.H. OF R.]

Crimes in the District of Columbia.

[APRIL 8, 1830.

Mr. WICKLIFFE next moved to insert the word free, in order to make these punishments only applicable to free citizens, and not to slaves.

Mr. POWERS said it was the intention of the committee to place slaves upon the same footing as free citizens in relation to criminal punishments.

Penalties had been imposed, two-thirds of which were paid to the informers; and the extent of this evil could be somewhat inferred from the fact, that a single constable was in the habit of receiving from two to three thousand dollars a year of gamblers, as informer, for his share of penalties, the balance of which was paid to the corporation. It was certainly important to the morals and wel- Mr WICKLIFFE demanded what punishment it could fare of society, that this alarming practice should be sup-be to take a man from the bondage of his master, and place pressed. him in the penitentiary.

He should not [said Mr. P.] dwell on the subject of Mr. POWERS said, he had inadvertently answered for duelling. It had often been discussed by far abler men, the whole committee on the subject of maintaining an and he could offer nothing new. All must be sensible of equality in punishments, while, in reality, he only expressthe magnitude of the evil, and concur in a desire to abo-ed his own sentiments. He was now convinced that others, lish a practice fraught with such calamities as this coun- and perhaps a majority of the committee, were opposed to try had experienced from it. him on that subject.

He should trouble the committee with no further remarks at present, but was prepared to give such explanations to the various provisions of the bill, as might be called for.

Mr. WICKLIFFE proposed to strike out three of the offences mentioned in the bill. He referred to the words #cheating, gaming, and duelling." All crimes, he contended, should be punished according to their enormity, and no jury, he presumed, would be found to sentence a man to the penitentiary for the undefined charge of gaming, for instance. He would leave this subject where it now rested, in the care of the common law. He presumed the committee intended to suppress the evil of keeping public gaming tables, though, in the present shape of the provision, it extended to the corner of the whist table.

Mr. SEMMES proposed to amend the section by inserting the words "keeping a public gaming table or house." This [he said] was the kind of gaming intended to be punished by the committee, and he hoped it would meet the views of all. As to duelling [he said] it was evidently the wish of a large proportion of the citizens of the place to have something done for its suppression; and as they were legislating for a people who have no legislative council of their own, he thought it due to them to consult their wishes.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, said he should readily concur with the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. WICKLIFFE] that the word duelling should be stricken out as too indefinite an expression, if it were not fully defined in the eleventh section. Gaming [he said] was also a crime of various grades, and required provisions accordingly. Cheating was entirely too indefinite a term, and should be stricken out, or receive a substitute. In relation to duelling, there was scarcely a State in the Union which did not severely punish the incipient steps towards the commission of this crime, such as bearing challenges, &c. He hoped this ten miles square would not be made an exception, but that here a still more salutary example would be set, for the guidance of other parts of the Union.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, said, if the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. WICKLIFFE] would withdraw his amend ment for a moment, he would submit a proposition which he thought would meet his views.

Mr. WICKLIFFE said, no man could have more abhorrence for the crimes enumerated, than he had; but he knew the futility of enacting laws which would not, and could not, be executed. He would, however, withdraw his motion to strike out, to give the opportunity asked by the gentleman from New York.

Mr. STORRS then proposed to amend the section by substituting the following words: "for obtaining money or any securities herefor, or any goods or chattels, under false pretences, or keeping a faro bank, or other common gaming table."

A suggestion was made by Mr. WHITTLESEY to strike out the word "common," but Mr. STORRS feared this might destroy its object, and it was agreed to as first proposed by Mr. STORRS.

Mr. BURGES said, he did not know the provisions of the bill, but he could not see how a distinction could be made in punishing the crime of a slave or that of his master; and he was sure his master could not complain of the loss of his service, so long as his confinement was required for the public safety-for this was, in fact, the object of punishment. He agreed with the gentleman from Kentucky, that it was no great punishment to imprison a slave; but the public safety might require his confinement. If slaves were exempted from punishment, a man might, with impunity, aim a dagger at the throat of him whom he hated, by the hand of his slave.

Mr. BOULDIN said, there were circumstances, founded in necessity, which rendered a distinction essential, between the laws applicable to a free man and those intended for a slave. The incarceration of an individual, and making him a slave for a time, had some terrors for one who was free; but what possible effect could it have on one who was already a slave? What possible good could result from taking him for a time from one master, and giving him to another? He thought, also, that the punishment of the slave and the interest of the master should ever be inseparable. The master should rather be interested in the detection and punishment of the crimes of the slave, than in their concealment. He did not know the size of the penitentiary; but, if the act passed in its present shape, they could not be too quick in setting about its enlargement-for it would certainly be filled. He did not know what the laws of Maryland and of Virginia were at the time of their adoption by the District; but he presumed they were nearly the same as they are now, and adapted to the government of slaves.

Mr. POWERS stated the provisions of the laws of Maryland on the subject.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, said, the infliction of pain or punishment upon the offending individual, was not the object of criminal law. It was to provide for the public safety alone; and in this respect, no difference could exist between black or white, bond or free. It would certainly be wrong to punish slaves with more rigor than others, as their opportunities to acquire knowledge, and their inducements to practice virtue, were less than those of the white man.

It would also be wrong to punish them less, as it would look like an inducement to the commission of crime. He thought the House could make no distinction in its provisions for their punishment.

Mr. SEMMES said, as a slave holder, and a representative from a slave holding State, he was entirely opposed to the amendment, for the reasons offered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. SPENCER.] It was a most mistaken idea that it could be no punishment to a slave to confine him in a penitentiary. He would ask the gentlemen to look around on the condition of slaves in this District, at this enlightened age. Had they not as much to lose by their incarceration, as the white man? Would they not be torn from their homes-the bosom of their families-and the enjoyment of their domestic comforts, by being condemned to prison? He contended that stripes were no

adequate punishment for crime, and did not conduce to the reformation of the culprit. He was a member of the Legislature of Maryland, when the laws of the State were enacted to ameliorate the condition of its slaves, and to modify its former laws in relation to them; and he would now announce to the House, that it was the intention of the chairman of the committee, [Mr. POWERS] if the amendment did not prevail, to extend the laws of Virginia and Maryland, on this subject, to the District.

Mr. BOULDIN said, the laws of Virginia, and he believed those of Maryland also, provided for the payment of the price of each slave who was executed. He still contended that whatever speculations might be made on this subject, it would be found, by sober practice, that the interest of the master must be consulted, in the punishment of the slave. If the amendment were adopted, it would leave the committee at liberty to introduce a new bill, containing a short and simple plan of punishment for slaves. Mr. POWERS said he must still decline acceding to the amendment.

Mr. DRAYTON feared, if this debate were continued, the object of the committee would be defeated. And, although he would not presume to lay down rules for the government of the committee, he suggested that the debate should be as circumscribed as possible. He believed it essential that freemen and slaves should be governed by different codes of laws; but he would be inclined to adopt a rather less sanguinary one for the government of the latter than the former, as they have not the same incitement to the practice of virtue as their masters have. The codes should, at all events, be distinct, and the danger of their conflicting avoided.

Mr. BÜRGES Said, he meant to make no improper allusions. He would not say that there were one class of individuals there, that knew more of the management of slaves than others, but he could not subscribe to some of the opinions advanced there. He could not believe that the condition of slaves was such, that being bound by links of steel, and lashed to a wheelbarrow during the day, and then turned into a solitary cell at night, had no terrors for him. He thought he was more a slave, who was deprived of the sight of the green earth, and the glorious sun, and the powers of the free exercise of his limbs, than he who was only held in common bondage. He would agree that these things were not quite so much a punishment to the slave as to the freeman; but he contended we had not the right, this side of the grave, so far to exercise the retributive powers of Almighty justice. If, in the exercise of the powers they possess, they infringed on personal liberty, or even life, it could only be so far as the public welfare called on them to act. He had been told of the failure of the penitentiary system, but these remarks could only apply to the manner in which it was formerly conducted, before the introduction of solitary confinement. When culprits were mingled in a mass, and suffered unrestrained intercourse with each other, in every hue of crime, it was to be expected that they would deteriorate; but such was not now the case. He said he would go any length to accommodate gentlemen in what he deemed to be right; but, before his country and his God, he could not consent to form one code of justice for the government of white men, and another for

[H. of R. ·

Mr. SEMMES said, if gentlemen wished for the amelioration of the condition of slaves, they would effect their object by voting for the proposition.

Mr. BARBOUR followed in explanation of the laws of Virginia on this subject. After some further debate, however, the proposition was withdrawn.

Mr. WICKLIFFE proposed an amendment to the clause relating to assaults, with intent to kill.

Mr. SUTHERLAND suggested that the word “ murder" would be more correct than "kill," which was the usual term. It would, he thought, be better to insert in such cases two counts, one for assault and battery, with intent, &c., and the other for the intent to murder; the jury could then decide upon the quo animo of the case before them. He referred to a case which he had formerly conducted, in which, by this means, the criminal had been convicted.

Mr. TAYLOR said, that, in his opinion, it was better to retain the words used in the ancient judicial practice. To kill, as applied to this, was, in the legal acceptation of the term, to kill feloniously; and such was the construction put upon the phrase by the highest authorities.

Mr. WICKLIFFE, after a few remarks, withdrew his amendment.

Various other amendments were proposed and adopted. Mr. INGERSOLL moved to amend the bill, by adding to it a section providing to punish the crime of forcibly carrying away or seducing from the District, with intent to sell, free negroes, by fine, not exceeding five thousand dollars, and imprisonment for not more than seven years, The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WICKLIFFE proposed a further amendment to the bill, for the punishment of persons breaking into a dwelling-house during the day time.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, stated, that he had never heard of such an offence as the one described. Breaking into a house by night, with intent to steal, is punished as burglary, because it disturbed the repose and hazarded the safety of the inmates. In the day time, however, there could be no offence of this nature committed, amounting in the eye of the law to burglary.

Mr. WICKLIFFE replied, he was reluctant to labor under an imputation of providing for the punishment of a crime which had never been heard of.

Mr. SPENCER, in explanation: I stated that it was a crime which I had never heard of.

Mr. WICKLIFFE resumed. He should not have alluded to the remark, but from the circumstance of its being made by so eminent and distinguished a jurist as the gentleman from New York; [Mr. SPENCER] nevertheless, he must still maintain that the breaking into a house in the day time was, under certain circumstances, equivaleut to the crime of burglary during the night. He would instance a case which would demonstrate this: suppose a man leave his house during the day, in the pursuit of his usual avocations, in the care of a female of his family, and that some one entered his house with a felonious intent, or attempted to commit a felony, would the person injured be content with a system of law which indicted the prisoner for a mere assault and battery? It was for the protection of families from alarm and outrage, that he had moved the amendment in question. You must charge, [said Mr. W.] under the present law, the ruffian who breaks into a house during the day, with the most atrocious intentions; he does not accomplish his full purposes with intent to steal only; for which offence the punishment is a small fine, and, perhaps, six months' imprisonment. My amendment will preMr. WASHINGTON then moved an amendment, mak-vent this very apportionment of punishments, and coning the laws of Virginia and Maryland, in relation to slaves, tribute, accordingly, to the safety of our fellow citizens. binding in the District. With respect to the remark, that the proposition is novel, Mr. SPENCER, of New York, and several other mem-in as much as it provided for the punishment of an offence bers, wished to know what these laws were, before they never heard of, he would only say, that he [Mr. WICKvoted for them. LIFFE] had, in bis own State, Kentucky, been charged with

blacks.

The question was then taken on the amendment to insert the word "free," when there were, for the affirmative 50, for the negative 54. This not being a quorum, the question was again taken, and it was carried: yeas, 58 -nays, 54.

Crimes in the District of Columbia.—The Army.

Mr. STERIGERE moved to strike out from the bill the T. said he was one of those who advocated the measure. words "by and with the consent of the Senate." This motion was also negatived by the committee. Several verbal amendments were proposed and agreed to. Mr. STORRS, of New York, moved to reduce the sum to be appropriated from ten thousand dollars to six thousand five hundred dollars; which, after some remarks from Mr. POWERS, was agreed to.

Mr. POLK said, he thought the gentleman from New Mr. A. SPENCER objected to the amendment which York [Mr. TAYLOR] mistook the object of the resolution, introduces the word "free" before "persons," and thus as it was evidently only intended by it to institute an inconfines the operation of the bill to free persons. He repel-quiry. led the idea that confinement to hard labor in the peniten- Mr. TAYLOR asked that the resolution might again be tiary would be no punishment to a slave, and entered into read; which being done, a train of reasoning to show that the discrimination was improper and inexpedient.

cers of the army to a minimum with the privates, or of preserving the precious "skeleton" of an army which we yet possessed-it was not a subject for him to decide, whether our army of officers was to be fostered or abandoned; but he believed it was a proper subject for reference to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. DRAYTON said, if he took the same view of the subject that the honorable gentlemen from New York [Messrs. TAYLOR and CAMBRELENG] did, he would readily concur with them in the propriety of the proposed reference. But he could not so view it; and he must still believe it a proper subject for reference to the Secretary of War. He was extremely anxious not to be misunderstood in this matter. He had by no means inferred that he had arrived at a conclusion that the army or its number of officers should be reduced, nor that they should be increased; though he was not sure that, on a proper investigation, he should not express one of these opinions. The proposed inquiry was far from being unprecedented; and he would ask if resolutions were not almost daily laid upon the table, and agreed to, for inquiries to which the House was opposed. The language of the resolution was certainly misconstrued. It called for such a plan as would not be iujurious to the public service; and, if such a plan were submitted, he asked if the House would not feel bound to adopt it. As the object of the resolution was a mere inquiry, he thought it should be sanctioned.

Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, said, as the object was merely that of inquiry, he would propose to amend the resolution by adding if, in his opinion, such reduction can be made" without injury, &c.

[A motion being pending to commit the resolution to a Committee of the Whole, this amendment was not in order.] Mr. DESHA said, he rose to reply to the gentlemen from New York, [Messrs. TAYLOR and CAMBRELENG] who had adverted to the policy of the Government in the present organization of the army, as a resort in future emergencies. Experience had fully proved that the service of an officer in time of peace did not improve his capacities, or qualify him for the exigencies of war; on the contrary, such had ever been found the most inefficient.

Mr. VANCE expressed his opposition to any project for disturbing the present established organization of the army. The detached service on which this small corps was employed, required a greater proportion of officers than if they were kept in more compact order.

The SPEAKER again reminded gentlemen that the merits of a resolution was not a subject for debate, on a motion to commit it.

Mr. VANCE said, he believed its commitment would amount to its rejection, as it could not be reached this session in the regular succession of business.

[H. of R.

commitment of the resolution, because the inquiry appeared to him to be altogether an improper one. The resolution also seemed more than a simple inquiry. It indicaed something like an opinion, on the part of the House, that some alteration might be made in the present organization of the army, and he must entertain an opinion of that sort himself before he could vote for it. The various suggestions it contained were all proper subjects for the consideration of that House, and not for the Secretary of War. We do not call upon him to know whether it is necessary or proper for us to diminish or increase our fortifications, or whether we will abolish or continue the Military Academy, that nursery of officers. Mr. W. said he was a member of that House at the close of the late war, when the calamities we had suffered for the want of a well organized army in its beginning, were fresh in their memories. Perhaps their feelings at that time might have carried them too far in providing for future emergencies; if so, he was willing to bear his due proportion of the blame. It seemed to be admitted that the number of privates was not too great for the necessities of the service. It was only the officers against whom the inquiry was directed. Experience had demonstrated that it would be much easier to procure men on the recurrence of a war, than it was to have them properly commanded.

The SPEAKER again remarked that a debate upon the merits of the resolution was inadmissible.

Mr. WILDE said, he was sorry to infringe on any of the rules of order of the House, but he felt the necessity, and he wished to impress it upon the minds of members, to reflect what would be their condition, if they proceeded to pass a vote for another reduction of the army, for such, he considered, was the purport of the resolution proposed. Mr. W. was about to proceed, when the SPEAKER announced the expiration of the hour allotted to resolutions.

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1830.

KENTUCKY DEAF AND DUMB ASYLUM. Mr. BAYLOR, from the committee appointed on the 28th of December last, to which was referred, on the 18th of February last, the petition of the trustees of Centre College, of Kentucky, who are also the trustees of the Kentucky Institution for the tuition of the Deaf and Dumb; reported a bill to amend an act entitled "An act for the benefit of the incorporated Kentucky Asylum for teaching the Deaf and Dumb" and to extend the time for selling the land granted by said act.

The act had been passed on the 5th of April, 1826; it granted to the institution one township of land, to be located under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and made it the duty of the said corporation to sell the land within five years from the passage of the act; the same to be located in one of the territories, on land on which the Indian title had been extinguished.

Mr. KINCAID rose in explanation, and support of the bill. He observed that its object was simple and reasonable; being to extend the time which had been allowed to the Deaf and Dumb Asylum of Kentucky in the origiMr. DWIGHT said, he was equally opposed to the re-nal act to dispose of the land granted to it by Congress. solution, with other gentlemen who had addressed the House. [Order.] The reason why he was in favor of its commitment to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, was to give an opportunity for discussing whether the Government would abandon fortifications for which they had appropriated ten millions of dollars. The defence of our sea coast alone, on which these fortifications are erected, requires in time of war forty thousand men, and in time of peace twelve thousand; while, at this moment, we have not five thousand men in service. He would ask, if it was supposed the Secretary of War could instruct the House that five thousand men were too many for the service of twelve millions of inhabitants. The agitation of this question [he said] must tend to destroy the confidence in the Government, which it was desirable should be possessed by men, who, he did not hesitate to say, were as talented, worthy, and brave, as those of any army of its size in the world.

Mr. WILDE said, he was in favor of the motion for the

Difficulties of various kinds had occurred in complying with the terms of the act, in consequence of which the sale had been so far retarded, that, if the terms of the original grant should be insisted upon, the trustees would be compelled to part with the residue of the land, (consisting of about one-third part of the whole,) at a great sacrifice. Under these circumstances, they had presented their petition to Congress, praying that the time might be extended to five years longer.

The nature and causes of the difficulties which had retarded the sale were well explained in a letter written to him by R. C. Allen, Esq., the agent of the Institution in

The grant, as he had before stated, had passed the I have two objections, however, to the passage of this House in April, 1826; but, at the same session, an act was bill, which I humbly conceive, with all the benevolent passed granting the right of pre-emption to "every perfeelings, in favor of the institution, the House will consi- son who had actually inhabited and cultivated a tract of der reasonable and well founded. This grant was ac- land lying in either of the districts established for the sale cepted, upon the express condition that it should be sold of public lands in the territory of Florida, which traet was within five years. The United States parted with the title, not rightfully claimed by any other person, and who and the condition was for the benefit of the Territory of should not have removed from the territory." The trus Florida. This is a question now, in which the United tees would doubtless have taken their land in one undividStates have no concern; and I doubt their power to extended township, but they had found it impossible (unless they the condition of a grant, to the injury of a third person, or party, by removing restrictions intended for their benefit. A bill has already passed the Senate, granting six or eight townships of land to all the large States, to be located in the territories.

If that bill should get through this House, of which there is every prospect, from the combination in its favor,