by the middle: that he presently perceived the goad to move through his hand; that when it had passed almost out of his hand, being persuaded that it was the complainant who was drawing it out, and that she did it by the power of witchcraft, he attempted to strike her, but instead of doing any injury to the complainant, he himself received a violent blow on the lower part of his back; that the blow gave him great pain, &c. Eaton Cleaves, witness on behalf of the defendants, further testified, that till the time mentioned by Hilton, he had been possessed of a sound mind; that he then declared the complainant had bewitched him, and had ever since declared it. That the complainant had been requested ro visit Hilton; and that while she was in the house he appeared to be much better, and talked very rationally; that it was proposed to obtain some of her blood as an antidote; and that she consented that her blood should be shed. But notwithstanding all this, it appeared in evidence that the defendants had threatened her life, and said she ought to have been long ago in hell with the damned; and that they would let loose the man whom she had bewitched, John Hilton, to kill her.

"Whether they let him loose or not, is uncertain; but it is a fact; that he made his escape from the place where he was confined, and ran immediately to the house of the complainant; beat her violently with a stick, drove her out of the house, then seized her by the throat and well nigh choaked her. While Hilton was striking and choaking her, one of the defendants, and niece to Hilton, cried out,

kill her, uncle John." It appeared also in the course of the trial, that other means had been used to kill her besides calling on "uncle John." The defendants had (to use their own expressions) " tried projects"-This not having the desired effect, uncle John went in person. Many circumstances

A a 2

given

given in evidence were calculated to provoke laugh ter. But at the close of the trial, the subject assumed a very serious aspect. The delusion appeared to be general, and THE IGNORANCE OF THE PEOPLE PROFOUND.

"While the court was sitting, news was received that on account of the trial in question, a house had been entirely demolished in the neighbourhood of the complainant. His honour, Judge Wells, in an address to the defendants, endeavoured to convince them of the gross error into which they had fallen; and that the difficulties and dissensions in the neighbourhood arose rather from IGNORANCE in themselves than from WITCHCRAFT in the poor old

woman.

“ The defendants were bound to keep the peace till June next, and thence till August.

" 11th Oct. 1796.

"AT an election not a hundred years ago in the city of Philadelphia, a citizen who had resided in it upwards of twenty years, taken his oath of allegiance at the revolution and paid taxes repeatedly, offered his vote. The Judge of the election, from circumstances knowing that his vote would be given on the wrong side, after learning the term of his residence, and that he had paid taxes, asked him for his receipts for such taxes. The poor man had taken none, but offered to take his solemn oath of having paid them. To this proposition the Judge very conscientiously replied, "We do not ad"minister oaths." The poor man was retiring, thus brow beaten, by the honourable Judge; when another person of different politics presenting himself, and the first questions being asked and answered, and it proving also that he had no receipt; the Judge

Judge unwilling to loose a good vote, that is one on the right side, asked him "Whether he could take "his oath of having paid taxes." The answer was affirmative, and a magistrate was immediately called, who administered it, and the vote was given. The democratic elector who had witnessed this shameful instance of partiality, with becoming spirit then insisted upon having his oath and vote received; which the righteous judge no longer could find face to refuse.

"This anecdote which may be depended upon as fact, should serve to put the honest electors of this city on their guard at the election this day, lest they be trickt out of their right of suffrage; and it should be a caution to judges of elastic consciences not to put them to the trial then, as they will be watched, and if discovered acting unfairly, will be exposed.

"The electors should be apprized, that they have a right to require that an oath be administered to them, if they cannot produce a receipt for

taxes.

"Another source of fraud at elections should here be mentioned. Some inspectors have been guilty of slily inspecting the ballots when delivered, and according to their complexion ob jected to the qualifications of the voters, or received them without scrutiny. This violation of the right of ballot should be prevented by the close attention of every friend to fair election. If the purity of elections is suffered to be vitiated by unprincipled partisans with impunity, Americans may bid adieu to their liberties."

"MR. PORCUPINE,

"On the evening of the 23d of February, 1798, two days previous to the special election for sena

tor, Mr. David Lummis happened to step into the tavern, kept by the widow Smith in Darby; and upon his entering into the bar-room, was accosted in the following manner by a person present, "Here is Mr Lummis, he will vote for Israel Israel."

No Sir," replied Lummis, "I am not entitled to 66 a vote."—"O yes you are, was not your father "a freeholder?"" Yes he was, "Yes he was," replied Mr. L. "but I believe notwithstanding, according to law, "I am not entitled to a vote." Here Judge Brannan, who was also present, interfered, and addressing himself to Mr. Lummis, said, “ you certain❝ly are entitled to a vote." Mr. L. replied, “Judge, "I may be mistaken; but by G-d, I believe I am "not entitled to a vote."-"Hush," said Brannan, "do not swear, I will not suffer it in my pre

66

sence; (but he will suffer himself to get beastly "drunk), it is fineable, and I cannot look over it," Mr. L. replied, "I ask your pardon, Judge; I did "not do it out of any disrespect to your office; "but it happened to slip out, I know it is fineable, "and I am ready to pay the fine." J. B. “ It might "be looked over, did not we think you were inte"resting yourself for the opposite party." Mr. L. "As to party, I believe I am not entitled to a vote; "but if I were, I'll give you my word and honour, "I would not vote for a party man." Judge B. "You would not; then you must pay your fine," which he made him do.*

Jo. THOMSON."

In

* A fact like this, though told in this homely way, gives one a more correct notion of the manners, and intrigues of these little despots than can possibly be conveyed in general description, though drawn with the most masterly pen.

This BRANNAN, was a justice of the peace for Delaware county, and a judge of the Common Pleas. He was, in the year

In Congress, March 3, 1797.

Mr Williams called for the resolution which he laid on the table some days ago. On examining the report of the secretary of the treasury, relative to the application and expenditure of the monies appropriated for expenses attending the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, he said, he found large sums of money had been paid on the warrants of the late secretary of state, whose accounts remain unsettled; and that neither the accounts of the foreign ministers, bankers, or agents of the United States, nor the records of the department of state, contained any explanation in respect to a considerable part of this money; that they had appropriated large sums of money from time to time, and it was necessary that a full investigation of that business should be had. There was in the report 18,000 dollars, paid on a warrant to Mr. Randolph for the expenses of a special envoy to Madrid, though he believed the envoy was not three months on that business. In order, therefore, to come at a more full knowledge of this subject, he hoped the resolution would be agreed to. in the following words:

"Whereas it is stated to this house, in a report of the secretary of the treasury of the 15th instant, that the accounts of monies advanced to Edmund Randolph, Esq. late secretary of state, for the expenses of foreign intercourse, still remain unsettled,

1798, dismissed from his office, for barbouring a man who had robbed the bank!!!-But, I have before cautioned the reader not to judge of the people of America from the characters of those who rule over them. Such is the degraded state of the government, that it is very seldom that an honest man can be found to accept of an office.