Publication of William Goddard's plan in the Essex Gazette newspaper
Collection: National Postal Museum
Object type: Covers & Associated Letters
Date: March 15-22, 1774
Associated Person: Ebenezer Hall
Samuel Hall
Associated Organization: The Essex Gazette
Writer: William Goddard
Place: Massachusetts
Medium: paper; ink
Dimensions: Height x Width x Depth: 15 3/4 × 20 in. (40.01 × 50.8 cm)
Topics: Postal Administration
Colonial Era (1607-1776)
Description: In the March 15-March 22, 1774, edition of the Essex Gazette, printers Samuel and Ebenezer Hall of Salemn, Massachusetts, published the proposal of a fellow printer, William Goddard, for the establishment of an independent postal system. The second and third pages of this folded single sheet newspaper has news of Goddard's proposal that he was promoting for subscriptions and endorsement while on an east coast tour. Goddard’s plan constituted sedition because the mails fell under the purview of the British Crown. Goddard’s designs for a postal system embodied principles of open communication, freedom from governmental interference, and guaranteed free exchange of ideas. He presented his proposal to the Constitutional Congress nearly seven months after this publication. On July 26, 1775, the Congress adopted and implemented the plan, now known as the 'Constitutional Post'. The system sustained communication among the American revolutionaries for the duration of the war, and following independence the new nation’s mail service was built upon it.
Above the masthead is handwriting the name "Isaac Smith, Esq," a subscriber to the Essex Gazette newspaper.
['The ESSEX\nGAZETTE.\nContaining the freshest Advices,\nboth foreign and domestic.\nVOL. VI.\nNUMB. 295.\nFrom TUESDAY, March 15, to\nTUESDAY, March 22, 1774.\nSALEM: Printed by Samuel and Ebenezer Hall, at their Printing-Office near the Town-House.\nIN COUNCIL, March 15, 1774. ORDERED, That James Bowdoin, Samuel Dexter, James Humphrey, Artemas Ward, and John Winthrop, Esqrs. be appointed to wait on his Excellency the Governor with the following ADDRESS.\nMay it please your Excellency, YOUR Message of the 3d instant to this Board relative to the Chief Justice of the Superior Court, and your several Messages to the House of Representatives relative also to him (which with other papers the Honorable Messrs. have laid before the Board for their consideration) are on a subject of great importance. They contain declarations from your Excellency which we think do not comport with the spirit of the Charter, and tend to take away or lessen the jurisdiction of the Governor and Council, considered as a judiciary body or court of justice, and therefore it is incumbent on this Board in faithfulness to the province, and in justice to themselves, to take notice of some of them.\nAmong those papers we find a copy of the Remonstrance of the House addressed to your Excellency and the Council, and your Excellency\'s answer to it. By the former they pray for the removal of the Chief Justice from his office, and by the latter you declare, that in duty to the King you are obliged to decline their request; and you are pleased repeatedly to decline it on their repeated applications.\nBut before your Excellency had proceeded thus far, was it not proper, as the Remonstrance was addressed to the Council in conjunction with your Excellency, that it should have been communicated to them for their consideration of it? Is not your undertaking to determine solely on a matter that falls under the cognizance of the Governor and Council jointly, and is so addressed to them by the House, an unkind and disrespectful treatment of the representative body of the province, and an infringement on the rights of the Council? Or rather does it not annihilate the Council, considered either in their capacity of being advising and assisting to the Governor, or as a court of justice with, or without the Governor? And being done under a protection of duty to the King, does it not tend to alienate the affections of his Majesty\'s subjects from him? Though such be the tendency, such an effect will not flow from it. If it had been communicated to the Board, they assure your Excellency they would not have come any this concerning it inconsistent with their duty to the King, notwithstanding any indirect or constructive intimation to the contrary.\nYour Excellency informed us, that your taking any steps in this business would be counteracting his Majesty, and inconsistent with your duty to him, is founded on the facts mentioned in this clause in your first Message to the House, viz. "His Majesty having been pleased to direct warrants to be prepared for the payment of Salaries to the Chief Justice, and to the other Justices of the Superior Court I received as Governor of the province the earliest notice of this declaration of his Majesty\'s pleasure, in order as I conceive that, as far as might appertain to me, I should conform thereto." This notice (that warrants were directed to be prepared) which appears to be intended only as an article of intelligence, your Excellency, by this your other Message on the same subject, construes as an instruction obliging you, not to do any thing to prevent the effect of those warrants, or inconsistent with the intention of them. But what room is there for such a construction, or to suppose you were under such an obligation, when the Justices themselves (at least four of them) whom this affair immediately respected, thought themselves not obliged to take his Majesty\'s grant, but at liberty to refuse it, and accordingly have refused it from July 1772 (when their stipends were to commence) to the present time, and very lately in the fullest and most explicit manner? As in their refusal, which was a more effectual counteracting the intention of those warrants than any thing your Excellency could do, those gentlemen did not think they acted inconsistently with their duty to his Majesty, why should your Excellency think your laying before the Council the Remonstrance of the House inconsistent with your duty to him? Especially when your duty to the province, with which your duty to the King cannot militate, required it.\nBut supposing the notice of those warrants implied an instruction, or had been accompanied with an instruction, that you should do nothing directly or indirectly inconsistent with the intention of them, why should it operate to prevent your Excellency\'s even hearing the Remonstrance, and not operate to prevent your consenting to and signing the grants made by the Assembly, not only to those four Justices, but also to the Chief Justice, for their services during the same time, for which those warrants were intended to pay them; and for which, by virtue of one of those warrants, the Chief Justice has in fact been paid? Does not this give room for the apprehension, that your Excellency was not influenced solely by a sense of duty to the King, in refusing to lay before the Board the Remonstrance of the House?\nThe reasons why it was not laid before them seem to be given in that paragraph of your Message to the House, wherein you are pleased to tell them "that the Council, except when they are considered in their legislative capacity, or as a court for the probate of wills and granting administration, and for determining causes of marriage and divorce, are by the constitution to be advising and assisting to the governor, and do not make one Court or judiciary body with the governor, but the governor is considered as an integral part, and has authority from time to time at his discretion to assemble and call the Council together." We shall presently consider whether there be not other cases than those here mentioned by your Excellency, in which the Council make one Court or judiciary body with the Governor, and in which the Governor is not to be considered as an integral part; but first beg leave to make a few observations on another part of the foregoing paragraph.\nWe agree with your Excellency, that the Council by the constitution are to be advising and assisting to the Governor. The Governor also with them, or seven of them at the least, shall and may from time to time hold and keep a Council for the ordering and directing the affairs of the province. But we humbly ask, what advantages would be derived to the province from this part of the constitution, if the Governor, even in the most important cases, should refuse to hold a Council wherein he might be advised and\nassisted; and wherein also the Governor with the Council jointly, according to the nature of the case, might take the necessary measures for the ordering (that is the well ordering) and directing the affairs of the province? These clauses of the Charter were doubtless intended for some beneficial purpose. They were intended more effectually to secure to the province a permanent good government, not subject to the will & caprice of the Governor: who left to act wholly independent of a Council, might bring upon the province the greatest mischiefs. Happy it was for the province, that the late Governor Sir Francis Bernard was not thus independent! But the benefits intended by the appointment of a Council would be defeated, if the Governor should not call them together when affairs of the greatest importance to the province demanded it; and indeed this would frustrate the end of their appointment in every capacity in which they cannot act without him. To apply this to the subject of the Remonstrance, and to all cases, in which complaint is made to the Governor and Council against officers of their appointment, it appears to us, that when complaint is thus made, and the Governor refuses or neglects to lay it before the Council, he thereby counteracts the spirit and intention of the charter, which the honor and faith of the crown are pledged to maintain, and gives just reason for uneasiness.\nWe shall pass over the intermediate messages, and come to the last message your Excellency sent to the House of Representatives: On which it is necessary to make some observations.\nWe find by the House had informed you, that they had resolved to impeach Peter Oliver, Esq. Chief Justice of the Superior Court, before the Governor and Council, of high crimes and misdemeanors; that they had prepared articles of impeachment, and prayed your Excellency would be in the chair, that they might have an opportunity of laying them before the Governor & Council.\nBut your Excellency, after making divers observations concerning the manner of trial for crimes and misdemeanors, declined granting their request, by declaring, that "whilst such process as the House have attempted to commence shall appear to you to be unconstitutional, you cannot give any countenance to it." It is with great reluctance the Board have entered into the consideration of a subject, on which they are obliged to dissent from your Excellency. But a vindication of their right of impeachment makes it necessary. The complaint and their right of impeachment are against an executive officer appointed by the Governor and Council. Complaints of this sort are no novelty. Many instances of them have taken place since your Excellency was first a member of the General Court; and some of them, while you were Speaker of the House of Representatives, preferred by the House. The Governor and Council have always been esteemed the proper Judges, before whom officers appointed by them have been tried for crimes or misdemeanors, so far as, when found guilty, judgment has been given against them, which refers to their continuance in office; and thus far your Excellency has yourself supported the jurisdiction of that Court; which, when your Excellency presided, gave judgment in a recent case for the removal of an executive officer appointed by the Governor and Council. If such cases, in order to such a judgment, are not cognizable by that Court, there is no other Court in the province, by which they are cognizable for the purpose of removal from office. Divers such judgments have been obtained in consequence of the complaint of private persons. If private persons have a right to complain of mal-administration of officers, the representative body, who are the grand inquest for the province, must a fortiori have that right. But your Excellency intimates, that the process the House of Representatives have now attempted to commence is unconstitutional. The process they first attempted with regard to the Chief Justice was by Remonstrance, addressed to the Governor and Council, which your Excellency, without communicating it to the Council, thought proper to suppress. The process next attempted was by impeachment, which you think unconstitutional. If it be unconstitutional, it cannot be recognizable by the Court. The jurisdiction of which being affected by the denial of the constitutional right of impeachments, it becomes needful to examine the reasons of that denial. They are given in your Excellency\'s message, in which you are pleased to say, "that there are no species of crimes committed within this province, which are not cognizable by some established Judicatory, and that the Governor and Council have no concurrent Jurisdiction with any Judicatory in criminal cases, nor any authority to try and determine any species of high crimes and misdemeanors whatsoever," [except at least for the purpose of removal from office, as your Excellency might have added.] "That if you should assume a jurisdiction, & with the Council try offenders against the lawless acts against the law without authority granted by the Charter, or by a law of the province in pursuance of the Charter, you should make yourself liable to answer for it; and his Majesty\'s subjects would have just cause to complain of being deprived of a trial by jury, the general claim of Englishmen, except in those cases, where the law may have made special provision to the contrary."\nAll this may be true, and yet we humbly apprehend it will not support the conclusion, that a process by impeachment is unconstitutional. The records and papers, containing the transactions of the General Court, having divers times greatly suffered by fire, it is very difficult to apply to them for precedents; nor is it necessary; for if they abounded with them, the first precedent would be, or ought to be grounded on the reason, and nature of the case, which still remain for a guide. But if precedents should be necessary, the most respectable authority (the British parliament) as your Excellency well knows, furnishes a multitude of them. The Commons may exhibit an accusation to the Lords in parliament, by petition, complaint, or impeachment. The House of Representatives are in this province, what the House of Commons are in Britain. The constitutional rights of the latter (among which is indispitably the right of impeachment) belong to the former. Between the House of Lords, and the Council of this province, there is not so near a resemblance? But with respect to legislation, and so far as the Council with or without the Governor are a judiciary body, there is a resemblance. It is now tested by a late determination of his Majesty, that the Governor and Council are a judiciary body,\nwith regard to the Probate of Wills, and granting administration, and for determining cases of marriage and divorce; and they humbly apprehended they also are, with regard to the removal of all officers from office, to which appointments are made by the Governor and Council. The impeachment made by the House of Representatives, concludes with praying, "that such proceedings, examinations, trials and judgments may be had and ordered on the consistent with the jurisdiction of the Court; who have lawful power to remove from office or confirm it, as may be agreeable to law and justice; and therefore may go into such proceedings, examinations, and trials, and form such judgments in and upon the decision. We humbly apprehend therefore your Excellency\'s reasoning does not extend to the present case: For even though the impeachment had been for such high crimes and misdemeanors, as are made felony, it would not induce, or involve in it, an obligation on the court to give an extrajudicial sentence. An executive officer appointed by the Governor and Council may be guilty of crimes for which by law he is punishable in a variety of ways by the common law courts: If he be impeached for those crimes before the Governor and Council, it is for the purpose of his removal from office, which the other courts have no power to do. As those courts cannot invade the jurisdiction of the Governor and Council, so the Governor and Council, in any other than their legislative capacity, it is presumed will never attempt to interfere in the jurisdiction of the other courts. It might be supposed the Governor and Council could (and if they did at all they must) trust themselves in the exercise of their jurisdiction: Though your Excellency, in reference to that, seems unwilling to trust yourself in the case of the present impeachment, notwithstanding you consider yourself as having a right of negative on the judgment of the Council. With regard to the Governor\'s right of negative on the Council, it operates in all acts of government, pursuant to the Charter, "in exclusive judicial acts," in which it can have no operation: "It being utterly unsuitable to the nature of a court of justice to consist of two branches, each possessing a negative on the other," whereby no one case, if such was the constitution of the court, could give a judgment. Which is incompatible with every idea of a court of justice. On these reasons the late determination of his Majesty in council, with regard to the supreme court of probate, &c. was grounded; and they extend with equal force to the Governor and Council, considered as a court for hearing all complaints, remonstrances and impeachments, relative to the executive officers of the government, and giving judgment thereon, either for or against the defendant, by acquitting him, or removing him from his Office. But it may be objected, that the same power, which appointed, should remove.\nOn which it may be observed, that the appointment is to a trust for the public good, and vests a property (the lawful emoluments of the office) in the trustee. The mode of appointment is particularly directed by the Charter. It is by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Council; neither of whom act in this matter in a judicial character. But the mode of removal, the Charter being silent about it, must depend on the reason and nature of the thing. These require that the removing power should be considered, and in fact be, a court of justice. Property, both public and private, being depending and to be settled by that power, determine the nature of it to be specifically judicial, or that it must be a court of justice; which excludes the idea of one of its members, where there is a plurality, being an integral part. There is therefore an essential difference between the appointing and removing power, though consisting of the same persons, when they act in those different characters. To apply this to the Governor and Council, in the first character they have a reciprocal control of each other, agreeable to the Charter. In the latter character, there is no such control, but they together do constitute a court of justice, with powers to form and regulate themselves incidental to all courts, where law has not made provision for that purpose. There is nothing in the Charter inconsistent with this reasoning, but on the contrary, this reasoning is grounded on the Charter. The clause of the Charter, that relates to the subject under consideration runs thus, "The Governor with the assistants, or counsellors, or seven of them at least, shall and may from time to time hold and keep a council for the ordering and directing the affairs of our said province." The Governor and Counsellors are here blended, and together constitute a council, which in all cases, proper for their cognizance, are jointly (and not as two branches having a negative on each other) authorized and appointed for the ordering and directing the affairs of the province, except in certain cases (particularly mentioned in other parts of the Charter) wherein seven or more counsellors are to be advising and assisting to the Governor. The end of this appointment, viz. the ordering and directing the affairs of the province, includes among other things, the removal of bad Officers from office, and consequently includes impeachments and judgments, and determine on all complaints, remonstrances with the idea of a court of judicatory, which perfectly coincides with the spirit and intention of the Charter, and therefore, according to the spirit and intention of the Charter, the Governor and Council must have that jurisdiction, without which their power for the well ordering and directing the affairs of the province would be essentially deficient.\nUpon the whole, we are humbly of opinion, that altho\' "there are no species of crimes committed within this province, which are not cognizable by some established Judicatory" although "the Governor and Council have no concurrent Jurisdiction with any Judicatory in criminal cases, nor any authority to try and determine any species of crimes" [except at least for the purpose of removal from office] it does not thence follow, that "the power by impeachment, or the Governor and Council\'s proceeding and determining upon it, is unconstitutional;" nor that they do "will be an assuming of a new or unwarrantable jurisdiction, and make your Excellency liable to answer for it;" nor that "his Majesty\'s subjects would have just cause to complain of being deprived of a trial by jury." And we are further of opinion, that a'
 None
 'Messrs. HALLS,\nSalem, March 11, 1774.\nI SAW in your last Gazette a second piece against me dated Beverly (but which, from its features, seems to be the offspring of the same Salem gentleman who it is probable with some assistance wrote the Beverly piece of Nov. 22) full of unchristian reflections on me as unworthy of common credit. But however slight those united authors may make of charity and benevolence, yet I know it wholly, as it seems they have no man living a right to suspect the contrary, till my veracity shall be fairly impeached and condemned by unbiased, credible evidences, very different from such low and uncharitable reflections, which has never yet been done. Innocence itself can\'t approach such men without a blot.\nI therefore challenge the author or authors to fix on me, if they can, by such evidence, in some court where I may answer for myself face to face, and know my accusers and the evidences, any one instance of lying or wilful falsehood, since I have been known to the publick. If they do not, they must appear to the publick as malicious slanderers, who having no truth to speak against me, rake deep for vile insinuations and abuse. Every discerning mind must see, that they must be in a great strait for proper weapons of offence and defence, who make use of such dirty ones. Would soldiers throw dust and dung at their enemies while they had better arms? No surely. Such writings are too low and silly to be termed a serious answer.\nAs to what the authors suggest of my "not printing Mr. Occom\'s letter out of mere tenderness to his character, lest I should expose his incapacity to write English, &c." this is a baseless right-down falsehood, which must be fastened on those authors, till they produce some that must own the brat. I have said, and now say, that his letter is wrote in so friendly a manner, and with such pleasant and humor that I should be justly chargeable with betraying, to such carpers as I am now answering, the unguarded intimacy and freedoms of friendship; and for which they might more justly upbraid me, than for any thing they mention. Therefore will not print it, for there is some difference whether those authors know it or not between a carefully corrected sermon, and the unguarded opinions of a friendly letter, yet any gentlemen, except said authors, are welcome to see it.\nIn my piece figured a Dr. of Divinity, I shewed no spleen, as is supposed, at Dr. Sutton, in saying he was a blacksmith and farther, and none but a Mammus would have thought it: The idea intended was obviously enough this, That it was not likely that a man bred to and employed in that business should have made any great new discoveries in the art of inoculation, especially at his first setting out, when his success was as great, according to the numbers, as ever after. Therefore their meddling on me as being formerly a weaver is as mean as it is injudicious. Should I call them dung-bowellers or plough-juggers , in contempt, they would have just cause to call me mean, yet doubtless they, at least the principal of them has, in his youth, shovelled dung and held the plough, and not to his or their dishonour. In the same sense, when I was about 14 years old I sometimes wore: but this was not my occupation; for I was bred to letters, and have made study and its connections the business of my life from my youth. What need I say more?\nClaudius jam Rivos, pueri, sat patet aetherum. But now the flood, the meads have drank their fill. I will take no further notice of such mean stuff on this head. Truth and facts I call for, and then I may answer; but such mean confutes itself. That every breath and pen may be inspired with truth and love, is the wish of an abused servant of the respectable public. NATH. WHITAKER.\nN. B. It is with regret I use the words low, mean, and dirty . But I know of no softer words in our language expressive of the spirit of the authors. Let them publish their names that they may be known; or by concealing them, confess their shame.\nFrom the PUBLIC LEDGER, of December 31. To the PRINTER.\nSIR, Great-Gorge-Street, December 18, 1773. WHEN the malice of my enemies, by falsely impeaching my character, had put me to the hazard of my life, I flattered myself it would have rested silent and satisfied: But as I understand they are still busy with my reputation, and are endeavouring by a thousand misrepresentations to destroy that good name, which to me is inestimable, I am compelled to trouble the public with a detail of those circumstances which obliged me to appeal to the sword. I hope to show that my conduct in so doing was proper, as far as complying with a custom, the tyranny of which I confess I have not fortitude to resist, can be justified.\nIt is with infinite regret I find myself obliged to mention Mr. Whately, and that sometimes in terms of censure. The part he took in the question made me feel myself aggrieved by him. He answered me in the field like a man of spirit and a gentleman. It is with pleasure I do this justice to his character.\nWhen Mr. Whately was apprized of some original letters from gentlemen in America to his late brother having been intercepted and made public at Boston, he called upon me, read part of a letter from Mr. Oliver, complaining of the publication of his letters, and mentioned that he had given me access to some of his brother\'s letters from his correspondents in America. He accompanied this with a declaration, that he had not the least suspicion of me, and did not know that those published letters were ever in his possession; but he wished I would authorize him to say I had them not from him. I gave Mr. Whately every assurance that a gentleman could give, that I had not taken any one letter, not a line of one, from among those he shewed me, but such as he gave me leave to take, and which were all written by my brother and myself. I did this repeatedly, and in the most explicit terms. Mr. Whately appeared perfectly satisfied; and I own, I did not expect he would have mentioned that transaction again in any manner that could throw a possibility of suspicion on my character.\nFor in my apprehension, when a gentleman has pledged his honor to another, to insinuate or countenance a suspicion of him afterwards, leads inevitably to the consequences which have attended this transaction. Some time after this explanation between Mr. Whately and myself, several paragraphs appeared in the New-England Magazine, in the form of a letter from a gentleman, which was held forth as a monster of ingratitude, and as a villain, who, under the cover of friendship, watched for an opportunity, when Mr. Whately\'s back was turned, to rob him of papers which were in confidence put into my hands. Of these things I took no public notice, not because they gave me no uneasiness, but because I knew not how to redress myself. A search after the Authors of them I conceived would be vain. Such malevolent attacks could have been made by none but cowards, who would take care to conceal themselves. It seemed impossible that Mr. Whately could have had any knowledge of the Authors, or could have given any countenance to such persons, after the solemn assurances which I had given him; nor should I have troubled him on the subject if his name had not been used as an authority to support these false and malicious assertions. These writers artfully suppressed three very material circumstances in their representations; that Mr. Whately did not know the Letters sent to Boston were ever in his possession; that of those which he put into my hands none appeared to be missing, which could not have been the case if seventeen Letters, and some of them very long, had been taken away; and that I had given him every assurance which a Gentleman could require or receive, that no such Letters had been taken by me. Without the use of Mr. Whately\'s name, the charge would have had no effect upon the Public. That Gentleman suffered the unfair and\ninjurious representations, under the sanction of his name, to pass unexplained. I did expect when he saw the purpose to which the man who gave intelligence from him was applying it, that he would in justice to truth, and to me, have stated the whole as above. If he had done so, I appeal to the judgment of the Public, whether any suspicion would have rested upon me, or any serious consequences followed. I did not ask this of him, because I thought he ought to have done it unasked. There is an indicacy, in urging a Gentleman to do that which is his duty, and owes its merit to its being voluntary. The suspicion against me upon an unfair a state of facts, aided, I suppose, by the private slander of those who raised it, secretly gained ground; and on the 8th of this month a Writer, under the Signature of Antony , renewed the accusation of me by name, voicing it with a conversation which he seems to have himself held upon the subject with Mr. Whately.\nUnder so direct a charge, I thought it would not become me to be any longer silent. I went with the paper to Mr. Whately, and received from him, as I imagined, a satisfactory denial of those pretended facts, which materially supported the suspicion. This I made public: Mr. Whately then came forward with his name. He omitted to state what was solely essential, that he did not know the Letters in question were among those he put into my hands, and that none of those with which he entrusted me appeared to be missing, but stated the matter in such a manner as strongly to corroborate the anonymous charge, and gave me, to my understanding, the lie direct. They who have any feelings of honor will not wonder that I was impatient under such an imputation, and thought every moment miserable, till I had called upon him, from whom I received such an affront, for honorable amends. The Public is acquainted with the sequel: But the circumstances of that affair have been so falsely represented to my dishonor, that I am obliged to beg a moment\'s indulgence, till I state that transaction fairly.\nThe Gentleman, who waited upon Mr. Whately with my invitation, told him he would attend me as a Second, if Mr. Whately would have one on his part. Mr. Whately declined having any Second, and therefore I brought none. He appeared at the place appointed with a sword only. I gave him one of my pistols. We discharged them mutually; mine being, at his request, the first, without effect. If his was not directed at me, it escaped my observation. I then drew my sword, and approached him, who had also unheated his, with a persuasion, grounded on his coming with a sword only, when the choice of weapons was in him, that I was to encounter an adversary much superior to myself in skill. I soon found my mistake, and as far as could reason in such a situation, determined, by wounding him in the sword-arm, to end the business, without a fatal stroke. But my skill was not equal to my intention; it soon became a struggle, instead of a regular combat, and I could only avoid making a full lunge, which probably would have wounded him mortally. The contortions of my antagonist\'s body, during the struggle, exposed parts, which in a regular encounter could never have been touched. When he turned himself to seize the blade of my sword, with his left hand, I supposed he received the wounds in his left side; and in some violent effort his shoulder must have been exposed. The extreme smallness of the wound in that part being, as I am well informed, a mere puncture, proves it to have been accidental. Had my purpose been unfair, I should have taken the life that was in my power; had it been mortal, every wound would not have been superficial, and one only dangerous, not from its depth, but its direction. I understood it has been said he was down. In such circumstances it is as impossible to account for every thing that happens, as to remember every thing that passes. But of this I am very sure, that, though he lied once, he never fell.\nIt is proper to apprise the reader, that I am unfortunately very deaf. If any words of accommodation, as has been represented, were really used by Mr. Whately, I did not hear them. They who expect coolness in the midst of such a conflict, and deliberation in the moment of a deadly point being at one\'s breast, require too much. It is well, that the passion, which rises fast on such an occasion, did not alter perceptibly my general determination not to push so forcibly as to make a deep wound. It is with confidence I can affirm, I was not guilty of any unfair action, because I never had an unfair thought--nor of a cruel one, because my purpose was the reverse.\nI have received no bodily wound; but they who will minds can feel for consequences, which they could not with honor avoid, will understand me when I say, that I have felt those wounds which surpass in anguish every bodily pain.\nThe anonymous affissins, who have been really the cause of this mischief, remain unknown; but time, I trust, will drag them forth to the punishment they deserve.\nOf those to whom I am unknown, the candid & honorable, are, I hope, convinced, that the injurious charges which have been brought against me are entirely without foundation: With those to whom I am known, I flatter myself, the constant tenor of my life has rendered a defence of my conduct unnecessary.\nI have but a few words more to say upon the subject: As Mr. Whately\'s narrative tends to confirm the suspicion of my having taken from him the letters which were sent to Boston, I do again most solemnly affirm, that I neither took from him those, nor any other letters, but such as were written by my brother and myself to the late Mr. Whately, and that with his knowledge and consent; nor had I any concern directly or indirectly, in procuring or transmitting the letters which were sent to Boston. J. TEMPLE.\nBOSTON, March 17. The following engrossed Bills passed the last Session, to which his Excellency signed his Consent.\nAn Act for supplying the Treasury with Three Thousand Pounds. An Act to enable Persons to bring forward and maintain Actions of Debt in the Executive Courts within this Province, upon Judgments recovered in the neighbouring Governments, and upon Judgments recovered before Justices of the Peace in this Province.\nAn Act in Addition to one Act or Law of this Province, made and passed in the Thirteenth Year of his present Majesty\'s Reign, intitled, "An Act to make Provision for the assessing the Monies upon the Lands of the Proprietors in the Township of Alfeys , in the County of Hampshire , which are due from said Proprietors, to defray the Charges hereafter mentioned, and to provide a Method for the collecting and levying the same."\nAn Act for dividing the Township of Springfield , and erecting the Western Part thereof into a separate Town by the Name of West Springfield .\nAn Act for erecting that Part of the Township of Springfield called Stony-Hill into a separate District by the Name of Ludlow .\nAn Act for incorporating the West Part of the Town of Stockbridge , in the County of Berkshire , into a District by the Name of West Stockbridge .\nAn Act for incorporating a Plantation called Freeborn and Jersey-Squam Island into a Town by the Name of Edgewood .\nAn Act to enable the Town of Stoughton and the District of Stoughtonham to sell certain Lands lying within the District of Stoughtonham , called Mutual Lands , lying near a Place called Cow-Hill .\nAn Act to enable the Proprietors of the Lands of the Town of Richmont , in the County of Berkshire , to enforce the Payment of such Taxes as have been and hereafter shall be granted by the Proprietors aforesaid.\nAn Act in Addition to and for rendering more effectual an Act\npassed in the Seventh Year of his present Majesty\'s Reign, intitled, An Act in Addition to several Acts to prevent the Destruction of Salmon and other Fish in Merrimack River , within this Province.\nAn Act to prevent Near Cattle, Horses, Sheep, Goats and Swine from going at large upon the Island Chabacoddy , at certain Seasons of the Year, and for preventing other Trespasses being done on any of the Indian Lands on said Island for the future.\nAn Act for making further Provision for regulating the Alewife Fishery in the Town of Bridgewater , and for repealing an Act made in the Eleventh Year of his present Majesty\'s Reign, intitled, An Act for regulating the Alewife Fishery in the Town of Bridgewater .\nAn Act for annexing certain Lands in the County of Hampshire with the Inhabitants thereof to the Town of Wilbraham in said County, to do Duty and receive Privileges there.\nAn Act to enable the Proprietors of Stowe , in the County of Middlesex , to often as it shall be thought necessary for them, to raise Money for the Use of said Proprietors, or to Tax or Assess the Original Proprietors of said Town and their Heirs in equal Proportion to their Interest when the first Lots were divided and drawn, & to enable the present Collector of said Proprietors to raise Monies already granted and affected by and on said Proprietors.\nAn Act for continuing an Act, intitled an Act for granting unto his Majesty several Rates and Duties of Impost and Tonnage of Shipping.\nAn Act for altering the Time of holding the Superior Court of Judicature, Court of Assize and General Goal Delivery at Charlestown , in and for the County of Middlesex .\nAn Act for employing and providing for the Poor in the Town of Salem , and for the better regulating the Workhouse in said Town.\nAn Act for continuing an Act intitled An Act to empower the Inhabitants of the Town of Dartmouth to regulate the taking of Fish within the Harbours and Coves of said Township of Dartmouth .\nAn Act for incorporating the Plantation called New-Gleefer into a Town by the Name of New-Gleefer .\nAn Act for incorporating the Easterly Part of the Town of Sunderland , in the County of Hampshire , into a Town by the Name of Leversett .\nTHE Subscribers to the Salem Hospital, who have not paid their Subscriptions, are desired to pay them to Mr. NATHAN GOODALE, Treasurer.\nTwenty Dollars Reward.\nWHEREAS sundry Articles left to be cleaned at Cambridge have been lately taken from thence, viz. seven Gowns, (being the Property of Ladies who were inoculated at the late Essex Hospital) several Coverlids and Blankets, together with a Quantity of Iron Ware, which was Proof against the Flames.\nThe Subscribers, upon Discovery of the Offenders, will again try the Strength of the County Goal; and do hereby offer a Reward of Twenty Dollars for Conviction of the same. JONATHAN CLOVER & Comp\'y.\nMarblehead, March 14, 1774.\nJust imported, and to be sold by Edward Allen,\nAt his Store in Derby-Street, A Parcel of new Rice by the Cask or smaller Quantity, a few Barrels of Flour, Nails of different Sorts, new Cordage, Anchors of different Sizes, and a Parcel of Shipchandlery.\nSaid ALLEN has for Sale or Hire, a Fishing Schooner of sixty-four Tons, well found, and can be ready for the Sea on the shortest Notice.\nTo be LET, and entered upon forthwith, One End of A convenient Dwelling-House,\nnear the Center of the Town of Salem, with a good Well of Water, Wood-House and Garden adjoining the same. For further Particulars, inquire of JOHN HENDY.\nAll Persons who have Demands\non the Estate of Capt. THOMAS NICHOLSON, late of Marblehead, deceased, are desired to bring in their Accounts to RUTH NICHOLSON, Administratrix, for a speedy Settlement: And all Persons who are indebted to said Estate, are desired to make speedy Payment. Marblehead, March 13, 1774.\nTo be SOLD, A large Dwelling-House, with\ntwo good Cellers under it, a good Well, fitted with a good Pump, and always plenty of Water, within five Lanes of the House; a good Barn that will hold fifteen Tons of Hay; a large Blacksmith\'s Shop, and twelve Acres of good Land, well situated on the Road, and the River, which is fit for Fishery and Navigation, with a good Ship-Yard and Wharf as soon on the Continent. The Buildings are almost new, and in good Repair, about two Miles from the Rev. Mr. Holt\'s Meeting-House, and within a hundred Rods of the New-Mills (so called) in Danvers, and about two Miles and an half from the Town of Salem. The Conditions of Sale may be known by applying to BENJAMIN SAWYER, at the New-Mills in Danvers. Either 3 or 7 acres only of the Land will be sold with the House, if more agreeable to the Purchaser than the whole.\nGarden Seeds.\nJust Imported and to be sold by WALTER P. BARTLETT,\nAt his Shop in School-Street, S. A. L. E. M.\nEARLY Charlton, early golden Hotspur, Large & Dwarf Marrows, white green and blue Roundoval, Spanish Mottled, Mottled Sugar and Lead, Large Dutch Kidney BEANS; Scarlet-runner, white Spanish silver-skin and blood-red Portugal Onion, early Orange, Lemmon and purple Carrot, best swelling Parsnip, early Turnip, early short-topped Salmon Turnip, scarlet Radish, early green Goss, white Goss, brown Dutch, true Pennsbury, cabbage and capuchin Lettuce, prickly and round Spinage, red and white Beets, upright Italian and folio Celery, curled Peppergrass, curled double and single Parley, early and late Culliflower, early Yorkshir, large and Dwarf Battersea, early low Dutch, early fuzag-loaf, green yellow fuzag and large winter Cabbage, early prickly-gourd, Turkey and long Roman Cucumber, Baum, sweet Marjoram, Thyme, and Sage Seed, white Mustard, Rape and Canary Seed, Herds Graft and Clover, Durham\'s best Flour Mustard, Coffee, Chocolate, Loaf and Brown Sugar, English and Rhode-Island Cheeses, Split Peas, &c. &c.']