Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-12-27

billy % this particular process which Is 'ne SUD
;sc; IF tho enquiry is mere acting Purser
designated BY this law as one Of those onl'eIs
AGAINST whom this summary process may DC
useJp If IL in vain To- say that he comes wlhin
the same reason, and is within the misch'e'
AGAINST which the statute in'ended to provide.
The statute does not reach all public Debtors
and has selected specially those Tor when us
intended. No others can be brought wlthin us
purview. Those principles OF strict cohs'ruc'
ton which apply. think, to all laws RESTRICTIVE
of common right, forbid 1t.
These reasons satisfy my own judgment tnat
Mr.. Randolph was not an ofilcer 10 "ho" '"e
law applies the process under when nc Is '"'
prlsoned.
II it were necessary TO assign any reasons Tor
this distinction between temporary and perma.
neDt officers, it would not be difficult to ind
them. The permanent officer usually receives
his money from the Treasury. or by It's order. SO
that ne document which charges him, appears
on he books of that Department The tempo.
rary Officer will seldom be placed under The
same circumstances. He NAV, and generally
does receive the money with which he is chars'
cable. in such manner as to leave the amount
d subject of controversy. In this particular
case, Purser Timberake must Stand charged,
Dresume, with all the m"nies advanced 10 the
Purser Of the Constitution. The portion Of
this money which came to the hands OF Mr..
Randolph, would not appear on those BOOKS ana
NAV be a matter Of controversy between him and
Undertakes representatives Congress might
yery reasonably make distinction when giving
this summary process, between an officer whose
whole liability ought to appear on the books OF
the Department, and an agent whose LIABILITY
W., most generally to be ascertained by ex-
trinsic testimony. But il is enough Tor me That
the law in nv Judgment makes the distinction.
The accounts extracted from he books OF The
Trea ,ury, and laid before the Court, furnish
other matter for serious consideration.
The Cd section of the act requires that thc
account stated by order of the FIRST Comptrol.
Ter OF the Treasury, "shall exhibit truly the
amount due to the United States For what
purpose Vas the word truly in:rojuced7 Surely
not to prohibit the officers Of the Government
from exhibiting an account known 10 be crrone.
ovs. Congress could not suspect such an afro:
CITY Its introduc ton then, indicates the idea that
this summary process was to be used only when the
true amount wa, certainly known to the Depart
men,. When the sum Of money debited to the
officer appeared certainly, and either no credits
were claimed, or none about which q controver.
sy existed. The amount due to the United
States. cannot be truly exhibited when the
claim is shnwn by the account 'self, to exceed
wat is really due. do not mean TO say that
the debtor IS not bound to show with precision,
the credits to which he is entitled. | do not
mean to say how far his failure TO separate pay
ments made from his own funds, and from those
of his predecessor, may deprive him IN suit at
law, Of the credits he claims | mean to say
only that the amount claimed, is not the sum
truly due TO the u:ited States, il the account IT.
self shows that q smaller amount is due. The
necessity Of withholding the credit, may JUST.
fy proceedings against the debtor IN a court OF
justice. in which he must make good his credits,
but will not, think, justify issuing an execu.
ton without any judicial enquiry, against The
body and estate OF the delinquent, Tor sum
confessedly more than is due.
The Sd section omits the word truly, but re-
quires that the account shall be stated, AMI d.
reefs the agent Of the Treasury to proceed in
the manner directed in the preceding section,
all the provisions Of which are declared to be
applicable to every officer of government char
geable with the disbursement Of public money.
Ii may be cOntended that the provisions Of the
preceding section, thus adopted in the third, are
those only which relate to proceedings after the
account is stated, not to the prnci Piles on which
the account is TO be stated: But do not think
the Legislature can no more have intended in
this one case than in the other, that Treasury
execution should issue for confessedly more than
IS due, BY which the person Of the debtor should
be imprisoned, probably interminably, and his
property sold. Congress must have designed to
leave such cases to the regular course of law.
II these principles be correct, let them be ap-
piled to the case before the Court.
Mr. Randolph IS charged in the account on
which the warrant issued, with cash left by Pur.
ser Timberlake. on board the frigate Constltu-
ton, and according to his confession. received by
him. 81 LABS
That he must account for this sum is certain.
shall not enquire, now, whether the Treasury
might issue an execution for it, or ought to have
applied to a court of Justice. l will proceed to
other items Of the account.
He is recharged with Stops issued by him,
which belonged to the estate OF Mr.. Undertake,
as appears BY his books.
Is this to be settled at the Treasury, under
this act Of Congress- or does the enquiry properly
belong to a court Of justice?
' L,l~