The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

WASHINGTON CITY

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1802

We present in our paper of to-day a federal statement of the proceedings and sentiments of the gentlemen of the bar of New-York. We trust this will be an evidence of the impartiality with which the National Intelligencer is conducted. and that it will, in some degree, put to shame those Editors of prints, who, to the prostitution of truth, insert exclusively productions on one side, even when they are in reply to statements on the other, and this when the enquiry is into the correctness of certain facts. This we have noticed so have been uniformly the case, as to the plain and unequivocal detection of Mr. Tracy's reflections on the President's communication respecting the judiciary, that appeared in this paper, which the federal prints entirely omit, while they, without scruple, insert his answers, containing nothing but assertions unsubstantiated, and menaces so destitute of meaning, as not to require a reply.

As Mr. Hamilton appears to have been the most prominent character in the meeting at New-York, we think it fit to analyse his speech, in order to estimate the weight that it ought to have either with the national legislature, or with a dispassionate public.

He implies, that

1. The memorial of the bar of Philadelphia was treated with disrespect.

Is this true? Never was any memorial presented to congress treated with more respect. It was read and heard with attention. Aninadverted upon by the opponents of the repeal, and noticed with respect by the friends of the repeal, who however, observed, that as it contained nothing new, it did not require more than ordinary attention.

2. "He declared, that if the bill passed, the constitution was but a shadow, and we should be ere long divided into separate confederacies, turning our arms against each other."

Here is the awful cry of dissolution, that was raised in the senate, again repeated. Let the nation remark this; and let them also remark, that they who are the first to raise the cry may be those who feel the least abhorrence to the thing itself. If the Union is to be dissolved, who are to work the dissolution? Not the nation, which, by its representatives, wills a particular act; but they, who, in defiance of the national will, menace us with internal disorder.

3. "He solemnly called heaven to witness his devout desire, that the system of government adopted among us might prosper."

We impeach the sincerity of no man. But we remember facts; and we ask, did not Alexander Hamilton propose in the federal convention a system that was monarchy; nay, that was worse than monarchy; and that subjected the States to the mercy of the general government, by giving to the President the appointment of the governors of the States, and to them a vote on the passage of all laws?

Did not the same gentleman, say he wished to God the insurgents had burnt the town of Pittsburgh?

If these are facts, and if they were not believed to be facts they would not be stated as facts-then may Mr. Hamilton say;

4. "Between a government of laws administered by an independent judiciary, or a despotism supported by an army, there is no medium. If we relinquish one, we must submit to the other."

For, affixing his own ideas to the terms "laws', and "independent judiciary"; making the first the acts of any body but the national legislature, and the last totally independent of those acts; he may exclaim, if you give not your judges these prerogatives, you shall have a despotism, and the sword shall give it you.

Let the nation appreciate such sentiments!