Berkeley and Jefferson intelligencer (Martinsburg, Va.), 1807-06-19 00:00:00

Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer.
[No. 5 of Volume IX.]
FRIDAY, June 19, 1807.
[WHOLE No. 431.]
FROM THE VIRGINIA ARGUS.
TRIAL OF COL. AARON BURR. [CONTINUED.]
Wednesday, May 27.
The proceedings on this day were extremely interesting; but are of too great a length to be detailed at present. Indeed that part of it which embraces the evidence given in, are for obvious reasons improper to be published in this stage of the prosecution.
Mr. Hay commenced with stating, that all hope of an arrangement with Col. B's counsel to secure his person, and to avoid the impropriety of a public examination, was at an end. Col. Burr would not consent to give bail on the charge of treason; and Mr. H. read a letter from his counsel to that effect. He should, therefore, proceed to an examination of the testimony. In doing this, he should observe a chronological order: take the conspiracy at its earliest crisis, and introduce the events as they subsequently arose.
An interesting discussion took place upon the propriety of this arrangement. Mr. B's counsel protested against it. They contended that there were two things to be proved: 1st. An Overt Act of a Treasonable conspiracy: 2d. That Col. B. was connected with it. If the first wanted proof, the last was nugatory. They contended, therefore, that the Overt Act ought first to be proved; before any other evidence was exhibited as to the intention or the plan.
The Chief Justice left the order of the evidence to the judgment of the attorney of the U. S.
Mr. Hay then offered gen. Wilkinson's affidavit to be read: When a long discussion was entered into on the principles of evidence.
The Chief Justice said that the most proper course was first to introduce the evidence as to the overt act, and that Gen. Wilkinson's affidavit was not at that time to be read.
Mr. Hay then called Peter Taylor and—Allibright, the first was Blannerhasset's gardener, the other had worked on his island. Of their testimony it is for the present improper to make any statement: They were succeeded by a letter partly in cypher and partly in German addressed to a person in New Orleans; which Mr. John Brown (former secretary to gen. Marshall on his embassy to Paris) and Mr. Hubner a most respectable German merchant of this city, were sworn to interpret to the best of their abilities, this interpretation to be presented to the Court to-morrow.
Mr. Hay then brought forward an affidavit of one Dubas, a sergeant in the army of the U. States. This affidavit was represented by the prosecution to be of the greatest importance; but was objected to by Mr. B's counsel on the ground of informality: The affidavit appeared on its face to be taken before one Cenas, who signed himself a magistrate of the Town of Orleans. This signature was succeeded by gov. Claiborne's verification of the fact, on one day after the date of the certificate. But there was no caption to the affidavit, as "N. Orleans &c." nor any mention made at the foot of it of the place where it was taken.
A long argument ensued upon its admissibility; and the Court adjourned without giving any opinion.
Thursday, May 28.
Same Judges present as yesterday.
The proceedings of yesterday, were read. The Grand Jury appeared in court and their names being called over, they were adjourned till to-morrow 10 o'clock.
William Duane, Esq. appeared as a witness for the U. S.
Luther Martin, Esq. appeared as Counsel for Mr. Burr. He enquired of the court, whether he should qualify?
Chief Justice. It is the usual form; but, it is not absolutely material. It may be dispensed with.
Mr. Martin. I did suppose so; and as I am unwilling to take up the time of the court—
The court then proceeded to the consideration of the point made yesterday, relative to Dubas' affidavit. A desultory conversation ensued between the counsel and the Bar, on the proceedings be-
fore the Supreme Court of the U. S. and on a case quoted from Washington's Reports.
Mr. Martin observed, that in fact this point had not been made before the Supreme Court in Washington.
Mr. Hay. It seems that the able and intelligent counsel who were employed for the U. S. did not deem it necessary to state this objection. It passed sub silentio . It was not once noticed, even in the material case of Gen. Wilkinson's affidavit. Why was it neglected? or why did the able and zealous counsel, who certainly spared no exertions in the cause of their clients, omit to raise this very objection to the form of authentication?
Mr. Martin. Although I was counsel in these cases before the Supreme Court of the U. S. I am confident that this objection was never raised. Gen. Wilkinson was known to be in New Orleans, and the magistrate who certified his deposition, was known to have been duly commissioned. In fact the other objections to that affidavit were so material, that they were thought to be amply sufficient. This one escaped our notice.
The Chief Justice then pronounced the opinion of the court, in the following words:
On the part of the United States, a paper purporting to be an affidavit has been offered in evidence, to the reading of which two exceptions are taken:
1st. That an affidavit ought not to be admitted, where the personal attendance of the witness could have been obtained; 2dly. That this paper is not so authenticated, as to entitle itself to be considered as an affidavit.
That a magistrate may commit upon affidavits, has been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, though not without hesitation. The presence of the witness to be examined by the committing justice confronted with the accused, is certainly to be desired; and ought to be obtained, unless considerable inconvenience and difficulty exists in procuring his attendance. An ex parte affidavit shaped, perhaps, by the person pressing the prosecution will always be viewed with some suspicion and acted upon with some caution, but the court thought it would be going too far to reject it altogether. If it was obvious that the attendance of the witness was easily attainable, but that he was intentionally kept out of the way, the question might be otherwise decided.
But the particular case before the court does not appear to be of this description. The witness resides at a great distance; and there is no evidence that the materiality of his testimony was known to the prosecutors or to the Executive in time to have directed his attendance. It is true that general instructions, which would apply to any individual, might have been sent, and the attendance of this or any other material witness obtained under those instructions; but it would be requiring too much to say, that the omission to do this ought to exclude an affidavit. This exception, therefore, will not prevail.
The 2d is, that the paper is not so authenticated, as to be introduced as testimony on a question, which concerns the liberty of a citizen.
This objection is founded on two omissions in the certificate.
The first is, that the place at which the affidavit was taken does not appear;
The second, that the certificate of the governor does not state the person who administered the oath to be a magistrate, but goes no further than to say, that a person of that name was a magistrate.
That, for ought appearing to the court, this oath may or may not in point of fact have been legally administered, must be conceded.
The place, where the oath was administered, not having been stated; it may have been administered where the magistrate had no jurisdiction, and yet the certificate be perfectly true. Of consequence there is no evidence before the court, that the magistrate had power to administer the oath and was acting in his judicial capacity.
The effect of testimony may often be
doubtful; and courts must exercise their best judgment in the case, but of the verity of the paper, there ought never to be a doubt. No paper writing ought to gain admittance into a court of justice as testimony, unless it possesses those solemnities which the law requires. Its authentication must not rest upon probability, but must be as complete as the nature of the case admits of. This is believed to be a clear, legal principle. In conformity with it, is, as the court conceives, the practice of England and of this country, as is attested by the books of forms; and no case is recollected, in which a contrary principle has been recognised. This principle is in some degree illustrated by the doctrine with respect to all courts of a limited jurisdiction. Their proceedings are erroneous, if their jurisdiction be not conclusively shown. They derive no validity from the strongest probability that they had jurisdiction in the case; none certainly from the presumption that being a court, a usurpation of jurisdiction will not be presumed. The reasoning applies in full force to the acts of a magistrate whose jurisdiction is local. Thus in the case of a warrant, it is expressly declared, that the place where it was made ought to appear.
The attempt to remedy this defect by comparing the date of the certificate given by the magistrate, with that given by the governor cannot succeed. The answer given at bar to this argument is conclusive. The certificate wants those circumstances which would make it testimony, and without them no part of it can be regarded.
The second objection is equally fatal. The Governor has certified that a man of the same name with the person who has administered the oath is a magistrate, but not that the person who has administered it, is a magistrate.
It is too obvious to be controverted, that there may be two or more persons of the same name, and, consequently, to produce that certainty which the case readily admits of, the certificate of the Governor ought to have applied to the individual who administered the oath. The propriety of this certainty and precision in a certificate, which is to authenticate any affidavit to be introduced into a court of justice, is so generally admitted, that I do not recollect a single instance in which the principle has been departed from.
It has been said that it ought to appear, that there are two persons of the same name, or the court will not presume such to be the fact. The court presumes nothing. It may or may not be the fact, and the court cannot presume that it is not. The argument proceeds upon the idea that an instrument is to be disproved by him who objects to it, not that it is to be proved by him who offers it. Nothing can be more repugnant to the established usage of courts.
How is it to be proved that there are two persons of the name of Cenas in the territory of Orleans? If with a knowledge of several weeks, perhaps months, that this prosecution was to be carried on, the executive ought not to be required to produce this witness, ought the prisoner to be required, with the notice of a few hours to prove that two persons of the same name reside in New Orleans?
It has been repeatedly urged that a difference exists between the strictness of laws which would be applicable to a trial in chief and that which is applicable to a motion to commit for trial.
Of the reality of this distinction, the present controversy affords conclusive proof. At a trial in chief, the accused possesses the valuable privilege of being confronted with his accuser. But there must be some limit to this relaxation and it appears not to have extended so far as to the admission of a paper, not purporting to be an affidavit and not shown to be one.
When it is asked whether every man does not believe that this affidavit was really taken before a magistrate; it is at once answered that this cannot affect the case. Should a man of probity declare a certain fact within his own knowledge he would be credited by all who knew him, but his declaration could not be received as testimony by the Judge who firmly believed him. So a man might be
believed to be guilty of a crime, but a jury could not convict him, unless the testimony proved him to be guilty of it.—This judicial disbelief of a probable circumstance does not establish a wide interval between common law and common sense. It is believed in this respect to shew their intimate union.
The argument goes to this, that the paper shall be received and acted upon as an affidavit, not because the oath appears to have been administered according to law, but because it is probable that it was so administered.
This point seems to have been decided by the constitution:
"The right of the people," says that instrument, "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 places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
The cause of seizure is not to be supported by a probable oath, or an oath that was probably taken, but by oath absolutely taken. This oath must be a legal oath; and if it must be a legal oath, it must legally appear to the court to be so. This provision is not made for a final trial; it is made for the very case now under consideration. In the cool and temperate moments of reflection, undisturbed by that whirlwind of passion with which in those party conflicts which most generally produce acts or accusations of treason, the human judgement is sometimes overthrown, the people of America, have believed the power even of commitment to be capable of too much oppression in its execution to be placed without restriction, even in the hands of the national legislature. Shall a Judge disregard those barriers which the nation has deemed it proper to erect?
The interest, which the people have in this prosecution, has been stated; but it is firmly believed, that the best and true interest of the people is to be found in a rigid adherence to those rules, which preserve the fairness of criminal prosecutions in every stage.
If this was a case to be decided by principle alone, the court would certainly not receive this paper. But if the point is settled by decisions, they must be conformed to.
It has been said to be settled in the Supreme Court of the U. States by admitting the affidavit of Wilkinson, to which an exception was taken, because it did not appear that the magistrate had taken the oaths prescribed by law. It was said, that as by law he could not act, until he had taken the oaths and he was found acting, it must be presumed that this prerequisite was complied with; that is, that his acting as a magistrate under his commission was evidence that he was authorised so to act.
It will not be denied that there is much strength in the argument; but the cases do not appear to be precisely parallel.
The certificate that he is a magistrate and that full faith is due to his acts, implies, that he has qualified if his qualification is necessary to his being a complete magistrate, whose acts are entitled to full faith and credit.
It is not usual for a particular certificate that a magistrate has qualified to accompany his official acts.
There is no record of his qualification and no particular testimonial of it could be obtained.
These observations do not apply to the objections which exist.
But it is said that the certificate is the same with that in Wilkinson's affidavit.
If this objection had been taken and overruled, it would have ended the question. But it was not taken so far as is now recollected, and does not appear to have been taken and overruled, it would have ended the question. But it was not taken so far as is now recollected, and does not appear to have been noticed. A defect, if it be one, which was not observed, cannot be cured by being passed over in silence.
The case in Washington was a civil case and turned upon the point; that no form of the commission was prescribed and consequently that it was not necessary to appear on the face of it, that it directed to magistrates.
That it was the duty of the clerk to

direct it to magistrates, and he should not be presumed to have neglected his duty, in a case in which his performance of it need not appear on the face of the instrument.
That the person intending to take this exception, ought to have taken it sooner and not surprise the opposite party when it was too late to correct it.
But the great difference is, that the privy examination was a mere ministerial act—the administering an oath is a judicial act.
The court is of opinion that the paper purporting to be an affidavit made by Dunbaugh, cannot be read, because it does not appear to be an oath.
Mr. Hay then addressed the court.—It is extremely uncertain, how long this examination will continue; whether it may occupy ten hours or ten days: And if gentlemen continue to make the same captious objections, which they have already done at every stage of the inquiry, it is impossible to foresee any termination to it. All this time, however, Aaron Burr is at liberty, and he may depart from this city, at any moment that he pleases. On the very first day that I made this motion, he ought to have been held to bail or in custody, and day after day, until the court should have given their decision.—I expect Gen. Wilkinson here this day or tomorrow; as I have received a letter from the Secretary of War stating that he would probably be here on the 28th or 30th. As to Col. Burr's counsel, they may have that confidence in his innocence, which dismisses all apprehensions of his intention to escape. For my own part I freely confess that my confidence is much less and my fears infinitely greater.—I rise therefore to give notice, that unless this examination is finally settled this day, unless all the evidence and argument be concluded and the opinion of the court finally delivered, I shall move that he be bound to appear here to-morrow, to answer the charge of Treason.
After some desultory conversation between opposite counsels; Mr. Hay proceeded: I know not, Sirs, whether this motion can be considered as regularly before the court. I certainly intended it as a mere notification of a motion, which I intended to make under certain circumstances. Is there any possible impropriety in such a motion? I consider A. Burr as standing here as if he were formally brought by a warrant before your Honour; as standing precisely in the same situation as he did before you on a former examination. At that time, sir, after having the evidence before you, though without hearing the argument of counsel, you bound him to bail from day to day.
Mr. Wickham observed, that this was a most extraordinary motion: it was, however, ingenious; as it had the very effect which they had contemplated by the motion for commitment. It was stated, that Col. Burr is placed in the same situation, as he was on a former examination; and that the court ought, therefore, to bind him over from day to day as they did then. But the analogy is false. At that time, Col. Burr was not bound at all, and it might have been necessary to have demanded some pledge for his personal attendance. But now Col. Burr comes into court, actually bound; himself in the sum of 10,000 dollars and his securities in 10,000 dollars more. And this sum is precisely double of that, which was exacted from him on his former examination, to secure his attendance from day to day.
Mr. Martin. The recognizance which already bound Col. Burr, compels him to be in court: why bind him up in a greater sum? Is there any reason to suspect him guilty of treason? Has anything, like an oath, come from Wilkinson, that Col. B. was engaged in treason? There is not a single sentiment, not a single expression in Wilkinson's deposition which indicates any High Treason, perpetrated by him? The present application is contrary to every principle of justice, but if the court thinks that he ought to be bound for this charge, we shall submit with deference to its decision.
Mr. Randolph. The question is, whether there exists probable evidence of High Treason, against Col. Burr. But this is a novel and most extraordinary proceeding. Why does not the prosecution show that there does exist sufficient cause? Why do they not produce their evidence? If it be sufficiently strong, the court will no doubt pursue the necessary measures.
Mr. McRae. Gentlemen seem to consider the present recognizance as amply sufficient under any possible circumstances, to detain Aaron Burr here to answer to the charge of Treason. I
am of a very different opinion. I think with the Attorney for the U. S. that nothing is more probable than that certain circumstances may induce him to effect his escape; nor have I the same confidence which his counsel seem to entertain, in the possibility of his remaining for trial.—On the former examination, he was bound over; but even then it was evidently for a very small sum; and why? Because the Chief Justice himself observed that as Col. Burr was withdrawn from the circle of his friends, it would increase the difficulty of his obtaining even a small bail even for this smaller offence: and because he completely excluded from his view the present charge. As then he decided, that this sum in which Col. Burr is now bound is a smaller one than the charge of High Treason would have warranted; it seems to me that too great reliance is placed upon the present recognizance.
Mr. Wirt begged leave to make a few remarks on this subject, though he had not so fully prepared himself as he would have wished, because he had not expected that it would provoke such discussion:—Mr. Wickham appears not to have understood this subject with his usual correctness, when he declares that the granting of this motion would have the very same effect as granting the motion for commitment. What is the object of this last motion? To commit A. Burr for High Treason. But the object of this present motion is merely to keep his person here to abide the opinion of the court: The other was, to keep him for trial. The effect therefore is widely different; and we should not, as Mr. Wickham contended, thus gain our point.—He supposes too that the present recognizance will hold A. Burr to answer the charge of Treason. But if he looks at the terms of the bond, it will at once appear that it is a recognizance only for a misdemeanor, and not as the customary form is, to appear to answer for that or any other crime which may be brought against him. This recognizance may therefore be sufficient as to the misdemeanor, but not on the charge of Treason. It is perfectly immaterial that the present motion is brought before the court; it is precisely the same thing as if it were brought before the same judge in his own chambers.—But if in that case if the examination were to continue for more than one day, what would the judge decide? Would he let the accused go at large? or would he not rather at the close of each evening bind him over to his appearance on the subsequent day? In fact, the court has already taken this very step. On the former examination, the Chief Justice demanded and took bail: and surely what was proper then, is proper now. I apprehend that the present recognizance is to be forfeited only in the case of the misdemeanor; but if Col. Burr is to be brought up for High Treason, ought he not to forfeit something more considerable?—The motion in fact resolves itself into this simple question: If A. Burr be brought before the court on the charge of High Treason and supported by probable cause, will not the court bind him to his appearance on this distinct original motion?
Mr. Botts observed that the strange principle advocated by the prosecution was, that the former examination did not at all preclude the present motion. But if this be true, what would be the consequence? That every edition of the volume of evidence might justify a new enquiry.—No warrant has been issued for the apprehension of Col. Burr; and of course he did not stand in the same predicament, as on the former occasion.—The counsel for the prosecution seemed to have profited by one of the fashions of old times: when they wanted to try a witch. If she swam, she was of course condemned to death; if she was drowned, she was to be acquitted: And thus in the very experiment of deciding whether she was guilty of a crime, they inflicted upon her the very punishment, which belonged to that crime. In the same manner Col. Burr is to sustain the same punishment, while enquiring whether he deserves it, as would only have resulted from the most unfavorable decision.—Let us suppose a case; were I to suggest to this court, that some person present has been guilty of a crime, as the attorney for the U. S. has done; would the court think itself justified upon the credit of my bare word to bind over that person for his examination? I presume not. Col. Burr is already bound by his recognizance; This recognizance is sufficient to keep him here, until the court may discharge him. If he departs, the penalty is of course estreated.
Continuation of the Debate, on Mr. Hays motion to commit Aaron Burr.
At this moment the Grand Jury returned into court, and their names being called over, requested an adjournment. After some desultory conversation between their Foreman and the Chief Justice, respecting certain points of form, they were accordingly adjourned till tomorrow 10 o'clock.—They immediately retired from the court, when Mr. Hay arose to proceed with the argument.—He spoke, in substances as follows:
I stand here, sir, engaged in the performance of a most serious duty. I appear here in a cause, which involves the character of our government. I come here to charge Aaron Burr with High Treason against the U. States; with "levying war" upon his country. Sir, it was natural to suppose, that such a serious charge would have made a most serious impression upon A. B's mind; that he would have roused all the energies of his understanding in his service; in vindicating himself against such heinous charges, and not in casting imputations upon the government. Why then, sir, does he turn from himself against the administration. Why these complaints of persecution, which have fatigued our ears? I most solemnly deny the charge. I most confidently avow, that there is not a title of evidence to support it. None can be produced, unless it be a persecution, that the government brings him before a legal tribunal, where his guilt and innocence will be impartially established. A. Burr stands accused of the highest crimes and misdemeanors; he stands charged with a deliberate design of involving his country in all the horrors of a civil insurrection, or of entangling her in a war with a foreign nation. This is the true question before the court, and instead of meeting this charge with the energy and firmness which became him; instead of confronting it with his evidence; he complains forsooth of persecution. And where, sir, is this tremendous persecution?
"Because he was sent here by a military authority?" But could A. Burr have been tried in the country where he was arrested? Was Blannerhasset's Island in the Mississippi Territory? Or ought he not to have been conveyed to that judicial district, which possessed a competent jurisdiction? But if A. Burr ought to have been sent here, by what number of men should he have been escorted? Was it by one man only; from whom he could have been so easily rescued, and whose vigilance he could most probably have eluded? Or ought he to have been conveyed, as he really was, by the energy of men, like Perkins, whose unshrinking firmness and whose humanity (in the presence of A. Burr himself, I avow it let him deny it, if he can!) had completely qualified him for the safe transportation of his prisoner?
But, sir, when this cry and spell of persecution are once excited, it is not easy to set bounds to its fury? Not contented with inveighing against the pretended persecution of the government—a government, which never did persecute—a government, which cannot persecute, and which will forever stand firm in the affections of the people, from the integrity and intelligence which mark its measures—not contented with lavishing their complaints against it, the counsel for the prisoner have even turned against the humble instruments, who conduct the prosecution. They seriously complain, that we have given them no previous notice of this motion—and these are the very men, who have so often offered motions to this court, without the slightest intimation to ourselves.—Sir, I most positively assert, that no notice in the present case ought to have been given. I shall not pretend to assert, that A. Burr was disposed under the present state of things, to effect his escape: But I say, that supposing such to have been the fact, and supposing that, availing himself of the information which we had imparted, he should have taken to flight; I appeal to the candor of every impartial man; I appeal to the candour of the opposite counsel themselves, whether I should not have been guilty of a most gross violation of my duties.
But they say, he ought not to be committed, because the presence of the Grand Jury suspends the authority of this court. But where are the precedents which justify this position? I have not made many researches into this case; because I did not suppose that there was a single sceptic at this bar who would deny the universality of the proposition that we have laid down; that it was the
right of the court to commit in every case, where they deemed it proper.—They say that in this case, the powers of the Grand Jury and the Court are concurrent. Strange that they should forget the immense difference between their powers! There is a difference in the evidence necessary to convince them. We are not bound to submit the same testimony before the Grand Jury which we may produce before this court; much less before a petit jury. Affidavit may convince the court that it is proper to commit; but it is not yet perfectly certain whether it be proper to exhibit them before a Grand Jury. I am, however unacquainted with the opinion, which the court entertain on this point: but I will boldly enquire, whether I should discharge my honest duty, were I to submit my indictments before the Grand Jury at this moment, when I have not all the material evidence which we may possess? Sir, these gentlemen may cast their groundless censures upon me; but in vain: all their clamours will never move me from my purpose. The course which I am pursuing is sufficient to satisfy my own conscience; and it is indifferent to me whether ten or ten thousand men should join in my condemnation.
Mr. Botts asserts, that we have produced no authorities to prove our position: and that we have none to produce. But is it right to be continually recurring to precedents? Is there no allowance to be made for the operations of common sense, in any case? Where cases of doubt and difficulty occur, a reference of this kind is certainly proper to enlighten and fortify our own judgments. But even admitting the propriety of introducing precedents in the whole extent for which gentlemen contend, it is their business and not our own to comply with the requisition for precedents. We stand upon the broad, general principle, that courts have the power to commit. If gentlemen contest this principle in the present case why do they not introduce their countervailing authorities?
Mr. Hay expressed his regret that his friend Mr. Wickham had not more seriously mediated upon this subject, before he had urged his objections; that if he had understood it with his usual correctness, he never would have troubled the court with the law of Virginia: for that this law had not the slightest bearing upon the specific proposition before them.
Mr. Wickham enquires why we do not at once send up our indictments before the Grand Jury; and suppose, sir, we should pursue the course, which he recommends; suppose we should send up our indictments on the evidence, which is now in our possession. Several days might elapse before they would be able to investigate this body of evidence. In the mean time some of those numerous persons who are prying into every hole and corner of this city might probably catch some distant hint of the probable decision of the Jury. They have certainly too much discretion not to keep their own council: but it is absolutely impossible to exclude completely the busy eye of curiosity. Some vague insinuations may probably escape: Something which might justify a suspicion of their determination. Suppose then that Aaron Burr was to be actuated by these considerations; suppose that his fears (if fears he can feel!) should prompt him to escape; what sir, would become of our indictment? Mr. B. may quit the U. States: he may flee for ever beyond the jurisdiction of this country; and in that case the whole world would ridicule us for the course we had pursued. Or let us even suppose, that we were to withdraw this motion; where would be our security? Must we trust to the indulgence of Mr. Burr himself for remaining in this city and standing his trial?
We expect Gen. Wilkinson here in a few days. We have an affidavit which positively states, that an express to New-Orleans to command his presence on this trial, was met on the borders of the Mississippi Territory. We have also letters from the attorney-general of the U. States explicitly stating, that General Wilkinson has been officially authorised to leave the army of the United States, and to select whatever mode of transportation he might think proper. (Here Mr. H. read the affidavit, shewing that the express to gen. W. had been seen in Athens, in the state of Georgia.) In the mean time, what is Col. B's situation? It is completely optional with him, whether to stay here and face his accusers; or to avail himself of his liberty and leave the U. States. We call upon this court to exercise the authority with which they are invested; and by

binding over Col. B. as well on the charge of High Treason, as of a Misdemeanor, to detain him here for a satisfactory trial. Mr. Hay said, he scarcely expected to have been asked, why general Wilkinson was not here? The gentleman himself has said, that he is a general. Can he then leave his army at any time, and without the permission of the government? Make, however, a computation of time. The attorney general left this city on the 4th or 5th of April. He reached Washington on the 7th or 8th. Allow then a reasonable time for an express from Washington to New-Orleans; and for a man of gen. W's age and bulk to travel to this city, and is it probable that he could have arrived here before this period? If he availed himself of the liberty and means to come by water; the gales have been lately very severe. And even two of the Grand Jury had assured him that if gen. W. was exposed to the late tempestuous weather, he would probably never see the United States.
Mr. Wickham has expatiated upon the attempts made to prejudice the public opinion through the medium of the press. Sir, a great deal has been said; on this transaction. But are the presses shut against Col. Burr? when even in this very city certain presses have been found to vindicate his motives and designs? But what of all this? The public mind is hostile to any encroachment upon the liberty of the press; and it ought to be so. Where then a crime of such gigantic evil arises in this country, like the one attributed to A. Burr, the printers will speak and they ought to speak; the purest motives will command them to speak. And if there have been publications against Col. Burr; innumerable communications have also appeared in his favour; and if these publications have contained the severest strictures upon him, they have resulted from his own character and conduct; and he has no right to complain.
Mr. Hay demanded why Col. B. should then wish, to close the only door to his own vindication by excluding the evidence. His counsel exclaim, "send the evidence to the Grand Jury." Surely if Col. Burr wishes to have the evidence before the Jury, he should be much more anxious to have it before the court. The Jury will have one side of the evidence only before them: and that will be completely against himself. Both however will go before the court. Why then does he shrink from the evidence? If an unjust prejudice assails him, the light of truth and evidence will dissipate it. Why does he shrink?
The gentlemen on the other side, continued Mr. Hay, do not do us justice. They charge us with persecution and oppression. Sir, I never contemplated or wished to hurt A. Burr. I scorn it. I look not to him. I look only to the duties, which I am solemnly bound to perform. One remark more, Sir, and I have done: gentlemen on the other side insist upon the insufficiency of our evidence. Because we have withheld our indictments, from the Grand Jury, they have hastily inferred, that we feel our evidence to be too feeble to satisfy the jury. They are mistaken, Sir. I assure them, that they are mistaken. I conscientiously believe that we have evidence enough, throwing out the depositions themselves, to satisfy the Grand Jury of the guilt of A. Burr. But, Sir, puerile indeed would it be for us under the present state of things to submit our case before the Grand Jury on the evidence before us, when we are every moment expecting better.
Mr. Edmund Randolph addressed the court to the following effect:
Sir, it would have been impossible for us even had we received due notice of this motion, to have availed ourselves of the time that was allowed to us. That would have been impossible, because the enormity of the proposition itself would have baffled all our consideration and all our researches. Mark the course, Sir, which has been pursued towards my unfortunate client. First he was brought here under a military escort. Then that little folio of depositions and affidavits was laid before your honour: Then the charge of treason: and then that little cock-boat which was destined to attend this great ship on a foreign expedition? You heard it all, Sir, and what did you say? You bound Col. Burr to bail, simply on the charge of a misdemeanor, to appear here at the opening of the court; but not contented with this security, you superadded, that he was not to leave the court until it had discharged him. You opened the door too for an ulterior prosecution; you declared, that if the attorney for the U. S. should obtain any additional evidence,
the judgment which you then rendered, would not prevent his indicting Col. B. on the charge of treason.
Sir, thus stands the case, as it was understood by the whole universe. On Friday we came here to meet the world; Friday however passes away and nothing is done. On Saturday, we came here again; Saturday also passes away and nothing is done. But on Sunday, Sir—is broached this new-fangled doctrine, which now excites our astonishment. They demand precedents, Sir, for our conduct; and who are they that require it? Why, Sir; they that take things out of the ordinary course of the law. For thirty years, I never saw such a proceeding: I have never read of such a one in the English books; and yet these gentlemen call upon us for precedents.
If we were asked for our reasons, Sir; we should have enough to offer. And first, a judge in the Federal Court, sitting in the capacity which your honor now fills, would be in the same relation to the accused as an examining judge is in the state courts. But, Sir, whoever invited a single magistrate or a state court to augment the bail of any individual in the situation of Col. Burr? If a man be bound in a distant country to answer to a misdemeanor, and another crime was to be brought against him to be predicated on the very same evidence, have you, Sir, ever known the trying court to increase his bail? There never was such an example, Sir.
[To be continued.]
Salem, June 5.
On Wednesday last the Hopewell, capt. Rea, arrived here from Hamburg, which place she left on the 17th of April. The last news received there respecting the war was similar to what we have had here—that Massena had made a movement which it was expected would immediately bring on another general battle. As to peace, tho' there had all winter been some talk of it, yet it was an event that in Hamburg was not expected soon to take place.
HAMBURG, April 10.
We have just received the important news of the failure of the English at Constantinople. After sustaining some loss, they were obliged to leave the Dardanelles. It is reported that Gen. Sebastiani is charged with the defence of the coasts. The courier who brought this intelligence to Vienna, left Constantinople on the 12th of March. It is supposed that the English merchandise in Constantinople, amounts to more than 50,000,000 (probably six dollars) and is expected to be seized. The Turks manifest great ardor, and gen. Sebastiani frequently finds it difficult to restrain them.
The head quarters of his majesty the Emperor of France, were still at Ostende on the 2d of April.
MARTINSBURG, June 19.
From Richmond we learn, that the grand jury met on Tuesday, the 9th inst. to which day it stood adjourned from the Wednesday preceding. The district attorney observed that he had received no farther intelligence of gen. Wilkinson, except what a Norfolk paper furnished him. As he was in the daily expectation of his arrival, he hoped the grand jury would be again adjourned for a few days. After a few observations by the court and bar, it was adjourned until Thursday, 10 o'clock.
After the grand jury were adjourned, col. Burr gave notice that he intended to move the court for process to obtain certain papers in possession of the executive, and certain orders respecting him of the war and navy departments. The court observed that they did not feel confident of possessing the power to award the process in question, a subpoena duces tecum; and required an argument on the point, which the next day, Wednesday, was assigned for hearing. [Wash. Fed.]
The Mail of Saturday last brought intelligence from New-Orleans as late as the 30th ult. Letters from Gen. WILKINSON of the 6th and 9th ult. are received. In that of the 6th he states that, under the expectation of being soon called to the Atlantic states, he had induced capt. Shaw to decline selling the schooner Revenge, which he had been previously instructed to do, as this was the vessel that would require the least time to get in readiness for sailing. In that of the 9th, he acknowledges the receipt on the preceding day of the subpoena and accompanying instructions, says
that he is himself ready to depart, and that not a moment shall be lost in getting the vessel ready, adding that he will be accompanied by Mr. Graham and a number of other important witnesses, and expects to be on the road between Norfolk and Richmond by the 16th of June. The only letter of subsequent date is from the Post Master of New-Orleans, who writes on the 30th of May, and observes that Gen. Wilkinson was to sail the next day. [Nat. Int.]
Extract of a letter from Marietta, dated April 29.
"On the 4th and 5th instant, was launched at this place two United States gun boats. Five or six ships are now building here, one of which is 400 tons burthen.
A company is incorporated for the purpose of erecting a bridge across the Muskingum at its mouth. This company are empowered to raise 20,000 dollars by lottery for the purpose. The tickets are selling fast, and it is hoped the structure will soon be erected. A banking company is also forming at Marietta, with a capital which I think will ensure its extensive credit.
"Four meeting houses and an academy are now building here, and an academy at Athens. The ferment colonel Burr occasioned here last fall has nearly subsided. In the course of last week was sold at auction in Marietta, the cargoes of 11 boats seized some time since as the property of him and his adherents. We have had a very severe winter and backward spring, which has occasioned a great scarcity of grain in these parts, but I hope no person will suffer for lack of food. A great mortality has prevailed among the horned cattle and swine. This has likely been occasioned partly from the severity of the weather, and partly from want of food. It has now nearly ceased."
With respect to the events of the war which had taken place between the French and Russians, it was difficult to judge of the truth from the Hamburg papers, as they are issued under the inspection of a French intendant. Of public and official statements there is generally a distrust, from the supposed policy of each party to conceal its own disasters, and exaggerate those of its enemy; private information is therefore often more relied on. From persons who had been at the theatre of war, and from the communications of the French officers themselves, it was well known, that though the French had maintained their military reputation in all the battles they had fought, yet that Bonaparte had at length met with an enemy that required the full exercise of all his genius and energy and had received such a check as he had never before experienced. Persons who had seen both the French and Russian armies, allowed that the former were vastly superior to the latter in military science and experience; but yet Bonaparte had managed his means with such skill and judgment as greatly to harass and strain the French and to make them suffer severely from the rigors of the climate and the want of provisions, as well as from his arms.
The greatest exertions were making on both sides to repair their losses by recruits. Vast numbers were pouring into the French grand army, from all parts of Germany, as well as from France, thousands of wretched creatures being obliged to enlist, to get bread; and even many of the Prussian prisoners had entered among the recruits. The shock from the next meeting of the two armies was expected to be even more terrible than that of the former.
It seems the good generalship of Bennington had not preserved him from the jealousy of the other officers of the Russian army, who think themselves dishonoured by having a foreigner placed over them. The emperor Alexander had arrived at Revel, on his way to the army, with a view probably of composing the difficulties.
There are now no French troops in Hamburg; the place is garrisoned by the Dutch, the river is blockaded by the British, and its trade has ceased.
Salem Gazette.
FOR SALE.
ON moderate terms, a negro girl seventeen or eighteen years of age, who is acquainted with house & kitchen affairs, she has one child about fourteen months old. Also, one other negro girl between eleven and thirteen years old, who is as well acquainted with house and out work as any of her age.
Apply at this Office.
Fresh Goods
NOW OPENING.
THE subscribers respectfully inform their Farming Friends and the Public in general, that they are now opening at their store (by the Market-House) in Shepherd's-Town,
A very large and General assortment of
Cheap Fresh Goods,
of every description which have been purchased uncommonly Cheap at Philadelphia and Baltimore, and will be sold far cheaper than any Goods have been this season. They invite all those wishing to get CHEAP GOODS to call on them.
JAMES & JOHN LANE. Shepherd's-Town, June 19, 1807.
Prime Sickles.
THE subscriber has just received a quantity of excellent
Sickles,
made by Hugh Long of Pennsylvania; has also on hand, Old Rye Whisky, of excellent quality, distilled by Martin Billmire; Waldron's Cradling & Grass Scythes; German Scythes and Cutting Knives; Dutch and English Whetstones; Ten Hogheads of nice New-Orleans Sugar, very Cheap; excellent Green Coffee, Rice, Teas, &c. Also, Home-made Linen and Twiled Bags, & a large assortment of
Fresh fancy Goods,
which are now ready for sale uncommonly Cheap for Cash.
WALTER B. SELBY. Shepherd's-Town, June 19, 1807.
Berkeley, ss.
March Court, 1806. Morris Rees and David Rees, Complainants, AGAINST
Presley Neville and the other legal representatives of John Neville, dec'd, Coleby Chew and Noah Ridgeway, Defendants,
In CHANCERY.
THE defendants, Presley Neville and Noah Ridgeway, not having entered their appearance agreeable to an act of Assembly and the rules of this Court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, that they are not inhabitants of this Commonwealth, on the motion of the Complainants by their Counsel, it is ordered, that said Presley Neville and Noah Ridgeway do appear here on the Monday after the third Tuesday in August next, to answer the bill of the Complainants, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in the Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer for two months successively, and published at the door of the Court-House of said County.
A Copy. Teste. DAVID HUNTER, c.s.c.
Berkeley, ss.
May Court, 1806. Samuel Veal, Complainant, AGAINST David Veal, Cornelius Vanquadal and Susanna his wife, William Morgan and Agnes his wife, Drake and Martha his wife, William Killervell and Catherine his wife, Robert Anderson and Sarah his wife, and Elizabeth Veal, Heirs and legal representatives of Isaac Veal, dec'd, Defendants,
In CHANCERY.
THE defendants, not having entered their appearance agreeable to an act of Assembly and the rules of this Court, and it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court, that they are not inhabitants of this Commonwealth, on the motion of the Complainant by his Counsel, it is ordered, that they do appear here on the Monday after the third Tuesday in August next, to answer the bill of the Complainant, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in the Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer for two months successively, and published at the door of the Court-House of the said County.
A Copy. Teste. DAVID HUNTER, c.s.c.

Two valuable Mill seats
TO be let for a term of years, nearly adjoining the lower locks on the Shenandoah river, within half a mile of Harper's Ferry. The terms may be known by applying to the Department of War. Any suitable character inclined to lease the same may have an opportunity of seeing the plot, and of viewing the premises by applying to
SAMUEL ANNIN. Harper's Ferry, June 12, 1807.
TWENTY DOLLARS REWARD.
STOLEN out of the subscriber's pasture, near Keyes's Ferry, on Sunday night the 31st of May last, a dark bay horse three years old, full 14 hands high, with glass eyes, and his hind feet white, has a great many white hairs in his forehead and a small snip, is a natural trotter; any person that will take up said thief and horse, so that the thief may be brought to conviction, and give me information thereof so that I get my horse again, shall have the above reward, or ten dollars for the horse only, and all reasonable charges paid if brought home.
HENRY GARNHART. Jefferson County, June 12, 1807.
RAN away from the subscriber living in Shepherd's-Town, Jefferson County, Virginia, about the 28th of April last, an Apprentice boy named Matth. Reynolds , bound to me by the Orphan's Court of said County, to learn the Cabinet making business: Five dollars reward will be given to any person who will apprehend said Apprentice, and bring him to me, or secure him in jail so that I get him again: He is about five feet eight inches high, of a fair complexion, and has light coloured hair; I suppose he is lurking about on Back-Creek, or near a Mr. Ludmons.
WILLIAM EATTY. June 12, 1807.
Plank for Sale.
THE subscribers inform the public that they have a large quantity of most excellent PLANK for sale, of the following kinds, viz. 1 1-4 Inches Pine Plank for Flooring, 1 ditto ditto ditto, 3-4 ditto for Weatherboarding, 1 ditto Poplar ditto, 3-4 ditto for Weatherboarding. Also, a large quantity real good Rye Whisky and Apple Brandy (distilled in Maryland) Salt-Petered Bacon and Waldrn's double prime Cradling and Grass Scythes, where Farmers and others may be supplied on very Cheap terms, with JAMES & JOHN LANE. Shepherd's-Town, June 5, 1807.
New Goods.
THE subscriber informs his Friends and Customers, that he has just received and is now opening an extensive assortment of
Spring and fancy Goods,
purchased in the city of Philadelphia, which he offers at very reduced prices for Cash or Country produce.
Also on hand, a quantity of good Rye Whisky, by the barrel or single gallon. ALEXANDER COOPER. Martinsburg, June 5, 1807.
New Store.
THE subscriber respectfully informs his friends and the public in general, that he has commenced the Mercantile business in the house lately occupied as a Store by Ignatius O'Ferrall, at Mill-Creek, where he has a Choice collection of Spring and Summer Goods, Groceries, Liquors, Hardware, &c. &c. All which he will dispose of on the most reasonable terms for Cash or Country produce.—He solicits the patronage of the public, and assures them that he will always keep up a general assortment, and will dispose of his Goods on as low terms as they are retailed in any other place.
WILLIAM B. KING. Mill-Creek, June 5, 1807.
CASH given for clean Linen & Cotton
RAGS
At the Office of the INTELLIGENCER.
Levi Price
HAS just received a complete assortment of SPRING and SUMMER GOODS, which he assures the public will be disposed of on the most satisfactory terms to the purchaser. He feels certain that those who call on him will not complain of his prices. His late purchases comprise the following articles.
Fancy Calicoes, Leno Muslins, Shawls and Handkerchiefs, A large assortment of fancy ribbons, Leghorn and other bonnets, Fancy Marquils vesting, Thread Gloves, Gentlemen's Hats covered with silk, Leghorn ditto, &c. &c. Tin Ware, A large supply of Bala's Cacoos, &c. Martinsburg, May 15, 1807.
The subscribers have just received, and are now opening, an additional supply of SPRING and SUMMER GOODS,
which added to their late purchases in March, makes their assortment very general and complete, from the very advantageous terms these Goods have been laid in, they are enabled to sell them on better terms than heretofore, they deem it unnecessary to particularise any articles, as they can assure the public that their assortment cannot be exceeded by any, and upon examination they are satisfied will give general satisfaction to purchasers; they return their sincere thanks to their friends for past favours, and assure them that every exertion on their part shall be used to merit a continuance.
THOMAS C. SMITH, & Co. Martinsburg, May 15, 1807. N. B. They always keep a good assortment of Antietam BAR-IRON on hand. The House and Lot occupied by Mr. L. Price is still for sale, for terms apply to T. C. S. & Co.
FOR SALE, FOURTEEN and a half acres of Land, lying on the Bank of Potomac, in Jefferson County, adjoining the Lands of Mr. John Toole and Captain Shepherd—One half the purchase money in hand, the remainder in a year, with interest, will be expected.—A good title will be made the purchaser. DAVID HUNTER. June 5, 1807.
TAKE NOTICE. WHEREAS early in April, I bought a sorrel mare of Elizabeth Mingle, (widow) at forty dollars, for which I gave two notes, twenty dollars each, payable the first of February, 1808; the mare being very low in flesh and I some what doubtful, Mrs. Mingle insured her sound, which she has since confessed before witness; but the mare still continued weakly and not able to work, and has since died; but fortunately for me, I have lately been informed by respectable authority that the old lady has never considered the mare sound since last fall, in consequence of which I forward all persons from taking an assignment on said notes, as I am determined not to pay them, until I am compelled by law. ANDREW TOLAND. June 5, 1807.
Notice is hereby given, THAT a petition will be presented to the County Court of Jefferson, at the next July Court to be held for the said County, for the discontinuance of the following road, commencing at the forks of the Shepherd's-Town road at the corner of Robert Sherley's field, and running from thence over the lands of Jarvis Sherley, Majr. George Washington's heirs, and others, to Charles-Town. May 29, 1807.
THE subscribers respectfully inform the inhabitants of Martinsburg and its vicinity, that they have just commenced the Tinning business at the house of Mr. Wm. Sommerville, next door to the printing Office.—They intend also to work in sheet iron.—The business will be carried on in an extensive manner by them, all demands therefore, in their line, can at any time be complied with. JAMES ROTHROCK. WILLIAM MAKEN. May 29, 1807.
STRAYED from the plantation of the subscriber on Back-Creek, (formerly Harper's and Murry's mill place) on Tuesday evening the 19th inst. a dark brown mare, nine years old, between 15 and 16 hands high, shod before, trot and pace, has never been docked, but has the hair on her tail cut. Also a bay mare, about six years old, about 16 hands high, shod before, and had half of a shoe on one of her hind feet, and is a natural trotter. I will give a reward of four dollars to any person who will return the above creatures to me, or two dollars for either of them. JOHN GARVER. May 29, 1807.
Berkeley, ss. April Court, 1807. Philip C. Pendleton and David Hunter, Executors of Philip Pendleton, decd. Complainants, AGAINST James Breathed, Defendant, IN CHANCERY.
THE defendant, James Breathed, not having entered his appearance agreeable to an 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 by their Counsel, it is ordered, that said James Breathed do appear here on the Monday after the third Tuesday in June next, to answer the bill of the Complainants, and that a copy of this order be forthwith inserted in the Berkeley and Jefferson Intelligencer for two months successively, and published at the door of the Court-House of the said County. A Copy. Teste, DAVID HUNTER, c.s.c.
FIVE DOLLARS REWARD. RAN away from the subscriber, on the 6th instant, a negro man Named PHILIP , about five feet nine inches high, stout made, a small lump on one of his ribs, and a scar on his upper lip occasioned by the kick of a Horse, of a yellowish complexion and a down-look, being the same I purchased some time ago of Joseph Minghini. Any person, securing the said negro in prison and Giving me notice thereof or delivering to me, shall receive the above reward. JOHN BURNS, sen. Berkeley County, May 8, 1807.
TRAVELLERS
And others, may meet with genteel accommodation at the sign of the GLOBE, in Shepherd's-Town, where the subscriber has opened a House of Entertainment. JAMES BROWN. May 22, 1807.
Cheap Groceries.
E. & T. FINLEY, No. 45, Howard-Street,
HAVE on hand an extensive assortment of Groceries and Liquors, which they offer for sale at reduced prices for cash.
Having experienced considerable inconvenience from the general credit heretofore given, they are induced to decline it—and will therefore after the first of May next, sell for cash, or produce only. This arrangement will enable them to make all their purchases for cash—and they flatter themselves they will be able to sell so much below the usual credit prices, as will be considered an object worthy of attention.
They will exert themselves to make it the interest of all who wish to make purchases for cash, to give them a call.—Orders from a distance will be particularly attended to.
They will continue to purchase Flour and Whiskey as usual, and receive all kinds of produce, on storage or to sell on commission. Baltimore, May 1, 1807. [3m]
The following BLANKS, printed with NEW and ELEGANT TYPE, are always kept for sale at this Office: DEEDS, Common BONDS, CONSTABLE'S BLANKS, Promissory NOTES, &c.
Spring Goods.
THE subscribers have just received, and are now opening, at their store in Shepherd's-Town, (Mr. Kearley's well known stand) A large and complete assortment of
Choice Goods,
which were purchased in Philadelphia and Baltimore at very reduced prices. They deem it unnecessary to particularise any articles, as they can assure the public that their assortment of GOODS cannot be exceeded by any, and upon a particular examination they are satisfied will give general satisfaction, both as to cheapness and quality;—They therefore flatter themselves that those who wish to get good bargains will call on them, and they pledge themselves that their friends shall not be disappointed.
R. WORTHINGTON, & Co. Shepherd's-Town, April 17, 1807.
FOR SALE,
A TRACT OF LAND, containing about 900 acres, one half of which is cleared, the balance well timbered; and a considerable quantity of well watered meadow. On the premises is a good Merchant Mill and Distillery, on a never failing stream of water, and in sight of the Potomac river. This tract can be divided into several different tenements, with a Dwelling House and Barn to each; it is of the first rate limestone quality; and is situate in Berkeley County, Virginia, on Potomac river, 10 miles from Martinsburg, 8 from Williamsport, and 18 from Mercersburg. This land will be sold together, or divided into two tracts, as may best suit the purchaser. A good bargain will be given to a purchaser, in the mill and one half the land, on paying about two thirds of the purchase money in hand. For terms apply to the subscriber on the premises. GEORGE NEWKIRK. April 18, 1806.
RAN away from the subscriber, on the 17th of February last, Negro Charity, about 29 years old, dark complexion, with a wen over her right eye, and one joint of her right big toe cut off. She was seen at Absalom Miller's, on the 26th of February. Any person securing her in jail or delivering her to me, shall receive five dollars reward. SMITH SLAUGHTER. Jefferson County, March 20, 1807.
New Cash Store.
THE subscriber takes this method of informing his acquaintances and the public in general, that he has just opened a handsome assortment of FRESH GOODS (at his dwelling house in Shepherd's-Town.) He deems it unnecessary to particularize each article which comprises his assortment, suffice it to say, it consists almost of every article that is most useful and plain (both of Dry Goods and Groceries;) he also has a large quantity of most excellent Potter's Ware, of a better quality than any ever offered for sale in this place before. He assures his friends and acquaintances that the whole of his Goods have been laid in on the very lowest terms, and as he is positively determined to sell very Cheap for Cash or Country Produce, they may with confidence call on him for Cheap Bargains. BENJAMIN BOYDSTONE. Shepherd's-Town, May 8, 1807.
MARTINSBURG, Berkeley County, Virginia; Printed and published by JOHN ALBURTIS.
TERMS OF THE INTELLIGENCER.
THE price of this Paper is two dollars per annum, one dollar payable at the time of subscribing, and one when the year expires. Distant subscribers pay for the whole year in advance. The price of Advertisements, to non-subscribers, is one dollar per square for three weeks insertion, and for continuance after that time 25 cents per week: Subscribers will continue to receive a reduction of one-fourth on their Advertisements.