網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

749

APRIL 7, 1830. ]

Judge Peck.

[H. OF R.

my mind is not at this time fully made up. But that is not | I protest against reflecting upon the committee, as though the question before us. cide whether, after Judge Peck had declined to make truth, and nothing but the truth. We are now called upon to de- they had not been disposed to elicit the truth, the whole such a request in the committee, and after the committee have reported the testimony, and their opinion upon it, to tablished for future times. Let it be solemnly determined In conclusion, I say, let a suitable precedent now be esthe House, it is proper to allow him at this stage of the whether a judge, when accused, shall be at liberty to deproceeding to make his defence and examine his wit-mand that his whole cause shall be tried before the House nesses either before the same committee or before the of Representatives before an impeachment is resolved

House.

Our own precedents, it is said, differ from each other; but this is not the case, so far as they relate to proceedings against judges.

As to the case of the Vice President, he presented his own case before the House, and demanded an investigation. All cases are not necessarily subject to the same rule. One case may demand one course of proceeding, and another case require a different mode.

upon.

such a conclusion as will best secure the rights of the In deciding this question, I trust the House will come to people and the accused, both now and hereafter.

the gentleman from South Carolina brought the House to Mr. ELLSWORTH observed that the amendment of what he considered the real question, and it was one which involved a point of great interest, but not of much The remark which excited the ire of the gentleman from Whether we are to follow precedents already established difficulty, though gentlemen seemed not fully to agree. Missouri, was merely a response to an opinion expressed in the cases of Judges Chase and Pickering, or of William by the Judge in his memorial. I said that he had made Blount, Senator, or are to mark a new course to be folbis case rather worse than better, by his cross-examina-lowed hereafter, it is important that we act with caution. I am still of that opinion.

I believe the best course of proceeding in such cases, is that which the House have hitherto adopted. Give a committee charge of the complaint, and they will seek for disinterested witnesses from all sources within their power; they will inquire who is least excited? Who will be likely to give the most correct statement of facts? If they shall do this, and honestly aim at attaining the ends of public justice, without violating the rights of the accused, we shall have taken the most correct course. of referring this whole case to the Committee of the Whole I am in favor on the state of the Union. If that course shall be adopted, I shall not call up the report this day; but will endeavor to examine the precedents as well in England as in this country, and lay the result before the House.

to the public. If the House adopted the amendment, it tion, doing justice to the accuser and accused, as well as would be only on the idea that the Judge was to be impeached or not, according to the judgment of the House on the facts already in evidence. On those facts he should be glad to hear the commentary of the accused, who ought certainly to have an opportunity of saying in his own behalf whatever he had to say. But, if a contrary course should be adopted, and the House should reject the this inquiry, that the accused should have liberty to introamendment, he must conclude the House intended, upon duce such evidence as he pleased, and thus to put the matter into the hands of the accused. Mr. E. said he could not consent to such a course. This House has no constitutional As to the course pursued by the House of Representa pression complained of, and to inquire until we are satispower to try the accused. We are to inquire after the optives of Pennsylvania, in similar cases, which has been re-fied that an impeachment is necessary, but we can go no ferred to by my colleague, [Mr. SUTHERLAND] of hearing further; we cannot try the case. Is the accused to bring the defence of the accused, and examining his witnesses, before us such witnesses as he pleases, to take the defence before voting an impeachment, it has never met my ap- into his own hands, employ counsel, and try the charges probation. I think I have observed great inconvenience, fully and perfectly! This is not our business. We have if not great injustice, from that mode of proceeding. It no charges framed, nor can we have, until we decide to must necessarily prejudice the cause. The accused, instead go forward. From what has been said on this debate, of going before the Senate without prejudice, shielded by [said Mr. E.] he was convinced some gentlemen misapthe presumption, both of law and justice, that he is inno-prehended the nature of the duties of the committee on cent until he shall be proved to be guilty, will be arraign- which he served. ed at their bar, after having been convicted, upon a full

This House was the grand inquest of the nation. A

trial, by the deliberate judgment of the House. I repeat judge of the United States' court was here complained of the opinion, that the best mode of attaining justice, is to by a private citizen, for an alleged trespass upon his rights. entrust such complaints to a standing committee, selected The complaint had been presented to this House, who from all portions of the Union; and which, from its very had referred the case to one of its own committees. The constitution, must almost necessarily be impartial. The members of such a committee, acting under the responsibility which they owe to the House and to the country, and clothed with the power of sending for persons and papers, will ever be careful to draw their testimony from pure fountains. After having collected from impartial sources sufficient testimony to satisfy their consciences that the accused ought to be impeached, they will then report this testimony, with their opinion, to the House, as has been done upon the present occasion, and leave each member to judge of its effect for themselves. In this manner the rights of the accused will be best protected, and the interests of justice best subserved.

If Judge Peck had insinuated, when before the committee, that the parol testimony had presented an incorrect statement of the transaction, and had asked that other witnesses might be examined, I should have felt much inclined, I confess, to grant the request. But no such request was made or intimated. We might have called on the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PETTIS] to testify, and I am sorry Judge Peck did not make the suggestion. But

committee, in the discharge of their duty, had sent for all such witnesses as might enable thern best to elicit the truth of the case; but he could assure the House that the selection bad not been made ex parte. The committee bad endeavored to obtain all such testimony as would enable them to present the case fairly to the House. The question now was, whether they should say to the accused, we will hear you on the testimony already obtained, or whether they would go further, and suffer the accused to introduce new testimony.

of an ex parte nature. No doubt it was the duty of the Of the preliminary facts, he could say that they were not sary to arrive at the truth; but he denied the policy House to get all the information they might deem necesor the propriety of admitting an accused party to go before a committee into a thorough trial of his whole cause, with counsel to aid him, and then to call upon this House to say whether he was guilty or not. The committee had sent to Missouri for A and B, for C and D, including persons both for and against the accused. They might have procured other testimony, but they obtained

H. OF R.]

Judge Peck.

[APRIL 7, 1830

It is an assumption of judicial power, exercised to the injury of an individual, and done malo animo.

all that they thought necessary. It was now for the House to say whether the accused should have another hearing. English precedents in Parliament have been searched, and To sustain this resolution, the committee must be satiswith the exception of Warren Hastings, who was im- fied that Judge Peck had no power to imprison, and erase peached by Edmund Burke, rising in his place, the accus- from the roll of attorneys the name of Mr. Lawless, for the ed has never introduced evidence on the preliminary in causes which led him to do it; that the exercise of this quiry. If the amendment was adopted, he should under-power operated to the injury of Mr. Lawless; and that it stand the House as coming to the conclusion, that, as a was done with a corrupt motive. If either of these points grand jury, they were to get all the facts necessary to show is with the Judge, the resolution ought not to pass. If they whether there was or was not ground of impeachment. are all against him, it ought to be adopted. But they were not to bear Judge Peck, as if he were on I shall spend no time on the inquiry, whether Mr. Lawhis trial before them; the House was not the body appoint-less sustained an injury by reason of the proceedings instied to try him; and he hoped they would proceed on the ground that the accused was to confine his argument to such facts alone as this House might choose to investigate, and not to take the House into his own hands, as though he were to have a full trial on this floor.

Mr. HUNTINGTON addressed the Chair, in substance as follows:

I have read the evidence on which the resolution now under consideration is founded, with attention, not only because I am called to give my vote on that resolution, but because the subject of it is of deep interest to the parties immediately interested in it, and to the nation. If the Judge, whose official conduct is condemned, has so conducted as to require the constitutional interposition of this House, in the form of impeachment, we ought not to shrink from the duty imposed upon us, from a regard to his reputation, his future standing, or the severity of the punishment which will follow conviction. It is due, in such case, to the indignity offered to the country, to the disgrace brought upon the judicial office, to the honor and safety of the bar, that this House should seek to remove from a high and important station a judge who fills it so unworthily. But if he has committed no offence worthy such stripes-none embraced in the constitution from which we derive our authority to act-then it is due to him to give him our protection, to sustain his reputation, and to declare him innocent of that offence which would endanger the loss both of office and character.

tuted against him, for it is obvious that a suspension from practice for eighteen months, and the deprivation of his personal liberty for four hours, were both injurious to him. The right, on the part of the Judge, to do these acts, and the motives with which they were done, are the only topics to which I shall ask the attention of the committee.

As to the right. Was the conduct of Mr. Lawless such as to justify the court in treating it as a contempt, punishable by imprisonment and suspension from practice! It may be assumed as a correct, legal proposition, that any publication, the object and design of which is to corrupt the fountains of justice, by its tendency improperly to affect the due administration of it in causes which are depending in the courts of law or equity, is a contempt, authorizing a summary proceeding by process of attachment, punishable by fine and imprisonment, and, in case of an attorney, by suspension from practice. And it is immaterial whether the effect is attempted to be produced by the operation of the publication on the judge, the jurors, the witnesses, or the public. It is equally immaterial what the text is, which is made the basis of the publication; it may be the opinion of a judge in a cause previously decided, or it may be any thing else; nor is it necessary that the design of the writer should have been accomplished. The essence of the offence consists in the intent with which the publication is made, and its tendency improperly to affect the decision of causes undetermined. Such is the law of contempts, as it relates to the proceedings which have led to the resolution before us: and its application to these proceedings is now to be considered.

Notwithstanding the respectable source from which this resolution has emanated, and with no feelings but those which proceed from an anxious desire to judge righteous- Before, however, this is done, I deem it necessary to ly, (for all the parties more immediately interested are notice some remarks which have fallen from my friends strangers to me,) I cannot concur in the result to which the from Pennsylvania and New York, [Mr. BUCHANAN and Committee on the Judiciary have come, on this interesting Mr. STORRS] which, in my judgment, have no connexion subject: and I hope that, in submitting the reasons on which with the merits of the question under consideration, and my opinion is founded, I shall not be justly obnoxious to are calculated to produce impressions not justified by the the imputation of favoring judicial tyranny, the worst of acts of the Judge which are complained of. I will not all tyranny, because so difficult to detect, and so oppres-stop to examine whether these gentlemen, in the style and sive in its consequences. I am a member of the same profession with the individual who is said to have been oppressed, and I can surely wish no rule should be applied to my brethren in Missouri, which I should repudiate when sought to be applied to myself.

The resolution submitted to us is, that James H. Peck be impeached of high misdemeanors in office. It is somewhat difficult, if not impossible, to give a definition of the term misdemeanor, as used in the constitution, which will include every case embraced by that word. It does not mean, merely, an indictable offence at common law; for if a judge should come on to the bench in a state of intoxication, or, while there, should employ himself in playing games of chance, he ought, in either case, to be impeached. Nor does the term include incompetency to discharge the duties of the office, arising from physical or mental inability. The judge holds his office "during good behavior" but that phrase is the opposite of the causes for which he may be impeached-high crimes and misdemeanors." What constitutes a judicial misdemeanor, subjecting to impeachment, must depend upon the circumstances of each case as they exist. As applied to this case, I think it susceptible of a precise definition.

manner of debate in which they indulged, exhibited more feeling than properly belonged to the station which they occupy; for I am perfectly sure that neither of them was actuated by any other consideration than that high sense of duty which we all ought to feel; but I must say, topies have been introduced, which deserve, I will not say reprehensions, but a reply. My friend from New York told the committee, yesterday, that Judge Peck, in his written apology, had stated that, if he had erred in this matter, it was an error on the side of Government, and calculated to protect its interests.

[Here Mr. STORRS explained. The gentleman had misapprehended him. The Judge, in the paper which he had furnished, did show that he had erred on the side of the Government, and enumerated a number of cases where his decisions had the effect of saving the public land.]

Exactly as I understood him, [said Mr. H.] though not expressed in the same terms. Sir, the observation was calculated to impress the committee with the idea that the Judge wished us to recollect that if he had proceeded in an unlawful manner, he ought to be shielded, because he had done so in order to favor the Government. Sir, no such conclusion will follow an examination of that paper.

[ocr errors]

KH

APRIL 7, 1830.]

Judge Peck.

All that the Judge says is this: that, as very numerous claims were pending, which embraced the same principles as the case of Soulard, he felt it to be his duty to give that case a most thorough and close examination; and I say, that whoever reads that opinion, cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that it is both an elaborate production, and one written in good faith.

751 [H. OF R.

the most warm and animated, that his conduct was arbitraThe committee has been told, over and over, in a style ry, oppressive, unconstitutional-calculated to destroy the liberty of the press, and that this gross assumption of power was called forth by the exercise, on the part of Lawless, of his undeniable and unalienable right as a free citizen of this But we are told that the opinion of the Judge, except in cle, and let us calmly and coolly ask what did Mr. Lawless republic. Sir, let us descend a little from this lofty pinnaone particular, was extra-judicial. If this was intended to do? And was his act a contempt of court? He published afford an excuse for the criticism of Mr. Lawless, I differ an article signed "A Citizen" in one of the papers of St. most materially from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Louis, and which has been called "a respectful commen[Mr. BUCHANAN] and my friend from Virginia, [Mr. DoD-tary" on the Judge's opinion. Now, sir, there is no memDRIDGE] Neither do I agree with them in relation to these ber of this House, whose voice would be sooner or louder tobiter dicta. My poor reading has led me to conclude that raised against any attempt to suppress the legitimate freeit is not best to travel out of the record, and to express a dom of the press. I hope I shall not be charged with any legal opinion in a case not before the court. But may I desire to violate it. And I hope that our courts of justice not ask whether, in this opinion delivered by Judge Peck will never be held to be so sacred, that their adjudications in the case of Soulard, any man can see aught that looks may not be the subject of fair and temperate animadverlike an extra-judicial opinion. He first settled the case, sion. No man is above, or ought to be above it. The and he needed not to have gone any further; but he then moment you curtail the freedom of the press, you destroy proceeds as if he would say, if I have been wrong thus far liberty. there is another pant which makes equally against the claimants. That is all he has done. He gives different reasons for coming to the same result. They are reasons called for by the case, and such as it was not only proper, but his duty, to consider and discuss. The gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to lay stress on the fact that the Judge printed his opinion in a newspaper. If that remark was intended to have any effect, it must be this, that such a proceeding was derogatory to his judicial station. The gentleman says that when the Judge had given his opinion, there he ought to have stopped; but I ask, was there any thing improper in publishing his opinion? It is a proceed-ing, which, if not frequent, yet sometimes occurs.

When the bar requested this publication, ought the Judge to have told them that a compliance would be derogatory to the profession? But the gentleman adds that the Judge published this opinion in a political newspaper. Now, sir, I should be glad to know where he could have found any paper which was not political. If it was lawful for him to publish at all, I do not know where he must have gone to do it.

[Here Mr. BUCHANAN explained. As reference had several times been made to what he had said on that subject, he wished to remind the committee that he had said at the time that he knew the character of the paper only from the Judge himself; it had been designated by him as a "political newspaper."]

posed to the licentiousness of the press; I will take care But, sir, while I guard the freedom, I am as greatly opthat the object of such animadversions shall not be to bring down upon a court the vengeance of the public, and thus affect the great and vital interests of justice, and the peace and well being of society. The case has been treated as if this article, signed " A Citizen," was no more than a fair and honest commentary on the opinion published by the Judge. Sir, was this so? Were there not causes pending, of a similar kind with that which had been decided? It is admitted-it appears in evidence, there were other causes depending on Spanish concessions to be adjudged in that ject was. What was its motive? And what was likely to be court. Look then at this publication, and see what its obits effect on the causes pending? Sir, what does Mr. Lawless tell us? (No doubt he has a right to come here and spread his wrongs before this House, if he has suffered any-but he is the accuser-the witness in his own cause.) And what other witnesses have we? His two counsel. I do not deny that these gentlemen are competent witThat a party in interest or bis counsel are to be heard with nesses-but what does every man of common sense know? allowance for their natural bias. One of my friends has related to me a fact on this subject. A judge was some time since trying a cause, when some point occurred of evident truth, but to which there was no witness. One of the counsel in the cause offered himself as a witness to

But the honorable gentleman, I will not say in the co-prove the fact; but the judge suggested to him that it loring he gave to the testimony, but in his comments and would be better to let the cause go off, until a witness argument, inquired why Judge Peck solicited the name of could be obtained; because it did not seem becoming in the publisher. Did not the Judge know who he was? counsel, when a cause pinched, to offer himself to be Was not his name on the paper? Now, sir, if this was meant sworn. The lawyer, however, insisted. When the judge for any thing, it was to strengthen the idea that the Judge had selected his victim. But surely the gentleman knows that no attachment could issue to bring the party before the court, without an affidavit to found it upon. And though the Judge might see on the face of the paper that AB was the publisher, he could not issue a rule on such evidence-it must be of record. There was, then, nothing improper in taking steps to procure an affidavit.

said to him, "you are a competent witness, and I may not refuse to have you sworn, but, if you do testify, I shall instruct the jury not to believe one word you say." The judge may possibly have stretched the rule, but the counsel will never forget it. And in this case I do not say the witnesses are not competent, but I say they are parties in interest: and yet such are the principal witnesses in the But the gentleman asks, why call particularly on Law- Mr. Lawless in writing that article? It is said that it was case. Now, I ask, what could have been the motive of less, when all the bar and many other persons were pre- to put his clients upon their guard, and to prevent them sent? Why, sir, Lawless was not specially called. The from becoming the prey of speculators. Sir, this article Judge inquired if any one present knew who was the pub-itself develops his secret motive-it seems to me that I lisher of that paper, and Mr. Lawless volunteered an an- can read his heart as plainly in that transaction, as if it was swer to the question. Without that answer he could not laid open before my eyes. have proceeded an inch. After Mr. Lawless (and the fact motive could not have been that which is assigned by his Is it not demonstrable that his is creditable to him certainly) had verified the fact, then advocates here? If it had been, what could have been the attachment issued. But I have more to do with the easier than to have inserted an article in the paper, stating matter than the manner of the Judge. And I proceed to that the decision in the case of Soulard was not final; that inquire. Did Judge Peck assume an authority which he an appeal had been taken to the Supreme Court of the did not rightfully possessi United States; and that the cause was to be considered

H. OF R.]

Judge Peck.

[APRIL 7, 1830.

as still pending, and recommending to his clients to wait the | understood him, that we need not look with eagle eyes issue before they took any steps in relation to their claims. into the motives of the accused, seeing that we were only But, no he did not take this course, but inserted an ar- taking the preliminary steps towards a prosecution. Now, ticle virtually holding out to his clients this language: Do sir, my limited practice had led me to believe that in all not be affected by this opinion of Judge Peck-it is quite proceedings ex parte there was a peculiar necessity that the erroneous. And did he not know that it was to be this evidence should be full and satisfactory. And is it so that very Judge Peck who was to sit upon their causes to we must not look into the motives of the accused? If not, try them And would his clients be deterred from sell- then there is an end to all fairness. And what is the coning their land by this? Was it not the very strongest clusion? The accused must look out for himself. But reason why they should sell? No, sir. It is impossible surely the presumption of malice may be rebutted by cirhis motives could have been such as gentlemen suppose. cumstances; and I cannot conceive how the gentleman Charity believeth all things, and covereth a multitude of could have supposed that there was any other motive in this sins; but charity herself can have no room here. If this publication than a design to bring the court into contempt. was not his object, what was it? It was the object of that [Mr. STORRS here explained. What he had said was article to affect the adjudications in the other cases, either that the committee were not bound to look with eagle eyes in producing in the Judge an alarm, which might check for palliations of the offence, substantiated by testimony.] his progress, or, if he was not to be intimidated, then by Just as I understood him, [said Mr. H.] and I enter my pre-occupying the minds of those who were to become entire dissent from the doctrine. I am a perfect non-bejurors and witnesses. This was the obvious tendency of liever in it. The question we have to settle is, whether the publication. It was a direct appeal from the court to the circumstances are such as to infer an honest or a malithe public, stating that the Judge had been guilty of errors, cious intent. If Judge Peck viewed this anonymous artiboth in law and in fact. Every citizen who read the article as more calculated to impress the public mind than if a cle and believed it, would say, this judge is not competent direct charge had been advanced of ignorance or corrupto his duty, and he should not be here. He has been tion, then I do not wonder that he came to the conclusion guilty of eighteen assumptions in one opinion, all of which that the intent of the writer was to embarrass the causes are erroneous. Sir, this was the only effect the article which might come into his court. I have looked at the could have, and it is fair to infer that this was the end for criticism of the Judge's opinion, and I say that every which it was written. Now, if it was, then the act falls within charge has been highly colored, and that in others there the principle which governed the laws of contempts. It has been a complete distortion of the Judge's meaning. I was intended to operate on cases still sub judice; whether ask every gentleman calmly to compare the article signed the author effected his purpose or not, is immaterial. The "A Citizen" with the opinion of Judge Peck, and to say design of his publication was a contempt. I have adverted whether it is not a perfect caricature of that opinion. And to this, not so much for the sake of stating my own opi- if the Judge entertained this opinion, then you find a monion in relation to it, as with a view to correct the errone-tive at once for his conduct. The article held him up to ous view which I think has been given by every gentleman an abused public as incompetent to the duties of his stawho has spoken in favor of the impeachment. I appeal tion; and if it did so, then I say that the Judge acted from to all who hear me to say whether the resolution has not a motive which is fair, and becoming in every man who been advocated in fact upon the sole ground that the ob- means to protect himself; and I say further, that a judge, ject of the publication of Mr. Lawless was fair and honest believing that one of the counsel in his court had been and commendable, and not designed to have any effect up-guilty of such an attempt to corrupt the fountains of juson the causes pending. Now, can a design be called ho- tice, and did not lay a heavy hand upon him, is not fit for nest and fair, which goes to corrupt the fountains of justice, his station; and as long as I shall continue a lawyer at the no matter how this is effected, whether through the judge bar, I am perfectly willing to subject myself to the same himself, or through the jurors and witnesses? To test rule. I do not wonder that the Judge's commentary on the truth of this idea, let us suppose that, instead of the this production occupied three hours. The subject had article signed "A Citizen," Mr. Lawless had written one been laboriously examined by him, and had been fully set in this form: "To all persons who may appear as jurors forth in his opinion; and I do not wonder that a circumstanor witnesses at the next term of the district court for the tial examination of it, and refutation of the falsehoods in district of Missouri, before the Hon. James H. Peck, Judge the article, should have taken him a considerable time. of the same: take notice, that, at the trial of Soulard's But, sir, we find a motive independent of this. In what heirs, the said Judge assumed eighteen points of fact and circumstances was the Judge placed when he made this of law, all of which were false." I ask, would any man have examination? He was surrounded by a number of gentledoubted whether this was designed and calculated to im-men, members of a profession honorable in itself, and as press the public mind in a manner unfavorable to the court? Sir, there is not a man who could read this notice, and compare it with the opinion of Judge Peck, that must not suppose, if he believed it true, that the Judge was either a very wicked man, or else a natural fool-that he was too ignorant or too corrupt, to hold his station. I now leave this part of the subject, and, after a word or two more, I shall have done. If it will not be thought by my friends from Pennsylvania and Virginia to be extra-judicial, I will go one step further. If I have been correct so far, nothing more need be said; but suppose I have been mistaken, there remains another view to which I must advert, at the hazard of being charged with an obiter dictum; and I ask whether, in the conduct of Judge Peck, there is reason to infer the absence of malice, whether we are obliged to suppose that he had any other motive than to uphold the honor and purity of the court. Sir, it is one of the most difficult things in the world to judge of men's intentions; and I could not but feel some surprise at a remark of my friend from New York, [Mr. STORES] who observed, if I

useful as it is respectable. Among them all he found no voice in favor of the Government; but every member of the St. Louis bar, excepting, perhaps, the attorney of the United States, was retained, either as attorney or counsel, for some of these claims. It is said that Mr. Lawless was personally interested in the case of Soulard; whether he and the other gentlemen were to share profits with the claimants, is not for me to say; but, in the State from which I come, a lawyer who would lend his professional services in a speculation of that kind would, if detected, be stricken from the rolls with disgrace. What morality may prevail to the westward on this subject, I know not; perhaps the practice there may be considered very honorable. All I shall say is, that I am very glad such notions have no place in my State. A judge thus surrounded had been publicly charged with not knowing the fact, or the law on which he was called to decide. Now, sir, I confess I do not know any thing more calculated to touch his reputation or wound his feelings. Perhaps a charge of corruption might have been a little worse, but I believe that most men would

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

[H. OF R.

An application was now made by the friend of the accused, that he might be permitted to make a communication to the House, orally or otherwise, as he might choose, in relation to the law and the facts of his case. He hoped the privilege would be accorded. He was not for fettering the Judge, and restricting and embarrassing him by too much regulation; or by the commitment of his friends in this House to this or that course. Let him be heard in the way he might himself prefer. Mr. B. denied that the House was to proceed in the character of a grand jury. He had much doubt on the propriety of receiving only ex parte evidence, in many cases, even before an ordinary grand jury; but the reasons for it there would not apply to this House. If the accused was desirous of being heard either on the law or on the facts, Mr. B. was for hearing him. He thought it due to him. He hoped the resolution would be adopted, in the confidence that Judge Peck knew what belonged to this House, and what became him as a judge and a gentleman.

[Mr. BURGES followed Mr. BATES, of Massachusetts, whose speech concluded the debate for this day.]

nearly as lief be charged with one as with the other. The
Judge did show a little feeling on the occasion-I think I
should have shown much more. He sat patiently, and
heard the charge fully argued. The accuser himself says
that he was permitted to discuss it so long as he wished,
and during this time there was nothing in the Judge's de-
meanor different from what it was at other times. Now
I ask what motive could the Judge have had to oppress this
man? Was it his interest to do so? Evidently not. Was
it any malicious resentment? Why, sir, Mr. Lawless him-
self says that he and the Judge had always been on good
terms. I therefore conclude that he acted on this occasion
in good faith, though it is possible that he mistook his
powers. But it seems to me that the very circumstance
most insisted on as evidence of evil intent in the Judge, is
pregnant with evidence in his favor. It is said that he ex-
hibited passion in his manner, and that his language was
violent. Well, sir, I admit that he was somewhat indis-
creet; but I am yet to learn that warmth of manner is
evidence of corruption. Is the manner of a person who
designs to perpetrate oppression under the mask of judi-
cial power usually warm and passionate! No, sir! he comes
coolly to his task of hypocrisy; he expresses great regret at
the task imposed on him. He begins by degrees, looks
earnest upon the assembly and compassionately upon the
culprit, speaks of the enormity of his offence, regrets
extremely that he should have been guilty of it, asks him
if he is ready to apologize, and then proceeds to the blow
for which all this preparation was made, and strikes his
victim from the roll. Is that the deportment of the Judge?
We find him warm and animated, over-excited, perhaps
rash in his language; but does not this betray an honest
conviction that he would be faithless to his duty if he did
not punish a flagrant outrage on the administration of jus-
tice ! When attempting to ascertain the motive of the
Judge, ought we not to remember that he offered the of
fender the opportunity of purging himself by oath, which
was refused; and my friend from New York thought it as-trict of Columbia.
touishing that any one should consider this refusal as an
aggravation of the contempt.

[Here Mr. SPENCER explained. He said that when interrogatories were offered they were never limited, and the accused could not know what would be the nature of them.]

Sir, this circumstance furnishes my mind with a presumption in favor of the Judge. The interrogatories necessary for the accused to purge himself from intentional contempt, were few and simple. The question was put to the printer, whether Lawless said that he did not intend anything like contempt towards the court, but afterwards we hear nothing more of this. If the object of the Judge had been the gratification of revenge, we should have heard of no interrogatories. I will not say that the Judge was authorized in doing all that he did, but I insist that the offer of interrogatories was no addition to his guilt.

I feel very thankful for the attention with which the committee have indulged me. I felt that the case was a very important one; and as very distinguished friends held an opinion with respect to it the reverse of my own, I considered it to be my duty briefly to state the reasons for my own opinion, and for the vote which I shall give against the impeachment.

On motion of Mr. HEMPHILL, the House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. HAYNES in the chair, on THE BUFFALO AND NEW ORLEANS ROAD BILL.

Mr. MERCER rose and entered at large in defence of the policy and expediency of the measure, and in reply to the gentlemen who had opposed it. He spoke about two hours, when he gave way for the purpose, and the committe rose.

THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1830.

CRIMES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The House then, on motion of Mr. POWERS, went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. BUCHANAN in the chair, and took up the bill for the punishment of crimes in the Dis

A good deal of discussion took place on the details of this bill, and on motions to modify them, in which Messrs. POWERS, WICKLIFFE, SEMMES, SPENCER, of New York, STORRS, of New York, BURGES, WHITTLESEY, BOULDIN, P. P. BARBOUR, WASHINGTON, DRAYTON, DODDRIDGE, TAYLOR, and VERPLANCK bore a part. The question which gave rise to most of the debate was on a motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE to insert the word "free" in the second section, so as to limit the penitentiary punishment for certain offences to free persons, and leave slaves to be punished according to the laws of Maryland and Virginia, now in force in the respective divisions of the District. This question was ultimately decided in the affirmative: yeas, 58-nays, 54.

Mr. POWERS, chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, gave a general explanation of the views of the committee in reporting the bill, and showed the necessity of its immediate passage. He observed that the bill, in its essential features, was similar to one which had been prepared and reported several years since; that it was more simple, and the definition of offences had been chiefly left as they were at common law. The draught of the bill had been submitted to, and approved by, several distinguished members of the bar in this District, who best Mr. BATES, of Massachusetts, observed that this was understood the defects in the existing laws. The proposa high criminal proceeding against a high officer of Go-ed code was mild in its character, and conformable to the vernment. The accused ought to be treated with the utmost liberality. He need not speak of the effects of the present proceeding, either on the character of the accused party or upon the Government. Merely to allude to the expense and trouble incident to a trial at the bar of the Senate, and the necessary and consequent delay of business, would be sufficient to induce a proper degree of caution on the part of this House, in instituting this constitutional process.

VOL. VI-95.

improved and enlightened state of public opinion on the subject of criminal punishments.

After further general remarks, Mr. P. adverted particularly to the offences of gaming and duelling, punishments for which were provided in the bill; and dwelt somewhat at length on the enormous evils of gaming, as practised in this district, and which the corporate authorities had found themselves, after their best efforts, unable to suppress

« 上一頁繼續 »