The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-01-14

Coh' cbienCcS OF tue aVStcm. .
Third objection The higt penalties of
the bonds. will drive many PERSONS OF small
means tro.a their accustomed occupations -
They will not be able to procure the co,npe-
tent security for their prosecution. l. is not
to be presumed that this will De The effect to
any great extent. If tie owrsr is known to
he honest, and has in view legal aud honest
objects, l have very little apprehension OF
MS not being able 70 set the security requir-
& 8;:t ::@;S ;!:s I-@Ss::::: :.s-,, s:s !=s=
unprecedented Inconvenience, of such a ma
ture AS Co render it nccessary to abandon a
great national object for the accommodate
ON OF the few individuals eifcted by them?
is the last effort to preserve ile peace of the
nation, tobe~ abandoned from these consider
ntionse | should conclude '~cetainiy not.
The next objections are Jade to the 7th
section OF the bill, which provides that
stress of weather, and other Unavoidable ac-
cidents at sea, shall not be oven in evidence
IN a TRIAL at law to sbS? the penalty of
bonds gircnaa security. aYsiNst the violati-
ons OF ~the7cnbargo laws. 1t is wn.t chat
through pretexts derived from this permis-
sion at present, most OF the valuations OF
these laws have been committed with
IMMUNITY /; 1t Is, therefore. ali important to
the future execution of the laws, to take
away these preteXts. But il is objected
eN'N NHhS 'SSuiaNipii tudilliSStS d OlStfuSt OF
oaths. It does, of what is called custom
house oaths theirviolation is already almost
proverbial ; it does not however, produce
nor encourage this prof gacy it takes away
the temptation to it. tits further said, it
impairs the trial by jury-vcry far from it /;
tile trial 10y jury still exists this provision
oaty regulates the evidence to be produced
before the jury, Gentlemen state particu-
lar hardships which may take place under
this regulation. Ii is easy TO state possible
hardshlps under any genera! regulation !;
but they have never been deemed sufficient
o~oJectOls to general regulations producing
IN other respects beneficial results. This
bill, however, contains a provision tor relief
Ill ali Case of hardshlps under the embargo
iaws-Ihc secretary of the treasury is au
thorIsed to giant re- et in ali suci cases
L ms power vested in the secretary, is also
objected To. 1t is SAID to manifest a dis
trust OF courts, and to tranfcr their powers
TO the secretary ot the treasury. Whate-
yer may be my dIstrusLs Of some of the
co.rEs # n. y. &ta!es ! can say that co.:-
sideratlGn furnished no inducements to this
provision tits a power not suited 10 the
.ci Sanizatlon bt courts, and it has for a
long tint been exercised by the secretary
OF the treasury without being complained
OF. Congress- proceeded with great caution
t'E"' tho otDJSSl' vi tue lillEu QdyE OF
March, 179I, they first introduced this
principle into their laws in re lation 10 the
'coiiectlon of the reven g; and srter. an ex-
pellment OF nearly three years, on 18th day
lHi FEBRUARY, 1900, they made the law per-
Petuai-Ihis will appear ,ron, the 18th
section OF this bill, which merely Dorrows
tins provision from p~re-eXisting laws 1t
introduces no new principe whatever. THIS
doctrine Is carried still further by an act
passed the Sd OF March, 1907, in the 9Th
volume or the laws, page 31S.
" An act to freueat senlrments being
made on lands ccded 10 the Cnlled Stase&,
naniaukhorized by lQw.
F" And it shall moreoverbe lawful for the
president OF ,he UUited States to direct the
marshall, or officer acting as marshal, in the
manner herein alter directed, & also to lake
such other measures, anG 10 euriov
such Mi tary force as he uay Judge i,eces-
sary ana proper TO remove frCri ianus ccd-
cd, OF secured To the u states by treaty, or
ceaslon as aforesaid, any person or persons
VINO shall hereafter take possession OF the
same or maze or atyenpt to make a settle
mentthereon, autil thereunto authorized by
law"
Here the president is authorized to use
inc lhiiltdry ioiee % reInoye settlers from the
pubic lands without the intervention OF
courts ana me reason is, mat tie pecu'iari
~ q the case Is Tot suited o the iurisdicti-
Oh ot Courts, nor would tier powers be
competent 10 the object, nor indeed are
Courts allowed co interfere with any claim,
OF individuals against the u States, but CON
5reaS undertakes 10 dicede upon all such
Cases hndiiy ani p~erenptorily without the
intervention o. Courts.
ms part OF the bill is, therefore, sup
ported both by principle and prece-
dent.
Whilst speaking Of the d~istrusts Of courts,
l nope iniay be indaiged IN remarking, that
~inotYidualty my respcc tor jndlCi2! proceed.
lh3S is Ihaterlaliy Impaired. 1 fir', sir, thai,
'dtteriy III some Instances, the caiious inscn.
swiftly to extriGSic objects, witch in times
past, was thought the most honorable trait
IA the Character o. an upright judge. is now
" soihe courts entirely dIsrespected. II seems
by some judges to be no longer thought AN
ornaments 10 the Judicial character, bu. :,
nov substituted ~ the most capricio.s Sen
5ibilitics.
jus'ice was formerly pain1rd blind, acc .
proper emblem Ct this ho11rIDe iise,sfb, !.
y To e@ternal objects. cut modern instioe
'HlSht more proper .rbe represented bv tho
m"s' or'Slt-eyed Goddess OF the whole Pan.
H!con. i~remyi,n6y awe to the iniuc.ce
OF Al external Objects, and so rcpIete Win
"'i'ao-e feelings, as, upon some occasions.
20 ".'proach almost to bystefiCal affections
'Fhen Judges so far forget the true charac-
'eT ana dignity of their stations. iudjcIdI