Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1808-04-27

Mr.. Ely, although one of,he comm;,.
stated reasons which Influenced h;n
'hiok 'has the subject ough, to b. po. "
poned. re-"
Mr.. Etpes stated 10 reply to Me,,,.
Rowan aud Ely tina. the lsrcwa, nov !"
possess.on of he u. S from non, j, eonls
not be taken; this law prescribed the onla
way IN which this widow woman, if sh.
had title. could have IT confirmed. e,
the u S could no, be sued. The seud..
man bad consover,ed the right Of lhe U.
S. on The grsund ,hs. there was no proof
Of ,isle 10 the u S. Mr. E said he mn.
perry had been aIwsys claimed by The soa,
nish government, and held as pubic Dro.
perry by Spaio and various instanee s were
upon record in which application haj been
made by individuals and objected to, +,
because it was public properly, add Cd
because buildings might aGecs the hesIh
Of The CITY. Individual rghts was 10, il
question; 70. he trusted IN GOO ,bat such
body as this you'd oever asemps to Nv
rights between maa aud man.
Mr.. Randolph observed that he had
ius, been Informed that ,he Senate had
postponed the subiee. indefinitely. Tbi,
Nigh. possibly be reason for postpone
mtBt.
INr. D. e WilHoms hoped il would
PC, be postpnned 90 Ibis sccoun. F.,
in case OF the drawback business he S.
nate had postponed il, and afterwards
greece TO take it up aud very possibly
they might change Shelf minds il this case
als1
The question on postponement was then
taken by yeas aud DAYS, snd Ios.-Yeas %
rays SO.
Mar. Bib moved to strike ou. the "a
section of the bill. This section provides
for an appeal from final decres GA hi.
| subiec, 10 suy court 10 Orleans to the 50.
prsm court Of the Uu,ted States Hs
! thought it went to establish principle by
which the Taxa claimants may hereai
! Ter bring their clalm before the supreme
court Of the United S atss For wheu.
eperK came before that court ii was 90,
! difficult 70 ioresce how it woald be decid.
{ ed
Mr.. Randolph said he vo'ed 10 the M,
IDfl.y against postpoae neot. 1t Inc gen,
! tleman from Georgia would withdraw h:s
motion be would move 10 re consider THAI
! vote.
Mr.. Bib withdrew his motion, AID
lir. Randolph moved 10 rs-cons der ths
. : al1aAr- fans .Iinf. r m ni-
M. Eptes SAID if Ills 81 section we're
general provision for appeal from errrtorial
J eouts 10 The suptame court, he should be
one OF !he Iasr 20 support it. How did
this sec ion establish the general principle
OF appeal! Il did nor; CD ,he contrary 'he
see''on showed That ths was particular
Case st appeal authorised b. special and
pat Icu!ar law aoa he called upou geo.
ilemeo 90 show how 40 appeal could b:
had except by special!aw passed for rhl.
pu' pose, sod ht asked also h1w ii at say Ia.
tufe period, the house detc;mIoed 10 allow
a. appeal, i, coeld BE- PreVep:ed, suppcslos
tbs bill not 10 pass5 IL ceaId OF. Ii
The present. case there was VARGAS reasoai
Why the appeal should be authorized aud
if he clause were struck out, he n!ost vote
against the whole bill, For, IN Gaze ln'
volvlng property TO tie vslue Of perhaps
million of dollars, being piece otlara
the only spot wheoce The dykes which Aep'
the Mississippi, from inanJa'ing nc pro-
perry could be constructed when 1t was
cousidered ,has every carS load OF ssoa
which was constantly received By the WIS.
sissippi, was worth twenty-five cents, ana
the properly censec aenty almost loVa'ua'
ble--whcn all thsse ,hlogs w.sc !aken logs
Their, and 10 addIlou the ferllog and ssan'
ment excited Oh he subject, q was a 'sa's
doubtful wherher either the .odlV'onat on
the one side or the u. s. na o1htf'
could have fair and impartial trial with
90, appeal: and il nus. b: conceivedtha.
III trnu the scene OF