Sen. & H. of R.] Suppression of Piracy—The Speaker's Appeal to the House. [FEB. 4, 1825.

The question having been, at his instance, divided, was first taken on the clause ending with the word "prescribe," and was negatived; and then he withdrew the remainder of the motion.

Mr. SMITH then moved the adoption of the following section:

And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to purchase a Steam Boat, of the largest size, and arm and man the same in such manner as he may deem proper; and, also, to cause to be built, four barges or launches, each to mount a gun on the bow, of a calibre to carry a shot not less than six | pounds, and capable of carrying thirty men.

This amendment was advocated by Messrs. SMITH, and JOHNSTON, of Louisiana, and was opposed by Messrs. LLOYD, of Mass., and CHANDLER.

The section was amended, on the motion of Mr. LLOYD, of Massachusetts, by inserting the words "should the President deem it useful or expedient," (the purchase of the Steam Boat,) and, on motion of Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, by striking out the words "of the largest class."

The question being then put on the section, as amended, it was rejected, without a division.

Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, renewed the motion which he had unsuccessfully made, in committee of the whole, to insert the following, as the third section of the bill:

And be it further enacted, That no public armed vessel of the United States, authorized and employed for the suppression of piracy, shall be engaged or employed in the transportation of specie, or any other articles of freight, unless specially designated therefor by the President of the United States.

The question was taken on this amendment, without further debate, and was decided by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Barton, Bell, Branch, Brown, Chandler, Clayton, Cobb, Dickerson, Findlay, Gaillard, Holmes, of Maine, King, of N. Y. Lloyd, of Md. M'Lean, Macon, Noble, Ruggles, Talbot, Tazewell, Thomas, Van Buren, Van Dyke, Williams-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Benton, D'Wolf, Eaton,
Edwards, Elliot, Hayne, Jackson, Johnston, of Lou.,
King, of Alab. Knight, Lanman, Lloyd, of Mass. Lowrie,
M'Ilvaine, Mills, Palmer, Parrott, Seymour, Smith,
Taylor-21.

So the amendment was agreed to; and then,
The Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-SAME DAY.
THE SPEAKER'S APPEAL TO THE HOUSE.
On motion of Mr. CONDICT, of New Jersey, the
House then resumed the consideration of the motion of
Mr. FORSYTH, to refer the communication of the
Speaker, to a Select Committee.

justified in raising a committee in such a case as this? The act to which our attention is directed, ought to have these characteristics: It ought to be official in relation to the member whose conduct is impeached: it ought, also, to be something which can be proved if true or disproved if not true. Mr. A. asked of gentlemen to look at the paper which was the foundation of this application, and say whether it came under either of these classes. What is it? The writer of it speaks of rumors afloat here. Does he charge upon the Speaker any act of malfaisance in relation to his duties here? No; he speaks of the course expected to be taken by a large number of members-of an imputation on the whole delegation from a particular part of the country: and, when he speaks of the Speaker, what does he say? Does he charge him with corruption-with any thing which, if proven, ought to produce investigation-with any thing susceptible of proof or of disproof? I suspect, sir, that the gentlemen who are disposed to pursue this inquiry, have not adverted to the paper in question. The only part of the letter which conveys an imputation upon the Speaker, is not even matter of surprise upon the part of the writer of that letter: he speaks of it as a report-as something said and whispered in this place. Suppose this charge were true, said Mr A. which I take this occasion to say that I would be one of the last in this House or in this country to credit-suppose that it were true to the full extent of the charge, or the insinuation derived from it, what can this committee, do if raised? It must, whether the charge be true or not, make a report exculpatory of the Speaker. Shall we raise a committee, then, when we know there can be but one response to the inquiry, no matter what the facts may be? To do so will be to constitute an inquiry which can lead to no useful result. If the things alleged or insinuated be true-if the Speaker be guilty of all the corruption which scurrility has charged upon him, it must be a matter within his own breast, the truth of which no testimony can establish. If the allegations be true, you cannot convict the Speaker of the imputed offence. Any inquiry of ours into it, therefore, will be a farce and a mockery. I will not lend myself to such an inquiry.

What, said Mr. A. does the charge, contained in this letter, in its worst form, say? Does it say that the Speaker has betrayed his duty? No: but that it is surmised that he means to do so. If it shall appear, in the sequel, that that officer has violated his duty, then there will be ground for inquiry. But, at present, suppose it were true, that the Speaker had thrown away the high character he has always maintained in the country and in this House-that he was the venal thing the publication in question would represent him to be, and that he did contemplate this shameful violation of his duty to his country-would he even in that case be punishable here? Would we pass upon him any other sentence than that Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, said, that being himself of ineffable contempt for his corruption and folly? No, opposed to an inquiry by a committee, and no other gen- sir, said Mr. A. I say that we must wait for some act tleman stating any objections to it, he rose to state the which will perpetrate the corruption, by consummating grounds of his opposition. No one could be more will- the purpose. In that event, circumstances will demand ing than he was to take any measure to vindicate the an inquiry on our part. Some act will have been com. dignity of this House, or to respond to the just claim of mitted against his official duty-some act which is issuany member for the vindication of his official character.able, and can be proved or disproved. It seems to me, But, he said, he did not consider that the Honorable sir, that this House will commit its own dignity, and Speaker was put in this predicament. What were the cast a reproach upon the Speaker himself, which I know circumstances in which inquiries of this kind may, with would be unfounded, by referring this subject to a compropriety, be maintained by this House? Ought we mittee. I hope, therefore, that this House will not grant (said he,) to lend the grave sanction of our names- the inquiry which is asked. ought we to operate, in a formal manner, by committees of inquiry, when nothing is presented to us to act upon but mere vague general newspaper invective? I ask if it consist with the dignity of this House, or with the claim of the Speaker as a faithful officer and a gentle man, to institute this inquiry? I conceive not. What, sir, are the circumstances under which we should be

Mr. WOOD, of New York, said, that he rose simply to explain the vote he was about to give. He accorded. in opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. ARCHER,) that the circumstances of this case were not such as to call for any investigation by the House. The statements in the printed publication amounted to little else than vague rumor. They did not charge upon

the Speaker any act directly criminal. As to the power of this House, he observed that the present appeal was made to it in its judicial character. The House was sometimes erected, by the constitution, into a Court of justice, before which charges were preferred, and evidence taken, which sometimes resulted in the impeachment of a public officer, as was exemplified yesterday, when the Delegate from Florida rose in his place, and made statements charging a judge with mal-practice in his office. In such cases, the House possessed an inquisitorial power, which it becomes its duty to exert, The only other case in which the House acted in a judicial capacity, was, when it punishred an individual for a contempt. What were the objects of this latter power? The first was to protect the personal liberty of its members. The second was to prevent them from being overawed in exercising the privilege of free debate"; and the third was to vindicate their official purity. The power of punishing contempts extends no farther than this. If the present subject was tested by this rule, it would be found not to be embraced by either of the branches of that power which he had just enumerated. Should the committee be raised, and should it act, its acting must be wholly inoperative, because the inquiry was not supported by the subject-matter. To have any effect, the matter to be inquired into must have terminated in some act either vindicatory or punishable. In the present case, there existed no such act, and therefore the inquiry must be useless.

Mr. FORSYTH, of Georgia, observed, that, having made the motion which was now the subject of debate, he wished to say a few words in explanation of its nature and object, in doing which, he premised that the gentlemen who had addressed the House this morning were rather in advance of this question. A communication had been made by the Speaker to the House, requesting the appointment of a committee for the purpose of investigating certain charges, which had been brought against him by a member of this House. The present motion is simply for the purpose of referring this communication to a committee. When it got there, he took it for granted that the preliminary inquiry would be, Are the charges to which this communication refers of such a nature as to require the interposition of the House of Representatives? If the committee shall think they are not, they will report accordingly, and the House will either confirm or reject their decision. If the House should confirm it, the committee will then apply to the House for further authority to act in the affair. This appeared to him to be the only rational mode of treating this very unpleasant business. The House was in possession of nothing in relation to it but the communication of the Speaker. The letter, indeed, to which it referred, and which was said to have been written by a member of this House, might be found in certain newspapers, but the House had no evidence that that which was published was a true copy of the letter. It might have been altered or interpolated by the printer. The letter, as published, must be considered either as preferring a deliberate charge of corrupt conduct against a member or members of this House, or as admitting of some explanation which should go to do away such a meaning. The meniber to whom the letter was attributed, if called upon, will, no doubt, answer at once, and frankly declare what he meant. He will say whether he intended to charge upon the presiding officer of this House the making of a corrupt bargain. If he shall answer in the affirmative, will any gentleman, asked Mr. F. say that this is not an act into which the House ought to inquire, nor one which the House can punish? It was true that there was one difficulty attending the accusation. It charged the accused, not with an act, but only with an intention. The act has not been consummated. The vote has not been given. But I ask, If the charge is a true one, has not the bargain been made?

VOL. I.-30.

[H. of R.

And, if it has, is not this corruption?--And what then? It ought to be punished. Has not the House power, not merely to reprimand, but to expel, any one of its members who shall have dared to be guilty of such conduct? If, on the contrary, it shall appear that any member of this House, governed by mere rumors, and under the influence of jealousy or mere surmises, shall have presumed to hold up, as an infamous bargainer, as a contractor for votes and influence, a member or an officer of this House, will it be contended that we have no power to punish him? Certainly we have the power to repri mand, and if that is considered as insufficient, we have the power to expel him, as unworthy of a seat in this House. If this is denied, what is a member to do, who is publicly charged with an offence of this nature, or where is he to go? This is the proper and the only place where his reputation can be vindicated. This House, alone, is competent to examine into the charge. Is the accused to appeal to the newspapers? For what? to prove a negative? Such, unhappily, in this country, is the condition of the press, (that palladium of political liberty,) that no man can appeal to it, without a sense of dishonor. He cannot come forward, there, and say, I join issue in this charge, without exposing himself to derision by entering into a competition with newspapers which utter falsehood and truth according to the object in view. He was ashamed to state it to the House, but the fact was so, that, pending any great election, such was the prostitution of the public press, that there was no knowing what to believe; and it was sufficient to pronounce any charge, however gravely made, an elec. tioneering trick, to stamp it instantly with the seal of falsehood. That press, which had been so long the boast of liberty, was, in this country, no longer a protector of innocence; and it had long since ceased to be the scourge even of the guilty, save as it served to excite the sting of a guilty conscience.

In this state of things, Mr. F. again asked, what was an accused or a calumniated member of this House to do? He must throw himself on the judgment of his peers, that, if falsely accused, the guilt of the calumny may revert on its author. As to the power of the House, there could be no doubt; and as to the propriety of appointing a committee, he had himself no question. It is said, indeed, that this charge relates only to intention; the crime has not been consummated, and cannot be until a corrupt act has been performed. But I pray the House to consider a case which I will now present to them. Suppose there is a claimant who has a claim pending before this House for a large sum of money, and he knows that a certain member, from his ability, from his unblemished reputation for integrity, from his long acquaintance with the rules of business, and from general knowledge of the persons of the members, is possessed of great influence over their minds; and that claimant offers this member a bribe, which the member accepts, and circumstances afterwards transpire to bring the transaction to light, between the time of giving the bribe, and the time of deciding on the claim; will any gentleman tell me that we may not punish such a transaction? Will any gentleman tell me that we must wait till the crime is consummated-till the vote is given? Surely not. We may punish, at once, both him who offered, and him who accepted the base coin. The charge, in this case, is, that a member of this House in tends to give his influence, and vote, in favor of a certain candidate for the Presidency, and, on that consideration, is to receive a place of profit and honor. Is there any distinction between the two cases? Is not this bribery, to all intents and purposes? If the charge is made, the charge ought to be investigated. If the charge is true, the member charged ought to be expelled from this House. And, if it is not true, the slanderer ought to be punished. I have, therefore, moved to refer the Speak er's communication to a committee. If they think it

worthy of investigation, they will ask for the requisite authority to send for persons and papers.

[FEB. 4, 1825.

The writer of the letter, sir, commences by stating his object, in writing, to be, to give information" of one of the most disgraceful transactions that ever covered with infamy the republican ranks." A transaction so base, that it laid the axe at the very root of the tree of liberty. He proceeds "to give a brief account of such a bargain, as can only be equalled by the famous Burr conspiracy of 1801," and then goes on to state,

1st, That," for some time past, the friends of Mr. Clay had hinted, that they, like the Swiss, would fight for those who would pay hest.

2d, That overtures were said to have been made by the friends of Adams, of the Department of State, to Mr. Clay, for his aid to elect Mr. Adams.

there is, in the publication, a direct charge against the presiding officer of this House, of having entered into a Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, regretted, exceedingly, corrupt bargain, in relation to his vote, and that of his the existence of such a case as now occupied the atten- friends, on a question pending, devolved upon us by the tion of the House; but, since it did exist, he thought the constitution, of the highest and most important characcourse to be pursued was a very plain one. He thoughter that can devolve upon us, and which is soon to be the House could not hesitate to grant the inquiry which decided. If I do this, sir, it will be idle to say, we can had been asked. He recollected that last year a similar take no measures to investigate such a charge, until the request had been made, by an officer of Government, intended corrupt act is consummated; because the ques and the House did appoint a committee of investigation. tian is hastening on, and we should free ourselves from He was sorry that he had not heard all that fell from his the effect of the corrupt bargain, and not suffer it to honorable colleague, (Mr. ARCHER,) for whom he enter-pollute our legislative Hall, and be carried into the electained very great respect; but whose argument, as he tion, where it is intended to operate, before we can had so imperfectly heard it, he would not attempt to an- move. When it has produced its effect, it will be of no swer. He only hoped that the House would, in this case, use to take any step in relation to it. act consistent with itself. He considered every member of the House as being, in some sort, the property of the nation. A member rises in his place, and informs us that charges have been made against him, which go deeply to implicate his character. Surely, the smallest boon we can grant is an inquiry The respectability of the source whence these charges have proceeded, entitles them to consideration. They are preferred by a member of this House, in all respects on a footing with ourselves; and if they are investigated, it may turn out, both that the charges are false, and that the member who brought them forward, acted innocently in so doing. Mr. GAZLAY, of Ohio, said he should not now determine as to the right or duty of the House generally to institute a committee of inquiry of a personal nature. A case might be presumed, he imagined, which would call for such a course, but he much doubted whether it could, in relation to the object, and under the circumstances with which this was brought forward. The time was one of general and national excitement. A great 4th, That Jackson's friends did not believe that the national question was up and about to be determined— contract_ would be ratified by the members from the the election of a President. At this moment, when we states who had voted for Clay; but that it was the writowe to ourselves, when the nation has a right to demander's opinion from the first, "that men possessing any of us, a cool, unmixed, and undivided attention to this honorable principles, could not, nor would not, be transobject, he thought it highly improper, he might say, dan-ferred like the planter does his negroes, or the farmer, gerous, to commingle with it extraneous and personal inquiries; inquiries which must inflame, but could give no lights or balance to the mind; inquiries which might well increase our prejudices, but could certainly remove none. He thought it our duty to put down and to keep back subjects of this character. It was personal, and not national; it would have more the appearance of per-cretary of State." secution than of inquiry. He thought it inconsistent with the character of the nation, as well as that of the House, to permit the inquiry, at this moment. He felt that higher considerations than personal ones should induce us to postpone the question; during which he did not believe that the character of the gentleman would be at all impaired in the public estimation, by the postponement, and certainly not as much as that of the nation might by the inquiry. He was convinced that no good, public or private, could result from the inquiry.ment of duty to his constituents, if the unholy coalition He would, therefore, move to lay the motion on the table.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Ohio, said he was not certain that he understood the gentleman who opposed the proposition to raise a committee in the case under consideration; but if he did, the opposition rests on the hypothe sis that the letter alluded to, and avowed on the floor, by a member of the House, contained no charge of any of fence, or of any specific act done, which, if found true, would lead to any ulterior measure, in relation to the accused, or, if found false, to any like measure, in relation to the accuser-that there is no specific charge here, of any act done, but all rested on common rumor, of acts not yet consummated-still resting in intention, which could not properly be investigated, until ripened into act.

Sir, I have no objection to consider the matter in this point of view, and to meet gentlemen on their own ground. I will undertake to show to the House, that

Sd, That the friends of Clay informed the friends of Jackson of the overture, and hinted, that, for the some offer from Jackson's friends, they would close with them, but none of the friends of Jackson would descend to such mean barter and sale.

his team and horses." But, he says, contrary to this expectation, it is now ascertained, to a certainty, that Henry Clay has transferred his interest to John Quincy Adams, and, in consideration of this abandonment of duty to his constituents, it is said and believed, should this unholy coalition prevail, Clay is to be appointed Se

The charges contained in this letter, against Mr. Clay's friends, among whom I am proud to acknowledge myself, I shall not now notice, as I consider those charges only incidentally before you; but the charge against him is clear and explicit—one that I think no man can mistake, as positive in its character as any one could wish. It is, "that it was ascertained to a certainty that H. Clay had, by mean bargain and sale, transferred his interest to Adams, and, in consideration of that abandonsucceeds, Mr. Clay is to be appointed Secretary of State." Is this no charge imputing conduct to the Speaker, in his representative character, calling for the interposition of the power of this House, or in any way affecting its dignity? Perhaps no language is so suitable to give a character to the charge as that of the letter writer himself. I will present you his own character and opinion of the charge nearly in his own words. He characterises the contract imputed, as predicated on an abandonment of duty, (by Mr. Clay,) to his constituents: as an unholy coulition: as a mean barter and sale, of the character of a transfer, by a master of his negroes, or by a planter of his team and horses: as equalled only by the famous Burr conspiracy of 1801: as the most disgraceful transaction that ever covered with infamy the republican ranks: so base as to lay the axe at the very root of the tree of liber ty: a transaction no men possessing any honorable principle would submit to. Surely, no gentleman will say that

such a charge, so characterized by the writer, and avowed on this floor by a member, with a pledge to prove it true, could be regarded as imputing no turpitude or crime, which, if true, would not lead to ulterior measures; it is too clear to admit of doubt. But, it is said, the interest spoken of, means only Mr. Clay's own exertions. Sir, this is not the understanding of the member who penned the charge: He says, Jackson's friends did not believe the contract would be ratified by the members from the states who voted for Clay, and that it was his opinion that men possessing any honorable principle could not, nor would not, be transferred, like the planter does his negroes, or the farmer his team and horses; and that, in consideration of the transfer, Mr. Clay was to be appointed Secretary of State." Who are here said to be transferred? Mr. Clay's friends in the House. Who made the transfer, and was to receive the consideration? Mr. Clay. The presiding officer of this House is directly and positively charged, by a member in his place, with entering into a corrupt contract, by which, for the consideration of an office, dependent on success, he stipulates to transfer his own vote, and those of the members from the states who had voted for Mr. Clay for the Presidency, to one of the three candidates presented to us to choose a President from: or, if it be not a positive charge, I have no conception what idea the gentleman attaches to a positive charge. We are told, sir, with this charge before us, that no offence is imputed-that all rests on rumors-nothing affecting, in the slightest degree, the dignity of the House!—your presiding officer corruptly selling his own vote, and that of his fellow-members, is no offence to the dignity of the House!-that no ulterior measures can grow out of such a charge, it true; and that it is beneath our dignity to notice such vague rumors! Sir, will you go to the election of a Chief Magistrate while corruption fills your Hall, and seeks to find its way into your ballot boxes? No, sir, let us go to that work with pure hands, and drive these corrupt bargainers from our presence. Let us investigate these charges; and, if they are found true, I have no hesitation in saying, your Speaker is unworthy the station he fills, or a seat on this floor; and I, for one, | will vote for his expulsion, as I would any member, who would falsely make such a charge. We ought not to stop until the deed be done, and then seek to punish; but should proceed now, in time to prevent the mischief, and satisfy the nation that, when we go into the elec. tion, we are free from the imputation of corrupt influ

ence.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to trespass on the time of the House, but felt myself impelled to make the re

[H. of R.

Notwithstanding the ingenious exposition of the honorable member from Ohio, Mr. M‘D. said it was perfectly clear, and any one who dispassionately perused the letter, would come to the same conclusion, that no charge was made in it against any portion of this House. The writer speaks in general terms of a combination, a coalition, an unholy coalition; but, said Mr. M'D. when you come to have the historical, or narrative part of the letter, you find it is nothing more than that it is "reported," and "believed," that such things are, as are recited. For a long time, he says, the charges were not believed, but that now they are believed. The existence of suck combinations, &c. is stated, but as a mere matter of belief. By whose agency does he say these combinations are supposed to have been produced? Is it by that of the Speaker of this House? Let any one put his finger on the passage in the letter which says that the Speaker has made, or accepted, any proposition leading to corruption. It is his friends who are said to have thrown out hints, &c. If the letter contains any charge, it is not against the Speaker. but against his friends. His friends, where? He has friends out of this House, and in this House. It does not appear that even any member of this House is included in the allusions of the letter. The charge, then, is one which is founded on ru mors, vague and indefinite-a charge against individuals not named.

But, sir, I have a much stronger objection to this proposition, than any which results from the particular inquiry into the nature and character of the charge. I go on higher ground, and I deny that we can prosecute this investigation, with a view to an act by which alone it can be consummated, without violating the highest privileges of the people of the United States. We have been told of the danger of the liberty of the press, and the dangers to which the liberties of the country will be exposed by indulging it. These, sir, are the arguments by which, in all countries, that essential palladium of liberty has been assailed. This is not a new subject in this country. This is not a new inquiry, though in a new form. There was a time, some twenty or thirty years ago, of great public excitement, when the people of this country were rising up against. an administration which was not acceptable to them, and this subject, regarding the powers of the Government, underwent deliberation by Congress. and an act on the subject was adopted. The question, whether this Government has a right to protect itself against investigation, by enforcing (not the common law of England, but) the common law of England with important modifications, to punish those wo libel the Government, was determined in Congress by the passage of an act, which act was nothing more or Mr. M'DUFFIE, of South Carolina, next rose. He less than the famous sedition law. On what argument was sorry, he said, to be obliged to trespass on the atwas that law founded? On this: that the Government tention of the House on this most unpleasant business. could not protect itself by the common law of England. But, if we adopt the course suggested, said he, we must But what was the proposition embraced by that act? inflict on the character of this House an injury much Was it an act to authorize any branch of the Governgreater than it has yet sustained. Before we adopt any ment to punish by its own act a libel upon it? measure-before we determine the legitimate extent of that the proposition? Was it a law to authorize a perour power, we must ascertain that there is some lawful son in office to become his own avenger? No: it was act which we may do as the result and consequence of a provision that, if the Congress, or any officer of this that investigation. Sir, this House is not a mere collec- Government, was libelled, the party injured might apply tion of individuals, who are to constitute themselves into to the judicial tribunals, and call upon a jury of the a corps of compurgators. Whether a charge preferred country for redress. It was there that the investigation against a member be true or false, it is not for this House was to be prosecuted, and, if the charge was false, it to organize itself into a tribunal, to try its truth or false was there to be punished. What said the country to hood, unless it has a right to do some act founded on the that law? The people rose indignant against it-the truth or falsehood of that charge. In the case now be- law was repealed-and no man now rises to do honor to fore us, what are we to do? In what is this inquiry to the name or memory of it. No man rises to vindicate end? If we had any legitimate object in view, either to that law. And what are we about to do? We are not expel the Speaker, or the member who has made the only to punish a libel alleged to have been uttered against charge, we might be justified in this proceeding. But a member of this House, but we are about to punish it let us meet the question as it stands, and inquire whe-in a form characteristic of tyranny. We are about to ther, upon the actual state of facts, this House has the prepare the law, judge the facts, and inflict the punishpower to expel the Speaker or the member. ment, by the same act. We are called upon to punish a

marks I have.

Was

publication in relation to an ordinary act of this House, on a matter deeply interesting to the public. We are called upon to punish it by our own will, and under an excitement which every one naturally feels when an attack is made upon him.

[FEB. 4, 1825.

ished, it is for a contempt. And, without pressing the argument, that a publication in a newspaper cannot be a contempt-without going into the argument, that that which cannot be a libel, cannot be the basis of a motion to expel a member for contempt-I could show, that, In this country, the law of libel-for that is really the according to the practice of the English Parliament, the question now to be discussed--has received very im-case now before us never could be made out to be a case portant modifications, mitigating it to a degree very far of contempt of this House. Mr. M'D. asked for a precebelow the standard of other countries, even of the freest dent to show that a charge made against any member, country next to the United States. The English law of was a contempt of the House. The charge, to be a conlibel is not that of the United States. What is the modi-tempt, must be, according to all precedent, a charge fication of it in this country, not by statutory enactment, against the House, or against some organized committee but by the mere force of judicial decisions in conformity of the House. That was the rule in the British Parliato the genius of the government? By the law of libel ment. If one makes a charge against either House, the in England, a man may be punished although he tells English Parliament, being supreme, which I trust we the truth. What is your law? That charges against a are not, has the power to punish for contempt, but not public officer, in relation to his public conduc', shall not in the case of a charge against any individual member. be the subject of prosecution for libel at all; that the In every view of the subject, he thought the House public is so deeply interested in the investigation of its ought to pause in its course. concerns, and in the exposure of faults or vices in its agents, that this power of punishing for libels shall be taken from their hands altogether. That was the principle upon which the sedition law was repealed-not because a man ought not to be punished for a libel, but because the power of punishment was so liable to abuse, that the government had better throw itself upon the intelligence and magnanimity of the country, than exercise such a power.

But, the House had been told that, in this case, a precedent was to be found in the investigation which took place at the last session. Not so, Mr. McD. said. The investigation in that case was not founded on newspaper publications, but upon a memorial addressed to the House, calling upon it to institute it. How, said he, have we got this matter before us? How did it come here? Who brought it? A publication appeared in a remote newspaper. Suppose it had been by the Editor What then, sir, are we about to do? The thing con- of the paper, would we call him here, and punish him? demned by public opinion--and to do it in a form more That is not pretended. Is a member of this House deexceptionable than any ever contemplated by the old prived, by his election to this station, of the common sedition law. Let us ask ourselves, what are the pur-right of a citizen? No. If that letter merely had apposes to which a power of this description may be appeared before the public, we should not have gone into plied at a future time. What does this letter, which is this inquiry. How did that letter get here? The memthe ground of our proceeding, relate to? The election ber who brought it here issued, in a public print, the of President of the United States How is that election following Card: [Here Mr. McD. read the whole of the to be made? What remains to be done for its comple-card, till it came to the passage where it says, " and if tion? The work, which commenced with the people, he (the author of the Philadelphia letter) dare unveil is to be consummated here. Where are we? In the midst himself, and avow his name, I will hold him responsible" of our constituents? No, sir, we are far removed from not, said Mr. McD. to an investigation before this the eye of those to whom we are responsible. Under House, but-"to all the laws which govern, and regulate what temptations do we act? Under temptations, by the conduct of, men of honor."] Now, sir, said Mr. M'D. which personal interest may induce us to act contrary to so far as this letter has been traced to a member of this the public will. We are not only to be excluded, possi- House, the avowal of it has been extorted-drawn out-bly, from the public eye, but we are to choak up the by this publication. If I were to go into the question of channels, through which, alone, the people can know a breach of privilege, on this occasion, I would say, here, what is going on here. Is it not more important that in this "Card" is a breach of privilege-a public chalpublic opinion should be enlightened by the general lenge is more a breach of privilege than the writing of dissemination of a knowledge of the acts of public that letter; and yet, after the name of the writer has agents, than that, even to redress a wrong, we should es- been thus extorted, this House is called upon to intertablish an engine, which may, hereafter, be liable to the fere in the matter. So far as a change has been made most pernicious abuse? There is no subject in regard in the character of this case from that of a mere newsto which rumors may not be circulated, and the ground paper publication, it has been done in a way which gives of our proceeding is nothing more than rumor. Suppose it no title to our countenance. The name of the writer the liberties of the country were really in danger. We has been extorted by this challenge, and all that follows had a scene here, four and twenty years ago, to which it partakes of this personal character. Both as regards the may be salutary to recur, with a view to estimate what individual concerned, the circumstances of the case, and may occur hereafter. How did the people ascertain the the high public principles involved in it, I think it most inmachinations of that day? How was the loud voice of re-expedient to adopt the resolution for appointing a comprobation made to sound through the country? By the mittee. I appeal to the good sense and good feeling of reports, the rumours, then in circulation. If you are the members of this House to say, if it were even proper forbidden, by a decision here, to disclose rumors, reports, to institute such an investigation, whether a more unforand speculations, on political topics, then the object of tunate period for it could be found, in the history of the the intriguer, the conspirator against the public interest, country, than this; and whether this House is to be disis accomplished. If you hold up the arm of terror against turbed and thrown into commotion, by the introduction every man who speculates on probabilities, or gives cur- of such a matter as this, on the eve of a Presidential Elecrency to rumors, you realize the dead silence of despo- tion, when the character of the House, and the honor of tism. When you lull the sentinel to sleep, the conspi- the country, more than ever, require tranquillity and rator may fearlessly walk abroad in the dark, and the propriety in the proceedings of the House. public eye cannot detect him. A precedent more dangerous has never been set in this government, than would be by the institution of this inquiry.

A few words, said Mr. M'D. as to the analogous powers, exercised in other countries, of punishment for contempt. If the member from Pennsylvania is to be pun

Mr. FORSYTH said he had not interrupted the gentleman from South Carolina, because he knew he should have an opportunity to explain, after he had concluded. The gentleman has, said Mr. F. very adroitly brought the old sedition law to bear upon me. But, sir, I did not say that the press was dangerous to liberty. Far