In consequence of many obstacles I had to encounter in
obtaining the delivery of Thomas Nash, late of His
Majesty's ship Hermione, and of the numerous publications
to the northward and in this place, I wrote to Admiral Sir
Hyde Parker, requesting he would be good enough to send me
minutes of the court martial, to which he answered under
date 13th September: "I am to acquaint you that Nash has
been executed agreeably to a court martial, and that he
confessed himself to be an Irishman; and it further
appears, by the Hermione's books, that he was born at
Waterford; on the 21st December, 1792, entered a volunteer
on board the Dover, received £3 bounty money, and was
removed to the Hermione, 28th of January, 1793. And with
respect to transmitting the minutes of his trial, that is
not in my power, but rests with the Lords of the Admiralty
only."
MONDAY, February 10.
_Amy Dardin's Claim for the Horse Romulus._
The petition of Amy Dardin was called up, and after some opposition, on
account of a former reference and decision, was referred to the
Committee of Claims.
THURSDAY, February 13.
_Military Interference in Elections._
Mr. LEIB called up for consideration the following resolution, which he
laid on the table on the 4th instant, viz:
_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to _bring in a
bill making_ provision for the removal of the regular
troops of the United States which may be stationed where an
election is held, and that such removal shall take place at
least two days previous to such election, and to a distance
not less than two miles.
Mr. OTIS moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words in
_italic_, in the second line, and inserting "inquire into the expediency
of."
A long debate ensued on this motion, in which it was conceded, on all
sides, that the resolution was too definite, and left nothing in the
power of the committee to act on, except merely bringing in a bill
conformable to it. If excesses had been committed by the military at
elections, and they were guilty of improper interference, it seemed to
be the wish of every member that some provision should be made to guard
against them in future; but they were unwilling to say what that
provision should be, until an inquiry were made into the facts stated.
The removal of the troops to the distance mentioned, was also
particularly objected to, as it might leave fortifications, arsenals,
and military stores, for two or three days, entirely unprotected.
Mr. LEIB at length withdrew his original proposition, and submitted the
following, which was adopted without objection, viz:
"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and
report a bill, containing such legislative provisions as
may be judged expedient, either for removing any military
force of the United States, from any place of holding
elections, or for preventing their interference in such
elections."
Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. LEIB and Mr. OTIS, were appointed the committee.
_Amendment to the Constitution._
Mr. LIVINGSTON laid the following joint resolution on the table:
_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That the
following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of
said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of the said
constitution, viz:
No Judge of any Court of the United States shall, during
his continuance in office, or within six months after he
may have resigned the same, be appointed to any other than
a judiciary office, under the United States.
MONDAY, February 17.
_Case of Jonathan Robbins._
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he had expected that some order would have been taken
on the Message of the President, before this time, by the gentleman who
called for it; but as he had been disappointed, he would now give notice
to the honorable member from New York that he would call for some order
upon the Message to-morrow.
Mr. LIVINGSTON said, the gentleman had momentarily anticipated him; he
meant to have moved for a reference to a Committee of the whole House
this morning, with an intention to introduce certain resolutions, and he
would now make that motion.
The question on commitment was put and carried--yeas 50, nays 43; and
was made the order of the day for Friday.
Mr. BAYARD then laid the following resolution on the table, which was
read and referred to the above committee, viz:
_Resolved_, That the conduct of the Executive Government of
the United States, in relation to the requisition made by
his Britannic Majesty's Minister, of the delivery up to
justice of Thomas Nash, otherwise called Jonathan Robbins,
upon the charge of murder, committed on board of the
Hermione British frigate, which said Nash had sought an
asylum within the United States, was conformable to the
duty of the Government, and to the obligations of good
faith stipulated in the 27th article of the Treaty of
Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, made with Great Britain.
THURSDAY, February 20.
_Case of Jonathan Robbins._
Mr. LIVINGSTON proposed the following resolutions:
"_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that a person,
calling himself Jonathan Robbins, and claiming to be a
citizen of the United States, impressed on board a British
ship-of-war, was committed for trial in one of the courts
of the United States for the alleged crime of piracy and
murder, committed on the high seas, on board the British
frigate Hermione: That a requisition being, subsequent to
such commitment, made by the British Minister to the
Executive of the United States, for the delivery of the
said person (under the name of Thomas Nash) as a fugitive,
under the 27th article of the Treaty with Great Britain,
the President of the United States did, by a letter written
from the Department of State to the Judge who committed the
said person for trial, officially declare his opinion to
the said Judge that he 'considered an offence committed on
board a public ship of war on the high seas to have been
committed within the jurisdiction of the nation to whom the
ship belongs;' and, in consequence of such opinion and
instruction, did advise and request the said Judge to
deliver up the person so claimed to the agent of Great
Britain, who should appear to receive him, provided only
that the stipulated evidence of his criminality should be
produced. That in compliance with such advice and request
of the President of the United States, the said person so
committed for trial was, by the Judge of the District of
South Carolina, without any presentment or trial by jury,
or any investigation of his claim to be a citizen of the
United States, delivered up to an officer of his Britannic
Majesty, and afterwards tried by a court martial, and
executed on a charge of mutiny and murder.
"_Resolved_, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the
United States declares that the Judiciary Power shall
extend to all questions arising under the Constitution,
laws, and treaties, of the United States, and to all cases
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction: and, also, that the
trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall
be by jury; and that such trial shall be held in the State
where such crime shall have been committed; but when not
committed within any State, then at such place or places as
Congress may by law have directed; and inasmuch as it is
directed by law that the offence of murder committed on the
high seas shall be deemed to be piracy and murder, and that
'all crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out
of the jurisdiction of any particular State, shall be tried
in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into
which he may be first brought:' therefore the several
questions, whether the alleged crime of piracy and murder
was committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great
Britain; whether it comes within the purview of the said
twenty-seventh article; and whether a person stating that
he was an American citizen, and had committed the act of
which he was accused in attempting to regain his liberty
from illegal imprisonment, ought to be delivered up,
without any investigation of his claims to citizenship, or
inquiry into the facts alleged in his defence, are all
matters exclusively of judicial inquiry as arising from
treaties, laws, constitutional provisions, and cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.
"_Resolved_, That the decision of those questions by the
President of the United States, against the jurisdiction of
the courts of the United States, in a case where those
courts had already assumed and exercised jurisdiction: and
his advice and request to the Judge of the district court
that the person thus charged should be delivered up,
provided only such evidence of his criminality should be
produced as would justify his apprehension and commitment
for trial, are a dangerous interference of the Executive
with Judicial decisions; and that the compliance with such
advice and request on the part of the Judge of the District
Court of South Carolina, is a sacrifice of the
Constitutional independence of the Judicial power, and
exposes the administration thereof to suspicion and
reproach."
The question of reference to the Committee of the Whole was taken and
carried--yeas 55.
The House then adjourned.
FRIDAY, February 21.
_Eulogium on the Character of Washington._
A message was received from the Senate informing the House that the
Senate had this day come to the following resolution, viz:
"_Resolved_, That the Senate will to-morrow, at half past
12 o'clock, meet in the Senate Chamber, and from thence
walk in procession to the church in Race street, to hear
the eulogium to be pronounced on the character of General
Washington."
Ordered to lie on the table.
The SPEAKER said he was requested, by a member of the Catholic church,
to inform the House that seats were provided for the accommodation of
such members as would please to attend to hear the delivery of the
oration to-morrow.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, before the receipt of the message from the Senate, he
had intended to move that when the House adjourn they do adjourn till
Monday; but the Senate having informed the House that they intended to
walk in procession, he conceived this House ought to come to a similar
resolution, and moved the following:
"_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives will meet
to-morrow, at half-past 12 o'clock, at their Chamber, and
from thence walk in procession to the church in Race
street, to hear the eulogium there to be pronounced on the
character of General Washington."
It was objected to this resolution, that it had not been contemplated
this House would walk in procession, no arrangement having been made for
that purpose; and that as it might be the wish of several members to
attend the oration at the Catholic Church in preference to the one in
Race street, it ought to be left to their own option.
The question on the resolution was put and negatived--yeas 40, nays 43.
MONDAY, February 24.
_Western Lands._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report
made the 18th instant, by the committee appointed to inquire whether
any, and, if any, what, alterations are necessary in the laws providing
for the sale of the lands of the United States north-west of the Ohio;
and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported
several resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read, and
agreed to by the House, as follows:
_Resolved_, That all the townships directed to be sold, either in
quarter townships or in tracts of one mile square, by the act "providing
for the sale of the lands of the United States, in the Territory
north-west of the river Ohio, and above the mouth of Kentucky River,"
shall be subdivided into half sections, containing, as nearly as may be,
three hundred and twenty acres each: the additional expense of surveying
to be paid by the purchaser, at the rate of three dollars per tract.
_Resolved_, That all the said lands shall be offered for sale at public
sale, in tracts of three hundred and twenty acres as above directed:
_Provided_, That the same shall not be sold under the price of two
dollars per acre, and that the sale shall be at the following places, to
wit:
All the lands contained in the seven first ranges of townships, and
north of the same, shall be offered for sale at Pittsburg.
All the lands contained in the eight next ranges of townships, shall be
offered for sale at Marietta.
All the lands lying west of the fifteen first ranges of townships, and
east of the Sciota River, shall be offered for sale at Chillicothe.
All the lands lying below the Great Miami shall be offered for sale at
Cincinnati.
_Resolved_, That one or more land offices shall be opened in the
North-western Territory, and that every person be permitted to locate
and purchase, at the rate of two dollars per acre, one or more of the
half sections that shall not have been sold at public sale.
_Resolved_, That the payments for lands purchased either at public or
private sale, may be made as heretofore in public securities, and shall
be made in the following manner, and under the following conditions,
viz:
1st. At the time of purchase, every purchaser shall deposit
one-twentieth part of the amount of purchase-money; to be forfeited, if,
within three months, one-fourth of the purchase-money, including the
said twentieth part, is not paid.
2d. One-fourth of the purchase-money to be paid as aforesaid, within
three months, and the other three-fourths in three equal payments,
within two, three, and four years, respectively, after the date of the
purchase.
3d. No interest to be charged in case of punctual payment; but interest
at the rate of six per cent. a year, to be charged from the date of
purchase, on any part of the purchase-money which shall not have been
paid at the time, respectively, when the same shall have become due.
4th. A discount at the rate of eight per cent. a year, to be allowed on
any of the three last payments, which shall be paid before the same
shall have become due.
5th. If any tract shall not be completely paid for within one year after
the date of the last payment, the tract to be sold in such manner as
shall be provided by law; and after paying the balance due to the
United States, including interest, the surplus, if any, to be returned
to the original purchaser.
_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said
resolutions; and that Mr. HARRISON, Mr. BRACE, Mr. GORDON, Mr. DAVIS,
Mr. LYMAN, and Mr. GALLATIN, do prepare and bring in the same.
TUESDAY, February 25.
_Case of Jonathan Robbins._
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Message of the PRESIDENT respecting Jonathan Robbins, a short debate
took place whether the committee should take up the business of the
resolution first proposed by Mr. BAYARD, or those subsequently offered
by Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. BAYARD seemed inclined to withdraw his motion,
but the committee seeming of opinion that both resolutions were within
their jurisdiction, and that they might proceed on either, the question
was taken whether the committee would proceed on the resolutions of Mr.
LIVINGSTON and carried in the affirmative.[49] Messrs. BAYARD, RUTLEDGE,
OTIS, &c., voting in favor of the question, and Messrs. LIVINGSTON,
NICHOLAS, &c., against it.
Mr. LIVINGSTON then entered upon an argument in support of the
resolutions which he had some days before submitted to the House, and
which now were taken up. Soon after he began the discussion, he was
proceeding to read a deposition of Jonathan Robbins, and certificates
accompanying the same, to prove himself a citizen of the United States,
in which the deponent swore, before the court of South Carolina, that he
was born at Danbury in the State of Connecticut, and that he was
impressed from on board the American brig Betsey, by the crew of the
British frigate, about two years before, where he was detained contrary
to his will until the mutiny occurred.
Mr. BAYARD opposed the reference to a fact so incompetently
authenticated as the report of a case upon newspaper testimony,
especially when, if it had been the desire of the gentleman to have
introduced it as evidence, it was extremely easy to have procured the
record of the court before he proceeded on his allegations. If such
evidence as this was to be admitted, other and perhaps more important
evidence might next be introduced to impose on the committee. Besides,
it certainly must be looked upon as _ex parte_ evidence, which it was
impossible to repel. Mr. B. submitted to the Chair whether it would be
in order to admit any fresh evidence to support the resolutions, when
all the documents which had been asked for, and which had come to the
knowledge of the Executive, had been submitted to the House.
Mr. GALLATIN, on the question of order, contended for the admission:
this document, he said, was referred to as authentic, in his letter. He
says, "That, by the proceedings before that judge, (Bee,) as they have
been published, it appears that a seaman named Thomas Nash did assume
the name of Jonathan Robbins, and make oath that he was a native of the
State of Connecticut," &c. Certainly it cannot be deemed improper to
refer to the identical document there mentioned. If it was proper for
the Secretary of State to make the allusion, the House could take it up
under the same idea. He did not think it was introduced as evidence
before the committee.
Mr. DANA said he was very sorry the gentleman had been interrupted; he
could not think of admitting it as evidence, but the gentleman might
read it as part of his speech, which perhaps might otherwise have a
chasm in it.
Mr. LIVINGSTON said he did wish to read this paper as part of his
speech; and he believed it a very material part, because it was a
justification of a point which he wished to establish; he wished to show
the committee that Jonathan Robbins claimed to be an American citizen,
and that he said he was impressed. This he swore to in court; and that
he did so, he hoped would be admitted. He said he only introduced it
with this view. Surely he could not be so far mistaken in his law
knowledge as to be thought to have said that the culprit could be
evidence in his own behalf. If _he did say_ he was a citizen, then the
matter, upon examination, must appear more serious than gentlemen would
be willing to think.
Mr. BAYARD had no doubt but it was the gentleman's intention to impress
the force of the facts contained in that paper upon the minds of that
committee; and to suppose it would have no impression would be absurd.
It would afterwards be said that this man was admitted to be an
impressed American citizen, and that he was praiseworthy in committing
what would then be called the homicide. The decision of the committee
would be much affected, he said, by the kind of evidence which was
adduced. If this was admitted, it would be impossible to ascertain the
extent of the principle. Other depositions may be produced--indeed, he
had no doubt but the gentleman could get proof to any point which he
might think it material to ascertain. In saying this, he did not mean to
insinuate that any improper steps would be taken by that gentleman, but
there were volunteers enough to be found who would step forward in
order to answer a party purpose, and make oath of any thing.
Mr. LIVINGSTON supposed he should increase the astonishment of gentlemen
still more when he declared that he did not believe a word of the
affidavit; but he believed Nash was an Irishman, and that he entered on
board and committed all the crimes charged to him. It was clear that
this affidavit could not be evidence. In admitting this, he believed he
did not surrender one point of the resolutions; he should prove that all
which he wished to ascertain was that such _claim_ was made to the
court.
Mr. BAYARD asked where could be the necessity of proving a fact which
every member of the House was willing to admit. All acknowledged that
Nash _claimed_ to be an American citizen; but perhaps the wish of the
gentleman was to have additional light on this subject, on which account
he introduced the deposition. But, Mr. B. said, he was willing only to
proceed upon what the House knew from the documents before them, and not
take a step on precarious ground. It must be well known what the
gentleman wanted to get this admission for; he no doubt wished to prove
that, upon his own mere suggestion, he was an American citizen, and that
he was impressed--he was entitled to a trial by jury in this country,
and on that account the act of sending him away was unconstitutional.
This would lead to an extensive field of argument. If there was any
necessity for more evidence, or to call witnesses to the bar of the
House, let proper measures be taken to procure them, but let them not
come forward in any other way.
Mr. DANA read the resolution first offered to the House for a call for
papers relative to Jonathan Robbins; this was answered, he said, by the
Secretary of State, that no requisition or proceedings had been had in
that name; but he presumed allusion was made to the case of Thomas Nash,
concerning whom proceedings were had in the District Court of South
Carolina; in that way, and that only, the Secretary made reference to
the printed report. In this blundering way, Mr. D. said, the business
was begun. [He was called to order.] In addition to this, he said, the
proceedings of gentlemen were erroneous; but, notwithstanding that, Mr.
D. said, he would gratify the feelings of the gentleman, as far as his
vote would go, for him to read it, but only as part of his speech. No
doubt he wished to support some point of his argument by it, and in that
view he had a right to read it; but that it was evidence, he denied.
The CHAIRMAN having stated his reasons, concluded with an opinion that
the member could not proceed to read the affidavit.
Mr. GALLATIN appealed to the committee from the decision of the Chair;
when there appeared 39 in favor of the decision, and 48 against it.
At this point the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.
WEDNESDAY, February 26.
_Case of Jonathan Robbins._
Mr. DAVIS moved that the Committee of the whole House be discharged from
the further consideration of the resolutions proposed by Mr. LIVINGSTON
and Mr. BAYARD, on the affair of Jonathan Robbins. The small progress,
Mr. D. said, which was made yesterday in the discussion, fully convinced
his mind that nothing at all would be done in it; besides, were he
convinced that the subject would be impartially conducted, he did not
know of any possible good that could arise from the adoption of the
resolutions. If there had been any error in the proceedings of the
Executive, he conceived that error would correct itself. If there was an
improper interference, he was certain it could not have arisen from
improper motives, and therefore he sincerely hoped he should not be
called upon to give an opinion on the subject. Nor, on the other hand,
was he at all prepared to compliment the Executive, or any officer of
the Government, for having done what he thought to be right. If he had
done right, it was his duty. He did not think it of any great
importance; but, most assuredly, if the argument was extended, it would
be made a case of much importance. It was better, however, to let the
case of Jonathan Robbins sleep in the Committee of the Whole, where it
then was. He was not prepared to criminate, nor was he prepared to
applaud.
Mr. RANDOLPH said, that no gentleman had a higher respect for the
motives of the gentleman from Kentucky than himself; but, however
disagreeable it might be, he must differ from him in his present
opinion. He really hoped the gentleman would reconsider the motion he
had made, and not stop the gentleman from New York in this early stage
of the business. If there were any defects in the papers, and their
authenticity was questionable, it must not arise from the gentleman from
New York, but from those whose duty it was to furnish all the facts
relative to the subject. He was obliged to read a printed paper, because
those with whom the authoritative copies are, have not thought proper to
furnish the House with them. He hoped, if a stop was put to the
proceedings, it would not be to discharge the committee, but to call for
authentic copies of all the papers within the reach of the Government.
It must be acknowledged that the man whose case the House are
considering did put in his claims to citizenship, and to the protection
of his country on that account. If that acknowledgment is refused on
account of the paper which has been produced being a newspaper,
reference must be made to what is within the reach of the House--more
authentic papers.
Mr. H. LEE considered the motion would have the complete effect any
gentleman could wish whose desire it was to reprobate the conduct of the
Administration of our Government. How could the motion be necessary--how
be useful? If they were to ask more evidence, said Mr. L., I would vote
for it to be produced; they have brought the subject before the
House--let us see it in the purest colors which it can be placed in. We
are ready to meet them here; we are willing they should have every
evidence that can be obtained to elucidate their charge; but let not the
Executive be hung up to reproach without a trial; let not suspicion be
encouraged, which must have all the effects of a substantiated charge. I
wish them to go on with the discussion, that all the truth may be
disclosed, and every fair light be given which the case will bear; for
now the people of the United States have their eyes fixed upon our
proceedings on this important question.
Mr. MACON was in favor of the motion. If the Committee of the Whole was
not to be discharged, he hoped at least the subject would be postponed
till the public business of the session was over; there were many public
bills, he said, that must be passed. The House was called upon to judge
with almost no testimony, and yet upon this uncertain ground, perhaps a
whole week might be spent of the most precious time of the House; for if
the House was to rise at the time proposed, the loss of this time would
certainly be felt.
As to the impression it would leave on the minds of the people, they had
as many facts to judge from as the House, and they certainly would form
an opinion, whether the House did so, or not. Gentlemen were very much
mistaken, he said, if they undertook to lead the people; they would
think, and they would show what their judgment was when a proper time
came for that purpose. The time the people would take to show their
approbation or disapprobation of the measures of the Administration was
at elections, and then they would do it.
Mr. DANA was against the postponement of the subject, or the rising of
the committee. It was to be recollected that the business had assumed
its present shape only in consequence of the zeal of the gentleman from
New York, and his coadjutors, to censure the Executive. On the 7th of
February, it was committed to the whole House; contrary to the opinion
of a number of gentlemen, who wished the facts investigated by a select
committee; thirteen days then elapsed before he had prepared his
resolutions--resolutions not calculated to make an inquiry into the
conduct of the Executive, but expressive of the most pungent censure
upon his conduct. These resolutions were produced upon the papers which,
at the desire of those gentlemen, were submitted to the House. The only
question then, is, Do the papers upon which those resolutions are
predicated warrant the censure contained in them, or not?--It certainly
would be a high reproach to the very idea of a public inquisition to
admit more evidence upon those grounds. Still, however, let gentlemen go
on in their heterogeneous proceedings, the House would have the wisdom
justly to appreciate the various attempts made to clear themselves of a
predicament in which their over-arduous attempts to censure had thrown
them.
Mr. LIVINGSTON conceived it his duty to answer the observations of the
gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. DANA,) as to the resolutions being
founded upon the facts then before the House. He did not think the facts
were precisely sufficient to warrant every idea contained in the
resolutions. When the original call for papers was agreed to by the
House, he had hoped that something more authentic than newspaper
testimony would have been referred to by the Executive; and upon that he
was now compelled to act, if at all. The gentleman has said that my zeal
and that of my coadjutors, to censure the Executive, has brought us into
this situation. Who, sir, I would ask the gentleman, are my coadjutors?
That gentleman himself was my coadjutor, and every gentleman in the
House, because the resolution was adopted. The House directed the
inquiry, and every gentleman must therefore take the burden, in part,
with me.
Mr. CRAIK said, that very early in this business he thought the House
were entering into it very improperly, either having nothing at all to
do with it, or else taking wrong measures, if they had; he thought then,
and was yet of opinion, that if the object was to impeach the President,
measures ought to have been taken accordingly. He never did look upon
the House of Representatives as having either the power to censure or to
approbate the conduct of the Executive, and, therefore, he equally
disapproved of the resolutions of the gentlemen from New York and
Delaware; and, upon that ground, he felt strongly inclined to vote with
the gentleman from Kentucky for giving the whole subject the go by, and
getting clear of it by any possible means.
Mr. HARPER agreed with the gentleman, that it would be folly for the
House to spend time in useless discussion, which could lead to no
decision; but, viewing this resolution as he did, he must conclude it of
more importance; he thought it the direct road to an impeachment of the
President of the United States, and, if so, surely it must appear
important. The resolution declared, in express terms, that the Executive
had exercised unconstitutional powers--one of the most dangerous crimes
that he could commit. If he had so exercised his power, the inevitable
consequence must be, that the President of the United States must be
impeached by this House. Then, how could any gentleman say this was a
trifling question, and one with which the House had nothing at all to
do? Certainly no question can be more important.
Mr. RUTLEDGE regretted that he could not join with his friend from
Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) in thinking this consideration useless; he
believed the attention of the people had been called to view this
subject, and they were anxiously looking for a decision in some way.
Neither did he think, with his honorable friend, that the House had
nothing to do with it, because no impeachment could grow out of it. It
was impossible to say what the gentleman meditated in his resolutions,
but one thing was certain, if the gentleman has wished to promote an
impeachment, he could not have taken a more direct means for it, if the
resolutions should be carried.
Mr. KITCHELL thought no good could arise from the investigation of this
subject, because he did not know what was to be done in it, let the
decision be what it might. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
HARPER) wished to have an opportunity of showing that every part of the
resolution was built on false ground. Every gentleman in the House was
not so fond of speaking nor of hearing as was that gentleman, and he
hoped, merely on that account, that the House would not spend time on
what (in his opinion) could not possibly lead to impeachment. What
effect could a discussion have, but to show the world that there were
_parties_ in the House, and to raise a rancorous disposition? He did not
know what there was in the resolution that could lead to an impeachment,
nor did he know what the House, in their censorial capacity, had to do
but to impeach. He believed it out of the power of the House to applaud.
In short, he did not think they had any thing to do with it.
Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the discussion would proceed. Although there might
not be sufficient ground on which to impeach the Executive, he could not
agree that, therefore, no inquiry ought to be made into his conduct;
there might be an error in his conduct, and yet no impeachment be
necessary to be raised out of it; and, if so, it would be extremely
wrong to suffer it to go out to the world without a decision, after the
subject had once been taken up by the House. Where there might be no bad
intention or wicked design, the action might be of a dangerous tendency,
and proper to be inquired into, in order to express an opinion
thereupon. Mr. N. said he was well pleased that his opinion, that the
motion ought to be negatived, accorded with that of the gentleman from
South Carolina, because it would afford him an opportunity of showing
what he said he could show.
Mr. BAYARD had no doubt of the competency of the House either to
impeach, to censure, or to approbate the conduct of the Executive, and
of course both the resolutions were in their power.
Several gentlemen had intimated that the authentic evidence and the
whole of the documents were not before the House, and that the Executive
Department was to blame for the deficiency. It appeared that the
gentleman himself had forgotten the import of his resolution; it called
for such documents as might be in possession of the Department of State.
Now, what could possibly be in possession of that Department? The
President of the United States had his duties to perform, and the judge
of the district his duties; each had their separate documents; and, as
neither interfered with the other, therefore, it could not be expected
to be in the power of the President to furnish the papers belonging to
the courts of South Carolina, any further than they came within the
joint duties of both. Agreeably to treaty, the British Consul made a
requisition for the person; a copy of this, and the several letters and
instructions, were sent to the House, but it was not in the power of the
Executive to order the judge to furnish him with a record of the
proceedings; he was not bound to furnish it if the President had called
for it, and no doubt he had furnished the House with every paper in his
possession.
Mr. OTIS said, when first the motion was made by the gentleman from
Kentucky, he felt for a moment inclined to lean to it; the motives of
that gentleman appeared to be so candid and liberal, that, for the
moment, Mr. O. confessed, his feelings got the better of his reason. But
a short reflection induced him to change an opinion thus hastily formed,
and he felt satisfied that to vote with him, would be to display, in the
conduct of gentlemen who wished to support the Administration of this
country, worse than censure. He joined that gentleman in regret that it
had gone so far, but certainly it was a subject of the most irritating
nature possible: a charge the most serious; a breach of law by the
Executive Magistrate, who is bound to support it and see it carried into
effect. It is certainly a charge of much importance, and however
disagreeable it might feel to him, Mr. O. said, he must vote that every
argument should be used that could possibly tend to substantiate the
charge, that nothing of truth might be hidden.
Mr. O. said he did not know to what points the evidence required by the
gentleman from New York could apply, except it was to that of his being
an American citizen, and of his being impressed. An affidavit was
produced to prove these facts, but it would be found from an examination
of the documents that nothing relating to those points was in the office
of the Department of State; for the date of the affidavit of Robbins is
the 25th of July, but the order of the Secretary of State bears date the
5th of June, so that no papers as to his claim can be in the possession
of that department. Mr. O. thought the documents before the House
contained every thing that was important to the point.
Mr. CRAIK was sorry that gentlemen who advocated this motion should be
charged with an opposition to the administration of Government; he
believed his conduct had heretofore evinced a different line of conduct.
He still denied that the mode taken by the resolution could lead to
impeachment. It certainly did contain a very great censure, and one
which the House had no authority to inflict.
Mr. GALLATIN considered the motion to be grounded on two ideas; that
there was not sufficient foundation for the House to act upon, and
therefore that it was necessary to discharge the committee, or postpone
the subject for want of further evidence.
It is clear, said Mr. G., that the evidence is not sufficient to impeach
the District Judge of South Carolina. If an impeachment of him was the
object, it would be impossible to carry it forward without an
authoritative copy of the record of the court; but if there was no
intention to impeach, he did not think there was any material evidence
wanted in order to decide upon the resolution, since it only meant an
implication of censure upon the Executive and the District Judge, and
not impeachment.
Mr. G. agreed there was at first sight some weight in the sentiment
expressed by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. CRAIK,) that the House
had only a power to impeach but not to censure; but certainly, when it
was considered that an act might be committed without any ill motive,
and yet the act be injurious, it could not be the subject of
impeachment, but it might be of censure. The same act committed with a
criminal motive would be impeachable, which without it would be of a
nature not to admit of it.
Again: Mr. G. thought that though the House might have ground whereupon
to censure, they ought not, at any time; but they had exercised that
power. They had in a number of cases approved of the conduct of the
President, and if the act of approbation had been done, they surely had
as much power to disapprove and censure.
The question was then taken on the motion to discharge the Committee of
the Whole from the further consideration, and negatived--yeas 14, nays
76.
THURSDAY, February 27.
Another member, to wit, JOHN SMITH, from New York, appeared, produced
his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.
_Case of Jonathan Robbins._
Mr. DAVIS said, as the House had yesterday thought proper to negative a
proposition to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further
consideration of the business, and as one great motive for that motion
was the incompetency of evidence before the House, and as he knew it was
in the power of the House to procure that evidence by a proper
application, he hoped gentlemen would now indulge him in the adoption of
the following, which he moved, viz:
_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this
House a copy of the proceedings of the court held in the
district of South Carolina, in the case of Thomas Nash,
calling himself Jonathan Robbins.
Mr. BAYARD said, if he was persuaded, or if the gentleman could convince
him that there was any particular evidence in the hands of any officer
that would tend to throw such light as to give the least explanation to
the case, he certainly would be willing to accord with the resolution;
but he believed every necessary fact was before the House, and this had
been acknowledged by several gentlemen. If the object was to prove that
Nash was an American citizen, and that he was impressed, that could not
be necessary as it respected the resolutions of the gentleman from New
York, for that gentleman himself had acknowledged that he believed no
such thing, but that the whole claim was falsehood. Would the gentleman,
then, inform the House what point he wished to ascertain, or in what he
expected additional proof? He wished information, farther, who was the
"proper officer" to whom reference was expected to be made. There are
but two officers at all in view, one is the Secretary of State, the
other the District Judge of South Carolina; the gentleman could not
suppose that the Judge would be able to transmit the records of that
court previous to the adjournment of the House; and if it could be
obtained, no evidence to the point could be expected from him. If, on
the other hand, it was meant to call on the Secretary of State, it was
not to be expected, from the nature of the case, that any more documents
were in his hands than those already furnished; he had given copies of
the correspondence and requisition, which, it might be fairly inferred,
from the nature of his office, was all of which he could be possessed.
But if any gentleman doubted this fact, he could apply to the office of
the Secretary of State, from whom he could procure whatever was in his
possession.
If it was the intention of the House to close this very disagreeable
business in the present session, they must negative the resolution and
let the discussion go forward. The gentleman who brought forward the
resolution ought to have been provided with every document that was
necessary to support the charges, before he suffered them to appear.
However, he did not think but the gentleman who proposed the resolutions
thought his grounds were quite sufficient to support them.
Mr. NICHOLAS said he always believed that the testimony was incomplete,
but when he heard a gentleman get up and mention particular testimony
which he considered so important that without it he should not know how
to vote, whatever, Mr. N. said, might have been his former satisfaction
as to the establishment of the points, he certainly must now be inclined
to grant gentlemen every point of evidence that they should think
necessary, if within the reach of the House.
One particular piece of testimony had been mentioned, viz: that the man
had filed an affidavit that he was an American citizen and was impressed
on board a British man-of-war. Could any gentleman pretend to say that
no inference might be drawn from this source and the concomitant facts?
The gentleman from New York, to be sure, had declared his satisfaction
with the facts that had been produced to the House, but did the
gentleman from Delaware know that this was the case with any other
gentleman in the House? That gentleman's conclusions and impressions
were not to be taken as the opinions of others, nor were others obliged
to be satisfied because he was; and therefore to couple others in a
measure to which they were not privy, and to ascribe opinions to them
which they had not expressed, was at least unfair.
Mr. DANA thought this a most extraordinary resolution indeed? Was the
President of the United States the clerk of the court, to keep the
records of it? What had the President to do with the proceedings of that
court? It was certainly a total departure from all the forms of judicial
proceedings to suppose a thing of the kind. The gentlemen must certainly
have mistaken the situation held by the President, or they would never
have made such a vast departure from order and propriety of proceeding.
The President is not the public accuser; he is not to be called upon for
papers with which he has nothing to do. When he found gentlemen
outraging every thing that belonged to judicial propriety; when he found
them stumbling into error after error, and departing totally from all
jurisprudential propriety, Mr. D. said, he could not avoid rising to
oppose it.
Mr. LIVINGSTON said he did hope that this motion would not have been
brought forward; but as he meant to vote in favor of it, after having
declared his satisfaction with the documents, as sufficient to support
his resolutions, he should be accused of advocating a question of which
he had before spoken apparently differently, unless he should now give
his reasons; and lest he should be accused of a desire to keep alive a
calumny against the President of the United States, an effect which had
been stated, he took opportunity to answer the insinuation by saying
that he as much abhorred so mean a principle as any gentleman in the
House.
Mr. MARSHALL said, it was with no inconsiderable regret that he
perceived so much of the time of the House, which ought to be devoted to
more beneficial purposes, employed in preliminary discussion. He thought
that it was impossible the House could agree to a postponement, which
the motion under consideration must cause when it was reflected how much
time must be employed in procuring those papers--it could not take less
than a month; for they could only be found, he would presume to say in
the Court of the District of South Carolina: it was therefore scarcely
to be expected that they could be obtained until just before the rising
of the House, a period, if they arrived before the House rose, too late
for their consideration.
Mr. BAYARD said he could not distinguish between the present motion and
one yesterday negatived, because it must operate as a discharge upon the
Committee of the whole House. There could be no doubt but the Secretary
of State had furnished all the papers relative to the business in his
possession--indeed, he could assuredly say so. He said he held in his
hand a letter from the Secretary of State, in answer to one from an
honorable member of the House inquiring whether there were any more
documents in his office; he answered that he had no certified copy
whatever but those which he had furnished the President with, from whom
they came to the House. Gentlemen must then perceive that the mere
operation of this resolution was an absolute and inevitable postponement
of the business till another session. Many gentlemen, who were yesterday
ashamed to vote for a postponement, would now have a plausible cover for
their vote by calling for additional proof, to accomplish the object of
the resolution of yesterday; and thus he feared it would have many
advocates, but, however specious the pretext, he hoped it would not be
carried.
Mr. RUTLEDGE conceived this motion to be the same as to postpone the
business. Further information was wanted, and that information could
alone come from South Carolina. He wished the gentleman from Kentucky
would read the resolution before he pressed his motion: he would find
that the District Judge was not charged; no, it was only a charge
against the Executive; there was not a word of irregularity of
proceeding in the Court, but the Executive was seriously charged.
Mr. DAVIS explained. He said his objects were to have the record in
order to see whether Robbins did produce a certificate that he was an
American citizen; to see a copy of the warrant by which he was
committed; and thirdly, to know what stratagem or what proceedings were
used to take him out of the cognizance of the Court, where he must have
remained, if the President had not interfered. These things he wished to
ascertain, but that would be impossible without the court record.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, he conceived this to be the object, but he by no
means thought that the gentleman would be satisfied on these points,
were he to be possessed of the record. The gentleman might inquire the
reasons for the Executive and Judicial conduct being as it was, but
perhaps he would not receive the information. Every gentleman in the
House would unite their vote to procure all the testimony within their
reach, so as to enable the House to prosecute the business. We know,
said Mr. R., what monstrous clamor has been raised about this business;
we know that great pains have been taken to make the people believe that
their fellow-citizen has been torn from his country; that he has been
impressed into a foreign service; that the treaty has been violated;
that their fellow-citizen has been taken to a foreign country, and there
been tried in a summary manner and executed. We have been told for
months past that this business would be inquired into; we wish not to
avoid it; we will by all means in our power assist it; we have done it.
Some time since papers were asked for, we agreed with gentlemen that
they should be furnished; it was done, and they are now on your table.
They have been there many days; so that gentlemen had sufficient time,
long before this, to have known whether they were satisfied or not. The
gentleman himself who brought forward the resolutions affected to be
satisfied, but, in compliance with the wish of his friends, he now
wishes to postpone it. We want to bring the matter to a decision, and so
far as we can accommodate gentlemen and avoid delay we will do it.
Mr. NICHOLSON rose to correct what he considered a mistake in the
gentleman last up, (Mr. RUTLEDGE,) when he said that the Executive only
was implicated in the resolutions; he conceived that the District Judge
of South Carolina was implicated, and that the papers of that court were
necessary to examine the conduct of that judge. He read the resolution,
and contended that his deduction was accurate. Mr. N. said he wanted to
know whether the District Judge of South Carolina had committed this man
for trial; this would appear or be disproved by the warrant.
That the President of the United States was not to be considered as the
servant of that House, he was willing to admit, but he did not think
that the President might, with propriety, apply to the judge of the
district for the documents of the court; and he did not believe that the
President would object to make the application. However, the object he
presumed was to procure the papers, no matter from whom; that being the
object, he hoped the mover of the resolution would withdraw it, in order
to accommodate it more to the feelings of some members in the House, by
adopting something like the following:
_Resolved_, That the Speaker of the House of
Representatives be requested to procure, from the Clerk of
the District Court of South Carolina, copies, under seal,
of the proceedings of that court, together with the
evidence produced in the case relative to the requisition
for Thomas Nash, alias Jonathan Robbins, who was delivered
to His Britannic Majesty's Consul.
Mr. DAVIS withdrew his resolution, and Mr. NICHOLAS moved the
substitute, which was now before the House.
Mr. HARPER moved a postponement of this resolution to this day week. The
object of the resolution which was before the Committee of the Whole was
twofold--a charge on the President, and a charge on the District Judge.
So much as related to the President of the United States, it was
manifest that the testimony called for by this resolution could have no
effect whatever upon him, because he left the whole to the judge. The
President went no further than to declare that if it should appear that
the acts committed by this man came within the purview of the British
Treaty, the man ought to be delivered up conformably to that
stipulation.
Mr. NICHOLAS thought, with the gentleman last up, that if the only
inquiry was as to the conduct of the President, or if the inquiry was
only to respect the judge, the papers might be dispensed with; but it
was otherwise--the conduct of both was called forth to view by the
resolutions, but how far the conduct of either may be reprehensible,
depended on the testimony which might appear before the House. It was
impossible to say what the President had done until the documents should
be seen. If gentlemen refused the inquiry being made of the court in
South Carolina, they, by that act, made the President answerable for
every part of the facts, which he believed they would not pretend to do.
He really believed it extremely important to know what steps had been
taken in this very serious business, to know whether the man was in
course for trial, and whether the President had acted in the hasty and
premature manner which was stated, in delivering him up.
Mr. GALLATIN could not help observing the disposition which gentlemen
evinced of placing the opinions and sensations expressed by one
gentleman to the account of others. To take a fair view of the
resolutions, what did they amount to? Nothing more than the deductions
which one man had drawn from the message sent to this House by the
Executive: these deductions, in the form of a resolution, he had
submitted to the consideration of the Committee of the Whole. Now,
except it could be proved that that gentleman had made all the
deductions of and acted for every gentleman, there could be no ground
for saying that every gentleman would be satisfied, without the evidence
which might be collected from the records of the District Court of South
Carolina. Was any gentleman in the House bound to be satisfied, with the
gentleman from New York, that all the facts necessary to be known were
furnished? Was every gentleman in the House bound to confine himself
solely to the resolutions before the House? Certainly not. It could not
be denied that the evidence now required was essential to a full
investigation of the conduct of the judge, who was the principal agent
of the Executive in this case.
Mr. H. LEE hoped that the gentleman from South Carolina would withdraw
his motion. He would mention some reasons which would induce him to vote
differently from gentlemen with whom he usually had the honor to vote.
Considering this a question of very great importance, not only to the
American people, and to the reputation of the House, but also to the
highly respectable character presiding over our Government, he trusted
the House would, in its whole process, be led by principles so fair and
candid, as not to leave the least room for a charge of derogation from
its own dignity or of the great subject it was discussing.
He would vote for the motion calling for the papers, but he would do it
with an expectation that it would not postpone the discussion of the
business so far as related to the conduct of the President of the United
States. It appeared that the conduct of the President, as charged, was
fully before the House; there could be no difficulty therefore to
proceed on it; but, as far as respected the judge, Mr. L. trusted the
record of the court would be sent, for he thought it but fair to gratify
gentlemen who considered there was any material evidence wanting.
Mr. VARNUM would vote for the resolution proposed; he thought it was
doubtful whether the President had acted with propriety or not; but he
believed if there had been any incidental impropriety of conduct, it was
never done with an evil design, nor with a view to interfere with any
other department of the Government; but certainly to deny this evidence,
which several gentlemen had stated to be necessary to assist them in
making up their minds, would stamp a censure on the conduct of those
officers as great as that contained in the resolution. He thought the
gentleman from New York had a right to bring the subject to the view of
the House. If he saw any proceeding which to him appeared dangerous, it
was his duty to commence an investigation. No man ought to flinch from
what he thought right. The only way to give public satisfaction, in a
matter that had so much engaged public attention, was to give all the
evidence which could be procured, and let the matter be investigated to
the bottom; and, most assuredly, the only way effectually to clear the
characters implicated, if they were innocent, was to leave no doubt as
to the desire of the House to scrutinize their conduct. But, certainly,
the very great reluctance which gentlemen showed to procure all the
evidence, and, after all, their denial of it, must leave a suspicion
bordering much on guilt.
Mr. BAYARD rose, in answer to Mr. GALLATIN and others, and observed,
that, with respect to Nash calling himself an American citizen before
that court, (an object which it was desired to prove by this call for
evidence,) they were asked to admit the fact. Mr. B. asked, would these
gentlemen admit that Nash was guilty of the dreadful murders committed
on board the British frigate? Would they admit that he falsely made the
claim? However, he had no disposition to rest on that point. Another
fact, however, which it was required to admit was as to the jurisdiction
of the court of the United States upon the case. Mr. B. denied this, and
repeated the former arguments in proof of his opinion. He insisted that
the whole arrest and proceeding was had at the instance of the British
Consul and Minister, in proof of which he quoted their letters. The
record, he said, could not possibly dispense any light to this fact; the
record would only give the warrant and some of the depositions first
taken before the judge; but as to the court being designated where the
case was to be tried, he contended that it was not usual to insert it in
the warrant--he never saw one so drawn. It was possible that Nash was
committed with a view to be delivered up to the British, before the
letter was received by the judge from the President; and it was very
reasonable that the whole previous business was at the instigation of
the British agent, but it was impossible to prove that jurisdiction had
attached before the letter directing the delivery to be made was
received.
Mr. JONES said, that finding himself, from the vote he was about to
give, implicated in the charge made by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr.
BAYARD,) that gentlemen who were yesterday ashamed to vote for the
proposition to discharge the committee from further consideration of the
subject, in general and express terms, because it would imply a distrust
of the sufficiency of the ground on which to support the principles of
the resolutions, were now disposed to effect the same object by a
decision which would, in fact, go to evade the question during the
present session, he felt himself impelled, by a respect for his own
conduct, to explain the motives which would govern his vote on the
present question. He considered the case which had been called into view
by the proposition of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. LIVINGSTON,) as
one that involved in it the dearest interests and deepest concerns of
the people of the United States. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
BAYARD) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) had indulged
themselves in the most violent invectives and unnecessary abuse against
the unfortunate, the obscure, and insignificant character, now dead, who
was the subject of this proposition. On this topic they had exercised
all their powers of passionate declamation. If this was a grateful theme
for the employment of their talents, he did not envy them the enjoyment
of it. How that kind of argument would apply to the question, he left to
the House to determine.
For his part, Mr. J. said, he deemed it totally immaterial whether the
man was, as they had declared, an Irishman or not; whether he was a
Turk, a Hottentot, or a native-born American, if he claimed to be an
American citizen, and produced a certificate in due form, under the
signature of a proper officer, of his citizenship, and that claim was
slighted by the judge, or declared immaterial, and the fact not inquired
into of his being a citizen, then he conceived the safety of the
citizens of America to be equally put in jeopardy, as if the man had
been born and raised in Charleston, in the circle of the judge's own
acquaintance. If, he asked, a dagger aimed at my breast by an assassin
in the dark, should by mistake or impetuosity pierce the bosom of
another, would not the discovery of such an attempt awaken alarm, and
demand a precaution for my future safety? Certainly it would. So in this
case, if this man claimed to be a citizen, and wore about him the legal
voucher of that claim, and if he was told in the presence of American
citizens, "it is of no importance whether you are, or are not a citizen,
that is a point of no concern in the case," notwithstanding it may
afterwards be found he was no citizen, yet would it equally involve the
safety of every true citizen who might fall into similar circumstances.
We may congratulate ourselves that it has not fallen on a
fellow-citizen, but we ought still to improve the lesson this case has
presented. Mr. J. hoped that it would be improved, and that, at least,
legislative provisions would be made to prevent this decision from
operating on a citizen, if such a case should occur in future.
The question was then taken on the motion of Mr. HARPER, to postpone the
consideration of the motion of Mr. NICHOLSON, for a call of the record
of the District Court of South Carolina, for one week, and
negatived--yeas 32, nays 63.
The question then recurred upon adopting the resolutions.
Mr. MARSHALL spoke at length against it. He contended there was no
prospect of coming to a decision of the original question this session,
if this were adopted; and asked if the character of the President of the
United States ought to be held up in the suspicious view in which the
resolution placed it, until the next session of Congress? He hoped not.
It seemed to him that a postponement amounted to a declaration to the
people of America that there was much cause for suspicion, and that
additional evidences were wanted to substantiate it.
Mr. NICHOLAS replied to Mr. M., and contended that the whole truth of
the case was to come out of the additional testimony now asked for.
An adjournment was then called for, and negatived--yeas 30.
Mr. RANDOLPH spoke in favor of the resolution, and in answer to Mr.
MARSHALL.
The question was then taken that the House do agree to the motion first
proposed, and passed in the negative--yeas 44, nays 57.
And then the House adjourned.
FRIDAY, February 28.
Mr. HARPER moved a postponement of the order of the day on the business
of Jonathan Robbins, until Monday. He did not conceive much progress
would be made this day, and as there was much private business on hand
it could not be gone through with. If the business be taken up on Monday
it can be regularly gone through with without intermission.
The motion was agreed to.
MONDAY, March 3.
_Lake Superior Lands._
Mr. COOPER observed that a navy was considered an object of great
importance, as was also our extended commerce, and neither of these
could be carried on to any profit without a very liberal use of copper.
That article could not be purchased at present at less than half a
dollar a pound, but by attention to an object which was within our own
power it might be had at a very low price. From these considerations he
laid on the table the following resolution: