Virginia Argus (Richmond, Va.), 1805-03-20 00:00:00

VIRGINIA ARGUS
[Vol. XII.] RICHMOND:—Printed (on Wednesdays and Saturdays) by SAMUEL PLEASANTS, Junior, Printer to the Commonwealth. [No. 1132.]
(Four Dollars per annum—paid in advance.)
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1805.
(12 1/2 Cents Single)
(Continued from last page.)
(page 12, of the answer) admits the fact, for he knew that we were prepared to prove it. But he artfully endeavors to shift the argument from the real point in contest, to the soundness of the opinion itself, which however questionable (and of its incorrectness I entertain no doubt) it is not our object at this time to examine. For the truth of this opinion, and as it would, for the propriety of this proceeding, the respondent takes shelter under precedent. He tells you, sir, this doctrine had been repeatedly decided, on solemn argument and deliberation, twice in the same court, and once in that very case.—What is this but a confession, that he himself hath been the first man to venture on so daring an innovation on the forms of our criminal jurisprudence. To justify himself for having given a written opinion before counsel had been heard for the prisoner, he resorts to the example set by his predecessors who had delivered the customary verbal opinion, after solemn argument and deliberation.—And what do these repeated arguments and solemn deliberations prove, but that none of his predecessors ever arrogated to themselves the monstrous privilege of breaking in upon those sacred institutions, which guard the life and liberty of the citizen from the rude inroads of powerful injustice. The learned and eminent judges, to whose example he appeals for justification, decided after , and not before a hearing. They exercised the acknowledged privilege of the bench in giving an opinion to the jury on the question of law, after it had been fully argued, by counsel, on both sides. They never attempted by previous and written decisions, to wrest from the jury their undeniable right, of deciding upon the law as well as the fact, necessarily involved in a general verdict to usurp this decision to themselves, or to prejudice the minds of the jurors against the defence. I beg the honorable court never to lose sight of the circumstance, that this was a criminal trial, for a capital offence, and that the offence charged was treason . The respondent also admits, that the counsel for Fries, not meaning to contest the truth of the facts, charged in the indictment, rested their defence altogether upon the law, which he declared to have been settled in the cases of Virol and Mitchel : a decision which although it might be binding on the court, the jury were not obliged to respect, and which the counsel had a right to controvert before them, the sole judges in a case of that nature, both of the law and the fact. I do not deny the right of the court to explain their sense of the law, to the jury, after counsel have been heard;—but I do deny that the jury are bound by such exposition. If they verily believed that the overt acts charged in the indictment did not amount to treason, they would not, without a surrender of their consciences into the hands of the court, without a flagrant violation of all that is dear and sacred to man, bring in a verdict of guilty. I repeat that in such a case the jury are not only the sole judges of the law, but that where their verdict is favorable to the prisoner, they are the judges without appeal. In civil cases indeed the verdict may be set aside and a new trial granted—but in a criminal prosecution, the verdict (if not guilty) is final and conclusive. It is only when the finding of the jury is unfavorable to the prisoner, that the humane provisions of our law, always jealous of oppression when the life, or liberty, of the citizen is at stake, permits the verdict to be set aside, & a new trial granted to the unhappy culprit. When I concede the right of the court to explain the law to the jury in a criminal, & especially in a capital case, I am penetrated with the conviction that it ought to be done, if at all with great caution and delicacy. I must beg leave to state, before this honorable court, what appears to my unfettered judgment, to be a strong and obvious distinction. There is in my mind, a material difference between a naked definition of law, the application of which is left to the jury, and the application, by the court, of such definition to the particular case upon which the jury are called to find a general verdict. Surely, there is a wide and evident distinction between an abstract opinion upon a point of law, and an opinion applied to the facts admitted by the party accused, or proven against him. But it is alleged on behalf of this respondent, that the law in this case was settled, and upon this he rests
his defence. Will it be pretended by any man that the law of treason is better established than the law of murder? What is treason as defined by the constitution? Levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. What is murder? Killing with malice aforethought, a definition at least as simple and plain as the other. And because what constitutes murder has been established and settled through a long succession of ages & adjudications, has any judge for that reason, been ever daring enough to assert that counsel should be precluded from endeavoring to convince the jury that the overt act charged in the indictment, did not amount to murder? Is a court authorised to say that because killing with deliberate malice is murder, therefore the act of killing admitted by the prisoner's counsel, or established by evidence, was killing with malice prepense, and did constitute murder. I venture to say, that an instance cannot be adduced, familiar as the definition of murder is even to the most ignorant, numerous as have been the convictions for that atrocious crime, where counsel have been deprived of their unquestionable right to address the jury on the law, as well as on the fact. Much less can an instance be produced in any trial for a capital offence, where they have found themselves anticipated in the question of law by a written opinion, to be taken by the jury out of court, as the land mark by which their verdict was to be directed. I have always understood that even in a civil case, when the jury carried out with them a written paper, relating to the matter in issue, and which was not offered, or permitted to be given in evidence to them, it was sufficient to vitiate their verdict, and good ground for a new trial. This written opinion of the court, delivered previous to a hearing of the cause, is a novelty to our laws and usages. It would be reprehensible in any case; but in a criminal prosecution for a capital offence, and that offence treason , (where above all, oppression and arbitrary proceedings on the part of courts are most to be dreaded and guarded against) it cannot be too strongly reprobated; or too severely punished.
What would be said of a judge who in a trial for murder, where the facts were admitted (or proved) should declare from the bench that whatever argument counsel had to offer in relation to the facts, may be addressed to the jury, but that they should not attempt to convince the jury that such facts came not within the law, or did not amount to murder, but every thing which they had to say upon the question of law, should be addressed to the court only. Can you figure to yourselves a spectacle more horrible?
We are prepared to prove, what the respondent has in part admitted, that he "restricted the counsel of Fries from citing such English authorities as they believed apposite & certain statutes of the United States, which they deemed material to their defence;" that the prisoner was debarred by him, from his constitutional privilege of addressing the jury (through his counsel) on the law, as well as the fact, involved in the verdict which they were required to give—and that he attempted to wrest from the jury their undeniable right to hear argument, and (consequently) to determine upon the question of law which in a criminal case it was their sole and unquestionable province to decide. These last charges, (except so far as relates to the laws of the United States) are impliedly admitted by the respondent. He confesses that he would not permit the prisoner's counsel to cite certain cases, "because they could not inform but might deceive and mislead the jury." Mr. President, it is the noblest trait in this inestimable trial, that, in criminal prosecutions, (where the verdict is general) the jury are the sole judges, and (where they acquit the prisoner) the judges without appeal, both of law and fact. And what is the declaration of the respondent, but in admission that he wished to take from the jury their indisputable privilege to hear argument and determine upon the law, and to usurp to himself that power, which belonged to them, and to them only? It is one of the most glorious attributes of jury trial, that in criminal cases (particularly such as are capital) the prisoner's counsel may (and they often do) attempt "to deceive and mislead the jury." It is essential to the fairness of the trial, that it should be conducted with
perfect freedom. It is congenial to the generous spirit of our institutions to lean to the side of an unhappy fellow creature, put in jeopardy, of limb, or life, or liberty. The free principles of our governments, individual and federal, teach us to make every humane allowance in his favor, to grant him with a liberality unknown to the narrow and tyrannous maxims of most nations, every indulgence not inconsistent with the due administration of justice. Hence, a greater latitude is allowed to the accused, than is permitted to the prosecutor. The jury, upon whose event it is staked, are presumed to be men capable of understanding what they are called upon to decide, and the attorney for the state, a gentleman learned in his profession, capable of detecting and exposing the attempts of the opposite counsel to mislead and deceive. There is moreover a court, to which in case of difficulty, recourse might be had. But what indeed is the difficulty arising from the law in criminal cases, for the most part? What is to hinder an honest jury from deciding, especially after the aid of an able discussion, whether such an act was a killing with malice prepense, or such other overt acts set forth in an indictment, constituted a levying of war against the United States—and to what purpose has treason been defined by the constitution itself, if overbearing arbitrary judges as permitted to establish among us the odious and dangerous doctrine of constructive treason? The acts of congress which had been referred to on the former trial, but which the respondent said he would not suffer to be cited again, tended to shew that the offence committed by Fries did not amount to treason. That it was a misdemeanor only, already provided for by law and punishable with fine and imprisonment. The respondent indeed denies this part of the charge, but he justifies it even (as he says) if it be proved upon him. And are the laws of our own country (as well as foreign authorities) not to be suffered to be read in our courts, in justification of a man whose life is put in jeopardy.
I will now proceed to the second article—the case of Basset, whose objections to serve on Callender's jury were availed by the judge, who stands arraigned before this honorable court. In the 9th page of the respondent's answer it is stated, that a new trial was granted to Fries, "upon the ground (as this respondent understood and believes) that one of the jurors, after he was summoned, but before he was sworn, had made some declaration unfavorable to the prisoner." It will be remembered that both the trials of Fries preceded that of Callender. Upon what principle then could the respondent declare Basset a good jurymen, when he was apprized of the previous decision in the case of Fries, by his brother judge, whom he professes to hold in such high reverence, and by whose decision, on his own principles, he must have held himself bound? For surely the same exception to a jurymen, which would furnish ground for a new trial, ought to be cause of setting aside such juror, if it be taken, previous to his being sworn.
From the respondent's own shewing (page 31, of the answer) it appears, that the question put to the jurymen generally, and to Basset among others, was, whether they "had formed and delivered any opinion upon the subject matter then to be tried, or concerning the charges contained in the indictment." And here let me refer the court to the question which the respondent put to the jurors in the case of Fries, (p. 24). It was, "whether they had ever formed or delivered any opinion as to his guilt or innocence, or that he ought to be punished?" How is this departure from the respondent's own practice, this inconsistency with himself to be reconciled? In the one case the question is put in the disjunctive; "have you formed or delivered?" In the other it is in the conjunctive, "formed and delivered;" besides other material difference in the terms and import of the two questions. Wherefore, I repeat, this contradiction of himself? But, Mr. President, we shall be prepared to prove that the words "subject matter then to be tried" were not comprised in the question propounded to Basset, or to any of the other jurors. The question was, as will be shewn in evidence—have you ever formed and delivered any opinion concerning the charges
contained in the indictment? and it is remarkable that the whole argument of the respondent upon this point, goes to justify the question which was actually put, & which he probably expected we should prove that he did put, rather than that which he himself declares to have been propounded by him. Such a question must necessarily have been answered in the negative. Basset could never have seen the indictment;—and although his mind might have been made up on the book, whatever opinion he might have formed and delivered as to the guilt of Callender, or however desirous he might have been of procuring his conviction and punishment, still not having seen the indictment, he could not divine what passages of the book were made the subject of the charges and by the criterion established by the judge, he was a good juror. But if the juror's mind was thus prejudiced against the book and the writer, was he, merely because he had not seen the indictment, competent to pass between him and his country on the charges contained in it, and extracted out of the book? And even if the question had been such as the respondent states, yet being put in the conjunctive, the most inveterate foe, of the traverser who was arraigned, or cautious enough to forbear the expression of his enmity, would thereby have been admitted as competent to pass between the traverser and his country in a criminal prosecution.
The 3d article relates to the rejection of John Taylor's testimony. This fact also is admitted, and an attempt is made to justify it, on the ground of its "irrelevance," on the pretext that the witness could not prove the whole of a particular charge. By recurring to "the Prospect Before Us," a book, which with all its celebrity, I never saw till yesterday, I find this charge consists of two distinct sentences. Taken separately the respondent asserts that they mean nothing; taken together, a great deal. And because the respondent undertook to determine (without any authority as far as I can learn) that col. Taylor could not prove the whole, that is both sentences, he rejected his evidence entirely, for "irrelevance." Might not his testimony have been relevant to that of some other witness on the same, or on another, charge? I appeal to the learning and good sense of this honorable court, whether it is not an unheard of practice (until the present instance) in a criminal prosecution, to declare testimony inadmissible because it is not expected to go to the entire exculpation of the prisoner? does it not daily occur in our courts, that a party accused, making but a part of his defence by one witness and establishing other facts by the evidence of other persons, does it not daily occur that the testimony of various witnesses sometimes to the same and sometimes to different facts, does so relate and support the whole case, as to leave no doubt of the innocence or guilt of the accused, in the minds of the jury, who, it must never be forgotten, are, in such cases, the sole judges both of the law and the fact. Suppose for instance that the testimony of witnesses would establish all the facts, but that each of those facts are not known by either of them. According to this doctrine the evidence of both might be declared inadmissible, and a man whose innocence, if the testimony in his favor were not rejected, might be clearly proved to the satisfaction of the jury, may thus be subjected by the verdict of that very jury to an ignominious death. Shall principles so palpably cruel and unjust be tolerated in this free country? I am free to declare that the decision of Mr. Chase, in rejecting col. Taylor's testimony, was contrary to the known and established rules of evidence, and this I trust will be shewn by my learned associates, to the full satisfaction of this honorable court, if indeed they can require further satisfaction on a point so clear and indisputable. But this honorable court will be astonished when they are told (and the declaration will be supported by undeniable proof) that at this very time neither the traverser, his counsel, or the court, knew the extent to which col. Taylor's evidence would go.—They were apprized, indeed, that he would shew that Mr. Adams was an aristocrat and that he had proved serviceable to the British interest, in the sense conveyed by the book.—but they little dreamt that his evidence would permit

fed to have been given in, would have thrown great light upon many other of the charges. There is one ground of defence taken by the respondent, which I did suppose a gentleman of his discernment would have sedulously avoided. That although the traverser had justified nineteen out of twenty of the charges, contained in the indictment, if he could not prove the truth of the twentieth, it was of little moment, as he was "thereby put in the power of the court." Gracious God! Sir, what inference is to be drawn from this horrible insinuation.
(To be concluded in our next.)
FROM THE VIRGINIA EXPRESS.
To the Freeholders of the Congressional District composed of the counties of Spotsylvania, Louisa, Orange, and Madison.
FELLOW CITIZENS,  The time is fast approaching when you will be called on to elect some person to represent you in the Congress of the United States. I take the liberty to advise you that I am ready to serve the district if it is your pleasure to elect me. I resort to this public mode of announcing my intention as it is next to impossible I should be able to see the freeholders individually; nor indeed do I consider it necessary, for it is indispensable to the due exercise of the right of suffrage, if a freeholder is not acquainted with the candidate he commens with him who is, thereby to capacitate himself to bestow his vote in a way most honorable to himself and most advantageous to his country. Almost ever since I was eligible I have experienced the partiality of my native country so far as to be honored with its confidence in the character of its representative in the State Legislature. I was elected in the year 1798, a crisis, memorable in politics, and well calculated to test the sentiments of a public functionary. I flatter myself it is not necessary within the sphere of my acquaintance to state that my sentiments from the moment of my political existence (after the strictest test) have been republican. A six years service in the Legislature of Virginia, relieves me from the disagreeable necessity of commenting upon the share I have taken in politics; the records of the body of which I was a member bear me silent, but I trust satisfactory evidence, that in every situation and every vicissitude, my aid, such as it was, invariably was rendered to bring about that mild and happy administration which at present marks the general government, to give support to which will constitute the polar star of my political conduct. In my private relations I am connected with you, countrymen, by every tie that binds and keeps together the society of man; I am placed in that middle condition between poverty and wealth, which exempts me from the pride and insolence of wealth; and, on the other hand, renders me independent. An independence procured by my own exertions & arising from property identically like that of which nineteen twentieths of you, are possessed. Yes, countrymen, in the event of my election, I shall cultivate the soil only for a support. I am a father, I am a husband, these are the pledges of citizenship I tender—& if so melancholy an occurrence should happen that in any moment of my life I should forget what was due my conscience, my character or my country; these ties are guarantees to your safety; so long as conjugal affection, or a pious sentiment for parents, or an affectionate regard for children or self interest itself, have dominion over man, so long your interest & mine are indissolubly connected, and by promoting yours, I shall invariably promote my own.
In the attempt I am now making to present you, I am fully sensible of the difficulty I have to encounter in being opposed by a citizen who has hitherto represented the district for a series of years. I am well aware of the usual argument, "shall we turn out an old servant;" but this will be easily answered if the subject receives that investigation which its importance merits. On the third of March the character of that gentleman as a representative ceased. The office is now vacant. What are his pretensions in preference to mine? Has he discharged his duty? Has he acted in every respect as you wished him? If he should have been so fortunate, he has only done that which from the nature of his undertaking he was bound to do. He has received his reward by the nature of the trust confided to him by the consciousness of having done his duty and the approbation of his country. If on the contrary, he has not equalled your expectation and has pursued a line of conduct of which you disapprove, he has no claims upon your gratitude. My own opinion is that a man who fills that office should, occasi-
onally revert to the great mass of the people. Stripped of the ensigns and divested of the feelings of office, reduced to the level of citizenship, he should enter into their views, understand their interest, know their wants, and thereby learn the real connection between the constituent body and their servants. As a general principle, it may be laid down, that if the representatives of the people are too long continued in any one office, they are apt to think their election as a matter of right. They lose that tender sensibility towards their constituents and that devotion to their service which they should invariably possess. To give however the argument of continuing to elect because having been elected, the utmost weight it deserves, it will be like dust in the balance just calculated, all things else being equal to turn the scale. I feel impressed with a conviction that considerations of an higher nature will attract the attention and influence the decision of the people.
There are four cardinal points well worthy your regard in selecting a representative to congress. Similarity of interest, moral character, extent of talents, political sentiments; delicacy forbids the invidious task of drawing a comparison between my opponent and myself upon these various questions. You, countrymen, are the tribunal to decide between us. If the decision should be favorable to my wishes, it will be viewed as the most fortunate incident of my life, it will be regarded as an additional and highly honorable proof of the friendship of my country, it will inspire me with sentiments of indelible gratitude, and will stimulate me to supply what shall be wanting in ability or experience by an industry which shall not be fatigued, and by a zeal which shall know no abatement. If however my opponent be deemed more worthy your confidence, the first maxim of my politics directs me to acquiesce & bow with cheerfulness to the will of the people. In any situation I shall be placed by my country, I trust I shall be satisfied and continue to make her prosperity the first object of my wishes.
Believe me, very respectfully, your friend and fellow citizen. JAMES BARBOUR. Orange, March 6, 1805.
PRECIPITATE,
IMPORTED BY MR LIGHTFOOT of Sandy-Point, last winter, full 15 hands and a half high; will stand at my stable in Chesterfield county, Appomattox river, 15 miles above Petersburg, to be let to mares at ten guineas a mare, two of which will be remitted if paid with March, & expire the 1st of August next. Board of servants gratis; mares may be fed with grain at two shillings per day. I have large and extensive pasturage, divided in five different inclosures, that mares with foals may be kept distinct from barren mares. One dollar to the groom. No liability for accidents of any description. PRECIPITATE was bred by Lord Egremont, foaled in 1787, got by Mercury (a son of Eclipse) dam by Herod, his granddam Maiden by Matchem, out of Mr Pratt's old Squirrel mare; her dam by Mogul—Camilla by Bay Bolton—Old Lady dam of Sterling by Pulleyn's chestnut Arabian—Rockwood Butler.
PERFORMANCE. In the first spring meeting, 1790, at New-Market, when 3 years old, he won the first class of the princes stakes of 100 guineas each, beating Thunderbolt, Chanticleer, and Sir Pepper, four having paid the forfeit. In the same week he won the Bolton stakes of 50 guineas each, beating Chambooe, Dragon and Pallafox; 7 paid forfeit. Second spring meeting he won the 3d class of the princes stakes of 100 guineas, beating Thunderbolt; 7 paid forfeit. And in the same week he received 100 guineas forfeit from Lord Grosvenor's R adamantius. In 1792 he won £ 50 at Guildfield, beating Doge, Thunderbolt, Sarmagapam and Stout; the next day £ 50 at the same place, beating Caddock and Griffin. He also won the king's 100 guineas, at Lewis, beating Skyscraper at 3 heats, the 1st by a dead heat. After which he was so highly esteemed that he became a stallion in his Lordship's stud at 12 guineas a mare. This horse is the sire of the following running horses: Salbuz, Chesnut colt out of Bobtail, Chesnut colt out of Rosemary, Humbug, Lazarus, Raginier, Apollo, Gulliver, Tag, Louisa, Tipstaff, Mr. Heathcote's filly out of Reeves, Alchymist, Clodhopper, Grey filly his R. H. Lampadose, Mars, Mary, Mairance, Bay filly Mr Brown's, Grey filly Mr Radcliff's, Tax, Tipstaff and Bobtail.
Feb. 20, 1805. THOMAS GOODE.
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.
RUN away from the subscriber about the end of Nov. or early in Dec. a black servant named SAM, I believe about 19 or 20 years of age, very strong and likely for a man of his age. He was seen in the neighborhood of this place some time after he absented himself, but from his connexions I have reason to suppose that he may be lurking about, or concealed by those connexions in the counties of Powhatan or Cumberland. I will give the above reward if he is brought to me in this place, or ten dollars if secured in a jail so that I may get him. Arch'd. Freeland. Manchester, March 15, 1805.
VIRGINIA ARGUS.
RICHMOND: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20 1805. RICHMOND PRICE CURRENT. CORRECTED WEEKLY.
  Tobacco, 33s to 36s Cash   Wheat, 10s 6d to 12s do.   Flour, fine, 66s do.   Flour, superfine, 69s do.   Corn, 30s do.   Hemp, (clean). £ 54 do.   Iron, £ 33 do.   Bacon, 10d do.   Whiskey, 4s do.   Pork, 54s do.   Butter, 1s 6d do. 
At a numerous meeting of the Democratic Republican Freeholders, of the city of Richmond, at the Bell Tavern, in the said city, on Saturday the 16th of March, 1805—
It was Resolved, That the Freeholders who attended the said meeting, would use their best endeavors in supporting the election of such gentleman of Republican principles, as should, by a majority of the said freeholders, be selected as a proper person to represent the said city, in the next General Assembly.
Whereupon, the said Freeholders having proceeded by vote, to the choice of such person, a majority of votes was found in favor of LEWIS HARVE, Esq.
Teste. ROBT. MITCHELL, Chairman. J. ROBINSON, Secretary.
JAMES M. GARNETT, Esq. of Essex, is a candidate for member of congress in the District composed of the counties of Caroline, Essex, King William and King & Queen.
On Friday the first instant, Mr. J. Randolph in the House of Representatives of the United States, introduced the following motion.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both houses concurring, That the following article be submitted to the legislatures of the several states, which when ratified and confirmed by the legislatures of three-fourths of the said states shall all be valid and binding as a part of the constitution of the United States:
The Judges of the Supreme and all other courts of the United States shall be removed by the President on the joint address of both houses of Congress requesting the same, any thing in the constitution of the United States to the contrary notwithstanding.
Upon motion that it be referred to the consideration of the committee of the whole house, it was agreed to—Yeas 68—Nays 43—and afterwards it was made the order of the day for the first Monday in December next.
On the same day, Mr. Nicholson made the following motion, which was referred to a committee of the whole house—yeas 53, nays 46—and made the order of the day for the first Monday in December next.
Resolved, That the following article when adopted by two thirds of both houses of Congress and by the legislatures of three-fourths of the respective states, shall become a part of the constitution of the United States, viz.
That the legislature of any state may whenever the said legislature shall think proper, recall at any period whatever any senator of the United States, who may have been elected by them, and whenever a vote of the legislature of any state vacating the seat of any Senator of the U. S. who may have been elected by the said state, shall be made known to the Senate of the United States, the seat of such Senator shall thenceforth be vacated.
British Depredations.—An English public vessel, called the Busy, has arrived at New York, having dispatches from the West-Indies for Mr. Merry: this vessel had on board, at the time of arrival, and we presume yet retains on board, twenty American seamen, who had been impressed—they probably belonged to the ship Manhattan which had been recently captured by the Busy. It is suggested whether this vessel does not come within the object of the law lately passed by congress, entitled an act to preserve peace in the harbours of the U. S. It is full time that we began to manifest resentment, and as this vessel was on public service, a refusal to admit her into our ports, would have the greatest effect.
The following is another late instance of British violence; such outrages must sooner or later be resisted, or our estimation in the eyes of the world must decrease as rapidly as it has been raised within the last four years:
"The Schooner Betsey and Jane, Captain Isaiah Hammond, arrived at Wilmington, N. C. on Friday the 15th ult. in
33 days from Trinidad. Coming through the Sombero passage, on the 19th January, lat. 17, 34, long. 63, 39, was boarded by the English privateer brig Crier, of 18 guns and detained 4 hours. Captain Hammond had furnished the following account of the treatment he received from the British commander: On coming within gun shot he fired two guns at the schooner, one of which passed very near under her stern, he then sent an officer with orders to bring Capt. H. on board the privateer with his papers, which being complied with, the captain saluted him with "you damn'd rascal, why did you not heave to sooner?" Capt. H. replied he did heave to as soon as he discovered him to be a man of war. The English captain ordered the boatswain to take the American captain to the gangway and give him fifty lashes, which however was not put into execution. He then ordered capt. H. to return to his own vessel, heave out his boat & return to the privateer, with a threat that if he was more than one minute and a half about it, he would fire a shot thro' him.—In the hurry of capt. H. to comply therewith his boat was stove, & thereby became so leaky, that it required the greatest exertion to keep her above water in returning to the privateer, on coming along side of which the English captain observing the situation of the boat, ordered her to be shoved off and rowed round the brig. Captain H. was then suffered to come on board, but not until the main ropes were taken in, in order to add to his inconvenience in getting on board, in a rough sea.—After a detention of four hours the English captain wadded up the papers of capt. H. and threw them on the deck, and calling him a damn'd rascal, told him to take his papers and go to hell. (Aurora.)
EXPORTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
According to the statements we have published it appears that the total exports of the last year exceed those of the preceding year in the sum of 21,899,041 dollars.
The following will shew the relation of the exports of the one year to those of the other.
  The total Exports   In the year ending Sept. 31st, 1803—were 55,800,033.   In the year ending Sept. 30th, 1804, 77,699,074.   Increase the last year 21,899,041.   Domestic produce exported   In the year ending Sept. 30th, 1803, 42,205,961.   In the year ending Sept. 30th, 1804, 41,467,477.   Decrease the last year 738,484.   Foreign produce exported   In the year ending Sept. 30th, 1803, 13,594,072.   In the year ending Sept. 30th, 1804, 36,231,597.   Increase the last year 22,637,525.   From which take the decrease of domestic productions, 738,000.   And there remains 2,657,000. 
Which may be considered as the relative advance of our exports for the last year.
It would be doing injustice to our own ideas, as well as to the enlightened character at the head of our finances, to omit a particular notice of the interesting statements, marked A. and B. which accompany the Secretary's Report. They present views, which we believe are entirely new, at once of the power of arrangement, and of the great pillars, we might perhaps have said pillar, on which the prosperity of our country rests. They exhibit in a small compass, what may be called the spirit of our Exports; from which it appears that three-fourths of the whole are the products of agriculture.
During the last year, according to the luminous classification of the Secretary, there was produced from the
  Dollars.   Sea 3,420,000.   Forest 4,630,000.   Agriculture 30,890,000.   Manufactures 2,100,000.   Uncertain 430,000. 
(Nat. Intel.)

A SUMMARY
Of the value and destination of the exports of the United States, for the last year.
   Domestic produce. Foreign produce. Total value to the dominion of each power.     Prussia 409,321 776,795 1,186,116   Sweden 58,361 64,045   Swedish West Indies 400,848 168,721 691,975   Denmark and Norway 477,211 1,115,965   Danish West Indies 1,081,618 642,188 3,346,623   Danish East Indies 16,073 13,368   United Netherlands 2,064,158 11,757,002   Dutch West Indies and American colonies 1,600,667 848,365 16,447,417   Dutch East Indies 80,176 97,049   England, Man and Berwick 8,552,764 1,226,394 21,829,802   Scotland 1,561,850 140,888 4,475,007   Ireland 1,391,333 36,293   Guernsey, Jersey, Sark and Alderney 282,212 15,262 12,776,111   Gibraltar 242,248 74,339   British East Indies 16,452 113,820   British West Indies 6,315,667 731,991 6,728,125   Newfoundland and British fisheries 175,597 32,666   British American colonies 807,709 111,263 2,496,858   Other British colonies 1,185 364   Hamburg, Bremen, other Hanse towns, &c. 949,454 3,525,553 1,671,149   French European ports on the Atlantic 3,139,206 5,584,523 333,798   Do. do. on the Mediterranean 80,906 220,419 44,646   French West Indies and American colonies 1,742,368 1,867,522 9,333   Bourbon and Mauritius 120,042 221,125   Spanish European ports on the Atlantic 1,628,079 517,043 167,917   Do. do. on the Mediterranean 676,114 80,100 198,601   Teneriffe and the other Canaries 120,084 61,101 796,316   Floridas 60,738 22,886 3,324,294   *Louisiana 117,430 207,717 620,891   Honduras, Campeachy and Mosquito shore 149,344 184,829 349,036   Spanish West Indies & American colonies 1,725,662 1,176,998 10,000   Portugal 1,282,169 190,716 196,059   Madeira 586,869 135,802   Fayal and the other Azores 8,937 8,648   Cape de Verd Islands 88,273 30,533   Other African ports 10,834 46,287   Coast of Brazil & other American colonies 107,770   Italy 118,441 1,552,708   Triest & other Austrian ports on the Adriatic 85,835 247,963   Turkey, Levant and Egypt 12,681 31,975   Morocco and Barbary states 8,657 676   Cape of Good Hope 108,190 59,727   China 162,806 35,795   East Indies (generally) 258,090 538,226   West Indies do. 2,352,042 972,252   Europe do. 86,827 534,064   Africa do. 221,788 126,248   South Seas 10,000   North West Coast of America 20,641 175,418   Total, 77,699,074  
* From the 1st of Oct. to the 31st December, inclusive.
A SUMMARY
Of the value of Exports from each State.
   Domestic. Foreign. Total.     From New Hampshire 453,394 262,697 716,091   Massachusetts 6,303,121 10,591,256 16,894,379   Vermont 135,930 55,795 191,725   Rhode Island 917,736 817,935 1,735,671   Connecticut 1,486,882 29,228 1,516,110   New York 7,501,096 8,580,185 16,081,281   New Jersey 24,829 24,829   *Delaware 180,081 517,315 697,396   Maryland 3,938,840 5,213,099 9,151,939   District of Columbia 1,157,895 294,303 1,452,198   Virginia 5,394,903 393,098 5,790,001   North Carolina 919,545 9,142 928,687   South Carolina 5,142,100 2,309,516 7,451,616   Georgia 2,003,227 74,345 2,077,572   *Territory of the United States 1,729,184 230,239 1,959,423   *Pennsylvania 4,178,713 6,851,444 11,030,157   Dollars, 41,467,477 36,231,597 77,699,074        Domestic. Foreign. Total.     *Detroit 33,028 33,028   Michilimackinac 235,936 235,936   Massac 17,320 17,320   Fort Adams 60,127 4,650 64,777   New Orleans 1,392,023 208,269 1,600,292   Dollars, 1,729,184 230,239 1,959,423  
A. Massac, for the 4th quarter of 1803. Fort Adams, do. do. New Orleans, from the 1st January, to the 30th of September, 1804.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Register's Office, February 23, 1805.
JOSEPH NOURSE, Register.
GENERAL MOREAU, was expected, according to a Paris paper, to embark for America in the month of January.
Extract of a letter from New York, dated March 20.
"A pilot came up from the Hook last night and informs of the arrival there of the ship Severn, Cowman, in 109 days from Canton, with a full cargo of silks, nankeens and teas—The shortest voyage ever known, having been gone only 9 months and 9 days, and brought her own account of her arrival at Canton in 118 days. Ships Triton, Carberry, and Fanny, Galloway, had arrived at Canton, and would sail in two weeks for New York. The ships Catharine and Stranger, were to sail in two days for New York."
"The British ship Satisfaction, in 50 days from Liverpool, and several vessels heard firing in the offing. Hardly any wind and very foggy."
HAYDN, the celebrated composer, died at Vienna, the beginning of Dec. in the 79th year of his age.
A short time since the editors of the Boston Palladium published an article under the head of " Monarchy of federalism ," containing the substance of all the indecent and villainous charges which have been made against the public and private character of President Jefferson. Mr. Allen, of Pittsfield, a member of the legislature, now in session, thereupon moved that they should be discharged from their situation as printers to the state. In his speech on the motion he expressly declared that he would not enter into a discussion of the merits of Mr. Jefferson's character, (that having been so recently established by the votes of nine tenths of the people) nor examine the truth of the charges in the libelous publication. Notwithstanding this, a Mr. Hulbert of Sheffield, took occasion to repeat and dwell upon the base, false and infamous slanders alluded to, and in a manner so disgraceful to this legislature that nothing but the spirit of party would have prevented his immediate and ignominious expulsion from his seat—This venomous and miserable inuendo, however, has been seized with all the avidity of malicious fury by the petty retailers of falsehood and scurrility; and the philippic of the incendiary Hulbert, who has thus (like the ancient incendiary Erostratus) made himself conspicuous by his turpitude, is vauntingly displayed in the federal papers through the union.—See.
FEDERAL CANDOR!
Carter's Mountain. Those who pay a little attention to the stale and hackneyed slanders against Mr. Jefferson with a desire to obtain correct information on the subject, require no pains to convince them of the foul and unwarrantable conduct of Mr. Hulbert, in the legislature of Massachusetts. In that situation, taking an unmanly advantage of his seat in the house, he had the unaccountable and sottish hardihood to repeat the often exposed falsehood of Mr. Jefferson's deserting his post in Virginia in a time of danger, a falsehood of all others the most easily, the most publicly and authentically refuted. He asserted that when Virginia was invaded, Mr. Jefferson, then governor of the state, fled from danger and resigned his office, and left the state in confusion, &c. and adduced Mr. Nicholas as authority to the reports, which, with sneers and comments, he took for granted were true. Now the facts are, & a man so zealous in diffusing & maintaining truth as Mr. H. ought to have known them, the reverse of what he has stated. Arnold invaded Virginia in January, and Cornwallis in April, and retreated in May, 1781: Mr. Jefferson was at his post in the active discharge of his duty, till June, having secured the public stores and members of the legislature from the descent & pursuit of Tarleton's lighthouse, who hoped to have seized the whole; and after the exigency was past he declined a re-election to his office (as he could not be impeached while he held it) after his term of service was expired, for the purpose of courting an investigation into certain rumours which had been suggested. The consequence was Mr. Jefferson was appointed a member of Congress in November; it was certified he was present in council every day from April 19 to June 2; a committee of the legislature reported that they could find no grounds for charges against him but certain rumours which were groundless; and it was thereupon expressly "Resolved, that the sincere thanks of the general assembly be given to our former governor, Thomas Jefferson, esq. for his impartial, upright and attentive administration of the powers of the executive while in office: popular rumours gaining some degree of credence, by more pointed accusations, rendered it necessary to make an enquiry into his conduct, and delayed that retribution of public gratitude so eminently merited; but that conduct having become the object of open scrutiny, tenfold value is added to an approbation founded on a cool and deliberate discussion. The assembly wish therefore in the strongest manner to declare the high opinion which they entertain of Mr. Jefferson's ability, rectitude and integrity as chief magistrate of this commonwealth, and mean by thus publicly avowing their opinion to obviate all future, and to remove all former unmerited censure. And the said resolution being read a second time, was on the question put thereupon agreed to by the house unanimously."
As for the authority of Mr. Nicholas in support of the calumny, hear what he says: "I am happy in having an opportunity of declaring, when it can be attributed to no improper motive, that I have long since changed the unfavorable opinion which I once formed of that gentleman's political conduct; and that I consider him as one of the most virtuous as well as one of the ablest of the American patriots."
Yet with these facts and public documents staring him in the face, this enlightened legislator has pretended to believe his aspersions. Strictly speaking, Mr. Jefferson never resigned the office at all, as he served out the full time for which he was elected. What must be thought of the candor or common honesty of Mr. H. and his echoes? The other topics of this federal abuse, though equally malicious and unfounded, have not been so publicly exposed as this story of the mountain ; and therefore the folly and criminality of propagating them are not so great. But the spirit which promulgates them is the same, and the contempt of decency dictates the whole. For what reliance can be placed in the honor or veracity of those who contradict official records, and persist in assertions refuted by the best & strongest possible evidence?
It is not to be expected that President Jefferson will stoop to the task of defending himself against the assertions of the most base and unprincipled scribblers and editors that ever disgraced the arts of writing and printing; when his predecessors waited till their retirement from office to repeal the charges made against them. He has been tried at the great bar of the public, and found worthy of the highest honors. Posterity and history will do justice to his merits. But that the citizens should rightly apprehend the views and attempts of his calumniators is a desirable object. Pretended candor and affected patriotism should be stripped from their possessors, and bitter hypocrisy and selfish malevolence held up in their native colors. Messrs. Hulbert & Co. ought to be known in their true characteristics, as abandoned, false and malicious defamers. ib.
MARRIED —In this city, on the 11th inst. WILLIAM H. CABELL, Esq. of Amherst, to the very amiable Miss AGNESS SARAH BELL GAMBLE, daughter of Col. Robert Gamble.
LOST , some where between Mr. Pullin's Rope walk, old field, the corner of the street at Russell & Wallace's grocery store, and the market square, A TEN DOLLAR NOTE, No. 149, of the United States bank and Philadelphia branch. Any person who may find and return the same to the printer hereof, will be handsomely rewarded. The public are cautioned against passing the above note after this notice. Richmond, 17th March, 1805 1*
NOTICE.
ALL persons having claims against the estate of Thomas and John Clayton, dec. late of the county of Chesterfield, are desired to bring them forward on or before Chesterfield August court next, properly authenticated. This notice will be plead in bar to any claim that may come forward after that time. HENRY TURPIN, } Adm'rs. JOHN FUQUA, } March 14th, 1805. w2*
ONE CENT REWARD.
RUN away on the 10th inst. from the subscriber, an apprentice boy named BENJAMIN FOSTER. Whoever takes up said boy, and lodges him in any jail, so that I can get him again, shall receive the above reward. DAVID LOGAN, Shoemaker. Richmond, March 16, 1805. 1*
BY virtue of a deed of trust made to the subscriber by Nathaniel Burton, the 8th day of February last, for the purpose of securing a debt due to Arthur Nunnery, and all charges attending the execution of the trust—will be sold, to the highest bidder, at Buckingham courthouse, on Saturday the 20th day of April next, for the best price that can be obtained in crop tobacco of Nicholas's inspection, or its value in money at the current cash price.
A certain Tract or Parcel of LAND, Lying in the county of Buckingham, on both sides of the great creek of Slate river, containing two hundred and twenty five acres, and adjoining the lands of Nathaniel Burton, Barnet Nunnery, Elizabeth Saunderson, Edward Maxey and Benjamin Burton. JAMES MURPHY, Trustee. March 13th, 1805. e20a
FOR SALE,
At the shop formerly occupied by John Fox, dec. A new Gig & Coachee,
Very low, for cash. GIGS, CHAIRS, &c. furnished at the above shop on the shortest notice, and carriages repaired with neatness and dispatch. Richmond, 16th March, 1805. w4c

NOTICE
IS hereby given, that at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Mutual Assurance Society against Fire on Buildings of the State of Virginia, held on the 22d February, 1805—They adopted the following:
ARTICLE 9.
Sec. 1. No person, who is or shall be a member of this Society, shall be considered as withdrawn therefrom, until six weeks shall have elapsed from and after the period, at which the notice of his intention to withdraw shall be delivered to the Principal Agent, and all persons members of this society, who may at any time hereafter, give to the Principal Agent notice of their intention to withdraw from the same, shall pay to the Cashier General, or some authorised collector of the society, as well the premium or premiums, quota or quotas, which may be called for between the date of the delivery of such notice, and the lapse of six weeks thereafter, as the premium or premiums, quota or quotas which may have been due, previous to the date of the notice; otherwise such persons, the delivery of a notice to that effect notwithstanding, shall not be considered as withdrawn from the society. The above 9th article is a true extract from the records.
Teste,
W. F. AST, Principal Agent.
AS under the act of the General Assembly, passed on the 29th January last, all buildings situated in towns established by law, and also those situated in the suburbs thereof, shall be considered to come under the town insurance—and the Board having determined that the buildings situated, within one mile of the limits of such towns, shall be considered as in the suburbs of such towns: It will on a fair computation be found that the buildings in the towns and suburbs thereof, amount to at least twelve millions of dollars: then 135 buildings must burn every year amounting to 128,000 dollars, to come up to the annual premiums paid in the insurance companies abroad. Taking all the losses together which have taken place in the towns, I think that they do not amount, during thirty years back, to half a million—of course do not average seventeen thousand dollars, or about 17 buildings per annum. Consequently the average loss is only about fourteen cents or about one seventh per cent a year: Then notwithstanding the enormous fires which have befallen the towns, show me the insurance company that will insure upon better terms. What is paid to them goes out of the country, what is paid here is employed to succour our unfortunate fellow citizens. The foregoing statement shews plainly that the Mutual Insurance is preferable to any whar-soever.—To insure in an Insurance Company is too expensive, and besides that the society of a few speculating individuals precarious. Buildings in towns, suburbs and country, being ALL liable to be destroyed by fire, renders it too hazardous for a man to stand his own insurer. The laws and regulations and particularly the rates of hazard have been reformed—so that buildings standing by themselves pay a great deal less than those hazardously situated, which will be seen by the new laws and regulations, which are now in the press, and will in a few days, be furnished to each member of the society.
W. F. AST.
Richmond 8th March, 1805. w2w The printers of this state are requested to publish the above in their respective papers for the information of their subscribers and the public at large.
FOR SALE,
By Edward Hallam,
At his Grocery Store, opposite the Swan Tavern 500 Wt of excellent Salt Peared Bacon. Patent Shot, by the bag or hundred. Madeira, Teneriffe and Sherry Wines. Antigua, Jamaica and New England Rum. Cogniac Brandy and Whiskey. Philadelphia Porner, by the bbl, 3 doz each. Coffee by the bag—Molasses by the bbl. Laot & brown Sugar—Hyson & Imperial Teas 9 by 11 and 10 by 12 Window Glass. Bar Iron, Irish Potatoes, &c. The above articles will be sold low for ready pay April 24, 1804. The subscriber has just received six thousand weight of first quality
New-England Cheese,
Which he will dispose of on moderate terms.
The Scottville Spring Races,
WILL commence on Thursday the eighteenth day of April next.—First day will be run for the Jockey Club Purse of £100, three mile heats—Second day the Proprietor's Purse of £50, two mile heats—And on the third day a Sweepstake, for three and four years old, two mile heats, entrance fifty dollars. The subscription will remain open until the evening preceding the first day's race: any person wishing to enter may do so either in person or by letter directed to Mr. Samuel Marshall. Carrying the following Weights.
7 years old, 133 4 years old, 100 6 do. do. 126 3 do. do. 90 5 do. do. 117 3 lbs allowed mares & geldings. JOHN HASKINS, Treasurer. March 9th, 1805.
THE members of the DISMAL SWAMP CANAL COMPANY, either in person or by proxy, are requested to meet at the Hotel in Norfolk on the first Monday in May next, to elect a President and Directors, and on other business of importance to the company—Notice is also given to those who are delinquents in the payment of the quotas heretofore called for, that unless they make payment of their respective balances on or before the said day, that their shares will be sold on the Tuesday following the above day of meeting.
Thomas Newton, President. Aug's. Slaughter, } Directors. William Vaughan, } Richard Blow, }
Norfolk, 11th March, 1805. id
Scheme of a Lottery,
For the benefit of WILLIAM & MARY COLLEGE
   FIRST CLASS.     8000 Tickets at 10 dolls. 80,000   2 Prizes, dolls. 10,000 20,000   60 of 500 30,000   2,000 of 15 30,000   80,000   Subject to a deduction of 15 per ct. 12,000   Expense of drawing, 2,000   Dollars, 10,000   First Ticket drawn, Dolls. 500   Last drawn, 10,000   1 other Prize of 10,000   59 other Prizes of 500 dolls. 29,500   2,000 of 15 dollars, 30,000   Dollars. 80,000  
All tickets drawn blank may be renewed in the next class, at 10 dolls. each; the price of all others will be 15 dolls.
All prizes of 15 dollars may be renewed for the next class, or paid, at the option of the person entitled. If they be not claimed within three months after the drawing commences, they will be considered as renewed in the second class.
The drawing to commence in the city of Williamsburg, on the — day of —, under the management of James Madison, John Bracken, William Nelson, Robert Greenhow, Burwell Bassett, Robert Saunders, Samuel Tyler, Champion Travis, William Lightfoot, Littleton W. Tazewell, George Tucker and James Semple.
SECOND CLASS.
   5,938 Tickets at 10 dolls. 59,380   4,635 ditto at 15 dolls. 70,930   130,310   Deduct loss on 2,062 tickets renewed at 2 1-2 5,155   Dolls. 125,155   2 Prizes of 20,000 dolls. 40,000   2 ditto of 10,000 dolls. 20,000   3 ditto of 5,000 15,000   50 ditto of 1,000 50,000   1 ditto 155   125,155   Deduct 10 per cent. 12,500   Expenses of drawing, 2,500   Sum raised, Dolls. 110,155   Ticket first drawn, Dolls. 1,000   Ticket last drawn, 20,000   One other prize of 20,000   Two ditto of 10,000 20,000   13 ditto of 5,000 dolls. 15,000   49 ditto of 1,000 49,000   ditto 155   Dollars 125,155  
TICKETS
May be had of George Tucker, Thomas Taylor, and Samuel Pleasants, jr in Richmond; Robert Birchett, and Watkins Leigh, Petersburg; Thomas Newton, Dr Barrand, & Littleton W. Tazewell, Norfolk; Hugh Mercer, Fredericksburg; Henry Tucker, Winchester; Chapman Johnson, Staunton; and in all the towns in Virginia, and in many places in the country.
FROM SOUTH AMERICA.
THE BEAUTIFUL SPANISH HORSE, APPALUSIA, WILL find the ensuing season, at my plantation on Chickahominy, near the new bridges, and will be let to mares at the moderate price of ten dollars the season, payable the first of Oct. next, but notes (to be sent with the mares) may be discharged by paying eight dollars on or by the 1st of August, when the season will end. Insurance fifteen dollars (notes sent as above, payable 1st March, 1806.) And four dollars each the leap. In either case 25 cents to the groom, to be paid down. Mares will be fed with clover and lucerne gratis, and corn if required, at the selling price. I have 20 spare stalls in a strong new stable, with substantial locks, where they may be kept at nights, but will not be answerable for 'steeps.'
APPALUSIA is lately from South America, about ten years old, 15 hands high, of a beautiful snow white colour, and most elegantly formed. It is unnecessary to point out the great superiority of this excellent breed of horses for the saddle, harness, &c, as it is generally known that they are well gaited, gentle, and the most hardy and thrifty horses in the world, and many live to be upwards of 50 years old.
APPALUSIA stood in Augusta the season before last, where he proved to be a certain foal getter, and many of his colts would have sold for 200 dollars each at a day old. A few mares were put to him the last season, (having bought him late) all of which proved with foal.
BENJAMIN DUVAL.
February 15th, 1805.
War Department, March 6, 1805.
NOTICE is hereby given, That separate proposals will be received at the office of the Secretary for the Department of War, until 12 o'clock at noon of the first Wednesday in June next, for the supply of all rations that may be required for the use of the United States, from the 1st day of October 1805, until the 30th day of September 1806, both days inclusive, at the following places, viz.
First, At Niagara, Detroit, Michilimackinac, Fort Wayne, Chicago, Swan Creek, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the state of Ohio, and territory of Michigan, and at any place or places within the Indian territory north of the 41st degree of north latitude.
Second, At South West Point, Tellico, Knoxville, Nashville, and within the Cherokee nation
between Tennessee and Georgia, and on the Tennessee river, and on the road between said river and Nashville, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the states of Kentucky & Tennessee.
Third, At the garrison near Vincennes on the river Wabash, at Fort Massac, New Madrid, Chickasaw Bluffs, Arkansas, Natchez and Fort Adams, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited in the Mississippi territory, except the county of Washington, and at any place or places in the Indiana territory south of the 41st degree of north latitude & fifty miles east of the Mississippi river.
Fourth, At St. Louis, St. Charles, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, & at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the territory of Louisiana north of New Madrid, and at any place or places in the Indiana territory within fifty miles east of the Mississippi river and south of the 41st degree of North latitude, Fort Massac excepted.
Fifth, At New Orleans, Plaquemines, Point Coupee, Oacheta, Natchitoches, Apponecous, Attakapa, Fort Stoddeart, Fort St. Stephens, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the territory of Orleans, or in the county of Washington in the Mississippi Territory, and at any place or places on the west side of the Mississippi river below Arkansas.
Separate proposals will also be received as aforesaid for the supply of all rations, which may be required for the use of the United States, from the 1st day of January 1806, to the 31st day of December of the same year, both days inclusive, within the several states herein after mentioned, viz.
Sixth, At Fort Wilkinson, Cockspur Island, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of Georgia, and on the Indian boundary between Georgia and the Creek nation.
Seventh, At Charleston, Rocky Mount, on the head waters of the Santee, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the states of North and South Carolina.
Eighth, At Norfolk, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of Virginia.
Ninth, At Fort M'Henry, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of Maryland and the district of Columbia.
Tenth, At Fort Mifflin, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited, within the state of Pennsylvania, east of the river Susquehannah, and within the states of New Jersey and Delaware.
Eleventh, At Pittsburgh, Carlisle, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of Pennsylvania, west of the river Susquehannah.
Twelfth, At Fort Jay, West Point, Albany, Shenechady and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of New York, Niagara and its dependencies excepted.
Thirteenth, At Fort Trumbull, Fort Wolcott, and at any place or places where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the states of Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Fourteenth, At Fort Independence (Boston harbour) and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched or recruited, within the state of Massachusetts, the town of Springfield, and the district of Maine, excepted.
Fifteenth, At Portsmouth, Portland, and at any place or places, where troops are or may be stationed, marched, or recruited within the state of New Hampshire and the district of Maine.
Sixteenth, Proposals will also be received as aforesaid, for the supply of all rations, which may be required by the United States, for the troops which are or may be stationed, marched or recruited within the town of Springfield in the state of Massachusetts, and for the armourers and other persons employed in the United States armoury at that place, from the 1st day of January 1806 to the 31st day of December in the same year, both days inclusive.
A ration to consist of one pound and one quarter of Beef, or three quarters of a pound of Pork, eighteen ounces of Bread or flour, one gill of Rum, Whiskey or Brandy, and at the rate of 2 quarts of Salt, four quarts of Vinegar, four pounds of Soap, and one pound and a half of Candles, to every hundred rations. The prices of the several component parts of the ration shall be specified; but the United States reserve the right of making such alterations in the price of the component parts of the ration aforesaid, as shall make the price of each part thereof bear a just proportion to the proposed price of the whole ration. The rations are to be furnished in such quantities, that there shall at all times, during the term of the proposed contract, be sufficient for the consumption of the troops at Michilimackinac, Detroit, and Chicago, for six months in advance; and at each of the other posts in advance, of good and wholesome provisions, if the same shall be required. It is also to be permitted to all and every of the commandants of fortified places and posts, to call for, at any time when the same can be transported, or at any time in case of urgency, such supplies of like provisions in advance, as in the discretion of the commandant shall be deemed proper.
It is understood that the contractor is to be at the expense and risk of issuing the supplies to the troops, and that all losses sustained by the depreciation of an enemy, or by means of the troops of the United States, shall be paid by the United States at the price of the articles captured or destroyed as aforesaid, on the deposition of two or more persons of creditable characters, and the certificate of a commissioned officer, stating the circumstances of the loss, and the amount of the articles for which compensation shall be claimed.
The privilege is understood to be reserved to the United States of requiring that none of the supplies, which may be furnished under any of the proposed contracts, shall be issued, until the supplies which have been or may be furnished under contracts now in force, have been consumed; and that a supply in advance may be always required at any of the fixed posts on the seaboard, or Indian frontier, not exceeding three months.
H. DEARBORN, Secretary of War.
March 6. (Um)
SPEECH OF MR. J. RANDOLPH, On the opening of the Impeachment against SAMUEL CHASE.
SATURDAY, February 9.
Mr. Randolph. Mr. President, it becomes my duty to open this cause on behalf of the prosecution. From this duty, however incompetent I feel myself to its performance, at all times, and more especially at this time, as well from the very short period which has been allowed us to consider the long and elaborate plea of the respondent, as from the severe pressure of disease, it does not become me to shrink. The station in which I have been placed calls for the discharge of an important public trust at my hands. It shall be performed to the best of my ability, inadequate as I know that ability to be. When I speak of the short period which has been allowed us I hope not to be understood as expressing on our part, any dissatisfaction, at the course which has been pursued, or any wish to prolong the time which has been allotted for trial. We are sensible of a disposition in this honorable court to grant us every indulgence which we ought to ask, and when their attention is called to the precipitate hurry of our preparation, it is only to offer, on behalf of an individual, perhaps a weak apology for the weak defence which he is about to make of the cause confided to his care. A desire for the furtherance of justice and the avoidance of delay, but, above all, an unshaken conviction that we stand on impregnable ground, induce us on this short notice to declare that we are ready to substantiate our accusation, to prove that the respondent is guilty in such manner as he stands impeached.
It is a painful but indispensable task which we are called upon to perform: to establish the guilt of a great officer of government, of a man, who, if he had made a just use of those faculties which God and Nature bestowed upon him, would have been the ornament and benefactor of his country, would have rendered services as eminent and useful, as he has inflicted upon her outrages and wrongs deep and deadly. A character endowed by nature with some of her best attributes, cultivated by education, placed by his country in a conspicuous station, invested with authority whose righteous exercise would have rendered him a terror to the wicked, whilst it endeared him to the wise and good—such a character presented to the nation in the light in which he now stands, and in which his misdeeds have made it our duty to bring him forward, forms one of the sadest spectacles which can be offered to the public eye. Base is that heart which could triumph over him.
I will now proceed to state the principal points on which we mean to rely—and which we expect to establish by the clearest evidence. In doing this I shall be necessarily led to notice many of the leading statements of the respondent's answer. We will begin with the first article. (Here Mr. R. read that article.) The answer to the first of these charges is by evasive insinuation and misrepresentation, by an attempt to wrest the accusation from its true bearing, the manner and time of delivering the opinion, and the intent with which it was delivered, to the correctness of the opinion itself, which is not the point in issue. And here permit me to remark, that if the managers of this impeachment were governed only by their own conviction of the course which they ought, necessarily to pursue, and not by the high sense of duty which they owe to their eminent employers, they would have felt themselves justified in resting their accusation on the admissions of the respondent himself. It is not for the opinion itself, that the respondent is impeached; it is for a daring intrud upon the criminal jurisprudence of his country—by delivering that opinion at a time and in a manner (in writing) before unknown and unheard of. The criminal intent is to be inferred from the boldness of the innovation itself as well as from other overt acts charged in this article. The admission of the respondent ought to secure his conviction on this charge. He acknowledges that he did deliver an opinion in writing, on the question of law (which it was the right and duty of the jury to determine, as well as the fact) before counsel had been heard in defence of John Fries, the prisoner. I must beg the assistance of one of the gentlemen with whom I am associated, to read this part of the answer. (Mr. Clark accordingly read the reply of Mr. Chase to this charge.) We charge the respondent with a gross departure from the forms, and a flagrant outrage upon the substance of criminal justice, in delivering a written, prejudicated opinion on the case of Fries, tending to bias the minds of the jury against him before counsel had been heard in his defence. The respondent
(Continued on first page.)