Norfolk gazette and publick ledger (Norfolk [Va.]), 1807-02-09 00:00:00

NORFOLK GAZETTE And PUBLICK LEDGER.  SINT HIC ETIAM SUA PREMIA LAUDI
VOL. III.]
MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 9, 1807.
[NO. 89.]
THIS PAPER IS PUBLISHED THREE TIMES A WEEK; PRICE TO SUBSCRIBERS FIVE DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS PER ANNUM, PAYABLE IN ADVANCE—SINGLE PAPER TWELVE AND ONE HALF CENTS—ADVERTISEMENTS ARE INSERTED AT THE RATE OF FIFTY CENTS FOR THE FIRST, AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS PER SQUARE FOR EACH SUCCEEDING INSERTION
For LONDON, The Ship PLANTER , Horatio Moore, master, will positively sail in all the present month, having the greater part of her cargo engaged. For freight or passage, apply to Donaldson, Thorburn, & Co. Who are landing from the brig Ann Elizabeth , 60 puncheons choice Grenada Rum , which will be sold low and on liberal credit. February 6. 3w
For Freight or Charter, To any port in the United States, or the West Indies, the fast sailing sloop ALERT , Eben Gay, master, burthen 87 tons, now ready to receive a cargo. Apply to the master on board, or Phinehas Dana. In Store for Sale, 36 bags Green Coffee, 26 puncheons St. Vincent's Rum; 2 bhd. Molasses. February 6. tf
For Sale, Freight, or Charter, The Brig ANN ELIZABETH , R. Owens, master, 173 tons burthen, or 1900 barrels, will be ready to receive a cargo in 3 days. Apply to John Brown. Who has for Sale, A few puncheons Grenada RUM. Feb. 4. 3w
CADIZ SALT. 10,000 bushels Cadiz SALT, for sale on board the ship Eleanor , capt. Lord, now laying at my wharf, Gosport, which if taken from along side may be had on reasonable terms, by applying to William Pennock. Who offers for Charter, The ship JANE , Capt. Colley, of 420 tons; the ship INDUSTRY , capt. Wright, of 270 tons; the ship LIVE OAK , capt. Yarnell, of 280 tons, all ready to receive cargoes. Feb. 4. 3w
For CHARTER, The Schooner UNION , S. Arey, master, burthen about 900 bbls a good staunch vessel, and will be ready in a few days to receive a cargo. Apply to the master on board, or Christopher Fry. Feb. 4. tf
For Freight or Charter, The Schooner COMBINE , George Phillips, master, burthen 105 tons, or 900 barrels, a strong good vessel in every respect, she is well calculated for lumber; a freight for the West Indies will be preferred. For terms apply to the master on board, or Fisk & Catlett. Who has for Sale, Boston No. 1 and 2 BEEF. January 28. tf
For Freight or Charter, The Schooner CITIZEN , William Howes, master, burthen 710 barrels; a freight to Charleston will be preferred. For terms apply to the master on board at Maxwell's wharf, or Fisk & Catlett. Who has for Sale, A few hhd. prime Jamaica Sugars, 2425 Gunny Bags. January 26. tf
For LONDON, The Ship INDIA PACKET , William Rindge, master; a part of her cargo being engaged, for the remainder, or passage, having good accommodations, apply to the master on board or PHINEHAS DANA. January 23. tf
For Freight or Charter, The very fast sailing Ship THOMAS , Capt. N. Boult. Apply to GEORGE MURRAY, & CO. St. Ubes SALT, on board the Ship Thomas, for Sale January 12. tf
The American Ship AMIALE ANTONIETTE , Captain Williams, burthen 450 hogsheads tobacco, is offered for Charter by C. & F. Whittle. December 17. tf
For FREIGHT or CHARTER, The Phil a built Ship William Penn , coppered, burthen 360 tons, now ready to receive a cargo. Apply to Edward Watson. Who has for Sale, 3 Trunks excellent Linen; 7 doz. Chairs; 1 case Umbrellas, well assorted; 12 casks white Wine Vinegar. November 14. tf
For BREMEN, The Bremen Ship JUNO , Herman Dewers, master, can take the bulk of a cargo of one hundred hogsheads on freight, if immediate application is made to Moses Myers. January 14. tf
WILLIAM STEVENS, Begs leave to acquaint the publick at large, (but more particularly his established customers) that he has commenced business on his own account, in the Store lately held by Mr. JAMES ARLINGTON , and next door, westward of his old stand, where he designs keeping constantly in store, GROCERIES, of superior quality, and well assorted.—He has just received a supply of Imperial TEA, which he can recommend as excellent. Jan. 12. 2m
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, January 26.
DEBATE
In the House of Representatives on the bill to suspend the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus, for a limited time in certain cases.
On receiving this bill the doors of the house were closed. They were opened about noon, when, we understand, that a motion made by Mr. Burwell to reject the bill on the first reading, was depending; a message having been received from the President of the United States, containing additional information on the subject of the conspiracy, Mr. Burwell withdrew his motion until that should be read.
The message having been read, Mr. Burwell renewed his motion to reject the bill.
Mr. Standford seconded the motion. Mr. Burwell said he was unacquainted with the particular reasons which had induced the senate to pass this bill. None had been assigned when the bill was communicated, and no additional documents presented. He could therefore only be governed by that information which the house had received; and he believed that would justify the motion before the house.
The President in his message of the 22d, says, "on the whole the fugitives from Ohio and their associates from Cumberland, or other places in that quarter, cannot threaten serious danger to the city of New-Orleans." If that be the case upon what ground shall we suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus? Can any person imagine the U. S. are in danger after this declaration of the president, who unquestionably possesses more correct information than any other person can be supposed to have. In another part of the message we are informed, that the persons arrested at New-Orleans have been embarked for some of the Atlantic ports, "probably on the consideration that an impartial trial could not be expected during the present agitation of New-Orleans, and that that city was not a safe place of confinement. As soon as these persons shall arrive, they will be delivered to the custody of the law, and left to such course as the law, both as to place and process, as it respects the authorities to be assembled at this place, and the means of pursuing a safe and regular course of proceedings here than elsewhere, if executive means, should the judges of the United States to use them, render it equally desirable."
From the place where these fugitives were first regular arrest should be placed in the course of proceedings relative to the conspiracy." The president's message contains the idea, that the correct and proper course of proceedings can be had under the ordinary course of law. These persons may be delivered up to the civil authority, and proceeded against according to law. Those therefore who are implicated in the conspiracy already apprehended, and the measure obviate the difficulty, much less should consequence would not ensue. Mr. Burwell should consider that the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus as holding out an idea of a state of siege, which was highly improper, and in some sense unconstitutional. It is true this conspiracy is a most formidable, extensive and threatening one, and it is a matter of the vigilance of the government. But if the gentlemen, if they seriously considered the matter, it is sufficiently great to justify the ordinary course of law. The most important right of the people is in jeopardy, and the country in peril, and to avert the evil, we must act with manly boldness, by which the conspiracy will be involved in one common ruin. Mr. Burwell said this was not the first instance of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the formation of the federal government. It had been already twice insurrections in the U. S. both of which had defied the authority of congress, and necessitated the union with dissolution. Notwithstanding one of them justified, the calling out of 15,000 men and the expenditure of one million of dollars, he had not heard of a proposition to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. What then will be said of us, if now when the danger is over, firm in the attachment of the people to the union, with ample resources to encounter any difficulties which may occur, we resort to a measure so harsh in its nature, oppressive in its operation, and ruinous as a precedent? While in former times, it was thought unsafe to suspend this most important and valuable part of the constitution, he would ask whether the necessity at the present time could be considered greater? With regard to those persons who may be implicated in the conspiracy, if the writ of habeas corpus be not suspended, what will be the consequence? When apprehended they will be brought before a court of justice, who will decide whether there is any evidence that will justify their commitment for farther prosecution. From the communication of the executive it appeared there was sufficient evidence to authorise their commitment. Several months would elapse before their final trial, which would give time to collect evidence, and if this shall be sufficient they will not fail to receive the punishment merited by their crimes, and inflicted by the laws of their country. Mr. B. said he could conceive no injury that would result on this score—and indeed if some persons should elude justice, it would not endanger society so materially as to come within the terms of the constitution. He observed it appeared to him the commencement of an insurrection was the only time when the writ of habeas corpus ought to be suspended; when the seizure of the ring-leaders, by dismaying the inferior agents, would enable the government, without the effusion of blood, to suppress it. But it was manifest that at this moment every thing intended by
the conspirators was effected, or they were in the hands of the civil authority; there was therefore no good reason to take this precautionary step with that view—while on the other hand it would unavoidably produce unnecessary alarm, and much inconvenience to the citizens of the United States. Nothing but the most imperious necessity would excuse us in confiding to the executive or any person under him, the power of seizing and confining a citizen upon bare suspicion for three months, without responsibility, for the abuse of such unlimited discretion. Mr. B. said he could judge from what he had already seen, that men who are perfectly innocent, would be doomed to feel the severity of confinement, and undergo the infamy of the dungeon. What reparation can be made to those who shall thus suffer? The people of the United States would have just reason to reproach their representatives with wantonly sacrificing their dearest interests, when from the facts presented to this house, it seems the country was perfectly safe, and the conspiracy nearly annihilated. Under these circumstances there can be no apology for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and violating the constitution, which declares "the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of invasion or rebellion the public safety may require it."
Mr. B. said he hoped he had shown that admitting the two cases specified in the constitution existed, they were not accompanied with such symptoms of calamity as rendered the passage of the bill expedient.
What, in another point of light, would be the effect of passing such a law? Would it not establish a dangerous precedent? A corrupt and vicious administration under the sanction and example of this law, might harass and destroy the best men of the country. It would only be necessary to excite artificial commotions, circulate exaggerated rumours of danger, and then follows the repetition of this law, by which every obnoxious person, however honest, is surrendered to the vindictive resentment of the government. It will not be a sufficient answer, that this power will not be abused by the present President of the United States. He, Mr. B. believed, would not abuse it, but it would be impossible to restrain all those who are under him. Besides he would not consent to advocate a principle, bad in itself, because it will not probably be abused. For these reasons Mr. B. said he should vote to reject the bill.
Mr. Elliot said that he regretted the motion to reject the bill had been made, because, considering it of very great importance, he thought that it should take the usual course of proceeding, and that the bill should be read a second time, and referred to a committee of the whole, for the purpose of consideration and discussion.
Called up the question on Mr. Elliot to answer to the question whether the bill should be rejected? I must answer in the negative, as I should have done in any other stage of the proceedings, equally my duty, on the ground of the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Virginia, for me, considered that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which I have been in the habit of viewing this measure as a most extraordinary and dangerous one. I am therefore opposed to the original proposition to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and to suspend for a limited time, the privilege attached to the writ of habeas corpus. And in this point of view I am prepared to say that it is the most extraordinary proposition that has ever been presented for our consideration and adoption. Sir, what is the language of the constitution upon the subject? "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except when in cases of invasion or rebellion the public safety shall require it." Have we a right to suspend it in any and every case of invasion and rebellion? So far from it, that we are under a constitutional interdiction, to act, unless the existing invasion or rebellion, in our sober judgment, threatens the first principle of the national compact, and the constitution itself. In other words we can only act, in this case, with a view to national self preservation. We can suspend the writ of habeas corpus only in a case of extreme emergency; that alone is the salus populi which will justify this lex supra-ma . And is this a crisis of such awful moment? Is it necessary at this time to constitute a dictatorship, to save the people from themselves, and to take care that the republic shall receive no detriment? What is the proposition? To create a single dictator as in ancient Rome, in whom all power shall be vested for a time? No. To create one great dictator, and a multitude, an army of subaltern and petty despots. To invest, not only the President of the United States, but the governors of states and territories, and indeed all persons, deriving civil or military authority from the supreme executive, with unlimited and irresponsible power over the personal liberty of your citizens. Is this one of those great crises that require a suspension, a temporary prostration of the constitution itself? Does the stately superstructure of our republic thus tremble to its centre, and totter towards its fall? Common sense must give a negative answer to these questions. What are the facts? It is indeed a case of rebellion. We are officially informed that rebellion has reared its hydra front in the peaceful valleys of the west. But we are also informed by the executive that treason has no prospect of success; that "the fugitives from the Ohio, and their associates from Cumberland, cannot threaten serious danger even to the city of New Orleans." Not a single city, still less a territory or a state, is considered in danger; and the executive not only possesses all the information which has been communicated to us, but much more, for we are informed that the communication has been made under the reservation contained in the resolution requesting it, and of course all the facts in the knowledge of the executive, which are deemed improper for disclosure at this time, have been kept back. And the executive, possessing all this information, assures us that the publick safety is not endangered. Can we, under these circumstances, consent to the investiture of dictatorial powers in that department of the government which thus assures us that all is safe? It would be contrary to the spirit of the constitution.
But we shall be told that the constitution has contemplated cases of this kind, and, in reference to them, invested us with unlimited discretion.—When any gentleman shall advance such a position, we who advocate the rejection of the bill, will meet him upon that ground and put the point at issue. We contend that the framers of the constitution never contemplated the exercise of such a power under circumstances like the present; and that the constitution itself, instead of authorising, has prohibited such discretion, unless in an extreme case. And can any member lay his hand upon his heart, and say that the present is a case of that description? He who cannot do this must with us consider the proposed measure as unconstitutional.
Let us pay a little attention to the nature and character of the writ of habeas corpus. It has its origin in Great Britain, and is there considered in two great points of view, as it respects the monarch, and as it respects the subject. As it respects the monarch, it is one of the jura prerogativa , a writ of prerogative; but it is not considered as calculated to increase the power of the king or the splendour of the throne; in its origin and true character it is viewed as a prerogative, exercised by the king, or those authorities to whom his judicial powers are supposed to be delegated, only for the purpose of securing the constitutional rights of the subject, and restraining the invasion of those rights. As it respects the subject, it is a writ of right , and is emphatically called, by English writers, a writ of liberty.
By the provisions of the famous statute of Charles the second, which has even been called a second magna charta , its privileges are guaranteed to all British subjects at all times. An eminent English author, and the most popular writer upon subjects of legal science, considers its suspension as the suspension of liberty itself; declares that the measure ought never to be resorted to but in cases of extreme emergency; & says that the nation then parts with its freedom for a short and limited time, only to resume and secure it forever. Hence he compares the suspension of the habeas corpus act in Great Britain to the dictatorship of the Roman Republic.
But objectionable as the bill upon the table is in point of principle, it is, if possible, still more objectionable in point of detail. It invests with the power of violating the first principles of civil and political liberty, not only the supreme executive, and the executive of individual states and territories, but all civil and military officers who may derive any authority whatever from the chief magistrate: And it extends the operation of the suspension of the privileges of the habeas corpus, not only to persons guilty or suspected of treason, but to those who may be accused of any other crime or misdemeanor, tending to endanger the "peace, safety, or neutrality" of the United States! What a vast and almost illimitable field of power is here opened, in which executive discretion may wander at large and uncontrolled. A vast and dangerous scene of power indeed! It gives the power of dispensing with the ordinary operation of the laws to a host of those little great men , who are attached to every government under Heaven. I wish not to reflect upon any of those subordinate officers who may be employed by the government of my country.
[Here the door keeper announced a message from the Senate, and Mr. Elliot sat down till it was delivered by the secretary. He then proceeded.]
But no one will doubt that in times of alarm and danger, many men will be clothed with the functions of office, who are incompetent to discreet exercise of such boundless discretion. I can never wish to see such persons invested with the means of aiming at the heads of their private enemies, or other innocent and unoffending citizens, the thunderbolts of publick indignation, or scorching them with the lightning of publick suspicion. Says the poet—
Could great men thunder, Jove would ne'er be quiet For every petty peltng officer Would use his heaven for thunder.
Let us again ask for evidence of the necessity of this measure? Certainly none can be produced, for we are informed from the first authority, that if the present be not a time of profound peace, it is far from being a period of publick danger. The leader of this petty rebellion has been called the modern Cataline. Undoubtedly he possesses many of the qualities which a celebrated ancient historian ascribes to the Cataline of Rome: his genius, his address, his activity, his profligacy: But he is destitute of his means and resources. He wants that power of doing mischief which the Roman conspirator possessed. So far is he from being able to make war upon his country, that he cannot take possession of a single city. He is rapidly hastening to the same fate, although he may not meet it in the same manner. Already is he "damned to everlasting fame," or rather damned to everlasting infamy. Already is he a fugitive. Already a price is set upon his head. In the papers of this morning we see that the governor of Orleans has offered a reward for his apprehension. We cannot but detect the traitor, but we can have no fears of the consequences of the treason. Mr. E. concluded by ex-

pressing a hope that the bill would meet a decided vote of rejection.
Mr. Eppes. When I feel a decided hostility to a principle it is not material to me in what form I meet it. Decidedly opposed to the principle of this bill, I shall vote against it in all its stages, and cannot but hope that the motion of my colleague to reject it will prevail. By this bill we are called upon to exercise one of the most important powers vested in congress by the constitution of the U. S. A power which suspends the personal rights of your citizens, which places their liberty wholly under the will; not of the executive magistrate only, but of his inferior officers. Of the importance of this power, of the caution which ought to be employed in its exercise, the words of the constitution afford irresistible evidence. The words of the constitution are "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the publick safety may require it." The wording of this clause of the constitution deserves peculiar attention. It is not in every case of invasion, nor in every case of rebellion, that the exercise of this power by congress can be justified under the words of the constitution. The words of the constitution confine the exercise of this power exclusively to cases of rebellion, or invasion where the publick safety requires it. In carrying it into effect most of the important powers of congress, something are left for the exercise of its discretion. We raise armies when in our opinion armies are necessary. We may call forth the militia to suppress insurrection or repel invasion when we consider this measure necessary. But we can only suspend the privilege of the habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the publick safety requires it." Well indeed may this caution have been used as to the exercise of this important power. It is in a free country the most tremendous power which can be placed in the hands of a legislative Body. It suspends at once the chartered rights of the community, and places even those who pass the act under military despotism. The constitution however having vested this power in congress, and a branch of the legislature having thought its exercise necessary, it remains for us to enquire whether the present situation of our country authorises on our part a resort to this extraordinary measure.
The enquiry is confined within very narrow limits. The power can only be exercised under the constitution 'when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.' Our country is not invaded. We have only therefore to enquire whether there exists in this country a rebellion? And whether the public safety requires a suspension of the habeas corpus. Of the existence of the rebellion or combination against the authority of the United States, there can be no doubt, as we have on our table a detailed account of its origin and progress. I shall confine my observations solely to the latter part, whether the public safety requires a suspension of the habeas corpus for its suppression. In the communication now on our table from the executive, we have been informed that the militia of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, of the Mississippi and Orleans territories, have been ordered out—that general Wilkinson was at Orleans on the 10th of December with his troops from the Sabine, which from other information we know to consist of one thousand effective men. These are the resources of the nation now in active operation. What is the force of the conspirators? By the same document we are informed that 'some boats, accounts vary from five to double or treble that number, and persons differently estimated from one to three hundred, had passed the falls of Ohio to rendezvous at the mouth of Cumberland river, with others expected down that river.' From the same document it appears that the force which comes down Cumberland river amounts to two boats, in one of which is Aaron Burr. From this statement it appears that the largest calculation as to the actual force of the conspirators, is three hundred. But when we know the propensity of human nature to magnify accounts of this kind, we may fairly infer that the whole force does not exceed one hundred and fifty men. To oppose which we have one thousand regular troops and the militia of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, of the Mississippi and Orleans territories. Is there a man present who believes (on this statement) that the public safety requires a suspension of the habeas corpus? This government has now been in operation thirty years, during this whole period our political charter whatever shocks it may have sustained has never been suspended.—Never under this government has personal liberty been held at the will of a single individual. Shall we in the full tide of prosperity, possessed of the confidence of the nation, with a revenue of fifteen millions of dollars and six hundred thousand free-men, able and ready to bear arms in defence of their country, believe its safety endangered by a collection of men which the militia of any one county in our country will be sufficient to subdue.—Shall we, sir, suspend the chartered rights of the community for the suppression of a few desperadoes—of a small banditti already surrounded by your troops—pressed from above by our militia—met below by your regulars, and without a chance of escape but by abandoning their boats and seeking safety in the woods. I consider the means at present in operation amply sufficient for the suppression of this combination. If additional means were necessary I should be willing to vote as many additional bayonets as shall be necessary for every traitor. I cannot, however, bring myself to believe that this country is placed in such a dreadful situation as to authorise me to suspend the personal rights of the citizen, and to give him in lieu of a free constitution the executive will of his charter. I consider the provision in the constitution for suspending the habeas corpus as designed only for occasions of great national danger. Like the power of creating a dictator in ancient Rome, it prostrates the rights of your citizens and endangers publick liberty. Like that it may on some very extraordinary occasions prove salutary, but like that it ought never to be resorted to but in cases of absolute necessity, or to use the emphatic language of the constitution "when the public safety requires it." Believing that the public safety is not endangered, and that the discussion of this question is calculated to alarm the publick mind at a time when no real danger exists, I shall vote for the rejection of the bill in its present stage.
Mr. Varnum said if he was of opinion with the gentlemen from Vermont and Virginia, he should vote for the rejection of this bill; but he entertained a different opinion, and unless he heard something to change it, he should vote differently from
them. He did not believe the constitution restricted the power of the government to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to cases where the country was shaken to its centre. There were no expressions in it to justify this inference. Its terms are "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except when in cases of invasion or rebellion the publick statute shall require it." Will gentlemen deny that there exists in the United States a rebellion? I presume not said Mr. V. it is too notorious to admit of doubt. Will they deny that the conspiracy has been formed with deliberation, and has existed for a long time? Is it not evident that it has become very extensive? If then this is the case, and the head of the conspiracy has said that he is aided by a foreign power; if this is true, are we justified in considering the country in a perfect state of safety until it is brought to a close? I conceive not. I consider the country in a degree in a state of insecurity, and if so, the power is vested in the congress of the United States under the constitution, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I am also apprehensive that we shall not be able to trace the conspiracy to its source without such a suspension.—We have had an instance in which the head of the conspiracy has been brought before a court of justice and where nothing has been brought against him. It is not my wish to insinuate that a court or public functionary is contaminated by this conspiracy; yet it is possible that this may be the case, and the very existence of the country may depend on tracing it to its source. I am not disposed to advocate sanguinary punishments, but I think they ought to be exemplary in regard to the chiefs of the conspiracy; for which purpose we ought to adopt those measures which will lead to a full discovery of those concerned in it. I am sensible that the government of the United States has not hitherto resorted to this measure; but I know a particular state of the union who did consider the measure necessary, in the case of an insurrection which occurred within her limits, and I think it very doubtful whether that insurrection would have so happily closed, if it had not been for her suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Have we had any insurrection or rebellion in the United States like this? We have had one insurrection in Massachusetts, but whence did it arise? Not from a design to subvert the government, but from the burthen of taxes—taxes which perhaps exceeded those laid in any country since the formation of society. I do not mean by these observations, by any means to justify that insurrection, and I believe, from the circumstances with which I am acquainted, that the insurrection which took place in Pennsylvania did not go to the subversion of the government. But let us look at this conspiracy. While the nation from one extreme to the other enjoys a degree of prosperity and happiness unparalleled in any other nation, and not a single individual within our limits has any reason to complain of oppression, an insurrection is fomented, subversive of the government and destructive of the rights of the people. It appears to me that this insurrection is the most aggravating of all insurrections which history gives us an account of. There is not the least oppression or the least pressure of circumstances to induce any individual to rise up against the government of his country, and it consequently betrays the turpitude of mind in those who either lead or are in it. For these reasons I think it ought to be traced to its source, and I think it very doubtful whether this can be effected, without in the first instance suspending the habeas corpus. What protection, then, that any innocent man will have against an unjust law, should this law pass? No other than the responsibility of it—it is scarcely possible, even if it be possible, after the passage of this act, to suspend this privilege, and I am therefore opposed to the government and in the mean time, I am surely willing to submit to any circumstance for the time, in order to secure the future of the mass. A suspension only of this privilege, for the time, the liberty of the press, and the trial by jury, are touched. I do therefore move that this branch of the bill be postponed until this branch of the bill can be passed. Suppose this branch be passed. Suppose the executive shall be taken out of the question, and evidence exists on the record, that a conspiracy shall consequently be traced to its source, and a trial of justice—where will the responsibility of the government upon this branch of the bill be? It will be none for me as an individual member of the house, and therefore vote for this bill under the apprehension that it will not have the injurious effects which gentlemen seem to apprehend, and that it will more effectually consign the guilty into the hands of justice.
Mr. Nelson. As the motion to reject the bill meets my most hearty approbation, and as I consider it involving a great national question, I cannot reconcile it to my duty to give a silent vote on it. I shall, however, in order to avoid an unnecessary consumption of the time of the house, offer my remarks in as concise a compass as possible. I shall first consider the nature of the habeas corpus; afterwards examine its effects, not only on the individual, but on the community at large, taking into view the mode of proceeding under it, to shew as I conceive, that no danger can ensue, on the refusal to pass the bill.
What is a writ of Habeas Corpus ? It is a writ directing a certain person in custody to be brought before a tribunal of justice, to enquire into the legality of his confinement. If the judge is of opinion that the confinement is illegal, the person will of course be discharged ; if on the contrary from the evidence, he shall be of opinion that there is sufficient grounds to suspect that he is guilty of some offence, he will not be discharged. Now to me it appears that that this is a proper and necessary power to be invested in our judges, and that a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is in all cases improper. If a man is taken up, and is denied an examination before a judge or a court, he may, although innocent in this case suffer confinement. This in my opinion is dangerous to the liberty of the citizen. He may be taken up on a vague suspicion and may not have his case examined for months, or even for years. Would not this bear hard upon the rights of the citizen ?
Let us turn over the leaf, and see how the government stands. If the person accused is legally committed, or if it shall be proved that he has committed any offence, the judge will say that he shall not be released. If he has committed an offence there can be no grounds for this suspension, because without such suspension he will not be discharged because it does not follow that inasmuch as a man has
a right to demand that he be brought before a judge by a writ of habeas corpus, he shall therefore be discharged. He is only bound to examine him, and if he finds there is strong reason to believe he has committed a crime, he may remand him to confinement.
There is a writ of right, which ought to exist under all governments on earth. What right? The right of being examined by the tribunals of his country, to determine whether there is any ground for the deprivation of this liberty. Is this a right which ought to be suspended merely to gratify the apprehensions of gentlemen? I think not. The framers of the constitution have said, "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, except when in cases of invasion or rebellion the public safety shall require it." Well, but says the gentleman from Mass. can any one deny that this is not a rebellion? It may perhaps be, but I think it does not deserve the name of rebellion—it is a little, petty, trifling, contemptible thing, led on by a desperate man, at the head of a few desperate followers—a thing which might have been dangerous, if the virtue of the people had not arrested and destroyed it. But admit that it is a rebellion. Will every rebellion justify a suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus? The constitution says, "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, except when in cases of invasion or rebellion the public safety shall require it." Does the constitution justify it? And under present circumstances confining a man in prison without a cause—There is no danger, the enemy is not at our door—there is no invasion—and yet we are called upon to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. This precedent, let me tell gentlemen, may be a ruinous, may be a most damnable precedent—a precedent which hereafter may be most flagrantly abused. The Executive may wish to make use of more energetic measures than the established laws of the land enable him to do—he will resort to this as a precedent, and this important privilege will be suspended at the smallest appearance of danger. The effect will be that whenever a man is at the head of our affairs, who wishes to oppress or wreak his vengeance on those who are opposed to him, he will fly to this as a precedent—it will truly be a precedent fraught with the greatest danger—A precedent which ought not to be set except in a case of the greatest necessity—indeed I can hardly contemplate a case, in which in my opinion it can be necessary.
In my opinion this is a measure which ought never to be proposed unless when the country is so corrupt that we cannot even trust the judges themselves. This I consider the cause of the frequent suspension of this privilege in England. Whenever the whole mass of society becomes contaminated, and the officers of the judicial court are so far corrupted as to countenance rebellion and release rebels from their confinement, it may be then time to say they shall no longer remain in your hands—we will take them from you. But I apprehend there is no such danger here, and I repeat it, we are at once creating one of the most dangerous precedents and passing one of the most unjust acts that ever was
At the same time that I express my vote on the same side with the gentleman I shall take the liberty of assigning very different reasons for my vote from those offered by the gentleman from Virg. has mentioned some insurrections, which he considers of greater magnitude than this. I am of a dif- ferent opinion. Compared to this, I consider them as drops to the bucket. For a moment let do. Attention of gentleman to those insur- do. I think they might with more cor- do. Hard, oppositions to government. In do. Of some citizens thinking themselves 4 Trunks of facts, in which they have been 4 Boxes of facts, and by their subsequent repeal, Gentlemen's opposition in opposition to their ex- Superior Clauses, do those oppositions bear Bennett's proposed analogy do those oppositions bear Cambridge, I consider the late or present con- Elegant Trunk, of greater magnitude than any we Chamberlain's history. Under what authority has it Ladies' history. Under what authority has it Fifteen years, that of a man of great abi- lities, who states that he expects to be in foreign nations. I do not pre- tend that this is a fact—but what has he not drawn resources from every part therefore consider it of great mag- nitude, only excited against the best of government under which the people enjoy the greatest happiness. I shall, however, vote in the belief that we may con- tinue to have the love and affection of the people to the present, to which we are already pro- for its suppression. Had this mea- sures been brought forward a month or six weeks ago, I should have voted for it.
(To be continued.)
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. In the case of Messrs. Bellman and Swartwout. THURSDAY, Jan. 29.
Mr. Jones moved for the commitment of Messrs. Bollman and Swartwout on the same charge for which they had been arrested.
A short conversation having taken place between Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Jones, with respect to the counsel entitled to the right of closing the argument, the attorney-general (Mr. Rodney) suggested his opinion that the proceedings of the court on this preliminary question ought to be on exparte grounds. That it was neither consistent with the principles of the constitution, the practice of courts, or even with humanity, that an argument should be made by the counsel for the accused in this incipient stage of the business, which would naturally tend in a certain degree to excite prejudice which might operate ultimately to their disservice.
Mr. Lee went into an argument of considerable length to establish the right of the accused to be heard on the motion to commit. He contended that the right was strictly legal, and that on the ground of humanity towards the accused, as they themselves claimed the right, there could be no objection to their being indulged.
The court then gave it as their opinion that counsel should be heard.
Mr. Key then opened the argument on the part of the accused, against the motion to commit on the charge of treason.
He was followed by Mr. Jones on the other side, who terminated his remarks about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The court rose for half an hour—when Mr. Lee spoke against the motion to commit until half past ten o'clock, at which hour the court adjourned until the next morning.
On Friday Mr. Lee adduced a number of additional authorities and made some further remarks.
Mr. Rodney then closed the argument in a speech of about an hour and an half in length.
 The volume of matter adduced on this occasion was so great that scarcely a brief outline of it can be expected at present . We shall content ourselves with touching on the most prominent points. 
The counsel of the accused contended that the message of the President, on this occasion, was not entitled to the least attention, however worthy of regard by the legislature to whom they were addressed or generally by the people, they could not in a case that required legal evidence, be of any avail. That if, however, the court should be of a different opinion, they notwithstanding would be found on examination to be destitute of any specifick facts which justified the opinion that any act of treason had been committed by Aaron Burr, and much less by the accused. That they in fact established the commission of no crime whatever, and that at any rate the only offence which could be charged with any colour, was the making preparations for an enterprise against the province of a foreign nation in amity with the U. S. The 6th article of the amendments to the constitution says—"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In this case there was no probable cause supported by oath or affirmation; and therefore the message of the President were entitled to no weight in a court of justice.
With regard to the depositions of gen. Wilkinson it was alledged that they were totally inadmissible in a court of justice. They were taken before individuals who declared themselves to be justices of the peace, of which fact however there was no evidence which could be legally received. Such papers uniformly required a certificate of authentication, proving that the magistrate was duly appointed. This objection was therefore fatal to the reception of these papers as testimony. It was besides established principle of criminal jurisprudence that none other than the magistrate who examined the accused was competent to arrest him.
But even if this insuperable objection was overruled and the depositions received as testimony, it was contended that they did not establish the commission of a single overtact of treason, by A. Burr, much less did they establish the implication of the accused in any such act.
The counsel on the part of the prosecution maintained that to a certain extent, in the incipient stages of a prosecution, the information contained in the messages of the President merited credit. Being, as to the discharge of certain duties, the highest organ of the government, specially entrusted with the preservation of the publick peace, and with the command of the armed force, obliged under the sanction of an oath to discharge these duties and to give information to congress of the state of the union, it must be presumed that he would not lightly make known to congress the existence of acts of a treasonable nature, or call out the militia without the existence of serious danger; and that consequently his communications, connected with other circumstances, conspired to establish the probable cause required under the constitution for arrest or commitment. That there was probable cause of the existence of treasonable acts was evinced by the extreme agitation of the publick mind, by the march of the army from the Sabine, by the spirited operations conducted at New-Orleans for its defence, and by the energetick measures pursued by the several state and territorial governments in the western part of the union.
This probable cause, it was allowed, must be supported by oath or affirmation. This had been abundantly done in the depositions of gen. Wilkinson, gen. Eaton and other persons. The criminal intent of Aaron Burr was demonstrated by his conversations with gen. Eaton, and all that was besides necessary was the commission of some overt act, which would constitute levying of war against the United States. That such acts had been committed there was every reason to infer from the contents of the depositions. No doubt could be entertained that there had been a bellum levatum , if not a bellum percussum . All that was further necessary to shew that there was probable cause that the accused were involved in the treason, was to show that they were the confederates of Aaron Burr. Of this the depositions of general Wilkinson furnished an abundant proof—they had presented letters from Burr to Wilkinson, developing his views, with which they appear to be well acquainted—they had gone further, and stated additional facts and urged additional arguments to seduce Wilkinson from his duty.
They contended that the different territories of the U. States were in law to be considered as one family, the officers of which were bound to respect and take notice of the acts of each other without any of those authentications required in one state to the official acts of another. They all derived their authority either mediately or immediately from the same source. To remove, however, all objection to the want of authentication to the depositions of general Wilkinson, they produced a certificate from the department of state, proving that the justices of the peace before whom the depositions had been taken were legally commissioned. With regard to the principle of law assumed, that none other than the magistrate who examined the accused was competent to his arrest, it was pronounced altogether untenable.
Chief Judge Cranch said it was the opinion of a majority of the court that Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout should stand committed of the crime with which they were charged ; and it was also the opinion of a majority of the court, that they ought not at present be admitted to bail. He assigned at some length the reasons which induced him to dissent from the opinion of his brethren.
Justices Fitzhugh and Duckett also delivered their opinions at length in favour of the commitment of the prisoners for treason, and against admitting them to bail.
Mr. Lee moved for a special court to try the accused, and urged their desire to have a speedy trial.
Some conversation ensued between the court and the counsel, as well on the time of trial as on the competency of the circuit court of the district of

Columbia to take cognizance of the crime charged to the accused. No decided opinions were expressed, though the prevailing sentiment was that this court had jurisdiction of the case.
The court observed that they were obliged in April to hold a court at Alexandria, and that as a special court had been ordered in the county of Washington on the 4th Monday of March, they would then take order in the case.
Mr. Lee expressed a wish, as well at the instance of the marshal as of the accused, that the court would give directions whether they were to have the privilege of pen, ink and paper. The court declined giving any positive direction on the point. They expressed an opinion that they saw no objection to the indulgence, but rested it on the discretion of the marshal, of whose humanity and faithful performance of duty there could be no doubt.
BALTIMORE. February 2.
To the politeness of a gentleman, just arrived from St. Thomas, we are indebted for the latest intelligence from the Republic of Hayti. The papers furnished, contain an account of operations down to the 27th December, inclusive—on which day the new Republican Constitution was adopted. This constitution, and the spirited address, prefixed, shall be presented to the readers of the Gazette without further loss of time than is necessary for a correct translation. We have only time this evening to furnish the following.
On the 5th December, 1806, general Christophe appeared on the skirts of Port-au-Prince, with an army of about 10,000 men, to compel the body of people assembled together, to frame a constitution to appoint him emperor of Hayti. On his arrival there, he sent in a flag of truce, and desired to have a conference with general Pichon, commander at Port-au-Prince, who went out to meet him with what soldiers he had; and instead of a conference, as soon as Pichon came within gun shot of him, his men were fired on by Christophe; when a short engagement ensued, in which there were some officers and men killed on both sides. Pichon got into Port-au-Prince, and kept Christophe from committing any material depredations on the town: as his army was but few in number, he thought it most advisable to act only on the defensive, and not pursue Christophe, after having driven his troops out of town, at the end of which they had entered it.
Dispatches were immediately sent by Pichon to all parts of the South, where they have dominions, for troops, arms, ammunition and provision, and on the day following, there was not a man to be found, or scarce a man that could bear arms in the town of Jacmel—all had repaired to Port-au-Prince, to join Pichon's army, carrying with them provisions and ammunition for the occasion. Several skirmishes took place in the course of eight or ten days—during which time, Christophe's army was within two or three miles of Port-au-Prince, and had several times entered it, but was as often repulsed.
On the 10th of January, news was received at Jacmel, that Christophe had been defeated, and that the greater part of his soldiers revolted and joined the other side; that he had fled for his life; that Pichon's army were in pursuit of him, and no doubt prevailed, but they would overtake them—in which case, death would inevitably be their lot, as they were determined to behead him, and establish a federal or republican government.
On the night of the 10th January, Jacmel was illuminated on the occasion.—(Fed. Gaz.)
THE PUBLICK LEDGER.
TO SHEW THE VERY AGE AND BODY OF THE TIMES, ITS FORM AND PRESSURE.
MONDAY EVENING, FEB. 9, 1807.
We have seldom or ever witnessed colder weather than we have for some days past, of which we are made the more sensible from the sudden change.—On Friday at 10 o'clock in the forenoon the Mercury in the Thermometer was up to Fifty Seven, and on Saturday morning at half past nine, it was sunk below Seventeen, the Thermometer in a passage, which was shut in the night. The navigation to Craney Island is obstructed by the ice.
Communications of Marriages at a distance will not be inserted upon the authority of an anonymous correspondent. This will excuse us to a Richmond correspondent.
FROM THE ATLANTICK WORLD. Proceedings of the court at Washington. Thursday, January 29.
After Messrs. Swartwout and Bollman came in, Mr. Jones moved for their commitment.
Mr. Rodney, the attorney general of the United States, rose to oppose the hearing of counsel on the part of the prisoners at this incipient stage of the prosecution.
Mr. Rodney stated that he was urged to this not only by the duty of his office, but from motives of humanity to the unfortunate persons before the court. "No one (said Mr. Rodney) can lament more than I do the fate of these two unhappy men. I lament that they are accused of treason. I lament particularly that this charge should be made against a person by whose exertions I understand, the Marquis de Fayette was once rescued from the dungeon of tyranny, and that Dr. Bollman, the prisoner to whom I allude, should have used his endeavours to destroy that very fabric of freedom, which that brave officer had assisted in establishing. I lament also to see a young man of the most respectable connexions, and hitherto unblemished character, as Mr. Swartwout, accused before this court of so heinous an offence as treason, and I lament that the person who was the means of involving both of them, should have been Aaron Burr; a person once so highly distinguished by the favour of his fellow-citizens.—With a view, therefore, both to justice and humanity, and to prevent any impressions going abroad which might corrupt or prejudice the publick mind against the prisoners, I am inclined to oppose all inquiry into their case at present." Mr. Rodney then cited several cases to shew that the hearing of counsel on the motion of commitment was improper.
Mr. Charles Lee replied on the part of the prisoners. "May it please your honors, it was understood that when Samuel Swartwout and Erick
Bollman were brought before the court, that they should be heard as to the propriety of their commitment—But it is now urged by the attorney general of the United States that they have no right to be heard—When I remember the tenderness and motives of humanity which have urged this, I certainly feel grateful to the gentleman for his feelings and sympathy on the occasion; but I must beg leave to observe that Dr. Bollman and Mr. Swartwout are the fittest judges how far the arguments of counsel in the present stage of the prosecution, are likely to prejudice popular opinion against them. They do not dread any consequences which may arise from disclosures at the present moment; on the contrary, they are solicitous that every investigation which is proper may be gone into.—And as to the legality of the proceeding I think there is no innovation of practice—The counsel for the prisoners certainly will not question any thing that can be said by the attorney general for the United States. They will be always ready to conform to practice. On the present occasion I appear for two strangers in this district. A motion has been made for committing them on the charge of treason, and the court have agreed to hear any arguments which their counsel may advance why they should not be committed.
The President states as an advantage which may occur to the public that the prisoners after their arrival should be left to such course of trial both as to place and process, as the public functionaries may direct. That here it may be expected from the presence of the highest judicial authorities that public justice is not likely to be obtained. This sentiment of the President, I therefore hope is not now to be turned to our disadvantage. Whether a man is to be committed for treason or not is certainly a question upon which he ought to be heard. The charge of treason is the most serious charge of which a man can be accused. There is no charge which affects either his character or fortune in a greater degree than treason! Is the reputation of a man to be sported with and no opportunity to be allowed to him for exculpation? If any thing adds importance to the question now raised, it is that the court are expected to set a precedent for similar cases in future—Can I be pardoned if I ask the gentleman who has commenced this opposition to the hearing of counsel for the prisoners, whether they shall be committed for the crime of treason without a hearing—Treason is a commitment without bail. A commitment therefore which affects personal liberty in the highest degree—The humanity of the gentleman has answered the question.
Mr. Lee then proceeded to state a variety of law cases to shew that it has been the usual practice in all the courts of the United States to hear the arguments of counsel on the propriety of commitment for crimes of every description, and he concluded by observing that there was no alarm or agitation in the publick mind to justify a commitment for the charge of treason without the most serious deliberation. "Not only (said Mr. Lee) we are in a state of tranquillity at this spot, but in every other part of the union. For my own part I feel as perfectly at ease as if the name of Aaron Burr had never been sounded in my ears. I trust sir that no person can contradict me in this observation—The government of the United States at the present moment is neither threatened with danger at home or abroad. Every thing wears the appearance of peace and quiet—Why therefore precipitate a commitment without allowing every investigation which is legal and not contrary to practice? Innovation does not apply to the case at present before the court. I only ask that the usual practice in similar cases should be observed in the present case, and the court will never refuse us."
The court decided that counsel for the prisoners to shew cause why the commitment should not be granted.
Mr. Francis S. Key, rose and observed that the limits do not permit us to give a full report of the proceedings. The most material part of his argument is expressed nearly in the following words.
"May it please the court. I shall offer observations on the subject now before the court, in this case circumstances extremely interesting and perplexing. When I consider the opposition which has been made by the attorney general on the part of the prosecution, to debar the prisoners from the benefit of counsel in this incipient stage of the case, it seems that much was expected to be accomplished by the plan of the conspiracy and the state of agitation. Of this I know very little, and therefore say very little. But in open court I shall make a few remarks on the evidence against Mr. Swartwout, and shall leave it to the other counsel to close the defence, after the attorneys on the part of the prosecution have advanced their grounds for commitment. I shall proceed on this occasion to call for the several evidences that are filed on the records of the court; and I shall certainly object to the communication of the president being admitted as evidence. Is the executive of the United States gifted with the extraordinary powers of divination? Is his message to be resorted to in this court as an indisputable document, as matter of fact—I hold up my hand against such an use of executive means. The President of the United States has no such right whatever. He has a right to make communications to congress; but I deny that his communications can ever serve as evidence in this or any other court, and unless this testimony, his message to congress can be resorted to as evidence, I know not what other testimony can be adduced in the present case. The president states the information which he has received on this subject; he says the mass has been voluminous: but that little has been given under the sanction of an oath, so as to constitute formal and legal evidence. If then the President of the United States has acknowledged this in his communication to congress, on what grounds can his message be admitted as evidence before this court. He informs congress also that his information was chiefly in the form of letters, after containing such a mixture of rumours, conjectures, and suspicions, as rendered it difficult to sift out the real facts, and unadvisable to hazard more than general outlines, strengthened by concurrent information, or the particular credibility of the relator. If this information was of this vague and uncertain kind, to which no positive degree of credit could be attached; by what species of justice, I say, could it be here admitted as evidence. But even if this information were derived from the most certain source, to exhibit it as evidence would display a degree of executive influence which I should always oppose, as both dangerous and illegal. I take
it for granted that all testimony or evidence in this case ought to be exhibited to the court. Thus although the communication of the President to congress is before you, yet the information contained in it is not directly exhibited to this court. It is information of an indirect description not proved to the court, and therefore ought only to be considered, what in reality it is, intelligence communicated to congress, solely for them to act upon; but not to serve as evidence in a court of justice.
The constitution expressly declares that you are to arrest no man unless there be probable cause on oath or affirmation, and surely nothing can be shewn in this communication which will appear to your honours as probable cause of treason against these two men. It is necessary, sir, that the charges be substantiated by evidence, and that your opinion be given on this evidence alone—The vile declamation, which has been thundered in your ears, is therefore, to have no effect with this court; it is not to be regarded by you, but entirely to be thrown aside. But may it please your honours, there is another reason why the message of the president should not be received on the records of the court, there will be found all the evidence of which the president is in possession—You have the affidavit of general Eaton, as also the depositions of lieut. Wilson and ensign Mead, stating the apprehensions of gen. Wilkinson at New Orleans. And does the communication of the president amount to any more? Am I correct in stating this to be the fact? I confess my astonishment has been great, that your honours were to look at any thing else; that you were to pay the slightest attention to the communication of the president, or to any other evidence than that before you.
There is a great distinction between the evidence necessary to arrest and the evidence necessary to commit. A person may be arrested on grounds of mere suspicion; but to commit them, there must be produced some evidence to prove the crime; and let me then demand if the court have any testimony or evidence that Samuel Swartwout and Erick Bollman have been guilty of the crime of treason, or that they have committed any act that will even approach to treason—Does the communication of the president contain any thing like treason—I will not even open it to your honours. The title page of the message which is said to be touching an illegal combination of private individuals against the peace and safety of the union. Is this treason? No! Treason is strictly defined to be levying of war against the United States. As to arbitrary and constructive treason, I do not consider and I trust this court will never countenance or give their sanction to what in England is termed constructive treason—Even the president in his remarks and comments on the letter of Wilkinson, says not a syllable about treason. If it be supposed col. Burr and his confederates committed treason, is it not extraordinary that we should no where call it treason, that we have informed congress that treason has been committed by Burr and his followers.—The message of the president is a communication which ought never to have been shewn its face in court. Then what is the evidence before your honours for my own part I know not; nor do I know what is the evidence the counsel for the prosecution have in the present case.
On the affidavits of general Wilkinson, the objection that they were not sworn to is removed. This paper, sir, is said to be the affidavit of general Wilkinson. This paper has been signed by James Carrick, who is said to be the clerk of the court, it is called the affidavit of general Wilkinson. I have no objection to the production of the affidavits of general Wilkinson, if they are sworn to, but the holy evidence of the present case, must be probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. But evidence of this sort there is none. I feel satisfied that the deposition of general Wilkinson will not be received as legal evidence. It is for treason the prisoners have been arrested. It is for treason that they are to be committed. But where is the proof of this treason? Where is the evidence that Erick Bollman or Samuel Swartwout have committed a single act of treason? Where even is the testimony to shew that treason has been committed by any individual in the United States? Has one armed man been seen on the waters of the Ohio, that quarter where treason and conspiracy are said for several months past to have been recognized by col. Burr and his associates? Treason does not consist in placing men in a military array, and much less in conveying men from one place to another in vessels or boats. And have any other preparations than those of this description been seen or heard of on the waters of the Ohio? But if one message of the president be deemed by the counsel for the prosecution as good evidence, surely they will admit that any other message on that subject is equally conclusive. I request therefore the attention of your honours, to the last message which the president has forwarded to congress respecting col. Burr, and particularly to the concluding paragraph of a letter from captain Bissel, commandant of Fort Massac, dated the 5th of Jan. 1807. This officer states, that on or about the 31st ult. col. Burr, late vice-president of the United States, passed Fort Massac with about ten boats of different descriptions, navigated with about six men each, having nothing on board that would even suffer conjecture more than a man bound to market. Does this wear the appearance of any thing like treason? Let me now call your regard to the alarming statement of gen. Wilkinson, who assures the executive that col. Burr was to be at Natchez on the 20th of December with an army of 2000 men, and then to be followed with 4000 more, to take
New Orleans, plunder the banks, rob the citizens and to commit every species of depredation. And what evidence does gen. Wilkinson offer for his fears? No evidence surely that will be sustained by this court.—If there be evidence of any thing, it is evidence of the egregious folly of gen. Wilkinson, who has put the whole territory of New Orleans in a state of alarm by his apprehensions. And will we suppose that the apprehensions of gen. Wilkinson can be received as evidence, the apprehensions of a man too, who has certainly behaved in a most arbitrary manner, who by his unwarrantable arrest of Dr. Bollman and Mr. Swartwout, has committed one of the most illegal acts that has ever been heard of in this country. Instead of sending here his belief and his fears, he should have sent the reasons upon which he acted. Are we to commit men for treason upon such ideal reports, upon the fears and apprehensions of gen. Wilkinson? If such be deemed sufficient proof for commitment upon the charge of treason; then before the sun of this day is set, we may all stand committed on a similar charge. General Wilkinson may forward on to the executive, as he has done with regard to the prisoners before you, his belief that any citizen in this place whom his fancy may suggest, is concerned in this dreadful conspiracy, and without further proof, the unfortunate person is immediately consigned to the horrors of a jail. Are your honours prepared to sanction such a stretch of power? I hope not—I feel satisfied this court will never commit men for treason upon such slender evidence, if I can give the appellation of evidence to the papers now before you. I hope the court will not consider the evidence which might have been produced on this occasion; but the evidence which really is produced—for never until the present extra prosecution, did I hear that papers of the description now before you were to be received as evidence."
CUSTOM-HOUSE—ENTERED.
Sch'r Catalena, Gould, West Indies. CLEARED. Brig Elizabeth, Dickson, West Indies. Sch'r Elizabeth Margaret, Mallory, Havanna. Alice, Hinchman, Edenton.
Sales at Auction.
By WM. B. LAMB. On Wednesday, the 11th inst. at 11 o'Clock, on Commerce-Street wharf, 80 puncheons Jamaica Rum, 15 bars Pimento. Terms, 60 and 90 days for sums of 4'0 dollars for approved endorsed notes. Feb. 9.
Land and Houses for Sale.
By virtue of a Deed in Trust executed by MICHAEL CORHAN, to secure the payment of a sum of money, Will be Sold on TUESDAY, February 10, at XII o'Clock on the premises, A Lot of LAND with the BUILDINGS thereon, (or so much thereof as will satisfy said sum, with expenses, &c.) lying on the Main-Street in the Borough of Norfolk, and was formerly the property of John Woodside. Terms of Sale, Cash. Thomas Mathews, Rob't B. Taylor, Trustees. January 26.
Dismal Swamp Canal Company.
For publick sale, on Monday 2d March next, precisely at 12 o'Clock, before the Eagle Tavern, in the Borough of Norfolk, Eighteen SHARES, belonging to delinquent Stockholders in said Company, or as many thereof as will satisfy the respective claims, on a credit of sixty days. William Charles Lee, Clerk and Treasurer D. S. Canal Co. 12M. January 12.
Fitzhugh's Packet HULDAH & ANNA, will sail in a few days for New-York.—For freight or passage, having excellent accomodations, apply to the master on board, or Moses Myers. Feb. 9.
Jamaica Rum and Pimento. This day landing on Commerce-street wharf, from on board the brig Sumner, capt. Frith, 86 puncheons choice Jamaica RUM, and a few bags Pimento. On hand, Sugar in tierces and bbls. and Coffee in bags, Also, 4 large Anchors from 13 to 1800 weight, 2 ten inch Cables; and a patent Campbouse, all of which will be disposed of on liberal terms. B. Redmon. Feb. 9.
Just received from New-York, and for Sale by LEWIS AUGIER, Corner of Market-Square, Irish Linen 7-8 and 4-4; Russia do.; brown and white Platillas; Calicoes; Ginghams; Chambay 3-4 and 4-4; Checks 6-4, 5-4, and 3-4; Linen Shawls; Waistcoat Patterns of all kinds; Cambric Dimity; Long Lawn; Fancy Cord; very fine Black Velvet; men's Beaver Hats; Straw Bonnets; Plush do.; India Silk; English do.; Cotton, Silk, Buckskin, and Shammy Skin Suspenders; Calimanco; India Handkerchiefs; real Madras do.; white Thread; tambouring Cotton; White Chapel do.; dies; Metal Buttons; extra long Silk Gloves; silk and cotton Stockings; Lustrine; satin and silk Ribbons in boxes; Oznaburgs and Ticklenburgs. Also to be had at New-York prices, Fine and common Blue Cloths; Bear Skin; Half Thicks; red and white Flannels; blue Plains; Bath Coating; Green Baize; Dutch Blankets, &c. Feb. 9.
For SALE, 153 barrels new Pork; 50 kegs Lard, 100 do. Tare; 20,000 wt. Bacon Hams. Rich'd & John Taylor. Feb. 9.
A Negro WOMAN, who is a tolerable Cook and Washer, will be sold on reasonable terms or exchanged for a smartative girl of about 13 or 14 years old. Enquire of the printer. Feb. 9.
Real 4th proof Hollands GIN, and Cognac BRANDY—Landing this day a few pipes of each. C. & F. Whittle. In Store,
Superfine Flour; Coffee 1st quality. Andros Rum; Jamaica do.; Sugar; Ics of May Salt; Madeira Wine, &c. for use; Cocoa; Molasses 1st quality. Feb. 6.