Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-12-31
~ 6. CONGRESS,
Monday, December 81.
III SENATE.

|
II SENATE.
Mr.. Lloyd, of Mass. presented the memorial
Oh number OF the most respectable merchants
oi inc Guy OF Boston, praying that prompt and
energetic measures may be taken by the eo-
verhment Tor The supPressing of piracy on the
coast Oh Cuoa. Mr.. L.. moved TO refer the me-
| moral TO The Committee on Foreign Relations
with special instructions to report on the subject
as speedily as the necessary information could
be obtained. The voice Of the whole GENTRY
Mr. l.. observed, called for vengeance on those
blood hounds, and scarcely day passed, but it
was marked by murder and plumber
MIR. Barbour remarked that he had no oh
lection whatever to the special instructions pro-
posed, but he rose merely to say, that the Com
tnittee on Foreign Relations were disposed TO
act as speedily as the proper information could
! be obtained. He mentioned this in justification
| of the Committee.
| Mr.. Lloyd disclaimed any imputation upon
the Committee, and the petition was according
| ly referred.
| The Senate then adjourned.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
fhe fou.e took up the following resolution
offered by MIR. Archer on Thursday which was
agreed TO:
Resolved, That the President of the RI.
states be requested to communicate to this
House any information in his possession, not
improper to be communicated, explaining the
character and object of the visit of the naval Of
lcer OF the United States, commanding in the
west Indies, to the town of Faxgardo in the
island of Porto Rico, on the - day of Nc
vember last.
On motion of Mr.. J. L. johnson, it was
resolved, That the committee on the judi
ciary be instructed to inquire into the expedien
cy OF aboiIshng imprisonment for debt; and
that they have leave to report by bill or other
wise.
On motion of Mr.. Tracey, the House went
into committee on the bill further 10 amend the
act authorizing payment for property lost can
tured, or destroyed by the enemy, while in the
military service of tie United States, and for
other purposes-Mr. Campbell of Ohio, in the
chair.
The question REQUIRED on the amendment
moved by Mr.. Wright.
VII. Williams rose IN opposition to- the bill
ne commended against the idea that the act of
1917 was intended to enlarge and confirm the
provisions of the act Of 1916, asserting that it
was intended TO limit the powers of the Com
EmsSioncrs appointed under the former act
The President had suspended the powers of this
commission; and he read an extract from The
message which the President (Madison) had
sent to the House on the subject. This mes
sage was referred TO the Committee of Claims.
ana that committee had reported that the com
mission had given two enlarged a construction
10 the Law. The bill introduced in 1917 was
therefore intended 10 restrict the commissioner;
Il
oca'ion oil the commissioner in favour OF Messrs.
Ringgold and Carroll. How then is il possible.
That the gentleman from New York should con-
slder The act OF 18i7 charging the powers
of the act of 1916? He fortified his opinion on
this point by references to the act of 1876
The law OF 1917 could not contemplate the
covering of the claims which were rot covered
by the act of 1913, because the claims of Ring
gold and Carroll were reported favourabIy upon
oy the commissioner, consequently no enlarge
nent OF the powers of that act was requisite TO
cover these claims. The gentleman from New
York, If the present bill should pass, would by
zone fell swoop," remove all possible doubts on
'he SUBJECT According to that gentleman's
opinion, IT house had been occupied but a
month, in the commencement of the war. and
had been subsequently destroyed, a claim
against the United States would be sustainabIe
Tor the value of the same. The meaning of
Congress was, that the House must be perina-
ncntIy occupied barrack, 10 constitute a
Just claim for recompense.-It was now adj
vanced that If house was occusied the first
day OF the war, and destroyed on the last, a
compensation must be given, because the des-
tructIon resulted from the act Of the govern
tncnt, and the government was responsible for
It's acts.-1'he best writers on this subject were
all opposed to this principle. He contended
that die destruction Of property in the maritime
frontlerwas to be considered as a sacrifice on the
part OF IT'S proprietor, which should be regarded
IN the same view as taxes borne by the man of
the interior, and the privations or perils the
latter had TO encounter in marching TO the from
ter and that the former was no more entitled
to legislative compensation than the latter. He
argued that every loss or casualty growing out
OF the war was to be borne by the individuals
upon whom it fell. Such was the opinion of the
best writer's. Our country is very assaiIable on
ITS maritime frontier; our enemy, in case of war.
might possess naval superiority; and if this
node Of recompcnsing private losses should
come into practice, enemy might confpe
iis aggressions TO the destruction of private
property altogether. Every man should defend
his own property; but should this bill pass, it
would induce an indisposition 10 defend individu-
al property by its owner, as it would take away
the great stimulus TO defence.
As to the doctrine of retaliation, he denied its
applicability 10 the present case. He denied
the position Of the gentleman from New York,
that our conduct is the destruction of Newark,
devolved upon the enemy the right of retaliati-
on. The enemy had, IN every instance, shown
disposition to cruelty and devastation, through
out the whole war. He adverted to several il-
stances in the Revolutionary war, of the rava-
ges committed ny the British troops, aud made