Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

i « VOL. III. M1LLEDGEVILLE, GEORGIA, TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1823. No. 51. PUBLISHED WEEKLY, «r.S'. CKAVTLAXnSf R.M. OR ME, On Hancock Street, opposite the Auction Store, 1 JlTTHRRK DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OK FOUn DOLl. A (IS AT THE E.XF1RAT10N OK THE TEAR. O’ Advertisements conspicuously inserted at the customary rates. Letters on business, in all cases, must be tost paid r- 1 - 1 " 11 ■■ *■ *■" — FROM THE NATIONAL INTELLIUKNCEit. LETTER FROM GEN. SMYTH, To the Freeholders of the Counties of Wash ington, H i/the, Russell, Tazewell, Lee, and Scott, Fellow Citizens : It i« notv about twen ty-four years since one of the Represen tatives of the State of Vermont was con fined some months in it loathsome dun geon, for having, before the passage ol the sedition act, written a vindication of his opinions respecting the official con duct ofthe Executive of the U. States.— Let us thank Heaven that those evil times are gone by ; that the sedition law is no more ; and that the Representa tive may express to his constituents his opinions ofthe qualifications and public conduct of public men. If we would preserve those rights, on the exercise ot which all others depend, let us be cau tious whom we select to rule over u«. The election of Chief Magistrate of this great nation, whose patronage a- tnounts to many hundred thousand dol lars annually, and who ha« power to e- jeet from office all who will not s': nr>- “ unless each, in its department, is inde- “ pendent and absolute." “ The English constitution is the rc- “ suit ofthe. most mature deliberation on “ universal history and philosophy.” “ The Lacedemonian republic may, “ willt propriety, be called monarchical, “ and had the three essential parts of the “ best possible government ; it was a mix- “ ture of monarchy, aristocracy, and de- “ mocracy.” “ Unless three powers huve an abso- “ lute vote or negative to every law, the •‘constitution can never be preserved.” “ Orders of men, watching and balanc- “ ing each other, are the only security.” “ Nothing has ever effected [protect- “ ing the laws, liberties, and properties “ ofthe people,] but three different or- “ ders of men, bound by their interest to “ watch over each o'Jicr, and stand the “ guard run ofthe law.” “ Tvr nnv will be the effect, whoever “ are. the. governors, whether the one, “ the fen, or the many, it uncontrolled ( ftn) with reference to the Rights of Mi mies of reform, against an oppressed people, tell them that they have delegat ed all their collective power, and insult them by saying that their tyrannical go vernment 11 protects their rights, and guards thei, liberties.” It is worthy of particular remark, at what tune these essays were written—in June, 1791, when all the friends ofliber- ty had high hopes ofthe happy termina tion of the French revolution. Some excesses, it is true, had been committed ; hut it was not until January, 1793, that (he King was put to death. At such a time, to write against changes of govern ment favorable to the rights of the. peo ple, proposed to be effected by conven tions, was au offence against liberty, that the friends of free government ought not to pardon. As Mr. Adams complains that one of bis expressions lias been distorted mil misrepresented in the newspapers, I will copy it. Mr. Jefferson having writ “ by equal laws, made by common con “ sent, an I supported, protected, and en- “ forced, by three different orders of men, “ in equilibria." “ In America, the balance is nine- “ tenths on the side of the people; in- •• deed there is hut one order.” L :ch are the principles which Mr. Ada.os was taught by his highly respect 'd father. They inculcate that the Bri ll government is the most perfect of .ill governments. The executive branch litical hallelujahs, (a power stormy used j of this admired government is a heredi- during the administration of President I <«ry monarchy, in which the most de- Adams,) is the most important that the bauched man in the kingdom may suc- people have to mike. It is the duty of cecd a madman, and he himself he suc- their political watchmen, their Repre sentatives, to warn them, if danger to their liberties is likely to proceed from such an election. I performed that du ty toward you, in afr.mk, candid, tempe rate manner, in a letter which I did not cause to be inserted in the newspapers, but which was certainly not confidential. 1 find myself, in consequence thereof, en gaged in a controversy, before the whole nation, with one of the candidates for the office of President, and called on to ac knowledge error, or defend the cause of truth. I choose the latter. In my former address, I passed slight ly over the connection of Mr. Adams with a former President ; but Mr. Adams teem- to be unwilling that it should be thus slightly passed over. I admit that the people of the United States, wlieu they consider the recorded political sen timents of President Adams, and that fruit of his administration, the sedition act, ought not thus slightly to pass it over. Air. Adams speaks of iiis filial piety, and doubtless the political principles 1 have alluded to are indelibly impressed on bis mind. I have extracted from a celebrat ed misnamed political work, some of those principles, and copied others from the selections made by another hand, and present them to your consideration. “ I only contend,” says President A- dams, “ tliat the English constitution is, “ in theory, the most stupendous fabric “ of human invention, both for the ad- “ justment of the balance, and the pre “ vention of its vibrations.” “ Go into every village in New F.ng- “ land, and you will find that the office “ of justice of the peace, and even the “ place of representative, which has e- “ ver depended on the freest election of “ people, have generally descended, from “ generation to generation, in three or “ four families at most.” “ There are, and always have been, “ in every state, numbers possessed of “ some degree of family pride, who have “ been invariably encou raged, if not flat- “ tered in it, by the people.” “ And if I should undertake to say, “ there never was a good government in “the world, that did not consist of the “ three simple species of monarchy, art's- “ tocracy, and democracy, 1 think I may “ make it good.” “ I shall shew that a nobility or gentry, ‘‘ in a popular government, not over- ** balancing it, is the very life and soul of t‘ it.” “ They [the essays of the greatest “ writers,] are very much to our purpose, “ to shew the utility and necessity of “ different orders of men, and of an c- “ quilibrium of powers anil privileges.” “ The only remedy is, to throw the rich and the proud into one group, in “ an assembly, and then tie their hands.” “ By placing them alone by themselves, “ the society avails itself of all their abi- “ lities and virtues ; they become a so- “ lid check to the representatives them- “selves, as well as to the executive “ power: and you disarm them entirely “ofthe power to do mischief.” “ Democracy becomes tyranny. How “ shall this he prevented ? By giving it “ an able and independent ally in an arts “ tocratical assembly, with whom it may “ unite against the unjust and illegal de- “ signs of any ene man.” “From this example, as from all o “ thers, it appears, that there can be no “government of laws, without a balance, “ and that there can be no balance with- “ oat three orders ; and, that even three 11 orders can never balance each other, ceeded by a female child, as chief ma-1 gistrate of a mighty empire, and in no j responsible to its laws. The Se- ] nate consists of upwards of three bun- 1 dred hereditary nobles, whose number the king may increase ut pleasure ; to gether with twenty six clergymen, of the dominant sect. The House of Rep resentatives contains three hundred and thirty lour representatives of boroughs, the most of which contain less than one hundred voters ; many less than ten vo ters ; and some no more than one vo ter. The Parliament may continue as long as they, with the King, please ; at present the period is seven years ; it has been some i nes one, and sometimes three years ; but Parliaments have con tinued twelve and eighteen years. The King has a negative on the laws, ap points the bishops and arch-bishops, mid convenes and dissolves the. convocations of the clergy. Such is the most stupen dous fabric of human invention, and the most perfect of all forms of government, according to President Adams. Mr. Adams, in bis paper signed “ Pub- licola,” and wiitten in 1791, apparent ly for the purpose of preventing any re form in the British government, animad verts on the work entitled “ The Rights of Man,” written by Mr. Paine, in an swer to an essay written by Mr. Burke, who denied the right of a people to change their government. Mr. Burke, in speaking of the French revolution, af firmed, that “ if the majority of any other people, the people of England for in stance, wish to make (he same change, they have the same right ; just the same undoubtedly ; that is, none at all." The doctrine of Mr. Paine was different.— He said that “ the end of all political as sociations is the preservation ofthe rights of man, which rights are liberty, proper ty, and security ; that the nation is the source of all sovereignty derived from it.” That “ when a nation changes its habits of thinking, it is no louger to be governed as before.” He spoke the language of our declaration of indepen dence, and of our bills of rights. Mr. Adams took up the pen on the side of Burke, the advocate for established abu ses, and argued* that, for the British go vernment to call a convention would be a flagrant breach of trust, and the abdi cation ofthe authority lawfully commit ted to them. They might, he said, dis solve themselves ; but calling a conven tion by act of parliament appeared to him to involve an absurdity. “ It is thus : “ 1 have no doulit our citizens will “ rally a second time round the standard “ of common sense”— Mr. Allans, speak ing of this and other expressons, says, “ They seem, like the Arabiaa prophet, “ to call upon all true believers iu the “ Islam of democracy, to diaw their “ swords, and in the fervor oftheirde- “ votinn, to compel all their roentrytnen “ to cry out “ There is but one Goddess “ of Liberty, and Common Sense is her “ prophet.” This was a skirmish ofthe wit of Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams say* his opinion of PainS A: his writings was not then (in 1791) ve ry exalted. His opinion then was very different, not only from that of Mr. Jef ferson, but from oilier distinguished men of that day, as well as from the opin ions of the Congress ofthe United States, expressed sifter the close of the revolu tion. And Mr. Adams himself, in 1791, has coupled the name of Mr. Paine with that of Mr. Jefferson, and said, “ both “ those gentlemen are entitled to the “ gratitude of their countrymen.” Mr. “ Burke spoke ol Mr. Paine as “ the au- “ thor ofthe celebrated pamphlet which “ prepared the minds of the people for “ independence.” Lord Lrskine suid, in “ 1792, 1 can only say that. Mr. Paine “ may be right throughout, but that Mr. “ Burke cannot. Mr. Paine bus been “ uniform in his opinions ; but Mr. “ Burke has not.” Yet it seems Mr. Adams’s opinion of Mr. Paine was not very exalted ; although he unites him with Mr. Jefferson, and Lord Erskine prefers him to Mr. Burke. Let us hear the opinion ol' Congress. “ August £6, 1783. “ On the report of a committee, con sisting of Mr. Gerry, Mr. Petit, and “ Mr. King, to whom was referred a “ letter on the 13th from Thomas Paine. “ Resolved, That the early, unsolicit ed, and continued labors of Mr. Paine'. “ itrexpl lining and enforcing the prinn- “ pics of the late revolution, by iuge- “ nious and timely publications upon the “ nature of liberty and civil government, “ have been well received by the cilir “ zens of these states, and merit the ap- “ probation of Congress ; and that, in “ consideration of those services, and “ the benefits produced thereby, Mr. “ Paine is entitled to a liberal gralificu- “ tion from the United States.” “ October 3, 17 C ft. “ On the report of the committee “ consisting of Mr. lloivel and Mr. “ Long, to whom were referred sundry “ ietters from Thomas Paine, and the “ report on his letter of the 14th Sep- “ tetnber. “ Resolved, That the Board of Trea- “ surv take order for paying to Mr. “ Thomas Paine the sum of three thou- “ sand dollars,* for the considerations “ mentioned in the resolution of the “ 26th of August last.” Mr. Adams very adroitly attempts to draw your attention to the exceptionable writings of Mr. Paine, published subse quent to the date of bis own essay, enti tled Publicola; but they can have no effect on the character of Mr. Paine, and not,”§ says Mr. Adams, “ a mechanical j his writings, as it stood in 1791 : nor “ horror against the name of a King, or! do they afford any apology for Mr. A- of aristocracy, nor a physical antipathy “ to the sound of an extravagant title, or “ to the sight of an innocent ribband, “ that can authorise a people to lay vi- “ olent hands upon the constitution which “ protects their rights and guards their “ liberties.” It is a singular circumstance, that the enemy of reform whose arguments wore most relied on in England, in 1792, in opposition to “ The Rights of Man,” was a native American citizen—Mr. Adams. When the prosecution agninst Mr. Paine for writing the Rights of Man came on to be tried, the attorney general relied on the arguments of Mr. Adams to prove that, to write against hereditary govern ment, the crown anJ parliament, was a libel. The principles of liberty must indeed be scorned and abhorred by that American citizen, who, in a contest for human rights on the other side of the Atlantic should take the side of the ene- ’oes Publicolu, No. 5. § No. 4. ams, whose object seems to have been to discourage the progress of liberty, and to lower the standing of Mr. Jefferson, whose name he had no occasion to make use of, if his sole object was to combat the arguments of Mr. Paine. 1 now proceed to consider the expla nations given by Mr. Adams, of those votes from which 1 drew the conclusion, that !.o opposed the administration ol Mr. Jefferson, mid is no statesman. Mr. Adams would not vote for the act to bike possession of Louisiana, as he says, because the second section was uncon- * How partial is fortune ! The man who, by his powerful pen, “ phekarkd iiis minus or THK PEOIU.E FOR INDEPENDENCE,'’ Without which the sivord could not have achieved it, received three thousand dollars; and Mr. Adams has received, as hus been stated, ncaily one hundred thousand DOLLARS. For what ser vices ? Ofthe diplomatic correspondence of .Mr. Adams, during ids several missions under the federal administration, so much has been deemed worthy to appear in the state papers as might make three common pages. stitulioiial. That section provided a temporary government, organized on the principles ofthe former foreign govern ment, to coutinue until the end of the then present session of Congress. He admits now that Congress have a con structive power to pass such a law ; but says tlie advocates for the bill could not shew the power. 1 should have expected the advocates of the bill to coutend, and a statesman readily to assent, that beyond the limits of the United Slates this nation has the same power and rights that any other na tion has beyond its limits , that the.se rights can only be exercised by the go vernment, either with or wilhoot law, as the case shall require ; that the trea ty-making power of this government is as full and perfect as the treaty-making power of other governments ; that Con gress have power to make all laws ne cessary and proper to carry into execu tion any power vested in the govern ment ; and, consequently, have power to pass the necessary laws to carry into execution the treaty-making power. I should have expected them also to have called in aid that clause ofthe constitu tion which provides that Congress shall have power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States ; and, as Mr. Adatns says, that, “ ofthe power to “ make the treaty,” he had no doubt, as “ having been granted by the constitu- “ (ton ;” I cannot perceive how it hap pened that the advocates of tlio measure found it impracticable to cotiviuce him that Congress possessed power to pass the laws uecessary and proper to carry the treaty into effect. Mr. Adams does not appear to have expressed any objection to the provisi ons of the act for taking possession of Louisiana, as conferring arbitrary power. He was opposed, lie says, to any legislation respecting Louisiana. If the treaty ol’cession had not changed the rights ofthe inhabitants, they would have no cause to complain of being, for a few weeks, governed, as they had be fore that time been governed ; and this law, which Mr. Adams opposed, guaran tied to those inhabitants what before they did not pos.-ass, the fref. enjoy ment OF THEIR LIBERTY, FRUPERTY, AND religion. No tiew power was to be exercised in Louisiana ; the powers usually exercised there were restrained, and the salutary exercise thereof en joined. Mr. Adams it seems, would have ta ken possession of Louisiana, and would then have taken the sense ofthe inliab itants of that country, before he would have passed any laws to have force there. Well ; suppose Gen. Wilkinson and his army iu possession of the coun try and its fortifications ; the sense of j the inhabitants is taken, and the various | people from all the nation- of Europe, like men of color, the VVashioangns, and I the Indians, are brought to the poll, and a majority of the whole number vote against being subject to, or united with, the United Stales. Would Mr. Adams, as a statesman, have given up the country, and lost our 13 millions ? Perhaps Mr. Adams might have admit ted that we had a right to the land ; but even that could not be sold without legis lating for Louisiana. The doctrine con tended for by Mr. Adams will not do in practice. We possess the same rights as other nations, and the same power as other governments, without the limits of the state. War is a game, which, if we should at any time play at, as we must pay what we lose, 90 we shall take what we win. But neither Ceylon nor Cuba can become one ofthe Uoited States, by treaty. That can only happen by the consent of the American People in Congress assembled ; fur Congress a- lone has power to admit a state. The President and Senate cannot, by treaty, exercise a power, which the stales and thejpeople have committed only to Con gress. It is worthy of special remark, that Mr. Adams, iu the treaty negociated by him with Spain, provides that the inha bitants of tile Floridas “ shall be incor porated in the Union ofthe U. States, “ as soon as may be consistent w ith the “ principles ofthe Federal Constitution, “ and admitted to the enjoyment of all “ the privileges, rights, and immunities, of the citizens of the United States.”—• We find no provision here for asking the consent ofthe people of Florida. But Ibis is not all. Mr. Adams was desired by the Committee of Foreign Relations to prepare a bill for the government of Florida ; he did prepare such a hill, or cause it to bo prepared, and sent it to the Committee of Foreign Relations.— The act founded thereon contains the following clause : “ Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, “ That, until the end of the first session of “ the next Congress, unless provision for “ the temporary government of said ter- “ ritories be sootier made by Congress, “ alt the military, civil,, and judicial pow- “ ers exercised by the officers of the ex- “ isting government of the same territo- “ lies, shall be vested in such person and “ versons, and shall be exercised in such “ manner, as the President of the United “ States shall direct, lor the maintaining “ the inhabitants ol'said territories in the “ free enjoyment of their liberty, pro- “ perly, and religion.” Such was the form of government, prescribed for Florida by Mr. Adams ; and, he tells you, that against the perfectly regulut exercise, for the purposes of the most rigorous justice, of the powers thus pre scribed by Mr. Adams himself, “ the Halls of Congress, the slreetH of your cities, the summits of your mountains, aud the echoes of your valleys, have resounded with clamors of violated right*, and unconstitutional acts of despotism.” For the grant of this “ tremendous pow er,” as Mr. Adams terms it, his apology is, that “ the pinciple had not been set tled” iu 1803 : and that the powers of Congress are now “ established by the construction then (in 1803) given to the constitution.” Yet he says “ were the question now a new one, I have no hesi- tation in saying, that 1 shall retain the same opinion, and give the same " vote.” And is this the true construction of our constitution, that a single act passed by Congress, establishes a power claimed by that body, and makes it the duty of every member in the minority to give up his opinion, although if the question was new he should retain it ? If this be so, there is no real difference between our constitution and that of England, where, whatever has been once done, may be constitutionally done again. This is not such an opinion of the paramount delegations ofthe constitution, as ought to be entertained by one who aspires to take the oath, to “preserve, protect, and dcftfnd the constitution of the U. States.” As Mr. Adams so readily yields to pre cedent, it is unfortunate that he was not, iu 1803, intimately acquainted with our statute book, or he would there have found a precedent, not indeed exactly in point, but one which I deem much strong er than tlie act for taking possession of i_.onsisana. In 1790, North-Carolina ceiled to the United Stales her western territory, and the U. States accepted the cession. The territory contained about 90,000 citizens ofNorth-Carolina,whose rights ceitaiuly were not less than those of the inhabitants of Louisiana under Spain. Congress, and the President, Washington, without asking their con sent, gave them u government, and pro- ' lie 1st of January, 1608, should be found in company with Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Jackson, (hi Senulois from Georgia, anil Mr. Ellery, Senator form Rhode Island; for Georgia then imported slaves, and probably desired to continue in the ex ercise of the pi ivilege ofimportingslaves as long as possible ; and some very dis tinguished citizens of Rhode Island have continued the trade long after 1808.— Although Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Jackson, were friends to the administration ofMr. Jefferson, it was not in that capacity that they voted with Mr. Adams against bung ing in a bill to suppress the slave trade, ut as representatives of the interests ol Georgia. I admit they were in the same dilemma with Mr. Adams. He tulle you that in 1803 he voted against bringing in a bill to suppress the slave trade after 1-3 January, 1808, because, in his opin ion, it w as unconstitutional. “ But the principle having been settled, (hat the ” prohibition might be enacted in antici- " pation,” he voted for the bill in Janua ry, 1807. His vote does not appear by the Journal ; hut it i* presumed that he states it, correctly. Here another con stitutional principle is settled with a fa cility that shows how light constitutional objections weigh with Mr. Adams.— How was this point settled ? Why, by a simple vote ot (he Senate alone, giv ing leave to bring in the bill, and reading it twice. Not even a vote of Congress was necessary to settle this question, and to remove the conscientious and consti tutional scruples of Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams is by no means justifiable iu placing General Washington at the head of those who, in 1789, denied to Congress, for 20 years, the power to prohibit the Slat e i rade. lie presided over the Convention with his wonted dignity, bat he took no part in forming the Constitution ; and Virginia, one of whose delegates he was, voted to pro hibit the Slave Trade from the 1st of January, 1800, instead of 1808 , but it was decided otherwi-ie by New-Hump- shire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mary land, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. I shall make no reply to the reasons which Mr. Adatns has assigned for some other votes which I disapproved, but leave to you to consider those votes and his reasons together. He is pleased to say that my charges are groundless and sent, gave them a government, and pro- unproved;to!. I he assertion that those vided them with laws, in the making of c ^nrges are groundless, is certainly a9 -.li-l ,i— i---i *--- ' unfounded as any assertion that Mr, w hich they had no share. Their govern or and judges were appointed by th President, some of them sent from III original states, and vested with pow er to adopt such laws of any ofthe states, criminal rim)civil, as might be necessary, which should he in force, unless disap proved by Congerss. Now, I apprehend, that, if Congress in 1790 had power to legislate for the people of the territory ceded by N. Carolina, a people accus tomed to self government, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of Ameri can citizens, they had at least an equal right to legislate for the people inhabi ting the territory ceded by France. If the U. States may govern American citi zens without their consent, to prepare them for self government, (as is now done in all our territories) they might, in like manner, govern the inhabitants of a territory ceded by a foreign power, who never possessed the right of selfgovern- j merit, I As to the printed speech of Mr. Adams, j he may be assured that I never knew j or heard that he hud delivered a printed speech in the Senate respecting Louisia na, or any other subject, before my former address to you was written. Alter the cession by France, and de livery of possession to the United States, the sovereignty either vested in them, or in the inhabitants of tlie territory, of all the classes and colors. In the Flori da treaty, negociated by Mr. Adatns as Secretary of State, “ IBs Catholic ma- I jesty cedes to the U. Slates, in full rtio- ' pf.rty and sovereignty, all the terri tories,” &c. According to the Secreta ry ol State, the sovereignty passed to the United Slates ; but according to Senator Adatns the sovereignty of Louisiana when it passed from France, vested in the inhabitants of the ceded territory. I As Mr. Adams has two opinions, I will | take that which 1 most approve, apd conclude that the sovereignty, aud the Adams could make ; for the evidence E 011 which those charges rest, are his .. votes of record on the journals ofthe Senate. His memoranda of his motives, it they justify him in giving those votes, are known to himself alone. As to pro vocation, I admit Mr. Adams has not giveu me any, other than that which is offered to every citizen who sees a man aspire to the Presidential Chair, whoso long-fixed political sentiments be disap proves, as highly dangerous, and from whom he does uot expect the adoption ol a liberal system ol policy, such as becomes the only free nation, the hope of mankind. 1 should consider myself censurable it my opposition to Mr. Adams arose from private pro vocation. Mr. Adams himself says, that public principles can be settler] only by public discussion, lie ought, then, rather to he gratified that an opportuni ty has been afforded him for public dis cussion. He says that he would have been satisfied had I merely declared to you my intentions, as to him. I doubt not that the reasons which 1 have assigned for my opposition are what chiefly interests him. But, although Mr. Adams would huve excused me trom offering the rea sons which decided me to be opposed to him, you would not have been satisfied with a simple declaration that I was op posed to him, without hearing the rea sons (or such opposition. I considered what you had a right to require, and not what would be agreeable to Mr. Adatns. I might here close my reply - but Mr. Adams seems dissatisfied that I did not adduce more of his votes given in the Senate ofthe United States, lie affirms, with apparent earnestness, that he ne ver gave a vole either in hostility to (ha administration of.Mr. Jefferson, or indis- | regard to republican principles, or in aversion to republican patriots. If all this be so. it is unfortunate Shat the name consequent power to regulate the com- j ^ r ’ Miould, during die first rnerce of the country, v.a* iu tlie United ! ) e "' 3 0 “U sfil ' ice *u the benato, be so sn TLo,- lono frequently lound united with Hid nat States. There was no objection in 1803 1 1o tlie immediate prohibition of the im portation of slaves from abroad ; for a privilege to import slaves until 1800, was reserved, by the constitution, on 1 v to such of the original states as should think proper |o use it. But, Mr. Adams says, that slaves might have been brought into Louisiana by the way of Georgia ; it was therefore useless to prohibit then being imported directly into Louisiana, from abroad. If this is good reasoning, there should be no quarantine regula tions at our cities on the Atlantic ; for the yellow fever may, perchance, be brought by land from New-Orleans. It is not at all remarkable, that Mr. Ad ams in voting in 1803 against the proifitii tion of the importation of slaves after ly found united w ith thd names of those who were the steady opponents of the repuhlir.au administration, and of re publican principles. Oh the 2d of December, 1303, Mr. Adams voted, iu a minority of 10,* n- gainst the 12th amendment to the consti tution of the United Stales, which pro vides that the electors shall designate in their ballots tor w hom they vole as I’n. sideat, and tor whom as Vice President. Thus he seen, to have approved of tie: former provision, under which the feder al party in Congress attempted to rnnke Aaron Burr President, when not a single vote had been given for him by the elec tors, with intention to rniku him Presi- * Aitain* JPicier:..', , Rutter, Deyton, (1 illli Humor, Xruey, VVoll iNC, Olroi,