Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

JULY, 1797.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

well satisfied as to the fact now, as they could be when the handwriting was proved; but he denied that the committee had the power of taking evidence of this kind. He moved for the committee to rise, either to examine the evidence, or to adjourn.

Mr. GALLATIN wished the committee to rise; but, before it rose, he wished to mention two or three ideas, upon which he should wish to have satisfaction when the committee sat again.

So far as relates to the Constitutional question, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DANA) had removed a part of his doubts; therefore what he should mention would not relate to that point.

[H. or R.

the charges brought against the British Minister were unfounded.

Mr. BROOKS wished to know whether they could proceed to impeach a man, if he were not present.

Mr. DANA said, when this subject was under debate with closed doors, the Secretary of State was present, and when it was doubted whether the publication of these papers might impede the prosecution of an inquiry into the business, they were informed by him that such steps were taken as that the publication of the papers could not have a bad effect.

The committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again.

The SPEAKER Suggested the propriety of calling in a magistrate, as he had no power to administer an oath, except in the case of qualifying the members of that House.

Mr. LYON moved that the SPEAKER be authorized to administer an oath on this occasion.

If he understood his colleague rightly, when speaking of the opinion of gentlemen of the law, It was proposed that the SPEAKER should prohe said that their opinion was, not only that WIL-ceed to take evidence as to the handwriting of the LIAM BLOUNT was liable to an impeachment, but letter of WILLIAM BLOUNT. that the proper mode of prosecuting him was by impeachment. He had since looked at the opinion, and did not find it so; but that he was liable to impeachment. In the next place, he understood him to say, that Mr. BLOUNT was not amenable to orderly process. He wished to know whether this idea was well founded, and whether the only mode in which he could be prosecuted was by impeachment. He wished to know this, that he might regulate his proceedings accordingly. He wished the business to be gone into as fully as possible; and he trusted that this mode of impeachment was not thrown upon them in order to prevent the bringing of the subject before a court of justice, and by that means suppress the inquiry which he wished to prosecute. He thought an investigation of the plot was of far greater consequence than the impeachment and disqualification of an individual. If the prosecution and the inquiry were to go on together, it would be well; but he wished to know whether, if they entered upon the impeachment, it was the design to drop every other mode of proceeding.

Mr. McDOWELL hoped the committee would not rise for the purpose of proving the handwriting of Mr. BLOUNT. He was acquainted with his writing, and believed it to be his. As he had this belief, he wished to come to a determination as soon as possible. He thought the design a very criminal one, as it went not only to destroy the peace and happiness of this country, but also of others. He trusted, therefore, that they should take such steps as should prevent foreign Ministers in future from engaging persons to carry into effect views of this kind.

Mr. HARPER wished the committee to rise. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania had known anything of the law, he must have known that the courts of justice were wholly inadequate to the inquiries he had mentioned. He did not believe this offence was punishable in any other way than by impeachment. Mr. H. said, it was at present unnecessary to say anything about any other persons being implicated in this business; he believed gentlemen might as well spare their insinuations until they were better acquainted with the subject. He believed when they had read the papers, gentlemen would be convinced

The question was put and negatived-53 to 29. Judge Keene in the meantime coming into the House, a motion was made and carried, that he be requested to administer the oath to Messrs. MACON, MCDOWELL, GROVE, and BALDWIN; which was accordingly done, and they gave their testimony as to the reality of the handwriting. They were all agreed that the letter was his. The House then adjourned.

FRIDAY, July 7.

Mr. DWIGHT FOSTER moved a resolution for an adjournment on Monday.

Mr. HAVENS moved to amend the resolution by inserting Saturday.

This amendment, after some conversation, was negatived-50 to 23, and the original motion was

carried without a division.

The bill for the relief of Major Thomas Lewis ceived its third reading, and subsequently passed. was taken up in Committee of the Whole, re

IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM BLOUNT. Mr. SITGREAVES moved to go into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee on the confidential communication of the President of the United States, on Monday last.

The SPEAKER said, before the House went into a Committee of the Whole on this subject, he would read a letter which he had just received. He then read a letter from THOMAS BLOUNT, a member of the House, from the State of North Carolina, as follows:

Mr. SPEAKER: If it were possible for me to express my feelings on this occasion, it would be unnecessary. Every gentleman who has a brother, and especially a brother whom he has long loved with the warmest brotherly affection, and believed to be both patriotic and virtuous, can easily conceive that they are painful in the extreme; yet, painful as they are, a consciousness that I am not, nor cannot myself be implicated in this or any

H. OF R.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

other charge of improper conduct towards my country, has enabled me to hear with fortitude everything that has been said, and would, if it were necessary, enable me to vote in the case of my brother, now before the House, in the same manner that I should think it right to vote in the case of any other man under similar circumstances. I am, however, aware that any vote I could give on this question might be considered as proceeding, on the one hand from partiality, or on the other from fear or some other unworthy motive. I must, therefore, being too much affected to rely on my power of utterance to express this in my place, request you to ask the favor of the House to excuse me from giving any vote upon this question. THOMAS BLOUNT.

Mr. BLOUNT was accordingly excused. The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution yesterday reported, proposing an impeachment of WILLIAM BLOUNT, when it was agreed to without debate or division. The House then took up the resolution and also agreed to it in the same way.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved,

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GALLATIN said he was not well acquainted with the business, but he did not think it would be right to go on and impeach at once, before they saw what articles of impeachment were to be preferred. He thought it would be best first to appoint a committee to prepare the articles of impeachment and present them to the Senate, at the same time that they sent them their determination to impeach.

Mr. SITGREAVES said that the mode which he proposed was the same which was practised in the case of Mr. Hastings. Mr. Burke went up to the House of Lords and impeached him in words similar to those now proposed to be used. Some time afterwards, the articles of impeachment having been drawn, Mr. Burke again went up to the House of Lords and exhibited them. Mr. S. spoke also of a work lately published, in continuation of Judge Blackstone's Commentaries, which had a chapter on Parliamentary impeachment, and pointed out this as the proper mode of procedure. He had also looked into the proceedings on the trial of the Earl of Macclesfield, and found the same course was taken. It was true that in the case of a public officer of the State of Pennsylvania, which perhaps his colleague might have in his eye, the articles of impeachment were exhibited at the same time that the impeachment was made.

Mr. S. thought, however, that there was a good reason for not doing more at this time. If a committee were to be appointed to prepare the specific charges against Mr. BLOUNT, it would create considerable delay, and it would be proper that immediate measures should be taken, in order to secure the person of Mr. BLOUNT. Besides, at present, the only evidence of this mysterious business was the letter of Mr. BLOUNT. Measures were ta

[JULY, 1797.

ken to procure further evidence, but it could not be got till some time hence. When this was got it might considerably develop the plot. At present, everything was conjecture. In every point of view, therefore, he thought it would be best to observe the usual mode of proceeding in similar

cases.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if his memory was right, all the specific charges brought against Warren Hastings, were first agreed to by the House of Commons, before impeachment was made. colleague, which would seem to make the mode There was one thing, however, fell from his proposed desirable. Mr. G. said he had considered the question which had been agreed to as a mere question of form, and that they should have gone on to exhibit articles of impeachment; but it appeared, from what had fallen from his colleague, that the articles of impeachment were not intended to be exhibited till next session. If this were the case, he thought it was perfectly right in wishing to present the impeachment in general terms. Till now he thought it had been the intention to have gone further.

Mr. HARPER believed it would not be proper for the House to stop in the present stage of their proceeding. He thought the proper mode of doing the business was that recommended by Mr. SITGREAVES. Having come to a resolution to impeach, the Senate should be immediately informed thereof, as they then could take measures accordingly. It was not necessary at the same time to exhibit the particular charges. They might afterwards determine whether they would exhibit the specific articles of charge during this session or at the next. He thought the charges might now be made, and if any additional facts appeared before the next session, which might make additional charges necessary, they might then be made.

Mr. SITGREAVES believed his colleague might be right with respect to what took place on the trial of Mr. Hastings. He had not the particulars of the Parliamentary proceedings on that business before him. He had those in the case of the Earl of Macclesfield, which were as he had stated. All that he contended for was, that having taken the resolution to impeach, it became necessary, of course, that the resolution should be communicated to the Senate. In no instance had the articles of impeachment attended the oral communication. After it had been made, the House could determine whether the specific articles should be drawn now or at the next session.

Mr. GORDON said there might be different modes adopted in cases where the persons accused were not members of the Legislature. In the case of Lord Stafford, he recollected, that in half an hour after the vote passed resolving to impeach him, he was taken into execution.

The question was put and carried, without a division.

Mr. SITGREAVES proposed also the following: "That the said member do demand that the said William Blount be sequestered from his seat in the Senate, and that they take order for his appearance to

JULY, 1797.]

him."

[blocks in formation]

answer to the charges which shall be exhibited against Mr. SEWALL had no idea that it was necessary to sequester Mr. BLOUNT from his seat, in order to hold him to appear to the charges to be exhibited against him; though he conceived it necessary to hold him to bail, as no trial could take place, except he were present.

Mr. VENABLE thought they had gone far enough, and that they should leave it to the Senate to take such measures as they should think proper with respect to displacing their member from his seat. If the resolution were, however, adopted, he wished the word suspended might be used rather than sequestered.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought the word synonymous. He had used sequestered because he found the word used in the books.

of

Mr. HARPER thought the motion right in substance; for though the Senate had the power displacing their member from his seat, yet the taking order for his appearance to answer the charges brought against him, should be done from the application of the prosecutor, as in ordinary

[blocks in formation]

Mr. NICHOLAS was of opinion that in following too closely the practice of Great Britain with respect to impeachment, they should be led astray, as the punishment consequent upon the conviction of an offender was very different in the two countries. In Britain, an offence might reach the life of a person, whereas in this country, the extent of the punishment was removal from office, and disqualification for the future. For his own part, therefore, he did not see any occasion for confinement of the person, except it were necessary to examine him by interrogatory.

Mr. HARPER said it was certainly necessary to secure the person of the offender, otherwise he could not be brought to trial; since it was a maxim, never to be departed from, that a person could not be tried in his absence.

This proposition was put and carried-41 to 30. the Senate to carry into effect the above propoMr. SITGREAVES was appointed to wait upon

sition.

ceived from a member of the Senate, informing The SPEAKER read a note which he had rethe members of that House, in case they chose to him that seats were prepared for the reception of attend the business then before the Senate, [which his seat, opposed by the counsel of Mr. BLOUNT, was the question for expelling Mr. BLOUNT from viz: Messrs. Dallas and Ingersoll.]

Mr. DENT moved that when the House adjourns it adjourn till two o'clock. Agreed; and the House adjourned about twelve o'clock, and attended the

Senate.

and after Mr. SITGREAVES had made a report of At two o'clock the House resumed its sitting; his commission to the Senate, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on Algerine business, and the galleries were closed for the remainder of the sitting.

SATURDAY, July 8.

forming the House that they had agreed to their A message was received from the Senate, inamendment to the appropriation bill; and that they had, in consequence of their impeachment of WILLIAM BLOUNT, a Senator of the United States, proceeded to hold him to bail to appear to the charges to be exhibited against him, himself in $20,000 and two sureties each in $15,000.

On motion of Mr. MACON, the Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred the bill authorizing the President of the United States, during the recess of Congress, to provide armed galleys, was discharged.

Mr. HARPER said it would be recollected that he had laid two resolutions on the table relative

Mr. SITGREAVES was of the same opinion. Mr. VENABLE agreed with Mr. NICHOLAS that to the securing of live oak timber, &c. From the the difference of punishment consequent upon press of business which had been continually betrials by impeachment was not sufficiently attend-fore the House, he had not had an opportunity of He did not think that the doctrine was calling them up; and the session being now too founded, that a man could not be tried in his ab- far advanced to do it, he gave notice that he should sence. It would be an unfortunate conclusion, bring forward the subject early in the next that effectual process could not be had against a man because he was absent.

ed to.

Mr. KITTERA said the gentleman last up was certainly mistaken in saying that a man might be tried in his absence. He thought it would be best to pursue the usual mode on similar occasions.

Mr. GORDON insisted upon the right which that House had to require the Senate to sequestrate Mr. BLOUNT from his seat, and that they should hold him to answer the charges to be exhibited against him. If this were not the case, an offender might go on to execute his purposes to the great injury of the country, before he was expelled from his seat or held to bail.

session.

LAWS IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE.

Mr. HOLMES said that he thought it necessary, in order to enforce a general compliance with the laws of the United States, that they should be printed in the German language, as well as in the English, since there were very many inhabitants of this country who could read no other. He therefore proposed a resolution to the following effect:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, That a number of copies of the laws of this session, not exceeding eight thousand

H. OF R.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

copies, shall be printed in the German language, and distributed by the Secretary of State amongst the Executives of the several States, for the information of the German inhabitants of each State respectively."

Mr. LYON thought it would be proper to pass a resolution of this kind. He did not know what number might be necessary. He also thought that some measures should be taken for a general publication of their laws in the English language; at present, it was merely by chance if the people in his district came to a knowledge of them. He thought all laws of general import should be inserted in every newspaper throughout the Union. Mr. Corr said if they were to promulge their laws in the German language, it would be necessary that they should all become critically acquainted with it, for if they were to authorize any translation, great mischiefs might arise from its not being correct.

Mr. GALLATIN said that the weight of the objection urged by the gentleman last up, had always been thought sufficient in the Legislature of Pennsylvania, in which State there was a greater proportion of Germans than in any other. There was also another objection to the measure. If it were to be passed, it must be accompanied with an appropriation law, which the advanced state of the session would not admit.

The resolution was put and negatived. IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM BLOUNT. Mr. SITGREAVES proposed the following resolution to the House:

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report articles of impeachment against William Blount, a Senator of the United States, impeached by this House of high crimes and misdemeanors; and that the same committee have power to sit during the recess of Congress, and to send for persons, papers, and

records."

Mr. GALLATIN wished a division of the resolution at the word "misdemeanors."

The first part was then put and carried. Mr. GALLATIN desired the determination on the second part to be postponed till Monday. It was a new subject, and he wished a little time to consider of it. The committee, he supposed, could in the mean time be appointed.

Mr. BROOKS inquired whether the latter part of the resolution, for sending for "persons, papers, and records," should not be connected with the first part of the resolution?

Mr. VENABLE said, the gentleman last up might be accommodated by adding the words in question; and if, before they adjourned, it was found necessary that the committee should have power to sit during the recess, that power should be given to them.

Mr. SITGREAVES did not think it would be proper to pass one part of the resolution without the other. The House had resolved to adjourn on Monday, and there was little doubt that the other branch of the Legislature would agree to it. If the committee should be appointed to report articles of impeachment at this session, it would be found that it would require more time than he

[JULY, 1797.

believed Congress would be inclined to give to it; for, if prepared, they must also be exhibited; and, if exhibited, the Senate would think it necessary to proceed to act upon them. In his view of the subject, great advantage might arise from the committee's having leisure to pursue inquiry into the plan, so as to develope the mischief during the recess of Congress.

Mr. VENABLE said, the object of gentlemen seemed to be mistaken. They wished merely to have a little time to consider of the subject. He had doubts whether it was within the power of the House to authorize a committee to sit during the recess.

Mr. SITGREAVES did not wish to hurry the business.

Mr. RUTLEDGE had no objection to deferring the vote till Monday; but he thought it absolutely necessary to empower the committee to sit during the recess. This was according to British precedent. It was the plan, also, upon which two different impeachments had been conducted in the State of South Carolina. He thought the reason in this case very strong; the object was not only to bring the charge home to the person impeached, but to bring forward all the persons concerned in this plot. Indeed, the articles of impeachment must be founded, in a great measure, on information which was to be discovered by this investigation. He trusted, therefore, that this power would be given.

Mr. GALLATIN said he was in no want of precedent on this occasion. He was a member of a committee of impeachment in the State of Pennsylvania, where similar measures were adopted; but he was of opinion that this business had been already too much hurried, and that some of the steps taken would have been better taken, if there had been more time. He wished, therefore, to consider upon this proposition till Monday. Gentlemen who brought forward the measure were doubtless ready to vote for it; but he trusted they would allow others a little time.

Mr. McDOWELL wished a committee to be immediately appointed, and the charges made; because there might be at present persons in the city who could not be examined during the recess of Congress.

The words "to send for persons, papers, and records" were added to the former part of the resolution, and the latter part was postponed until Monday.

Messrs. SITGREAVES, BALDWIN, DAWSON, DANA, and HARPER, were appointed a committee for preparing the articles of impeachment.

LIVE OAK TIMBER LANDS.

Mr. HARPER said, that though he did not intend to bring forward the subject of purchasing timber, and providing naval yards, this session, he wished the House to consider a resolution which he thought would be proper in the mean time. He offered one to the following effect:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

specting such land furnished with live oak timber as may be purchased for the use of the United States; and also of such timber as may be purchased without the land; and also respecting proper sites for naval yards, and to state the probable expense of such land and timber, and of proper sites for naval yards."

This resolution was supported by the mover and Mr. SWANWICK, and opposed by Messrs. MACON, J. WILLIAMS, and MCDOWELL; and without taking a question, the House being very thin, a motion was made and carried about one o'clock to adjourn.

MONDAY, July 10.

Mr. BAYARD, of Delaware, was appointed on the select committee of the House of Representatives, to prepare articles of impeachment against Mr. BLOUNT, in the place of Mr. DANA, from Connecticut, who declined serving.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House what had been done with respect to Governor BLOUNT; that they had agreed to their resolution for an adjournment of the two Houses this day; and that they had postponed the consideration of the bill for the relief of Major Lewis till next session.

The proceedings of the Senate, in relation to the impeachment of WILLIAM BLOUNT, were read in the words following:

"IN SENATE, July 8, 1797. "Resolved, That William Blount, Esquire, one of the Senators of the United States, having been guilty of a high misdemeanor, entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a Senator, be, and he hereby is, expelled from the Senate of the United States.

"On this, Mr. Butler, in behalf of himself, and of Mr. Thomas Blount, the other surety, surrendered the person of William Blount, the principal, to the Senate, and requested to be discharged from their recognizance. "On motion,

"Resolved, That William Blount be taken into custody of the Messenger of this House, until he shall enter into recognizance, himself in the sum of one thousand dollars, with two sufficient sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars each, to appear and answer to such

[H. or R.

articles of impeachment as may be exhibited against him by the House of Representatives on Monday next. "Attest: SAMUEL A. OTIS, Secretary." Ordered, That the said proceedings of the Senate do lie on the table.

On motion of Mr. DENT, a committee was appointed to wait upon the President of the United States, in conjunction with a like committee from the Senate, to inform him the two Houses were about to adjourn. The committee waited upon the President accordingly, and reported his acquiescence, and his good wishes for the safe arrival of the Members at their several homes.

On motion of Mr. SITGREAVES, the resolution entered into some time ago, calling upon the Prethe possession of the United States, and at what sident for an account of the quantity of arms in place they were lodged, was suspended.

Mr. S. said, he wished to make a report upon a subject which would require the galleries to be and the doors were closed for the remainder of the cleared. He, therefore, moved that they be cleared, sitting, at the conclusion of which the House adjourned till the second Monday in November

next.

[From the process issued by the Committee of Impeachment of the House of Representatives, it appears that the resolutions of the House, under which the committee acts, are as follows:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to prepare and report articles of impeachment against WILLIAM BLOUNT, a Senator of the United States, impeached by this House of high crimes and misdemeanors; and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Resolved, That the committee appointed to prepare and report articles of impeachment against WILLIAM BLOUNT, a Senator of the United States, impeached by this House of high crimes and misdemeanors, be authorized to sit during the recess of Congress.

Resolved, That the said committee be instructed to inquire, and by all lawful means to discover, the whole nature and extent of the offence whereof the said WILLIAM BLOUNT stands impeached, and who are the parties and associates therein.]

« AnteriorContinuar »