Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-01-14

persons to be appointed by the Presi
dent OF the United States, without say,
my any thing about the present commits
sioner, and moved TO amend the ameud-
ment So as to suit his views.
Mr. Desho, after stating his belief that
II would he impossible to carry the IL
mcndnient offered by Mir. Wright, as he
was convinced there was combination
10 legislate the commissioners ont ot office,
stated that he should offer an amendment
to repeal these sections of the law under
winch the commissioner was appointed,
etc. aud III lieu thereof 10 authorize the
appointment OF three new commissioners.
MIR. Pickering withdrew his motion:
aud
Mr.. !YrigAt's MOTION was lost without
a division
Mr.. DeShn then moved the amendment,
which has beer substantially stated, and
embracing all the Incidental provisions
to carry the main object into effect.
Mr.. Desha supported the expedien ry of
his amendments as well as the Justice OF
relieving literally suiiernigs sustained in
the late war, and the iupraciicability of
having the claims, from the pressure OF
business, properly attended TO BY the Of
flcers OF the war department, arguing that
the effect of such Il course would be tan
tamount to 4 denial of Justice
The amendment was supported warmly
by Messi... Robertson, Harrison, Fetch
er, Pickering and SheEcy, on the ground
OF inability of the Accountants of the war
office To perform the additional duties en-
IoIned by the act, whom they were already
so pressed by business as to require new
organization ofthe department and the
Sfs,.nrinr ,,f fl,Acn x,ft,p.o
cia business it would b. and also by the
last named gentleman. from an objection
TO legislate a person out ofofiice, and be-
cause, of two courses, neither of which
he liked, he disl;ked the amendment least.
1t was opposed by Messrs. YanCev and
Hardin, from a belief that The depart
mems were competent TO execute the law.
and that the mode was preferable for o.
tiier reasons TO the one proposed, which
they argued to prove.
Messrs. Hubert and Alexander, with
out taking sides on the amendment, re-
spectlvely made some remarks on the
manner otdoing business III the wardc-
partment, and the dispatch with which
public business was transacted there, &c.
Mr.. Root also supported the amend
ment al some length, and proposed TO in
ciude in the sections proposed 10 be stric-
ken out, the 10th section of the act. the
vague and improper wording ofwhich had
led to misconstruction and error. His
motion was lost without division.
Mr.. Desha'S amendment was negatived
-ayes SO, noes IS.
Mr.. IduL then moved 10 amend the Sd
section of the bill by requiring muster
rolls properly made out and authentica-
ted to be deemed as sufficient evidence
Ill support of claims, and entered into
some explanations to shew the nccessi-
ty OF his amendment.
The motion was opposed by MIR. Van
cey, and supported by Mr.. Fletcher, and
was lost without division.
Mr.. Harrison then renewed his motion
to amend the bill as before proposed by
him and withdrawn and the question
being taken on the LIST. section OF the "a
ii was lost-ayes so, noes IS.
The question then followed on the resi-
due of the proposed amendment, and at
ter some further support by the mover.
The question thereon was taken, and
decided in the negative by large maIori-
ty.
Mr.. W. p 1FacIqv moved an amend
ment providing for the exclusion of anv
testimony being received as evidence. ex-
cept from citizens or inhabitants Of the
United States.
After some discussion, in which hIr.
Yancey opposed and the mover supported
the amendment, il was decided in the ne
galive withouta division.
Mr.. Ross moved verbal amendment
in the clause defining the evidence to he
required, with the view of MAKING the pro-
vision more clear and definite.
The motion was opposed hy Nr Van
ccy, Mr.. Shefiey. and Mr.. Ward Of Mass.
and advocated by MessTs. Ross. Root
and Desha, and finally negatiyed, hy
la-gc msjOrtv.
sir. Cannon moVed an amendment. re-
curing tie commissioner 10 give ceriif- |
Gates of his awards to the claimants in all
cases adiudicated by him previous TO the
suspension ofthe operation of the 9Th sec
ton Of the law.
This motion was opposed bv Messrs.
Yancey, Forsyth, Hardin, and Johnson
Of Ky. and supported by Messrs Cannon
and Taul, and was disagreed 10 BY large
majority.
My IaghGm then, after some introduce !
tory remarks, in which he argued against
the immense extent of claims which the |
Of the 9th section of the act |
had embraced further, he believed. than |
was contemplated, aud on which il wa !
essential the House should express Some |
definite opinion, and adopt some special |
provision for the government Of the fu-
lure construction, moved TO amend the |
bill, bv inserting new section, declaring |
that the 9th section should not be con |
'trued TO extend to houses or other bull |