Virginia Argus (Richmond, Va.), 1807-09-23 00:00:00

VIRGINIA ARGUS.
[XVth YEAR.]
A FREE PRESS MAINTAINS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE.
[No. 1350.]
RICHMOND:—PRINTED (ON WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS) BY SAMUEL PLEASANTS, JUNIOR, PRINTER TO THE COMMONWEALTH.
[Four Dollars Per Annum—paid in Advance.]
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1807.
[12 1-2 Cents Single.]
Richmond Price Current.
(CORRECTED WEEKLY.)
 Tobacco, - $ 5 50 CASH.  Wheat, new, - 1 00 do.  Flour, superfine, new, - 5 75 do.  Flour, fine, - 5 25 do.  Corn, - 3 50 do.  Hemp, clean, (per ton) - 100 00 do.  Iron, - 110 00 do.  Bacon, - 14 00 do.  Whiskey, - 48 00 do. 
Trial of Aaron Burr.
OPINION
Of the Court, on the motion to arrest the evidence—delivered on
MONDAY, August 31.
(Concluded.)
The 2d position is founded on 1 Hale 214, 238 and 1. East 127.
While I declare that this doctrine contradicts every idea I had ever entertained on the subject of indictments, since it admits that one case may be stated and a very different case may be proved, I will acknowledge that it is countenanced by the authority adduced in its support. To counsel or advise a treasonable assemblage, and to be one of that assemblage, are certainly distinct acts, and therefore ought not to be charged as the same act. The great objection to this mode of proceeding is, that the proof essentially varies from the charge in the character and essence of the offence, and in the testimony by which the accused is to defend himself. These dicta of Lord Hale therefore, taken in the extent in which they are understood by the counsel for the U. S. seem to be repugnant to the declarations we find every where, that an overt act must be laid, and must be proved. No case is cited by Hale in support of them, and I am strongly inclined to the opinion that, had the public received his corrected, instead of his original manuscript, they would, if not expunged, have been restrained in their application to cases of a particular description. Laid down generally, and applied universally to all cases of treason, they are repugnant to the principles for which Hale contends, for which all the elementary writers contend, and from which courts have in no case, either directly reported or referred to in the books, ever departed. These principles are, that the indictment must give notice of the offence, that the accused is only bound to answer the particular charge which the indictment contains, and that the overt act laid is that particular charge. Under such circumstances, it is only doing justice to Hale to examine his dicta, and if they will admit of being understood in a limited sense, not repugnant to his own doctrines, nor to the general principles of law, to understand them in that sense.
"If many conspire to counterfeit, or counsel or abet it, and one of them doth the fact upon that counselling or conspiracy, it is treason in all, and they may be all indicted for counterfeiting generally within this statute, for in such case, in treason, all are principals."
This is laid down as applicable singly to the treason of counterfeiting the coin, and is not applied by Hale to other treasons. Had he designed to apply the principle universally he would have stated it as a general proposition, he would have laid it down in treating on other branches of the statute, as well as in the chapter respecting the coin, he would have laid it down when treating on indictments generally. But he has done neither. Every sentiment bearing in any manner on this point, which is to be found in Lord Hale, while on the doctrine of levying war, or on the general doctrine of indictments, militates against the opinion that he considered the proposition as more extensive than he has declared it to be. No court could be justified in extending the dictum of a judge beyond its terms, to cases in which he has expressly treated, to which he has not himself applied it, and on which he as well as others has delivered opinions which that dictum would overrule. This would be the less justifiable if there should be a clear legal distinction indicated by the very terms in which the judge has expressed himself between the particular case to which alone he has applied the dictum, and other cases to which the court is required to extend it.
There is this clear legal distinction. "They may, says Judge Hale, be indicted for counterfeiting generally." But if many conspire to levy war, and some actually levy it, they may not be indicted for levying war generally. The books concur in declaring that they cannot be so indicted. A special overt act of levying war must be laid. This distinction between counterfeiting the coins, and that class of treasons among which levying war is placed, is taken in the statute of Edward 3d. That statute requires an overt act of levying war to be laid in the indictment, and does not require an overt act of counterfeiting the coin to be laid. If in a particular case where a general indictment is sufficient, it be stated that the crime may be charged generally according to the legal effect of the act, it does not follow, that in other cases where a general indictment would be insufficient, where an overt act must be laid, that this overt act need not be laid according to the real fact. Hale then is to be reconciled with himself, and with the general principles of law, only by permitting the limits which he has himself given
to his own dictum, to remain where he has placed them.
In page 238, Hale is speaking generally of the receiver of a traitor, and is stating in what such receiver partakes of an accessory. 1st. "His indictment must be special of the receipt, and not generally that he did the thing, which may be otherwise in case of one that is procurer, counsellor or consenter."
The words "may be otherwise" do not clearly convey the idea that it is universally otherwise. In all cases of a receiver the indictment must be special on the receipt, and not general. The words "may be otherwise in case of a procurer, &c." signify that it may be otherwise in all treasons, or that it may be otherwise in some treasons. If it may be otherwise in some treasons without contradicting the doctrines of Hale himself, as well as of other writers, but cannot be otherwise in all treasons without such contradiction, the fair construction is, that Hale used these words in their restricted sense; that he used them in reference to treasons, in which a general indictment would lie, not to treasons where a general indictment would not lie, but an overt act of the treason must be charged. The two passages of Hale thus construed, may perhaps be law, and may leave him consistent with himself. It appears to the court to be the fair way of construing them.
These observations relative to the passages quoted from Hale, apply to that quoted from East, who obviously copies from Hale, and relies upon his authority.
Upon this point Keeling 26 and 1st Hale 626, have also been relied upon. It is stated in both, that if a man be indicted as a principal and acquitted, he cannot afterwards be indicted as accessory before the fact. Whence it is inferred, not without reason, that evidence of accessory guilt may be received on such an indictment. Yet no case is found in which the question has been made and decided. The objection has never been taken at a trial, and overruled, nor do the books say it would be overruled. Were such a case produced its application would be questionable. Keeling says, an accessory before the fact is quodam modo , in some manner guilty of the fact. The law may not require that the manner should be stated, for in felony it does not require that an overt act should be laid. The indictment therefore may be general. But an overt act of levying war must be laid. These cases then prove in their utmost extent no more than the cases previously cited from Hale and East. This distinction between indictments which may state the fact generally, and those which must lay specially, bears some analogy to a general and a special action on the case. In a general action, the declaration may lay the assumpsit according to the legal effect of the transaction, but in a special action on the case, the declaration must state the material circumstances truly, and they must be proved as stated. This distinction also derives some aid from a passage in Hale, 625, immediately preceding that which has been cited at the bar. He says, "If A. be indicted as principal and B. as accessory before or after , and both be acquitted, yet B. may be indicted as principal, and the former acquitted as accessory is no bar."
The crimes then are not the same, and may not indifferently be tried under the same indictment. But why is it that an acquittal as principal may be pleaded in bar to an indictment as accessory, while an acquittal as accessory may not be pleaded in bar to an indictment as principal? If it be answered that the accessory crime may be given in evidence on an indictment as principal, but that the principal crime may not be given in evidence on an indictment as accessory, the question recurs, on what legal ground does this distinction stand? I can imagine only this. An accessory being quodam modo a principal, in indictments where the law does not require the manner to be stated, which need not be special, evidence of accessory guilt, if the punishment be the same, may possibly be received; but every indictment as an accessory must be special. The very allegation that he is an accessory must be a special allegation, and must show how he became an accessory. The charges of this special indictment therefore must be proved as laid, and no evidence which proves the crime in a form substantially different can be received. If this be the legal reason for the distinction it supports the exposition of these dicta which has been given. If it be not the legal reason, I can conceive no other.
But suppose the law to be as contended for by the counsel for the United States.—Suppose an indictment charging an individual with personally assembling among others and thus levying war, may be satisfied with the proof that he caused the assemblage? What effect will this law have upon this case?
The guilt of the accused, if there be any guilt, does not consist in the assemblage, for he was not a member of it. The simple fact of assemblage no more affects one absent man than another. His guilt then consists in procuring the assemblage, and upon this fact depends his criminality. The proof relative to the character of an assemblage must be the same whether a man be present or absent. In the general, to charge any individual with the guilt by an assemblage, the fact of his presence must be proved. It constitutes an essential part of the overt act. If then the procurement be substituted in the place of presence, does it not also constitute an essential part of the overt act? Must it not al-
so be proved? Must it not be proved in the same manner that presence must be proved? If in one case the presence of the individual makes the guilt of the assemblage his guilt, and in the other case the procurement by the individual makes the guilt of the assemblage his guilt, then presence and procurement are equally component parts of the overt act, and equally require two witnesses.
Collateral points may, say the books, be proved according to the course of the common law, but is this a collateral point? Is the fact without which the accused does not participate in the guilt of the assemblage, if it was guilty, a collateral point? This cannot be. The presence of the party, where presence is necessary, being a part of the overt act, must be positively proven by two witnesses. No presumptive evidence; no facts from which presence may be conjectured or inferred, will satisfy the constitution and the law. If procurement take the place of presence, and become part of the overt act, then no presumptive evidence, no facts from which the procurement may be conjectured or inferred, can satisfy the constitution and the law. The mind is not to be led to the conclusion that the individual was present by a train of conjectures, or inferences, or of reasoning; the fact must be proved by two witnesses. Neither where procurement supplies the want of presence, is the mind to be conducted to the conclusion that the accused procured the assembly by a train of conjectures, or inferences, or of reasoning; the fact itself must be proved by two witnesses, and must have been committed within the district.
If it be said that the advising or procurement of treason is a secret transaction which can scarcely ever be proved in the manner required by this opinion; the answer which will readily suggest itself is, that the difficulty of proving a fact will not justify conviction without proof. Certainly it will not justify conviction without a direct and positive witness in a case where the constitution requires two. The more correct inference from this circumstance would seem to be, that the advising of the fact is not within the constitutional definition of the crime. To advise or procure a treason is in the nature of conspiring or plotting treason, which is not treason in itself.
If then the doctrines of Keeling, Hale, and East, are to be understood in the sense in which they are pressed by the counsel for the prosecution, and are applicable in the U. States; the fact that the accused procured the assemblage on Blennerhassett's island must be proved, not circumstantially, but positively by two witnesses, to charge him with that assemblage. But there are still other more important considerations which must be well weighed before this doctrine can be applied to the United States.
The 8th amendment to the constitution has been pressed with great force, and it is impossible not to feel its application to this point. The accused cannot be truly said to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," unless the indictment shall give him that notice which may reasonably suggest to him the point on which the accusation turns, so that he may know the course to be pursued in his defence.
It is also well worthy of consideration, that this doctrine so far as it respects treason, is entirely supported by the operation of the common law which is said to convert the accessory before the fact into the principal, and to make the act of the principal his act. The accessory before the fact is not said to have levied war. He is not said to be guilty under the statute. But the common law attaches to him the guilt of that fact which he has advised or procured, and as contended, makes it his act. This is the operation of the common law, not the operation of the statute. It is an operation then which can only be performed where the common law exists to perform it. It is the creature of the common law, and the creature presupposes its creator. To decide then that this doctrine is applicable to the United States, would seem to imply the decision that the United States, as a nation, have a common law which creates and defines the punishment of crimes accessory in their nature. It would imply the further decision that these accessory crimes are not, in the case of treason, excluded by the definition of treason given in the constitution. I will not pretend that I have not individually an opinion on these points, but it is one which I should give only in a case absolutely requiring it, unless I could confer respecting it, with the judges of the supreme court.
I have said that this doctrine cannot apply to the U. S. without implying those decisions respecting the common law which I have stated, because, should it be true as is contended, that the constitutional definition of treason comprehends him who advises or procures an assemblage that levies war, it would not follow that such adviser or procurer might be charged as having been present at the assemblage. If the adviser or procurer is within the definition of levying war, and, independent of the agency of the common law, does actually levy war, then the advisement or procurement is an overt act of levying war. If the overt act on which he is to be convicted then it must be charged in the indictment, for he can only be convicted on proof of the overt acts which are charged.
To render this distinction more intelligible, let it be recollected that although it should be conceded that since the statute of William and Mary, he who advises or procures a treason may in England be charg-
ed as having committed that treason by virtue of the common law operation which is said, so far as respects the indictment, to unite the accessory to the principal offence and permit them to be charged as one, yet it can never be conceded that he who commits one overt act under the statute of Edward, can be charged and convicted on proof of another overt act. If then procurement be an overt act of treason under the constitution, no man can be convicted for the procurement under an indictment charging him with actually assembling; whatever may be the doctrine of the common law in the case of an accessory offender.
It may not be improper in this place again to advert to the opinion of the supreme court and to show that it contains nothing contrary to the doctrine now laid down. That opinion is that an individual may be guilty of treason "who has not appeared in arms against his country: that if war be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable object, all those who perform any part however minute or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors."
This opinion does not touch the case of a person who advises or procures an assemblage, and does nothing further. The advising certainly, and perhaps the procuring, is more in the nature of a conspiracy to levy war, than of the actual levying of war. According to the opinion, it is not enough to be leagued in the conspiracy, and that war be levied, but it is also necessary to perform a part; that part is the act of levying war. This part, it is true, may be minute, it may not be the actual appearance in arms; and it may be remote from the scene of action, that is from the place where the army is assembled, but it must be a part, and that part must be performed by a person who is leagued in the conspiracy. This part however minute or remote constitutes the overt act on which alone the person who performs it can be convicted.
The opinion does not declare that the person who has performed this remote and minute part may be indicted for a part which was in truth performed by others, and convicted on their overt acts. It amounts to this and nothing more, that when war is actually levied, not only those who bear arms, but those also who are leagued in the conspiracy and who perform the various distinct parts which are necessary for the prosecution of war, do in the sense of the constitution levy war. It may possibly be the opinion of the supreme court that those who procure a treason and do nothing further are guilty, under the constitution; I only say that opinion has not yet been given; still less has it been indicated that he who advises, shall be indicted as having performed that act.
It is then the opinion of the court that this indictment can be supported only by testimony which proves the accused to have been actually or constructively present when the assemblage took place on Blennerhassett's island, or by the admission of the doctrine that he who procures an act may be indicted as having performed that act.
It is further the opinion of the court that there is no testimony whatever which tends to prove that the accused was actually or constructively present when that assemblage took place. Indeed the contrary is most apparent. With respect to admitting proof of procurement to establish a charge of actual presence, the court is of opinion that if this be admissible in England on an indictment for levying war, which is far from being conceded, it is admissible only by virtue of the operation of the common law upon the statute, and therefore is not admissible in this country unless by virtue of a similar operation; a point far from being established, but on which, for the present, no opinion is given. If, however, this point be established, still the procurement must be proved in the same manner and by the same kind of testimony which would be required to prove actual presence.
The second point in this division of the subject is the necessity of adducing the record of the previous conviction of some one person who committed the fact alleged to be treasonable.
This point pre-supposes the treason of the accused, if any has been committed, to be accessory in its nature. It's being of this description according to the British authorities, depends on the presence or absence of the accused at the time the fact was committed. The doctrine on this subject is well understood, has been most copiously explained, and need not be repeated. That there is no evidence of his actual or legal presence is a point already discussed and decided. It is then apparent that, but for the exception to the general principle which is made in cases of treason, those who assembled at Blennerhassett's island, if that assemblage was such as to constitute the crime, would be principals, and those who might really have caused that assemblage, although in truth the chief traitors, would in law be accessories.
It is a settled principle in the law that the accessory cannot be guilty of a greater offence than his principal. The maxim is, accessorius sequitur naturam sui principalis ; the accessory follows the nature of the principal. Hence results the necessity of establishing the guilt of the principal before the accessory can be tried. For the degree of guilt which is incurred by counselling or commanding the commission of a crime, depends upon the actual commission
of that crime. No man is an accessory to murder unless the fact has been committed.
The fact can only be established in a prosecution against the person by whom the crime has been perpetrated. The law imposes a man more capable of defending his own conduct than any other person, and will not tolerate that the guilt of A shall be established in a prosecution against B. Consequently, if the guilt of B depends on the guilt of A, A must be convicted before B can be tried. It would exhibit a monstrous deformity, indeed, in our system, if B might be executed for being accessory to a murder committed by A, and A should afterwards, upon a full trial, be acquitted for the fact. For this obvious reason, although the punishment of a principal and accessory was originally the same, and although in many instances it is still the same, the accessory could in no case be tried before the conviction of his principal, nor can he yet be tried previous to such conviction, unless he requires it, or unless a special provision to that effect be made by statute.
If then, this was a felony, the prisoner at the bar could not be tried unless the crime was established by the conviction of the person by whom it was actually perpetrated.
Is the law otherwise in this case, because in treason all are principals?
Let this question be answered by reason and by authority. Why is it that the felonies however atrocious, the trial of the accessory can never precede the conviction of the principal? Not because the one is denominated the principal and the other the accessory, for that would be ground on which a great law principle could never stand. Not because there was in fact a difference in the degree of moral guilt, for in the case of murder committed by a hardy villain for a bribe, the person plotting the murder and giving the bribe, is, perhaps, of the two the blacker criminal; and, were it otherwise, this would furnish no argument for precedence in trial.
What then is the reason? It has been already given. The legal guilt of the accessory depends on the guilt of the principal; and the guilt of the principal can only be established in a prosecution against himself.
Does not this reason apply in full force to a case of treason?
The legal guilt of the person who planned the assemblage on Blennerhassett's island depends, not simply on the criminality of the previous conspiracy, but on the criminality of that assemblage. If those who perpetrated the fact be not traitors, he who advises the fact cannot be a traitor. His guilt then in contemplation of law, depends on theirs, and their guilt can only be established in a prosecution against themselves. Whether the adviser of this assemblage be punishable with death as a principal or as an accessory, his liability to punishment depends on the degree of guilt attached to an act which has been perpetrated by others, and which, if it be a criminal act, renders them guilty also. His guilt therefore depends on theirs, and their guilt cannot be legally established in a prosecution against him.
The whole reason of the law then relative to the principal and accessory, so far as respects the order of trial, seems to apply in full force to a case of treason committed by one body of men in conspiracy with others who are absent.
From reason we pass to authority. We find it laid down by Hale, Foster, and East, in the most explicit terms, that the conviction of some one who has committed the treason must precede the trial of him who has advised or procured it. This position is also maintained by Leach in his notes on Hawkins, and is not, so far as the court has discovered, any where contradicted.
These authorities have been read and commented on at such length that it cannot be necessary for the court to bring them again into view. It is the less necessary because it is not understood that the law is controverted by the counsel for the United States.
It is, however, contended, that the prisoner has waived his right to demand the conviction of some one person who was present at the fact, by pleading to his indictment.
Had this indictment even charged the prisoner according to the truth of the case, the court would feel some difficulty in deciding that he had by implication waived his right to demand a species of testimony essential to his conviction. The court is not prepared to say that the act which is to operate against his rights, did not require that it should be performed with a full knowledge of its operation. It would seem consonant to the usual course of proceeding in other respects in criminal cases that the prisoner should be informed that he had a right to refuse to be tried until some person who committed the act should be convicted, and that he ought not to be considered as waiving the right to demand the record of conviction, unless with the full knowledge of that right he consented to be tried. The court, however, does not decide what the law would be in such a case. It is unnecessary to decide it because pleading to an indictment in which a man is charged as having committed an act, cannot be construed to waive a right which he would have possessed, had he been charged with having advised the act. No person indicted as a principal can be expected to say I am not a principal, I am an accessory; I did not commit, I only advised the act.
The authority of the English cases on this subject depends in a great measure

on the adoption of the common law doctrine of accessory to treasons. If that doctrine be excluded, this branch of it may not be directly applicable to treasons committed within the United States. If the crime of advising or procuring a levying of war be within the constitutional definition of treason, then he who advises or procures it must be indicted on the very fact, and the question whether the treasonableness of the act may be decided in the first instance in the trial of him who procured it, or must be decided in the trial of one who committed it, will depend upon the reason, as it respects the law of evidence, which produced the British decisions with regard to the trial of principal and accessory, rather than on the positive authority of those decisions.
This question is not essential in the present case, because if the crime be within the constitutional definition, it is an overt act of levying war, and to produce a conviction ought to have been charged in the indictment. The law of the case being thus far settled, what ought to be the decision of the court on the present motion? Ought the court to set and hear testimony which cannot affect the prisoner, or ought the court to arrest that testimony? On this question much has been said—much that may perhaps be ascribed to a misconception of the point really under consideration. The motion has been treated as a motion confessedly made to stop relevant testimony, and in the course of the argument, it has been repeatedly stated by those who oppose the motion, that irrelevant testimony may and ought to be stopped. That this statement is perfectly correct, is one of those fundamental principles in judicial proceedings which is acknowledged by all and is found in the absolute necessity of the thing.
No person will contend that in a civil or criminal case, either party is at liberty to introduce what testimony he pleases, legal or illegal, and to consume the whole term in details of facts unconnected with the particular case. Some tribunal then must decide on the admissibility of testimony. The parties cannot constitute this tribunal, for they do not agree. The jury cannot constitute it, for the question is whether they shall hear the testimony or not. Who then but the court can constitute it? It is of necessity the peculiar province of the court to judge of the admissibility of testimony. If the court admit improper, or reject proper testimony, it is an error of judgment, but it is an error committed in the direct exercise of their judicial functions. The present indictment charges the prisoner with levying war against the United States, and alleges an overt act of levying war. That overt act must be proved, according to the mandates of the constitution and of the act of Congress, by two witnesses. It is not proved by a single witness. The presence of the accused has been stated to be an essential component part of the overt act in this indictment, unless the common law principle respecting accessories should render it unnecessary; and there is not only no witness who has proved his actual or legal presence; but the fact of his absence is not controverted. The counsel for the prosecution offer to give in evidence subsequent transactions, at a different place, and in a different state, in order to prove what? The overt act laid in the indictment? That the prisoner was one of those who assembled at Blennerhasset's island? No; that is not alleged. It is well known that such testimony is not competent to establish such a fact. The constitution and law require that the fact should be established by two witnesses, not by the establishment of other facts from which the jury might reason to this fact. The testimony then is not relevant. If it can be introduced, it is only in the character of corroborative or confirmatory testimony, after the overt act has been proved by two witnesses, in such manner that the question of fact ought to be left with the jury. The conclusion that in this state of things no testimony can be admissible, is so inevitable, that the counsel for the U. States could not resist it. I do not understand them to deny, that if the overt act be proved by two witnesses so as to be submitted to the jury, that all other testimony must be irrelevant, because no other testimony can prove the act. Now an assembly on Blennerhasset's island is proved by the requisite number of witnesses, and the court might submit it to the jury, whether that assembly amounted to a levying of war, but the presence of the accused at that assembly being no where alleged except in the indictment, the overt act is not proved by a single witness, and of consequence all other testimony must be irrelevant.
The only difference between this motion as made, and the motion in the form which the counsel for the U. States would admit to be regular, is this. It is now general for the rejection of all testimony. It might be particular with respect to each witness as adduced. But can this be wished, or can it be deemed necessary? If enough is proved to show that the indictment cannot be supported, and that no testimony unless it be of that description which the attorney for the U. States declares himself not to possess, can be relevant, why should a question be taken on each witness?
The opinion of this court on the order of testimony has been frequently adverted to as deciding this question against the motion. If a contradiction between the two opinions does exist, the court cannot perceive it. It was said that levying war is an act compounded of law and fact, of which the jury aided by the court must judge. To that declaration the court still adheres.
It was said that if the overt act was not proved by two witnesses, no testimony in its nature corroborative or confirmatory, was admissible or could be relevant. From that declaration there is certainly no departure. It has been asked, in allusion to the present case, if a general commanding an army should detach troops for a distant service, would the men composing that detachment be traitors, and would the commander in chief escape punishment?
Let the opinion which has been given answer this question. Appearing at the head of an army would, according to this opinion, be an overt act of levying war;
detaching a military corps from it for military purposes might also be an overt act of levying war. It is not pretended that he would not be punishable for these acts, it is only said that he may be tried and convicted on his own acts, in the state where those acts were committed, not on the acts of others in the state where those others acted.
Much has been said in the course of the argument on points, on which the court feels no inclination to comment particularly, but which may perhaps not improperly receive some notice.
That this court dares not usurp power is most true.
That this court dares not shrink from its duty is not less true.
No man is desirous of placing himself in a disagreeable situation. No man is desirous of becoming the peculiar subject of calumny. No man, might he let the bitter cup pass from him without self-reproach, would drain it to the bottom. But if he has no choice in the case; if there is no alternative presented to him but a dereliction of duty on the opprobrium of those who are denominated the world, he merits the contempt as well as the indignation of his country who can hesitate which to embrace.
That gentlemen, in the zeal with which they advocate particular opinions and under the conviction in some measure produced by that zeal, should on each side press their arguments too far, should be impatient at any deliberation in the court, and should suspect or fear the operation of motives to which alone they can ascribe that deliberation, is perhaps a frailty incident to human nature; but if any conduct on the part of the court could warrant a suspicion that they would deviate to the one side or the other from the line prescribed by duty and by law, that conduct would be viewed by the judges themselves with an eye of extreme severity, and would long be recollected with deep and serious regret.
The arguments on both sides have been intently and deliberately considered. Those which could not be noticed, since to notice every argument and authority would swell this opinion to a volume, have not been disregarded. The result of the whole is a conviction as complete as the mind of the court is capable of receiving on a complex subject, that the motion must prevail.
No testimony relative to the conduct or declarations of the prisoner elsewhere and subsequent to the transaction on Blennerhasset's island can be admitted, because such testimony, being in its nature merely corroborative, and incompetent to prove the overt act in itself, is irrelevant, until there be proof of the overt act by two witnesses.
This opinion does not comprehend the proof by two witnesses that the meeting on Blennerhasset's island was procured by the prisoner. On that point the court, for the present, withholds its opinion for reasons which have been already assigned; and as it is understood from the statements made on the part of the prosecution that no such testimony exists. If there be such let it be offered and the court will decide upon it.
The jury have now heard the opinion of the court on the law of the case. They will apply that law to the facts, and will find a verdict of guilty or not guilty as their own consciences may direct.
Foreign. SEVENTY-EIGHTH BULLETIN OF THE FRENCH GRAND ARMY.
[On comparing the translation of the 78th bulletin, as published in the Boston papers, with the copy in our possession, we find that the following preliminary remarks are omitted. They are of consequence, as in some measure accounting for the long inactivity of the grand armies.] (Charleston Times.)
HEILSBERG, JUNE 12, 1807. Negotiations of peace had taken place during the whole winter. A general congress has been proposed to France, to which all the belligerent powers were to have been admitted, Turkey alone excepted. The emperor had been justly indignant at such a proposition. After a few months parleying, it was agreed that all the belligerent powers, without exception, should send plenipotentiaries to the congress which should be held at Copenhagen. The emperor had made known that Turkey was admitted to make common cause in the negotiations with France, there was no inconvenience in England making common cause with Russia. The enemies then asked upon what basis the congress would have to negotiate. They proposed none, and would, however, have the emperor propose some. The emperor had no hesitation to declare, that in his opinion, the basis of negotiation ought to be equality and reciprocity between the two belligerent masses, and that the two belligerent masses should enter in common into a system of compensations.
The moderation, the clearness, the readiness of this answer left the enemies of peace no doubt upon the pacific dispositions of the emperor. They dreaded the effects of them, and at the very moment when it was answered, that there was no further obstacle to the opening of the congress, the Russian army quitted its cantonments and came to attack the French army. Blood has, therefore, again been shed; but at least France is innocent of it. There has been no pacific overture but the emperor has listened to it. There has been no snare laid by the abettors of war but his will has avoided. They inconsiderately made the Russian army run to arms, when they saw their steps halted; and these criminal enterprises which justice disavows, have been confounded. New checks have been drawn upon the arms of Russia; new trophies have crowned those of France. Nothing more fully proves that passion and interests foreign to those of Russia and Prussia, direct the cabinets of these two powers, and lead their brave armies to new misfortunes, by forcing them to new engagements.
RIGHTY-SEVENTH BULLETIN OF THE GRAND ARMY. Konigsberg, July 18. The emperors of France and Russia, after twenty days residence at Tilsit, where
the imperial palaces were in the same street, and at no great distance, took leave of each other with the greatest cordiality, at three o'clock in the afternoon of the 9th. The journal which contains an account of what passed between them will be very interesting to both nations.
At half past four, the emperor Napoleon, having received a visit from the king of Prussia, who came to take his leave, set out for Konigsberg, where he arrived at ten at night. The king of Prussia went to Memel.
Yesterday the emperor Napoleon inspected the port of Konigsberg, in a boat manned by the imperial guard. To-day, his majesty will review Marshal Soult's corps, and at two o'clock to-morrow, he will set out for Dresden.
The number of Russians killed in the battle of Friedland, amounts to 17,500, the prisoners to 40,000—18,000 of whom have already passed thro' Konigsberg. 7000 remain sick in the hospitals, and the rest have been conducted to Thorn and Warshaw. Orders have been issued to send them home to Russia without delay; 7000 have already returned again to Konigsberg. Those in France are to be formed into provisional regiments. The emperor has ordered them to be clothed and armed.
The ratifications of the treaty of peace between France and Russia were exchanged at Tilsit on the 9th. The ratifications of the treaty of peace between France and Prussia will be exchanged here this day.
The plenipotentiaries charged with these negotiations, were, on the part of France, the prince of Benevento; princes Kurakin and Labanoff, on the part of Russia; and on the part of Prussia, field marshal count Kalkreuth, and the count de Goltz.
After such events as these, one cannot but smile when the great British expedition is mentioned, and at the new frenzy which animates the king of Sweden. Besides we may remark, that the army of observation, between the Elbe and the Oder, is 70,000 strong, exclusive of the grand army, without including the Spanish divisions, which are now upon the Oder also. It was therefore necessary for Britain to have brought her whole force together, her soldiers, her volunteers, her fencibles, &c. in order to have made a diversion of any interest. But when we take in our account, that England under the present circumstances, has sent 6000 men to Egypt only to be slaughtered by the Arabs, and 7000 men to the Spanish West-Indies, we can alone feel sentiments of pity for the extravagant avarice with which the cabinets are tormented.
The peace of Tilsit put an end to the operations of the army; notwithstanding this, all the Prussian coasts and ports will be shut against the British; and it is probable that the continental blockade will not prove a mere sound.
The Porte is included in the treaty. The revolution which lately occurred in Constantinople was an anti-christian revolution, which has nothing in common with the policy of Europe.
The adjutant-commandant Guilleminot is gone to Bessarabia, where he will communicate to the grand vizier the intelligence of the peace, and the liberty given to the Porte to take part in it, as well as of the conditions of the treaty in which the Porte is interested.
LONDON, Aug. 9.
We insert some extracts from the American papers received yesterday. Meetings have taken place in most of the principal towns upon the affair between the Chesapeake and Leopard. The resolutions of these assemblies are marked with all the violence, intemperance, and the fury of invective, which might have been expected. The pilots have been recalled from the British squadron, all communication was stopped, and no supplies whatever were allowed to be sent to it. As a matter of favor and indulgence, the British consul had obtained permission to communicate with the ships of war; but it was resolved should any British officer come ashore, except in a flag of truce, he should be made prisoner. If all this be not downright, unqualified hostility, we know not what acts are to be so interpreted. What kind of government must that be in which the executive power, from fear or incompetence, cannot, or durst not, control the tumultuous resolves of a violent and ignorant mob? If the populace of America are to take the law into their own hands, on occasions like this, and give the tone to the government, the maintenance of the customary relations with the United States will be almost impossible. Suppose the inhabitants of the British empire were to imitate the example of these frantic meetings, and cut off all supplies from the numerous American Vessels (nearly 1000 we understand) now in our ports. Is there not here an ample field for retaliation? But this is an idea which possibly never entered into the wise heads of the framers of these resolutions, or if it did, was studiously hid from the deluded and unthinking multitude, whom they are goading into war, to gratify their private passions and interests. We shall be surprised if this popular frenzy among the Americans endure for any time. It is too rash, too hasty, too unadvised, to last long. It has no fair or real foundation. The people of that country do not appear to have been in possession of the real state of the case. The agitators have suppressed and kept back all the circumstances of aggravation, insult, and contemptuous refusal of justice. As congress was to have been assembled in the course of last month, we look with some confidence to the deliberations of that body. We trust that they will step between their country and the greatest calamity, next to the loss of its liberty, which could befall it. There are those among them who understand and pursue the true interests of America, and it is to the manner in which they will discuss this subject, and not to the foolish and intemperate resolutions of the mobocracy of the country, that we look with any anxiety.
COURT MARTIAL.
On Wednesday last, a Court Martial was held on board H. M. S. Belleisle, Rear-Admiral Sir A. F. Cochrane, K. B. Capt. N. D. Cochrane, for the trial of John Wilson, alias Jenkin Ratford, (lately taken from
the American frigate Chesapeake) on charges of Desertion, Muting and Contempt. Rear-Adm. Hon. Sir A. F. Cochrane, K. B. President.
Capt. F. Pickmore, Capt. J. E. Douglas, W. Fabie, P. Beaver, E. Hawker, N. D. Cochrane.
It clearly appears on the trial, that the prisoner was born in London—was a volunteer in the service—had been some years in H. M. S. Leopard, but last in the Halifax. That, on the 7th of March last, the ship being then in Hampton Roads, the prisoner was sent with four other men, under a petty officer, in a jolly-boat, to weigh a kedge anchor; then taking advantage of the dusk of the evening, the evening, the men mutinied upon the officer, and some of them threatened to murder him; but the rest interfering, they desisted—and landing at Sewell's point, the five made their escape. A few days after, the deserters were seen parading the streets of Norfolk, in triumph under the American flag:—One of them, H. Saunders, being accosted by Lord Townsend, asserted that he had no intention of deserting, but was compelled by the others; and would embrace the first opportunity to return on board. At that moment the prisoner, Jenkin Ratford, took the arm of Saunders, declaring that neither he nor any of the others should return to the ship—with a contemptuous gesture, asserted—that they were then in the Land of Liberty , and instantly dragged Saunders away.
That the prisoner had entered on board the Chesapeake—had proceeded to sea in her—and had been found on board that ship, after the action (by an officer of H. M. S. Leopard) laid in the coal-hole.
A variety of other circumstances were developed in the course of the evidence—The whole of which tended to prove, that although deserters from the American naval or military establishments had been readily given up by H. M. ships on the station; yet, on the other hand they had ever been refused by the Americans, when demanded by British officers.
Two men had entered on board H. M. S. Chichester; who being demanded by an American officer as deserters from their service, were instantly restored, notwithstanding they were confessedly Englishmen.—But, W. Phillips, corporal of marines, John Mahony, 87th regt. and others, having deserted from the Chichester, and entered with their uniforms on, into the American service, were positively refused to be given up to the British officer sent to demand them.
The evasion and duplicity of the American Commodore, in denying that there were any deserters on board his ship, were strikingly contrasted with the humane and honorable conduct of Captain Humphreys; who, evidently demonstrated the greatest reluctance to pursue the steps, which the refusal of the American Commodore rendered absolutely necessary.
After a full and patient hearing of the evidence, on both sides, the court withdrew for about half an hour; and, on its return, the Judge Advocate pronounced the sentence— DEATH!
The President addressed the unhappy criminal in a most pathetic and impressive style—lamenting much the depravity, which had induced him to desert the cause of his King and Country in the present eventful moment; when the very existence of that country was threatened by inveterate & implacable enemies, on every quarter—and earnestly recommended him to occupy the remaining moments of his life, in making his peace with the Almighty.
The charges being fully proved, the court sentenced him to death; which sentence was carried into execution yesterday morning, at a quarter past nine o'clock, at the fore yard arm of his majesty's sloop of war Halifax—the ship he deserted from. He was one of the four men taken out of the American frigate Chesapeake.
Halifax Royal Gazette of Sept. 1st. * Application was then made to Lieut. Sinclair, the American Officer at the rendezvous, but without effect.
The case candidly considered.—We are now to make a plain and concise statement of what we conceive to be the true nature of the present controversy between us and Great Britain.
The English writers in Canada, insist that the sailors who are the immediate cause of dispute, having entered into the British navy, and taken the king's bounty, and then deserted, could not be received and protected by us, and that therefore any British cruiser had a right to retake them whenever she found them, on the high seas, "this being the only mode of recovering their deserted seamen." And some of the Boston prints have for some time been engaged in softening down the public resentment, and preparing the way for an apology maintaining that the attack of the Leopard on the Chesapeake was a necessary and consequently a lawful act. Lastly, letters from Halifax published and circulated in several of our newspapers, charge us with "being in the practice of crimping English seamen."
When we see such grounds openly taken or countenanced among ourselves, it is high time for those who hold a different language to come out and make a stand in behalf of our common country. Although not acquainted with all the facts in the case before us, yet it will be found, if we do not deceive ourselves, that enough have transpired to enable every man of common sense to form and pronounce a correct opinion upon it.
It appears by the letter of Capt. Crafts to the Secretary of the Treasury, that three of the four men about whom the controversy has arisen, viz: Ware, Martin & Little, belonging to the brig Neptune, which sailed from New York August, 1805; that the brig was captured by the frigate Melampus, and sent into Plymouth for condemnation—the crew, excepting the captain and boy, having been first taken out. The brig and cargo were liberated on a hearing, and after the arrival of the Melampus at the same port, she returned the Neptune her crew, including these men. A few days afterwards, while the Neptune lay at anchor, two of the men, Ware and Martin, were ordered ashore in the boat, which they immediately deserted and left on the beach. Capt. Crafts went ashore in search of them, and found Ware mixing
with the crew of the Melampus, and on his speaking to him, he received a saucy answer, and a refusal to obey him any more. The same evening Little deserted openly, before the captain's face, getting into the barge of the Melampus, which came alongside and took him in. On the application of Capt. Crafts to the commander of the frigate, to obtain his men again, informing him that their loss would distress him, the latter replied that he did not want the men, for he had his compliment, and he believed them to be three scoundrels; but that if they chose to enter with him, he should expect Capt. Crafts to pay them up their wages—which however was refused.
In this respect Capt. Crafts was more fortunate than the Captain of the ship Fanny, who while lying in Greenock lost the whole crew by desertion to a British Tender, the Captain of which not only refused to deliver them up, but obliged the American to send them their chests and baggage, and to pay up every shilling of their back wages. Indeed no one will deny that to receive deserters and encourage desertions to English ships of war is a constant, open, and avowed practice, and one countenanced by English laws.
Behold now our three seamen all safe on board the Melampus frigate, and making part of her crew, having formally entered and received the king's bounty. Very well. She arrives at Norfolk and sends her boat ashore for water, and there three sailors in it, with one more. They understood perfectly the trick of leaving boats; they had left the Neptune's boat, at Plymouth, in England, and had been received and protected by a British frigate; and it would be hard indeed, as well as unaccountably strange, if they could not leave the boat of the Melampus at Norfolk, in America. This mode of reasoning required no great ingenuity; it was indeed so natural and obvious, they could not well miss it, so they left the boat and made off!
The cups are turned, and every thing turns too, as by enchantment. The conduct which at Plymouth was thought so commendable and worthy of reward, when it operated against an American vessel, now, at Norfolk, when it is found to operate against an English vessel, is suddenly transformed into the double crime of mutiny, and desertion! both punishable with death!!—N. Y. Ev. Post.
Who is this John Wilson, alias Jenkin Ratford, mentioned in the above trial, and said to have been taken lately out of the American frigate Chesapeake; It is the first time we have ever heard of him. Neither the president's proclamation, nor any documents that have yet been laid before the public, that we can discover, make any mention of such a man. The four men in dispute (and only four) which led to the aggression, and are claimed by our government are W. Ware, Daniel Martin, John Strachn and John Little. If there were others taken out of the Chesapeake, why has not the fact been made known. There is something very mysterious, if not suspicious, if this John Wilson was actually taken out of the frigate Chesapeake, by the British frigate Leopard, and our government have omitted to mention it, for they must have been in possession of the fact.
PHILADELPHIA, September 17.
Extract of a letter from an American gentleman in London, to his friend in this city.
"I have only time to mention two or three observations. From some pointed inquiries which have been made regarding Pensacola—the depth of water there, the security of the harbor, quantity of troops, &c. &c. I infer England has her eye on that quarter.
"You will have heard of the British vessels being ordered to leave Tompion, &c. This I believe was premature and merely arose from the fears of the British consul there. There is a very considerable direct trade carried on between this country and Holland, in neutral ships licensed by the government of Holland; so likewise to France and Spain.
"America is no longer viewed with indifference by this country, as regards her commerce, but considered as a powerful rival . The British I am persuaded, would go any length to destroy our carrying trade, and check our enterprise; but the calculation seems to be, that they must equally injure themselves to injure us. We have almost destroyed the East-India and China trade of this country. The East-India Company is doing bad business; and, by some, thought not overstocked with capital.
"The introduction of cotton on the continent, and of various manufactures of that article, will, I think, sooner or later deprive this country of one of her best branches of manufacture."
Extract of a letter from the same American to the same.
"Since I wrote to you last, I have ascertained the following facts.
"1st. That our government instructed our ministers not to agree to any treaty, that did not make an American ship a sanctuary for seamen ."
"2d. That the British commissioners absolutely refused to insert any clause to that effect in the treaty, inasmuch as it went to encourage desertion from their ships, and when deserted thereby protected."
"3d. That our ministers in consequence, declared the negotiation at an end."
"4th. That the British commissioners solicited a continuation of the negotiation on all the other subjects, which was agreed to upon the express condition that such partial treaty should not be held official on the part of the United States."
"5th. In lieu of the article regarding seamen insisted upon by our ministers, the British commissioners in form of a letter avowed the practice they would pursue towards the United States, regarding seamen."
"6th. There was no additional article to the treaty (as was supposed) but the British commissioners addressed a letter to our ministers (after Bonaparte's decree of blockade) declaring themselves at liberty to counteract the measures France might pursue under that decree unless America resisted the encroachments of France."

7th. That the treaty in other respects was as favorable and reciprocal as could reasonably be expected. "No apprehensions exist of any change of sentiment towards America in consequence of the new administration. In case no treaty shall be agreed on, we shall only be considered to stand on the ground we did before we had a treaty with this country. Our sea-letter ships will not be permitted to enter as American ships in British ports."
SPECULATIVE VIEWS. The battle of Friedland—breaks the alliance between Britain and Russia: between Britain and Prussia: Annihilates all hopes of a future coalition, A future alliance with Austria, A restoration of British influence in Turkey, An establishment in Egypt; A monopoly of the commerce of the Euxine; Of the overland commerce by the Baltic; Of the monopoly of the Baltic trade. Paralyzes the monopoly of the Levant company. Secures the commerce and influence of France in the Mediterranean. Renders Malta of little importance but as an obstacle to a peace. Diminishes the importance of Gibraltar: And places the Barbary powers under the influence of France. The battle of Friedland leaves the army in Dalmatia at liberty to march into Turkey. The Dardanelles will be occupied by the French engineers. Constantinople will become to France, what Benares, and Lucknow, and Delhi, and Seringapatam, are to the British—the capitol of an ally in form, the chief place of a province in fact. Egypt will be garrisoned by French troops. Syria will have French garrisons. The Turkish frontier will be extended on the Euxine. The Austrian frontier will be extended on the Danube. The Russian frontier will be reduced within narrow limits on the Caspian. The Persians will become the allies and send ambassadors to France. The Hindustan princes will form alliances with Persia. In 1808, the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies will be revolutionized. South America will be abandoned by the British. The Cape of Good Hope will be restored. Ceylon will be restored, Malta will be abandoned, Trinidad will be abandoned, Sicily will be abandoned, In some city of France in the course of a few months—a general congress will be held of delegates from the powers of Europe, who under the guidance of France will enter into stipulations and form a code for the ocean and for the peace of Europe. (Aurora.)
From the New-York Evening Post.
COMMUNICATION. MR. COLEMAN. I read with considerable pain and mortification, your editorial article in last evening's paper, respecting the acquittal and discharge of Col. Burr. The exulting manner in which you treated the subject was unbecoming the principles you have so long and so ably supported. What is there in the result of this prosecution that can justly be considered as a matter of triumph, among men of understanding and integrity? Such persons will undoubtedly always feel great satisfaction in seeing the law take its course, and justice administered with purity and impartiality, whether Col. Burr be the subject of it, or the humblest creature in existence. To acquiesce therefore in the decision of the court on Burr's case, and to submit to it as the correct judgment of law is the duty of every good citizen; but to rejoice in it belongs only to the partisans of the man himself. I trust that Federalists will not by any public countenance of Mr. Burr, forget what they owe to the memory of Hamilton, and what is due to their own honor. Let me not be misunderstood: I would not hang Burr for treason, if he is not legally guilty of it, because he murdered Hamilton; still, bearing this event in mind, I think he has forfeited all claims to our sympathies. Whilst I would withhold from him therefore, every thing like favor, I would by no means exclude him from justice. The legal proof against Mr. Burr of treason, failed—but will honorable men say that he has established his innocence in a moral point of view; I have no desire if I know my own heart to be vindictive; but I cannot help viewing it as both dangerous and disgraceful to contribute in any degree to the future elevation of a man, who has so deservedly lost the confidence of his country. Let us then stand indifferent with regard to his fate, so long as he is in common with every one else enjoys the security and protection which the law guarantees alike to all. But let us beware of representing him as a martyr. C. D.
NORFOLK, September 12.
PORT OF NORFOLK.
ARRIVED. Ship Courtney, Briant, 53 days from Liverpool—Salt—Wm. Pennock. Ship Live Oak, Yarrell, 60 days from London—ballast—Wm. Pennock.
Taken up by the subscriber, in the lower end of Lunenburg county, three stray Hogs, viz. two cows and a boar, supposed to be about fifteen years old or upwards, tolerably grown for that age. The boar is a pale red colour; the two cows nearly of the same colour, intermixed with black spots, all of them unmarked, posted and appraised to forty-five shillings. JOHN BLACKWELL. August 7th, 1807. W.B.
Church's Cough Drops just received from the Proprietor's Direct from New-York, and for sale at this office.
Virginia Argus. RICHMOND: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1807 FEDERAL COURT.
Latest Proceedings of the Court on the motion to commit Aaron Burr, &c.
SATURDAY, September 19. The court was opened at 10 o'clock. The proceedings of this day commenced with the examination of Jacob Dunbaugh, a witness on the part of the United States. But the interruptions were so incessant, arising from the various objections made to the questions propounded to him, that his examination was not closed when the court adjourned, at 4 o'clock. This witness proved the assemblage at the mouth of Cumberland, and that the arms (to the amount of forty or upwards) which were on board the boats, were sunk in the river by the direction of Col. Burr, before his boats were searched by the persons sent for that purpose, by the civil authority. The great point in controversy at present seems to be this. The court considered the fact of the assemblage at the mouth of Cumberland as an equivocal act, and that testimony might be adduced to show the character of that act, and the intention with which the assemblage took place. On the other hand, it was contended by Col. Burr and his counsel that there could be no such thing as an equivocal act. That the meeting at the mouth of Cumberland was either innocent in itself or criminal. If innocent, no testimony drawn from any other source could make it criminal. Upon this point it is expected that the counsel of Col. Burr will urge to be heard on Monday next.
MONDAY, September 21. After a variety of desultory debate of a very extraordinary nature, in which Col. Burr and his counsel endeavored to prevent any evidence of transactions in the Miss. Territory from being heard, altho' by way of explanation of the overt act alleged to have been committed at the mouth of Cumberland river, the Chief Justice declared his opinion to be that such evidence was admissible; the assembly of men at that place appearing on the testimony already examined, to have been of a doubtful and equivocal nature, and such as might possibly by farther evidence be proved to have been treasonable; but that, if the counsel for Col. Burr insisted on a regular argument to convince him his opinion was erroneous, he was willing to hear it. Mr. Hay then rose, and observed that the witnesses for the United States had been attending a tedious length of time, in the vain expectation of being examined in court; that the expense of their attendance was enormous; that the accused and his counsel seemed to labor to spin out time, on purpose that the witnesses against him, being wearied with waiting, might go away. He therefore declared that he should not attend to the argument proposed, nor answer any thing which might be said, but should proceed immediately to take the depositions of the witnesses; and thereupon, gave notice to Col. Burr and his counsel that he should commence taking those depositions at the Washington tavern, within one hour. He accordingly retired for that purpose; Col. Burr and his counsel declaring they would not attend in conformity with the notice.
After some debate, the Chief Justice permitted Jacob Dunbaugh to go on with his testimony and to relate the transactions in the Mississippi Territory. His examination consumed the greater part of the day; after which Israel Miller was examined, and the court adjourned until Tuesday ten o'clock.
TUESDAY, September 22. This day several other witnesses were heard on the part of the United States. Considerable progress appears now to be making in the elucidation of the mysterious proceedings of Aaron Burr. Full information shall be given to the public as soon as possible. The court adjourned until this day (Wednesday) ten o'clock.
The trial of Aaron Burr for treason, as stated in our last, has been arrested by the decision of the court. Of the soundness of this decision it is premature to speak, as it is not yet given to the public, and may possibly present views of the subject which have not suggested themselves to any other mind beside that of the Chief Justice. At such an arrestation of the ordinary course of justice, the unlearned world are, it is true, lost in astonishment. It is, however, but fair to wait for the reasons on which the opinion is founded. But it is not premature to express our regret that the full disclosure of a plot, which there is every reason to believe was of the most gigantic and alarming character, has been thus smothered at the very threshold. It is the immense volume of testimony, now accumulated at Richmond, and which will never hereafter, perhaps, be elsewhere collected, to be closed for ever! Of one hundred and thirty-five witnesses, but fifteen have been examined; and of these fifteen but a few have said any thing of the direct agency of Burr. The moment he was pursued into the states of Ohio and Kentucky, and the territories, the disclosure is arrested—by whom? By Aaron Burr and his counsel—and the arrestation, although strenuously opposed by the counsel for the U. States, is sanctioned by the court. The question forcibly presents itself—are the nation to have the door shut against that mass of testimony, which is expected from Wilkinson and the other witnesses summoned? Are
they still to grope in the dark on points of vast importance, which deeply implicate persons and things, and which have keenly excited the sensibility of the whole country. Is suspicion still to keep possession of the judgment seat, and usurp the authority alone due to truth? These are considerations, which, we will venture to predict, will most powerfully influence the public mind. The people will enquire to whom they are indebted for the suppression of facts so anxiously desired by them. They will naturally enquire why they were suppressed by Mr. Burr, unless he dreaded their disclosure; they will enquire what reasons an innocent man could have for suppressing the truth—Nat. Intel.
The following well written remarks from Bell's Weekly Messenger, a London paper, will be read with much pleasure by every friend to the United States.
CONSEQUENCES & IMPOLICY OF A WAR WITH AMERICA. The intelligence of the week has produced one event upon which it is impossible to reflect without a sentiment of indignation. The intemperance of one of our Admirals has nearly involved us in a war with America. The intemperance of the party-writers at home has hurried them not only to approve the conduct of our officers, but to make the unqualified assertion, that a war with America would be an undoubted good—an absolute advantage to us. A war with America an undoubted good! We really wish that these advocates for war would consult the Merchants of London, Liverpool, and Bristol. They would soon be compelled into other conclusions. America, say these advocates, monopolizes the whole of our Colonial Carrying Trade. This is a manifest injury to British commerce. Indeed! Why is it, good friends, that merchants prefer the Americans as carriers to carriers of their own nation? For no other reason, but because as a neutral, America can afford to take their commodities at a lower freightage. And is not this an indispensable advantage both to the individual merchant, and to the general commerce of the country? Are not our commodities thus enabled to come cheaper to market, and thereby ensure a more certain and speedy sale. It appears, therefore, in this point of view the carrying trade of America is of real benefit to the general commerce of England. But the shipping trade say the party-writers, must proportionally suffer—Certainly. But it will not, we hope, be contended, that the interests of the general commerce are to be sacrificed to one particular branch—the shipping or country trade. There are, indeed, certain advantages, which are essential to neutrals, and which no belligerent power should grudge to its neutral neighbor, inasmuch as they themselves fully participate in the benefit. Commerce would not only languish, but, in many respects would be totally extinguished, if these neutral mediums were to be prohibited.
In what manner, for example, is it, that our colonial produce obtains admission into France and Germany, in despite of all the oppressive regulations of the French Emperor? It is only through these neutral mediums. In a word, what America takes with one hand, she gives us tenfold with the other. She is above a carrier or an agent. Her flag covers the English as well as the French manufactures. She has no partiality but that of gain, and as this may be procured equally on both sides, so will America be found equally advantageous to both. If America were to be cut off from the carrying trade, say the party writers, the British merchant would be compelled to employ his own countrymen. We have already answered this argument. The employment of the neutral medium is of benefit to the general commerce, and the interest of one branch must not be consulted at the expense of the whole. The merchants must not send their commodities into foreign markets, at a price amounting to a prohibition of all purchase, for no other purpose but that they would employ their own countrymen. They must not pay convoy and insurance on commodities (sugars, for example) which will scarcely pay the simple freightage.
A very shallow objection is here made. These commodities, say they, are articles of necessity; the buyers must have them, and will therefore pay the price, be it what it may. In the first place, other commodities will enter into competition with them, and tho' not so good, the difference being more than compensated by the inferior price, will assuredly find a preference. In the second place, in the circumstance of any advanced price, even the necessary buyers take a less quantity than usual. But this diminished consumption is so much dead loss to the merchant and manufacturer. It will not, we hope, be contended, that there is a new thing in the advance of price which can indemnify him for his diminished sale. The advanced price is but the defrayment of his advanced expense. If he adds any thing beyond it, it is a forced augmentation of his profits beyond their natural level, and of course subjects him to be undersold by those who will sell at a fair profit. He gains nothing, therefore, as we have above said, by his advanced price, and therefore must necessarily lose by his diminished sale. Such then would be the necessary effects of forcing trade into an unnatural channel—of compelling our merchants in event, and under every circumstance, to employ only British shipping, and dismiss the neutral medium.
Our commerce would suffer and ultimately our shipping. We should shortly have more ships, but fewer commodities. Our ship builders would then have like cause of complaint, that they had employed their capitals in building vessels, which have only to rot in the docks. The result is that nothing is to be gained by a war with America. In her carrying trade, she carries for us, and she carries for our enemy. It would be a manifest injury to our general commerce to deprive her of the former, and with respect to the latter, we should not gain that of which we should deprive America. We could not
supply her place by becoming carriers to our enemy; neither should we much distress the enemy by cutting off this means of conveyance—we should only throw his carrying trade into another channel—while the Dunes are neutral, it would be to no purpose to cut off the neutral medium of America.
We might add, that we perhaps gain as much on one hand as we lose on the other by this neutral communication—America carries English manufactures as often at least as she carries French—We might almost say, that in her character as a neutral trader she carries scarcely any thing else but English goods.
We have entered into some details upon this subject, as there seems to be a strange misconception upon the very first principles of political economy. It is contended, for the first time, that the merchant will lose nothing by being compelled to sell dear; and that is a matter of perfect indifference in commerce, whether the commodity reaches its market by a direct road, and therefore at a natural price, or thro' all the obstacles of possible interruption, and therefore at a very disproportioned and very unnatural price.
"The only difference would be," say they, quoting the words of Mr. Randolph, an American Senator, "that the Americans will have to give a Joe for a commodity where they formerly gave a dollar." This might be the difference to such a man as Mr. Randolph, who could equally afford to have the commodity whether it cost a Joe or a dollar. But it would be very different with respect to the Americans in general. Every one could not purchase at a Joe who purchased at a Dollar. Some would endeavour, therefore, to do without it, others would begin to think of substitutes.—Necessity is the mother of invention. Let us not drive the Americans to resources from which it may be afterwards difficult to recall them.
THE TREATY
Concluded on the 12th July between France and Prussia, is nearly a repetition of that between France and Russia. The two following articles are the only parts worth publishing.
Art. II. The part of the Duchy of Magdeburg, which lies on the right bank of the Elbe; the mark of Prignitz, the Uckermark, and the Newmark of Brandenburg, with exception of the circle of Kotibus, in Lower Lusatia; the Duchy of Pomerania, Upper, Lower, and new Silesia, with the country of Glatz, the part of the district of Netz, which lies from the North of the road from Dresden to Schneidemuhl, and to the North of the line passing from Schneidemuhl, by Wallau, to the Vistula, and to the frontiers of the circle of Bromberg Pomerellia, the island of Nogat and the country on the right bank of the Vistula and the Nogat to the West of old Prussia, and the North of the Circles of Culm and Ermeland: finally, the kingdom of Prussia, as it was on the 1st of January, 1772, shall be restored to his majesty the king of Prussia, with the fortresses of Spandau, Stettin, Custrin, Giogau, Breslau, Schneidnitz, Nolls, Breig, Cosel, and Glatz, and in general all the places, citadels, castles and forts, of the above-mentioned, shall be restored in the state in which they at present are. The town and citadel of Grudenz, with the villages of Neudorf, Parschken, and Schwerkorzy, shall likewise be restored to his majesty the king of Prussia.
Art. XXVII. Until the day of the ratification of the future definitive treaty of peace between France and England, all the countries under the dominion of his majesty the king of Prussia without any exception whatsoever, shall be shut against the trade and navigation of the English. No shipment to be made from any Prussian port for the British Isles or British Colonies; nor shall any ship from England, or her colonies, be admitted into any Prussian port.
THE NEWS
The treaty of peace and amity between France and Prussia, humbles the latter power to the state of a dependent province. It was supposed that the interference of the emperor of Russia would have obtained conditions for her of a different complexion. The articles of the treaty prove the reverse. She has fallen the miserable dupe of British policy, unpitied and despised by the author of her ruin. She loses all the extensive and fertile country between the Rhine and the Elbe, including the important fortress of Magdeburgh, and a great part of the Duchy, which secures to France the command of the important navigation of the Elbe. The confiscated territories of Prussia are to be given to such persons as the conqueror shall determine; he has already declared his pleasure, and allotted the greatest part to his brother Jerome, whom the king of Prussia was obliged to recognize in the character of King of Westphalia. Besides the valuable city of Danzick, situated at the mouth of the Vistula, she loses, with the exception of a narrow district, all her possessions so unjustly acquired in Poland. These dominions are consigned to the care of one of Bonaparte's kings, the late elector of Saxony, under the name of the Duchy of Warsaw. Finally, to fix and secure the humiliation of the infatuated Frederick, thus placed under the immediate control and inspection of his enemies, the King of Saxony is to have a free passage for his troops through the kingdom of Prussia at all times to his new possessions in Poland. All the ports of Prussia are to be shut against England during the war. Danzick is likewise included in these restrictions. Part of the Prussian dominions in Poland are given to the Emperor of Russia, under the denomination of cessions from the new Duchy of Warsaw. Hostilities between France and Sweden will soon terminate—The principal force of the latter is cooped up in Stralsund—The French General Brune has orders to take the works by storm. It is the intention of France to drive the Swedes entirely from Pomerania, and to exclude the king of Sweden from all interference with the affairs of Germany. The British expedition to the North will be of no service to the Swedes—It may end, however, in taking possession of the Danish navy. The peace of Europe is to be decided on the shores of the Baltic. Private letters state, that with
respect to Turkey, the Grand Seignor is to be confined to his Asiatic possessions, and that European Turkey is to be equally divided between Russia and France. They further report, that it has been agreed between Napoleon and Alexander, that the former shall assume the title of "Emperor of the West," and the latter, that of "Emperor of the East."—N. Y. Pub. Adv.
The Editors of the Ministerial paper, (says the Traveller) have for the present, agreed that the affair of the American Post shall be decided by the law of nations. There is reason, however, to believe that this is only a piece of policy on their part. They have in the mean time, sent their wife on a cruise up the Baltic, as far as Copenhagen, to peep into the Russian dock-yard; and we give Mr. Monroe fair warning, that if he does not adjust matters before they have time to reach their scattered senses from the Gulf of Finland, he may expect the Courier, Herald and Morning Post, will again coalesce to drive him, Fagendoff, Grotius, and the law of nations to the D—l.
At a meeting of the democratic conference of the city and county of Philadelphia and the county of Delaware, WILLIAM DUANE was nominated as a candidate for the office of Senator to represent that district in the Senate of Pennsylvania.
By the last London papers we observed that powdered charcoal has become the fashionable dentifrice in the higher circles. It is better adapted to the cleaning of teeth than any other substance with which we are acquainted—it corrects the fctor which arises from decayed teeth, at the same time that it whitens them as far as this is possible. We earnestly recommend it to our readers.—The celebrated Dr. Darwin directs it to be prepared in the following manner:—a lump of charcoal should be put a second time into the fire till it is red hot; as soon as it becomes cool the external ashes should be blown off, and it should be immediately reduced to fine powder in a mortar, sifted, and kept close stopped in a phial. It should be used every morning, upon a brush which is not too hard, with warm water. After every meal the mouth should be care fully rinsed to dislodge any animal matter, from between the teeth, which, by becoming putrid, would destroy the enamel, produce pain, and ultimately destroy the teeth. (Spectator.)
THE MEDICAL LECTURES in Philadelphia, will commence on the first Monday in November.
Adventurers in the BLACK RIVER LOTTERY, may have their tickets examined by the Managers' List of Prizes, on application at this office.
MARRIED—On Saturday evening last, by the Rev. JOHN D. BLAIR, Mr. RICHARD CARTER, to Miss SUSANNA PRICE both of Henrico county.
DEATH. Departed this life on Sunday night the 20th inst. Mr. WILLIAM FREDERICK AST, Principal Agent of the Mutual Assurance Society against Fire on Buildings in this state.
Postscript.
BOSTON, September 14.
CAPTURE OF STRALSUND.
From the Baltic.—The brig Sally and Mary, capt. Cobb, arrived here yesterday, from Copenhagen, which place she left the 29th July. Unfortunately Captain C. brought no papers; and we lament it the more, as had he brought any we should have been in possession of very late news from the Continent of Europe. Captain C. informs, that a report had just been received of an attack upon Stralsund, and its capture, by the French; that previous to the attack, the English had joined the Swedes; that the battle was very severe, and that the loss of the French was very great. Of the Naze, Capt. C. saw 47 sail of British vessels, 27 of them ships of the line.
At a Court held for Henrico county, at the Courthouse, the ninth day of September, 1807.
James Brown and Robert Rivers, surviving partners of the commercial house of Brown, Rivers & Company, complainants. Against Thomas Reeves and William Temple, defendants.
This day came the complainants by their counsel, and the defendant Reeves not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court; and it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that he is not an inhabitant of this commonwealth: On the motion of the complainants, it is ordered, that he do appear here on the first day of December Court next, and answer the bill of the complainants; and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some newspaper printed in the city of Richmond for two months successively, and posted at the door of the courthouse of this county on two successive court days.
A copy, Teste: ADAM CRAIG, B. C.
Will be Sold, On October Cumberland Court day next, on a credit of one and two years,
A TRACT OF LAND.
Containing about four hundred and fifty acres, lying on the branches of Willis's river in said county of Cumberland, which was conveyed in trust to secure a debt due by James Thomas and Francis Deane to William McBean. This land adjoins Col. Benjamin Wilson and Langhorne Walton, and formerly belonged to Edward Serage, from whom the said James Thomas and Francis Deane purchased. The purchaser will be bound to give bond with approved security, payable with interest from the day of sale. William Daniel, Jr. Wm. M. Thornton, Committee. Samuel Anderson.
20th Sept. 1807. VOL. 3th, PART 1st, OR NO. 8 of Rees's New Cyclopaedia, just received and ready for delivery to subscribers at this office. Aug. 3.

FOR SALE, THAT most beautiful and healthy situation known by the name of HALLS BOROUGH, or HALL'S STORE, lying on the Backingham road, seventeen miles above Manchester. Also another valuable TRACT OF LAND, in the lower end of Powhatan county, containing two hundred acres more or less, with good improvements, and there is no doubt of a great quantity of COAL being on this land. The subscriber will give a great bargain in the said lands, as he wishes to move to the Western country. For terms apply to ZACH'N HALL. August 25th, 1807.
FOR RENT, AND possession given on the 1st day of Oct. three large and convenient Rooms, fronting the street, in the upper part of the house at present occupied by Carter B. Page, Esq. These rooms are well calculated for offices and may be had on reasonable terms. Also the cellar under the store of J. W. Dennis, & Co. which has lately been fitted up as a store and is rendered more comfortable than usual, there being a good plank floor. For terms apply to Benjamin, Dennis. Richmond, August 20th, 1807.
Notice, THAT by virtue of a deed of trust made to us, we shall on Saturday the 28th day of September next, before the front door of the Eagle Tavern in this city, expose to sale for ready money, to the highest bidder, one certain piece or parcel of GROUND situated in this city, at Rockers, being a part of Raper's Tenement, as it is generally denominated, and which is more particularly described in the aforesaid deed executed by Richard Young to us, and duly recorded in the Hustings Court of this city, or so much thereof as shall be sufficient to pay and satisfy David George the sum of 400 dollars, with interest thereon from the 10th day of May 1807, and the costs and charges attending the execution of this trust. Wm. M'Kim, } Trustees Wm. Marshall, } Richmond, 27th, Aug. 1807.
JUST RECEIVED, AND FOR SALE ON LIBERAL TERMS, 1000 Sacks  Liverpool Salt. JOHN TOMPKINS. 7th July, 1807.
PRICES OF  Nails, Brads & Sprigs, MANUFACTURED at the Penitentiary, and for sale by NICHOLAS HALLAM, agent for the Commonwealth, a few doors above the Swan Tavern, Richmond.    CUT NAILS.    Wholesale.  Retail.    3d. 12 1-2 cts.  13 1-2 cts per pound.    4d. 11 1-2  12 1-2    6d. 10 1-2  11 1-2    8d. 10  11    10d. 9 1-2  10 1-2    12d. 9 1-2  10 1-2    20d. 9 1-2  10 1-2    CUT BRADS.    8d. 9 1-2  10 1-2    10d. 9  10    12d. 9  10    20d. 9  10  
WROUGHT NAILS.    6d. 12  13 1-2    8d. 11 1-2  12    10d. 11  12    12d. 11  12    20d. 11  12    30d. 11  12    Spikes of all sizes the same price as 30d nails.  CUT SPRIGS. 3d.—50 cents per thousand.—4d. 67 cents per thousand.—6d. 84 cents per thousand. Also, for sale as above, a variety of Plantation Utensils, such as Plough-Irons, Harrow-teeth, Axes, Wedges, Chains, &c.
SHOES Of all sizes made of the best materials, may be had on the most reasonable terms. Where also may be had a general assortment of well chosen GROCERIES. May 13, 1807.  Five Dollars Reward. STRAYED or Stolen from the subscriber on the 21st inst. two Mules, to wit: one black stud Mule, shed all round, with long a switch tail, no other mark recollected. Also one mare Mule, of a bay color, with the end of her tail cut off, only shed before, I believe rather poor. Whosoever will deliver the said mules to the subscriber in the city of Richmond, or give such information so that I get them again shall receive the above reward. JOHN TINSLEY. Richmond, June 24th, 1807.
William Lownes, Returns his sincere thanks to his friends and the public generally, for the liberal encouragement received since his commencement of business in Richmond; and hopes his assiduity to business, and punctuality, will entitle him to a continuance of their favors. He has removed to a house nearly opposite the Bell Tavern where he intends carrying on the Book Binding business in all its variety, and in the most modern, improved and fashionable style, with punctuality, neatness and dispatch. Printed Books bound in the most elegant and substantial manner, in morocco and calf, full gilt and lettered—also, in sheep skin and plain. Blank Books of every description, ruled to any pattern, and bound with the latest improved spring and patent backs, and Russia bands and parchment corners, which add much to the strength of the books, and ease and convenience of the writer. Orders from the country will be thankfully received and punctually attended to as above.—Old books re-bound. Richmond Aug. 31, 1807.
TOMPKINS & MURRAY, ARE now receiving from on board the ship Herschel at City Point, a large and general assortment of  Liverpool GOODS, Selected and assorted to accommodate country merchants. They are also in daily expectation of receiving by the ship Calpe, an assortment of London GOODS. The whole will make a very full and complete assortment of USEFUL GOODS, which they are determined to sell by wholesale on very liberal terms. They will open in a few days in the house at present occupied by John and Huber, nearly opposite the Post Office. Richmond, 31st August, 1807.
TO BE RENTED, And possession given in ten days; FOUR large, elegant and commodious STORES, in the most central and busy part of this City. To them are attached elegant, airy and extensive accommodations for the families of the tenants. JOHN MAYO. June 20.
FOR SALE, MY LANDS in Cumberland county, lying on Appomattox river, joining the lands of Messrs. William & George Skipwith; this land is equal if not superior to any land in Cumberland county. Of James river, it contains 607 acres, one half of which is covered with fine timber of every description. There is on this land a decent dwelling house, and between four and five hundred bearing apple trees of choice fruit. One third of the money will be expected when a title is made, the other two thirds may be divided into two annual payments. Mr. John Baker or Mr. William Skipwith will show the land to any person wishing to become a purchaser. FRANCIS EPTES. Chesterfield, June 3, 1807.
FOR SALE, Opposite Colonel Mayo's new Buildings, 4th, 3rd and 2nd proof Antigua Rum in hds. of the crop 1805—Imported early 1806 New England Rum in hds. and barrels 1 pipe very Superior Holland's Gin Rye Whiskey in barrels Loaf and Brown Sugar in Ditto Coffee by the barrel or bag Beef and Pork in barrels Irish Potatoes in ditto, suitable for table or planting Potomac Shad and Herrings, Stone Lime in large and small casks. And a general assortment of GROCERIES, &c. &c.—which will be sold low for Cash, good paper, or exchanged for country produce, by JOB GREENE. Richmond, 27th May, 1807.
NOTICE. THE books, papers, and accounts of the late mercantile firm of McCredie and McMillan, of the city of Richmond, being now in the possession of George McCredie, deceased, one of the Adm'rs of John McCredie, deceased, who was the surviving partner of McCredie and McMillan. Therefore all those who are indebted either by specialty or otherwise, are requested to make immediate payment to George McCredie, or make such other arrangement as may be most conducive to the interest of the said concern, as well as to the debtors thereof. It is expected that due attention will be paid to this notice, as it is desirable that a close should be immediately made of the transactions of the above mentioned firm. NANCY MCCREDIE, Adm'rx. JAMES PENN, GEORGE MCCREDIE, } Adm'rs. Manchester, 20th June, 1807.
MATTRESSES. CAN be had on very short notice, MATTRESSES of all sizes & kinds, agreeably to order, in the large corner white house, opposite the Old City Tavern, two squares below the Market Bridge—BEDS made & MATTRESSES repaired.—Horses TAILS & MANES purchased. Ino. S. Pleasants
Lesueur & Saunders Are now receiving and will constantly keep a large supply of  Bar-Iron & Castings, Of superior quality. Feb. 2d, 1807.
FOR SALE.  My tract of Land, In Powhatan county, containing between nine hundred and a thousand acres, and lying within two miles of the courthouse, and on both sides of Fine creek. This tract of land would be sold entire, otherwise laid off in lots to suit purchasers. Any persons inclined to purchase, it is expected will first view the premises—any further description is deemed unnecessary. For terms apply to the subscriber, living on the premises. SAM. BASKERVILLE. Powhatan, Jan. 4th, 1807.
Fifty Dollars Reward. RUN AWAY from Reuben Clopton, when living in King William county, in the year 1791, on the first of January,  A Negro Man, By the name of NEPTUNE, who formerly belonged to the estate of John Hales, dec. living then in the lower end of Henrico, he is a tall, portly fellow, strops in his shoulders, or you may say round shouldered, high forehead, flat hair, large white teeth, draws his words when he talks, or rather talks through his nose, and has a scar some where in his face, about forty-five years of age—it is supposed he is now passing as a free man in the city of Richmond, as he thinks himself secure. There never has any efforts been made to apprehend him—he has a wife at John Hales, dec. living in the lower end of that county, and a mother—perhaps he may be harbored there. Any person, that will deliver him to William Clopton, in Cumberland, or secure him in any jail, so that I get him again, shall receive the above reward. ELIZABETH CLOPTON. Cumberland county, Aug. 14, 1807.
THE ten Legatees in- titled to LAND, under the Rev. Mr. Hunt's will, are desired to meet the 1st October, at the Green Springs, to empower some person to apply to the Courts of Ohio and Kentucky, to have the Lands divided between them. Robert Morris. Louisa, August 26, 1807.
NOTICE. ALL persons having claims against the estate of John Sandridge, deceased, are requested to bring them forward to the subscriber duly authenticated, on or before the first day of November next, at which time a dividend of the assets in my hands will take place—Those failing to comply with this advertisement will be excluded from the benefit of said dividend. Thomas White. September 2d, 1807.
TRACT OF LAND, In the county of Goochland, twenty eight miles from Richmond, and five from the courthouse, containing 505 1-2 acres. It is delightfully watered; on it are many acres of grass land, and is a fine mill seat. The growing crop will show its fertility. It will be shown and the terms made known by the subscriber when called on, who resides on the premises. I intend to offer to the highest bidder, my stock of different kinds and the plantation TOOLS, on the said farm, the first day of next month, on a credit of six months, for all sums over twenty dollars. On the same day, if my land is sold, my household and kitchen FURNITURE will be offered for sale, on the same terms. I intend to Kentucky this fall and will transact business for any gentleman on commission, and thank him for his confidence. John Markham.
TO BE RENTED, A HOUSE in Manchester, now in the possession of Edward Johnston. For terms, enquire of him on the premises. 23d July, 1807.
Advertisement. WHEREAS Chapman White of Albemarle county, did commence suit against me namely William Wims of said county, for certain damages by him complained for in our said district court, and by the rules of said court, did obtain a judgment about the twenty second day of August last, for the enormous sum of three hundred dollars, which said judgment and costs thereon accruing—I do hereby forewarn all persons whatever from trading for the same, or taking any assignment for the said judgment or costs, as I am determined not to pay the said judgment either to said White, or his indorser. William Wims. Albemarle, 3d Sept. 1807.
Pursuant to a deed of trust from Moses Davis and Mary, his wife, to the subscriber, dated on the 4th day of March last, to secure the payment of 3445 dollars, due, or owing from said Moses Davis to Prosser and Moncure, assignees of Pleasant Young husband; on Wednesday, the 23d day of this month, on the premises, will be offered for sale to the highest bidder, for ready money, all that
Lot and parcel of Land, Lying and being in the county of Henrico, contiguous to the city of Richmond, being the same LOT and parcel of LAND, conveyed by Rich and Adam and Elizabeth, his wife to said Moses Davis by deed, dated 3d day of March, in the present year, beginning and running on the road or street, leading from the Market house, in the city aforesaid, to Du Val's Village, north 4 1/2 deg's, west 4 chains and 32 links, north 4 1/2 deg's, west 4 chains and 32 links, to a street forty feet wide, dividing said lot and parcel of land, and the lot formerly William Cannon's, now John Doyle's, and binding on said lot at its north 89 deg's east, 4 chains and 34 links at its corner of the said street; thence on the back street, south 4 1/2 deg's, west 4 chains 32 links to a corner street 40 feet wide next towards said city, and binding on said street, south 89 deg's, west 4 chains, 36 links to the said road about the beginning, with the buildings and improvements thereon, consisting of
A Large Framed House, Making three TENEMENTS—Or so much of said premises as will raise the one third part of the aforesaid debt or sum of money, say 1149 dollars, 33 1-3 cents, with interest thereon, from the 4th of this present month, and the charges and expenses attending the sale. The sale will commence at or after 10 o'clock in the morning. Geo. Wm. Smith. City of Richmond, Sept. 11, 1807.
SHAPARD & LUCKE, HAVE removed to the house lately occupied by Mr. John St. John, opposite Col. Mayo's new buildings, where they continue to keep their usual assortment. September 11. Liverpool Refin'd Sugar.
FOR SALE. A FEW Hogsheads of  Liverpool Refin'd Sugar, FOR SALE BY Tompkins & Murray. September 12.
IN pursuance of a de- cree of the county court of King William, will be SOLD, to the highest bidder, on 13 months credit, on Monday the 12th day of October next, at the late dwelling house of Mrs. Sally Banks, dec. in the county of King William,  Twelve Likely Negroes, Among whom is a good BLACKSMITH and WHEELWRIGHT and several likely negroes, boys and girls, the purchaser giving bond with approved security, payable to the administrator "de bonis non" of Tunsell Banks, dec. The Commissioners. King William county, Sept. 7th, 1807.
NOTICE. Messrs. Robert King, and Charles Crough, and Robert King, James Thompson, and Thomas Ravenhill, John Edie, Conrad Laub and William Davidson, Executors of James Short, dec.—TAKE NOTICE, that I shall proceed to take the following depositions, at the times and places hereinafter mentioned, to be read as evidence in two suits now depending in the Chancery Court for the Richmond District, in which I am plaintiff and you are the defendants, to wit: the deposition of John M. Rose and others, on the 19th day of October next, at the Dwelling House of Major David Paterson, of Buckingham county—and on the 23d day of October, 1807, I shall proceed to take the deposition of Mr. John Love and others, between the hours of ten o'clock and sunset of the same day, at the house of Thaddeus Morris, at Fauquier courthouse. ROBERT H. ROSE. Sept. 17, 1807.
Super-Royal Printing Paper. One hundred reams Super-Royal PRINTING PAPER for Sale.—Apply to the Printer. Sep. 19.
FALL GOODS. THE subscribers are receiving by the ship Herschel from Liverpool, an extensive supply of  MERCHANDIZE, suitable to the approaching season; and are in daily expectations of their LONDON GOODS by the Calpe, which will render their assortment complete, and which they offer for sale by the piece or package on the most moderate terms. JOHN & ROBERT GAMBLE, Jr. November 7, 1807.
Land and Negroes, FOR SALE. AGREEABLE to the last will of John Buchanan, dec. will be sold on the 5th day of October next, at Franklin courthouse, it being court day for said county.
A Tract of Land, Lying in the said county of Franklin on Staunton river, containing five hundred and forty five acres. Also on the thirtieth of November, at the new store in Buckingham county, three hundred acres of LAND, adjoining the new store. Also one LOT in Planter's town, one SHARE in the Upper Appomattox company.
Eight Negroes, With all the personal estate belonging to said decedent. The above land is good for corn, wheat and tobacco. One half of the purchase money will be required on the day of sale, the balance in two annual payments, for which bonds with approved security with a deed of trust on the land will be required. The negroes with the balance of the estate, cash will be required. All those having claims against said estate are requested to bring them in agreeable to law, on or before the day of sale; and those indebted to said estate are requested to make immediate payment, as the situation of said estate cannot admit of indulgence. LEWIS WILKINSON, Executor of JOHN BUCHANAN, dec. Buckingham, Sept. 1, 1807.
NOTICE. THE Partnership of MCCAT & COWAN was this day, dissolved by mutual consent—The indebted to the firm, are requested to make payment to William McCAT, and those having claims against the firm, are requested to render their accounts to him for settlement. WM. MCCAT. W. COWAN. Sept. 14, 1807.
A House and Lots FOR SALE. THE subscriber offers for sale three valuable LOTS OF GROUND in the city of Williamsburg; on which there is a large and commodious dwelling house, (containing eight good rooms, and two large passages,) to get her with a good garden a stable, and all necessary out houses for the use of a genteel family. Any person desirous of purchasing will please to apply to William Munford, Esq. of this city, who will make known the terms of sale, and is authorized to conclude the bargain. Possession will be delivered to the purchaser on the 10th day of January next. Anna Byrd. Richmond, September 12, 1807.
TO RENT TWO LARGE BRICK TENEMENTS, SITUATED on the south side of the main street, and nearly opposite the Market House; one is a corner house lately occupied by Messrs. Sharpard and Lucke, the other was in the occupancy of Mr. Job Greene. Those houses are rendered fire proof (externally) by being covered with tiles and having Iron Shutters in every direction that there is danger (from fire) to be apprehended. Possession may be obtained immediately upon application to MR. MITCHELL. Richmond, September 2d. 1807.
Valuable Property for sale. I WISH to sell the following VALUABLE PROPERTY situated in the center of business in the city of Richmond, for money, or I will exchange it for good land in the lower parts of Tennessee. Four Brick Houses
On the main street, three of them opposite Messrs. Jno. and Robt. Gamble's and fronting the cross street leading from Col. Mayo's Bridge—attached the etc are BRICK LUMBER HOUSES, KITCHENS, SMOAK HOUSES, &c. The other house is opposite Messrs. Galloway and Richard's and occupied by Mr. Robert Bell, saddler. Any person wishing to purchase or exchange land for the above property, will apply to Mr. Lewis Truett, who is generally in Richmond, or to B. Truett. Powhatan county, Aug 24th 1807.
A great Bargain in LAND. THE subscriber is still desirous of selling his FORK PLANTATION in Powhatan county, and for early payments, a great bargain may be had. THIS TRACT lies immediately in the Fork of the South and North branch of Fine Creek, and partakes of a considerable portion of the flat Land of each branch, that may be very easily reclaimed. There are 429 acres in this tract, and above one half of it woods; most of the cleared Land is now under cultivation, and will afford an opportunity to the purchaser of putting in a good crop of Wheat—This Land is of superior quality, and well adapted to the culture of Tobacco and grain; there is a very comfortable dwelling house and several convenient out houses on this Land. It will be shown to any person inclined to purchase, by Captain Stovall living on the premises and terms made known, on application to the subscriber. Wm. Bentley. Powhatan, 14th Sept. 1807.
Drugs & Medicines. Daniel Wm. Sackrider & Co. Have this day opened a general assortment of DRUGS & MEDICINES, And a great variety of valuable PATENT MEDICINES, which they are determined to sell on reasonable terms. DANIEL WM. SACKRIDER offers his services to the citizens of Richmond and its vicinity as a practitioner of Physic, Surgery, &c. &c. He has every reason to believe his professional services will be satisfactory to those who will honor him with their confidence. Richmond, July 20th, nearly opposite Doct Foushee's.
Louisa county, August court, 1807. Gerard I. Banks, Plaintiff, Against, William Meriwether and Robert Dickinson, Defendants. THE defendant Meriwether, not having entered his appearance and given security according to the act of Assembly and the rules of this court, & it appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that he is not an inhabitant of this state, therefore on the motion of the plaintiff by his attorney; It is ordered and decreed by the court, that the said defendant Meriwether, do appear here on the second Monday in November next, to answer the plaintiff's bill—and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some one of the newspapers printed in the city of Richmond, for eight weeks successively and posted at the front door of the courthouse of this county on some court day.
A Copy, Teste, John Poindexter, C. L. C. At a court held for Prince Edward county, June the 15th, 1807. ALL persons having claims against the estate of Richard F. Burke, dec. are directed to establish, and file them with the clerk of this court, at or before January court next, at which time the court will proceed to make a distribution of said decedent's estate. And that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in some one of the public newspapers printed in the city of Richmond, and in the town of Petersburg, for one month successively by the sheriff of this county. A Copy, Teste, T. Watkins, c. c.
Prince Edward, July court, 1807. ORDERED, That the distribution of the estate of Richard F. Burke, dec. be postponed until February court next. A Copy, Teste, Benj. Watkins, D. C. Signed, Wm. A. Allen, D. S. Wm. Price, jr. Sheriff.
RUN AWAY from the Subscriber, on the night of the 28th of July last, J living in Cumberland County, about eight miles from Cartersville and about one mile from James River,
Two Negroes, A Woman about twenty seven years old, named GILL, of a yellowish complexion and of a common size. The Boy about nine years old, named ISAAC, of a very black complexion, has a scar over his right eye, and an impediment in his speech. I will give ten dollars reward to any person who will deliver the said Negroes to me or secure them so that I get them again. JESSE WOODSON. Aug. 3, 1807.
Encouragement of Literature. BY AUTHORITY.
Scheme of a Lottery, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ST. MARY'S COLLEGE, OF BALTIMORE.     Dollars. Dollars.     1 Prize of 50,000   1 do 15,000   2 do 10,000 is 20,000   3 do 5,000 10,000   5 do 1,000 5,000   10 do 500 5,000   20 do 200 4,000   100 do 100 10,000   150 do 50 7,500   7000 do 12 84,000   7291 Prizes, Stationary Premiums 190,500   14209 Blanks.—Not two to a Prize. 24,500   21500 Tickets, at 10 Dollars each, 215,000   Arrangement of Stationary Premiums, Viz.   1st drawn Blank, Dollars 500   1st do after 2,000 are drawn, 1000   1st do after 4,000, 1000   1st do after 6,000, 1500   1st do after 8,000, 1500   1st do after 10,000, 1500   1st do after 12,000, 1500   1st do after 14,000, 1500   1st do after 16,000, 1500   1st do after 18,000, 1500   1st do after 20,000, 1500   Last drawn Blank, 10,000   Dollars 24,500   15 per cent. on 215000 Dollars, is 32,250   Sum to be raised by the Lottery, 30,000   Expences of the Lottery, 2,250   32,250  
THE prevailing disposition to encourage the progress of Literature, the peculiar favor which ST. MARY'S COLLEGE has enjoyed, and the many splendid chances offered to adventurers by the above Scheme, induce the Managers to anticipate a rapid sale of the Tickets. The Drawing will commence as soon as a sufficient number is sold to authorize it. The Managers have given bond to the State in the penalty of sixty thousand Dollars for the faithful payment of the prizes, which will be paid, subject to a deduction of Fifteen per cent. thirty days after the Drawing is finished.—Prizes not demanded within a twelve-month from the completion of the Drawing, will be considered as a donation to the College. TICKETS to be had of the Managers, or of such persons as may be authorized by them.
WILLIAM DU BOURG, JOHN TESSIER, LUKE TIERNAN, ROBERT WALSH, WILLIAM LORMAN, ALEXANDER M'KIM, HENRY WILSON, SAMUEL STRETT, JAMES M'HENRY, SAMUEL HOLLINGSWORTH, LEWIS DU BOURG, PHILIP LAURENSON.
TICKETS in the above Lottery for Sale by GALLICO, RICHARD & Co. FOR SALE AT S. PLEASANTS' BOOK STORE HENNING'S
New Virginia Justice, Containing the Duties of a Justice of Peace, &c. together with a variety of useful precedents, adapted to the laws now in force. Also, forms of conveyancing, such as deeds of bargain and sale, lease and release, mortgage, trust, &c.