out of his own pocket, it never amounts to more than twelve or sixteen dollars a week. that, the account stood as follows-Witness the York Records. But before your Apostacy-To Judge Mr. M'Kean.—Sir, in electioneering address, you say, that you are a 66 de"vout member of the church of Mr. Adams,”—Be it so, Sir; but you could not, then, I think, feel very pleasant, when you gave your daughter's hand to a Roman Catholic, and when you heard her renounce and for ever abjure what the Romish Church calls the "damnable heresies," in which she had been educated! When she uttered this solemn renunciation, your Presbyterian devotion must have received a most furious shock. This young lady's voluntary entrance into the bosom of the Catholic Church has, by some persons, been thought a mere temporary expedient to answer purposes far different from those of religion; but, Sir, however you might be inclined to stretch a point for the honour of being called the father of a NOBLEMAN, I look upon your amiable * Pennsylvania money is one third less in value than sterling: that is, three pounds Pennsylvania make two pounds sterling. Forty guineas a week for a Judge's tavern score, is not much amiss, especially when we consider that America is blessed with above Four Hundred Judges!!!! daughter's daughter's conversion as perfectly sincere, and I have yet hopes (notwithstanding your denial) of seeing you follow her pious example.-In the mean time, however, your anxiety to become our Governor, your patriotic desire to receive two thousand ponnds year, in place of the one thousand you now receive, has led you into many and great inconsistencies. Strange indeed is the conduct of a Presi dent of the Hibernian Society, who labours to clear his character of the "charge" of being an Irishman; and still more strange is the conduct of a father, who, to-day, gives his daughter's hand to a Papist, and to-morrow, thinks it necessary to come publicly forward and clear his character of the "charge" of being a Roman Catholic!* દ્વંદ SEPTEMBER, 1799. Canal Lottery.-Joseph Ball and Co.-This JOSEPH BALL is, very much to my astonishment, nominated by the Federalists of the city of Philadelphia, as a proper person to be elected a Senator for the said city, &c. I therefore republish, from my Gazette of the 11th and 20th of July, the statements respecting the CANAL LOTTERY, No. 2, from which statements, I think, it * This is part of a letter addressed to M'KEAN, and signed "An Irish Catholic." The fact alluded to, respecting M'KEAN'S daughter, is a most shocking one. The SPANISH AMBASSADOR courted the young woman, but would not marry her, unless she first became a Catholic. Most of my readers know the humiliating ceremony that she must have gone through; and it is really true, that her father and mother assisted at the ceremony, during which she renounced the “damnable here"sies," in which they had brought her up, and in which they themselves still continued!!-Such are the accommodating principles of a republican Chief Justice! C 4 will will appear, that BALL is not a proper person to be chosen as a Senator, nor even as a constable. If the Federalists of Philadelphia can find, in all their party, no man more worthy of being entrusted with the making of laws than one of the Managers of the Canal Lottery, it is time to abandon them; for, as to myself, I solemnly declare that I would sooner vote for Israel Israel than any of the famous Six. I am duly impressed with the evils, which would result from the success of M'Kean; but, if that success is to be prevented only by a compromise with such men as Ball, I say, let him be Governor. The disgrace of submitting to tyranny is not half so great as the avoiding of it by such despicable meaus. 11th July.-Canal Lottery, No. 2.-The repe tition of these words is become as disgusting to me as the sound of them undoubtedly is to my readers; I am, however, induced to make use of them once more, by way of title to my remarks on the shameful detention of the Prize MoneyI have done every thing in my power to avoid a newspaper discussion of this subject, and I now enter on it with extreme reluctance; but, as a vender of the tickets, I think it necessary to prove that I have no part in the disgraceful transaction, and I know that an exposure of those who have, is a duty, which, as an Editor, I owe to an injured, insulted, and indignant public. In order to place the matter in a clear light; to make it perfectly intelligible to my readers in all parts of the United States and every where else, it will be necessary first to lay before them the Scheme of the Lottery, which was published by the Managers, in the following words: Canal Lottery, No. 2.-We the Commissioners appointed by the Governor to superintend the drawing drawing of the lottery, inform the public, that the tickets are now rolling up, and that the drawing will positively commence on Monday, the 29th of May next. Philadelphia, April 17, 1797, Frederick Kuhl, Tickets at six dollars each, to be had at the Canal Office, near the Bank of the United States, and of either of the subscribers. who were nominated by Sylvanus Planter, formally and pertinaciously protest against them. The 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 time prevent a settlement, however just, when any they |