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

The bill from the Seaaie to authorize
an edition OF the laws respecting the pub
| iic llnds. was read twice, aud ordered "a
| third reading Tomorrow.
THE CLAIMS LAW, sc.
| The House again took up this subject
| Mr.. Johnson's substitute for the hill re-
ported by the committee of claims. BENG
still under consideration.
| MIR. Hoy7rS0s rose in support of the
substitute, though ne had net been entirc-
| iy friendly 20 all tive provisions of the act
OF last scssiu,i-and s;eving ti,at the CON
structiou given to the 9th section 10y the
Executive, would not embrace Il single
case on the Northwestern frontier. Mr..
II. read an amendment which he deeGed
necessary 10 give Just scope to the idw,
ana entered into particular and minute
argument to establish the cxpedicncy and
justice of relief 10 the cases which his pro-
position embraced. Without expressing
an opinion on the merits OF the commits
slouer, he was opposed TO iegislaling han
out of Office without fair investigation
INTO his conduct, and said that officer
would have reason 10 complain, ii the en-
curry into his conduct WAS not prosecuted
10 some end, &C. The amendment which
Mr.. III. wished 10 engrait on Mir. john
sons substitute, was, substantially, first,
that the act should he construed TO ex-
tend TO every house which was destroyed
by the order of amy officer in the service
OF the United States, to facilitate the o.
perations OF the army, or any detachment
thereof, orto impede those of the enemy.
ID, That the 9th section ofthe act should
be construed To extend to every house,
whether occupied us military deposit,
or as barracks for soldiers, or as hosp-
tai, which, during the late war, was dcs-
troycd by the enemy in conse sequence of
such occupation; and 10 all houses des-
troyed by tic enemy i'll consequence of a
military resistance from or in the neigh
borboud ot the Sane-proylded no house
should he so included, unless it had been
hired under the authority OF the govern
ment, or was at tic time actually used for
tie purposes mentioned.
Mr.. Fletcher advocated the amendment
and stated some cases of hardship which
would he relieved by it, but which il was
not probable, from the nature of things as
they existed, tie mass of business before
the committees, and tho difficulty of es-
tablishIng individual claims before the
House, would ever receive relief from the
House II tie law were repealed. Mr.. +.
argued al some length in support, as well
OF the substitute as of the amendmentpro-
posed thereto.
MIR. Hardin rose in reply, in opposition
to the substitute, and i'll support of the
report OF the committee of claims-and.
without expressing any opinion at pre-
sent on MIR. Harrison'S amendment in the
abstract, he was decidedly opposed to it,
because 1t contemplated and concurred
In retaining the commissioner, whose con-
duct and ability lie remarked on with
strong disapprObation.
Mr.. So'tM OF Md. in few words, sur-
gesied TO Mr.. Harrison the propriety of
Withdrawing lis amendment at present
which
Mr.. Harrison coincided in, and accor-
dinghy withevew his proposition.
Mr.. Yd1scey argued at large in favor OF
the repeal proposed by the committee of
claims, and the prOpriety of giving The
direction by them proposed TO the kind of
claims recommended TO be taken from the
adjudication of the commissioner. He
maintained the capacity Of the House 10
decide, and the promptitude Of the COM
mittee OF claims IN acting on claims which
have been presented, &c. and opposed
the substitute as well as the amendment
submitted by Mr.. Harrison, because
cases of the kind embraced by the latter.
had already been comprehendcd bv the
construction of the commissioner and act,
ed on by him, &c.
Mr. ReynoldS expressed his regret at be-
ing obliged To oppose The substitute and
to vote for the course reported by the
committee of claims; but, though friend
~ to the law of last session, he could not
see thousands of the public money squan-
dered on the claims now provided for.
when there were so many cases of suffer
In2s OF the revolutionary war unrclieved.
and which had been rejected by this
House: and because class of cases in
Guided in the decisions of the commissi-
oner belonged TO Congress to decide on,
and which conld not probably lie transfer
red TO any other tribunal, &c.
The question on agreeing to Mr.. John
sons substitute was then decided in the
egative-YeaS 10, NAYS los.
80 the substitute was rejected.
Mr.. Hardin never having thought that
the 9th section of the law had, strictly
construed, extended far enough, ard
wishing 20 give ia little more latitude,
stated that he should hereafter submit am
TO accommodate the law 10
the view he had mentioned.
Mr.. Wright after some predatory re-
marks apprObatory Of the present COM
missioner, and deprecating the intent 10
iegisate him out of office, proposed an
substantially, to autIlorise
the President of the United States to ap-
point two additional commissioners TO
act conformity with the present officer,
IN deciding the claims prov ided for in The