UNITED STATES, _February 5, 1798_.
This Message, with the documents accompanying it, was referred to the
committee for considering on proper measures for the protection and
defence of the country.
_Breach of Privilege._
Mr. SEWALL moved the House to take up the report of the Committee of
Privileges, in order that it might be committed to a Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether evidence could be heard in a
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER said, the House might authorize the Committee of the Whole
to hear evidence.
Mr. SEWALL moved the report to be committed. If gentlemen wished
evidence to be heard before the committee, they would, of course, make
an addition to his motion. For his own part he thought it unnecessary.
Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to evidence being heard before a Committee
of the Whole, except that it might involve the subject in some
embarrassment; as it was possible that a majority of the committee might
come to a decision which, according to the constitution, it would
require two-thirds of the House to confirm. He saw no reason for going
into a committee, except that the SPEAKER would have to give his
testimony; but he did not see why the SPEAKER might not give his
testimony from his seat, as well as from any other place. By going into
a committee, the subject would take up a longer time than it otherwise
would do, as they should have twice to go over the same ground.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS was in favor of hearing the evidence before the
committee.
Mr. THATCHER was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that
this matter should be run over as soon as possible. He thought it of
infinite importance, as it respected the dignity of the House and the
people at large, and he hoped it would go through every form of the
House.
The question for a commitment was put and carried, and it was made the
order for this day.
Mr. NICHOLAS then moved that the Committee of the Whole be authorized to
examine testimony, and called for the yeas and nays upon the question;
which being agreed upon, they were taken, and, so little opposition was
there to this mode of proceeding that the question was carried, 88 to 4.
The negatives were Messrs. GORDON, SEWALL, SITGREAVES, and THATCHER.
Mr. D. FOSTER moved that the committee should be authorized to report
the whole of the evidence, as he thought it was important it should be
entered upon the journals. Carried.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT
in the chair, on this subject.
Mr. THATCHER said it would be necessary that a Judge should attend to
administer an oath to the members who should be called upon to give
their testimony.
The CHAIRMAN informed the committee that the Judge of the District Court
was in the House.
Judge PETERS was accordingly called upon.
Mr. RUTLEDGE desired an oath might be administered to the SPEAKER,
Messrs. S. SMITH, BROOKS, HOSMER, COIT, DANA, GOODRICH, and CHAMPLIN;
which was accordingly done.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, if there should be occasion, he should also call upon
Judge CHIPMAN, a Senator from Vermont, as an evidence.
Mr. CHIPMAN was, towards the close of the sitting, also sworn.
Some conversation took place as to the best mode of taking the evidence,
whether, as it was to be reported to the House, it should be received
from the witnesses in writing, leaving them to be questioned afterwards
by the members of the committee, or whether it should be given _viva
voce_, deliberately, and taken down by the Clerk. The latter mode was at
length adopted, and the SPEAKER proceeded to give his testimony.
[Taking the testimony in this case, and the debates upon
it, occupied the House until the 12th of February, when, a
motion having been made to amend the resolution of
expulsion, by substituting a reprimand, a vote was taken on
that question, and negatived--52 to 44. The vote was then
taken on the resolution of expulsion, and stood yeas 52,
nays 44. The constitution requiring two-thirds of the
members present to carry a vote of expulsion, the
Resolution was declared by the Speaker to be not carried.
The following were the yeas and nays:]
YEAS.--George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayard,
David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin,
John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik,
Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent,
Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon,
William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley,
William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H.
Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, John Read, John
Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Wm. Shepard,
Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg
Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson,
Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.
NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
Thomas Claiborne, Wm. Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Wm. Findlay,
John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin,
William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A.
Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter
Jones, Edw. Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon,
Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony
New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith,
William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford,
Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert
Williams.
WEDNESDAY, February 14.
_Quakers' Memorial._
Mr. SITGREAVES moved the order of the day on the report of a select
committee on the memorial of the people called Quakers; which motion
being agreed to, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the
subject, Mr. DENT in the chair. The report having been read as follows:
"That, inasmuch as the said memorial and address presents,
in general terms only, certain subjects to the
consideration of the Legislature, without containing any
definite state of facts, or any specific application for
its interposition, the memorialists were desired to exhibit
a particular view of the grievances of which they
complained, in order that the attention of the House might
be directed to precise objects, and that it might be better
discerned whether the complaints of the memorialists were
of a nature to justify Legislative interference:
"That, in consequence of this request, the memorialists
laid before the committee the representation and documents
which accompany this report:
"That, on the subject of this representation, the
memorialists were invited to confer with the committee, and
were solicited to suggest the remedy which they conceived
it to be in the power of Congress to apply to the case, as
stated by them:
"That the committee, after several conferences with the
memorialists, and an attentive consideration of the
subject, are very clearly of opinion that the facts
disclosed in the said representation are exclusively of
judicial cognizance; and that it is not competent to the
Legislative authority of Congress to do any act in relation
to the matter thereof:
"Wherefore the committee recommend the following
resolution:
"_Resolved_, That the memorialists have leave to withdraw
the said memorial and address."
Mr. THATCHER could not say that he was perfectly satisfied with the
report of the committee in all its parts. He wished the business
disposed of without coming to any decisive resolution upon it, so as
either to approve or disapprove of it. He was not ready to say that the
facts disclosed in that memorial were exclusively of judicial
cognizance, and that the Legislature of the Union was incompetent to do
any thing in it. It might, however, be true, but it was not clear to
him. He would rather that the subject should not now be acted upon: he
would, therefore, propose an amendment to the report, which might
conclude the business without coming to any resolution upon it, which
had been the course heretofore taken with similar applications. He
moved, therefore, to strike out the resolution giving the petitioners
leave to withdraw their petition; and if his motion was agreed to, he
should wish the committee to rise, and that the House would not act
further upon it at present.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, was
dissatisfied with the report of the select committee. He thought the
report ought to have stated that the peace of certain States in the
Union had been much disturbed by applications of this kind. He had
prepared a resolution to this effect, which he would read in his place.
It was as follows:
"_Resolved_, That part of the memorial of the people called
Quakers has a tendency to disturb the tranquillity of some
of the States of the Union; that this House is not
competent to act upon it, and therefore they have leave to
withdraw their memorial."
There could be little difference of opinion on the assertion that the
internal tranquillity of several States had been disturbed by these
applications; and he believed there would be no difficulty in obtaining
a majority of the House to declare it; as, if the Representatives of
three or four States were to rise and declare the fact, it must have
sufficient weight to carry a declaration of this kind. He had, however,
mentioned the matter to some of his friends, and found it was not very
agreeable to them, as they wished to get rid of the business without
debate. But if the present motion were to obtain, he should afterwards
bring forward this resolution.
The CHAIRMAN declared the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts out
of order.
The question on the resolution, as reported, was put and carried, there
being 74 votes in the affirmative. The committee then rose, and the
House concurred in the report.
THURSDAY, February 15.
_Fracas in the House._
[About a quarter past eleven o'clock, after prayers, whilst the SPEAKER
was in his chair, and many members in their places, but before the House
had been called to order, and before the journal had been read, Mr.
GRISWOLD entered the House, and observing Mr. LYON in his place (who was
writing) he went up to him with a pretty strong walking stick in his
hand, with which he immediately began to beat him with great violence.
Mr. G.'s approach was observed by Mr. LYON, but before he could get from
behind his desk he had received some severe blows. As soon as he got on
the floor of the House he endeavored to lay hold of Mr. G. (having no
stick or weapon in his hand) but he was prevented from doing so by Mr.
G.'s falling back, and the continual blows with which he was assailed.
At length getting behind the SPEAKER'S chair, Mr. L. snatched up the
tongs from the fire; the combatants then closed and came down together
upon the floor, Mr. G. being uppermost. The members in the House, who
till now seemed to look on with amazement at the scene, without an
attempt to put an end to it, got round the parties, and separated them,
but not before Mr. L. had aimed a blow at Mr. G.'s head with the tongs,
but which he parried off. The SPEAKER was now called upon to desire the
members to take their seats and form the House. Whilst this was doing,
the two enraged members met again without the bar, and, but for the
doorkeeper and some gentlemen present, would have renewed the combat.
Order having been obtained (at least as much as it was possible to
obtain from the agitated state of the House) the Clerk proceeded to read
the journal, and the business of the day was entered upon. It continued
till one o'clock, when from the perturbation which was naturally
occasioned by such a scene, and it being evident that business was very
little attended to by a great part of the House, a motion for an
adjournment was made and carried. It will be seen that no notice was
taken of this proceeding in the course of the sitting.]
FRIDAY, February 16.
_Case of Griswold and Lyon._
Immediately upon the journals having been read,
Mr. DAVIS, of Kentucky, rose and proposed the following resolution for
the adoption of the House:
"_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members
of this House, for violent and disorderly behavior
committed in the House, be expelled therefrom."
Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the resolution would be permitted to lie on the
table.
Mr. DAVIS saw no reason for delaying a decision upon this resolution. He
thought the conduct of these gentlemen had been so grossly violent, and
so notorious to most of the members of the House, that there need be no
hesitation in deciding upon it. If gentlemen wished, however, to take
the same course which had been adopted on a former occasion, he should
not object to it, though he thought it unnecessary. It was needless, now
to say any thing as to the necessity of preserving the dignity and honor
of that House; enough had already been said, and he thought pertinently
said, on a former occasion on this subject. And as he believed neither
the dignity, the honor, or peace of that House could be preserved whilst
these members remained in it, he hoped the House would be unanimous in
voting their expulsion.
Mr. THATCHER did not see why the innocent should be punished with the
guilty. The gentleman who brought forward this proposition, he supposed,
did not wish this. From what he saw of the affray, he did not think Mr.
LYON deserved to be punished for the part he acted. He certainly
received a severe beating, but he appeared to be passive from the
beginning to the end; and he did not think Mr. LYON ought to be expelled
because he was beaten. As to any investigation of what happened
yesterday, he did not think it necessary, as most of the members of that
House were eye-witnesses to the fact. But the gentleman said there would
be no peace until these members were expelled. He did not know from what
he drew his conclusions. What was done yesterday was done before the
House was in session; and it had already been determined that acts of
violence committed without the bar, during a session of the House, are
not causes of expulsion. He did not know, therefore, how gentlemen
would support the doctrine that a member ought to be expelled for an act
of violence done before the House was in session. It might be necessary,
however, to investigate other facts connected with these.
Mr. J. PARKER seconded the motion for the expulsion of these members,
because he believed there would be no peace in the House until they were
expelled. He was sorry the gentleman from Massachusetts should have said
he saw nothing but what was passive on the part of Mr. LYON. He himself
saw more, and that gentleman must have seen it if he had his eyes about
him. He said, that after the offending members had been separated Mr.
LYON met Mr. GRISWOLD without the bar of the House and began to belabor
him with his cane, when they were again separated. The attack of
yesterday, Mr. P. said, at a time when the House ought to have been in
session though it had not come to order, would fix an indelible stain
upon it; and if these members were not expelled, no member could
consider himself as safe in his seat. Such a transaction would certainly
lower that House in the estimation of their constituents. He had even
heard this morning, as he came to the Hall, persons in the street call
out, "There is nothing to do in Congress to-day--there's no fighting
going on!" In order to get rid of these reproaches, he hoped all parties
would unite in expelling these members. If their constituents chose to
send them back, he hoped no member would associate with or take notice
of them. And if a vote of expulsion should be agreed upon, he would
afterwards move to expunge from the journals all the entries relative to
these disgraceful proceedings.
Mr. NICHOLAS wished the motion to lie upon the table for the present,
because he was not himself prepared to decide upon the subject; he
wished, also, that whenever the motion was taken up, gentlemen might
come with their minds determined upon it, so that a long debate might
not be necessary. He therefore moved to postpone the consideration of
this resolution to Monday.
Mr. GORDON wished to know what part of the resolution the gentleman from
Virginia was not ready to act upon?
Mr. NICHOLAS did not understand the drift of the gentleman's question.
If he meant to ask whether he (Mr. N.) disapproved of the vote which he
had already given, he would answer him _he did not_.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said he should approve of the motion for postponement,
if it were made for to-morrow, instead of Monday; and he hoped the
business would not only be taken up to-morrow, but be concluded before
they rose. He had sat with great patience during the late debate, but he
should be opposed to going into any further lengthy proceedings on so
disagreeable a subject, which would prevent them from doing the business
of the nation, for which they were sent.
Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to make the question the order for
to-morrow, if the House met.
Mr. THATCHER observed, that he had before said that he had seen nothing
on the part of Mr. LYON, in the affray of yesterday, which ought to
subject him to expulsion; but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PARKER)
said, that if he (Mr. T.) had had his eyes about him, he might have seen
something for which he ought to be expelled. If, indeed, he had _eyes
behind_ he might have seen what he alluded to; but this not being the
case, he did not see it. As far as the business respects Mr. LYON, some
inquiry might be necessary, as all he saw was, that Mr. LYON suffered
much, without any offence on his part. He thought, therefore, the
business should be gone into, as on a former occasion, and that they
ought to examine the subject with candor, and then they should doubtless
decide upon it with propriety.
Mr. SITGREAVES was against the postponement, in order that a different
course might be taken. He knew nothing in this case which distinguished
it from a late case, and therefore could not see why the same course
ought not to be pursued as was then pursued. He should therefore vote
against a postponement, in order that the resolution might be referred
to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. HARPER inquired whether such a motion would not supersede a motion
for postponement.
The SPEAKER said, it would.
Mr. HARPER then made the motion.
Mr. GALLATIN asked whether he understood the SPEAKER rightly, that a
motion for a reference to a committee superseded a motion for
postponement?
The SPEAKER said, it did.
Mr. NICHOLAS asked whether it would not then be in order to postpone the
consideration of the subject?
The SPEAKER answered, it would.
Mr. NICHOLAS renewed the motion for a postponement till to-morrow.
Mr. HARPER, believing that it would be proper to refer this resolution
to a committee, as before, especially as some of the facts did not pass
within the view of the House, he should vote against the
postponement--not because he wished to avoid a vote on the question;
for, if it should be the opinion of the House that it ought not to go to
a committee, he was perfectly ready to give a vote upon the question;
but he thought it better that the business should have this course. With
respect to any discussion being necessary upon this subject, he perhaps
might think it necessary to make some observations upon it, when the
question came before the House for decision; for, though some gentlemen
might be endued with the happy faculty of doing every thing in an
instant, he could not boast of possessing that faculty. But, even if he
were not desirous of discussion for his own information, he wished it
for the information of the public; and, notwithstanding all that the
House had heard about a waste of public money and public time, he
believed they should best serve the public by suffering the business to
take the usual course.
The motion for a postponement was put and negatived.
Mr. SITGREAVES then moved that the resolution be referred to the
Committee of Privileges.
Mr. HARPER moved that the committee have leave to sit during the session
of the House.
Mr. THATCHER thought, as it was probable a number of members might be
wanted to give evidence, the House had better adjourn, as on a former
occasion, as it would not be proper to go on with business when so many
members were absent.
Mr. T. CLAIBORNE hoped leave would not be granted for the committee to
sit immediately. He wished them coolly to deliberate upon the business,
which they could scarcely be expected to do, when their passions were so
strongly affected as they must be at present.
The question for leave to sit during the session was put and carried--46
to 36.
Mr. HARPER moved that the committee be instructed to report to the House
the evidence in writing, upon which they shall found their report.
Mr. KITTERA thought the facts were so notorious that there was no
necessity for this instruction.
Mr. HARPER said if his friend from Pennsylvania could say that every
body would be satisfied with the report of the committee without the
evidence, he would not insist upon this motion. But if the evidence was
not reported, how could he say that all the witnesses might not again be
called before the House? It was his wish to prevent this.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said there was a considerable difference between this
transaction and the one lately under consideration. He thought in this
case it would probably save much trouble to report the evidence.
Mr. BROOKS said it must be recollected that the gentleman from Virginia
was not satisfied with the former report. He wished to hear the
witnesses themselves; and if the evidence was to be reported, he did not
suppose it would be satisfactory.
Mr. NICHOLAS seconded the motion, because it would be likely to shorten
the business; but if, when the testimony came to be reported, there was
any obscurity in it, he should feel it necessary to ask the witnesses
questions by way of elucidation, as every man who was called upon as a
judge, should be in full possession of every fact relative to the
subject.
Mr. BROOKS said the gentleman who had just sat down, would have no
difficulty in pointing out some obscurity, in order to furnish an
apology for rehearing of the witnesses.
Mr. KITTERA said if to report the evidence would prevent the necessity
of hearing the witnesses in the House, he should not object to it; but
he believed this would not be the case.
Mr. VENABLE was before of opinion that it would have been best for
witnesses to have delivered their evidence in writing. He hoped that
course would now be taken, and then there would be no difficulty in
reporting it to the House; and if it should be found necessary, in order
to elucidate any part of it, to put any questions to the witnesses in
the House, the business would be greatly facilitated and shortened by
the evidence being reported.
The question was put and carried.
Mr. OTIS believed that something further was necessary to be done in
respect to the unfortunate business, which had already engaged the
attention of the House. From what had happened in the view of the House,
it appears that the parties are in the habit of conflicting with each
other; and except they are restrained by some authority which shall be
sufficiently imposing upon them, further violence may be expected. In
order, therefore, to secure this House from future violations of its
dignity and order, he proposed the following resolution for adoption:
"_Resolved_, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members
of this House, be respectively required by the SPEAKER to
pledge their words to this House, that they will not commit
any act of violence upon each other during this session;
and that if either refuse to make such engagements, the
party refusing shall be committed to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-arms, until he shall comply with this
obligation."
Mr. SEWALL understood a motion had been agreed to in relation to the
affair of yesterday, which might produce an expulsion of the members in
question. He thought it would be better, therefore, to alter the wording
of the resolution, and instead of "during this session," say "during the
continuance of the examination of the business before the House."
Mr. SITGREAVES did not think any alterations were necessary. An
expulsion of the members was a possible, but not a necessary result. If
an expulsion does not take place, the resolution will remain in
operation for the remainder of the session, which would be proper; and,
if an expulsion took place, its operation would fall of course.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought it best to pass the resolution as it stood. If a
similar resolution had been entered into on a former occasion, it would
probably have prevented what had now taken place.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS called for the reading of the resolution which was
passed on a former occasion. [It was read. It stated "that any personal
contest between the members, before the House had come to a decision
upon the business, would be considered as a high breach of privileges."]
Mr. W. thought this resolution went as far as the House had a right to
go. The resolution proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, went
farther, he thought, than they had power to go. It went to imprison one
or both of the parties, if he or they refused to comply with the request
of the House. He had his doubts whether that House had the
constitutional power to imprison a man for a crime, as the law only
would do this. He thought a resolution, similar to that adopted on a
former occasion, would be sufficient at present; and if the mover did
not think proper so to alter it, he would himself move an amendment for
this purpose.
Mr. OTIS flattered himself that his object would have met with the
concurrence of all sides of the House, believing that all wished to
prevent future violations of order and peace. With respect to the doubts
of the gentleman from North Carolina, his politics seemed to be
altogether a system of _doubts_. If this system was common, it would be
extremely difficult to progress with business at all. He believed, on
the present occasion, these doubts were groundless. When an act of
violence was done in the view of the members of the House, they had
certainly the power to obtain some security against a repetition of such
violence. If this was not done, the presumption was, the business of the
session might be continually interrupted; and had they not the right of
securing the peaceful exercise of their legislative functions for the
remainder of the session? He thought this could not be seriously
doubted. With respect to the former resolution, if he had been in his
place, he should have suggested its impropriety; for, by it, it seemed
to be implied that, after the question was decided, though they could
not do it before, the members in question would be at liberty to commit
any act of violence they pleased upon each other. They had seen the
consequence. He hoped, therefore, the House would restrain these
gentlemen in such a manner as that it may not be in their power again to
interrupt their proceedings.
The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried by a large
majority, there being 73 votes in favor of it.
The SPEAKER asked, whether it was the pleasure of the House that the
Sergeant-at-arms should be sent for Mr. LYON?
Mr. SITGREAVES said it might not be convenient for Mr. LYON to attend
the House; he asked whether the resolution might not be sent to him, and
his answer be received in writing?
Mr. NICHOLAS supposed, that if both gentlemen prepared a declaration in
writing, and presented it to-morrow, it would answer the purpose.
Mr. HARPER replied, the mischief intended to be guarded against might in
the mean time be done.
Mr. GALLATIN said, he had just been called out by a member of the House,
who had asked him whether he thought it would be proper for Mr. LYON to
attend the House. He supposed, therefore, if the Sergeant-at-arms was
sent for him, he would immediately attend.
Mr. HARPER hoped the Sergeant-at-arms would be sent.
The SPEAKER said, as soon as the Clerk had made a copy of the
resolution, the Sergeant-at-arms would wait upon Mr. LYON with it.
Mr. LYON having entered,
The SPEAKER said, the members from Vermont and Connecticut being now in
their places, he should proceed to read the resolution which had been
entered into by the House. [He then read the resolution.]
As soon as it was finished reading,
Mr. GRISWOLD rose and said, he should not hesitate to enter into the
proposed engagement.
Mr. LYON also rose and said, he was ready, as it was the wish of the
House, to agree to the proposition.
The SPEAKER said, then you do accordingly agree to this proposition?