Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1838-01-27
TucsdGY, Jhnuary %.


Mir Webster rose and addressed the Chair as follows:
Mr. Presidents: Having received, me days ago, un.
questionable information OF the payment Of fishing bouil-
ties and pensions in hlaSsacuse in bills OF the Conn
muuwcath Gauk Of the City Of Boston, by which pay:
nent heavy losses had been sustained by eTloous and
we'll deserving prrsons felt il my duty to call the al.
tcrliun of the Senate the sub eCt and 10 move all IN
qniry for the purpose Of obtaining information respect
ing the circumstances, from the proper quarter.
In consequence Of this public proceeding, Dictated on
nv part, by nothing but oil obligation, The OH
cal Paper Of the Administration in this city, Oh satur
dag last, published the following paragraph:
Hhors to h Commonwealth BaN Of !aSnchastts nc names
Of five or six Gent enc the Administration,
the exploded bank Il, Eoson aud It's bankruptcy IS
a, S whose purnded
uuy few Thousand DOLLARS winch they are able TO pay thrice
II all its oau safe those thus exhibited I" show
its insolvency. the bnnk would he the s""ndest he
Cuo would be without bad debt The scrrdtUe loans
this bank for so 900 lime In his resolution Of Ia"
CURRY the Of the Bank therefore, hn no demand
the OF bills protested in At any time nor Tor
the Of the drawers"
Now, sir, said Mr. Webster, if | owe The Common.
wealth Bank duar, am moi conscious OF it. II ever
did owe il dollar do not remember ii; nor do rcco
lee, believe that any note signed BY me, or any bill
accepted by me- by any ngent clerk IN my behalf,
was ever protested at that bank delayed in payment.
Having said this, may be relieved from making any
remark Of my the character Of this publication.
will only read remark Of the Editor himself in the
same column which contnins the publications., anu which
remark is in the following words:
''Thcse attacks upon the private concerns Of public
men, for party purposes, exceedingly despicabe.
So thinks the Editor, and for one, concur with him.
number of petitions were presented and referred
to be hereafter mentioned.
The Senate resumed the consideration OF The bill pro-
ving for the greater security of persons board YES
sells impeed wholly or in part by steam
Mr.. Morris moved 10 reconsider the vote OF yesterday
rejecting the amendment: offered by Mr.. Smith of lnd.
ana which provided penalty of $500 TO Sl00O Tor
steamboat racing; which motion for reconsideration was
negalrcd without division.
Mr.. Davis said he had been requested To move TO re-
consider the vote Of Yesterday the amendment offered
by Mr. Niles requiring experienced and skilful cng
nccr be kept board every steamboat under penalty
of holding the master aud owners responsible Tor all re-
Sulling damage To persons aud property anu lndclcpe
for n,nnslaurI,c in case Of the loss of lie. Mr. d. snid
he had voted for this amendment, but some gentle
men seemed think that it was adopted hastily, WIN
out due consideration, he moved TO re consider IL when
motion prevailed w
MIR. Clayton objected 10 the latter clause of Mr. Niles 6
amendment, lnat it would make convictions OF man.
slaughter by wholesale; the owners OF single boal some
times amount from 500 TO 1000 persons; and thai II would
raplicaie the captain. who might be in no way blame
able for the want al suitable engineer.
MIR. Niles urged the great crlmnlly OF exposing inc
lives of persona by the employment Of an incompetent
engineer, for the comparatively paltry consideration Of
saving n small amour, Of money. He, however, with,
drew the latter part Of his amendment which he SAID
been drawn hastily, anu without
the objections which were now urged against 1t.
Mr. Ruggles offered amendment to hlr MICS 6
amendment, as nov modified by The mover, imposing
penalty additional 10 the indemnity for damage TO per
sons and property nt from 500 TO 1OOu which amend
meat was not carried.
The amendment OF Mr.. Niles, as moailleo, \ol ud'"
ageS) was then adopted.
Mr. Morris moved that the bill be printed with the
amendments and postponed Till tomorrow; which mo-
ton did not prevail [hlr Grundy thinking it unneces'
sarv, the BILL to considerable extent, had occh ue'
prlved of It's original rigor.
The hill and amendments were then reported 70 Inc
Senate and the amendments were scverny agreed TO-;
Mr. Norvc! offered his amendment OF yesterday Ut
tic moad 10 require eprescryer Tor ench perrin
in boat under penalty Of $500 for every trip without
them.
Mr. Davis would MOI say that there Nigh mot be some
utility in this amendment; but he did not see why inc
rcqnison might not with equal proprety be EXTENDED
10 every packet foreign and domestic and 10 Vessels oil
war lie argued that ii was the duty of Congress TO
provide against all The mischels and disasters arising
from neglect and other misconduct, i'll our navgatloni
but that it could be best done by general PROVISIONS Of
adequate security nilctng the penalties when The mis-
Chief or disaster should actually occur
After few words from Mr.. Norvel in defence oil MS
amendment, it was lnst-Yeas l6, nays Is.
Mr. Smith of Indiana moved an amendment, declaring
tha the explosion of steam boiler should be taken as
prlna ce evidence Of the criminal neglect or niscon'
due, made penal by tile BILL and TO be punished accord
ing!y.
Mr. Grundy believed that it was the wish OF tho Sc
naor In render the bill more cpcual; but Nh e. thought
il would be ciectual ii stood, than they
should rgislac with greater rgor and severity lie ar
Cucd also, that blossoms would occur from various
other than ec or misconduct and that lhere
fore the innocent might be implicated by The scope OF
the amendment He stated that eight or nine hundred
lives had been los! the last yer the Western waters
aud he knew not how many on the Eastern: but ne
though that this bill, stood, would 60 very far 10
remedy the evil.
/. al, riuIu IF no
causes from which disasters arise required if any thing
the greater minueness and rgor in legisating on The
subject.
MIR. CLAYTON regarded this bill as an innovation the
common law, which does not niict penalties Tor hIg0
crimes and msdemeanors without proof Of intention to
commit them. lie argued that it was unsafe 10 infringe
on this spirit Ct the common law.
Mr. Strange concurred entirely with the views of The
Senator from Delaware He argued that the bill was
Too dcspoc in its aspect and that The proposed amend
ent would tend 10 defeat rather than attain the object
Of the bill.
evidence in relation facts regarded proof Of crime
and the intention OF cf'me)
Mr. Prcnliss said that looking into the bill, il aP'
reared 10 contain some provisions which might be oil
some practical use but he feared that they would turn
to be inefficient to prevent the evils contemplated
If lie had any objection to the BILL It was thai the pro
visions were not strong enough He believed II was
true that very few explosions of steamboat boilers had
occurred in England, and this was owing, IN great
measure he supposed TO the wise severity Of the BI
fish law lie understood that, by the English law, the
fact of an explosion ipso faeto, worked forfeiture Of
the boat, without, any inquiry whether The explosion
arose from actual negligence or not This had induced
great carefuness in the construction OF The machinery
Which was used and great caution to employ none but
skilfu and discreet engineers Whether the principle
extended to the liability of the owners for damages he
was unable to say but inclined to think that il was
no, carried so far The liability for damages probably
rested on common law principles. He thought that no
nG short Of an enactment, making the fact OF an ex
plosion Of ITSELF conclusive evidence of negligence. SC
far as respected forfeiture of the boat would be eec
ual Such provision would rest upon TIC same high