by no means disgraceful. He should wrong the State of his nativity, he should wrong his colleagues and himself, were he to undertake a formal refutation of this calumny. The citizens of Connecticut will disdain the idea of being enlightened by that member's knowledge, or of being revolutionized by his power, as they will repel with indignation any imputation against their Representatives in Congress-Representatives who were born and educated amongst them, and whom, in consequence of their good opinion of them, they have appointed, by their unsolicited suffrages, to do their national business. Had the assertion no other currency than the member from Vermont's word, he should not have noticed it; but as it appeared upon the Journal, and had gone out to the world, he thought it necessary to say what he had said on this subject. But for these calumnies, it was probable that the outrage on Mr. GRISWOLD would not have been committed; but what could be a more serious charge against another than to be told, "You have betrayed your trust?" This was what gave all the keenness to the epithet of coward, when applied to an officer. Mr. D. said he did not mean to cast any blame upon gentlemen who differed from him in opinion; nor would he envy any gentleman the pleasure they would have in the company of the gentleman from Vermont; if they chose to associate with such a kennel of filth, let them do so; let them press him to their heart, and salute him as their brother, they may do it without envy; let them be designated as the companions of Mr. LYON, by being pointed at, by "There goes the member of Congress who voted to have MATTHEW LYON as a companion!" If they felt themselves invulnerable to such a reproach, he acknowledged he had not attained to that degree of insensibility. He himself would put him away, as citizens removed impurities and filth from their docks and wharves. [FEBRUARY, 1798. The question on the amendment was put and negatived-52 to 44. Mr. MORRIS said, before the vote was taken on the resolution for expulsion, he wished to say a few words. There was no doubt but that the conduct of his colleague had been highly insulting to the House, and that he deserved expulsion. He also believed that the people of Vermont would resent this conduct, which dishonored the character of the citizens of that State; and he thought it was the duty of that House to give the people an opportunity of showing their disapprobation of a conduct so gross and indecent. The question on the resolution was put and carried-51 to 43. The committee then rose, and reported the amendment to the resolution, together with the evidence which had been taken before them. The House took up the amendment (relative to the offensive words in the defence) and agreed to it-49 to 46. Mr. R. WILLIAMS then renewed his amendment for confining the punishment to reprimand. Mr. BROOKS hoped, if the House did not agree to the highest punishment, they would not agree to the lowest which they could inflict. He did not suppose the member from Vermont would look upon this as a punishment; and if no other was to be ordered, the House would never get rid of his offences. Mr. MACON said, it was observable there were two opinions in the House; one for expulsion, the other for a reprimand. He did not think the offence was such as would authorize an expulsion. He said there had been as many illiberal expressions in the course of this debate as he had ever heard. Gentlemen had talked of party doing this, and party doing the other, whilst they themselves are the first to mention it. He hoped they would have kept these things out of the sight of the world. If gentlemen of one description voted one way, those of another voted a contrary way. As for the punishment of being reprimanded in the face of the House, which would be entered upon the Journal, he thought it a very serious one, and he would almost as soon be hanged at once. He hoped, therefore, the punishment would be thought at least equal to the offence. The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and the amendment was negatived-52 to 44. The question was next taken upon the resolution for expulsion, by yeas and nays, and carried— yeas 52, nays 44, as follows: Mr. S. SMITH thought, as he had determined to say nothing upon this subject, that he should not have received the censure of any one. He had conversed with several gentlemen on both sides the question, and he thought, in order to avoid a lengthy discussion, which could have no effect but produce heat, it would be best to take a silent vote on the question. The gentleman who had just sat down had called upon him as a military man. He did not come here as a military man, but as a legislator. It seemed as if gentlemen were determined to make him speak on this subject; if he had wished to do so, they would not YEAS-George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayhave been able to have kept him silent. Heard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. thought the gentleman last up had made a speech Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua to little purpose. If military opinions were wanted, Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. two military gentlemen had already given their Davis, John Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, opinions. If, twenty years ago, he had been asked Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry an opinion, he supposed he should have given such Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, William an one as the gentleman from Connecticut would Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, not have liked to hear. William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, John Reed, John Rutledge, jr., Mr. DANA did not wish the gentleman to give bis opinion, and hoped he would excuse him for having given his, though he desired him not to do it. James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Alen and Peleg Wadsworth. NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Wm Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Wm. Findley, John Fow ler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Edw. Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Tompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams. The Constitution requiring two-thirds of the members present to carry a vote of expulsion, the motion was declared by the SPEAKER not carried. The following is the testimony taken in the foregoing case, as delivered in at the Clerk's table: The Speaker, JONATHAN DAYTON, Esq., one of the Representatives from the State of New Jersey, being duly sworn, this fifth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, before the Committee of the Whole House, to whom was committed the report of the Committee of Privileges of the second instant, proposing the following resolution for the adoption of the House, to wit: "Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for a violent attack, and gross indecency, committed upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence of the House while sitting, be, for this disorderly behaviour, expelled therefrom," by the Honorable Richard Peters, Esq., Judge of the District Court of the United States, for the District of Pennsylvania, to declare the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, touching the subject matter of the report, so referred to the said committee, deposed as follows: When the ballots of the House for managers of the impeachment against Mr. Blount were brought to the table to be counted, and the committee who were named as tellers were actually engaged in that business, I walked forth from the Chair, without adjourning the House, in order to take a little exercise about the room, as had not unfrequently been the case in reading lengthy communications. I placed myself by the side of a member from New York, and in the chair usually occupied by Mr. Dana, when I soon heard some expressions rather warmer than usual at the fire, behind me, and turning, observed that they passed between Mr. Lyon, of Vermont, and Mr. Dana, of Connecticut. I addressed myself immediately to them, and said, "Gentlemen, keep yourselves cool;" and afterwards added, "if you proceed much further, you will want seconds." Upon this, Mr. Lyon addressed himself to me, and said, among other things, that he had, in his own mind, designated the embassy to Cayenne for Mr. Dana; upon which, in order to give a turn of pleasantry to the conversation, I asked Mr. Lyon whether he had reserved for himself the mission to Kamtschatka, among the furred tribes. Upon my asking whether he was meant by the [H. of R. Lyon of Fairhaven," charged in the public papers with being active to incite the people in his district to hold meetings, and to clamor against the stamp act, he replied that he supposed he was the person meant, but that this charge, as well as many others of a like nature, made against him, was unfounded. After a few other remarks, Mr. Lyon began some animadversions upon the temper of the people of Connecticut, and the conduct of their Representatives in Congress. He said he had good reason to know and declare, that the members from that State were acting in direct opposition to the opinions of nine-tenths of their constituents; that, regardless of the public good, they were seeking their own private interests; that their object was to obtain offices for themselves; that if they could not obtain the most lucrative, they would not refuse those which were less so, (mentioning two sums, which I think were nine thousand dollars and one thousand dollars ;) that he, Mr. Lyon, had a good right to know the people of Connecticut, for he had to fight with them in his own district. Upon this Mr. Griswold, who was sitting in Mr. Harper's seat, asked whether he had fought them with a wooden sword, or with his wooden sword. Mr. Lyon either not hearing this question, or affecting not to have heard it, continued his remarks to me, and added, that when the Connecticut people came into his district on visits to their relations, they came with strong prejudices against him and his politics; but, after conversing with them freely, he had always succeeded in bringing them over to his side; that if he should go into that State and talk with the people, he could open their eyes, and effect an entire change there. Upon which, Mr. Griswold laying his hand gently upon Mr. Lyon's arm, in order to attract his attention, said, " if you were to enter into Connecticut for the purpose you mention, you could not alter the opinion of the meanest hostler." Mr. Lyon replied that he knew better; he knew the people of Connecticut well; that he had no doubt that, if he were to remove thither, and establish or direct a press there for six, nine or twelve months, he could effect a revolution there, and induce them to turn out all their present members. Upon my observing that this afforded another instance of the influence which men's wishes had over their belief; and upon my asking, if this were true, how he could account for the people of Connecticut having uniformly selected for their Representatives, ever since the commencement of the present Governanswered, that they (the Representatives) had blinded ment, gentlemen of the same political principles; he the eyes of their constituents-were constantly administering opiates to them, and would only permit one side of the question to be made known. Mr. Lyon further added, that he thought, upon the whole, that there was one, and only one, of the delegation which he might thoughts of moving into the State, and fighting them on spare, and allow to come again; that he had serious their own ground. Upon which Mr. Griswold repeated the substance of a former question, and asked, whether, when he should come, he would take with him his wooden sword. Upon which followed the indecency which has given rise to this reference. The said deponent being interrogated by Matthew Lyon, Esquire, and other members of the House, further deposed as follows: As Mr. Lyon leaned on the bar, near me, and spoke louder than was necessary for me to hear, I concluded it was intended by him to be heard by those who were near. The conversation was carried on with good humor; Mr. Griswold, when he spoke, certainly had a smile on his countenance. At the first conversation between Mr. Dana and Mr. Lyon, something had been said on the opposition to the stamp act in Vermont, and a meeting therein, on that subject. I believe the words spoken by Mr. Lyon did not allude to any vote of the members of Connecticut on any particular question, but generally to their political conduct. Mr. Lyon said that the people of Connecticut were deceived by their Representatives, who were constantly administering opiates to them, and it was only afterwards, on my asking why those persons were sent as Representatives, that he replied, the people were permitted to hear but one side. I take it that Mr. Lyon, although not in warmth, intended that his assertions should be believed by those who heard him. After Mr. Griswold had received the insult, I saw him draw back his arm, and expected a blow would be given; afterwards, I saw from his countenance, that he had changed his mind, and he then wiped his face. The conversation appeared to be conducted in good humor. The conversation respecting Connecticut came voluntarily from Mr. Lyon, and unsuggested by anybody else. Mr. Lyon received my question as to the mission to Kamtschatka, in a pleasant way. In another part of the conversation, Mr. Lyon was comparing the information of the people of his district with that of the people of Connecticut, alluding to the light he had conveyed among them. Mr. Brooks observed that the extraordinary light appeared from the extraordinary luminary they sent to represent them. [FEBRUARY, 1798. deserting an advanced post? He said he was; but attempted to show he was not so culpable as the rest. Said I, “ did you know you were execrated by the whole army?" He said he did. I then asked whether he was in company with the officer who came to General Gates's headquarters, and reported the desertion of the men, and whom the General called a dd scoundrel and coward, and ordered to be put under guard; upon which Mr. Lyon replied that he himself was the very officer, but that he told General Gates, that, being an officer, he might be arrested, but was not to be put under guard. In the same conversation I observed that application had been made to the Commander-in-Chief for leave to turn out the drums and fifes of the army, to beat a certain disgraceful march, upon the departure of those officers from the garrison, who, it was said, had persuaded their men to desert; and that I recollected their beating the march upon the heights of Ticonderoga. Upon being questioned by one of the gentlemen standing in the circle, whether it was a part of the sentence of the Court Martial that the cashiered should wear wooden swords, I answered that I had not heard it to be a part of the sentence in this case, nor ever in any other. Mr. Lyon appeared always, to me, to be willing to attend to inquiries respecting this business, and to give a calm reply. The Paymasters, although only Staff officers, ranked as Captains in the line. It was only that in case of insults from any of the men that they might put them under arrest; but when they went into action they placed themselves in the ranks. They would take command in case all the officers of a garrison were killed, in preference to a Sergeant, but not of any commissioned officer. A person under disgrace, as a coward, would not I did not hear a syllable from any member of Connecticut, of insult or remark on the conduct of the peo-be associated with by the officers of the army, or permitple of Vermont. Mr. Griswold, in laying his hand on Mr. Lyon, did it gently, and apparently for the purpose of calling his attention merely. The Speaker, at the time of the conversation, knew that the wooden sword had relation to Mr. Lyon's having been cashiered in the army. I knew it from a previous conversation with Mr. Lyon, and my having been in the army at Canada, at the time. The only reason for my supposing that Mr. Lyon did not hear what Mr. Griswold said, was, that it produced no change in Mr. Lyon's countenance, though spoken loud enough for him to hear; and I heard the words distinctly. Mr. Lyon and myself were at equal distance from Mr. Griswold. I did not observe the cause of Mr. Griswold's leaving his chair and going to Mr. Lyon, but on turning round, I perceived him then listening to Mr. Lyon. During the conversation between Mr. Griswold and Mr. Lyon, I did not observe any collection of members round the fire-Mr. Dana was passing and re-passing before the fire. Mr. Lyon seemed to insinuate that there was somebody influencing the printers, who permitted them to publish only on one side. ted to hold a Staff commission for any length of time. I never heard in the army that Mr. Lyon had received any new appointment after his disgrace, but only since, from him, and also then heard he was not allowed long to remain in it. But I did not stay in the army until the retreat. Mr. Lyon, when cashiered, was in the rank of a subaltern, as I understood. The said deponent, being further interrogated on the eighth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, on his oath aforesaid, answered to the several interrogatories so put to him, as follows, to wit: Question. Did you observe Mr. Griswold in Mr. Harper's chair, when the conversation commenced between Mr. Lyon and yourself? A. I do not recollect to have seen him at the first instant, but did see him there during the earlier part of the conversation. Q. Did you see Mr. Griswold until about the time he put the first question to Mr. Lyon about the wooden sword? A. About the time. Q. Can you say with certainty what part of the conversation with Mr. Lyon Mr. Griswold heard! A. I cannot. I had a conversation with Mr. Lyon some days before, at the fire, in the House. A gentleman from New York being present, with others, (Mr. Cochran, Mr. Hosmer, and Mr. Harper,) asked him what was the Q. Was it the first time when Mr. Griswold made meaning of a newspaper paragraph, viz: "that he had the observation of the wooden sword, that he laid his outgrown two things." He said it alluded to his hav-hand on Mr. Lyon's arm? ing been cashiered at Ticonderoga. I asked if he was A. It was not, but at the second time, and I recollect one of those who had been cashiered with infamy, for his first laying his hand there, when he made the obser FEBRUARY. 1798.] ness. sent. Which stroke of wit was received pleasantly by Mr. Lyon, as it appears to have been intended. Mr. Griswold had removed outside of the bar to where Mr. Lyon stood. At this time, having left my vation as to Mr. Lyon not being able to change the are. House. DAVID BROOKS, Esq., one of the Representatives from the State of New York, being duly sworn, as aforesaid, on the fifth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, deposed as follows, to wit: At the time which has been mentioned, I was sitting in my seat, and the Speaker in Mr. Dana's. I had heard a part of the conversation which passed between Mr. Lyon and Mr. Dana. The subject of the conversation, as well as I recollect, was the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, to the bill for regulating foreign intercourse. The conversation was loud, and the Speaker spoke to them as he has stated. Mr. Dana then broke off the conversation, and went away and walked backwards and forwards in the passage. The Speaker then entered into conversation with Mr. Lyon. About this time Mr. Griswold came and sat himself in Mr. Harper's seat. Mr. Lyon, speaking of the conduct of the members from Connecticut, stated that, on his passage home or back, he passed through part of the State, and heard the opinion of the people. Said that nine-tenths of the people of Connecticut differed in sentiments with their Representatives in the House; that the members from the State did not fairly represent the sentiments of their constituents; that they were seeking their own interest; they were looking for offices; it was immaterial what salaries were annexed, whether nine thousand or one thousand dollars, they thought either worthy of their attention; he had lived many years in the State of Connecticut, and was well acquainted with the disposition of the people. He had occasion, frequently, in his own district, to contend with them, when they came there upon visits to their relations, and had often convinced them they were wrong. He had no doubt that, if he were to set up a press in Connecticut, he could turn out all the present Representatives. I did not hear the exception of one, as mentioned by others-it appeared to be all done in a bragging, bantering manner. I then asked if he had not been in my district? He said he had, but there was nothing to be done there; meaning they were incorrigible, and not to be convinced. He then compared the situation of the people of the two States, as to information, and said the people in his district were far the most enlightened. I then made the observation stated by the gentleman examined before me. When he talked of contending, or fighting with the people of Connecticut, Mr. Griswold asked, if he had not better take his wooden sword. I thought he did not hear it, as I looked at him, thinking it a pressing question, and he did not change countenance, but continued his conversation with the Speaker. Mr. Griswold then said, he does not hear me, or I said he does not hear you I do not recollect which. Mr. Griswold afterwards went on the outside of the bar, and standing by Mr. Lyon, laid his hand on his arm, and said You could not change the opinion of a single hostler in the State of Connecticut. Mr. Lyon then talked of setting up a press in Connecticut, and fighting them on their own ground. Mr. Griswold then said, you will fight them with your wooden sword. Mr. Lyon then spit in his face. Upon this, Mr. Griswold stepped back with his right foot, looked steadily at Mr. Lyon, and stiffened his arm, as if going to strike. Mr. Dana then observed, they would consider of this matter; and I said, this is not the place; there is a time and place for everything. Mr. Griswold then wiped his face with his handkerchief, and went out with his colleague. I think the Speaker immediately rose from the chair he had been in, as, on looking round, I saw the chair empty. I have not been so particular as I might have been, if Mr. Speaker had not stated the facts so fully and correctly, in his testimony, from which mine only differs, as a part differs from the whole. The said deponent being interrogated by several members, answered to the interrogatories so put to him, as follows, to wit: Question. Did Mr. Lyon say that the printers deceived the people. A. He said the Representatives deceived the people, blinded or hoodwinked them, and administered opiates to them. That in Connecticut, it was permitted only to publish one side of the question. [FEBRUARY, 1798. A. It appears to me he did. I have no doubt he did. Q. Have you any reason to suppose that Mr. Lyon saw Mr. Griswold in Mr. Harper's seat, previous to his observation respecting the wooden sword? A. I do not know that he did. When I directed my discourse to Mr. Lyon, he turned to me, and Mr. Griswold was sitting at my left hand. Q. Have you any particular recollection of Mr. Griswold's being in your seat, till about the time when he made the first observation respecting the wooden sword? A. He was in the seat some time before that observation was made by him. I cannot possibly say how long. Q. Was it not apparent to you, from the course of the conversation, that the sarcasm used by Mr. Griswold, respecting the wooden sword, was by way of retort to Mr. Lyon's observation with respect to the Representatives of the people of Connecticut? A. It appears to me that it was. Mr. Lyon, in speaking of the people of Connecticut, said he would fight them on their own ground, and I think what was said of the wooden sword, was a retort to the observation. HEZEKIAH L. HOSMER, Esq., one of the Representatives from the State of New York, being duly sworn as aforesaid, on the sixth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, deposed as follows: During the canvassing of the votes for managers the Speaker left the Chair and seated himself by my side, in the seat usually occupied by Mr. Dana, of Connecticut. We heard a conversation carried on with some warmth between Mr. Dana, of Connecticut, and Mr. Lyon, of Vermont. The Speaker spoke to them, and checked them, and they iminediately separated. Mr. Lyon then came to the bar, leaned on it, and a conversation took place between him and the Speaker. It commenced, as nearly as I can recollect, with something relative to the stamp act, but I cannot recollect what. Mr. Lyon mentioned that, in the course of his journey hither or home, he had passed through part of Connecticut, and conversed with some of the people, and found their sentiments opposite to those of their Representatives in this House. Some general conversation then took place, in which we all took a part, but it was of little consequence, and it is not forcibly impressed on A. I cannot consider them in any favorable light-my mind. Mr. Lyon then, addressing himself to the they must certainly be reckoned disgraceful. Q. Did Mr. Griswold appear to be angry, or in good humor, in this conversation? A. Mr. Griswold spoke with his usual easiness and good humor. Q. Do you suppose the publications about the wooden sword, were calculated to throw disgrace on the member from Vermont? The said deponent being further interrogated by the said Matthew Lyon, and other members, on the eighth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, answered to the several interrogatories so put to him, as follows, to wit: Question. Had not Mr. Griswold joined the group and taken the seat of Mr. Harper, next to the seat occupied by you, before Mr. Lyon made the observations relative to the Representatives from the State of Connecticut, mentioned in your deposition? A. I think he had. I recollect, perfectly, that it was in an early stage of the conversation that Mr. Griswold took that seat, and he must have heard a principal part of the conversaton. I believe Mr. Griswold took the seat of Mr. Harper, immediately after Mr. Dana left off conversation with Mr. Lyon. Q. Did he take this seat time enough to hear the observations of Mr. Lyon, with respect to the Representatives from Connecticut seeking offices, and pursuing their own interests regardless of the public good Speaker, and speaking of the conduct of the members of Connecticut, said he believed that nine-tenths of the people of Connecticut differed from the sentiments advanced by the Representatives of that State on this floor; they were pursuing their own interest; that they were influenced by a desire to obtain offices, and it was immaterial how lucrative those offices were; that they would be equally influenced by an office of one thousand dollars as one of nine thousand dollars. On the Speaker's asking him how the people came to send such Representatives as they had from the establishment of the Constitution, he said that the Representatives blinded the eyes of their constituents, and it was only necessary for the people to be informed to induce them to oppose them. If he were to remove into Connecticut and set on foot a printing press, he had no doubt he could bring about a revolution in the sentiments of the people. He was well acquainted with the people of Connecticut, as the first part of his life in this country had been passed in that State. Several persons from Connecticut had been in Vermont to visit their |