Part 262

BROWN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 286, 377, 493, 612. See Index, vol. 2.

BRYAN, JOSEPH, Representative from Georgia, 79, 286, 379.

BURR, AARON, as Vice President presides in Senate, 38; Vice President presides over the Senate, 163; franking privilege denied, 168; farewell address to the Senate, 169; note, 170. See Index, vols. 1 and 2.

BURWELL, WILLIAM A., Representative from Virginia, 493, 613; on rejection of the bill from the Senate suspending the Habeas Corpus, 504; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 522; on British aggressions, 618; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 646; on naturalization laws, 659; on suspension of the act of non-importation, 709.

BUTLER, PIERCE, Senator from South Carolina, 6; reports on amendment to the constitution, 7; offers amendment to limit eligibility to Presidency, 7; on the eligibility only of natives to the Presidency, 21; resigns, 165. See Index, vol. 1.

BUTLER, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 51, 207, 378, 493, 613.

CALHOUN, JOSEPH, Representative from South Carolina, 613.

CAMPBELL, GEORGE W., Representative from Tennessee, 51, 285, 378, 613; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 58, 60; on postage on newspapers, 78; on the resolution relative to public roads, 83; on the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 94; on the government of Louisiana, 152; continues the argument for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 232; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 291; on the establishment of post roads, 338; on importations from Great Britain, 451; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 531; on fortifications and gunboats, 638; on removal of the federal judges, 675; on suspension of the embargo act, 677; on suspension of the act, 693.

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 50, 286, 377, 493, 612. See Index, vol. 2.

CARLTON, PETER, Representative from New Hampshire, 612.

CARONDELET, his letter relative to money for General Wilkinson, 642.

CASEY, LEVI, Representative from South Carolina, 51, 287, 378, 494; decease announced, 491, 515.

Census of the Union.--See Index, vol. 1.

CHAMBERLAIN, WILLIAM, Representative from Vermont, 50, 285.

CHAMPION, EPAPHRODITUS, Representative from Connecticut, 612.

CHANDLER, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612; on importations from Great Britain, 462; on building gunboats, 627; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 645.

Charitable objects.--See Index, vol. 1.

Charlestown, Virginia, petition of inhabitants for a port of entry, 407; report of committee of commerce, 409; facts in the case, 409; report agreed to, 409.

CHASE, JUDGE, official conduct of considered in the House, 88; no people have such a sense of the importance of preserving unpolluted the fountains of justice as citizens of the United States, 88; hence the independence of the judges under the constitution, 88; resolution offered to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, and whether he has so acted in his judicial capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of the House, 89; called upon to vote an inquiry into the conduct of a judge without any facts being adduced to show that such an inquiry should be made, 89; to adopt the resolution in its present form would be a vote of censure on the Judge, 89; parties aggrieved, or members cognizant of the facts, should bring up the measure, 89; statement of facts made at last session, 89; occasion of that statement, 90; a statement of the facts occurring in Pennsylvania, 90; this is the first instance in which a motion to appoint a committee of inquiry into the official conduct of a public officer has been opposed, 90; this House the constitutional guardians of the morality of the judiciary, 90; character of the Judge involved by this discussion, 90; the conviction of any one member of the propriety of this measure cannot warrant the House in taking this step, 90; the statement of facts is not founded on personal knowledge, 91; hearsay should never be the ground for instituting an inquiry, 91; action should be delayed until such facts are disclosed as will justify the step, 91; the propriety of the inquiry cannot be seen without evidence, and what is the object of the inquiry but to obtain evidence, 91; if the inquiry cannot be had without the evidence, both must be dropped, 91; no impropriety in giving the case the same direction as all other business of the House, 91; it does not appear correct to call the character of a public officer in question, unless some necessity should first appear, 92; no precedents adduced which apply to this case, 92; case of Judge Pickering, 92; the course proposed inverts the natural order of things, being an inquiry for and not out of facts, 92; facts stated not sufficient for impeachment, 93; the grounds should be stated in the form of a resolution, and such resolution be referred to a committee for investigation, 93; we have the same right to impeach the President, yet it would be improper without facts, 93; question of adjournment moved and lost, 93; postponement desired, to afford time for reflection, 94; we should proceed cautiously in this matter, 94; before the vote for an inquiry there should be probable grounds that facts exist to authorize such a procedure, 94; improper to go into such an inquiry before specific charges are laid before the House, 94; reasons for proceeding in what is termed so precipitate a manner, 95; all objections are applicable to a motion for impeachment only, 95; committee rose, 95; amendment moved to insert also the name of Judge Richard Peters in the resolution, 96; only a committee is asked to receive evidence, and determine whether it affords grounds for an impeachment, 96; no way more favorable to the person implicated, 96; on the request of a member for a committee of inquiry, that measure ought to be adopted, 96; precedents are not necessary; reason and common sense are all that is necessary to guide to a decision, 97; British annals are full, 97; case of the Earl of Strafford, 97; it is notorious that Fries was tried for his life without being heard, 97; Peters equally guilty with Judge Chase--amendment carried, 98; let the facts be laid before the House, 98; otherwise we shall legislate on the opinion of a member, 98; men of talents will not take seats on the bench, if their character is liable to be scrutinized without any facts being previously adduced, 98; any member may procure an investigating committee if this resolution pass, 98; under the circumstances, the measure is improper in every point of view, 99; arguments of the opposition turn on the ground of expediency and precedent, 99; its expediency argued, 99; precedents considered, 99; resolution objected to because of the indelicacy of implicating the character of a judge, 100; all independence has its limits, 101; is not this House under a solemn oath for the faithful discharge of this and every other duty, 101; other objections considered, 102; reasons for every member to vote for the resolution, 102; this House is the grand inquest of the nation, whose duty it is to inquire, on a proper representation, into the conduct of every officer, 103; it is the duty of a grand jury to inquire who is guilty, 103; in England common report has been considered sufficient authority for similar inquiries, 103; not necessary that the House should be acquainted with any facts to make this inquiry, 103; the accused should have an opportunity to prove to the world that his character has been assailed without cause, 104; what will a committee do, 104; it operates in the nature of an inquisition, 104; let us first ascertain if there is sufficient grounds for an impeachment, 104; when did this case occur, 104; why has it rested so long, 104; it is not of the serious nature contended, 104; precedents do not warrant this form of proceeding, 105; so important is this matter that the conduct of any officer should be inquired into on the demand of a member, 105; the offence charged is such as will warrant impeachment, 105; is the present proceeding conformable to principle? 105; a charge has been made against Judge Chase, 107; precedents examined, 107; a more anti-republican resolution not seen, 108; unprecedented, unparliamentary, 108; information on the matter extremely contradictory, 109; precedents examined, 109; resemblance to a grand inquest, 110; proceedings in North Carolina, 110; difference between the friends and opponents of the resolution, 111; form of a resolution offered, 111; objections and personal allusions examined and answered, 112; is the denial to the prisoner and the jury of the right of having the point of law discussed nothing? 113; is treason better defined than murder? 113; should an incipient inquiry be confined by the same rules which govern a criminal trial? 113; cases of precedent offered, 113; the House is vested with the sole power of impeachment; how it is to be exercised must depend on its discretion, 114; what does the resolution demand of us? 114; if gentlemen are in possession of facts, let them declare them, 114; let the instances of malfeasance of these judges be specified, 115; what public character will be safe, if this resolution is adopted on the request of a single member? 115; observations of the opponents are incorrect; the resolution is to inquire, not to impeach, 115; the duty of the committee will be to inquire into the official conduct of a certain public officer, 115; if there is no ground for impeachment, the character of the officer should be vindicated, 115; no justification in the constitution on which to ground a refusal to inquire, 115; various objections considered, 116; precedents for the judgment in Fries’ case, 116; no facts have been shown, 116; the inquiry is an act of justice due to the people of the United States on the one hand, and to the officers on the other, 117; all the difference possible between an inquiry and an impeachment, 117; analogy between the functions of this House and a Grand Jury correct, 117; the reputation of the Government demands the inquiry, 117; it is not the examination, but the result of the examination, that attaches merit or demerit to a public officer, 118; a full inquiry into the conduct of public officers should be cherished with great care, 118; in this case a specific charge has been made, 118; authorities from foreign nations adduced, 118; the case of the Western Insurrection, 119; the precedents adduced, examined, 120; committee of investigation of the last Congress, 120; this resolution points to two particular officers as objects of suspicion, 121; if charges were specified, a member, on moving the resolution, might demand an inquiry, 121; others have their convictions as well as the mover of the resolution, 121; common fame no ground on which to support such a resolution, 122; on the broad basis of universal right, the resolution is condemned, 122; reason why the charge is of a serious nature, 123; amendment moved, 123; moved to strike out amendment and insert other words, 124; motion to strike out agreed to, 124; motion to insert carried, 124; question on agreeing to the amendment as amended, lost, 124; original resolution carried, 124; committee appointed, 125; report of the committee, 161; ordered printed for the use of the members, 161; report, 174.

Trial of Judge Chase.--Note, 173; report of committee in favor of impeachment adopted, 174; committee appointed to impeach Judge Chase at the bar of the Senate, 174; committee to prepare articles of impeachment, 174; do. considered, 175; managers to conduct the impeachment appointed, 175; proceedings in the Senate, 175; rules of proceeding adopted by the Senate, 175; preliminary proceedings, 177, 178; answer of Judge Chase, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; replication by the House of Representatives, 191; names of the witnesses, 191, 192.

Impeachment opened, 192; it is for a daring inroad upon the criminal jurisprudence of the country, by delivering an opinion, at a time and in a manner before unheard of and unknown, that the respondent is impeached, 192; the soundness of the opinion is offered as a defence, 193; this was a criminal trial for a capital offence, 193; answer of respondent on this point examined, 193, 194; the second article is the case of Basset, whose objection to serve on a jury was overruled by the judge, 194; the same exception to a juryman, which would furnish ground for a new trial, ought to be a cause of setting aside such juror, if it be taken previous to his being sworn 195; third, the rejection of the evidence of John Taylor, 195; is it not an unheard-of practice, in a criminal prosecution, to declare testimony inadmissible because it is not expected to go to the entire exculpation of the prisoner? 195; fourth, requiring the questions intended to be put to the witness to be reduced to writing, and submitted to the Court, in the first instance, 196; refusal to postpone the trial, although an affidavit was regularly filed, stating the absence of material witnesses, 196; fifth, arresting and committing the defendant contrary to law, 196; other articles stated, 197; testimony of William Lewis, 198; testimony of Alexander J. Dallas, 199; testimony of Henry Tilghman, 201; testimony of Wm. Rawle, 202; testimony of George Hay, 204; testimony of John Taylor, 207; testimony of Philip N. Nicholas, 207; testimony of John T. Mason, 209; testimony of John Heath, 210; testimony of James Triplett, 210; testimony of John Basset, 210; testimony of George Read, 211; testimony of James Lea, 212; testimony of John Montgomery, 213; testimony of Samuel H. Smith, 214; testimony of John Stephen, 214; documents offered in evidence, 215.

Opening for the defence, 215; statement of the points to which testimony will be directed, 215; first, that the opinion was not only legal, but had been twice expressly decided, and once admitted, in the same court, and had before that trial been laid down as a general principle of law, 215; second, that the nature of Basset’s application has been wholly misunderstood by the witnesses on the part of the prosecution, 216; other points stated, 216; fifth and sixth, that by a rule solemnly made by the Supreme Court, that they never considered the State laws as regulating process, &c., 216; other points stated, 216; testimony of Samuel Ewing, 217; testimony of Edward J. Coale, 217; testimony of William Meredith, 217; testimony of Luther Martin, 218; testimony of James Winchester, 219; testimony of William Marshall, 219; testimony of David M. Randolph, 221; testimony of John Marshall, 222; testimony of Edmund J. Lee, 224; testimony of Robert Gamble, 224; testimony of Philip Gooch, 224; testimony of Gunning Bedford, 225; testimony of Nicholas Vandyke, 226; testimony of Archibald Hamilton, 226; testimony of Samuel Moore, 226; testimony of William H. Winder, 227; testimony of James Winchester, 227; testimony of Walter Dorsey, 227; testimony of John Purviance, 228; testimony of Nicholas Brice, 228; testimony of James P. Boyd, 228; testimony of William McMechin, 228; testimony of William S. Govane, 228; testimony of William Cranch, 229; argument begun by Mr. Early, on the part of the Managers, 229; remarks upon the first article of the impeachment, 229, 230; do. on the second, third, and fourth articles of the impeachment, 231; remarks on the sixth and seventh articles of the impeachment, 232; do. on the eighth article, 232; argument continued for the House, by Mr. Campbell, 232; provisions of the constitution relative to impeachments--their precise object and extent, so far as relates to the present case, 233; the several charges founded on the trial of Callender, stated in the second, third, and fourth articles of impeachment examined, 234; disqualification of a juror, 234; argument continued by Mr. Cloud, on the fifth and sixth articles of the impeachment, 236; the practice of the Federal Courts, 236.

Argument for the defence opened by Mr. Hopkinson, 236; the first proper object of inquiry is to ascertain, with proper precision, what acts or offences of a public officer are the objects of impeachment, 237, 238; first article examined, 240; second specification of first article examined, 242; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Key, on the second, third, and fourth articles of the impeachment, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Lee, on the fifth article, 248; do. on the sixth article, 249; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Martin, 250; general review of the case, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Harper, 258; political position of the defendant, 258; general review of the first six articles of impeachment, and an examination of the law and the facts, under the seventh and eighth articles, 260.

Reply for the prosecution continued by Mr. Nicholson, 261-262; to sustain an impeachment it is not necessary to show that the offences charged are of such a nature as to subject the party to indictment, 263; words “good behavior,” 263; treason examined, 264; reply further continued for the prosecution, by Mr. Rodney, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273; reply for the prosecution concluded by Mr. Randolph, 274; the doctrine of impeachment, 274.

Manner of taking the judgment of the Court, 281; opinion of each Senator taken on each article, 282, 283; acquittal of Judge Chase, 284.

Chesapeake Frigate, attack on, 614; report on, 616.

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal.--Report of committee on, 418.

CHITTENDEN, MARTIN, Representative from Vermont, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612.