MONDAY, December 7, 1795.
The following members appeared, and took their seats:
_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER, NICHOLAS GILMAN, JOHN S. SHERBURNE,
and JEREMIAH SMITH.
_From Massachusetts._--THEOPHILUS BRADBURY, HENRY DEARBORN, DWIGHT
FOSTER, NATHANIEL FREEMAN, Jr., BENJAMIN GOODHUE, GEORGE LEONARD, SAMUEL
LYMAN, WILLIAM LYMAN, JOHN READ, THEODORE SEDGWICK, GEORGE THATCHER,
JOSEPH B. VARNUM, and PELEG WADSWORTH.
_From Rhode Island._--BENJAMIN BOURNE, and FRANCIS MALBONE.
_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD,
ZEPHANIAH SWIFT, and URIAH TRACY.
_From Vermont._--ISRAEL SMITH.
_From New York._--THEODORUS BAILEY, WILLIAM COOPER, EZEKIEL GILBERT,
HENRY GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, JOHN E. VAN ALLEN,
PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN WILLIAMS.
_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, AARON KITCHELL, ISAAC SMITH, and
MARK THOMPSON.
_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BAIRD, ALBERT GALLATIN, DANIEL HEISTER, JOHN
WILKES KITTERA, SAMUEL MACLAY, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, SAMUEL
SITGREAVES, JOHN SWANWICK, and RICHARD THOMAS.
_From Delaware._--JOHN PATTEN.
_From Maryland._--GABRIEL CHRISTIE, GEORGE DENT, GABRIEL DUVALL, WILLIAM
HINDMAN, and WILLIAM VANS MURRAY.
_From Virginia._--SAMUEL J. CABELL, JOHN CLOPTON, ISAAC COLES, WILLIAM
B. GILES, GEORGE HANCOCK, CARTER B. HARRISON, JOHN HEATH, GEORGE
JACKSON, JAMES MADISON, ANDREW MOORE, JOSIAH PARKER, ROBERT RUTHERFORD,
and ABRAHAM VENABLE.
_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, NATHAN BRYAN, DEMPSEY BURGES,
JESSE FRANKLIN, WILLIAM B. GROVE, JAMES HOLLAND, MATTHEW LOCKE,
NATHANIEL MACON, and ABSALOM TATOM.
_From South Carolina._--SAMUEL EARLE, ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, and WILLIAM
SMITH.
_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN.
And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number being
present,
The House proceeded by ballot, to the choice of a SPEAKER; and, upon
examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was
found in favor of JONATHAN DAYTON, one of the Representatives for the
State of New Jersey. Whereupon,
The said JONATHAN DAYTON was conducted to the chair, from whence he made
his acknowledgments to the House, as follows:
GENTLEMEN: It is with real diffidence that I undertake the
execution of the duties which you have done me the honor to
assign to me.
In discharging them to the best of my abilities, I
anticipate, on your part, a liberal and indulgent temper
towards those decisions which may be required from the
Chair, and flatter myself that I shall experience, upon all
occasions, your co-operation and support.
The House proceeded, in the same manner, to the appointment of a Clerk;
and, upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole
House was found in favor of JOHN BECKLEY.
The oath to support the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed
by the act, entitled "An act to regulate the time and manner of
administering certain oaths," was then administered by ISAAC SMITH, one
of the Representatives from the State of New Jersey, to the SPEAKER, and
then by Mr. SPEAKER to all the members present.
The same oath, together with the oath of office prescribed by the said
recited act, were also administered by Mr. SPEAKER to the Clerk.
A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a
quorum of members of that body is assembled, and the VICE PRESIDENT
being absent, they have proceeded to the choice of a PRESIDENT _pro
tempore_, and that HENRY TAZEWELL has been duly elected.
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform that body
that a quorum of this House is assembled, and have elected JONATHAN
DAYTON their SPEAKER; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
message.
Another message from the Senate was received, informing this House that
they have appointed a committee on their part, to act jointly with such
committee as may be appointed by this House, to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communication he may think proper to
make to them.
_Ordered_, That Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be
appointed a committee on the part of this House, for the purpose
expressed in the message of the Senate.
Petitions from sundry persons, praying to be appointed to the offices of
Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper, were presented to the House and read:
Whereupon,
The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms,
Doorkeeper, and Assistant Doorkeeper; and, upon examining the ballots, a
majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of JOSEPH
WHEATON, as Sergeant-at-Arms, THOMAS CLAXTON, as Doorkeeper, and THOMAS
DUNN, as Assistant Doorkeeper.
_Ordered_, That the said JOSEPH WHEATON, THOMAS CLAXTON, and THOMAS
DUNN, do severally give their attendance accordingly.
Mr. MADISON, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is
assembled, and ready to receive any communication he may think proper to
make to them, reported that the committee had, according to order,
performed that service, and that the PRESIDENT signified to them that he
would make a communication to both Houses of Congress to-morrow, at 12
o'clock, in the Representatives' Chamber.
TUESDAY, December 8.
Several other members, to wit: from Maryland, SAMUEL SMITH; from
Virginia, RICHARD BRENT; and from Georgia, JOHN MILLEDGE, appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House; the oath
to support the Constitution of the United States being first
administered to them by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law.
_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this
House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from
the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to
both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the
said message.
The Clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned,
The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being
assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the
Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Speech to the two Houses.
[For a copy of this Speech, see the Proceedings of the Senate.]
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew, and the two Houses
separated.
_Ordered_, That the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both
Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.
WEDNESDAY, December 9.
JAMES HILLHOUSE, from Connecticut, appeared, produced his credentials,
was qualified, and took his seat.
_Address to the President._
The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES to both Houses of Congress, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair; when,
the Speech being read,
Mr. VANS MURRAY moved the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of the committee, that
a respectful Address ought to be presented by the House of
Representatives to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, in
answer to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, at the
commencement of this session, containing assurances that
this House will take into consideration the various and
important matters recommended to their attention:"
Mr. SEDGWICK seconded the motion.
Mr. PARKER offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. MACON.
The substance of this amendment was, to strike out all that part of the
resolution which goes before the word _assurances_; in place of which,
Mr. PARKER proposed to appoint a committee, who should personally wait
on the PRESIDENT, and assure him of the attention of the House, &c., and
concluding as above. Mr. P. had the highest respect for the PRESIDENT,
but he had always disapproved of this practice of making out Addresses
in answer to these Speeches, and of the House leaving their business to
go in a body to present them. Last session, the framing of this Address
had cost very long debates, and produced very great irritation. Some of
the most disagreeable things that happened during the session occurred
in these debates. He wished unanimity and the despatch of business, and
so, could not consent that any Address should be drawn up, as he
preferred ending the affair at once by sending a committee with a verbal
answer.
Mr. MURRAY replied, that the practice of drawing up such an Address was
coeval with the constitution. It was consistent with good sense; and he
did not see that any argument had been employed by the gentleman who
spoke last against it. It was true that the House might send a verbal
answer, and it was likewise true that the PRESIDENT might have sent them
his Speech by his Secretary, without coming near them at all. He had
come to Congress, and Mr. M. could perceive no impropriety in Congress
returning the compliment by waiting on him.
The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. PARKER. Eighteen
members rose in support of it: so it was lost. The committee then agreed
to the resolution as offered by Mr. MURRAY. They rose, and the Chairman
reported progress. The resolution was agreed to by the House. The next
question was, of how many members the select committee should consist
that were to be employed in framing a draft of the Address. The
different numbers of five and three were proposed. A division took place
on the former motion, when only thirty-one gentlemen rose in its favor.
The motion for a committee of three members to report an Address was of
course carried. Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, were
appointed.[61]
It was then moved that two Chaplains should be named, as usual; which
was agreed to.
THURSDAY, December 10.
FRANCIS PRESTON, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat.
FRIDAY, December 11.
Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, DANIEL BUCK; from New
Jersey, THOMAS HENDERSON; from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; and from
Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats.
MONDAY, December 14.
Two other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY, and from
Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, appeared, produced their credentials, and took
their seats.
_Address to the President._
Mr. MADISON, from the select committee appointed to draft an Address in
answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, made a report, which was read by
the Clerk.
Mr. GILES moved that the usual number of copies of the Address should be
printed for the use of the members.
TUESDAY, December 15.
_Address to the President._
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
MUHLENBERG in the chair, on the draft of an answer to the PRESIDENT's
Speech. The following sentence being under consideration:
"Contemplating that probably unequalled spectacle of
national happiness, which our country exhibits, to the
interesting summary which you, sir, have been pleased to
make, in justice to our own feelings, permit us to add the
benefits which are derived from your presiding in our
councils, resulting as well from the undiminished
confidence of your fellow-citizens, as from your zealous
and successful labors in their service."
Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "probably unequalled," and from
the word "councils," to the end. He owned that the United States owe
much to the PRESIDENT for his services on most occasions; but he had
sometimes erred as other men. He could not for his own part subscribe to
the expressions contained in the words which he had moved to strike out;
his confidence in the PRESIDENT was diminished in consequence of a late
transaction.
Mr. SHERBURNE called for a division of the question; that a question
should first be put upon the words "probably unequalled," and afterwards
upon striking out the latter part of the clause.
The question was accordingly put upon the words "probably unequalled,"
and they were struck out, 43 to 39.
Mr. MURRAY rose to make a few observations on the motion for striking
out from the word "councils." As a Representative from Maryland, he
said, he could not on this occasion be contented to give a silent vote.
The Legislature of that State had not long since declared, that their
confidence in the PRESIDENT remains undiminished; and though his single
sentiment might be deemed unimportant when viewed in connection with the
unanimous vote of his State, yet he was free to declare, that his
confidence in the Chief Magistrate had experienced no diminution. The
Legislature of Maryland, he observed, had foreseen that attempts would
be made, and saw that unjustifiable attempts were actually making to
diminish the confidence of the people in the PRESIDENT; they therefore
resolved to give the sanction of their unanimous vote to his character,
declaring that the PRESIDENT retained their confidence, and that he had
merited it. Though not bound by the opinion of the Legislature of that
State, he conceived it his duty not to give a silent vote on the present
occasion.
Mr. GILES had hoped that nothing would have been brought before the
House calculated to disturb the harmony that ought to subsist, by
involving the discussion of delicate points. He had as much zeal as any
man for the preservation of the PRESIDENT's fame and reputation; but he
could not go the length of the expressions in the clause objected to. He
could not agree to it in its present shape, because the assertion in it
does not correspond with the fact. After this remark, there could not,
he conceived, be any inconsistency in voting against the word and still
feeling a regard for the PRESIDENT. He hoped his fame and reputation
might never receive a stain, but pass unimpaired to posterity. He should
vote for striking out.
Mr. FREEMAN wished the motion might be so modified as to involve the
striking out of the word "undiminished" only. Though he for himself, he
observed, might say that his confidence in the PRESIDENT was
undiminished, he could not utter the same sentiment in behalf of the
people at large. In his opinion the confidence of a part (a very small
one perhaps) of the people was diminished; though that of a majority
might be unshaken.
Mr. HARPER said he had no difficulty in declaring, that his own
confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, but he could not go so far
as to pledge himself that that of all the people was so. He never, he
said, had been in the habit of worshiping the PRESIDENT. He considered
him as a man, not infallible, but as a wise, honest, and faithful public
servant, and he was prepared in all places and situations to declare
this opinion; but he was not ready to pronounce concerning the opinion
of the people of the United States. Some time hence they may become
unanimous in their confidence; but he could not say that it was not
diminished. He was ready to declare for himself but not for others. If
called upon to declare whether a majority, whether four-fifths of the
people retained their confidence in the PRESIDENT, he could declare it
as his opinion in the affirmative; but the clause as it stands includes
the whole, and he declared as it stood could not command his vote. He
concluded by expressing his intention, when it would be in order, to
introduce a modification of the clause, so as to express the
undiminished confidence of the House in the PRESIDENT.
Mr. PARKER, in coincidence with the wish of Mr. FREEMAN, agreed to
confine his motion to striking out the word "undiminished."
Mr. SEDGWICK doubted whether, after a division of the question, and a
question being taken on the first part, a modification of the second
part would be in order.
The Chairman declared it in order.
Mr. SEDGWICK viewed the present motion as even more objectionable than
the first; it went directly to a denial of undiminished confidence for
the PRESIDENT on the part of the House and the public. There was a time,
he said, when no man could have supposed that the period would have
arrived, that in the popular branch of the GOVERNMENT, the confidence of
the people and their Representatives in that man could have been
questioned.
Having been on the committee that framed the answer, and maturely
considered the subject in every part, he would mention some of the
observations that occurred to his mind particularly in favor of the part
now objected to. Lest in the course of them his sensibility on this
subject should betray him into some warmth of expression, he begged
leave to premise that he wished to wound the feelings of no man.
It was proper, he said, to inquire into facts on which the expression
now objected to was grounded. Is the confidence of the people in the
services, and patriotism, and wisdom of the Chief Magistrate diminished?
His experience led him to say no; then, in the existing circumstances,
is it not right for the Representatives to make the declaration to their
constituents and the world? To suppose the people, who, at the present
moment, enjoyed so many blessings under the PRESIDENT's administration,
could feel their confidence in him impaired, would suppose a baseness of
disposition unworthy of them and of the services he has rendered. Who
could review the glorious conduct of our Chief during the conflict of
the Revolution, his unwearied labors for the public good, his bravery,
moderation, and humanity; who could observe him in his happy retirement,
covered with glory, and accompanied by the blessings of his country;
then forsaking his retirement, putting at hazard the mighty mass of his
reputation, and be insensible of his services? Who could review the
critical situation in which he preserved our peace and prosperity during
a glorious administration of six years; who could review these things
and not have his heart filled with gratitude and esteem? He expressed
his belief, that, a late measure of the Executive was less the object of
the dislike of some, than affording the opportunity for the vent of
passions and feelings deep-rooted before.
As to the sense of the people of the PRESIDENT, he believed it
unaltered, as to his immediate constituents, he was sure it was; and if
so, it was the duty of the House to make the declaration to the world--a
duty the House owed to themselves and their constituents, and the more
binding from the nature of the Government the people had chosen.
Though the PRESIDENT had twice been called to the PRESIDENCY by the
unanimous and unsolicited voice of his fellow-citizens; though in
obedience to that voice he had made a sacrifice no other man would have
made; though the only reward he has received for his services has been
the approbation of his country, yet, nevertheless, licentious presses
had lately teemed with infamous and scandalous abuse of him. Is this, he
asked, consonant to the feelings of the House, and shall they not
attempt to counteract its effects in the only constitutional manner?
Shall they not declare their own and their constituents' confidence
undiminished in that officer of the Government?
He has told the Legislature that he wishes to co-operate, to preserve
unimpaired the blessings we enjoy. Does the House believe this? then is
it wrong to express their confidence?
He believed, he said, that the efforts made to destroy the character of
this first of men, instead of producing the mischief intended, would
effect the contrary; and he also expressed his belief that the tide of
his popularity at the present moment flowed with unusual strength.
It has been intimated, he observed, that sanctioning the vote of
confidence, contemplated in the clause of the Address under
consideration, would implicate an approbation of a late measure of the
Executive, and would preclude the possibility of a free opinion when
that measure might come under the consideration of the House. He
declared, upon his honor, that he had no intention that the vote now
contemplated should have that effect. He did not conceive, that the vote
of undiminished confidence, which he now pressed, involved an
approbation of all the measures of the Executive; it did not exclude the
idea of fallibility; for what man is infallible? It is only implied,
according to his conception, an approbation of the general tenor of the
conduct of the Executive. When the House express their confidence in a
public officer, they cannot mean that they believe him infallible, but
only that his character, grounded on his general conduct, receives their
approbation.
If, when the Chief Magistrate is attacked in the manner the PRESIDENT
has been attacked, he is left to be overwhelmed with unmerited abuse;
what man with talents to be useful, a reputation to be injured, or
feelings to be wounded--what man will hazard all to serve an ungrateful
country? It will render the station of Chief Magistrate sought only by
mercenaries. If confidence is denied to the Executive, it will only
create vacancies in the high offices of Government to be filled by those
harpies who prey upon the vitals of the State.
Another consideration, he said, should have an influence on this
occasion. The fame of the Chief Magistrate's character has filled the
whole world; the Americans are particularly distinguished as a people
for their uniform attachment towards him. If, at this time of day, they
indirectly declare their want of confidence in that man, they will
justify the malignant predictions which have been uttered against our
system of Government.
These considerations, he said, had weighed on his mind. If the motion
for striking out prevailed, he declared it would distress him beyond any
circumstance that had occurred to him during his public life, especially
at this period, and under the present circumstances of affairs. He
should consider the prevalence of this motion as tantamount to a
declaration, that the House and their constituents did not feel their
confidence in the PRESIDENT unimpaired.
Mr. LIVINGSTON lamented the situation which the drafted Address reduced
the House to; but he could not give his assent to it as it stood; he
should vote for striking out the word "undiminished," if a question on
it should be urged. He did not conceive himself called to a seat in the
House to express opinions, much less the opinions of others, but to make
laws. He felt so much the delicacy of the situation which the wording of
the Address had placed the House in, that he wished the dilemma of a
vote might be avoided. The gentleman last up also lamented the
situation, and justly observed, that striking out the word was
tantamount to a declaration that the confidence reposed in the
PRESIDENT was diminished. But he begged to remind him that it was the
framers of the Address, and he was one of them, that involved the House
in this disagreeable situation.
He declared himself so young in the parliamentary proceedings, as not
exactly to know how to avoid a question on the present motion. He
declared he was not prepared to say what the opinion of his constituents
concerning the PRESIDENT was. The confidence of many of them he knew was
shaken; that of others was increased.
He moved, if in order, that the committee should rise, and the Address
be recommitted.
This was carried, and Messrs. FREEMAN and BALDWIN added to the
committee.
Adjourned.
WEDNESDAY, December 16.
THOMAS CLAIBORNE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.
_Address to the President._
Mr. MADISON, from the committee to whom had been recommitted the draft
of the Address in answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, brought in a report.
The clause now added consisted of a modification of the clause objected
to yesterday. On motion, the House went into a Committee of the Whole,
Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair. The amendment was unanimously agreed to.
Mr. GILES then moved an amendment in the third line of the last
paragraph. It was thus: for "the several interesting subjects which you
recommended to our consideration will receive every degree of _it_,"
read of _attention_. The committee then rose, and the House agreed to
the report.
It was then moved and agreed to, that the SPEAKER, attended by the
House, do present the address, as amended, to the PRESIDENT, and that a
committee should be appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, to know where
and when he will be ready to receive the Address of the House.
The same gentlemen, viz: Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES,
who had been first appointed to draft the Address, were named for
waiting on the PRESIDENT.
The committee that had been appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT, returned
with notice that he would be ready to receive their Address, at his own
house to-morrow at 12 o'clock.
The House then adjourned.
THURSDAY, December 17.
WADE HAMPTON, from South Carolina, and JOHN HATHORN, from New York,
appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their
seats.
_Address to the President._
At twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER, attended by the House, waited upon the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and delivered to him the following
Address, in answer to his Speech to both Houses at the opening of the
session:
SIR: As the Representatives of the people of the United
States, we cannot but participate in the strongest
sensibility to every blessing which they enjoy, and
cheerfully join with you in profound gratitude to the
Author of all Good for the numerous and extraordinary
blessings which He has conferred on our favored country.
A final and formal termination of the distressing war which
has ravaged our North-western frontier, will be an event
which must afford satisfaction proportioned to the anxiety
with which it has long been sought; and in the adjustment
of the terms, we perceive the true policy of making them
satisfactory to the Indians as well as to the United
States, as the best basis of a durable tranquillity. The
disposition of such of the Southern tribes as had also
heretofore annoyed our frontier, is another prospect in our
situation so important to the interest and happiness of the
United States, that it is much to be lamented that any
clouds should be thrown over it, more especially by
excesses on the part of our own citizens.
While our population is advancing with a celerity which
exceeds the most sanguine calculations--while every part of
the United States displays indications of rapid and various
improvement--while we are in the enjoyment of protection
and security, by mild and wholesome laws, administered by
Governments founded on the genuine principles of rational
liberty, a secure foundation will be laid for accelerating,
maturing, and establishing the prosperity of our country,
if by treaty and amicable negotiation, all those causes of
external discord which heretofore menaced our tranquillity
shall be extinguished, on terms compatible with our
national rights and honor, with our constitution and great
commercial interests.
Among the various circumstances in our internal situation,
none can be viewed with more satisfaction and exultation,
than that the late scene of disorder and insurrection has
been completely restored to the enjoyment of order and
repose. Such a triumph of reason and of law is worthy of
the free Government under which it happened, and was justly
to be hoped from the enlightened and patriotic spirit which
pervades and actuates the people of the United States.
In contemplating that spectacle of national happiness which
our country exhibits, and of which you, sir, have been
pleased to make an interesting summary, permit us to
acknowledge and declare the very great share which your
zealous and faithful services have contributed to it, and
to express the affectionate attachment which we feel for
your character.
The several interesting subjects which you recommend to our
consideration, will receive every degree of attention which
is due to them. And whilst we feel the obligation of
temperance and mutual indulgence in all our discussions, we
trust and pray that the result to the happiness and welfare
of our country may correspond with the pure affection we
bear to it.
To the foregoing Address, the PRESIDENT was pleased to make the
following reply:
GENTLEMEN: Coming as you do from all parts of the United
States, I receive great satisfaction from the concurrence
of your testimony in the justness of the interesting
summary of our national happiness, which, as the result of
my inquiries, I presented to your view. The sentiments we
have mutually expressed of profound gratitude to the source
of these numerous blessings--the Author of all Good--are
pledges of our obligations to unite our sincere and zealous
endeavors, as the instruments of Divine Providence, to
preserve and perpetuate them.
Accept, gentlemen, my thanks for your declaration, that to
my agency you ascribe the enjoyment of a great share of
these benefits. So far as my services contribute to the
happiness of my country, the acknowledgment of my
fellow-citizens, and their affectionate attachment, will
ever prove an abundant reward. G. WASHINGTON.
TUESDAY, December 22.
NATHANIEL SMITH, from Connecticut, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat in the House.
THURSDAY, December 24.
CHRISTOPHER GREENUP, from Kentucky, appeared, was qualified, and took
his seat.
MONDAY, December 28.
ANDREW GREGG, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.
_Robert Randall--Case of Bribery._
Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, requested the attention of the House, for
a moment, to a subject of a very delicate nature. He understood that a
memorial was, this morning, to be presented from some individuals,
applying for a grant of a large tract of Western territory, and as the
House had referred all such applications to the committee for bringing
in the Land Office Bill, of which he was Chairman; and, as it was
probable that the memorial, about to be presented, would be disposed of
in the same manner, he conceived it a duty incumbent upon him to
disclose to the House, at this time, some circumstances which had come
to his knowledge. Mr. SMITH then said that, on Tuesday evening last, a
person of the name of Randall called on him, requesting an hour of
confidential conversation. In the interview which took place, Randall
made a communication to the following effect: He intended to present a
memorial, on the Monday following, to Congress, for a grant of all the
Western lands lying between Lakes Michigan, Erie, and Huron, to the
amount of about twenty millions of acres. He, and his associates, some
of whom were Canada merchants, who had great influence over the Indians,
proposed to form a company, and to undertake the extinction of the
Indian title, provided Congress would cede to them the fee-simple of the
land. The property would be divided into forty shares, twenty-four of
which should be reserved for such members of Congress as might favor the
scheme, and might be inclined to come into it, after the adjournment of
Congress, on the same terms as the original associates. Randall himself
had the disposal of twelve shares, for members from the Southern
States, and a colleague of his, a like number for those of the Eastern
States. A certain number of shares were to be the property of those
Canada merchants, who had an unbounded influence over the Indians
occupying those lands, and who would, if this plan succeeded, pacify
those Indians, who were the most hostile to the United States; that Gen.
Wayne's treaty was a mere delusion, and that, without the co-operation
of those influential persons, the United States would never have peace
in that quarter. Mr. SMITH said that he communicated this overture, the
next morning, to Mr. MURRAY, one of the members from Maryland,
requesting his advice how to proceed on so delicate an occasion; that
Mr. MURRAY recommended a disclosure to Mr. HENRY, of the Senate, and
that, on a consultation with those gentlemen, it was resolved that it
was Mr. SMITH's duty to make an immediate communication of the matter to
the PRESIDENT, which was accordingly done.
Mr. MURRAY rose next. He had received an application of the same nature,
but having already heard of the proposal, "I was," said he, "in a state
of preparation, and my virtue had not such a shock to encounter, as that
of the gentleman last up." Mr. M. corroborated what Mr. SMITH had said
as to the communication of this affair to himself. He added, that he had
advised Mr. SMITH to give Randall another meeting, for the purpose of
developing his schemes and expectations more fully. Mr. M. said that Mr.
SMITH informed him on Wednesday morning; next day, in the morning, he
informed Mr. HENRY, of the Senate. Mr. SMITH, on that day, informed the
PRESIDENT. On that day (Thursday,) Mr. RANDALL was introduced to him,
and asked an interview at his lodging; he gave him an appointment, at
five in the afternoon. Mr. HENRY and he were together when Randall came
in. Randall talked about the policy of extinguishing the Indian title to
the Peninsula formed by Lakes Erie, Huron, and Michigan, containing
about eighteen or twenty millions of acres of very good land; and talked
in terms that he might have employed from a pulpit. He did not make any
corrupt overtures, till Mr. M. had carried him into his own apartment.
There Randall opened his proposals, as had been before mentioned by Mr.
SMITH, observing that if Congress would sell this land to him and his
company, they intended to divide it into forty or forty-one shares.
Twenty-four shares were to be appropriated to such members of Congress
as chose to support the memorial, which would be presented on Monday.
The members were to have their shares upon the same terms on which his
company should obtain the land. The Company would give five hundred
thousand, or perhaps a million of dollars: but on Mr. M.'s apparent
acquiescence in his views, he said that the shares would be given to the
members who advocated the measure, if they pleased to accept them, after
they returned to their homes. Mr. M. started a difficulty about the
embarrassment of land speculations, for which he, personally, had no
genius; and then Randall instantly turned out the cat, and told him that
if _he_ did not choose the share of land, he should have cash in hand
for his share. Mr. SMITH and Mr. MURRAY had resolved to disclose this to
the House, lest some innocent member might offer a memorial and become
liable to suspicion. Randall had hinted that larger proportions would be
assigned to the more active members, and lesser ones for the small fish.
The SPEAKER then rose, and expressed a wish that some gentleman would
move for an order to apprehend Randall. Upon this, Mr. SMITH again rose,
and said that a warrant to this effect had yesterday been issued by the
PRESIDENT, and to support which Mr. S. had made oath before a magistrate
to the particulars above mentioned. He hoped that by this time the
person was taken.
Mr. GILES next rose, and observed that an application from the same Mr.
Randall had been made to himself. Besides a repetition of some
particulars already stated, he told Mr. G. that he had already secured
thirty or forty members of this House, but he wanted to secure three
other members, if Mr. G. recollected right. He added, that he had
already secured a majority of the Senate. When this proposal was first
made, which Mr. G. thought was about ten days ago, a member from
New-York (Mr. LIVINGSTON) was present. Randall had even gone so far as
to say, that a written agreement was drawn out, and subscribed by a
number of Eastern members, and he wished Mr. G. to extend another
obligation of the same kind for the Southern members; the purport of
which paper was understood to be, that the members who voted in support
of the disposal of the lands, were to be secured in a stipulated share
of them, without having their names mentioned in the deed. Mr. G. was
solicitous to learn the names of the members who had already entered
into the negotiation, but Randall assured him, that, from motives of
delicacy, he durst not communicate any of the names. Mr. G. then desired
a sight of the agreement, that he might be able to comprehend its
meaning, before he should attempt to draw any similar paper. The man
called a second time, and, as Mr. G. conceived, about four days ago, but
had never produced the deed or any draft of it. Mr. G. had already
communicated the proposal to several members, and, in particular, to the
SPEAKER.
The SPEAKER (Mr. DAYTON) mentioned, that Mr. GILES had, some time ago,
informed him of the proposal. He replied, that if an opportunity
offered, he would take care to select a committee consisting of members
sure to detect the guilty, if any such could exist; adding that he
expected the House to believe that he would not have used such words,
but on so extraordinary an occasion.
Mr. CHRISTIE said, that he was the person who had introduced Randall to
Mr. SMITH and Mr. MURRAY. He had long known him, as a respectable man.
Randall had mentioned to Mr. C. in general, that it was a landed
speculation, and hinted that he, Mr. C., might accept of a share. In
reply, Mr. C. had assured him that he could not possibly have a concern
in any such transaction. Randall had not, to Mr. C., insinuated that any
undue advantage would accrue to members supporting the intended
purchase.
Mr. BUCK, a member from Vermont, mentioned that a person of the name of
Whitney, who appears to have been an associate with Randall, had called
upon him in the country with a proposal of this kind.
Mr. MADISON said, that the person referred to had also called upon him,
and told him of his having waited upon many members, and, among the
rest, upon the SPEAKER. Mr. MADISON said, that the conversation was
rather short, owing, perhaps, to the coldness with which the advances of
Mr. Randall were received. Mr. MADISON had already learned, through his
friend from Virginia (Mr. GILES,) the state in which the business was.
He did not wish to alarm the person by too much abruptness, and, at the
same time, he did not wish to give himself any unnecessary trouble about
it, as he understood that it would be properly managed without his
interference.
TUESDAY, December 29.
_Case of Randall and Whitney._
A return was made by Mr. JOSEPH WHEATON, Sergeant-at-Arms to the House
of Representatives. Mr. WHEATON stated that, agreeably to the order from
the SPEAKER, he had taken into custody the bodies of Robert Randall and
Charles Whitney, and kept them at the disposal of the House.
Mr. W. SMITH moved, that a Committee of Privileges, consisting of seven
members, should be appointed, and instructed to consider and report with
respect to the proper mode of proceeding in this case as to Robert
Randall, and that the said committee shall have leave to sit
immediately.
It was likewise moved that the name of Charles Whitney should be
comprehended in the resolution, because he also was taken into custody.
The resolution, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. BALDWIN, Mr. W. SMITH,
Mr. MURRAY, Mr. COIT, Mr. GILES, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and Mr. GOODHUE, were
named for a committee.
Randall was now brought in, by Mr. WHEATON, Sergeant-at-Arms, and the
City Marshal. That part of the journals which refers to his conduct was
read to him.
The SPEAKER then interrogated the prisoner, whether these charges were
true or false? Randall replied that he was not prepared to answer. He
hoped that time would be given him. The SPEAKER asked what time he
wanted? He could not positively tell; perhaps till the day after
to-morrow.
Mr. W. SMITH was disposed to give him the time required.
Mr. BLOUNT said, that he felt for his own dignity as a member of the
House, and for the dignity of the House. To suffer the prisoner to go
away from the bar till he had said guilty, or not guilty, when thirty or
forty members are positively charged with such conduct, and we suffer
the culprit to withdraw, without obliging him to explain, will excite
public suspicion that guilt is here.
Randall was then ordered to withdraw, till the discussion should be
over.
Mr. RUTHERFORD was for making him say yes or no, directly, as to the
guilt. If he wants to have time for pleading any thing in mitigation of
his punishment, that is a quite different affair. But the honor of the
House was concerned in making him give an immediate answer to the
queries now put.
Mr. HILLHOUSE was for bringing Randall forward directly. He ought not to
be allowed time to think of an answer.
Mr. HARPER felt as much as any man for the dignity of the House, but
this would not induce him to proceed in a hurry. Mr. H. enlarged on the
danger of indulging passion on this subject. It would be wrong to force
the prisoner to answer unprepared. What if he refuses to answer at all?
Confession amounts, in this case, to conviction. He was for granting
indulgence.
Mr. VENABLE felt as much as any man for the dignity of the House. At the
same time, he felt himself above suspicion, and the House above it. He
would not wish to trample on the rights of an individual. He saw no
danger that could arise to the House from a short delay. He referred to
what Mr. HARPER had said about the hardship of making any man convict
himself.
Mr. CLAIBORNE was also against hurrying the prisoner. He recommended
that coolness and moderation should distinguish the proceedings of the
House.
The question was then put, whether the prisoner should be obliged to
answer immediately. Ayes 42, noes 48.
It was then moved, by Mr. W. SMITH, that he should be allowed till
twelve o'clock, to-morrow.
Mr. BLOUNT proposed the yeas and nays on the latter question. A member
observed that they should rather have been put on the one immediately
preceding. The motion was supported only by four or five members. A
fifth part of the House are requisite for calling the yeas and nays.
Mr. BLOUNT then laid on the table a long resolution. It was, in
substance, that before Randall was recommitted, he should be
interrogated as to who were the thirty or forty members that had been
gained to the scheme.
Mr. HARPER thought it extraordinary to bring a culprit before the House
for contempt of it, and then encourage him to criminate members. He
should ever protest against persons being brought to the bar for that
purpose. He therefore moved to strike out from the resolution proposed
by Mr. BLOUNT, the words: "And if you did, who are the members whom you
considered as so secured; and what were your reasons for thinking them
so secured?" This was the last clause of an interrogatory which Mr.
BLOUNT proposed putting to Randall.
Mr. BLOUNT declared that he had never meant bringing an accuser to the
bar, or propounding a question that should bring forth an accusation.
Mr. HARPER replied.
Mr. BLOUNT then modified his resolution, by striking out the
exceptionable words; to which Mr. HARPER then agreed.
Mr. MURRAY called upon gentlemen by their sensibility to personal
dignity, and the character of the House, to arrest the motion. Its
tendency certainly was to place the honor of the House, or of a very
great part of it, in the power of a man of whose profligacy of principle
there could now be no doubt. Will you, he observed, permit, nay, invite
him, whom you arraign at the bar of this House, to be a public accuser?
Will you adopt a charge against him, which is in its nature an
imputation that however lightly and wickedly made, will implicate
perhaps innocent men? These men, to rescue their own reputations, will
be obliged to risk their characters, on the weight of their veracity, by
denying this man's charge in the face of a world but too prone to
suspect. By this motion, Randall's assertion to the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) the only member who has mentioned it, is to be
alleged against Randall as an offence. That Randall said to the
gentleman that there were thirty or forty members secured, he had no
doubt; but he believed the fact to be that Randall was both deceived
himself and attempted to deceive the gentleman. Why, said Mr. M., the
fellow told me that those thirty members were secured. Mr. M. had not
thought proper to state that circumstance, because he did not so much
consider it as a fact material to the detection of Randall's guilt, as
it was one which, if mentioned, might possibly afford to malice an
opportunity of affixing a stigma to any thirty or forty names at which
personal enmity might point. No public good could result from such a
disclosure; for the assertion of such a man as Randall could not, among
men of honor, be deemed a sufficient ground of suspicion; and yet the
malice of the world, or the rancor of personal enemies, might attach
suspicion and infamy to almost the whole House, from the indefiniteness
of the charge. When Randall informed him, on Thursday night, that there
were thirty members who would support his measures, he had felt in the
very conduct which he then was himself pursuing to detect Randall, to
arrest his scheme, a principle of candor towards others, which taught
him that other gentlemen to whom Randall had communicated his scheme
confidentially, were probably determined as honestly as himself to crush
the infamous plot against the honor of the House. He knew that he who
would be wicked enough to attempt seduction, might be weak enough to use
this intelligence artfully, for the purpose of leading him the more
readily to accept terms of infamy; because the object was painted as
easily attainable, and that Randall might wish to diminish all qualms,
by exhibiting a pretended group of accomplices whose company would at
least diminish the appearance of singularity. I entertained, said Mr.
M., no suspicion of any man--I knew Randall to be a corrupt man from his
offers to myself--I therefore placed all his intelligence to the score
of flimsy art: I knew that such a man was not to be fully believed,
where his interest was to magnify his success. I drew favorable auspices
with respect to the corps to which I belong, from another piece of
intelligence of his, which was, that he communicated to some members,
one of whom he had named, and whom I knew to be a man of honor, in what
he called the _general way_. This general way was a display of the
sounder part of his scheme merely, and not the corrupt; consisting in
developing the advantages which would result to the Union in the
disposal of their lands, provided the harmony of the Indians could be
secured. In this view of his plan he gave the subject an attitude far
from unimposing; and I conceived that, as in proportion to the numbers
engaged confidentially he must know that the hazard of detection
increased, he would not communicate the corrupt view as long as he found
the more honest part of the policy might appear to strike any gentleman
as a measure useful to his country; I therefore did not believe Randall,
in the sense he evidently intended; therefore, sir, I did not feel
myself at liberty to mention the assertion which I conceived to be
unavailing as a circumstance necessary to the example I wished to make,
but which, if communicated, I thought might cast a stain, by the mystery
that enveloped it, upon a body whose character ought to be held sacred
to the confidence of the country. My duty was to bring Randall's attempt
to corrupt unequivocally into light, not by repeating all the arts which
he excited to corrupt; nor by exhibiting them in a way that might wound
the feelings of men of honor, who, if charged even personally by
Randall, would have no refuge from odium but in their characters and
counter-assertion: this, though always conclusive with those who
personally know them, is not a protection to minds of sensibility
against the stings of calumny. The voice of fame is not composed from
the voice of men of honor.
Mr. HILLHOUSE was convinced that there was not a gentleman in the House,
whose character rested on so slender a foundation, as to be affected by
any thing that this man could say. He felt no anxiety for the reputation
of the House, for he knew that it was not in the smallest danger. The
resolution went merely to make Randall confess that he had said so and
so. It implied nothing to affect members. A man covered with infamy
making such charges could not expect credit, or obtain it from any body.
Mr. HILLHOUSE was, for these reasons, in favor of the resolution for
interrogating Randall.
The resolution was now read, as follows:
"_Resolved_, That it be made a charge against the said
Robert Randall, that he declared to a member of this House,
that a number consisting of not less than thirty members of
this House had engaged to support his memorial."
Randall was then brought to the bar. The resolution was read to him, and
he was informed that he must answer it to-morrow, at 12 o'clock.
A motion for adjourning was then made. Ayes, 26; so it was lost.
It was next moved and agreed, that Whitney should be brought to the bar.
The SPEAKER then said, Is this the prisoner? Answered, Yes. What is your
name? Charles Whitney. What is your usual place of residence? Vermont.
What are you? I was bred to the farming business. Do you know one Robert
Randall? Yes. The Clerk will read to you the charge that has occasioned
your being brought here. The charge, as stated in the journal of the
House, was then read to the prisoner. He was next interrogated by the
SPEAKER, as follows: Are you guilty, or not guilty? Not guilty. Are you
ready to speak in your defence? I am ready to tell every thing. Are you
prepared to do so just now? Yes. Whitney then stated that he was
connected with Randall in a plan for the purchase of eighteen or twenty
millions of acres of land, lying between the Lakes Erie, Huron, and
Michigan. He had come to town on the design of presenting a petition to
Congress, but had no knowledge of any improper kind of applications.
Randall had several times called upon him at his lodgings, at the Green
Tree, in North Fourth street. He considered the scheme to be of probable
advantage, and a handsome thing to the United States as well as to the
prisoner himself, who repeatedly observed that he would not have engaged
in it, but with a view partly to his own interest. He had wished to
engage influential characters in the business. He was then asked what
associates he had. He answered, Colonel Pepune and Mr. Jones, of the
State of Massachusetts; and Mr. Ebenezer Allen, of Vermont. He also,
upon a query from the SPEAKER, mentioned the name of another person,
which was not distinctly heard. He was asked if the partners meant to
divide the land into forty shares. He answered forty-one; but this was
only in speculation. They had only a rough idea of the extent of the
land, which was inhabited by the Wyandots, and was of a very good soil.
The land was to be divided among the proprietors. The prisoner knew, in
general, from Randall, that he called on Mr. SMITH, and other members;
but was not privy to, nor suspected any unbecoming overtures. He was
then asked the names of the associates at Detroit. He mentioned Mr.
Erskine, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Innes, Mr. Pattison, and Mr. Erskine,
junior. He said that some of them were Indian traders, to a
considerable extent. He had called at Mr. BUCK's, of Vermont, (a member
of the House,) as he was riding by his house. He knew him to be a
gentleman of character whose name would add credit to the business. He
had told him that there were several other persons intending to be
concerned, and that, if it was consistent with his situation as a member
of Congress, he would be glad to have him engaged, but at the same time
carefully noticed that this proposal was conditionally made, and only if
it was proper. He was asked what Mr. Erskine was. He is called Judge
Erskine, but whether he is now a judge, or only was one in some other
part of the country, at a former period, the prisoner cannot tell. You
say that you came to Philadelphia about a month ago. Why were you so
long in presenting your petition? He had a bad cold, and had been sick,
and wanted to make a personal explanation to the members before bringing
the affair before the House. Have you got any new associates in this
city? None. Mr. LIVINGSTON then proposed a question, Whether any of the
shares had been left unappropriated by your associates and you? Answer:
It was at his own option to dispose of shares as he pleased. He was
asked if he could produce any written agreement between himself and his
associates. He believed that he could, and that it would do him no harm
to do so. It was at the Green Tree. But, as a matter of candor, he
requested time to consider whether the production of it could hurt him
or not. This ended the examination.
Mr. W. SMITH then made a motion, consisting of three points, that
Whitney should be ordered to re-appear at the bar, at twelve o'clock,
to-morrow; that he should be ordered to produce the bond; and that, till
to-morrow, he should be remanded to the custody of the City Marshal. It
was likewise recommended that, till to-morrow, the two prisoners be kept
in separate apartments.
Mr. GOODHUE requested that Whitney might be ordered to withdraw; which
was done. He then related that the prisoner had made an application to
him at different times. Mr. GOODHUE told him that he knew very little of
the Western country; he had always lived on the sea-coast, and land
jobbing was quite out of his line. Whitney did not make any corrupt
proposals to him. He believed that it was because he was very averse to
wasting time in speaking at all on the matter.
Mr. SEDGWICK said that, as no direct charge of corruption had been made
against Whitney, he apprehended it would be improper to detain him as a
prisoner. It might be considered as a wanton act of arbitrary power.
Mr. BUCK then rose, and said that he had not yesterday told the whole of
what passed between him and Whitney. Mr. BUCK had received offers plain
enough to be understood. He might either have land, or money in lieu of
it.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he had now no opposition to the resolutions;
which were carried.
WEDNESDAY, December 30.
JOHN PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.
_Case of Randall and Whitney._
Mr. W. SMITH moved an amendment of the journal to this effect, that the
said Charles Whitney had made overtures to Mr. BUCK, to this purpose,
that he should have a share in the lands to be purchased, or in money.
Mr. NICHOLAS objected to the motion. The reading of the journal was
called for. It was read.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, that the original charge against the man was complete
and full. He thought the amendment unnecessary.
A petition was then presented from Randall requesting that he might be
indulged with a reasonable time to make his defence, and with counsel.
Mr. W. SMITH was very ready to allow the prisoner counsel for his
defence, but, in so doing, he wished it to be understood, not as a
matter of right but of favor. He was apprehensive that gentlemen in
proceeding from one step to another, would at last reason away the
privileges of the House altogether. His friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
SEDGWICK) had quoted the clause of the constitution which gave a right
to have counsel in all trials for crimes; but it did not apply to this
case, any more than the clause which immediately followed it, declaring
that all trials for crimes should be by a jury of the vicinage, and
after presentment by a grand jury. The present inquiry was of a special
and peculiar nature, resulting from the rights and privileges which
belonged to every Legislative institution, and without which such
institution could not exist. As every jurisdiction had certain powers
necessary for its preservation, so the Legislature possessed certain
privileges incident to its nature, and essential for its very existence.
This is called in England the parliamentary law; and as from that law
are derived the usages and proceedings of the several State
Legislatures, so will the proceedings of this House be generally guided
by the long-established usages of the State Legislatures. There would be
a manifest absurdity in conforming the proceedings in this case to the
ordinary proceedings at law in jury trials, for the House, instead of
being able to protect itself, would be altogether dependent on the other
branches of the Government, and in every case of aggression be obliged
to send the offenders to the civil magistrate. If there was any weight
in such reasoning as had been heard, then the House would have to tread
back all the unconstitutional steps they had been taking, and to
discharge, without delay, both the prisoners; for the arrest by the
Sergeant-at-Arms, under the SPEAKER's warrant, was only justifiable on
the ground he had mentioned, namely, the inherent and indispensable
power of self-preservation. That the House possessed power to arrest had
not been denied; but the power of commitment was incident to that of
arrest, and if it possessed both these high powers, it must of
consequence possess the necessary incident of trial or inquiry, in
regulating which the House was only to be governed by its own wisdom and
discretion. On this occasion Mr. S. said he felt, as he trusted every
member did, a proper respect for the rights of individuals brought to
the bar, as well as for those of the House, and he hoped that their
conduct would be marked with discretion and temper; but, willing as he
was to grant the prayer of the petitioner, he could not suffer the
argument which had been relied on, to pass unanswered. This was the
first instance, since the organization of this Government, in which it
had been found necessary to resort to this high prerogative; it was
right, therefore, that the principles on which it was founded should be
well understood, and that the privileges of the House should stand
unimpaired.
Mr. SEDGWICK moved that the prayer of the petition should be granted,
and that Randall be allowed till to-morrow, to be heard at the bar.
The petition was again read.
Mr. CHRISTIE had known Randall for many years, and had never heard of
any thing against him before. He had lately been at Detroit, and Mr. C.
believed that he had been injured by keeping bad company. He was not the
first man in the country who had been corrupted by British influence and
British company. He moved that Randall should be allowed till to-morrow
at twelve o'clock. This was negatived.
The SPEAKER then said, that, if agreeable to the House, he would send
for Randall, and inquire what time he wanted. This was done; Randall
came in, and asked till Saturday, but as the House does not sit on
Saturday, Friday was appointed.
The bond or agreement between the intended purchasers of the land was
then read. It was dated at Detroit, the 26th of September last. Allen,
Whitney, and Randall, were to have the disposal of 36 shares out of 41.
THURSDAY, December 31.
RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina, appeared, was qualified, and took his
seat.
_Case of Randall and Whitney._
Mr. BALDWIN, the chairman of the Committee of Privileges, reported, in
part, on the subject of the further proceedings to be had in the case of
R. Randall and C. Whitney, in substance as follows:
1. That a further hearing of R. Randall should be held at the bar; that
the information given by members against the said Randall be reduced to
writing, signed by the informants respectively, and entered at large on
the journals; that the said information should be read to the prisoner,
and he be asked by the SPEAKER what he had to say in his defence. If the
prisoner should desire to produce any parole evidence to exculpate
himself, the same shall be heard at the bar, and the Judge of the
District of Pennsylvania be requested to attend to administer an oath or
affirmation to the witnesses on the part of the prisoner; that the
SPEAKER shall put all questions to the witnesses. When any debate should
arise, that the prisoner and his counsel be directed to withdraw; and,
when he has concluded his defence and withdrawn, that the sense of the
House be taken on the guilt or innocence of the prisoners, respectively.
Mr. MADISON was of opinion that no citizen can be punished without the
solemnity of an oath to the fact. Of consequence, it is needful to the
information of members, if the punishment of a fellow-citizen is
implicated. Perhaps it may be urged that members, having taken an oath
to support the constitution, this supersedes the necessity of an oath in
the present case.
Mr. GALLATIN thought it reasonable that members should be liable to be
questioned upon oath. That there was no precedent for it, had little
weight. There are many absurdities in the law of nations which gentlemen
would not wish to introduce here.
Mr. SWIFT was against the members being subject to this regulation. The
case was quite novel to him. But this was, at first view, his way of
thinking. Suppose that some person in the gallery were to commit an
insult on the House, before the whole members, would it be necessary
that they should all swear to the offence before proceeding to punish
it? This Mr. S. regarded as a parallel case.
Mr. THATCHER made a distinction when an offence had been committed in
presence of the whole House, and when committed out of their view. In
the former case, there could not be any use for evidence being sworn,
because the whole House had the testimony of their senses. It was
different when the circumstances occurred in another place; and Mr. T.
was convinced that the charge ought to be sworn to. The passage under
amendment was in these words: "That it should be reduced to writing;"
and the dispute was about adding the words, "and sworn to." Mr. T.,
though for examining the members on oath as to the charge against
Randall, was opposed to the amendment as useless, because the members
must, in his opinion, be sworn when Randall is brought to the bar. The
mere declaration of a prosecutor, not under oath, and of a defendant in
the same situation, is equally exceptionable. A phrase had been
repeatedly used which Mr. T. did not understand. It was said that a
member was entitled "to stand up in his place" and give information so
and so. With the meaning of this expression Mr. T. was unacquainted, nor
did he know any law which authorized the imprisonment of a
fellow-citizen on a mere charge unsupported by oath. He did not see the
use of the amendment, but he was clearly satisfied that members ought
to be examined and sworn touching their accusations, as well as any
other persons.
Mr. NICHOLAS was not, in this instance, for departing from the
principles of common law. Instead of supporting the dignity of the
House, about which so much has been spoken, he was afraid that, by
arrogating too much on the side of privilege, they might lessen their
dignity. He declared, upon his honor, that he thought the gentlemen
concerned should, for their own sakes, insist on being cross-examined by
the prisoner and his counsel. To be cross-examined implies no reflection
on a witness. The imperfection of human nature requires such a
precaution, and were Mr. N. a party, he would insist on being
cross-examined. The proposed amendment would narrow the business too
much. It would be better to lay it aside, and let the members be, as
above proposed, subject to cross-examination from the prisoner.
Mr. MADISON said, that when Randall came to the bar he would possibly
save all this trouble, by confessing his guilt, and casting himself on
the mercy of the House. He mentioned an anecdote of a judge who had been
publicly insulted. He informed his brethren of the bench, and, on his
complaint, the offender was apprehended. When he was brought before the
court the oath was administered to the judge. Mr. M. related this story
to show the propriety of every accusation being sworn to, whatever may
be the rank or situation of the accuser.
MONDAY, January 4.
_Presentation of the Flag of France._
The SPEAKER informed the House, that a Message was ready to be delivered
to the House, of a nature calculated to give the most pleasing
satisfaction to every American breast. He suggested to the House, and
the citizens in the galleries, the propriety of not suffering the fervor
of enthusiasm to infringe on the dignity of the Representative Councils
of the United States. He recommended that a respectful silence should be
observed, as most compatible with the true dignity of the House, and the
honor of the magnanimous Republic that was the subject of the Message.
The PRESIDENT's Secretary was then introduced, with an American officer
bearing the Standard of the French Republic,[62] sent by the Committee
of Public Safety, Organ of the National Convention, as a token of
friendship to the United States. The Secretary presented a Message in
writing from the PRESIDENT, with sundry papers accompanying it, to the
SPEAKER, by whom they were read as follows:
_Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
Representatives:_
A letter from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the French
Republic, received on the 22d of the last month, covered an
Address, dated the 21st of October, 1794, from the
Committee of Public Safety to the Representatives of the
United States in Congress; and also informed me that he was
instructed by the committee to present to the United States
the Colors of France. I therefore proposed to receive them
last Friday, the first day of the new year, a day of
general joy and congratulation. On that day the Minister of
the French Republic delivered the Colors, with an Address,
to which I returned an answer. By the latter, the House
will see that I have informed the Minister that the Colors
will be deposited with the archives of the United States.
But it seemed to me proper previously to exhibit to the two
Houses of Congress these evidences of the continued
friendship of the French Republic, together with the
sentiments expressed by me on the occasion in behalf of the
United States. They are herewith communicated.