網頁圖片
PDF
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Upon any other, the Government may reel on its feeble existence for a few years, and finally be dissolved by its own weakness. We have heard o: made, in the course of this debate, to those persons who desire a great and splendid Government. If by a splendid Government gentlemen mean a Government which carries its blessings into the remotest corners of its dominions, which peoples its forests with a living and industrious multitude, which is hailed with gratitude and joy in the remotest log house beyond the mountains, I am, sir, for a splendid Government. I would rejoice to see the day when the name of an American citizen, like that of the ancient Roman, would be a protection on every sea, and a terror to tyrants on every land. But if nothing more is meant than a continual playing with the passions and prejudices of the people, for the offices of the Government, the less we have of such splendor the better. To be happy and free, we must be great. By greatness I do not mean the voluptuous splendor of an eastern monarch, a mere sensual enjoyment, the indolence of one, maintained by the sacrifice of millions; I mean that greatness which demands and obtains the respect of the world; which insures to the poorest citizen of the community personal security, the means of obtaining plenty, and a fair field for the exercise of all the eneries of his nature. The most melancholy forebodings have to, indulged in, should we continue to progress with this system of opening roads, making eanals, and deepening harbors. The fate of Rome has been brought before us and painted in vivid colors; her passion for splendor has been assigned as the legitimate cause of her degradation and misery. Rome was a nation of warriors; her splendid ways were constructed to transport her conquering legions to enslave nations; she lived by the plunder of the world; despising commerce and the pursuits of civil life, she had no occupation but that of war. The comparison, therefore is not sustained; our roads are intended to draw closer the bond of union; to drive, by a nearer and more familiar intercourse, barbarism and hostile feelings from among us; to unite us, by the closest of all ties, the tie of interest. But, sir, should this devout end not be obtained, should the sun of our horizon run his ecliptic course through as brilliant a galaxy as that of ancient Rome, and finally set in as mild a splendor as that of modern Italy, the land of science and of glory, this would be better, far better, than twenty-four petty, jarring, independent tribes, the natural and inevitable result of the opposite doctrine. In the one case, we may leave something for the study ang admiration of mankind; in the other, a great deal for their scorn and contempt. Equally unfortunate, in my estimation, was the allusion made to the present condition of England. Her immense debt, which weighs so heavily upon the industry of her people, was not incurred by making roads or cutting canals, but in unnecessary wars; so far from it, that the very existence of that country is now to be attributed to its high state of improvement, to the facility of intercourse through every section, by means of which the industry of every part of the population is wafted to every quarter of the world. By means of the twenty-five or thirty canals uniting the eastern with the western section of England, the spirit and intelligence of the capital is conveyed in a fruitful stream throughout the kingdom. We have seen England, with a population of ten or fifteen millions, maintaining a firm and invincible front against hostile Europe. We have seen her warring in every hemisphere, the last refuge and only hope of free principles in the old world ! To what are we to attribute this indomitable spirit? And whence did she draw the treasure to sustain this protracted struggle Her people, on beholding the land of their birth rendered a garden, and endeared by their industry, would have died sooner than have permitted the spoiler to have entered their territory. In the course of this debate,

“that the power of the crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished,” applied to this, Govern. ment. This may be true, sir, but there is no evidence of it. To ascertain if there is a probable foundation for the remark, let us look at the occurrences of the last few years. We have seen an administration hurled from its seat by a spontaneous burst of the popular voice; not be: cause the constitution had been violated, not because the liberty of any one had been assailed, but from a bare suspicion that unfairness had been used in preventing the will of the majority. And although, now, no honorable man believes there was any corruption in the choice, though the charge has been consigned to the “kennel of forgotten calumnies,” the bare existence of this circumstance is proof of the uncontrolled and uncontrollable power of the people in the administration of this Government., Does not this House daily exhibit that they are tremblingly alive to the opinion of their constituents? That, the slightest murmur of disapprobation at home sounds like thunder in their ears? How, then, can we imagine the power of the Government is increasing? Are we prepared to adopt the nullifying notions that seem to have struck, so foreibly the imaginations of some of our politicians? I hope not; I do not despair of the republic, but have great con: fidence in the permanence of our institutions. And, although I differ widely with many of the opponents of this bill, I cannot vote for it. I do not think the expediency or necessity of a road from Buffalo to New Orleaus has been shown to the House. I have no doubt that the General Government has the power to execute the work; but I can: not consent to expend so large a sum of money as this road will require, for an object the utilty of which is so doubtful. I will not repeat the arguments which have just fallen from the honorable gentleman from New York; to my mind they are perfectly satisfactory of the inexpediency of this measure. Mr. RAMSEY, of Pennsylvania, spoke in explanation of his former remarks, referred to by some gentlemen. Mr. CARSON replied to some of the remarks of his colleague, Mr. SHEPARD. Mr.WICKLIFFE moved that the committee rise, and report the bill, with the view of refusing leave to sit again, and discussing the amendment in the House; but, The CHAIR pronounced the motion out of order. Mr. STORRS replied to some remarks of Mr. RAMSEY, in reference to his course on this bill; and, After some further explanation between Mr. SHEPARD and Mr. CARSON, The committee rose, on motion of Mr. ARCHER.

FRIDAY, APRIL 2, 1830.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution, proposing to set apart every other Thursday for such legislation as may be necessary for the District of Columbia.

After a good deal of debate, on the part of Messrs. SPEIGHT and P. P. BARBOUR, against the resolution, and Messrs. MALLARY, DAVIS, and INGERSOLL, in its favor, and an ineffectual attempt of Mr. BARBOUR to lay it on the table, the resolution was adopted—yeas, 86, nays, 75—so modified as to commence next Thursday.

SATURDAY, APRIL 3, 1830. PENSIONS.

The House took up the following resolution, reported by Mr. BATES, from the Committee on Military Pensions.

“Resolved, That the Committee on Military Pensions be instructed, agreeably to the President's recommendation in his message of sixth of December last, to revise the pension law, for the purpose of extending its benefits to every soldier who aided in establishing our liberties, and who is unable to maintain himself in comfort, and to report

we have heard the remark of a celebrated British orator,

to the House a bill for that purpose. And, also, that said

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

committee be further instructed, agreeably to said recommendation, to report a bill for the relief of all those who were, during the last war, disabled from supporting themselves by manual labor.” Mr. BATES said, the applications for pensions are numerous, which do not come within the range of the provi. sions of the pension laws, and for which provision ought to be made, if made at all, by a general law, and not by special acts. In order to take the judgment of the House upon the propriety of passing such general law, the committee thought it best to present the question in the form of a resolution, that it might be stript of the embarrassments and refuges which the details of a bill create; and he su posed it would be expected of him in a few words to call the attention of the House to its import and general bearing. The resolution [he said] embodies precisely the recommendation of the President in his message at the opening of the present session of Congress, no more, no less. It involves two propositions, the one relating to the soldiers of the revolution, the other to the invalids of the last war. The first proposition is to extend the benefits of the existing law to “every soldier of the revolution who aided in achieving our liberties, and who is unable to maintain himself in comfort.” To extend the existing pension law— the aet of 1828, so far as it relates to the officers, was founded on eompact; and, so far as respects the soldiers, it gives pensions only to those who served to the close of the war, &c., without any reference to their ability or inability to support themselves; and has, therefore, no application to the subject in hand. The law of 1818 gives a pension to those of the continental establishment, who, at one period of the war, or, in the language of the act, “at any period of the war, served for the term of nine months or longer,” and who were in such circumstances as to need, &c. Under the construction which has been given to this act, those whose enlistment was for a shorter term than nine months, whatever might have been their term of service, are excluded, and those, also, who enlisted for nine months, and by captivity were prevented from serving in the army. For these two classes provision has been made by the bill that has gone to the Senate; and which, by great grace and favor, has reached the honor of a second reading, upon a call of yeas and nays, by a vote of nineteen to seventeen. Mr. B. said he congratulated the House upon this occasion. It might grow to be of some importance in this Government, for the bill of the last Congress did not arrive even to that honor. Do what you will to these old soldiers, but hear them. And if they are not to be heard, let this House be heard in their behalf, at least with the usual forms of respect and attention. The resolution, therefore, only covers, beyond the cases of those who, under different enlistments, served nine months, or, under one or more enlistments, a shorter term than nine months. There was another class of troops, now known as State troops, eleven regiments, or rather battalions, for they consisted of but five hundred men each, who are also provided for by the bill now in the Senate, leaving those only to be embraced by the resolution, who served tor a shorter time than nine months, or nine months at different times. The third class consists of the militia and volunteers, who, at all times, were useful, and, on many occasions, saw very hard service. - The proposition, then, is to give relief to all the soldiers of the revolution, whether continental, State, militia, or volunteer. who are unable to maintain themselves in comfort, as a national memorial, and testimonial of our gratitude and justice, of their merit and worth, and of the glorious results of their services—a full pension to those who served nine months, and a pro rata pension to those who served less. This, however, to be fixed in the details of the bill as may be thought proper. The second proposition is to give a pension to those" who were during the last war disabled from supporting them

selves by manual labor?” Those who were disabled by known wounds are now provided for, leaving only those for the resolution to act upon who were disabled by other means, such as hardships, exposures, &c. &c. Thus far for the import of the resolution. As to its bearing upon the treasury, if it should be consummated into a law, the committee, aware that they would be called upon to state the number of soldiers it would embrace, addressed through the House a resolution to the head of the department who has the administration of this subject, and all the means of information in relation to it, accessible or known to the committee, which he asked the Clerk to read, with the Secretary's answer to it. “Mr. BATEs, from the Committee on Military Pensions, reported the following resolution, which was adopted: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to report to this House the probable number of surviving revolutionary officers and soldiers (not provided for by the existing pension law) who aided in establishing the liberties of the United States, and who are unable to maintain themselves in comfort; designating, as nearly as may be, Buch as belonged to the continental establishment, and such as were regular troops of the line of the army, but not of the continental establishment, and known as State troops; as, also, such as belonged to the militia of the States, severally, whether as volunteers or otherwise, and what additional appropriations will be necessary to meet the views of the President in this respect, as disclosed in his message at the opening of the present session of Congress; and, further, to report the probable number of those who were, during the late war, disabled from supporting themselves § manual labor, and who are not provided for by existing aW. WAR DEPARTMEMT, 19th January, 1830. The resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 14th January instant, relative to the number of surviving revolutionary officers, &c. cannot be fully, and satisfactorily answered by any information on file in this department. The enclosed communication from the principal clerk of the Pension Bureau, is a reply, to the extent that the records of the War Department will permit. Very respectfully, J. H. EATON. ANDREw STEveNson, Esq. Speaker of the House of Representatives.

WAR DEPARTMENT,
Pension Office, January 15, 1830.

SIR : In relation to the resolution of the House of Representatives. of the 14th instant, respecting the surviving officers and soldiers of the revolutionary war, I have to inform you that the archives of this department furnish no data upon which an estimate could be made, as to the probable number of those who belonged to the State regiments, volunteers, and militia, during the revolutionary war. Of such troops we have no rolls, except the three State regiments of Virginia. Of the number of Virginia • State troops, now living, I can form nothing like an accurate calculation: possibly a hundred may still survive, and perhaps three-fourths of them might ask for assistance, if a law should pass embracing their cases. If all who served

on the continental establishment are comprehended in the

resolution, it would embrace men who served for six and eight months. What portion of these are now alive, and in needy circumstances, I am unable to determine, but four hundred would, I think, be a large estimate. I have no means of ascertaining what number of persons were disabled during the last war, who are incapable of maintaining themselves by manual labor, and who are not provided for by law. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. L. EDWARDS. Hon. John H. Eaton, Secretary of War.”

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Mr. B. said he called for the reading of these papers rather for the purpose of showing what is not attainable than what is obtained. In as much as this measure was recommended by the President the committee thought it due to him to di upon the appropriate department of his cabinet for such facts and information as might be useful in justifying and sustaining it. But, from the condition of the records of the army, and the nature of the case, it is impossible to form a satisfactory opinion upon the subject. He would not, therefore, venture to give one. The fact can only be ascertained now, as it was in 1818 and 1828, by experiment. Of one fact, however, and the only one material, we are assured, and that is the ability of the trea. sury to meet the demand which the resolution may create upon it. The House ought not to forget that time has thinned the ranks of these men, and abridged the life of all of them by twelve years since the act of 1818. The amount of the immediate demand will be much less than is expected, he thought, and it will be a gradually and ra. pidly decreasing demand. These men will soon cease to trouble you. The last of them will soon be gone. The measure must, therefore, rest, for its basis, upon the re commendation of the President, who doubtless considered it well before he recommended it to Congress, and upon the great and obvious and universally admitted justice and propriety of the measure.

He congratulated the soldiers of the revolution that the President had pledged the authority of his name, and staked to the nation his influence with Congress in their behalf. It was an act worthy of a President of the United States. It ought never to be heard in a country like ours, that these men are left to suffer from want, or even to feel that they have been rigorously and harshly dealt by, and he hoped to hear no more of paying the national debt until this, the most ancient, just, and sacred, is first met and cancelled. Sir, [said he] there never was a race of men so trifled with as these men have been, whose feelings and honor were held in such cheap account. In 1818, you gave them a pension. In 1820, as soon as they adjusted themselves to their new condition of comfort, you took it away. By the same act, and that of 1823, you readmitted a portion of them to the pension roll, but upon this condition—a sworn confession of absolute pauperism, nay, you required proof of it upon inspection and valuation. You searched their tents as if they had been felons, not to ascertain where they get their plunder, but what they had, and what they had done with what they had not. given his children for the rearing, and for the cradle his wife had given to his daughter upon her marriage. You charged him with the money he had paid for services filial piety had rendered, unless he could show an antecedent contract which no parent ordinarily would have thought of proposing, and no son, unless a bastard or an outcast, of making. In 1828–29, no sooner had a new rule been adopted more just, more liberal, and in my view more to: to the act of 1818 than the old one was, and the hopes of these men, which had become dead, been revived, and their crutches put in motion—for they had no time to lose—no sooner had they set out upon their pilgrimage to the court-houses, to get their papers, than the rule was reversed—the Government had changed its mind —“as you were,” was the order from the War Department. Of course, all their expense and trouble were incurred for nothing. I repeat, sir, there never were men so trifled with. Age, infirmity, poverty, and suffering have been sported with, not by the boys of Bethel, but by Congress. Here, sir—less here than elsewhere. Fair speeches will answer no longer. They have answered long enough. Let the question be settled, once and forever. Let the claims of these men be admitted and satis fied, or rejected; for, in reference to this subject, hope

You made him account for the twin lambs he had

at least the quiet of despair. I say again, that I congratulate them that the President has interposed in their behalf. It is proof that he knows what is due to them, and what is due to ourselves, to our own character and honor; and I call upon the House to sanction the measure he has recommended.

so the hour elapsed for the consideration of resolutions.

Monday, APRIL 5, 1830.

The SPEAKER presented a memorial of James H. Peck, Judge of the United States' district court for the district of Missouri, in relation to the report of the Committee on the Judiciary, made to the House on the 23d ultimo, on the memorial of Luke E. Lawless, in which report it is proposed that he (the said judge) be impeached for high misdemeanors in office, praying the House to receive from him a written exposition of the whole case, embracing both the facts and the law, and that he may have process to call his witnesses from the State of Missouri, in support of his statement, before any discussion or vote oe taken on the evidence as it is now presented with the report of the committee—or, if that cannot be granted, he prays the House “to vote the impeachment at once, without any discussion on that partial evidence which presents a garbled view of the subject, greatly to the prejudice of the memorialist, and that he may have as speedy an opportunity as the nature of the case will allow, to exhibit before the tribunal of the Senate, and before his country, the entire transaction in all its parts, as it really occurred.”

The report having been read by the Clerk,

Mr. STORRS, of New York, moved to commit it to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, to which is committed the report of the Judiciary Committee relative to Judge Peck.

On this motion a debate ensued, which continued till between two and three o'clock, embracing in its range the propriety of granting the prayer of the petitioner, the

ropriety of the course pursued by the committee in their

investigation of the subject, the history of other cases of impeachment in our country and in Great Britain, and, somewhat, the merits of the present case. Messrs. STORRS, of New York, CLAY, BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL, SUTHERLAND, WICKLIFFE, PETTIS, BELL, SPENCER, of New York, EVERETT, STRONG, COULTER, and CRAIG, of Virginia, took part in the debate, which was at length terminated, by a successful motion of Mr. DAVIS, of South Carolina, to lay the memorial on the table, and print it.

[The following are the only speeches the publishers have been able to obtain:

Mr. CLAY said, that when he withdrew his motion to lay this memorial on the table, and, print it, he had had no idea that such a discussion would have taken place as had since arisen. Nor could he perceive the propriety of the debate under such a motion as had been made by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Stonas] to refer it to the

had greatly misunderstood the memorial of Judge Peck,
if it reflected in the slightest degree on the Judiciary
Committee; and he was persuaded that those gentlemen
who had represented that paper as so doing, had entirely
misunderstood its tenor and purpose. All that the Judge
had done in his petition was, to present a simple statement
of facts, and to ask that he might be heard before he was
impeached. He had uttered no reflection whatever, either
on the Judiciary Committee or its chairman; and why it
had roused so much feeling in the House, he was utterly at
a loss to understand. He might be mistaken, but to him it
seemed that the whole discussion was out of order. The

given up is preferable to hope deferred. Let them have

question at this time was not whether the Judge should be

Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. He

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

heard at the bar of the House, or whether additional testimony should be received. Neither of these questions was at all involved in a motion to refer the memorias to the Commit. tee of the Whole on the state of the Union; yet the whole discussion seemed to have gone on the supposition that such was the question, and gentlemen had argued it on the ground of precedent. As to precedents, there was no uniformity in them on this subject. One high case had been referred to, that of Warren Hastings, and also that of Judge Chase. But the practice in the several States differed from that which had been pursued by the General Government. In his own State, (and he hoped he should not be considered as presumptuous in referring to the practice of a State which had so recently been admitted to the Union) the course pursued in cases of impeachment was different: and he thought there were many inducements for the House to pursue the practice there adopted. He could not unite in the opinion that the House should proceed precisely as did a grand jury in ordinary cases of indict. ment. The present case was totally different. A great officer had been accused of a great offence. Did gentlemen suppose, could they think, that, when a high officer of the government was accused by a private individual, he must, on the mere ex parte testimony of that accuser, be at once impeached Mr. C. said he should hesitate much, before he could subscribe to such an opinion. He thought the House ought to proceed with very great caution. Merely to accuse, was not all that was necessary in order to have a judge impeached. Some gentlemen seemed to conceive that the memorial of this petitioner asked that witnesses might be examined at the bar of that House; but it made no such request directly. It only asked this as one alternative—that his witnesses might be heard here, if not elsewhere. Mr. C. inquired why it would not be proper to appoint commissioners to take testimony in Missouri or elsewhere. Where would be the inconvenience of such a course Where would be the impropriety of issuing commissions to individuals of respectability, to take #". on the spot where the offence had occurred This could be done, although that House was not the tribunal before which the accused was to be tried. It had very truly been stated, that the ground of this impeachment had occurred some four or five years before. The case had at that time been referred to the Judiciary Committee of the House, who, after looking at it, requested to be discharged from its further consideration. The same extraordinary prosecution had been attempted the second time, but with no better success. And was it not natural for the accused, when a grand jury had thus twice made a return of ignoramus, to suppose that he was exempt from any further molestation on the same ground Surely it was; and Judge Peck had concluded, when, in a second instance, a competent committee of that House had had his case before them, and made no report upon it, that he was exempt from further trouble. While these facts were not denied, and gentlemen looked at the length of time which had since elapsed, they must allow that it behoved them, as candid and honorable men, to act in the case with caution and deliberation. Were gentlemen prepared to decide on the proposition of the Judge, without fully consulting the precedents. It had been to allow time for such an examination, that he had made the motion to lay the memorial on the table, and rint it; find he must be permitted to say, that a discussion

#. the present would, in his judgment, have been more proper after such a delay, than it was at present.

He now renewed the motion, but once more withdrew it at the request of Mr. STORRS.

Mr. BUCHANAN said, that, whilst he was influenced by no personal feeling in this case, he thought it was his duty to make one or two explanations in relation to some matters contained in the memorial which had just been read.

Vol. WI-93.

[ocr errors]

Judge Peek, in that memorial, suggests that the Committee on the Judiciary sent for such witnesses only as had been selected by Mr. Lawless. That is far from being the fact. The committee acted upon higher principles. They were sensible of the high responsibility which they owed, both to this House and to the country, for the correctness of their proceedings; and had, therefore, inquired and ascertained, from the best sources in their power, the names of such witnesses as would be most likely to give an impartial and intelligent statement of the transaction. . They had sent for and examined seveh witnesses; and he owed it to them to say, that, although he had long been in the habit of examining witnesses in courts of justice, he had never observed, on any occasion, more eandor or more impartiality than these seven gentlemen had exhibited upon their examination before the committee. It is true, as the memorial suggests, that, in the case of Warren Hastings, the House of Commons did hear the accused, and did permit him to produce testimony, before they voted an impeachment against him. But this was only a single instance. That course might have been adopted, because Mr. Burke, merely as an individual member of the House, had risen in his place, and moved the impeachment. Whether he was correct in this conjecture or not, it was certain there had been no case of an impeachment by this House, in which so much indulgence was granted, as had been allowed to the accused upon the present occasion. He was permitted to furnish the committee with a written explanation of his conduct, and his request that he might cross-examine the witnesses was promptly granted. The House will decide, when they come to review the testimony, whether he was improperly restricted in this cross-examination, or whether it has not been full and ample. He would say, that, in his opinion, this crossexamination had rather injured than benefited the Judge. Mr. B. said, that, for his own part, he had never considered the parol testimony in this case of much importance. The opinion of the court, the commentary of Mr. Lawless upon it, which was the alleged contempt, and the record of the court imprisoning and suspending him from , practice, were all in writing, and were the facts on which the committee mainly relied in forming their opinion. In that opinion they were unanimous. They felt deep regret, when they found themselves obliged to come to the conclusion which they had done; and it was with great reluctance they had recommended an impeachment to the House. In making, their report, they had purposely expressed a mere naked opinion . unaccompanied by any argument in its support. They did not wish to bias the decision of the House by any commentary of theirs upon the testimony. All they desired was, that each member should read the testimony for himself, and draw his own conclusions from it. Mr. INGERSOLL said, there might perhaps be some difficulty in arriving at the correct practice to be pursued in this case; and as possibly the practice hitherto had not been uniform, it was the more important that the House should start right. He confessed that this was, in a great measure, a new case to him. The only one that he had ever before witnessed was that in which charges, through a newspaper of this district, had been brought against the Vice President about three years ago. That officer had presented these charges to the House, as the grand inquest of the natiou, and requested an inquiry. A committee had been appointed to investigate them; and, before that committee, a friend of the Vice President had been permitted to appear, and represent him throughout the whole investigation. Witnesses, also, had been examined on the part of the accused. How it had been in the case of Judge Chase, or of Judge Pickering, from New Hampshire, he did not recollect ; but he well recollected that witnesses, in favor of the Vice President, had been examined, as well as against him, and that his representative had

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

been allowed to be present before the committee through every stage of that examination. The committee at that time took some pains to ascertain what was the proper mode of proceeding, and they became satisfied that the party accused had, in these preliminary proceedings, a right to be thus heard. The constitution providing for the impeachment of all civil officers, makes no difference between judicial and other officers. Nor can it make any difference whether the matter is brought before us by the individual who feels himself injured y an unjust charge, or whether it comes on the petition of a citizen, or by the message of the Executive, or by a member rising in his seat, as was done in the case of Warren Hastings. The rules which must govern the inquiry must be uniform, be the officer who he may, and no matter in what form the subject is first brought to our notice. Mr. I said, he would not, in this early stage of the business, commit himself to any course, till he could look further into parliamentary proceedings in similar cases; he rose principally to correct what had been said by the gentleman from New York, who, he thought, went too far in saying that there had been no instance in which the party accused was permitted to examine his witnesses in the preliminary proceedings in this House. Mr. PETTIS said: Standing indifferently, as he protested he did, between the accuser and the accused in this case, he hoped he might be permitted to make some remarks on this subject. The House of Representatives had now to perform a very important duty—important, as had been observed, not only to the judge who had been accused, but to the country. The practice in cases of impeachments, so far as regards the proceedings in this House, was now to be settled; for it was obvious that it had not yet been settled by }. Gentlemen had, indeed, spoken of the case of udge Chase; but that case had no application to the present one as it now stands. Judge Chase did not ask to make his defence before this House, nor did he ask either to cross-examine witnesses on the part of the Government, or to have an examination of his own witnesses. As the present 3. was not then raised, that case can form no precedent to govern in this instance. Mr. P. regretted the course pursued by the gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee, especially that of its honor. able chairman, [Mr. BuchanaN.] . That gentleman had repeatedly told the House that he had no feeling towards the accused. Mr. P. said he hoped his remarks would not show a freedom from feeling in the way that those of that gentleman had done. . The honorable chairman had, in a very unnecessary, and he would o improper manner, entered into the merits of the case. He had told the House that in order to save the Judge, his request should be refused him; and he had said that the Judge had made his case worse instead of better by his cross-examination of the witnesses. . The gentleman from New York [Mr. Stokes] had taken the same view; both intimating that they were desirous to save the Judge from himself. What was it the Judge asked in his memorial First, that he might be permitted to defend himself before this House, and then to: his witnesses might be examined at our bar; but, if this be not granted, that his case might be sent back to the committee, and that there he might present his defence, and there have his witnesses examined. Mr. P. said he considered the request of the memorial perfectly fair and proper; and if the motion to lay it on the table and print it should prevail, he should then move a series of resolu. tions, presenting in a distinct manner the several requests of the memorialists that the House might act expressly upon them. As to the first, it was certainly important that the House should know the principles on which the case rested. The Judiciary Committee had, it was true, made a report; but they had not laid down one of those principles in it. Now, he put it to gentlemen, whether they were

prepared to act in the case until these principles were ex: amined and known. Were there any gentlemen present who had fully examined the law bearing on this case He presumed not. We were then called upon to act in the dark, upon faith. He had not himself had time to examine the principles involved, nor had he made up any definitive judgment on the case. He thought the Judge ought to be permitted to show whatever bore on his side of the ques: tion, and the committee should then exhibit whatever had an opposite bearing. This might be done should the House refuse to hear his witnesses. He was of the opinion that his witnesses should be examined by the committee. . Mr. P. said, this was not the ordinary trial of a criminal before a court of law, but was a proceeding of a much higher character. Why is it that a defendant's witnesses are not permitted to be examined before a grand jury It is because criminals shall not know what is doing against them, and then make their escape. But even in criminal cases counter, testimony is frequently allowed. . . -- If the House should bear what the Judge had to exhibit in his defence, we should be prepared to act intelligibly, The gentleman from New York [Mr. StoRRs] had o this, on the ground that it would be worse for the Judge; that if this examination was had, and an impeachment preferred, the Senate would be bound, by the #. of public opinion, to convict. That gentleman would surely let the party judge for himself. If he judged wrong, he must abide the consequences. It appeared to him a very strange doctrine, that, after a full examination here, and an impeachment found, the Senate would be bound to convict. In the case of the Vice President, and in the case of Mr. Crawford, witnesses were examined on both sides. Both these gentlemen were charged with high misdemeanors, and the charges had been preferred in times of great political excitement. The request of the Judge is opo. by the whole train of English decisions in cases of a like kind; and he hoped that the indulgence would be granted him. Mr. STRONG said, that from the little examination he had been able to give to this subject, he had come to the conclusion that the present proceedings should be strictly ex parte, rigidly so. It had been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. EveRETT] that the committee had departed somewhat from this line. It was true that they had deviated from it in a slight degree, but the departure was not such as to warrant the House in taking the other step which was now requested. There was a very material difference between hearing the party accused and hearing his witnesses. The members of the House were not judges to try or to condemn the accused, It was true that the matters in this testimony might not be such as to mix themselves up with party politics; but suppose that it were proposed to impeach a political man of high standing, and that the witnesses were brought to the bar of the House, he put it to every man to say whether the safety of the country did not require that, in such cases, politics should be thoroughly . from that tribunal. And how could this be done, but by keeping the proceedings strictly ex {... Complaints had been made that the committee had not reported articles of impeachment; the case had been referred to them for no such purpose; their duty had been simply to ascertain facts. The House did not want even their opinions; it wanted the facts only, and on one side. What the House had to decide, was whether the testimony did, or did not contain matter to warrant an impeachment. If it did, then the House would say the party should be impeached, and the next step would be to appoint a committee to frame the articles. These would be reported to the House, and, if they were agreed upon, then managers would be appointed to conduct the trial before the Senate. It struck him that the safest course would be to keep the proceedings as near er varte as possible. Let the report and the memorial go to

[merged small][ocr errors]
« 上一頁繼續 »