EIGHTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. (continued 3)

Messrs. Griswold and Gregg supported, Messrs. Nicholson and Claiborne opposed the amendment.

A concurrence in the report was then agreed to, and the Committee of Claims instructed to bring in a bill.

Friday, November 25.

Ordered, That the petition of Memucan Hunt, William Polk, and Pleasant Henderson, for themselves and others, addressed to the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina; also, sundry resolutions of the said Assembly, respecting a claim for the value of certain lands in the State of Tennessee, presented to this House on the nineteenth of January, one thousand eight hundred and two, and the report of a select committee thereon, made the twenty-fourth of March, in the same year, be referred to the committee this day appointed on the memorial of the Legislature of Tennessee.

Bankrupt Law.

Mr. Newton called for the order of the day on the bill to repeal an act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States; and the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bill.

Mr. Varnum moved an amendment, extending the period of repeal to the first of January, 1804, instead of from the passage of the act; and afterwards varied the motion, so as to leave the period of repeal blank.

This motion was supported by Messrs. R. Griswold, Early, and Skinner; and opposed by Messrs. Smilie, Newton, Rodney, and Hastings. Lost—ayes 25.

On motion of Mr. R. Griswold, an amendment was introduced, directing the completion of all proceedings under commissions taken out previous to the repeal.

The committee then rose and reported the bill with the above amendment, in which the House immediately concurred, and ordered, without a division, the bill to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday.

[The bill is concise, and is confined to repealing the bankrupt act, saving cases where commissions have been taken out previously to the passage of the act, at which time the repeal takes effect.]

Monday, November 28.

Public Roads.

On the call of Mr. Jackson, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolution:

“Resolved, That provision be made, by law, for the application of one-twentieth part of the net proceeds of the land lying within the State of Ohio, sold, or to be sold by Congress, from and after the 30th day of June, 1802, to the laying out, and making public roads, leading from the navigable waters emptying into the Atlantic, to the Ohio river, and to the said State of Ohio: in conformity with the act of Congress, entitled ‘An act to entitle the people of the eastern division of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, to form a constitution, and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States; and for other purposes,’ passed upon the 30th April, 1802, as well as the act passed the 3d of March, 1804, in addition to and in modification of the propositions contained in the act aforesaid; and the ordinance of the convention of the State of Ohio, bearing date the 29th day of November, 1802.”

Mr. Jackson called for the reading of the acts of Congress which were referred to in the resolution, which was done: he then moved that the committee rise and report their agreement.

Mr. Varnum said he hoped the question would be taken separately on the resolution.

Mr. Jackson hoped that gentlemen opposed to the resolution would rise at that time and express their opinions.

Mr. Nicholson was opposed to the resolution, but was prevented from indisposition from expressing his sentiments; he would do it at a future period.

Mr. J. Randolph was sorry that the indisposition of his friend from Maryland should prevent him from delivering his sentiments on this occasion. He was himself unprepared to speak on this question, but it appeared to him, from a complete view of the subject some time since, that the resolutions contravened one of the provisions of the law to which it was referred; by reverting to that law, it would be found that in one of the propositions offered by Congress to the State of Ohio, it was provided that one-twentieth part of the net proceeds, arising from the sale of lands in that State, should be laid out in roads to and from it, and laid out under the direction of Congress. The State of Ohio agreed to adopt the propositions if Congress would make an amendment, (which he read.) He wished to call the attention of the committee to the facts, and wished them to attend to the different propositions. He should not have troubled the committee but from an apprehension that when gentlemen had taken up an opinion, they were loth to abandon it. One of the propositions of Congress was, that one-twentieth part of the net proceeds arising from the sale of lands in the State of Ohio should be laid out under the direction of Congress in the making of roads from the Atlantic to that State. The State of Ohio agrees to the proposition with this amendment, that not less than three per cent. should be laid out exclusively in that State, under the direction of their Legislature. He conceived that the last proposition was only a modification of the former, and that the three per cent. was a part of the five, and not an additional allowance; if the latter had been intended, why, he asked, was it not so expressed? There were several other propositions and they were stated to be amendments. He considered Congress never intended to grant more than five per cent. and should therefore vote against the resolutions.

Mr. R. Griswold apprehended there could be no doubt as to the construction which Congress gave to the law in question; there might be some doubt whether that construction was a sound one; he, however, thought it perfectly so. In the year 1801, Congress provided that one-twentieth part of the net proceeds arising from the sale of lands in the State of Ohio, should be applied to making roads to that State, under the direction of Congress. The proposition was laid before the State of Ohio. The Convention of Ohio agreed to it, provided Congress would consent to a modification of it; they wished some part of the five per cent. to be laid out exclusively in their own State and under the direction of their own Legislature; they therefore proposed that three per cent. should be laid out in the State, and under the direction of the Legislature of Ohio. If the State of Ohio had intended that the three per cent. was to be added to the five, they would have stated it (as in the other propositions) to be in addition to it. The committee which were on the subject last session, gave the law the same construction which he did, and the House concurred in that construction. He thought they were under no obligation to lay out more money than they had agreed to do, and if the committee would attend to the subject, they could be under no difficulty to determine the construction. We had an appropriation of two per cent. to make, and perhaps it might be necessary to pass a law to that effect; but he could not consent to give any more.

Mr. G. W. Campbell would beg the indulgence of the committee while he said a few words on the subject before them. As he should vote in favor of the resolution on the table, he conceived that when they were about to determine on the construction of a law, they were only to refer to the face of it, and not to inquire what the framers of it meant. He begged leave to read the law on the subject, and said that the law of Congress concerning five per cent. was in force, unless repealed by another law; and the subsequent law, which provided for the laying out of three per cent. in roads, was either in addition to or a repeal of it; he believed that it was an addition to it. It could not be the intention of the Convention of Ohio to accept of three per cent. to be laid out in their own State, and under the direction of their own Legislature, in lieu of five per cent. to be laid out under the direction of Congress. He should, considering the appropriations to be distinct ones, vote in favor of the resolutions.

Mr. Rodney deemed it necessary to make but few observations after the able arguments of his friend from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) and the luminous observations of the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Griswold,) against the resolutions. The question to be determined, was, whether the five per cent. was to be given exclusive of the three? It had been said that they ought not to consider the intention of those who framed the law, but he conceived it to be proper, in order to give a right construction. When they reverted to the propositions themselves, they would find one of them was, that provided the State of Ohio would not for a limited time tax the lands of the United States, that then one-twentieth part of the net proceeds arising from the sale of lands in that State should be laid out in making roads to the State of Ohio, the same to be laid out under the direction of Congress. When this proposition came before the Convention of Ohio, they said that three per cent. ought to be laid out exclusively in their own State and under the direction of their Legislature. This could only be intended as a modification of the law. He did not think there was any difficulty in determining the construction of the law, and should vote against the resolution.

Mr. Varnum conceived that the construction given to the law by the gentlemen from Virginia, Connecticut, and Delaware, was perfectly correct. He did not know whether it would be necessary to make an appropriation of the remaining two per cent. during this session, but in order to try the principle, he moved to strike out of the resolution the words one-twentieth and insert one-fiftieth.

Mr. Sanford had not intended to have troubled the committee on this occasion, but being a representative from the West, it might be expected that he might be in favor of the resolution. But he did not conceive that more than five per cent. was ever intended to be given, and this was not a question of expediency. He did not believe that the Convention of Ohio intended that the three per cent. should be given in addition to the five, nor had they any reason to expect it. This ought not to be an Eastern and a Western question. If the five per cent. was now given, Mr. S. asked whether it would not operate for the benefit of the rest of the States as well as the State of Ohio? But, as they must determine, not what Congress ought to give, but what they meant to give, and he conceived that three per cent. was a part of the five, he should therefore vote against the resolution.

Mr. Lyon spoke in favor of the resolution at some length.

Mr. Macon did not think it necessary to say any thing on the construction of the law, because he conceived the arguments of the two first gentlemen who opposed the resolution (Messrs. J. Randolph and R. Griswold) to be unanswerable; but as the question appeared to be made an Eastern and a Western one, he would say a few words. He considered the whole United States concerned in it, and not merely the State of Ohio. He believed that the arguments of gentlemen, that they had not done justice to the State of Ohio, were groundless. There was no State in the Union which has been so much favored as that State. He was sorry gentlemen had used threats on the occasion, that if they did not grant this, they might not be attached to the Union; but he believed that the State of Ohio would be the greatest loser by it. He was willing to leave it to the Western people themselves to determine, whether Congress had not done them justice, and he was certain they would answer in the affirmative.

Mr. Boyle did not consider this a question of party or of expediency; nor what Congress ought to give, but what they had given. If the construction of the law was difficult to determine, it ought to be taken against the United States and favorable to the State of Ohio, because Congress was the grantor and that State the grantee. This was the manner in which private contracts were always construed, and he thought it a sound one. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. John Randolph) had said that the three per cent. was not intended to be given in addition to the five, because it was not so expressed; but Mr. B. said, the last law was not said to be a modification, the construction was therefore doubtful and ought to be taken favorable to the State of Ohio.

Mr. Goddard did not think they were under any difficulty in determining the true construction of the law in question. He considered it to admit of but one construction; this appeared to him to be a negotiation between Congress and the State of Ohio. It was proposed by the former, that if the latter would not tax their lands for a limited time, the one-twentieth part of the net proceeds should be laid out in making roads for that state under the direction of Congress; the State of Ohio acceded to it, provided three per cent. should be laid out exclusively in that State, and Congress agreed to it; this appeared to him to be the true state of the case.

Mr. Morrow would beg the indulgence of the committee while he made a few observations on the subject. He was sorry this was made a party question. He read the report of the committee of Congress and the propositions of Congress to the State of Ohio; and observed that when the propositions came before the convention, they were pleased with them, but did not consider that the five per cent., which was to be laid out in roads, was an equivalent for what they asked: which was, that the State of Ohio should not for a limited time tax the lands of Congress. How, said Mr. M., gentlemen would ask, was this known? He would answer, by an estimate of the value of both; therefore they agreed to the propositions, provided Congress would make an amendment, and allow them an additional three per cent. to be laid out exclusively in their own State and under the direction of their Legislature: to this Congress agreed. He conceived the question for them to determine, whether the three was in addition to or in lieu of the five; he believed it could not be the latter, because it would go to defeat the original design, which was facilitating the communication between the Eastern and Western States. He was in favor of the resolution, believing that it was the intention of the Convention of Ohio, at the time they agreed to the propositions, that the three per cent. was to be given in addition to the five.

The question was taken on Mr. Varnum’s motion to strike out one-twentieth and insert one-fiftieth, and carried—yeas 75.

The question was then taken on the resolution as amended, and carried without a division.

Tuesday, November 29.

Amy Dardin.

Mr. Claiborne called for the order of the day on the bill for the relief of Amy Dardin.

The motion of Mr. Dawson being lost, there being only thirty-two ayes in favor of it, Mr. Claiborne’s motion was taken up.

Mr. Sanford moved to postpone the order of the day on the bill for the relief of Amy Dardin till to-morrow, in order to introduce a resolution for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the expediency of extending the time for adjusting the claims of individuals for supplies furnished and services rendered during the Revolutionary war, with the view of trying previously to the granting individual relief the general principle, whether Congress would repeal the statutes of limitation.

After a debate of considerable length, the motion to postpone was lost.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill, which was so amended as to allow Amy Dardin two thousand five hundred dollars for the horse Romulus, being the estimated value thereof, not including interest.

The Committee reported the bill so amended.

The question was then taken on two thousand five hundred dollars, and decided in the negative by the vote of the Speaker.

Mr. Nicholson moved to fill the blank with two thousand three hundred and twenty dollars, being the amount of principal and interest on the value of the horse.

Mr. Sanford moved to fill it with one thousand dollars.

The House agreed to Mr. Nicholson’s motion—ayes 58, noes 43.

The yeas and nays were then taken on the engrossing of the bill for a third reading—yeas 57, nays 49.

Ordered, That the said bill be read the third time to-morrow.

Wednesday, November 30.

The Speaker laid before the House sundry depositions and other papers, transmitted from the counties of Greenbriar and Rockbridge, in the State of Virginia, respecting the contested election of Thomas Lewis, one of the members returned to serve in this House for the said State; which were ordered to be referred to the Committee of Elections.

Amy Dardin.

An engrossed bill for the relief of the legal representatives of David Dardin, deceased, was read the third time; and on the question that the said bill do pass, there appeared—yeas 58, nays 57. And Mr. Speaker having declared himself with the nays, the said question was, in conformity with the rules of the House, decided in the negative. And so the said bill was rejected.

Monday, December 19.

A memorial of the House of Representatives of the Mississippi Territory of the United States, signed by William Dunbar, their Speaker pro tempore, and attested by Richard S. Wheatly, their Clerk, was presented to the House and read, stating certain disadvantages to which the inhabitants of the settlement on the Tombigbee and Alabama rivers have been and are now subjected, in consequence of their remote situation from the other inhabited parts of the said Territory; and praying that a line of separation may be drawn between the settlements on the Mississippi river, and those of Washington District, or that judges, learned in the law, may be appointed to reside within the said district, for the benefit and convenience of the inhabitants thereof.

Ordered, That the said memorial be referred to the committee appointed, on the 25th ultimo, on the petition and memorial of sundry inhabitants of the District of Washington, situate on the Mobile, Tombigbee, and Alabama rivers, in the said Mississippi Territory; to examine and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

Mail Routes.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the following report of the Post Office Committee:

The Committee on the subject of the Post Office and Post Roads, to whom was referred a resolution of the 2d ultimo, directing them to inquire by what means the mail may be conveyed with greater security and dispatch than at present, between the City of Washington and Natchez and New Orleans, report:

That the late cession of Louisiana by France to the United States renders it an object of primary importance to have the nearest and most expeditious mode of communication established between the city of Washington and the city of New Orleans, the capital of that province; not only for the convenience of Government, but to accommodate the citizens of the several commercial towns in the Union.

That at present the mail is conveyed on a circuitous route from this place to Knoxville and Nashville in Tennessee, and from thence through the wilderness by Natchez to New Orleans, a distance of more than 1500 miles.

That, by establishing a post route as nigh on a direct line between those two cities, as the Blue Ridge and Alleghany Mountains will admit of, it will not only lessen the distance about 500 miles; but as this route will pass almost the whole way through a country inhabited either by citizens of the United States or friendly Indians, the mail will be more secure, and the persons employed in transporting it better furnished with the means of subsistence.

The committee flatter themselves that the views of the General Government, in effecting this important object, will be seconded by the governments and citizens of those States through which this road will pass, by laying out, straightening, and improving the same, as soon as the most proper course shall be sufficiently ascertained; but as this has not heretofore been used for conveying the mail between those places, they presume that the best route will be better known after it has been used for this purpose, than it can be at present; and with this view of the subject, they deem it improper at this time to designate intermediate points; they are, therefore, of opinion—

That a post road ought to be established from the city of Washington, on the most direct and convenient route to the Tombigbee settlement in the Mississippi Territory, and from thence to New Orleans.

And further, that a post road ought also to be established from the said Tombigbee settlement to the Natchez. This road will not only afford the inhabitants of that place a direct mode of communication with the seat of the Territorial Government, who at present are destitute of any, but will shorten the distance between this city and Natchez nearly three hundred miles. And for the consideration of the House, the committee submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That a post road ought to be established from the city of Washington, on the most direct and convenient route, to pass through or near the Tuckabachee settlement to the Tombigbee settlement in the Mississippi Territory, and from thence to New Orleans; and also from the said Tombigbee settlement to Natchez.

Mr. Stanford moved the insertion of the following words:

“And Carter’s Ferry on James river, Cole’s Ferry on Stanton, Dansville on Dan river, in Virginia; Salisbury, Beatty’s Ford, on Catawba, in North Carolina; Spartanburg, Greenville Courthouse, and Pendleton Courthouse, in South Carolina; and Jackson Courthouse in Georgia:”

His object being to designate the intermediate points of the route between the seat of Government and New Orleans and Natchez.

This motion was supported by Messrs. Stanford, J. Randolph, Early, Earle, and Macon, on the principle that it was proper that Congress should designate the route, and on the ground that the route contemplated by the amendment would be the fittest.

On the other hand, the motion was opposed by Messrs. Thomas, Smilie, Holland, Claiborne, S. L. Mitchill, and G. W. Campbell, on the ground that a discretionary power should be reposed in the Postmaster General to designate the route; and on the ground that, if Congress should undertake to designate the route, the one fixed by the amendment was not an eligible one.

Mr. Dennis declared himself in favor of the House exercising the power of designating the route, but was not sufficiently informed to vote on any particular line.

Mr. R. Griswold moved that the Committee of the Whole should rise and ask leave to sit again, with the view that leave should be refused, and the report recommitted to the Post Office Committee, in order to obtain from them a detailed report, that would furnish the House with satisfactory information.

This motion was supported by Mr. Gregg, and opposed by Mr. Thomas, and carried—yeas 70.

The House then refused leave to the Committee of the Whole to sit again—yeas 19, and recommitted the report to the Post Office Committee.

Friday, December 30.

Three other members, to wit: Ebenezer Elmer, John Sloan, and Henry Southard, from New Jersey, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

Tuesday, January 3, 1804.

Light-House Duties.

Mr. Mitchill observed, that there had been some conversation in the House during the last session, concerning the sums of money paid by our merchants on foreign voyages. He wished to renew that subject, as well worthy of the attention of Government.

Foreign nations levy money upon our vessels, which frequent their ports, for the purpose of supporting their light-houses. The sums paid by our merchants in compliance with these exactions are very considerable. The contribution which strangers are thus obliged to make, constitutes a fund, that goes a great way towards defraying the expense of those establishments, to the great relief of their own subjects.

The average amount of light-money paid by every vessel that enters a British port, is about four pence sterling the ton, for every light she may have passed inwards, or that she may be expected to pass outwards. Calculating by this rule, an American ship of two hundred and eighty-four tons, entering the port of London, is charged with duties for the maintenance of the following lights, all along up the British channel, to wit: Scilly, Longships, Lizard, Eddystone, Portland, Caskets, Needles, Owers, Dungenness, Foreland, Goodwin, and the Nore. They amount to thirty-four pounds sterling, and the stamped paper for the receipt four pence more. Besides this, the duties of the Trinity House, for such a ship, amount to nine pounds seven shillings and eight pence. In addition to which there is demanded and paid by virtue of an act of George III. for the maintenance and improvement of the harbor of Ramsgate, seven pounds and two shillings. So that the amount of these impositions for light-money and Ramsgate harbor money, on a ship under three hundred tons, for a single voyage to London, amounts to fifty pounds and ten shillings sterling, which is equal to two hundred and twenty-two dollars, independent of her tonnage, duties on merchandise, pilotage and other expenses.

An American vessel entering the harbor of Hull, the lights are charged as before, viz: Scilly, Longships, Lizard, Eddystone, Portland, Caskets, Needles, Owers, Dungenness, Foreland, and Goodwin; and to these are added the lights on the Eastern coast of England, such as Sunk, Harwich, Gatt, Lowestoft, Harbro, Winterton, Oxford, Shawl, Dudgeon, Faulness, and the Spurn. The amount of these demands for light-money on an American ship of two hundred and forty-five tons, is thirty-seven pounds and six shillings sterling. At Hull, the collector enforces payment of Ramsgate harbor duties to the amount of £6 2s. 6d., and of Dover harbor dues to the amount of £3 1s. 3d. The demand for supporting lights, few of which perhaps were seen on the passage, and for improving harbors which were not entered by the ship, amounts to forty-six pounds nine shillings and nine pence sterling on a burthen less than two hundred and fifty tons; an amount of demand exceeding two hundred and four dollars.

An American ship goes to Liverpool, she is charged for the light up St. George’s Channel. A ship of three hundred and fourteen tons is made to pay for supporting the lights at Milford, that called the Smalls, and another known by the name of Skerries. These several demands, with the price of stamps, come to £15 14s. 2d. sterling on a vessel of that burthen for one voyage, or more than sixty-three dollars for light-money alone. For each of these three light-houses the charge is exactly four pence sterling the ton.

Light-houses have been established by the Government of the United States on many parts of our extensive coast. Many parts of it are admirably illuminated. And the whole expense of these valuable establishments is defrayed from the Treasury out of the ordinary income. Foreigners who visit our ports participate the security and advantage of these guides to mariners, as fully as our own citizens; but they pay nothing for this privilege of directing themselves by our lights. Foreign nations have acknowledged the principle that duties ought to be collected from their commercial visiters, for supporting light-houses, and they compel our merchants to pay them. It is a correct principle of distributive justice, that we should cause our commercial visiters to pay something also for the establishment and improvement of our light-houses. A duty of tonnage, for this express purpose, could easily be laid and collected from foreign vessels, and would add materially to our means of keeping them in good repair and attendance. A sum, for example, of six or seven cents per ton upon every foreign vessel for every light-house she shall have passed, will make a valuable fund for the humane and excellent institution of light-houses. To the intent that this interesting subject may be investigated and that our Government may avail itself of its own proper rights and resources, I move the following resolution:

“That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be directed to inquire into the expediency of laying and collecting a tonnage duty on foreign ships and vessels, entering the ports and harbors of the United States, for an equivalent for the advantages which such ships and vessels derive from the light-houses they pass, inwards and outwards.”

Wednesday, January 4.

Addition to the Navy.

A debate of some length ensued on the motion of Mr. Macon to strike out the second section.

Messrs. Smilie and J. Randolph supported the motion. They contended that no necessity existed in the present situation of the United States for an augmentation of the Navy; that it remained in the same state it had been fixed in during March, 1801, with the addition of four small vessels for the Mediterranean service; that it had heretofore proved fully competent to the protection of commerce, even when the complexion of our affairs was less pacific than at present; that the Mediterranean service had evinced that large vessels produced in that quarter more decisive effects than small ones, and that of the former description of vessels we had a sufficient number unemployed; that one great occasion for small vessels was removed by the permission of the State of South Carolina to import slaves, which superseded the necessity of any additional force to restrain their illegal admission into the United States; that this addition to our marine force did not appear to be necessary, inasmuch as the President, whose constitutional duty it was to give information to Congress of the state of the Union, and who directed the armed force of the nation, had not intimated his opinion of its necessity; and that Congress might be sure, if he thought it necessary, he would not hesitate to apprize them of it; that in adopting this provision of the bill the House was acting altogether in the dark, as no estimates of the expense had been furnished, and not even a committee appointed to examine either the propriety or expense of the measure. It was alleged that it became the Legislature, in the present posture of the national finances, to be uncommonly circumspect. New and heavy pecuniary obligations had been incurred, and time alone could show whether the present resources would be more than commensurate to meet them. That the Secretary of the Treasury, at the opening of the session, had spoken of the competency of our resources with a caution which ought to impress the House with the necessity of exercising strict economy, unless disposed to vote new taxes. To this point this measure manifestly tended, and it became those who were hostile to new taxes, to hesitate before they adopted a measure that promised to lead to it.

The motion was, on the other hand, opposed by Messrs. Nicholson, Eustis, R. Griswold, and Huger. They observed that the bill under consideration had received the sanction of the Senate, and it might be rationally presumed that they had previously to its passage received satisfactory proof of its necessity; that the first section authorized the sale of the frigate General Greene, in the lieu whereof it was contemplated to build or purchase two small ships; that this measure therefore constituted no increase of the Navy beyond its present strength; that so far as related to expense, whatever the temporary cost, arising from the building or purchase might be, the permanent expense of two small vessels would be greatly inferior to that of one large one; that the annual expense of a forty-four gun frigate was $104,000, while that of a vessel of sixteen guns was only $36,000; that with regard to the argument of gentlemen drawn from a want of estimates, it was idle, as estimates had been furnished at the last session, as the basis of adding four small vessels for the Mediterranean service, which amounted to $96,000, which sum appeared to be sufficient. If, therefore, four vessels cost $96,000, two would not cost more than $50,000; that with regard to the necessity of these ships, Congress were the proper and constitutional judges; that it was their special duty to provide and maintain a navy, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; and that the absolute dependence placed by gentlemen on Executive mandates was unprecedented, anti-republican, and unconstitutional; that it became the Legislature to judge for themselves as to the propriety of the measure; that from the knowledge they possessed of the state of the country, and the extended sphere of commerce, abundant evidence was presented of its necessity. It was a fact well ascertained that, for Barbary warfare, these small ships were eminently useful, and that service required relief; for in case of a disaster occurring to one of our present small vessels, it was proper to be provided with others that might promptly make good the deficiency. That the acquisition of Louisiana would undoubtedly require some naval force to ensure the collection of the revenue in that quarter; and that the state of the West Indies absolutely demanded an addition of some small vessels to protect our trade from the barges that were fitted out by the brigands for the purposes of depredation; that it was a fact that if the Executive, at this moment, possessed one of these ships, it would be immediately sent to the West Indies; that there were other important purposes for which these vessels were wanted. The Government had frequent occasion to send special Envoys, on points of vast importance, to the two great powers in Europe. Was it then safe, or becoming the dignity of the nation, to send such characters in a private merchantman, subject to the search or capture of any armed vessel of Europe?

Before a question was taken on the motion to strike out the section, Mr. Jackson moved that the committee should rise. If they rose he would oppose their having leave to sit again, with the intention of referring the bill to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

The committee agreed to rise—ayes 63.

Leave having been refused to them to sit again, Mr. J. Randolph moved that a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and what, further additions may be necessary to the Naval Establishment of the United States,

Mr. Alston moved to amend the motion by striking out “a committee be appointed,” and inserting “the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed.” Messrs. Alston, Nicholson, and Eustis supported, and Mr. J. Randolph opposed this amendment. Carried—yeas 51, nays 46.

The motion thus amended was supported by Messrs. Huger and Elmer, and opposed by Messrs. Varnum and Smilie. Carried—yeas 57, nays 44.

Mr. Jackson then moved the reference of the bill to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures. Agreed to without a division.

Thursday, January 5.

Official Conduct of Judge Chase.

Mr. J. Randolph said, that no people were more fully impressed with the importance of preserving unpolluted the fountain of justice than the citizens of these States. With this view the Constitution of the United States, and of many of the States also, had rendered the magistrates who decided judicially between the State and its offending citizens, and between man and man, more independent than those of any other country in the world, in the hope that every inducement whether of intimidation or seduction which could cause them to swerve from the duty assigned to them might be removed. But such was the frailty of human nature that there was no precaution by which our integrity and honor could be preserved, in case we were deficient in that duty which we owed to ourselves. In consequence, sir, of this unfortunate condition of man, we have been obliged, but yesterday, to prefer an accusation against a judge of the United States who has been found wanting in his duty to himself and his country. At the last session of Congress a gentleman from Pennsylvania did, in his place, (on the bill to amend the Judicial system of the United States,) state certain facts in relation to the official conduct of an eminent judicial character, which I then thought, and still think, the House bound to notice. But the lateness of the session (for we had, if I mistake not, scarce a fortnight remaining) precluding all possibility of bringing the subject to any efficient result, I did not then think proper to take any steps in the business. Finding my attention, however, thus drawn to a consideration of the character of the officer in question, I made it my business, considering it my duty, as well to myself as to those whom I represent, to investigate the charges then made, and the official character of the judge, in general. The result having convinced me that there exists ground of impeachment against this officer, I demand an inquiry into his conduct, and therefore submit to the House the following resolution:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to report their opinion whether the said Samuel Chase hath so acted in his judicial capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House.

After the motion made by Mr. J. Randolph had been read from the Chair,

Mr. Mitchill said, before the question was taken, he should be glad, from the novelty and serious nature of the proposed measure, to hear a statement by his friend from Virginia of the reasons in detail on which it was founded.

Mr. J. Randolph observed, that when he was up before he had stated that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) had, in his place, at the last session of Congress, given a description of the official conduct of the officer to whom the resolution referred, which he considered the House bound to notice. It could not be conceived that the gentleman would have laid before the House a statement, the facts of which were not supported by his own knowledge, or by evidence on which he could place the utmost reliance. He did not conceive this to be a time to decide whether the information exhibited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was or was not correct. At present an inquiry alone was proposed. If it should be made, it must result either that the conduct of the judge would be found to be such as not to warrant any further proceedings on the part of the House, or such as would require the interposition of that authority, which, as the immediate representatives of the people, they alone possessed. If on inquiry the committee shall be persuaded that the judge has not exceeded his duty, they will so report; if, on the contrary, they find it such as to require the interposition of the House, they will recommend that course of proceeding to which the House alone is competent. With respect to the facts which had come to his knowledge, Mr. R. said that they were such as he did not wish to state. He preferred its being done by witnesses, who were most competent to do it correctly.

Mr. Elliot said, I am as deeply convinced as the gentleman from Virginia that the streams of justice should be preserved pure and unsullied. I am also sensible that the Judicial Department ought to attach to itself a degree of independence. I am of opinion that this House possesses no censorial power over the Judicial Department generally, or over any judge in particular. They have alone the power of impeaching them; and when a judge shall be charged with flagrant misconduct, and when facts are stated which shall induce them to believe those charges true, I shall be at all times prepared to carry the provisions of the constitution into effect, in virtue of which great transgressors are punishable for their crimes. The basis of this resolution is, that a gentleman from Pennsylvania, at the last session, stated that the judge named in it had been guilty of improper conduct. Of these charges I am uninformed, and every new member must be uninformed. It is astonishing to me that we are called upon to vote for an inquiry into the character of a judge without any facts being adduced to show that such an inquiry should be made. If the resolution pass in its present form, it appears to me that we shall thereby pass a vote of censure on this judge, which neither the constitution nor laws authorize. If the judge be guilty, I should suppose the first step proper to be taken would be for some person aggrieved, or for members having personal knowledge, to exhibit facts on which the House may act. I can never consent, because the gentleman from Virginia, or any other gentleman, says that there are facts which have come to his knowledge that induce him to think an inquiry ought to be instituted, to vote for it, unless those facts are first stated. I can never agree to any act which shall in this manner, without the exhibition of proof, impose censure or suspicion on a judge. This course may be perfectly Parliamentary; but it strikes me as altogether unprecedented. I shall, therefore, until some facts are adduced, resist every attempt to impose a censure upon the conduct of any public officer.

Mr. Smilie.—If the gentleman from Vermont had commanded a little patience, he would have perceived the remarks which he has just made to have been altogether unnecessary. He would have perceived the necessity imposed upon me by the observations of the gentleman from Virginia of stating those facts to which that gentleman alluded. It must be seen that these proceedings contemplate the possibility of an impeachment. It will be recollected by gentlemen who were in Congress at the last session, that I was then led to give a statement of facts respecting the conduct of Judge Chase on a particular occasion. That statement was not made with a view to impeachment. A bill had been introduced to change the districts of the circuit courts of the United States; when I discovered that Mr. Chase was assigned to the district of Pennsylvania, I felt interested in having him transferred to another district, considering that his previous conduct had rendered him obnoxious to the people of that State. These circumstances I stated to the House, and was in consequence called upon to assign my reasons why Judge Chase was obnoxious to the people of Pennsylvania. This is the history of the business so far. I am now called upon to state the facts which I mentioned on that occasion. This I shall do briefly.

A man of the name of Fries was prosecuted for treason in the State of Pennsylvania. Two of the first counsel at that bar, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dallas, without fee or reward, undertook his defence. I mention their names to show that there could have been no party prejudices that influenced them. When the trial came on, the judge behaved in such a manner that Mr. Lewis declared that he would not so far degrade his profession as to plead under the circumstances imposed upon him. Mr. Dallas declared that the rights of the bar were as well established as those of the bench; that he considered the conduct of the judge as a violation of those rights, and refused to plead. The facts were these: The judge told the jury and the counsel that the court had made up their minds on what constituted treason; that they had committed their opinion to writing, and that the counsel must therefore confine themselves to the facts in the case before the court. The counsel replied that they did not dispute the facts, but that they were able to show that they did not constitute treason. The end of the affair was, that the counsel retired from court, and the man was tried without counsel, convicted, and sentenced to death.

After this the Attorney General wrote a letter to Messrs. Dallas and Lewis, requesting them to furnish their notes and opinions for the use of the President. They drew up an answer, in which they stated that the acts charged against Fries did not amount to treason, but were only sedition; and that they were so considered in the British courts. This letter was read to me by Mr. Dallas. After receiving the letter the President pardoned the man.

Mr. J. Clay.—This debate appears to me to arise from causes the most extraordinary, and such as we are not accustomed to hear assigned on this floor. The gentleman from Virginia has made a motion justified by his own knowledge as well as that of my colleague; and this motion is opposed in a most extraordinary manner. I believe this is the first instance in which a motion to appoint a committee of inquiry into the official conduct of a public officer has been opposed. We are told by the gentleman from Vermont that this House has no right to pass a censure on a judge, and that judges should be highly independent. I am afraid that unless great care be taken the doctrine of judicial independence will be carried so far as to become dangerous to the liberties of the country. This motion does not, however, affect the character of the judge. Let it also be recollected, that if the reputation of the judge be at stake, the reputation of this House also is implicated. I consider this House as the constitutional guardians of the morality of the Judiciary. Whenever even suspicion exists as to that morality, a committee of inquiry should be appointed. For the pure administration of justice is surely more important than the reputation of any particular judge. I am sorry my colleague thought it necessary to make any statement of facts to the House. I believe that more important facts than he has mentioned will be stated by witnesses. I believe likewise the reputation of the judge will be better preserved by the appointment of a committee than by assertions made on this floor by particular members, not responsible elsewhere for what they allege.

With regard to my opinions in this case, whatever my political impressions may be, they are entirely unbiassed. I have heard facts stated, but I cannot say that they have been satisfactorily proved to my mind. There are other charges equally reprehensible. Under these circumstances, I ask if the character of the judge is not more implicated by a discussion of his official conduct on this floor than by appointing a committee to obtain facts. If he is guilty of the facts alleged against him, no gentleman will say that he is not impeachable. If he is only suspected of them, there ought to be a committee, that if guilty he may be impeached, and if innocent, be freed from the imputation thrown upon him.

Mr. R. Griswold.—Gentlemen will acknowledge that this is a subject of great importance and delicacy. No one will doubt but that we ought to execute our duty so as to preserve the fountains of justice pure, and that we ought at the same time to treat the important character of a judge, or of any other high officer, with respect. I do not know but that this mode of procedure is warranted by precedent. But if it is, it is unknown to me. As the resolution now stands, I do not think it perfectly correct. The honorable gentleman from Virginia says he is acquainted with facts that warrant the proposed inquiry. The question is whether the House ought to be governed by the opinions of any one member. We know not what those facts are; the gentleman declines stating them. I do think, as the subject now strikes me, that the conviction of any one member of the propriety of this measure cannot warrant the interposition of the House. Instead of taking the individual opinion of a member, it ought to be stated that certain facts exist, which, if proved, will justify an impeachment. I do not know whether these ideas are not incorrect, having never before contemplated, or had a suspicion that such a motion would be made.

As to the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I do not consider them as entitled to much weight. If the facts stated by him were of his personal knowledge, they would undoubtedly merit attention. But he merely states that which he has received from others, and which amounts to nothing more than that the judge refused liberty to the counsel to argue a point of law after it was decided, and confined their argument to facts. In so doing the judge may have erred, but it was an error of judgment, for which he cannot be impeached. No lawyer will perhaps say that it was not the province of the judge to decide the law, and that he has not the right to prevent counsel from arguing it after his mind is made up. But this information is not of the knowledge of the gentleman. Are we then to institute an inquiry into the conduct of a high officer of the Government merely on hearsay? This has never been done under our Government. In the late case of Judge Pickering proof was furnished by the affidavits of witnesses testifying certain facts. I do not therefore consider it correct to proceed to inquire on the opinion of any gentleman. The proper course is first to have proofs which will justify ourselves to our own consciences in making the inquiry—for we ought not to touch the character of a judge, unless we are satisfied from facts that there is good reason for an investigation into his conduct. Gentlemen will not say that making an inquiry into the official conduct of a judge does not touch his character.

Gentlemen say if this committee find the conduct of the judge to have been correct, they will make a report to that effect; but it does not follow that the report will contain all the evidence adduced, and suspicion may still rest on the character of the judge, and that some facts may not be stated, which, if stated, would show his misconduct. Whereas, if the business be brought generally before the House, on the exhibition of certain facts, the public will be enabled to decide whether they warrant impeachment or even suspicion. With this view of the subject, I am of opinion that it will be best to delay acting in this affair until facts shall be disclosed which will justify the step now proposed to be taken. I have as high a respect for the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia as for that of any other member on this floor; but I doubt whether we can justify our votes on the opinion of any single member; facts alone ought to govern our opinions. I, therefore, for the purpose of considering the course most proper to be pursued, move a postponement of the further consideration of the motion until to-morrow.

Mr. J. Randolph.—Were I the personal enemy of the gentleman who is the object of this resolution, I should take precisely that course which, on this occasion, the gentleman from Connecticut seems more than half inclined to take. That gentleman wishes the resolution to lay until to-morrow, in order that he may have time to consider whether he can bring himself to refuse the inquiry altogether. He says that he cannot, or rather (for he speaks doubtingly) he thinks he cannot see the propriety of instituting an inquiry without evidence. What evidence? Nothing short of legal proof—testimony on oath. And what is the object of the resolution? To acquire that very evidence. If we had the evidence, to what purpose make inquiry? As, however, the evidence cannot be had without inquiry, and the gentleman will not grant the inquiry but upon the evidence, it is plain that if we take the course which he recommends, we must go without both. Will gentlemen offer objections against inquiry which are applicable only to impeachment? If an impeachment were moved, they would have a right to call for evidence. But what is the object of the present motion? Merely to inquire whether there exists evidence which will justify an impeachment. But this inquiry we are told cannot be instituted on mere hearsay, although we have the declaration of a member in his place. What would be said of a grand jury, who being informed by one of their body that A or B could testify to the fact of a murder being committed within their jurisdiction, should refuse an application to the court to have them summoned, and because they could not find a bill of indictment unsupported by evidence, should reject that evidence which might be within their reach? I profess not that tenderness of conscience which has been displayed by the gentleman from Connecticut. My conscience teaches me to accuse no man wrongfully, but to deny inquiry into the official conduct of no one, however exalted his station; and I had supposed, from his practice, that the gentleman held the same opinion. For it will be recollected that on the eve of the close of the last session he had himself instituted an inquiry which went to impeach the conduct of some of the first officers of the Government. No one on that occasion stepped in between the demand for an inquiry and those officers implicated in it. No inquiry was made, and it precluded any further proceeding on the part of the House, since the charges which had been attempted to be brought forward would not bear examination. Mr. R. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Gregg said he should vote against the postponement, and in favor of the resolution. The case was somewhat new, but he perceived no impropriety in giving it the same direction with all the other business originated in the House. What is this committee to be appointed for? To investigate facts and report them to the House. Was it not most proper that gentlemen whose characters were implicated should have, in the first instance, facts stated privately before a committee, than that parts of their character should be immediately brought into view before the House? He recollected one fact not yet alluded to in debate. In 1792, after the army under the command of General St. Clair was defeated, great dissatisfaction arose, and the character of the commander was implicated. The idea was that the expedition had not been conducted with propriety. The business was brought before Congress. It was understood at that time, whether justly or not, Mr. G. would not pretend to say, that the commander-in-chief could not be tried by a court martial. Congress therefore took up the business, and appointed a committee of inquiry, who went through a lengthy examination of the subject. Mr. G. mentioned this precedent that gentlemen might turn their attention to it.

Mr. R. Griswold said—I had hoped that the language used by me, when I was up before, would not have led gentlemen to suppose that I was acting as the friend or the enemy of Judge Chase. I am acting in neither capacity. I am acting only as a member of this House, who ought to be anxious on an occasion of such importance to take that course which is most consistent with propriety; that course which results from the duty this House owes the nation, and that duty which they owe the character of a judge. It did appear to me that it was not correct to call the character of a public officer into question unless some necessity should first appear. No facts are presented on this occasion. The gentleman from Virginia has said that he is in possession of facts, or of something which makes him believe that an inquiry is proper, but he does not choose to communicate those facts. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has given us his information. The question is, whether it is proper on these light suggestions to institute a solemn inquiry into the character of this judge. It appears to me that we ought not to throw any imputation on the character of any officer without evidence that such an inquiry is necessary. The case mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gregg) does not apply. Dissatisfaction existed in the country and in this House on the events of a campaign; an inquiry was instituted; but what was its object? The committee were appointed to inquire into the general causes of the failure of the expedition; they were not instructed to inquire into the character of a particular officer.

The gentleman from Virginia has referred to another case, when he says that we were ready enough to institute an inquiry, and has left it to be inferred that the inquiry was made without any previous proofs of its necessity. But certainly on that occasion inquiry was not made without proof. I suppose the inquiry alluded to was that which related to the conduct of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. It was instituted on a report made by them, and which we thought was not satisfactory. The resolution offered was adopted, and inquiry was made, the result of which is well known to every gentleman. It follows, therefore, that there are no precedents adduced which apply to the present case.

It is my wish that the proceedings of this House may on this occasion be perfectly correct, and that we may not be precipitated into the adoption of this resolution without due consideration. If it is correct to vote an inquiry in all cases where a member rises on this floor and desires it, it is correct to vote it in this case. In this case a gentleman rises and says that he is satisfied an inquiry ought to take place. The question is, whether it is proper to inquire on the suggestion of a member? If it is proper, without facts being adduced, then it will be always proper to inquire whenever any member requires it, and it will be also proper whenever any individual citizen requires it. This course I have never thought correct. On the contrary, I think some facts ought to be previously presented to establish the necessity of an inquiry before it is voted. In the case of Judge Pickering a very different course has been pursued. The appointment of a committee of inquiry originated from a Message of the President. We find in February, 1803, the House received the following Message:

“The enclosed letter and affidavits, exhibiting matter against John Pickering, District Judge of New Hampshire, which is now within Executive cognizance, I transmit them to the House of Representatives, to whom the constitution has confided a power of instituting proceedings of redress, if they shall be of opinion that the case calls for them.”

This Message was referred to a committee, with the accompanying papers, furnishing evidence of the necessity of an inquiry. But the course pursued to-day is very different. A gentleman gets up and moves an inquiry into the conduct of Judge Chase, and says that he is of the opinion that it ought to be made. The course, I think, is incorrect. Some facts ought first to be adduced. I repeat it, I am on this occasion neither the friend nor the enemy of Judge Chase. I am the friend of this House; I wish its proceedings to be correct, and I hope they will not do hastily what they may hereafter regret.

Mr. Dennis.—The only question now before the House is, whether they will postpone the consideration of the motion on the table. I cannot but express my surprise that the gentleman from Virginia should oppose this motion, when several have declared that they are not prepared to vote on this resolution. Gentlemen ought to recollect that, according to our rules, on all motions which require the concurrence of the two Houses, one day’s delay is necessary. Although this resolution is not of this kind, yet it surely is not of inferior importance.

I believe that the gentleman alluded to by the motion would rather court than shrink from an investigation of his official conduct. I believe, also, that it has become necessary, from the discussion of this day, that an investigation should take place. I am not, therefore, prepared at this time to say whether I shall not ultimately vote for an inquiry. But it appears to me that the course proposed is inverting the natural order of things, inasmuch as it institutes an inquiry not growing out of facts, but for facts. I believe also that the facts stated, if authenticated, will furnish no ground for an impeachment. Circumstances attending this motion show that the gentleman from Virginia does not consider them as a sufficient ground for an impeachment. The refusal to hear the point of law discussed was the act of the court. Mr. Chase did not sit alone on the bench. Another judge must have been associated with and have concurred with him. If so, why does not the resolution allude to the other judge? Why select one judge, when both are equally implicated in the charges?

I believe the most parliamentary way would be for a gentleman to state, in the form of a resolution, the grounds of impeachment, and then to refer such a resolution to a select committee for investigation. In this mode the House may correctly institute an inquiry, and send for persons and papers. This is the only parliamentary mode of proceeding. In every case where impeachments have been made, the facts have been stated in a resolution, concluding with a motion for an impeachment. The House possesses no censorial power over the judges, except as incidental to the power of impeachment. If gentlemen are possessed of facts, why not state them in the form of a resolution, and move an impeachment? Then, if the facts appeared to me to warrant an impeachment, I would not object to their going to a select committee, though I believe the most proper course would be for the House to send for persons and papers, and to examine for themselves. But it is extremely novel and unprecedented for the House, without facts, to institute an inquiry into the character of a high officer of the Government.

May they not, in the same way, extend their inquiry into the conduct of every judge in the United States, without stating any facts on which the inquiry is founded? For these reasons I shall vote for postponing the further consideration of this resolution for one day, on account of the importance and delicacy of the subject, and the serious deliberation it is entitled to. I do not know whether, if sufficient time is allowed for consideration, and I shall be convinced that this course is consistent with parliamentary usage, I shall not be in favor of an investigation.

Mr. Elliot.—When the yeas and nays are called, I shall on every occasion rise in favor of taking them. I wish the votes I give in this House entered on the Journal, and known to every citizen of America. The more I contemplate the course pursued on this occasion, the more extraordinary and unprecedented it appears to me. The gentleman from Virginia rose, and, after an elegant exordium, stating that the streams of justice should be preserved pure, and other fine things, told us that he had received information of facts that convinced his mind that an inquiry ought to be made into the conduct of a judge. Suppose the gentleman, on facts known to himself, had stated his opinion, that an inquiry ought to be made into the conduct of the President of the United States; we have the same right to impeach the President as a judge. If the inquiry would be improper in the one instance, without facts being adduced, it would be equally so in the other. For we possess no censorial or inquisitorial powers over the conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court. If Judge Chase has been guilty of misconduct, let it be stated. If that misconduct be of a private nature, let the House assume the character of a grand jury, hold private sittings, receive evidence, and determine whether the judge shall be impeached or not. The gentleman asks whether a grand jury in the case of a charge of murder can send for persons. Undoubtedly they can. But did gentlemen ever hear of their appointing a committee to inquire whether a man charged with a partial offence ought to be indicted? We are called on as the grand inquisitors of the nation, to appoint an inquisitorial committee to get evidence; for it is granted that as yet we have none. I believe that no committee of this nature ought to be constituted, without previously ascertaining facts that will warrant the delegation of such great power. No accusation, even, is before us; but we are called upon to appoint a committee to look one up—a committee to be invested with power to send for persons and papers—a committee to inquire in private. I will never consent to the appointment of such a committee, until facts that will justify the inquiry are stated.

The facts adduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if proved, could not induce me to believe that the judge is impeachable. I may suspect that his conduct was erroneous and improper, but I cannot conceive it proper to impeach a single judge for the act of the court. Believing, therefore, this conduct unprecedented, unparliamentary, and replete with improprieties; believing it novel; believing that, in an affair of so much consequence, we ought not to proceed with precipitation; believing that we are entitled to demand one day to reflect upon it—I am proud, on this occasion, to record my vote in favor of the postponement until to-morrow; and if it were for a week, I should with equal pride and pleasure vote for it.

Mr. Holland moved an adjournment.

Mr. J. Randolph said, that considering a motion to adjourn equivalent to a postponement for a day, he moved the taking the yeas and nays upon it.

Mr. Holland moved an adjournment, on which the question was taken—yeas 52, nays 62.

Yeas.—Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, Simeon Baldwin, George W. Campbell, John Campbell, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Thomas Dwight, James Elliot, Edwin Gray, Gaylord Griswold, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings, James Holland, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Joseph Lewis, jun., Henry W. Livingston, Thomas Lowndes, Matthew Lyon, Nahum Mitchell, James Mott, Thomas Plater, Samuel D. Purviance, Erastus Root, Tompson J. Skinner, John Cotton Smith, John Smith of Virginia, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David Thomas, George Tibbits, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, Peleg Wadsworth, Matthew Walton, Lemuel Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.

Nays.—David Bard, George Michael Bedinger, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, William Dickson, Peter Early, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Griffin, Samuel Hammond, Josiah Hasbrouck, William Hoge, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, Beriah Palmer, John Patterson, Oliver Phelps, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith of New York, Richard Stanford, John Stewart, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, and Richard Wynn.

The question of postponement recurring,

Mr. Huger considered the course contemplated by the resolution as improper, unparliamentary, and unprecedented. To make up his mind on the course proper to be pursued, he was in favor of the postponement.

Mr. Holland observed that he had moved an adjournment to allow those gentlemen time for reflection who had not yet made up their minds on the propriety of the motion. He was himself of this number. Having been allowed no time for reflection, he did not feel perfectly satisfied with the appointment of a committee of inquiry before any facts had been substantiated. Desiring further time to form his judgment, and seeing no occasion for precipitation, he should vote in favor of a postponement.

Mr. G. W. Campbell.—I will not, at this late hour, detain the House with the expression of my ideas in detail. I am as desirous as any member of this House that the streams of justice should flow pure and unsullied, as on their purity depend the safety and liberties of the people of the United States. But when we are about to enter into measures for preserving them clear, we owe it to ourselves to preserve order in our conduct, and to act in such a manner as we shall be able to justify to our constituents. Every member of this House, on such an occasion, ought to be as cautious in his proceeding as a judge in delivering his opinions, lest, while we are condemning the conduct of the judge, we ourselves go astray from our duty. For this reason, I am against the adoption of a measure which may throw a censure on a character invested by the United States with high authority, until I am convinced we have sufficient grounds for doing so. The resolution on the table can have but one object, to wit: the direction of an inquiry whether sufficient evidence can be procured to authorize an impeachment. I conceive that this House cannot proceed in any other way. I am therefore of opinion, that, before the vote for an inquiry, there ought to be probable grounds that facts exist that authorize an impeachment, and that evidence can be procured of their existence. I am not prepared to say, from any thing which has been adduced, that such evidence does exist. I conceive that until probable grounds are shown, we ought not to authorize such a procedure, inasmuch as it may establish a precedent that we may hereafter regret—a precedent which will put it in the power of any member to move and obtain an inquiry into the conduct of the President, a judge, or any other officer under the Government. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to say this is the regular course of proceeding. I do not profess to have much knowledge of parliamentary proceedings, and have therefore waited, before I expressed my opinions, to hear such precedents as gentlemen could adduce. Having heard none, I conclude none exist.

I conceive that the act of this House, in voting for a committee of inquiry, is equivalent to the expression of the opinion that they have evidence of the probable grounds of the guilt of the judge. The gentleman from Virginia has told us that the powers of this House are, in some degree, like those of a grand jury. I agree that they have all the powers of a grand jury, and it is on this ground that I deny the power now contended for. I say that a grand jury has no right to send for testimony: they have only a right to receive testimony from any one of their body, and to receive such witnesses as the court may send them. If, then, there be evidence in the present case, let us act upon it, even though it be ex parte, and although that might, perhaps, be going too far.

I repeat it, I have heard no statement satisfactory to my mind that there are probable grounds for proceeding in this business. It is true, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made a statement, but that statement appears to me to depend not so much on facts as on opinions; and it is not my wish to decide on the propriety of the conduct of the judge until the facts are before us. It is certain that a judge has a right to control counsel, and to say when his mind is made up, while it is also his duty to hear the allegations that shall be made.

In addition to these reasons for a postponement, I am also in favor of it, because, whenever a sincere desire exists to gain information, which can only be done by allowing further time, I shall always be in favor of it, when no material injury can result from the indulgence.

Mr. Mott.—I am in favor of the postponement, because I wish time for consideration, and because I am against the resolution itself. I think it is improper to go into such an inquiry before specific charges are laid before the House, when it will be proper for the House to consider whether those charges are sufficient to sustain an impeachment; then it will be proper to proceed, and not till then. No charges have yet been laid before the House: we have only been told by one member that he is satisfied sufficient grounds exist.

Mr. J. Randolph was sorry to be obliged to trespass again on the patience of the House, but the direct application made to him by the gentlemen from Tennessee and South Carolina, imposed upon him the necessity of stating his reasons for proceeding in what they were pleased to term so precipitate a manner. They ask, why not have laid the resolution on the table by way of notice to the House? Because, sir, I cannot in a matter of extreme delicacy make the opinions of other gentlemen the standard of my own actions. I should have conceived the character implicated in the resolution as having just cause of complaint against me, had I not been ready to decide in a moment on it, and did I not press its immediate decision. I should have deemed it an act of cruel injustice to have hung the inquiry over his head even for a day. I should have expected the reproach of setting suspicions afloat whilst I avoided examination into them; for I should have deserved it, had I pursued the course which gentlemen wish to adopt. I can see no difference between hanging up this motion for a day or a year but the mere difference of time. What is the object to be obtained? Do we wait for evidence, or any information, which will assist us in forming a correct opinion? Not at all. To-morrow the question will recur upon us—“Is it proper, from what has already appeared, to institute an inquiry into the conduct of this officer?” And this we are as competent to decide at this moment as at any future day. When, however, gentlemen consider a resolution to make inquiry the same as an inquiry already had, I am not surprised at finding myself opposed to them in opinion. I repeat that all their arguments are applicable to a motion of impeachment only. But it seems that no precedents have been adduced, and time is wanted to hunt them up. Gentlemen should recollect that but two cases of impeachment have taken place under this Government; one of a Senator from Tennessee, the other of a district judge of New Hampshire. By what precedents were the proceedings in these cases regulated? How is it possible in a Government hardly in its teens, where new cases must daily occur, as its various functions are called into exercise, to find precedents? It did so happen, in the case of the Senator from Tennessee, that the information on which his impeachment was grounded came from the Executive. But suppose that information had not been communicated by the Executive? Would that have precluded all inquiry? Suppose, too, in the case of Mr. Pickering, that no information had been received from the Executive, and that a gentleman from New Hampshire had risen and said, “However painful the task, I deem it my duty to state that the conduct of the judge of the district in which I reside, has been such as renders him unfit for the important station which he holds, and I therefore move for an inquiry into his conduct.” Would the House have denied the inquiry? Will they rely altogether on the attorney of the district, whose interest it is to be well with the judge, and whose patience must be worn out with his misconduct before he will undertake to call the attention of Government to it? Are gentlemen aware of the delicate situation in which those officers are placed? Suppose information had been given to a member of the malfeasance of a judge by a person who should say: “It is not pleasant to originate accusations; those who come forward in these cases undertake an invidious task; while therefore I wish my name not to be mentioned, I shall be ready, when called upon by proper authority, to give my testimony.” This is a hypothetical case, but one by no means improbable. Would it not be a point of honor not to expose the name of the informant?

But, say gentlemen, the charge is of a general nature. While I do not admit the force of this remark, supposing it to be correct, I deny that it is a general charge. The inquiry is general, but it is founded on a statement made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I made no other statement. I have said that I believed there existed grounds of impeachment. What they are I shall not state here. They may be those exhibited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or they may be others. Will gentlemen assert that the statement of facts made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will not, if true, warrant an impeachment? What does it amount to? A person under a criminal prosecution, having a constitutional right to the aid of counsel in his defence, has, by the arbitrary and vexatious conduct of the court, been denied this right. Such is the nature of the charge. Has it come to this, that an unrighteous judge may condemn whom he pleases to an ignominious death, without a hearing, in the teeth of the constitution and laws, and that such proceedings should find advocates here? Shall we be told that judges have certain rights, and, whatever the constitution or laws may declare to the contrary, we must continue to travel in the go-cart of precedent, and the injured remain unredressed? No, sir, let us throw aside these leading-strings and crutches of precedent, and march with a firm step to the object before us.

As to the motion of postponement, Mr. R. said it was of little consequence to him whether it prevailed or not. On a charge of specific malfeasance, he thought it impossible to refuse an inquiry. Whatever should be the result, he should rest satisfied with having discharged his duty to the House and to the nation. Believing the circumstances to demand inquiry, he had made it. Without circulating whispers of reproach, he had given the person implicated that opportunity of vindicating his character which he himself should require if he stood in the same unfortunate situation.

The committee rose, and the House adjourned.

Friday, January 6.

Importation of Slaves.

Mr. Bard.—For many reasons this House must have been justly surprised by a recent measure of one of the Southern States. The impressions, however, which that measure gave my mind, were deep and painful. Had I been informed that some formidable foreign power had invaded our country, I would not, I ought not, to be more alarmed than on hearing that South Carolina had repealed her law prohibiting the importation of slaves.

In the one case we would know what to do. The emergency itself would inspire exertion, and suggest suitable means of repelling the attack. But here we are nonplussed, and find ourselves without resource. Our hands are tied, and we are obliged to stand confounded, while we see the flood-gate opened, and pouring incalculable miseries into our country. By the repeal of that law, fresh activity is given to the horrid traffic, which has been long since seriously regretted by the wise and humane, but none have been able to devise an adequate remedy to its dreadful consequences.

Congress has but little power, or rather they have no power to prevent the growth of the evil. To impose a tax on imported slaves is the extent of their power; but every one must see that it is infinitely disproportionate to what the morality, the interest, the peace, and safety, of individuals, and of the public, at this moment, demand. And though in regard to their present case the power of the General Government may be insufficient to check the mischief, yet I hope they are disposed to discourage it, as far as they are authorized by the constitution. Therefore I beg leave to offer the House the following resolution:

“Resolved, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed upon every slave imported into the United States.”

Ordered to lie on the table.

Official conduct of Judge Chase.

The House resumed the consideration of the motion of the fifth instant, “for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,” and the said motion, as originally proposed, being again read, in the words following, to wit:

“Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to report their opinion whether the said Samuel Chase hath so acted in his judicial capacity, as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House:”

A motion was made and seconded to amend the same, by inserting, after the words “one of the Associate Justices of the United States,” the following words, “and of Richard Peters, District Judge of the district of Pennsylvania.”

Mr. Smilie.—When the motion now under consideration was made yesterday, I should have felt surprised at the course which the debate took, had I not often witnessed such things in former times. It seems to be considered as improper that a gentleman should bring forward a motion for an inquiry into the official conduct of a public officer, and expect the House to comply with his request, unless he should at the same time produce such evidence as shall prove the facts charged. If this course of proceeding be correct, I have ever been in error. What does the gentleman from Virginia ask? Suppose he has taken exception to the conduct of the judge from some facts which have come to his own knowledge. Under such circumstances it will be allowed that it is the duty of the House to make the inquiry. When the question shall be whether an impeachment shall be preferred, it will be proper that evidence should be produced. But now only a committee is asked to receive evidence, and to determine whether it be such as in their opinion will afford grounds for an impeachment. It is impossible for me to conceive any way that can be pursued which will be more favorable to the person whose character is implicated, than that which is proposed. It is merely to inquire whether such facts can be sustained as will afford grounds for an impeachment. Certainly in this stage of the business it is not necessary to produce evidence to the House, as the House are not competent to receive testimony, which a committee is. It is a rule of this House that so much respect is due to a member, that if he states that he possesses information proper to be communicated to the House, but which in his opinion ought not to be done but with closed doors, that, in such case, the doors shall be shut without any vote of the House.

Surely, then, on the request of a member for a committee of inquiry, that measure ought to be adopted. This, in my opinion, is the best course that can be pursued for the person implicated. There is, it is true, thereby expressed an opinion of some one member that this judge has done wrong. So far his character is implicated; this is the only possible way in which it is implicated. The committee are to inquire whether there are grounds for an impeachment or not. If they report that there are not grounds, the accusation will be dismissed; and if the report is that there are grounds, the House will at once perceive the necessity of taking this step to ascertain their existence.

Another ground of resistance is taken. It is said there are precedents for this proceeding. I believe that all precedents must have an origin; and that one person has as good a right to establish them as another. Our Government is young, and only two cases of impeachment have occurred under it. Most of our precedents respecting parliamentary proceedings are borrowed from England, and, if precedents are necessary in this affair, we must resort to that country for them. My opinion is that they are not necessary, and that common sense and the reason of the thing are all that are necessary to guide our decision in this case. There is, however, in the British annals, no deficiency of precedents. The first I shall mention is to be found in the case of the Earl of Strafford. I may be told that this precedent was established in turbulent times: I may also be told of the improper mode of proceeding. I do not pretend to vindicate the whole course of procedure. I think it was wrong. But with regard to the first stages of the business, I believe them to have been correct. It will be seen that, in that instance, a more direct mode was pursued than is proposed in the present case.

The precedent I allude to will be found in Hume’s History, vol. 2, page 249. That historian says,—“A concerted attack was made upon the Earl of Strafford in the House of Commons. It was led by Pym, who, after expatiating on a long list of popular grievances, added, ‘we must inquire from what fountain these waters of bitterness flow; and though, doubtless, many evil councillors will be found to have contributed their endeavors, yet is there one who challenges the infamous pre-eminence, and who, by his courage, enterprise, and capacity, is entitled to the first place among these betrayers of their country. He is the Earl of Strafford, the Lieutenant of Ireland, and President of the Council of York, who, in both places, and in all other provinces where he has been intrusted with authority, has raised ample monuments of tyranny, and will appear, from a survey of his actions, to be the chief promoter of every arbitrary council.’ Many others entered into the same topics, and it was moved that Strafford should be impeached. Lord Falkland alone, though the known enemy of Strafford, entreated the House not to act with precipitation. But Pym replied that delay would blast all their hopes; without further debate the impeachment was voted, and Pym was chosen to carry it up to the Lords.”

In this case it does not appear that any evidence was called for; a member of the House of Commons got up and declared his opinion of that officer, and the same session an impeachment was voted. This course of proceeding is very different from that now proposed. I will now refer to a more modern precedent which at the time does not appear to have been objected to. It occurred in the reign of George I., and will be found stated in Russel’s “Modern Europe,” vol. 4, page 398.

“A new Parliament was called in which the interest of the Whigs predominated, and a secret committee, chosen by ballot, was appointed to examine all the papers, and inquire into all the negotiations relative to the late peace, as well as the cessation of arms by which it was preceded. The Committee of Secrecy prosecuted their inquiry with the greatest eagerness, and, in consequence of their report, the Commons resolved to impeach Lord Bolingbroke, the Earl of Oxford, and the Duke of Ormond, of high treason.”

One circumstance is worthy of attention. A cause of dissatisfaction at the conduct of the judge has undoubtedly prevailed. Whether he is wrongfully accused I will not say; but the dissatisfaction is manifest; for the representatives of two respectable States lately came forward and opposed his being assigned to circuits which embraced their States. This single fact ought to make an impression on the House.

It is alleged that there is no proof before the House; but one thing is notorious—is universally known. It is this, that this man (Fries) was tried before that judge for his life, and was tried without being heard. This fact cannot be disputed. When we consider the importance of the life of a citizen, and know that such an event has taken place, is it not the duty of the only body competent to inquire into the fact? With other gentlemen, I believe that the fountains of justice ought to be kept pure; I believe also that the judges are like other men, and that like them they are subject to the common frailties of human nature; and I do believe that when the frailties of human nature produce such effects, the House cannot be justified to themselves or their country without making an inquiry. Our duty to our country calls for it; our duty to the man who is implicated also calls for it. If innocent, a proper regard to his character claims it; and his friend from Maryland informs us that he will rejoice at this opportunity of coming forward and vindicating himself. If, then, the inquiry be equally necessary for placing the character of the man upon its proper footing, and for preserving the purity of justice, how can the House resist it?

Mr. Dennis said he had only expressed an opinion that such an investigation would be rather solicited than avoided by Judge Chase.

Mr. Leib.—I am by no means an enemy to inquiry, but I am not a friend to the partiality of this resolution. We are told that it is grounded on the misconduct of the Circuit Court in Philadelphia on the trial of Fries. If one judge of that court was guilty of misconduct, the other attending judge must have been equally guilty. The conduct complained of was the act of the court, and not of an individual judge. This resolution ought therefore to embrace both the attending judges. My opinion is that both are criminal, and ought to be brought to the bar of justice. I therefore move an amendment of the resolution by introducing the name of Richard Peters, so as to embrace an inquiry into the conduct of both judges, and call for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. J. Randolph.—I wish to state for the information of those gentlemen who were not in the last Congress, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whose statement, thus made, is the groundwork of the present inquiry, did not offer any matter which tended to impeach the conduct of Mr. Peters, while there was a specific charge of misconduct brought against the other judge. In consequence of this charge I conceived it my duty to make an inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase. I mention this circumstance to show that however the charge of partiality may apply to the resolution, it cannot apply to the mover.

Mr. Leib.—I do not charge the mover with partiality, but the resolution with embracing one judge instead of two. Judge Peters was on the bench at the time. This outrage upon justice was the act of the court. How the conduct, therefore, of one judge shall claim investigation, while that of the other is passed over in silence, to me is mysterious. I think impartial justice calls for an investigation into the conduct of both.

Mr. Smilie said there could be no doubt that if the court was agreed, Judge Peters had been equally guilty of misconduct. On the trial of Fries, Mr. Chase presided, and Mr. Peters attended. If Judge Peters concurred in the decision, he was equally culpable.

Mr. Nicholson.—This resolution is grounded upon a statement made during the last session, by a member from Pennsylvania, implicating the character of one of the justices of the Supreme Court. Upon information thus given, my friend from Virginia has thought himself bound to bring the business before the House, that an inquiry may be made into his conduct. For myself I will never hesitate, I care not who the person implicated may be, and however exalted his station, to give my vote for inquiring into his official conduct, when a member of this House rises in his place, and states that, in his opinion, he has been guilty of misconduct. For this reason I shall vote for the amendment; it having been stated by a member that Judge Peters was on the bench and did concur with Judge Chase.

And on the question that the House do agree on the said amendment, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 79, nays 37, as follows:

Yeas.—Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, John Campbell, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, John Dennis, William Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Eustis, William Findlay, James Gillespie, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Griffin, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Seth Hastings, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, jun., Thomas Lowndes, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Patterson, Oliver Phelps, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Ebenezer Seaver, Tompson J. Skinner, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith of Virginia, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, James Stevenson, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Marmaduke Williams, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.