the pretension of rendering the judiciary an hospital for dejected politicians; to prevent the state courts from being engulfed by those of the union; to destroy the monstrous ambition of arrogating to this house the right of evading all the prohibitions of the constitution and holding the nation at bay.
If gentlemen dread the ill which we are about to pass they will remember that they have been the means of compelling us to it. They ought to have had the forbearance to abstain from such a measure at such a crisis. They have forced upon us the execution of a painful duty by their own want of prudence. If they wished the judges, like the tribe of Levi, to have been set apart from other men for the sacred purposes of justice, they should have pondered well before they gave to politicians and sinners the privilege of the high
priesthood. It is said that there is irrefragable proof in the smallness of the salaries annexed to them, that those objects were not established under any improper bias. If such bias had existed, 10,000 dollars, or a larger sum, might have been given. To execute a proposition of this sort, I believe nerve would have been found wanting. On that, as on another occasion which has been mentioned, we should have had silent votes. This is however triumphantly brought forward as an instance of the want of power in one legislative branch over the acts of another. The President's salary might have been increased, or that of the judges, to a million or more of dollars; where would be your remedy? I will tell gentlemen; in a refusal of an appropriation. Who would hesitate in such a case? The salary might exceed the annual revenue. This too, is another instance I suppose of the inadmissibility of extreme cases. I should not hesitate, sir, to refuse an appropriation in such a case, and throw myself on the good sense of my country.
The example of a mighty nation has been held up as a solemn warning against an act which is said to prostrate the barriers of the constitution; to that example be the decision of this question referred. A government entrenched beyond the reach of public opinion, had for ages been accumulating one abuse upon another; against an authority which time served but to render more intolerable, the nation was compelled to seek refuge in a recurrence to revolutionary principles. And are we, therefore, to sanction a constitution of the constitution which claims irrevocability for public agents? Which allows no remedy for grievances but revolution, and that perhaps when a recurrence to such a measure shall be too late. Who, after such an example ought to contend for a perversion to individual aggrandizement of that power which was delegated for the general good.
I have endeavored, Mr. Chairman, in my poor desultory way to repeat some of the arguments which have been offered by the gentleman from Delaware. Upon some topics it has been extremely painful to me to dilate; they could not have been avoided; they were outraged upon me. There is one however, on which it may be expected I should say something. I believe it unnecessary; the poison carries with it its own antidote. Who could have expected such remarks from that gentleman. If, however, he is now anxious to protect the independence of this and the other house of congress against executive influence, regardless of his motives, I pledge myself to support any measure which he may bring forward for that purpose; and I believe I may venture to pledge every one of my friends.
VALUABLE MEDICINES.
The Public are respectfully informed that LEE & CO. and the Agents of their appointment, will in future keep a constant supply of the following MEDICINES, which are in high esteem and general use throughout the United States, many of them being sold cheaper than the Drugs of which they are compounded, could be purchased at a retail store.
HAMILTON'S ELIXIR; A sovereign remedy for Colds, obstinate Coughs, Asthmas, Sore Throats, and approaching Consumption.
To Parents who may have Children afflicted with THE HOOPING COUGH. THIS disorder is of the first magnitude, as it affords immediate relief, checks the progress, and in a short time entirely removes the most cruel disorders to which children are liable; the Elixir is so perfectly agreeable, and the dose so small that no difficulty arises in taking it.
Mr. Charles Myers, Hampstead Hill, near Baltimore, had been a long time dangerously indisposed, and was reduced to the lowest state of weakness. His complaints, which seemed to be affections of the breast and lungs, and general debility occasioned thereby, yielded little, but rather progressed under the treatment of several eminent physicians; when by the use of Hamilton's Elixir, his distressing cough was immediately alleviated, and every other symptom rapidly subsided. Four or five bottles entirely removed his complaints, & restored him to an excellent state of health and strength which he has for upwards of 2 years past enjoyed without interruption.
From LUTHER MARTIN, Esq. Attorney General of the State of Maryland. GENTLEMEN, I comply with your request in stating my opinion of Hamilton's Elixir. It has been used in my family for two or three years past, with uniform success, whenever colds, coughs, or similar complaints have rendered medicine necessary—I have myself found it an excellent and agreeable remedy, for a very painful and troublesome affection of the breast, accompanied with forensis and obturated and difficult breathing.
On these accounts I do not hesitate to recommend Hamilton's Elixir, as a valuable medicine, and deserving public attention. Luther Martin. Mr. Abijah Henry, Bridge-Street, Baltimore, was cured by one bottle of Hamilton's Elixir, of a very complicated disorder, occasioned by a severe cold, caught several months ago. He breathed with the greatest difficulty, and was often thrown into weakening sweats when he attempted to walk any distance, and his voice would frequently fail in such a degree that he could only attempt to whisper; he has been upwards of six weeks without a return of his complaints, and desires to give his public testimony in favor of this invaluable medicine. Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, South Howard-Street, was greatly relieved of an asthmatic complaint of several years standing, by the first bottle of Hamilton's Elixir; and by the use of five bottles she has acquired a degree of ease and strength to which she had been a long stranger. She had taken half a grain of honey, Church's cough drops, and other medicines, without any benefit, and sometimes to the evident injury of her breathing.
HAMILTON'S GRAND RESTORATIVE, is recommended as an invaluable medicine for the speedy relief and permanent cure of the various complaints which result from dissipated pleasures—juvenile indiscretions—residence in climates unfavorable to the constitution—the immoderate use of tea—frequent intoxication, or any other debilitative intemperance—the unskillful or
excessive use of mercury—the diseases peculiar to females at a certain period of life—by lying in bed, &c.
And it is proved by long and extensive experience, to be absolutely unparalleled in the cure of Nervous Disorders Consumptions Loss of Spirits Loss of Appetite Impurity of blood Hysterical Affections Inward Weaknesses Seminal Weaknesses Fruitalis (or whites) Barrenness
The principal operation of this remedy is in the stomach, restoring the digestive powers, and sending forth from the organ new health and vigour into every part of the system; it enriches and purifies the blood without inflaming its brace, without stimulating too violently the nervous system; it strengthens the ferrous vessels and the general habit, brings back the muscular fibres to their natural and healthy tone, and restores that nutrition which had been interrupted or destroyed, and which has hitherto the whole frame into languor and debility.
WORM DESTROYING LOZENGES,
Which have within four years past, cured upwards of one hundred and twenty thousand persons of both sexes, of every age, and in every situation, of various dangerous complaints, arising from Worms, and from obstructions of foulness in the stomach and bowels.
This medicine bears no analogy whatever to others of similar title, commonly complained of as operating with violence; on the contrary a particular excellence of this remedy is, its being suited to every age and condition; it contains nothing but what is perfectly innocent, and is so mild in its operation that it cannot injure the most delicate pregnant lady, or the tenderest infant of a week old, should no worms exist in the body; but will, without pain or griping, cleanse the stomach and bowels of whatever is offensive, and thereby prevent the production of worms and many fatal disorders. They are particularly efficacious in carrying off all gross humors and eruptions, fevers and bilious complaints, and are the quiet and mildest purgative that can be used on any occasion.
DESCRIPTION OF WORMS, And the symptoms by which they are known
Communicated by Dr. John Spangler, Yorktown, Pennsylvania. Letter from the Reverend Mr. JOHN MOTHER, Minister of the Moravian Church, in Yorktown. York, Jan. 4, 1802. Dear Sir, Doctor Minton's Lozenges having been recommended to me as a very adequate means for the cure of children afflicted with worms, I procured a box, for the use of my family, to try whether by means of the medicine, I might be enabled to gain a point, which to accomplish, different other means had proved abortive. My eldest boy had a very sickly appearance, was very restless at night, grew leaner from time to time; in short he seemed to be in a precarious state of health, which would yield to none of the medicines administered, until I gave him two doses of Lozenges, agreeable to the directions, which carried off a quantity to all appearance a mermous, but upon close inspection quite replete with very small living animals. Not one of that sort of worms, which usually affect children, came from him. Since that period he grew remarkably better in health, and though lean, has got a fresh and lively complexion. Upon different occasions I have used this medicine as a purging medicine, and found it so answer exceedingly well, without bringing on belly ache or any of those disagreeable sensations, so often occasioned by purging medicines. Upon the whole, I judge this medicine to be, besides its main object—one of the most salutary means for restoring lost appetite, and promoting a proper state of digestion, by correcting and purifying the acrimonious humors, restoring a proper degree of tension to the relaxed fibres, and strengthening the weakened organs.
In cases of extremity, where the long prevalence and obstinacy of disease has brought on a general impoverishment of the system, excessive debility of the whole frame, and a wasting of the flesh which no nourishment or cordial could repair, a perseverance in the use of this medicine has performed the most astonishing cures.
Your most obedient servant, John Mother. Sold in Richmond by S. Pleasants jr [only] agent for Richard Lee, & Co.
BOOKS
Just received at S. Pleasants' Book-Store. Folio, Quarto and Octavo Family Bibles Builder's Magazine, quarto—superior, it is believed, to any thing of the kind hitherto offered for sale Blackstone's Commentaries Cicero's Oration City Biography—containing Anecdotes & Memoirs of the rise, progress, situation, and character, of the Aldermen and other conspicuous personages of the Corporation and city of London. Deuman's Midwifery Eulogies and Oration on the life and death of Gen. George Washington European Magazine from January 1801, to April 1802 Ferguson's Astronomy Lady's Museum, 7 vols. elegant Locke on the Human Understanding Murphy's life of David Garrick Memoirs of Egypt—written in that country during the Campaigns of Gen. Bonaparte Madam Roland's works, with a portrait New Gazetteer of the Eastern Continent, By Jed. Morse and Elijah Parish Public Characters of 1798, 1799, 1800, 1801, & 1802 Rambaut on the French Revolution Spirit of Despotism St. Pierre's Studies of Nature Voyage to St. Domingo the Isle of France St. Fong's Travels Parleton's Campaigns in North-America in 1780 and 1781, 4to Secret Memoirs of the Court of Petersburg; particularly towards the end of the reign of Catharine II. and the commencement of that of Paul I.—forming a description of the manners of Petersburg at the close of the 18th century, &c. with remarks on the education of the Grand Dukes, and the manners of the Ladies, and the religion of the people. Antenor's Travels in Greece and Asia: including some account of Egypt, 3 vols. Voyage from Montreal, on the river St. Laurence, thro' the Continent of North-America, to the Frozen and Pacific Oceans: with an account of the rise, progress and present state of the Fur Trade of that country—illustrated with a map by Alexander Mackenzie, Esquire. Guthrie's Geographical Grammar—the 19th edition (1801) corrected and considerably enlarged. Brydon's Tour thro' Sicily and Malta Constitutions of the United States, according to the latest amendments—to which are prefixed, the declaration of Independence, and the Federal Constitution, with the amendments. Gessner's Idyls Morse's Geography abridged Goldsmith's Rome Greece Teas and Smiles—by Peter Pindar—(the ladies edition) The Minstrel; or Progress of Genius—by Doct. Beattie. —41.50— 50 dozen Dilworth's, and 25 ditto Columbian spelling books.—A large parcel of WRITING PAPER of different qualities and sizes, from 16s. to 48s. per ream—a fresh supply of BLANK BOOKS, and a large number of CHAP BOOKS. June 30.
THE subscriber has lately removed to the brick house opposite to Crouch's Tavern, and near to Prosser & Moncure's Vendue Store. He proposes to practise the Law in the high court of Chancery and District court and in the county and city courts which are held in this city. HENRY BANKS. Richmond, August 25, 1802. [ff]
Bills of Lading
May be had at S. Pleasants' Book-Store. Richmond, Sept. 2, 1802. [std]
JUST RECEIVED, From Doct. Cauach's Dispensary, New York, and for sale at this Printing-Office, a fresh supply of the following Patent Medicines:  Church's Cough Drops, A medicine unequalled by any in the world, for the cure of Coughs, Colds, Asthmas and Consumption.  Patitosa Lozenges For the Voice, Hoarseness, Colds, Coughs &c. &c.  Chemical Essence and Extract of Mustard, For the cure of the Rheumatism, Gout, Rheumatic Gout, Palsy, White Swellings Chilblains, &c. &c.  Anodyne Essence, For the Head Ache.  Volatile Tincture, For the Tooth Ache.  The Botanical Tea.  Infallible German Corn Plaister, For the Cure of Corns.  Church's Analeptic Female Pills.  Scotch Ointment Cures the most inveterate itch in four hours without Mercury.  Eye Salve, For all disorders of the Eyes.  Antiscorbutic Tincture, For the Teeth, Breath, and Scurvy in the Gum.  Essence of Scurvy-Grass, For preventing and curing the Sea and Land Scurvy.  Vermifuge Lozenges, For destroying Worms in children and grown persons.  Antispasmodic Elixir, For the cure of all kinds of Fits.  Cordial Rehorative Balsam, For Nervous Disorders, Debility, Inward Weakness, &c.  Vegetable Lotion, For the face and skin, freckles, sun-burn, prickly heat, Ring Worms, Tetter, &c. &c.  Dr. Church's Antibilious Pills, For the Cure of Malignant and Bilious Fevers, Dyspepsy, Jaundice, Collyvata, Acidify, Cholera Morbus, Gravel, Indigestion, Loss of Appetite, and all disorders of the Head, Stomach, and Bowels.  The Genuine Patent Alterative Pills For the cure of the Scurvy, Cutaneous Disorders, the Venereal Disease, &c. &c.  Hooper's Female Pills.  Essence of Pepper Mint.  A. L. S. O., Dr. Cauach's Treatise on The Venereal. Containing plain and easy Directions for the speedy and effectual cure of that Disease in both Sexes; whereby any person may cure themselves at a small expense. Price half a dollar.  A PETITION will be presented to the next General Assembly, to pass a law, to oblige the Manchester Turnpike Company to carry their Turnpike Road as straight as Falling-Creek as possible, in order that the distance may be considerably shorter to travel. Sept. 1, 1802. [co. 4w]  Notice. BY virtue of a deed of trust executed by Edmund Grady to the subscriber, and bearing date the 14th day of November, 1801, I shall proceed to sell, on the premises, at public auction, for ready money, on Saturday the 25th, inst. all that  Tenement On Shockoe Hill, formerly occupied by the said Edmund Grady as a Grocery, which in the said deed of trust is mentioned and described, to satisfy a debt therein mentioned to be due to Thomas White, together with the costs and expenses of drawing and recording the said deed, and the charges, commissions, &c. attending this sale. The sale will take place precisely at four o'clock in the afternoon of that day. ISAAC WHITE. Richmond, Sept. 2, 1802. [std]