[MAY 10, 1832.

logy to what are called attachments for contempt, by the marine corps. The committee to whom this subject which every court of record is enabled to punish by im- was referred, reported that they had "collected all the prisonment, if not by fine, any obstructions to its acts, or evidence they could find to be material in the case, and contumacious resistance of them. But it tended also to heard the parties accused, with their witnesses; and though raise the dignity of Parliament in the eyes of the people, they believe a series of circumstances to have taken place at times when the Government, and even the courts of at the theatre, which appeared to Mr. Randolph, and justice, were not greatly inclined to regard it; and has al- others present, to evince premeditated insult towards him, ways been a necessary safeguard against the insolence of yet, as some of those circumstances have been satisfactopower. The majority are bound to respect, and indeed rily explained, and others are of a nature too equivocal to have respected, the rights of every member, however ob- justify reprehension and punishment, the committee are noxious to them, on all questions of privilege.' of opinion that sufficient cause does not appear for the inBut I need not cross the Atlantic in search of prece- terference of the House, on the ground of a breach of dents. They are numerous and decisive in this country. their privileges." A motion to recommit the report was In 1777, Mr. Sergeant, a delegate from New Jersey to lost. An attempt to substitute the following amendment the continental Congress, was challenged by Gunning shared the same fate. "This House highly disapproves of Bedford, an officer of rank in the army of the United the conduct of Captain M. Knight and Lieutenant ReyStates. He laid the correspondence between Bedford and nolds towards John Randolph, a member of this House, himself before Congress. An investigation took place, on the evening of Friday the 10th instant; but, considerand the following resolution was adopted: " Resolved, ing it an indiscretion of youth, are unwilling to exercise That Congress have, and always had, authority to protect their constitutional authority of punishment, under a their members from insult, for any thing by them said or hope that similar instances of misconduct will not occur in done in Congress in the exercise of their duty, which is a future." Neither party appear to have any doubt of the privilege essential to the freedom of debate, and to the power of the House to punish for a breach of privilege. faithful discharge of the great trust reposed in them by The only question was, whether the occasion required its their constituents." Bedford was required to ask pardon exercise. The motion to recommit, as well as the amendof Congress, and of the delegate whom he had challeng-ment, was sustained by the votes of the republican party. ed; and, on compliance with this order, was discharged. What Gallatin, Macon, and Livingston, in that glimmering This case fully establishes the jurisdiction of the House, dawn of interpretation, deemed the "constitutional auand its power to punish breaches of privilege. And it is thority of punishment," we, in this more perfect day, have worthy our especial consideration, from the character of discovered to be a usurpation, and a violation of the rights the men of whom that Congress was composed, and from of an American citizen. One case more I refer to, for the time when this resolution was adopted. I will not say the benefit of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. that there were giants in those days, and that, since that BEARDSLEY.] In 1801, Joseph Wheaton, the Sergeantperiod, the human intellect has been dwarfed; but this I at-Arms, having, in discharge of his duty, and in obediwill say, that in that assembly great abilities were exalted ence to the order of the Speaker, turned out of the galand purified by the most ardent patriotism, and that those lery a man who had made a disturbance there, was arrested men, engaged in a most arduous and doubtful struggle for on a warrant issued by a magistrate, on the oath of the the common liberty of all, would have been the last men person turned out, charging him with an assault and baton earth to usurp power not delegated, or to violate the tery, and false imprisonment. Wheaton addressed a letrights of an American citizen. And I rejoice that a dele-ter to the Speaker, informing him of his arrest, detention, gate from my native State had the manly firmness, the and final discharge, in consequence of the non-attendance moral courage, to despise the vulgar and unworthy impu- of the prosecuting witness. The committee to whom the tations of cowardice, and refuse to bow down and worship at the shrine of this idol god-this modern Moloch "besmeared with blood of human sacrifice."

subject was referred, reported "that although the arrest and confinement of an officer of the House of Representatives for any act by him performed in its service, and in In 1796, General Gunn, a member of the Senate, sent obedience to its orders, must be deemed a high breach of a challenge to Abraham Baldwin, a distinguished member privilege, yet, as the magistrate, in the present case, seems of this House. The matter was laid before the House; rather to have been deceived by false representations, than a committee was appointed. The following extract shows influenced by improper views, the committee cannot consitheir sense of the transaction: "That it appears to the der his conduct as a subject of animadversion;" and, therecommittee, from a view of all the circumstances attending fore, resolved that it was "not expedient to take any furthe transaction referred to them, that the same were a ther order on the letter from Joseph Wheaton." On the breach of privileges of this House." General Gunn having question of concurring with the report of the committee, made suitable explanations and apologies to the commit- the journal shows that Gallatin, Macon, and the republican tee, they recommended that no further proceedings should party voted in the negative, from the belief, I presume, that be had, and the House concurred in the report. the conduct of the magistrate did not admit of such exte

The cases of Randall and Whitney, in 1795, and of John nuation. I might multiply citations, but those already made Anderson, in 1817, as well as the decision of the Supreme are sufficient to show that the power to punish contempts Court of the United States in Anderson against Dunn, and breaches of privilege has been repeatedly asserted in have been referred to, and commented on. The gentle- the two Houses of Parliament, in the best periods of their man from Tennessee, [Mr. PoLK,] in a former period of history; in the continental Congress; in both Houses of Conthis debate, admitted, reluctantly as I thought, that an at- gress, under the present constitution; and has been sanctempt to bribe a member of Congress might be punished tioned by the highest judicial tribunal of the country. No as a breach of privilege, because the foundation of a re- arguments against this power, however ingenious or refinpresentative assembly was subverted by the corruption of its ed, can shake my conviction that it is founded on reason members. Yet, while he shields the members from temp- as well as on authority. But it is objected that the freetations addressed to their avarice and cupidity, he leaves dom of debate may be perverted to licentiousness and perthem exposed and defenceless against the assaults of vio-sonal abuse. It may; but brute force is not the corrective. lence. What avails it whether a member he bribed or To this House the people have peculiarly entrusted the awed into silence and acquiescence? The citadel of free- redress of grievances, the exposure and correction of dom may be carried by storm as well as by sap. frauds, the vigilant supervision of the Executive Depart

A

In 1800, John Randolph, a member from Virginia, was ment. Here the power of impeachment is lodged. insulted at the theatre in Philadelphia, by some officers of member of this House is often required, by the impera

MAY 10, 1832.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[H. OF R.

tive call of public duty, to investigate the conduct of pub- the representatives of the people go armed to the teeth, lic men. For this purpose, he has the right to assign his as if an enemy had camped in the ten miles square, and reasons to state his information relative to the subject, the blaze of his watch-fires illumined the darkness of midfrom whatever source it may be derived, whether from night? My friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. CoULTER] has the testimony of witnesses, the press, or even from mere portrayed, with feeling and eloquence, the condition of the rumor. If plenary proof were required to set an investi- aged and infirm in this new reign of terror. Experience gation on foot, fraud could rarely be tracked to its lurking and wisdom will no longer be passports to public confiplaces of those who prey on the public spoil. None but dence. The hoary head will no longer be honored; but the veriest bunglers would be detected. A faithful dis- gladiators, skilled in the use of the bludgeon, the pistol, charge of this great duty is not to be attained by imposing and the barbed dirk, will be the fitting representatives of rigorous restraints upon the members of this House. They the people.

ser with shame.

must be suffered to speak, and to act, freely and fearlessly. There is another and a cogent reason why this House The injury which may be inflicted by occasionally over- should vindicate its privileges. If rumor has not, as is her stepping the proper boundary, in animadverting on the wont, grossly exaggerated, the President of the United conduct of public men, sinks into nothing when compared States has denounced us as usurping in this case a juriswith the total neglect of public duty, or with a nominal, diction to which we have no rightful claim, as meddling slothful, and heartless performance. A party wantonly with that with which we have no business, as encouraging arraigned is not remediless. He may petition the House our members to slander honester and better men than for redress; he may request an inquiry, and, on proof of themselves, and has declared that this slanderous spirit his innocence of the charge, will cover his malicious accu- would be effectually put down by inflicting the same punishment on a few more of us, as the gentleman from Ohio This is the defence to which an upright and honorable has received. Sir, I wish to treat the Chief Magistrate of man will resort, to repel an unfounded accusation. Pri- this country with that respect due to his station. I will vate transactions, wholly unconnected with public affairs, not trust myself to comment on the language attributed to will seldom, if ever, be dragged into the discussions of him. This only will I say, that, if he has permitted himthis House. Should an instance occur, you, Mr. Speaker, self to give utterance to such sentiments, to indulge in in the discharge of your duty as the presiding officer of such philippics against a co-ordinate department of the Gothe House, would at once suppress such violations of its vernment, such conduct was most disrespectful towards rules. The very fact that the member has not been call- this House, most unbecoming his high station. It beed to order, is a presumption that he has kept within the comes this House vigilantly to guard against Executive enprescribed limits of discussion. Various and conflicting croachments, to repel every invasion of its privileges, from opinions have been expressed respecting the power of the whatever quarter it may come. The constitution has House to punish contempts and breaches of privilege. created separate branches of the Legislature, and assigned Some gentlemen grudgingly admit the power barely to re- to each its appropriate functions. Each should keep withmove those persons who commit offences in its presence; in its allotted sphere, else the whole system will be derangothers believe such cases might warrant the infliction of ed and menaced with destruction. The general doctrine, punishment; and others kindly extend protection to members when going to or from the House, or their respective committee rooms. What would this curt and limited privilege avail, if, the moment the member steps beyond the charmed circle, he is exposed to contumely and outrage?

with regard to the British Parliament, is thus stated in Hatsell's Precedents, vol. 2, p. 252: "It is highly expedient for the due preservation of the separate branches of the Legislature, that neither should encroach upon the other, or interfere in any matter depending before them, so as to preclude or even influence that freedom of debate, or of action, which is essential to a free council. And, therefore, neither the King, nor Lords, nor Commons are to take notice of any bills or other matters depending, or of votes that have been given, or of speeches which have been held by the members of either of the other branches of the Legislature, until the same have been communicated to them in the usual parliamentary manner."

Why does the constitution exempt members from arrest in all civil cases, but that their time and attention shall not be withdrawn from the high trust committed to them? Our public duties are not confined to this Hall, or the commit tee rooms. We must often resort to the public offices for information to guide our conduct, or to transact the business of our constituents. Nor are our walks for health or recreation to be ambushed. Here, in this city, from the The House of Commons has often, and resolutely, recommencement to the close of the session, is our post of sisted every encroachment, whether attempted by the duty; here is our sphere of action; and the protection af Peers or by the Crown. I will refer to a few instances-forded must be commensurate with the duty enjoined. one will be found in the reign of Charles I, who, misled This conservative power we are now called upon to aban- by evil counsels and false notions of prerogative, violated don. Before we surrender the rights entrusted to us by the laws of the land and the rights of Englishmen, and at the people, and for the people; before we shrink from the length expiated his crimes (or perhaps, in compassion to performance of our duties, let us cast a momentary glance poor human nature, I should say his errors) on the scafat the consequences which must inevitably ensue. Those fold. That monarch, in a speech from the throne, advertwho from consciousness of misconduct dread investiga-ed to a bill then in agitation in both Houses of Parliament, tion, will stop at no means to suppress it. Let this House and not agreed upon, proposed a limitation and provisiononce proclaim itself impotent to protect its members, and al clause to be added to it, and expressed his displeasure who will venture to arraign the misconduct of one high in against some members who had moved doubts and quesoffice, strong in power, circled with troops of friends and tions concerning the same. "This notice of a parliamentretainers? He who strives to "stem the wild torrent of a ary proceeding, the Commons resented as a breach of downward age," must possess no ordinary portion of mo- their privileges, and obtained the consent of the Lords to ral courage and public virtue. Few will be found to achieve a joint remonstrance," in which "they declare, that, this task, if, to the obloquy which must fall to their lot, be amongst other the privileges of Parliament, it is their anadded personal violence, deliberate, premeditated outrage. cient and undoubted right that your Majesty ought not to Must the sword of Damocles be suspended over our de- take notice of any matter in agitation of debate in either bates? or must we speak of fraud and corruption in dulcet of the Houses of Parliament, but by their information or tones? Must we complain of tyranny and oppression with agreement; and that your Majesty ought not to propound bated breath, and whispering humbleness?" Or shall Con- any condition, provision, or limitation to any bill or act in gress assemble, like an ancient Polish Diet, in arms? Must debate or preparation in either House of Parliament, or

time, was then suspended.

[H. of R.

Mr. REED now renewed the motion to suspend further proceedings until to-morrow.

Mr. KERR advocated it with much warmth.

Mr. WAYNE and Mr. REED also supported the motion, by some remarks on the impossibility of getting the question this evening, as a number of gentlemen were prepared and anxious to address the House.

to manifest or declare your consent or dissent, approba- tion prevailed; and the call having proceeded for some tion or dislike, of the same before it be presented to your Majesty in due course of Parliament; and that every particular member of either House hath full liberty of speech to propound or debate any matter according to the order and course of Parliament; and that your Majesty ought not to conceive displeasure against any man for such opinion and propositions as shall be in such debate, it belonging to the several Houses of Parliament respectively to judge and determine such errors and offences, which in words or actions shall be committed by any of their members in the handling or debating any matters there depending." Sir, it is refreshing to ascend to the well-spring of English constitutional freedom. There our fathers loved to resort. The Hampdens, Pymmeses, and Hollises of those days were the precursors of the Adamses, the Hancocks, and the Henrys of our own land.

During the ministry of the elder Pitt, and in the zenith of his popularity, in a message from the King, drawn by him, he alluded to a speech made by a member of the House of Commons. Though the allusion was entirely inoffensive, the Commons, to avert the danger of the precedent, caused this entry to be made on their journals: "The mention made in the message of an application being made to this House by a member of this House in his place, was much excepted to in the House, being conceived that it might affect, although not so intended, the privileges of this House, with regard to the freedom of speech in their debates and proceedings; and forasmuch as the maintaining that privilege must ever be of the utmost consequence to the House, the House did direct that this special entry should be made in the journal, lest at any time, hereafter, this case should be endeavored to be drawn into precedent, to the infringement of so important and essential a claim and right of the House."

One more instance, and the last. In 1783, after the famous East India bill of Mr. Fox had passed the House of Commons, and during its pendency in the House of Lords, the whole influence of the Crown was exerted, and even the personal solicitations of the King to individual peers were resorted to, to prevent its passage. The following resolution was adopted by the Commons, to check this sinister influence:

"That it is now necessary to declare that to repeat any opinion, or pretended opinion of his Majesty upon any bill, or other proceeding, depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanor, derogatory to the honor of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution of this country."

Mr. McDUFFIE suggested that if it was their wish to have auditors, they had a much better prospect of them at present than might be expected in the morning.

Mr. CRAIG moved to suspend the rule, to allow him to make a motion for the meeting of the House at ten o'clock to-morrow; which prevailed-yeas 170, nays 45. Mr. CRAIG then made his motion.

Mr. BOON moved to postpone the motion indefinitely, but the Chair pronounced the motion to be out of order; and the question being taken, it was resolved that when the House adjourned, it would adjourn to meet at ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

Mr. REED renewed his motion for a postponement. Mr. BOON moved the indefinite postponement of this motion;

But the CHAIR pronounced this motion also out of order;

And the motion was agreed to.

So the further proceedings were postponed to ten o'clock to-morrow. And then the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, MAY 11.

The motion of Mr. JOHNSTON, of Virginia, for the reconsideration of the vote by which the bill for an aqueduct over the Potomac above Georgetown had been rejected, coming up as the order of the day,

Mr. DODDRIDGE moved for the postponement of that subject until Tuesday next; which was agreed to.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. McDUFFIE presented the report of the minority of the committee appointed to investigate the proceedings of the Bank of the United States, and moved that it be laid upon the table and printed; but withdrew the motion at the request of

Mr. CAMBRELENG, who inquired of Mr. McDUFFIE whether the report had appended to it the replies of the president of the bank to the last set of interrogatories presented to him on the part of the committee.

Mr. McDUFFIE replying in the affirmative, Mr. CAMBRELENG stated that, in order to enable the Such were the breakwaters erected by the Commons president of the bank to answer these interrogatories more of England to resist the ever restless and encroaching at his leisure, they had been left in his hands by the comwave of arbitrary power. If history be philosophy, teach-mittee on their departure from Philadelphia. On looking ing by examples, let us profit by its lessons. Shall an Ame-over the replies which the president had made, Mr. C. rican Congress be found less vigilant than the Commons perceived that many of them were not replies to the queof England to resist Executive encroachments? Shall theries which had been put by the committee. In others, exploded maxims of passive obedience to Executive will the president had denied facts which the committee had be here revived? If we are now to abandon this inherent stated on the ground of the statements submitted by the conservative power, so long maintained, and hitherto un-bank to Government from year to year; and had answered questioned; if we are to surrender those privileges so ne- questions which Mr. C. had never asked of him. In concessary to the due discharge of the high trust committed sequence of this, Mr. C. took this opportunity to give noto us by the people, I, for one, will be guiltless of any tice that he should feel it his duty to propound to the preparticipation in this suicidal act.

Mr. BURGES having next obtained the floor,
Mr. NEWTON moved that the further proceedings

this case be postponed until to-morrow.

The motion was negatived--yeas 67, nays 86.

in

sident other queries, for the purpose of ascertaining who had been right and who wrong in the matter.

Had that course been pursued in the committee which Mr. C. had proposed and desired, and the president had been permitted to give verbal replies to those interroga

Mr. DRAYTON said that he should not renew the mo-tories, and his answers been taken down, Mr. C. would tion he had made for an amendment.

The question being called for,

have had an opportunity to have prevented all misunderstanding. But he had waived this advantage, and consent

Mr. SPEIGHT moved a call of the House; which mc-ed, for the convenience of the president, to leave the writ

MAY 11, 1832.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[H. OF R.

The

ten queries with him, and had little anticipated that that of that people, of whom such jury, or such tribunal, must, gentleman would have taken advantage of the waiver. of necessity, make a constituent part of the whole. Mr. McDUFFIE said that, from the perusal he had respondent has not suffered from any party movements been able to give to these replies, they appeared to him made against him by this House. Greater indulgence was to be full, complete, and satisfactory. If any misunder- never granted by any tribunal to any man brought into standing has taken place, it would seem more likely, from trial before it for any offence. During the term of twenthe knowledge the president of the bank possessed on all ty-four days, this House has been, almost exclusively, emsubjects connected with the subject of banking, that that ployed in the trial of the respondent's case; in hearing officer was less likely to have fallen into the mistake than objections to his arrest, or motions for delay; in the exathe honorable gentleman from New York. But he rose mination of his witnesses; or in listening to his advocate, or to inquire whether he had correctly heard the gentleman. to himself, in his defence. What tribunal would or could Had the gentleman said that the president of the bank have heard more, or heard all more patiently? Our pow had given replies to questions which had not been put to ers, our proceedings, our debates before the arrest, have him? not only been brought into question, but so censured as Mr. CAMBRELENG said, in explanation, that, from no member would have dared, or been permitted to speak the replies, it would seem either that the president of the concerning the proceedings of this House. Could the bank had misunderstood the interrogatories, or else had presiding officer of any tribunal have heard, from any man purposely given such replies as were calculated to place under trial, what our Speaker, with a most exemplary pathe queries which had been put to him in a ridiculous tience and resignation, has permitted the respondent to light before the public. It seemed to him that the pre- say, and to reiterate, against members of this House? That sident had wilfully misunderstood the queries. He could latitude of speech has been, I know not why, accorded to not undertake to say what had been the motives of that him, which could not have been granted to any member, officer, but it was certain that the replies did not answer under any fair construction of any rules intended to secure the questions. If the gentleman from South Carolina decorum in debate. Who of this House has, throughout would sit down by his side, and with him go over the in- this trial, abused the respondent, or his witnesses, or his terrogatories and the answers, he could satisfy him that advocate? If it were a part of the proceedings in this such was the fact. trial, required of the House by the condition of the respond

Mr. McDUFFIE asked Mr. CAMBRELENG to say whe-ent, that he should be indulged in pouring out on some ther the questions set down by the president in connex-of us those effusions of obloquy which the most ordinary ion with the replies, were or were not the questions put regard for the facts must have forbidden, and the smallest to that officer by the committee. respect for decorum put to silence, has he not received the full benefit of such indulgence?

Mr. CAMBRELENG said that they were. Then, replied Mr. McDUFFIE, as the questions and the answers will be submitted side by side to the public, the public would be able to judge whether the president of the bank had made himself ridiculous by the answers he had given, or whether the ridicule would fall elsewhere. Mr. ADAMS stated that the separate report he wished to submit to the House on his own behalf would be in readiness on Monday next.

Mr. CLAYTON said that, as the counter report from the committee had now come in, he hoped the House would consent to the printing of an extra number of both the documents.

The CHAIR suggested to the gentleman from Georgia that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] had just given notice that a third report would be submitted to the House on Monday: perhaps the gentleman would prefer to defer his motion until then.

Mr. CLAYTON assented, and did not press the motion,

CASE OF SAMUEL HOUSTON.

This

The learned advocate, and the respondent himself, have distinguished me both by their wit and their literature. Did that advocate intend to push me into heated reply? He should have foreseen the certainty of his failure. The time may have been when the percussion of genius might have done this; but in wit, as in war, wooden flints produce no explosion. I did say, "the learned gentleman had put upon the House a trifling interrogatory." epithet, I do acknowledge, might better have been spared by me; but the truth is, and it may as well be confessed to the House, I did feel myself grievously disappointed in the management of the defence. I had seen many persons on trial, had sometimes been engaged in defence of some of them, and had heard their defence made by others, and not unfrequently by men of the greatest ability. By a kind of professional taste, thus acquired, I have been brought to a high admiration of the skilful and able efforts of powerful and accomplished minds, engaged in the defence, and struggling for the safety, of our fellow-men, exposed to danger, and on trial under heavy accusation. The House resumed the proceedings in the case of Sa- The whole nation well knows the elevated character of the muel Houston-the question being on the motion of Mr. advocates in this District both for legal acquirement and HARPER, for the liberation of the accused, with the amend-professional skill, improved and finished in the Supreme ment proposed thereto by Mr. HUNTINGTON, declaring Court of the United States, the first legal school in the that Samuel Houston was guilty of a contempt and breach civilized world. Though it had not been my good fortune of the privileges of the House. to know any of those men otherwise than by fame, yet, Mr. BURGES rose, and said that other members of the when I learned that the respondent had secured to himHouse had viewed several parts of this question; he beg-self, in his defence, the professional aid of one of them, ged to be permitted to glance an eye over the whole. Do the event gave promise and assurance to me of high gratinot anxiously regret this employment of your time, said fication. In the outset of the trial, in the examination of Mr. B.; we are called to it by the case itself, in its rela-witnesses, where you instantly perceive with what eye the tion to the respondent, to this House, and to the American advocate looks at the great question, I was disappointed. people. To them alone this House is responsible. If, I had looked for a lion to be roused, when a rabbit started then, you please, sir, go with me, and look at the case out of the thicket. I had a draft, as I thought, on a rich from such points of view as will most aid our vision, and bank, for dollars and eagles, but I was paid in very small least weary the observer. It is not our case, as it has so change. Against the respondent himself, I have not felt, often been alleged by the respondent and his advocate, and do not now feel, any the least hostility. His walk in but the case of the American people, whose agents and life and mine lie wide asunder. Our paths can never public servants we are; and we are no more the judges in cross each other. I am retiring from the entertainment our own case here, than any jury or any judicial tribunal of life, and shall leave him much longer to enjoy it. must be in the trial of any violence done against any one he choose to play the Thracian in his cups, he will be with

If

H. OF R.]

Case of Samuel Houston.

[MAY 11, 1832.

men much younger and better able than I am to manage which it was moved to refer a complaint made against the such concernments. He has been a soldier, we are told, collector of Wiscasset to the Secretary of the Treasury, and has received wounds in defending his country. The that, if found guilty, he might be removed from office. wounded soldier often "claims kindred here;" and when The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANBERRY] opposed has his claim by me been disallowed? Let him, like the the resolution in debate; and contended, by the course of soldiers of Washington, if he would reinforce his claim, his argument, that, if the allegations against the collector exchange his sword for some instrument of peace, not for were found by the Secretary to be true, he would not rethe dirk-knife and the bludgeon. The gigantic Roman move the collector from office: for, said the gentleman, soldier, who, with the boss of his shield, dashed back the "was the late Secretary of War removed in consequence Gauls ascending into the citadel, and saved his country, of his attempt fraudulently to give to Governor Houston was, for attempting to usurp the power of the people, the contract for Indian rations?" One of the stenograthrown from the same rock as a punishment for his trea- phers of the House furnished the gentleman from Ohio son. Allusions made by the respondent to his own pri- with his notes; and he, at the request of Mr. Gales, and vate history, could not have been intended for our ear. as it is usual for all members of Congress to do, corrected Has he made for himself a pillow of thorns-a bed of scor- and prepared for the press the speech as it was delivered pions? We cannot minister to him in his interrupted slum- in the House; and a messenger of the National Intelligenbers; and more powerful hands than ours must provide cer took it from his room, and on the 2d of April it was more desirable accommodations for his repose. Is the published in that paper. The next morning, the gentleway of the transgressor hard? Our option has never com- man from Ohio received, by the hand of the gentleman pelled him to walk in it. We cannot, with any justice to from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] a note from the respondourselves, or to the respondent, go into the consideration ent, addressed to him, "to ascertain (as it is stated in the of any concernments of his whole life, other than those note) whether his name had been used by him in debate; brought before us by the facts in this case. and, if so, whether his words had been correctly quoted" To this case I had hoped, and I still cherish the hope, in the Intelligencer. Both these facts, it was believed by that we might come with singleness and great unanimity the gentleman from Ohio and his friends, with whom he of purpose. Its very nature calls for union: for no mem- consulted, were already known to the respondent: for he ber can be separated from this body, and made to suffer had been, almost daily, in the House, and might have heard alone. The constitution, which gave existence to this the debate; or the very gentleman who was the bearer of House, formed it into one body; a great majestic whole, his note, and read its contents, might have told him that living and acting throughout every part, and uniformly in his name had been so used, and that the remarks of the every member. The separations which seem to take place gentleman from Ohio were correctly published in the paamong us, on some questions, are, indeed, evanescent; per. The "object" of sending the "note" could not, and those who, at one time, or in one Congress, find them- therefore, have been to "ascertain" facts within his own selves in the larger part of the House, cannot be unmind- knowledge before it was sent. The purpose of the reful that events of the most common occurrence may leave spondent in thus questioning the gentleman from Ohio them, where few wish to be left, in a minority. The facts concerning this "debate in the Ilouse," was, evidently, in this case concern the whole House, and, therefore, can- not for explanation, but for hostility. He, by the advice not be disregarded by any member of it. By the great of his friends, did, therefore, not write to the respondent representative principle, the whole American people as- merely to tell him that he had used his name in debate, semble here, and meet, by us, whenever we come together and that his remarks were correctly quoted: and because in this Hall. The blow which reaches one of us, reaches the respondent knew both these facts, and questioned the this whole body, representing the whole American peo- gentleman from Ohio merely, as he and his friends believple, and is a blow struck at the very face of the whole ed, to bring on a controversy of violence, they advised nation. Our Government is fraught with the great prin-him to decline being further questioned for any such purciples, and stands as the great model, of all the free Go-pose, and to let the respondent know, by his friend, that vernments of the world; such an outrage is therefore not he could not recognise the right of the respondent so to limited, in its effects, to us and to our country only, but will, wherever even rumor shall transmit the story of it, give a shock to civil liberty throughout every region of the globe. Civilization is no less violated than freedom; and our country, renowned among nations for patriotic obedience to laws, will seem to be retrograding towards the ages of violence and barbarism. The race of men now inhabiting this country will, unless this stain be expunged from our annals, have less claim with the historian to the courtesies No hostile demonstration was made by the respondent of life, than those men who peopled these regions three against the gentleman from Ohio, after the morning of the hundred years ago. In their assemblies for deliberation, 4th, until the evening of the 13th of April. That night what man of the tribe ever lifted the war club against one the gentleman from Ohio was walking to visit a friend at whose voice had been heard in council? Has the voice of Davis's boarding-house, and the moment he had crossed tradition told us that, in the time of Philip, or Miantinomo, the Avenue from Mrs. Queen's, where he boards, to Elor Powhatan, any red man ever attempted to quench the liot's corner, and stepped on the brick sidewalk, he was met council fire in the blood of those warriors who had been by the respondent, coming suddenly out of the shadow of sitting together around it? Many and high obligations do, the buildings, where he had stood with his face towards therefore, seem to call us to a full inquiry into the cha- the fence, and unseen by the man he was waiting to assail. racter of this violence done to the institutions of our nation; He accosted the gentleman from Ohio with words, and in to the intent that such order may be thereupon taken, as tones of great courtesy; and, at the same instant, with a shall fully vindicate their injured rights, and prevent a re-heavy hickory bludgeon, struck him a blow on the tempetition of the like violence on any of their representa-ple, below the hat, and so heavy that, stunned by the viotives. For that purpose, permit me to bring together the lence, he was utterly unable to defend himself; and the principal facts in a very brief narrative of this most extraordinary case.

On the morning of the 30th day of March, this House being in session, a certain resolution was under debate, by

question him. This was accordingly done on the morning of the 4th, by a note from him to that friend, delivered by another gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CREIGHTON.] The gentleman from Ohio, and his friends, some of the most respectable men of both Houses, holding these opinions concerning the purposes of the respondent, he, by their advice, provided himself with arms of defence against the meditated violence.

assailant, by repeated blows on the naked head, or by other efforts of violence, pushed his adversary off the sidewalk, and into the ditch between the curbstone and the street. Here he could not rise against the force, and vio