of time upon a business, which, he thought, had already occupied too much. After a few other observations, the question was put on the amendment and carried-48 to 43. The question on the resolution as amended was about to be put, when Mr. GALLATIN said he knew how late in the day it was, and therefore his remarks should not be long; but as he considered there was a point of view in which the subject had not been placed, he wished to say a few words before the question was taken. Of the fact itself he had no remarks to make; the evidence was direct, and all could draw their inferences from it. Nor did he consider it very material whether the insult arose from provocation or not, because he did not think that any provocation could justify an indecency of that nature. But it appeared to him that gentlemen who expressed so much sensibility on the occasion, had confined themselves wholly to the indecency committed within the walls of the House, without taking any notice of the nature of the punishment proposed to be inflicted. It was on that part of the subject, and on that alone, he meant to make some observations. | [H.OF R. want of manners-a want of good breeding. There could be no doubt the act was highly indecent; but it did not show a corruption of heart. It may disqualify him from associating with some gentlemen on this floor; but, said Mr. G., we do not come here to associate as individuals, but to deliberate upon legislative subjects in our representative capacity. We may, if we please, associate together, or we may let it alone. He did not think himself compelled to associate with any member of this House whose society he did not like. This was not then one of those cases which discovered a corruption of heart, that would disqualify a man from giving a vote on a legislative subject, though it might show the person to be disqualified for polite society. He would go on to the other case, which was said to be a good reason for expulsion. He allowed that cases might exist, in which a man might so far persist in interrupting the business of that House, by his disorderly behaviour, as to render it necessary, in order that the business might proceed, that he should be expelled. This led him to inquire whether this was the case under consideration, and whether the business of the House had been interrupted by the act in question. Our Government, he said, was a Government by representation. The people of the United When he put questions to the witnesses in reStates had not vested power with a sparing hand; lation to the order of the House, at the time the they had given all power out of their hands, but act complained of took place, he did it not with a they had guarded against the abuse of it. They view of lessening the offence itself. He did not had said this power shall not be exercised but by mean to inquire whether the member from Verpersons appointed by ourselves. This being the mont had committed a less degree of indecency, case, said Mr. G., we, the representatives of the because the House was in one situation, than it people, have only a limited power over individual would have been if it had been in another; but representatives in our body. It is true the Con- his object was to show, that the public business stitution has given us the power of expulsion, but had not been interrupted, and that the House was under as much caution as power could be given. in a situation in which it could not have been inIt is guarded by making it necessary to have a terrupted. It was true the SPEAKER had, in the vote of two-thirds of the members present-the morning, taken the Chair, and the House had not same caution which was laid upon the Senate adjourned; but it must also be allowed, that the with respect to treaties. He conceived that the House was not at that time organized. What power of expulsion had not been given for the was the business before the House? A committee purpose of indulging our sensibility; for the pur- of two members were counting the votes for manpose of impairing the principle of representation, agers of an impeachment. Were they interbut for the purpose of enforcing that principle; rupted; or could they be interrupted by an inciand two cases might exist in which the power of dent of this kind? He was sure they were not inexpulsion, lodged in that House, might be consid-terrupted. If, then, the public business was not ered as a safeguard to the principle of representation. These two cases were, when the House discovered a person to be disqualified by some infamous conduct from voting, and when a member pertinaciously interrupted and prevented public business from being carried on. As to the first case, he could not suppose that any man would ever be sent to that House who had been guilty of any crime that would disqualify him from holding his seat, if the people who sent him knew it at the time; but if any such crime should be afterwards committed, or be discovered to have been heretofore committed, then the House has a right to expel and send such a member back to his constituents. The present case, every one will allow, does not fall within this rule. The charge against the member from Vermont is a gross indecency, which shows a interrupted, and if the fact was not of that nature which showed a corruption of heart, he did not think it would be proper to expel the member from Vermont. He saw, indeed, that it was unpleasant for some gentlemen to sit in the House with the member from Vermont. He allowed it was an evil; but what is the evil, he asked, on the other side? It is this: They all knew that a new election could not take place in the State of Vermont for several weeks. He remembered, from the contested election which was formerly before the House from that State, that twelve days notice is requisite before writs can be issued; a certain time would be required to bring the votes to the Governor; the necessary notice, a new election, ascertaining the return, the notification to the member elected, and the time necessary for his journey hither, H. OF R.] Breach of Privilege. [FEBRUARY, 1798. I sat writing at the opposite sides of the table; Mr. Lyon took a seat by the table at the side of Mr. Bradley, and entered into a conversation upon the subject of the report above mentioned. He soon discovered himself to be somewhat irritated, and in a very rude and pointed manner declared that no man who had a spark of honesty could have reported as I had done. Attacked in this rude manner, I retorted, in a passion, that he was an ignorant Irish puppy. would take up many weeks; and by the laws of that State, if there be not a majority on the first vote, a new election will be necessary; so that it may be pretty certainly said, that if the present member was expelled, one-half of the State of Vermont would be deprived of a representation on that floor for the remainder of the session. And shall we, said Mr. G., in order to gratify our sensibilities, deprive one-half of that State, for a number of weeks, and perhaps for the whole ses-hair, that was turned back with a comb, which he broke Mr. Lyon rose in a violent passion, grasped at my sion, of its representation? He was not willing to in the grasp. I was at that moment mending a pen; do so, and therefore should vote against the I instantly rose, intending to revenge the insult with resolution. the knife in my hand; but Mr. Bradley had seized Mr. Lyon from behind, round the arms, and drew him back a little; upon which, Mr. Lyon, bearing himself in Mr. Bradley's arms, threw his feet upon the table to kick across. The awkward appearance of Mr. Lyon at this moment, and the grimaces of his countenance, provoked me to laugh. I dropt the penknife, seized Mr. Lyon's feet, and, in this manner, with the help of Mr. Bradley, who still kept his hold, carried him across Mr. the room, and laid him on his back in a corner. Bradley and I returned to our seats, laughing very merhis corner, stood a short time in apparent agitation, and rily at the scene. In the meantime, Mr. Lyon rose from without uttering a word. At length he turned upon his heel, with these expressions: "Damn it, I will not be mad"--forced a laugh, and left the room. Nothing ever afterwards passed between Mr. Lyon and myself upon this subject. I therefore repeat, that Mr. Lyon's assertion is wholly without foundation. He knew that other gentlemen on that floor had as great regard for the principle of representation as he; therefore, he supposed, they had considered this subject already, and made up their minds upon it. When he stated these reasons he did not doubt they had weight upon the minds of other gentlemen. For his part, however, he was more apprehensive of depriving Vermont of its representation, than of any other consideration arising from the subject. He thought gentlemen had laid too much stress on this indecency, as it affected the Legislature of the United States. However disagreeable the act was in itself, he did not think because a member sent there by the people of Vermont does an improper act, that it could attach disgrace and indelible infamy to the House itself, nor did he see how it could affect any other person besides the member from Vermont himself. There seemed to be a great desire, very loudly expressed, that the question should be taken before the committee rose; but Mr. SEWALL and Mr. RUTLEDGE, both appearing to have a desire to speak on the subject, and it being near four o'clock, the committee rose and had leave to sit again. Just before the committee rose, the Chairman informed the committee he had received a letter from Mr. CHIPMAN, of the Senate, in consequence of what had fallen from Mr. LYON: in his defence of yesterday. The letter was requested to be read, and was as follows: SIR: I feel it my duty, in this public manner, to vindicate myself against an unwarranted attack on my character, by Mr. Lyon, yesterday, in the House of Representatives. I learn that he there asserted that he had once chastised me publicly for an affront which I had given him. This assertion of Mr. Lyon is without foundation; it is false. Nor can I conjecture to what circumstance Mr. Lyon could have alluded, unless it might be a ludicrous transaction, which took place at Westminster, in the State of Vermont, in the beginning of the year 1780, the circumstances of which I beg leave to relate: The Legislature of Vermont were in session at that place; Mr. Lyon attended as a member; I attended on business. The House of Representatives requested me, though not a member, to examine and report my opinion concerning certain debts due from persons whose estates had been confiscated. I had made a report accordingly, at some part of which Mr. Lyon took offence. One morning Mr. Lyon called at Mr. Bradley's room, in which I was then doing business. No person was in the room but Mr. Bradley, Mr. Lyon, and myself. Mr. Bradley and I ask pardon for the trouble I have given the House upon this business. And am, with respect, &c., The House having resolved itself into a Comtittee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Privileges, Mr. DENT in the Chair, Mr. RUTLEDGE denied that any similar outrage had ever been committed in that House like the present, though the gentleman from Virginia had spoken of something analogous. It was true, a challenge had been sent by a member of the Senate to a member of that House; but this was not at all comparable to the present offence. Mr. R. thought the punishment by expulsion was the only punishment which could be adopted, as nothing short of it would be effectual. mittee was a question of indecency, and not of Mr. FINDLEY said, the question before the comcrime; and he wished, for the sake of decency, so much had not been said upon it. In forming the Constitution there had been a distinction made between punishment and expulsion. Expulsion was evidently the highest punishment which the House could inflict, but no one could say indecency was the highest crime. He never understood, either at the time the Constitution was formed, or since, that expulsion was intended to be applied to anything but crimes-for what would be a subject of impeachment in other bodies FEBRUARY, 1798.] Breach of Privilege. [H. OF R. where impeachments could be brought. This the House, not only for the security of his person, was not, therefore, an opinion formed upon the but for immediate punishment. As the Constituspur of the occasion. Mr. F. said, he knew of an tion gave the House a power to expel a member instance of this kind, which happened in another for disorderly conduct, he thought this case came Legislative body, upon which a committee was ap-clearly within the rule. In some cases of offence pointed to consider it; but they never made a report, but held their decision in terrorem over the offending member. He thought, if a similar course had been taken in this matter, it would have been preferable to spending so much time in debate upon it. there might appear mitigating circumstances, but there were none in this. The conduct of the member since the transaction was committed had been such as to convince the House that he felt no compunction for what he had done. Mr. LIVINGSTON rose to entreat gentlemen, as Mr. SEWALL rose to reply to what fell from Mr. they valued the respectability of the House, the GALLATIN on Friday, with respect to the two good opinion of their constituents, and the public cases which he pointed out, as coming under the Treasury, that they would suffer this business to rule for expulsion, and referred to the law of Par-come to a conclusion. Their constituents, he was liament in England to show that this doctrine was ill founded. He said no district of country ought to have it in its power to send a man among them as a legislator for the United States, who should be hateful to two-thirds of the House. The Constitution had defined no particular cases in which the power of expulsion should be exercised; the House was therefore left at liberty to use it according to its discretion. And, if it were to be abused, instead of punishment, it might become the highest honor to the person expelled, as, if the House were become so corrupt as to expel a person without just cause, it might awaken the people to a sense of the necessity of changing their representatives. certain, had long been tired of the discussion. Nearly twenty days, which had cost as many thousand dollars to the country, had been consumed in this business. Gentlemen rose to express their abhorrence of abuse in abusive terms, and their hatred of indecent acts with indecency. The simple question before the House was, what degree of punishment was proper to be inflicted upon the member from Vermont. [The CHAIRMAN informed Mr. L. he was mistaken in saying twenty days had been consumed in this business; it had been before the House only fourteen.] Mr. L. said it was in a fair way for being twenty. Mr. CoIT was sorry to hurt the feelings of the gentleman last up by saying anything on the subMr. S. said, it was a new doctrine that the bu-ject, but having been considered as an advocate of siness of the House should actually be interrupted, before a person should be deemed an offender against its rules. It was necessary to look at the consequence of actions, and refer to what might have been the case if Mr. GRISWOLD had resented the affront upon the spot. Mr. SHEPARD Spoke again upon this subject. If the member from Vermont were not expelled, he supposed it would break up the present session, without doing any business; that it would divide the States against each other, and finally end in a civil war. Mr. Lyon, he would make a few observations upon the subject. He did not himself think that this vote ought to have been taken without discussion. If, indeed, it had only been necessary to have inquired how does this man generally vote? then no discussion was necessary; but he could Mr. S. spoke of the importance of this decision not consider that this was the only inquiry necesas a precedent; and of the danger to be appre-sary to be made. With respect to the fact, nothing hended from the conduct of Mr. LYON in future, need be said; every one allowed it to be brutal, if the present outrage was suffered to pass without indecent, and unmannerly. The Constitution exemplary punishment, and that it would be ne- gave the House the power of expulsion for disorcessary to come armed to the House, in order to derly conduct. It had been said, this disorder must guard themselves against him. be committed within the House; but he found nothing of this sort in the Constitution. He had no doubt himself that the House was in session at the time. It had been attempted to show that there was a provocation for the offence; but an inquiry into this matter turned wholly against the gentleman from Vermont, as his previous abuse of the whole representation of Connecticut was a sufficient ground for the retort which was drawn from his colleague. It appeared, therefore, to him, that to retain amongst them a man of this deseription was to retain a man who would produce nothing but disorder and confusion in their proceedings. His letter of apology did not say that this was a transaction of heat, and that he was sorry for it, but that he was sorry the House had thought it necessary to take cognizance of it; and his defence before the Committee of the Whole was far from being contrite; it was, indeed, an attack upon the witnesses, in order to invalidate their testimony. He hoped the resolution would be agreed to. Mr. PINCKNEY said, in order to insure perfect freedom of debate, it was necessary to repress every personal violence in the first instance. In consid ering this question, he considered it as fixing a rule for their government in future; and he thought, if it were so considered, (and no reference had to the dispute which had produced the discussion,) there would be a pretty unanimous opinion that an offence of this kind ought to be punished by expulsion. He thought a member thus violently offending the rules of the House, should be immediately deprived of the power of the people in that House; and it was on this ground that he moved for the immediate commitment of the member from Vermont to the care of the Sergeant-atArms, when the offence was first made known to Mr. R. WILLIAMS rose and took notice of the different arguments urged in favor of the amendment. He denied that the committee ought to consider the consequences to which an act might possibly lead; if so, an assault would of course be punished equally with murder, as it might possibly lead to it. He did not think the House ought to interfere any further, than to preserve order and decorum in its proceedings. If a member of the House committed a crime, he was answerable to the laws equally with any other man. Upon the whole, he considered the proposed punishment as disproportionate to the offence, and should therefore move an amendment. Mr. W. then moved to amend the resolution reported, by striking out the words, "be for this disorderly behaviour expelled," and insert in their place, "is highly censurable, and that he be reprimanded by the SPEAKER, in the presence of this House." Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said the length of the present debate had been complained of; but who, he asked, had first broke silence after the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. THATCHER) had expressed his wish that the vote might be taken without debate? It was the gentleman who had just sat down; and now he had given the committee another speech, and introduced a proposition calculated to produce further discussion. He wishes the gentleman from Vermont to be reprimanded by the SPEAKER. What could the SPEAKER say to him? He could only say, You have done an act which would disgrace a blackguard; come and take your seat in the House. You have insulted us with words which show your defiance of us, but come and sit with us, and be our brother legislator. Were these proper words to be addressed to the member? The SPEAKER Would sooner address him in words of thunder which should drive him from his presence. Mr. D. then took notice of what fell from the gentleman from New-York with respect to the length of the present debate, which he thought fully justified by the importance of the subject, and concluded by saying, that if there should be found a majority in this House in favor of the amendment, he should be ashamed of having a seat in it. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the committee would not be prevented from doing what it thought proper, because there might be a difference between the private opinion of the SPEAKER, and what he might be called upon to do in his capacity as SPEAKER. Mr. R. WILLAMS denied that he was the first who began the debate. Mr. DAYTON repeated that he was the first who broke silence after the gentleman from Massachusetts had wished the vote to be taken without debate. Mr. R. WILLIAMS said that it would appear, from the manner in which the gentleman had said he broke the silence, that he had begun the debate, which he did not. Mr. W. said, he was more strongly convinced than ever of the impropriety of extending the power of expulsion, since he had heard the passionate expressions of the gentleman from New Jersey. Was this the language of a Judge? He would not only pass the law [FEBRUARY, 1798. upon the offender, but he would do it with thunder and vengeance! In his opinion, Mr. W. said, nothing could tend more to disgrace the councils of America than such heated language as this. It was sufficient to induce the people to say, "We have too much liberty-too much freedom of speech; our Government is bad"-and to be ready to lay hold of any other that is offered to them. Á sentiment of this kind tended more to destroy the Government than anything he had heard. Gentlemen talked of heat in debate; but where did it come from? Not from the gentlemen in opinion with him, must be evident to every one. Whatever opinion might be held of his amendment, he thought it proper, and therefore made it; nor did he think it liberal in any man to treat it as it had been treated. Was it right to be told by a member, because he had moved an amendment like the present, that he should be ashamed to sit with him? Was this what the public expected to hear in its Legislative councils? He believed not. He thought it would do no credit to him who uttered the sentiment. Mr. DAYTON said that the gentleman from North Carolina had misstated what he had said in several instances; but he did not think it worth while to set him right-it would be a waste of time and words. There was one thing he would notice, he called him a judge. Was he not in Committee of the Whole on this subject? Was he more a judge than that gentleman? [Mr. W. offered to explain.] Mr. D. said that gentleman had already four times explained himself. If he had anything more to say to that gentleman, it would be a little more pointed. He should say what he pleased, and if he chose he might call upon him in the House or out of the House, (privileges aside.) [A loud cry for order was heard.] Mr. D. said he knew when he was in order. The CHAIRMAN declared such language improper. Mr. DAYTON Concluded by justifying what he had said as to the impropriety of the SPEAKER reprimanding the member from Vermont, as the language of a majority, he was assured, would direct him thus to speak, and he could not be expected to use the sentiments of a minority in his reprimand. He had stated the matter in a strong light, to show the impropriety of the measure; and he meant to appeal to the breast of every honorable gentleman whether the members of that House would consent to sit in amity with such a man. Mr. GOODRICH thought to have given a silent vote on this subject; but when a proposition like the present was brought forth, he could not refrain from delivering his sentiments upon it. Mr. G. complained of the slanderous manner in which he and his colleagues had been treated by the gentleman from Vermout. Every one allowed that some punishment was proper for the offences of this member-they differed only as to the propertion. For his part, he thought nothing short of expulsion would be sufficient; for it was evident, from his conduct, that a reprimand would not be considered by him as any punishment at all. He knew not how to account for the strange manner in which he had conducted himself since he committed the insult upon his colleague, except, indeed, he was persuaded that, to do what he will. it was not in the power of the House to expel him; that his friends would support him. If this were his opinion, he hoped he would find himself mistaken. [H. of R. Mr. GALLATIN said he should not have risen again on this subject, if it had not been to explain some things which he had before said, and which had been misrepresented. After explaining these, Mr. G. went on to state that no act of disorder done in the House ought to be noticed farther than the decorum of the House required, as the laws were ready to take cognizance of injuries Mr. HARPER was strongly opposed to the amend- committed on members as well as on those who ment. He was sorry to see gentlemen determined are not members. He quoted the Constitution to to support the member from Vermont, at all show that this was the intention of it. Indeed, events, rather than lose a vote on favorite political he did not believe any gentleman on that floor questions. The reprimand proposed, he was confi- would say he wanted protection; they could gendent, would have no effect upon them; besides, iterally protect themselves; and if not, the law was a punishment of the lightest kind which the would protect them as it protected others. But it House could inflict, and by no means proportioned was said offences which had a tendency to disturb to the highest possible outrage. He corresponded their proceedings ought to be punished. This he in sentiment with the gentleman from New Jersey allowed, but he would punish them in a less dewith respect to this amendment, and if it were gree. Mr. G. referred to the case which has alapproved by a majority, he should feel ashamed ready been mentioned of a challenge sent by a and degraded at belonging to that House. If this member of the Senate to a member of that House. were the case, every man who had any regard for That business, he said, was referred to a commithis character, would make his escape from the tee, but the parties having written letters of apolpolluted habitation, as such a vote would attach ogy, exactly in tenor with that of Mr. LYON. they disgrace and infamy to the House, because it was were deemed sufficient, yet the letter of Mr. LYON an old and true adage, "He who does not repel is spoken of as aggravating his crime. Mr. G. did not think that a vote of censure and a reprivile acts, participates in their infamy." mand by the SPEAKER was a slight punishment. Mr. SITGREAVES said, if this amendment pre- It was said no act of offence had ever been comvailed, (and he trusted it would not,) it could only mitted like this, nor did he think any punishment be upon one or two considerations; both of which had ever been inflicted by this Government so had been suggested in the course of the debate, severe as a vote of censure by the House. Beviz: the supposed want of power in the House to cause the member from Vermont had not receivexpel a member for an offence of this kind, or ed so polite an education as other gentlemen, it that the punishment is not proper for the offence. was supposed this punishment would not greatly Mr. S. went into a variety of arguments to affect him; but he supposed he was not wholly prove that both these objections were ill-founded; dead to every feeling, and unless he was composed examined the different theories which had been of different materials from other men, such a punlaid down as applicable to the power of expulsion ishment must be considered as a very serious one. given by the Constitution, endeavored to prove He should, therefore, vote for the amendment. that the offence under consideration was of the Mr. G. added that what Mr. Lyon had said rehighest magnitude, and that, therefore, it ought to specting the Representatives of Connecticut was be punished with the highest punishment which spoken as if it made part of the charge against the House has the power of inflicting-which is him; as this was not the case, he thought any obexpulsion. A mere reprimand, he said, was by servations on that head would be better omitted. no means a proper punishment; it was applied to Mr. DANA condemned the wish that had been offences of the lowest kind merely. These being expressed for passing a silent vote upon this subhis views on the subject, he should vote against ject, and particularly the conduct of the gentlethe amendment; and if it were to prevail, he man from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) for having would also vote against the resolution itself; for, expressed such a wish. He said it appeared as if so far from such a measure securing them from gentlemen had determined to vote against the exfuture injuries, it would only encourage them. pulsion of the member from Vermont, and were He would, therefore, have nothing to do with it, afraid of hearing anything which might convince but leave every gentleman to protect his own hon-them that they had done wrong in so determining; or. It will then be necessary for them not only to bring learning and information to Congress, but also a sufficient degree of strength and courage, or if deficient in strength, arms for their defence. With respect to the length of this discussion, it was wholly owing to that part of the House who declined to act upon the business immediately, but who chose to have the subject referred to a committee, and afterwards to have the evidence before a Committee of the Whole, and not to those who have always been ready to adopt the most prompt measures. or were the gentleman from Virginia and others, who were so ready to speak to the public on other occasions, afraid to do so on this, from a conviction of the weakness of their cause? Mr. D. took notice of the cases stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to whose manners he paid a compliment at the expense of his logic, and spoke of the necessity of preserving decency and dignity of manners in all public bodies. The member from Vermont had indeed been very free in his remarks upon Connecticut; but to have merited the hatred of the gentleman from Vermont was |