Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-06-12

Il " no" stood should in practice be found impracti
9 | and Southwest.
y MIR CLAY said he had never doubted that IN
, Jaw on 1856 would revive; but, when he had intro
ueeeu Rvs btl to repeal the Sub Treasury, he ha
u even notice that that was the first in series,
nsl Mowea openly his preference for Bank OF IN
om'eu states. II, then, the law Of 1856 did reviv
: IN It's present form, no hoped would be but for
). very snort time But, it otherwise it must unders
complete revision.
c MIR YOUNG of Illinois. proposed 10 amend IN
n, hrsi, by inserting the words "neslec: or" bcor
.he word refuse" in the clause making a refusa
I" pay over public moneys to the order Of Govern
ment prt'na Jaeie evidence of embezzlement; whic
amendment was accepted 10y Mr. Clay, and adopted
oy inc senate: and in the second place further q
a,nehu the bill in such manner To provide tina
I an agent OF the Government previous to his re
.usal 70 pay over the public money, should put hi
property out OF his hands 10y assignment othe
conveyance, that act should be pronounced a telo
NY ana subject him to all the penalties of embezxle
ment
; MIR CLAY said he could no, agree to this amend
ment. lie thought 1t pushed the penal principl,
tather too lar. To declare the fraudulent convey.
ahce OF property felony going beyond any
Jaw with which he was acquainted, and there
veyance was doubtful
Mr. YOUNG observed that the case was one OF
very frequent occurrence at least in the West, and
some punishment ought to he provided for il. 1,
gentlemen would not declare it felony, would they
I
deiraud the United Staesf
MIR, HUNTINGTON admitted that it was very
desirable TO prevent such frauds, but the courts
were open, and he thought would provide a sutfi .
clent remedy. AT all events, he could not consent
10 declare fraudulent conveyance felony.
Inc amendment was rejected.
ments:
Ind proridcd further, Tha,the following sections
and parts OF said bill shall bc excepted from this re-
peal anu shall remain and continue in force 10 wit
Sections ~ and 20, section 81, section 25 section p
and so much OF the 10Th section as makes itieony
m disbursing officers and persons connected with
the Post Office Department to use the public NO.
ney Tor their own or other purposes and neglect
or refusal 10 pay over public moneys on demand or
10 transfer or dshurse them shall be prima taeie
evidence of an embr zzlement OF the same.
Sec lind be 81 further eace.ed That the Bank
oil 'he United States commonly called the PennSyl-
v1nIa Bank OF the United States and its branches
ana the local banks and agencies owned by it. shall
MOI DC entrusted with the collection or safe keeping
or transfer or disbursement OF the public moneys or
any par, thereof.
And he asked that the question DC divided, and
''a' u vote DC taken on each question by yeas and
nays, and they were ordered by the Senate.
! he Item with regard TO the Bank OF the United
! states at PhilldelphIa having been read
! MI Clay SAID that he had no hesitation in de-
caring aier all the disclosures that had recently
been made, that lie should depreclte as much as
any gentleman could do the employment of that
public funds. He had inlimated the opinion as much
as thTce years ago that the Government was cut
oSe from that institution from the period of its char
ter Cy the State OF Pennsylvania But still he could
not consent 10 the adoption OF such amendment as
ulAl proposed Ii the Senate 10 declare its dis.
appreciation OF the man8g cement OF q particular bank
| t'ere were many Others such as the Owl Creek
0!hN, &c winch might with equal justice be nclud-
CO IN the dehunc alton. lie did not however, consid
! ef II rs COMFORTING with the dignity of the Senate
| pf dis and
ne hoped The amendment would not prevail.
MI. BENTON admitted that other banks had be =
haved very badly, but the case of this bank stood
Gis'hs uIShed from ali Others because II had origin
any come INTO existence under u charter from the
United States, and the eyes of foreigners were in
/ peculiar manner liked upon It. Mr.. q. proceeded
| 10 speak with much warmth againsI the course of
Tue oanA generally, and especially on It's bringing
| upon Iisei the last suspension by an underhanded
anu s"IndiIns endcayor TO break the New York
BANKS. lie accused 1t as having plotted the suspen-
SION IN 1887, and as being effect the only obstacle
! TO resumption ofspecie payments by all the banks
oil the South. They had recently made an effort TO
resume, but tins bank had Instantly run upon them
and forced them to return 10 a suspension.
! MIR BAGARD admitted the culpability Of the
Dank, oul opposed the amendment as unnecessary,
because the law sf 1856 expressly prohibited the
Government from employing any bank which cid
MOI pay specie.
! Mr. WOODBURY., in reply TO this, explained the
construction OF that law by the Treasury Depart.
ment. When that Department had funds TO d. posite
and no bank could be found which coniormed TO
the provisions OF the law Of 1886, the Department
considered itself thrown back on the previous
law, and under that law at liberty place the de-
posiies IN non specie paying banks. What else
could II do, unless It threw the money into the
stree'sl
Mr. DIXON said he should vote against the n
mendment, both because he thought il improper TO
refer 10 individual banks, and especially because
inns bank assigned as one cause of its suspension
The hard treatment of the United States Govern
men'.
| The question being taken, the amendment was
rejected as follows:
YEAS-Messrs Allen, Archer, Benton, Buch.
anan, Calhoun, Clay, OF Alabama, Fulton, King,
Mckooerts, Nicholson, Pierce, Sewer, Smith, OF
bury, Wright, Young-2O.
NAGS-Messrs. Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien,
Choate, Clay, of KY, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Ora.
ham, Henderson, Huntington Kerr, Mangum,
merHck; Miller, Morehend, Phelps, Porter, Prentss,
Peston, Rives, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana South.
ard, Talmadge, White, Woodbridge-2S.
/ MIR. TALLMADGE objected to that clause Of
the bill which made refusal TO pay over money TO
the order OF the Government prima taeis evidence
OF enlightenment, as violating the great principle Of
criminal law, that every man is 10 be held limo.
cent until he is proved to he guilty. IL might so
happen that an innocent agent through the death of
his witnesses, might be unable to prove his inno-
cence; and would II not he hard TO convict and pu.
Hlsl Nun w SUCH Case Dy throwing the burden OF
proof on him instead Of taking It upon the Govern
menR
Mr. MANGUM replied that, while the rule one.
rated very ilvoIbly the Government il inflicted
no real injury on individuals. IL was intended to
cover such cases as that Of the late collector in New
I Ofk who set the Government at defiance, and held
over the public moneys TO great amount because he
was subject only 70 civil prosecution. As between
man and man, Mr. VI. should be unwilling To ADOPT
such principles but II man undertook 10 serve
the Government, knowing before hand that this was
one OF the conditions Of his service, he thought not
UNFAIR for after oil he was subjected only to a suit
IN a court Of law.
Mr. WOODBURY. approved Of the clause in the
bill, but wished II slightly amended by adding the
words draft or order 10 the word warrant; which
amendment was agreed TO-
Mr. TALLMADGE further supported his posi-.
ton, insisting that II was a mere question of eyi.
dence, and that the Government gained nothing
while Il violated a great principle OF law, and ran
the risk Of inf citing cruel injury on an innocent man.
Messrs. BAYABD and PRESTON replled TO
| his objection, and defended the clause IN question
denying that this was any more n violation Of the
principle Of law than multitude Of other cases
where the law assumed certain ficis as prinia Gleis
evidence Of guilt, and imposed tho burden Of proof
on the accused. II one man killed another il was
prinn tacis evidence q murder; If man held stolen
goods, % was prima (Icis evidence Of theft. The
pTira facis evidence did not convict him. but he was
held 20 explain, because he, Of oil other persons
was best able to explain. Ard even in civil cases
when man refused 10 deliver up goods claimed by
another, the law held It pTima Jaeie evidence Of
conversion, and as laying tho foundation for an &C
/ ton Of tr1vcr.