The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-03-31

=
, so extremely obscure that II was necessa,
) 1t should be made more distinct.
Another very serious object with me, sal
Mr.. Minor, is the consideration or the cues
ton whether the punishments inflicted b.
the laws of the United States in a variet;
OF cases ought not to be accommodated I,
the prevailing sentiments of the people, al
u expressed by the legislatures of the severa
states IN regard to punishments In almost
i all the states within a few years rast ar
amelioration had taken place in the penal
laws, !essening the number of crimes pun
ishaoie with death (; in Pennsylvania only
one was punishable with death, and a law
Tor abolishing that one had been recon men
eed to the early attention Of the next Legis-
iature. Mr.. NJ. spoke of the DISADVANTAGE
OF sanguinary punishments, not the least of
which was, that as the evidence must be ve-
ry strong indeed to produce conviction, the
object of punishment was frequently defea-
ted from the impulse of humanity, &C.
! Another subject requiring attention, Mr..
M. sad, was the doctrine of challenge
The right OF challenge of persons indicted
| Tor penal offences was in some states more
extended than in others, not being uniform.
| This inequality arose from inadvertence on
the part OF the legislature, and required
remedy.
Another object he had in view was to pro
L
law Without going to others, he would
advert to one such: that there was no law,
IN the opinion of the legal authorities, by
which perjury or false swearing in procur-
| ing the necessary proofs, preparatory to
Clearance at the custom-housc, were pun
| lshaoie- There were various nther obvious
detects IN the laws; and it appeared to him
.here Could be no better mode of remedy
than laying the subject officially before the
encouragement, who between Mis- time
and the next sessions would have ample
time to make satisfactory report.
| The House then agreed to consider The
resolution. III w.
There appeared to be no difference in SEN
timent IN the House on the object of themo-
| yer, VIZ. revision of the penal code, as, to
the propriety of which there seemed to be
general concurrence of opinion Some DIFF
terence arose to the mode of accomplish
ing this object.
| or. Lacock moved to strike out of the
| resolution the words :" the .Ittornev-ge,e
raj OF the United STATES be directed" and
insert the words &c a committee be- QftoiuI
tea, so as to devolve the duty of making
the necessary revision on a committee Of
this House.
This motion was supported by Messrs La
COCK, Macon, Newton, NJ Kim & Blackledye,
and opposed by Messrs. Smile, Milnor, Ea-
con, Findley, MITCHELL, and Wright. The
supportN apf the amendment said that to
eau on TIE Attorney general for his opinion
OF the expediency of a measure would be
lundignified; that this was fair subject
Tor the exercise ofthe powers of this House,
and one to the investigation Of the expedien-
cy OF which professional knowledge was not
| necessary, though it might be useful in fra
ming the details of bill that to refer in
this unqualified manner to an Executive Of
hcer was surrendering the Representative
ipiviledges, and blending together depart
ments which ought to be forever kept dis
tinct. On the other hand, it was said that
the experience and legal talent of the Attor-
ney general must eminently fit him for the
contemplated revision that his report
was merely to be for the inform alton, not the
1 guidance, of the House !; thai 2 similar
course had been adopted in several state
governments and precedent was she wn
at the End session of the LIST Congress- of the
y. sin which similar course had been ia
ken.
The motion to amend was negatived,
| Yeas'36, Nays SO.
| Mr.. Roberts said that he did not know
that the House had the power to compel the
Attorney-General to make such report un-
less their requisition assumed the form of
law. Otherwise, the application to the At
torney-General should be made threneh the
Executive, who had the power to REQUIRE
the opinion OF the Attorney Generl. AS
there was at least some difficulty about this
business, he moved that the resolution lie on
the table, to give time for further consider
atioitPf it.--Motion lost Ayes ~.
Mr. Little moved to strike out the words
Attorney and insert" President
OF the U. States" who might, he said, Off,
cialiy require the proper report from the
law officer OF the u. States.--Morion mega
tyed
I The question on the Whole resolution was
then taken on suggestion of Mr.. Roberts
(whose objections were to the mode and not
to the principle) BY Yeas and Nays & car
ried. Yeas 90. Nays rs
| {'i;a Thursday, March 90, 1912.
The House took up the message of the SEN
ate announcing the concurrence ofthat body in
the report OF the committee Of Conference ON
| the navy bill, as noticed IN Que last. The
| House concurred in7the report 81,
| Mr.Wright being very DESTROYS of callisg M
his bill on the subject OF seamen, on motion
OF Mr.. II. X. W'Aiicms, the unfinished bus;
ness ofyesterday was ordered to lie on the
liable.
| And the House resolved itself into p com
mittee OF the whole, Mr.. BREcKEERtDeE
IN the chair, on the bin for the protection.
| recovery and indemBihcauon of A merican
| seamen. Mr.. Wright spoke nearly two
hours in support of the bill when the com
mittee rose, reported progress, and obtained
4 lro, 80