JANUARY, 1804.] Official Conduct of Judge Chase. [H. OF R never before contemplated, or had a suspicion | lay until to-morrow, in order that he may have that such a motion would be made. time to consider whether he can bring himself to refuse the inquiry altogether. He says that he cannot, or rather (for he speaks doubtingly) he thinks he cannot see the propriety of instituting an inquiry without evidence. What evidence? Nothing short of legal proof-testimony on oath. And what is the object of the resolution? To acquire that very evidence. If we had the evidence, to what purpose make inquiry? As, however, the evidence cannot be had without inquiry, and the gentleman will not grant the inquiry but upon the evidence, it is plain that if we take the course which he recommends, we must go without both. Will gentlemen offer objections against inquiry which are applicable only to impeachment? If an impeachment were moved, they would have a right to call for evidence. But what is the object of the present motion? Merely to inquire whether there exists evidence which will justify an impeachment. But this inquiry we are told cannot be instituted on mere hearsay, although we have the declaration of a member in his place. What would be said of a grand jury, who being informed by one of their body that A or B could testify to the fact of a murder being committed within their jurisdiction, should refuse an application to the court to have them summoned, and because they could not find a bill of indictment unsupported by evidence, should reject that evidence which might be within their reach? I profess not that tenderness of conscience which has been displayed by the gentleman from Connecticut. My conscience teaches me to accuse no man wrongfully, but to deny inquiry into the official conduct of no one, however exalted his station; and I had supposed, from his practice, that the gentleman held the same opinion. For it will be recollected that on the eve of the close of the last session he had himself instituted an inquiry which went to impeach the conduct of some of the first officers of the Government. No one on that occasion stepped in between the demand for an inquiry and those officers implicated in it. No inquiry was made, and it precluded any further proceeding on the part of the House, since the charges which had been attempted to be brought forward would not bear examination. Mr. R. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays. As to the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I do not consider them as entitled to much weight. If the facts stated by him were of his personal knowledge, they would undoubtedly merit attention. But he merely states that which he has received from others, and which amounts to nothing more than that the judge refused liberty to the counsel to argue a point of law after it was decided, and confined their argument to facts. In so doing the judge may have erred, but it was an error of judgment, for which he cannot be impeached. No lawyer will perhaps say that it was not the province of the judge to decide the law, and that he has not the right to prevent counsel from arguing it after his mind is made up. But this information is not of the knowledge of the gentleman. Are we then to institute an inquiry into the conduct of a high officer of the Government merely on hearsay? This has never been done under our Government. In the late case of Judge Pickering proof was furnished by the affidavits of witnesses testifying certain facts. I do not therefore consider it correct to proceed to inquire on the opinion of any gentleman. The proper course is first to have proofs which will justify ourselves to our own consciences in making the inquiry-for we ought not to touch the character of a judge, unless we are satisfied from facts that there is good reason for an investigation into his conduct. Gentlemen will not say that making an inquiry into the official conduct of a judge does not touch his character. Gentlemen say if this committee find the conduct of the judge to have been correct, they will make a report to that effect; but it does not follow that the report will contain all the evidence adduced, and suspicion may still rest on the character of the judge, and that some facts may not be stated, which, if stated, would show his misconduct. Whereas, if the business be brought generally before the House, on the exhibition of certain facts, the public will be enabled to decide whether they warrant impeachment or even suspicion. With this view of the subject, I am of opinion that it will be best to delay acting in this affair until facts shall be disclosed which will justify the step now proposed to be taken. I have as high a respect for the opinion of the gentleman from Virginia as for that of any other member on this floor; but I doubt whether we can justify our votes on the opinion of any single member; facts alone ought to govern our opinions. I, therefore, for the purpose of considering the course most proper to be pursued, move a post-House. What is this committee to be appointed ponement of the further consideration of the motion until to-morrow. Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-Were I the personal enemy of the gentleman who is the object of this resolution, I should take precisely that course which, on this occasion, the gentleman from Connecticut seems more than half inclined to take. That gentleman wishes the resolution to Mr. GREGG said he should vote against the postponement, and in favor of the resolution. The case was somewhat new, but he perceived no impropriety in giving it the same direction with all the other business originated in the for? To investigate facts and report them to the House. Was it not most proper that gentlemen whose characters were implicated should have, in the first instance, facts stated privately before a committee, than that parts of their character should be immediately brought into view before the House? He recollected one fact not yet alluded to in debate. In 1792, after the army under the command of General St. Clair was defeated, great dissatisfaction arose, and the character of the commander was implicated. The idea was that the expedition had not been conducted with propriety. The business was brought before Congress. It was understood at that time, whether justly or not, Mr. G. would not pretend to say, that the commander-in-chief could not be tried by a court martial. Congress therefore took up the business, and appointed a committee of inquiry, who went through a lengthy examination of the subject. Mr. G. mentioned this precedent that gentlemen might turn their attention to it. Mr. R. GRISWOLD said—I had hoped that the language used by me, when I was up before, would not have led gentlemen to suppose that I was acting as the friend or the enemy of | Judge Chase. I am acting in neither capacity. I am acting only as a member of this House, who ought to be anxious on an occasion of such importance to take that course which is most consistent with propriety; that course which results from the duty this House owes the nation, and that duty which they owe the character of a judge. It did appear to me that it was not correct to call the character of a public officer into question unless some necessity should first appear. No facts are presented on this occasion. The gentleman from Virginia has said that he is in possession of facts, or of something which makes him believe that an inquiry is proper, but he does not choose to communicate those facts. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has given us his information. The question is, whether it is proper on these light suggestions to institute a solemn inquiry into the character of this judge. It appears to me that we ought not to throw any imputation on the character of any officer without evidence that such an inquiry is necessary. The case mentioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GREGG) does not apply. Dissatisfaction existed in the country and in this House on the events of a campaign; an inquiry was instituted; but what was its object? The committee were appointed to inquire into the general causes of the failure of the expedition; they were not instructed to inquire into the character of a particular officer. The gentleman from Virginia has referred to another case, when he says that we were ready enough to institute an inquiry, and has left it to be inferred that the inquiry was made without any previous proofs of its necessity. But certainly on that occasion inquiry was not made without proof. I suppose the inquiry alluded to was that which related to the conduct of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. It was instituted on a report made by them, and which we thought was not satisfactory. The resolution offered was adopted, and inquiry was made, the result of which is well known to every gentleman. It follows, therefore, that there are no precedents adduced which apply to the present case. It is my wish that the proceedings of this House may on this occasion be perfectly correct, [JANUARY, 1804. and that we may not be precipitated into the adoption of this resolution without due consideration. If it is correct to vote an inquiry in all cases where a member rises on this floor and desires it, it is correct to vote it in this case. In this case a gentleman rises and says that he is satisfied an inquiry ought to take place. The question is, whether it is proper to inquire on the suggestion of a member? If it is proper, without facts being adduced, then it will be always proper to inquire whenever any member requires it, and it will be also proper whenever any individual citizen requires it. This course I have never thought correct. On the contrary, I think some facts ought to be previously presented to establish the necessity of an inquiry before it is voted. In the case of Judge Pickering a very different course has been pursued. The appointment of a committee of inquiry originated from a Message of the President. We find in February, 1803, the House received the following Message: "The enclosed letter and affidavits, exhibiting matter against John Pickering, District Judge of New Hampshire, which is now within Executive cognizance, I transmit them to the House of Representatives, to whom the constitution has confided a power of instituting proceedings of redress, if they shall be of opinion that the case calls for them." This Message was referred to a committee, with the accompanying papers, furnishing evidence of the necessity of an inquiry. But the course pursued to-day is very different. A gentleman gets up and moves an inquiry into the conduct of Judge Chase, and says that he is of the opinion that it ought to be made. The course, I think, is incorrect. Some facts ought first to be adduced. I repeat it, I am on this occasion neither the friend nor the enemy of Judge Chase. I am the friend of this House; I wish its proceedings to be correct, and I hope they will not do hastily what they may hereafter regret. Mr. DENNIS.-The only question now before the House is, whether they will postpone the consideration of the motion on the table. I cannot but express my surprise that the gentleman from Virginia should oppose this motion, when several have declared that they are not prepared to vote on this resolution. Gentlemen ought to recollect that, according to our rules, on all motions which require the concurrence of the two Houses, one day's delay is necessary. Although this resolution is not of this kind, yet it surely is not of inferior importance. I believe that the gentleman alluded to by the motion would rather court than shrink from an investigation of his official conduct. I believe, also, that it has become necessary, from the discussion of this day, that an investigation should take place. I am not, therefore, prepared at this time to say whether I shall not ultimately vote for an inquiry. But it appears to me that the course proposed is inverting the natural order of things, inasmuch as it institutes an inquiry not growing out of facts, but for facts. I believe also that the facts stated, if authenti cated, will furnish no ground for an impeachment. Circumstances attending this motion show that the gentleman from Virginia does not consider them as a sufficient ground for an impeachment. The refusal to hear the point of law discussed was the act of the court. Mr. Chase did not sit alone on the bench. Another judge must have been associated with and have concurred with him. If so, why does not the resolution allude to the other judge? Why select one judge, when both are equally implicated in the charges? I believe the most parliamentary way would be for a gentleman to state, in the form of a resolution, the grounds of impeachment, and then to refer such a resolution to a select committee for investigation. In this mode the House may correctly institute an inquiry, and send for persons and papers. This is the only parliamentary mode of proceeding. In every case where impeachments have been made, the facts have been stated in a resolution, concluding with a motion for an impeachment. The House possesses no censorial power over the judges, except as incidental to the power of impeachment. If gentlemen are possessed of facts, why not state them in the form of a resolution, and move an impeachment? Then, if the facts appeared to me to warrant an impeachment, I would not object to their going to a select committee, though I believe the most proper course would be for the House to send for persons and papers, and to examine for themselves. But it is extremely novel and unprecedented for the House, without facts, to institute an inquiry into the character of a high officer of the Government. May they not, in the same way, extend their inquiry into the conduct of every judge in the United States, without stating any facts on which the inquiry is founded? For these reasons I shall vote for postponing the further consideration of this resolution for one day, on account of the importance and delicacy of the subject, and the serious deliberation it is entitled to. I do not know whether, if sufficient time is allowed for consideration, and I shall be convinced that this course is consistent with parliamentary usage, I shall not be in favor of an investigation. Mr. ELLIOT.-When the yeas and nays are called, I shall on every occasion rise in favor of taking them. I wish the votes I give in this House entered on the Journal, and known to every citizen of America. The more I contemplate the course pursued on this occasion, the more extraordinary and unprecedented it appears to me. The gentleman from Virginia rose, and, after an elegant exordium, stating that the streams of justice should be preserved pure, and other fine things, told us that he had received information of facts that convinced his mind that an inquiry ought to be made into the conduct of a judge. Suppose the gentleman, on facts known to himself, had stated his opinion, that an inquiry ought to be made into the conduct of the President of the United States; we [H. OF R. have the same right to impeach the President as a judge. If the inquiry would be improper in the one instance, without facts being adduced, it would be equally so in the other. For we possess no censorial or inquisitorial powers over the conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court. If Judge Chase has been guilty of misconduct, let it be stated. If that misconduct be of a private nature, let the House assume the character of a grand jury, hold private sittings, receive evidence, and determine whether the judge shall be impeached or not. The gentle-. man asks whether a grand jury in the case of a charge of murder can send for persons. Undoubtedly they can. But did gentlemen ever hear of their appointing a committee to inquire whether a man charged with a partial offence ought to be indicted? We are called on as the grand inquisitors of the nation, to appoint an inquisitorial committee to get evidence; for it is granted that as yet we have none. I believe that no committee of this nature ought to be constituted, without previously ascertaining facts that will warrant the delegation of such great power. No accusation, even, is before us; but we are called upon to appoint a committee to look one up-a committee to be invested with power to send for persons and papers—a committee to inquire in private. I will never consent to the appointment of such a committee, until facts that will justify the inquiry are stated. The facts adduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, if proved, could not induce me to believe that the judge is impeachable. I may suspect that his conduct was erroneous and improper, but I cannot conceive it proper to impeach a single judge for the act of the court. Believing, therefore, this conduct unprecedented, unparliamentary, and replete with improprieties; believing it novel; believing that, in an affair of so much consequence, we ought not to proceed with precipitation; believing that we are entitled to demand one day to reflect upon it-I am proud, on this occasion, to record my vote in favor of the postponement until to-morrow; and if it were for a week, I should with equal pride and pleasure vote for it. Mr. HOLLAND moved an adjournment. Mr. J. RANDOLPH said, that considering a motion to adjourn equivalent to a postponement for a day, he moved the taking the yeas and nays upon it. Mr. HOLLAND moved an adjournment, on which the question was taken-yeas 52, nays 62. YEAS.-Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, Simeon Baldwin, George W. Campbell, John Campbell, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Thomas Dwight, James Elliot, Edwin Gray, Gaylord Griswold, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings, James Holland, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Joseph Lewis, jun., Henry W. Livingston, Thomas Lowndes, Thomas Plater, Samuel D. Purviance, Erastus Root, Matthew Lyon, Nahum Mitchell, James Mott, Tompson J. Skinner, John Cotton Smith, John Smith of Virginia, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, H. OF R.] Official Conduct of Judge Chase. ment. I conceive that this House cannot proceed in any other way. I am therefore of opinion, that, before the vote for an inquiry, there ought to be probable grounds that facts exist that authorize an impeachment, and that evidence can be procured of their existence. I has been adduced, that such evidence does exam not prepared to say, from any thing which ist. I conceive that until probable grounds are shown, we ought not to authorize such a procedure, inasmuch as it may establish a precedent that we may hereafter regret-a precedent which will put it in the power of any member to move and obtain an inquiry into the conduct of the President, a judge, or any other officer under the Government. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to say this is the regular course of proceeding. I do not profess to have much knowledge of parliamentary proceedings, and have therefore waited, before I expressed my opinions, to hear such precedents as gentlemen could adduce. Having heard none, I conclude none exist. (JANUARY, 1804. James Stephenson, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, dence can be procured to authorize an impeachSamuel Thatcher, David Thomas, George Tibbits, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, Peleg Wadsworth, Matthew Walton, Lemuel Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns. NAYS.-David Bard, George Michael Bedinger, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, William Dickson, Peter Early, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Griffin, Samuel Hammond, Josiah Hasbrouck, William Hoge, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, Beriah Palmer, John Patterson, Oliver Phelps, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith of New York, Richard Stanford, John Stewart, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, and Richard Wynn. The question of postponement recurring, Mr. HUGER considered the course contemplated by the resolution as improper, unparliamentary, and unprecedented. To make up his mind on the course proper to be pursued, he was in favor of the postponement. 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. Mr. HOLLAND observed that he had moved an adjournment to allow those gentlemen time for reflection who had not yet made up their minds on the propriety of the motion. He was himself of this number. Having been allowed no time for reflection, he did not feel perfectly satisfied with the appointment of a committee of inquiry before any facts had been substanti- I repeat it, I have heard no statement satisfacated. Desiring further time to form his judg-tory to my mind that there are probable grounds ment, and seeing no occasion for precipitation, he should vote in favor of a postponement. 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. G. W. CAMPBELL.-I will not, at this late hour, detain the House with the expression of my ideas in detail. I am as desirous as any member of this House that the streams of justice should flow pure and unsullied, as on their purity depend the safety and liberties of the people of the United States. But when we are about to enter into measures for preserving them clear, we owe it to ourselves to preserve order in our conduct, and to act in such a manner as we shall be able to justify to our constituents. Every member of this House, on such an occasion, ought to be as cautious in his proceeding as a judge in delivering his opinions, lest, while we are condemning the conduct of the Mr. MOTT.-I am in favor of the postponejudge, we ourselves go astray from our duty. ment, because I wish time for consideration, and For this reason, I am against the adoption of a because I am against the resolution itself. I think measure which may throw a censure on a char- it is improper to go into such an inquiry before acter invested by the United States with high specific charges are laid before the House, when authority, until I am convinced we have suffi- it will be proper for the House to consider cient grounds for doing so. The resolution on whether those charges are sufficient to sustain the table can have but one object, to wit: the an impeachment; then it will be proper to prodirection of an inquiry whether sufficient evi-ceed, and not till then. No charges have yet JANUARY, 1804.] Official Conduct of Judge Chase. been laid before the House: we have only been | into his conduct." told by one member that he is satisfied sufficient grounds exist. [H. OF R. Would the House have This denied the inquiry? Will they rely altogether on the attorney of the district, whose interest Mr. J. RANDOLPH was sorry to be obliged to it is to be well with the judge, and whose trespass again on the patience of the House, but patience must be worn out with his misconduct the direct application made to him by the gentle- before he will undertake to call the attention of men from Tennessee and South Carolina, im- Government to it? Are gentlemen aware of posed upon him the necessity of stating his the delicate situation in which those officers are reasons for proceeding in what they were pleased placed? Suppose information had been given to term so precipitate a manner. They ask, to a member of the malfeasance of a judge by a why not have laid the resolution on the table by person who should say: "It is not pleasant to way of notice to the House? Because, sir, I originate accusations; those who come forward cannot in a matter of extreme delicacy make in these cases undertake an invidious task; the opinions of other gentlemen the standard of while therefore I wish my name not to be menmy own actions. I should have conceived the tioned, I shall be ready, when called upon by character implicated in the resolution as having proper authority, to give my testimony." just cause of complaint against me, had I not is a hypothetical case, but one by no means imbeen ready to decide in a moment on it, and probable. Would it not be a point of honor did I not press its immediate decision. I should not to expose the name of the informant? have deemed it an act of cruel injustice to have But, say gentlemen, the charge is of a general hung the inquiry over his head even for a day. nature. While I do not admit the force of this I should have expected the reproach of setting remark, supposing it to be correct, I deny that suspicions afloat whilst I avoided examination it is a general charge. The inquiry is general, into them; for I should have deserved it, had I but it is founded on a statement made by the pursued the course which gentlemen wish to gentleman from Pennsylvania. I made no adopt. I can see no difference between hanging other statement. I have said that I believed up this motion for a day or a year but the mere there existed grounds of impeachment. What difference of time. What is the object to be they are I shall not state here. They may be obtained? Do we wait for evidence, or any in- those exhibited by the gentleman from Pennsylformation, which will assist us in forming a vania, or they may be others. Will gentlemen correct opinion? Not at all. To-morrow the assert that the statement of facts made by the question will recur upon us-"Is it proper, gentleman from Pennsylvania will not, if true, from what has already appeared, to institute warrant an impeachment? What does it amount an inquiry into the conduct of this officer?" to? A person under a criminal prosecution, And this we are as competent to decide at this having a constitutional right to the aid of counmoment as at any future day. When, however, sel in his defence, has, by the arbitrary and gentlemen consider a resolution to make inquiry vexatious conduct of the court, been denied this the same as an inquiry already had, I am not right. Such is the nature of the charge. Has surprised at finding myself opposed to them in it come to this, that an unrighteous judge may opinion. I repeat that all their arguments are condemn whom he pleases to an ignominious applicable to a motion of impeachment only. death, without a hearing, in the teeth of the But it seems that no precedents have been ad- constitution and laws, and that such proceedings duced, and time is wanted to hunt them up. should find advocates here? Shall we be told Gentlemen should recollect that but two cases that judges have certain rights, and, whatever of impeachment have taken place under this the constitution or laws may declare to the conGovernment; one of a Senator from Tennessee, trary, we must continue to travel in the go-cart the other of a district judge of New Hampshire. of precedent, and the injured remain unredressBy what precedents were the proceedings in these ed? No, sir, let us throw aside these leadingcases regulated? How is it possible in a Gov-strings and crutches of precedent, and march ernment hardly in its teens, where new cases with a firm step to the object before us. must daily occur, as its various functions are As to the motion of postponement, Mr. R. called into exercise, to find precedents? It did said it was of little consequence to him whether so happen, in the case of the Senator from Ten-it prevailed or not. On a charge of specific nessee, 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 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. |