Newspaper Page Text
syd)^ ui^rni a®9 aocga_ s^Dq THE PUENIX GAZETTE IS PCBL1SHKD OX TUESDAYS,* THURSDAYS & SATURDAYS, BY SNOWDEN & THORNTON, -•-> Office at the comer of Fair/ax-street and Printers' Alley. The Si'rruxm is published on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The price of the Gazette is five dollars per annum, payable iu advance, or six dollars at the end of the year. Tin* price of the Supplement is one dollar per annum, in advance. t AnvKu risKMEXTs inserted three times for one dollar per Square, and twenty-five cents per son ire for each insertion afterwards. 1 hose sent without a specification of the number of insertions, will be published until ordered out, and charged accordingly. • • Ml letters must be post paid, unless or dering the paper or enclosing advertise me nts.__. For ProvVCLence, W. 1. The packet sloop GLOBE, Captain Bakeh, _[can take 100 barrels freight if applied for immediately. TU. H. HOG LA AH. june 2 __ Plaster Moat. n/i TONS on board the schnr Man-Ann, VIrapt. Babson, from Eastport, for sale by T. H. HOWLALD. ► WHO OFFERS f FOR FREIGHT, \ The sai»l vessel of 600 bbls burthen, h may 21__ Old, Clveop and Expedi tious Ttowle. FROM WASHINGTON & ALEXANDRIA TO RICHMOND, Touching at Old Point Comfort, Nor folk and City Point. The Alexandria and Norfolk Steamboat Com pany have established the swift, strong and elegant boat POTOMAC, URIAH JENKINS, MASTER, On the above mentioned route, now running as follows: Leaves Washington at 4 o’clock, and Alexandria at 5 o’clock on every Wednes day afternoon ; arrive at Old Point Comfort anil Norfolk the following afternoon ? leave Norfolk the next morning at 6 o’clock, and trrive at City Point and Richmond on the even iag of the same day. R E T U R N I N Ci, Will leave Richmond at 6 o’clock on Sunday morning, touching at City Point, and arrive at Norfolk the same evening ; leave Norfolk at 9 o’clock on Monday Morning, touching at old Point Comfort, and arrive at Alexandria ami Washington the next morning, in time for passengers to proceed on to Baltimore. fare. From Washington or Alexandria to Richmond, (meals included) _ ^ From W ashington or Alexandria to Old Point or Norfolk, (do. do.) $6 00 From Washington to all intermediate places between Alexandria and Old Point or Nor folk, wlier** passengers can be landed with convenience, ^ From Washington to Jamestown, ^8 00 From Washington to City Point, $9 00 This arrangement cannot fail of giving sa tisfaction to the public from its cheapness and expedition, as well as the great certainty ot petting through the route, not being subject to the risk always attendant on one boat wait ing for, or depending upon, the arrival of ano ther belonging to the same *ine, as in this line the passengers are conveyed through in the same boat. To persons having particular regard to their own safety and comfort, this line has a deci ded preference, as the passage in the Chesa peake Bay, the only place of risk, is perform ed both ways in the day time, in a superior boat, particularly constructed for navigating ■aid Bay. feb 17 N. W ATTLES, Agent. ICE (T AN be had at the subscribers every day J during the season. W M. B. STEM AR F. may 2_*f ICE. IN DW’ARD SMITH 8; Co. are now prepar i ed to deliver ice to their subscribers, may 24 'Wool. WE wish to purchase Wool, and solicit those having it for sale to give us a call, june 7 LINDSAY St HILL. Molasses. LINDSAY Si HILL have just received 15 hhds. prime retailing molasses—for sale ,iune 6 __ He&ued SugaT. ’-imore, and for sale by may 23S. MESSERSMITH. Coguac lii-au&y. ®ay 24 k Landing from sloop Indepen* ft dence, from New-York, 5 pipes U Cognac Brandy, warranted as Lpurc as imported, and for sale LINDSAY & HILL. ON THE SHORTNESS OF HUMAN LIFE. Like a damask rose you see, Or like the blossom on the faSh; Or like the dainty flower in May, Or like the morning to the day; Or like the sun, or like the shade, Or like the gourd which Jonah had; E’en such is man, whose thread is spun, Drawn out, and cut, and so is done; Withers the rose, and blossom blasts, The flower fades, the morning hastes; The sun doth set, the shadows fly, The ground consumes, and mortals die. Like to the grass that’s newly sprung, Or like a tale that’s new begun; Or like a bird that’s here to-day, Or like the pearled dew of May; Or like an hour or like a span, Or like the singing of the swan; E’en such is man, who lives by breath, Is here, now there, in life and death; The grass decays, the tale doth end; The bird is flown, the dews descend; The hour is short, the span not long, The swan’s near death, man’s life is done. Like to the bubble in the brook, Or in a glass much like a look; Or hke the shuttle in the hand, Or like the writing in the sand; Or like a thought, or like a dream, Or like the gliding of the stream; E’en such is man, who lives by breath, Is here, now there, in life and death; The bubble bursts, the look’s forgot, The shuttle’s flung, the writing’s blot, The thought is past, the dream is gone, The water glides, man’s life is done. An Epitaph out of a church yard in Dorset shire, answered by a gentleman, on the Wi dower’s marrying again in a fortnight. EPITAPH. For me deceas’d, weep not my dear, I am not dead, but sleepeth here; Your time will come, prepare to die; Wait but a while, you’ll follow I. ANSWER. I am not griev’d, my dearest life; Sleep on—I’ve got another wife; And therefore cannot come to thee, For I must go to bed to she. ON THE USE OF MONEY. Go—lavish wealth—profusely spent, How little good it leaves behind— For, like the torrent, where it went, Nought but its ravages you find. Go—hoard it!—be a moneyed fool, Heap gold with never-ceasing care: Your coffers arc a standing proof, And nought but foulest weeds grow there. But this example wise I deem, Who justly gets, and sagely spends. Who, like an ever-running stream, Spreads fruitfulnes, yet never ends. THE SLEEPING WATCHMAN. Sound sleeps yon guardian of the night, The hours uncall’d—youth rests not sweeter! “I thought he was a watch.—“You’re right— But a stop-watch, not a repeater.” CONVENTION. FROM THE WINCHESTER REPUBLICAN. The proposed Convention at Staunton. Two publications have recently appeared in the Richmond Enquirer, over the signature of “Mason of 76,” which from the boldness and freedom with which they canvass the men and the measures of this part of \ irginia, seem to invite comment from the quarter towards which they arc directed- The writer of these communications is hostile to all change in our existing constitution, and, of course, to the proposed convention at Staunton, as one of the measures resorted to by the friends of reform with a remote view to the amendment of that constitution. It is against this Staunton con vention and its advocates that he directs his whole artillery of wit, argument, declamation and invective: and against Mr. Mercer, of Lou doun, in particular, to whom he imputes the offence of giving the first impulse to this wick ed and treasonable movement, he indulges in a latitude of remark, and a bitterness of ani madversion, which seem to me to be totally unwarranted. After gratuitously imputing to that gentle man the ambition to be considered the leader of the movement in this part of Virginia, and sta ting the belief that he was the “prime mover of the proceedings in Loudoun, Fairfax, and Prince William, to wit, the election of depu ties to the proposed convention at Staunton, the writer proceeds to remark; “Of those who knew this gentleman, the few (l whs one of them) who thought well of him, and felt kindly towards him, viewed his conduct with pain and regret.” And again, “Whatever may be the sentiment of his own district, I can assure him that every where else, his friends alone are afflicted? And a gain, “For my own part, knowing his extreme sensibility to public censure and individual un kindness, 1 had determined to hold my peace; for I could not discuss the subject without wounding him. To the very courteous and friendly remark, that 'few of those who knew Mr. Mercer thought well of him,” I take leave to reply, that what ever may be the opinion entertained of Mr. Mercer at Richmond, where, ever since his difference with general Mason, it has been the fashion to abuse and decry him, there are ma ny, very many persons in this part of Virginia, both in his district and out of it, who know him well, and have long known him, that es teem him a man of distinguished talents, of unblemished honor, of warm and gcncrou feel ings, and of well tried patriotism. There are some here who think that while in the house of delegates of Virginia, he was the most effi cient and useful man in that body—and his memory ought to be cherished as long as edu cation and internal improvement are consider ed as important and interesting objects—and that it will be cherished long after some who affect a friendly commisseration of his weak nesses have drifted down the stream of obli vion. There are those here who think that there is not that man in Richmond who may venture to express an arrogant pity for Mr. Mercer’s aberrations. And there arc those who reckon professions of friendship inter mixed with bitter sarcasms, to be as insulting as they are false and hollow. To the assertion that the friends of Mr. Mer cer, every where but in his own district, were afflicted at his conduct, and viewed it with pain and regret, I must be permitted to ans wer, that Mr. Mercer has many friends in this part of Virginia, and out of his district, (aye, real friends, not friends who will sacrifice him to give point and piquancy to an essay,) that approve heartily of his conduct in taking the first steps towards effecting a convention.— He has but given voice and utterance to the predominant sentiment of this part of Virginia. Doubtless Mr. Mercer, now that he knows the fact, ought to be duly thankful to the wri ter for his forbearance in “holding his peace” and his self-denial in keeping in the torrent of caustic eloquence which was ready to burst out on him (Mr. Mercer) when he so far ran counter to the views of the writer as to sug gest to the people of his district the wicked revolutionary measure of sending deputies to Staunton. If he had known how narrow an escape he had just made, he would scarcely have ventured to commit the new atrocity of writing an address from the committee of Lou doun “to the friends of a cont ention in Vir ginia.” Now, indeed, the measure of his of fences was full, and painful as it must have been to the writer, “knowing Mr. Mercer's extreme sensibility to public censure, and in dividual unkindness, ” he felt himself impelled by a sense of duty to animadvert with unspar ing severity on him, and on his address. The manner of the address is displeasing to his critical taste. It is too declamatory, and speaks to the passions only. How cool and composed were the passions of the critic, when he wrote his criticism, may be gathered from the vehement, declamatory, and hyperbolical assertion that the address of the Loudoun com mittee, inviting the friends of a convention to send deputies to Staunton, to co-operate with the Loudoun deputies in devising “lawfuland expedient means of procuring a convention,” is “an open declaration of war against the ex isting government.” Moreover, the addressers have been guilty, he says, of “inventing” a reproachful denomi nation for a certain class of their opponents, who are in the address denominated “alarm ists.” The critic has invoked some memorable passages of history, and with considerable fe licity, to illustrate his views. Had he pursued his historical researches a little further he would have discovered that the invention of the party-term “alarmists” was not reserved for the Loudoun addressers. ’ When the pensioned eloquence of Burke had worked up the people of England into a frenzy of loyalty—when to doubt the excel lence of the existing constitution of England, in all its parts and particulars, was considered “an open declaration of war against the existing government”—when the belief that the decay ed and tenantless borough of Old Sarum ought not to have as much weight in the govern ment as one half the great and populous coun ty of York, was deemed a “jacobinical prin ciple”_when every proposition to extend the liberties of the people of England, by refor ming in some degree the gross inequality of representation in parliament, was fiercely re sisted, and stigmatised as the commencement of a course of revolutionary measures “por tending the most fearful consequences”— when the friends of liberty and parliamentary reform were charged with attempting “to weaken the authority of the laws,” and with using the cry of “reform,” merely “to collect and condense all the discontents that were floating in the community, and, by condensing to increase their intensity and exasperate their fierceness”—then it was that the venal writers of the government, who terrified the imaginations of the people with all these “chimeras dire,” were justly stigmatized as “alarmists.” How far the critic may be considered as one of that class of politicians, may in part be ga thered from the quotations 1 have just made from the publications on which 1 am comment ing. But in the same breath that the critic com plains of the reproachful denomination invent ed by the committee, he imitates the evil ex ample, by styling them the "decemviri of Lou doun” a denomination more reproachful than that of “alarmists,” since the decemviri ot of Rome were tyrants and usurpers. Another exception taken to the brief ad dress or notification of the Loudoun commit tee, is, that “it deigns not to offer one word of argument.” The answer is, that in a pa per of that sort, an argument would have been misplaced. He might as well complain that a subpoena in chancery does not contain the whole history of the plaintiff’s wrongs. An examination of the present state of our representation in the general assembly will present to the mind of every man of a free and republican spirit an unanswerable argument in favor of an amendment of t he constitution. The constitution of Virginia was framed in haste; amid the din of arms. Its framers had not time and opportunity, if they had been so disposed, to take down and build up anew the whole fabric of government and internal poli ty. Moreover they might justly apprehend that, by altering too many things in their new plan of government, they might disgust a peo ple fond of the institutions of their fathers.— The people of Virginia, be it remembered, were then but young republicans, and the fra mers of the constitution might justly appre hend that the public mind was not prepared for concurring at once in many innovations. They found the state divided into counties of unequal size, each of which, under the old regime, sent two representatives to the gene ral assembly. An attempt to deprive the smaller counties of a part of the power or weight in the government which they had been accustomed to enjoy, would have been, at that period, highly impolitic and dangerous. Disgusted with a scheme of liberty which commenced with curtailing their privileges, they might have fallen back into the bosom of monarchy as the preferable system. Wisely, then, under the circumstances in which they were placed, did the framers of the constitu tion declare, that the house of delegates should be composed of two representatives from each of the counties, however differing in size and population. They were well aware that the theoretical perfection of the system they were laying the foundation of was an equal representation of the people in the legislative bodies; and that by conferring on a small body or portion of the people as great a share of political power as was conferred on bodies or portions much lar ger, they violated the natural inherent rights of the-individuals composing the larger bodies The injustice and hardship of unequal repre sentation was no new idea. It had long been a theme of popular discussion in England, and the intelligent and well educated men who formed our constitution were doubtless fami liar with all the details of the argument. But they were compelled by circumstances to vio late their own notions of right, hoping and expecting that a more tranquil period would come, when the people, more familiar w ith the principles of free government, would heartily and unanimously concur in a “recur rence to fundamental principles.” They did not foresee, moreover, the enor mous increase of the inequalities which then existed among the counties. They did not foresee that a time would arrive,— When twenty counties in the upper coun try, containing 223,261 free white inhabi tants, would have no more w'cight in the government than twenty counties on tide water, containing only 50,971; When tike six smallest counties in the state, compared with the six largest, would en joy nine and one half times as much poli tical power and weight as they were en titled to; When a freeman of Warwick county would have as much political weight and power as txoentyseven freemen of Loudoun, Fre derick or Shenandoah. All these things they did not and could not foresee : nor (fid they, nor could they foresee, nor would they have believed though one had arisen from the dead and foretold it, that when, in the fulness of time, all these monstrous re sults and rank abuses should arise from a defect | in the constitution which they saw but could not remedy, the best talents in the land would be enlisted in their defence, and that those who attempted to restore the government to its original principles, and acquire by peacea ble and lawful means their proper weight in the government, would be denounced as ja cobins and disorganizes. The “declaration of rights” of Virginia, speaking the language of truth and nature, an nouncing and solemnly declaring a principle which God himself has implanted in the bosom of every intelligent man, has said “that all men are by nature equally free.” The same instrument declares that “no free government or the blessing of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a frequent recurrence to fun• (lamental principles.” If it be a fundamental principle, then, that the freemen of Loudoun, Frederick and Shenandoah are by nature equally free, or, in other words, entitled to equal weight and power, in the body politic, with the freemen of Warwick—and if it be true that the course of events, operating on an original defect in the constitution of Virgi nia, has brought matters to such a state that each freeman in Warwick has twenty-seven times as much weight and power in the body politic as each freeman of Loudoun, Freder-, ick or Shenandoah,—how strong a case is made out of the necessity of recurring to fun damental principles—of the necessity of a mending the constitution, if wc would wish to preserve “a free government or the blessing of liberty.” If, then the constitution requires amend ment in order to equalize the rights of the citizens, how is the amendment to be effect ed } Frequent attempts have been made, dur ing the last few years, to obtain the aid of the legislature, either in assembling a convention, or in taking the sense of the people whether one should be assembled or not. All these attempts failed. It is pretended by the ene mies of reform that “a great majority of the people are well content with their existing institutions;” and until all the counties, or a majority of them, shall at one session petition the legislature to aid in assembling a conven tion, it will continue to be asserted that a ma jority of the people are opposed to the mea sure. The friends of reform and of liberty in this part of Virginia, desirous of eliciting an expression of the real opinion of the people, and thereby convincing the legislature that there is at this time a large majority in favor of a convention to amend the constitution,have taken measures to effect a preparatory con vention at Staunton, with a view to the attain ment of that object. If a considerable number of deputies, from various parts of the state, should assemble at Staunton, the friends of a convention will be enabled to ascertain, by their re port, the real state of public opinion in their respective counties on the great question of reform—to put forth, with the sanction of many respect able names, a just and temperate statement of the grievances and partial disfranchisement under which a large part of Virgiuia now U bore—and lastly and chiefly to form and pro vide for the execution of a plan whereby the sense of the people throughout Virginia shall be taken in a peaceable, orderly and lawful manner, on the great question of convention. Having done this, and having collected proof that it is the will of the people that the con stitution of the state shall be amended, the friends of reform will “sound an appeal so distinct and audible to the next general assem bly, as to produce, we may hope, a just re spect to their rights.” In other words, they will bring to bear on the legislature the irre sistible force of public opinion indisputably ascertained, and clearly expressed. “If this be treason, make what you can of it." Is it not passing strange that this peaceable, legal and salutary measure should be denoun ced as “jacobinical”—should be compared to the deservedly odious Hartford convention— should be described as “a course which pro fessedly excommunicates a large portion of the citizens,” and which is calculated to'Stifle dis cussion,”—and that its friends ami promoters should he charged with a design “to separate themselves from the rest of the community, to organize themselves into a distinct society,and (to every practical purpose that concerns this great question) to acknowledge no fellow-ci tizenship w’ith their opponents”! Is it not strange that a man of talents; for such the writer in question most certainly is, should venture to throw off all this light and windy declamation, in the discussion of a grave and important subject! Can any thing be more idle than the cen sure thrown upon ua for inviting the friends only of a convention to meet at Staqnton?— We, of the larger counties, who are each oi us but the twenty-seventh part of a free citi zen, wish to rise to the dignity of pnsts, by taking away, by just and legal ans, from our fellow-citizens of Warwick, !cc. the ex cessive and \mdue portion of political power which they now enjoy. And we, poor frac tions, are gravely asked to invite the lordly units of Warwick to aid us in devising means of raising ourselves and depressing them! And it is said that in excluding the enemies of a convention, “tire assembly at Staunton, now proposed, differs most essentially from the meeting which was held at the same place in 1816. Then the invitation was given to all men of whatsoever opinions'’ The writer has here fallen into a mistake in point of fact, as the annexed extract from the address “To the people of the commonwealth of Virginia,” which produced the meeting at Staunton, will clearly show: “The undersigned would therefore respect fully submit to their fellow citizens through out the state, of both political parties (tor this is no party question, and the framers of this address arc of both political parties,) the following proposition : “Let the people of the different counties, who are friendly to the objects of this address, assemble in county meetings, on the 4th of July next, or as soon thereafter as practica ble, and depute from each county two respec table and intelligent individuals, to meet at Staunton, in Augusta county, on Monday the 19th day of August next, for the purpose of devising and adopting measures for affecting a convention of the people of this common wealth.” On the second communication of “Mason of I 76;“ I have few remarks to make. By the aid of the bold and gratuitous assumption that the object of the proposed meeting at Staun ton is to “ obstruct the execution of the laws,’* and that “ its real design is to direct, control, counteract or awe the regular deliberation or action of the constituted authorities,’’ he has been enabled to show that the holding of such a meeting is incompatible with the sound and excellent principles contained in the “ fare well address” of the father of his country. We disavow the intentions imputed and deny the application of the pasage quoted. There is one trait in the second publication which I feel myself constrained to notice. I mean the lofty and self-sufficient tone in which the writer has thought fit to indulge. Having given his first furious tirade against the Staun ton convention and its promoters four days to operate on the public mind, he declares in his second publication that "he will not believe that the good people of Loudon and Fairfax will hare the wilfulncssto persistin’’ the mea sure of sending deputies to Staunton. ** 1 do confidently hope,” he adds, “ that at their ap proaching June county courts they will recall their deputies, to whom they have incautiously and unintcntially delegated their portion of the sovereignty,” That is to say, “Now that you understand what ice in Richmond think of this matter, now that we have explained to you our notions of the impropriety of all such irregular proceed ings as Staunton conventiona, 8tc. we doubt not that you will sec the folly you have been led into by the petty demagogues who have taken the lead in this matter, and will hasten to show yourselves duly penitent by cashiering these upstaits to whom you have incautiously and unintentionally delegated your portion of the sovereignty. “Given at our palace at Richmond, &c.” In the same lofty tone he expresses his as tonishment to see subscribed to the Loudoun address the names of Col. Ellzey and Messrs. R. If. Henderson and William Temple Thomp son Mason; and has the unheard-of presump, tion to add, that “ It is to be hoped that they too” (alluding to Mr. Cuthbert Powell's dis claimer) “ may disclaim, if not the actual sub* scription, at least the intention to subscribe such sentiments; that if they subscribed this paper, it was only because they gave it too cursory an examination to apprehend its exact import.” Now this is your real “ Cambyses’ rein”— your real kingly tone—” an act of amnesty in faror of such of our misguided subjects as shall come in, confess their offences, and crave our royal mercy.” I forbear all further re* mark, except this, that the presumption of such language addressed to such men, beggars comment I cannot think that the writer has made a happy selection of his nom de gurre. The real “ Mason of 76” was one of those true and enlightened friends of liberty who would not even submit to the theoretical assertion, by the parliament of England, of a right to tax the colonies. His political creed was, that “ taxation and representation should go toge ther.” The modem ** Mason of 76” is the vehement advocate of the opposite doctrine. He thinks it no hardship that the county of Frederick should pay its full share of the tax es of the state, though she hare not the tithe of her proper weight in the body that imposes the taxes. In the nineteenth century, in the bosom of a free republican community, he has broached anew the servile doctrine of the pen sioned Johnson, who gave to his labored pam phlet in favor of English usurpations the title of “ Taxation no Tyranny. ” It is to be hoped that such men and such counsels may not at length drive us to the doctrine of Franklin's responsive pamphlet, “ Resistance no Rebel A FRIEND OF EQUAL BIGHTS.