The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-01-26

l. DC gwen TO departure from law. But in this cas-
responsible we shall be doing injustice to him. Tn
present Secretary of the Navy had no participation
IN TINS transaction OF his predecessor The former Sec
retary OF the Navy doubtless acted in good faith am
there may have been departure from strict authority
D law But have understood that there was reason TO
maj departure, which, although necessary secure tn,
purposes tor which the appointment was made wa.
kept secret at the time, but is longer req ued Il
be suppressed In order TO prevent of injustice Il
this gentleman, and explain to the Senate the rea
for my voe feel at liberty the true for
his appointment will assure the senator from Ohir
Mr. ALIEN that it will be hard case after this an
polntmer has been authorized for purposes of genera
public policy to visit the consequences of the wrong
for that there was wrong deed deny) upon the
head OF the officer for whose relief this bill provides
The Tact is this The true object OF the expedition al
though apparently to sail round the globe was to secure
to the United States the benefit of coal mines in the island
Of Borneo, in the Asiatc seas, which it deemed
hShy important to secure, of the ultimate de-
signs of the government with reference to the Pacific
trade The island of~Borneo alone OF all the islands in
contains large beds of coal suitable for purposes OF
steam navigation. 1t known, | believe that
the British government were at the time endeavor-
ing TO to themselves that prize and the
object of the expedition to obtain that benefit for
the United States This gentleman who was au-
horized to be taken into the shs, in fact geolo-
glst, and appointed to perform the duty of geolo
gst IN making examinations to ascertain the value and
extent OF these mines. The object of that expedition was
not accomplished am safe in saying that the object of
Mr.. Henshaw in recommending the appointment of the
geologist was only for the purpose of carrying out the
policy for which the expedition was undertaken?
policy being in and do pe pGn. 81 bed p9Dc
sponsble no further than individual officer of the
vessel and being DESTROYS OF facilitating the object for
which the expedition was underaken-it seems to
me that 1t would be very hard that should i'm
pose upon him The whole loss and burden of depart
ure from the strict authority OF law think the money
should not be taken, said by my friend and associate
upon the Naval Committee from the pocket of Captain
Percival We should relieve him but il it be the pur
pose OF the senator, by some example, to prevent any
| "a N nfnf pfrcora lat
provide that the officer who gave the authority should
| be obliged TO refund the amount paid to this man.
think equity would better consist with STRICT obligation
tupon the executive officers to observe the law by en-.
forcing the penalty upon the officer from whom the
authority emanated than by imposing only upon the Of
fcer who in the execution OF order of this kind
shall, therefore, vote for this bill, have before init
mated.
! Mr.. NILES. The senator near me Mr. YULEEl has
there not defect in it,. He that Captain
Pecva had order from the head of the Navy Depart
ment to take this board Now. sir, there is no
such proof here. II was mere permission that the
gentleman received TO go on board, founded on
request OF Captain Perciva 1t is taken for granted
that the scheme originated with the navy proper
Why it should have been presented the face of it
that the captain should not have undertaken this respon
slbity, but should have thrown it where il belonged
upon the head OF the department high officer of gov
ernmen may take responsibility beyond the law But
OF he H. and must submit the the
President or Vice President 10 whom he is account
able. In matter like this he must come to Congress-
and ii Congress satisfied that he has acted from pure
motives with regard to the public interest in the exgen
cies Of the case they would justify it This has been
made allowances to the posmasters throughout the
try, and submitted his to this body. We took no
action in censure of his conduct
But that this case Captain Percival did not claim
that he had any order His language very cautious
When he gives his order to the puser he says that sin
pursuance of permission from the Secretary OF the
Navy and the President OF the United States to take on
board" SC. Why, sir, something than this should
have been required in order to justify himself He should
hnU mr. ynI IN matt ,rJnr
knowing that, without such ORDER he acting in vio-
laton OF law. would have called upon the Secretary
of the Navy TO explain this transaction and if it could
not be done, he ought TO have been impeached. Our
laws are not TO be violated in any such manner The
captain had such order, and was under obligations
take the man board certainly appears if the
whole thing originated with Captain Percval, whose
request the reluctant of Secretary of the Navy
and President of the United States obtained Forif
an appointment was really made why not salary
fixed at the time?
can regari this matter as no other than a papabe
barefaced violation OF law-an appointment in the first
place, of Mr. Chandler without law; and afterwards
substituting in his place. during the course OF the voyage.
another person-two payments beng made arbitrarily,
without law, BY this captain according to his own sense
of proprety
Now, sir, think the question before us is, whether
we will sustain our own accounting ofhcer-who.
think has made report which does him great credit
and for am not disposed to censure mis- conduct
But this is the real question tor us to decide Has he
ecuted the law This captain now calls upon us to re-
is, by law, rghtfully charged to Captain Percival.
If we allow it, we reverse that decision | think his
reason conclusive The only doubt the other day
was, whether there not in charging this
money over to the captain instead of the purser.
My friend from New Jersey (Mr MILLER) says there
is nothing new in this case There was standing regu.
alion in the Navy Department, which was law TO the
officer when there statute interfering. The cap
tain knew his duty perfectly well when he gave this
order He knew that he gave it on his RESPONSE
bIlity, and that the money would be charged to him
The barge disaowed by the Auditor, and are
now called to the decision, and to justify
transaction made without law, and in violation OF law
and which will have tendency TO sanction similar pro.
ceedngs in all cases hereafter think il is maxim
the navy-indeed have often heard it-tha laws
not made for post captains.
| This is practical application of that maxim Now
wish to reverse that maxim and make il thus: that laws
are only made for inferior officers post captains
law to themselves. This captain asks us TO sanction
practice of this kind when he has acted in accordance
with law but has been law to himself, as has been
clearly shown by the Senator from Ohio hope, there
FORE the Senate will unanimously express their decided
dsappobaon OF this unlawful stretch OF authority on the
part of United States officer
| Mr. BADGER. | wish to say, sir, a few words on
this claim 1t does not to have been IN very great
degree weakened by the painful solcitude on the part OF
who has just taken his does not seem to have con-
tented himself with placing the matter on Its intrinsic
merits but to have been disposed TO orng ioward
some preudices TO operate against the caih ne ,eiis
us that claws were not made for post captains Weii
sir if there be any such saying OF which am ignorant
certainly do agree the OPINION mus expressed Dy
that senator The question presented for the consid
era,ion Of the Senate is in my APP rehension, very
simple one; il is that does not concern the sta
|bility of the constitution nor the maintenance OF law.
This case comes under the consideration of the Senate,
because there is not Law which provides for IT, just