Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-12-24

character anl
operation Of the act the severity Of m provisions
mat departs entirely from the ordinary judicial
preceding and pescribes an extreme remedy which is
Paced under the absolute control OF ministerial
nee that in such the ancient established rule Is
favor OF strict construction. my judgment satisfied
that this Is the true construction.
Was Mr. Randolph an officer of this de ,cripion,
ihe process oy authority OF which he Is Ia prison, de-
sgnates him as "Robert b. Randolph late acting Puser
OF the United States frigste Constitution" The word
scng qualities the word pur-er and shows thai he did
bold that office under regular appointment, hut Tor
the time being during the existing emery ncv The
omission to ocinde his sne'ies in the warrant the aw
directs, shows that he had given sureties and this
fact unexplained, il evidence that official bond with
sureties required Ii might be added. that
planatory accounts, OF which reference Is made
In the warrant, prove with sufficient clearness that Mr.
Imberlake was purse OF the frigste Constitution then
cruising IN the Mediterranean, and that on his death
Lieutenant Randolph was directed 10 perform the duties
oil Purser during the cruise 1t is then apparent that he
was mere acting, and not a regular Purser
Mr. Nicholas has contended, with much that
having taken upon himself the office he lakes upon him.
sell also all Its responsibilities This argument
certain and Ms lar as respects responsibility alone
Is unanswerable In regular proceeding against Mr.
Randolph. person will be hardy enough TO deny his
responsibility TO the extent as il he hid been a re-
guar Purser
IL is his responsibility the United States. but his
liability 10 this particular process which is the subjec,
oil enquiry. Is mere acting Purser designated by
this law Of those officers against whom this summary
process may be used! 1t in vain say that he
within the and is within the against
which the statute intended provide The statute does
not reach all public debtors and has selected especially
those Tor which IL intended No others be brought
within its purview. These principles Of strict construc-
ton, which apply think, to all laws restrictive Of COM
right, forbid 1t.
These satisfy my judgment, that Mr. Ran.
dolph not officer to whom the law applies the pro-
cess under which he is imprisoned.
IL it were necessary to assign any reasons for this dis
hnction between temporary and permanent officers,
would no, be difficult to find them The pernanen officer
order SO that the document which charges him. appears
the books Of that Department The temporary
will seldom be placed under the same circumstances He
and.
he is chargeabe, in such to leave the
subject of controversy. In this particular CASE Purser
Timberake must stand charged, presume, with all the
monies advanced to the Purser Of the Constitution. The
portion Of this money which to the hands of Mr.
Randolph would not appear those books and may be
matter OF controversy between him and Undertakes
representatives.. Congress might very reasonably make
distinction when giving this summary process between
officer whose whole liability ought appear on the books
OF the Department and agent whose liability most
generally to be ascerained by extrnsc testimony. But
II is enough for me, that the law in my judgment makes
the distinction.
The extracted from the books of the Treasury.
and laid before the Court furnish other matter for serious
consideration.
The I'd section of the requires that the account stat
ed by order OF the First Comptroller of the Treasury
"sha exhibit truly the amount due 10 the u States" For
what purpose the word truly introduced Surely
TO prohibit the officers OF the Government from exh-
biting account known 10 be Congress could
not suspect such an arocy Its introduction, then, nd
Gates the idea that this summary be used
only when the true amount certainly known to the
Departmen-when the Of money debited the Off
appeared certain, and either credits claimed
about which a controversy existed The amount
due to the United States cannot be truly exhibited when
the claim shown by the account ITSELF TO exceed what is
really due do not that the debtor bound
show with precision the credits which he is entitled
do not to say how far his failure TO separate pay
men made from his funds, and from those OF his pre-
decesso may deprive him in suit law, OF the credits
ne cams mean mean 70 say ony idai ane smoun; claimed
count itself shows that smaller amount due. The
cessty OF Withholding the credit may justify proceed
ing, against the debtor in court of justice, in which Ire
must make good his Credits but will not, think, justify
issuing execution without any judicial enquiry against
the body and estate Of the DELINQUENT tor conessedi
more than is due.
The 3i section omiis the truly but requires that
the shall be stated, and directs the agent The
cedng section, all the provisions Of which declared
be applicable to every officer of government chageabe
with the disbursement of public money.
II may be commended, that the provisions ofhe
section thus adopted in the third these only which
late TO proceedings after the account stated But dc
not think this the fair construction OF the statute think
the Legislature can have intended ia h
than in the other that Treasury execution should issue
for confessedly than due, by which the person
the debtor should be imprisoned probably unfortunately,
and his property Sold Congress must have designed
leave such cases to the regular course of law.
Ii these principles be correct let them be applied the
before the court.
MI. Randolph is charged in the account on which the
warrant issued with cash left by Purser Timbersks,
board the rgate Constitution, and according his
confession, received by him, Sli ,4S3
That he must account for this sum is certain. shall
not enquire now, whether the Treasury might issue
execution for il, ought TO have applied of
justice. will proceed to other items Of the account.
He is re-chaged with sops issued by him. which be.
longs to the estate of Mr. Tmbeake, appeared by his
books.
Is this to settled at the Treasury under this act Of
Congress or does the enquiry properly belong
Of justice?
He is charged with German linen, belonging his pri.
vate Stores which he turned into the navy Charles
town. Stops. This item had been allowed him
former settlement of his accounts Ii is alleged that
this linen has been eturned TO him. The United States
may and probably have used it, Whether he is entitled
any, and to what credit, for this item is proper
quiry for court justice. The Treasury may refuse the
credit and refer the question TO court OF Justice but
not, think, issue execution for il, as the
stands.
The material item allowed in former settlement Of &C
counts and recharged, is the of advances
his payroll TO officers and while he acted Purser
The Constitution, il appearing by the memoranda OF
and by the general state OF the account, that portions
these advances made out of the money and
Purser Timberlake and out OF the ships Stores
will make the obvious objection this item that
il Mr.. Randolph paid the money sold the of Mr.
Tmberlake his account he is responsible to the
mcnt OF the United States does represent him, that
credits given for money paid by Mr. Randolph his
cannot be rescnded by alleging that the money really be-
oDged 10 another person, nor will enquire by what
hoy the Treasury Department settles the be
tween Tmberlake's Representatives and Randolph. But
will say, that this entry admits that part OF the money
paid by Randolph out of his funds and certainly
diminished his debt TO the United States that amount
Consequently the whole amount for which execution is
sued not due.
IL am correct in saying that this summary process
be used only to the payment OF the actually
due, not TO the payment OF than Is due, that
such conovered question ought TO be decided in court