Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-04-06

profits, o", The suw OF ~ ei,e thuu,hud lhtce hu.-
df"d aud six!-six dollars and sx csnis whcIca, Ur
insis,s, that he Is entitled 10 receive "A much large,
sum
Other transactions are stated, which the com
paihah changes 10 have been Frauds upun Lis rshis
undcr The agreement. lie rlar,s ohr-Iifth of The
heu profits arising ii"m Ill goods wha,-,e', laden
on board OF The America, carried 10 Lima saud
'here S"'d lie ihhyS th'i an account of r
actions stated ~ the bat, nay hc akcu, IN ordr, to
nsceiGn 'he amount OF las hiih pam of the profits,
according To- the intention al the .gteement and
ihai the defendants may he compelled to pay the Ld-
Lance WATCH m'y remain due to him.
he defendants dcmuT .euct alty, tn the bill
The cause WAS argued hy NJ. Cr;liu Tor the dc.
PENDANTS, o"d MIR. Ennu, and MIR Van Wy,k Tor tie
complainant.
| The Chancellor This contract is clear and cx-
| plien An oincer OF ,hr navy of the United States
'Stccs WIN The owneis Ol tn snip America, aud
cargo, about TO proceed Iruui New York to Lima
mat TIE trankin ship ut the navy, uf seventy four
guns, also about Ia proceed To Lima, SHALL give spe-
! cal protection tn The America aud her cargo and
| that lie, the officer, shall 80 ia the America, aud
sh"u rcp'eseui her as stone ship bound the Pa
ciic ocean, vain >tntcS ior the of The United
States and himself uic of the navy IN hinge
Vi such sIoses. la return for this protection aud
'h's service, the owners ui The America aud her car
20, agree &" pay this officer onc-ffth p,tt of the
pa Oiiis which may rUui the outward VOYAGE of
| 'he America and her cargo.
The question beiUie Is whether this contract is
| legal VI not.
Ia support Of this contract, it is urged that the
| services here stipulated To lac performed hy officers
OF tie navy, were acts oi duly their part which
they would have been bu und 10 ne lo,m If no CON
| tract had heen made ; aud that The COMPENSATION
here promised for those services was merely a pri-
! vale ADDITION 10 their public emolumemis, which
could "o' ui'tii Them from their pubic duty, aud
would operate only as additional incentive 10 Ills
performance. For the sake of argument let n he
admitted tha' every lhng here stipulated by We
YER, was within the scope OF public duty and the
question VIII then be, Whether officer OF The nav,
may bargain Tor rii.ae reward lor The discharge
al u public duty. Ii Weaver, ur other officers of lie
navy, were bound to do the acts IN question ,hey
weIe bound To perform them as portions of The nuh-
lac service, as acts at public du'y pertaining To their
| "hciai stations. The rewards of these officer.
are established by law those services are 10 IN,
pe'Iurmeh lar those legal rewards aud other
private rewards iUr acts which are required from
them as public duties, 10y the Laws OF their counrv
ana the Obligations of their stations must he r,p,Ii
' "S c"ir"p' ana illegal eXac!IOns. Tue idea that n
"irer employed by the public for The DE, Iutmnrcr
1 public trust aud paid by his county Tor h,s ser,
wees may take hddiiiuna and private cun,pe nsatons
Tor ihe discharge OF his official duties is wholly in
""h'sslhle distinction between la ibes Tor ,oiup
= dnlv, and brides Tor violating a duty, may e>i,, ~
casu'Sty aud hriho which has produced a viola
ron OF duty, my, when viewed ia xiun with its
th"ci, lac more criminal, than bribe not soIIov ed
| ny such result Bat the idea nav suggeseo thai
brihes for doing du,y, are lawful, is "A concepnon
which never yei found place ia any code of law ~,
Ia any system Of morals Vain is he su,ue ssti, liza,
i"a'e rewards Ike these innocent nee nycs tn
uu'y. That lie - U must be conupy bought ia ,lu
nus "u'y, w re'iorn any duty with fdeiiiyis an idle
| s"HposHioH lHt necessary Tendency q
waiuS rs TO dehaUch and he faithful DISCHARGE nT ,
public trust, cannot be expected from hin, WIN will
accept u h'Ihe 10 do his duiy. The disncEoa he
tween br'hes 10 Obtain the discharge of duty and
hlihes Tor other objects, is far subtle and C,l,-
cIous Tor prarucr restraint TOO feeble either for
| ihe subotnei or fer The officer accepting "a brbe
barrier TOO slight 10 secure fidelity aud integrity in
'he diSChhge Ol puhlic trusts. IL these Il feyent
cases oi bribery nvOve different degrees of nnr.I
g"il', both aIe sill crimes and the sophiscal ure
t enee now advanced that AN ACT criminal in ITSELF
becomes lawful. when The inie ntiuu of The u,rr,o
committing Tie offence, is 10 promote The due pe,-
oiniance OF the public service, must be reccied -
i"r argument mat private compensation Eght he
JnsiilAy received Tor the protection and the services
sVu'Hicu ny 'hls contract, because these oI.iects
were matters oi pnic day, is in nscf unsouutI sub
Nrrsive OF Tie cedrrsi prime piles Of law and morals
ana inconsistent with The pure administration OF rul-
NV "uS,s. IL the services engaged 10y ihis contract
were wihn The scope Of public duty they were ic lie
pe''oimrd AS public d"iy which could not be bourh,
OF sold Tor private gain.
III tLs contract stipIidtes, The o6;ccts p,,,oJ
should do something ihei: public ,uiv i, ,s .r
more pa,"iy Corrupt, as involving both violation of
duu,y2 ana pecuniary reward for such an act
whether, eieIore, the protection 10 be given n,
The ship rankin, and The services TO be ueTro,mci
ny weaver, were acts OF duty The part of Ibosr
who were To perform Ihcu,, or acts transptessrs
thef pubic duly, The agreement IN either view cnf
I"p' ana ''ic" aud either degree of turpnude
tniaieS the contract.
But /; IS evident, Ihat the object of This contrac,
was not mercy 10 engage officers Of the navy TO do
heressa'y HE oil sct here was I'D obtain a,yantaoe
winch conid MOI be obtained, were not rxpec,pd
"i'""nt th's contract. Tie special protection of the
sup '"bhI'n AMI te represents thar the Aupr
ca was - Store ship, bound 10 the Pacific ocean
WIN stores inI The navy of this county and ,L,i
Weaver was an officer oi The navy in charge Of suca
stores, were The objects for which price VAS to Le
na'd and hese objects were matters Of !uty -
The particular protection " hiclr lie ship Franklin
was 10 1iioIh 'o ship aud cargo, III which The par
ucular friend Of the commander of the FrapkIi, |
yta. cod
mate du'y and the cOnirvance by which the Ane,i
ca was "" We represented as a store ship vi The Uni
led St''"s was Fraudulent disguise Acls Ike these
were not acts Vi public duty nor DID these mer |
chants agree with Weaver, Ihat ihty should nav ot |
thai he should receive large portion of tie nr9f,s
oi ihrir adventure 80 L'nia, compensation 10, |
HE discharge Of any public duy The objects of this
Contract we've wholly foreign 10 any such utv
The America was NOT ship Of the United
2"a'eS' anu ne eHped"n' ct sending stDIcs OF
tie navy III ihl; ship evidently atlopted 10 ton
ceal iaiscbood, under snme color of truth and 10 |
give To the America, aud her cargo, the quise of |
pubic property oi the u States. This contiyance |
was l''nh "psn the u. States, their public service
hnd iheH sovereignty u fraud upon the rights OF |
other nations aud tIaud in all respects Tic con- |
tract exh'bns this arIhcc III It's naked character of
fraud
inquire not what III fact done by the shin |
Franklin, or l''r officers, in pursuance Of ibis con
tract hat was done or omitted, after fhis contract
Nas made, - at no moment 10 deciding upon its |
legality. The special protection intcbded may bave
been given 10 The America and her cargo and every
pubic duiy OF The commander of the Franklin may
have bceH also discharged. But IL is manifest thai
while the ship Franklin should he engaged IN irving
SpecEh ptoirruOn 10 lie America and her CARO-
other protection 10 other vessels and hcr COMMERCE
might lie withheld, aud other services might be neg.
I~cted The obvious sense Of the contrast is fhaf
the protection 10 he given, should be special and
unusual aud without some reasons better than
those which appear in this Contracf, such eznaotdi-
mary protection could not be an act of du,y The
protection TO be given WAS protection TO the ro,,re
tl America ghI f,,t