exclude the case of an impressed American liberating himself by homicide. He concluded with observing, that he had already too long availed himself of the indulgence of the House to venture farther on that indulgence by recapitulating or reinforcing the arguments which had already been urged.

Saturday, March 8. The only business which occupied the House was the unfinished business of Friday, on the question to agree with the committee of the whole in their disagreement with the resolution proposed by Mr. Livingston on the case of Jonathan Robbins. Mr. Nicholas spoke in answer to Mr. Marshall; immediately after which the question of agreement with the reported disagreement was taken by yeas and nays, as follows:

Yeas. Messrs. Bartlett, Bayard, Bird, J. Brown, Cooper, Craik, J. Davenport, Davis, Dennis, Dent, Dickson, Edmond, Evans, A. Foster, D. Foster, Freeman, Glen, Goode, C. Goodrich, Gordon, Gray, Griswold, Groves, Harper, Henderson, Hill, Imlay, Jones, Kittera, H. Lee, S. Lee, Lyman, Linn, Marshall, Nott, Otis, Page, Parker, Pinckney, Platt, Powell, Reed, Rutledge, Sewell, Sheafe, Sheppard, Spaight, Stone, Taliafero, Thatcher, J. C. Thomas, R. Thomas, Wadsworth, Waln, L. Williams, Varnum, Woods. 61.

Nays. Messrs. Baily, Bishop, R. Brown, Cabel, Christee, Clay, Conduit, Eggleston, Elmen dorf, Fowler, Gallatin, Gregg, Hanna, Heister, Holmes, Jackson, Kitchell, Leib, Lyon, Livingston, Macon, Muhlenburgh, New, Nicholas, Nicholson, Randolph, Smilie, J. Smith, S. Smith, Sumpter, Thomson, A. Trigg, J. Trigg, Van Courtland, R. Williams. 35.

A motion was then made to adjourn. Mr. Macon hoped the House would sit and decide the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Delaware, so as to have done with the business, and not to enter on another week with it: however, fifty-four rising for the adjourn ment, it was carried.

Monday, March 10. Mr. Bayard moved that the committee of the whole House, to whom was referred the message of the President relative to Thomas Nash alias Jonathan Robbins, and a resolution submitted by himself to the House, approbating the conduct of the President, and referred to that committee, be discharged from the further consideration thereof.

A long debate arose upon this motion, in which Messrs. Randolph, Davis, Jones, Nicholas, Livingston and Eggleston spoke against it; and Messrs. Bayard, Bird, Otis, Kittera, Varnum, Rutledge, Edmund, Shephard and H. Lee in favour of it; when the question was taken by yeas and nays, and carried in the affirmative in manner following, to wit:

Affirmative. Messrs. Baer, Bayard, Bartlett, Bird, Brace, J. Brown, Champlin, Claiborne, Craik, J. Davenport, F. Davenport, Dennis, Dent, Dickson, Edmond, Evans, A. Foster, D. Foster, Freeman, Glenn, Goode, G. Goodrich, E. Goodrich, Gordon, Gray, Gregg, Griswold, Grove, Hanna, Harper, Henderson, Hill, Huger, Imlay, Kitchell, Kittera, H. Lee, S. Lee, Lyman, Linn, Nott, Otis, Parker, Pinckney, Platt, Powell, Reed, Rutledge, Sewell, Sheafe, Shepherd, S. Smith, Spaight, Thatcher, J. Thomas, Thompson, Varnum, Wadsworth, Waln, L. Williams, Woods. 62.

Negative. Messrs. Alston, Bishop, R. Brown, Cabel, Christie, Clay, Conduit, Davis, Dawson, Eggleston, Elmendorf, Fowler, Gallatin, Heister, Jackson, Jones, Lich, Lyon, Livingston, Macon, Muhlenburg, New, Nicholas, Nicholson, Randolph, Smilie, J. Smith, Standford, Stone, Sumpter, Taliafero, A. Trigg, J. Trigg, Van Courtland, R. Williams. 35.

Notwithstanding this disposal of the question, so far as its congressional aspect was concerned, Robbins' surrender continued a fertile subject for party declamation.

The views taken by the opposition after the adjournment, may be gathered from the following extract from the Aurora, of June 20, 1800.

JONATHAN ROBBINS.

During the late session of Congress we were promised some facts concerning this unfortu nate citizen; and we hoped to have had them in time for the discussion upon Mr. Livingston's motion. We were disappointed then. We have been more successful since, and shall now lay before our readers the information we have obtained, literally, as we have obtained it, in a letter addressed by a gentleman residing at Danbury, to the Editor of the Aurora.

In the view of national independence; as it relates to our character as a nation; as it relates to the character and independence of our judiciary, it is a matter of utter insignifi cance, whether Jonathan Robbins was a native of the Irish bogs or of the rough declivities of Connecticut. Judge Bee himself declared as much from the bench; but he declared it in a sense different from what we conceive to be the jaw of the land, or the law of nations. Judge Bee, according to the report published, asserted that it made no difference whether Robbins was a British or an American citizen; the treaty comprehended both descriptions, and he was delivered up. We conceive that, having a law paramount to every treaty, that is, the great charter of the Federal Constitution, to deliver him up, was

1. As a citizen, contrary to the Constitution.

2. As charged with the crime of piracy on the high seas, over which the jurisdiction of all nations is common, it was a violation of law and justice.

3. That it was a violation of the Constitution to deliver him up without the inquest of a Jury.

The principal ground of defence set up to justify the interference of our Executive, (and this appears to have been Pickering's act solely,) was that Robbins was an alien born; and the prejudices of the public were called forth to palliate and mitigate the disgrace of the act, under this black subterfuge of inhumanity. It is well worthy of consideration, however, with what nice sympathy in crimes and maxims of government, the anglo-federalists and their British friends agree. It was a sufficient palliation of disgrace to say, Jonathan Robbins was a feigned name, and that in truth his name was Thomas Nash, a native of Waterford! It is remarkable that an Englishman was acquitted of murder at Waterford, in Ireland, under the British government, and upon this plea the accused confessed that he had killed this man, but alleged that it was not murder, because he was a mere Irishman. The Hottentots are less barbarous than such civilized savages.

Public weakness having tolerated, in some measure at least by its sullen silence, the delivery of this unfortunate man into the talons of the British, it became a matter of some moment to discover the validity and authority which the certificates procured from Danbury, by the immediate application of Mr. Pickering, carried with them.

The certificates of the selectmen stated that they could find no such name as Jonathan Robbins on the records of Danbury.

The public will be surprised to find this fact literally true, and yet covering a most gross deception.

The records of Danbury were burnt along with the town, by the British, during our Revolutionary war.

Consequently, these selectmen could not find his name therein. Thus, we see too, that the barbarity of the British soldiery during our war with them has been accessary to the murder at the distance of twenty years.

Read the letter

The selectmen likewise asserted that they did not remember any family of the name of Robbins in Danbury. The matter has passed before the public, and the selectmen have recovered their memories, and they have actually found a family of that name, nay more, a brother of Jonathan Robbins, living within a few miles from that town. whoever wishes to see the original may see it in the hands of the Editor. Extract of a letter to the Editor, dated Danbury, June 1, 1800. "The delivering up of Jonathan Robbins under the 27th article of the British treaty, (for the furtherance of justice,) cannot, with all its palliation, be palatable to our citizens. On the subject of the certifi cates from this town, I wish to make a few observations. The gentlemen who wrote those certificates are, I believe, men of common honesty; they are so reported here, but assure yourself they are party men. In the first place the records of this town were burnt with the town in the time of the last war. It is not difficult to suppose a man might forget the record of a person whom he could not have thought of in twenty years, when the records where his name must have been deposited, had been reduced to ashes for that length of time; still less is the difficulty in conceiving that he might be born there, but never recorded. There is no impossibility or improbability that he belonged to an obscure family, then scarcely known, and now long since forgotten. Our selectmen have certified that they never knew a person by that name residing in this town for any length of time, but they now acknowledge a person, by the name of Robbins, once laboured somewhere in this neighbourhood, whose age would not altogether disagree with that of Jonathan Robbins, the Pirate. But, the following is an important and an astonishing fact, a fact which nonplused many of our certifiers, and which was related to me by one of the number. On making inquiry after the receipt of the Secretary's request, they found that a person of the name of Robbins was then residing in the boundaries of New York State, but near those of this town. This person they visited, and the information they obtained was, 'that he once had a brother by the name of Jonathan Robbins; that he had been absent some years, and he concluded dead, as he had not heard from him for a great length of time; that he believed, if his brother was alive, he was about thirtythree years old.'"

In what way the proceeding was made use of at the fall election, may be seen from the following handbill, which, enclosed in black lines, like the "coffin handbills" of later days, was posted throughout the country.

Reader,

If thou art a Christian and a freeman,

consider

By what unexampled causes,

It has become necessary to construct
This monument

Of national degradation

and

Individual injustice, which is erected

To commemorate a citizen of the United States,
Jonathan Robbins, Mariner,

A native of Danbury, in the pious and industrious State of Connecticut,

who,

Under the Presidency of John Adams,

And by his advice

When Timothy Pickering was Secretary of State,
Was delivered up to the British Government,
By whom he was ignominiously put to death
Because

He was an American Citizen,

who,

After having been barbarously forced into the service of his country's worst enemy, And forced to fight

Against his conscience and his country,

On board the British frigate Hermione, commanded by a monster of the name of Pigott,
Bravely asserted his right to freedom as a man,

And boldly extricated himself from the bondage of his tyrannical oppressors,
After devoting them to merited destruction.
If you are a Seaman,

For an explanation of the present position of the law in reference to extradition under a treaty with a foreign state, it is only necessary to turn to the admirable opinion of Judge Betts, in the late case of Metzger (5 New York Legal Observer, 83). It was there held that, as a treaty is the supreme law of the land, it is entitled, when coming before the courts, to the same effect as an Act of Congress, though no Act has been passed to define the method of its operation; that under such treaty a fugitive is subject to apprehension and commitment for a crime committed against the laws of the country demanding him as a fugitive, whether such crime be an offence in the country to which he has fled or not; and that, whether the casus fœderis has arisen, or whether the compact will be executed, is a political question to be decided by the President, the Courts having no power to direct or contravene his decisions in the first instance. Whether the Judiciary has authority in habeas corpus, after the fugitive is under arrest, to prevent his extradition, if the President decides to make it, was not decided.

TRIAL

OF THE

NORTHAMPTON INSURGENTS.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT.

PHILADELPHIA, 1799-1800.*

A charge delivered to the Grand Jury of the United States, for the District of Pennsylvania, in the Circuit Court of the United States for said district, held in the city of Philadelphia, April 11th, 1799, by JAMES IREDELL, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the trial of the Northampton Insurgents.†

GENTLEMEN OF THE GRAND JURY:

The importance of the duties you are now called upon to fulfil, naturally increases with the increasing difficulties of our country. But how

In preparing the text of this case, I have used very freely the pamphlet report by Wm. W. Woodward, Philada., 1800. The chief alteration being that of abbreviation.

By the act of July 9, 1798, provision was made for the registering of the number and the measurement of the windows in each house, for the purpose, however, not of laying a tax upon the windows themselves, but of obtaining an approximate valuation of the house, which was the real subject of taxation. Understood in the cities, the progress of the excise officers, charged as they were with this somewhat inquisitorial duty, was regarded with indifference; but in the interior, and particularly in the north-eastern corner of Pennsylvania, the treatment which they received was far different. At first the matter appears to have been given up to the women, who treated the invaders of their fire-sides with every species of indignity, resisting, as the trial will show, the measurement of their windows by all the domestic artillery; but in a short time the discontent spread itself throughout the whole popu lation, and the result was that the execution not only of this particular law, but of the process of the United States in general, was entirely frustrated. A proclamation was forthwith issued by the President, which is subjoined; and then, either finding himself, on the spur of the moment, unable to muster sufficient force to compel submission, or yielding to the sug gestions that to dispel a state disturbance, state militia would be most serviceable, he directed a demand to be made on the Governor of Pennsylvania.

By the President of the United States of America.

PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, combinations to defeat the execution of the laws for the valuation of lands and dwelling-houses within the United States, have existed in the Counties of Northampton, Montgomery and Bucks, in the State of Pennsylvania, and have proceeded in a manner subversive of the just authority of the government, by misrepresentations to render the laws

ever great those difficulties may be, I am persuaded you will meet them with a firm and intrepid step, resolved, so far as you are concerned, that

odious, by deterring the officers of the United States to forbear the execution of their functions, and by openly threatening their lives. And whereas, the endeavours of the wellaffected citizens, as well as of the executive officers, to conciliate a compliance with those laws, have failed of success, and certain persons in the County of Northampton, aforesaid, have been hardy enough to perpetrate certain acts, which, I am advised, amount to treason, being overt acts of levying war against the United States, the said persons, exceeding one hundred in number, and armed and arrayed in a warlike manner, having on the seventh day of the present month of March, proceeded to the house of Abraham Lovering, in the town of Bethlehem, and there compelled William Nicholas, Marshal of the United States, and for the District of Pennsylvania, to desist from the execution of certain legal processes in his hands to be executed, and having compelled to discharge and set at liberty, certain persons whom he had arrested by virtue of a criminal process, duly issued for offences against the United States, and having impeded and prevented the commissioners and assessors in conformity with the laws aforesaid, in the County of Northampton aforesaid, by threats of personal injury, from executing the said laws, avowing as the motive of these illegal and treasonable proceedings, an intention to prevent, by force of arms, the execution of the said laws, and to withstand by open violence the lawful authority of the government of the United States. And whereas, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, I am authorized, whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by powers vested in the Marshal, to call forth military force to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, under the solemn conviction that the essential interests of the United States demand it. Wherefore I, John Adams, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons being insurgents as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before Monday next, being the eighteenth day of this present month, to dis perse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes: and I do, moreover, warn all persons whomsoever, against aiding, abetting or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts, and I do require all officers and others, good and faithful citizens according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavours to prevent and suppress such dangerous and unlawful proceedings.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the City of Phila delphia, the twelfth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand, seven hundred and ninety-nine, and of the Independence of the said United States of America the twenty-third. By the President,

TIMOTHY PICKERING, Secretary of State.

Philadelphia, Friday, March 22, 1799.

JOHN ADAMS.

War Department, March 20th, 1799. SIR-To suppress the insurrection now existing in the Counties of Northampton, Bucks and Montgomery, in the State of Pennsylvania, in opposition to the laws of the United States, the President has thought it necessary to employ a military force, to be composed in part of such of the militia of Pennsylvania, whose situation and state of preparation will enable them to march with promptitude. The corps of militia first desired on this occasion are the troops of cavalry, belonging to this city, and one troop from each of the Counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Montgomery and Lancaster. These troops, I have the honour to request your excellency will order to hold themselves in readiness to march on or before the 28th instant, under the command of Brigadier-General Macpherson.

I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, your excellency's most obedient and humble servant,

His Excellency, Gov. Thomas Mifflin.

The response was as follows:

JAMES MCHENRY.

SIR-The Secretary of War has this moment communicated to me the President's intention to employ a military force, in suppressing the insurrection now existing in the counties of Northampton, Bucks and Montgomery, with a request, that the troops of cavalry belonging to this city, and a troop from each of the counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Montgomery and Lancaster, may be ordered to hold themselves in readiness to march, on or before the 28th inst, under the command of Brigadier General Macpherson.

You will, therefore, immediately issue general orders for complying with the President's