H. of R. & Sen.]

:

Mr. TRACY rose merely to state the fact, as established by the testimony, that Sir George Prevost was at Quebec at the time of the devastating excursion of the enemy on the Niagara frontier, and that therefore it was not made under his immediate direction.

the sole motive to that devastation. Mr. B. here quoted the language of the proclamation, reciting the so wanton and barbarous cruelty committed on the unoffending subjects of his Britannic Majesty, by the United States, as being the ground of the retaliatory measure. This document, Mr. B. said, would be transmitted to poste- Mr. COOK, of Illinois, said, whether it was true or rity, and on the pages of history it would be considered not that the destruction of property on our frontier was as a document giving character to the transactions of founded on previous acts of this Government-whether those days. Posterity would not be benefitted by the it was a violation of the law of nations or not--whether observations of gentlemen on this floor, who treated Sir George had stated the fact or not-could not be urgthe question as one of mere diplomacy. The fact of the ed in bar of the claim of those who present themselves destruction of that frontier, as a measure of retaliation for remuneration for the loss of property destroyed for supposed injuries and violations of the rules of civil- whilst in the possession of the United States. It seemed ized war, by the United States, would be established, to be admitted on all hands, that indemnity ought to be and well sustained, by the records of the times. Mr B. provided for all cases of property destroyed under that replied to some other observations which had fallen from circumstance. It was wholly immaterial what was the gentlemen in the debate; in the course of which he said motive for the destruction of it; for, if property actually that there never was a man placed in a more critical si-occupied was to be paid for when destroyed by the tuation than Sir George Prevost, during the late war; enemy, surely other claimants ought not to be debarred adding, that the ingenuity and ability of that man had indemnity for property destroyed, though their property enabled him, during the war, with very limited means, was not occupied by the United States, if its destruction to foil all the exertions of the American Government, | had been caused by fire communicated from buildings with the exception of the closing scene at Plattsburg, that were destroyed in consequence of being occupied. which had redounded so much to the honor of the Ame- Admitting the statements of the proclamation to be rican arms. Mr. B. said, however, in conclusion, that true, and that they were to affect any description of the he had only risen to show that the devastation of the claimants, it yet ought not to bear upon any other proNiagara frontier was an act of retaliation, and was in-perty than that which had not been in possession of the flicted on no other principle whatever and, Mr. B. said, so far as this question was to be affected by the amendment by the House, he was disposed to vote against it. Mr. ROSS, of Ohio, rose to notice an allusion to a remark of his, by Mr. B.-which allusion, upon explanation by Mr. Buck, it appeared Mr. Ross had misunderstood. Mr. R. then went on to observe, that all he had meant to say on the subject of the proclamation of Sir George Prevost, was, that we must believe, either that Captain Swazy had told the truth, or that Sir George had told the truth, and of course that some one of them had not told the truth; for their contradictory declarations could not be reconciled. Those persons were equally officers of the British Government, and, though of unequal rank, were to be considered as equally credible witnesses. What motive had Capt. Swazy for lying on the subject? When Sir George Provost justifies the devastation of that frontier, on the principle of retaliation, does he tell the truth or not? Conversing with Captain Swazy, Sir George Provost rejects the advice to retaliate for the burning of Newark, and, eleven days after the ever damnable scenes of cruelty, in the devastation of the Niagara frontier, he issues a proclamation, justifying that atrocity on the plea of retaliation! Innocent women and children were turned out of doors in a most inclement season by the devouring flames which consumed their dwellings-and, when" these sufferers came here for some indemnity for their losses, the House was told of the virtues, and honor, and magnanimity of Sir George Prevost. Not far from the blood-stained plains of Raisin, said Mr. R. are to be IN SENATE-THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1825. found, at this day, wandering, barefoot, and almost On motion of Mr. LLOYD, of Maryland, the Senate naked, some of the persons who were driven from their resumed, as in committee of the whole, the bill, "for homes that fatal night, and whom the ingratitude of the the relief of Gregory Ennis and William R. Maddox.” country has since kept houseless; and now, when ten [The bill provides for paying the petitioners for ceror twelve years have elapsed, and a proposition is pre-tain work done on the street contiguous to the Capitol sented for their relief, the cold calculations of statesmen, and ingenious disquisitions on abstract principles, are brought to bear against it. In 1814 or 1815, said Mr. R. you did not act upon this principle. The public sentiment would not have suffered you to do it. We acted then, said he, on just and generous principles. He meant not to-God forbid that he should-impute to any man who was opposed to the bill any unfair motive. He had but appealed to facts, some of them within his own knowledge, to show the strong claim upon the House of those to whom this bill proposed to render tardy justice.

United States. If the bill were rejected on the ground
taken by the gentleman from Vermont, it would be do-
ing violence to a principle which gentlemen on all sides
of the House admitted to be a correct one. The motive
of the enemy, Mr. C. argued, ought not to be brought
forward as an argument against those who have fair
claims on the Government independent of his motive.
As to the amendment immediately under considera-
tion, he was in favor of releasing the party from the ne-
cessity of producing any other evidence of the cause of
the destruction of his property, than the facts which ex-
isted at the time of its destruction. He would not seek
for Sir George Prevost's opinion on the subject. It was
sufficient to establish that, in the ordinary vicissitudes of
war, the property was destroyed, or might have been
destroyed, because of its being in the occupation of the
Government. The facts already in possession of this
House were sufficient to satisfy all reasonable scruples
in a government disposed to be just, and to fulfil its du-
ties to its citizens. We are acting too rigidly-in too
cold hearted a feeling to our suffering citizens, said Mr.
C. when we adopt the discrimination which is advocat-
ed by some gentlemen, &c.

Mr. STORRS modified his motion so as to withdraw
the proviso; and, instead of it, to move to strike out from
the substitute which had been agreed to, the words—
and that such destruction was in consequence of such
occupation."
When, on motion, the House adjourned.

Square.]

The memorial and documents accompanying it were read, and

Mr. LLOYD, of Maryland, then observed, that, as the Senate were in possession of the facts, it was annecessary to say any thing more on the subject. The work had been done conformable to the contract entered into between the Commissioner of the Public Buildings and the petitioners, and the contract was authorized by law. It had been said that the funds specifically appropriated for that object were not sufficient-that in consequence of the pressure of the times, the public lots had not

been sold, and there was not sufficient to meet the claims to which they were liable. The question was, whether they would suffer these industrious individuals, who had fulfilled their part of the contract made with the Commissioner, to wait till the lots were sold, out of the proceeds of which they were to be paid, or whether they should be paid from another quarter. They were bound in justice to compel the sacrifice of that property, or provide for the settlement of the claims from some other quarter. It might be said that they were taking money from the public Treasury to pay for a specific transaction; but there was now in the Treasury from 10 to 20,000 dollars, which were paid in by a former Superintendent of the city, and he wished that this claim of $3,080 should be settled from that fund. The bill was then ordered to be read a third time.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY.

NIAGARA SUFFERERS.

The House then proceeded to the unfinished business of yesterday, which was the consideration of the amendment proposed to the substitute of Mr. WRIGHT, by Mr. STORRS, to the bill for the relief of the Niagara sufferers, viz: to strike out the words [and that such destruction (viz: of the property,) was the consequence of such occupation, (viz: by the United States.)]

On this question, Mr. FORSYTH called for the Yeas and Nays, which were ordered accordingly, and were called, resulting as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Bailey, Baylies, J. S. Barbour, Bartley, Beecher, Brent, Brown, Cambreleng, Campbell, of Ohio, Collins, Cook, Crowninshield, Culpeper, Day, Dwinell, Dwight, Eaton, Edwards, of Penn. Findlay, Foote, of N. Y. Forward, Frost, Fuller, Garnett, Gazlay, Gurley, Harvey, Hayden, Henry, Herrick, Herkimer, Hogeboom, Jenkins, J. T. Johnson, Kent, Lawrence, Lincoln, Litchfield, McArthur, McKim, McLean, of Ohio, Mallary, Martindale, Marvin, Morgan, Neale, Patterson, of Ohio, Plumer of Penn., Richards, Rose, Ross, Scott, Sharpe, Sloane, Arthur Smith, Sterling, Storrs, Strong, Taliaferro, Taylor, Test, Tomlinson, Tracy, Vance, of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Van Wyck, Vinton, Webster, Whittlesey, Williams, of N. Y., James Wilson, Wilson, of Ohio, Wood, Woods-75.

[Sen. & H. of R.

The amendment was in part objected to by Mr. LIVERMORE, but, having been explained by the mover, was adopted.

To remove the objection as to the difficulty of proving that the destruction was the consequence of the occupation of property, Mr ISACKS moved an amendment, which forbade the Auditor to require "direct proof" of that fact where a strong presumption should be established.

This amendment was negatived.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, then proposed to add the following section to the bill:

"And be it further enacted, That the amount which shall appear to have been paid to the owners, as rent, for the use or occupation of the property, shall be deducted from the account directed to be paid to them under this act."

This amendment was opposed by Mr. DWIGHT, as being precluded by that of Mr. COOK, and by Mr. MARVIN, as being unjust in its principle; but it was carried-ayes 107.

Mr. TEST, of Indiana, then moved an amendment, as a substitute for that of Mr. LITTLE, which went to require that the premises should have been occupied within two days of the time of its destruction. The amendment was negatived.

Mr. FORSYTH again moved the amendment he offered yesterday in committee of the whole, adding a provision to make compensation for slaves lost while employed by impressment as boatmen, wagoners, &c. but it was negatived by a decided majority, only 48 members rising in its favor.

Mr. FORSYTH then offered a motion, making a pro. vision (the amount being in blank) to compensate the extra services of the Third Auditor, required by the bill, which amendment he advocated at considerable length. The amendment was opposed by Messrs. COCKE and LIVERMORE, and lost.

Mr. STORRS offered the following amendment, (in blank,) viz:

"And be it further enacted, That, in case the whole amount of claims presented and allowed under this act, shall exceed the sum of dollars, then, and in that case, the claimants shall, respectively, receive only their rateable proportion of the sum of - dollars, to be liquidated by the said Auditor in the adjustment of the NAYS.-Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, of Va., Allison, amount to be received by such claimants respectively." Archer, Barber, of Con., P. P. Barbour, Bassett, Blair, The amendment was carried; and, on filling the Breck, Buchanan, Buck, Buckner, Carter, Carey, Con- blank, a motion for $500,000, and another for $300,000, dict, Conner, Crafts, Eddy, Foot, of Con., Forsyth, Gar- | having been rejected, the blank was filled with 250,000. rison, Gatlin, Hamilton, Harris, Hooks, Houston, Ingham,Ayes 98, Noes 68. Isacks, Johnson, of Va., Kidder, Lathrop, Leftwich, Mr. LITTLE then moved to strike out that clause of Letcher, Little, Livermore, Long, Longfellow, McCoy, McKean, Mangum, Mercer, Metcalfe, Mitchell, of Pa., Moore, of Ky., Moore, of Alab., Nelson, Newton O'Brien, Patterson, of Penn., Plumer, of N. H., Poinsett, Saunders, Sanford, Sibley, Wm. Smith, Standefer, A. Stevenson, Stewart, Stoddard, Thompson, of Pean., Thompson of Geo., Trimble, Tucker, of S. C., Udree, Wayne, Whitman, Williams of Va. Williams of N. C., Henry Wilson, Wilson of S. C., Wright-71.

46

So the amendment of Mr. STORRS was adopted. Mr. LITTLE moved farther to amend the substitue of Mr. WRIGHT, by inserting the words, or immediately preceding," -so as to require proof that the property was occupied by the United States at, or immediately preceding, the time of its destruction.

This motion was decided in the negative. Mr. COOK, of Illinois, then moved to amend the bill by adding, at the end of the substitute, the following proviso:

"And provided, also, That no payment shall be made under the provisions of this act, where the property destroyed was occupied under a contract with the owner and at the wish of such owner."

VOL. 1.-10.

the bill which confines its provisions to such claims as have already been exhibited, previous to the 10th April, 1818, before the Commissioner, and not acted upon, and to extend it to all which may hereafter be exhibited and proved.

Mr. TRACY explained the reasons which had induced the committee to insert this feature in the bill.

Mr. FORSYTH and Mr. McDUFFIE opposed the amendment at considerable length, and it was lost. The question being then on ordering the bill, as amended, to be engrossed for a third reading,

Mr. FORSYTH rose in opposition. He said he had been a member of the House at every session at which the subject of these claims had come before it, and he might claim to be thoroughly acquainted with the history of the cases. He had opposed the original act on the subject, in 1816, nor had he seen reason since to repent his vote on that occasion. On the contrary, experience had but confirmed the views he then entertained, and satisfied him still more with the course he had pursued. It was now proposed not to carry the act of 1816 into effect, but to carry still further the provisions of that act, and embrace a class of cases for which it never intended

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

[JAN. 6, 1825.

As to the objection to the act of 18 6, Mr. S. said it was one which he hardly knew in what way he ought to attempt to answer. The gentleman had been opposed to that act, as he had himself informed the House, and it could hardly be expected, therefor, that he should be in favor of the present bill. But, said Mr. S. let us see what he himself proposes respecting slaves: he would have the Government pay for all slaves impressed during the last war, and afterwards lost [Mr. F explained that he did not refer to all who were impressed, but to all who were impressed lawfully.*] As to the lawfulness of the acts of the officers of the Government being requisite before the Government will pay or make reparation for them, Mr. S. said there are precedents in abun dance on our statute books, which contradict such a doctrine. Here Mr, S. referred to the case of indemnity to Major Austin, for damages obtained against him for acts done in the discharge of an official duty, and to several

to provide. There could be no difficulty as to the ab- was not responsible, and responsible in a manner in ttract principle of the case. The provision of the con- which it was not responsible stitution, which forbids the quartering of troops on the Mr STORRS acquiesced in the sentiment just excitizens of the United States, against their consent, un-pressed by the gentleman from Georgia, viz: that this less in a manner to be prescribed by law, must be re-bill does not go so far as it ought to go; that, if all these spected. But the law of 1816 was not passed in obedi- claimants who had a just demand upon the Government, ence to the constitution-it was bottomed on a false as- were to be paid, it would require a sum far greater than sumption, and it provided to pay for losses for which the that at which he had himself proposed to limit it He United States are not responsible. That law went on did not believe that the bill would pay more than 50 or the false assumption that the Government is bound by 60 per cent. of the amount of the clains. But, sir, said every act of every one of its officers-an assumption than Mr. S. I have seen these sufferers; I have conversed which none could be more erroneous. It took for grant- with them; and so ruinous has been our delay of justice, ed, that what its officers did, in taking those buildings so long have their hopes and fears been sported with, by force, and quartering troops in them, was constitu- and such is the present situation of many among them, tional, whereas, it was directly in the face of the constitu- that they are willing to take whatever you are at length tion. If the Government is bound by every act of its disposed to allow them. They are glad to get any thing lowest officer, what is to become of the Treasury? If at our hands, rather than have your promise any longer any and every act of a subaltern constitutes, at once, a "Kept to their car, but broken to their hope." charge upon the funds of the Government, where is any limit to the responsibility which it may be thus forced to The bill before you is far from being as extensive in assume? No Government on earth can long be adminis-its operation as the gentleman from Georgia apprehends, tered if such a principle is once admitted. The acts of Let us meet the bill as it is, not as it is not. these officers were clearly against both the law and the constitution, and the Government was in no wise bound by them. But Congress considered the case as a hard one and it therefore was induced to pass the law of 1816, by which it established rules, according to which, the proof of loss was to be taken-and one of its leading provisions was, that, to entitle to indemnity, it should be proved that the occupation was the cause of the destruction of the property. This provision, Mr. F. said, was now by this bill to be done away. But, supposing, the acts of the officers had been in strict accordance with the constitution, what does the constitution direct, in case of taking private property for the public use? It requires "Just compensation"--that is, compensation for the time in which Government had the use of the property, and compensation for any injury it may have sustained in consequence of its occupation by Government. The Government does not ensure the property against all acts of the enemy, lawful and unlawful would illustrate this by a familiar example: a city is bombarded by the enemy, and defended by our own troops, who occupy some of the houses as barracks-a bomb falls on a house adjoining one of those thus occupied, and, in consequence, the barrack catches fire, and is consumed. Would the Government be liable in such a case? The house was destroyed accidentally There was no connection between the injury it sustained and its occupancy by the United States; and the Government would be no more obligated to pay for the house which was used as a barrack than for the house adjoining to it on which the bomb fell. All the difficulty in the case of the Niagara depredations was the want of proof that the destruction was caused by the occupation; but, without this, the claim against the Government could never be made out. Now, it was said by s me, that the destruc. tion was in retaliation for acts of our own forces. By others this was denied. It was a question of fact—and on that point, the whole question turns. It may not be assumed that the occupancy was the cause. He would not, however, enter on that question; it was a difficulty which the House had shifted from its own shoulders, and imposed on those of the Third Auditor.

He

Respecting this part of the report, the following note, published in the National Intelligencer, more exactly explains Mr. FORSYTH's views.

Mr. FORSYTH requests Messrs. Gales & Seaton to correct an error in their statement of Thursday's proceedings in the House of Representatives. Mr. F. was in favor of Mr. LITTLE's amendment to give to all persons whose cases might be covered by the bill before the House an opportunity of profiting by its provisions. The buil, as it stands, is limited in its operation to cases which were presented to the Commissioner for adjudication under the act of 1816, differing materially from the bill under discussion.

Mr. F. is represented as interrupting Mr. STORns, to explain the motion to add a section for the payment of slaves impressed into the public service No such explanation was made. Mr. F. does not believe that any slave, or other property, was and, therefore, according to his opinion, there is no obligation lawfully impressed, during the late war, into the public service; to pay for them out of the public Treasury. Congress, however, proposing to consider all impressment of property during the war lawful, cannot make a distinction between different species of property without injustice.

The act of 1816 established a principle, and the Legislative body deliberately refused to make the application of it general. Another reason of my opposition to the bill, said Mr. As the subject was again under consideration, Mr. F. thought F. is the limitation of the amount to be appropriated.it his duty to give the oportunity to those who believe the prinThe claims are either just or unjust. If they are inciple correct, to apply it to a species of property heretofore extheir principle just, they ought to be paid, let the amount be what it may. If they are unjust, they ought not to be paid at all. If you limit the sum you will grant, you are not paying debts, but granting favors.

Upon the whole, he considered the bill as, in its principle, tending to subvert the constitution, and in its prac. tical tendency highly dangerous. It was founded on an assumption that Government was responsible, when it

ing slaves would have made no difference in Mr. F's judgment cluded. The adoption or rejection of the amendment respector vote on the act of 1816, or on the bill now before the House of Representatives. It must be very obvious, however, that the rejection of it must have excited that feeling always produced by legislation which appears to be partial. Mr FORSYTH, by Mr. STORRS' permission, made an explanation of an argument used by him in the course of the discussion, which had not been clearly comprehended.

JAN. 6, 1825]

Niagara Sufferers.-Crimes against the United States.

other cases.
It had been the invariable practice of the
American Govern ent, he said, where any of its officers
incurred responsibility in the honest discharge of what
he believed to be his official duty, by violating the pri-
vate rights of the citizens, to indemnify him. In the case
of the Niagara sufferers, the Government had acted on
this principle; but, instead of first suffering the officers
to be harassed, it had interposed and required the citi-
zens who had been wronged, to come at once to the
vernment, and had promised to settle all damages.

[H. of R.

which shall appear to have been paid to the owners, as rent, for the use or occupation of their property, shall be deducted from the amount directed to be paid to them under this act.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That, in case the whole amount of claims presented and allowed under this act, shall exceed the sum of 250,000 dollars, then, and in that case, the claimants shall respectively receive Go-only their rateable proportion of the sum of 250,000 dollars, to be liquidated by the said Auditor in the adjustment of the amount to be received by such claimants respectively."

The question being on ordering the bill to be engross

Mr. MERCER rose, and observed that, as sufficient time had not been allowed to receive from the Departments of the Treasury and of War, communications for which the House had called on those Departments, and which had an immediate bearing on the bill, he felt him self bound to move to lay it on the table. This motion prevailed-ayes 82, noes 78. So the bill was laid on the table.

There were other acts on the statute book which were bottomed on the same broad principles, viz. that Government will pay for what is lost or suffered in its service. Accordingly, if any of the arms or accoutre-ed for a third readingments of a militiaman are lost, without his own negli gence, the Government will pay him the value of them. The country has a right to his services; but he is not to be taxed for unavoidable losses. The law of 1818 said that, if any personal property was impressed, or was hired by the Government on contract, unless the risk was expressly provided against by the contract, and the property so impressed was afterwards lost or destroyed, whilst in the use of the United States, it should be paid for. This bill says no more-it only applies to real property the rule which the law of 1818 restricted to personal. He had always thought that restriction improper. If any difference were made, it, surely, ought rather to

be in favor of real estate.

CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the several orders of the day were then postponed, in order to take up the bill for the more effectual prevention of crimes against the United States.

Mr. WEBSTER then, as chairman of the Committee When a man surrenders to the public his personal pro- on the Judiciary, entered into an exposition of the property, he incurs less inconvenience; but when he gives visions proposed by the various sections of this bid, the up his house, his castle, and turns his wife and his chil- object of which, and their relation to existing statutory dren out of doors, the Government is more, and not less, provisions, and their bearing upon cases which have oc bound to compensate any loss or injury he may sustain. curred, or may hereafter occur, he explained at some It is a debt of honor as well as of justice, and such an length. He also adverted to deficiencies which he per one as he trusted the American Government would neceived to exist in the bill as reported, and stated several ver refuse to acknowledge. He concluded by observ amendments, which, in the course of the discussion of ing that such was the situation of many of the claim the bill, he intended to propose. ants, that, to deny them now, would be to deny them forever.

The question was then taken on the amendment to the bill as amended, and decided in the affirmative. The several amendments agreed to, now presented the bill to the House in the following shape:

After concluding his exposition, Mr. W. proposed a few amendments to the details of the bill, which were agreed to. After which,

The committee rose, reported progress, and had leave to sit again; and the remaining amendments which Mr. W. intended to propose, were ordered to be printed for the use of the House.

The following Message was then received from the
President of the United States, by Mr. EVERETT:
To the Senate and House

"Be it enacted, &c. That any person having a claim for a building destroyed by the enemy during the late war, under the ninth section of the act to which this is an amendment, and of the act to amend the same, passed the third of March, one thousand eight hundred and seof Representatives of the United States: venteen, which shall have been presented to the Commissioner of Claims appointed under the act first afore- As the term of my service in this high trust will expire said, at any time before the tenth of April, one thousand at the end of the present session of Congress, I think it eight hundred and eighteen, and which was not paid proper to invite your attention to an object, very inteunder said acts, nor finally ejected by said Commission- resting to me, and which, in the movement of our Goer, may, within nine months hereafter, present the same, vernment, is deemed, on principle, equally interesting with the evidence to support it, to the Third Auditor of to the Public. I have been long in the service of my the Treasury, for examination and adjustment; and if he country, and in its most difficult conjunctures, as well shall be satisfied the building, or buildings, for which abroad as at home, in the course of which I have had a damages are claimed, was, at the time of its destruction, control over the public moneys, to a vast amount. If, occupied by order of any agent or officer of the United in the course of my service, it shall appear, on the most States, as a place of deposite for military or naval severe scrutiny, which I invite, that the public have susstores, or as barracks for the military forces of the Unit- tained any loss by any act of mine, or of others, for which ed States, he shall proceed to assess the damages, and I ought to be held responsible, I am willing to bear it. certify the amount for payment in the way pointed out If, on the other hand, it shall appear, on a view of the in the act first above referred to, which shall be imme-law, and of precedents in other cases, that justice has diately paid out of any money in the Treasury, not other-been withheld from me, in any instance, as I have bewise appropriated: Provided That, if the Auditor shall lieved it to be in many, and greatly to my injury, it is be satisfied the evidence before him is insufficient to en- submitted whether it ought not to be rendered. able him. correctly to decide between the United States my wish, that all matters of account and claims, between and the claimant, he may, on giving notice to the claim- my country and myself, be settled, with that strict regard ant, cause other evidence to be taken. And provided, to justice, which is observed in settlements between inalso, That no payment shall be made under the prov:- dividuals in private life. It would be gratifying to me, sions of this act, where the property destroyed was oc. and it appears to be just, that the subject should be now cupied under a contract with the owner, and at the risk examined, in both respects, with a view to a decision of such owner. hereafter. No bill would, it is presumed, be presented for my signature, which would operate either for or

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the amount

It is

H. of R.]

National Penitentiaries.-Crimes against the U. States.

against me, and I would certainly sanction none in my favor. While here, I can furnish testimony, applicable to any case, in both views, which a full investigation may require; and the committee to whom the subject may be referred, by reporting facts now, with a view to a decision after my retirement, will allow time for further information, and due consideration, of all matters relating thereto. Settlements with a person in this trust, which could not be made with the accounting officers of the Government, should always be made by Congress, and before the public. The cause of the delay, in presenting these claims, will be explained to the committee to whom the subject may be referred. It will, I presume, be made apparent, that it was inevitable; that, from the peculiar circumstances attending each case, Congress alone could decide on it; and that, from considerations of delicacy, it would have been highly improper for me to have sought it from Congress at an earlier period than that which is now proposed, the expiration of my term in this high trust.

[JAN. 7, 1825.

ment like ours, in which so much more of sympathy ex-
isted between the governors and governed than was to
be found under the systems of the old world. He hop-
ed the resolution would be agreed to; and that, if the
committee should not have time and opportunity to ma-
ture a perfect system for the management of convicts
sentenced to imprisonment and hard labor, they might
at least be able to report some preliminary steps to-
wards the attainment of a wise and salutary system for
effecting so interesting a subject.
The resolution was adopted.

NIAGARA CLAIMS, &c.

On motion of Mr. TRACY, the House took up the bill for the relief of the Niagara sufferers. The question being put on engrossing the bill for a third reading, it was decided in the affirmative—Ayes 81, Noes 67; And the bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.

CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

Other considerations appear to me to operate with Mr. WILLIAMS gave notice that, on the third readgreat force, in favor of the measure which I now propose. ing of the bill, he should require the question of its pasA citizen, who has long served his country, in its high-sage to be taken by yeas and nays. est trusts, has a right, if he has served with fidelity, to enjoy undisturbed tranquillity and peace, in his retirement. This he cannot expect to do, unless his conduct, in all pecuniary concerns, shall be placed, by severe scrutiny, on a basis not to be shaken. This, therefore, forms a strong motive with me for the inquiry which I now invite. The public may also derive considerable advantage from the precedent, in the future movement of the Government. It being known that such scrutiny was made, in my case, it may form a new and strong barrier against the abuse of the public confidence in

future.

On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, of Mass. the House went into committee of the whole, Mr. CONDICT in the chair, on the bill more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes.

[The following is an abstract of the provisions of this bill, as originally reported:

The first section provides, That, if any person or persons within any fort, dock yard, &c. &c. shall, wilfully and maliciously, burn any dwelling house, or mansion house, or any store, barn, or stable, within the curtilege thereof, every person so offending, his or her counsellors, aiders, and abettors, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall, on conviction thereof, suffer death.

The second section provides, That, if any person or persons, in any of the places aforesaid, shall, wilfully and maliciously, set fire to, or burn, or otherwise destroy, any beacon, or any other building, than is in the first section of this act mentioned, or any timber, &c. &c. every person, so offending, his or her counsellors, aiders, and abetviction thereof, be punished by fine, not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement to hard labor, not exceeding ten years, according to the aggravation of the offence.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES—JANUARY 7, 1825. Mr. COOK, of Illinois, presented the following reso-tors, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall, on conlution :

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing one or more National Penitentiaries for the confinement and punishment of persons convicted of offences against the laws of the United States, to be located at such place or places as shall be most convenient to the different sections of the Union. "

The third section provides, That, if any offence shall be committed in any of the places aforesaid, the punishment of which offence is not specially provided for by any law of the United States, such offence shall, upon a conviction in any court of the United States, having cognizance thereof, be liable to, and receive the same punishment as the laws of the state, in which such fort, dock yard, navy yard, arsenal, or magazine, or other place, ceded as aforesaid, is situated, provide for the like offence, when committed within the body of any county of such state.

In support of this resolution, Mr. COOK observed, that a bill was now before the committee of the whole House, which provided for the punishment of crimes against the United States, and which made between thirty and forty different offences punishable by death. He did hope that, in the present advanced state of human society, those principles which had been handed down from a barbarous antiquity, and embodied in so The fourth section provides, That, if any person or many of the codes of European legislation, were suscep- persons upon the sea, or in any arm of the sea, or in any tiole, under her Government, of improvement and miti- river, haven, creek, basin, or bay, within the admiralty gation-that the severity with which crimes are punish- and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, shall ed in the old countries, might be diminished consistent- commit the crime of wilful murder, or rape, every person ly with the protection of society against crimes. The so offending, his or her counsellors, aiders or abettors, bill referred to, besides its long list of capital punish- shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall, upon conments, assigned to an almost innumerable amount of dif-viction thereof, suffer death. ferent offences, the punishment of imprisonment and hard labor. This presented a subject, which would call for the inquiry and reflection of Congress; it opened a wide field, and one which, though often and long explored by jurists and legislators, had never enjoyed so fair an opportunity to be investigated as under a Govern

The fifth section provides, That, if any person or persons, upon the sea, or in any other of the places aforesaid, within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction aforesaid, shall commit theft by force or violence, &c. or run away with vessels, &c. every person so offending, his or her counsellors, aiders, and abettors, shall be deem