Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

dent to hold a treaty with the Indians claiming lands in the State of Tennessee. Mr. GALLATIN proposed an amendment fixing the pay of the Commissioners at eight dollars a day, exclusive of their expenses; which was agreed to. And, on motion of Mr. MCDOWELL, the words "or North Carolina," were moved to be added after the word Tennessee, so as to enable the President to treat for any land belonging to the Indians within that State. The motion was agreed to by 43 to 16. The House agreed to the amendments, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to

morrow.

IMPEACHMENT OF WM. BLOUNT.

Mr. SITGREAVES moved that the unfinished business relative to foreign intercourse should be postponed, in order to take up the articles of impeachment reported against William Blount.

Mr. HARPER hoped the unfinished business would not be postponed for this purpose, as he wished it first to be disposed of.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he made this motion because of the impatience which had been heretofore shown to go into the business, and because he believed it would not require much time. He also thought it would be proper to exhibit the articles to the Senate at as early a period as possible, as there would be certain preliminary questions to be decided before the impeachment could be proceeded with-he alluded to the impeachability of a Senator, which he understood the Senate meant to dispute. If the Senate determined that one of their body is not impeachable, the business would be at an end. This question would be entered upon after the articles were exhibited. He hoped, therefore, the House would take up the subject. By this time, as the evidence had been long in the hands of the members, the subject must be well understood. It would be seen that the articles were predicated upon the single letter of William Blount to James Carey, which was communicated to the House by the President of the United States.

Mr. MCDOWELL supported the motion. Mr. MACON was opposed to it, wishing the unfinished business first to be gone through.

Mr. SPRIGG was in favor of the motion. A doubt had arisen whether the trial would go on in the absence of the person impeached. If this should prove to be the case, it would be necessary to send a messenger to Tennessee, and wait his return. The sooner, therefore, the business could be gone into the better.

Mr. THATCHER thought there was no necessity immediately to proceed to consider the articles in question, as he found by a bill before him that the Senate considered it necessary to pass a bill before they entered upon the business, prescribing the mode of proceeding in cases of impeachment.

Mr. GORDON thought the remark of the gentleman last up was not entitled to any weight; if it were, the Senate might prevent the impeachment altogether. He thought the observation of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SPRIGG) was worthy of consideration. The preliminary ques

[JANUARY, 1798.

tion might (and he believed would) be made whether a Senator was impeachable. If the Senate decided one of their body was not impeachable, the business would be at an end; if not, it might be necessary to issue process to call the person impeached before them, and it might be necessary to protract their session, for the purpose of finishing the business; as, after it was gone into, it would not be proper to leave it in an unfinished state.

Mr. Corr wished the articles not to be taken up to-day, as they were only laid upon the table this morning, and he had scarcely time to read them.

Mr. HARPER did not think the business would come to any earlier termination by going into the articles to-day, as a committee of the House would have to go to the Senate to argue the point of impeachability with them.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought differently; for, though the managers on the part of the House must be heard in the Senate, before the question of impeachability was decided, yet the Senate could not proceed on the subject before the articles were exhibited. Besides, if the matter of fact came to be tried, it would be necessary for several witnesses to be summoned from the State of Tennessee, in addition to the evidence already obtained. It would not be proper, therefore, to delay an exhibition of the articles.

The question for postponing the unfinished business was put and carried-42 to 41.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the articles of impeachment reported against William Blount, Mr. DENT in the Chair; when they were read, as follows: Articles exhibited by the House of Representatives of

the United States, in the name of themselves and of all the people of the United States, against William Blount, in maintenance of their impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE 1. That, whereas the United States, in the months of February, March, April, May, and June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and for many years then past, were at peace with His Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain; and whereas, during the months aforesaid, His said Catholic Majesty and the King of Great Britain were at war with each other; yet the said William Blount, on or about the months aforesaid, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, but disregarding the duties and obligations of his high station, and designing and intending to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the United States, and to violate and infringe the neutrality thereof, did conspire, and contrive to create, promote, and set on foot, within the jurisdiction and territory of the United States, and expedition against the territories and dominions of His to conduct and carry on from thence, a military hostile said Catholic Majesty in the Floridas and Louisiana, or a part thereof, for the purpose of wresting the same from His Catholic Majesty, and of conquering the same for the King of Great Britain, with whom His said Catholic Majesty was then at war as aforesaid, contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, in violation of the obligations of neu

JANUARY, 1798.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

trality, and against the laws of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 2. That, whereas, on the twenty-seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, a Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation, had been made and concluded between the United States and His Catholic Majesty, by the fifth article whereof it is stipulated and agreed, "that the two high contracting parties shall, by all the means in their power, maintain peace and harmony among the several Indian nations who inhabit the country adjacent to the lines and rivers, which, by the preceding articles, form the boundaries of the two Floridas: and the better to obtain this effect, both parties oblige themselves expressly to restrain by force all hostilities on the part of the Indian nations living within their boundary, so that Spain will not suffer her Indians to attack the citizens of the United States, nor the Indians inhabiting their territory; nor will the United States permit these last-mentioned Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of his Catholic Majesty or his Indians, in any manner whatever:" Yet, the said William Blount, on or about the months of February, March, April, May, and June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninetyseven, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, and that the United States were then at peace with His said Catholic Majesty, and that His Catholic Majesty was at war with the King of Great Britain, but disregarding the duties of his high station, and the stipulations of the said treaty, and the obligations of neutrality, did conspire and contrive to excite the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians, then inhabiting within the territorial boundary of the United States, to commence hostilities against the subjects and possessions of His Catholic Majesty, in the Floridas and Louisiana, for the purpose of reducing the same to the dominion of the King of Great Britain, with whom His Catholic Majesty was then at war as aforesaid: contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, in violation of the said Treaty of Friendship, Limits, and Navigation, and of the obligations of neutrality, and against the laws of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 3. That, whereas, by the ordinances and acts of Congress for regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and for preserving peace on the frontiers, it has been made lawful for the President of the United States, in order to secure the continuance of the friendship of the said Indian tribes, to appoint such persons, from time to time, as temporary agents, to reside among the Indians, as he shall think fit; and whereas, in pursuance of the said authority, the Presi dent of the United States, on or about the eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six, did appoint Benjamin Hawkins, to be principal temporary agent for Indian affairs, within the Indian nations south of the river Ohio, and north of the territorial line of the United States; and whereas the said Benjamin Hawkins accepted the said appointment, and on the 21st day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and for a long time before and afterwards, did exercise the functions, powers, and duties attached to the same; yet, the said Wm. Blount, on or about the said twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninetyseven, then being a Senator of the United States, and

[H. OF R.

well knowing the premises, did, in the prosecution of his criminal designs and of his conspiracies aforesaid, and the more effectually to accomplish his intention of exciting the Creek and Cherokee nations of Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of His Catholic Majesty, further conspire and contrive to alienate and divert the confidence of the said Indian tribes or nations from the said Benjamin Hawkins, the principal temporary agent aforesaid, and to diminish, impair, and destroy the influence of the said Benjamin Hawkins with the said Indian tribes, and their friendly intercourse and understanding with him, contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 4. That, whereas, by the ordinances and acts of Congress aforesaid, it is made lawful for the President of the United States to establish trading houses at such places and posts on the western and southern frontiers, or in the Indian country, as he shall judge most convenient, for the purpose of carrying on a liberal trade with the several Indian nations within the limits of the United States, and to appoint an agent at each trading house established as aforesaid, with such clerks and assistants as may be necessary for the execution of the said acts: And, whereas, by a treaty, made and concluded on the second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, between the United States and the Cherokee nation of Indians, inhabiting within the limits of the United States, it is stipulated and agreed, that "the United States will send such, and so many persons to reside in said nation, as they may judge proper, not exceeding four, who shall qualify themselves to act as interpreters." And whereas the President of the United States, as well in pursuance of the authorities in this article mentioned, as of the acts of Congress referred to in the third article, did appoint James Carey to be interpreter for the United States to the said Cherokee nation of Indians, and assist at the public trading house established at the Tellico blockhouse, in the State of Tennessee: And whereas the said James Carey did accept the said appointments, and on the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, and for a long time before and afterwards, did exercise the functions and duties attached to the same; yet, the said William Blount, on or about the said twenty-first day of April, in the year last aforesaid, then being a Senator of the United States, and well knowing the premises, did, in prosecution of his criminal designs, and in furtherance of his conspiracies aforesaid, conspire and contrive to seduce the said James Carey from the duty and trust of his said appointments, and to engage the said James Carey to assist in the promotion and execution of his said criminal intentions and conspiracies aforesaid, contrary to the duty of his trust and station as a Senator of the United States, and against the laws and treaties of the United States, and the peace and interests thereof.

ARTICLE 5. That whereas certain tribes or nations of Indians inhabit within the territorial limits of the United States, between whom, or many of them, and the settlements of the United States, certain boundary lines have, by successive treaties, been stipulated and agreed upon, to separate the lands and possessions of the said Indians from the lands and possessions of the United States, and the citizens thereof: And whereas, particularly, by the treaty in the last article mentioned to have been made with the Cherokee na

H. OF R.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

[JANUARY, 1798.

Mr. THATCHER withdrew his motion, and eleven was agreed to be the number. Mr. SITGREAVES moved that the managers go to the Senate with the articles of impeachment. Mr. VENABLE wished to know how the managers were to be appointed.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, with respect to the manner of appointing managers, he left it to the discretion of the House. The British House of Commons appointed their managers of impeachment by ballot, as they did all their large committees. In that House a different course was taken with respect to committees; they were always appointed by the SPEAKER, except specially ordered otherwise. The former committee on this business was appointed by the SPEAKER. He was not disposed to deviate from the usual practice. If, however, any gentleman wished to move that they be appointed by ballot, such a motion, he supposed, would be in order.

tion, on the second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, the boundary line between the United States and the Cherokee nation was agreed and defined; and it was further stipulated, that the same should be ascertained and marked plainly by three persons appointed on the part of the United States, and three Cherokees on the part of their nation; and whereas, by another treaty, made with the said Cherokee nation, on the 26th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, the said herein before recited treaty of the second day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, was confirmed and established, and it was mutually agreed that the said boundary line should be actually ascertained and marked in the manner prescribed by the said last mentioned treaty; and whereas, in pursuance of the said treaties, Commissioners were duly nominated and appointed on the part of the United States, to ascertain and mark the said boundary line; yet the said William Blount, on or about the twenty-first day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hun- Mr. VENABLE did not think the House had any dred and ninety-seven, then being a Senator of the rule on the subject. The rule for appointing comUnited States, and well knowing the premises, in fur-mittees did not apply to the present case, which ther prosecution of his said criminal designs and of his conspiracies aforesaid, and the more effectually to accomplish his intention of exciting the said Indians to commence hostilities against the subjects of His Catholic Majesty, did further conspire and contrive to diminish and impair the confidence of the said Cherokee nation in the Government of the United States, and to create and foment discontents and disaffection amongst the said Indians towards the Government of the United

States, in relation to the ascertainment and making of the said boundary line, contrary to the duty and trust of his station as a Senator of the United States, and against the peace and interests thereof.

And the House of Representatives, by protestation, saving to themselves the liberty of exhibiting, at any time hereafter, any further articles, or other accusation or impeachment against the said William Blount, and also of replying to his answers which he shall make unto the said articles, or any of them, and of offering proof to all and every the aforesaid articles, and to all and every other articles, impeachment or accusation, which shall be exhibited by them, as the case shall require, to demand that the said William Blount may be put to answer the said crimes and misdemeanors, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments, may be thereupon had and given as are agreeable to law and justice.

The articles having been agreed to, without amendment, (except a mere verbal one,) the committee rose, and the House having also agreed to them,

Mr. SITGREAVES moved that managers be appointed on the part of the House for the purpose of conducting the impeachment.

Which being agreed to,

was perfectly new. He thought, therefore, that a vote of the House ought to determine in what had no objection to the SPEAKER'S appointing manner the managers should be appointed. He them, if the House should so determine.

difference between these managers and other comMr. THATCHER did not think there was any mittees of the House, and, therefore, could see no objection to choosing them in the usual mode.

The SPEAKER read the rule, and said managers of conferences with the Senate were chosen in

the same way.

Mr. GALLATIN thought the rule directing the appointment of committees did not apply in the present case. It was true that managers of conferences of the Senate were thus chosen; but he thought there was an essential difference between the two cases. Managers of conferences reported to the House similarly with committees, and in fact they were a committee, though called by a different name. But managers of an impeachment on the part of that House, appeared to him to be quite a different thing. They were not to make a report to the House which might be affirmed or negatived; they were the representatives of the House, and what they did would be final. Under this impression, in order to take the sense of the House upon the business, he moved that the managers be elected by ballot.

This motion was carried without a division, and the members were proceeding to prepare their ballots, when

Mr. ISAAC PARKER said, as he was not prepared to give his vote, not being sufficiently acquainted The SPEAKER inquired of what number they with the members to know who were the most should consist?

Mr. SITGREAVES answered eleven.

Mr. THATCHER five.

Mr. SITGREAVES hoped the number he had mentioned would be agreed to; the business being new, and of a very important and delicate nature, he thought the managers ought not to be less than eleven.

fit to be managers, he should move that the appointment of managers be postponed till to-morrow; which motion was carried.

LUCY CLARK.

The House then, after a further vote to postpone the unfinished business, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the

JANUARY, 1798.]

Impeachment of William Blount.

Committee of Claims on the petition of Lucy Clark, who prayed for the reimbursement of the sum of £32 10s. 9d., Virginia currency, with interest from the 14th of August, 1787-being the amount of money she alleges she has been obliged to pay on a judgment and execution against her, founded on a bond executed by her husband in his life-time, for the hire of a negro man, employed by him in public service.

The Committee of Claims reported in her favor, and, after some little opposition, the Committee of the Whole concurred in the report. The House rose, agreed to it, and a bill was ordered to be brought in accordingly.

TUESDAY, January 30.

The bill appropriating money for holding a treaty with the Indians claiming land in the States of Tennessee or North Carolina, was read the third time and passed.

IMPEACHMENT OF WM. BLOUNT.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, as it was yesterday stated that the rules of the House respecting the appointment of committees did not apply to the present case, it would be well for the House to settle a question, before it proceeded to the election of managers of the impeachment, which might arise in the business, viz: whether a majority or a plurality or votes were to make a choice. He therefore proposed the following resolution, which was agreed to by the House:

"Resolved, That in the ballot for managers on the part of this House, of the impeachment against William Blount, a majority of the whole number of members present shall make a choice; that if more than eleven members shall have a majority, eleven of the highest shall be chosen; and if any two or more members have a majority of votes, and shall be equal in number, the same shall be decided by a new ballot."

The Sergeant-at-Arms proceeded to collect the ballots, which being done, the SPEAKER appointed Messrs. D. FOSTER and JONES, as tellers.

Having examined the votes, which took up nearly two hours, Mr. D. FOSTER reported, that the tellers had performed the business assigned them, and found the whole number of votes to be ninety-one, and that consequently forty-six made a choice, and that the following nine gentlemen, and no more, were elected, viz:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

[H. OF R.

having obtained a majority of votes, the gentleman from Georgia should complain of not having the confidence of the House. Did the gentleman expect to have received the whole 91 votes? Except a better reason was given, he hoped the gentleman would not be excused from serving. He was astonished to hear the reason which had been given. Did the gentleman wish the voice of feeble minorities to show confidence instead of majorities? If so, his wish would not, he believed, be the wish of the House.

Mr. BALDWIN said, the gentleman from New York had misunderstood him. He did not say that he did not possess the confidence of the House; but that some members of the committee appeared not to possess so much of the confidence of the House, as others.

Mr. THATCHER asked the number of votes which the gentleman from Georgia had received. On being informed, he hoped the gentleman would withdraw his motion, since he would see that none of the committee possessed the entire confidence of the House.

Mr. BALDWIN said he had stated the reasons of

his request, and hoped the sense of the House would be taken upon it.

taken. If any question could have come before the Mr. PINCKNEY hoped the question would not be House, on which members should have divested themselves of all ideas of party, this was such an one. He trusted there was a general wish in the House to sift the matter to the bottom. If he understood the gentleman from Georgia, his objection did not arise from his not having had more votes, but because another member of the committee (Mr. DAWSON) was not elected. If this was his objection. at this period, it was not complete. The House had yet a further ballot to make, and then, consistent with his own feelings, he might the gentleman alluded to might be elected; and, serve. Mr. P. said he was himself unwell, and not in the House when the ballots were collected, or he certainly should have voted for all the members of the committee.

Mr. BALDWIN persisted in his motion, which was carried, there being 48 votes for it.

A new ballot then took place for three additional members. The votes having been collected, the tellers counted them as before, and reported that the whole number of votes was 91; but that no member had a higher number of votes than 37, and consequently that no election had taken place. Messrs. DAWSON, DENNIS, GORDON, and GALLATIN, had the highest number of votes.

Mr. GORDON moved that the choice of the three remaining managers should be postponed till to

morrow.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped not.

Mr. SEWALL wished the business to be postponed, as by to-morrow gentlemen might reconcile their differences of opinion on the subject. He wished it also, because he had a subject to lay before the House, which he thought of importance to be settled before they separated.

Mr. MACON was yesterday in favor of adjournment; but experience had convinced him he was

[blocks in formation]

wrong. He hoped the business would be proceeded with.

The motion was negatived-55 to 35. A fresh ballot was then proceeded with, which, upon the votes being examined, proved, as before, a nullity, no member having a majority of votes. Mr. HARPER hoped any further proceeding upon this subject be postponed till to-morrow, that gentlemen might have on opportunity of understanding each other.

The motion was carried, there being 48 votes in favor of it.

Mr. SEWALL rose to bring forward the business which he had mentioned; when

A motion was made to adjourn, which was negatived, there being only thirteen votes in favor of it.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. SEWALL then said, he believed the business which he had to lay before the House would require secrecy, as it was a subject which would considerably affect the feelings of the members of the House. He therefore moved that the galleries might be cleared; which was accordingly done, excepting the members and Clerk.

Mr. SEWALL then stated, that he had been informed, in a manner which left no doubt of the truth of the fact, that, in the presence of the House whilst sitting, MATTHEW LYON, a member from the State of Vermont, did this day commit a violent attack and gross indecency upon the person of ROGER GRISWOLD, another member of this House; and, in order to bring the subject before the House, that he had prepared a resolution, which he read in his place, and delivered in at the Clerk's tabie. A question was then taken in the following words: Does the matter so communicated require secrecy ?

This motion passed unanimously in the negative, and the galleries were opened.

The House then proceeded to consider the motion made by the member from Massachusetts, which was read, as follows:

"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 this House, whilst sitting, be, for this disorderly behaviour, expelled therefrom." It was moved that this resolution be referred to a committee to be denominated a Committee of

[ocr errors]

Privileges, with instructions to inquire into the whole matter of the said resolution, and to report the same with their opinion thereon to the

House.

The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative. 49 to 44, as follows:

(JANUARY, 1798.

H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James
Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Isaac
Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Reed, John Rut-

ledge. jr., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Pe-
leg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark
Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.
Thomson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Alen,

NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Demsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findley, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Tompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

YEAS-George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Wm. Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James,

Ordered, That Messrs. PINCKNEY, VENABLE, KITTERA, ISAAC PARKER, R. WILLIAMS, COCHRAN, and DENT, be a committee for the purpose.

A motion was then made that the House come to the following resolution:

breach of privilege if either of the members shall enter "Resolved, That this House will consider it a high into any personal contest until a decision of the House shall be had thereon."

A motion was made to add the following words to the end thereof:

"And that the said Matthew Lyon be considered in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until the further order of the House."

The yeas and nays were taken upon this question and decided in the negative-29 to 62, as follows:

YEAS-Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, Isaac Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Rutledge, jr., Samuel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Sewall, William Shepard, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Thomas, and Peleg Wadsworth.

NAYS-George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Stephen Bullock, Demsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, Wm. Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, James Cochran, John Dawson, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findley, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, William Matthews, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Lewis R. Morris, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thos. Sinnickson, Tompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, Richard Sprigg,

« AnteriorContinuar »