Newspaper Page Text
, [VOL. ll.]
t '
AUGUSTA- PRINTED BY DANIEL STARNES * Cm. WEST END OF BHO AD-STREET.
PROPOSALS
bY davifl Starnes & co.
r Uiiking b tvk/ofti** o mtUjNtwppn
* lit' THE - CITY OF AUGUSTA,
T‘> BE ENTITLED
Mirror of the 1 imcs.
i>nir univers'il promulgation of ;
,(, ian H tbe general diflrihutionof know- j
ltd are oFjufl* of the firft importance in i
t vc y ci-ontry where liberty has left trace*
c cur footfteps, under every government
wh | c h con full* the happiness of Man— i
„ K owirtigt,” Lid the Great l.ord Bacon j
»is potter, united with virtue” it certaiuly ;
ii liberty. Where ignorance reigns there
T ; cf triumphs ar.d dcfpotifm governs. As
mm become* enlightened authority wll be
Lmited & morality reftcrcd—Knowledge Sc
virtue are the bales of freedom—the one
inftru&s us in our rights, the other teaehes,
UJ our duties; the lirft thews us how to con
firud the brft poflible lorm of government, ,
the last r-quires us to obey it whenconftruc
ted It is therefore advantageous every where,
tbut in a Republic it is ablolu'elv neceflhry
that corrcdl information fliould be widely
diffufed and easily obtained : For tb<rt ’tin
tbe people who govern. ‘They never inten
tioually choose bad leader* or approve wrong
aieafurcs, yet they are liable to error—give
them true details and they will jufge cor- j
reclly—for on plain grounde the people al • ,
ways from jufi opinions: whenever they niif- |
like their own ttiterefts ’tis owing entirely j
to wart ot information in the many or wain j
ofhoneftytn the few. But extenji-ue poh'ti j
cal informition is not to be acquired without
euch labour, and few have leilure to study |
tht fyftemi, compare the opinions and pc- I
tufc the p ges of Locke, Sydney, Gibbon,
Hume aud Vattel. If an acquaintance with
the true principles of government and duties
•fa citizen could be only from
huge folios & diffufe treattfes, it would be
ftldom lought or if fought, the plough, the
hatchet, and the saw muftftand (till. Some
cheaper andeafier means of fatisfying curi
efity and procuring information must there
fore be looked for ; and where is intelligence
cheapncfs and convenience united with more
advantage, than in the cloftly printed col
umns of tbe humble News-paper ? Our
countrymen appear so well convinced of
the ufefolnefs of periodical prints and have
Is wry liberally encouraged them, that we
deem it uiincctffary to infill on their merit,
mil almofi befitate to rtquefl public patron
tge fur another News-paper eftablifliment.
We can proiptfe little except what atten
tion, honefry & iuduftry can perform. The
principles e»t our Paptr, like our own, will be
Republican, “ but the lame freedom of opin
ion which we claim for ourftlves, we willi
ill others to enjoy.” Civil and Religious
liberty is the birh right of evry man, and
he who will not extend the fame indulgence
to all parties, and all fidt, which he wifltes
for his own, is already or delcrves to be a
Have.
To fvpport Religion and morality will
be our price—to encourage literature our
endeavor—no communications calculated to
do either will be refilled; no hint will de
•egh&cd. In a free country it is necetTary
t!<at the law fitould he neither vague nor
icknown, si! public acfls of the State leg
tflature, will therefore be puldithed as they
tome to hand.
The MIRROR OF THF TIMES will be
c pcn to all who canvass public measure with
“tMcy.aud in examining the conduct of
odivi duals, as office is of government —it
.'l w —” -A’® Parly lut my Count, y, jVo
fneui hut Truth”
CONDITIONS.
>• The MIRROR OF THE TIMES wil be
publiflied every Monday, on a royal
weet of an excellent quality, and good
t- yPe ‘ • I
Ihe price to fuhfcibers will be three ;
dollars per auuuni, paid half yearly in !
advance.
! 'l The price for advertising will be fifty
* ca ’* P er lquare lor tlie fir ft iniertion
w thirty leven and a half for each con- •
ttauation.
' ! taper w ill be delivered to Town 1
k . u £r 'l" r» at their places of abode and
thole lor the country will he d. ne up j
’ n , packus aud delivered at the Pott
UStce.
NOTICE.
NINE months alter tlaft I shall
*PP ) to the Honorable the Infe
!' JrU “rt ot Columbia county for
lo and a llajf acres
J ? nd m the county ol Richmond
bei »g part ol the real es.
** 01 J a ‘»e* Stuart deceased, and
»r tli« benefit of tlie heirs and
{| tdor«
SAJJUI L MAGIIUDEIt, Adm’r. ;
Ms notice
• v T. months alter dale spnli- !
j,,.".’" w 'l be nude to the houo ra
1m n tr:or co, .rt for the county of
. ' CO, n lut leave to sell the real
aie ol Uichatd F. Winn dec
Prudence Winn Adm’x,
Peter Luinur Adnt’r.
I, 1810. ir.OiiN
£La Mi LXLCU’i IONS,
fur cals at this Gtkcc.
MIRROR OF THE TIMES.
CONGRESS.
House oj Representatives.
January 5.
Rules and Orders.
Ori motion ol Mr. Smile
the Iloule resolved itslelf into j
committee of the whole on the
report of the commiuee ap-
I pointed to report rules and
orders for the government of '
the House.
This report contains the fol
lowing amongst other rules :
The previous quell ion (hall
be put in this form : “ Shall j
the main queliion be now put?”
Ii lhali only be admitted, when
demanded by one fifth of the
members prelent, and, if de
cided in the affirmative. ID all
ibe inftamly put without a.
! mendment or futiher debate,
# •
j but ii decided in die negative,
; the bulinefs shall progrels as it
1 the previous queftiou had not
; een called.”
b
• s On a previous question
there shall be no debate.”
Mr. Livermore moved to
ft 1 ike out the full of ihefe rules.
This motion was supported
1 by Mclfrs. Livermore, Gar
denier, Quincy, Sheffey, Ely,
Pickman, Wheaton, Dana and
Emott, and oppoled by Mes.
Irs. Rhea, Bafiett, Rais, Smi
lie, Southard, Boyd. Findley,
W. Allton, Root, and John.
lon.
The arguments in favor ol
ftrjking out the rule relating to
dre previous queliion were
geneially, that it had for its j
object die abridgement of
the freedom of debate and was
following too closely the prac
tice ot the Britrlh Parliament;
that this Houle being conltitu- j
aily acehbera'ive aUembly, it
was not for the majority to fay
lhus far liiall debate be permitted,
Sc no further—for il they could
do this, they had the fame !
tight to fay that the minority
should have no voice; that it
would pievent the rninouty
fiom (hewing the enoimity of
' the doings ol the majority, and
, would Ihroud their acts in the
j mantle of darkness ; that at
prelent much time might iri
deed be consumed in useless
debate but that this evil ought
| 10 be regulated by a lenfe of
ptopriety and not by a rule
of the Houle ; that if this rule
wete adopted, the molt iinpor„
taut rnealuies might be decided j
[ wunouL a woid ot debate, al.
j though on hearing arguments
gentlemen might have changed
iheir opinion of them ; that
tins rule might remind the
Houle of the circumltance j
chat when the Abbe Sieyes had
prelemed a conlluution to ike
conlideration of Bonaparte, the
conqueror was charmed with ;
iheleatures ol a Dumb Zegif~\
lature ; that legdlation with
out debate was aiways favoia-
I bie to tyianny ; that ihe muo- ;
duction of a tu.e ptoviding lor
ihe previous question was not j
even ncceffary foriLe purpole
which its advocates had in view
' for, worn late experience, 11 was
known that whenever ihe ma
jomy weie ddpoied 10 force
a queliion they had it in their ,
power
“ HOLD THI MIRROR UR TO NATURE.” Shakespeare,
rule was unconfliuuional, he,
cause the constitution forbade
Congrels to rtftrain the freedom
of fpecch, and if ihcv could
not restrict the people in the
freedom of speech much lels.
surely could they abridge that
privilege in this Houle, the
! fanciuary of libenv ; that eve
ry member of the Houle had
; a right to deliver his lend
menis on any lubject before
I the Houle, & could not be de
prived of it ; that this privilege,
like the ficedom of speech
was productive of (otne evil,
but the moment cither was re-
I drained, such restraint, was an
J invasion of the principles of
free government; that the rule,
however colored amounted to
this that no member of the mi.
nority Ihould be allowed to
speak until u vote of permis
sion for that purpose was firll
obtained lrotn the majority. It
wa« alked, would the renova
tion in the publick councils
have been eftctled if the free
dom of debate had not been
permitted at the time when eve
ry thing was going to ruin ? II
such a rule had been propoled in
1798, the nation would have i
been told, by thole who now |
support this rule, that it was;
the vital stab to liberty. That
which had bee» wrong yefterdy
was wrong to day ; that which
would have been wiono in one
majority could not be right in
another. It was also fold by
levcral of the supporters oi Mr. j
Livermore’s motion, that the j
rule proposed to be stricken out
! was at war with political hber
i ty, incompatible with freedom
iot debate, and in defiance ot
the spirit of the c*aftituuon ;
that majorities, who could not |
be luppofed to be wholly ex. j
ctnpi Lorn the itfirmities ol I
! human nature, might, from the
influence of paltion rulh head
long into a mealure without die
least conlideration ; that rapi
dity was not so much an objed
; in legdlation as and |
a multitude of laws often pro
ved an evil; finally, that this
rule at the picient tune particu- i
lariy ought not to be adopted, as
ihe Houle m»gh'. llioitly have
lo decide the question ol peace
or war, on which much deli
beration undoubtedly would be
requilite.
On ti»e other hand it was re- !
marked, in support of the rule,
that tlie evil intended to be guard
ed against by it was bieudc<l p«r
h*.ps with some ot the best scn'ia
-1 tions of the humau mind, a pene *
* veranee in what is detrntcl right hy
each, and that the question wh*t
was right couid not be decided by
any direct standard to which the
humau mind cau resort ; that it
.s the principal ol this as cl ever)
free government that the majority
shall rule, and without assuming
t;.at ihe niojority is always nglu
us decision was the best standard
to wnich they could resort that
ihe u.ijonty, being responsible tor
ail measures adopted, Anight not
to be pfrveaitU Iron* acting till
; too late by a uetermineu opposi
! lion ; that it (he minority iiririn
t gts theiigrit of the majority to
govern, tbeie should uc some rule
to prevent ihts violation ot the
pruivipici ot lint govciumcm ; that
|me privilege catu member pulses
atCL ol dciiv’sr mg ins •scntiatcnis,
however precious, was uut no va*
iuaole as the right which each
, Hiembcr posecfcscu ot acting, and
! the teatricUoa ol khia privilege
j would not be so alarming- as the
j destruction of the fovernment,
which might be the consequence,
as the rules ol the House at pre
sent stood, if the minority were
obstinately bent hi prevailing the
- 1 House finm acting ; »hat alrho’
the project of a dumb legislature
might have charmed Bonaparte,
1 he ntvrr would have had an op
portunity to approve any consti
tution, had it not brer* for the an
arohy, confusioa and unrestrained
licentiousness which prevailed in
the National Convention, which
finally destroyed it and it was
to prevent such anarchy and abuse
of the freedom ol debate that this
1 ule had become necessary ; that
ihe minorities *OO were subj ct to
the failings ot mankind, and that
paslion might operate upon them,
when a most urgent law was to be
lasstti, by speaking for six hours
ai a Hmc solely to prevent the le.
gislature from acting, from doing
.uat for which they were express
ly chosen; that there was no fear
of the measures or acts of the ma
jority being veiled in darkness,
lor supposing (what was very im
probable) an abuse of the rule,
(be press was open to eveiy man
and could not be restrained ; that
the ideaof ihe uncoas tiiuiiouality
of such a rule was absurd, for the
same mode of argument would
prove that the House had no right
Ito prevent any member from
! speaking more than twice to the
j same question, altnough the ’con
stitution declares that each House
limy determine the rules of iu
proceedings ; that experience had
shewn that such a rule was neces
sary to prevent the consump
tion ol the time of the House by
a membet’s speaking four, five,
six or eight hours merely for the
purpose of spinning out time, and
; moving to adjourn, calling the
Yeas and Nays on the motion to
give hunseit time to lake breath,
ana then making frivolous mo*
nous for the purpose of-speaking
sull longer on ihtm j that in or
der to do the public business, ii
no such rule was adopted, it would
be necessary tor the people to »e.
| lect iheir representatives, not for
the streugth ot their mieitcci, but
lor robustness of their coustituti
tious and their capacity of endur
ing laiigue ; that the abu«c ot the
freedom of debate had become to
flagrant as to impede all public
; business, unless those desirous 01
domg it would sacrifice iheir
iicanu and perhaps iheir lives, in
1 scasion* 01 nineteen or tw*.ui)
hours m length, ar.d these 100 at*
icr a subject nad been debated ten
ot twelve days. It was also sain
that this was uo nttv rule; that
it had existed iu this body, with
various modifications, since tile
commencement of the government
until wnhin two years, when tht
decision ol the House had done it
uWety ,u practice, though it still
icuutncd m the rules , that it had
exited in the British Parliament
for two centuries ; that arguments
against a role or iavr drawn from
the possible abuse oi Ti, would go
to the destruction of all law and
government ; that this rule had
uever yet been a*bttrarily enforc
ed, and probably wever would, at
its object was more 10 remind
members of the piwpriety ot con
ceding a little to their fellow-mem
bers aud treating them wittr deco
rum, than lor me purpose ol ac
tually putting an end 10 debate ,
iha: uo majority would improper
ly use the ruic, because, it liiey
did, they wete responsible to the
people iur it, wtao would not fail
10 rcdiess the evil. The novelty
in mis case was sa.il to be, not
tnatsuen a rule should have been
proposed, but that, alter having
existed under every adanuisCra
uou, it should uow ue moved to
r«jeci it.
i’ll* opponents of the rule re
plied, mat mis ru*c was wholly
diifotviu ii out tbe former luies on
MONDAY, January 29, 1810.
thesubject, •»« it excluded dr-bite
on the pi evitus a* well as on the
main question. It whs also said
that the doctrine la d down that
the majority should govern was an
arbitrary doctrine, it was natur*
a! for majorities to se« k to encrrase
thei r nowrr. It was true that the
pec>, t» might apply the corrective
to abuses of power by the majori
ty i hut it might as well be said,
after a. violation of the right of
habeas corpus had deprived the
citizen of his liberty, or after an
expost lacto law had swept him off,
that some twenty years hence the
people would apply the corrective.
A majority might set out with the
best views, hut might do acts to
produce the most disastrous con*
sequences. The majority always
did wrong when it took means to
silence opposition and to humblo
those who opposed them. This
had been the doctrine ten years
ago of those who advocated this
rule, and it was the correct doc
trine still. h was said that the
argument .hat the licentiousness
cf debate had destroyed the go
vernment of Fiance, as used in
snppoi t of this rule, might remind
the House of the Hibernian who
out hts throat to save his life. The
House were cailed upon to des
troy the principles of freedom in
•rder to prevent slavery, if the
i u ‘ a i on ‘y had aright to prevent the
minority from expressing their
opinions, they had the same right
to send them home, to banish
them from the cspitol.
Tm* debate was continued in
a warm yet desultory M4nntr nil
4 o clock ; when on motion of
Mr. lalimangc, the committee
rose, 05 io 27, reported progiess
and obtained leave to sit again,
January 8.
armfd merchantmen.
IV]i / wore offered the fol
lowing resolution ;
Jicx'jived, 1 .hat the Secretary of
the 1 rcasury l»e directed to causa
•d it* s before ihe House a copy
of tany instructions issued to tbc
collectors of the several ds'rict* of
the United States relative to refu
sing clearances to any private ar«
med vts-elof the United States.
Mr bppes niuVtd to amend the
motion by adding to die end of it
the woida during the present or
any former administration”
Mr Livermore accepted the aj
nu iidmerit as p.«rt of his motion.
Mr. Rhea objected to the mtion
because be could not see the objecl
the gentleman had in view, the laws
of the United States not having au
thorised the arming of any private
ve-sels. Mr- Livermore and Mr.
Pitkin supported it as tallitg for
information to which no one could
object, and which might have a
bearing on subjects under the con
sideration of the House
J he motion was agreed to 51
to 21.
Mr Nelson made the following
report—
“ Ihe committee on the mili fc *
litiary establishment of the United
States, to whom was referred so
much of the message of the Pre
sident of the Untied State* of the
3d instant, a» relates to raising
a volunteer force report in part
that they have taken the same in
to consideration, and are of opin
ion that it is highly expedient to
place forthwith the couutry t M
more tonpUw state of defence
and recommend the following re*
solution :
1 icsolvedf That provision be
made by law for raising and em
bodying a volunteer force of twen*
t> thousand men, exclusive of of*
ficers, to be enlisted and held to
serve for the term of
from the tune of their being in
tuiual service.”
1 tie report was referred to a
corns tttee of the whole.
MLDiTLUKANEAN FUND.
On motion of Mr tippet in* House
resolved itself into a committee
[No. 63]