erally which rendered its passage just and equitable. Mr. MACON made an inquiry or two of the chairman of the Military Committee, relative to some of the facts stated in the report, touching the legality of the conduct of Colonel Purdy. It was a pretty high-handed measure, Mr. M. said, for a citizen to be imprisoned by a military officer, and he wished to be satisfied that the act was justifiable. DECEMBER, 1821 not get information on and fully understand ever subject, they appointed a committee of one men ber, called a Reporter, and all the rest of the bod relied on the statements of that one individua This practice virtually reduced the body to a si gle member. Here, said Mr. T., we pursue th same course, and judge on claims at second hand on the report of the gentlemen of the committe If, Mr. T. continued, we are to act on such que tions, which are judicial in their character, w ought to decide according to the principles whic govern judges. Would a bench of judges leav the decision of a case to one of their number, an all the rest submit their judgments to the opinio of that one? Such was the practice in the Legi into Congress such business, which belonged prop erly to the courts, where each one who had decide, was well informed of the merits of th case, and rendered justice accordingly. But such subjects are to be received by appeal from the courts, we ought, Mr. T. said, for the sake that economy which all profess to desire, to ap point a court of exchequer, instead of decidin them here. Let us, said he, take a hint from m narchical Governments, (certainly not renowne for their economy,) and appoint a court of exche quer, which will be better able to decide wher Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia, would make a sug-justice lies, than such a body as this, where all ar gestion, as apposite to the subject, though perhaps unimportant. The United States had assigned all the judicial power they possessed to its own courts; one moiety of the judicial power of the people was assigned to the Federal courts, and the other moiety to the State courts; would it not, therefore, he asked, be unconstitutional for Congress to undertake to revise a judicial decision? Could it rightfully interfere with such decisions, after they were made by the courts? If the trial of the petitioners was a question arising under the Constitution or laws of the Union, it would be one reserved to the Federal courts to decide, and the party grieved might have recourse to the Federal courts for redress; then was it right, Mr. T. asked, for Congress to undertake to give him that which was provided by a different branch of the Government? If aggrieved by the decision of a State court, he could still, according to the construction of the Supreme Court, resort to the Federal court for redress. But how was it, Mr. T. inquired, that a military officer could have the right to come forward to Congress for redress from a judicial decision, which a civil character could not claim from Congress for any hard or erroneous judgment he might suffer from a court?-particularly if that officer has, by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary act, the right of removing his cause to the Federal courts? The precedent was bad, Mr. T. thought, because it would have the effect to bring much business of the same kind before the Legislature, which it cannot, either properly or advantageously decide on. In reference to the practice of Congress in such matters, Mr. T. remembered an old case which was applicable to the subject. France once had a body called a Parliament: it was very numerous, and as all the members could Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, replied to the question of Mr. MACON. The cabins occupied by Luty were on the line of the Indian territory, and when that part which was within the boundary was demolished, the other of course fell. When Luty committed the act for which he was impris-lature, and it showed the impropriety of bringin oned, it was not only within the Indian reservation, but within the encampment ground of Colonel Purdy. Mr. W. said the courts of Tennessee had decided that the jurisdiction of the State was coextensive with its chartered limits, as well within the Indian grounds as where the Indian title had been extinguished, and had, in pursuance of that principle, given damages to Luty. The courts of Georgia, Mr. W. said, he understood had decided differently, and he was inclined to think this decision was a correct one, though he was not prepared to give a positive opinion. too much occupied with business of a differen kind to investigate such subjects. Mr. T. con tinued to argue at some length against the prac tice of acting on such claims in Congress, wher so much depended on the talents and integrity any gentleman who might patronize a claim. was spending the money of the nation on case which were not understood, and in fees which th litigants would have to pay in court, and ough to pay there. The trial was, moreover, here, parte; no testimony was taken on the adverse side the statements of the petitioner only were receiv ed; a committee heard the case, and the Hous was governed by their report. Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, in reference to the pro priety of granting indemnity to Colonel Purdy cited several cases where officers, during the lat war, were ordered to perform acts which were pro nounced illegal by the courts, for which the offi cers had judgments for damages rendered agains them; they asked of Congress relief, and had gen erally received it, even where the decision of th State court was perfectly correct; but in case where the officer was obliged to obey the orders o his superior. An officer was not to consider whe ther his orders were right or wrong-his duty wa to obey them; in doing so, he might incur dama ges which would be ruinous to him, unless Con gress afforded him relief. There had been case (and Mr. H. adverted to several) in which officer had suffered for acts of duty, in which it was clea that they could have pursued their remedy in the Federal courts, under the 25th section of the Jud. ciary act; but as the sums were small, and the officers were known to have acted in good faith and for the best-even where not acting under or ders-they were relieved by the Legislature. was well known, Mr. H. said, that in the Northern States, during the late war, there was a good deal of excitement, and considerable jealousy and ill will towards military officers; and it was hard for them to get justice; they were obliged to appeal to Congress for relief, and where they were thought to have acted for the best interests of the United States they had been usually relieved; for, though the officer might seek relief in the Supreme Court, and should gain his suit, it would often be a remedy without relief, for the expenses of such an appeal would frequently amount to as much as the whole sum involved in some of the cases. Mr. VAN BUREN observed that the Constitution had very wisely divided the judicial power in the manner described by Mr. TAYLOR, between the State and the Federal courts; and, in reply to that gentleman, said he bad yet to learn that relief had ever been granted by Congress to any applicant on the avowed ground of error in the decision of the court, if the court was one of competent power. But, although it was not competent for Congress to give relief on this ground, it was right to do so on a variety of other grounds. There might be cases in which an officer acts contrary, and knowingly contrary, to law, but where the exigency of the case secures to the United States a good by the illegal act; yet, in such cases as these, the Legislature will relieve the officer from the consequences which may follow his act. Such cases had been relieved-one even at the last sessionthe bill for the relief of Matthew McNair. Mr. Van Buren ci ted also other cases, amongst them, that of Mr. Gelston, the former collector of the port of New York, in which the damages amounted to $130,000, and in which, although there was no question that the court decided right, yet, as the officer acted for the good of the United States, Congress relieved him from the damages, great as they were. The officer acted on his own risk, and, as all of them must proceed on the same principle, they would be liable to be ruined by the performance of what they might, though erroneously, deem to be their duty, unless Congress were to grant relief, for all were fallible, and liable to err. Mr. Van Buren applied his argument to the present case, in which the officer had done nothing more than was right and proper, but had suffered damages for it; such an officer, so acting, ought certainly to be relieved, as an intelligent committee of the Senate had decided, and the bill ought to pass on the principles both of consistency and sound policy. SENATE. character than the one under consideration; and there was nothing in the Constitution or laws of the Union which would justify Colonel Purdy in removing his case to the Federal court. But even if he had possessed that right, he would have had to go a thousand miles to reach the Federal court; and would it have been just to require that sacrifice of an officer for executing his duty and the orders of the President? What, Mr. W. asked, was to become of public agents, under the circumstances of the petitioner, before the gentleman's court of exchequer could hear and determine their cases? They would suffer ruin, before relief could be afforded to them. Congress had always acted on such cases, he said, and had granted relief where the party applying appeared to be entitled to it. Nor had it been confined to officers of the Army, as he showed by adducing several examples of a different character. Colonel P. he said had incurred these damages for enforcing the laws of the United States and doing his duty, as he conceived, and it was one of that class of cases which, if any, was entitled to relief. It was the performance of the very duty for which he was placed in the Indian territory; and if he had neglected to act as he did, he would have made himself liable to be arraigned and disgraced for a neglect of duty. Mr. W. particularized a number of cases growing out of the late war, in which damages recovered against officers for false imprisonment, would have ruined them, but for the interposition of Congress. An expedition Mr. W. said, had recently been ordered to sea against the pirates; it might happen that some persons might be taken under circumstances so suspicious and strong as to justify their seizure and imprisonment, yet appear in the end to be pirates; yet would any one say that Commodore Porter ought to be suffered to be ruined by actions for false imprisonment, for making such arrests? No, certainly-Congress would not hesitate to indemnify him. Mr. BROWN, of Ohio, made a few remarks, indistinctly heard. The tenor of his observations was, that where an officer had suffered damages for his fidelity to the United States, he ought not to be turned away from Congress without redress, because it might be said there was another tribunal to which he might resort; and that where an officer had done his duty by preventing a mischief, yet incurred a responsibility for so doing, he was equally entitled to relief, as though he had waited till the evil was perpetrated, and then punished it. Mr. B. spoke at some length in reply, (the Reporter understood,) to Mr. TAYLOR as to the cases properly referrible to the Supreme Court. The gen Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, again rose to make a few remarks in reply to Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman had said that Colonel Purdy could have Mr. TAYLOR, of Virginia, again rose. sought redress in the Federal court, and had the tlemen opposed to him, he said, had yielded the error of the State court corrected; but Mr. W. question. The petitioner, it was stated, was fined doubted, indeed he denied, the practicability of for executing the laws, and yet he was punished that course. It was an action for false imprison- by law for executing the law. Was this correct? ment, and he did not see how a Federal court could | Ought the party not to apply to those laws for reorder the State court to stay proceedings in such dress, which he suffered for executing? and were a case. He believed it had been contended by the the courts not the proper tribunal for him to apCourt of Appeals in Virginia, that the Supreme peal to? Was the Treasury, Mr. T. demanded, Court of the United States had no jurisdiction to underwrite every officer who is cast in the law? over the State courts, in cases not of a stronger and yet it would come to this by the establish ment of such a precedent. Adopt this practice, Mr. T. said, and we shall soon have here plaintiff and defendant-petitions will be presented by collusion, to obtain grants from the Treasury, and the stakes be divided between the parties. Mr. T. took this occasion, in reply to some remarks that had been made, to protest against the appellate jurisdiction assumed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The power denied, was no where to be found in the Constitution. Returning to the subject immediately under consideration, Mr. T. said, if military officers used the physical force placed under their command, to oppress a citizen, they ought to be the last who ought to be excused; they ought to be punished. This petitioner either broke the law or he enforced the law. If the former, ought Congress to protect him? and, if the latter, ought the courts not to protect him? This precedent, he repeated, would be a bad one. It was more necessary to make the military obedient to the law than any other class; and he would not, by this unnecessary indemnity, encourage them to break the law, to neglect their defence before the proper tribunal, and then grant them a privilege here not granted to any other class of citizens. This was, indeed, granting an exclusive privilege. Exclusive privileges! exclaimed Mr. T. He protested against them with vehemence, as abhorrent to justice and repugnant to the spirit of our institutions. Even in this case, he observed, it might be (he would not assert it, but merely suggest the idea) that the petitioner came here in concert with the prosecution, to squeeze a little out of the public Treasury. Mr. T. again adverted to the power contended for by the Supreme Court, and spoke against the supremacy asserted by that tribunal, which was a mingling of jurisdictions, he said, which would bring about a very different Government from that which the Constitution intended to establish. Mr. EATON, of Tennessee, referred to the nature of the present case, and the facts disclosed by the most incontestible evidence, to show that there could exist no possible collusion between Colonel Purdy and his prosecutor. If, however, Mr. E. said, Colonel P. had taken the course recommended by Mr. TAYLOR, there would have been more room to hazard such a suggestion, if the character of the officer did not utterly forbid it. But, Mr. E. said, it was not in the power of the prisoner to appeal to the Supreme Court for redress, because this was an action at common law, and not one arising under a law of the United States or of the Constitution. Another reason, Mr. E. said, why Colonel P. could not apply to the Supreme Court, was, that the sum involved was not sufficient to entitle him to an appeal, the laws giving the right of appeal, limiting it to sums not less than $1,000. If the gentleman (Mr. TAYLOR) had been better acquainted with the practice of the Senate, he would have known, Mr. E. said, that there was no danger that it would ever set itself up as a revising body over the Judiciary. It was but the very last session of Congress that the gentleman's own colleague, (Mr. BARBOUR,) had eloquently and most zeal JANUARY, 1823. ously advocated the expediency of revising and declaring illegal an act of the Judiciary-he alluded to the case of Matthew Lyon-but, whatever might have been the opinions of the members, as to the justice of the decision of the Court in the case of Matthew Lyon, the Senate overruled the opinion of the gentleman, and determined not to interfere with the Judicial Department, but leave it to the undisturbed performance of its duties. The Senate, Mr. E. said, had thus solemnly decided against the principle which Mr. TAYLOR seemed so much to dread; the gentleman might, therefore, let his fears subside as to the assumption of power over the Judiciary by the Senate, for all his arguments were thrown away on such apprehension. As to the present case, Mr. E. repeated, it was not one which it was com petent for the Supreme Court to relieve; it was only in the power of Congress to do it; and, as it was a case entitled to the interposition of Congress, he hoped the bill would pass. After a few further explanatory remarks from Mr. MACON and Mr. WILLIAMS, the question was taken on ordering the bill to be engrossed and read a third time, and carried without a division. Adjourned to Friday. FRIDAY, January 3, 1823. Mr. BARBOUR moved, that the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred, on the 17th ultimo, the petition of Joseph Emerson, in behalf of himself and others, be discharged from the further consideration thereof; and, on motion, it was laid on the table. Mr.BOARDMAN presented the memorial of Henry P. Wilcox, administrator of Joseph Wilcox, praying compensation for carrying George A. Hughes, the bearer of despatches, from Havre de Grace to the United States. The petition was read, and referred to the Committee of Claims. On motion, by Mr. BARBOUR, the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which was referred the memorial of Benjamin I. Shain, master of the schooner Ajax, were discharged from the further consideration thereof, and it was referred to the Secretary of State. The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To the Senate of the United States: In compliance with the three resolutions of the Senate, of the 5th April, 1822, requesting the Presi dent of the United States to communicate, in detail, the expenses of building each vessel of war authorized by the act of the 2d of January, 1813, and its supplements; and, also, the names, number, grade, &c., of the officers and men employed at each naval station, during the two years immediately preceding the first of January, 1822, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy, with the accompanying documents, which contain the desired information. JAMES MONROE. WASHINGTON, January 3, 1823. The Message and documents were read, and ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate. A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have passed The bill for the relief of Robert Purdy was read a third time, and passed. Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, submitted the following motion for consideration: Resolved, That the petition of Joseph Emerson, and others, praying for indemnity for property illegally captured by the cruisers of the French Rupublic, in the year 1797, be recommitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, with directions to inquire and report whether the claim of the petitioners was released to the French Government by the United States, by the Convention between the two Republics, made and concluded on the 30th September, 1800, and finally ratified, on the part of France, on the 31st July, 1801; and, if released and barred, to report a bill for the relief of the petitioners: Provided, They shall produce satisfactory evidence of the illegal capture of their property by the French, as stated in their petition. mittee of Claims. Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, submitted the following motion for consideration: SENATE. Mr. DICKERSON submitted the following motion for consideration: nals be instructed to inquire into the expediency of Resolved, That the Committee on Roads and Caauthorizing by law a subscription, on the part of the United States, to the stock of the company making a canal from the Delaware river to the Raritan, in the State of New Jersey. Mr. MACON presented the memorial of Robert Abbott, praying the passage of a law authorizing tain Johnston Blakeley, who, with the crew of the equitable settlement of the accounts of Capmorial was read, and referred to the Committee of the Wasp, was lost in the year 1814. The me Claims. Mr. BARTON submitted the following motion for consideration: Resolved, That the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing an interchange of the laws of the several States, by mail, free of postage. Mr. LowRIE, from the Committee on Finance, to which was referred the bill, entitled "An act concerning the disbursement of public money," reported the same, with amendments, which were read. Mr. LowRIE presented the memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for the Encouragement of Domestic Manufactures, praying the revision of the existing tariff. The memorial was read, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. Mr. LowRIE also presented the petition of Samuel Walker, of Joseph L. Dutton, and, also, of for the occupation and use of their property by John Martin, and others, praying remuneration the United States, during the late war. The peferred to the Committee of Claims. titions were severally read, and respectively re Mr. RODNEY rose and said, that, in the war in the West India seas, it was proper, he thought, which we were now waging against the pirates to give some stimulus to our seamen engaged in it. Our gallant tars, he said, were not likely to gain in such a war the honor they acquired in the late war, and, as there was but little of that to be got, he wished to supply the deficiency by providing a stimulus of another kind. He therefore asked leave to offer the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be instructed to inquire into the expediency of allowing a bounty to the officers and crews of the public armed vessels of the United States; and to the owners, officers, and crews of the private armed vessels of the United States, for the prisoners captured, and the guns taken by them, in any piratical vessel. on the table. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Claims, on the petiResolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary betion of Joseph Janney; and it was ordered to lie instructed to inquire into the expediency of modifying he act of Congress of the last session, entitled "An tet for the establishment of a Territorial government in alorida," so as to grant the right of appeal and writs of error from the decisions of the courts established by The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Public Lands, on the petition of Alexander A. White; and it was laid on the table. The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the third instant, for instructing the Committee on Foreign Relations respecting the petition and claim of Joseph Emerson, and others; and, on motion, it was laid on the table. The three bills last brought up from the House of Representatives, for concurrence, were read, and severally passed to the second reading. The bill for the relief of Joshua Russell was read the second time. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill allowing a drawback on the exportation of cordage manufactured in the United States from foreign hemp, together with the amendment proposed thereto; and the further consideration thereof was postponed until to-morrow. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill to abolish imprisonment for debt; and, on motion, the further consideration thereof was postponed to, and made the order of the day for, Thursday next. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill for the benefit of George Shannon; and, on motion, the further consideration thereof was postponed to, and made the order of the day for, Monday next. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled "An act for the relief of William Sayles," and, on motion, it was laid on the table; and the petitioner had leave to withdraw his petition and papers. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled "An act to enable the proprietors of lands held by titles derived from the United States, to obtain copies of papers from the proper department, and to declare the effect of such copies ;" and, no amendment having been made thereto, it was reported to the House, and ordered to a third reading. JANUARY, 1823. Pearl river, to be appropriated, under the direction of the General Assembly of the State of Mississippi, to aid in opening and improving the navigation of said river, from the seat of government of the State to the Gulf of Mexico. The PRESIDENT communicated a report of the Secretary of the Navy, exhibiting a statement of expenditures, in virtue of the appropriation law for the year 1822; and of unexpended balances of former appropriations for the Naval Establishment, remaining in the Treasury on the 1st of October, 1821. The report was read, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs. The bill for the payment to Amos Nicholls of a sum of money for services rendered in the Navy Department; and the bill for the relief of Daniel Seward, were severally considered in Committee of the Whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. CUMBERLAND ROAD. The Senate then, according to the order of the day, resumed the consideration of the bill provid ing for the repair of the Cumberland road. Mr. TALBOT, adverting to what had passed when this subject was last before the Senate, stated that he had addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, making the inquiries which had been suggested, and had received from the Secretary an answer thereto, (which was read to the Senate,) stating, first, that David Shriver, Esq., was, at the commencement of the Cumberland road, appointed superintendent thereof, by the President of the United States, with a salary of $1,800, which was, in 1816, increased to $2,500. That he is not now considered the superintendent, and is not in the pay of the Government. Secondly, that the Secretary had examined the correspondence of Mr. Shriver with the department, relative to repairs, but it contains no estimate of the sum necessary to effect that object; but the Secretary presumed that a sum less than $30,000 would not be sufficient for that purpose. Mr. T. said, that in addition to the data furnished by the Secretary of the Treasury, he had consulted sev The bills from the House of Representatives the first concerning the apportionment of Representatives in the State of Alabama-the second to repeal part of an act passed by the State of Maryland, in the year 1784, respecting an addi-eral gentlemen well acquainted with the roadtion to Georgetown-severally passed through Committees of the Whole, and were ordered to a third reading. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill for the relief of Joseph Forrest; and, on motion, the further consideration thereof was postponed to, and made the order of the day for, Thursday next. A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to revive and continue in force certain acts for the adjustment of land claims, in the Territory of Michigan ;" in which bill they request the concurrence of the Senate. The said bill was read, and passed to the second reading. one of whom thought $30,000 necessary for its repair; another, that $25,000 would be sufficient. To satisfy those who might object to the larger sum, he would move to insert $25,000, the lowest sum which was thought adequate. Less than this he was confident would be insufficient; and, to appropriate too little, would be throwing it away, as the repairs, if left unfinished, would be of no use. He hoped, therefore, that a sum sufficient would be voted, that the work might be completed in one season. The blank was filled with the sum of $25,000: ayes 19, noes 11. The blank left for the per diem allowance of the superintendent of the repairs, Mr. TALBOT moved to fill with three dollars. He had proposed On motion, by Mr. HOLMES, of Mississippi, the a per diem compensation in the bill, he said, beCommittee on Commerce and Manufactures were cause the work would occupy only a part of the instructed to inquire into the expediency of mak-year-the Summer and Autumn-and nothing ing a donation of lands lying upon the waters of could be done on it in the Winter and Spring. It |