ground as Mr WEBSTER, which he argued at some length, and with much clearness, contending that the House either had jurisdiction or it had not; if it had not, it had no right to look at the return, for any purposes, or at the corrrespon dence of the return with the member who took the seat; if it had jurisdiction, it had certainly a right to examine, on any point whatever, the validity of the return. Otherwise, the absurdity would follow, that any man whatever, claiming a seat as Delegate from a Territory, would have a right to take it; whether duly elected or not. Mr. GASTON, of North Carolina, spoke again in support of his views. He quoted cases from other grades of office, which he considered as analogous to that embraced in the question before the House; that, for instance, of a Judge exhibiting a commission from the proper authority; into the legality of which his colleagues of the court have no power further to inquire, than that the certificate is in the usual form, and signed by the Ex ecutive authority. H. OF R. power in the case before them. He argued the question at some length. Mr. RANDOLPH replied to Mr. PICKERING and Mr. HARDIN, and contended against the power of the House in this respect. If it had the power, he contended, it was a concurrent power with the Senate, as the Delegates were to the Congress and not this House, though it had been deemned convenient and expedient to admit them to seats in this House rather than in the Senate. Mr. SMITH, of Virginia, taking for granted the right of the House on the subject, proceeded to the examination of the question, he conceived to be actually before the House, whether, on the facts reported by the committee, the sitting member or the petitioner was entitled to a seat in this House? Mr. S. was in favor, as the evidence presented itself to him, of the right of Mr. EASTON to a seat. If satisfied, by evidence now in possession of the sitting member, of bad votes having been given, he would be willing to recommit the report. Mr. SCOTT (the sitting Delegate) stated, that there was now on the table evidence of one hundred and fifteen bad votes, eighty-seven of which were, by the evidence, fixed to have been given for the petitioner. Mr. SHEFFEY, of Virginia, denied the correctness of the doctrine, which, he said, had been broached on this occasion, and which, if sanctioned by the House, would lead to the most extraordinary consequences. Mr. S., besides the general grounds of opposition to the motion for postponement, Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, defended the report was desirous to adhere to the precedent already of the Committee of Elections, contending, that established, by the House having in 1809 taken the decision of the qualifications of voters at cognizance of a contested Territorial election; re-elections ought to be left to the judges of the specting which it was not at all material that it election in the present case, and in most other was not of the same nature as the present ques- cases of contested election; not because this tion; since, if the House had a right to inquire House had not the power, but because it was not into the right of a Delegate to a seat on one practicable for the House properly to scrutinize ground, they had the same right on any other. them. As to the qualifications of the voters, Mr. CADY, of New York, was against the ex-evidence was even now taking in some of the pediency, if not the right of the House to inquire into the election of a Delegate. He instanced a case, which he contended was analogous-that of a foreign Minister, presenting to the President his credentials; suppose another person should present himself, and say that he was the real representative of his Government, the other hav-report of the committee. ing obtained his certificate by fraud. Would the President go into an examination of the relative right of each, and decide which was the true representative of the Government? Or would he not reject both, and refer them to their constituent authority to remedy the error, if any? Mr. C. was in favor of indefinite postponement. Mr. PICKERING, of Massachusetts, argued, from the right of the people of the Territories to have a Delegate on this floor, established by law and the Constitution, that they had a right to be correctly represented; and that, therefore, it was the right and duty of the House to inquire into the validity of their election, when contested. The question on indefinite postponement was decided in the negative by a large majority. Mr. HARDIN, of Kentucky, contended, that the power of judging of the qualifications and returns of its own members (and Delegates were quasi members,) was inherent in every Legislative body, and not necessary to be expressly bestowed on it; and that, therefore, this House had ample 14th CoN. 2d SESS.-14 counties of the Territory, in regard to the qualification of voters, which could not arrive in time to be examined at this session, and which might present a totally different view of the relative good or bad votes. Mr. T. opposed the recommitment, and prayed the House to decide on the After some further remarks by Mr. RANDOLPH in favor of recommitment The question on recommitment, as moved yesFor recommitment 86, against it 50, as follows: terday, was taken by yeas and nays, and decided YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Archer, Atherton, Baer, Barbour, Bassett, Baylies, Bennett, Birdseye, Blount, H. or R. Transfer of Appropriations. JANUARY, 1817. thony Cruzat, and L. P. Deverges," in which they ask the concurrence of this House. NAYS-Messrs. Adgate, Baker, Birdsall, Brooks, of Ignace Chalmet Delino, deceased, and of AnBryan, Cady, Caldwell, Clark of New York, Clarke of North Carolina, Clendennin, Comstock, Conner, Findley, Fletcher, Gold, Griffin, Hahn, Hale, Hall, The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter Hammond, Heister, Hooks, Irving of New York, from Richard Bland Lee, Commissioner of Jewett, Johnson of Kentucky, Kent, Kerr of Virginia, Claims, &c., expressing his regret at the omis King, Law, William Maclay, William P. Maclay,sion to pursue the inquiry into his conduct, and Moffitt, Moore, Parris, Robertson, Ross, Smith of Va., courting further investigation; defending also his Southard, Taylor of New York, Vose, Wallace, Ward of New York, Wendover, Whiteside, Wilkin, Wil- decisions, and particularly those three animadloughby, Thomas Wilson, William Wilson, Wood-verted upon by the Committee of Claims in their ward, and Wright. The question was then taken, "Shall the committee be instructed as aforesaid ?" And also passed in the affirmative. MONDAY, January 6. Mr. MILLS presented a petition of the inhabitants of the town of Southampton, in the State of Massachusetts, praying that the mails may not be transported or opened on Sundays; which was ordered to be referred to a select committee; Mr. MILLS, Mr. INGHAM, Mr. McKEE, Mr. MARSH, and Mr. TYLER, were appointed the committee. Mr. STEARNS presented a similar petition from the inhabitants of the district of Norfolk, in said State, which was referred to the committee last appointed. report, and throwing himself on the justice of the House to rescue his character from unjust obloquy. The letter having been read, was, on motion of Mr. FORSYTH, referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom had been referred the bill to amend the Claims law. The engrossed bill to authorize the discharge of Oliver Spellman from his imprisonment, was read a third time, and passed. TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS. Mr. LOWNDES laid before the House a letter addressed to the Committee of Ways and Means, by the Secretary of the Treasury, respecting the expediency of repealing so much of the act of the 3d March, 1809, as authorizes the President to transfer appropriations, which was read, and or dered to lie on the table. The letter is as follows: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Jan. 1, 1817. SIR: Your letter of the 21st ultimo, enclosing a res Mr. YANCEY, from the Committee of Claims, made a report on the petition of Caze and Richaud, which was read: when Mr. YANCEY reported a bill for the relief of James Caze and John Richaud, which was read, and committed to a Com-olution of the House of Representatives of the 30th mittee of the Whole. Mr. LOWNDES laid before the House a letter addressed to the Committee of Ways and Means, by the acting Secretary of War, enclosing detailed statements, on which were founded the estimates for the expenses of the Army of the United States, for the year 1817, including arrearages, which were ordered to lie on the table. Mr. FORSYTH Submitted the following resolution, which was read and ordered to lie on the table: Resolved, That the Committee on the National Currency be instructed to inquire whether the President and Directors of the Bank of the United States have adopted any arrangement by which the payment of the specie portion of the second instalment can be evaded or postponed; and, if such arrangement has been made, the expediency of adopting some regulation by which the payment of the specie portion of the second instalment may be enforced at the time required by the act of incorporation, or within a limited time thereafter. Ordered, That the committee to whom is referred the letter and report of the Acting Secretary of War, on the letter of Major General William Henry Harrison, respecting his expenditure of public money, while commanding the northwestern army, during the late war with Great Britain, have power to send for persons and papers. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill entitled, "An act for the relief of the legal representatives ultimo, directing the Committee of Ways and Means the act "further to amend the several acts for the esto inquire into the expediency of repealing so much of tablishment and regulation of the Treasury, War, and Navy Departments," passed the third of March, 1809, as authorizes the President of the United States to transfer appropriations, has been received. In giving my opinion upon the subject-matter of the resolution, it may be proper to state the causes which led to the adoption of the law, embracing the provision which is contemplated to be repealed by the resolution. Antecedent to that period the appropriations were, by some of the Departments, considered as an aggregate sum to be applied, without distinction in their accounts, to every branch of service embraced by the appropriation. In the Navy Department, for instance, there was but one account opened in the Treasury books, because the requisitions made by the Department were drawn for the Navy Department generally, and the sums thus drawn were applied to the naval service, without regard to the amount which had been specifically appropriated for the different branches of the service within that Department. In changing this practice, the necessity of giving the power to transfer from one head of appropriation to foreseen. This power was given to the President; another, according to the exigencies of the service, was and, in order to furnish to Congress the information which it was deemed essential to possess, every transfer of appropriation, together with the application of the money so transferred, was required to be communicated to Congress during the first week of their session thereafter. If no transfers were made, Congress knew the maximum applied to each head of appropriation. If transfers were made, they obtained informa tion equally interesting and useful to them in providing for the wants of the succeeding year. The transfers disclosed to them those branches of the service, in each Department, where the appropriations had been redundant, as well as where they had been deficient. They obtained, without injury, a knowledge of the application of the sum transferred, as well as of the sum originally designated for that object. This was the desideratum intended to be obtained by the adoption of that measure. By reducing the heads of appropriation, the necessity of exercising the power of transfer will, no doubt, be considerably diminished. During a period of peace, and after the Naval and Military Establishments have remained for a considerable time without alteration as to organization or force, it is probable that it will be but rarely exercised. It is believed, however, that a full consideration of the subject will lead to the conviction that the power ought to be retained in peace as well as in war. A change in our relations with a foreign State, during the recess of Congress, which would render it prudent to concentrate the regular force in any section of the country, would increase the expense of the Quartermaster's department beyond the regular appropriation. Expenses incurred under such circumstances must generally be discharged as they are incurred. This could not be effected without the power of applying the redundancies of other appropriations to meet the deficits produced by such an emergency. There does not appear to be any necessity for extending this power to the permanent appropriations of the land or naval service. The appropriations for arming the militia, for the armories, and for arms and military stores, and for the permanent increase of the Navy, may with great propriety be exempted from the operation of this power. It is to the current expenses of the land and naval force authorized to be kept in service during the year that this power should be confined. Within those limits it is not believed that the power can be exercised to the injury of the nation. Without this power, the War and Navy Departments would be compelled to make ample estimates for every branch of the service, as a deficiency in any one might be productive of serious consequences. The idea that economy will be enforced by repealing the provision will, I am confident, be found to be wholly illusory. Withdraw the power of transfer, and the Departments will increase their estimates. In some branches of the service there will be redundancies, in none will there be deficiencies. These redundancies, continuing from year to year, will be more likely to excite to profusion in those branches of the service than if they were transferred to the appropriations which were insufficient. The law, as it now stands, furnishes those whose duty it is to appropriate the money and superintend its application with all the information which is necessary to the execution of that high trust. By reducing the heads of appropriation, the labor of keeping the accounts of the Treasury, as well as of the other Departments, and in the settlement of accounts, will be greatly diminished. This reduction, however, as before stated, will not supply the place of the power of transferring from one branch of the service to another. It may be proper to observe that the power of transfer is applicable only to the War and Navy Departments. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant, WM. H. CRAWFORD. Hon. WILLIAM LOWNDES, H. of R. ESTIMATE OF APPROPRIATIONS. The SPEAKER laid before the House, a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting ated for the service of the year 1817, which were an estimate of moneys necessary to be appropriordered to lie on the table." The letter is as follows: TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Jan. 4, 1817. SIR: I have the honor to transmit, herewith, for the information of the House of Representatives, an estimate of the appropriations proposed for the service of the year 1817, amounting in the whole to $12,451,799 57, viz: - $1,049,940 06 394,241 65 For the civil list For miscellaneous expenses For the expenses of intercourse with foreign nations For the Military Establishment, including arrearages and Indian Depart 321,233 32 7,699,625 79 2,986,658 75 $12,451,799 57 The funds out of which the appropriations for the year 1817 may be discharged are the following: 1. The sum of $600,000, annually reserved by the act of the 4th of August, 1790, out of the duties and customs, towards the expenses of Government. 2. The proceeds of the stamp duties, and the duty on sugar refined within the United States. the direct tax, and other internal duties, after satisfying 3. The surplus which may remain of the customs, the payments for which they are pledged and appropriated. 4. Any other unappropriated money which may come into the Treasury during the year 1817. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your most obedient servant. WM. H. CRAWFORD. Hon. SPEAKER of the House of Reps. PAYMENT FOR LOST PROPERTY. The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill to amend the act authorizing the payment for property lost, &c., in the military service of the United States during the late war-Mr. JOHNSON's amendment, going to substitute a new bill, under consideration." Mr. HARDIN first rose in support of the report of the Committee of Claims, and against the amendment. He made some animadversions, as when he spoke before, on the Commissioner and his decisions. He denied his competency, and arraigned his awards; but, if he were ever so such were the facilities to fraud in the law, that, competent, and as honest as Aristides himself, without amendment of it, as proposed by the Committee of Claims, the United States would be subject to many and great impositions. In regard to the letter of the Commissioner of this morning, Mr. H. took occasion to say he did not know under what authority the letter had been introduced into the House. The Heads of Departments, to be sure, did sometimes dictate to the House; but he never before knew that a little, petty Commissioner, (to use his own expression,) had a right to bring forward his lectures to this House how to act, and tell them what ought to be the amendments to existing laws. He did not know, indeed, that the Commissioner had any right to address Congress, unless defending himself before them on an impeachment, &c. Mr. H. then examined the three cases referred to by the Committee, and minutely analyzed them, according to his views of the evidence, and concluded, from his idea of them, and from circumstances already referred to in argument, that the large claims ought to come specially before the House. Mr. H. entered at large into the general question of national policy and duty, in regard to indemnifying its citizens for losses of private property, and objected to the wide scope which had been given, in the preceding debate on this subject, to the principle of making payment for individual property destroyed during the war; at the same time that he would not, if he could, nor would the Committee of Claims, debar just claimants under the ninth section of the act from full payment of their claims. Mr. H. again assailed the capacity of the Commissioner, of which, he said, he had shown his own consciousness in requesting of the departments an exposition of their views of the construction of the act. He then went into an examination of the proposed amendment, which he entirely disapproved, and condemned as a mere shadow. He could see no good reason why the report of the Committee of Claims should not be agreed to; and concluded by expressing his regret that the dignity of the House should have been wounded by the Speaker's imputations on its capacity, or disposition to do justice to private claimants. Mr. P. P. BARBOUR next took the floor, to sustain the bill before the House, and to oppose the amendment. In doing which he did not propose to enter into an examination of the particular awards of the Commissioner, which others had reviewed, nor to impute any censure to the Commissioner. After replying to one or two arguments which had been opposed to the bill, he came to the general position he rose to support, that the class of cases embraced by the ninth section of the law of last session, was such a one as the Legislature ought to keep to itself, and, in respect thereto, to declare and execute the rule of decision. In regard to the general question as to the extent of the liability of the Government to indemnify its citizens for losses by war, he said that there was one class of cases in which the Government was bound to indemnify; another class, in which it was not so bound; and a third, of a dubious nature, the character of which varied with varying circumstances. These he defined, after going for his illustrations to the fountain of the origin, and tracing down the stream to the present state of the laws of war. The latitude which had been given to this principle in debate the other day, he did not allow; it proceeded, certainly, from a noble generosity of heart, but could not be sustained on practical grounds. The JANUARY, 1817. evils of war, Mr. B. showed, in the course of his argument, must operate unequally; it cannot be otherwise. Among other illustrations of this position, be cited the inequality of the contributions of personal service; the inequality of the prices obtained for produce in various parts of the country, the losses of slaves, &c.; all which inequalities, he said, it would be out of the power of the Government, if disposed, to obviate. The obligation on the United States, he laid down to be, to indemnify, as matter of right, all those losses produced by an enemy according to the rules of civilized war, and of which the Government was the direct and proximate cause of the destruction. If we pass beyond this line, we shall be at sea with neither chart nor compass to guide us; we shall lose ourselves in a labyrinth of infinite perplexity, without a clue whereby to extricate ourselves. Mr. B. next dwelt on the complexity and the importance, in principle and amount, of the cases embraced in the ninth section of the law of last session; which, therefore, he desired to repeal, and subject the cases to the decision of this House. The expediency of this course he argued at length, and replied to the various objections which had been urged against it; justifying the discrimination between the claims in the mode of adjudication, on the ground of the great difference of importance, both as to principal and amount, of the two classes of cases. Mr. B. concluded an ingenious and logical speech by a defence of the capacity of the House to decide on cases of individual claims when presented to them. Mr. COMSTOCK supported the amendment. He considered this question one of much importance, as well to the character of the Government as to the situation of many of the unhappy sufferers in the late war, those whose property had been taken from them by the strong arm of power, which they had neither ability nor right to resist. Justice, he said, required that they should be indemnified for their losses; of which there was comparatively little prospect, if the ninth section of the law of the last session was repealed, insomuch that most of the just claimants would, from that moment, he presumed, consider their case as hopeless. Mr. C. concluded his observations by suggesting a further amendment, proposing the appointment of an agent to examine witnesses on the part of the United States, in cases in which the President or Secretary of the Treasury shall think it necessary. Mr. FORSYTH said, he was decidedly opposed to the amendment of Mr. JOHNSON, among other reasons, because he denied that it was possible for any head of a department so to revise the execution of the act as to prevent abuses. That there had been error in the construction of the law, he said could be demonstrated; but acquitted the Commissioner of great error in this respect, since he had acted under higher authoritythe President of the United States having directed the Commissioner to travel out of the act to pay for all property destroyed by the enemy, in consequence of mere military occupation, JANUARY, 1817. Payment for Lost Property. H. of R. the principle was gone forever, and all hope of relief to the sufferers with it, if the 9th section of the law were to be repealed. leaving the Commissioner to determine the ques- phatically testified to his capacity, to his intetion what constituted military occupation. Mr.grity, to his fidelity, and to his character, for F. was desirous of repealing the 9th section, to honesty and intelligence. So far as the testigive Congress control over those cases. Mr. F. mony of the humble individual addressing the proceeded to reply to an intimation of Mr. CLAY House could go, it should rescue the character of on a former day, as understood by him, that out this individual from any imputations. Mr. J. said of seven or eight hundred cases decided by the he had nothing to do with the opinions of others, Commissioner, three only had been selected as but in his opinion the construction by the Comobjectionable. This was an erroneous statement missioner, as well of the law as of the testimony certainly, since it was known that those three under it, would bear the test of reason as well as only had been the subject of examination. Mr. of patriotism, Mr. J. argued at some length on F. said he had made it his duty, since the former the injustice of repealing the 9th section of the debate on the subject, somewhat to examine the law. Gentlemen might not intend it, but, whatdecisions of the Commissioner, and had exam-ever they might say in argument to the contrary, ined a number of cases; and out of forty or fifty of them, he said, there were at least thirty decided, as he conceived, on grossly erroneous evidence. The papers were in possession of the House, and any one might examine in detail those cases, of which he had a memorandum in his hand. Mr. F. then proceeded to analyze several cases, commenting on the evidence, and denying its sufficiency. Some of the cases, he intimated, had been favorably decided by the Commissioner after being rejected, for deficiency of Vouchers, by the Accountant of the War Department, in the settlement of a deputy quartermaster general's (Major Camp's) accounts, &c. A person who could admit claims on evidence of this description, Mr. F. said, was not to be trusted, and no revision could insure correctness to his conduct. As something like evidence of the injustice of the impression which the Speaker's remarks appeared to him calculated to produce, this exposition he considered to be due, not only to himself, but to the House, of errors, which persons who had a great deal of charity supposed to be errors of judgment. He did not, however, desire the House to impute error to the Commissioner upon his (Mr. F.'s) statements, but he asked that the facts which he had stated should be taken for true till gentlemen convinced them selves otherwise. Mr. F. concluded a speech, of which the preceding is a mere outline, by an intimation that he had intended to say something about the management of this business in and out of the House, which he should for the present reserve. Mr. CLAY (Speaker) next took the floor. He said the gentleman from Georgia had intimated that there was something he had to say, if he was provoked, respecting management of this business out of the House. As the gentleman had done him the honor to refer to him in another part of his speech, perhaps he meant also to refer to him in this remark. [Mr. FORSYTH said, in the remark he had made respecting management out of the House, he had no allusion to any member of the House.] Mr. C. intimated his satisfaction at this explanation, and went on to reply to Mr. BARBOUR, whose able and ingenious argument, he said, called for an answer. The general principle which, Mr. C. said, he had before laid down, and now meant to sustain, was, that, in regard to property within the jurisdiction of a State, if it fails in its highest obligation to protect that property, the State is bound to make indemnity to the sufferer, if, from the nature of the Government, and without too great a dilapidation of its means, it can do it without any great injury to society. He had no idea of carrying his proposition to the extremes which gentlemen had supposed, for there was no principle which, if traced too far, would not be absurd. There must be certain limitations to every rule. The qualifications to the doctrine he had advanced, which he had before mentioned, and which he now repeated, and illustrated by argument, were, that the losses should have been sustained on land, in a war of voluntary declaration, necessary or unavoidable, and not exceeding in aggregate amount the ability of the country easily to pay. Society, he argued, was a compact between those who compose it, by which they agree that contributions for the common defence shall be equal; and there ought to exist an obligation by which those losses should be equally apportioned, to which individuals were for a common object exposed. Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, followed Mr. FORSYTH in debate. He rose, he said, principally to say that his opinion of the Commissioner, and of his administration of the law, remained unchanged, anything the gentleman last up had said to the contrary notwithstanding; and to state that the same claims would have been passed, on the same evidence, by the very tribunal to whom the gentleman wished to refer the decision of these cases. He did not hesitate to say, from the gentleman's own showing, that he (Mr. J.) would Quitting this discussion, not necessarily conhimself have given the same decision as in these nected with the question before the House, but cases had been given by the Commissioner, with-introduced into it, and, therefore, proper to have out fear of the revisionary power of this House, much less of that power which would always control his conscience here and elsewhere. Mr. J. said he had also made it his duty to examine the conduct of the Commissioner, and he em been examined, Mr. C. adverted to the proposition to repeal the 9th section of the law of the last session, the principle of which, he maintained, was indisputably correct. It was immaterial to him, he said, whether the Commissioner was re |