Part 273

Mr. GILES then moved that Mr. CHRISTIE should be sworn. This was done. The member then stated that he had been at Philadelphia, about the month of October last. He met with Mr. Randall, who made up to him, and observed that he had this summer been in Canada. He had missed the object for which he went; but he had met with another which he thought would prove advantageous. He at first advised Mr. Randall to apply to the Secretary of State. Mr. Randolph had just then resigned his office; and no other person was appointed in his stead. Mr. C. then advised him to lay the affair before the PRESIDENT. When he came back to town at the sitting down of Congress, Randall came again to him, and said that by good advice he had altered his plan. He complained that Mr. C. was the only member who had not been ready to assist him. A considerable majority of the House of Representatives were secured to the scheme. Mr. C. said, that he never would advise Congress to sell their lands under a dollar per acre; and as Mr. Randall wanted the lands so much cheaper, he must in the course of his duty oppose the plan. Mr. C. inquired who were his advisers. He answered, that Mr. Whitney had told him that Mr. SEDGWICK recommended this way of proceeding, and was to draw up a memorial to be laid before the House upon the subject.

Mr. SEDGWICK finding his name thus unexpectedly introduced, wished to be allowed to give oath in order that he should tell all he knew.

The oath was administered to Mr. SEDGWICK, who gave information to the following effect: He had never in his life seen Randall, till he was produced at the bar. Whitney he had seen two or three times. The Mr. Jones mentioned by Whitney, in his declaration lives within about thirty-four miles of Mr. SEDGWICK's house. Whitney, with Mr. Jones, came, a considerable time ago, to him one morning, while he was at breakfast. They asked his opinion; which was, that Government would not sell any lands, till the Indian claim was first extinguished. Mr. Jones endeavored to convince Mr. SEDGWICK of the benefits which would result to the United States from this sale. Mr. SEDGWICK accompanied them to the door of his house, where Mr. Jones asked him whether there would be any thing improper in a member of the Legislature being concerned in such a purchase? Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this would depend entirely on the mode of application. If it was to the Land Office, there would be nothing wrong in it; if to Congress, then it would be a man making a bargain with himself. Whitney, since Mr. SEDGWICK came to town, had called two or three times on him. He got his servant for more than once to deny him, as he was busy. Once, however, he did see him; the first question of Mr. SEDGWICK was, from what State did he come? He said he resided in Vermont. He then spoke of the matter in a general way; and Mr. SEDGWICK, whose object it was to shake him off, advised his calling on Mr. BUCK, a member from that State, as it would be more proper to call on him. Mr. SEDGWICK believed that he was more teazed with applications of this private kind than any member in the House. During the conference with Whitney, he did not remember that Randall's name was ever introduced. Mr. SEDGWICK heard, with astonishment, the name of Colonel Pepune mentioned. He lived opposite to Mr. SEDGWICK's house, in the town of Stockbridge. He rode down from that place to New York, along with Mr. SEDGWICK, and never spoke one word of the matter to him.

Randall had, among other stories, told Mr. SAMUEL SMITH that Mr. WM. SMITH should bring forward this land business, in the House. He positively said so to Mr. S. SMITH on the 13th of December, and it would be proved that he had never exchanged a word with Mr. W. SMITH, nor ever seen him till the 22d of that month, viz: about nine days after. This is the substance of a short explanation which took place between some of the members, after Mr. SEDGWICK had ended his declaration. Mr. W. SMITH then asked Randall, whether it was not true, that he spoke to Mr. SAMUEL SMITH before he spoke to himself? Mr. Tilghman, in reply, said that he was authorized to answer in the affirmative. This puts to rest the story related by Randall to the member from Baltimore.

WEDNESDAY, January 6.

Case of Robert Randall.

Mr. SEDGWICK laid before the House some additions to his evidence, delivered yesterday. He gave in a written copy of the whole, and wished that it might be added to the declaration already made. The paper was read, and, on motion, ordered to be inserted in the journals. Mr. SEDGWICK said he had yesterday mentioned Col. Pepune being in Philadelphia, but he had not seen him. He has since done so. The Colonel lodges at the sign of the Drover, in Third street, and is ready, when called upon by the House, to tell every circumstance which he knows about the transaction of Randall or Whitney.

Mr. W. SMITH submitted, whether it would be proper to proceed any farther in the case of Randall, till some hearing had been given to Whitney.

It was then moved by a member that the case of Randall should be postponed. After some conversation as to the point of order, the motion was negatived.

Mr. HARPER then read two resolutions. Of the first, the following is the substance:

"Resolved, That any attempt to influence the conduct of this House, or its members, on subjects appertaining to their Legislative functions, by motives other than the public advantage, is a high contempt of this House, and a breach of its privileges."

The second resolution was, in substance, that Randall having committed such an offence, was guilty of such a contempt, &c.

Mr. HARPER thought it proper, before deciding as to Randall, to lay down certain principles, and decide whether the offence was in itself criminal or not, before determining the conduct of the prisoner.

Mr. KITCHELL thought these resolutions unnecessary. The only thing before the House was to call on the prisoner, and pronounce him either innocent or guilty.

Mr. HARPER, in defence of his resolutions, said, that one misfortune attending privileges was, that they could not be exactly defined; but, as far as they could be ascertained, it was the business of the House to do so. If this offence is a breach of privilege, we are entitled to declare it such, that the people of the United States may be informed that it is so.

Mr. W. SMITH could not conceive how any member would vote against this first resolution. If we refuse to say that the act itself is a crime, how can we condemn Randall as criminal? We are, in every sense of the word, bound to vote for the proposition. We have declared the attempt of Randall to be a high offence and contempt. If any member thinks it not so, then, to be sure, he will vote against it. Mr. SMITH said that Legislative bodies had frequently, while a prisoner was on trial before them, laid down rules to guide them, previous to their pronouncing sentence. A former member had suggested that it was better to make the resolution a preamble to the sentence, and introduce it with a whereas. As it stands at present, it is agreeable to what had been done already.

Mr. NICHOLAS hoped that members were not to be bound by any thing yet done. At the first embarking of the House in this affair, he had felt doubts. His scruples had gradually augmented, and he was now of opinion that Randall should not have been meddled with at all, in the present way. The right of privilege had been given up, unless in cases of absolute necessity. He did not think that any resolution had yet passed the House, upon due consideration, whether they had a right to proceed or not. Mr. NICHOLAS recommended lenity, rather than a parade of integrity, where there was no ground of suspicion--a parade which would not have been made if there had been any real danger.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought the resolutions altogether unnecessary. The principle is already entered on the journals. All that the House have to do is to declare Randall guilty or not.

Mr. HILLHOUSE agreed with Mr. WILLIAMS, but he was astonished at the doctrine held up by the gentleman from Virginia. We had been told yesterday, at the bar, that the offence is not punishable by the common law. We are not to do so by privilege. The consequence is, that an attempt to corrupt members cannot be punished at all. It would not be proper to tell this to the public. Any body may then come here and bid for votes.

Mr. HILLHOUSE thought that the counsel yesterday had fairly given up the point, for they admitted that improper violence without doors was a breach of privilege. Mr. H. argued that this was as great a violence as could be. He was for inflicting a punishment.

Mr. LIVINGSTON thought the wording of the first clause too broad. Any member spoken to without doors might come into the House and complain of a breach of privilege on trifling grounds.

Mr. GILES would not at present enter into the question whether there had been a breach of privilege or not. From any thing yet seen, he was doubtful. He was against the preamble. Privilege was of an insinuating nature. Mr. LIVINGSTON had taken up a thought which occurred to Mr. GILES. Any man meeting on the street a member of this House, may say to him, "Sir, by voting for such a thing in the House, you will destroy your popularity in your district." This argument was not on motives of public good, and a member might by this resolution be warranted to come into the House and complain of it as a breach of privilege. He wished for the previous question, which was taken, and by a great majority the resolution was negatived.

Mr. LIVINGSTON then read two resolutions. Their tenor was, that it appears to this House that Robert Randall has been guilty of a contempt and a breach of the privileges of this House, by attempting to corrupt the integrity of its members, in the manner laid to his charge, and that Randall should be called up to the bar, reprimanded by the SPEAKER, and recommitted to custody, till further orders from this House.

On the first resolution the yeas and nays were called for--yeas 78, nays 17.

After some conversation, the second resolution was likewise agreed to.

Randall was then brought to the bar, and in a few words reprimanded by the SPEAKER. To call his offence indiscretion, impropriety, or indelicacy, was too mild a name. His conduct was crime. His apparent ignorance of the nature and extent of his guilt had induced the House to be more indulgent than they otherwise would have been. The SPEAKER informed him that he was recommitted to custody till further orders from the House.

THURSDAY, January 7.

Case of Charles Whitney.