[Mr. William Smith, of S. Carolina, Mr. William B. Giles,
of Virginia, Mr. Buck, of Vermont, and afterwards, Mr.
Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, severally gave in statements
corroborating that of Mr. Vans Murray.]
It was then moved that Robert Randall should be brought to the bar of
the House. He was brought in accordingly. Seats were placed for the
Judge of the District of Pennsylvania, and the two counsellors for
Randall, Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tilghman, jr. The informations given in by
Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were read over, and the SPEAKER
asked the prisoner, what he had to say in his defence? I am not guilty.
You declare yourself not guilty? Yes. Have you any proof to cite that
you are not guilty? No. Are you ready to answer?
Mr. Lewis[63] then rose. He observed, that these declarations had been
made in the absence of the prisoner, who, as he conceived, was entitled
to have been present. His request was, that the informants might now be
placed in a situation to be examined by the prisoner and his counsel,
and that the information may now be given in the prisoner's hearing. The
prisoner and his counsel were ordered to withdraw.
Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH made the following motion:
"That the prisoner be informed, that if he has any
questions to propose to the informants, or other members of
the House, he is at liberty to put them, (in the mode
already prescribed,) and that they be sworn to answer such
questions as shall be asked, and that the informants be
sworn to the declarations just read."
The words in parenthesis were an amendment suggested by Mr. GILES. The
resolution and amendment were adopted by the House, and the prisoner
with his counsel were again brought to the bar. The resolution above
stated was read to Randall.
Mr. W. SMITH, Mr. MURRAY, and Mr. GILES, were then sworn, standing up in
their places: the oath being administered by the Judge.
Mr. Tilghman[63] then observed on the delicate situation in which the
counsel stood, with which they were strongly impressed. The high
character of the gentlemen who stood forth in support of the accusation,
gentlemen whom Mr. T. had known personally for many years, with the
odious nature of the crime charged on the prisoner, embarrassed them
considerably; as they had, however, been permitted by the House to
appear in this business, they were bound in duty to do every thing
consistent with a fair and honorable defence. If Mr. T. were to declare
his own opinion of the conduct of the prisoner, it would be thus, that
his behavior was highly improper and indelicate; but Mr. Randall denied
having made any offer either of lands or money, as in fact he had none
to give. The disposal of the lands depended entirely on the subsequent
vote of Congress.
Mr. Lewis spoke a few words. The prisoner's defence was, that he denied
any proposal of a corrupt nature. The members who favored the sale of
the lands, were only to have their shares on the same terms, and on
paying an equal share of the expenses, as the other partners.
Mr. W. SMITH was then examined upon that part of his information where
he says, that those members who should be concerned with Randall, were
to have shares of the lands. Mr. SMITH was asked whether the offer was
that they were to be granted at an inferior rate? In reply, he
understood it was to be on the same terms as other partners were to have
them. Mr. GOODHUE proposed a query, whether the offer made by Mr.
Randall was in order that Mr. SMITH might use his influence to forward
the scheme in Congress? Mr. SMITH replied, that he certainly understood
it so. The prisoner had all along referred to members of Congress,
though he did not expressly name them. His phrase was, "for persons who
would favor the scheme."
Mr. Tilghman then, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. MURRAY whether he
understood he was to pay for his share of land as the other associates
or not?
Mr. MURRAY.--I understood him as is explained in the declaration. At
first I understood, that the members who should assist in getting the
thing through, might then retire to their homes, and when the scheme was
in activity they might come in on the same terms as the original
associates. But afterwards, I understood from Randall that I might have
a share if I would accept of it, and this I understood from the whole
tenor of the latter part of his conversation. The shares set apart were
to be for acceptance as donations. I so understood him.
Mr. Tilghman.--Did he expressly say, that they were intended as
donations, or did Mr. MURRAY collect this to be the man's meaning from a
variety of circumstances?
Mr. MURRAY.--He did not say, if you will do so and so, I will give you
so and so; his proposal, though more delicate, was as unequivocal as a
direct offer. I so understood him.
Mr. HARPER asked Mr. MURRAY, whether Randall did not tell him, that if
he did not like land, he should have money, and whether the money was
not to be more than the value of the share of land?
Mr. MURRAY said, that from this part, and indeed the general tenor of
the conversation, he did infer, that a donation was intended, and when
he objected to land, the prisoner then said, if he did not choose to
accept of a share in land, he might have cash in hand.
Mr. Lewis, counsel for the prisoner, asked Mr. MURRAY, whether he did
not state to Randall his aversion to dealing in land, and whether
Randall did not say that this need not be an objection, since the share
might be sold, and then that he would have cash instead of land?
Mr. MURRAY.--I did not so understand it.
Mr. HARPER wished Mr. MURRAY to relate, as nearly as possible, the words
of the prisoner in this important part of the conversation.
Mr. MURRAY said, that immediately after it took place, and he had
communicated it to his friends, he took notes of it. It stood in this
manner: "I stated objections to land speculations as troublesome:
Randall then said, if I did not choose land, I might have cash in hand."
Mr. Tilghman asked, whether Mr. MURRAY did not, to get the man's whole
secret from him, go beyond his views to draw him on?
Mr. MURRAY said, he affected to think well of the more sound part of the
plan.
Mr. Tilghman asked what Mr. MURRAY expressed to Randall when it was
proposed to him to engage in the land scheme?
Mr. MURRAY.--A strong repugnance to land speculations.
Mr. Lewis.--Then it was, he said, that if it was not convenient for Mr.
MURRAY to be concerned in a share in land, he might have it in money?
Mr. MURRAY.--Yes.
Mr. S. SMITH was next sworn. There was here a motion made for
adjourning.
Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. Tilghman and himself had never seen the
prisoner until yesterday in the evening. They had been in Court until
late on Saturday evening. They went yesterday to prison, and back again
this morning. They had received a long written state of the case from
Mr. Randall, but, from absolute want of time, they had not been able to
read one third part of it. The motion to adjourn was negatived.
Mr. S. SMITH was then proceeding with his evidence, when Mr. SEDGWICK
rose. He considered it as unfair to examine Mr. SMITH in order to prove
the information given by other gentlemen. It was totally inapplicable.
The offences were as distinct as any two things could be.
Mr. BLOUNT moved to put this question, whether any conversation passed
between Mr. S. SMITH and Randall, which had an appearance of intending
to corrupt the integrity of members of this House.
Mr. SEDGWICK objected, that this was deviating from the original
specific motion. Mr. GILES was of an opposite opinion. Mr. MADISON
thought the motion proper, in the strictest sense. The charge was
general; and the answer to the question might be of a nature to
corroborate that general charge. After a few words from some other
members, the motion was carried.
Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, then on oath stated in substance as follows:
That on the 9th or 10th, Randall, whom he had known in Maryland, called
on him and asked half an hour's conversation with him. He said he had a
plan in view, that would be to the advantage of the United States, and
turn to his own private emolument.
Randall informed Mr. S., that he was last year at New York, that he
thence went to Detroit to explore the country on Lakes Erie, &c., that
he contracted an acquaintance with certain influential characters with
whom he had formed an association to procure the lands in question. He
mentioned the outlines of the plan and dwelt on the public advantages
that would arise from it. He indirectly insinuated that gentlemen in
Congress who chose to be interested in the plan might have a portion of
the land in contemplation. He asked Mr. S. to fix a day when he should
enter more particularly into a detail of the business. Mr. S. fixed
Saturday following, and then retired into the room where his
fellow-lodger was, and told him that some great land-business was on
foot and that he believed he might make his fortune. On Sunday Randall
came with a map on which he explained the position of the land and
expatiated on the richness of the soil. He detailed the particulars of
the project which Mr. S. related as has been heretofore stated with some
little variations. He enlarged upon the public advantages to the United
States if the purchase was allowed. He said, he would be glad if Mr. S.
would embark in the undertaking, and give the plan his countenance; but,
that, if he did not choose to so do, it could be accomplished without
his assistance, as a decided majority of both Houses were agreed to
support it. Mr. S. asked him, whether in the Senate? he said, yes. He
asked him for names; he objected to mentioning any. Randall explained,
that members who were most active were to have larger shares, and such
as only gave their assent, smaller; Mr. S. understood that he might have
one of the larger. No money was offered as a temptation to engage, but
he fully understood that every gentleman was to pay his full proportion
of the price. He stated to Mr. S., that it would save the United States
much in men and money to have the scheme accomplished, and added, that
if Congress desired it, he could remove the Miami Indians to the other
side of the lakes. Mr. S. asked him what he proposed should be offered
for the lands. He said, that would remain in the breasts of the
gentlemen in Congress. Mr. S. asked whether one dollar an acre could be
afforded, he objected to that as by far too much. Mr. S. mentioned
twenty-five cents, that was too much. Mr. S. then suggested that he
supposed two and a half cents were contemplated. Randall answered, that
if Congress fixed this price it would be well so. He offered no direct
bribe to Mr. S., but proposed to take such members into the scheme at
first cost as chose to embark in it. Mr. S. asked him who was to offer
his memorial. He mentioned a gentleman of great weight in the House.
Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, asked the date of this conversation.
Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, answered, on the Sunday following the 10th,
which must have been the 13th.
Mr. Lewis, through the SPEAKER, asked Mr. S., of Maryland, whether
Randall had not said, that he had actually a majority in favor of his
scheme; or, that he expected to get a majority?
Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, understood that he had a majority, and on this
ground, he said to Mr. S. that his co-operation was not absolutely
necessary.
The prisoner was remanded, and the House adjourned.
TUESDAY, January 5.
_Case of Robert Randall._