Sen. & H. of R.]

Administration of justice in the Territories.

that in consequence of this equal division, it was decided in the affirmative; but, I might say it was decided in the negative. The Senate said Mr. N. is now full one member of the committee who reported the bill is now present. The gentlemen may now see the importance of the bill, and may not be willing to vote for it as it now stands. I should prefer that it be recommitted with instructions, or that it should be recommitted to the same committee generally. I have drawn up a proposition which, in substance, amounts to this: that the bill be recommitted to the committee with instructions to amend the bill by striking out the words, "and shall further make oath or affirmation that he or they have reason to believe, that the said defendant or defendants intend to remove from the state or territory, or intend to leave the United States." If this should be objected to, he would move, without any instructions at all, that it be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[JAN. 10, 1825.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—SAME DAY. Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, offered the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to examine and report to this House whether any, and, if any, what, further legislative provision is necessary for the impartial administration of justice in the territorial governments of the United States."

In offering this resolution, Mr. T. said, it had become his duty to call the attention of the House to this subject, in consequence of certain communications he had received from one of the Territories, requiring, in his judgment, the attention of Congress. In most of the territories inferior courts of law have been established by their local legislatures. The judges of these courts are appointed for a limited period, unless sooner removed by the Executive authority. In the absence of the Governor, the Secretary of the Territory exercises all the Mr. JOHNSON, of Ky. said that the Senate must be powers and prerogatives of that officer. Generally, he impatient at the tedious process of the investigation of is a member of the bar and a practitioner in the territothis subject. The merits of the question had been ex- rial courts. The Governors are frequently absent from posed in two or three previous sessions. With respect their territories many months in succession. In such to the details of the bill, no committee had ever bestow-case, it has happened, and, unless prohibited by law, ed more attention on any subject, than had been bestow- may again happen, that one of the Attorneys on record, ed on this, by the select committee to whom it was re- in a cause depending in court, appoints the judges to ferred. The honorable gentleman from Indiana, (Mr. | try the cause, holds over them the power of removal at NOBLE,) wished to recommit the bill, and strike out a pleasure, and exerts a controling influence in fixing their part which vitally affected its principle. If the majority compensations. The danger of this power, so unfriendwere against the adoption of the measure, then let it be ly to the impartial administration of justice, becomes rejected. If the gentleman could point out any thing more apparent when we consider the influence the actobjectionable in the phraseology, which needed amend-ing Governor is capable of exerting over the jurors.ment, he saw no objection to it. It was needless to enter Those, being freeholders, generally compose the class into the history of this measure. It had been three years of citizens which furnish most of the candidates for the before the Senate, and five before the House of Repre- offices of Sheriff, Justice, Coroner, and for office in the sentatives, in relation to its principles and details. When Militia. In addition, then, to his influence with the it was before the Senate on a former occasion, the part court, arising from the facts above mentioned, it has ofto which the honorable gentleman objected, was attempt ten happened that a portion of the jurors impannelled ed to be struck out. The friends of the measure, said and sworn to try the cause, have stood in relation to one Mr. J. have stated, that the principles of the bill are in- of the Attorneys in the attitude of humble suppliants for volved in that section. I should be better pleased that office. the bill should be finally thrown out, than its principles should be destroyed in this indirect manner. Nothing will be gained by procrastinating the measure; and I hope the recommitment will not take place, either with or without instructions. As it would then stand, those who contend for the principles of the bill would vote against it; for those principles would be utterly destroyed. He was very sorry, after the opportunities that had been so repeatedly afforded for the commitment and recommitment of the bill, and the conceding disposition he had evinced, that it should still be objected to. He hoped that the final decision would take place, but not by procrastinating it in this way. He had nothing more at stake than any other member, but wished finally to dispose of it.

Mr. NOBLE replied, that he had no wish to procrastinate the decision. In its present shape he was entirely opposed to the bill. He had seen enough in the Western Country of stop laws, occupying claimant laws, &c. to satisfy him that it was necessary to have some Court in which the suitor should not be shackled. By this bill, said Mr. N., it is required that a man should take an oath, first, as to the amount of the debt, and afterwards take another that the party is about to leave the state or the United States. Now, he might conscientiously take an oath as to the existence of the debt and its amount; but I ask if a man in one state was to bring an action against one in another state, could he easily swear that his debtor was about to leave the limits of the state? Barriers are thrown in the way to prevent an honest creditor collecting an honest debt. He moved to commit the bill without any instructions.

The question was then taken on the commitment of the bill, and carried-Ayes 23-Noes 21.

These statements, said Mr. T., are not made in reference to any particular case of injustice which may have arisen, but the facts upon which they are founded are derived from very respectable authority, and are entitled to consideration.

The remoteness of the territories from the seat of the General Government, the imperfect responsibility of officers there to the people, the difficulty of detecting and punishing abuses which may exist, unite in demanding of Congress the removal, so far as may be practicable, of all temptation to injustice or oppression. The particular danger to which he had alluded, Mr. T. said, might be remedied by a law prohibiting the person exercising the office of Governor from practising as Attorney, Counsellor, or Solicitor, in the Courts of the Territory over which he may preside.

This prohibition, it was believed, would furnish ground for no such complaint on the part of the officer whom it might affect. The Secretary of a Territory enjoys a salary from the United States of $1000 a year. Our District Judges, with salaries, many of which are not greater, and for considerations certainly not more important to the public, have been prohibited engaging, before other and independent judges, in the practice of law. At any rate, said Mr. T., the subject is worthy the attention of the appropriate committee. The resolution was agreed to.

The following message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. EVERETT: To the House of Representatives:

I should hasten to communicate to you the documents called for by a resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 4th instant, relating to the conduct of the officers of the Navy of the United States, on the Pacific

JAN. 10, 1825.]

Crimes against the United States. ›

[H. of R.

Ocean, and of the public agents in South America, if ritime jurisdiction:" terms, the precise import of which such a communication might now be made, consistently there is much difficulty in settling. The question arises, with the public interest, or with justice to the parties how far does this admiralty jurisdiction extend? The concerned. In consequence of several charges, which difficulty of marking this line with precision, none knew have been alleged against Com. Stewart, touching his better than the gentleman from Massachusetts himself, conduct, while commanding the squadron of the United who took a very distinguished part in a celebrated case States, on that sea, it has been deemed proper to sus- lately argued before the Supreme Court of the United pend him from duty, and to subject him to trial on those States, and which turned mainly on that question. In charges. It appearing, also, that some of those charges another case, where the same question came up, Judge have been communicated to the Department by Mr. Story devoted seventy-five pages to the discussion of it. Prevost, political agent, at this time, of the United States It is the opinion of some, and this distinguished jurist is at Peru, and, heretofore, at Buenos Ayres and Chili, and one of the number, that maritime jurisdiction extends apparently with his sanction, and that charges have like-over "the high seas," and over the sea as it extends into wise been made against him, by citizens of the United bays, harbors, rivers, and creeks, and as far as it ebbs States engaged in commerce in that quarter, it has been and flows. Others say that the common law jurisdicthought equally just and proper that he should attend tion extends only to the enclosed parts of the sea. If here, as well to furnish the evidence in his possession, the first of these opinions is the correct one, then, acapplicable to the charges exhibited against Commodore cording to the provisions of the present bill, the jurisdicStewart, as to answer such as have been exhibited tion of the federal courts will spread over all the bays, against himself. In this stage, the publication of these harbors, and rivers, of the Union, as far as the tide flows. documents might tend to excite prejudices which might Mr. B. observed that he should not himself undertake to operate to the injury of both. It is important that the define the precise extent of this so often discussed jurispublic servants, in every station, should perform their diction; but, as the point had been a matter of controduties with fidelity, according to the injunctions of the versy long before the date of our constitution, it might law, and the order of the Executive in the fulfilment be argued, with some plausibility, that the clause in the thereof. It is peculiarly so that this should be done by constitution which speaks of piracies and felonies "on the commanders of our squadrons, especially on dis. the high seas,” had been intended to settle the question. tant seas, and by political agents, who represent the It was a controversy which had called forth a vast amount United States with foreign powers, and for reasons that of talent and intelligence; but without pretending to are obvious in both instances. It is due to their right, settle it, he conceived that every necessary purpose and to the character of the Government, that they be would be subserved if the bill shall make provision for not censured without just cause, which cannot be ascer- the punishment of crimes committed without and betained until, on a view of the charges, they are heard yond the jurisdiction of the several states. Now, it was in their defence, and after a thorough and impartial in- the received doctrine, that every state has jurisdiction as vestigation of their conduct. Under these circumstan- far as its own territorial limits extend; and these limits ces, it is thought that a communication, at this time, clearly include all the bays, waters, creeks, &c. which of these documents, would not comport with the pub- are within the state. The gentleman must well recollic interest, nor with what is due to the parties con- lect the case where this was settled before the Supreme cerned. Court, in relation to the state of Massachusetts. His wish was to avoid all colliding jurisdictions; and, therefore, it was, that he wished the bill modified in the manner he had stated. And he now suggested, with that

Washington, January 10, 1825.

JAMES MONROE.

The message was read, and ordered to lie on the view, that the bill should be made to read as applying

table.

PENAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. The House then, on motion of Mr. WEBSTER, went into committee of the whole, Mr. CONDICT in the chair, on the bill further to provide for the punishment of crimes against the United States.

to offences committed "on the bigh seas, and beyond
the territorial jurisdiction of any of the states;" or any
other phraseology which would attain the same object.
He believed the language in the former law was
of the jurisdiction of any particular state." He trusted
that the honorable member from Massachusetts would

Mr. P. P. BARBOUR rose for the purpose of sugges-not object to such a modification.
ing to the honorable chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, the propriety of a modification of the bill now
before the committee-a modification which had re-
spect to the principle of the bill, and which, if adopted,
would run through several of its parts. He highly ap-
proved of much that the bill contained, and thought that
many of the offences it contemplated were worthy of
punishment; but the object he wished to attain, in the
modification he now suggested, was, that the federal
courts should have cognizance of all cases where punish-
ment was necessary, and where the state courts have
no jurisdiction; but that, where the state courts have
jurisdiction, there none should be given to the United
States. He was fully aware that the subject was one at-
tended with much and great difficulty. If we looked at
the legislative department of the Government, we find
that the constitution gives it power to define and punish
piracies and felonies, committed on the high seas, and
offences against the laws of nations: if we look to the
judicial department, we find the constitution giving it
jurisdiction over all cases of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction. Confining our attention only to the legisla-
tive power of the Government, it would seem to be at
once limited to "the high seas;" but, if we go on to the
judicial, we find it under the words "admiralty and ma-

66 out

Mr. WEBSTER rose in reply: he said that the member from Virginia had stated with great fairness the difficulty which attended this subject; and if he apprehended, with that honorable member, that any disagreeable collision could take place between the federal and state authorities, from the passage of the bill as it stands, he might be perhaps induced to modify it as proposed. He was well aware that the leading law heretofore existing on this subject, provided for the punishment of crimes committed "on the high seas, or in any bay, harbor, basın, creek, or river, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state;" but he had expressly stated, when he introduced the present bill, that its object was to carry that act farther, and he would now assign some of the reasons which led him to desire it. The power to punish was one for which no government now a-days was much disposed to contend; and the offences committed within the federal jurisdiction were, in most cases, directed against the United States, or against those interests which the Government was especially bound to protect. The jurisdiction of the United States was found chiefly where commerce existed, and commerce was an interest which the United States were peculiarly bound to protect-it is an interest regulated by the United States-its revenue is given to the United States;

H. of R.]

Crimes against the United States.

[JAN. 10, 1825.

act of May, 1820, in which it is decided that admiralty jurisdiction extends as far as the tide ebbs and flows. Mr. W. concluded his remarks, (of which our Reporter professes to have given but an imperfect outline, in which he does not expect to have attained the complete accuracy desirable in a view of legal discussions,) by remarking that, if he perceived any danger of the collision which some gentlemen seemed to apprehend, he should be the last to urge any bill that would produce it. We might, indeed, get along without the measure now proposed-we might continue to limp and halt as we have hitherto limped and halted--many murders would go unpunished, and much United States' property would be left without any protection from the United States. If we went into any harbor of the country, we should see less of the state authority than was proposed to be left untouched by this bill. The commerce there is all regulated by United States' laws-the masters, the mariners, the pilots, are all under regulations of the United States-and he thought that the crimes committed there would also be most properly punished by the United States, if its jurisdiction may lawfully be extended to them.

and the bill proposes to give the federal courts jurisdic-were petitioning the mother country for a hundred years, tion over crimes only where they now have jurisdiction (which seems to show that the real grievance was not the over commerce. The crimes most mischievous were trial of those causes without a jury, but by a judge apcrimes against the property of the Government. Now pointed abroad and without our consent.) Mr. W. said the question was, whether the General Government that, notwithstanding the objection urged against the shall devolve the whole burden (for it was a burden bill, it would be found that the law now existing has and not a privilege) of punishing crimes against itself, provided for the jurisdiction the bill proposes—that is, on the state governments, because committed within for the punishment of crimes committed within the matheir bounds. In taking this task into their own hands, ritime jurisdiction of the United States, and at the same the Government will only be acting on the principle time within the jurisdiction of the States. The act of which has governed it from its origin offences against | 1790, if it had stopped at the words "high seas," would, those rights which are peculiarly committed to its pro- indeed, have excluded such a jurisdiction as that now tection it has always punished in its own courts, such proposed-but it does not stop there it says, also, as counterfeiting the national coin, forging the national and in all bays, harbors, creeks," &c. Many things securities,&c. There was nothing to prevent the state go- | are directed to be punished in the act of 1790, on the vernment from punishing these offences as well as others high seas, which are neither piracies nor felonies, alwithin their limits; yet the federal government has never though the Constitution, speaking of the judicial power, left it to them. The great objection against leaving the restricts it to piracies and felonies which would infer task of punishing to the state governments is the burden that the Constitution was then held to grant larger of expense: no state government, so far as his knowledge power by the other clause. Several other laws, besides extended, was ever very anxious to take this burden that of 1790, give express authority for the extent of none were very ambitious of extending their jurisdic-jurisdiction in this bill. Mr. W. here adverted to the tion in this respect. He would now state, so far as his understanding of it went, how the power of punishing these crimes came to the General Government. In defining the power of Congress, the Constitution says, it shall extend to the defining and punishing of piracies and felonies upon the high seas and offences against the law of nations. Whether the Constitution uses the term "high seas," in its strictly technical sense, or in a sense more enlarged, is not material. The Constitution throughout, in distributing legislative power, has reference to its judicial exercise, and so, in distributing judicial power, has respect to the legislative. Congress may provide by law, for the punishment; but it cannot punish. Now it says that the judicial power shall extend to all cases of maritime jurisdiction; and it has lately been argued that, as soon as a judicial system is organized, it had maritime jurisdiction at once, by the Constitution, without any law to that effect-but I do not agree to this doctrine-and I am very sure that such has not been the practice of our Government from its origin in 1789 till now. The Constitution defines what shall be the objects of judicial power, and it establishes only a Supreme Court-but in the subordinate Courts the jurisdiction they shall exercise must be defined by Congress; the defining of it is essential to the creation of those Courts. The Judicial power is indeed granted by the Constitution, but it is not, and cannot be exercised till Congress establishes the Courts by which it is to be so exercised. And I hold there is still a residuum of judicial power, which has been granted by the Consti tution, and is not yet exercised, viz: for the punishment of crimes committed within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States' Courts, and yet not without the jurisdiction of the particular states. So the Constitution says that the Federal Courts shall have jurisdiction of all civil cases between citizens of different states, and yet the law restricts this jurisdiction in many respects as to the amount sued for, &c. There is a mass of power entrusted to Congress; but Congress has not granted it all to specific courts, and therefore the Courts do not exercise it. The Constitution gives to Congress Legislative power in all cases of admiralty jurisdiction, from whence has occurred one of the most extraordinary of all circumstances that causes of revenue have become cases of admiralty jurisdiction. The cause of this seems to be, that, under the colonies, these causes were tried by a Judge of the Crown; in England they are not held to be cases of admiralty jurisdiction; but are tried by Juries in the Court of Exchequer. The act of 1790 gives to the District Court of the United States original cognizance of all cases of admiralty jurisdiction, including cases of seizure; hence that very state of things has happened, against which, when we were colonies, we

Mr. BARBOUR observed, that the difficulty he had first stated, still remained, which was, the local extent of maritime jurisdiction. He knew that there was a distinction between the civil and criminal jurisdiction in this respect. In the former, the question of locality did not come up for inquiry; but in the latter, it was material. The question of its limits had called forth illustrious talents, but was still undetermined. Where is it to be limited? To the high seas? If not, to "the sea?" If so, is it the "open sea," or is it also in harbors, and does it ascend rivers with "the ebbing and flowing of the tide ?" This, said Mr. B. is the difficulty. I wish to avoid it by limiting the bill to places without the state jurisdictions. He did not think it was a fair presumption that the State Governments would neglect their duty. The proper and natural presumption was, that they would do it on the water as much as on the land. He would, however, make, at present, no distinct motion. Indeed, no one motion would accomplish his object. He would only present to the honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee the suggestion, which, if adopted, would require a number of distinct amendments to the bill.

Mr. WEBSTER observed that it would be best in the meanwhile to proceed with the details of the bill.

The remaining sections were accordingly read in succession. Mr. WEBSTER explained the particular objects of several of them, and suggested several slight amendments, which were adopted-when the committee rose, and reported the bill as amended.

Drawback on Cordage.-President's Accounts.

H. of R.]

Accounts of the President of the United States.

[JAN. 11, 1825.

not be sent to the Committee of Claims-which was already sufficiently burthened with business. It was not in the contemplation of the President, it was evident, that any thing definitive should be done the present session in relation to the subject of his message. The investigation of it would obviously be a business of con

Message should not go to the Committee of Claims, that it would be out of the power of that committee, from the pressure of business already before it, to act upon the Message during the present session, and it was the very object of the President, as therein expressed, that whatever investigation took place should take place during the present session, that his situation might ena-siderable labor, as it appeared that private as well as ble him to facilitate the inquiry.

Mr. MERCER, of Va. said, that there was no member of the House who felt greater confidence in the Committee of Claims than he did, or entertained a higher opinion of the unwearied assiduity, talents, and integrity, of the chairman of the committee, whom he might emphatically denominate his friend, and for whom he had ever cherished sentiments of the highest respect-yet he must object to giving the present document that direction-for, in the first place, it was not certain that any thing was due to the President. For aught that appeared, the result of the inquiry might shew that the President was, on the contrary, indebted to the Government. If a select committee is appointed, it will be their duty to report what is the true state of the fact. This is all that the message asks for. The President asks for no bill-he expressly says that he will sign no bill in his own favor-and he presumes that none, intended to bring him in debt to the nation, will be presented to him for his signature, (though he did not doubt for a moment, that, should such a bill be presented to him from this House, he would sign it without hesitation.) Should the select committee discover that part of the expenses, to which the message alludes, had been incurred by the President while in his diplomatic character, that part of the accounts might afterwards go to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. If the supposed claim was found to touch the Executive expenditures, there was a standing committee to which that part of it might go. But he thought that a select committee was most proper, because they would devote their attention exclusively to the object, and would be enabled to report a statement of facts during the present session, and while the President was still in Washington. It would certainly not be treating that venerable person with the respect to which his years and long services entitled him, to drag him from his retirement, after he shall have left his high station, and compel him to come to Washington to attend to a settlement of accounts; and, besides, it might then be viewed by him as indelicate to apply for al lowances after his time of service shall have expired. It could not be doubted that the claims of the President were, in his own view of them, founded in justice, and the investigation he had asked for was honorable to him, and ought not to be refused.

Mr. McLANE, of Delaware, then rose, and observed, that it did not appear to him to be very material to what committee the document was referred, if the House determine to consider the subject now at all. But, before he voted, he should like to have some information as to the nature of the difficulties to which the message seems to allude. He was perfectly ready to aid in any investigation which was requested, so far as his situation in the House might give him any facilities in so doing; but, as a private member, he wished to know what is the nature of the accounts alluded to. Are they accounts which have been settled? If they are not settled, why, then there is the most imperious obligation that they should be settled as soon as possible; but, if they have been settled, and there is no balance against the President, he did not clearly perceive what was the object he had in view. He hoped the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. INGHAM,) would consent to let the paper lie upon the table for the present, until some farther information could be obtained to guide the House as to the proper course to be taken. fessed himself to be in utter ignorance on the subject. For one, he proMr. McCOY, of Virginia, hoped the message would

ning back for many years. The Committee of Claims public accounts were to be investigated, and these runwas, of all other standing committees of this House, least able to undertake an investigation of this nature and extent-and he concurred with the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr McLANE,) in a wish that the Message might lie on the table till the House were better advised what to do with it.

Mr. BARTLETT again rose, to express a hope that he had not been misunderstood in the remarks he had made when first up. As his motion had been to refer so much only of the message as relates to the private and personal claims of Mr MONROE, to the Committee of Claims, if it should appear that there were no claims of this kind referred to by the Message, then his motion would have no effect; but if there were any such claims, then it would go to refer them to a committee, the special object of which was claims of such a description. He wished to say one word in reply to the gentleman from Louisiana, (Mr. BRENT,) who objected to sending it to the Committee of Claims, because that committee had already so much business that it could not attend to this during the present session. Mr. B. said, he would only observe, that, if this were a valid objection, it was equally valid against sending any other claim whatever to that committee from now to the end of the session. But, for himself, such was his confidence in the diligence as well as the ability and fidelity of that committee, that with him this objection had little weight. He denied having any other object than to aid the views expressed by the President in setting a precedent which might be the most proper and most salutary. He attached no suspicion whatever to any select committee of this House to which the subject might be referredbut he thought it was most fit in itself that an individual personal claim, though that of a citizen in the highest office of the State, should go where other claims went of the same kind.

Mr. LIVERMORE, of N. H. objected to any division of the subjects of the Message as inconvenient. There was a strong precedent for the appointment of a select committee, to examine the accounts of the President, in the case of the accounts of the Vice President, which were thus examined. It was indeed true, that his accounts had first been presented at the Treasury; but they had ultimately been submitted to a select committee of this House. He admitted the general principle, that all who ask justice at our hands, should stand alike— but it does not therefore follow, that the same rule of business should be applied to all cases. It was also true, that there were standing committees of the House, to which all business of a particular kind was erdinarily referred; and yet it was a frequent practice to send business of the same kind to a select committee. He hoped a select committee would be appointed, and that the whole matter would be entrusted to them for investigation.

Mr. HAMILTON, of S. C., said, that he thought that it was not an unimportant portion of the inquiry before the House, in reference to the direction which it was proper to give the message of the President, to ascertain what had been its usual practice, in similar cases; and, whilst he cordially subscribed to the republican doctrine of the gentleman from New Hampshire, that the chief magistrate of this nation was entitled to no higher privileges of justice than the humblest man in our country, he would undertake to say, that, in the present instance, it was merely attempted to give to this