2

VIGOUR: and I do not on the whole apprehend

any serious danger.

I have the honour to be,

With great truth and respect,

SIR,

Your most obedient humble servant,

ROBERT LISTON*.

AUGUST, 1799.

A Law Case-Proposed to the Consideration of Republican Journalists.-John Clothier versus Sylvanus Planter-John Clothier and Sylvanus Planter disagreeing about the settlement of an old account, by 'which a considerable balance, due to the former, was detained many years by the latter, to the great. scandal of law and justice, and the interruption of mutual harmony and confidence; the parties at length agreed that each should nominate two arbitrators, who, when met, should draw lots for a fifth, and that those five men, or three of them, should be competent to examine and finally to settle all matters in variance between the parties. The said arbitrators meet, and take a solemn oath carefully and impartially to examine, and to the best of their judgment, according to justice and equity, to DECIDE on all questions proposed to their dis

cussion and award.

In the course of the business, certain claims are brought forward by John Clothier, which are so fully substantiated by vouchers that three of the arbitrators agree to confirm them; but the other two,

* It was afterwards proved, that Suezey was really a horsestealer. The Sheriff was prosecuted for breaking open the letters, but the prosecution was dropped.

VOL. XI.

who

The

who were nominated by Sylvanus Planter, formally and pertinaciously protest against them. three adhere to their opinion, and propose to draw up an award accordingly. The two declare that if they proceed in that intention they will quit the board, and leave the business unsettled, for that they had resolved never to sign such an award.

The counsel for the plaintiff contends that arbitrations and references were wisely intended to put an end to contention, and to obtain justice without the expense, delay, and vexation of law-suits; but unless the judgment and award of arbitrators in every case was obligatory on the contending parties, the institution was illusory, and the oath taken to submit to such an award was an impious trifling with one of the most sacred engagements.

The counsel for the defendant asserts that both of the arbitrators, nominated by his client, protested against the award as improper and unjust; and that, although his client had engaged in a bond, signed by both parties, to submit to the award of three of the arbitrators, it was also provided that, to form a board to do business, one at least of the arbitrators nominated by his client must be present; and of course, that both of them being unanimous, might by retiring dissolve the board, which they actually threatened to do when they discovered the business was like to terminate against the interest of their constituent.

Query: Whether this clause in the arbitration bond was intended, or can be justly construed, to impede the course of justice, and prevent a judgment being issued; or whether it was designed, merely to provide against the possible absence of both of the arbitrators, of either party, by deaths, sickness, or other unavoidable hindrance? as, otherwise, two arbitrators of either party might, at any time prevent a settlement, however just, when they

they thought it would issue against their constituent, and leave the business still to be terminated by the harpies of the law. But as both the gentleinen, nominated by Sylvanus Planter, did attend through the whole of the business, I would ask, are they not bound by the ties of honour, conscience, and common usage, to continue to the close, and to sanction the judgment of their colleagues by their presence, if not by their signatures; or if they still resolve to secede, which has become very fashionable, of late, with Republican minorities: query, ought their absence to prevent or delay the final settlement? and are they not chargeable with all the evil consequences that may follow from such extraordinary conduct?

QUERIST.

The Querist has my thanks for his communication. I should really think, that he alluded to the recent conduct of the American Commissioners, had he not omitted a very material circumstance: to wit, that John Clothier (relying implicitly on the good faith of Sylvanus Planter for the due execution of the agreement) did give up a PLEDGE which he held for the payment of the sums due to him. The statement of the Querist, as far as it goes, is a fair one, and the method he has taken to bring the subject forward is ingenious and modest; but we must begin to speak plain on this important subject. It is an old remark, that fables had their origin in despotic states, where men dared not speak of persons and things as they were, and therefore hid their censure under the mask of a fable. I hope we are not yet reduced to the necessity of adopting such an artifice! At any rate I mean to try it. I clearly perceive, that I shall stand alone for a time; but, this will be no new thing to me.

C 2

Doctor

Doctor Stock.-Extract from Bache's Gazette of 30th December, 1794, purporting to be a Copy of a Letter from Glasgow, dated 26th September, 1794. "The trials for high treason, which have taken place in Scotland, will doubtless claim attention, even on the other side of the Atlantic.-Mr. "DOWNIE (who was hanged at Edinburgh) "bears his fate with all the fortitude and dignity "which virtue and patriotism naturally inspire."The grand jury also found a bill of indictment against JOHN EDWARD STOCK, a Student "of Medicine in this University, a young gentleman "of promising abilities and amiable manners. He, "however, has fortunately fled to your hemisphere."

66

[Now, reader, this is the identical DOCTOR STOCK who is so very, very intimate with DALLAS, at present the Secretary of the State of Pennsylvania, formerly an unsuccessful play-actor at Jamaica; I am told, and much am I astonished at it, that this DALLAS, the friend of Genet, Fauchet, Adet, and Yruje, and the patron of M‘Kean; I am told that this man, the open, the avowed, the bitter enemy of Great Britain, is frequently visited by British Consuls, Agents, and Commissioners.I wonder whether DOCTOR STOCK is of the party of these visits?]

M'Kean and Co.-Amongst the ridiculous parts of the Address, which Leib, Coxe, Miles, Dallas, &c. &c. have published in behalf of M'Kean, is, the conclusion, in which they call upon their "FRIENDS AND FELLOW CITIZENS" to leave nothing undone to get him elected, because republicanism is in great danger in Europe." Whether," say they, "we consider "the intelligence from abroad, concerning the "operations of all the mightiest of the despotic 66 powers,

powers, &c. we are most solemnly affected with "the prospect that presents itself. A combination of Emperors and Kings is formed on a basis avowedly hostile to the theoretical, as well as to the practical, sovereignty of the people, throughout the "world."

Well! and what then?-Do you imagine, that your electing McKean will break up the combination? What is this poor old soul to do against "all the mightiest of the despotic powers?" Will his receiving two thousand pounds a year out of the pockets of the people of Pennsylvania prevent Marshall Suwarroff from marching to Paris? I'll engage that neither of the Emperors or Kings of Europe know that there is such a being in existence, except King George, perhaps, who may have read of him in the "DEMOCRATIC JUDGE."The other four committee-men are stupid creatures, but was it not a shame, now, for you, Dallas and Coxe, to attempt to persuade the poor citizens, that, by their choosing this old man to govern them, they would prevent the Emperors and Kings from rooting out the comfortable doctrine of the "Sove

reignty of the people?"-Was it not a shame, I say? How you must have laughed to yourselves, when you saw Leib, Muhlenberg, and the other two, swallowing the bait, and pompously putting their hands to such a miserable bore!

M'Kean's Tavern Bill.-The Virtue of Economy as exemplified in the Conduct of Thomas M'Kean and his Aids.-York County.-The county had formerly to pay the tavern-club of the Chief Justice and his aids during the weekly sessions of the Court. The amount of those clubs may be seen from the annexed list. By the new constitution the Judge is allowed only four dollars a day for his travelling expenses while on the circuit, and we hear that since he has thus to pay his club