Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

, [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]