National Intelligencer. (Washington City [D.C.]), Vol. 13, No. 1921, Ed. 1 Tuesday, January 12, 1813 Page: 2 of 4
four pages : ill. ; page 21 x 14 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
I
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Tuesday, December 8, 1812.
DEBATE
On the report oj the committee of Ways
a,nci Means on the petitions of the
Merchants for a remission of their
bonds. ,
[cOUTUrCED.}
Mr. BIBB said he was sensible of the unfa-
vorable circumstances both in relation to him-
self personally and to the committee, under
which he should endeavor to present his views
of the subject bifore them. His strength, en-
feebled as it was, would not enable him to dis-
cuss the question in the manner, and to the ex-
tent, he dqsired ; nor, considering the time al-
ready occupied in debate, could he be unmind-
ful of the regard which was due to the patience
of that body But, being a member o.f the com-
mittee of Ways and Means, and concurring in
their report, it became his duty to aid in its
defence to the extent of his ability. Yes, (said
Mr. B.) I did concur id this report; a report
which Das been denounced as unprecedented &
alarming—as vesting legislative powers in the
Sec’y of the Treasury over 40 millions of pro-
perty—as degrading to the parties whose inter-
ests are concerned—and, as calculated to alien-
ate the affections of one-thhdef the people of
this country. Sir, I admire the eloquence with
which the report has been assailed; but nei-
ther the argument nor the temper in which
they have been urged, are calculated to convince
or to conciliate. While gentlemen demand the
rejection of the report, upon the ground of con-
ciliation more than for any other reason, they
present a spectacle too of.en witnessed—pre-
cwpt ai d example at war with each other. The
interest of youv citizens residing on the sea-
coast, are arrayed against those of the people
of the interior, and the representatives of the
nation are charged with having sacrificed the
one tbi the benefit of the other. We are told
of the imposition of double duties during the
last session of Congress, without, at the same
time, resorting o internal taxes ; and it is said,
that as the p. opte on the sea-bcanl pay more
thru their proportion, the operation of this spe-
cies of ta'xaiion is unequal and unjust. Ad-
mitting that, in proportion to population, more
of foreign articles are consumed in your sea-
port towns and their vicinities, and of course a
greater proportionate amount of the ditties
patd than in the interior, yet when we enquire
for whose immediate benefit the revenue thus
collected is expended, ihe subject assumes a
dinereu aspeCu For whose immediate benefit,
let me ask, . re the millions annually expended
on fortifications, ships, &c. ? 13 it lor the de-
fence of tire people of the interior ? No, sir ;
aiid yet they never have complained. I am
unwilling to pursue these unpleasant distinc-
tions, but 1 assert as a fact which cannot be
controverted, that if the relative proportions of
duties paid by the different districts of the
country be fairly estimated and compared with
the objects of the public expenditures, your
citizens on the sta-board would be debtors to
a very large amount. But, says the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Richardson), the na-
tional legisla;ure hi.s ' been pouring out phials
of wra'ui upon the merchants,.white die planter
and the farmer have been prosperous and hap-
py. The interest of the merchant alone, he
contends, has been disregarded and abandoned
jes the gentleman recollect, that we are at
wuiy.and for what we are at war ? Are the
interests of the merchants not concerned in the
contest wt are prosecuting ? For what object,
and for whose immediate benefii, lask, do the
blood and treasure of the nation at this
moment flow ? For the maintenance of our
national rights on the octan—for the immedi
ate btnefii of the merchant. With such evi
deuce before them, the charge of hostility to
commerce will not be believed by the American
people.
1 will now pioceed, Mr. Chairman, to exa
prune the question which is directly before the
Committee. I shall endeavor to show that the
repnr. upon your table involves no new princi-
ple—vests .nu new powers in ihe Sec’y of the
T, easury—aff'oyds no reasonable ground of com-
plaint 10 the parties whose interests are con-
cerned—and that it proposes the proper and
only practicable mode of attaining the purpo-
ses 01 justice. To make nut this case, I must
be permitted to recapitulate the circumstances
connected with it. For years past, the indis-
putable rights of the nation have been habitual-
ly violated by the belligerents of Europe. As
a mean of security a. d retaliation, the restric-
tive ystern was adopted and has been pursued
under cifteiant modifications. The non-im-
portation act is now in operation. The penalty
ann .xe-d -to ttie violation of its provisions, is
a forfeiture of the vessel and cargo and treble
their value. The president was authorised to
discontinue the set whenever G Britain should
revoke or so modify her edicts as that they
- should eease to viola e the neutral commerce
of the U. Such was the extent of distress
produced by this exclusion of British merchan-
dize from the American market, that on the
23d of June last, the orders in council were so
l (modified as that'they would have ceased to vi-
mate the neutral commerce of this country.
But w ar having been previously declared a-
guinst G- B and consequently being no longer
a neutral nation, the pu horny formerly vested
in tht Executive to put an end to the restric-
tive system had ceased to exist. Immediately
■after ihe modification of the orders in council,
however, merchandise to a very large amount
was shipped f’om'G.B. and has arrived within
the ports oi th. U, S Such merchandize was
seized and libelled by the collectors, in confer-
rm y to law, but has been restored to the claim-
<*%nis by the courts,on their giving bonds for its
appraised Value. In .this situation, the impor-
ters ask of Congress !i total remission of the
penal.ics and forteilures they have incurred.
Tnosp wjtose goods left England before tin
declaration of war was known there, uige, as
a equitable consideration in their favor, the
abrunce of intention 10 violate the law. Those
Who shipped afterwards rely solely on the mer-
cy of Congress. ! readily ad put, sir, that there
ar,e exifcim. ting circumstances, which may be
plead in beinit of the hr*! ciass; but the pita
of no nutation to violate the lu\v cannot be sus-.
taii.ee,except upon the ground of ignorance of
the law, tyliiph is at all times inadmissible, and
which t-specia ly Car.not be presumed in the pre-
sent cusc. Thesiiituie provided that whenever
G. B. s ouldso revoke or modi'y he'r edicts, as
that they should ce..se to vi late the neutral
commerce 01 Uie.U. S Hie President should de-
clare tiie fact by proclamation, and the non-iin-
poration -ci should c ase and be discontinued,
(upe from tue time oi the modification or re-
vecalion of tht Brvish edict.-.), but “ from the
date of such proclamation.” ’fife law also pro-
•■}idos that the put 11 g merchandize on boaid
?;,y vessel in a British port with intent to im-
port the same, shall .-.object the party to ah
its penalties. It tb obvious, therefore that as
the merchandize lately imported was shipped
front a Bruish port before intelligence Could
reuen this country of the modification of the
orders in council, and consequently before the
president could issue Ins proclamation, no ra-
tional expectation could he entertained that the
importations would be lawful.
Such an cxpccfolipn. would I eve had for its
foundation an impossibility. Yet there was
reasonable ground to expect that the modifica-
tion of the orders in Council would produce a
corresponding departure from our restrictive
system, and that having attained its object, the
government would readily remit all forfeitures
and penalties that might be incut red. On this
part of the subject however 1 shall speak here
after. The law which has bee n thus violated
by the petitioners, gives discretionary power
to the Secretary of the Treasury to remit or
mitigate all penalties and forfeitures which
should be incurred under it, if unaccompanied
with fraud or wilful negligence. The same
power was vested in the Treasury department
under the administration of Gen. Washington
in relation to all violations of the revenue laws,
and it has been continued ever since. In con-
sequence however of the magnitude of the pre-
sent case, the Secretary of the Treasury tho’t
proper to suspend the exercise of his authority
until an opportunity should be afforded to Con-
gress of giving the subject whatever direction
they pleased. Your committee of Ways and
Means, after the most mature deliberation,
have submitted as their report, that “ on a
view of the whole subject, the Secretary of the
Treasury has full power to remit or mitigate
the penalties and forfeitures incurred, should
an interposition in either way be culled for by
the circumstances of the cast;; and that it is
inexpedient to legislate upon the subject.”
This course of proceeding so far from being un-
precedented or novel, is sanctioned by the uni-
form practice under every administration. Soon
after the commencement of tl-is government, it
was found indispensable to vest somewhere the
power to remit or mitigate forfeitures and pe-
nalties incurred under the revenue laws, accor-
ding to the extenuating circumstances of the
case; and that power has been vested in the
Secretary of the Treasury. From the nature
of his duties, he necessarily becomes acquaint-
ed with the arts employed to elude the laws
whose execution he superintends ; he is there-
fore the better qualified to detect the motives
which may have led to a violation of those laws,
and consequently to determine correctly in
what cases rebel ought to be extended. Ano-
ther advantage is attained which is highly im-
portant in all cases affecting private rights—
uniformity of decision. tinder this system
your laws have hitherto been executed without
objections or complaint. And are terms to be
so perverted now, that the power to remit or
mitigate a penalty legally incurred, is to be
-construed into an odious species of Legislatirs
power over the property of your citizens \ Sir,
it possesses no more the character of a legisla-
tive power than does the pardoning power vest-
ed in the Executives of the respective states,
nor in any point of view is it more objectiona-
ble. In both instances the power is vested in
an individual, and surely the principle cannot
be varied by the title of the officer. Gentle-
men appear to have forgotten the acknowledg-
ed fact, that the petitioners are violators of
law and have incurred its penalties; and they
blend the discretionary authority of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to remit or mitigate those
penalties, with the power ;o inflict punishment,
which in its nature and object is totally distinct.
It is however contended, that notwithstanding
the power of remission and mitigation has been
vested in ihe treasury department under all ad-
ministrations, yet the law giving this general
authority never contemplated cases like the
present. Permit me to remark, that the falla-
cy l.Ws -suggestion i3 proved by the fact, that
a provision of the very statute which the peti-
tioners have .violated, does in express) terms
delegate to the Secretary of the Treasury the
same remitting power over fines, forfeitures
and penalties incurred under it, with which he
is clothed by a permanent law in -*lation to vi-
olations of the revenue laws generally, ft in
true, as has been said, that the President has
referred tins case to Congress : but what does
lie say ? “ A considerable number of American
vessels which were in England when the revo-
cation of the orders in council took place, were
laden with British manufactures tinder an erro-
neous impression that the nonimportation act
would immediately cease to operate, and have
arrived in the U. States. It did not appear pro-
per ic» exercise on unforeseen cases of sucli
magnitude ihe ordinary powers vested in the
Treasury Department to mitigate forfeitures,
without previously affording to Congress an op-
portunity ot making on the subject such pro-
vision as they may think proper.” Here the
power oi the Secietary of the Treasury over
tiie case is admitted, and it is distinguished
from other cases, not by a difference of princi-
ple, but by its unforeseen magnitude alone.
No opinion is expressed or fairly deducible
that we ought to legislate upon the subject.
Tiie President has only said that, for the reason
assigne d, he deemed it respectful to the repre-
sentatives of the nation to suspend the exercise
of the uthority vested in the Treasury Depart-
ment. No obligation is imposed on this body,
other than to determine whether or not it be
expedient to adopt any new provisions for the
case ; and in deciding that question we are
left to the dictates of our own judgments. The
unforeseen magnitude of the case may have jus-
tified the course pursued by the President, and
yet furnish no substantial argument ag inst the
report of the committee. Because the Execu-
cutivc has thought proper to manifest his re-
spect tor the will of the legislature, it does not
follow that therefore the Secretary of the Trea-
sury should be divested of the power he has so
long possessed, and which has been exercised
to the satisfaction of all parties. We are not
called upon to decide whether the President
ought to have referred the subject to Congress,
nor should the fact of hif having done so influ-
ence our decision. He determined what was
his duty, & we are the judges of ours. With-
out, therefore, questioning tiie propriety of his
conduct, the commit.ee have submitted the
opinion, that the piesentca.se should take the
course which has been uniformly given to all
others of a like nature. Sir, we consider the
rights of an individual as sacred as the rights
ol thousands-—the property of the one entitled
to as much security as the property of the
many. We say the magnitude of the case does
notvary the principle—uniformity of decision
is essential to the purposes of justice. It, tuere,
tore, it be no invasion of the principles ol civil
liberty, that the power vested in the Treasury
Department is exercised m relation to violations
of law committed by one, the number cannot
make it otnerwise. And, allow me to add, that
if any further evid< nee of the correctness of
the report could have been desired, it has been
fully supplied by the discussion in which we
are eiigugefl, Gentlemen urge the necessity of
taking tins case from the established tribunal;
and yet, if they shall succeed, scarcely any two
agree how it should be decided. It is obvious,
therefore, that u majority cannot be had in fa-
vor of any decision which Conforms to their
ideas of justice individually, or winch is not,
according to their respective views of the sub-
ject, necessarily compounded of right anu
wiong. 1 am, indeed, astonished that this de-
bate alone Has not produced the conviction that
a legislative body n> not. calculated toy the in-
vestigation and determination ol cases like the
present. It, however, tve are to investigate in
this way on the established usages of the gov-
ernment, it is apparent that our sessions mus
be perpetual,& .hat the enforce merit of the law.,
of me country,^ tar from being directed by any
uniform rule, will depend on the party filings
and party circumstances of the day. Frmthe
extraordinary diversity of sentiment exibited
on the present occasion, we may infe what
would have been the situation of Congiys, had
they undertaken to decide the numeros1 cases
of a similar nature heretofore determine by the
Treasury Department. And yet thoe cases
have been decided, unquestionably, by sme uni-
form rule, and certainly without mvtnur or
complaint.
lint, sir, it is contended by the gntleman
from S. Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), tht the re-
ference proposed by tiie report is tc v >st the
Secretary of the Treasury with uncoittitqtion-
al legislative power to levy a tax. I I under-
stood the course of his argument, if was this
—that on application by a party who, las incur-
red fines, penalties or forfeitures, to he Secre-
tary of the Treasury, he is autkoried to en-
quire only into the fact whether thet be wilful
negligence or fraud, and to decide accordingly ;
that he is to look at the character, o the viola-
tion of the law, anfl not at its consetuences up-
on the community. The gentleman infers from
the points particularly investigated »y the com-
mit ee of Ways and Means and the btlyr of Mr.
Gallatin to that committee, that tie question
of fraud qr wilful negligence constitutes no
part of lliq enquiry ; that the quesion appears
to be, what extra profits have accued to the
petitioners in consequence of the Existence of
the law they have .violated ; that it is in the
nature of the assessment of a tax, and there-
fore belongs, exclusively to the legislature,
rqust be permitted, Mr. Chairman, to deny the
premises and the conclusions of ue gentleman
from S. Carolina, and I shall be sustained by
the statute delegating the powerbf remission
to the Treasury Department. After directing
the mode in which cases may b& brought be
fore that tribunal, it provides " vho (referring
to the Secretary of the Treasur;) shall there-
upon, have power to mitigate a* remit such
fine, forfeiture or penalty, or rerrove such disa-
bility, or any part thereof, if in kis opinion tht
same shall have been incurred without wilful
negligence or any intention of fraud in the pc
son or persons incurring the same.” Now, sir,
wha is the plain, obvious construction of this
provision ? The Secretary of the Treasury is
vested with a conditional pardoning power. He
is authorised to exercise in the first place the
judicial function oi determining from the facts
and circumstances whether there has been wil-
ful mgligence or any intention of fraud; and
upon the decis on of that question depends his
subsequent authority. If he believes there has
been wilful negligence or fraud, he has no pow-
er under the law to remit or. mitigate; and it
is in the absence of these only he is permitted,
to extend relief. Tiie expression of wilful neg-
ligence or fraud which is so construed as 10
constitute the delegation of power, is in fact a
limitation upon the power which would have
been given, had that expression been omitted.
To prove this position, I will recur to the law.
“ Who (referring to the Secretary of the Trea-
sury) shall thereupon have power to mitigate
or remit such fine, forfeiture or penalty, or
remove such disability or any part, thereof.”
Here there is unquestionably the delegation of
an unqualified, unlimited power of mitigation
or remission ; and thq following concluding
part of the sentence imposes a restriction upon
it: “ If in his opinion the same shall have been
incurred without wilful negligence or any in-
tention of fraud in the person or persons incur-
ring the same.” f say, therefore, that the con-
struction which has been given to the law is
perfectly inconsistent with its provisions; that
so far from the fact of wilful negligence or fraud,
or the character of the offence, constituting the
only question for Ahe consideratiqn of the Se-
cretary qf the Treasury in the exercise of his
pardoning power, that power does not com-
meilUG UiltU UlWi mwvvi vut>.„______ ___
It being ascertained that the party who has in-
curred a penalty is not guilty of wilful negli-
gence or fraud, then the condition of the dis-
cretionary authority vested in the Secretary of
the Treasury is fulfilled, and he “shall there-
upon have po-mer to mitigate or remit,” &c. Then
it is he has the “ power” of pardon, but is still
the judge whether it shall be exercised at all,
and to what extent. If it were intended that in
the absense of wilful negligence and fraud he
should have no disfcretion, the words of the law
wowlrt have been imperative. Instead of giv-
ing “ the power,” they would have directed un-
der such circumstances a remission of all fines,
forfeitures and penalties incurred. So very dif
ferent, however, is the provision of the law, that
the Secretary of the Treasury is not only the
judge whether he will interpose his merciful
authority at all; but whether it tfhall be exer-
cised in the form of total remission or of miti-
gaiion. This latter discretion is inconsistent
with the idea, that in the absense of wilful neg-
ligence or fraud he is bound to remit. In de-
termining, therefore, on the extent of relief
which shall be afforded, it is not only his right,
but his bounden duty, to examine the circum-
stances of the case in all these relations.
Sir, neither the enquiries of a committee nor
the letter of Mr. Gallatin can affect the provi-
sions »f your statute. The Secretary lias, oc ha
lias not, a discretionary power under the stat-
ute, and that must be decided by the provisions
of the statute alone. If I have shewn that the
pardoning power is vested in the Treasury De-
par ment in cases only where the parties have
not been guilty of wilful negligence or fraud,
and that it is a discretionary power, it follows
conclusively that the character of the offence is
not the only subject for consideration ; but that
the benefit the offender has derived from his
offence, and its consequences upon the commu-
nity, are to be regarded. The object of punish-
ment is the prevention of crimes ; and it is es-
sential to that object that the pardoning power
should not be so exercised as to make the vio-
iaiionofalav profitable to the offender. To
avoid this, it necessarily becomes the duty of
tii^ Secretary of the Treasury, in the exercise of
Ills mitigating power, to havii reference to the
profits which the party has gained from his dis-
obedience. The distinction which has been
drawn between this case and others of a like
nature by the gentleman frem S. Carolina, in
consequence of the course of the proceedings
of the committee of Ways and Means, and of
the letter from Mr. Gallatin, is fairly resolvable
into this—that the Secretary of'the Treasury
may qr may not remit or mitigate as he shall
think proper, provided his decision be iqflueii-
ceil by a particular train of ipasoning; that the
legality or rather constitutionality of the act of
remitting or refusing lo remit depends on the
precise c. urse of reasoning 'which the Secre-
tary’s mind happens to employ; that because
die present petitioners huv. made enormous
profiis, amounting 10 a hea’y lax on the peo-
ple, in consequence of the existence of the
law which they have violat:d, therefore the
Sefcretary is bound lo remit, he penalties they
nave incurred.
Sir, the distinction of the j entleman is in my
apprehension u terly withouillouiidatioi). The
question is, have these violations of law been
tae result of wilful ncgligeiicti or fraud ; if they
nave nut (and it is on this plci that the Cause oi
lie petitioners is defended) Ihen their case is
lan-iy oetore the treasury department; in pre-
cisely such a case as is contemplated, l>y the
.statute u> which 1 have referred, and is distin-
guished ii) no way (except by tiie number of
i.iuividuafs concerned) from hundreds ol cases
jviiich have-been decided by that tribunal. On
this part of the subject, Mr. Chairman, I must
be permitted 10 go further. I contend not only
that the Secretary of the Treasury has full
powers over th‘13 case, but that Congress have
not, and therefore ought not to legislate upon
it The revenue laws and the act of non-im-
portation vest one-half of the fines, forfeitures
and penalties incurred under them, in the per
sons who shall give information of their infrac-
tion, and in certain officers. That half, I shall
endeavor to shew, is beyond the legitimate con-
trol of the national legislature. In England
the king has the general power of pardon, and
y»t he cannot remit that part of any fine, for-
feiture or penalty which is to accrue to inform-
ers. It is a principle of the common law, that
the party giving information acquires a private
property in the reward offered by penal sta-
tutes, and it is this principle alone which limits
the pardoning power of the king in relation to
the rights of informers. The doctrine is, that
he cannot pardon an offence against a popu-
lar or penal statute after information brought,
far thereby the informer hath acquired a private
property in his part or penally." Shall it be said
that private rights are less protected in this
country than in England I The correctness of
the doctrine in its fullest extent has been ad-
mitted by the Speaker and the gentleman from
S. Carolina (Mr. Cheves) but they have urged
distinguishing circumstances which in their ap-
prehension render it inapplicable to the pre-
sent case. The gentleman from S. Carolina con-
tends that it is distinguished from the cases in
which the crown cannot remit the informer’s
part, by the circumstance, that the penalties
in this case are to be recovered for the United
States in the names of their officers, and that
it is only in the event of absolute recovery they
acquire any property. If the gentleman wilt
refer to the statute he will find prosecutions
are not confined to the officers of government,
but th-t they may be instituted at the instance
of informers. And if they were so confined, 1
know of no principle of law or reason which un-
der such circumstances <would make a distinc-
tion between he rights of an officer and an in-
former. The form of prosecution prescribed
by the statute cannot affect (he question. The
fact that the right of property in the propor-
tion of fines, penalties or forfeitures accruing
io informers or collectors, is not perfecied un-
til after absolute recovery, so far from being a
distinguishing circumstance, is necessarily the
case under all penal statutes whether in Eng-
land or in this country. But it does not follow
th..t because the r.ghi of property'is not perfect
until the prosecution is-concluded, no right
accrues from its commencement. Nor wi.i it
be contended that a citizen can be arbitrarily
divested of a qualified right with more propri-
ety than Qf a perfect right. But, says the gen-
tleman, if the power of Congress is not com-
plete, why delegate to the Secretary of the
Treasury the disposition of that half of the
penalties accruing to the U. States. Sir, we
do not propose to delegate any authority to the
Secretary of the Treasury; we barely say
it is inexpedient to take from him that which lie
already possesses.
In our turn, we ask, why take the case from
the established tribunal which alone has com-
petent anti ample jurisdiction, when your au-
thority i§ thus limited? It is said by the ho-
norable Speaker, that in England the Crown
cannot remit the informer’s part of a penalty,
because tbe power of remission is hot reserved
in the law denouncing the penalty, but that in
our laws the power is reserved. This is an
admission that the persons claiming one half of
a penalty or forfeiture do acquire a private pro-
perty from the commencement of prosecution,
and that there is no power to divest them of it,
except what is reserved by our laws. The
question, therefore, which we have to examine,
is brought within very narrow limits—what
quently to destroy their right. So fir as t:
are furnished with precedents in the legisla-
tion of this country, they confirm the view of
this subject I have endeavored to present. On
an examination of our statute book it will be
found that in every act which has been passed
where the only object of Legislation was the
remission of fines and penalties, the rights of
informers are expressly recognized. It is trqe,
was stated by the Speaker, that certain
acts have passed repealing penal statutes gene-
rally, and which contained a clauae remitting
all penalties incurred under ihcm without ex-
pressly reserving whatever rights might have
accrued t« informers. Those statutes however
had been of sliort uratiodn, and it is Hot known
that any violations had taken place; without
which no rights could have accrued. But
while it must be admitted that the examples to
which 1 have referred are indicative of the re-
gard paid to private rights by our predecessors,
the hon. Speaker cannot seriously urge his
cases as precedents upon the subject. He is too
well acquainted with the circumstances which
are essential to give authority to precedents,
and too well convinced that they do not exist
in the examples to which he has referred, to
make it necessary for me to draw the proper
distinctions.
[Speech to be concluded in our next ]
nower m reser
the provi
ved by our > \ is found in
which I have already had occa-
sion to notice in the course of my remarks. It
is the provision which dalegates to the Sec’y
of the Treasury the power to remit in wlioie or
in part all fines, forfeitures, or penalties, “ if in
his opinion the same shall have been incurred
without-wilful negligencs or any intention of
fraud in the person or persons incurring the
same.” The statute, of which this provision is
a part, previously directs the made by which
cases shall be brought before the Treasury de-
partment, and guarantees to the parties in
whom one half of such penalties is vested, the
right of buing heard. An opportunity is af-
forded them of showing “ that there has been
wilful negligence or fraud;” and if they esta-
blish that fact, their right to the proportion al-
lowed them by law is consummated. There be-
ing no power of remission reserved in cases
where in the opinion of the Sec’y of the Trea-
sury there has been fraud or wilful negligence,
it results, according to the admission of gentle-
men, that in such cases, to remit would be to
inyatfe the sanctity pf private rjghts. The po-
sition I take is tins—that so soon as an inform-
er gives information of the violation of a penal
statute, lie acquires an inchoate right to his
proportion of the fine, forfeiture, pr penalty in-
curred, subject only to the qualified control-
ling authority vested in the treasury depart-
ment ; he commences his claim under the then
existing laws of the land and p-otected by their
provisions; and no new conditions impairing
that claim can be imposed on the prosecution
of hi3 right, without being ex post facto in their
nature lind operation. His right to the legal
proportion of the penalties incurred by the
petitioners is perfect against all persons or au
thoritiss whatsoever, except the conditional
power of the Sec’y of the Treasury. But, says^
the honorable Speaker, the Sec’y of the Trea-
sury is a mere Executive officer, and whatever
Congress can do by him they may do them-
selves. It is true that Congress may abolish
the Treasury Department or may direct the
duties to be performed by whomsoever and in
any manner they may please, provided they le-
gislate prospectively ; but 1 deny the correct-
ness of the position, as intended to be under-
stood. Whether he be an executive officer is
not material, inasmuch as the character of the
officer neither inAvhises nor diminishes the con-
trolling power of Congress. I11 relation howe-
ver to the subject now before us, he presents
himself in the twofold character of judicial and
executive. He is authorised to judge whether
there lias been wilful negligence-or fraud, and
in their absence to exercise the power of par-
don. He derives his appointment from the
same source whence the judges receive theirs,
a.ul the control of Congress over each is the
same. What would be said of a proposition
submitted to this House for taking from the
courts of law any depejnding cause .embracing
the claims of individuals lor the purpose of
deciding it ourselves ? And L humbly coiticelve
there is'no substantial distinction between such
a case and the present, whether you regard
the power of Congress or ihe private rights of
tiie citizen. If, under the idea of*the power 10
do ourselves wnat we can do by otners, retro-
spective laws can be enacted, disregarding
rights already accrued ; then indeed is private
property subject to the whim and caprice af
every succeedingCongress. Can it be said that
it is a mere cnange >>1 remedy and-iiot of right,
to take this case from the Treasury Depart-
ment, when in your investigation, or rather de-
cision without investigation, the parties who
have acquired a property in the matter lo
to be decided, have not been heard. 'No, sir,
it is to deprive them of all remedy, and cpnse-
To the Editor of the Buffalo Gazette.
Sir—-In the account which I gave,
last week, of the proceedings of the
first of December, I find I was under a
mistake in stating that col Winder’s
regiment embarked three quarters of
an hour before any other of the regular
infantry.
I saw one regiment only, which I un-
derstood to be col Winder’s, entertheir
boats at the navy yard; There lay ad-
joining a large number, and as I sup-
posed the whole of the other boats in-
tend* d for the regular troops, and which
were unoccupied for about three-fourths
of an hour. I have since learnt that the
boats for one regiment had been takeii
a little distance up the creek, and that
co!. Parker’s regiment (then command-
ed by jteuf. col. Col s), and col. Wind-
er’s regiment, embarked about the same
time—one at the navy yard, and the
other in the bo its up the creek. It was
a “ mistake in the night,” which, in jus-
tice to lieut. col. Coles’s regiment, 1
most cheerfully correct.
Yours, P. B. PORTER.
December 21. ^
A'ew Orleans, Brov. 21.
The Smcgcxixo trade, ihe only trade that
has been carried on'.o this city with any de-
gree of success for snnu y ars, received a se-
vere check some days ago. Captain Holmes, of
t^e U. States’ Infan rv, with a detachment of
men,* was ordered down to Barrataria the lat-
ter end of la9t week; and early this week the
detachment fell in with a party of smugglers,
who not willing to undergo examination, sheer-
ed off ; the captain ordered one man to fire,
whose aim was so direct as to kill 'one of the
smugglers ; not being accustomed to such sa-
lutations, and fearful of renewal of the com-
pliment, they surrendered. The prisoners, 2.5
in number, with several boats with merchan-
dise, were brought to the city on Thursday
morning last.
tyvkjYty fifth fhejych bulletin
Head Quarters on the Heva, Oct 23,
The army hax quitted the smoking
remains of Moscow, converted into the
tomb of Russian glory, by Russian bar-
barity. The Emperor Alexander has
refused peace. Napoleon is preparing
measures to give the world that bles-
sing which the folly of the Russian No-
bility compels a feeble Monarch to re-
fuse to his bleeding country.
The army marches on Smolensk,,
Count Winzingerode had the audacity
to enter Moscow before the rearguard
of tbe army had retreated ; he suffered
for his temerity, and was made prison-
er. Marshal Kutusoff mistook the Em-
peror’s manoeuvres for flight, and ven-
tured to attack the united corps *f
Prince Poniatowski and the Viceroy;
he was defeated and driven back to his
position on the Pakra. The King of
Naples commanded, and added, by nis
judicious manoeuvres, td his former re-
putation. His numerous charges of
cavalry were brilliant—the Cossacks
were overthrown or dispersed. Our '
loss is trifling: we fear however it will
be some time before Prince Poniatow- #
ski resumes the command.
When it was known that the Emperor
determined to quit Moscow, the mem-
bers of the new municipality demanded
an audience, when they fell upon their
knees before his imperial majesty, seat-
ed upon the throne of the Czars, and
implored him not to desert their rising
liberty. In him alone they reposed for
the means of shaking off their chains.
The Emperor replied—“ The liberty qf
my good citizens of Moscow is near
my heart—great considerations post-
pone the hour of your deliverance.
When you can comprehend the dcsti-r
nies of Napoleon, you will be able to
measure your own.”
A deputation from the Foundling
Hospital having waited upon the Em-
peror, he ordered three male infants tc
be christened—the first Napoleon ; the
second, Felix ; the third Bonaparte ; &
three female infants—the first to be
culled Josephine, the second Marie
Theresa, the third Adelaide ; and he
promised them a pension each of twelve
hundred livres upon the day of their
marriage to be paid from the lmperal
Treasury. The deputation melted in-
to tears at tins proof of the Emperor’s
goodness.
The Emperor participates in the feel-
ings which will animate his good citi-
zens of Paris, upon learning taut his
Imperial Majesty is approaching near
Ins Capita,: It is for their happiness
that he raves all seasons .and-ali cli- t
mates; it is for their glory that he
spre s his arms troin tie Pillars of
Hercules to the Arctic Circle. The
m
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
National Intelligencer. (Washington City [D.C.]), Vol. 13, No. 1921, Ed. 1 Tuesday, January 12, 1813, newspaper, January 12, 1813; Washington, District of Columbia. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth996012/m1/2/: accessed June 10, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .