evidence. To arraign the law in this manner before the House, was, he said, a disrespect to the authority which enacted the law, and who did it from a sincere devotion to the best interests of the country, If the facts were as stated by the gentleman from Kentucky in regard to Carroll's building; if the military had broken into the building, as they will do in search of quarters, and thus subjected it to destruction, the decision of the Commissioner was certainly correct. God forbid, he said, that he should wantonly hurt the feelings or character of any individual appointed to so high and responsible an office; he hoped this business would not be further proceeded in, unless to explain the true meaning of Congress in the law. It appeared strange to him, that after a large majority had united in passing a liberal act, it should be proposed, the moment its fruits were felt, to suspend the law. The whole of this proceeding went to implicate the officer. Mr. W. was for leaving this business with the Executive, who he had no doubt would properly exercise his authority in the case whenever necessary.

DECEMBER, 1816.

tionally request of the President to exercise his Constitutional powers. To this proceeding there could be no legal objection. Whether he will pay deference to that request, when made, Mr. R. said, was for the President to decide. The real question is, does the President possess the Constitutional power of suspending the operation of this law? The gentleman from Connecticut had acknowledged that the President had the power of suspending this law, if not in one way, in another; and that he might remove

against that suspicion, was to be opposed the high character of the Commissioner himself, the declaration of a gentleman on this floor who had examined the evidence, and the President's Message. If on those grounds the House would (if they could) suspend this law. they might suspend any and every law. This House might, it was true, in a desperate case, send their Sergeant-atArms and bring this Commissioner in person before them, to stay his proceedings; but, he contended, that the probability was, from the testimony before the House, that the Commissioner was proceeding correctly, and that this was not a case calling for the interference of the House. Mr. Ross was opposed to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New Hampshire; and yet agreed with him in the proposition he had laid down that it was not in the power of the House to suspend a law for a day or an hour. He was in favor of the original proposition of Mr. FORSYTH, he said, not because he thought it in the power of the House of Representatives to suspend the execution of a law, but because Mr. GROSVENOR, of New York, said, that he he apprehended the President did possess the disagreed totally with his friend from Massachu- power of suspending the law, if he pleased, and setts, in the construction of the law. The gen-that the House of Representatives may Constitutleman had admitted, that in ordinary cases the President cannot suspend a law, but said that this law differed from other laws, in requiring the cooperation of the President in its execution. No power was given to the President, Mr. G. said, over this law more than to the Commissioner. The President was to prescribe certain rules, under which the Commissioner was to decide. The President might suspend the execution of this law, indeed, because he might refuse to perform his duties. That would not be a positive act of suspension, but a neglect on the part of the Pres-the officer, which would be a suspension of the ident. So might the Commissioner also act. law until a successor should be appointed. There The President, Mr. G. contended, had no more could be no doubt, he concluded, that the Presiright to suspend the execution of this law than dent had the power of suspending it. Doubts the judge, the marshal, or the sheriff to suspend had arisen as to the execution of the law; the the law he is bound to execute. Mr. G. here President himself had suggested them to Conquoted the terms of the law, from which, he said, gress, and he might go further and say to the it manifestly appeared, that the duty of the Com- Commissioner, you shall delay further proceedmissioner was to judge; the rules prescribed byings under the law until Congress shall decide on the President were to apply to the manner (not to the act) of judging. Mr. G. said, he should vote in favor of the amendment proposed by Mr. WEBSTER; but should then vote against the whole resolve. His reasons were, briefly, that the House was proceeding without proper information. A gentleman from North Carolina had told the House that, from the result of his inquiries, he was convinced the law had been improperly executed. The gendeman from Kentucky had told the House exactly the contrary, the Commissioner having to his knowledge rejected claims which he ought to allow. The whole proceeding at present was particularly wrong, when the nature of the case was justly viewed. There was, he said, no testimony or document before the House, except as to the ninth section of the act. A statement had been made by a gentleman that he suspected erroneous decisions had been made under other sections of the act;

the question I have laid before them. What did the resolution propose, further than to request the President to do this? Mr. R. was decidedly in favor of passing it without the proposed amendment.

Mr. YANCEY restated the circumstance of the appearance of the Commissioner of Claims before the Committee of Claims this morning, and that an examination of some of his decisions had convinced Mr. Y. that they were not in conformity to the law. He would mention the circumstances of one, to enable the House to judge. A claim, rejected nearly unanimously by this House, had, since the passage of this law, been paid for under the 5.h section of the act. The case of Mr. O'Neale was this, said Mr. Y., as it appeared before the Committee of Claims at a former session: He hired to an officer of the United States a vessel in the Chesapeake; it was stipulated that the vessel should be at the risk of the own

DECEMBER, 1816.

Commissioner of Claims.

H. OF R.

ers; she was continued in service for several trum offered to him. No doubt much wrong had days, after which the officer of the United States been done, which it was not competent to this discharged the vessel out of the service of the House to remedy; and that wrong might be done, United States. The enemy came near where which it might become the duty, the prerogative the vessel lay, some time after that, and the com- of this House to remedy. The question now was, mander thought proper to sink her, to prevent however, whether it comported with the dignity her falling into the hands of the enemy. The of this House to go to the President, and request loss thus incurred had been paid for under the of him the removal of any petty officer, for of 5th section of the bill, which provides that "where that description he considered this officer, being any property has been impressed, or taken by appointed pro hac vice, strictly ministerial, and supublic authority, for the use or subsistence of bordinate to the Executive of the United States. 'the Army, during the late war, and the same Mr. R. said he would never compromit himself 'shall have been destroyed, lost or consumed, the so far in his individual character, much less as a 'owner of such property shall be paid the value member of this House, as to ask of the Executhereof, deducting therefrom the amount which tive the appointment or removal, to or from any has been paid, or may be claimed for the use and office, of any individual. But a much more im'risk of the same, while in the service aforesaid." portant principle was involved in this discussion: Mr. Y. asked gentlemen now, whether they were Shall the House of Representatives be instrusatisfied that there had been erroneous decisions mental in introducing into the American Conunder other sections of the bill than the 9th? stitution a doctrine which has deluged the EngOther vessels, he said, had been paid for under lish nation with blood, which has occasioned a the same section. He appealed to the honorable long, violent, and bloody war-a war which finally gentleman from Kentucky, who was a member wrested from the Stuart family this prerogative? of the committee, if these decisions were not Mr. R. said he acquitted gentlemen of any such equally as erroneous as the decision as to Mr. intention; he believed their intentions were pure, Carroll's house or Mr. Ringgold's rope walk? Mr. bút he saw at once the danger of this suspending Y. said he did not regret voting for this law at prerogative, for which the Commons of England the last session, he believed the provisions highly contended, he knew not how long, and at length beneficial, if properly construed. If the law had wrested from their sovereigns, being attributed been misconstrued, it was not the fault of the to our Executive authority, differing so widely law, but of those who had administered it. It in its construction from that of monarchial Govwas not, he said, necessary to speak of the integ-ernment. Mr. R. could not consent to it. If, rity of the officer; that had not been arraigned. said he, the House were to request the President When it was, it would be time enough for gen- to suspend this act, perchance some future Presitlemen to defend it. It was of abuses of the law, dent will suspend our statutes without our reof erroneous decisions under it, that Mr. Y. spoke.quest, and for this reason, if he be competent to He conceived that this House had authority, suspend an act, a mere resolution of this House and that it was their bounden duty to call on the does neither enlarge nor diminish his powers. President to suspend further proceedings under Under this view of the case, if the decisions of the the act. If the provisions of the law required to Commissioner were to take the last dollar from be restricted, it would be reported accordingly to the Treasury, Mr. R. said, he would rather see the House; if they could not get rid of the Com-it drained than see it admitted that the President missioner in any other way, they might decide of the United States had the power to suspend upon the claims embraced by the law being settled laws in any case. at some other office.

be one not only of incorrect but of corrupt decision. If the gentleman had stated the real circumstances of the case, Mr. G. said he should deem it sufficient ground on which to institute against this officer a proceeding of a criminal nature.

Mr. GROSVENOR rose to ask of the gentleman Mr. RANDOLPH considered this as a more im- from North Carolina whether he obtained the portant question than it had appeared to have facts which he had stated from the Commissioner been viewed by any gentleman who had spoken-himself? If they were as stated, the case must a much more important question than any of mere profit and loss to the United States, or of malfeasance in office by any officer of the United States, however high or low. He submitted to the worthy gentleman from North Carolina, whether the whole scope of his observations did not go to impugn the conduct of the officer, and Mr. HOPKINSON, of Pennsylvania, said that not touch the law? With the law, said Mr. R., nothing was more important to this House than I had nothing to do; but I do know, that in cases its character and dignity; nothing was more imof comparatively small importance, in Govern-portant to the nation, and nothing would tend ments like ours, the most baneful precedents creep in. He had no doubt, he said, from the representation of the gentleman from North Carolina, that much wrong had been done; but it did not follow that he would accept the first remedy. The patient was unquestionably sick; but it did not follow that he should swallow the first prescription of the first man he meets-the first nos14th CoN. 2d SESS.-10

more to sustain this character than that it should refrain from acts which it could not consummate. Suppose the resolution to pass, the request to be made of the President, and the President to order the suspension; suppose that the officer refused to suspend the law; the officer, said Mr. H., in doing so, stands authorized by the act of the Legislature; he not only successfully, but with im

H. of R.

Commissioner of Claims.

DECEMBER, 1816.

punity resists the requests of this House and the dence enough before the House to show, that as direction of the President. The President has the President had directed the suspension of a by the Constitution no such power as that of sus- | part of the act, he ought to have gone further, pending a law; and although the gentleman from and suspended the whole. Mr. F. said, he would Pennsylvania had laid down the position that he state in addition some cases of decision, recently had the power to suspend this law, he had not made by the Commissioner, with which he was proved it. Mr. H. held it most clear that the not perfectly acquainted, but sufficiently so to President has not the power, on the request of satisfy him of their demerit. He had been at the this House, to suspend the execution of any law. Treasury this morning, and examined some of Mr. HULBERT said he was satisfied that the the awards which had been made. In one case, grounds of the resolution were correct. It was said he, I find the Commissioner has awarded to not proposed to suspend the law, but the execution a man a sum of money for corn and potatoes of the provisions of the law, specially confided trampled under foot by the United States' troops; by the act to the Executive. He thought the and to another person the value of fifty-two rods House had the power to ask this of the Presi- of rail fence destroyed; these awards being in dent, and he hoped they would exercise it. favor of men by the name of Moore and Evans. From the abstracts of the decisions he had seen, Mr. F. said, he was satisfied such decisions were erroneous. To prevent the decision of similar cases, he wished the House to interfere. One word as to the effect of a suspension of a particular class of cases that of lost horses from the West. Without their aid, Mr. F. said, this act would never have passed this House. Honorable gentlemen, in the warmth of their feelings for that particular section of the United States, in gratitude for the services of its brave militia and volunteers during the war, had included in the act a variety of cases which ought never to have been sanctioned by this House. The House had been told the evidence in support of these claims was here. Would the suspension of the act diminish the weight of that evidence? Would it impair the force of it, to postpone the decision and the payment of the money for a month or six weeks? Mr. F. put it to gentlemen whether that consideration was sufficient to justify an opposition to the resolution now before the House. But even under that section of the bill, he had received it from the most correct authority, the Commissioner was about to give, if he had not already given, a construction which no man in this House would justify; he was about to extend the provisions of the act to officers of the regular army. Some such cases, it was his impression, had been decided before the proper authority had an opportunity of interfering. He hoped the House would reject the amendment, and agree to the resolution.

Mr. CALHOUN, of South Carolina, said the defect alleged appeared not to be in the law, but in the execution of the law. If so, it was in the power of the Executive to dismiss the officer, without the interposition of this House. Mr. C. said he felt very little disposition to give his support to any proposition which should assume the idea of the power of this House to suspend a law. If the decisions of the Commissioner were such as had been represented, no amendment of the law could have any effect whatever, because the law did not even touch the case which had been stated. The evil appeared to be in the officer himself. It is in the President's power to remove that evil. In assuming power in this case, said Mr. C., we should act out of the line of our duty. If the President did not dismiss the officer, there was another remedy by the exercise of a power belonging to this House-that of impeachment. Mr. YANCEY again briefly stated the case of the decision in favor of Mr. O'Neale. He had not, he added, seen the evidence before the Commissioner, and did not know what it was-he took it to be the same, or the same in principle, as that which was formerly before the Committee of Claims in the same case, and from which Mr. Y.'s impression had been derived. Such was the case which had been favorably adjudged under the 5th section of the act.

Mr. FORSYTH said, that much of the debate had arisen from the introduction into the debate of a question not before the House. Various objections had been made-one of them of a novel character, that it would be undignified in this House to request the President to suspend the execution of the law. Mr. F. said, he presumed it was always consistent with the dignity of the House to perform the duties which the Constitution and their constituents had assigned to them. The first great duty of this House was to take care of the public money, and guard it from wasteful disbursement. Mr. F. said, gentlemen seemed to imagine, that this resolution was founded on the presumption that the power exercised by the President, under this particular act, had been properly exercised. Mr. F. said, he would have left this subject wholly to the discretion of the President, if he had been satisfied that that discretion would be properly exercised. But he believed it would not. There was evi

Mr. RANDOLPH put it to the gentleman last up, whether his whole argument did not go to the officer, and not to the law; for, at the end of the suspension of the law for six weeks, we should have that or some other officer to execute the same law. Mr. R. wished to be understood not to mean to inculpate that officer; he knew nothing of his decisions; but he wanted to know whether, in these six weeks spoken of, the officer in question would become more competent to the discharge of his duties than he is now. The whole argument of the gentleman went to the question of requesting the President to suspend or remove the officer. As to the propriety of addressing the President to request him to remove any particular officer, Mr. R. said, he would not enter into that question now. As to the de

DECEMBER, 1816.

Commissioner of Claims.

H. or R.

cisions of the officer, Mr. R. submitted whether, decisions; would it not be the bounden duty of the conduct of the officer being under examina- this House to inform the President, that he might tion before a special committee, a sense of justice suspend wholly the execution of that law which to the party in question did not require gentle- he had partially suspended? Was it not their men to suspend their opinions in regard to the bounden duty to guard the Treasury against this execution of the law, till they had a report from individual? Gentlemen appeared not to recoltheir committee. He asked gentlemen, suppose lect the peculiar nature of this act; every judgthey could bring into court a case of extreme ment the Commissioner made, however erronefatuity in the execution of his duties by a judge neous, or however corrupt, was instantly paid at of the United States-would they request the the Treasury of the United States, and the money President to suspend the law under which he beyond the control of this House. If there had was appointed? The more the gentleman from been a controlling power; if there had been an Georgia insisted on the misconduct of the officer, appellate jurisdiction by which the acts of this the more he convinced Mr. R. that he was wrong Commissioner were to be revised and examined, in the course he had taken. I cannot consent, he should never, he said, have thought of introsaid Mr. R., that whenever gentlemen come on ducing the resolution. But it was directly the this floor, and bring cases, however flagrant, of contrary. He trusted the House was satisfied misconduct of public officers, that a suspension of that something should be done. He declared, he the law under which they are appointed is to be said, that he was a little surprised at the extrathe remedy. But one gentleman says, it is pro-ordinary indisposition to exercise a power of this posed to suspend not the law, but the execution sort. We have no objection, said he, to take up of the law. Mr. R. said, he would leave it to the this subject, provided somebody stands between ingenuity of the gentleman from Massachusetts us and responsibility; but we wait for the Presito explain the difference between two things, dent's direction before we will move in the case. which were to his mind precisely of the same I wish to do more, said Mr. F.,-I wish to give import. information to the President that it is in the opinion of this House that he has not done sufficient. The rules prescribed for the Commissioner were found insufficient; they were evaded-the whole operation of the law has been more than once suspended to prevent further violation, and the evidence in the cases has changed its shape to suit the new regulations. Mr. F. hoped the resolve would be passed.

Mr. HULBERT said a few words in explanation. His idea was, that to suspend certain proceedings under a law, was by no means to suspend the law itself.

Mr. HARRISON, of Ohio, said he wished the gentleman from Georgia to point out what part of the Constitution or laws of the United States deprived a regular military officer of the same right which appertained to all other persons in the United States. If the law in question actually did not embrace the cases of regular officers who had lost property in the same way as militia officers, he could only say, in his opinion, its provisions were extremely partial and unjust. If the provisions of the act were general as to all officers of the United States, why were not the officers of the regular army as much entitled to its benefits as other citizens? He should like to know.

Mr. FORSYTH said he had referred only to the case of regular officers, because there was a special provision, by other acts, for their case; whilst there was none such, except in the act of last session, for militia officers. With respect to the question of the gentleman from Virginia, said Mr. F., I will answer it. I would not propose to remove a judicial officer, because the President has not the power; but if an officer over whom he has power, were to act with evident incorrect ness, I would ask the President to remove that officer. I do not presume to say that the decisions of the Commissioner are erroneous or corrupt: I only state what I believe them to be. It may be, that after the production of evidence and its examination, it may appear that the judgments of the Commissioner are correct. My impression is to the contrary; that the more they are examined, the more erroneous they will appear. Suppose it should be found, Mr. F. said, that the Commissioner had been and yet was making erroneous

Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, claimed the attention of the House for one moment, on a matter of fact. The Chairman of the Committee of Claims, (Mr. YANCEY,) in explanation to the House of his view of the question, did not pretend to state, that he had himself examined one individual case of the Commissioner's decisions. The honorable gentleman who introduced this resolution had said, in his appeal to the House, that of his own knowledge he could not condemn the decisions; that no case had been examined by him, which attached blame to the Commissioner, either of error or corruption. The facts then were narrowed to this; that no gentleman in favor of the resolution had any personal knowledge of them. I will only state one more fact, said Mr. J., and sit down. On my first arrival here, it was stated to me that the House in our view caught fire from the Capitol: I heard it often-I took the trouble to examine the evidence in this and another case, the only two I ever heard complained of before this day-and other gentlemen might, if they chose, have done the same, particularly members who introduce into this House solemn resolutions for suspending laws. I did look over the papers, and the fact was established by the testimony of the acting Secretary of War, and by other incontestable evidence, that the building had been occupied by a military force, and that the rockets of the enemy were, therefore, applied to it. For the honor of the House, for the reputation of the man, Mr. J. asked, would they, without examina

tion, press forward resolutions deciding questions. of the merits of which they were wholly ignorant? Mr. FORSYTH said, the gentleman misunderstood him if he supposed he had offered and pressed this resolution without just grounds. He had, he said, to be sure, no personal knowledge of facts, but his resolution was bottomed on information received from the Heads of Department-and information received in this way was much more entitled to credit than information received from the Commissioner himself. The case of Mr. O' Neale was received from the chairman of one of the committees, who received it from the Head of the Navy Department-that case had been decided, and paid, without application to the Navy Office for evidence. He had no personal knowledge of facts, indeed, but he had enough to authorize him and the House to proceed as proposed. Mr. HARDIN now rose to make the motion he had before contemplated, to lay this resolve on the table. He was pretty well satisfied with what had been said, and he presumed the House was satisfied, he said, of the incompetency of the officer, whom it was probable the President would

Mr. GROSVENOR said, he hoped he understood the gentleman from Georgia correctly; that the resolution was founded on the suggestion of the Heads of Departments. If so, it appeared strange, nage duty, reported the other day, by the ComThe bill respecting a modification of the tonindeed, he said, that the President should intro-mittee of Ways and Means, passed through the duce this subject to the notice of Congress in one Committee of the Whole, without debate, and way, and his counsellors, indirectly, in another was ordered, nem. con. to be engrossed for a third way. reading.