Alexandria gazette. [volume], January 23, 1834, Image 2

About Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
THE GAZETTE:
By EDGAR SNOWDEN.
Terms:
Daily paper - - - - $3 per annum.
Country paper - - - 5 per annum.
The ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE for the coun
try is printed on Tuesday, Thursday, and
Saturday.
All advertisements appear in both papers, ana
are inserted at the usual rates._
CONGRESSIONAL.
In Senate, Wednesday, January 22d.
Mr. CALHOUN, in rising, said that his ob
ject was to correct the statement made by the
Senator from Virginia, in his remarks on the
deposite question, calculated, if he understood
it correctly, to mislead the public mind, and to
do him injustice. .
The Senator remembered in his remark, when
he addressed them a few days since, that he
(Mr. C.) came to the conclusion that the power
of the Secretary under the sixteenth section,
was limited to the deposites, and that he had no
right to withhold them, unless there was satis
~ factory reason to believe they were not sale, or
that the bank had not faithfully performed its
duty in relation to them. The Senator from
Virginia, with a view of rebutting this conclu
sion^ quoted from a speech, which he stated, as
he (Mr. C.) understood, was delivered by Mr.
C. in 1816, when the Bank charter was under
discussion. (Here Mr. Calhoun read the pas
sage.)
“ As to the control over the bank, Mr. C. con
tended that the amendments, retaining the pow
er over deposites, and of making the bills re
ceivable for the revenue, or otherwise, gave the
Government a greater control than it before
possessed, over the operations of the bank, <fcc.
Legislation on party principles, he said, must
____ i.Acn f mnx!iiinrr if* hp wmilil
I^av^i WJ7V 41 t.%* S,J I* v»« -• ' t
therefore, not resort to it.”
Now, said Mr. C., if I had really delivered
this sentiment when the bank charter was un
der consideration, in 1816, l would admit that
the conclusion of the Senator was correct—that;
I then entertained very different sentiments as j
to the power of the Sectetary under the sixteenth
section, over the deposites, irom what I now do,
and that, considering the part which I bore in the
re-charter, that Congress itself also entertained
different sentiments from those I recently deli
vered. But what must the impression be when
I state that I never delivered such sentiments in
1816; that the passage the Senator quoted was
delivered in 1814, long before the existence of
the present charter, and could by no probabili
ty have reference to the power of the Secreta
ry under its provisions, a3 contended by the Se
nator from Virginia..
The facts of the case are these: at the com
mencement of the session of 1814-15, during
the war, a bill was reported by the Committee
of Ways and Means, to incorporate a Bank ot
the United States, which, among other things,
provided that the Government should subscribe
twenty millions, that it should have live direct
ors, and that its notes should be receivable in
the use of the Government. On iny motion
the bill was amended by striking out the sub- !
scription; and as a matter almost of course the
five directors, when I moved to strike out the
section making the notes receivable in the dues
of the Government^ assigning as my reason,
as r«ill be seen by the reports of the day, that,
as the Government had lost its control, by strik
ing out its directors, it should be left in full pos
session of the power over the receivability of
its notes, and withholding the deposites as the
means of asserting a. due control over the ope
rations of -the institution. When it was after
wards objected that the striking out the direct
ors destroyed all the control of the Government
over the institution; in repelling the charge, 1
delivered the sentimeyit, quoted by the Senator
from Virginia, and which he has quoted as de
livered in 1816, when the present charter was
under consideration, as a proof of my opinion
of the power of the Secretary over the depo
sites, when there is not the slightest analogy be
tween the two cases; the bill of 1314 having
no provision whatever, over the deposites, and |
leaving, of course, to the Government full and
nnl!mitai4 rvmrar trt nlarp lfc 1T1 the
Bank, or to withhold them at pleasure. I hope
the Senator from Virginia will be able to afford
some satisfactory explanation.
Mr. RIVES said, nothing was further from
my intention than to make any remark that
could be personally injurious to the honorable
Senator who has just sat down. My object
was, to bring to the aid of my argument the
great weight of the gentleman from South Ca
rolina, and I did not apply the quotation to the
question as relating to the sixteenth section.
My purpose was different from what he sup
poses. 1 understood him to lay down the gene
ral principle that the power given to the Secre
tary was a trust power—that that powei vas
a power over the deposites, and that the only
object of such a power must be the safe keep
ing of the deposites.
On that point I intended going into the argu
ment. My object was to show that Govern
ment, notwithstanding the sixteenth section,
reserved the power to have the .command of
the deposites at will, either to keep them in the
bank or to withdraw them. It was in reference
to the general principle. I understood the gen
tleman from South Carolina to say, that the on
ly object of having control over the deposited
could be for safe keeping; but I contended that
the object of such u power might be a security
for the general conduct of the Bank; and to that
point f cited the observation made by the gen
tleman from South Carolina in 1814. I still
think it applicable to the general question; though
not to the terms of the sixteenth section of the
Bank chatter, for which I did not cite it. I was
surprised that the gentleman from South Caro
lina should deem it necessary to advert to the
other matter.
I did not intend to make any any other use oi
it than what I stated on the floor on Friday. Is
it necessary to remind him andtke Senate what
was the question, and the only question, made
by the Senator from Kentucky? viz; that the
President and Secretary had acted uvconstitu
tionally? I cited it only for the purpose ofshew
inp the difference between him and the Sena
tor from Kentucky in regard to the question of
the power of removal. 1 should be sorry that
the/Senator from South Carolina should sup
pose that I have any feelings in my mind which
would induce mo to make any observations
w’hich would be injurioosto him. I had no such
feelings in my mind—my only object being to
deal with the opinions only as they concerned
the great interests of the country.
Mr. C. said, the remarks of the Senator from
Virginia were to him entirely unsatisfactory.—
What Mr. C.had complained of, was, that while
his remarks made in 1814 related entirely to the
bank bill then under consideration, and had no
V
✓
reference whatever to the present, the Senator
had argued from Mr. C.’ssentiments, expressed
a that time that the 16th section of the present
hank charter had given the Secretary of the
Treasury discretionary and unlimited power
over the public deposites. And now what re
oiv had the Senator to make? Had he retract
ed the error? Not at all. Did he now proceed
in his argument, as if Mr. C.’s remarks in 1814
related to the present bank, and not to the bill
then under consideration? Vi hen Mr. C. had
told the Senator that'his remarks in 1814 had
no relation to the present bank, and could not
be used in sustaining the Secretary, what then
had been the Senator’s reply? That Mr. C. s
opinion at that time was, that the power of the
Secretary was unlimited under the present char
ter though then not in existence, forgettingthat
the bank bill of 1814 had no provision in regard
to the public deposited, and when, ol course, not
at all applicable to the present charter, which
contained an express provision on the subject ol
the deposites. If there had been no provision,
the case would have been different.
The deposites, under the present charter, was
a subject of contract between the Government
and the Bank, and the only question that could
be presented was as to the power that had- been
retained by the former, under the sixteenth sec
tion, in reference to them.
Mr. C. said that when the Senator next quot
ed him, he desired that he would quote him cor
rectly and fully, giving the subject, time, and
circumstance, so that he might be judged of by
the public on his own acts, and not by the in
terpretation or comments of the Senator. He
felt that, in the present instance, great injustice
had been done him. He had a regard for his
consistency; he hoped that, when the Senator
published his speech, he would place the subject,
in the light which the facts of the case, and truth
and justice required.
There was another point which, as he was
up, he wouldnotice. He (Mr. C.) had conced
ed in his remarks, when he addressed tiro Se
nate on the subject of the deposites, that the
President, in removing the former Secretary of
the Treasury, had been guilty, not of an act of
usurpation, but of an abuse of power—a great
and dangerous abuse of power which he stated
. . i ..._m-» nhotip litnnruacrp
Ill li IC- U1IU JAAWsJ* -o o
The Senator, in quoting his authority to prove
that the act was not usurpation, omitted entirely
to state what Mr. C. had said in reference to
the abuse of power; so that any one reading
the speech of the Senator, without. knowing his
Mr. C.Js sentiments, would be led to the con
clusion that he (Mr. C.) justified the exercise
of the power of the President, in reference to
the removal, when, in fact, no one could more
pointedly condemn it.
Mr. RIVES would enter into no discussion at
present; but he had one remark further to
make, touching the views of the Senator from
South Caroling. The whole matter turned on a
difference of opinion in regard to the 11th sec
tion of the United-States Bank charter. The
Senator contended that the power over the de
posites existed under an obligation in the con
tract, while Mr. U. contended that the power
was unqualified in the Secretary of the Trea
sury, under the reservation in the law; and he,
in consequence, had the right to remove for any
reason. It was equivalent to no stipulation at
all, and he therefore might remove the deposi
tes whenever he would, and the stipulation im
posed on him no absolute obligation whatever.
On this difference of opinion the whole argu
ment rested.
Mr. R. thought that the Senator, afier all,
had not established the impropriety of apply
ing his remarks of 1814 to the general question,
whether or not the object of the power over the ;
deposites, was any other than that of their safe
keeping. Mr. R. had stated that the just object
of such power as the Secretary possessed, was
to control the conduct of the bank, and had not
a mere reference to its solvency, the safe keep
ing the public money. It was intended to re
serve in the Secretary a power to insure the ge
neral good conduct of the bank.
Mr. CALHOUN. One word more in reply.—
Had the charter, said Mr. C., contained no proT
vision in reference to the deposites, there would
have been no contract in reference to them be
tween the Government and the bank; and if no
contract, then the former would have had unli
mited power to make its deposites in the bank,
or to withhold them at pleasure. Such was the
case in the bill of 1S14; and of course no ques
tion could be raised between tne Dank ana uie
l Government as to the extent of its power over
the deposites, under such circumstances. Such
was the casein reference to the bill 1814; but
the case is very different under the present char
ter, which expressly provides that the deposites
shall be made in the bank; thus making them,
as acknowledged by the Secretary himself, in
his report, a subject of contract between the Go
vernment and the bank, and leaving, as the
question, the extent of the power of the Secre -
tary to withhold the deposites, in conformity to
the"contract—a question which, by no possibili
ty, could come up under the bill of 1814; and of
course nothing that could be said, in reference
to the bill could, by any possibility, be applica
ble to the present discussion.
Mr. RIVES said, that in quoting the opinion
of the Senator, he had placed the issue on the
general principle. The Senator had urged that
the only legitimate object of a power over the
deposites was the safe keeping of the public mo
ney; Mr. Rives had made it more comprehen
sive. so as to include a security for the general
good conduct of the bank; and if Mr. R. was
right in this, the Senator’s observation was ap
plicable and conclusive, and Mr. II. had held it
as high authority.
PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE.
Hagerstown, (Md.) Monday Morning.
Our military companies have just been or
dered out to suppress an insurrection on the
line of the Canal, a few miles below Williams
port. An express was sent over by Mr. Pur
cell, Chief Engineer, and a large number of
our citizens have repaired to the field of action.
The contest is between two parties of the ca
• nailers, and ’tis said that the aggressors were
well armed, and about two hundred in number.
Serious fears were entertained that they would
destroy the woks. The cause of the outrage is
supposed to be some dissatisfaction about their
pay. Several persons (Irish,) had been killed
; when the express came in.
We learn with deep regret, that the pressure
has reached Paterson, New Jersey; and, with
immense amount of property in their hands, one
or two large manufacturers have been compell
ed to yield to the exigencies; and in this city,
still further difficulties are encountered. Is there
no one to advise the powers at Washington of
the actual state of things? The people cannot
endure the evil—they have sustained almost all
that they can endure—something is due to them.
What further evidence is needed by Messrs.
Wilkins and Shepley, to prove the existence of {
a pressure? Must all become bankrupts before
i relief is offered?— U. S. Gaz. |
MR. RIVES’ SPEECH,
On the Removal of the Deposites.
[continued.]
Sir, I think that one fundamental error, in re
gard to the question, is, that it has been a?su^'
fd that the deposite of the public money in he
Bank, was the principal consideration for the
honus naid by the Bank to the Government
Now’ sfr, it if perfectly clear that the deposites
were’ no part ol the consideration foi that bonus;
the bonus was a consideration allowed in return
for banking privileges. The charter g[anted all
the privileges of the monopoly of an Ainencan
institution, and it involved much more than re
moval. Sir, were they not large enough.
They required more than a bonus of one and a
half millions, as1 an allowance for obtaining
them; they were larger than they ought to be
and larger than those of any other bank. 1 he
bank had another important privilege, accord
in" to the opinion of Mr. Madison, in 1791, an
authority equal to that of any man—the privi
lege or power of establishing subordinate banks
in every part of the United States. .Sir, are not
all these privileges equal in value to a bonus of
one and a half millions of dollars, when the old
bank of the United States was ready to pay one
million two hundred thousand, for the renewal
of its charter, and when the deposites of the
public money in its vaults should exceed three
millions, to pay, in addition on the whole inter
est of the excess over that amount. The depo
sites were not then considered as a soarce of
profit to any coincident extent, to be regarded
as a consideration for a bonus.
The Secretary is to say what are the privi
leges, and what are the duties in relation to the
deposites; and he puts the deposites in the Bank,
rather in the way of an imposition of duty, than
of granting a privilege. There is another cir
cumstance which goes to show that the depo
sites are not put in for the purpose of bestowing
a privilege; the Secretary yields the profits to
the Bank; and'to the State Institutions, and the
old bank of the United States, it was not an ad
vantage to have possession of the public depo
sites.
Under the circumstances, l believe mat mt
Government, at the time the United States Bank
was created, reserved to itself by the sixteenth
section of the charter, the absolute control over
the deposites, to withdraw or retain them, as it
pleased. The argument of the Senator from
South Carolina, seems to resolve itself into a
begging of the main question. He follows the
principle, that the trust and the power of acting
on that trust, was designed alone for the safe
keeping of the public money. Sir; this is the
very question in controversy; the question whe
ther the deposites should be made in the Bank,
not only on the ground of security, but on that
of the conduct of the Bank. That such was the
object to secure both the safety of the deposites,
and the good conduct of the Bank, will be made
manifest to the House, by perusing a speech de
livered by the same honorable gentleman from
Souh Carolina, in 1814. (Here Mr. R. read an
extract from that speech.) Pray, Sir, continu
ed Mr. R. what has been done? The Govern
ment, by that part of the charter which relates
to placing the deposites in the vaults of the
Bank, has reserved to itself the power over its
receipt of notes and deposites, as a security for
its good conduct; this object of the provision
fails, if the Secretary has not authority for any
reasons, to remove the deposites; if he cannot
do it for the illegal conduct of the Bank.
feir. 1 do not think it necessary to inquire with
regard to the sentiments of Mr. Crawford, and
the authority which his course has given, as a
precedent for the late, removal of the deposites;
but I must say that he acted on the same grounds
as did the present Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. Ingham, also, in a report to a Committee
of the other House, in 1819, took the same view
of the subject; that the Secretary of the Trea
sury has a general authority over the public mo
ney; lie withheld or withdrew the deposites from
the Bunk, whenever he thought proper; and his
reasons were satisfactory to his own mind, and
the minds of Congress. Sir, would not this be
an instance of the most extraordinary concur
rence of opinion, that this limitation was so ge
neral in its import, if it were really so strict as
the Senator from South Carolina, has stated.—
Sir, it is not only a case of the safe keeping of
the money; but any thing may authorise the ac
tion of the Secretary; the object in view is at
I tained at once, on a ground the largest and
broadest possible; the deposite was to be made
in the Bank, unless the Secretary should order
nml his notion was discretionary.
without limitations.
I say, Sir, that any reasons growing out of the
conduct of the Bank, would justify the exercise
of tne Secretary’s authority; and he at once
lets us into a general review of the conduct of;
the Bank; the Bank sustains two important re
lations; to the Government and the community.
In relation to the Government, it is bound to re
ceive, and to pay out the public money, as the ;
Government may require, to aid the operations
of the Treasury; and another important branch j
of its duty, is to observe the charter, to look to '
the conduct of the Bank, in its several relations, j
and see whether it will justify the Secretary in
continuing the deposites.
1 beg leave to recal the attention of the Se
nate, to a matter now old, but not yet fully de
veloped, the subject of the three percent stock,
which was required to be paid off bv ‘he Hank.
U? failure io uoso as required, %vas, in my
opinion, alone sufficient to forfeit the confidence
and favor of the Government. In the capacity,
by a solemn contract of a fiscal agent of the
Government, the consideration was not alone,
whether the Bank was insolvent, whether it
could pay the money, but whether it was ready
at all times to pay it, as the contract required.
Sir, is not this subject exemplified in the trans
actions of society at large? When an individu
al is to meet contingencies in the course of his
business, the consideration in lending his money,
is not merely, whether the person to whom the
loan is made is safe, but whether he can pay
promptly. What, Sir, was the conduct of the
bank in relation to the payment of the three
per cent, stock? In October, 1831, the bank had
notice to pay this part of the public debt; and
again it was notified, in 1832, to pay six and a
half millions of the three per cent, stock, on the
first of July following. Sir, was the bank ready
to fulfil its obligation to do so? No, sir. notwith
standing the indulgence which had been alrea
dy granted it, it could not meet this demand,
without producing distress in the community.—
What, at that time was the state of the bank
and what was the amount of the public funds in
its keeping, when the Government of the United '
States had promised to pay on the first of July, 1
six and a halt millions of the public debt? On 1
that day the amount of public deposites in the !
bank, was $9,S00,000. which was, in fact, more «
than three millions beyond the amount which 1
it was required to pay; yet it was not in a sit- 1
nation to do it. because, as the investigating i
Committee of the other House, in 1832, declared ^
the payment could not be made, without produ- 1
cing much distress in the community; and «
whence arose its inability, will be made to ap- (
✓
near. But, I refer to the contract to prove that
the bank was no longer entitled to the suppor
and confidence of the Government. It could
not meet the emergency, because it had used
the funds of the Government in such a manner
as to disable it. Under these circumstances,
the Secretary of Treasury was compelled to
postpone the payment; and what, then, was the
consequence? Notice having been given to
make the payment on the first of July, 183~, and
the bank fulfilling its obligation to meet the de
mand there would have been no further claim
on the Government. But the bank sought, in
another manner, by a secret negotiation in Eu
rope, to evade the obligation, and throw it back
on the Government, because such would have
been the inevitable effect of the course which
the bank pursued. It appears, that the object
of that negotiation, was, to induce the holders of
the three per cent, stock, to keep up, and not
come forward and receive payment. It ap
pears that the bank was not only capable of
making payment, but it imposed on itself a draft,
the great object of which was to effect the pub
lic policy? What,. Sir, would have been the
state of the case, if in the interval, the bank of
of the United States had become insolvent? If
it had failed in the payment of the certificates,
and if the bank had become insolvent, would
not the United States have been responsible?—
The certificates came in; it was known to the
Government, and the bank now went into its
negociation. One object of the bank, was to in
duce foreign holders not to present their certifi
cates. In doing this, the bank violated its high
est obligation in relation to its duty as a fiscal
agent of the Government.
Sir, there so many details, I cannot pursue
them all; but there is one circumstance in rela
tion to the Bank, by which it utterly forfeits its
claim to the public deposites; the charter was vi
olated in the transaction of its business. The U.
States was a large holder of capital in the Bank,
to the amount of one fifth of the whole of its
stock.
The charter required that the Government
should be represented by five Directors, and at
least seven of the Bank Directors were required
always to be present in the transaction of its af
r 1_ T1..1 _1, „ * C< : .. ....... tVin
XJ LI t w Hu Lj TT IUV/ WiiUUVU V/* Uiw
Bank?
Have not all these conditions been violated?
In regard to the transaction of the business of
the Bank, it is in evidence that every thing has
been done, not by a Board of Directors,, but by
a Committee of three; a Committee nominated
by the President of the Bank himself. It is in
evidence also, that this Committee has been act
ed upon by the President, when they, (the Com
mittee) were in ignorance of what was doing in
their name. It has been said that the Commit
tee could not admit the Directors to their delib
erations. But sir, it is known that the Directors
have been admitted and have interfered upon
other occasions. We know, aEo, that the cur
tailment was confided to a Committee of five
persons, and that the proceedings of that Com
mittee were known to the Directors. Further,
sir, in violation of that part of the charter, which
provides that no Stockholder, however large
may be ‘his interest in the Institution -shall give
more than 30 votes, the President of the Bank
has named all the Directors and himself. Sir,
every thing which has been done by the Bank,
has been involved in mystery. It was the great
object of Congress to guard against this myste
ry. A gentleman whose testimony is entitled to
implicit credit, has said that this concealment
is productive of the worst effects. This was well
known to Congress, and Congressoughtto pre
vent the evil. But all these guarantees, sir, have
been lost; have been rendered unavailing.—
There is another important relation sir, which
the Bank was called upon to sustain by the char
ter. This institution was created for the accom
modation of the community; it was to give aid
to the country, but not to afford support to gam
bling speculations, or to interfere with the poli
tical alfairs of the country. What sir, has the
Bank done. No gentleman can explain or sat
isfactorily account for the extension which has
taken place in its operations. In the short space
of sixteen months, it has increased its business
from forty two millions to seventy millions. The
Bank has attempted to account for this increase
by saying that it has received back the amount
of the loans which it had made to the govern
ment, and that it has called in its debts from
Europe; there still, however, remain 15 millions
of dollars unaccounted for, and which there is
every reason to suppose, have been devoted to
political purposes. Sir, is it not a fact that a
wont nni'tinn n f inr.rpased business, has
been effected in tiie Western States; those States
which formed the debateable ground in the last
Presidential election?
The Bank has said, sir, that it did not know
that it would have to oppose the election of a
President till after the passing of the veto. But
how does this agree with the fact? The Bank,
sir, commenced operations from the first mes
sage of the President in 1829. It adopted a res
olution placing all its funds at the disposal of
the President of the Bank for political purpo
ses. Sir, it seems that nothing can be more
clearly manifest than that the Bank, throughout
the whole of the political controversy, did, as
the Secretary affirms, descend into the political
arena. Sir, it was the enormous increase of
business to which I have alluded—*" '*ncrease ,
of twentv-ei^t minions in sixteen" months -
which pyewmcd the Bank from meeting the de
mands of Government. It has assigned other
reasons; it has said that the year in which these
demands were made was an extraordinary
year; but the true cause of its inability was that
which I have mentioned. Whatever has been
said, sir. by the Bank on this head—all the rea
sons which it has given, are utterly unsatisfacto
ry. Sir, authority was given to the President of
the Bank to expend the money of the Bank for
political purposes. This is an unprecedented
circumstance. It has been said that the Bank
was assailed, and that she had, consequently* a
right to defend herself. Sir, this is an error.—
The Bank is no party to this question. She has
no right to be heard in it. The Bank was crea
ted for a national purpose; for the national con
venience; and if the representatives of the peo
ple think that there is danger in her existence,
she must go down. It is a public question; the
Bank is no party to it; and it is in vain therefore
that she says she has been assailed and has a
right to make a defence. But, sir, if she was to
make her defence, were there not newspapers;
had she not advocates in Congress? The Hon.
Senator from South Carolina, while upon this
branch of the subject, said that if the Bank
should circulate decent essays, such a procedure
:ould De allowed. Sir, I have seen none of these
assays; but the Senator from Missouri has told
as of some, and other documents have been
seen, which are in the coarsest style of ribaldry
ind party spirit. Sir, Isay it is a circumstance
mprecedented, that a great institution should
alace all its funds at the disposal of a President .
o enable him to publish political pamphlets.—
Jpon the same principle the Bank might make
iseofall its other resources to prevent the
ilection of individuals whom it might consider i
>pposed to its interests, f 7> be continued.]
TO THE PUBLIC.
OCCUPYING, as I do, a situation of all others
the most dependent on public favor and
confidence on the one hand, and, on the other
the most liable to be traduced by those v ho may
come within the sphere of the operation of la v*
I feel it a duty I owe to myself to rebut a stav
ment which has been published in the Alexan
dria Gazette ofthe2tst instant.
Called upon in my official capacity, and nr/
as a colleague, to assist in the execution of 0n*
of the most sovereign mandates of the law, y 7
a search-warrant; in company, therefore with
my coadjutors, we proceeded to the place des>iY
nated in the warrant. We had not proceeded
far, when we met Mr: Jones and his wife in a car
riage. They passed Captain Johnston, who I
discovered, did not recognize Mr. Jones.
It has been said by Jones that I should the
have informed him of what was going on. I have
only to say, that I would consider myself unwor
thy the trust reposed in me, were I to cominun
cate to any man suspected of high crime.
When I came up with Captain Johnston. 1i
formed him that Jones had just passed him he
not having recognized him. We then followed
him, for by this time he had gone some distance
On our arrival at the carriage in which he wa*
he asked me what was the matter? I then tol l
him that he was suspected of being an accon'
plice in the robbery that was committed op o:..
of the Banks at Pniiadelphia. Well, said )•*»
what is to he done? Said I, you had better rV
turn to Mrs. Wright’s; to which proposition hk
readily consented, and thereupon turned
carriage and drove a few yards, when he disc/
vered John Smith, halted, gotout of the car •
age, and requested him to drive his wifedowj
to her mother’s, while he himself was to cr0 r.
the magistrate’s office. And here I must*5con
fess, notwithstanding Jones’ animadversions I
felt for his situation, and offered my services to
drive Mrs. Jones to her mother’s; and the olf/r
was made, too, out of the purest of motives:
when, to my utter astonishment, she replied
the utmost contempt and scorn. Not expectin'-*
such an answer, and feeling conscious that a.v
deportment did not merit such contempt i r,\
plied that I had driven persons ol respectability
and that she must think herself of great conse
quence. This is the head and front of my of
fending.
As to the charge of my dragging any or^ t
the office, I solemnly aver that 1 never touch
ed even the carriage, except when I fir t an
nounced what I have already stated, nor yet the
horse that drew the carriage: nor did I, directly
or indirectly, pursue such a course of conduct t.
has been represented.
In presenting to the public this statement, there
may be some in the community who, in refer- ;
enceto a Constable being innocent, would ha/
ly believe it, though one rose from the dead T
such I would say, you have had my manner o:
doing business since I came into office; if yo
can believe that 1 have not acted consistent;}
and have not demeaned myself properly, . .
would you not believe me, though I were to wj •
a volume in my defence. But 1 rejoice to dnnc
that no effort of Mr. Jones will lessen me in ’,e
estimation of tho^e who best know me; whov.h.
I think, award to me a disposition to commit*
rate, rather than to add insult to misfortune.
With these remarks, I respectfully submit t;.*
whole matter to public scrutiny and candor.
EDWARD BURCHELL. Constable
Alexandria. January 23. 1834—It
DR A IVS 71IIS DA V
Literature Lottery of the State of Delaware
Class No. 4 for 1834,
Will be drawn in Wilmington on Thursday
January 23
CAPITAL PRIZE $10,000.
Tickets $3 00; halves 150; quarters 0 75
To be had in a variety of numbers of
J. CORWE,
Lottery Exchange Broker, Alexandria.
DR A IVS THIS DA V
Literature Lottery of the State of Delaware
Class No. 4 for 1834,
Will be drawn in Wilmington on Thursday
January 23.
1 prize of $10,000 20 prizes of 51/
1 do of 3.000 100 prizes of
Tickets $3 00; halves 150; quarters 0 7;
On sale in great variety by
JAS. RIORDAtf*
Uricurrent Notes and Foreign Gold; :
chased.
Utu\ £ 1 IIIS JJA >
Literature Lottery ot the State of Delaware
Class No. i for 1834.
To be drawn at Wilmington, Thursday. Jo(
HIGHEST PRIZE $10,000
20 Capital Prizes of 81,000! &e. &c
To be had in a variety of numbers at
J. W. VIOLETT**
* Lucky Lottery Office.
Upper end King Sreet, near the Diagonal P
Orders from tiie country, enclosing :
cash or prize tickets, promptly attended to> _
DRAWS THIS DAY
Literature Lottery of the State of Delaware
Class No. 4 for 183 i, , I
To be drawn at Wilmington, Thursday,
75 N'l7r.bers~~ll Draun Hal lots
HIGHEST ft 10,000.
20 Capital Prizes of 81,000! &C
Tickets $3 00; halves 1 50; quarters ~r
To be had in a variety of numbers at
O. S. MORSE’S
Lottery Office
Corner of King and Royal stT'f .
Seats taken for Washington and I
more in the Pilot Line of Stages.
THOMAS LEE , a, I a
Respectfully informs his friend ,
the public that he has commenced i!h‘ . E p
BLACKSMITH & HORSE-SHOEING B
SINESS, M.
at his Shop on Royal street, next to Mr- *
Laughlin’s Grocery Store, a few doors nor--* .
the Market House, where Blacksmith’* ' ^ I ii
generally will be done with despatch. h°‘ v (,
will be neatly shod, in a scientific manner J 0]
responding to the anatomy of the foot;* ai
should the hoofbe any way disordered, > V it
wiU be given to that part of the business^
der to correct the complaint. evj , |
Having been regularly bred to the al)0 j.^ jg
siness, with an experienced workman I
ty, and having, since that period, avalk’ * Jg
self of a further knowledge of hisprofe5^ ^ I
practised in Boston and other large e H La
siders himself competent to the perform* E *3
lis duty; and hopes, by assiduity and at'i r |g O
:o merit and receive a portion ofenconrag1
Tom the public in general. j
inn 6—d3t&wtf ___I
« The DWELL?NGEHOUSE at fU I1
Shiner of King and Columbus street*, 1- Ig
nediate possession. Apply to SB
jan !7--eo7t JNO. D. VO^ Hal