H. or R.] Wiscasset Collector. [APRIL 10, 1832. upon every man who was seventy years old, to come and mittee, and send it to another department of the Governreceive pay for the time which he himself might say he ment. He thought that the House did not even possess a had been in the service. He knew it would be said that discretionary power to transfer the investigation elsewhere. the applicant must submit other proof if he had it; yet the According to the view that he had taken of the subject, gentleman from Massachusetts talked of such a bill as put- they had no option in the case, but were bound by their ting an end to perjury--as providing a wise system of pen- duty to proceed to an investigation by a committee of their sioning-as being more liberal and just--that the temptation own body. to fraud and perjury in the former laws was cut off, while, at the same time, this very bill invited, or rather tempted, the aged soldier to make an affidavit of his term of service, when he knew there was nothing in the archives of the Government to contradict it. The person accused is a collector of the customs-an officer of no mean rank in this Government. He receives his appointment from the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. His appointment went through all the formalities which were required in that of Mr. B. was far from saying that the survivors of the our heads of departments, our foreign ministers, and the revolutionary army were inferior in integrity to other men; judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. he was far from supposing them to be peculiarly capable Through these collectors were received, by the Governof perjury; he acquitted them of any such imputation; ment, all the moneys collected upon imposts on importa they stood on the same footing as all the rest of the human tions; most of the public revenues pass through their family; there were none to whom he would accord the hands; and they are vested by law, in certain cases, with praise of truer courage or purer patriotism than to the a sort of judicial power. Such an officer could not be held actual heroes of our revolutionary struggle. He believed to be one of inferior grade. there were but few gentlemen on that floor who were not The accuser was a person sustaining a near and intimate proud to trace their descent from some of those who bled official relation to the accused. He was dependent on him and suffered in that war. He therefore utterly deprecated for his appointment to, and continuance in, his office. the idea that it was an unfeeling, a cold, a merciless argu- From his hands he received his compensation, and to him ment, which went to prove that the House ought to pause he was to render all his accounts. Thus related to the in such a matter. He entertained a very different view. collector, the inspector comes forward before the House He considered the bill as calculated to put at hazard the and the nation, and, under oath, states the transaction which best interests of our common liberty, and to him it did ap. forms the basis of the inquiry. His character for truth pear a strange and remarkable thing that the recollections and integrity is supported by the evidence under oath of of the glories which the nation had earned on all her fields his fellow-citizens accompanying his statement. He soof fame, should have been appealed to in favor of a sys- lemnly declares that the accused undertook to bring his tem, the whole tendency of which was to excite a merce- official influence and power to bear on him, the inspector, nary feeling, and to uphold a system of domestic policy thereby to induce h m to violate one of the most importwhich threatened to deprive us forever of all the blessed ant and salutary provisions of the law, and accompanied fruits of the war of the revolution, including liberty itself. this endeavor with the crime of attempting a subornation He believed, with the gentleman from South Carolina, of perjury. Nor is this all; but he states further, that, that had all those who claimed the benefit of this system because the inspector would not thus submit to oppression been such in stoutness of heart and genuine patriotism as and corrupt exactions, the collector threatened him with the veteran in his eye, [Mr. THOMAS,] the country would removal, and subsequently fulfilled this threat by actually never have heard of such a thing as the pension system. thrusting him out of office. Mr. B. concluded by observing that he would not oppose This was the charge. The question arises whether it the making provision for such as really stood in need of requires, and is worthy of the examination of this House. it; nor would he only do this, he would go further; he It is universally admitted that it would be derogatory to would pay their whole debt, capital and interest, and, our character should such a case be suffered to pass by where they were dead, he would give it to their wives and without animadversion in some form. When the accusachildren. This, he thought, was infinitely more just to tion was first brought forward, it excited a universal the soldier, and more safe to the country, than any thing burst of indignation. There was, at that moment, no promised by the provisions of the bill under consideration. difference of sentiment with regard to it. The committee then rose; and The House adjourned. TUESDAY, APRIL 10. WISCASSET COLLECTOR. The House having resumed this subject, But the question now presented for the decision of the House is, whether the investigation shall be conducted by a standing committee of this House, or referred to one of the Executive Departments. And here it is contended by one set of gentlemen, that, although it is a proper matter for investigation, the examination should be made by the Treasury Department; and Mr. STORRS, of Connecticut, rose, and said that he if, on inquiry, that department should find any cause for should not have troubled the House with any observations further proceedings, then it should be sent back to this on this motion, were it not that, in the almost unlimited House as a sort of place of dernier resort, who will then range of debate which had been indulged in with refer- proceed as they may judge the case requires. Another ence to it, certain doctrines had been avowed, which were, class of gentlemen do not claim that we should constitute in his opinion, of a most extraordinary character, and upon a court of appeal from the Treasury Department, but which, if they were involved in this question, the House maintain that the House has no authority whatever to inshould not pass an opinion upon a slight or superficial terfere in the matter. While a third class admit that the examination. House does indeed possess the power to inquire in the first instance, but claim that the exercise of this power is discretionary, and that, in exercising this discretion, they ought to refer the inquiry to the Treasury Department, to save time and expense. The respect he felt for the Judiciary Committee would induce him to accede to the wish they had expressed to be discharged from the investigation of this disagreeable subject, if he could reconcile it to a sense of his public duty. But when he considered, in the present case, how I do not believe that the House is a dernier resort, or deeply the character of the parties are implicated, how court of appeal, from the Treasury Department, nor that greatly it involves the rights and privileges of the House, we have no power to interfere and inquire, nor that the and the interest of the nation, he could not justify himself power is discretionary. I contend that the House, by its for voting to take the inquiry out of the hands of the com-duty, is bound to investigate. APRIL 10, 1832.] Wiscasset Collector. {H. OF R. Perhaps gentlemen will be better able to make up their cept our own. I will put to gentlemen this simple quesminds on this point, if they look at the source of the tion--whether they would on this floor vote in favor of a power vested in the House to inquire into all public trans- presentment to the Senate on charges of crime, reported, actions, and the conduct of all public agents. What is the for example, from the Treasury or War Departments. true source of the power by which the House call for in- How would it strike them, if the War Department should formation from the Executive Departments, and appoint send to the House a communication stating that a particu select or standing committees of its own members to in- lar officer of the Government had abused his official trust, vestigate matters, with power to send for persons and and that the case required the interposition of the House papers, in the exercise of which, for instance, they had by way of impeachment? Would the House take the recently deputed some of its members, and clothed them facts for granted, as reported, and at once vote an imwith authority to examine into the administration of the peachment? I am certain that no gentleman in the House concerns of the Bank of the United States? Whence was would be willing to assume such a responsibility. But why this power derived, and on what is it founded? It is not not? Such a proceeding is virtually advocated by gentlean express power. It is not found, in terms, in the con- men who sustain the present motion. It is urged that the stitution. It is an incidental power, flowing necessarily House should act upon the report of the Treasury Departfrom the powers expressly granted. The House possesses ment after the matter shall have been investigated there, this power, because it is necessary to exercise it in order and it may be proper to impeach. In such a case, it surely to be enabled to act intelligently on those subjects con- must strike the minds of gentlemen that it is our province cerning which it has express power to act. It is one of to act only upon information personally obtained by the the branches of the legislative department of the Go- members of the House themselves. A judicial trust canvernment; as such, it has power to originate laws, and to not, from its nature, be delegated. The discharge of such act on laws originating in the Senate. But this legislative a trust requires the exercise of the judgment, reflection, power could not be properly exercised, unless the House and decision of those to whom it is confided. It is perhad the means of obtaining the requisite information to sonal, and cannot be transferred; if it is, the judgment is enlighten its course of action. That information often- one of others, and not our own. If here, then, is a case which times can only be obtained by inquiry. Hence the may result in a presentment to the other branch of the power to inquire follows as an incident of the power to Legislature, it follows that the House has no right to translegislate. fer the investigation to another department of the GovernIn the case now before the House, for example, there ment; that it is our exclusive duty to inquire; and that we may be abuses of existing laws, the correction of which have no option in the case. It would be as proper for a grand requires Congress to amend or repeal those laws, or to jury (whose duties and powers are analogous to those of pass new ones. Without information, the House could the House in exercising the impeaching power) to prenot judge what was or was not required at their hands. It sent an indictment to the court founded on the report of must then have the power to get that information which a committee composed of a part of its own body deputed consists of the facts in cases arising under the operation to investigate into and report to it the facts. It would be of the law, respecting which a question exists whether it yet more preposterous should a grand jury confide such requires amendment. an investigation to strangers, and proceed to indict upon their information! It is of course difficult to limit the power of the House in prosecuting inquiries. If this be the true source of the If an inquiry should be moved in a case where the power, it would seem to be almost unlimited. It is as House could not be called on to act, in any capacity, upon broad as the field of legislation; and as the subjects on the report of the committee, I admit that, as the investiwhich the House may be called on to legislate are innu- gation must be futile, it would be improper to institute it. merable, so this power of inquiry would appear to be in. I admit further, that if it be a case of misconduct in an definitely great. In this view, the inquiry instituted in officer worthy of removal, where the House could not the present case was entirely proper. impeach, and there would be no necessity for legislation, But the House has other duties besides legislation. In we should not investigate, because no action of the House it is vested, by the constitution, the sole province of origi- would, in such a case, result from the inquiry. I agree nating impeachments. This is a branch of judicial, rather with the honorable gentleman from New York, that we than legislative power. But for the same reason that it ought not to inquire merely with a view to gratify idle possesses the power of inquiry in the one capacity, they curiosity. I limit the right of the House to inquiries only possess it in the other. There is, however, this difference in cases where it may be our duty to act when the report in its exercise: if, while acting in its legislative capacity, is presented. This principle preserves the privilege of the House finds itself in want of information, it is discre- the House, and guards against an infringement upon the tionary in what manner they will obtain it, whether by an rights of others. inquiry through one of its own committees, or by apply. With regard to the duty of the House, I hold, that as it ing to one of the Executive Departments, or in any other is invested by the constitution with the impeaching power, manner; and the House may be governed by a reference it is its duty, when an impeachable charge against a civil to its own convenience. If the information wanted could officer of the Government is presented to it in such a form be more easily or expeditiously furnished by either of the as to command belief, to inquire into the facts; and if, on departments, the House would seek it there. In what such inquiry, the charge appears to be true, then it bemanner it should be obtained, depended entirely on the comes the duty of the House to impeach. It had no right comparative convenience of different modes, and was to refrain; they were bound to proceed. It would be as therefore wholly at the discretion of the House. But much their duty to impeach, as it would be the duty of when we are called upon to act on a subject which may the grand jury to present an indictment, where they find require the exercise of our impeaching power, as it is in an indictable offence to have been committed. I repeat, the nature of a judicial proceeding, it seemed to follow that we have no option in such a case: for, if we have a that the inquiry preparatory to it must necessarily be per-d scretion in one case, we have in all cases; and thus the formed by the House itself, which is the impeaching au- doctrine would follow, that it depends solely on the good thority, and that it cannot properly be referred to others. pleasure of this House whether the Senate shall ever, and The very nature of the proceeding is such, being of a ju- in what cases, exercise their constitutional right and power dicial character, that there would be a manifest impro- to punish for official crimes and misdemeanors. priety in founding an impeachment on a report from should thus strip that body of one of its most salutary another department, or on any knowledge or finding ex-powers, and destroy one of its most important checks VOL. VIIL-155 We H. OF R.] Wiscasset Collector. [APRIL 10, 1832. upon Executive patronage. I presume these principles the same provisions in the constitution, which I was about were in the view of the honorable gentleman from South to quote, to show that the circumstance that an offence is Carolina, [Mr. MITCHELL,] when he so strongly contended indictable, is no reason why it cannot be impeachable, are that the act charged upon the collector was not an im- equally conclusive to demonstrate that the spirit of that peachable offence. It evidently occurred to that gentle-instrument requires that such offences should be presented man, that if it was an impeachable transaction, the House by the House on impeachment, whenever, on investiga had no option in the matter; and, therefore, in order to tion, it appears to the House that the offence has been justify the reference of it to any other quarter than a committed, and that instrument is utterly at variance with committee of our own body, the honorable gentleman had the suggestion that the House is to be less ready or wil maintained that it was not a charge for which an impeach-ling to inquire into official misconduct because it is of such ment would lie. a character as to bring it within the animadversion of or We are, therefore, brought to the question, whether, dinary criminal tribunals. The fourth section of the seif the alleged facts are true, they present a case proper cond article of the constitution provides that the President, for the exercise of the impeaching power. The charge Vice President, and all other civil officers of the United embraces, in a moral view, the guilt of bribery, of extor- States, may be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other tion, and of an attempt at subornation of perjury, and a high crimes and misdemeanors." The two causes of im But breach of one of our most wholesome statutes. In legal peachment there particularly specified by name, are of and technical acceptation, it was the offence of soliciting fences indictable at common law; and the expression another to violate the laws of the land by the commission "other high crimes and misdemeanors," would seem to of the crime of perjury. It was charged to have been favor the idea that, in order to render official misconduct committed by an officer holding a high station under the impeachable, it is necessary that it should be also, in the Government-in an official transaction--and in relation to eye of the law, criminal, and of course indictable. an individual holding an important official station under, on that point, it is unnecessary to consume time; suffice it and connected with him. It is stated to have been done to say, that it refutes the idea that any reason is to be dewith the utmost deliberation; and that this illegal endeavor duced against an investigation by the House from the inwas accompanied by a threat of removal in case of non-dictable character of the charge. But the third section of compliance; and that, in consequence of a refusal to com- the first article of the constitution confirms me in the view ply, this threat had been carried into execution by the that I take of this subject, and appears to me decisive. accused. We are informed that, on the very day after the After declaring that judgment in cases of impeachment inspector refused compliance with the requisition of the shall not extend further than removal from, and disqualicollector, he was suspended from his office, and, in three fication to hold office under the United States, it provides months thereafter, removed. And now, when this charge that "the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be able is thus made against the collector, he informs the House and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishthat the removal took place for other causes affecting the ment, according to law." And in the sixty-fifth number moral character of the inspector, which, if the facts de- of that most able vindication of the constitution, the Fetailed by the latter are true, must be a false and ground-deralist, two of the authors of which were members of less pretence. Taken together, the charge presents one the convention that framed that instrument, it will be found of the strongest instances of official misconduct ever ex- that one of the most prominent and distinct reasons there hibited to this House or country. I can scarcely believe that given why the impeaching power should not be vested in gentlemen are serious when they contend that an offence the Supreme Court of the United States, either alone, or of such a description does not constitute a proper subject in conjunction with the Senate, is, that, after conviction for impeachment. on impeachment, the offender remains liable to prosecuAn objection, however, has been urged by the honora- tion and punishment in the ordinary judicial tribunals, ble gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. MITCHELL,] and that it would be improper that the same body which deserves notice. He contended that, because the should first sit on the same case and try the same person facts charged constituted an indictable offence at common as a court of impeachment, and then as an ordinary julaw, they did not form a proper matter for impeachment. dicial tribunal of criminal jurisdiction. That the offence I do not accede to the proposition that it is not impeacha- here charged may be punished in Maine, is, therefore, ble because it is indictable. There is nothing in the con- no reason why the offender cannot be, or should not be, stitution, whence the impeaching power is derived, and impeached. where the subjects of it are specified, to sustain such a position; on the contrary, that instrument contains a most express refutation of it." [Mr. MITCHELL here interposed to explain. He stated that he had not said that because an offence was indictable, it was therefore not impeachable. But he had maintained that, unless the indictable offence consisted of a violation of official duty, it was not impeachable.] Mr. STORRS replied, that he was pleased that the honorable gentleman from South Carolina disclaimed the doctrine which he had understood him to advance, and which was imputed to the gentleman in the printed report or sketch of his argument. Another reason advanced by gentlemen why the House should not investigate this matter, is, that the acts charged to have been done by the collector, were not done by him in his official capacity, and are, therefore, not impeachable. I will not deny that, in order to render an officer of the Government impeachable, it is necessary that the malconduct imputed to him should be official malconduct. But how that principle can rescue the collector in the present case, I do not clearly perceive. If gentlemen intended mercly to say that the law under which he acted gave him no rightful authority to do the acts charged against him, and that, in that sense, they were not official, I admit the truth of the position. But But, continued Mr. S., if the honorable gentleman from if they mean that those acts were not done under color of, South Carolina did not contend that the offence charged and in the execution of the duties of his office, I maintain against the collector is not impeachable because it is in the contrary; and that, in my opinion, is all that is necesdictable, I think I am not mistaken in saying that the sary to constitute it an official transaction. This point honorable gentleman urged that the offence might be has been so fully examined by the gentleman from Rhode prosecuted in the criminal courts in the State where it was Island, [Mr. PEARCE,] that it is not necessary to detain perpetrated, as a reason why the House should not pro- the House at length in relation to it. There was no other ceed with the investigation. I think that this does not, connexion or intercourse between the collector and inany more than the reason just disclaimed, furnish any spector, excepting that which was official. When the inground on which the House ought not to investigate. And spector was importuned to take the false cath, he was APRIL 10, 1832.] OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS. Wiscasset Collector. 2470 [H. OF R. I will therefore only re approached by the collector in his official character. The vain to add to their number. claim made by the collector of one-quarter of the inspec-mark, that, if honorable gentlemen, instead of consuming tor's wages, was made in his official capacity. The ac- the time of this House in endeavoring to dissuade it from counts of the inspector were audited by the collector in investigation, would turn their efforts to another object, his official capacity. The threat of suspension, and the and bestow the same time in providing some more effectsuspension itself, were official acts, most strictly speaking, ual restraints on the public agents of our Government, as much so as the final removal of the inspector from of their labors, in my humble judgment, would tend much fice. On this point there can be no serious difficulty. more to the public benefit of our country. The House cannot hesitate, for a moment, in deciding that if the allegations of the inspector are true, they fix upon the collector a charge of official delinquency. Mr. STORRS having yielded the floor, sent session? The House have now several instances of But what has transpired in this House during the preI contend, further, that, if these charges are true, it is tees, which have been brought to its notice by the memofficial misconduct under its consideration by its commitone of those peculiar cases, where the accused, on con-bers of this body. In one case, it was suggested that perviction, should not only be removed, but disqualified sons holding very high and important offices under the from holding office. that he attempted to commit the crime of subornation of defraud the nation out of a large and valuable tract of One of the charges against him is, Government had been guilty of a nefarious attempt to perjury. It was nothing to his credit that the crime was land from the national domain, and that through the innot actually committed. transaction was as great as if it had been. The moral turpitude of the strumentality of their official stations. admitted, also, that the moral guilt of inducing another against whom imputations had been made by the honora It would be the case of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, The other was to commit perjury is not less than that of perjury in the ble gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. WICKLIFFE,] highly person making such attempt. One of these acts evinced derogatory to his official character, and with which the the same destitution of integrity as the other. courts of justice, it is well known, a person convicted of In all House are acquainted. perjury is disqualified as a witness. [Mr. WICKLIFFE here rose, and requested that Mr. to take an oath, because he is deemed incredible. He is not permitted STORRS would yield the floor to allow him an opportunity law pronounces that such conviction affords conclusive ed a gross calumny upon him. The to put down what he must be allowed to say he considerevidence of a want of that integrity which is requisite, in order that any, the least, reliance may be placed upon his declarations, even under oath. But, by the constitu- of this discussion, gentlemen had thought it fit and proMr. WICKLIFFE said he regretted that, in the course tion of the United States, it is necessary that every officer per to make any allusion to an investigation with which of the Government should take an oath therein prescrib- a committee of this House had been charged, before that ed. If, then, a person has been guilty of a crime which committee had performed the duty assigned them. evinces such a want of integrity as not to be entitled to the present occasion, as it had been alluded to, he would credit under oath, how preposterous would it be that he avail himself of the politeness of the member from ConOn should be eligible to offices which he cannot hold but necticut, to call the attention of the House to a report under the sanction of an oath! The crime here charged, which had been put in circulation in this District, and he therefore, should peculiarly disqualify him from holding was sorry to hear had been whispered in private converoffice, because, to the person committing it, his oath sation within this House, and which had found its way would be no sanction or restraint. [Mr. S. here went into a particular examination of cer- authority of unknown, and, for aught he knew, irresponsiinto the columns of the newspapers of the day, upon the tain affidavits which had, since he took the floor, been ble correspondents at the city of Washington, viz. that presented by the accused to the House; and from the he [Mr. WICKLIFFE] was influenced in his movement character and situation of the deponents, the manner in against the Commissioner of the General Land Office, by which their testimony was taken, and the facts deposed the feelings of a disappointed rival of the commissioner to, argued that an additional reason was furnished by for the office which that gentleman fills. them why the House should prosecute the inquiry.] Here, sir, perhaps the merits of the motion end. language which he had seen in one of the papers, "Mr. To use the the subject before the House derives additional import- the General Land Office, applied for the place, and was But Wickliffe was extremely anxious to be Commissioner of ance from some circumstances, which I will proceed refused." briefly to notice. I allude to the disclosures which have been made to the House by gentlemen who have taken emanating from whatever source, Mr. W. said he proThis statement and report, in whatever shape made, or part in this debate; to what has transpired in the House nounced false and unfounded. during the present session, whenever the conduct of indirectly, an applicant for the office of Commissioner of public agents has been presented to our notice; and to the General Land Office. He never was, directly or some of the grounds which have been taken in opposi- pected it; and if any friend had at any time presented tion to an investigation, by this body, of the facts alleged to the appointing power his name for the office, it was He never desired it or exin the present case. the numerous and unusual disclosures which we have had made inquiry of those who he believed had a right With regard to the first, I refer to unknown to him, and wholly unauthorized by him. He heard from the several gentlemen from Ohio, Maine, and to know whether any friend of his had at any time preRhode Island, in their remarks on the present motion, sented his name for the office, and was informed that no and which I will not repeat. these honorable members, it would appear that the in- He would say that, however worthy the office might be From the statements of such information was to be found in the executive office. stances of official misconduct in the agents of this Go- of the services and ambition of a more worthy man than vernment had of late been unusually numerous and aggra- the humble individual now addressing the Chair, he had vated. If I were to rely on the opinions of respectable never seen the day when the office would have been acindividuals residing in my own quarter of the country, I ceptable to, or accepted by him, if he had been honored might introduce instances also of a similar description with a tender of it. from there. I shall, however, forbear doing so: for if here in his place, that he might be heard elsewhere and the cases which have been already adverted to are not everywhere, that false imputations upon his motives had He chose to make these remarks sufficient to awaken the House to the importance of in- been made.] quiry, and the necessity of more efficient legislation respecting the public officers of this nation, it would be in instances as being extraordinary and unusual. H. OF R.] Wiscasset Collector. [APRIL 10, 1832. have had the honor of a seat here, and for a long time rectly the contrary. It is but another name for discord previous, indeed ever since my attention has been parti- and division. It tends to confirm error, not to correct it; cularly directed to the proceedings of Congress, I have to widen diversity of opinion, and not to produce harmono recollection that during any session there has been so ny; to embitter, instead of softening personal and political much and so loud complaint, and from so many different prejudice. Yet this is the spirit which it has been deemed quarters, against public officers, in an authorized and au- proper to invoke on this occasion! thentic form, as during the present session. I surely do But honorable gentlemen have even gone further than not say too much, when I exclaim that such a state of things this, and have introduced into this debate discussions upon presents a subject for the serious consideration of this the popularity and merits of the present Executive. What House and the nation, and calls imperiously upon us to ex- his popularity or course has to do with the question now ercise more than ordinary vigilance and readiness in scru- before the House, I am wholly at a loss to conjecture. If tinizing this and the other subjects of complaint before us. there be, indeed, any foundation whatever for the lofty cuThere is one remarkable circumstance, however, that logiums which have been pronounced, unnecessarily as I has attended all these cases. The moment a complaint conceive, on the virtue, the patriotism, the intelligence, against a public officer was brought before the House, and firmness of the President, surely those who are his (and it so happened, perhaps accidentally, that all these personal or political admirers and supporters ought, for cases of official misconduct were imputed to officers ap- his sake, to be the last to admit that he would sanction a pointed under the present Executive,) an inquiry into its course calculated to stifle or embarrass any inquiry into truth was at the outset met and opposed strenuously, and abuses. The President is indeed under but small obl gathis exclusively by gentlemen friendly to the present ad- tion to those of his friends who thus attempt to make his ministration. Why was this? To what cause is it to be character or popularity a coverslut for every official delinattributed that the opposition to inquiry should proceed quency brought before this House for correction. A just solely from the friends of the administration? Could it regard to his glory would dictate an opposite policy. be that it was because they apprehended discredit to the Sir, I have, particularly of late, heard a political sentiadministration from such investigation? This would, at ment avowed, and which seems to me to be fast gaining first sight, appear to be the proper, and no more than a ground, that, in a political contest, those who are successfair inference. But I cannot, and will not, believe that ful are to be considered as victors, and those who are unthis reluctance to investigate proceeded from such a successful as the vanquished; and that the offices in the source. It cannot be that this course was taken because gift of Government are "spoils of victory," to be distrithe honorable gentlemen who are deemed the supporters buted exclusively among the victors, as rewards for serof the present administration would wink, for a moment, vice. From which principle, I suppose, it is claimed as at official corruption. It must have proceeded from that a corollary, that as places and offices are spoils to which unconscious partiality which party feeling is known to the vanquished have no right, neither have they any right generate, and which leads gentlemen, who are blinded by to inquire on whom they are bestowed, or how they are its influence, to suppose that such is the purity with which conducted. It is believed that the country is mainly inevery department of the Government is administered, that debted to the State of New York for the first thorough it was not possible there could be any just foundation for introduction of this principle. In that State, from all that the alleged charges. But although this may be an honest I have seen and heard, I am led to believe that the principrejudice, it is nevertheless a dangerous one, as must ap- ple has been acted on there for many years, and by all pear on the least reflection, when it becomes so strong dominant parties. It seems to be perfectly understood, as to disincline us against the prompt and cheerful ex- that those who succeed in a political struggle are entitled ercise of one of our most salutary functions--that of inqui- to the offices as plunder. It is this circumstance that, in ry into abuses. my opinion, more than all others, has given to the party In the present instance, however, I fear that the pro- politics of that State that character for ferocity for which position for inquiry by the House has not been opposed they are so distinguished. It is strongly feared that atinvariably under this unconscious prejudice alone. Some tempts have been made, and too successfully, to introduce of those who are ranked among the friends of the admin- the same policy into the administration of the affairs of istration have gone further, and party feeling has been the National Government; and suspicions are entertained directly and openly appealed to. This is deeply to be that those attempts have proceeded from the same quar regretted, and more especially as our procedings partake ter to which the country is indebted for the first complete somewhat of the character of a judicial investigation. practical introduction of the principle. Sir, I take occa Sufficiently to be deprecated in any of the proceedings sion to enter my protest against this doctrine. It is one of this body, the prevalence of party feeling is most of all of the most pernicious and unjust political principles that to be deplored in inquiries of this kind. The present is was ever broached, at any time, or in any country. It is not, in any sense, a party question; it has not originated in opposed to the genius of our constitution--to the policy party motives; the complainant belongs to the party which of our institutions--to the purity of public sentiment and supports the existing administration, and is in the confi-private integrity--to the virtue of those in, as well as those dence of that party; there is nothing whatever in the out of power-to the national interests, and to the very manner in which it has been introduced or discussed by existence of our Government. This principle assumes the advocates of an inquiry by this House, which can pro- the erroneous and demoralizing ground that the offices of perly subject them to the imputation of being actuated by the Government are not public trusts, for the benefit of party or other improper feeling. On such a subject, the people exclusively, and to be distributed as their inte gentlemen should surely keep aloof from the influence of rests require; but that the power of appointment is to be party. Indeed, it should never be brought within this exercised solely for the purpose of promoting the personal House. It is utterly repugnant to the principles on which and political aggrandizement of those who possess it. This we profess to act; to the purposes for which we convene, doctrine will, I trust, scarcely be openly avowed in terms and are elected; and to the objects of which we are in by any person. It has been expressly disavowed by the pursuit--the welfare of our common country. We are present Executive in his first message to Congress--aphere for the purposes of deliberation and consultation to parently, however, I regret to say, for the purpose of jusattain that object; and the immediate end of that delibe- tifying removals from offices, against which complaints ration and consultation is, uniformity of opinion among had arisen, rather than as a broad, universal principle, ourselves. But what is the nature of party spirit? Does applicable at all times to those in, as well as those out of it tend to produce uniformity in sentiment or action? Di-office. It had been, long before, publicly and pointedly |