H. OF R.] Impeachment of William Blount. [JULY, 1797. year 1797, was received from the Senate, with an amendment proposing to add a clause to it of forty-five thousand dollars on account of our treaties with the Mediterranean Powers. It was referred to the Committee of the Whole to whom was referred the confidential communication of the President with respect to Algerine business. YEAS-John Allen, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Mr. SPRIGG presented a memorial from Major Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Lewis R. Lewis, extra aid-de-camp to General Wayne, for Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, pay for his services in that capacity. After some William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sit- opposition it was referred to a select committee to greaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William report by bill or otherwise; and, before the House Smith, of Charleston, John Swanwick, George That-rose, a bill was reported, and committed for to cher, Mark Thomson, John E. Van Alen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams. morrow. IMPEACHMENT OF WM. BLOUNT. Mr. SITGREAVES, from the committee to whom was referred the confidential communication of Monday last, reported the following resolution, viz: Resolved, That William Blount, a Senator of the United States, from the State of Tennessee, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors." NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Demsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph. John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Wm. B. Grove, John A. Hanna, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, for this day. Daniel Morgan, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, of Pinckney District, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sum-ing ter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams. TRANSFER OF STOCK. A bill was received from the Senate for continuing in force an act to revive and continue in force an act authorizing the transfer of stock standing to the credit of certain States; which was read the first, second, and third time and passed. COLLECTION OF INTERNAL REVENUE. Mr. W. SMITH called for the order of the day on the bill regulating the collection of certain internal revenues. Mr. NICHOLAS wished this bill to be postponed until next session, as it was not of any immediate importance, and he wished that they should by all means finish their business in the course of this week. Mr. MACON moved that the Committee of the Whole be discharged from further consideration of the subject. This motion was carried, there being 46 votes in favor of it. Mr. SITGREAVES, from the committee to whom was referred the Message from the President of the United States, of the third instant, made a report, in part, which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows: 66 That, in their opinion, it will be proper to print the whole of the said communication, with the documents accompanying it, for the use of the members." Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy upon the members of this House, as far as relates to the said Message, be taken off. This resolution was twice read and committed A motion was made by Mr. W. SMITH, for goimmediately into a Committee of the Whole on this business; but it was withdrawn in order to take up the amendments of the Senate to the bill laying additional licenses on the retailers of FOREIGN WINES AND SPIRITS. The principal amendments of the Senate were to extend the licenses to domestic wines and spirits, as well as to those of foreign manufacture. The amendments of the Senate were supported by Messrs. J. WILLIAMS, SEWALL, SKINNER, and VARNUM, on the ground of making the duty fall more equally, as at present, it was asserted, that some States paid far more than others. Mr. WILLIAMS in particular asserted, that the State of New York paid one-fifth of the whole. The amendments were opposed by Messrs. GALLATIN, HARTLEY, KITTERA, VENABLE, DAYTON, DENNIS, COIT, and CRAIK, as oppressive to the small farmers of this country, who had just been taxed by an additional duty on salt, and as tending to destroy all those small distilleries that distilled for sale from ten to twenty gallons a year. After considerable discussion, a motion was made for the committee to rise, which was carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, (Mr. DENT.) And on leave being asked for the committee to sit again, it was refused-52 to 31. The further consideration of the subject was then postponed until the second Monday in November. IMPEACHMENT OF WM. BLOUNT. On motion of Mr. SITGREAVES, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution reported for impeaching WILLIAM BLOUNT; when Mr. SITGREAVES said, if there were no objections to the proposition, he hoped the committee would rise and report it; or, if any information should be The bill making further appropriations for the wanted on the subject, he should endeaver to give THURSDAY, July 6. JULY, 1797.] Impeachment of William Blount. "the committee all that he had it in his power to give. Mr. SKINNER said, he had doubts in his mind whether the House had any right to interfere in the business. Mr. SITGREAVES observed, that when the communication was first made to the President of the United States, it appeared so evident to him that the occasion called for some active steps being taken, that he immediately took the opinions of the Attorney General, Mr. Rawle, and Mr. Lewis, to whom he proposed certain questions. A copy of the opinion which they returned to him had been transmitted to the committee. It stated that the above gentlemen had considered the letter of WILLIAM BLOUNT, and the several questions proposed thereon, and answered: [H. OF R. ture; they were Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. In consequence of their Executive powers, they had possession of all the secrets of the Executive. The officer who was charged in this case, he said, had particular relation to this part of the functions of the Senate; for, having this participation in the secrets of Government, it was a particular breach of official duty, when a Senator attempted to seduce an officer of the United States from his duty. So also when a Senator of the United States shall endeavor to deprive the Government of his country, or its agents, of the confidence of a foreign nation; when he shall endeavor, by seductive arts, to lead a foreign nation to commit hostilities on his country, it was certainly such a violation of his duty as would warrant an impeachment. Mr. S. said, these were the conside 1. That the letter is evidence of a crime. 2. That the crime was of the denomination of a rations which had induced the committee to make misdemeanor. 3. That WILLIAM BLOUNT, being a Senator, is liable to impeachment for the said crime before the Senate. It was in conformity to this opinion, that the President of the United States, thought himself bound to communicate the letter to the House of Representatives, and leave it for them to act upon the occasion. If the opinion of these high law characters was correct, there could be no doubt of the part which they ought to take. For his own part, he had not been able to see why the members of the Senate were not as fair objects of impeachment as any other officers of Government. He believed, upon a candid review of the Constitution, it would be seen that there was no restriction upon the right of impeachment. There was a restriction upon the punishment to be inflicted, but not upon the right. He would not pretend to say the right might not, however, be circumscribed in some respects. He believed a Senator could not be impeached for any thing he might do as a legislator; though this should be understood with limitation; for, if corruption could be proved upon him, it would be fair ground of impeachment, though, acting in the ordinary course of legislation he could not be called to account for his conduct out of the House. He believed, that in a Government like ours, the right of impeachment was a very valuable right. It was a sort of process calculated to reach State offenders, not otherwise amenable to punishment; and there was no fear that in this country this power would be abused, as in another country, to serve the purposes of a Minister or a party, as both the body which makes the accusations, and the court which decides upon the charge, are the real representatives of the people, the one immediately, and the other mediately. In England, Mr. S. said, this trial by impeach ment had been carried beyond official cases. He instanced the famous trial of Doctor Sacheverell, who was impeached for preaching a libellous sermon. It was well known that this cause divided the kingdom, and that the first talents were called in to the aid of the Doctor. The Senate, Mr. S. said, was peculiarly constructed. Its powers were of a complicated na5th CoN.-15 the report they had made; it was for the House to act upon it as they saw proper. Mr. NICHOLAS had his doubts with respect to the Constitutional right of the House on the subject. He thought the committee had neglected something which ought to have been done. They ought to have had some satisfaction with respect to the truth of the charge; they were not to act upon mere suspicion. This was his first impression on the subject; but he had yet made little inquiry on the matter; he thought, however, before they declared a man in any degree guilty, they should have evidence before them. It did not appear to him that a member of the Legislature could be termed an officer of Government; for so far as a Senator had to do with the Executive, his character was merely that of an adviser, and he doubted therefore, whether he could, in giving his opinion, be liable to prosecution; nor did he think his crime of corrupting an officer was the greater because he was a Senator. Mr. N. declared, however, that he was as ready to act upon the business as any person in the House, and gave as much credit to the charge. He wished to probe the business to the bottom. He thought they should inquire whether there was not another person equally culpable with WILLIAM BLOUNT-he meant the British Minister. He suggested the propriety of deferring the whole business till next session, as he did not see any advantage that would be derived from determining upon it at present, except it were by making an example of the offender. He supposed there would be no danger of his escaping; and if he were to escape, he did not know that it would make any considerable difference, as the only punishment which could be inflicted upon him would be a disqualification from office. Mr. GALLATIN said this subject was altogether new to him. He never had turned his mind to the Constitutional question with relation to impeachment before this morning. Of course, what he should say, would be more in the shape of queries than of any thing else, as he had not formed any decisive opinion upon it. He was not, therefore, ready to vote upon the subject, but H. OF R.] Impeachment of William Blount. [July, 1797. merely wished to submit his doubts to the com- tor. He knew not whether this Carey, an Indian mittee. It had struck him, upon a cursory view of the Constitution, that whatever might have been the extent to which impeachment was carried in England, by our Constitution impeachment in this country must be limited to the officers of Government alone. He had derived this idea from the two following clauses in the Constitution, viz: "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers 'of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." 66 Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to a removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit, under the United States. But the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law." It appeared from these clauses, that wherever an officer of Government committed an offence upon which a judgment of impeachment should be had, he was also liable to indictment according to law, as the extent of the punishment from an impeachment was a removal from office, and a disqualification to hold in future any office of honor, trust, or profit, in the United States. He did not think the case of Dr. Sacheverell in point. It was his opinion, that, by the Constitution, officers of the Government only were intended to be impeached, and not members of the Legislature. His colleague had given it as his opinion, that a member of that House might be impeached for his vote, if bribery could be proved, though the Constitution expressly declares, that no member shall be questioned out of the House for any thing he may do in his character as a legislator. He supposed this clause was meant to prevent any interference of the Executive; but if a man were to be called in question for a vote, though not for a speech, the privilege which he had always understood that they enjoyed, would be greatly narrowed. It appeared to him that the appropriate punishment for offences committed within those walls was expulsion; and that impeachment could not apply to them. An argument had been adduced in favor of impeachment of a Senator, from that body having free access to the Executive records. This assertion was not correct; as he recollected a case in which the Senate applied to the President for certain papers, which, if they had had free access to his record, they would not have had occasion to have requested. He also recollected that the request was only granted in part. He believed indeed that some Senators, as well as some members of the House, might, by special favor of the Secretary of State, have access to this record; but he believed it might be refused to the members of either House. It was said this offence was the seduction of an officer of the Government. He knew nothing of the offence; but he saw no reason why the offence should be greater because committed by a Sena interpreter, was an officer nominated by the President, and approved by the Senate. He knew nothing of the fact. It was therefore necessary to have some further information on the subject. With relation to the letter itself, it was of a very serious nature; so serious, that though he conceived it scarcely ripe for Legislative inquiry, he thought it called for strict Executive inquiry. He thought they should know something of the fact that the letter was WILLIAM BLOUNT'S. It was nothing less than a conspiracy between a number of men, in the United States, and the British Government. He said a number of men, because the letter mentions a Captain Chesholm, who held correspondence with the British Minister at Philadelphia last Winter, so that at least two officers of Government were acquainted with the plan. [He read an extract from the letter.] It appeared, therefore, that a most serious plan had been laid, in which Captain Chesholm was a partner, and made the instrument to confer with the British Minister; that a man of some consequence was gone to England, and that the design was an attack upon the Spaniards in America; so that the plan, if carried into effect, must involve us in a war with that nation. This plan, Mr. G. said, had been suspected by the Spanish Minister at Philadelphia, who had addressed our Executive more than once upon the subject; and also by the Ministers of France and Spain at Charleston, who, in order to meet the attack, had purchased all the arms and ammunition they could meet with, and sent them to Augustine. How far the Legislature should go into the business, or whether it should be left to the Executive, he did not know. At first, he thought the subject wholly of an Executive nature. Mr. G. observed that what he had delivered were mere cursory thoughts. He wished to hear the subject discussed, as he should attend more to the arguments of gentlemen in that House than to the opinions of legal authority. As to the legality of the question, they were certainly better judges than himself; but as the power of impeachment was committed to that House, they certainly ought to judge for themselves. He mentioned this because he thought the answer of these legal gentlemen very curious, viz: "that the letter was evidence of a crime; that this crime was a misdemeanor; and that it is liable to impeachment." When the President asked advice what he should do, the answer seemed to be a direction to that House what they should do; and this was advice unasked. Perhaps, however, the answer given to them was only partial. He wished, if it could be done with propriety, that the business might be postponed till the next session. He understood that the gentleman was supposed to have taken his seat in the Senate to-day. As to expelling him from his seat, that might be done now, and when that was done it would prevent him from doing any further harm. The disqualification might take place at the next session as well as at the present. Mr. DANA said, the first impressions upon his JULY, 1797.] Impeachment of William Blount. mind were, He asked whether a power could be impeached for any offence which was not a violation of official duty. He thought this was clear by the Constitution. A judge was certainly a civil officer, yet, if he were guilty of treason against the United States "by levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort," though this would be no breach of official duty, he might certainly be impeached for the offence. Another inquiry was, whether members of the Legislature were officers in the sense of the Constitution. This was an inquiry of great importance. The right of impeachment seemed to be a right clearly political; it was a right in Government to protect itself by displacing from its councils men who were faithless and unworthy. Taken in this view, the reason of the thing seemed strongly to apply to the members of the Legislature. With respect to a legislator being a civil officer, he would ask whether, if a man was displaced from a civil office, he would be eligible to be elected as a member of the Legislature? This would be an absurd conclusion, unless it should be said that to be elected to such a situation was to be in a place of neither honor, trust, or profit. Another clause of the Constitution said, "that no title of nobility shall be granted, and no person holding any office of profit or trust shall accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince, or foreign State." And it was not meant to be said that, though our officers were not to be allowed to receive emoluments, &c., the members of the Legislature were not forbidden to do it. This would be strange doctrine. He would submit to the committee what he conceived to be their duty. He thought the House should be fully satisfied of the fact; but if there was any doubt as to the flagrancy of the offence, or the liability of the person to be thus tried, these doubts should be left to the decision of the Senate, as the proper constituted authority. As to the inquiry relative to facts, the committee did not conceive that that inquiry ought to extend to a foreign Minister. They had nothing to do with him. He did not come within their cognizance. Mr. D. thought there could be no doubt as to the fact of the letter being really Mr. BLOUNT's, as several persons in the House could prove his handwriting. It was necessary first to enter into this general resolution. Afterwards specific articles of impeachment could be prepared. Mr. SITGREAVES said, it was observable that no gentleman had ventured to do any more than express his doubts, both as to the fact and the law on this occasion. With respect to the fact he did not expect any doubt: He believed that any gentleman at all conversant with that branch of law learning which relates to impeachment, must [H. OF R. know that impeachments have always been found- Mr. S. conceived that the conduct of the President had been strictly proper. He would pass on to the Constitutional doubts which had been expressed. It was acknowledged that there was no restriction upon the right of impeachment; but his colleague thought that something like a restriction might be gathered from the fourth clause of the second article of the Constitution, which he had quoted. It was to be observed that this article was found in that part of the Constitution which related only to the Executive Department of the Government. This, he took it, was a good reason why this rule should not be taken as a rule in the present case; but there was another clause which spoke of disqualifying persons from ever filling any office in future, which was a greater power than that under the Executive Department. If the construction which his colleague had put upon the Constitution with respect to impeachment was the true one, an officer of the Government could not be brought to trial after he had resigned, as he could not then be removed from office. His colleague had produced another article of the Constitution which limited the punishment under an impeachment. This, Mr. S. said, was meant to guard against any disgraceful excess of Governmental vengeance or party venom, because it went on to say that if the offence was within ordinary crimes it might be prosecuted and punished in the same way as if an impeachment had not taken place. Impeachment was then to be considered as for H. OF R.] Impeachment of William Blount. the purposes of the State, distinguished from the general purposes of society. If it had been intended that the power of impeachment should be limited in the manner supposed by his colleague and the gentleman from Virginia, it would have been so expressed, as in the constitution of Pennsylvania; they had spoken on this subject in a way not to be mistaken, as they expressly said who were liable to impeachment, and what offences should be impeachable. And if it had been the intention of the Constitution of the United States that officers of the Government only should be impeached, it would doubtless have been so expressed. But was not the present case that of an officer charged with an offence directly connected with his office, and with the official confidence entrusted to him? When it was particularly his duty to appoint to office, it was surely a peculiarly aggravated offence to seduce an officer or to turn friends into enemies. What was a Senator if he was not an officer of the Government? The President, who was himself a branch of the Government, was allowed to be an officer of the Government, and surely a member of one of the branches must also be an officer. As to the form of proceeding necessary to be taken on this occasion, he would state what the opinion of the committee was as to this matter. They supposed it would be first proper for that House to determine that the gentleman in question should be impeached. This being done, that a member of that House should go to the bar of the Senate and impeach the person, in the name of the House and of the people of the United States, and state that the House of Representatives will proceed to draw out specific articles of charge against him. According to the case, they require that he shall be sequestered from his seat, be committed, or be held to bail. When this is done, a committee will be appointed to draw articles of impeachment. The reason, Mr. S. said, why some steps should be taken at present was, that means should be taken to secure the person of the offender, either by confinement or by bail, since it was the opinion of the law officers of Government that he could not be arrested by ordinary process. He could not be arrested by the Senate; they could send for him (as he understood they had done) by the Sergeant-at-Arms, to take his seat in the House; but when the House adjourned, they had no further power over him, until an impeachment was made against him. Gentlemen said there was no danger of escape. If it were not improper to state what had taken place out of doors, it might be said that there had already been an attempt at an escape. Besides, if no investigation were now to take place, how were they to come to a knowledge of the plot which gentlemen seemed so desirous to come to a knowledge of? When they had determined to make the impeachment, and an oral declaration was made of it to the Senate, when they were ready to go home, they might go, and exhibit the charges at the next session, when they should have leisure fully to consider the subject. [JULY, 1797. Mr. RUTLEDGE had no doubt in his mind on the subject; but he thought it necessary that the handwriting of Mr. BLOUNT should be proved. He had himself attended the trial of an impeachment which had excited the attention of the world, (he alluded to the trial of Mr. Hastings,) and the order of proceeding was as had been stated. He moved that evidence be taken of the handwriting. The CHAIRMAN suggested the propriety of having the business done in the House. Mr. BROOKS said, he should not have spoken on the occasion, if he had not heard gentlemen express wishes to have the present subject postponed. For his part, he could not tell how gentlemen would be able to acquit themselves to their own consciences and to their constituents, if they should refuse to stay a day or two to do this business. Mr. VENABLE said, that as this was a new case, and would be referred to as a precedent, they should attend to the form of their proceedings. He thought the first step should be to prove the letter. If the committee could not do it, he should wish the committee to rise, that it might be done in the House. He did not think their determination should be postponed; but that if an impeachment was to be entered upon, that it should now be done. He had no doubt of the truth of the letter; but he wished it to be duly proved, as hereafter a case might occur in which such a letter might be a forgery. Mr. NICHOLAS said, that some gentlemen had spoken upon this question as if there were persons upon the committee who wished to exculpate the person charged. [Mr. SITGREAVES declared, if he was alluded to, he had no such intention.] Mr. N. thought he intimated something of the kind, when he said, gentlemen ventured to say, &c. No member of that committee, he trusted, would wish to screen the offender, and he believed no person less than he who was most nearly connected with him, (meaning his brother, Mr. THOMAS BLOUNT.) Mr. N. thought it was not sufficient that the President had sent them a letter, which he believed to be in the handwriting of WILLIAM BLOUNT. If they were to take this for granted, they gave their power of judging over to the President. Mr. N. said, he had merely inquired what would be the consequences of a postponement to the next session. He did not think it could produce any bad effect, as, if the offender were to escape, the final punishment did not require the presence of the man. Mr. N. again expressed his doubt about the constitutionality of the proceeding. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said he held in his hand a letter which he had received from the President of the United States, inscribed as an original letter of WILLIAM BLOUNT, to be preserved with care. If any member of the committee will say that he believes the writing to be the writing of WILLIAM BLOUNT, it might save the trouble of the committee's rising for the purpose of having the fact ascertained in the House. Mr. HARPER thought the committee were as |