Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-12-19

Pehu suS opcIdtiou Oh a. law. lie was OBJ |
posed, he repeated, to the appointment of
"A commissioner to decide these claims.
believing they ought to be managed by
the Heads OF Departments, who we're
little more responsible for their conduct
than commissioner. But, said MIR. p
shall we break through the constitution.
and say we will suspend a law, because il
would require time to go through the
forms which the constitution requires
Hepresumed not. If the commissioner
had acted so improperly as TO require the
suspension of his functions, the President
has power already to suspend or remove
the officer.
Mr.. Ross ofPa. was opposed TO the a.
mendment, proposed by the gentleman
from New Hampshire; and vet agreed
with him in the proposition he had laid
down that it was not i'll the power of The
House to suspend law for a dav, or an
hour. He was in favor of the original
proposition OfMr. Forsyth, he said, moi
because he thought it in the power Of the
House OF Representatives TO suspend the
execution Off law, but because he ap-
pretended the President did possess the
power OF suspendIng the law. if he pleas
ed, ana that The House of Representatives
may cOnstitutiOnally request the Presi-
ers. To this proceeding there could he
No legal objection. Whether he will pay
Difference to that request, when made. Mr..
X: SAID, was for the President Ia decide.
The real question is, does The President
possess the constitutional power of sus-
pending the operation of this law? The
gentleman from Connecticut had acknow-
lodged that the President had the mower
of suspendiDg this law, if not i'm one way.
IN another; and that he mightremove the
officer, which would be a suspension of
the law until successor should be an
pointed. There could be no doubt. he
concluded, that the President had the
power OF suspending it. Doubts had a
risen as TO the execution of the law; the
President himself had suggested them TO
Congressman he might 20 further, and
say TO the commissioner-yOu shall de
lay further proceedings under the law,
until Congress shall decide on the ques-
ton have laid before them. What did
the resolution propose, further than TO
request the President to do tbis2 Mr.
II: was decidedly in favor of passing il
without the proposed amendment.
Mr. famcey re-stated the circumstance
OF the appearance of the commissioner of
claims before the committee of claims
ths morning, and that an examination of
some ofhls decisions had convinced Mr..
1. That they were in conformity 10 the
law. lie would mention the circumstan-
ceS OF one, to enable the House to Judge.
A clam, rejected nearly unanimously by
this House, had, since the passage OF this
law, been paid for under the 5th section
OF the act. The case of Mr.. O'Neale was
this, said Mr.. Y. as itappeared beforethe
committee of claims at former session.
lie hired to AN officer of the United
States vessel III tile Chesapeake it was
stipulated that the vessel should be at the
risk OF the owners ; she WIS continued in
service for several days, after which the
Ofhcer OF the United States discharged
the Vessei out OF the service ofthc United
otatcS; The enemy came near where the
Vessei lay, some time after that, and the
commander thought proper to sink her.
to prevent her falling into the hands of the
enemy. The loss thus incurred had
been paid for under the 9TH section ofthe
Diil, which provides, that g where anv
property has been impressed, or taken
by pubic authority, for the use or sub
., sstence OF The army, duringfhe late war,
ana the same shall have been DESTROYED.
lost or consumed, the owner of such
property shall be paid the value there
OF, deducting thereirom the amount
winch has been paid, or NAV be claim
ed tor the use and risk of the same.
while IN the service aforesaid" Mr.. Y,
asked gentlemen, now, whether they were
satisfied that there had been erroneous de
cislons under other sections of the bill
IMAM the 9th. Other vessels, lie sad. had
been paid for under the same secfion.-
lie appealed to the honorable gentleman
from kentucky, who was member oftbe
committee, If these decisions were not O.
gqaily as erroneous as the decisions as TO
VII. CARROTS house or Mr.. Rnggold's
rope-walk Mr.. Y. said he did not re-
greet voting for this law at the last session
he believed the provisions highly bene
neral, II properly construed If the law
nad been mIscOnstrued, il was not The
fault OF the law, but of those who had adj
minlstered it. 1T was not, he said. neces-
sary to speak of the integrity of the Off
Ger that had not been arraigned. When
IT was, If would be time enough for GEN
tlemen to defend it. 1t was of abuses of |
me law, OF erroneous decisions under il |
that Mr.. Y. spoke. He conceived that |
TINS House had authority, and that il was
the'r bounden duty to call OH the Presi |
dent to suspend further proceedings nm
der the act. If the provisions of the law |
required TO berestrictcd, it would be re- |
ported accordingly to the House: if thev
couid not get rid OF the commissioner i'm |
az, other way, they mightdecide upon the
Chains embraced by the law being settled |
at some other Office.
MIR. RaH,toyph of Vir considered this as
dlnore important question tlap it had an |