Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

course of remark. They had amounted to a large sum, say nine millions of dollars. Yesterday, a very moderate addition to the appropriation for arming, that is to say, rendering really effective and ready for use such as had been completed, had been refused by a large vote. There was no extensive interest engaged in the founding of cannon. The benefit from the disbursements for fortifications had been widely diffused.

[APRIL 6, 1830.

tion; that is to say, into that state in which factitious strength was acquired, and restraining shame was removed! Profusion, on the part of the Government, was rendered an interest to be nurtured and protected by the proper guardians of the States, in the focus of its safety, its halls of legislation! And how nurtured? How protected! Nurtured in corruption! Protected by audacity! And where was the chief channel of this profusion, and main organ What, then, [inquired Mr. A.] was the real evil prin- of its introduc ion as a system, to be found? The fact was ciple of our General Government? It was, that the na- notorious, [said Mr. A.] and his should be the voice tional treasury came unavoidably to be regarded in a fo- to resound it through the land, this channel and organ reign rather than domestic aspect; as something different were to be furuished by an extended application of the from the State treasuries; and that combinations would be policy of internal improvement. This, this in hunc converin perpetual generation or activity to subject it to contri-tite telum, was the forehead on which public reprobation bution. His colleague [Mr. BARBOUR] had opened this ought at once, and deeply, to burn its stigma for scorn to view. He would take occasion to give it expansion and point "his unmoving finger at." development. It was inevitable that the disbursements Reverting to this topic, one thing there was [he said] reof the Government should be distributed with great ine-markable about this business of internal improvement, quality. The largest grew out of the public debt. The that, even in circumstances the most favorable, and in redebt would accumulate with the accumulations of capital, gard to projects the best conceived and executed, it was necessarily; that is to say, in the region of commerce-on found, in a calculation of cost and profit, to prove a losing the seaboard. The naval expenditures, and those purely business. It did not make returns conformably to the commercial, must follow the same course. The same average of ordinary pursuits on the capital invested; and frontier presented the quarter most demanding prepara- this, with inconsiderable and not unfrequently occurring extions of defence. The disbursements of a military charac- ceptions, was the just test in regard to the public, no less ter, therefore, whether for fortifications or the mainte- than individuals, of a good or bad business. Its capital nance of troops, must, a large portion of them, seek the was the source of the wealth of the nation. Whether emsame direction. The seaboard must be the scene of the ployed by the public or individuals, if any portion did not larger expenditures of the Government-the region to return the ordinary and average rate of interest, the inprofit by their direct influences. Not the whole seaboard, vestment must, in the general, and excluding from view however. in equal proportions. To the south of Nor- peculiar circumstances, be regarded as injudicious. Of the folk, in Virginia, ports occurred at remote distances, and fact of the inability of even the best devised and most valunot in circumstances favorable to the attraction of the Go-able works of internal improvement to sustain this test, vernment disbursements. The direct benefit of these dis- very remarkable and entirely authentic evidence had just bursements must, therefore, be realized unequally, even been furnished in New York. He referred to a report of on the seaboard. The interior and extreme West were the canal commissioners of that State, made the past winnearly excluded from participation of it. Did he state ter, in answer to a call of the Senate. The canals of the this in any way of censure or arraignment? Not at all. State, it appears, not only did not reimburse the annual This course of things was inevitable. The revenue, how-expenses and interest on the capital disbursed; it was made ever, presented a very different history as regarded the a question whether, by any augmentation of tolls, they source of its supply. The great mass of it was derived could be made to do so. If improvements, giving the larg from the duties on imports. The exports furnished the est and best founded promise, executed on the best terms, imports; agriculture furnished the great mass of the ex- pervading an extensive and rich country, (he bad seen and ports. It was taxation on agriculture, therefore, that sup- could vouch from his own view,) commanding the transplied nearly the entire amount of the revenue. It was, in port of the products of a large part of a continent-if ima peculiar degree, too, the character of agriculture to provements, in these circumstances, marked by a distincconsume the whole amount of its production; and the tion so peculiarly favorable, were found to fail, under the market for it being chiefly foreign with us, the great mass common test of judicious investment, what was to be said of this production paid contribution to Government in the of all others inferior in pretension, and, yet more, for a geduties on the returns procured by its exportation. A much neral system spreading every where, and embracing evlarger proportion of the revenue of agriculture sustained ery description as well as variety of projects? this burden, than of other occupations. Much of that of commerce was derived from a further charge on agricul ture; and manufactures had not yet obtained external markets to a considerable extent. Whilst, then, the commercial portion of the community, constituted chiefly by a part only of the seaboard, received the larger proportion of the revenue of the nation, the agricultural and interior paid nearly the whole. Could this inequality fail to be felt with sensibility That was not to be supposed; and this sensibility was becoming the germ of the most menacing evils. The quarters which received most liberally from the public disbursements had the appetite for them whetted, not gratified. The parts which received nothing, or the least, anxiously sought indemnity. How was this to be obtained? By swelling disbursements in their own direction beyond occasion, or creating them when not required. Sympathies of artificial character tended, in this manner, to distend and multiply the expenditures of the Government. Disbursement became a thing good in itself, per se. Not one, but many interests were engendered in public prodigality; and, what was worse, these inte. rests ran inevitably into combinations for mutual sustenta

In New York, a question was agitated, not merely of the propriety of taxation, in aid of the proceeds of the canals, but of a character yet more calculated to produce disturbance. It related to the confinement of the taxation to the tracts more immediately benefited by contiguity to the canal, instead of making it a general burden on the State. The temper which must grow from a discussion of such a character was easily appreciated. Yet this was the system, failing under circumstances the most favorable to pay, and threatening, even in the contracted and bomogeneous sphere of a single State, to create disturbances, which was recommended as a bond of concord, as well as a source of profit, in a political community, contributing in different proportions to its expense, and deriving unequal advantages from its operation! Neighboring interests, which, when not intrinsically related, ran into easy reconcilement, were thrown into jar by it; yet its tendency to harmonize interests remote in position, and dissociated by character, was a principal argument in its support! Such was the logic which self-interest employed, when disposing of other interests, or those of the public!

Truly, [said Mr. A.] the best ground of vindication

[blocks in formation]

[Mr. ISACKS explained. He had indeed adverted to the expenditure of the public money in the West, as one beneficial consequence attendant on the proposed measure; but he never insisted on that as the primary consideration which induced him to be its advocate.]

Mr. ARCHER resumed. He was willing to trust to the considerations he had been stating, for evidence of the true character, both of the general policy and particular measure. But if the equalization of disbursements were to be admitted as any part of the inducing consideration, then he asked whether this principle might not be expected to lead to a careless selection of routes for roads, and an equally careless construction of them. Would not the temptation be strong to remissness, not to say abuse, in the exercise of either function ?

[H. of R.

on which to place such a system, was that which had contributed. Was not the inducement, then, decisive to been in effect assumed in the debate, and formed the real derive revenue, to tax, for no other purpose than to disinducing consideration, its tendency to equalize the dis- tribute? What was to obstruct? or where was the limit to proportionate and unfair disbursements of the Govern- this sort of operation? The quarters deriving unequal ment, as regarded the different quarters of the country. advantages, would they not sustain each other? If it were He really esteemed this principle of defence as colored one of the recommendations of internal improvements, that with the most plausible show of reason and fairness. The they operated to equalize the disbursements of the Gogentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. ISACKS,] with honest vernment, here was an operation of an efficiency yet frankness, had stated this as a leading consideration in its more extensive, by which more essential inequalities might support. He [Mr. A.] did not refer to the declaration be redressed. Were different quarters of the country in with censure, but commendation. It proved, what he different conditions, as regarded pecuniary resources and knew of this gentleman well before, that he was of too wealth, from variety in the character of their products, manly a character to refuse the avowal of a motive on the forms of their industry, or other causes, here was an which he was willing to act. engine of easy application for introducing a republican level, by the direct transfer of the redundancy of some parts to compensate the deficiencies of others. Where was the stopping point to men who could contemplate a policy founded on such a principle? And what must the men be who would submit to its exertion on them? A large proportion of the national revenue was derived from the labor of slaves. Two-fifths of these would not be counted on the proposed principle of distribution; that is to say, their owners, and, through their owners, themselves, would be excluded, in this proportion, from participation in the fund raised from the fruits of their own industry. This system had been proposed-much argued-was almost certain to be fastened on us. We were destined, if it were, to realize the misadventures of Sinbad, the famous sailor, (with whose story we were so familiar in our early But this whole policy of internal improvement was it- days,) when he encountered the old man of the sea. The self but a part and an instrument of a further and larger, monster mounted on his neck with a pressure which no covered by a fair name, "the distribution system." In- effort could shake off, and rode him with a remorselessternal improvements supplied, though a large, yet only a ness which no powers of endurance would long have been partial waste of revenue. This "distribution system" was able to sustain. Sinbad contrived, by intoxicating the indesigned to comprehend the scattered streams into a cur-cubus, to destroy him. The case we were likely to present, rent which should discharge the entire reservoir. Trace was in every respect correspondent-the infliction no less the principle in its relation to its first object, the public remorseless-the relief no less hopeless, unless the drunklands. Particular States had ceded to the General Go-enness of triumph should unlock the death grasp from vernment large tracts of territory. If the principle of this our necks, and assist us to tumble the oppression from policy of distribution were just, then after these cessions, its seat. Sir, I have been asked, [said Mr. A.] in reon the very day in which they had been made, aye, in the lation to this road, whether, as my State denied the consame hour, and before the ink of the signature was dry, stitutional authority on this subject of roads, she would it had been in the competency of the General Govern- not prohibit the construction of the part which fell withment to cut up the property among the States, returning in her limits. I have invariably and promptly answered their ratable shares to the proper owners. Was there a no! for that would be to resist the laws of the Union. I sense of justice so torpid, as not to be awakened to indig. have been asked, whether we would not resort to the nation at the statement of such a proposition? And yet nullifying doctrine, so much spoken of lately. My answer, if it were competent to the General Government now, with equal promptitude, has been no! for that would be it was equally competent then, to perpetrate this insolence to refuse obedience to the laws of the Union. Virginia, of injustice; this proposition, coming, as it did, from a while she feels with the keenest sensibility the irregular exquarter to which no cession of lands had been ever made, ercise of authority by this Government, of which she commight be supposed to labor under some defect of modesty. plains; while she continues, as she has ever been, foremost It stood entirely acquitted, however, upon this score, by in vigilant and strenuous interposal to arrest all exercises comparison with another having reference to the same of similar principle, will afford the spectacle of precesubject of the lands. He alluded to the claim advanced dence, too, in endurance and in patience; whilst evil is sufrecently in some of the new States to the property of the ferable, she will suffer; pursuing in the mean time her whole of the public lands comprehended within their re- true doctrine of '98, to use every effort short of force or spective limits, as a result of the character of sovereignty disunion, "to arrest its progress." She did not relinquish which the United States had conceded to them, with this the hope that the time would never come, in which she very condition annexed, of the reserve of this very pro- should be driven to resort to any doctrine of character perty. A relation of war between States exposed to ulterior to this. If it did come, she would make this reseizure and forfeiture the property of either within reach of sort in sorrow. She invoked the sense, not of justice only, the other. A relation of the closest amity of incorporation but, stronger, of superior benefits and real interest, to into a common political community, operated the same ef- subdue the spirit of combination for peculiar advantages, feet, according to the principle of the doctrine alluded to. which was the evil genius of our Federal Government. The distribution system, in relation to the final object And, as the instant evil was the first to be regarded, she of its grasp, the surplus revenue, as the first, the public prayed heartily as he [Mr. A.] did, that sinister omens lands, presented the same character. The distributable might be averted; and this policy of internal improvement portions would be restored by a varying rule; and in dif- might not be made the instrument to wrench to pieces a ferent proportions, therefore, from those in which they frame of polity inexpressibly admirable; which formed were received. In the instant in which they were ob- the fortress, not only of our safety, but of the hopes, and tained by the one rule, they might be restored by the other, the cause of freedom, in all time, and through the world. and the same parties receive more or less than they had| [Here the debate closed for this day.] VOL. VI.-94.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PETTIS obtained the leave of the House (by a sus- before the Senate in the last resort. But there was anopension of the rule, 101 to 40) to offer the following reso-ther view of the subject, which struck his mind with equal lution:

Resolved, That James H. Peck, Judge of the district court of the United States for the district of Missouri, be permitted to make to this House any explanations he may think proper, in answer to the charges preferred against him by Luke E. Lawless, Esq., which charges have been reported on by the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. P. said he moved this resolution in pursuance of an intimation which he gave the other day when he moved to lay Judge Peck's memorial on the table, to try the sense of the House in granting Judge P.'s request. He thought the indulgence proposed was a matter of justice to the Judge; that there was no precedent against it, as he had examined the authorities as far back as 1640.

force. He saw an officer occupying an elevated station, and clothed with the authority of this Government, calling before him a fellow-citizen, known as a man of talent and respectability in his profession, and, by a summary process, stripping him of the exercise of that profession, clothing him with shame, and incarcerating him in a felon's dungeon, the place of disgrace and infamy. He had endeavored to view the case with impartiality, and not to give way to any undue feeling; and, after having attentively heard the statement of facts presented by Mr. Lawless, he had come to the conclusion that if these facts were substantiated by testimony, the impeachment ought to proceed.

It was not now his intention to go into the merits of this case. The subject had been exhausted. But, as he had been a member of the Judiciary Committee, and had given his voice for the impeachment of Judge Peck, he trusted the House would listen to him for a few moments.

A long debate ensued on the resolution, and on the modifications which were proposed to it, in which Messrs. STORRS, of New York, BUCHANAN, DODDRIDGE, DRAYTON, RAMSEY, CLAY, MARTIN, PETTIS, SPENCER, of New York, ELLSWORTH, HUNTING- It appeared that the Judge, three months after delivering TON, BATES, and BURGES engaged. In the beginning of the debate,

Mr. MARTIN moved to strike out the word "explanation," and insert "any respectful written argument upon the law and matters of fact now in evidence before the House;" and after some time, to get rid of the debate.

Mr. PETTIS accepted this modification, and inserting further the words "or oral" after the word "written." Thus amended, after an unsuccessful motion by Mr. DRAYTON to strike out the words " or oral," the resolution was agreed to without a count.

his opinion in the case of Soulard, and three months after the final disposition of the case and the adjournment of his court, committed it to paper, and sent it to the public press. It was an opinion involving the landed titles of almost the whole territory where he resided. He published it, as it seemed, at the request of a lawyer, or lawyers; and manifestly for the purpose of spreading opinions, exciting feelings, and leading to a certain line of conduct in the community where it was published. Perhaps this might be all right; he should find no fault with it: shortly after the publication of this opinion of the Judge, a professional had come before the public in another paper, and exposed what he conceived to be certain errors into which the Judge had fallen, which might have been called for, to save his friends or clients from the grasp of speculators, until a final trial in the Supreme Court, and especially as such publicity had been given to the opinion. Mr. E. said he had looked over both these papers; and he there declared, in his place, and was willing to risk his reputation on the opinion, that there was not any thing in this Mr. DODDRIDGE asked how many days it was sup-commentary in the least degree reproachful to Judge Peck, posed the Judge would require to prepare his defence. either as a man or as a judge; nothing that looked in the The time of the House, at this season, was peculiarly pre-least like a contempt of court, or an impeachment of the

[The publishers give below, as far as they have receiv-gentleman, nearly concerned in the result of that opinion, ed it, the debate on this subject.]

Mr. PETTIS, having offered his resolution, remarked, that he had examined all the precedents on this subject which he could discover, and there was no instance among them, in which a request, like that which he had made in behalf of Judge Peck, was denied. He adverted to the case of Lord Melville, and in truth to all which had occurred since 1640. He confidently hoped the privilege solicited would be freely accorded by Congress.

cious.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. PETTIS replied, he believed these were all that was to be expected from him.

Mr. ELLSWORTH observed, that the objection urged by the gentleman from New York [Mr. STORRS] applied to the amendment as much as to the bill. We have no constitutional power to pass this amendment. We are only to inquire, and, if we see cause, direct an impeachment. Upon the merits we cannot act definitively; besides, we might do Judge Peck great injustice; he has yet had no opportunity to defend. Mr. E. said he was in favor of the report and the resolution as they came from the committee. When the papers in this case had been presented to the Judiciary Committee, he had read them again and again, with the greatest anxiety; and it was with the utmost reluctance that he came to the conclusion at which he finally arrived. He felt that it was a grave thing to put a judicial officer of this Government to his trial for

integrity or character of the presiding officer, unless pointing out error, if there really be any, is an offence. He had seen similar comments in the newspaper a thousand times before. And the House was now come to the crisis, when it must decide whether it would sanction the arrest and imprisonment of an individual by a judge for commenting on one of his opinione. This [said Mr. E.] is the question we are called upon to settle this day. Finding that the rights of an individual had been violated, I put this query solemnly to myself: is there any thing in the conduct of this individual to justify such a proceeding? And I was compelled to answer it in the negative. Judge Peck had neither jurisdiction nor provocation. He had finished the case, adjourned the court, and descended from his judicial station to that of an essayist of a newspaper. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. PETTIS] says that a spirit has gone abroad, of reckless and determined hostility to the judiciary; but let me tell that gentleman, that if conduct like this shall go abroad with the sanction and seal of this House upon it, he may bid adieu to the honor and independence of the judiciary henceforward. Sir, have the days of the star chamber come upon us? Shall it be declared to the American people, that, after a judge has given his opinion and dismissed the cause, he may arrest a citizen, drag him before his tribunal, and say to him, you have

APRIL 7, 1830.]

Judge Peck.

[H. or R.

written strictures on my opinion, which I consider dero | far as he had examined the cases, except in a single ingatory to me, and I, therefore, send you to prison, and stance that of Warren Hastings. The gentleman, as he take away your livelihood for eighteen months. I tell you, understood, did not now ask that new witnesses should be you are a base calumniator, a libeller, and, if you were in sent for and examined: and if the request of the accused China, your house would be painted black, as an emblem was limited to a mere permission to make an exposition of of the blackness of your heart, and as a warning to society. the law, and an argument upon the facts, as they appeared Yet it is now proposed that this House shall say, it does in the testimony already taken, he should not have the not entirely approve of the conduct of the Judge, but im- smallest objection. peachment is a solemn affair: the man has been punished enough already, now let him alone. Sir, I do not wish to appeal to the feelings of the House; but while I see a free citizen of this republic made the subject of high-handed oppression like this, I feel it to be the imperious duty of this House to send the man who appears to be guilty of it to his trial before another and constitutional tribunal.

Mr. DRAYTON said, that, in moving to strike out the words " or oral," he had had no intention of preventing the individual concerned from availing himself of the full benefit of what the resolution proposed to grant to him, but had been influenced by the consideration, that, if his exposition should be made in writing, all the members of the House would have an opportunity of examining it; but, if Let me now proceed to answer one or two objections, made orally, it would be impossible that all the members which have been urged by the opponents of impeachment. should distinctly hear it, and, if they did, they would pro- | And, first, it has been said that we may not impeach unless bably not retain the substance of it distinctly in their there is evidence of corruption. There need not be cor- memories. This was one reason which actuated him. Anruption in the common sense in which that term is used. other was, that, in his opinion, ill consequences would be A wicked motive is enough. Error in judgment is not im-likely to arise from the personal appearance of the memopeachable, but wicked conduct and a wicked motive are. rialist before the House. He might aver that a material Sir, did any one vote to impeach Judge Pickering, of New fact could be established by testimony incorrectly or imHampshire, for corruption? No, sir; he was impeached perfectly referred to in the report of the committee, and for intemperance, but not for corruption. Suppose the ask leave to introduce it fully. Should his application be wicked conduct of the judge himself brings his court into rejected, he might regard the permission to be heard as contempt; suppose that conduct is arbitrary and oppres- illusory. Should his application be acceded to, we should sive, ought we to pass it over with slight language? In all be drawn into a trial of the cause. It had been said that the eight articles against Judge Chase, he was charged this House was "the grand inquest of the nation," thus aswith an arbitrary exercise of judicial power. There was similating its powers and jurisdiction to those of the British scarce one article, if I remember right, which charged him Parliament. This is a radical error. This House has no with direct corruption. The whole prosecution was found- other inquisitorial authority than such as is expressly deleed on the idea that his conduct was arbitrary, and though gated to it by the constitution, and this is restricted to the he was not finally convicted, it was because the facts did power of impeaching certain civil officers of the United not bear out the charge. Though you cannot show that a States for crimes and misdemeanors. The British House judge has been bought, you may show his oppressive and of Commons is "the grand inquest of the nation." In the wicked conduct, and that he ought to be turned out of exercise of this prerogative, they may proceed against any office. The constitution says that judges shall hold their persons, for any offences, and in any manner which they office during good behavior. I do not say that every may deem expedient. They may prefer accusations, inforspecies of wrong behavior is such as to forfeit his of mations, or impeachments, or enact bills of pains and pefice, but I say that there may be other ill behavior besides nalties, altering the rules of law and evidence. They have, taking a bribe. I do on my soul believe that Judge Peck accordingly, acted under all these modes. They have ac has been guilty of conduct, if not corrupt, certainly arbi- cused an individual of misdemeanors, and ordered a jury to trary in the extreme. It has been said that Lawless was be empannelled for the trial, as in the case of Alice Pierce; personally interested in the cases in which he was counsel, they have impeached a clergyman for a libel, an offence and that all the counsel were opposed in opinion to the cognizable by the courts of common law, as in the case of Judge. Admit it. Is that any reason that the Judge Sacheverel; they have passed bills of pains and penalties, should act oppressively? His opinion and station were as in the case of Sir John Fenwick, who was executed unperfectly independent; he was not bound to regard the der a statute dispensing with the proof of two witnesses to notions of counsel. Sir, the merits of this case lie within an act of treason, as required by the statute of Edward III. a very small compass. The question is, whether the criti- From this brief statement, it must be apparent that anacisms of Lawless were just or not, and whether, admitting logies drawn between the inquisitorial powers of the British them to be erroneous, the Judge might, on that account, House of Commons and of the House of Representatives of shut him up in jail, and strip him of his profession. There the United States, are fallacious. The precedents, thereappears to me to have been a sickly sensibility in this fore, which have been cited, of the manner of proceeding judge. He seems to have resolved to come out, and by when the British House of Commons accuse or impeach, his judicial thunder to demonstrate that he was yet alive, are calculated to mislead, not to enlighten, our judgments. that he had a court, and that he was not to be contradicted We must be regulated by our own constitution in the conor reviewed. He, therefore, sent out, brought in his vic-struction of the power of impeachment. That power is tim, east him in prison, covered him with infamy, and did what in him lay to deprive him of his livelihood. Unless it can be shown that he had authority so to do, and that he acted on justifiable cause, I, for one, am prepared to impeach him.

limited, in the constitution, to an inquiry to be instituted by this House, whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant the accusation of a civil officer of the United States before the Senate. Unless in this inquiry the House be confined to what is termed ex parte testimony, there will be Mr. BUCHANAN said, it was not his purpose to enter no bounds set to their inquiry-they must, then, hear all into any argument in this stage of the proceeding. He felt the evidence which can be adduced by him who prefers rather in favor of the resolution which had been moved the charges, and by him against whom they are preferred, by the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. PETTIS.] He, too, had examined the British precedents, and found that in several cases the party had been admitted to the floor of the House of Commons, simply to make an argument on the testimony which had been previously given to the House. This was the utmost extent of the privilege, so

and thus the House will, in fact, try a cause over which the constitution has given to them no other power than to decide whether it shall be tried by another tribunal. In what I have said, I desire not to be understood as being opposed to granting permission to the memorialist to be heard, with the limitations expressed in the resolution. I am

H. or R.]

Judge Peck.

[APRIL 7, 183 0

willing that he should have an opportunity to comment | before "statement," so as to propose that the Judge upon the statements and the facts which are contained in might deliver a written exposition of his views before the the report; but, as I think that it would be more advan- House. tageous to him to submit a written than an oral argument, and as the time of the House would be saved by the former mode of proceeding, I therefore am in favor of the amendment which I have offered.

Mr. PETTIS said that the privilege would, in fact, amount to nothing, unless the Judge, in his communication to the House, should be permitted to state the facts as they had appeared in testimony, and to show how the law applied to them.

Mr. DRAYTON inquired what course was to be pursued, suppose the Judge should make some statement which was disputed, and should then ask to support it by testi

mony.

Mr. PETTIS replied, that each gentleman would, of course, decide for himself. The Judge's statement could not certainly be received in opposition to the testimony delivered before the committee, nor would the House be in any wise bound by the statements he might make. If those statements conflicted with the evidence, it would be for the House to decide between them.

Mr. RAMSEY observed, that, if Judge Peck, who was the accused party, was to be permitted to make his own statements before the House, he thought it would be no more than fair that Mr. Lawless, who was his accuser, should be allowed the same privilege. The one had as good a right to be heard as the other. Mr. R. accordingly moved so to amend the resolution, but withdrew his amendment at the request of

Mr. CLAY, who said that he could not perceive any difficulty in this case. The proposition was a single and a simple one. Let the Judge submit in writing an exposition both of the facts and the law. This would facilitate all gentlemen in coming to a conclusion. The Judge had not asked leave to state any facts which differed from those in the testimony. His friend had disclaimed, in his name, any such purpose. He thought it was a right which ought not to be denied to an accused person, and he was persuaded that the granting of it would lessen the difficulty of the House in coming to a just conclusion.

Mr. SPENCER, of New York, said that the object of the resolution, as he understood it, was to permit Judge Peck to be heard. This object differed materially from that expressed in the Judge's memorial, where he prayed not only that he might be heard, but that additional witnesses might be sent for to Missouri. As to receiving a written exposition from the accused, in relation to the law which he supposed to have authorized him in what he had done, and also his commentary on the facts which had appeared in evidence, Mr. S. had no objections. If there was any law which went to justify his conduct, let him have an opportunity of showing it. Mr. S. would willingly acquiesce, provided his explanation were made before Monday next. The session was now far advanced; and, if Judge Peck were guilty, the justice of the country required that there should be no delay in bringing him to punishment.

This

Mr. BUCHANAN said, he should not suffer himself to be betrayed into any feeling by the remarks which the gentleman from Missouri had made, or by any remarks which he could make. That gentleman had very evidently betrayed his own feelings in the case. He trusted he should treat the subject temperately and calmly. As to what my opinion is, [said Mr. B.] that is contained in the report of the Judiciary Committee; nor bad I ever an opinion on any subject more clear and decided. If the report "betrays" any feeling on my part, it is before the House, and before the country, and they will judge. The question now before us is this, and this only: What is the proper mode of proceeding for us to adopt? My desire is that the House may establish such a precedent as chall protect the interests of the accused in all future time. The Judiciary Committee had Judge Chase's trial before them, The mode of proceeding in that trial they considered as strictly proper and delicate. The committee, in that case, were directed to report their opinion on the charges against Judge Chase, which had been made on the floor of the House. For the purpose of enabling them to do so, they procured all the testimony in their power. MR. MARTIN said that he had an amendment which they reported to the House, together with a simple statehe presumed would answer the views of the House gene- ment of their own opinion upon it. Nothing else. And rally. He believed there were none who supposed that why? I presume that, as it was a judicial proceeding, they the Judge was to be permitted to state facts in his own wished to leave every gentleman to decide for himself favor, in contradiction to those which had appeared in the upon the naked testimony. They considered one memtestimony before the committee; that thus an issue was ber as competent to decide as another. Their report was to be made up, and that the House was to hear an argu- referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the ment on that issue. Such a thing could not be thought of Union, and there it was fully discussed. With this precefor a moment. Mr. M. was not indeed fully prepared to dent before us, the committee are not justly liable to the say how far it would be proper to hear the Judge at all, imputation of the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. BELL] but, in so important a case, he was for extending the rule who thought it very singular that the committee did not of proceeding as far in favor of the accused as propriety specify the charges, and give the grounds and reasons of would admit. He would not confine the Judge to too nar- their conclusion. If the Committee of the Whole on the row rules in an investigation so important to his own indi-state of the Union shall concur with the Judiciary Comvidual reputation, and one having so near a bearing on our mittee in their view of the case, then the House will apjudiciary. The House surely were not afraid to trust point a committee to draught articles of impeachment, and themselves. He, for one, was disposed to listen to the thus present the charges in a specific form. These articles Judge with all good feeling, but he should also, he hoped, will be reported to the House, and the House will discuss exercise over his feelings a strong restraint of caution, and decide upon them. Until after this second decision while he endeavored to do strict justice between the accus- shall have been made, the accused will not be called upon ed party and the United States. Let him submit a written to answer. The course pursued in the case of Judge law argument. Let the House have an opportunity of Chase gave to the party every thing he could reasonably hearing what his own views were. Few subjects involved desire." more points of difficulty than the doctrine of contempts, and Mr. M., for one, was anxious to hear what could be said on both sides. In such a case, he should not stop to look at precedents. Mr. M. then moved an amendment, which was at first accepted by Mr. PETTIS as a modification; but, after that gentleman had conferred for a moment with the Judge, he concluded not to accept it, but modified his original resolution by inserting the word "written"

Sir, what does Judge Peck state in his memorial! Does he allege he had requested of the Judiciary Committee that other witnesses should be examined? This he could not state, for the fact was not so. He made no such request; and I never even suspected that he had such a wish. Had he requested it, I, for one, should have thought it a very grave question, and one that demanded the most serious consideration. It is a question on which I confess

« AnteriorContinuar »