Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1806-02-28


entry aud delivery.
The report is detsi,sd and assigns q
variety ofreasons against the expediency
OF granting the PRAYER Of the petitioners.
and concludes with resolution tina: thcy
have leave to withdraw their petition.
Ths house, having taken the report in
to consideration:
Mr.. Jackson observed that tn. faGls
dcts,led in the report were conceded. 1t
was probable that there would never be
vessel entered at Charlestown from fo-
reign country. With regard 10 the sue
ces. Of The prayer of the petitioners, Mir.
]. said he should not have been sanguine,
but for constitutional provision which
he considered imperative. No port ofen-
try existed in the western part of Virgi-
MIA, in consequence of which vessels sail
ing from Charlestown were obliged to
pay duties al New Orleans. The consti
tutional provision, to which he alluded,
vasihis " No preference shall be given
by any regulation Of commerce or reve-
nue. TO the ports OF one state over lhose
of another; nor shall vessels bound to OF
from one state be Obliged to enter, clear
obvious that preference was given 10
the ports OF one stale over those OF ano.
theI by requiring the vessels of the one,
TO enter and clear in the ports of the o.
Their; and was il not also obvious that
The latter par. of;h provision was equal
ly violated. IL would be a great conye-
niencs to the petitioners to give bonds
and take on, ClearaUces in the neighbor-
hood of,hc place where their vessels arc
built, instead al bsins obliged to go to u
distance Ct . ooo miles, where they would
fnd themselves among strangers.
Mr.. Crowninshieid observed That there
were several ports Of entry already in
Virginia from which vessels might clear
without paying duties at New-Orleans.
He further observed that New Orleans
and Naichez were not within the limits of
state, aud therefore we're not embraced
by the constitutional provision referred
to; and added hat duties were only paid
on TN: entry Of vessels from foreign
country.
Mr.. J. G. Smith thought there "a.
sufficient FEASIBILITY 10 the remarks OF
the gentleman from Virginia. to give the
AobJect full discussion. He, therefore.
moved reference Of the report TO a COM
m'ltee OF he whole House on Monday,
which was sgreed to--Ayes SO.
ne House resolved itself into COM
mttee OF the whoIe---Mr. CREGG in the
cha'r--on bill from The Senate, relative
TO the sslsr'es Of the Judges Of the terri
terry II Orleans.
ihe bl increases the salaries of the
Judges %! the superior and dis,ri& court
from ,c,ooo TO 2,5oo dollars; ard aluw.
l. Is. Provost, judge cf the superior
court an additional salary Of 500 dollars
Ter services heretofore Performed by him
without the aid of the other Judges.
Mehsrs. Sloan and MeriweIher called
Tor information relative 9 the grounds on
which the proposed increase of salaries is
made.
Mar. Early replied that since the orga-
nisstion OF the territory of Orleans the
Presiden, had rot been able 10 obtain any
persons properly, qualified, excep, Mr..
Provost, who had consequently been o.
bhscd 10 perform all the duties of The
court; that it was requisite for the iud-
gss not only 20 understand The laws of
'HS'N"h Souilli y nut HNcWltc those OF
the country To whom the territory belong
cd previous TO lis cessien and in add,li.
on 10 ihis, it was necessary for them 10
be acquainted with the French and Spa.
nish languages. Added to this, the price
oil living was extremely high, and the eli
mate very unhealthy.
Mir Findiey corroborot, d this statement.
The committee rose aud reported their
sgfetmeht 10 the bill, which vas ordered
to a third reading this day.
he bill was accordingly read Sd time.
Messrs. Meriwe,her and &. w. Camp.
bell opposed, and Messrs. ]. Clay, CLARK
and Nieholsen supported the bill.
Mr.. Conrad, moved postponement of
the bill till to.moroY.
Mr.. Jackson hoped the bill would be
reeonniued tn a seIeet committee EN-.
powered TO pass in eview the salaries Of
al the Judges Of the u. States. He did
not think the salaries in this bill too high,
but he thought those allowed 10 the other
judges too low.
Mar Rhes spoke in favor Of the bill.
Mr. LIB thought too much celerity
should not be given to the passage of an
appropriation bill.
Mr Early spoke against the postpone
nent.
Mr. Stanton spoke against the bill.
The question was then taken ON the