The Louisville gazette and republican trumpet. (Louisville, Ga.) 1800-1809, June 17, 1800, Image 1
THE LOUISVILLE GAZETTE:
A N D
REPUBLICAN TRUMPET.
VOL. IL]
GEORGIA, LOUISVILLE:—PubIiIhed every Tuefday, by AMBROSE DAY & 7a\lKS mi v T*E
payable half yearly Where Elfays. Articles of Intell, K ence. Advertifements LC • J''r*„ 3 doll,,rs l ,er ann
-n j pl>! \T’T’r^v r* ■ n • • , • 1 ms » tvc. ate thankful v received
aud PKIN I to all its var.ety, ts executed with neatnefs and d,(patch.
To the PUBLIC.
The Editor of the Louifvlile
Gazette rejpeHfully informs
fht public in general and his
friends in particular, that he. has
this day taken into co-partner fin p,
Mr. James Bely, The hii/inefs
will in future be conducted under
the of
J) \Y amd II EL Y,
T Yhofe attentions will be cxe.rcifed
ti render general fatisfattion —
And they pledge themfelves Jor the
ccnjlant exercife of their left judg
ment in the d/fpofitionof fuch ejf'ays
and intelligence as may he prejtnted
jor publication •
Ambrofc Day.
James Hely,
To the Patrons of the Louifville
Gazette.
C‘.r The Editor of this Gazette,
reqwfh al thofe mho have any De
mands againfl him, to prefent them
f r payment ; and thofe Suhjcnhers
who a>e. in arreais, are particularly
cad'd upon to pay them as early as
p r fj:!'U as it will he receffdry to
cleft all accounts immediately,
Jhe public and Suhfcrihers will
fie of to accept the. expreffion of the
mofl fnccre gratitude, as a jufl
acknowledgment for the very kind
jufport the Editor has received fince
las commencement in bufmefs,
Ambroie Day,
Sprit 29, 1800.
Jefferson Academv,
jHE Commiffoners announce
W} lk pie a Jure, that the Jejfer-
I n Academy ts now open for the
u '/’ cri c ‘ youth, under the direc•
\ 11 |/ /' 7r - James Armour,
*’ 7 w h°f e character and abilities
I ' a tnil er, the Commiffi oners have
gycaf (xptHaiions. Thofe whoentrufl
i 0 ■ :IM the education of their chil
'f l- e a [fared that his uimofl
be ufed for their im
provement.
JI having been nottfed fame time
C T ‘at the exercifes of this Acade
''l begin, and a difappnint
mZ l2m S taken place , the Com
deem it their duty to fay,
J lnt proceeded from the
pounce of the. gentle man
J ! ls c,l % a gements t who tk?y had
L] u fid wuh the reciorpiip of
l fn ccim y* ap d not from any
\ VIX tie in filiation, or any
cn *he part of the Commiffi
-7ns c f tuition for Reading,
j ■ ,:i £ ari d Arithmetic—three
* P er garter,
fZZi > matlcs all its branches—
t ' ' ar * peer quarter .
ktu Greek Languages—
m per quarter.
I fy order of the board,
I ,»• '" >Pe * Roz eman, Clerk.
' 2 7* iBoo.
1 u E S D A Y, Iu N I J 7> ,8 0P>
110fi:rr is nrx motto — ytso truth our guide
NOTICE.
\JJ HERE AS my wife, Rhoda
v Coleman, ha ß left my bed and
hoardlncr at/a uft my will ; fj»efe are
therefore to forwaro all pe.fona from
dealings with her on my account, as I
»m determined to be the difpofer of my
own property, and to pay no debts,
but thofe of my own contrattiugf.
John Coleman,
JefeTon County, Feb. 35, iR C o.
Jetierfon Superior Court,
October Term, 1799.
Prefent the lion. Thomas P
Carnes,
Robert Watkins, & “]
John E. Anderfon, j
for toe uje of John )> Foreclofure .
Eore, vs,
Thomas Collins, j
BL it known to all concerned,
that a petition was prefented
to the lono: able the Super 1 r court
of he county cf Jeff rfon, held by
his honor Thomas Reiters Carnes,
one of the judges of the f did courts,
praying the foreclofure of the. equity
cf redemption to one lot cf land
fitvate in the town of Louifville in
the county of Jeffefion, and know n
hy number two hundred and fifty
two—he it therefore
Cede red, That the fold Tho
mas Collins do come info court
within twelve months from the
date hereof, and pay the fend Robert
Watkins, and John E. Anderfon,
for the ufe of John Fore , the prin
cipal and inter eft together with
the cofls , in tsrms of the [latute in
fuck cafes made and prev'ded ;
other-wife the equity of redemption
will be forever from thence forward
foreclojed.
PETER ]. CARNES,
Attorney,
From the Pguohkjpsie journal,
A LAW CASE.
For the confederation oj men of all
parties.
THOMAS COOPER/was
lately incli&ed for a libel on the
adminiffraiion. The trial was
under the a6l commonly called
the ftdiiion law. According to
a claufe in this aft, he was per
mitted to juflify by (hewing the
truth of the fa6b he aflerfed.
To do this, it was ncceffar y,
that certain witneffes fhould be
called and examined, and that
certain public papers fnould be
fo authenticated, as to become
evidence in a court of law. He
(Cooper) accordingly requcfled
that John Adams might be fum
rnoned as a witnefs. 1 his re
quefl was rejefted by the court
He then attempted to procure
authenticated copies of the pre
fident's anlwers to fundry ad
dreffes, See. &c. but thefe alfo
were refufed. He then pro-
cceded to read certain papers g*»
nerally received as tbp anfwers
of the pu f dent to the alorefaid
addicOes and publifhed as fuch,
but tlii v the court declared not
to be legal evidence. Under
tlieie ci i cum fiances lie was ern
viaed t &c. &c. See Web (ley's
Spcflator.
An enquirer v ho has nothing
< t heart but piftice, who has
been uniformly attached to the
confiitution, and who has every
pofTiblc public motive and nii
vate difpofition to think well of
the admini ft ration—wifhrs to
know, why, in a lull involving
the liberty, property and rha
raaerof a fellow-citizen. John
Adams fhould not have hern
called upon as a witnefs ? To
fuppofe there was any legal dif
ability weird he the height of
(edition and calumny, nor will
it, 1 believe, be pretended that
he is exempted by his oftice
from the obligations of t uth,
juflice and humanity, which
irnpolc jt upon every human
creatine ro ter;vidi rlie guilty,
orexculpafe the innocent, A they
he railed upon to do fo. His
competency therefore being un
qutdionabie, what confederation
could have governed rhe deci
sion of the court ? Was it tho't
indelicate to require from the
bill magifirate of the country
the cxercife of one of 1 the mod
folemn duties which, as a man,
he owed to il ? 'J his is inipofh
hle—!t cannot he, that if Mr.
Cooper had hern charged with
i heft or murder, inflead of Edi
tion, and ihat if he believed
Mr Ad arr/s teftimony material
or neceftary to his acquittal,
that it would have been denied
to him. By the confutation,
11 the accufcd (hall enjoy the
rights of a fpeedy and a public
trial by an impartial jury ; fhall
be informed of the nature and
caufe of the accufation • fliall
be confronted with the wifnc.Tes
againft him—and (hail have
compulfoiv proccC lor obtain
ing witneiles in his favor." In
this clause, according to rny
comprehenfion of it, Mr. Coo
per's right to call upon the pre
fident or any other perfon whole
teflimony he fupnofed would
operate in his favor, is clearly
eflablifhed—nor do I frnd in
any other part of our magna
charta a (ingle fyllableto impair
that right,.
Whence then is derived the
authority exercifed in this cafe
by the bench, not certainly from
the confiitution ? nor from any
exifTing law of the United States;
and it is quite improbable that it
ftiould be among the un-enu
merajfid authorities incident to
n comf; for if it were, every ac
cu fat ion would ncceffarily he a
condemnation, at their more
%vill and pleafure* J n other
words, if a court has a right to
pic-judge rlie extent or applica
tion of a tcflirnony which
never heard, and on that or anv
othei ground (fave the fm/le one
of the legal dif. bility) to fet afido
one witnefs in a caufe, it his a
tight to fet aGde all. and of
rourfc, to compel 'he jurv to
hting in a virdift of guilty.-
I limiting as 1 do of ihe judicia
ry of the United States. 1 con
ceive it to he utterly impofTible.
but that (nine tealon may he
given for their conduft, which
plain men, like mylelf cannot
perceive. It is this latent and
undifeovered reafon that I arrj
now in i'earch of, and which r
the reputation of our courts nnd
thecaufe of fedcraltfm, I xycEt
that lomc of the fn< rds (>f go
vernment. better iniormed fh. n
myfelf, will bo obliging enougu
to afbguto the public. I fhouki
like to know at the fame time
how it happened that the pa
pers required by Mr. Coope* to
he authenticated, were not an
thenticatrd, 'I he papers pur
porting to he nnfwrrs of the pre
bdent to binary addreffes, wric
either written by Mr Adams, or
they wcic not. If they were
written by him, it is impoffihlc
that they fhould contain any
thing which couldjuflify a libel
upon his conduft, and ofcourfe.
the papers ought to have been
acknowledged.
If on the odier band the ta
pers were not genuine, ihat is,
if ihey have been falfely attri
buted to Mr, Adams, where was
either the error nr the danger
cf openly difclairni/'g them ? As
the hufmefs now Hands, it giver
the opponents of Mr. Adams a
plaufiblc handle againfl him.
“ i i«s true (fay they) that Coo
per has been convidled, but who
we afk can be acquitted, if an
executive will not authentic
iis own a6ls—and if a court * ill
prejudge tcflirnony, and reject
witnefles, they have not heard?
Such are the queftions that *rc
afkecl—and I honeflly confefs
that they are queftions which at
prefent embarrafs me rot a little..
Like St. Paul, I do not think it
enough to reply generally, that
1 believe all this to be righ*; I
wifh to he able to give a >ealoti
for the belief I profefs—because
I generally find, that when I
Cannot fatisfy rny own mind ful
ly and completely, I always fail
in my attempts to fatisfy the
minds of others.
J am yours, &r.
AN ENQUIRER,
[No. 72.