JAN. 21, 24, 1825.] Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.—Cumberland Road. [H. of R. & Sen. a national work, not merely in its benefits, as they had been stated, but in the care of Government manifested towards it ever since the year 1807-8. All concerns of this kind were most profitable when conducted on a small scale; they were, in general, calculated for boats of a small draught of water; but this canal was of dimensions which fitted it to receive bay craft, so that vessels proceeding northward from Norfolk, may enter and pass through it without a change of cargo; this had been done at the suggestion of Government; and in order to make the object of national utility, it was done under the auspices of Mr. Gallatin, then Secretary of the Treasury, and the surveys and estimates for it had all been under the superintendence of Government from the time of his administration until now. If the canal had been constructed on a smaller scale, the individual subscriptions would have been sufficient to finish it, the Company now only offers to Government a share in the fruits of what was begun by individual enterprise. Government has uniformly considered and treated this as a national object; the Secretary of War so treats it in his report rendered at the present session. Whether we look at the reports of 1808, or 1824, we find it spoken of in no other language. Mr. M'LANE thought no further information was required to enable it to act on the subject. Mr. MARVIN (by leave obtained) rose to explain, and stated, in substance, that the two gentlemen last up, were mistaken in supposing that he had not examined the report of the Secretary of War; he had not only examined it, but had expressly referred to it in his former remarks; he was always thankful to gentlemen for information; but they must pardon him if he insisted that, in cases like the present, the information before the House ought to be of an official kind. The question having been repeatedly called for, was now put and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows: ple, Whitman, Williams, of N. Y., Williams, of Va. Wil- CONTINUATION OF THE CUMBERLAND ROAD. Mr. FORSYTH, of Geo. expressed his regret that he mative. Mr. ARCHER, of Va. demanding the yeas and nays, they were taken accordingly; and were as follows : YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Alexander, of Tenn., Allison, Baylies, J. S. Barbour, Bartley, Beecher, Blair, Bradley, Breck, Brent, Burleigh, Call, Cambreleng, Campbell, of Ohio, Cassedy, Clark, Condict, Cook, Crowninshield, Cushman, Cuthbert, Durfee, Ellis, Farrelly, Forsyth, Forward, Fuller, Gazlay, Gurley, Hayden, Hemphill, Henry, Holcombe, Houston, Ingham, Isacks, Jennings, J. T. Johnson, F. Johnson, Kent, Kremer, Lawrence, Lee, Letcher, Little, Locke, M'Arthur, M'Kean, M'Kee, M'Kim, M'Lane, of Del., M'Lean, of Ohio, Mallary, Martindale, Mercer, Metcalfe, Miller, Mitchell, of Md., Moore, of Ken., Moore, of Ala., Neale, Newton, Owen, Patterson, of Penn., Patterson, of Ohio, Plumer, of N. H., Poinsett, Reed, Reynolds, Ross, Sandford, Sloane, Wm. Smith, Spence, Standefer, J. Stephenson, Stewart, Storrs, Strong, Test, Thompson, of Ken., Tomlinson, Trimble, Udree, Vance, of Ohio, Vinton, Wayne, Webster, Whit tlesey, Wickliffe, James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson, of Ohio, Wolfe, Woods, Wright-97. NAYS.-Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, of Va., Allen, of Mass., Archer, Bailey, P. P. Barbour, Campbell, of S. C. Carey, Cocke, Conner, Crafts, Craig, Culpeper, Day, Dwinell, Edwards, of N. C., Foot, of Con., Foote, of N. Y. Frost, Garrison, Gatlin, Govan, Hamilton, Harris, Harvey, Herrick, Herkimer, Hobart, Hooks, Jenkins, Leftwich, Lincoln, Litchfield, Livermore, Long, Longfellow, M'Coy, M'Duffie, Mangum, Marvin, Matlack, Matson, Mitchell, of Penn., Olin, Outlaw, Plumer, of Penn., Richards, Saunders, Sharpe, Sibley, Arthur Smith, Alexander Smyth, Spaight, Sterling, A. Stevenson, Stoddard, Swan, Tattnall, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Thompson, of Penn., Thompson, of Geo., Tucker, of Va., Tucker, of S. C., Tyson, Whipple, Whitman, Williams, of N. Y., Williams, of Va, Williams, of N. C., Wilson, of S. C., Wood-72. So the bill was PASSED, and sent to the Senate for con YEAS.-Messrs. Adams, Alexander, of Tenn., Allen, of Mass., Allison, Baylies, Bartley, Beecher, Blair, Breck, Brent, Buchanan, Call, Cambreleng, Campbell, of Ohio, Cassedy, Collins, Condict, Cook, Crowninshield, Cushman, Cuthbert, Durfee, Dwight, Ellis, Farrelly, Foot, of Con., Forsyth, Forward, Fuller, Gatlin, Gazlay, Gurley, Harris, Hayden, Hayward, Hemphill, Henry, Herkimer, Holcombe, Houston, Ingham, Isaacs, Jennings, Johnson, of Va., J. T. Johnson, F. Johnson, Kent, Kremer, Lathrop, Lawrence, Lee, Letcher, Locke, M'Arthur, M'Duffie, M'Kean, M'Kee, M'Lane, of Del., M'Lean, of Ohio, Mallary, Martindale, Matlack, Mercer, Metcalfe, Miller, Mitchell, of Penn., Mitchell, of Md., Moore, of Ken., Moore, of Ala., Neale, Newton, Owen, Patterson, of Penn., Patterson, of Ohio, Plumer, of N. H., Plumer, of Penn., Poinsett, Rankin, Reynolds, Rose, Ross, Sand-currence. ford, Scott, Sharpe, Sloane, Wm. Smith, Spence, Standefer, Sterling, J. Stephenson, Stewart, Storrs, Strong, Swan, Test, Thompson, of Penn., Thompson, of Ken., Tomlinson, Trimble, Udree, Vance, of Ohio, Van Rensselaer, Vinton, Wayne, Webster, Whittlesey, Wickliffe, James Wilson, Henry Wilson, Wilson, of Ohio, Wolfe, Woods, Wright-113. NAYS.-Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, of Va., Bailey, Barber, of Conn., P. P. Barbour, Bartlett, Bassett, Bradley, Buck, Burleigh, Cady, Campbell, of S. C., Carey, Clark, Cocke, Conner, Crafts, Craig, Culpeper, Day, Dwinell, Edwards, of N. C., Findlay, Foote, of N. Y., Frost, Garrison, Gist, Govan, Hall, Hamilton, Harvey, Herrick, Hogeboom, Hooks, Jenkins, Leftwich, Lincoln, Litchfield, Little, Livermore, Long, Longfellow, M'Coy, M'Kim, Mangum, Marvin, Matson, Morgan, O'Brien, Olin, Outlaw, Richards, Saunders, Sibley, Arthur Smith, Alexander Smyth, Spaight, A. Stevenson, Stoddard, Taliaferro, Tattnall, Taylor, Ten Eyck, Thompson, of Geo., Tucker, of Va., Tucker, of S. C., Tyson, Whip SENATE.-MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1825. The Senate again took up the bill allowing a drawback on cordage manufactured from hemp imported. The debate on this bill occupied the remainder of the day's sitting. The debate embraced the same range of argument, as to the practical effect of the proposed measure on the commerce and navigation, and the manufacturing and agricultural interests of the country, which the debate occupied on former occasions, when it has been fully discussed, and the discussion fully reported, and which must be fresh in the recollection of our readers. The bill was opposed at considerable length by Mr. DICKERSON and Mr. TALBOT, and was advocated by Mr. SMITH and Mr. D'WOLF. Without taking any question on the subject; after the debate had continued till past three o'clock, The Senate adjourned. 1 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY. UNITED STATES' PENAL CODE. On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, of Massachusetts, the House proceded to the consideration of the bill making further provisions for the punishment of certain crimes committed against the United States. [JAN. 24, 1825. separate and distinct punishment for the same offence upon the same individual. If the right exists, what will be the consequence of its exercise? Can one sovereign be deprived of his right by the exercise of a similar right by another? Can the exercise of the right by this Government deprive the State Governments of their right in this respect? If there be any right which may be emphatically termed State-any right guarantied to every state in the Union, it is the right of punishing offences committed within its limits. Then, unless the power of punishing these offences were expressly granted, or indispensable to the exercise of power expressly granted, to the General Government, it would be unwise in it to undertake to exercise that right. Mr. WICKLIFFE, of Kentucky, moved to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Committee, with instructions to alter it in two respects: first, by substituting fine and imprisonment, in proper proportion, for capital punishments, in cases described in the first section; and, secondly, by altering the other sections in such a manner as to confine the operation of the bill to places without the jurisdiction of any particular state. Mr. W. expressed himself as opposed to capital punishments, except in cases of murder and treason; and he felt satisfied that the public sentiment of this country, in this respect, coincided with his own. The objects of punishment he held to be two: first, the reformation of the offender, and, secondly, the benefit of society. Capital punish-ishable by the laws of the United States? But, Mr. W. ment obviously defeats the first of these objects. The example, to be sure, is left, but he doubted greatly whether such an example which presented the offender as suffering the penalty of death under the United States' laws, for offences, some of which were not made capital and penal by the laws of any of the states, was calculated to have a salutary effect on the public mind, and where the feelings of society revolt against the severity of any penal enactment, it usually happens that the law is practically defeated, and the offender suffered to escape, through the lenity of courts and juries. He feared that such would be the effect of the great number of capital penalties provided by the present bill. He objected, also, to another section of the bill, which provides, in general, that offences not enumerated in the bill shall be punished, according to the laws of the state in which they are committed. To this, there laid two objections; the first was, that it presented the extraordinary spectacle of one sovereign adopting the laws of another without any knowledge of what they were; the second objection was, that it rendered the laws of the United States, not uniform, but varied according to the varying regulations of twenty-four distinct and independent state Governments. But, Mr. W. said, the strongest objection which he had to this bill was one which he had taken occasion to state on a former occasion, viz : that it extends the jurisdiction of the United States to offences committed within the territories of the several states. It had been said that such an extension would produce no difficulty, because, as it is an unpleasant duty to inflict punishments, the state Governments would be perfectly willing that the General Government should take it off of their hands. But, unpleasant as it might be, Mr. W. said, if it was necessary to punish crime, the State Governments were not reluctant to prescribe the punishment. The period might arrive when the question, as to the right to punish offences might become an important question between the two Governments. Cases might occur, in which the State Governments would claim the right of punishing offences within their jurisdiction. If, said be, such a state of things may arise, and the exercise of this power is not necessary to the due execution of the express powers of the General Government, I am for leaving the punishment of these offences to the State Governments, which have been heretofore not slow to punish crimes committed either upon persons or property within their territorial limits. To his mind, Mr. W. said, the bill presented a strange anomaly. He could not conceive of the existence of a right in two Governments to punish the same individual for the same of fence. He could not recognize the right of concurrent jurisdiction, as it had been termed in debate, to inflict Mr. W. said, in continuation, that he did not believe the power to punish some of the offences described in the bill could be fairly derived from any of the specific powers granted to Congress. It had been asked if Congress had not the power to punish these offences, where did they get the power to punish the offences now punsaid, what was the nature of those offences? They were offences against the laws of the United States, made under the express grants of power-such, for example, as counterfeiting the coin of the United States-robbing the mail, &c. The question whether the states have power to provide for the punishment of these offences was yet unsettled-it was what lawyers term a vexed question. Mr. W. said, he had himself once occasion to prosecute a man for counterfeiting the current coin. The learned Judge who presided in the cause had declared that the states had no power to punish the of fence, forasmuch as the power had been delegated to the United States, and that their jurisdiction covered the whole. To be sure, Mr. W. said, he did not then, nor did he now, subscribe to the correctness of this opinion: but such had been the decision of the Court. As to the argument by which the power to punish these was incidental to the power to define admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, Mr. W. said he could not subscribe to it in its full extent: and, unless the power to punish offences was contained in that clause of the constitution, it was not contained in any other, unless it was an implied power, derived from the power to regulate commerce. He was not prepared to admit, that, under that clause of the constitution, Congress could provide for the punishment of offences committed within the territory of the states. For, if they could, all offences against private property and persons would fall within the cognizance of Congress. But, suppose it were conceded that this power actually does result from the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States' Courts; have we, said he, any data by which we can measure the extent of that jurisdiction? Can we say at what point, in increasing this jurisdiction, the federal judiciary will stop? Does the federal constitution, or do the laws of the United States, prescribe any limit to the extent of that jurisdiction? For his part, he said, he had in vain sought for a limit to it. It was worthy of remark, that, a short time after the adoption of the constitution, when the Government was about to legislate for putting its powers fairly in execution, there was, in all the statutes for the punishment of offences under admiralty jurisdiction, an express exception as to offences committed within the territorial limits of the states. This ought to be some guide as to the jurisdiction which may be rightfully exercised by the General Government under that clause of the constitution. The House was asked to put within federal jurisdiction all crimes committed within maritime jurisdiction. What is the extent of that jurisdiction? In civil causes, locality or character may determine the question: in criminal cases, the locality alone, and that is to be regulated by the practice and discretion or judgment JAN. 24, 1825.] United States' Penal Code. [H. of R. the gentleman from Kentucky might be attained without recommitting the bill, by moving amendments calculated to remove his objections to it in its present form. Recommitment was a practice resorted to only when the whole frame of a bill required altering, and the entire bill was to be re-cast. As to the third section, it must be obvious, that, where the jurisdiction of a small place, containing only a few hundreds of people, (a navy yard for instance,) was ceded to the United States, some provision was required for the punishment of offences; and as, from the use to which the place was to be put, some crimes were likely to be more frequently committed than others, the committee had thought it sufficient to provide for these, and then to leave the residue to be punished by the laws of the state in which the yard, &c. might be. He was persuaded that the people would not view it as any hardship, that the great class of minor offences should continue to be punished in the same manner as they had been before the cession. This provision in the third section embraced the whole of a bill on this subject, which passed the Senate at the last session. The cominto the details of a complete code of penal laws for a few hundreds of the people in the United States' dock yards and arsenals. With respect to the other objec. tion of the gentleman from Kentucky, respecting confining the operation of the bill to the high seas and places not within the jurisdiction of any of the states, Mr. WEBSTER said, that it was his intention (though not by any means for the reasons assigned by that gentleman, but in reluctant acquiescence with the wishes of a highly respected member of the Judiciary Committee,) to modify the bill in the manner the gentleman desired. of the Court. It had been said that it extends wherever the tide ebbs and flows. But, Mr. W. demanded, where is the law which confines that jurisdiction to the ebb and flow of the tides? Adverting to the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Courts of Great Britain, as settled by practice, or limited by the statutes of that country, he said that the statutory definitions, as far as he understood, were not applicable, as authority, in the Courts of this country. He here repeated, what he had stated on a former occasion, that admiralty jurisdiction had been claimed and exercised in a state of this Union where the ebb and flow of the tide is not known. Since making that statement, the other day, he had learnt that the same jurisdiction had been exercised in other states -at Pittsburg, in Pennsylvania, by the District Judge. Is it in contemplation to punish offences, committed upon the Ohio river, in the Federal Court at Pittsburg? Is it intended that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States shall extend to the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Missouri? Is it proper, is it necessary, that a citizen should be sent three, four, or five hundred miles, to be tried by a Federal Court for offences committed within the jurisdiction of the State Go-mittee did not suppose it incumbent on them to enter vernments? Is it intended to let the Federal Courts punish offences committed in waters or streams navigable for vessels carrying ten tons burthen? It is not to be denied that the Ohio and Mississippi rivers are capable of bearing vessels of ten tons burthen. If this bill passes, then you extend to the Federal Judiciary the power of punishing common offences, within the limits of states, where the state authorities are always competent and always willing to punish them. There cannot, therefore, be any necessity for the passage of this bill. Mr. W. here quoted the act of Congress extending the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States to cases arising on waters navigable by vessels or boats of ten tons burthen, and asked whether it was necessary to the exercise of the specific powers of this Government, that this jurisdiction should be exercised by the Federal Courts, or given to them, as to offences, some of which were described in this bill. He adverted to a celebrated decision of Judge Story, upon the principles assumed in which, he said, no man could tell where admiralty jurisdiction might not be exercised; and, he said, if he were to judge from the last opinion of the same Judge on this subject, he should infer that he was prepared to act upon the principle of the Latin adage, the English of which is, that it is the province of a good judge to extend his jurisdiction. On the subject of maritime jurisdiction, the Judge says-"The language of the Constitution will warrant the most liberal interpretation; and it may not be unfit to hold that it had reference to that maritime jurisdiction which commercial convenience, public policy, and national rights, have contributed to establish." Now, Mr. W. said, what might not, in the discretion, he might say legislation of that Court, be the meaning of commercial convenience, public policy, and national rights? I have, said he, rather a repugnance to granting to that Court more jurisdiction than is absolutely necessary for the execution of the powers of the General Government. From what we have seen, if we may judge from that, they will not be reluctant to exercise any jurisdiction which they can make out a claim to. If these enactions are not necessary-if the states have not refused to punish these crimes when committed within their jurisdiction, why should we undertake to perform this duty for them? In reply to what the gentleman seemed to apprehend from extending the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to the state of Kentucky, he desired the gentleman to remember, that it was only the criminal jurisdiction which was proposed to be exercised. The cases to which the gentleman had referred, were all under its civil jurisdiction, a jurisdiction which often attaches from the subject-matter of contracts, and which, on that account, is much more extensive than the criminal. As to the contests which the gentleman had mentioned, between the civil and the common law courts, none, so far as his knowledge extended, had even thought of contending that the admiralty jurisdiction of England extended to cases of revenue. Mr. WRIGHT, of Ohio said, that he concurred with the gentleman from Massachusetts, that there existed great defects in the criminal law of the United States, and that it was highly proper and necessary that they should be remedied; yet he could not consent, in the attempt to remedy them, to give to the courts of the United States a jurisdiction which he did not think was given by the constitution. The bill extended that jurisdiction to navy yards and armories, neither of which were mentioned in that clause of the constitution which enumerates the places where the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is to be exercised. He would confine the language of the bill, in this part of it, to the very words of the constitution, as he was entirely opposed to giving, by any act of legislation, a construction to any part of that instrument. The United States can get jurisdiction only by cession from a particular state." He moved to strike out the words "navy yard," "arsenal." The chair pronounced the motion not to be in order until the whole bill had been gone through. As relates to those offences against life, limb, or property, committed without the limits of the states, Mr. On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the fifth section of the W. said he would willingly go with the gentleman from Massachusetts, in legislating for their punishment, pro- bill, which provides for the punishment of offences comvided some proportion was preserved between the pun-mitted in any foreign port, on board vessels owned by ishment and the crime. citizens of the United States, was amended by inserting Mr. WEBSTER observed, in reply, that the object of the following words: VOL. I.-22 "By any person belonging to the company of said ship, or any passenger, on any other person belonging to the company of said ship, or any other passenger." On motion of Mr. WEBSTER, the words "and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state" were added to those parts of the bill which prescribe the limits within which the crimes to be punished must have been committed. Mr. W. further stated, that the present law provided punishment against seamen who "make revolt." But, as this term is unknown to both the civil and the common law, and is found only in the act of Congress, to which he referred, a question had arisen in the Courts as to what acts constituted a revolt; and in one case it had been decided, that, as there were precedents or legal means of ascertaining what was the extent of that term, so much of the act as prescribes the punishment of a revolt is void. To meet this difficulty, he proposed the following: [Sec. 5. (printed bill ) line 35, after “ pirate.”] "Or shall unlawfully imprison or confine the master or commander of such ship or vessel, with intent to deprive him of his lawful command, or to compel him to do any act or thing contrary to his duty, or shall combine and conspire with any other person to make a mutiny or revolt among the crew of such ship or vessel, or to stir up among the crew a general disobedience or resistance to any lawful command or authority of the commander or officers of such ship or vessel." A proviso was added to the end of the eleventh section, (which provides the punishment of death for burning or destroying a vessel of war of the United States) in the words following: “Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to take away or impair the right of any court martial to punish any offence which, by the law of the United States, may be punishable by such court." The following sections were then, on motion of Mr. WEBSTER, added at the end of the bill. In illustrating the first of them, that murder, manslaughter, and maiming, were the only offences now punished by the bill, no provision was made for that class of offences called felonious assaults; for want of which, it had actually happened, that a sailor, who cut the throat of his captain with a razor, from ear to ear, could receive no punishment whatever, because, by a miracle, the captain had recovered. And, in like manner, with respect to the second, that there had lately occurred two cases, in which conspiracies to defraud the underwriters by sinking the ships at sea, had gone unpunished, although clearly proved, because the attempt did not succeed. [JAN. 24, 1825 ten, or shall thereafterwards underwrite any policy of insurance thereon, or on goods on board thereof, or shall, within the United States, build or fit out, or aid in building or fitting out, any ship or vessel, with intent that the same shall be cast away, burnt, or destroyed, for the purpose, or with the design aforesaid; every person so offending, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of felony, and shall be punished, by fine, not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement to hard labor not exceeding ten years." [At the end of Sec. 22, of printed amendments.] “Sec. 22. And be it further enacted, That, if any person or persons upon the high seas, or in any arm of the sea, or in any river, harbor, or creek, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state as aforesaid, on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen or citizens thereof, shall, with a dangerous weapon, or with intent to kill, rob, steal, or to commit a mayheim or rape, or to perpetrate any other felony, commit an assault on another, such person shall, on conviction thereof, be punished, by fine, not exceeding three thousand dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement to hard labor not exceeding three years, according to the aggravation of the offence." "Sec. 23. And be it firther enacted, That, if any person or persons shall, on the high sea, or within the United States, wilfully and corruptly conspire, combine, and confederate with any other person or persons, such person or persons being either within or without the United States, to cast away, burn, or otherwise destroy any ship or vessel, or to procure the same to be done, with intent to injure any person that hath underwrit "Sec. 24. And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the Mint of the United States, shall be debased or made worse, as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be, pursuant to the several acts relating thereto, through the default, or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise, with a fraudulent intent; and if any of the said offices shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of said offences, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall be sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for a term not less than one year nor more than ten years, and shall be fined in a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars." "And be it further enacted, That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall be and the same are hereby repealed." Mr. WRIGHT now repeated his motion for amendment, formerly stated, which, after a short debate, was negatived. Mr. WICKLIFFE then moved to strike out the punishment of death in the 1st section of the bill, (provided for burning any dwelling house, mansion house, store, barn, stable, light house, arsenal, magazine, rope walk. ware house, store house, block house, barrack, ship or vessel, within any fort, dockyard, navy yard, arsenal, or magazine, belonging to the United States,) and substitue in lieu thereof "Shall be punished, by fine, not exceeding 5000 dollars, and by imprisonment and confinement at hard labor, not exceeding 15 years, according to the aggravation of the offence." As this motion went to a leading feature of the bill, Mr. WEBSTER rose and said, that he might as well take the present opportunity as any other, briefly to state what were his views in relation to the penal parts of the bill. He regretted, as much as any of the gentlemen could do, the necessity of capital punishments, and he did not know that he was not prepared to say, that a system might be formed in which it should be dispensed with altogether. But such was not the present system of our laws. We punish the crimes of treason, murder, and rape, with death, and so long as this punishment was retained at all, he conceived that the crime of arson merited it as richly as either of the other offences. He would state, in a few words, his reasons for this opinion. No human code, proceeding on just principle, could undertake to administer any part of that moral retribution, which belonged to the General Government of the Universe. The great objects of human punishments is to deter, by example, from the commission of crimes. Laws do not, or ought not, to proceed on a vindictive principle. Offenders are punished, not to take vengeance of them, but that others may not offend, in like manner. Nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est, sed ne peccatur. Such was the sentiment of Seneca, and it was a just sentiment. The true inquiry, therefore, is, what degree f punishment JAN. 24, 25, 1825.] Drawback on Hemp-Internal Trade with Mexico. [H. of R. & Sen. is likely to the purpose of prevention, and to secure | appropriations therefor. The bill having been read the safety of lives and property. It is essential to con- throughsider, therefore, in every case, not only whether the Mr. BENTON rose and said that the petitions precrime be highly injurious and dangerous to communi- sented by the inhabitants of Missouri, and the community, but, also, whether it be of easy, or of difficult per- cation derived from Mr. STORRS, had proved the existpetration; whether it be usually open, or secret; and if ence of an inland trade between the valley of the Missecret, whether detection be generally easy or difficult. sissippi and the internal provinces of Mexico. They Now, with respect to arson, or the malicious burning of had shewn also, he said, the dangers to which the trade dwelling houses, none could doubt, in the first place, was subject, from Indian depredation on the way, and its enormity, and the danger and destruction which it arbitrary exactions after it arrived. The Indians, prone brought on life and property. To him it appeared to robbery and murder, attacked and pillaged the caracertainly not less atrocious than ordinary murder. It vans; the Provincial authorities, separated by an imwas generally an act of deliberation, and it endangered, mense distance from the parent government, imposed not one life only, but many lives. In the next place, arbitrary duties on the merchandise imported. To reit was easy to be committed-it did not require much lieve the trade from those dangerous impositions, the preparation, or the favor of particular or unusual cir- citizens of Missouri had addressed themselves to the cumstances, or the aid of numbers. Lastly, it was of Congress of the United States, and claimed the interpodifficult detection. It is usually perpetrated in darkness,sition of its powerful protection. They have asked, said and the offender may have gone far from the deposit- Mr. B. among other things, for the right of an unmolested sparks before they shew themselves in general ed passage, protected by treaty stipulations, through conflagration. Experience proves, that extensive fires the territories of the intervening tribes, and for the apoften happen in cities, under circumstances clearly pointment of agents, with suitable powers, to reside at evincing the agency of incendiaries, where there has Santa Fe and Chihuahua. In deciding upon these rebeen no conviction, and no detection. The hope of quests, the committee to whom the subject was referred, escape, therefore, in such cases, is great, and in minds and whose organ I have the honor to be, have held it so depraved, as to be willing to commit the deed, it to be their duty to inquire strictly into the value of the must evidently be controlled and counterbalanced, by trade for which protection_is sought, the probability of the terror of some dreadful punishment, if detection its continuance, and its effect upon the social and polishould follow. Still, however, if the House, on due de- tical, as well as upon the commercial relations of the liberation, should think that the public safety could be two countries. They have inquired, accordingly, and, sufficiently secured, he should sincerely rejoice. But, finding the results to be favorable to the object of the for himself, he had not been able to bring his mind to petitioners, they have instructed me to report the bill that conclusion. which has been read at your table. Mr. LIVERMORE, after making a few remarks on capital punishments, and the limits within which they should be confined, expressed a hope that the Committee on the Judiciary would further consider that subject, and would be prepared, on to-morrow, to modify this section in such a manner as to remove the burning of some of these objects from under the punishment of death and assign to them a lighter penalty. With this hope he moved that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to; and the House adjourned accordingly. IN SENATE-TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1825. DRAWBACK ON MANUFACTURED HEMP. The Senate resumed the unfinished business of yester. day-the bill for allowing a drawback on the exportation of cordage manufactured from imported hemp. Messrs. D'WOLF, and LLOYD of Mass. spoke in favor of the bill, which was opposed by Messrs. WARDS, and JOHNSON of Ken. The question being taken on engrossing the bill for a third reading, it was decided in the negative, by Yeas and Nays, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Clayton, D'Wolf, Eaton, King, of Ala. King, of N. Y. Knight, Lanman, Lloyd, of Mass. Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Ruggles, Seymour, Smith, Thomas, Van Buren, Van Dyke-18. The question being now put, "Shall this bill pass?" I feel myself, said Mr. B. called upon by the novelty of its propositions, by my position as chairman of the committee which reported it, and, above all, by the relation in which I stand with respect to those who are chiefly interested in its passage, to state the reasons which induce me to give an affirmative answer to that question. First, then, sir, said Mr. B. it does seem to me that the trade between Missouri and Mexico is sufficiently valuable to merit the favor of the national protection. It opens a new and extensive market for the cotton goods grown and manufactured in our own country; a market not circumscribed by the walls of a town, or the shores of an island, but spreading over an area of a million of square miles. The seven internal provinces are equal in extent to seven of the principal kingdoms of Europe put together. They are large enough to give rise and outlet to a river washing more territory than the Danube the Rio del Norte, which traverses sixteen parallels of ED-latitude, and finds in three provinces only, in those called Eastern, an ample space in which to unfold its enor. mous length. The resources of this extensive region are rich and various. The mountainous districts abound with furred animals; the plains with mules, horses, and cattle; and the central parts with gold and silver mines. The population, exclusive of that description of Indians which the Spaniards call "Indios Bravos," amounts to 600,000 souls, and increases with the rapidity only known to new countries, where manners are simple, the means of subsistence abundant, and land a free gift to all that will take it. The trade of a people inhabiting a country so vast, possessing resources so rich, and increasing in luable. It has already yielded, for the present year, $190,000, in gold and silver coin, and bullion, and precious furs; and this sum, although considerable in itself, is only a beginning, and an earnest of what may be expected when the trade is protected and carried to the extent of which it is capable. NAYS.-Messrs. Barton, Benton, Brown, Bouligny, Chandler, Dickerson, Edwards, Elliott, Findlay, Gaillard, Hayne, Holmes, of Maine, Holmes, of Miss. Jackson, Johnson, of Ken. Johnston, of Lou. Kelly, Lowrie, M'Il. vaine, M'Lean, Macon, Talbot, Taylor, Tazewell, Wil-numbers as rapidly as ourselves, must doubtless be valiams-25. So the bill was rejected. INTERNAL TRADE WITH MEXICO. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the bill reported by Mr. BENTON, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, on the 11th inst. to authorize the President to cause a road to be marked out from the frontier of Missouri to the confines of New Mexico, and making The trade promises to be permanent. The internal provinces are natually dependent upon the valley of the Mississippi for their supplies of foreign igoods. They |