Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-11

'ate war, was read third time, and the question.
upon IFS passage, gave rise to some,Debate,
The case Of these persons is sub,tan,;,,I,. -,
toiiows: they were importers of British merchan
oi2e INTO Castne, in the Province of Maine. DIN,
ring the late war, whilst the place was in the nos
session Oh British forces, onwhich they paid duties
to'he British authorities. When thatport az ain
passed INTO the hands ofthe United States at the
close OF the late war, the officers of the limited
States demanded payment CT duties on, the Goods
which they found there, having been thus i'm
| ported. The importers, to avoid difficulty in re-
gard 10 their property, gave bonds required of
| them, for the duties. When these bonds he
came due, part of them were paid, and NV
nent of part OF them was resisted, and success
fully resisted in the Courts of the United States.
oy "hoh the importers were exoncrated from
the payment of their bonds. The object of this
bill is to refund to those who had paid their bonds
the amount thereof, so as 10 place them on the
same footing with those who had refused 10 pay
| them, and were sustained in that refusal by the
Court of the United States.l
The passage Of the bill was opposed by Mr..
Cooke, and supported by Mr.. McLane OF Del.
who explained the principles which governed
the Committee of Ways and Means in report
ing the bill. 1t was also supported by Mr.
Sharpe, Mr.. Webster Mir. Hamilton, Mir. Liy
ermorc, and Mr.. Lincoln; and opposed by Mr..
GaZlay, Mr.. Mallary, Mr.. Garrison, Mr.. Foot.
of Conn. Mr. Buck, Mr.. Whipplc, and Mr..
Tod.
Il The ground of the opposition, TO the bill was.
that the importers paid to the British authorities
nominal duties only, and that great part of the
goods imported were transported over land into
me United States, thus evadipg payment of du-
ties TO the United States and the portion found
in store by the officers of the United States took
a similar course, and were actually the first goods
brought into the markets of the United States at
the close of the war.1
The question on the passage Of the bill was
taken by Yeas and Nays as follows:
For the bill 40
AgainstIt RIG
So the bill was PASSED, and sent to the Senate
for concurrence.
POST OFFICE BILL.
On motion of Mr.. r. johnson. the House
went into committee of the whole, Mr. Tomlin-
son in the Chair, on The bill to reduce into one
the several acts establishing and regulating the
Post Office Department.
Mr.. Long, ofN. c. after stating some change
of opinion in relation to the vote of Yesterday.
refusing to increase the compensation of the
Postmaster at Fredericksburg, moved a recon-
sideraton of that vote.
The motion was supported by Mr. P p. Bar
bour, Mr.. Hogeboom, and the mover, and op-
posed by Mr.. Wicl>de, of Ky. and Mr.. Gaz-
lay, of Ohio, and decided in the negative-ayes
Al, noes 61.
The qrcstson then recurring from Yesterday.
on motion to strike out the extra allowance to
the Postmasters at Warrenton' Wheeling, and
| New Orleans
| Mr.. Edwards, of n. c. stated the details OF
the business transacted at The Office at Warren
ton, and opposed the striking oui of so much OF
| the clause as relates 10 that Office.
! Mr.. Gaziay replied, and argued against The
allowance.
Mr.. Moore, of Alab. supported his,..,,s;;s,r, to
strike out the whole of these extra allowances,
on the ground ofequa dealing to all the officers
in this kind of employment.
Mr.. Wickliffe spoke in opposition to the ex-
ira allowance to the postmaster at New Orleans
Mr.. Gurley, OF Louisiana, spoke in reply,
4 and contcndcd that this compensation was rea-
sonablc and necessary.
.Mr. Campbell, ofOhio, took the same ground
with Mr.. WickliiFe, and went somewhat into de-
tail, in a statement Of the facts connected with
the business of the Offices, &c.
The question, at the request Of Mr.. Edwards
of n. G. was divided; and, being on the extra
allowance for the post Office at Wheeling.
.Nr. johnson, of Virginia, opposed the aboli.
ton of it. JNr. Gurley argued in favor Of the
| extra compensations, particularly that at New
Orleans, and corrected some alleged mistakes il
point of fact. .Hr. Ross contended that the
postmaster at Wheeling was as much entitled Il
the compensation he received as either of the O
theirs in question.
The question being t'icn taken on striking
out each OF these extra provisions, ii was carriet
almost unanimouIy in each case to strike then
out.
.1r. Saunders then moved TO strike out al
that part Of the section which relates TO tin
Postmaster at Washington, as follows:
{" The Postmaster General is hereby author
lied TO allow to the Postmaster of the city o
Washington, in addition to the allowance rnad
by this act, for postage collected, and for frc
letters received by him for deliver, commits
sion of five per cent on the amount of mail
distributed at his Office: ProUidcd, nevertheless
That the whole annual einolumcnt of the sal,
postmaster, including the extra compensation O
one thousand dollars which is hereby allovct
him, shall be subject to the restrictions impose,
by the forty-secoDd section of this act''
Mr.. f. Johnson opposed this motion and, OF
the question being put upon it, there were
In the affirmative, 65,
In the negative, 2S
This not being quorum, the discussion wa
renewed by Mr.. Taylor, of N. Y. who went int,
a calculation 10 shew that the effect of the mo
ton would reduce the salary of the Postmaste
at Washington, from 81 300 TO 5000 per an
mum, which he opposed.
MIR. Cooke replied; and was followed by Mr.
Livermore on the same side.
motion. was then made by Mr.. Foot, o
Conn. to strike out the cnacting words of thu
bill, was decided in the negative, by a larg,
majority; and, the question being then taken OF
striking out the clause last recited, it was deci
ded in the affirmative. SO the clause was strick
en- out.
Mr.. Wright moved to add to the section, a,
now amended, the following words Whene
yer, in the opinion Of the Postmaster General
the compensation allowed by law is iuadequat