Part 41

I conceive that the act of this House, in voting for a committee of inquiry, is equivalent to the expression of the opinion that they have evidence of the probable grounds of the guilt of the judge. The gentleman from Virginia has told us that the powers of this House are, in some degree, like those of a grand jury. I agree that they have all the powers of a grand jury, and it is on this ground that I deny the power now contended for. I say that a grand jury has no right to send for testimony: they have only a right to receive testimony from any one of their body, and to receive such witnesses as the court may send them. If, then, there be evidence in the present case, let us act upon it, even though it be ex parte, and although that might, perhaps, be going too far.

I repeat it, I have heard no statement satisfactory to my mind that there are probable grounds for proceeding in this business. It is true, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has made a statement, but that statement appears to me to depend not so much on facts as on opinions; and it is not my wish to decide on the propriety of the conduct of the judge until the facts are before us. It is certain that a judge has a right to control counsel, and to say when his mind is made up, while it is also his duty to hear the allegations that shall be made.

In addition to these reasons for a postponement, I am also in favor of it, because, whenever a sincere desire exists to gain information, which can only be done by allowing further time, I shall always be in favor of it, when no material injury can result from the indulgence.

Mr. MOTT.--I am in favor of the postponement, because I wish time for consideration, and because I am against the resolution itself. I think it is improper to go into such an inquiry before specific charges are laid before the House, when it will be proper for the House to consider whether those charges are sufficient to sustain an impeachment; then it will be proper to proceed, and not till then. No charges have yet been laid before the House: we have only been told by one member that he is satisfied sufficient grounds exist.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH was sorry to be obliged to trespass again on the patience of the House, but the direct application made to him by the gentlemen from Tennessee and South Carolina, imposed upon him the necessity of stating his reasons for proceeding in what they were pleased to term so precipitate a manner. They ask, why not have laid the resolution on the table by way of notice to the House? Because, sir, I cannot in a matter of extreme delicacy make the opinions of other gentlemen the standard of my own actions. I should have conceived the character implicated in the resolution as having just cause of complaint against me, had I not been ready to decide in a moment on it, and did I not press its immediate decision. I should have deemed it an act of cruel injustice to have hung the inquiry over his head even for a day. I should have expected the reproach of setting suspicions afloat whilst I avoided examination into them; for I should have deserved it, had I pursued the course which gentlemen wish to adopt. I can see no difference between hanging up this motion for a day or a year but the mere difference of time. What is the object to be obtained? Do we wait for evidence, or any information, which will assist us in forming a correct opinion? Not at all. To-morrow the question will recur upon us--“Is it proper, from what has already appeared, to institute an inquiry into the conduct of this officer?” And this we are as competent to decide at this moment as at any future day. When, however, gentlemen consider a resolution to make inquiry the same as an inquiry already had, I am not surprised at finding myself opposed to them in opinion. I repeat that all their arguments are applicable to a motion of impeachment only. But it seems that no precedents have been adduced, and time is wanted to hunt them up. Gentlemen should recollect that but two cases of impeachment have taken place under this Government; one of a Senator from Tennessee, the other of a district judge of New Hampshire. By what precedents were the proceedings in these cases regulated? How is it possible in a Government hardly in its teens, where new cases must daily occur, as its various functions are called into exercise, to find precedents? It did so happen, in the case of the Senator from Tennessee, that the information on which his impeachment was grounded came from the Executive. But suppose that information had not been communicated by the Executive? Would that have precluded all inquiry? Suppose, too, in the case of Mr. Pickering, that no information had been received from the Executive, and that a gentleman from New Hampshire had risen and said, “However painful the task, I deem it my duty to state that the conduct of the judge of the district in which I reside, has been such as renders him unfit for the important station which he holds, and I therefore move for an inquiry into his conduct.” Would the House have denied the inquiry? Will they rely altogether on the attorney of the district, whose interest it is to be well with the judge, and whose patience must be worn out with his misconduct before he will undertake to call the attention of Government to it? Are gentlemen aware of the delicate situation in which those officers are placed? Suppose information had been given to a member of the malfeasance of a judge by a person who should say: “It is not pleasant to originate accusations; those who come forward in these cases undertake an invidious task; while therefore I wish my name not to be mentioned, I shall be ready, when called upon by proper authority, to give my testimony.” This is a hypothetical case, but one by no means improbable. Would it not be a point of honor not to expose the name of the informant?

But, say gentlemen, the charge is of a general nature. While I do not admit the force of this remark, supposing it to be correct, I deny that it is a general charge. The inquiry is general, but it is founded on a statement made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I made no other statement. I have said that I believed there existed grounds of impeachment. What they are I shall not state here. They may be those exhibited by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, or they may be others. Will gentlemen assert that the statement of facts made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will not, if true, warrant an impeachment? What does it amount to? A person under a criminal prosecution, having a constitutional right to the aid of counsel in his defence, has, by the arbitrary and vexatious conduct of the court, been denied this right. Such is the nature of the charge. Has it come to this, that an unrighteous judge may condemn whom he pleases to an ignominious death, without a hearing, in the teeth of the constitution and laws, and that such proceedings should find advocates here? Shall we be told that judges have certain rights, and, whatever the constitution or laws may declare to the contrary, we must continue to travel in the go-cart of precedent, and the injured remain unredressed? No, sir, let us throw aside these leading-strings and crutches of precedent, and march with a firm step to the object before us.

As to the motion of postponement, Mr. R. said it was of little consequence to him whether it prevailed or not. On a charge of specific malfeasance, he thought it impossible to refuse an inquiry. Whatever should be the result, he should rest satisfied with having discharged his duty to the House and to the nation. Believing the circumstances to demand inquiry, he had made it. Without circulating whispers of reproach, he had given the person implicated that opportunity of vindicating his character which he himself should require if he stood in the same unfortunate situation.

The committee rose, and the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, January 6.

Importation of Slaves.

Mr. BARD.--For many reasons this House must have been justly surprised by a recent measure of one of the Southern States. The impressions, however, which that measure gave my mind, were deep and painful. Had I been informed that some formidable foreign power had invaded our country, I would not, I ought not, to be more alarmed than on hearing that South Carolina had repealed her law prohibiting the importation of slaves.

In the one case we would know what to do. The emergency itself would inspire exertion, and suggest suitable means of repelling the attack. But here we are nonplussed, and find ourselves without resource. Our hands are tied, and we are obliged to stand confounded, while we see the flood-gate opened, and pouring incalculable miseries into our country. By the repeal of that law, fresh activity is given to the horrid traffic, which has been long since seriously regretted by the wise and humane, but none have been able to devise an adequate remedy to its dreadful consequences.

Congress has but little power, or rather they have no power to prevent the growth of the evil. To impose a tax on imported slaves is the extent of their power; but every one must see that it is infinitely disproportionate to what the morality, the interest, the peace, and safety, of individuals, and of the public, at this moment, demand. And though in regard to their present case the power of the General Government may be insufficient to check the mischief, yet I hope they are disposed to discourage it, as far as they are authorized by the constitution. Therefore I beg leave to offer the House the following resolution:

“Resolved, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed upon every slave imported into the United States.”

Ordered to lie on the table.

Official conduct of Judge Chase.

The House resumed the consideration of the motion of the fifth instant, “for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,” and the said motion, as originally proposed, being again read, in the words following, to wit:

“Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, and to report their opinion whether the said Samuel Chase hath so acted in his judicial capacity, as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of this House:”

A motion was made and seconded to amend the same, by inserting, after the words “one of the Associate Justices of the United States,” the following words, “and of Richard Peters, District Judge of the district of Pennsylvania.”

Mr. SMILIE.--When the motion now under consideration was made yesterday, I should have felt surprised at the course which the debate took, had I not often witnessed such things in former times. It seems to be considered as improper that a gentleman should bring forward a motion for an inquiry into the official conduct of a public officer, and expect the House to comply with his request, unless he should at the same time produce such evidence as shall prove the facts charged. If this course of proceeding be correct, I have ever been in error. What does the gentleman from Virginia ask? Suppose he has taken exception to the conduct of the judge from some facts which have come to his own knowledge. Under such circumstances it will be allowed that it is the duty of the House to make the inquiry. When the question shall be whether an impeachment shall be preferred, it will be proper that evidence should be produced. But now only a committee is asked to receive evidence, and to determine whether it be such as in their opinion will afford grounds for an impeachment. It is impossible for me to conceive any way that can be pursued which will be more favorable to the person whose character is implicated, than that which is proposed. It is merely to inquire whether such facts can be sustained as will afford grounds for an impeachment. Certainly in this stage of the business it is not necessary to produce evidence to the House, as the House are not competent to receive testimony, which a committee is. It is a rule of this House that so much respect is due to a member, that if he states that he possesses information proper to be communicated to the House, but which in his opinion ought not to be done but with closed doors, that, in such case, the doors shall be shut without any vote of the House.

Surely, then, on the request of a member for a committee of inquiry, that measure ought to be adopted. This, in my opinion, is the best course that can be pursued for the person implicated. There is, it is true, thereby expressed an opinion of some one member that this judge has done wrong. So far his character is implicated; this is the only possible way in which it is implicated. The committee are to inquire whether there are grounds for an impeachment or not. If they report that there are not grounds, the accusation will be dismissed; and if the report is that there are grounds, the House will at once perceive the necessity of taking this step to ascertain their existence.

Another ground of resistance is taken. It is said there are precedents for this proceeding. I believe that all precedents must have an origin; and that one person has as good a right to establish them as another. Our Government is young, and only two cases of impeachment have occurred under it. Most of our precedents respecting parliamentary proceedings are borrowed from England, and, if precedents are necessary in this affair, we must resort to that country for them. My opinion is that they are not necessary, and that common sense and the reason of the thing are all that are necessary to guide our decision in this case. There is, however, in the British annals, no deficiency of precedents. The first I shall mention is to be found in the case of the Earl of Strafford. I may be told that this precedent was established in turbulent times: I may also be told of the improper mode of proceeding. I do not pretend to vindicate the whole course of procedure. I think it was wrong. But with regard to the first stages of the business, I believe them to have been correct. It will be seen that, in that instance, a more direct mode was pursued than is proposed in the present case.

The precedent I allude to will be found in Hume’s History, vol. 2, page 249. That historian says,--“A concerted attack was made upon the Earl of Strafford in the House of Commons. It was led by Pym, who, after expatiating on a long list of popular grievances, added, ‘we must inquire from what fountain these waters of bitterness flow; and though, doubtless, many evil councillors will be found to have contributed their endeavors, yet is there one who challenges the infamous pre-eminence, and who, by his courage, enterprise, and capacity, is entitled to the first place among these betrayers of their country. He is the Earl of Strafford, the Lieutenant of Ireland, and President of the Council of York, who, in both places, and in all other provinces where he has been intrusted with authority, has raised ample monuments of tyranny, and will appear, from a survey of his actions, to be the chief promoter of every arbitrary council.’ Many others entered into the same topics, and it was moved that Strafford should be impeached. Lord Falkland alone, though the known enemy of Strafford, entreated the House not to act with precipitation. But Pym replied that delay would blast all their hopes; without further debate the impeachment was voted, and Pym was chosen to carry it up to the Lords.”

In this case it does not appear that any evidence was called for; a member of the House of Commons got up and declared his opinion of that officer, and the same session an impeachment was voted. This course of proceeding is very different from that now proposed. I will now refer to a more modern precedent which at the time does not appear to have been objected to. It occurred in the reign of George I., and will be found stated in Russel’s “Modern Europe,” vol. 4, page 398.

“A new Parliament was called in which the interest of the Whigs predominated, and a secret committee, chosen by ballot, was appointed to examine all the papers, and inquire into all the negotiations relative to the late peace, as well as the cessation of arms by which it was preceded. The Committee of Secrecy prosecuted their inquiry with the greatest eagerness, and, in consequence of their report, the Commons resolved to impeach Lord Bolingbroke, the Earl of Oxford, and the Duke of Ormond, of high treason.”

One circumstance is worthy of attention. A cause of dissatisfaction at the conduct of the judge has undoubtedly prevailed. Whether he is wrongfully accused I will not say; but the dissatisfaction is manifest; for the representatives of two respectable States lately came forward and opposed his being assigned to circuits which embraced their States. This single fact ought to make an impression on the House.

It is alleged that there is no proof before the House; but one thing is notorious--is universally known. It is this, that this man (Fries) was tried before that judge for his life, and was tried without being heard. This fact cannot be disputed. When we consider the importance of the life of a citizen, and know that such an event has taken place, is it not the duty of the only body competent to inquire into the fact? With other gentlemen, I believe that the fountains of justice ought to be kept pure; I believe also that the judges are like other men, and that like them they are subject to the common frailties of human nature; and I do believe that when the frailties of human nature produce such effects, the House cannot be justified to themselves or their country without making an inquiry. Our duty to our country calls for it; our duty to the man who is implicated also calls for it. If innocent, a proper regard to his character claims it; and his friend from Maryland informs us that he will rejoice at this opportunity of coming forward and vindicating himself. If, then, the inquiry be equally necessary for placing the character of the man upon its proper footing, and for preserving the purity of justice, how can the House resist it?

Mr. DENNIS said he had only expressed an opinion that such an investigation would be rather solicited than avoided by Judge Chase.