Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-01-29

dSy. y all Tie partie>, tesl. tsthih,
Capt. Perry aud Com. Chauncey, am -
perfect stranger.
ar. J. then handed To the chair the fol-
lowing resolution:
R,-o'ped, That the committee for the Depart
nt,nt OF the Navy be instructed to enquire into
the eNpediency ofso amending the act entitled
An act for the better government oi the Ma.
Wv OF the United States" approved April 23
100, which imposes the penalty OF death ON
an oaicer or private in the Navy, who shall dis
obey the lawful orders of his superior oihcer.
strike him, or draw, or otter to draw, OF raise
any weapon against HIM, while III the execution
OF the duties his office, as 10 make the pun.
i.hmentin case of an officer, forfeiture VI his
warrant or commission, and dlsnission from
the service /; and In the case OF a private, DIS
mission from The service aud so IL amend the
said act as to subject the superior oihcer who
shall strike, or draw, or 0ffer To draw OF raise
any weapon against his inferior officer, To
forfeiture ofhis commission and dIsm, ssiom from
the service. Aud further, TO provide, that no
officer dismissed from the service of the Navy
OF the United States, tor either of the causes
hove enumerated, shall be reiuStated by the
President ofthe United States.
Mr.. HARRISON, of Ohio, sad he hal
always made it rule 10 vote for emguiyy,
into any subject when proposed by a
member. In consistency with that rule,
he should vote for this motion but he
thought II proper to saw that the resolu
lion contained principles winch lie could
never sanction III the shape of law, aud
on which therefore he reserved TO himself
the right to decide when the question
should in that shape come before the
house.
the propriety of referring the subject gen
orally to the committee tor enquiry, with
Out specifying any particular amendment
hts IN 10 n r. m a N al a.
Wy.
Mr.. FORSYTH, of Georgia, moved TO
amend the resolution. by striking out the
nrst part oft, so a. TO conhne the enqui-
~ TO that part OF theact referred to,wilch
relates 10 the punishment OF a superior
officer for misconduct to an inferior. lie
could not think il necessary 10 enquire IN
10 the expediency of The remaining part
Of the proposition, since, Ia amend The
laws as therein proposed, would have
tendency To destroy SubOrdinatlOn; AT
the same time, however, he agreed WIN
the gentleman from Virginia, as TO the
necessity al providing for the punishment
ot a superior officer who so far forgets
the respect due TO his country and 10 his
station, as to treat his inferior with con
tumely and violence. With respect to
the circumstances which had sivenrise 10
this motion, Mir. +. said, he knew no
more than any other member of this
House. The case referred to, as he and
others haa seen II stated, appeared 10 be
an extraordinary one but he said, he
had always reserved to himself the right
10 form an opinion on such transactions,
when all the circumstances should be
before him, and moi on the parte state
ment of any of The parties concerned.
Mr.. JOHNSON said, he hoped the pro-
posed amendm nj to his motion would
not be adopted; for, if his whole PROPOSE
iion should he incorporated into the ex-
i'ling acts, it would not even produce an
equality of punishment: Under the pre-
g mt law. for an assault of an inferior on
superior officer, courts martial were au-
thorIZed 10 award the sentence of death /:
w list, reversing the facts, the offender
W - liable 10 no other punishment than
dlsaiisson from the service Why, lie
,ked, this difference ? Mr.. J. SAID, he
bad no doubt thousands OF instances
might be found, in which the hearts ofthe
Inferior officers were actuaied by as pa
trloiic and honorable sentiments as that
of,he superior officer, who struts on the
quarter deck with his pair OF epaulettes.
Was there any reason why distinction
should be made, In our laws, between per-
sons who commit crimes of tie same
grade When on the land our penal laws
were so ameiiorated as to punish even mur-
der IN the second degree, with imprisOn-
ment Iii Jail or penitentiary --(such was
the case IN Virginia, and in PennsyVa-
MA, and III other iates)-why punish an
officer in your service by death for mere
assault But ii was said that an equal
cation OF Punishment for these offences,
would produce INSTRUMENTATION. He con
celved not: tor, even if the laws were IL
rnended as he proposed, the inferior Off
c committing the offence, would be la.
bile to be diSgraced from the service. 1t
superior officer should commit like
offence, with the stronger inducements
.! patriotism and respect for tie laws
Which belong TO higher station and ma
tuycr age TO refrain from it, no higher pu-
ui>hment would await him. Mr.. J. re-
praled, that he trusted the amendment
would not prevail.
Mr.. PEASANTS, of Virginia, said, that
before the amendment had been moved
by Mr.. Forsyth, lie was about to object 10
the resolution on the ground of the spe-
C,ic direction II contained TO the COM
mIilee as TO the particular points te be en-
quired into. He thought Tie subject "a
proper one for enquiry, as respected the
duty Of the house and the interest of the
nation. He would not give any opinion
on the transactions adyerted to as having
occurred in the Mediterranean, because
lie had seen bat one side OF the question,
TO winch indeed much respect was due,
and the more as no reply had been made
TO If. That statement, he very muchTegret-
ted 10 say, did set the conduct OF the Of
ficer who had stood so high in his es-
teen, in point Of view which he had re-
rrarden Nth min He nhin CHM tn tie