The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-01-18

N.,,
Van Horne, Whtehill, Wilion-5s.
NAYS. MeTrs. ALTON, Alexander, Amber
fon, Baldwin, Bettou, Boyd, Boyle, Butter,
Chambern, Chittenden, Clage.t, Crownin-
fhield, Cutler Cults, Dana, Davenport, Dwight,
Elliot, Elmer, Euftis, Findley, Goddard,
Gray, G. Grifwold, r. Grifivoid, Hanna,
Hafings. Helms, Hoge, Hougb, Huger, Larned,
Lewis, Livingston, Lowndcs, Lyon, M'Creery,
Mitchell, Mott, Platter, Riker, J. c. Smith,
Stanton, Stedman, Steplenfon, Tageart, Ten
ney, Thatcher, Tibbits, Varnum, Verplanck,
Wadfworth, M. Williams, WinRon, Wynns
SIS.
TIE neqv Et7ion before TIE Horje as reported by
the committee at tie svboke.
MIR. Elliot hoped the Houfe would rot a.ree
to this amendment. The gentleman who had
moved it apprehended gentlemen had not well
underftoodi it when in the committee of the
whole, he queitioned whether the mover had
paid that cloie attention 10 its effects, as TO en-
lure its being proper and beneficial. He faid it
created new clafs of crimes, and ifthat rnea-
lure was proper, 1t was proper afo to define
the puniihment of each crime. The fiction re-
fers TO certain laws of the United States efablifh-
ing The enumerated offences, and directs that the
puniihment lhall be conforrnable to the prnilh-
ment inflicted for ffnilar offences committed on
fhore. 1t is true the contribution provides that
NTH Piracies and felonies committed on the
high feas; that power had been exercled, the
crimes defined and the puNfhments annexed
(Mr Elliot here read an extra6 from the law
on that fubeG.) A mifdcmeanor was a crime,
but under the terms of the contribution he did
not Zee how Congrels could legilste upon it un-
iefs they defined it felony and were gentle
men prepared ofay that every depreciation, G.
very fpecies of OUTRAGE or violence was felony;
he was perfuaded twas not the intention of
the mover.-Jfa mildemeanor however be con-
hdered crime, it ought to be defined, and the
punifhment decrecd, for none of the laws of
the United States had hitherto done it.-On
this view of the fubje6t, he contidered the new
fiction totally unneceGary, or if neceary, it was
70 imperfect that it would not reach the cafe
for which it was intended.
Mr.. EtpeJ faid the remark he had made in
committee of the whole had no allufion TO the
gentleman Taft up-He ihouid however detain
the Houie but moment in making one obfer-
vation in reply. The law quoted by the gen
tleman was the one defining and puniihing pira-
cies and felonies committed on the high feas,
and was confined to cafes ariGng on board our
nnarmed vefieIs. Ads committed by perfons
legally commifioned to carry arms, are not
termed acts ofpiracy in order to contribute pi-
racy it is efential that the vefle has no legal
u
not arife under the prefent meafure, which is TO
give LEGAL fanction to orr merchantmen to
arm, only reltraining them by penalty
corporal puniihment, if they abuie their
1t was neceflary in order TO embrace this OIL
fence, that tine definition and puniflmsn t
fhould both be declared in the bill |; he had en-
deavoured 70 TO do.--As to the perfection or
imperfeetion the fiction in its prctent form,
ne mould lay nothing more than it appeared to
his mind adequate TO the end propofed. IF
however the gentleman from Vermont thought
otherwife, he fhould be happy to hear aim
point out the mode of improvement.
Mr.. K. Gril4Oold faid, that whether the ef-
tects 70 hr produced e. t';a cstt.io5i, 20 far as
related TO murder and felony, were really pro-
vlded for under the exiting laws, he would not
alert poiitively bnt he believed that neither
the exiting laws nor this fiction made any
proVliion for the punifhment of mifdemeanors.
The offences defined and punilled were pro-
vded for many years ago, in 1890. BY that
law murder was pun0iable with death, the
iame crime and punifhment were revived in
this fiction, and 70 it is in CAFE of felony. WHY
then pats a new law on this fubiea Or
does the gentleman mean to infer that be-
caufe murder or felony may be committed by
armed vcifels which are 70 be puuiDled, that
therefore murder or felony committed by I'M
armed vefiels iha! pats with impunity. He pre-
tuned III both cafes they were murder or felo-
ny, and in both cafes they were to be puniihed
under the exiting laws. He faw no location to
multiply our itatutes unnecefarily. With ref
pet to the punIhment of mifdemcanors. he
fhould remark that the contribution gave to
Congrcfs the power TO define and puniih pira-
ciss and felonies committed OF the high feas,
and violations of the law of nations. Thofe
who acted on this fu5ject before US, he prefiIrn-
ed acted under all inpreiion that they had gone
to the extent Of their powers in defining pira-
cies and felonies, and that definition of mifde-
meanors was not in their power. But fuppofe
the contribution gave this power to Congrefs,
does the fiction provide for it it certainly does
not. What Jays the fiction, that perfons gull
ty of mfdemeanors fhall be punifhed as other
mfdemeanors are punilhable under the laws of
the United States. He could not find any ha-
tu'e in the books defining thefe mifdemeanors,
or inflicting puniihment. How then was the
offender to be puniihed, iftherc was no general |
law on this point, and from the curfory view
he had given the itatutes, he had found none !
the fiction would he altogether nugatory 70 farj
as IT related to miidemeanors.
Mr.. Epbe5 could not refrain from expecting |
the furprife he felt that gentleman Glould con-
tend, that midemcanOr was a term unknown in |
the ftatutes of Congrefs. lie had Jun dipped |
into volume of the laws, and be found it in |
almoft every one which relpcGted the criminal
tr,rtf r,f T,,t