Newspaper Page Text
POfitTf o _
THU MAID OF AKi'M'J INA.
[By Edward Tannaliill.]
Forlorn Among the Highland hills,
’Midst nature's wildest grandeur,
’ Mid rocky dens and woody glens,
With weary steps i wander.
The hmgsome way, the daihsome day,
The mountain mist sne rainy,
Are nought to me when gmin to thee,
maid of Air.ntma.
Von mossy rose-lied down the howe,
.lust opening fresh ami bonny
Blooms tresh beneath the liable hough,
And scarcely seen ly nn\ ;
But fairer ‘mid her native dale,
Obscurely blooms my Jcannie,
More fair than day or ro> y A lay,
The maid ol Aruntiim.
Hi; h on the mountain's lofty brow,
l view tile distant ocean,
Where avarice counts her honnden prow,
Ambition conrts promotion ;
Let fortune 1 pour her golden store,
Her luurcll’d favours many ;
’ Give me hut this, my -oul s first wish,
The maid of Aruntiim.
From Hit llrisliiujctonJYcies.
Married—ln this place on the 20th tilt. Mr.
JiiHj'h Mosclcyto Miss. Sarah T. Ij)bdell.
“ Unit veildcd tore.'' —[Milton.
tl Our Milker bids increase ; who bids abstain,
Hut our destroyer, fin to God uad man ! [lb.
It must bes thou reijson'st well.
F.lse whence this pleasing, this proud desire,
This longing after inatiiinony :
Or whence this secret dread, this inward hor
ror,
Os dying unespons'd ! Why shrinks the soul
Hack on itself, and startles hi celibacy !
‘T is instinct —faithful instinct stirs within us—
Tis nature's sell that points out an alliance,
And intimates n huslmnd to our se*. —
Marriage! tliou pleasing, vet anxious tlio’t—
Through wlmt new scenes and triuls must we
pass— fine,
Hi’ unchanging state, in prospect lips before
But shadows, clouds, and darkness rest upon it.
Here will I hold—ls nature prompts (he w ish,
(And that she does in plain irom all her works)
Our duty and our interest bids indulge it,
For the great end of nature's law is Idi.ss ;
•But vet, in wedlock, woman must ohev—
I'm wearv of these doubts—-the Priest .shall
end ‘em :
Nor rashly do I venture loss and gain,
-Bondage and pleasure meet my thoughts at
once—
I wed— my liberty-is gone forever—
Ihithappiuess from time itself secur’d :
I.ove first shall recompense my loss of free
dom,
And whentny charms shall fall awnv.my eves
Themselves grow dim—nay stature bend with
yours,
Tin'll virtuous friendship shall sneered to love,
’I hen pleas’d I II scorn infirmities and death,
Renew’d immortal in a filial race.
’ jfUfsuccllnw®)* -
From the Nantucket Inquirer.
Law. —The law has been called by
way of distinction; ‘an honorable pro
fession’—very frequently in describ
ing certain personages, the stvle used
is “ gentleman of an honorable proses
sion whi.h must always be inter
preted ‘gentlemen of the /flic.’ Now
we consider this profession in itself no
more honorable than anv other. Aijd
why it has acquired in this country an
absolute pre-eminence, no mortal can
explain in any other sense than that it
commonly present a facility for the
monopoly of numerous e.vtraneons hon
ors. In this view it indeed “ bears its
blushing honors thick about.” The
first wan in every village is the lawuer
the second the minister, the third the
doctor , and the fourth the schoolmaster.
By prescription, certain titles are pre
fixed or appended to their several
names. Pretensions alone secures
these honorable appellations; they are
bestowed indiscriminately on the char
latan and the adept—with this differ
ence ; the quack in each profession,
being the most impudent, obtains the
greatest share of practice. Unable,
perhaps, to distinguish a homicide from
a liumilv, a puke from a prc.uoun,those
pretenders constitute the nobility—
while the canaille are content to re
main simple Simons, and Nathans,and
Jonathans, and Obadiahs. The attor
ney, however, is always the greatest
man in the parish—when any public
office into be filled, he stands ready.
From all civil honors the parson, the
physician, and the pedagogue are or
dinarily excluded by their respective
avocations—and if a representative is
wanted, the ‘squire, ambitious of noto
riety and preferment, comes in e.r offi
cio. He knows who makes laws—
how they are made—and for whom ;
—and although ignorant perhaps of
human nature, and unacquainted with
the very first principles of society, he
ran construct acts adapted to anv con
dition of man— he can frame bills to
accommodate all the exigencies of-a
community. In this manner only has
the law become an honorable profes
sion. Abstractly considered, it is an
liflnoi.ible—and so is that of a cord
vvaincr—since, when legitimately pur
summl, and Iree from the interpolations
<>t cobblers,both professions contribute
to strengthen and improve our under
atandingi. In all situations in life,
we have been taught to believe that
the station conferred no honor upon
ihe man—but that on the contrnrv it
was dlil- man who ennobled the sta
tion.
Singular Hides anil Regulations.
,lt has oeen related to us as a fact,
♦hat the following rules and regulations
were posted up in a ball room in a
” •‘•teru State, for the observance of
the company. We do rot vouch for
their authenticity.
NOTICE.
“ Rules and Regulations to govern
this Rail which the Managers are de
termined to adhere to.
Rulel. All persons having shoes
and stockings will please dance Cold-1
lions.
2. All persons having shoes frtid no
>tockirijrs will please be prepared to
dance Set Dances. ,
• 3. All persons having neither shoes
nor stockings will please hold them
selves in readiness for Jigs and Scam
perdowns.
4. No Gentleman will be allowed
to smoke while dancing.
5. No gentleman will be allowed to
dance w ith his hat on.
b. If any gentleman shall got so
drunk as not to know his partner, he
w ill not be permitted to dance.
7. Any gentleman who shall wilful
ly break these rules, alter being cau
tioned three times by the managers,
shall either be longed or politeUj kick
ed out of the room.
MANAGERS.
( Duel. —A late New Orleans paper
notices a rencontre which took place
in that city a short time since between
the Sexton of one of the burying
grounds and hie,assistant. Two shots
were exchanged, and the Sextoh's as
sistant having been wounded both
times, declared himself perfectly sa
tisfied, and t'ne affair ended. The
cause of the quarrel was a profession
al dispute on the subject of grave-dig -
ging.
feting a Pun. —ln a room full of la
dies and gentlemen, a lady requested
a gentleman, who was next to the fire
place, to ring the bell. “I never be
fore,*’ said the gentleman, “ heard of
acting a pun ; for once I will try.” So
saying, he rose, pulled a gold ring
bom his finger, approached the lady
who had requested him to ring the bell
and who was the finest lady in t'ne
room, and deliberately put the ring on
one of her fingers, saying, •* it is with
much {(pleasure, indeed, that 1 obey
vour orders and thus rivthe TieUo.'’
Jinswer of the Secretary of the Treasu
ry to theaddress of JYininn Edwards.
Treasury Department, May Btli. 182-1.
The Secretary of the Treasury has had ttie
honor” to receive the letter of (lie honorable Mr.
Floyd, Chairman of a Select Committee cf the
House of Representatives, dated on the 28th
lilt, transmitting the “ Address'd” Ninian Ed
wards,” and expressing the readiness of the
Committee to receive any communication
which the Secretary nm think proper to make
in reference to the same, and he now submits
the following remarks iri answer to the accusa
tions contained in that address:
But, before he enters upon an examination
of the subjects of the “ address,” lie thinks it
due to himself to disclaim the imputation of
having taken advantage of the moment of Mr.
Edwards’ departure, to arraign the. testimony
which had been given by him before a former
select committee of the House. As the Secre
tary hail no recollection of the communica
tions to which that testimony referred, and as
they were not on record in the Treasury De
partment, he rorFdcred lumself hound to state
the fart; and the occasion which was presen
ted by the transmission (o the House of other
papers relating to the c aTrie subject, appeared a
suitable one for making the statement. The
terms in which it was made, w ill shew that no
disrespect towards Mr. Edwards was intended.
And, ii trie occasion was not earlier presented,
the delay, so far from being caused or sought
bv the Secretary .was produced by circumstan
ces beyond his control. For reasons stated to
the House at the last session, the papers could
not then be transmitted ; and, although consi
derable exertion was used.it was not until the
day on which they were scitt to the House,
that the preparation of them was completed.
ft is not deemed necessary, in tliiscvmnruni
cation, to recapitulate the injurious allegations
contained in the “address.” The lateness
of the sessmn requires despatch ; and the an
swer shall he brief nod explicit.
The first charge to lie noticed relates to two
letters w hich Mr. Edwards, in his testimony
before the committee, on the 13th of Februa
ry, 1823. h n ; u-ted to have passed lietween
the Ifeewv i'! I’liblic Moneys at F.dwards
ville. aid the Secretary of (lie Treasury, and
which not having been communicated to the
House under the resolutions of the f*tli Janu
ary. 1822. and 12th March, 1822, agreeably to
Mr. Edward's alleged expectation, and which
the Secretary havingstated to be neither on lile
or on record in Department, nor to be recol
lected by himself or his officers, he is accused
of having suppressed or denied.
As the resolutions under which it is alleged
that tlie-.c letters should have been communi
cated, call only for the corrcspondi nr.c be
tween certain “ hanks", nnfd the Secretary, it
is unnecessary to explain why, among the let
ters which were communicated, nny corres
pondence'between a “ Rcceivorand the Se
cretary,” was not to be found. Nor is it easy
to imagine how any one, informed of the tenor
of those resolutions, should have entertain
nil tins expectation,, of seeing the letters
in question among the papers which were
transmitted.
The blame of not having communicated
these supposed letters, having been thus easi
ly removed, by petering to the terms of the
resolutions themselves, which show that no
such letters were ever passed between the par
ties.
In the absence of nil direct testimony, in
support of ids assertion, Mr. Edwunis has
resorted to probabilities ; and has endeavored
to infer a confirmation of corroboration in it
favor,from circumstances that nre suicAptibies
of no such interpretation. That which be
chiefly relies open, is (he omission of the Re
ceiver at Kdwnrdsville to make Ids deposites
in the Eduard*ville Rank, in the 4th quarter
of IfHtqy’hich, he stulos, \v*s in consequence
of his publication and advice , and, be u<ks.
whether it is to la- believed (hut the Receiver
would have withheld the deposits*, contrary
to the Secretary’s orders, w ithout giving hitn
a reason ; and whether, if lie hail done so, tlie
Secretary would not Bnve called him to ac
count.
The means exist, in the monthly re
turns of the receiver, and the cones- <
pondence between him and the Sc..m
tiirv, on record in the Department, by
the aid of which,this may be investiga
ted. Copies of these papers are here
with transmitted.
Ry tliese.it will be seen, that the
first instructions given to the Receiver
to make his deposites in the Rank ot
Edwardsvilie, were of the si Ist of De
cember, 1818; that, in pursuance ol
these instructions, he made ins first
deposite in that Rank on the 28th Feb
ruary, 1819, of 812,000 at which tune
he retained in his possession a balam e
of 820,092. On the 31st of March he
deposited 84,300, and retainrd a ba
lance of gl 8,600. On the SOtli April
he deposited 83,861, and retained
819,138. In May, he made no depo
site : and in June, only 88,179 retain
ing 819,143; ami from that to the 30th
December, he made no deposite.
Whence it appears, that, with the ex
ception of a small sum, in June,amoun
ting to less than one-third ol the mo
ney then on hand, he made no deposite
between the last of April and the last
of December, a period of eight months,
during which, he retained an increas
ing balance of fiom 20,000 to 836,-
000! and that, even on the last Decem
ber, he did not pay over, bv about
810,000, all the money then in his pos
session.
Instead of a withholding of the de
posites, in the fourth quarter of the
vear, here is a retention of them, with
the exception before noticed, for eight
months. It was scarcely contended
that all these omissions of duty were
the result of the advice given by Mr.
Edwards to the Receiver, to withhold
the deposites, until he could receive
(he Secretary’s instructions. On the 1
contrary, it will he shown, by the cor
respondence, as far as it is susceptible
of being shewn, negatively, that no
part of these moneys was withheld
from deposite, upon that pretext.
On the 6th of August, at about which
time the Receiver’s monthly return,
for June, was received, the Secretary
wrote to the Receiver to know, why
he retained the public moneys in his
hands, contrary to his instructions;
and informing him, that, as there was
a bank at his place of residence, there
could be no excuse for his doing: so.
On the 1 fall ot September, (see No.
20) Mrs. Stephenson, the wife of the
Receiver, answered this letter, in con
sequence of the absence of her hus
band, and informed the Secretary, that
from what she had heard in conversa
tion, between the Receiver and others,
she believed he had retained the mon
ey to meet the drafts of certain public
agents in that country, which the Sec
retary had authorized him to purchase.
And it is to be observed, that, though
this was “ the fall of 1819,” Mrs. Ste
phenson said nothing of Mr. Edwards’
publication or advice.
On the first of November, (see No.
23) the Secretary wrote again to the
Receivei, complaining of the contin
ued detention of the public money in
his hands,w hich he presumed had been
the result of his letter of the 9th Apt il
(see No. 17) and directed, that, imme
diately on receipt of this letter,he will
pay into bank, the whole of the public
inon ey in his possession on the 30th
instant, and farther instructing him
not to consider the letter of the 9th of
April is authorizing him to retain the
public money in his hands at the end
of each month. Here, it appears,that
so far from attributing the withhold
holding of the deposites to the cause
alleged by Mr. Edwards, the Secreta
ry attributes it to the cause assigned
by Mrs. Stephetnon, in her letter of
18th ol September. And it is worthy
of remark, that this is the last letter
on record, from the Secretary to the.
Receiver, in relation to the deposites
in the year 1819; and that this was
the last letter written to him, on that
subject in that year, will appear by a
reference made to it, in a letter from
♦he /Secretary to the Receiver, of the
20th of April, 1820, (see No. 26)
which is more particularly noticed
hereafter.
On the 28th October, (see No. 22)
the Receiver, who had then returned
home, wrote to the Secretary, ac
knowledging the receipt of a letter of
the 21st of September, (see No. 21)
with anew form of an account cur
rent.
On the sth of November, (see No.
24) the Receiver wrote to the Secre
tary, enclosing a draft, which he had
purchased, transmitted his monthly
return for October, and noticing a
small error in bis account for August.
On the iGth of November, (see No.
25) he again wrote to the Secretary,
enclosing the 2d of die draft, which lie.
had transmitted on the sth. But in all,
this time, there was no allusion to Mr.
Edwards’ publication and advice;
although “ the fall of 1819,” was now
nearly gone.
At last, on the 31st of December,
(see No. 12) the Receiver made a
deposit? in bank; in consequence,
it is fairly to be inferred, of the pe
remptory or Jer of the Secretary, of
the Ist of November, ami in &:*-
quence ol that onlv.
That Mr. Edward’s publication and
advice were not the cause ol the re
tention of the money, by the Receiver
before the 18tli of September, is man
ifest from Mrs. Stephenson’s letter ol
that date.
That no such cause of retention ex
isted, within the knowledge ol the
Secretary,before the Ist of Novem
ber, is manifest from his letter of that
date. If the Receiver, had, at any
time between the date of his wife’s
letter and his own letter ol the 16th
of November, made the communica
tion all edged bv Mr. Edwards, it is to
be presumed that he would, in some
manner or other, have alluded to it
in that letter, or in the previous one
of the 3th of November. He must
have discovered, on his return from
Kentucky, that the Secretary was dis
satisfied'with him for retaining the
public money in his hands. He must
have been aware, that every subse
quent return which he transmitted
to the Treasury, us it exhibited an in
creasing balance, and as it shewed
(bathe made no deposites in bank,
would aggravate the Secretary’s dis
satisfaction. Under suchcircumstan
ces, what would be so natural tor him
when he had occasion to write to the
Secretary, as to make some allusion to
the communication which explained
the reason of his apparent disobe
dience, and to the instructions which
he had expected in answer, for the go
vernment of his conduct in that im
portant particular ? The presumption
is, that, if such a justification of his
conduct as is now pretended, had ex
isted, he would, without doubt, have
assigned it; but instead of doing so,
1 Hie'contented himself with the excuse
made bv Mrs. Stephenson. Therefore,
he was silent on the subject. He wait
ed the result of her letter, 1 hat, lie
received in December; and, accord
ing! v, in December, it is found that, in
partial compliance with the peremp
tory order contained in the Secreta
ry’s answer to his wife’s letter, he
made a deposite in the bank.
That no other letter was written to
him on the subject of his depositee, af
ter that of the Ist of November, is to
he inferred from the tenor of the Sec
retary’s letter of (he 20th April, 1820,
which was produced by his renewed
remissness. This letter begins thus :
“ On the first ofNovember last, you
were instructed to pay into bank the
whole of the money in your hands on
the 30th of that month, and not to re
tain the public money in your hands
at the end of each month. By reler
ring to your monthly returns for the
months of December, January, and
February, it appears that the instruc
tion has not beer, complied with'—a
sum exceeding S 10,000, upon an ave
rage, having been retained by you du
ring those months. As the bank in
which your deposites have been di
rected to he made, is established in
the place in which your oltice is kept,
the retention of the money, or any part
of it, one day beyond the expiration of
the month, is without any apparent
excuse..” After again repeating the
directions for him to deposite, and re
marking upon some irregularity in his
returns, the Secretary concludes thus :
It is expected that all regulations,
addressed to public officers will be
promptly complied with; ami that,
when; from any circumstance, this
should be found impracticable, the
cause of non-compliance shall be com
municated without delay.”
If any instruction in relation to his
deposites had been given to the Re
ceiver, since the order of the Ist of
November, that order would scarcely
have been referred to alone. And, if
any excuse or explanation had been
received by the Secretary, subse
quent to the Ist of November, such as
wouid have been afforded by Mr. Ed
ward’s publication and adviee, the or
der of the Ist of November, would
not have been repeated and renewed
as an order unsatisfied and unanswer
ed. ‘Fhe style and manner of this let
ter of April 20 indicate not only that
neglect had occurred, but that no ex
planation had been offered for the
neglect, ’flic Receiver’s answer con
firms this conclusion. ‘I he Receiver
had found, by the letter of tne Ist of
November, that, so far the excuse of
fered by Mrs. Stephenson of retaining
money to meet the Indian payments,
had been admitted. But, when, in
the month of April following, he was
called upon to account for his subse
quent omissions of duty, omissions for
which that excuse would no longer
avail, would he not, in justification of
himself, have naturally referred to
any and every letter that lie had wi it
ten on the subject and if, jp any such
letter, lie had made a communication
of the kind alleged by Mr. Edward*,
would he not, on this occasion, have
made some allusion to it ?
Ail these circumstances, corrobo
rating each other so fully, ar c not only
irreconcilable with the inference
which Mr. Edwards draws from the
withholding ot the deposites by the
Receiver,but they lead inevi-aV v
the conclusion, that the aiu'J- *
nmmcation of his* publication*
vice as a reason for MtiUiholdi.?-
deposites, was never made to *
ceivod by, the Secretary, and’ t U T
such letter, as he alleges to | m . o *
written by the secretary, w ;i , eil ’
written in consequence df ev ’ I
communication. SUti
There is, however, other test;*,
furnished by the Receiver an,i t
Edwards themselves, which emc 1
this conclusion.
Mr. Edwards has stated, on
that lie made the publication,
it specially communicated to i[ f . V*’
rotary of his intention to n, „ 1
from the Bank,and his deternji;y' 1 ’
to relieve himself from all n, “, oil
bility in regard to it, leaving
ret ary to judge for himself, ti Uftl V’
returns, which he required it tn l(1
of the propriety of continuing it
posit ory of public money that *s*
cording to the pledge which he tj
given in his publication, he reiimy
uis seat as a director. And, tiiou%!’
he was otice elected to the same su
tion since that time, he refused to at
cept it, nor lias lie had any thin* g
do with the management of the r ’
since the fall of the year 1819.
Yet in the following winter, )| r
Edwards is found presenting himstl,’
to the Secretary, not only in the char,
acter of a director of the Banket ij
conclude an important
with the Secretary, in respect to the
terms on which the Rank was to con
tinue a depository of public
Ry the printed papers accornpanjm*.
the Secretary’s report to the House
of the 27th of April, 1822, it appear;*
that, on the 16th of February, lfto*
Mr. Edwards being then in V\ashing
ton,transmitted to the Secref ary a let
ter from the Hank to the Secretin
signed by this very Receiver as Ptesi".
dent of the Bank, containing a list 0 ,
the directors, for the year 1820, in
which Mr. Edwards name is included;
that, at the same time, he also trans
mitted to the Secretary a letter from
the Bank, signed by the sameJli.
Stephenson, informing the Secretary
that Mr. Edwards, “one ofthednec
torsofthe institution” is authorized
to suggest certain modifications of
the contract Detween the Secrotary
and the Rank, and to conclude sink
arrangements as he mav deem accep
table, “ w hich w ill be considered ob
ligatory and he likewise transmit
ted, at the same time, a letter fra
the Rank addressed to himself signtd
also bv Mr. Stephenson, statingt<
him at large the charges desired Ijj
the Rank, and the reasons therefor.
Is this compatible with the imp
sions which the satement, contain
in his testimony is calculated top
duce ? If he had ceased to he i di
rector, and publicly withdrawn tarn
all concern in the nianageuttt! of.
■ the bank, in ‘’the fall of 18,19,“W
was it that Mr. Stephenson, tin Re
ceiver, the President of the M,
who, as well from his official situation
‘ as from “ the know n friendship anil
intimacy” (Address, page 14)
Mr. Ed wards has stated to have sub
sisted between them, may be suppos
ed to have known something ot b> s
conduct and views in regard to tie
Bank, should, so soon alter Mr. Ed
ward's public withdrawal, have wit
ten to him, and constituted him. itt
his character of director, the represen
tative of the bank, in a negotiation ’ i'- 11
the Secretary—that Secretary, v®
Mr. Edwards was so anxious towns
ly of his having no connexion vvitbw
Bank? And, finally, how coujiihe
if such had been the fact, connnM
cate t.o the Secretary, without tips
nation, all these papers, which were
totally at variance with it r if he *
supposed the Secretary to have
informed/ at tine time of his
withdrawn from the Bank, i ! ’ l ’
would he not also have suppose l ! 1 " 1
the would be at some jp
on receiving these papers, to ui" ,el
stand what w'as Mr. Edwards’ a ,l 1
relationship to the Bank.” If !' e
not wished to be considered hj ‘ .
Secretary, as a director and *| en ,
the Bank which the papers
would he not; in some way,h* ve ?” ■
him to understand that lie was mp I'’ 1 '’
—lnstead of doing this, in his
to the (Secretary, accompany lll ? I
pers, lie referred to them us !u‘} 1
planatory of their object, and them,
gave bis assent to their contents.
Evidence might, indeed, he
positive ; but, taking ad the
circumstances in connexion wit I li
other, it is doubtful w hether * n J .
gative evidence could more s*.
to lily established the convention,
any candid mind, that no j.
munication, as Mr. Edwards
lodged ever passed between the - LL
tary and the Receiver. f , j
Mr. Edwards claims to have 1 .
further confirmation on dm 1 j
•er’s letter having been writ n
vreceived by the Secretary, 11 j |t
expressions used by the
speaking of the letteralledge’
[Continued on scroiidp'T J