« ZurückWeiter »
H. OF R.
March, 1808. W. Bibb, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chitten- The question was then taken on Mr. BiBB's den, Joseph Clay, Howell Cobb, John Culpepper, Sam-proviso, and carried-53 to 26. uel W. Dana, John Davenport jun., Daniel M. Durell, (The ground of the various amendments to this James Elliot, William Ely, Francis Gardner, Edwin bill and discussion upon them is this: The State Gray, John Harris, William Hoge, Robert Jenkins, of Georgia wishes to purchase arms to the numJames Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward St. Loe Liv- ber of 10,000 stand, but has not in her Treasury ermore, Edward Lloyd, Nathaniel Macon, Robert Ma- specie wherewith to make payment. There is rion, Josiah Masters, Daniel Montgomery, jun., Jona- due to the State of Georgia out of the proceeds of than O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, the first sales of the Yazoo lands, in payment of John Randolph, Samuel Riker, John Rowan, John Russell, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. which the money is due, a sum of money. GeorSturges, Benjamin Tallmadge, Abram Trigg, Jabez gia wishes to receive from the United States those Upham, James I. Van Allen, Archibald Van Horn, arms, of which she stands in need, as a compenDavid R. Williams, and Marmaduke Williams.
sation in advance of part of the first payment Ordered, That the said bill be read the third which the United States is bound to make to her time tu-morrow.
at a certain time. Georgia is one of the appli
cants for arms, and the State whose necessity for SALE OF ARMS.
them is most pressing.) The House took up for consideration the report motions and observations, were, Messrs. Bacon,
Those who opposed the object of the bill by of the Committee of the Whole on the bill au- ELY, Quincy, and Rhea, of Tennessee. thorizing the sale of certain arms.
Those who supported it, were Messrs. ALSTON, Mr. Bibb introduced an amendment to the bill, Bibb, Dawson, Nelson, Nicholas, TROUP, Tarto except from the requisition of paying money Lor, and Van Horn. into the Treasury before delivery the States to The bill, as amended, was ordered to a third which the United States may be indebted in a reading to-morrow—62 to 14. sum equal to the amount of purchase.
This clause was objected to by Mr. QUINCY, inasmuch as it would permit the creditor States
TUESDAY, March 8. to realize the debts due from the United States Another member, to wit: from Virginia John which may be payable ten or twenty years bence; CLAIBORNE, appeared, produced his credentials, all the States thus coming forward must be equal. was qualified, and took his seat in the House. ly entitled to receive arms; there not being arms A message from the Senate informed the House sufficient for all, it would give rise to an exercise that the Senate have passed the bill, entitled "An of favoritism to particular States.
act remitting the duties payable on the importaIt was supported by Messrs. Dawson, Bibb, and tion of a monument to be erected to the officers Nelson, who replied, that if these States choose of the United States' Navy, who fell during the thus to realize the debts due to them, for which attack made on the city of Tripoli, in the year they now receive interest, the United States would one thousand eight hundred and four," with an have no objection. But the States would not do amendment; to which they desire the concurthis, for it was known when fuoded debt was 10 rence of this House ; also, the bill, entitled "An be extinguished, that individuals would not sub- act in addition to the act, entitled 'An act supplescribe stock; that even if States did come for- mentary to the act, entitled 'An act laying an emward and apply for more arms than could be con- bargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and veniently disposed of, the Secretary of War would harbors of the United States,” with several give to ihose States in preference which really amendments; to which they desire the concurhad occasion for them.
rence of this House. Mr. Bacon proposed an amendment to the pro- The House proceeded to consider the amend. viso of Mr. Bibb, to limit the debts mentioned in ments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled the proviso to debts actually payable to the State "An aci in addition to the act, entitled 'An act applying, at the time of purchase.
supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act laying This amendment was agreed to ; but, a few min. an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports utes afterwards,
and harbors of the United States :" WhereMr. Taylor, who had voted in the majority upon, from a misapprehension of the bearing of the Resolved, That this House doth agree to the amendment, moved a reconsideration of Mr. BA first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth, con's amendment.-Agreed to, 37 to 35.
of ihe said ameodments, and doth also agree to Mr. Bibe called for a division of Mr. Bacon's the seventh of the said amendments, with amendmotion, taking it first on striking out of the pro- ments. viso the words intended to be substituted by the The House proceeded to consider the amendamendment.
ment proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled The question, thus divided, was negatived—51 "An act procuring an additional number of arms:" to 14.
Whereupon, A quorum not having voted, Mr. Ely moved Resolved, That this House doth agree to the to adjouro.-Negatived, yeas 13.
said amendment. The question on Mr. Bacon's amendment to The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act the proviso as divided, was negatived-61 to 10. to amend the act, entitled 'An act establishing
Circuit Courts, and abridging the jurisdiction of James Fisk, Francis Gardner, John Heister, Nathaniel, the Distriet Courts of the Districts of Kentucky, Macon, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, James Tennessee, and Ohio, was read twice, and referred Sloan, William Stedman, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin to Messrs. George W. CAMPBELL, John G. Jack | Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, and David R. Williams. son, and HOLLAND.
NAVAL MONUMENT. The House proceeded to consider the amendment of the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act
The House proceeded to consider the amendlo incorporate the Trustees of the Baptist Church ment proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled in the City of Washington:" Whereupon, the “An act remitting the duties payable on the ima said bill, together with the amendment of the portation of a monument to be erected in memory Senate. was submitted to Messrs. Southard, fell during the attack made on the city of Trip;
of the officers of the United States? Navy, who BARD, Bassett, BARKER, and CULPEPPER.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the committee to whom oli, in the year one thousand eight hundred and was referred the President's Message on the sub-four.” [The amendment appropriates $1,000 for ject, reported a bill additional to the bills hereto- railing and covering the same.] fore passed respecting the Obio road. [This bill
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas, that the appropriates the sum of dollars in addition said bill and amendment do lie on the table; and to former appropriations on the subject.] Which the question being taken thereupon, it passed in was twice read, and referred to a Committee of the negative. The question was then taken that the Wbole.
the House do agree with the Senate in their On motion of Mr. Van Horn, the resolution amendment to the said bill, and passed in the negwhich he laid on the table a few days ago, for alive-yeas 48, nays 59, as follows: amending the Constitution in relation to contracts, Yxas-Lemuel J. Alston, Burwell Bassett, Epaphwas taken up and referred to a Committee of the roditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Howell Cobb, Whole on the state of the Union.
Orchard Cook, John Culpepper, S. W. Dana, John On a motion made to resume the consideration Davenport, jr., John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Jas. Elliot, of a resolution on the table for printing certain William Ely, Francis Gardner, John Harris, William papers relative to the Yazoo claim, the House Helms, Benjamin Howard, Daniel Ilsley, Robert Jenrefused to consider it.
kins, Richard M. Johnson, Walter Jones, James Kelly,
William Kirkpatrick, Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward St. SALE OF ARMS.
Loe Livermore, John Love, Matthew Lyon, William An engrossed bill authorizing the sale of public Nelson, 'Thos. Newton, W.č. Nicholas, Timothy Pit
Milnor, Jonathan 0. Mosely, G. S. Mumford, Roger arms was read the third time; and, on the ques- kin, jr., Josiah Quincy, Samuel Riker, John Russell, tion that the same do pass, it was resolved in the Dennis Smelt, John Smith, William Stedman, Clement affirmative-yeas 86, nays 21, as follows:
Storer, Peter Swart, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin TallYxas-Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., David madge, Jabez Upham, Archibald Van Horn, Daniel C. Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William W. Verplanck, and Marmaduke Williams. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake junior, Thomas Nars — Willis Alston, jr., Ezekiel Bacon, David Blount, John Boyle, William A. Burwell, William Bard, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Butler, Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell
, Epaph Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, John Boyle, Robert Brown, roditas Champion, Joseph Clay, George Clinton, jun., William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, John John Clopton, Howell Cobb, John Culpepper, John Clopton, Richard Cutts, Joseph Desha, Daniel M. DuDawson, Josiah Deane. Joseph Desha, Daniel M. Du- rell, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, rell, John W. Eppes, William Findley, Peterson Good Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, wyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, John Harris, Wil. John Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David liam Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, John Lambert, Nathaniel Macon, Robert MaHolmes, Daniel Ilsley, John G. Jackson, Richard M. rion, Josiah Masters, Daniel Montgomery, junior, John Johnson, Walter Jones, James Kelly, William Kirk- Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jerpatrick, Nehemiah Knight, John Lambert, Joseph emiah Morrow, John Morrow, Thomas Newbold, John Lewis, junior, Edward Lloyd, John Love, Matthew Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of TenLyon, Robert Marion, Josiah' Masters, William Mc. nessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Ebenezer Creery, William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, junior, Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thos. Moore, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon 8. Mumford, John Taylor, John Thompson, James I. Van Allen, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour, DaJohn Porter, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Rich-vid R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Winn, ards, Samuel Riker, John Russell, Ebenezer Seaver, and James Witherell. Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, Samuel
The SPEAKER having commenced reading the Trigg, George M. Troup, James I. Van Allen, Archi- engrossed bill concerning Courts Martial and bald Van Horn, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Courts of InquiryIsaac Wilbour, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wil- Mr. BASSETT said he could not sit still while son, and James Witherell.
the bill was reading without mentioning a propoNars-Ezekiel Bacon, Martin Chittenden, Matthew sition which he wished to make in relation to it. Clay, Orchard Cook, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, He believed that there was no position more sound John Davenport, junior, James Elliot, William Ely, than that wherever a tribunal was instituted, it
H. OF R.
should be made as perfect as possible. To effect Mr. M. WILLIAMS wished the bill to be recomthis, it was necessary that it should be endued mitted, and then stated his reasons for so doingwith the most extensive power to collect facts. among others, that parole evidence, taken before He was, therefore, clearly of opinion, thai the a court of inquiry, when collected, could not be power of military courts to obtain testimony should received by a court martial in cases affecting life be extended; but there was one principle in this or limb. When gentlemen come to examine the bill to which he could not consent. He meant principles of the bill, they will be found erronethat part which put it in the power of a court ous. I am certainly of opinion that there ought martial to bring our citizens from either extreme to be provision by law to give a person accused of the continent to the other. A view of the of a crime a fair opportunity to meet all charges continent would show the hardship of it. He against him; but I cannot see any good grounds would not restrain this power from a belief that why a citizen should be dragged before a court our courts martial were so far biassed as to make martial, or compelled to come forivard when their an ill use of it, but he would not give it, because testimony could not be received. Whenever an there was a possibility of their becoming so. He officerin the Army is charged with a crime against was not prepared to say that the difference between military law, he is tried by a military couri; but parole and written evidence was so great as to whenever he commits an offence of a civil nature, require oral testimony in all cases. He had al- it is tried by a civil court. It is well known that ways thought that civil courts had carried this the case which has formed the ground of this bill principle too far, and certainly did not wish to is triable by a civil court; and suppose a charge admit it here. As the bill at present stood, a citi- is made against an officer for murder, or for brizen might be called by a military court from the bery, or corruption, is it proper that these, being province of Maine to New Orleans. Mr. B. sug- civil offences, should be tried by a military court ? gested one difference in this respect between I think the bill very exceptionable; I wish every courts of law and courts martial. Civil courts person accused to have a fair trial, but I would were numerous and held at stated places, offend never give power to a military court to drag our ers being tried in the district where the offence citizens from every part of the Union. Another was committed, so that a witness might not, in section gives power to compel the production of civil cases, have so great a distance to travel; all public papers. Would you compel a clerk of while a military court is held perhaps in a remote a court to bring forth all his records? Is there in corner of the country from the peculiarity of its the United States any court which has that pow. organization. Mr. B. concluded' by moving that er? In some cases copies of particular records the bill be recommitted for the purpose of amend- are permitted to be taken; but this bill not only ing the detail.
requires the records, but all in the possession of Mr. MONTGOMERY stated to the gentleman last any officer, upon the summons of a military court. up, that the operation of this bill went to provide Another part says that "the witness shall be tried that, in cases in which the definitive sentence for non-attendance by the military court, and might go to loss of life or to infamy, subpænas fined by a civil court.". The second section says, should issue. But where the punishment did not "the witness shall not be discharged until he has extend to loss of life or infamy, depositions might gone through an examination, and the court think he taken. He would submit it to the considera- proper to discharge him.” Gentlemen have told tion of the House whether a person should be at us that a military court will not pretend to abuse the risk of life, limb, or reputation, before a court, their authority. 'I would not give an authority to and not have the benefit of that testimony which them which they possibly could abuse. A witwould prove his innocence. There was no civil ness might be led to give testimony to convict criminal jurisdiction throughout the United States, himself by a court composed of military men, who, the Constitution having forbade it
, in which the though actuated by good motives, may pot be person accused was not confronted with his wit acquainted with the correct rules of procedure in nesses; depositions were not allowed to be pro- such cases. I can never consent to vote for this duced as evidence in such cases. This bill pro- bill; if it be recommitted, and such a bill revides that, in cases going to life and infamous ported as might be formed, I might vote for it, as punishment, oral testimony shall be had; in other I am willing to make some provision in the case. cases depositions may be iaken upon application Such a bill as this, taking power from the civil to a judge of the United States by the judge ad- and vesting it with the military authority, never vocate or party accused. My own opinion on ought to be adopted in our Government. We this subject is, ihat. in no case whatever, ought a should be careful not to legislate for the particusentence affecting life to be adjudged, unless the lar case, but consider the general effects of ihe bill.
is the practice in our civil courts under the Consti- necessity and justice of confronting persons actution. The principle contained in the bill does cused with the witnesses against them had been not vary from the practice of the courts of the acknowledged in all free Governments. DeposiUnited States, or of the several States. Inasmuch tions were the most fallacious evidence ibat could as but in few cases can it be necessary to summon be conceived; much more of fact could be gathwitoesses from remote parts of the Union, and as ered from oral testimony, cross-examinations bein those cases they ought to attend, I wish the ing essentially necessary for obtaining the whole bill not to be recommitted.
truth. lo depositions, when taken, the deponent MARCH, 1808.
H. OF R.
may be made to speak a language and convey a commander to see justice done; and, in case he meaning which he did not intend, and facts may refuses, he is subject to infamous punishments, be concealed, which, when drawn out by ques, and these to be inflicted by a court martial, and tion, would totally change the complexion of the not by a civil court. We have given courts marevidence. So long, therefore, as we have a dis- tial this power, whether properly or not, it is not position to secure the liberty of man, so long cer- necessary to inquire. Unless you make a provistainly should we preserve the testimony by parole. ion of the kind contemplated by this bill, you deThe life of a citizen soldier or officer is as dear to prive the accused of the right of obtaining testihim as it is to a man in civil life. I believe it mony in his favor, which must of necessity, perwould be good policy in all Governments to re- haps, be drawn from the civil rank. You have duce the military law to as close a conformity placed the officer in this situation, and ought to with the civil as possible. In the same propor- give him a chance for a fair trial. A variety of tion as we do this, I believe we shall lessen the other instances might be mentioned. Speaking danger to be apprehended from a standing army; disrespectfully of his superior officer is made a because, while they remember the feelings of a crime, and the law is unlimited, does not confine citizen freeman, they will respect the citizens' it to the Army, but extends it to all parts of the rights. The present bill is a step towards that United States. Here, then, is evidence required object; it provides that courts martial or inquiry, from civil life. In case of desertion also: when a whenever life or reputation is involved, shall have soldier overstays the time specified in his fura power of summoning witnesses. This law is lough, he must be tried ; sickness may be plead in as well guarded as it was possible to make it; it excuse. If it be out of his power to procure tesdoes not put it in the power of a court martial timony of this he is tried for his life. A number arbitrarily to call a witness. Gentlemen will re- of instances might be produced where persons, collect that the accused is obliged to apply to a from their peculiar situation, must be under the court of civil law, and show probable cause. Now necessity of procuring evidence from civil life. let me ask whether this is not a complete secur- In the same proportion that we lessen the oppority? The right is not arbitrary, nor the power at tunity of obtaining testimony, we deprive the citithe will or discretion of the accused, it is zen of his privilege as an American. I wish to guarded with discretion. If the power be safe see the time when soldiers shall have their privi. with courts of law in civil cases, why not in mili- leges secured and rights defined as citizens in
tary? If gentlemen examine this bill again, they civil life. I hope, therefore, that the bill will be • will find that notwithstanding the necessiiy for permitted to pass. Gentlemen who wish a re
this testimony, and the disposition of a court mar- commitment seem to think the principles of the tial, it cannot inflict fines or forfeitures until a bill exceptionable, which I consider as essential court of law have said that the testimony is neces- and of as much importance as ever were contained sary. The bill therefore makes the military sub- in any one bill proposed to the consideration of servient to the civil authority.
the House. I have considered our articles of war It has been suggested as a reason for commit- as the very image of despotism. Death seems to ment, that, at present, a citizen can be summoned stare us in the face through the whole of them. from one extreme of the country to the other. But they were enacted in the wisdom of the The bill provides, that in cases affecting life or House, and probably my inability to discern the reputation, as dear as life, (recollect that a soldier good features they contain, so much distorts them is nevertheless a brother citizen,) that a witness in my eyes; but I wish to secure every privilege shall be liable to be summoned." Much better is that can be permitted. it that these inconveniences should be suffered Since no summons, no attachment, no process than that an innocent man should fall a sacrifice. can issue or inconvenience can ensue till proper When life or reputation are at stake, nothing can cause be shown, and till the judge has exercised be brought in competition with them. The more his discretion, I trust and hope that gentlemen you lessen the means of procuring testimony, in will find this sufficient to alleviate their fears for ihe same degree the Government grows despotic, the citizens. and the liberty of the citizen is endangered. In Mr. LIVERMORE said he had no objection to the taking depositions, the persons employed for that recommitment of the bill, or to whatever course service may be interested in the destruction of should be pursued in relation to it. In its present the party accused; they may be taken by ignorant form he thought it the greatest monster ever expersons so as to be foreign to truth, and sometimes hibited before the Legislature, and destructive of by artful ones, so as to be foreign to the meaning the very principles it went to support. If the genof the deponent, thus causing a sacrifice of life tleman last up was right in what he thought and perversion of all principles of justice. In should be the spirit of the bill, he was wrong in stead of increasing, we should endeavor to ame- the construction which he gave to the letter of it. liorate the evils attendant on a military life. From what he says, observed Mr. L., I collect that
We have been told that all offences committed he thinks there ought to be a discretion with a on society are punishable by a civil court. We judge to issue subpænas to compel testimony. shall find the case to be different on exa ning the There is not, however, such a provision in the articles of war, of which I will mention one or bill; for although in common parlance the word two. When the Army is on its march, if any in- may" leaves a discretion, in legal construction it jury be done to citizens, it is made the duty of the is imperative. The gentleman has an idea that
H. OF R.
MARCH, 1808. the bill leaves a discretion with the judge ; if it Mr. Marion hoped the bill would be recommitis intended, it should have been so expressed. If ted. He was opposed to the passage of the bill it is wished to give a discretion, the bill should be in its present shape, pot from enmity to military recommitted for the purpose; but even then I courts nor to the priociple of the bill, but to the should be opposed to it altogether. I would ask extent to which it was carried. I allow, said he, gentlemen whether they are willing to give pow that it is important that the accused should be er to a military court to send to any part of the confronted with his witnesses, but when I recolUnion, and compel the production of all the re- lect that in ninety-nine cases out of an hundred cords—to send from a court in the province of where the citizen is tried for his life, viz. in all Maine to the custos rotulorum or whatever he may prosecutions in State courts, he cannot obtain be in Georgia, and compel him to produce all their compulsory process to obtain evidence of a witacts? I do not conceive that the Convention del-ness without the limits of a State, while this bill egated this power to Congress; if however it be gives a court martial power to call a witness from derived by a forced construction, there is here no any part of the United States, I must object to it. necessity for its exercise, and it would produce a The inconvenience to result to the citizen from real injury. I should consider it unfortunate that this bill will be much greater than he suffers at we should legislate with a view to a particular present from his liability to be compelled to attend case ; it is not my opinion that the Legislature in the Federal courts.' The Constitution of the can properly make a law with a view to a partic- United States provides that all criminal offences ular case, especially when popular opinion on the shall be tried in the districts where the crimes are subject has been much agitated; it is said that committed, and it is probable that persons who this bill has reference to such a particular case, can prove the offence reside in the neighborhood. although in fact it is made a general law. I can- Not so in courts martial or courts of inquiry. Had not find that it will remedy the evils which exist the inquiry now pending been held in the district even in that case. An affidavit of a member of where the offence is charged to have been comthis House has been taken, and sent to the Presi-mitted, it would have been in the district of Kendent of the United States, relative to a certain tucky, where probably witnesses who could testify person ; now, if I recollect, the charges contained to the person's innocence or guilt could have been in that affidavit did not arise from the articles of easily obtained. But when the offence is triable war, nor were they punishable by a military court. by a court martial, the offence may be alleged For what purpose then are we pursuing this sub- to have been committed in New Orleans, and the ject at this particular time? The gentleman in witnesses residing in that district may be compelled volved has called upon the Secretary of War to to attend the court martial in the district of Maine. make an inquiry into his military conduct? What Therefore the power given by this bill to courts may be the result? It may give him an oppor- martial is much greater in that respect than the tunity ostensibly to clear up his conduct. I have power of the courts of the United Siates. no ill will against General Wilkinson ; I am With respect to the powers being confined to wholly unacquainted with him; but as a legisla- those cases which extend to the cashiering or distor I must take things as they come before me. mission of a commissioned officer, when we conI know of no necessity for this thing. If General sider how indefinitely offences are described in the Wilkinson be accused by the papers transmitted, military code, and how much is left to the discreit is in his power to meet them; if evidence be tion of the courts to determine, we cannot say in produced sufficient to invalidate the testimony many cases whether the punishment would be against him, it will have all its effect.
trivial or whether it would extend to loss of life or Mr. L. then took a view of the necessity for reputation. A judge when applied to for a sumthis law. The act of Congress of the last session mons will look into the articles of war, and if the had established certain articles and regulations for punishment of the crime amount to cashiering, the discipline of the Army; he did not agree with the witness must attend ; a deposition cannot be gentlemen in their great objection to these, for taken. If an officer murders a citizen he cannot ihere could be no body of disciplined troops with by any process I am acquainted with compel the out similar rules. He had heard of no necessity aitendance of a witness residing beyond the prefor this law. If the United States had proceeded cinct of the State in which the crime was comfrom 1776 10 this time without it, he conceived it mitted; while by this law, if he refuses to cut his unnecessary to introduce it at this time. In speak hair or neglects any other requisite of military ing of depositions, he said he could see no mate- law, a citizen may be dragged from the place rial objections to ihem. The only difference be- where the offence is committed, 10 any place howtween a deposition taken by a civil officer and oral ever remote from his residence, where the court testimony before a court martial, was, that one martial may be held. When I consent that a was taken down by a civil judge and the other by court martial in a district shall have the same the judge advocate, and in this form deliberated power of compulsion as a civil court in that disupon by the court. He was not anxious for the frict, it is as far as I can go. If the bill be recomrécommitment of the bill, because he was opposed mitted and amended, thus far I will go. to the principle in toto; though he thought some Mr. Bacon wished the bill to be recommitted, addition to the articles of war of last session, rel- that it might pass with as general a consent as ative to evidence of witnesses in particular cases, possible. He went into an examination of the might be introduced.
principle; he cited the laws of Pennsylvania and